Showing posts with label american. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Hunkered-down America



It’s a cliche — but true — that a huge obstacle to a stronger economic recovery is the lack of confidence in a strong recovery. If consumers and businesses were more confident, they would be spending, hiring and lending more freely. Even a slight relaxation might do wonders for the subpar nature of the expansion, highlighted by May’s meager 54,000 increase in payroll jobs. Instead, we’re deluged with reports suggesting that, because the recession was so deep, it will take many years to regain anything like the pre-crisis prosperity.

Just last week, for example, the McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of the consulting firm, released a study estimating that the country needs 21 million additional jobs by 2020 to reduce the unemployment rate to 5 percent. The study was skeptical that this would happen. Ugh. Pessimism and slow growth become a vicious cycle.

Battered confidence most obviously reflects the ferocity and shock of the financial collapse and the ensuing recession, including the devastating housing collapse. But there’s another, less appreciated cause: disillusion with modern economics.

Probably without realizing it, most Americans had accepted the fundamental promises of contemporary economics. These were: First, we know enough to prevent another Great Depression; second, although we can’t prevent every recession, we know enough to ensure sustained and, for the most part, strong recoveries. These propositions, endorsed by most economists, had worked themselves into society’s belief structure.

Embracing them does not preclude economic disappointments, setbacks, worries or risks. But for most people most of the time, it does preclude economic calamity. People felt protected. If you stop believing them, then you act differently. You begin shielding yourself, as best you can, against circumstances and dangers that you can’t foresee but that you fear are there.

You become more cautious. You hesitate more before making a big commitment — buying a home or car, if you’re a consumer; hiring workers, if you’re an employer; starting a new business, if you’re an entrepreneur; or making loans, if you’re a banker. Almost everyone is hunkered down in some way.

Economic models, based on past relationships and assumptions, don’t capture the shift, which embodies new assumptions and beliefs. Of course, most Americans have not consciously rejected the promises of modern economics. Neither did they consciously embrace them before. Judgments were seat-of-the-pants. People simply compared the promises against the evidence. Since the 1980s, recessions had been brief and mild; modern economics had ensured crude stability. Now, that no longer applies.

Attitudes and behavior change. One disturbing fact from the McKinsey report is this: The number of new businesses, a traditional source of jobs, was down 23 percent in 2010 from 2007; the level was the lowest since 1983, when America had about 75 million fewer people. Large corporations are standoffish. They have about $2 trillion of cash and securities on their balance sheets, which could be used for hiring and investing in new products. Meanwhile, the latest University of Michigan Survey of Consumers reports that “record numbers . . . thought that their incomes would lag inflation over the next five years.” Note: They didn’t expect high inflation so much as low income growth.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Airlines hit back at US criticism of tie-up plans

American Airlines has hit back at a US Justice Department report that says its tie-up with British Airways and Iberia could lead to 'competitive harm'.

In papers filed this week, the Justice Department said fares between six transatlantic routes "could increase up to 15% under the proposed agreements."

The report advised removing some of the carriers' take-off and landing slots.

American Airlines said it disagreed with the report and believed the deal would be approved.

"American looks forward to rebutting the points made," the airline said.

British Airways also said it would "be making a robust response" to the Justice Department's comments.

Competition

The airlines want to operate as a joint business, called the Oneworld alliance, on flights between Europe and the US.

The Department of Justice wants the Department of Transportation to impose conditions to protect competition.

The report notes that "American and Iberia are the only current non-stop competitors between Miami and Madrid."

Fares between Boston and London, Chicago and London, Dallas and London, Miami and London, Miami and Madrid, and New York and London could be affected.

The routes in question serve 2.5 million passengers a year.

Monday, December 21, 2009

President Barack Obama hails US Senate healthcare vote

US President Barack Obama has hailed the Senate's healthcare vote as a "big victory for the American people".

Senators voted in the early hours of Monday to end debate on a compromise bill, putting the legislation on course to face a final vote on Christmas Eve.

President Obama has set health reform as a key plank of his first term.

The legislation, which aims to cover 31 million uninsured Americans, could lead to the biggest change in US healthcare in decades, if approved.

"The United States Senate knocked down a filibuster aimed at blocking a final vote on healthcare reform and scored a big victory for the American people," Mr Obama said.

Acrimonious debate

He said the Senate showed it could "stand up to the special interests" and move the nation closer to a health insurance overhaul for the country as a whole.

He said the bill would reduce the deficit in the long term, countering Republican criticism that the legislation is too expensive.

After a long, often acrimonious debate Senators voted 60 to 40 along party lines to end debate on the bill at 0100 (0600 GMT) on Monday.

Four further votes are scheduled this week on the issue before the final Senate vote on Christmas Eve.

Under the Senate bill, most Americans would have to have health insurance.

Private insurers would be banned from refusing to provide insurance because applicants had pre-existing medical conditions.

If passed, the Senate bill would have to be reconciled with a more expansive one passed last month by the House of Representatives.

Key differences in the House version include a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, and how to pay for the reform.

You can serach very easy with Google