Skip to main content

What's Up (or Down) With The Economy?

Dr. Albin F. Turbak, Ph.D. from Sandy Springs, GA wrote a very interesting blog post picked up and printed by one of our local newspapers today. The gist of his argument is that Congress, government regulators and the Fed were seduced by unsustainable economic growth and allowed (even encouraged) banks to run what amounted to a Ponzi scheme (primarily with mortgage backed securities). When the bank Ponzi scheme collapsed, it sent the world economy into a depression based on fear and uncertainty. He blames the Ponzi scheme and those who allowed it for wiping out half the retirement savings of innocent bystander consumers.



Although I largely agree with his analysis and I like his simple, easy to understand explanation, I disagree with one important aspect of what I think he is saying. To me, the value of our collective "retirement savings" was at least partly an illusion caused by the Ponzi scheme that Dr. Turbak pointed out. So, since we never really had it (because it was an illusion) we can't really say we lost it.


In truth, we were all a little guilty of the excessive greed [during the good times] that we are now accusing bankers of having and the reason we blame them for causing this mess. The real economic problem right now is negativism and lack of confidence. In essence we're living through a massive run on the bank, acting like sheep in a frantic flight to "quality" which discourages even sound investments and growth.


The real value of our retirement savings isn't known yet because we've probably overreacted. If confidence keeps spiraling downward it might get worse before it gets better. In the relatively near-term however, there is clearly going to be an opportunity to replenish those retirement savings with investments in great companies that are tremendously undervalued. The chart above comparing Dow & Nasdaq indices illustrates the magnitude of the problem (or opportunity) however you look at it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ.com

This Wall Street Journal article Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ .com made the right basic point about liberal hypocrisy in the Climate Change debate, but disappointingly it failed to cite the best sources of real information from an unbiased scientific point of view. I believe that source is Dr. S. Fred Singer & Dr. Craig D. Idso , from the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who coauthored "Climate Change Reconsidered; The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" published in 2009. In this book, the petition letter shown here from Dr. Frederick Seitz ( Ph . D. Physics) President Emeritus of Rockefeller University was published. Dr. Seitz circulated this letter: urging fellow academics with qualifications in the physical sciences to sign the petition at http://www.petitionproject.com/ and thereby acknowledge their agreement with this statement in the petition: Accor...

The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network

My employer (Cisco) published its most recent forward looking study of the Internet today. It's called " The Evolving Internet: A look ahead to 2025 by Cisco and the Monitor Group's Global Business Network " and although I haven't studied it in detail yet, I scanned it this morning and I liked what I saw. Those who know me will not be surprised that I particularly liked the three dimensional evaluation criteria that they used to frame their analysis. Lately nearly everything I do ends up finding its way into some sort of analytical cube like this. I've been wondering whether there is something wrong with me that I can't seem to frame things simply in two dimensions. Glad to have company.

DouglasRoss.com

Network Solutions is having a sale on URL's. Mine (http://www.douglasross.com) doesn't do anything at the moment (I'm saving it for a rainy day) but it was coming up on ten years and I needed to renew it to protect my name. So I decided to take them up on their pay-in-advance 20 year package sale for $279.00 or $13.95 per year (about half of the regular annual fee...probably not that good a deal in hindsight.) But the kicker was, after I hit the pay button it dawned on me that I'll be over 83 years old when this thing expires. How creepy is that? If I make it I'll take it as a good sign and re-up for another 20 years. And by then maybe I'll have done something with it.