The NYT article suggests that corporations are stockpiling money (saving) due to artificially low interest rates set by the Fed, thus awaiting for the right time to spend (malinvest/misallocate) capital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/04borrow.html?_r=3&hp
Is this the beginning of the next business cycle? Or just the continuation of the previous one? Can the US or world economy even handle another business cycle?
This is the way I see it:
It is a symptom of this recession, and, if investment picks up, it can only perpetuate and worsen the misallocation of resources towards ultimately unwarranted economic employments. The economy is trying to correct itself, the demand for money has risen, and time preferences have fallen (individuals are saving and paying off debt), but the FED is preventing, or is attempting to prevent, the necessary correction. There are, in my opinion, only two possible outcomes of such a policy (perpetual expansion of high-powered money by the FED).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
And the third?
The third scenario can only occur if the FED stops its expansionary policy (we would get a severe correction and a banking crisis). I'd also like to add that individuals/entrepreneurs, at this point in time, are basically operating in the dark; they don't know what's truly profitable and what is not (due to arbitrarily distorted prices). This is causing extreme friction.
All that can happen from the Fed's actions are: 1) prevent malivestment from liquidating, 2) inject hot money into the system, but the system is not responding (no banking multiplier since banks aren't lending), 3) benefit the early recipients (bond market). New money then flows into stocks, gold and possibly commodities (real stuff, oil, wheat, cotton, copper).
I can't see any chance of an economic boom until the banks start lending again. And I believe they are dead in the water. Price signals are distorted (interest rates, home values still way too high given millions of bank owned properties being held off the market). How can entrepreneurs and capitalists guide capital where it needs to go when the signals are distorted? It could be that we are in the boom phase now, with 9.5% U-3 unemployment.
There is no way out of this mess until the Fed steps aside.
We could have a bust from here if commodity prices rise. That would mean that consumption is out of line with production (the time structure is still too round about). Imagine another waive of layoffs, the U-3 going to 12%, U-6 to 20%. It is conceivable in my view given what has been done to the time structure, which must be too round about given the intervention.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
Esuric: Velocity remains suppressed and the continuous injection of money prevents the necessary correction for an extended period of time. We get into a Japanese type of economic environment (lost decades). Velocity and investment pick up, we get severe inflation, and a monumental collapse somewhere down the line. Fed does nothing.
Assume we are in scenario (1), that implies we are still in a bust.
Assume we are in scenario (2), that implies we are onward towards the next business cycle.
But it appears there is no way to tell, until after the fact.
Probability of Recession - Mike Shedlock
Interesting chart. It appears highly sensitive and it is in real time (one quarter delay). The link to the source is in the article.
I've heard that we are already in a new bubble, the gov't bubble. The govt is hiring more and more people, sending checks to more and more people, borrowing more and more, and one day they will run out of money or hyperinflate.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
The beginning of this article doesn't make any sense.
How can you save by taking on debt. You don't borrow to do nothing no matter how low your interest rate is. At the end, you are left with less cash, not more.
"How can you save by taking on debt."
Interesting point. Perhaps "borrowed savings" may be an appropriate term, although the fault there is that the borrowing comes from FRB?
I would consider their actions as hoarding cash rather than genuine saving.
The very action of hoarding cash by borrowing fulfills the misallocation of capital portion of ABCT.
"Probability of Recession - Mike Shedlock"
Fascinating chart indeed.
I know we are not the empiricists, but does not the title alone "Cheap Debt for Corporations Fails to Spur Economy" suggest that monetary policy does not work? If the answer were found in more money and liquidity, we would be in an sustainable upswing rather than teetering.
Banks are stockpiling money because the Fed is paying them to do so. A little known scheme that has previously been reported here.
The article conflates savings with borrowing... it's a mess!
They're looking at aggregates and noticing cash balances rising. They are also noticing corporate bonds being issued. The two are opposite "forces" with some net result in either direction. But the article simply concludes that these "forces" are operating in the same direction. It's typical Keynesian idiocy, like their absurdity of consumption and savings sometimes operating in the same direction.
Nothing in the NYT can be taken seriously, really.
Thank you to everyone for your the insights on this topic. Based on this discussion, I was inspired to write up a little something catered towards another audience:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/10/accountability-for-idle-cheap-debt/
TLDR: Where blame is usually placed upon the corporations for hoarding cash, the root culprit is the Federal Reserve for promoting easy money via low interest rates.
J++