1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Mises Economics Blog

The Trouble with Prosperity

March 10, 2005 8:31 AM by Christopher Westley | Other posts by Christopher Westley | Comments (2)

The great James Grant marks the 5th anniversary of the height of the stock market bubble in an essay in today's New York Times, with an Austrian explanation of both the boom and the bust. An excerpt:

With no lights flashing red or even amber, investors sped through the financial intersections. They paid more for houses, office buildings and junk bonds than they would have if interest rates were not hugging 40-year lows. The proliferation of dollars helped to lift the stock market out of its doldrums - though the doldrums of 2002 were singularly shallow ones. In comparison to earlier bear market lows, bargains were scarce on the ground (by March 2000, stocks were uniquely overvalued; never before had a dollar of corporate earnings been so costly to buy). At the checkout counter, inflation was well-nigh invisible. On Wall Street, however, it was - and still is - on the rise.

To hear Mr. Greenspan tell it in 1999, post-bubble damage control was as simple as cutting interest rates. He passed lightly over the possible consequences of the rates he cut. The list so far includes a bubble-like housing market (geographically localized but ferocious), an overheated debt market (this one spans the globe) and a steady depreciation in the foreign exchange value of the dollar. Consuming much more than it produces, the United States emits hundreds of billions of greenbacks into the world's payment stream every year - about $600 billion in 2004. The recipients of these dollars willingly invest them in American assets if the price is right. On the evidence of the dollar's decline, the price - the available rate of return - is too low.

Comments (2)

  • Vanmind
  • "What is this thing called 'gold' that people are talking about all-of-a-sudden?"

  • Published: March 10, 2005 2:48 PM

  • Dal Timgar
  • I have wondered how much Americans have lost on depreciation of automobiles since 1945 so I decided to do a calculation based on certain assumptions. Assuming we loose $300,000,000,000 anually now, that is $1500 each on 200,000,000 cars. $18,000 cars lasting 12 years. Assuming it was $50,000,000,000 in 1945 with a linear increase each year since then.

    So it goes 1957 - One Trillion, 1966 Two, 1972 Three, 1978 Four, 1983 Five, 1987 Six, 1992 Seven, 1996 Eight, 1999 Nine, 2003 Ten Trillion Dollars.

    That doesn't count interest, insurance, repairs. Explains why America looks so poor despite these fantatic numbers for economic growth. Ignoring depreciation is total nonsense.

    Of course that says nothing about what has been happening in every other country around the world.

    Do a search on "Economic Wargames"

    Dal Timgar

  • Published: March 11, 2005 2:49 AM

Post an intelligent and civil comment