Obama's New Deal

Andrew Jeffery  Dec 10, 2008 8:30 am

Obama's New Deal
 
Infrastructure touted as road to economic recovery.
 

 
Ideology, it appears, has taken a backseat to expediency.

72 hours ago, President-Elect Barack Obama announced plans to reinvigorate the American economy with the biggest public-works project since the 1950s. Criticism of what's being called the “New New Deal” has been scant, as even ardent capitalists seem willing to wax socialist if it gets the country back on track.

After all, with unemployment on the rise, the financial system crumbling around us, General Motors (GM), Chrysler and Ford (F) facing extinction and a host of other economic maladies plaguing the system, anything has to be better than the status quo.

Details of Obama’s intentions remain sketchy at best, but fixing highways and bridges, updating the rail system, new telecommunications infrastructure, modernizing health care and improving the public school system are atop the President-Elect’s holiday wish list.

Commodity prices soared on the heels of the announcement, as investors poured money into US Steel (X), Freeport McMoRan (FCX) and others who pull stuff out of the ground that hurts when it falls on your foot, as Dennis Gartmen is now famous for saying. With all that new construction, steel, copper and the like will once again be in high demand.

If, of course, the plan even works.

Detractors cite impracticality as one of the primary flaws of the massive spending program. Many wonder if it’s realistic to expect the government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars efficiently, getting money and jobs to where they’re needed most. The $700 bailout plan, now half spent, hasn’t exactly been a model of prudent use of taxpayer funds.

Others wishing to rain on Obama’s populist parade question the economy’s ability to absorb millions of jobseekers, few of which have been trained to lay new railroad, pour cement or install fiber optic cables. America’s labor pool has become increasingly focused on service-sector jobs, yet the new public works focus on traditional blue-collar employment. Structuring debt securities doesn’t exactly translate into structural engineering.

Finally, there’s that whole pesky issue of the national debt. Obama has repeatedly vowed to ignore near-term budget deficits in favor of getting the economy back on track. But at some point, the printing presses will seize up, and Washington’s debt experiment will run aground.

The world seems able, although not altogether thrilled, to absorb an American budget deficit now running at around $1 trillion per year. Can it handle $2 trillion? What about $3 trillion? Or $5 trillion?

At some point, trillions do in fact start to matter. If holders of US Treasuries start to get skittish and demand a higher return on their not-so-safe-haven investment, government debt will become that much more expensive, deepening the deficit and resulting in the mother of all feedback loops.

No one’s quite sure what will happen if we really do bankrupt the country trying to save it - some mildly terrifying cocktail of deflation, a dollar collapse and hyperinflation all rolled up in one. It’s an outcome no one really wants to provision for.

To be sure, it’s hard to find many who hope Obama fails, preferring instead to look back at 2009 and chuckle, remembering when the country went all in and made that straight flush on the river.
Rate this article:  (0 Votes)
Comments (15) See All Comments »
12-11-2008, 8:47 am
As "the victors" of WW2, do I misrecall that we gave and lent to the "vanquished" folks, and helped them rebuild, exactly the opposite of what we'd done after WW1? Didn't our economy rebound during WW2, long befor
Read More
12-11-2008, 9:22 am

The rebound did indeed begin during WWII but, as you stated, based on deficit spending. This is not sustainable. Without the ability to sell our manufactured goods around the world to countries whose infrastructure had been devastated I now
Read More
12-11-2008, 9:33 am
Does anyone really believe we can sustain massive deficit spending forever, and therefore advocate that? But as a temporary (3-4 years) "shock" to a moribund economy, it may make more sense than tiny stimuli of the kind that kept people
Read More
12-12-2008, 10:47 am
The answer to your question is an unequivocal yes: virtually every elected and appointed official since 1980 has believed, if one uses their actions as a guide to their beliefs - that the massive accumulation of government debt is of no consequence.
Read More
12-15-2008, 5:30 pm
You might want to consider "total national debt as a percent of GDP" as a sensible broad measure of the results of deficit spending. I looked at that measure at the end of each presidential term since '41, and notice that there was
Read More
discuss this article and more on the mv exchange
No positions in stocks mentioned.

Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options.  Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.



The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Ticker Talk
Popular Tickers:
SPX »AMZN »RIMM »
Select
  •  
Talk Now
Share this Talk on your site:
Send us your feedback

Our Professors

rss article alert