More 2010 forecasts
Here is an interesting one from MF Global fully adopting the New Normal mantra:
The IMF predicts that in 2010 the average government gross debt as a percentage GDP for the 7 major advanced economies will be 109% and 113% in 2011. It was only 84% in 2007 and 77% in 2000. Following the global down turn in the 1990s, average gross debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 58% in 1990 to 80% by 1996. History suggests that post recession, the reduction in government spending is rarely equivalent to the increase catalyzed by the retrenchment in the private sector. Given the breadth and depth of this past recession and lingering risks in the system, the pull-back in government spending will be even less. Moreover, the initiatives of the US government are costly and the passage of the healthcare bill will only increase the financing needs. As the global recovery takes hold it will be increasingly difficult for governments to attract interest in their securities as their yield reside at historic lows. Outside of valuation, fears over defaults will also keep the market wary of government debt. Widening sovereign CDS spreads underscore the market’s already elevated concern. While a widespread tidal wave of defaults is unlikely, poor auction demand in the wake of the recovery and in the face of heavy financing needs will increase trepidation about its possibility.
2010 will be characterized by a jobless recovery. MFGR sees the unemployment rate peaking in 2010 at 10.5% and closing the year between 9.5% and 10%. … On the US front, the outlook for taxes is murky and the healthcare initiative which will likely force all employers to provide care or pay a penalty will discourage the expansion of the labour force. Though the Obama administration is extending the capital gains holiday for small businesses, employers need to feel confident that their profit margin will not erode in the future due to tax increases in order to genuinely contribute to job growth. Moreover, budget shortfalls at the state and local government level will cap government hiring. Globally speaking, there has been a significant increase in structural employment that is now part of the new normal. The collapse of the financial markets has led to a permanent shrinkage of the financial industry and the impendingregulation will make financial innovation, a factor that does lead to job growth, very difficult. The manufacturing industry faces the same problem. Globalization will lead to the removal of manufacturing jobs in advance economies and cause a shortage of skilled labour forcing many to look to build other skill sets.
The tax burden in the U.S. and Europe is likely to increase. The on going deterioration in public finances, at both the state and government levels, will put upward pressure on taxes in the U.S. Moreover, the Bush tax cut is expected to sunset in 2011. There is some feeling that Congress will vote to extend lower tax rates, but this is likely to come for earners making less than $250,000. Somehow, the $250,000 income level has become the definition of rich in America. Capital gain and dividend taxes are also likely to rise for high income workers and risk leading to a re-pricing downward of assets. Furthermore, the healthcare bill contains another tax hike on high income workers, and will likely lead to higher healthcare insurance fees. The healthcare mandate will act like a tax by raising the cost of healthcare for many workers. At the state level, California, Illinois, and New Jersey face massive fiscal strain and politicians are reluctant to address pension, healthcare, and wage costs in order to boost the productivity of government workers. Unions are a strong constituent and politicians do not want to upset a large voting block.
On US politics:
Passage of the Democratic healthcare plan will mark an apex in U.S. liberalism. Government policy will shift toward the center into midterm elections. Polling data highlights the falling popularity of the Democratically controlled Congress and President Obama. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll displayed the Congressional disapproval rating at an elevated 68% in mid December. At the same time, data produced by Rasmussen has shown President Obama’s approval index falling from a peak of +30 on January 22, 2009 to a post Christmas reading of -12. The champion legislation of the Democratic Party, healthcare, is also finding limited support. The recently passed Senate healthcare bill has displayed a high level of public disapproval highlighting anger over the intervention of government into healthcare. Rasmussen’s polling numbers on healthcare show most voters oppose the healthcare plan and just 25% believe they will be better off. The likely and soon to be passed healthcare bill has been passed on a totally partisan basis in the face of growing opposition to government policy. Recent Democratic losses of governorships in New Jersey and Virginia spotlight the tilt of support by the public toward the party out of power. Furthermore, Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith recently switched to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party. The “Blue Dog” feared losing his seat in 2010. The high level of discontent with politicians is occurring in the back drop of “Tea Parties” and grass root movements to stop the reach of government given excessive spending and a high tax burden. Unemployment is still elevated, and income growth is slow. The public is angry over the impact of a stimulus plan which may have saved the financial system from melt down, but did little to improve standards of living. Democrat leaders in Congress have fought for their agenda at all costs, and will now try to reverse their tactics in order to improve their public image. Politicians, at the core, are survivalists and thus policy is likely to move toward the center to attract discontented voters. The Democratic leadership is aware that history is not on their side for mid term election victories and power loss can be expected. For example, during the 1994 mid term election, President Clinton and the Democrats lost 9 seats in the Senate and 54 in the House. In 1946, President Truman and the Democrats lost 12 Senate seats and 55 House seats. Going back further, FDR and the Democrats picked up 10 Senate seats and 9 House seats in 1934, but suffered major losses in 1938 and 1942 with 7 House seats (6 Senate seats) and 45 House seats (9 Senate seats) lost in 1938 and 1942 respectively