Net Personal Saving Negative over First 11 Months of 2005

Essentially, the homeowners who are taking out secondand in some cases thirdmortgages are converting a highly illiquid asset, which has been the basis for their rising net worth, into a more liquid form that could be used for current buying.The erosion of net personal savings is dramatically illustrated in the graphic at left, which presents the data for both 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005. From consistently, relatively strong in 2004, the ability of consumers to sustain consumption with income lost steam in the fourth quarter of 2004. In fact, were it not for the anomalous spike in September of 2004, the decline would appear to have begun somewhat earlier. There is no doubt, however, that the -0.2% figure in November of last year is part of a long term trend that has seen households borrowing and drawing down long-term savings to maintain to the extent possible consumption patterns and lifestyles not consistent with real incomes. Although some believe that a high personal savings rate is desirable for the American economy, any rise in the amount of income consumers save would at this point only exacerbate an already difficult situation: about two-thirds of GDP is devoted to consumption, meaning that any added savings at the expense of consumer spending would lower gross domestic product. More importantly, because of the so-called "multiplier effect," any reduction in the marginal propensity to expend (the fraction spent of the last dollar of income), would magnify a pullback in GDP caused by increased personal savings.
With inflation pressures building in the economy, interest rates rising, and persistent federal budget deficits preventing the government from using fiscal stimulus to soften the effects of an economic downturn, the outlook for this year is not at all bright.
Despite the Bush Administration's continuing focus on good news figures about the health of the American economy, evidence is mounting that the short-term successes being touted have been achieved at the expense of long-term corrosion of underlying structure, as consumers drain their savings for the future in an effort to hold onto consumption patterns and lifestyles that will slip away with their net worth that is eroding. The extent to which citizens appreciate this may help them determine whether or not they wish to return to power in the mid-term elections of this November the political party that has brought about this nearly irreparable situation.
The Dark Wraith will provide more news on Depression-era economic data as events merit.
<< 29 Comments Total
there I was on the big brass blog, reading this great imformative economics post. Loving every minute of it I must say. I saw the first chart and said "Damn, That looks just like a Sir Dark Wraith chart" ahhhh someone else must like that style....low and behold to the end I come and it is none other then my favorite econ prof....
good stuff as always.
I am redoing my kitchen as we speak, I am worried that by years end the $100k or so "equity" I have in my house could evaporate to nothing. I am debating putting the sucker up for sale after I complete my kitchen, taking the money, sitting in my dads house for a year and waiting to see the market come down and get a house on the cheap.
What does the Dark Wraith think about that idea? (I know you like writing about yourself in the 3rd person so I set you up)
As always
Your steward aboard the USS Stupidness
Yep. I'm living off savings now. Most of my friends are. And we have jobs too. Some day we will all be broke. We agreed to sell our houses (which are all paid off, thank god) and collectively buy a biggish one and we'll all live together for when the shit hits the fan. A commune for old hippies, as it were. What the hey?
I keep telling my 30 something friends to wait. Don't build that dream house yet. You will get to buy someone elses dream on the cheap...and soon!
There is no way this won't all come crashing down, and when those Boomers start to die and retire in earnest, there are gonna be an awful lot of big 80's & 90's "goose is fat" houses on the market for nothing!
I want the Big White one in DC!
Good evening, BlondeSense Liz.
I note with some disappointment that your plan did not include an invitation.
The Dark Wraith will have to find his own hovel, it would seem.
Good evening, Gary.
I'm not so sure about Washington. Once all the Republicans are hauled out to the Big House, it's going to take a fair amount of time and no small amount of Super Fund expenditures to get the place habitable again.
Personally, I'd go for real estate in a blue state, since all the new Democratic politicians will be moving to Washington once the Republicans have been removed by Federal Marshals.
The Dark Wraith is keeping an eye on some land up by Toledo.
[The all-night truck stops are pretty good.]
Good evening, donviti.
Against my usual policy of avoiding advice on investments, I'll tell you something you should be watching. Look at home sales in your area. The newspaper usually has listings of what has sold.
Obviously, you should keep track of the prices at which homes are selling, but there's something else you should watch more carefully: time on market. Most people are going to be listing at what they think their houses should sell for, and that's based in part on historical information they possess from other sales in the area. What will happen is that, as buyers become less and less willing to bite, the time on market for houses will begin to lengthen as the sellers hold onto their list price and the buyers decline the opportunity to transact at anywhere near that price. Eventually, sellers will either give in and go down toward a bid (which will be substantially under list), or they'll finally find a sucker willing to go for something near list.
One way or the other, the average time on market will start to lengthen, and this will be a warning that the local housing market is weakening significantly.
Watch time on market. Once you can tell that it's not as short as it used to be, that's a good sign that it's time for you to get the heck out.
The Dark Wraith has offered some advice from his old days as a real estate economics specialist.
Time on market is something a lot of real estate newspaper sections will cover in their regular reportage, I believe. Either they will regularly report some index of it in the local market, or they will discuss it semi-regularly in articles on the local housing market, or both.
- oddjob
Another thing that could be monitored would be the number of foreclosures (at least, in a large enough metropolitan area for the info. to be meaningful, that is). As homeowners' personal $$ situations tighten mortgage payments become more painful, and a larger number of foreclosures happen.
I don't know that I'd use that as a market timing device exactly, but I think it ought to provide valid background information while making buy/sell assessments.
- oddjob
Wholly OT, but it will interest readers here (if not surprise them):
Israel preparing pre-emptive strike plans against Iranian nuclear program activties.
I also note the news story you've posted on the message board about children born now living to see an ice-free Artic Ocean in summer at some time during their lives. If that happens as it appears it will I suspect there will also be dramatic climate changes in both northwestern Europe and also the northeastern USA. If we get to a place warm enough for an ice free Artic Ocean (even if only in one season), does that not suggest a likely significant melt event in Greenland? That's what climatologists have been warning about with regards to the shutting down of the Gulf Stream. Such a shutdown would make both of the areas I mentioned far, far colder than they now are. It would be most keenly felt in Great Britain and the northwestern part of the European continent, but it would also be felt keenly where I live north of Boston. I heard someone on television suggest that there could even be a freezing over of the Chesapeake Bay during the winter if the Gulf Stream were to cease flowing. That's an unheard of thing. Presently Boston's avg. minimum winter temperatures are roughly on a par with Paducah, KY's (or anywhere else along that KY/IL/MO border area). I suspect that if the Gulf Stream were to stop flowing they would become much more akin to those in northern Illinois or southern Wisconsin, perhaps colder.
The rest of the Northeast would also get considerably colder, especially along the coasts.
- oddjob
Once all the Republicans are hauled out to the Big House, it's going to take a fair amount of time and no small amount of Super Fund expenditures to get the place habitable again.
:)
Oh well, too bad the oval office seat warmer presided over the de-funding of the SuperFund! ...It's now voluntary.
Of course, that would mean that big business would fall over themselves volunteering to keep pouring money into it, no? You know- for their own fiscal wellbeing, if not for the common good. I mean, they wouldn't want the bad publicity that would come with laying waste to broad tracts of US soil, would they... Oh yeah, the media won't nail them for it, the reporters are too busy fawning over our seat warmer to worry about the stink of a little pollution- or corruption for that matter!
That's what climatologists have been warning about with regards to the shutting down of the Gulf Stream.
I saw a special report on the Science Channel that said there is a great-lake-full of cold freshwater that has only one more (out of three) obstacle to surmount before it pours into the north sea out of Canada. It's looking like that'll be the thing that starts the next ice age.
Instead of "how long can you tread water", it'll be:
How fast can you shovel snow???
Good Afternoon, Dark Wraith,
On a more serious note: So, the chineese are buying up US mortgages, and a large portion of them forclose.
Does that mean the Chineese will go the way of the Japaneese in the early '90's?? They bought up a large chunk of Los Angeles' downtown, and when business took a dive and noone could afford the high rents, the Japaneese left with their tail between their legs, many dollars poorer.
OT, but if I put it where it belongs on the message board, I'm not sure DW will see it, and he will appreciate this.
- oddjob
Good afternoon, SB Gypsy.
The Chinese won't make the same mistakes the Japanese made. For one thing, honorability in contracts isn't a particularly troublesome issue with the Chinese. Neither is wasting time on a façade of good intentions.
Over the long haul, the Chinese will make better capitalists in that regard, even as they remain Communists.
The Dark Wraith carefully conceals his opinion of the Chinese political agenda.
If you want a truly interesting take on the Chinese, talk to a native from one of the neighboring countries. You get fascinating insights into the profound influence of China on that area of the world and also into the human condition generally (because you see the very same opinions expressed in Western Culture, but with regards to other ethnicities than Chinese).
- oddjob
I forgot this thread was over here. I posted this link over on the message board this afternoon. A good read but long. I would love the Master's opinion on this, since the forum I got this from has some psuedo-neo-cons picking nits with it, and I'm not at all sure if their arguements are quite valid. I do know that as far as groceries and appliance/electronic prices are concerned, the paper matches my own personal experiance.
The Over Consumption Myth
Now how can we get this information, assuming it is accurate, into small, easily digestable sound bytes and into the general population's awareness? Always the difficulty for those who are reality based and have an attention span longer than a 30 second beer commercial.
Good evening, Wild Clover.
That article is right on the money (so to speak), and the author is hitting a subject upon which I have touched even in principles of economics.
It just drives me to no end of distraction that this myth of "over-consumption" has become so ingrained in our way of thinking that we actually see consumption patterns with the assumption that people are "over-consuming" in some way.
The truth of the matter is that the author does pull a few punches and could use better examples in some cases. To the latter issue, she is right on point that, when we talk about how many things we consume now that we didn't in the past, we ignore the things we used to consume that we no longer do. However, the issue goes beyond material "things," and that's where the economics gets a little more intense, especially when you start dealing with the concept of opportunity cost. You might recall that I've explained opportunity cost in articles I've published here, but in a nutshell, opportunity cost is the cost of the best foregone alternative.
The opportunity cost of a person's time in leisure, for example, is the best wage rate that person could earn at labor. Now, think about what that means in terms of what we consume now versus what we consumed in yesteryear, and you'll get an idea of a massive shift from one type of cost to another type of cost that has happened over the years. This in itself explains much of what the "full cost" has done through time to the average household and the average individual consumer.
As far as other matters are concerned, the author does tend to ignore some consumption costs that have risen dramatically as we have come to consume more of certain goods and services; however, even there, her principle is still sound because those new consumptions have come not so much as pure "use it and toss it" actions as they have come as investments.
A good example of this is health care: we spend a whole lot more both as an economy and as the individual households on healthcare; but is that spending really consumption, or is it investment to keep ourselves healthy—and therefore at a higher level of productivity and attendant earnings power—to the end of a longer life?
These issues aren't really as complicated (once some basic principles are understood) as they are intense. The bottom line, though, is that there is no reason to assume that there has been a progressive bias toward excessive consumption on the part of the average household. As I see it, until someone demonstrates to the contrary, all that's been happening is a change in consumption patterns, and no small part of that has been driven, at least over the past two or three decades, by a systematic erosion of the purchasing power of the typical household.
This gets into some other areas that are sore spots with me. For one thing, somewhere in this whole arena of discussion is this matter of the Bureau of Labor Statistics playing with raw price data to the end of adjusting price increases downward, justifying the nonsense by claiming that some of the price increases aren't inflation, but instead reflect "quality improvements." Quite aside from the subjectivity of such claims (and despite the seemingly mathematical way in which the adjustments get made), the very idea of quality improvement is very much mythical: even though products may become more efficient in terms of their ability to deliver satisfaction, that is not the same as claiming that price increases are somehow the result of that efficiency of satisfaction provision.
Now, I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll cease my honking for the time being. Suffice it to say that the article is on the mark, although it does have some flaws in it.
I need to thank you for showing it to me; and I should also thank you for showing me that you (as well as others who spend their time here) are able to identify what constitute important contributions in modern economics.
The Dark Wraith definitely needs to keep a close eye on the links people are providing here.
I don't feel I've read enough to understand fully the positions on either side (or middle) of this issue because of the difficulty in interpreting some of the data. Quite frankly though, I had a hard time reading this article because of my perception that it was more opinion than fact based (using lame examples, as you note). The perception of spin always increases my skepticism and sense that an agenda is being promoted.
Can you expand on the topic of the manipulation of the Bureau of Labor statistics, specifically what influence, if any, that might have on some of the stated numbers? For example, the author says the average amount per car is 20% less than a decade ago according to unplublished BLS data; is this the type of data that might be bogus due to the issue of quality improvements?
Good evening, Mr. Goat.
That's exactly the kind of data about which I'm talking. Every bit of government-provided data these days has a distinct smell to it, and whenever there's some adjustment for inflation, the whole data set become virtually useless in my judgment.
From a mathematical statistics point of view, the prior manipulation of inflation data makes the use of that data in any subsequent statistical modeling a nightmare of Baysian statistical nonsense. ("Baysian statistics"—which I was trained to abhor like rotting, dead flesh—deals with what happens to probability density functions of random variables under circumstances where there is a prior probability density function for a random variable—in this case, raw price data—and then something that affects it, resulting in a posterior distribution no longer having the same, assumed form... and God! but that was a bad explanation, but it's all I've got when I've had too much coffee before midnight.)
Where the Hell was I? Oh, yes: bad data. We can't rely on results that use such data. Although many of my colleagues are the sorts who are grateful for statistical programs on computers that allow them to do Big-Boy econometrics without having had to bleed through the econometrics field exam, I am not so blessed by blissful ignorance. The results of work that involves reliance on "inflation figures" pumped out by this government are every bit as reliable as this Administration's assurances that it abides by the rule of law.
In other words, the operative word is "BULL."
The Dark Wraith needs to calm down.
[I suspect the Goat just knew he was asking something that would push my buttons.]
I think I might have asked this before when this issue was discussed some months ago (at least I think it was). Is there sufficient information available to "readjust" the quality improvement out of some of the numbers to show that inflation has taken a bigger bite than indicated?
Also, when was this "policy" of trading inflation for quality improvements started?
DW will know for sure, but the only way I can think of to account for such adjustments is for the government to provide access to the raw data, which would defeat the purpose of publishing the adjusted figures.
Besides, can you imagine this administration being so forthright as to publish the raw data??
- oddjob
Only if it helped them...naw, they wouldn't even release it then. They'd change it purely for the secrecy aspect.
Let me share the "raw" data from the Bureau of Labor Statistic for 2005 for one component of the CPI: the price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Look carefully at the data.
Jan 1.823
Feb 1.918
Mar 2.065
Apr 2.283
May 2.216
Jun 2.176
Jul 2.316
Aug 2.506
Sep 2.927
Oct 2.785
Nov 2.343
Dec 2.186
Any comments?
The Dark Wraith is just wondering.
Aside from being $0.25 to $0.50 less any given month than what I paid? I don't know, but it's bogus in some manner; pump prices are $X.XX9, not $X.XX5 or $X.XX6, etc.
Ah, Mr. Goat, you caught two different but equally troubling points.
First, it seems reasonable that an average of prices that all have a $0.009 on them will have to be a number with $0.009 on the end. Although arithmetically, this doesn't necessarily happen, it does strike an observer as odd, doesn't it?
Next, the point about the noticeable difference between what you saw at the pump and what those numbers are saying is disturbing, as well: it just couldn't have been what they said it was unless their "sampling" method used low prices at some point during the month to absorb price shocks that were happening at other, longer stretches during the month. Unless the data was being massaged after the collection. Either way, those numbers don't comport with consumer experience.
I would, however, be interested in having others tell me if those gas price numbers look about right to them. Just as a casual observation, they don't look right; but I could (in my casual observation mode) be wrong.
The Dark Wraith awaits confirmation of the numbers the BLS is using.
Are they by chance stripping out state tax?
Good evening, once again, Mr. Goat.
No, taxes of that kind are included. I actually checked into this a couple of months ago because I wasn't sure about which taxes were and which taxes were not included in CPI data.
The Dark Wraith sometimes actually has an answer at the ready.
First, it seems reasonable that an average of prices that all have a $0.009 on them will have to be a number with $0.009 on the end. Although arithmetically, this doesn't necessarily happen, it does strike an observer as odd, doesn't it?
But that only follows if one makes a decision ahead of time to end the price with $X.XX9. If instead one samples a range of prices and then takes the mean out to the third decimal point and rounds after that, there's certainly no reason at all why it should end in "9".
As to the figure being lowballed, I live in the Boston area, and so assume my price is going to be higher than the average. I would be most interested to see how those avg. prices compared with the prices in New Jersey, for in my experience (limited as it is to the Boston-Philadelphia travelling corridor), New Jersey's fuel prices are the cheapest in the Northeast, as a general rule (at least, along that corridor they are).
Anyone reading this from Jersey and able to chip in with your observations?
- oddjob
Gas prices around here are about what you find in South Jersey(I know this from years of going to and from on family visitations)and the prices listed are probably for the most part .10-.20 too high for prices locally in SW VA. Again, though, our local prices are about a nickle lower than the state average.
Here's a fun website...I used to post prices daily on the VA site, but got out of the habit. It does allow you to make comparisons regionally and over time to satisfy that old curiosity bump. It is also not a government site and may not be subject to any tweaking that may be happening.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/