How bad is the crisis going to get?

36 hours in September changed the world. When investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed, the credit crunch became a global financial crisis.

But how bad is that crisis? Was it wrong to let Lehman fail? Or was Lehman just a symptom not the cause of the chaos in the global economy?

Tough questions, and the World Economic Forum had lined up five top experts (including two Nobel prize winners) to find answers.

The economists among them were Crunch Cassandras; two or three years ago they had predicted that our financial system was headed for a huge liquidity crisis – Nouriel Roubini, Nassim Taleb and economic historian Niall Ferguson.

A pity then, a participant said, that two years ago nobody had thought of inviting them to speak at the forum.

Little wonder that this session was hugely oversubscribed, with 150 people on the waiting list and probably more than that crowding into one of the cavernous dining rooms that are the hallmark of Davos hotels.

Under Davos rules this was a closed session, to encourage frank debate. So with a few exceptions I am not allowed to attribute quotes to individual speakers.

But I can report what was said, and this session was an intellectually stimulating eye opener – and utterly depressing (at least economically).

Depression 2.0?

The biggest question, of course, is how bad is it going to get, and nobody – neither on the panel nor in the audience – dared to provide any cheer.

There was talk of “Depression Lite” and “Depression 2.0″, although the experts also pointed out that it was unlikely to get as bad as the 1930s.

Back then, the US economy shrank on average 14% a year, prices fell at 8% a year and unemployment peaked at 25%.

The sharp rate cuts and fiscal stimulus packages around the world would prevent a repeat, everybody agreed.

Still, warned one of the experts, the world would have to brace itself for “a best case scenario” of at least a year of recession and a “lost decade” of low growth – and most people were still in denial about this prospect.

Nouriel Roubini warned of a credit crunch two years ago.

Root causes

But what caused the crisis? A popular theory is that Washington is to blame for the “global cardiac arrest”, because it allowed Lehman to fail.

The panellists rejected this suggestion as “tosh” and “a myth”.

 

This crisis, several economists said, started two years earlier and was “bound” to lead to a financial meltdown – whether it was a bank like Washington Mutual or the likes of Lehman and other parts of the lightly regulated shadow banking system of investment banks, hedge funds and broker dealers.

 

“How could banks be so stupid?,” several panellists asked, and allow things go so wrong so quickly?

The root causes for the economic crisis were too much debt, a culture of short-term rewards for long-term risk-taking and fatally flawed mathematical risk models. And plain old greed.

“Derivatives trading is all about how to make a bonus and how to screw your client,” said Nassim Taleb, a former derivatives trader and author of “The Black Swan,” a book about expecting the unexpected.

The result was a mountain range of “troubled assets” (one of the great euphemisms of the crisis, one expert said) that resulted in billion dollar losses and the need to bail out financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG even before Lehman collapsed.

Into the hurricane

Morgan Stanley, one expert ventured, was saved only because its share price bounced back when rumours emerged of Washington’s $700bn bail-out package.

Two thirds of the world’s hedge funds would collapse, suggested another. Financial institutions took on debt worth 40 times their assets – and failed to understand how risky this was. Bank’s risk models, a prominent participant revealed, were based on one year’s worth of data.

It was, another expert said, as if a pilot was assuming that he would never fly into a hurricane, because he hadn’t come across one during the past year.

Bankers had no memory, another panellist said, they had forgotten about the Asian crisis in the late 1990s, the collapse of the LTCM hedge fund, and much more.

But it is too easy to single out the bankers – a banker said.

Where were the regulators, rating agencies, corporate boards and central bankers?

What about the borrowers, who did not read contracts and had to know they could not afford these mortgages?

And what about the shareholders and investors, who did not question the business models of the companies they owned? 

 

 

By Tim Weber 
Business editor, BBC News website, in Davos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/davos/7859179.stm

Filed under: Business , Bad, Crisis, economic

Are Bad Times Healthy?

By TARA PARKER-POPE

New York Times, October 6, 2008.

 

1936 In hard times, as in the Great Depression, laborers have more time to care for their children.

 

Most people are worried about the health of the economy. But does the economy also affect your health?

 

It does, but not always in ways you might expect. The data on how an economic downturn influences an individual’s health are surprisingly mixed.

It’s clear that long-term economic gains lead to improvements in a population’s overall health, in developing and industrialized societies alike.

But whether the current economic slump will take a toll on your own health depends, in part, on your health habits when times are good. And economic studies suggest that people tend not to take care of themselves in boom times — drinking too much (especially before driving), dining on fat-laden restaurant meals and skipping exercise and doctors’ appointments because of work-related time commitments.

“The value of time is higher during good economic times,” said Grant Miller, an assistant professor of medicine at Stanford. “So people work more and do less of the things that are good for them, like cooking at home and exercising; and people experience more stress due to the rigors of hard work during booms.”

Similar patterns have been seen in some developing nations. Dr. Miller, who is studying the effects of fluctuating coffee prices on health in Colombia, says that even though falling prices are bad for the economy, they appear to improve health and mortality rates. When prices are low, laborers have more time to care for their children.

“When coffee prices suddenly rise, people work harder on their coffee plots and spend less time doing things around the home, including things that are good for their children,” he said. “Because the things that matter most for infant and child health in rural Colombia aren’t expensive, but require a substantial amount of time — such as breast-feeding, bringing clean water from far away, taking your child to a distant health clinic for free vaccinations — infant and child mortality rates rise.”

In this country, a similar effect appeared in the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression,according to a 2007 paper by Dr. Miller and colleagues in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The data seem to contradict research in the 1970s suggesting that in hard times there are more deaths from heart disease, cirrhosis, suicide and homicide, as well as more admissions to mental hospitals. But those findings have not been replicated, and several economists have pointed out flaws in the research.

In May 2000, the Quarterly Journal of Economics published a surprising paper called “Are Recessions Good for Your Health?” by Christopher J. Ruhm, professor of economics at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, based on an analysis measuring death rates and health behavior against economic shifts and jobless rates from 1972 to 1991.

Dr. Ruhm found that death rates declined sharply in the 1974 and 1982 recessions, and increased in the economic recovery of the 1980s. An increase of one percentage point in state unemployment rates correlated with a 0.5 percentage point decline in the death rate — or about 5 fewer deaths per 100,000 people. Over all, the death rate fell by more than 8 percent in the 20-year period of mostly economic decline, led by drops in heart disease and car crashes.

The economic downturn did appear to take a toll on factors having less to do with prevention and more to do with mental well-being and access to health care. For instance,cancer deaths rose 23 percent, and deaths from flu and pneumonia increased slightly. Suicides rose 2 percent, homicides 12 percent.

The issue that may matter most in an economic crisis is not related to jobs or income, but whether the slump widens the gap between rich and poor, and whether there is an adequate health safety net available to those who have lost their jobs and insurance.

During a decade of economic recession in Japan that began in the 1990s, people who were unemployed were twice as likely to be in poor health than those with secure jobs. During Peru’s severe economic crisis in the 1980s, infant mortality jumped 2.5 percentage points — about 17,000 more children who died as public health spending and social programs collapsed.

In August, researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam looked at health studies oftwins in Denmark. They found that individuals born in a recession were at higher risk for heart problems later in life and lived, on average, 15 months less than those born under better conditions.

Gerard J. van den Berg, an economics professor who was a co-author of the study, said babies in poor households suffered the most in a recession, because their families lacked access to good health care. Poor economic conditions can also cause stress that may interfere with parent bonding and childhood development, he said.

He noted that other studies had found that recessions can benefit babies by giving their parents more time at home.

“This scenario may be relevant for well-to-do families where one of the parents loses a job and the other still brings in enough money,” he said. “But in a crisis where the family may have to incur huge housing-cost losses and the household income is insufficient for adequate nutrition and health care, the adverse effects of being born in a recession seem much more relevant.”

In this country, there are already signs of the economy’s effect on health. In May, the market research firm Information Resources reported that 53 percent of consumers said they were cooking from scratch more than they did just six months before — in part, no doubt, because of the rising cost of prepared foods. At the same time, health insurancecosts are rising. With premiums and co-payments, the average employee with insurance pays nearly one-third of medical costs — about twice as much as four years ago, according to Paul H. Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

In the United States, which unlike other industrialized nations lacks a national health plan, the looming recession may take a greater toll. About 46 million Americans lack health insurance, Dr. Keckley says, and even among the 179 million who have it, an estimated 1 in 7 would be bankrupted by a single health crisis.

The economic downturn “is not good news for the health care industry,” he said. “There may be slivers of positive, but I view this as sobering.”

 

(A version of this article appeared in print on October 7, 2008, on page D1 of the New York edition.)

Filed under: Health , Bad, economic, food, healthy, individual, insurance, jobs, populations, recession, Time