Recs

271

The Coming Boom

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Our collective record of predicting what the economy will do next is dreadful. Twelve years ago, few worried about terrorism, many worried about Y2K, and the thought of zero percent interest rates was preposterous. Not a single person knows what the future holds, and so what I'm about to write isn't so much a prediction, but an observation of potential.

After five years of collapse and stagnation, we could be on the cusp of a new economic boom. Not like the mid-1980s or late 1990s, mind you. But the odds that the next five years will be markedly better than the last five years are good, and growing better by the day.

The new boom will be driven by three things: A rebound in housing construction, the rise in domestic energy production, and the end of consumer debt deleveraging.

Start with housing. From 2002 to 2007, a net average of 1.3 million American households were created every year. During that time, almost 2 million new homes were built annually. Today, it's the other way around. In the last year, 1.1 million new households were formed; but, just 700,000 new homes were built.

Just as the overbuilding of homes during the housing bubble was unsustainable, today's level of home construction cannot last -- it's just far too low to meet demand. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates that household formation will average 1.5 million from 2010 to 2020. Factor in scrappage, and new home construction needs to more than double from current levels to meet those projections.

What happens then? The Center for Housing Policy estimates that every new home generates 2.1 new jobs -- both directly from construction workers and real estate agents, and indirectly, as those workers spend more money. The National Association of Home Builders puts it at 3.05 jobs per new home. Whatever the true figure is, it adds up fast when we're talking about a need to build a million homes per year above current levels.

Next is energy. Domestic oil production declined nearly every year from 1986 to 2008, falling by 41%. It has since risen consistently for the first time in three decades, now up more than 30% in the last four years. The U.S. produced more oil in July than in any other month since 1998. And growth in America's energy output since 2008 has surpassed any other country in the world, according to energy analyst Daniel Yergin.

The boom in natural gas production is even more impressive. Thanks to new fracking technologies, and a push to find new supplies after the 2008 energy shock, domestic natural gas production hit an all-time high in January, 35% above where it was five years before. Companies like Chesapeake (NYSE: CHK  ) have discovered so much natural gas in the last few years that they are actually struggling as prices collapse to decade lows.

If this trend continues, which seems likely, it could be a transformational boost to the economy. The rise in domestic energy production has already shaved $175 billion off our annual import bill compared with five years ago, according to Yergin. Beyond the financial savings, the geopolitical dividends this yields are huge. Then there are jobs. Lowes (NYSE: L  ) CEO James Tisch says that every billion cubic feet per day of natural production gas generates between 7,000 and 10,000 new jobs. Yergin's firm, IHS, estimates 1.3 million energy-related jobs will be created in the next seven years.

Finally, households have been buried in unaffordable debt for the last five years. But they've been shedding the burden, both by defaulting on debt, and paying it down -- a so-called "deleveraging." Their progress has been nothing short of remarkable: As a percentage of disposable income, household debt payments are now at the lowest level since 1993.

A McKinsey & Co. report from January estimated households deleveraging could be complete by the middle of next year. It may already be over. Total household debt has stopped declining, and is now roughly flat year over year.

When the deleveraging ends, households will have more flexibility to buy a new car, take a vacation, or repair a roof -- things they've probably been putting off for years. Most importantly, they'll be able to do it in a safe, sustainable way that doesn't involve piling on debt beyond their ability to repay. Household deleveraging has likely been the single biggest weight on the economy in recent years. The tailwind that comes from its completion shouldn't be underestimated.

Anything can happen going forward -- recessions, banking collapses, wars, you name it. But we are in a nearly opposite position compared with five years ago. Back then, the economic reality was much bleaker than perception. Today, I have a feeling it's the other way around.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics. 

More Expert Advice from The Motley Fool
Energy investors would be hard-pressed to find another company trading at a deeper discount than Chesapeake Energy. Its share price depreciated after negative news surfaced concerning the company's management and spiraling debt picture. While these issues still persist, giant steps have been taken to help mitigate the problems. To learn more about Chesapeake and its enormous potential, you're invited to check out The Motley Fool's brand new premium report on the company. Simply click here now to access your copy, and as an added bonus, you'll receive a full year of key updates and expert guidance as news continues to develop.

Jeff Fischer and team have demystified options. And they can rack up income like $1,030... $2,626... and $3,228 on a schedule you can set your watch by!
That's why we're glad to announce every single one of their closely guarded strategies is available to YOU during May and June – 100% FREE, no strings attached! Just enter your email address in the box below...


Read/Post Comments (133) | Recommend This Article (271)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 10:11 AM, MNGPHR wrote:

    In the late 90's we thought the federal debt would be eliminated. I also remember reading articles of DOW 20,000. If everyone is scared now I won't be. I hope people continue being scared for another year or two let me keep buying everything on sale

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 11:53 AM, capitalista wrote:

    I hope you are right!

    http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/

    It was annouced today that Career Education Cuts 900 workers closes 23 campuses. Twenty companies have made major cuts, closings, and layoffs post the election this week. After seasonal employment, could January's number be down again?

    The short-term does not look that rosey, but I would LOVE to be wrong on this.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:06 PM, CluckChicken wrote:

    Very nice. One thing I wonder is if Americans will keep this debt management as the new normal debt treatment or if the next good sign will bring back old habits? Obviously returning to greater debt holdings would quicken any economic growth.

    1 thing I am sure of is that once this hits the more visible section of the home page there will be a LOT of comments about how none of this will happen because Obama will bring about the end of days.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:33 PM, PoliticalGravtas wrote:

    Let me guess. Everyone still drinking the Keynesian hair of the dog?

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:36 PM, dm88 wrote:

    Oh man, this will never happen 'cause Obama is going to bring about the end of days!

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:49 PM, savant55 wrote:

    Apparently this author never goes to the grocery store. Our dollar is rapidly becoming worthless as everything we need is inflated beyond belief. And, if indeed, our duly elected president is able to make the wealthy (major employers) pay even more taxes, unemployment will be reach a catastropic percent.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:49 PM, dabyrdman wrote:

    Well, he did say within the next five years, and presidential terms do only last four years, so there is still a chance for this to be correct!

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Darwood11 wrote:

    It seems household debt was transferred to the federal government.

    Yes, there will probably be more jobs, How many will go unfilled, like the 10,000 windpower technicians we need, the 600,000 in manufacturing, and so on?

    Yes, the future looks rosy if you have certain skills, or if you are older and live in a home with no mortgage, or are retired with a nice nest egg invested. At this point, retirees will probably see better returns from their savings as interest rates are possibly at the bottom.

    Or can it get worse? Well, taxes will go up, some city and state governments will really struggle and will continue to underfund public pensions. When that pension funding bubble implodes, I don't think it will be rosy. I don't know quite when that will happen, but with aging public workers, there is a predictable time horizon, and it will be less than a decade. That's my 2 cents.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 5:20 PM, larrysd1 wrote:

    It's definitely food for thought.Thanks for the article

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 7:40 PM, mark516119966 wrote:

    Good one DM88. LOL

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Jescal7 wrote:

    Nice article.

    Lowe's....At first I thought you were quoting the CEO of Lowe's Home Improvement...

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Eerkes wrote:

    Boom = better than the last 5 years? If the last 5 years has been in the bottom 10% of overall 5 year periods, then I would expect the next 5 would fall somewhere in the other 90% as well. That doesn't mean it will be great, though, but it could be.

    Probably will be good for those who have good-paying jobs all ready, a lot of money, or in-demand skills.

    Will the next 5 years create an economy that pulls people up from the bottom of the economic food chain? I doubt it. Believe it or not, we are due for another recession in the next 5 years. I mean, how often does this country go 10 years without a recession? I wont pretend to know what is going to cause it, but there are always things lurking beneath the economy's skin, and we are only an oil spike away from seeing what they are.

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 11:50 PM, Spw225 wrote:

    I appreciate the optimism, but high unemployment seems permanent. EPA is attacking fracking with new regs, as well as coal, so with added international demand, energy costs will likely trend higher as they have in the last 5 years. Chu said he wants gas at Europe rates. Hopefully energy could be a catalyst for jobs, but EPA?? New housing starts are not supported by new jobs. A lot of housing activity is investors looking for rental properties. People who could afford to refi or buy already have. Adult kids will live at home until their 30's. Obamacare 1/6 of economy will be of post office or DMV quality and in 2014 the full bill(costs) comes due. Health care costs, taxes will be higher and business creation will be more difficult. Cheasapeake, with its CEO as an example? Maybe citizens are deleveraging, but not govt. Govt pensions, 21 trillion in debt by 2016, with fed interest payments of at least $328 billion a year. Europe still not resolved. Dollar continues to depreciate. No presidential leadership. Better than last 5 years OK. "The coming boom"?? Really?? Within 5 years? It could be worse, you could live in California.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:55 AM, Windsurfing1 wrote:

    Dear Morgan,

    thanks for the excellent article. I am certain, you will be right, the world economy will boom. i believe, however, the biggest push will come from twonother factors: domestic Asian demand. Everybody spoke about it years ago, but only now their spending will start to impact the world economy. the second driver: innovation, based on products and services linked to all the high end mobile devices.

    well, let's see.

    Cheers, Carl

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:57 AM, kahunacfa wrote:

    The McKinsie Report is WRONG -- simple as that. Consumers this time are really, really serious about deleveraging and paying-off debt, NOT just paying-down debt. That almost all Credit card rates exceed 12% in this low interest rate environment is just ample testimony to the EVILness of Banks and Credit card companies. At MOST credit card interest rates should be 7% to 9% NOT 18% to 39.5%.

    Banks and Credit card companies are EVIL and Blood suckers. Consumers have learned that and now prefer to pay CASH for their purchases. Consumer deleveraging to almost completely eliminate credit card debt will take at least until 2014 or 2016. From now to 2015 or 2016 the intelligent consumer will be on a cash only basis.

    Kahuna, CFA

    Investment Professional

    1974 - Present

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:38 AM, TerryHogan wrote:

    Hey Morgan,

    I'm a numbers guy so I always like your articles.

    But help me out a bit (I didn't say I was a smart guy). If from 2002-2007 there were about 700,000 'surplus' homes built every year, that's somewhere around 4 million extra homes. If demand is now exceeding supply by 400k a year, couldn't there easily be 10 more years of a flat housing market? Or 10 more years of the same level of housing construction without really creating constraining supply?

    Thanks

    Terry Hogan, CFL (fan)

    Investment Amateur

    1998 - Present

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:57 AM, NathanOB wrote:

    This is a joke right? First time on this site called fool, it has to be a joke. Maybe this collective your talking about has moved towards Austrian Economics because its the only school that sees a bubble and collapse before they happen. Anyways, Im probably a fool for posting here as well, good night.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 6:14 AM, BiotechMarc wrote:

    This is basically a reversion to the mean argument, where deviation from the expected rate results in built up pressure to revert to the expected or even overshoot. It lacks a better 's understanding of random behavior and its role in markets, but as decent a theory as any. However, doesn't it mean that the coming boom in France, say, will blow us all away? How long has it been building there? Sometimes there are structural changes in an economy; look at the change in overall growth rate as the last century progresses and remember that the reduction from the earloy 20th century did not come at an even rate. Anyway, using a randomness argument as well, each day we roll the dice to see if there will be a new recession. How many times do we roll before snake eyes come up? If it occurs sooner rather than later, a drop from our current baseline could be catastrophic indeed.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 7:15 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    TerryHogan,

    Construction has been far below demand for years, which has eaten up excess inventory. Housing supply is now at the lowest level since 2005.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSACSR

    I should note: It's not just a theory that home construction will rise. It's already up 35% in the last year.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 7:17 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<This is basically a reversion to the mean argument>>

    No, it's not. Fracking has nothing to do with reversion to the mean.

    <,However, doesn't it mean that the coming boom in France, say, will blow us all away?>>

    I don't know. Is France in the early stages of an energy boom and building have as many homes as household formation?

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 10:34 AM, JediGALT wrote:

    Good job TMF,. Keep the yuppies in the stock market.

    "Strong buy!!!" "Buy!!!" with cute graphs and pictures.

    What happened to the TMF flock in 1998? What happened to them during the dot-com bust? What happened to them in 2008?

    The funny part is when there's a bust. The sheeple congratulate themselves for "selling for a tax-loss".

    When the sheeple started on TMF, they thought they'd retire at age 65.

    Not gonna happen now.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 10:53 AM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    That boom noise may be the sound of an implosion.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 11:10 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "TMFMorgan wrote:

    TerryHogan,

    Construction has been far below demand for years, which has eaten up excess inventory. Housing supply is now at the lowest level since 2005.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSACSR

    I should note: It's not just a theory that home construction will rise. It's already up 35% in the last year."

    It's true that supply is down, but the vacancy rate is still very high, and this will continue to put downward pressure on housing prices. I would say that this supports TerryHogan's argument:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cGc

    The difference is that the "monthly supply" graph that you showed only includes houses currently listed for sale. The vacancy rate accounts for all houses.

    My conclusion is that banks have a large inventory of empty, foreclosed houses that are not currently listed for sale (but could be in the future).

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    ETF,

    The vacancy chart you included only goes through Jan. 2011. It's since plunged. Vacancy is now at the lowest level since 2004:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ryjK9eZ5gak/UJBDIyqgFmI/AAAAAAAAUK...

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:08 PM, savant55 wrote:

    "A major coal company announced more than 160 layoffs across three subsidiaries this week, becoming perhaps the first company to follow through on threats to make cutbacks in the event of a second President Obama term."

    This is just the beginning folks. Mr. Obama wants to put everyone on level ground by taxing the wealthy employers. Perhaps we should all take a look at the ground then because unemployment is going to skyrocket.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:08 PM, NolesSF wrote:

    You're right Morgan housing will probably continue to grow because the Fed continues to print money so banks can lend it out dirt cheap and potentially cause another housing bubble. Also, your prediction might be right and stock market prices may rise but it will be due to inflation and the chances of those prices to come crashing down in the future is alarming right now with Bernanke running the show.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:11 PM, sigiam wrote:

    I was interested most in the trend of consumer debt deleveraging. In my opinion this is an unintended consequence of the Federal Reserves recent money policy. The goal of QE1 and QE2 along with the continuation of unsustainably low interest rates, was to provide cheap money and stimulate consumer spending. The unintended consequence is that consumer confidence is still in the gutter along with savings rates so consumers have no faith in spending their money and no incentive in saving it, so they do the only other thing that makes sense, they pay down their debt.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:17 PM, ETFsRule wrote:

    Good catch Morgan. I wonder why FRED only updates their vacancy rate on a yearly basis - very weird.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:21 PM, oxboro wrote:

    Yes while consumers "deleveraged" the USA gov't took on the debt with a 8 "TRILLION DOLLAR" increase in the 4 years, hardly a balance.

    With foreclosure and debt forgiveness "FICO" scores are at all time lows just while banks raised the requirements to borrow, so people can't get credit.

    Stop fooling yourself about interest rates at all time lows as well, if you don't qualify you can't get it.

    Four more years at the same gridlock in Washington. There is no incentive to put capital at risk to create jobs when you only have to pay higher taxes, HIGHER RISK AND LOWER RETURNS.----NO WAY....

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:22 PM, grantrobertb wrote:

    I think the future holds great opportunity, and eventually we will see a long sustained period of growth. BUT, if we are looking at 5 more years of de-leveraging, I guess we will also look at an additional period of time where families work to save -- both in retirement savings, and savings devoted to paying for goods and services. Also, let us not forget that jobs of today and jobs of tomorrow tend to have lower and flatter wages. I am still an optimist, but I think we are not look at a BOOM period. I am thinking 7-10 years before we regain our confidence -- just a hunch.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Teaforme wrote:

    An interesting article --- and I would love to believe it. But there is no direct mention of the looming threat of inflation if the FED's easy money ever gets into circulation..

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 12:33 PM, mountain8 wrote:

    Dear Nathan,

    If you judge all of Motley Fool by one article, you are indeed a fool.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Dtwoolley wrote:

    With Barrack Obama as the President, with the EPA, with Obama Care, and with higher taxes, this argument is a pipedream. Any extra money that households have will be taken in taxes and health care, and energy production is going to come to a standstill with this administration, not even considering the increase in unemployment, which is going to skyrocket. Big Companies are going to hunker down even more, I am afraid.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:04 PM, 1pOwedyank wrote:

    I don't even know where to start. Thanks to fracking? Very questionable practice in the eyes of this conservative. Deleveraging? So we are getting back to where we really need to be with our personal finances but now have the opportunity to run debt back up be cause we got it under control? The government is going to suck any extra that there might have been out of the private sector with their wild spending.

    I also love the overstated growth due to the previous crash. It's like talking about a baseball players batting average for the entire season based on the first 2 or 3 games in April. An observation of potential is a possibility of what might happen in the future otherwise known as a prediction. I'm all for an optimistic outlook, but the basis should be a little more sound.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:08 PM, 48ozhalfgallons wrote:

    Taxes on my modest paid-off house are now greater than the total house payment which included principle, interest and insurance. Income has only doubled since the mortgage was taken.

    Local taxes are now inflating faster than medical or education costs. How can an underemployed private sector support a horde of $150,000/year bureaucrats and their pensions following 25 years of "service"?

    I suppose that these will be the recipients of the coming "boom". I inhabit a region 70% fueled by public money. The bond issues always pass. Public buildings are remodeled every five years. Bike paths cost as much as freeways did 30 years ago.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:15 PM, gene132 wrote:

    Well, it is true-things have been depressed for so long, there might be a little bounce. But consider this: as the huge costs and taxes for "Obamacare" become known, employers are laying off people in record numbers-Boston Scientific -250, Medtronic-750..etc. Face it, the government is now consuming over 40% of GNP-without providing any return. Money has been wasted on "green Energy", electric cars, windmills-all of which are worthless now. Instead of stimulating consumer demand, we are left with a pilke of debt.

    Count me skeptical-but yes,even a dead cat bounces.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Sotograndeman wrote:

    A decent article which touches briefly on important topics.

    But the rationale on housing and household formations is merely parroting Buffett and on energy parroting various informed people like Wilbur Ross etc.

    Having listened to these truly informed individuals over the past year or or so, this current article has a real feeling of "deja vu all over again" as Yogi Berra liked to say.

    No harm done but certainly nothing new added.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:37 PM, thedoge wrote:

    Shame on you, Morgan, for contradicting the apocalyptic narrative inside the right-wing bubble. They really hate that; look at how much vitriol they threw at Nate Silver.

    The reduction in household debt is good news and the construction boom is a simple matter of supply and demand. There was a small baby boom in the 1980s, so it's not surprising that once those kids grew up they needed a place to live. We're seeing it here in our urban neighborhood with building that had been on the market for a long time suddenly getting sold and rehabbed.

    I'm more cautious about fracking. It consumes huge amounts of water, a natural resource which was already becoming more expensive for a variet of reasons. That's something that needs to be factored in to any estimate of that technology's cost. Ditto the cost of equipment to make sure it doesn't release massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which is the last thing we need right now.

    Still, I agree that the fundamentals look hopeful. As usual, those of us will well balanced portfolios should do fine.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 1:43 PM, rulesmonkey wrote:

    I wish people wouldn't post optimistic articles like this one. Bull markets need a great deal of pessimism to get going. I believe this is called 'the wall of worry'. So to all you bears who go on and on about how we can write this country off because your guy didn't win the election, please keep it up. Oh and also dump your equities and start hoarding gold. And short energy, especially alternative energy.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 2:43 PM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    On November 10, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Dtwoolley wrote:

    "With Barrack Obama as the President, with the EPA, with Obama Care, and with higher taxes, this argument is a pipedream."

    How can this be?

    The thousands of small business owners that make over $250,000 per year are not going to layoff any people. They are going to pay for OBama Care and just make less money. They are also, going to be happy to pay the increased income tax rate.

    Fasten your seat belts for a great economic "ride".

    It's a good thing we are opening up our borders for more immigrants, as well. Otherwise, we will have too many jobs available and not enough people to fill them.

    If it doesn't work out this way it will still be "Bush's Fault".

    Morgan, please pass me some of that Kool-Aid you are drinking.

    I want to "Believe". I really do.

    Sky

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 3:19 PM, t0mmyBerg wrote:

    Sounds good but there is the little issue of the national debt. So either Reinhart and Rogoff are wrong or there will be no boom. Given that Maobama won/stole the election, the contribution of energy will be crimped. Or maybe Krugman is right and the federal debt does not matter? Taking the debt off the private balance sheets and on to the public one is a good idea? Moral Hazard be damned? Hmm, I think that has been tried before and led to a hyperinflationary holocaust. No I think deleveraging will take its toll.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, maiday2000 wrote:

    This article is sarcasm, right??? I have never seen an article discuss so many potential minor positives while completely glossing over the mountain of negatives. The MF has truly hit rock bottom.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 3:24 PM, jfrankh57 wrote:

    While you may be right that we are on the cusp of a boom, did you factor in the current White House resident's war on cheap/conventional energy? If he continues (which is likely since his admin has moved ahead with plans to exempt 1.5M acres/?/ in federal lands for development.) his war on that venue? why do idiots not take this person at his own words? He even promised to raise electricity rates to levels unimagined 20 years ago. The majority of people in New York, California, Florida. Virginia, Ohio, New England some other Democratic strongholds are myoptic when it dome to this person and are blind to the future except what apparently is spoonfed to them by NBC, CBS, MSNBS and CNN...It is always the conservatives' collective fault if you blindly follow many of their pundits.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 3:29 PM, RichKenn wrote:

    Yes, but , did you take into account that the baby boomers have completed their acquisition phase and are going into retirement now? Surely, demographics plays a major roll.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 4:11 PM, MotleyBuffoon wrote:

    1. China crashing.

    2. Europe staying crashed.

    You might want to expand your prediction to "within 10 years"...

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 4:32 PM, jgneuw wrote:

    OK, so let's us assume that the U.S. Dollar is no longer the world reserve currency. And, we accept the word of oBAMA THAT HE IS GOING TO PUT THE COAL INDUSTRY OUT OF BUSINESS AND TAX OIL AND GAS COMPANIES TO THE HILT. Who cares about the housing market ---- the econ does not run solely on the housing market. Imported oil will not be purchased with U.S.D. The price of imported food which we all eat in the Winter will be purchased on an exchange rate dictated by other countries. EPA will accept U.N. mandates on carbon credits by airlines and trucking.

    The cheapest thing on the market is a "FOOL SERVICES" membership. Optimism at a bargain basement price.

    I love it! ----- JGN

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 4:52 PM, hairz wrote:

    Re: Demographics plays a major roll. Most baby boomers had 2 kids. If I had to guess I`d expect that to buffer some of the baby boomers exiting .My kids and their friends are very interested in the stock market.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 5:12 PM, xetn wrote:

    Ok, got it. We just spend and borrow our way to riches. Sounds kind of familiar. Oh yeah, Keynesianism.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Tomohawk52 wrote:

    There are many things about this article I don't understand but foremost is this:

    "Finally, households have been buried in unaffordable debt for the last five years. But they've been shedding the burden, both by defaulting on debt, and paying it down -- a so-called "deleveraging." Their progress has been nothing short of remarkable: As a percentage of disposable income, household debt payments are now at the lowest level since 1993."

    My understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that much of this is because people just defaulted on their obligations. If this is the sort of thing that is good news, why doesn't the government just tell people to buy all sorts of things then just not pay for them? Over time, they will get a clean credit score and can repeat the process.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 5:48 PM, shartuga wrote:

    My prediction is that there is a strong chance of a boom simply because the real purchasing power of our currency will have dropped more relative to the value of the underlying businesses we own. And don't forget these inflationary "gains" will be taxed as if they are a real gain in value and add to the loss. As several have pointed out, the war on energy production just by itself makes a real boom economy or even recovery unlikely. If that is what you wanted then you should have picked the other guy.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 6:44 PM, jgneuw wrote:

    Hairz, your kids and their friends are going to have their 401k's nationalized by the government. ---- JG

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 6:47 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<If this is the sort of thing that is good news, why doesn't the government just tell people to buy all sorts of things then just not pay for them?>>

    For the same reason the government doesn't recommend healthy people go out and get chemotherapy.

    Default is desirable when it's the least bad option. Like chemotherapy, it isn't good or fun or pleasurable. But it's totally necessary when you're facing something awful -- like cancer, or the aftermath of a lending bubble.

    People were given trillions of dollars of loans they stood no chance of ever repaying. That's the reality.There is no option other than default. And the faster this is acknowledged by both banks and consumers the better.

    Japan spent the better of 20 years pretending its own lending bubble didn't happen. Its banks just kept extending, extending, extending terms on loans to borrowers who could never repay them. That (among other things) has led its economy to relative stagnation.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 7:08 PM, damilkman wrote:

    Greetings. There is one item the author forgot which is the federal government cannot afford the coming boom. If there is a boom there will have to be a normalizing of interest rates. This will mean that regardless of how much additional revenue the federal government will collect, the expenses to service the debt will eat it up and then some. The new health care obligations will add even a greater load to the total debt.

    On a side note I asked a family member in the buisness if she thought home prices would stabilize. Her opinion was that banks are sitting on a lot of homes they could foreclose on but choose not to. It is in there interest for a tenant to stay in the home and keep it up to some extent then to actually foreclose them out. If banks felt it was in their interest to act a lot more homes would suddenly become available.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 7:57 PM, hudsondusters wrote:

    Kahuna, I roll over cc debt every year and pay 1-3% fee, 0% interest. That won't last forever, of course. People that actually need it pay more, of course. I am surprised you are a CFA.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Tomohawk52 wrote:

    Thank you Mr. Housel for your reply. I don't mean to be obtuse, but I have a problem with this:

    "People were given trillions of dollars of loans they stood no chance of ever repaying. That's the reality.There is no option other than default. And the faster this is acknowledged by both banks and consumers the better."

    The banks didn't put a gun to people's heads and make them take the money. If you let people walk away from such obligations you run the risk of them doing it again and again. I don't understand how people who were foolish with their finances being allowed to start over again is a positive thing. Doesn't it seem likely that someone who over-extended themselves are going to do it again?

    I worry about this because up here in Canada we have all the earmarks of the same housing bubble you had back in 2006. People are perfectly happy to buy over-inflated houses, watch them appreciate far in excess of anything rational, then sell them to the next fool who comes along.

    It seems to me it is just like the banks themselves: privatize their gains but have the taxpayer eat their losses, no?

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 11:29 PM, LarryBright29 wrote:

    Ever since the Presidential election was decided, the focus on the "Fiscal Cliff" has increased.nother credit rating downgrade.

    Post election direction: Will it be North or South?

    Good article on the issue published on Seeking Alpha:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/991521-s-p-500-forecast-post...

    Good Luck to all of US!

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 12:31 AM, PublicChoice wrote:

    One, I hope every word of the Morgan is true we are on the cusp of a new 1980s-90s, 1950s-60s. It seems to me that these are minor side shows that Morgan posits. What is the larger process that will be driving the economy. In the 1980 we finally transition to a successful post-manufacturing economy, then the convergence of communication with the internet in the 90's. It was not easy and many point to income inequality and wealth disparities. My question is: I do not see even a inkling of the next stage of American capitalism except more of the same. In my lowly opinion, what ever pent up consumer demand and upside of the business cycle is going to counter by a federal government trying to figure out health care and baby boomers. The debt may be manageable in the short term but only in the context of growth and low interest rate. Think about this, could we have afforded the deficit and debt with 1980 % rates?

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 2:05 AM, TerryHogan wrote:

    @TMFMorgan & @ETFsRule

    Thanks for the research and quick responses.

    @RichKenn & @Hairz

    Here are some interesting graphs:

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution

    2050's graph is like a horror movie starring Estelle Getty.

    If you plan on being alive in 2050, you should contact your representative in Washington right now about immigration and/or euthanasia policies.

    And yes I do think demographics has something to do with all of this, but with the world's largest economy (Forget PPP it's baloney cause superyachts are priced globally) and very open capital markets I wouldn't base my predictions for the NASDAQ or S&P solely on US demographics. Although because of the boomers I'm still not sold on single family housing as an investment, but I also thought APPL was overpriced around $195. Think Buffett is pretty keen on housing right now as well, but why would you take that guy's opinion over mine?!

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 5:52 AM, petrogold wrote:

    What amount of money supply created? Inflation will be very high...if not controlled citizens will see their buying power erroded,curency value diminished, high costs of living.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 7:00 AM, hudsondusters wrote:

    @TerryHogan, seems like a tight labor market in 2050, especially for elder care nurses.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 7:13 AM, TopAustrianFool wrote:

    "After five years of collapse and stagnation, we could be on the cusp of a new economic boom."

    So Mr. Morgan, you admit finally as much. Albeit after the election, but hey...

    Unfortunaltelly, the policies will be the same. So will you admit the same about the next 4 years? Your article says you won't. At least not before next election.

    Regardless of what you think and do, intellectual dishonesty is not a virtue.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 9:20 AM, rpguy4 wrote:
  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 10:38 AM, nolanl66 wrote:

    Boom or Bust, like you started out who knows what is next. Then next was could be, I am going to help you out. We will have more taxes, more regulations, more people on goverment jobs. The majority will not hold a job and wait on check in mail. Then school kids that get out of schools will live with someone and have babies on Obama care. The debit will continue to grow, then raise debit ceiling and lower credit rating. EPA will finish Cap and Trade, Muslin brotherhood will run justice depatment and several wars will continue around the world. The recession will come, states will beg for help and you will hope to break even after next year. Merry Christmas

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 11:19 AM, seattle1115 wrote:

    I used to get frustrated and angry about all the Austrian School whackjobs, quasi-survivalist nutbars, and pants-wetting sky-is-falling paleocons that come here and predict gloom and doom just because of the pragmatic centrist in the White House. Now, I just look forward to taking their money. God article, Morgan.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 11:20 AM, seattle1115 wrote:

    *Good, not God.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 4:50 PM, ETFsRule wrote:

    ^^^

    Well said.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 4:57 PM, burrowsx wrote:

    You seem to have forgotten recent history. As the oceans rise, and storms become both more frequent and more violent, there will be a mass migration inland from both coasts -- and perhaps also from the shores of the Great Lakes. I bet Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are already investing in firms to handle the migration, since they are doing their best to cause it, and since their inland communities stand to gain the most from the population flux. Mitt Romney, of course, will be too busy playing with his car elevators, and helping with the grooming of his dressage horse.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 4:58 PM, oberta wrote:

    Very nice report. Concerning energy supply we should consider beside gas-and wind- also solar-energy.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 5:12 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    -----------> I used to get frustrated and angry about all the Austrian School whackjobs, quasi-survivalist nutbars, and pants-wetting sky-is-falling paleocons that come here and predict gloom and doom just because of the pragmatic centrist in the White House. Now, I just look forward to taking their money. God article, Morgan. <--------------

    Hahahhahahahahah!!!!!

    Yeah those doom-and-gloomers really missed the boat, ya know, by predicting the rise of gold/silver and the fall of housing.

    I guess maybe we can give you SOME of your money back. We'll see. We're still up pretty big from zis last time we stick it in you :)

    But hey, if you want to be reasonable, you note that it was Austrian School economists Robert Wenzel and Frank Shostak who predicted the stock market rally in 2009-2010.

    Note also, that the "centrist" mainstream nipple huggers like ETFsRule told everyone to stay OUT OF THE MARKET because they of their irrational fear of deflation.

    You gotta love it.

    You might get some of your money back from us, but judging by the record of "centrists" in predicting both doom and boom, I'd say you're a longshot.

    (Btw, I'll take the late-great "doom and gloomer" Harry Browne's investment record of any Fool analyst and all the State worshipping centrists you can offer.)

    Your move.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 6:10 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    hell yeah David, this has been bothering me all day long and I haven't had time to respond to idiots like seattle1115.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 6:33 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    pragmatic centrist?!!! that is comedy gold.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 6:35 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    NOTvuffett,

    Losers like seattle1115 have NOTHING. He knows zero about Austrian School theory, probably can't coherently explain a single AS concept.

    He can't attack our theories, due to his ignorance, so he must try to ad homenim us to death, hoping that others will see his screed and think "oh yeah, they're wackos so I can go back to sleep."

    It ain't working. We're kicking his centrist butt all over the investing and economic world.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 7:52 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    Just a thought: When anyone wrote in 2007 that things were looking really ugly, the comment section was filled with "Oooh, listen to chicken little!" and "Why are you so pessimistic? Buy buy buy!" Today it's the exact opposite. Anyone who suggests anything about optimism is met with giggles and mockery. Quite telling.

  • Report this Comment On November 11, 2012, at 8:19 PM, whereaminow wrote:

    ^^^ You write for your audience. Do a little digging beneath the surface and you might actually get higher quality comments.

    And I've been saying this to you since 2007.

    David in Liberty

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 2:12 AM, kahunacfa wrote:

    There really is little rational reason to believe that a boom will follow the last decade of little or no US Economic progress. The current period of artificially Federal Reserve low interest rates actually does great damage to the US Economy. It destroys the incentives for Consumers to save and artificially low interest rate that will eventually end causes business to be cautions about future investment returns -- hence businesses hoard cash rather than invest in additional capital and especially adding new capacity and additional workers to produce that additional output of products and services.

    Japan in the nineteen nineties experience a decade of low interest rates as well as low domestic economic growth. It is possible, but of course, not certain that the United States could experience similar results. -- There is certainly no real reason to expect a BOOM, just because of prior slow economic growth.

    Kahuna, CFA

    Investment Professional

    1974 - Present

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 8:03 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:
  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 9:01 AM, sgt1917 wrote:

    I want somea whatever Morgan Housel is havin!

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 9:04 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    ^ Just taking a big, long rip of facts, buddy.

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 10:25 AM, CluckChicken wrote:

    ^ I am sure you meant sip of facts because rip sounds like it comes from the wrong end

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Sotograndeman wrote:

    Jamie Dimon's take: "The economy can boom"

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgans-dimon-economy-boom-1...

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 1:35 PM, mckenzi4 wrote:

    *Loews

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 3:14 PM, ibuildthings wrote:

    Who will buy the newly constructed homes? Will they have real incomes, or will they be financed with the same shenanigans that led Fannie and Freddie to near destruction?

    Who will staff all those new hi-tech jobs? And how many CANT be exported? Installing solar panels? People make money with good jobs. Those jobs usually require big skills. We have to coerce children to do homework, because they think their $200 jeans and $500 smart phones are a right that will never be taken away.

    America has provided the best opportunities in history, and still does. But we aren't feeding the machine with educated people with big work ethics. Not like our parents did.

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 3:51 PM, ibuildthings wrote:

    However the new wave of energy production makes it cheaper to do some things here. That is always a stimulant. And after the crash, many people who did not have work ethics before may have them now. Its all in what you are accustomed to. If you grow up around money trees, you think money grows on trees. A downturn is an eye opener. If you grow up in tough times, you get tough and grab any opportunity to earn, assuming you aren't being fully subsidized. That, in my opinion is where the so-called "greatest generation" got their glory. They grew up in the Great Depression, than fought a war that involved a real threat to national survival. The survivors are/were really tough people.

    This last bout of trouble may have made some of those. The new good luck of cheap energy may be an enabler.

    Keep writing Morgan.

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 9:05 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    @ibuildthings

    You are on to something. But realize that the greatest generation took struggling families into their 950 sq ft homes and shared what they had. We have a different set of values now. We don't take care of others, we have our government take care of them. How is work ethic, character and responsibility forged? By paying taxes?

    We are selfish. Now 53% born to mothers under 30 are single (NY Times August 11,2012). Where are the fathers? How does this grow responsibility?

    We are under a different set of parameters. The past is no prediction of the future.

  • Report this Comment On November 12, 2012, at 9:07 PM, hbofbyu wrote:

    * Now 53% of births to mothers under 30 are to single mothers./ (NY Times August 11,2012).

  • Report this Comment On November 13, 2012, at 1:17 PM, veritasvincit wrote:

    Morgan,

    By the looks of many of the comments above, our untapped national resource is cynicism. I wonder if we can monetize it or export it!

    As you said above, take a long rip of facts. How true.

    There is little doubt that the U.S. economy will see wonderful days ahead, and that our nation and our citizens can prosper, if they so choose. We'll know it's time to sell again when your critics, such as those above, will begin chirping "buy! buy!"

    Thank you for your articles, and for pointing to facts.

    veritas vincit

  • Report this Comment On November 14, 2012, at 8:52 AM, 1pOwedyank wrote:

    Where are the 99% when you need them to get the economy moving?

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM, ajmihalic4 wrote:

    How can defaulting on debts create wealth? That's the same "idea" that printing money creates wealth. De-leveraging means stealing from those who made it possible, because the workers who built those houses got paid with somebody's money.

    Even if the market itself were freed enough to begin to flourish, the country's economy is still doomed to failure due to governments policies. There is no plan to balance deficits, let alone reverse the total debt, but indeed everytime more money is collected it is allocated to be spent, rather than pay back debts and pay for other needs.

    Clearly there is a fundamental lack of understanding required to write this, but an even more amazing emotional leap to accept this without considering what is being suggested. This is clearly saying that borrowing money and not paying it back allows you to create economic booms. Spending someone else's money with no intent to pay it back and no consideration for what else that money could have been used for (i.e. consequences) does not an economy make.

    It's so obvious I feel stupid for writing it.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:18 AM, ajmihalic4 wrote:

    Haha....Good point 1pOwedyank. Why don't those 99% just start boosting the economy already?

    Let's face it they are. The small business men who do it anyway, the big businessmen who operate on principle. They are the ones paying for it all.

    The US economy is scarily like it was in Atlas Shrugged, only the government is more corrupt and the amount the productive people are willing to accept is even more extreme.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:34 AM, JobsJobsJobs wrote:

    We can't continue to buy what the rest of the world makes, outsource jobs and in-source immigrants, and allow the concentration of wealth to funnel to multi-millionaires while a majority of the population is in poverty. People cannot afford houses, taxes, medical costs.... If we simply started making what we consume, and if we lost the recipe ensure for what we import we export the equivalent($'s and jobs) then EVERYTHING would take care of itself....

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:37 AM, hroen wrote:

    Though no one can predict with certainty what the economy will do in the next 5 years, I agree that the scenario this article lays out is extremely plausible. I would add that as long as the U.S. remains in an ultra-low interest rate environment, as I believe it will over the next two years at least, the economy, and thus the stock market, will continue on its upward swing.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:42 AM, nancydog wrote:

    This economy was produced by "trickle down-Ayn Rand" adherents. They are now crying Wolf and predicting calamity. I am almost fully invested,and the more disposable income I accumulate, the more I'm going to invest. I have been a long-term investor since 1959 when I invested my first $95.00. In the long term, some of the companies may have gone bankrupt, but the majority of my holdings have more than made up for it. I expect that, ten years from now, the Dow will probably be between 19 and 25 thousand, and the NASDQ over 10 thousand. I'll probably be dead, but my children and grandchildren will be smiling, regardless of taxes, or economic conditions.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 12:34 PM, bikrmitch wrote:

    This is NO time to be a stock picker! CHK has been on my own radar but I will like it far more as its testing levels far closer to its panic lows. The EU pain of "austerity" is the headwinds for the same pain, anger, and violence in the streets of the USA! We are on the CUSP of a major war in the mideast, as troops are gathering on borders; China's new leadership may not be at all friendly to their new found communist controlled capitalism. The EU will NOT survive their own austerity, and in America, their is a class war beginning that has NOT ended with the re-election of Obama. We remain within a secular BEAR MARKET that is guided from every dark corner of the world's anger. Higher highs may come eventually, but NOT before we see many lower lows!

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 12:41 PM, PoorerThanU wrote:

    Morgan, you talk about structural shifts in economies like Japan. Have you looked at the USA's? We are graying. The boomers did not have more children; they replaced themselves, i.e. 2.2 kids. This country is in a structural shift and it will take faaaar longer to overcome than many think. Idiots may blame it on Obama (chill out, I hate him too) but the truth is America is entering a different phase. Actually, we are repeating the 30's and early 40's...it's not different!

    We are in for a decade of go nowhere, up and down, results. Invest accordingly. Look for a prolonged boom (a REAL one) starting 2020-25. Many companies will thrive during the next few years (just like the 30's). This is a time for stock picking or a very long time horizon with WDDG stocks, whichever suits your personality the best. This is NOT the time for passive index investing!

    Oh, and Morgan, comparing to a *horrible* baseline does not equal "boom" aftwerwards. Ask someone who lost 90% then had their stock double....you are still waaaay behind.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 12:55 PM, yooperking wrote:

    There's two reasons your prediction won't happen, Morgan; Obama, and his Democrat controlled Senate.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 1:01 PM, geecheegirl wrote:

    No...I absolutely disagree. For things to be all rosey, society would have had to genuinely changed their ways. I see the opposite....all around me....every day. Today's society is not willing to STOP LIVING ABOVE THEIR MEANS!!! And that is the key to it all. Don't blame the "nasty, evil, bloodsucking credit card companies". Until today's society looks in the mirror and wakes up to reality, and takes full responsibility, nothing will change. And today's society is not willing to do what it takes. They do not understand the concept of living within one's means. They don't want to make wiser decisions or set rational priorities. You can sugarcoat this economy all you want. Won't change a thing. It is what it is. I prefer "realists" over optimists any day. OVER-optimism plays a role in things, too. More people need to become realists and face the facts....often confused with pessimism, but not the same at all.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 1:31 PM, donerightray wrote:

    I simply believe its "Foolish" in the literal sense to try and predict the short term based on the past when so much has changed around us in this country. We no longer are the seat of manufacturing and economic prosperity as a result. Our popluation has not as a whole transformed itself into a new working order that can fit in the global economy. They are too far behind. Our population's education and will are not improved accordingly and as a result our lower skilled are without jobs, wishing that the guys and gals in DC can "create" these jobs(a fool's folly). The world moves these types of jobs to someone else lower down the "food chain" so to speak. More than just a generation will pay the price for this obsolescence .. Its a real problem. I guess all that hope and dreaming will need a little more time now ...right?

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 1:46 PM, 8207 wrote:

    All right, I am confused. Is it the 'http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/31/3-facts-abo... three facts or this article 'The coming Boom' which holds more sway? This reminds me of a quote attributed to Harry Truman. It was something about a one armed economist. None of that "on one hand, we will see...etc". By the way Morgan, you do a great job of making a lot of complicated concepts readable. Thank you for that.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 2:05 PM, jmnmlm wrote:

    Some people always see the bright side, and 200 years of American history has borne that out, but today we are on a different road than what America ever went down. We have had conservatives and we have had New Deal liberalism, we have had scandals, we have had disasters, but there was always a core of belief in the Almighty. Today America has chosen man over God, I think it will be a cold, dark, dangerous time for this country, at the very best, we will end up like France or England.....and they are surviving.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 2:17 PM, vebb wrote:

    I wish I had your optimism, but I don't feel that energy out in the world. Hope my take on this vibe is all wrong. I remain grateful.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, SkepikI wrote:

    Large economic displacements (not simple cyclical recessions) turn when value creation and efficiency replace destruction and waste. The historical references I see say the markets reflect/predict this with low P/Es and thundering herd lows. When I see these on horizon, I will start thinking about booms. Could it happen in the next 5 years? Yes, but not without a bunch of !****! before.

    My favorite statistic- 10,000 people a DAY turn 65 in the US, have for the past 2 years and will for another 10 or so. Pretty much that means tax support for 300,000 per month and job vacancies of about 150,000 -200,000 per month as people "retire" at some point. If we are still gaining unemployed and supposedly "adding" 100,000 or more jobs per month, I am not very optimistic. There is still a long way to go to shake out the waste.

    What is worse is that so many believe spending through government is the road to redemption. We have propped up so much waste that should have gone away, I believe we will have to pay heavily one more round. You might as well believe that taking in your taxes and setting the paper dollars afire will result in higher GDP.

    To have any reliable, lasting effect, expenditures by Government have to be USEFUL!!! Propping up an inefficient GM, investing in Scam Solyndra, Battery Companies and other counter productive things is worse than useless!!! it actually penalizes good effective competitors who should get the business and rewards crooks and scammers. If this goes on a few more years our business community will be populated by Bernie Madoffs because that's where the money goes....

    Sorry Morgan, but until THAT dynamic changes, I cant believe in any serious sea change in economic performances. A dive followed by a repeat of 2010-2012? Maybe. A boom in 4 or 6 years when the scams are out of the system, OK... A fundamental boom because we ate up the excesses and have mended our ways? Piffle...we have a lot more purgatory before that happens.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 4:35 PM, NoOracleHere wrote:

    Don't worry about unemployment caused by raising taxes on the wealthy. No wealthy person ever hired anybody because He got a tax break. Wealthy people only hire people because they have customers in their stores with money in their pockets. That's an imbalance that a capitalist just cannot stand, and they might even hire somebody if it can help right this wrong.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 4:39 PM, NoOracleHere wrote:

    Ok, sorry if that previous comment sounded snarky. Truth of the matter is that companies will only hire because they see economic opportunity in doing so. Companies today are flush with cash - but they aren't expanding without a compelling business argument for doing so. The business case always comes from a customer. So at that point, the tax question is not so much the focus.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 5:14 PM, NoOracleHere wrote:

    Nice article, btw. I usually focus on the balance of trade issues with imported energy, but there's also the ability to tax energy that's produced locally, something that's bound to help our federal deficits. Also, has anybody noticed the prices at the gas pumps? I don't think it was all Hurricane Sandy's doing to bring those down. To Terry Hogan, I'd offer that the housing thing was probably a steady state analysis. We may have some surplus inventory of houses from the last bubble, but I don't think we have to wait for the last excess house to be sold before the market can begin to uptick. I'm expecting a slow recovery there, however for reasons you mention.

    One final thing - there's been a lot of negativity lately about the so called fiscal cliff. Actually, I wish every decision made during the W.Bush years would expire, but I don't get my way, either. But I don't think capitalism is dead in America. We've turned other corners before, and weathered other storms. We've had higher tax rates before - look at the top tax rates through the decade of the 1960's, for instance, the decade we put a man on the moon. http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/04/14/top-marginal...

    So the so called fiscal cliff is really more of a foothill, and indeed may be a return to sanity.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 7:54 PM, funkyduane wrote:

    I love the gloom and doomsayers, and those looking to feel the vibe. Like others have pointed to, I love this economy and how it's gone for the past 4 years. I've gotten richer than I ever dreamed possible in this terrible economy. And, I am poised to get way richer thanks to Motley Fool and some very wise friends who told me to study Warren Buffet, and John Bogle and others if I wanted to be a successful investor.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 9:45 PM, johnmangun wrote:

    Housing? Analysis is cart before the horse. You could just as easily say that because luxury car production and sales is well below historic levels, then there should be a boom here. Further, the fact that home building is not keeping pace with population ignores the glut of unoccupied homes available for purchase. If there was going to be a housing boom, you would first have to eliminate the surplus of used homes. Mortgage lending is not growing even at the slightest. The fastest growing price component of US inflation is housing rental costs. The population/household formation issue is specious. These new households are not living on the street but neither are they buying houses.

    Consumer debt payments. So what? Does not address that overall consumer debt is growing again but only to pay for basic necessities. . Further, do we assume that once the debt is paid down, consumers have the mental capacity and financial wherewithal to build up debt levels to sustain consumer buying that moved the economy in the past? Not with 8% unemployment, continuing layoffs and decreasing hourly wages.

    The energy issue is the most interesting that I have not fully figured out. I see the possibility of a complex “rob Peter to pay Paul” on this one. Cheaper energy does give more disposable income to the average American. But with the huge government debt and deficit that shows no signs of decreasing anytime soon, does that increase in disposable go for purchases or increased taxes?

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 10:54 PM, CassandraSays wrote:

    (I'm not American.)

    I've been reading about the huge debt for donkey's years but I don't see it. The debt is what? $50,000 per head?

    That's not huge.

    Hundreds of millions are that much in debt on their home, their student loans, often their cars. Life, health, car and property insurance costs a fair % of $50,000 over time. It costs more than twice that to raise a kid.

    And those are debts with fewer options for varying payments or postponing the reckoning.

    $50,000 seems like a manageable figure to me.

  • Report this Comment On November 16, 2012, at 11:41 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    CassandraSays, before I say anything nasty, the USA is almost in the same place as Spain, Greece, Italy, etc.

    Let us approximate the population of the the USA at 330 million (it is a little less than that). The current debt it 16.2 is trillion, and soon to be 16.9 trillion.

    So what is 16.2X10^12/330X10^6. It ain't $50k.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 3:48 AM, stillEdInvests wrote:

    I found this article so refreshing after so many gloom and doom folks that apparently lost the election and therefore see no hope for the future. I too see a good four years ahead for your reasons and others. I hope the gloom and doom folks keep selling because it is making outstanding buying opportunities. I think the market will recover almost as fast as it fell this month because the dreaded cliff will not occur and we can get back to more fear over Europe that is not going to vanish from our business base regardless of their problems. The election also solved another problem in that the party of no now has no choice but the put the country over party. For those that want to blame the election on everything but fact, I am a white male in Texas,of substantial means, that favors a tax hike and voted for Obama for the right financial reasons. I know what got us in this mess and it wasn't due to this administration. It's time for everyone to get over it and treat this as the democracy that we are so proud of. Far too much fear, hate, and bigoty in the election aftermath.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 4:20 AM, stillEdInvests wrote:

    In response to not, we are nowhere close to the disasters in spain and greeceor most of the rest of the world either. Debt is usually measured against the annual GDP and we are, at about 150%, far ahead of almost everyone in the world except Australia. Japan is twice our ratio and rising faster....just started a QE stimulus. You have to look at unemployment, also. the above two countries you mention are at 25%, and have little hope on the horizon with an economy that is actually shrinking while ours is growing at a 2% rate or so and we have far greater potential to see that number go up by the end of next year. It took us years of the GOP spending, wars, tax cuts and lack of control of the banks with de-regulation to get us from almost retiring the nat debt to where we are today, and yes, I blame the debt over the last four years to the destruction of our economy before that term. Your are welcome to use your scientific notation on the years starting in the eighties and that was when the economy was thought to be healthy. We dug a long deep hole.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 4:54 AM, stillEdInvests wrote:

    Again to Not. If you are going to use scientific notation, at least know what you are doing.

    (16.7X10^12)/(3.3X10^8)=(5.06X10^4) or about 50,600 dollars per person.

    You owe Cassandra an appology.

    I hope your are not an engineering student, or heaven forbid, a degreed engineer.

    Your math is as bad as your "facts"

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 5:22 AM, kvatchik wrote:

    I'm glad I'm subscribed to Fool's newsletter, never would imagine such an article would hit the best of the week,

    with all the respect, it is just sillly, new energy will take multy-years for economy to adjust, lower USD means higher cost of living and ideas of reigniting another housing bubble just after it popped it is just really silly, housing market is not even bottomed, it is artificially held by QEs,

    and now it the reality,

    16tr of debt,

    1.1tr budget deficit,

    0.7tr trade deficit,

    wake-up ppl, http://www.usdebtclock.org/

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 5:38 AM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    lol, stillEdInvests, I was thinking about typical family incomes and the average number of wage earning people in those families. Or should we tell each child after they learn the basics of reading and math that they owe $50k to uncle Sam and it is growing every year?

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 10:24 AM, TheHappyRetiree wrote:

    I ran track in college. In every race you got an fair start. Your result was based upon your preparation and training. That principle holds true in investing. However today you get to the starting line and you have others who have been placed ahead of you for various reasons and you are given 10 extra lbs to carry. The outlook is cluttered. The sources of information have grown 10-fold, you do not know who to trust and we have reelected a president based upon amnesty, birth control, Big Bird and Fat Cats. It appears to me it is a different ball game. A boom hopefully but more like a pop if we are luck. To start a fire you need oxygen. I am happily in the race understanding it is new game full of misinformation.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 10:50 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "NOTvuffett wrote:

    lol, stillEdInvests, I was thinking about typical family incomes and the average number of wage earning people in those families. Or should we tell each child after they learn the basics of reading and math that they owe $50k to uncle Sam and it is growing every year?"

    You used 330M for the population of the United States in your own "calculations", and you didn't mention anything about discounting it by the number of children or the size of an average family.

    Your exact wording was:

    "So what is 16.2X10^12/330X10^6. It ain't $50k."

    So it appears that you were simply wrong.

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 4:06 PM, jfrankh57 wrote:

    TMF Morgan: Anything can happen going forward -- recessions, banking collapses, wars, you name it. But we are in a nearly opposite position compared with five years ago. Back then, the economic reality was much bleaker than perception. Today, I have a feeling it's the other way around...

    How can you feel this way when we have a government that is not friendly to any business except their cronies and the economy will be lackluster at best while this administration is controlling things?

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 4:15 PM, jfrankh57 wrote:

    On November 16, 2012, at 10:54 PM, CassandraSays wrote: ...Manageable debt...? On top of everything else responsible taxpayers are paying, the numbers neglect to cover those who are the payers...this number you quote covers the entire population and we already know more than half are on the dole and are not paying the costs...were that not true, the administration would have changed in 2012! That is like you as a non-citizen running up the old federal credit card then absconding in the night to leave us to pay for your largesse!

  • Report this Comment On November 17, 2012, at 8:58 PM, cooncreekcrawler wrote:

    Correct, correct, and correct. Let's see. 1, 2, and 3. Got it!

    But many have not. Thanks and keep hammering. Facts may still get through. Or not.

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 10:54 AM, oberta wrote:

    I am not so sure...I hope you are right!

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 6:57 PM, jsv614 wrote:

    I disagree with the premise that consumers are going to start spending again. The days where it generated 75% of our economy are done, for 2 reasons: (1) Americans of all ages are tired of buying and amassing possessions. The feeling is that it's time to simplify--to stop buying things they don't need. (2) This attitude is very prevalent among young people who have graduated in the past 7-8 years. They don't want to live like their Baby Boomer/Yuppie parents in McMansions filled to the brim with crap. Their time will be taken up NOT by going to the mall, but by growing their own vegetables, brewing their own beer, and managing their own small businesses. They have come to see that keeping up with the Joneses is futile.

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 7:11 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    <<I disagree with the premise that consumers are going to start spending again. >>

    Real (inflation-adjusted) consumer spending is at an all-time high.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PCECC96

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 7:26 PM, AvianFlu wrote:

    TMFMorgan:

    Consumer spending is only at an all time high if you accept the highly falsified hedonically adjusted official inflation numbers. When inflation adjusting using the more accurate federal methods from yesteryear the spending not only looks much less rosy, but also more accurately fits the average American's common experience.

    But if we right to the number of units sold per capita the grimness of the economy comes into clearer focus. For example, the average age for a car is running about 11 years right now. Just a few short years ago it was only 5 years. Clearly people are not spending money on new cars. Doesn't this suggest that consumer spending on new cars is not at "an all time high"?

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 7:41 PM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    ^

    Worth noting:

    "It is also important to emphasize that the BLS makes hedonic adjustments for declines, as well as improvements, in quality. The CPI price indexes for shelter include hedonic adjustments for the gradual aging of the rental housing units in the CPI sample, and those adjustments regularly increase the rate of change of the indexes by at least 0.2 percentage point per year. The hedonic adjustments in apparel have had both upward and downward impacts at different points in time and for different categories of clothing. As discussed in an article in the Monthly Labor Review, the BLS estimates that the hedonic quality adjustments introduced since 1998 have had an upward impact in five item categories and a downward impact in five. The overall impact of these newly introduced hedonic models has been quite modest and in an upward, not downward, direction. To be precise, the use of the models has increased the annual rate of change of the all-items CPI, but by only about 0.005 percent per year. It is clear, therefore, that those who maintain that the BLS uses hedonic adjustment to keep the measured rate of inflation in an acceptably low range are wrong about the impacts, as well as the motives, of BLS actions."

    http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/08/art1full.pdf

  • Report this Comment On November 18, 2012, at 11:56 PM, kirk802 wrote:

    Interesting article. I'd suggest you left out a factor. The EXPLOSION in molecular biology. The HGP produced huge returns, and this fall, the Encode project came to fruition. http://www.nature.com/encode/#/threads

    Text below is pasted from the article on ROI on the HGP:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The $3.8 billion the U.S. government invested in the Human Genome Project (HGP) from 1988 to 2003 helped drive $796 billion in economic impact and the generation of $244 billion in total personal income, according to a study released today by Battelle. In 2010 alone, the human genome sequencing projects and associated genomics research and industry activity directly and indirectly generated $67 billion in U.S. economic output and supported 310,000 jobs that produced $20 billion in personal income. The genomics-enabled industry also provided $3.7 billion in federal taxes during 2010.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 1:23 AM, ETFsRule wrote:

    "I disagree with the premise that consumers are going to start spending again. "

    That's a ridiculous statement. As Morgan correctly pointed out, consumer spending is at an all-time high. People are already spending again.

    "The days where it generated 75% of our economy are done"

    When was it 75% of our economy???

    Here is personal spending over GDP:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cWE

    Personal spending as a % of GDP is very close to its all-time high, and it is significantly higher than it was before the crash. The long-term upward trend has continued.

    This is why it is important to actually look at the facts before trying to perform "analysis".

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 10:47 AM, witsoul wrote:

    The growth in student debt nationally (it now exceeds the amount of consumer installment debt) seems to counter to the notion that a housing recovery based on new household formation is just around the corner. Unless the writer is factoring in a student debt amnesty program, which would be a drag on the larger banking/lending sector.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 10:51 AM, TMFMorgan wrote:

    ^ Believe it or not, most indebted students aren't homeless.

  • Report this Comment On November 19, 2012, at 2:12 PM, 48ozhalfgallons wrote:

    ^ Believe it or not, most indebted students aren't homeless.

    That's right! I just saw a bunch of 'em camped out at Best Buy.

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2012, at 3:06 PM, superbinvesting wrote:

    "Our collective record of predicting what the economy will do next is dreadful. Twelve years ago, few worried about terrorism, many worried about Y2K, and the thought of zero percent interest rates was preposterous. Not a single person knows what the future holds"

    That statement couldn't me more true. Even crystal balls have gotten the future wrong.

    ingeniousinvesting dot com

  • Report this Comment On November 20, 2012, at 6:16 PM, NoOracleHere wrote:

    To CassandraSays, I say: the worrisome thing is that the $50K debt applies to every man, woman and child in every household, those who make up the 330M in your devisor. For many households, this is a very large burden.

    But to all of us: can we do it? Yes we can. But we must learn to work together before we will come out winners.

    Remember that every one of those $16T is owed to someone, to a person. And most of those persons are citizens of this country (some are not), and therefore are co-owners of the problem, although they would like to have you believe otherwise. So we are wrong to separate it into “us” versus “them”. As Walt Kelly said in his strip “Pogo”, “We have met the enemy … and he is us.”

    I call this a leadership problem. It takes leadership to get us to work together to solve a common problem. When we find ourselves passing blame around, it is often because economically, we are passing losses around. When the financial system collapsed, we knew then that we would be passing those losses around for a long time to come. No one wanted those losses to land on them. I didn’t want those losses to land on me! But my 401K took it in the shorts. I’m only recently beginning to break even. Some did better, many did worse. I can’t complain on the whole. But to solve the problem of the debt, we have to work better than to simply pass it around. We have to ask who can reasonably pay what? When there are losers, who are the winners? We want them to still be winners, but we also want everyone to pay their fair share. Don’t call this redistribution. Call it fair play. Call it citizenship. When our country faced threats abroad, we asked many men and women to own their citizenship by making tremendous sacrifices, some the ultimate sacrifice. With this debt, we face threats from within. We also must be ready also to ask for and offer sacrifice. It is part of being a citizen. If not this, then what? If not us, then whom?

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2012, at 11:56 AM, rchmd wrote:

    I'm a Realtor in South Ornage County. The problem I see with the housing industry creating jobs here are price and location. Currently new single family homes are selling between $600,000 to over one million. That limits the number of potential buyers. Next is location, in the past people moved further away so they could buy a home they could afford, but that is not as likely to happen with gas at almost $5 a gallon.

    I think we should run off the special interest, tree hugger groups and start drilling for oil here in America. Tax every barrel that leaves the country and use that money to pay down the deficit. But, before we can do any of that we have to vote the Congressmen and Senators out of office. Everyone wnats to blame the President and I did not vote for him. If you think about it, this country has been going down hill for the past 30 years and more in the past 20 years. What is the common denominator in those 20 years? The same Congressmen and Senators are getting re-elected into office.

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2013, at 2:46 PM, kavunaru wrote:

    Some big assumption made here..

    Morgan Said..

    "Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies estimates that household formation will average 1.5 million from 2010 to 2020. Factor in scrappage, and new home construction needs to more than double from current levels to meet those projections."

    Our US population has to grow so that more people can buy house. This is a simple rule. After that comes every thing like economy..

    Looks like it started to fall since 1960. So we are going to follow Japan to the drain..

  • Report this Comment On April 12, 2013, at 3:08 PM, kavunaru wrote:

    sorry mean't birth rate..

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 2103862, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/18/2013 11:05:06 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 13 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 15,354.40 121.18 0.80%
S&P 500 1,667.47 17.00 1.03%
NASD 3,498.97 33.73 0.97%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/17/2013 4:00 PM
L $46.44 Up +0.40 +0.87%
Loews CAPS Rating: ****
CHK $20.27 Up +0.38 +1.91%
Chesapeake Energy CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement