Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: great recession

housing prices...16205_4.27_000010774987XSmall

Our recent housing bubble has been called a unique phenomenon by economist Robert Shiller. With its national impact, a connection to houses rather than land, and a demand side surge fueled by “investor-induced speculation,” the rise and subsequent fall in housing prices (see graphs below) has been different from other real estate bubbles.

Here, though, is my description of the 1920s Florida boom and bust in an excerpt from Econ 101 1/2. Doesn’t it sound rather familiar?

“Before 1920, Miami Beach, Coral Gables and Tampa–indeed most of the Florida we know today–did not even exist. Widespread news of the glorious climate, the newfound mobility created by the auto, optimism because of Coolidge prosperity, and a swarm of developers transformed one huge expanse of swampland into a vacation wonderland…or what was supposed to become one.

In 1925 two thousand Miami real estate agents were reported to be selling acreage. Blueprints abounded. Entire communities were planned and sold long before the first bulldozers appeared. Across the state people were cutting down trees, moving tons of sand, fashioning lagoons, paving streets, and building houses and hotels. Without even counting vacationers, Miami’s population jumped from 30,000 in 1920 to 75,000 five years later.

{But then…}

The Florida boom collapsed in 1926. At first people began to default on payments for land on which they had left a binder. It was said that one gentleman who had sold some property for $12 an acre experienced regret because the land was resold repeatedly, at first for $17, then $30, and finally $60 an acre. The gentleman had cause for further regret. Because no one in the sequence of transactions had paid what was due, once Florid’s economic decline began, the property moved backward from hand to hand. The story ends with him repossessing his land.

Compounding the economic contraction in Florida were the other calamities that followed. Two hurricanes struck. A September 18, 1926 storm targeted Miami. It left hundreds dead and roofs, autos, yachts, and other assorted debris strewn haphazardly in its wake. The next step was for the banks to fail. With everyone needing more money and few having it, the number of Florida’s bank collapses steadily climbed. From thirty-one in 1928 to fifty-seven in 1929, the number was destined to rise even further. The final blow was struck when the Mediterranean fruit fly destroyed the 1929 citrus crop. And by then, because the entire nation was starting to experience an economic decline, there was no one to pick up the pieces in Florida.”

Unrealistic optimism, demand driven price increases, speculative purchases, a cascade of sales, catastrophic banking problems. For a real estate bubble, can we ever say, “This time it’s different?”

Sources and Resources: My thoughts about whether our recent housing bubble has been so unique started with economist Robert Shiller’s column in today’s Sunday Business section of the NY Times. It returned me to Econ 101 1/2, my book from what is now HarperCollins. (Out of print, Econ 101 1/2 will be published in a Kindle version during September, 2013.) The wonderful housing price maps that follow were from the NY Fed. Here, you can see a US map for each year since 2005.

Described by the NY Fed, these maps show “changes in home prices each month compared with prices one year earlier…”

Change in US Housing Prices 2008

Change in Housing Prices 2013

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Job Gains in Texas and Losses in Caifornia and Florida

Sort of, we can “celebrate” a birthday. 5 years ago, the Great Recession began.

And that takes us to Texas where they can celebrate. Among the large metropolitan areas in the US, Austin (#1), Houston (#2), San Antonio (#4) and Dallas (#7) are in the top 10 for employment numbers that have surpassed their 2007 totals.

Why Texas? The Economist suggests it is because of mortgage regulations that precluded a severe housing crisis, population increases, and of course, energy.

Based on BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data, this Economist chart illustrates the employment divide between Texas and California.

Employment in Texas Exceeds 2007 Totals

Sources and Resources: My facts are from The Economist and business cycle data from the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research).

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

For most economists, historians, social scientists, it is tough to avoid research bias

Having just begun The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes, I wanted to share a wonderful excerpt. While this student is commenting on the origins of the First World War, his comments take us far beyond.

“Indeed, isn’t the whole business of ascribing responsibility a kind of cop-out? We want to blame an individual so that everyone else is exculpated. Or we blame a historical process as a way of exonerating individuals. Or it’s all anarchic chaos, with the same consequence. It seems to me that there is–was–a chain of individual responsibilities, all of which were necessary, but not so long a chain that everybody can simply blame everyone else. But of course, my desire to ascribe responsibility might be more a reflection of my own cast of mind than a fair analysis of what happened. That’s one of the central problems of history, isn’t it, sir? The question of subjective versus objective interpretation, the fact that we need to know the history of the historian in order to understand the version that is being put in front of us.”

Can’t we substitute economist for historian in the excerpt? And might this student’s comments about “ascribing responsibility” refer also to our recent financial crisis?

Sources and Resources: The excerpt is from p. 13 in the paperback edition of The Sense of an Ending, winner of the 2011 Man Booker Prize. You might also enjoy this econtalk podcast on “Truth, Science and Academic Incentives” and this one on “Science, Replication and Journalism.” Both podcasts take you to academic bias and relate to Daniel Kahneman’s discussion of confirmation bias in Thinking Fast and Slow, p. 80-81.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

10 years ago, the future Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, “Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

What won’t they do again? As David Wessel explains in his book, In Fed We Trust, Dr. Bernanke believed that the devastating synergy between tight monetary policy and failing banks made the 1930s economy implode. And, as the head of the Fed when the economy was nosediving, he was not going to let it happen again.

As the guardian of monetary policy, the Federal Reserve oversees the supply of money and credit. Sort of like Goldilocks and the 3 bears, monetary policy makers have to be sure that the money supply is not too much nor too little but just right. Their goal is a balance between the goods and services the economy produces and the money we have to buy them. Too much money is inflationary because too many dollars are chasing what we can buy; too little money means we cannot buy all that has been produced. The problem, though, is that people disagree about how to achieve “just right” monetary policy.

And that takes us to the current debate.

We have had QE1 (quantitative easing) which most economists believe was necessary. As the economy was contracting in 2008, the Fed poured money into banks, other financial institutions and corporations by purchasing different kinds of securities. When they buy securities, the Fed gets the paper while the seller gets the money. A lot of that money finds it way to banks, thereby helping their solvency and (theoretically) their ability to lend.

After QE1, we got QE2. Now QE3 is being debated and not everyone at the Fed agrees.

  • One group says the economy needs another boost from the Fed. Believing that Fed policy should be based on current economic conditions, they say high unemployment and other weak economic indicators require another monetary stimulus. In a Bloomberg interview, San Francisco Fed president John Williams said that lower interest rates create jobs. Referring to the US economy, he said, “ I think what we want to do now is think about a sick patient. You want to get him or her as strong as possible, as well as possible so if they get hit by another shock or another problem they’re in a good position to fend that off.”
  • By contrast, a new paper published by the Dallas Fed, “Ultra Easy Monetary Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences” says the Fed  should not respond to current data. Emphasizing that easy money policy is not a “free lunch,” the paper explains why the health of financial institutions, the functioning of financial markets, the “independence” of central banks, and prudent government behavior will be sacrificed.

 

In his August 31st talk on at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Ben Bernanke’s position echoes his promise to Milton Friedman.

For an excellent, brief explanation of quantitative easing that my class enjoyed and easily grasped, do look at this Marketplace.org “whiteboard.” Much longer but clear and interesting, David Wessel’s In Fed We Trust is quite good for insight and facts about the Fed and Dr. Bernanke. Finally, for my facts about the current debate, here is the Dallas Fed paper against easy monetary policy, here is an unofficial transcript of a Bloomberg interview of John Williams, the San Francisco Fed president, and here is more about the Bernanke Jackson Hole speech.

More from Econlife on quantitative easing is here and here.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

presidential election...campaign button_000016905913XSmall

Here are some jobs facts that might be helpful when you listen to the candidates.

During 1933, the unemployment rate was a cataclysmic 24.9%. Having entered office that year, FDR was re-elected in 1936 with unemployment still soaring but better at 16.9%. The next president to be reelected with pretty dismal unemployment numbers was Ronald Reagan. The year was 1984 and the average unemployment rate was 7.2%, down from 7.5% 4 years earlier.

Both FDR and Reagan faced major economic challenges when they entered office. For FDR, the Great Depression was unprecedented. With Reagan, stagflation–inflation and unemployment- was tough to solve because the solution to one problem made the other worse. For both, things were getting better when they sought a second term.

That takes us to a question we will be asking in “election economics.” How much has the economy improved since President Obama entered office?

Using the following table, we can look at several yardsticks and arrive at different conclusions.

January 2009 October 2009 July 2012
Household survey employed 142.1 million 138.3 million 142.2 million
Nonfarm payrolls employed 134.4 million 131.0 million 133.2 million
Unemployment rate 7.6% 10.2% 8.3%
Change from previous month: Household survey -1.2 million -589,000 -195,000*
Change from previous month: Nonfarm payrolls survey -655,000 -190,000 +141,000*

*Not considered statistically significant

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unemployment:

  • The unemployment rate increased from 7.6% when Mr.Obama entered office to a peak of 10.2% several months later and then decreased to its current rate, 8.3%. (Do you remember when unemployment was 4.4% during March 2007?)

 

Number of Jobs:

  • The number of jobs that have been added to the economy is a debatable figure.  If you compare January 2009 and now, job numbers have remained almost the same. Instead, starting when unemployment was at its worst, using figures from the households survey (more about the survey here) on which the unemployment rate is based, there are 4 million more jobs now. On the other hand, the nonfarm payrolls survey indicates that the increase in those who are employed has been 2 million jobs.
  • Finally, we could just say all that matters is the number of jobs that are added monthly. Then, we just look at the nonfarm payrolls totals and see that there were 141,000 jobs added.* (Please do go to this econlife post  to see that actually, a seasonal adjustment calculation created that result.) However, the nonfarms payroll numbers exclude the self-employed, household workers and other types of workers.

 

So where does it leave us on whether the jobs picture is looking better? Perhaps we just have to see how people feel.

Released by the Conference Board several days ago, consumer confidence dipped because, “Consumers were more apprehensive about business and employment prospects…Those expecting more jobs in the months ahead decreased to 15.4 percent from 17.6 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs rose to 23.4 percent.” All though was not negative. You can see a summary of the entire report here.

With graphs that were especially fascinating, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a wonderfully thorough report on labor and the Great Recession and they have an interesting discussion about labor and the Great Depression here. For my statistics, I also used their monthly reports on unemployment.

*Originally, this post noted 163,000 as jobs created for July. However, the August jobs report revised it downward to 141,000.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment