Growth Is the Problem

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Growth Is the Problem

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:09 am

Image


Growth Is the Problem

Posted on Sep 10, 2012
Image
Illustration by Mr. Fish
By Chris Hedges

The ceaseless expansion of economic exploitation, the engine of global capitalism, has come to an end. The futile and myopic effort to resurrect this expansion—a fallacy embraced by most economists—means that we respond to illusion rather than reality. We invest our efforts into bringing back what is gone forever. This strange twilight moment, in which our experts and systems managers squander resources in attempting to re-create an expanding economic system that is moribund, will inevitably lead to systems collapse. The steady depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, along with the accelerated pace of climate change, will combine with crippling levels of personal and national debt to thrust us into a global depression that will dwarf any in the history of capitalism. And very few of us are prepared.

“Our solution is our problem,” Richard Heinberg, the author of “The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality,” told me when I reached him by phone in California. “Its name is growth. But growth has become uneconomic. We are worse off because of growth. To achieve growth now means mounting debt, more pollution, an accelerated loss of biodiversity and the continued destabilization of the climate. But we are addicted to growth. If there is no growth there are insufficient tax revenues and jobs. If there is no growth existing debt levels become unsustainable. The elites see the current economic crisis as a temporary impediment. They are desperately trying to fix it. But this crisis signals an irreversible change for civilization itself. We cannot prevent it. We can only decide whether we will adapt to it or not.”

Heinberg, a senior fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, argues that we cannot grasp the real state of the global economy by the usual metrics—GDP, unemployment, housing, durable goods, national deficits, personal income and consumer spending—although even these measures point to severe and chronic problems. Rather, he says, we have to examine the structural flaws that sit like time bombs embedded within the economic edifice. U.S. household debt enabled the expansion of consumer spending during the boom years, he says, but consumer debt cannot continue to grow as house prices decline to realistic levels. Toxic assets litter the portfolios of the major banks, presaging another global financial meltdown. The Earth’s natural resources are being exhausted. And climate change, with its extreme weather conditions, is beginning to exact a heavy economic toll on countries, including the United States, through the destruction brought about by droughts, floods, wildfires and loss of crop yields.

Heinberg also highlights what he calls “the highly dysfunctional U.S. political system,” which is paralyzed and hostage to corporate power. It is unable to respond rationally to the crisis or solve “even the most trivial of problems.”

“The government at this point exacerbates nearly every crisis the nation faces,” he said. “Policy decisions do not emerge from deliberations between the public and elected leaders. They arise from unaccountable government agencies and private interest groups. The Republican Party has taken leave of reality. It exists in a hermetically sealed ideasphere where climate change is a hoax and economic problems can be solved by cutting spending and taxes. The Democrats, meanwhile, offer no realistic strategy for coping with the economic unraveling or climate change.”

The collision course is set. It is now only a matter of time and our personal response.
“It could implode in a few weeks, in a few months or maybe in a few years,” Heinberg said, “but unless radical steps are taken to restructure the economy, it will implode. And when it does the financial system will seize up far more dramatically than in 2008. You will go to the bank or the ATM and there will be no money. Food will be scarce and expensive. Unemployment will be rampant. And government services will break down. Living standards will plummet. ‘Austerity’ programs will become more draconian. Economic inequality will widen to create massive gaps between a tiny, oligarchic global elite and the masses. The collapse will also inevitably trigger the kind of instability and unrest, including riots, that we have seen in countries such as Greece. The elites, who understand and deeply fear the possibility of an unraveling, have been pillaging state resources to save their corrupt, insolvent banks, militarize their police forces and rewrite legal codes to criminalize dissent.”

If nations were able to respond rationally to the crisis they could forestall social collapse by reconfiguring their economies away from ceaseless growth and exploitation. It remains possible, at least in the industrialized world, to provide to most citizens the basics—food, water, housing, medical care, employment, education and public safety. This, however, as Heinberg points out, would require a radical reversal of the structures of power. It would necessitate a massive cancellation of debt, along with the slashing of bloated militaries, heavy regulation and restraints placed on the financial sector and high taxes imposed on oligarchic elites and corporations in order to reduce unsustainable levels of inequality. While this economic reconfiguration would not mitigate the effects of climate change and the depletion of natural resources it would create the social stability needed to cope with a new post-growth regime. But Heinberg says he doubts a rational policy is forthcoming. He fears that as deterioration accelerates there will be a greater resolve on the part of the power elite to “cannibalize the resources of society in order to prop up megabanks and military establishments.”

Survival will be determined by localities. Communities will have to create collectives to grow their own food and provide for their security, education, financial systems and self-governance, efforts that Heinberg suspects will “be discouraged and perhaps criminalized by those in authority.” This process of decentralization will, he said, become “the signal economic and social trend of the 21st century.” It will be, in effect, a repudiation of classic economic models such as free enterprise versus the planned economy or Keynesian stimulus versus austerity. The reconfiguration will arise not through ideologies, but through the necessities of survival forced on the poor and former members of the working and middle class who have joined the poor. This will inevitably create conflicts as decentralization weakens the power of the elites and the corporate state.

Joseph Tainter, an archeologist, in his book “The Collapse of Complex Societies” provides a useful blueprint for how such societies unravel. All of history’s major 24 civilizations have collapsed and the patterns are strikingly similar, he writes. The difference this time around is that we will unravel as a planet. Tainter notes that as societies become more complex they inevitably invest greater and greater amounts of diminishing resources in expanding systems of complexity. This proves to be fatal.

“More complex societies are costlier to maintain than simpler ones and require higher support levels per capita,” Tainter writes. The investments required to maintain an overly complex system become too costly, and these investments yield declining returns. The elites, in a desperate effort to maintain their own levels of consumption and preserve the system that empowers them, through repression and austerity measures squeeze the masses harder and harder until the edifice collapses. This collapse leaves behind decentralized, autonomous pockets of human communities.

Heinberg says this is our fate. The quality of our lives will depend on the quality of our communities. If communal structures are strong we will be able to endure. If they are weak we will succumb to the bleakness. It is important that these structures be set in place before the onset of the crisis, he says. This means starting to “know your neighbors.” It means setting up food banks and farmers’ markets. It means establishing a local currency, carpooling, creating clothing exchanges, establishing cooperative housing, growing gardens, raising chickens and buying local. It is the matrix of neighbors, family and friends, Heinberg says, that will provide “our refuge and our opportunity to build anew.”

“The inevitable decline in resources to support societal complexity will generate a centrifugal force,” Heinberg said. “It will break up existing economic and governmental power structures. It will unleash a battle for diminishing resources. This battle will see conflicts erupt between nations and within nations. Localism will soon be our fate. It will also be our strategy for survival. Learning practical skills, becoming more self-sufficient, forming bonds of trust with our neighbors will determine the quality of our lives and the lives of our children.”
To see long excerpts from Richard Heinberg’s “The End of Growth” and Joseph Tainter’s “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” click here and here.




Well just take me out and build a roaring fire
And just roll me in the flames for about an hour
And then pull me out and twist me up
And point me towards the sky
And roll me up and smoke me when I die.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby coffin_dodger » Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:22 pm

I have respect for Chris Hedges, but he's blind when it comes to nuclear power stations and their effect upon the global 'village'. He seems to think that humankind will be able to revert to local community life - this is not so.

There are 450 nuclear power stations dotted around the globe. The majority are in the Western World.

These abominations are supported 24/7 365 days a year by a Global (and National) infrastructure. They can't simply be turned off. We don't even have the technology available to us to safely dispose of the by-products. They need constant and unrelenting repairs, servicing, power and technical expertise to keep them under control.

If our societies were to experience any kind of collapse, does anyone really believe that these monsters could be contained? It would only need one (as an example) French power station to suffer multiple core melts at a single location, leading to a radiactive exclusion zone that would encompass other nearby power stations. The domino effect would be a reality.

Humankind crossed the rubicon the moment the first nuclear power station was built. Never before in our history have we faced an uncontrollable artificial force created by our hand that HAS to be serviced, no matter what. Our ancestors had the luxury of sleeping safe in the knowledge that the damage done by a great natural disaster could, eventually, be recovered from - we, on the other hand, will have to live amongst up to 450 raging infernos poisoning our planet for the next 250,000 years - should anything dramatic happen.

Collapse is no longer an option.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby 82_28 » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:38 pm

If I were elected president I would mandate every citizen play at least one hour of SimCity per day instead of tuning into the 5 o'clock news.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby ninakat » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:53 pm

Thanks coffin_dodger for the sobering reality check: "Humankind crossed the rubicon the moment the first nuclear power station was built."
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby ninakat » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:57 pm

A Global Experiment with Everyone as the Guinea Pigs
Sept. 10, 2012
xraymike79

Without a doubt, climate change is the elephant in the room that no country is dealing with in a manner that reflects its dire consequences for humans and every other living creature on planet Earth. The oceans grow more acidic and warm, eventually to turn into lifeless and hypoxic dead zones. Tropical jungles continue to disappear under bulldozers to make way for monoculture industrial farming. Forests fall to invasions of beetles and burn from epic wildfires in a warming planet. Vast tracts of farmland are desiccated by relentless drought while the government continues its mandate of turning food into fuel for this country’s mammoth population of vehicles. The central banks continue to print money for the hedge funds and casino capitalists to speculate in “THE MARKET”. And the masses, bombarded with infotainment of carnival politics and Hollywood gossip, walk around in an entertained stupor, comforted in the belief that industrial civilization is infallible and exempt from the laws of physics and bankruptcy of an overexploited planet. Like an obsessive compulsive lunatic, growth is still the word that drips from the tongue of every mainstream economist, politician, and captain of industry. Global coal consumption continues its inexorable rise upward, with astronomical consumption predictions heralded for the distant future…

Image

Intelligence, cooperation and foresight are of no use in a system which is intransigent to change. The final, calamitous destination over the cliff and down into the abyss seems clear to a few, but most still hang onto hope and miracles, the beliefs of desperate and delusional men. Scientists are astonished to see changes happening that just a few years ago were predicted only to become reality by the end of this century. A new study says that extreme scenarios are no longer unthinkable:

(continues)
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby ninakat » Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:15 pm

Three More Growth Fallacies
Herman Daly, Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
Sept. 9, 2012

In a previous essay I identified eight fallacies about growth [1]. Well, at the risk of starting a growth industry, here are three more.

1. As natural resources become scarce we can substitute capital for resources and continue to grow. Growth economists assume a high degree of substitutability between factors of production. But if one considers a realistic analytic description of production, as given in Georgescu-Roegen’s fund-flow model, one sees that factors are of two qualitatively different kinds: (1) resource flows that are physically transformed into flows of product and waste and (2) capital and labor funds, the agents or instruments of transformation that are not themselves physically embodied in the product. There are varying degrees of substitution between different resource flows, and between the funds of labor and capital. But the basic relation between resource flow on the one hand, and a capital (or labor) fund on the other, is complementarity. You cannot bake a hundred-pound cake with only one pound of ingredients, no matter how many cooks and ovens you have. Efficient cause (capital) does not substitute for material cause (resources). Material cause and efficient cause are related as complements, and the one in short supply is limiting. Complementarity makes possible the existence of a limiting factor, which cannot exist under substitutability. In yesterday’s empty world the limiting factor was capital; in today’s full world [2] remaining natural resources have become limiting [3].

This fundamental change in the pattern of scarcity has not been incorporated into the thinking of growth economists. Nor have they paid sufficient attention to the fact that capital is itself made from and maintained by natural resource flows. It is hard for a factor to substitute for that from which it is made! And consider yet another oversight. Substitution is reversible — if capital is a good substitute for resources, then resources are a good substitute for capital. But then why, historically, would we ever have accumulated capital in the first place if nature had already given us a good substitute? In sum, the claim that capital is a good substitute for natural resources is absurd.

In reply to these criticisms, growth economists point to modern agriculture, which they consider the prime example of substitution of capital for resources. But modern, mechanized agriculture has simply substituted one set of resource flows for another, and one set of funds for another. It has partially replaced soil, sunlight, rainfall, and manure, with other resources, namely fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and water pumped from rivers and aquifers. The old resource flows (soil, sunlight, rain, manure) were to a significant degree replaced by new resource flows (fossil fuels, chemicals, irrigation water), not by capital! The old fund factors of labor, draft animals, and hand tools were replaced by new fund factors of tractors, harvesters, etc. In other words new fund factors substituted for old fund factors, and new resource flows substituted for old resource flows. Modern agriculture involves the substitution of capital for labor (both funds), and the substitution of nonrenewable resources for renewable resources (both flows). In energy terms it was largely the substitution of fossil fuels for solar energy, a move with short-term benefits and long-term costs. But there was no substitution of capital funds for resource flows. The case of mechanization of agriculture does not contradict the complementarity of fund and flow factors in production.

2. Space, the high frontier, frees us from the finitude of the earth, and opens unlimited resources for growth. In a secular age where many have lost faith in the spiritual dimension of existence, and where the concept of “man as creature” is eclipsed by that of “man as creator,” it is to be expected that science fiction might be called on to fill the dead void of space with a happy population of “survivors.” The spiritual insights of millennia are replaced by technocratic projections of the “Singularity” in which mankind attains the final goal of (random?) evolution and becomes a new and immortal species, thanks to the salvific power of exponential growth in information processing technology. Moore’s Law promises eternal silicon-based life for the new elect who can stay alive until the Singularity; oblivion for those who die too soon! And this comes from materialists who think that they have outgrown religion!

ImageOf course many technical space accomplishments are real and impressive. But how do they free us from the finitude of the earth and open up unlimited resources for growth? Space accomplishments have been extremely expensive in terms of terrestrial resources, and have yielded few extra-terrestrial resources — useless moon rocks that some fledgling astronaut managed to steal from NASA [4] in a bungled attempt to sell them for their collector’s value, plus some space tourism [5] for a few billionaires to take orbital joyrides. On the positive side of the ledger we can list communications satellites, but they are oriented to earth, and while they can help us use earth’s resources more efficiently, they do not bring in new resources. And apparently some orbits are getting crowded with satellite carcasses.

Robotic space exploration is a lot cheaper than manned space missions, and may (or may not) yield knowledge worth the investment to a society that cannot afford basic necessities and elementary education for many. The opportunity cost of indulging the expensive curiosity of a few is to leave undeveloped the capacities of many. Were it not for the heavy military connection (muted in the official NASA propaganda) we would probably be spending much less on space. Cuts in NASA’s budget have led to the over-hyped reaction by the “space community” in proclaiming a pseudo-religious technical quest to discover “whether or not we are alone in the universe,” as opposed to how to zap other earthlings with laser beams from space. Another major goal is to find a planet suitable for colonization by earthlings. The latter is sometimes justified by the observation that since we are clearly destroying the earth we need a new home — to also destroy?

The numbers — astronomical distances and time scales — effectively rule out dreams of space colonization. But another consideration is equally daunting. If we are unable to control population and production growth on earth, which is our forgiving and natural home, out of which we were created and with which we have evolved and adapted, then what makes us think we can live as aliens within the much tighter and unforgiving discipline of a space colony on a dead rock in a cold vacuum? There we would encounter limits to growth raised to the hundredth power. Sorry for being such a “pessimist!”

3. Without economic growth all progress is at an end. On the contrary, without growth (now actually uneconomic growth [6] if correctly measured), true progress finally will have a chance. As ecological economists have long argued, growth is quantitative physical increase in the matter-energy throughput, the metabolic maintenance flow of the economy beginning with depletion and ending with pollution. Development, in contrast, is qualitative improvement in the capacity of a given throughput to provide for the maintenance and enjoyment of life in community. The main ways to develop are through technical improvement in resource efficiency, and ethical improvement in our wants and priotities.

Development without growth beyond the earth’s carrying capacity is true progress. Growth means larger jaws and a bigger digestive tract for more rapidly converting more resources into more waste, in the service of unexamined and frequently destructive individual wants. Development means better digestion of a non-growing throughput, and more worthy and satisfying goals to which our life energies could be devoted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy: http://steadystate.org

URL to article: http://steadystate.org/three-more-growth-fallacies/

URLs in this post:

[1] eight fallacies about growth: http://steadystate.org/eight-fallacies-about-growth/

[2] full world: http://steadystate.org/wp-content/uploa ... nomics.pdf

[3] have become limiting: http://steadystate.org/what-is-the-limiting-factor/

[4] steal from NASA: http://gizmodo.com/5242736/how-an-inter ... moon-rocks

[5] space tourism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 ... obin-mckie

[6] uneconomic growth: http://steadystate.org/two-meanings/
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:35 pm

Thank you seemslikeadream, for posting this. Heinberg's book is one of the best books I've read in a long time, a great analysis of how ultimately we have to change the way money works if civilization is to have any chance for survival. I would encourage everyone here to read it.

I recently had someone forward a quote from another author I respect that kind of dovetails with the Hedges article:

"There is a widely under-read book by Matthew Lassiter called The Silent Majority, about the Nixon years and the corresponding rise of suburbia in the so-called New South. In it, he describes the particular political identities of suburbia - which do not map onto older right-left constellations. These identities are taxpayer, homeowner, school parent, consumer. This suburban population (nationwide) is now a majority, and their interests are Narrow along the lines suggested by Lassiter. Consequently, both parties are forced to kowtow to this demographic (mostly white, 'middle class'), because it is a political behemoth. That, more than anything else, is the reason the actual practices of the two parties look more and more alike. They both have to account for this bloc.

"What this demographic is, actually, is the most unsustainable bloc of human beings on the planet (as currently configured). They commute miles and
miles each day, survive in suburban barracks that are energy sinks and carbon nightmares, consume materials as the expression of their collective identity, and rely utterly for their survival on economic-material grids that they are beholden then to defend, even as these practices moves us further down the path to both intermediate consequences and ultimate collapse. Preserving this group, as currently constituted, is objectively stupid and politically inescapable. They are also, as history has shown, potentially very reactionary; now self-justifying and comfortable, in times of trouble seeking some 'strong father' to set things right. It is their approach to obsolescence that makes this demographic so dangerous.

"We oughtn't 'save' the middle class. We ought to be finding a different way for all those people to live that doesn't utterly rely on the continuation of US imperialism. It actually has roots going all the way back to Levittown (see link below), when these Disneyfied planned residential communities first appeared as part of the white flight phenomenon. Without the massive and destructive infrastructure we have to support private automobiles they couldn't have happened, turning cars from luxuries to necessities, and beginning the process we now know as sprawl - destroying untold millions of acres of farm and forest to build the developments and expand the roads and highways necessary to ensure they would flourish. They are, in some respects, similar to cancer in their unchecked growth. No surprise that this 'middle class' is hegemonically white - even as they allow for some honorary whites for diversity. The history is racialized through and through." - Stan Goff
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby hanshan » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:54 pm

...

^^^^

excellent, tx


...
hanshan
 
Posts: 1673
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby crikkett » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:10 am

consume materials as the expression of their collective identity,

I know

:wallhead:
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:56 pm

Bill Gross, of all people, chiming in:
http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/ ... Chain.aspx

He takes the big fish / ocean ecosystem metaphor to an interesting conclusion: "Plankton Disappearing, Food Chain at Risk"
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby DrVolin » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:22 pm

I recently went to a degrowth conference here. I wasn't impressed. The first thing I noticed when I walked in was that everyone I knew at the conference could very comfortably afford to degrow substantially. Everyone I knew for whom degrowth would compromise standard of living or future prospects was very much absent, for obvious reasons. So all these trust fund people with 100 acre hobby farms and a house in the city spent two days talking about how everyone should degrow. I left after 10 minutes.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:46 pm

Dr., I have similar complaints with the Transition movement. Trainings are hundreds of dollars, so it's clear to me which crowd they're attracting, which seems to be of the same demographic of those attending your degrowth conference. The now quite comfortable.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby Luther Blissett » Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:54 pm

I'm fairly certain I got this from here:

The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:36 am

great thread bump
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Growth Is the Problem

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 pm

Via: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/20 ... e%E2%80%9D

Deceptive calm and optimism have settled on the German financial markets. Chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing to go to Greece next week to meet with Prime Minister Antonis Samaras—her first visit to Greece since 2007, long before the crisis had broken out. He’d already praised her for saying “that her heart was bleeding” at the sight of the suffering Greeks, or at the sight of herself with Hitler mustache and Nazi uniform in Greek tabloids. She’ll be noisily welcomed.

Perhaps she is trying to mend fences because Germany, after hyperventilating for two years about its superior economic model, is worried about the economy, and about its export markets, and above all, about the election next year. It would be a heck of a lot easier for her to hang on to power if Germany isn’t in a deep recession by then because exports dried up.

They’d done that before. When the financial crisis hit the US, China, and to a lesser extent Europe, Germany’s customers stopped calling. In the third quarter of 2008, GDP plummeted 2.1% on a quarterly basis, and in the first quarter of 2009 a horrid 3.8%. Annualized, a double-digit swoon. The worst in the history of the Federal Republic. A nightmare no German exporter would ever forget.

They were saved not by their own ingenuity and hard work, and not by their superior economic model, but by the besotted stimulus and QE frenzy in the US, China, and elsewhere. The recovery was steep. And a couple of years later, the gloating started. They called it the German “success recipe.” Well, that was last October.

Now the crisis has wormed its way into every aspect of the economy, and the downturn in export orders is once again spreading fear and trepidation. But this time, the part that had been considered invulnerable is getting slammed: domestic demand.

Monday, it was the machine-tool massacre. Orders for machine tools, one of the coddled key industries in Germany, dropped 11% from prior month, with export orders down 6%—cause: uncertainty, the China slowdown, the Eurozone fiasco. But domestic orders dove 18%.

Tuesday, it was the auto industry massacre. Sales of new passenger vehicles, as measured by registrations, dropped a dizzying 10.9% from September last year. German auto sales had been holding up well despite the crisis and remained positive until summer. But July wasn’t good. August was worse. And September’s huge drop pushed sales for the year deeper into the negative.

There were some winners, notably the Koreans Kia (+44%) and Hyundai (+15.2%)—which have been on a tear since the financial crisis—as well as Porsche and Audi. Mercedes barely eked out a gain. The list of losers was long and included even BMW and market leader VW. Ford fell by 8.8% and Opel by 13.2%. And a harbinger of movements in the larger economy, commercial vehicles (buses, trucks, and tractors) tumbled 15%, with tractors plunging 25.8%.

Wednesday, it was the Composite PMI for manufacturing and service. It declined again in September, after having plunged in August at the steepest rate since June 2009. It was the seventh month in a row of declines. Due to the lack of incoming work, businesses have been living off their shrinking backlog. When that is exhausted, production will nosedive.

Thursday, construction took it on the chin. It had been doing well until six months ago. In September, the intake of new orders by contractors fell sharply, due to “weakening demand in the wider economy.” And the Draghi-Bernanke effect began to rattle some nerves: input price inflation had picked up.

Employment has come under pressure. Opel and Ford are leaking red ink from their head gaskets. Other employers are trying to cut costs as well. But it’s not easy. There are negotiations underway to reinstitute part-time work (Kurzarbeit). Lufthansa just announced that it would slash its administrative work force through early retirements and buyouts. Even the Monster Employment Index, whose year-over-year growth in online ads has been over 30% earlier this year, stumbled on Friday. Its index for August edged up only 7% from prior year, but and on a month-to-month basis, it has been losing ground and is now down 3.2% from its peak in April.

And then came the industrial orders bloodbath. Seasonally adjusted, they dropped 1.3% in August from July, much worse than expected. Export orders only stagnated, thanks to an uptick in orders from the Eurozone, which are still down 12.6% for the year. But domestic orders dropped 3% overall, and 6.8% for capital goods, which left observers breathless.

With shrinking order books and rising inventories, German industry is facing some challenges. Consumers have become reticent. Corporate titans have been busy with disappointing preannouncements. So Metro AG, Germany’s largest retailer and wholesaler, just issued an earnings warning, blaming the weakness in its major markets. And its stock got pummeled.

But the Draghi-Bernanke effect took care of the markets, no worries. Instead, Germany is struggling with its largest wave of foodborne illness. From China. But exports to China are crucial, so the issue will be downplayed assiduously.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests