If Current Recovery Loses Steam, Economy May Face Real Trouble
A recovery, it appears, has begun. A potent jolt of monetary and fiscal stimulus is lifting consumer spending, and business confidence is reviving.
But the real challenge stretches into the next year: When the adrenaline rush of lower interest rates and big tax cuts ebbs, will the expansion have gained enough momentum to continue? Or will it fade, as earlier, stimulus-stoked expansions did in 2002 and again earlier this year?
Recent evidence favors a positive outcome, yet the many obstacles facing this recovery make predictions difficult. And if growth does fade, watch out: Economic policy makers already have used up much of their monetary and fiscal ammunition.
To be sure, the economy shouldn't need repeated doses of tax and interest-rate cuts to grow, any more than a person should need repeated doses of antibiotics to remain healthy. The economy naturally tends to expand as population rises and businesses pursue profitable opportunities.
But in recent years, that natural rhythm has failed to take hold. After the recession ended in November 2001, the economy briefly bounced back, sputtered in the spring of 2002 and has grown at a sluggish 2% annual pace since then. Since March 2002, the unemployment rate has risen to 6.2% from 5.7%, and 611,000 jobs have been lost.
Explanations for this anemic performance come from two camps. The optimistic one, led by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, blames a series of shocks inflicted on the economy: the stock-market plunge, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, last year's corporate scandals and the buildup to war with Iraq. Barring another shock, the optimists believe, the economy's natural recuperative tendencies will kick in. "The economy, having overcome those obstacles, is beginning to recover," President Bush said last week.
Pessimists consider these shocks a sideshow. The real problem, they believe, is that the excesses of the 1990s -- wasteful investment, stock speculation and a huge buildup of private-sector debt -- require a lengthy convalescence that isn't yet complete. Goldman Sachs economists fear a strong pickup could "give way to renewed slowdown as the temporary impulse peters out. ... The economy in 2003-2004 [may] look quite similar to 2001-2002."
For now, the evidence favors the optimists. Reports last week suggest growth could approach 5% for the current quarter: manufacturing production rose for the third straight month, retail sales rose at a 12% annual rate during the past three months and exports perked up in June. The coming months also should be bright. A near-record volume of mortgages were refinanced this summer as rates hit their lowest levels in generations. Given lengthy processing lags, the boost to homeowners' cash flows is only now being felt. Plus, child tax-credit rebates are being mailed out, and most workers' paychecks have been fattened by a reduction in tax withholding starting in June.
There are two other potential boosts: a switch by business from reducing to rebuilding inventories, which had grown extremely lean, and a drop in energy prices if Iraqi oil exports grow as hoped.
But all of this assumes consumers maintain their free-spending ways. There is little doubt the unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus thrown at the economy has been felt. As the Fed slashed its key interest rate from 6.5% in early 2001 to 1% on June 25, Americans bought homes and cars in record numbers, in the process lifting their debts to 111% of income from 101% three years ago. This is the main reason the 2001 recession was among the mildest on record, but it also means there is no pent-up demand to be unleashed, as there usually is in recoveries.
Now there are signs consumers are becoming more intent on saving. A shrinking share of homeowners are "extracting equity" by increasing their loan amount when they refinance their mortgages. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. estimates they are spending just 15% of this year's tax cut, compared with 25% of the tax-rebate checks sent out two years ago. In Batavia, Ohio, Steven Shouse got a job in January after spending most of 2002 unemployed, but he has maintained his austere spending habits. He sold his guitar, amplifier and boat, kept the thermostat down through the cold winter and canceled his long-distance telephone service. He drinks home-mixed juice from a used Snapple bottle. "I'm a little shell-shocked" from the layoff experience, he says. "I know any day they can come in and say, 'We're closing down.' "
Excesses Corrected
How much consumers such as Mr. Shouse spend is crucial because consumption begets business investment, a cornerstone of sustained expansion. Optimists say what excesses there were in the corporate sector have been largely corrected, pointing to businesses paying down debt and strengthening balance sheets. But the investment upturn is tentative at best. "It's going to take a couple more quarters of economic improvement before you're going to see [technology] budgets uptick substantially," Dell Computer Corp. Chief Executive Michael Dell said last week.
Investment in equipment in fact is rising -- but not to expand businesses, which normally would spur hiring as well, but to cut their costs and payrolls. HSBC Bank economists also question how much balance sheets have really improved: They say debt relative to sales and interest expense relative to profit, though down a bit from three years ago, remain far above typical levels of prior years -- which could impair capital investment.
If the gloomier views prevail, and the economy should stumble, what then? Optimists believe the Fed, merely by maintaining the federal-funds rate -- charged on overnight loans between banks -- at 1% will give the economy a powerful boost in the months ahead. Gerard MacDonell, an economist at J.P. Morgan Fleming Asset Management, disagrees, arguing that rates need to keep dropping to continue to stimulate spending. The previous rate cuts are why the economy has managed to grow despite the burst stock and investment bubbles, but as a result, he says, "You've seen the benefits of lower interest rates. Don't expect more [benefits] going forward."
Bottom for Rates
The Fed can lower the federal-funds rate only another percentage point, to zero, which isn't much compared with the previous 5.5 points of cuts. Furthermore, banks, which already are paying close to zero for their own funds, such as savings accounts, may not fully pass further cuts on to borrowers; they took a full day to pass on the most recent quarter-point cut.
The Fed could try unconventional means of pushing down long-term rates, which remain well above zero -- such as directly buying bonds, or committing to keeping the federal-funds rate low for some set period. But affecting long-term rates is difficult: They have actually shot up since the Fed's quarter-point rate cut on June 25, a possible drag on any recovery. Why? Partly because the economy is strengthening, but partly because investors previously had bought bonds expecting the Fed was about to move in unconventional ways. When investors realized they were wrong, they dumped their bonds. Yields, which move in the opposite direction as bond prices, increased.
There are similar caveats about fiscal stimulus. Three previous rounds of tax cuts, two wars and the revenue-depressing effects of recession have sent the budget from a surplus of 1.3% of gross domestic product two years ago to an estimated deficit of 4.2% this year. That 5.5-point swing is the biggest in more than 50 years. That deterioration would make it politically difficult to sell a fourth tax cut, especially if the first three have yet to show results. Moderate Senate Republicans, whose support was critical to this year's tax cut, might not be able to stomach another. Democratic presidential candidates already are targeting the Bush economic record. "You claimed that your tax cuts would create jobs," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said of Mr. Bush last month. "Instead we have three million fewer jobs in our economy than when you took office ... and red ink as far as the eye can see."
美国经济复苏面临生死关头
美国经济到了生死攸关的关头。
经济复苏的大幕似乎已经拉启。货币和财政刺激政策正在有效地推动消费支出，商业信心亦同时恢复。
但真正的挑战将延续至明年：当低利率和大幅减税的余威散尽，经济还能够有足够的扩张动力吗？或者，像2002年和今年早些时候一样，仅靠刺激手段出现的经济增长还将再度消退吗？
最近迹象表明，答案是肯定的可能性较大，但经济复苏面临的重重障碍使预测变得很难。如果经济增长确实消退，那就要当心了，因为经济政策制定者将是弹尽粮绝，能用到的货币和财政弹药都已经被他们用光了。
可以肯定的一点是，经济增长不应该完全依赖于减税和降息手段，就像人的健康不应该完全依赖抗生素一样。经济应该随著人口增长和公司追逐利润而获得自然增长。
但近几年来，这种自然韵律已经失去了和谐之音。继2001年11月美国经济衰退划上句号之后，2002年春经济曾出现短暂反弹，但随后一直仅保持2%的年增长率。从2002年3月至今，失业率从5.7%上升至6.2%，611,000人失去工作。
对美国经济的病态表现主要有两种解释。乐观的一种是以美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve)主席格林斯潘(Alan Greenspan)为代表，他将经济疲弱归咎于一系列突发事件，如股市跳水、911事件、恐怖袭击活动、去年的公司丑闻以及伊拉克战争等。乐观主义者认为，如果再无令人震惊的事件发生，美国经济的自然复苏趋势将很快出现。布什(Bush)上周表示，克服重重困难的美国经济正在开始恢复生机。
悲观主义者认为这些突发事件仅是显性原因。他们相信，经济的真正问题是，上世纪最后十年过度的投资、股票投机以及私营公司的债台高筑都需要长时间才能复原，而复原目前还未彻底完成。高盛集团(Goldman Sachs)经济学家担心，随著临时动力的消失，经济的强劲反弹将被卷土重来的经济放缓所取代。2003-2004的经济前景可能类似于2001-2002的经济周期。
目前而言，所有证据倾向于支持乐观主义者的观点。上周公布的报告称，第三季度经济增长率有望接近5%：制造业连续3个月增长，过去3个月中零售增长率折合成年率为12%，6月份出口也获得增长。
未来几个月的经济前景也应该向好。由于利率达到数十年来的低点，今年夏天抵押贷款再融资总额几乎接近历史最高水平。鉴于许多手续正在进行中，房屋所有者现金流的增长态势才刚刚显现。此外，儿童课税扣除款项正在邮寄的途中，大多数工人的薪金也因6月份开始的税项扣缴的减少而增加。
另外两个潜在的积极因素是：企业从减少库存转为重建库存；倘若伊拉克石油出口像人们希望的那样出现增长，能源价格有望下降。
但所有这些结论成立的前提是，消费者能够保持现在的自由消费方式。无庸置疑，前所未有的货币和财政刺激手段对经济带来了影响。由于Fed将主要利率从2001年初的6.5%降低到今年6月25日的1%，美国人购买房屋和汽车的数量达历史最高，贷款占收入的比重也从3年前的101%增加到111%。这也是2001年经济衰退之所以是历史上最温和的经济衰退之一的主要原因，但这也意味著复苏中通常出现的受压后的需求释放此次将不会发生。
目前有迹象表明，消费者越来越热衷于储蓄。沃尔玛连锁公司(Wal-Mart Stores Inc.)预计消费者仅将今年的减税金额中的15%用在消费上，而两年前的比重为25%。俄亥俄州的肖斯(Steven Shouse)几乎整个2002年都处于失业状态，今年1月份他终于找到了一份工作，不过节俭的消费习惯仍未改变。他卖掉了吉他、扩音器、小船，甚至在冬天也把恒温器调得很低，取消了长途电话服务。他在用过的Snapple瓶子中自己调制果汁饮料。他说，失业的经历使他好像患上了神经官能症。他担心工厂随时可能会倒闭。
过度支出现象已被修正
像肖斯这样的消费者愿意支出多少，这是很关键的一点，因为消费决定了商业投资，而商业投资是经济持续增长的基础。乐观主义者认为，企业的过度支出现象大体上已经被修正过来，美国公司纷纷偿付债务和强化资产负债表。但投资的复苏充其量是暂时现象。戴尔公司(Dell Inc.)首席执行长戴尔(Michael Dell)上周表示，只有经济改善状况再持续几个季度之后，科技预算才会大幅增加。
事实上，设备投资正在增加，但这不是为了扩大业务，只是为了削减成本和薪金。汇丰银行(HSBC Bank)的经济学家还对资产负债表有多大改善提出质疑。他们认为，尽管债务与销售额之比、利息费用与利润之比较3年前略有下降，但仍远远高于前些年的水平，这可能损害资本支出。
利率降至底限 Fed联邦基金利率仅有1%的降息空间，即降至零利率，而不像原来有5.5%的降息空间。此外，银行的某些基金（如储蓄帐户等）利率已经接近于零，因此董事会不太可能全体通过继续降息的决定；最近一次降息0.25%的决定用了银行一整天的时间才最终被通过。
Fed可能会尝试用非传统方式降低仍高于零的长期利率，例如直接购买债券、或在一定时间内保持联邦基金利率的低水平等。但影响长期利率是比较难的：在Fed 6月25日降息0.25%之后，长期利率反而上扬，这可能会制约经济的复苏。部分原因是经济正在增长，或者是投资者猜测Fed会采取非传统经济手段，事先已经买入了债券。当投资者意识到此前的预测是错误的，他们开始抛售手中债券，导致与债券价格逆向而行的债券收益率上升。 在财政刺激举措方面也有类似隐忧。三轮减税、两场战争和经济衰退造成收入减少等因素，将使预算盈余占国内生产总值的比重从两年前的1.3%变成今年预计中的4.2%赤字。5.5%的波动幅度是50多年以来的最大水平。其毁坏性影响将使第四次减税难以实现，特别是前三次减税的结果还未完全显现。
