De ce lumea nu va mai trece printr-o noua criza ca cea din 2007

Acum un deceniu criza lovea SUA si isi transmitea primele reverberatii catre Europa, ajungand in scurt timp si la noi. Epicentrul acelei crize, Statele Unite, numara in prezent circa 100 de luni de la inceputul actualului ciclu de crestere economica, iar indicii bursieri fac maxime dupa maxime istorice.

O stare de (aparenta) euforie economica pare sa fi cuprins SUA, iar asta este interpretata de multi analisti a fi un semnal al finalului de trend pozitiv. Care sunt totusi contra-argumentele? Pentru ca acestea exista!

Asadar, euforia economica si bursiera din SUA face numerosi analisti sa traga semnalul de alarma: “Atentie! O noua criza ca cea din 2007 este dupa colt!”.

Sunt insa si o serie de voci care sustin ca cei ce sustin iminenta unei “apocalipse” mai au de asteptat.

O opinie in acest sens se poate vedea mai jos!

Ce spune pe scurt?

In principiu spune ca atat companiile cat si populatia sunt mai putin indatorate, sectorul financiar-bancar sta pe multi bani si este mai bine (strict!) reglementat, si ca este putin probabil ca FED-ul sa faca miscari bruste (agresive) in procesul de crestere a dobanzii cheie.

De ce este important aspectul financiar?

Pentru ca acesta a fost cauza si canalul de transmitere a crizei de acum un deceniu. Sa ne amintim ca in 2007 criza a plecat de la piata imobiliara si de la creditele sub-prime, prin derivatele construite de banci cu suportul pe acestea, … si s-a transmis de la o banca la alta, si de la o tara la alta, prin blocarea canalelor de circulatie a lichiditatilor: bancile nu au mai avut curaj sa se imprumute una pe cealalta nestiind cat de afectati puteau fi potentialii parteneri de detinerile de portofolii toxice. Vorbim asadar de un inghet al pietelor financiar–bancare, care a cuprins intreaga lume.

Ori, spre deosebire de atunci, dincolo de situatia fundamentala diferita (companii si populatie sunt mai putin indatorate, lichiditatile din sectorul financiar-bancar si cadrul sau de reglementare mai strict, etc) … cel mai important aspect este acela ca, atata timp ca nivelul dobanzilor este mic iar bancile centrale fac achizitii de active, este aproape exclusa o noua posibila criza a lichiditatilor – asa cum s-a intamplat cu un deceniu in urma.

Mai jos materialul profesorului Alan Blinder din WSJ

 

More Sunny Days Are Likely Ahead for the U.S. Economy

Economic expansions tend to go on until something kills them. Today, not many dangers lurk.

By 

Alan S. Blinder

Aug. 16, 2017 6:58 p.m. ET

Every op-ed should have a simple take-away, one that’s easy for readers to remember. Here’s mine: Economic expansions don’t die of old age—they go on until something kills them.

As the current expansion approaches its 100th birthday (measured in months), many observers assume its days are numbered. The National Bureau of Economic Research, whose chronologies date to 1854, shows only two U.S. expansions that lasted longer than this one, which began in June 2009.

The great expansion of the 1960s went on for 106 months. We’ll almost certainly beat that. But the granddaddy of them all was the remarkable 120-month expansion from 1991 to 2001. To top that, the economy would have to continue growing past June 2019—a very tall order.

The good news is that the end isn’t nigh: Economic indicators suggest growth will continue for the foreseeable future. These signals aren’t entirely reassuring, however, because recessions can’t be predicted well in advance. But economists do understand how they begin and end. Therein lies the better news: No serious threat is in sight.

The most common cause of U.S. recessions in the postwar era has been monetary tightening by the Federal Reserve as a means to fight inflation. If policy makers execute perfectly, they can engineer a “soft landing” from today’s low interest rates. That’s what the Fed did in 1994-95, when skillful monetary tightening led into a boom. More historical instances of Fed tightening, however, have been followed by recessions. In some cases central bankers actually sought that outcome, as when Paul Volcker sent interest rates skyrocketing to vanquish inflation in the 1980s. In others, they just goofed.

Will the Fed kill the current expansion? That seems unlikely. There’s no inflation in sight. Janet Yellen and her colleagues are trying to extend the good times by raising interest rates as gradually as possible, ready to pull back if signs of a slowdown emerge. The Fed is fallible, obviously; it could make a mistake. But I doubt it would be a big one.

Other recessions have been caused by “oil shocks”—sharp increases in oil prices that hurt businesses and consumers. Big oil shocks preceded the world-wide recessions in 1973 and 1979, spurred by the Arab oil embargo and then the Iranian revolution.

Will an oil shock end the current expansion? Your guess is as good—or, more accurately, as worthless—as mine. Oil shocks are unpredictable. That said, neither markets nor experts seem to expect one.

What about a financial ruction of some sort, such as a stock-market crash? Many of today’s worry warts focus on the long and allegedly excessive run-up in stock prices since 2009. I won’t enter the debate over whether stocks are overvalued, because no one can predict the market. But a far simpler point is germane: It takes one hell of a stock-market crash to cause a recession.

Recall the way the economy reacted when the tech bubble burst in 2000-02. The Standard & Poor’s 500 fell by almost half, and some $9 trillion of wealth was wiped out. But the subsequent recession lasted only eight months and was so mild that annual data show no drop in real gross domestic product.

What about 1929? Didn’t the Great Crash beget the Great Depression? Not quite. The stock collapse was one of many causes of the Depression—and by no means the most important. In their monumental “Monetary History of the United States,” Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz placed more blame on the Federal Reserve, which allowed the supplies of money and credit to contract violently. Ben Bernanke echoed that criticism while serving as a Fed governor in 2002, when he said at Friedman’s 90th birthday party: “You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

If any financial calamity does derail the current expansion, it will be more likely to emanate from the credit markets—as happened in both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Fortunately, there are few signs of credit markets behaving badly, unlike in 2007. Households and businesses are less leveraged, banks hold a lot more capital, and financial regulations are much tougher. Those of us who lived through 2008 will never say “never.” But if a credit volcano is rumbling beneath the surface, it’s pretty quiet.

What’s left on the worry list? Every once in a while, for reasons that become obvious only after the fact, something shakes consumer or business confidence, causing spending to plummet. When that happens, a recession is all but inevitable. Right now, Americans and companies are both feeling sunny. But as storm clouds gather over North Korea and investigations threaten the White House . . .

As I said, expansions don’t die of old age—they go on until something kills them.

Mr. Blinder is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was formerly vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s