SPONSORED BY:

Stock Market Mysteries

If the economy's stagnant, why are stocks up? The answer is disturbing.

 
PHOTOS
Who Is To Blame?

There are plenty of people who contributed to the sad state of our economy. But when it comes to bad decision making, these seven folks arguably deserve the bulk of the blame. (Want to add to this hall of shame? Follow the e-mail link at the end of this gallery.)

 
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Here's a puzzle: The stock markets are doing very well, yet the performance of the underlying economy doesn't seem to justify optimism. The buoyant S&P 500 has risen 53 percent since the March bottom. And while the economy expanded at a 3.5 percent rate in the third quarter, unemployment is high, incomes are stagnant, and consumers are shaky. (Click here to follow Daniel Gross)

It's possible that the stock market is just getting it wrong again. After all, the markets, which are supposed to process investors' attitudes about the future, hit record highs in October 2007, just as the U.S. economy was about to pitch into recession. But it could be that the notion the stock market is an accurate gauge of the domestic economy's temperature is outdated.

The Dow, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ are primarily indices of large U.S.-based companies, not main street businesses: more Davos than Chamber of Commerce. These increasingly cosmopolitan firms have been busy globalizing and expanding their operations overseas. In 2006, according to Standard & Poor's, 238 members of the S&P 500 broke out revenues between U.S. and non-U.S. sales. These companies notched about 43.6 percent of sales outside the United States. For large companies that had already saturated the U.S. market, the home market was something of an afterthought. In the second quarter of 2007, 66 percent of Coca-Cola's beverage business came from outside North America.

And thanks to the long recession, demand for products and services of all types in the United States has shrunk even since 2006. Yes, the global economy in 2008 experienced its first year of shrinkage since World War II. But growth has resumed, and in some places—Peru, China, India—it never stopped. As a result, the globe's economic geography has continued to change, with the United States accounting for a smaller chunk of global output and demand each year. For much of the past two years, virtually all growth in economic activity has taken place outside America's borders. As a result, U.S.-based companies are becoming even more reliant on non-U.S. customers and operations for sales. S&P last summer updated its numbers. In 2008, the figure rose to 47.9 percent (with 253 of the 500 companies reporting), up from 43.6 percent in 2006. Put another way, in two years, big companies' proportion of sales coming from outside the United States rose 9.8 percent. It's likely the 2009 figure will be something very close to 50 percent.

If companies participated in foreign markets primarily by exporting U.S.-made goods, this shift would be good news for the U.S. economy and workers. But that's not how it works. In fact, in the months after the global credit meltdown, U.S. exports plummeted. They bottomed in April, at $120.6 billion, and though they have been rising, the August 2009 total is still 20 percent below the August 2008 total. Globalization is changing the way we do business. It's not a matter of U.S. companies exporting goods—burgers, soda, cars, software—made in the United States to Beijing but rather, making goods overseas and selling them overseas.

The Financial Times reported that Disney this week is releasing Book of Masters.

"Based on a Russian fairy tale and produced in Russia using local talent, the film is the latest step in Disney's broad push into local language production," the FT reports. As Disney CEO Robert Iger put it: "We would not be able to grow the Disney brand … if we just created product in the US and exported it to the rest of the world." If Book of Masters succeeds, it will be good for Disney's American shareholders but won't do a whole lot of good for its U.S.-based employees. Or consider American icon General Motors. GM's sales in China are rocking. In the first nine months, the company sold 1.3 million cars in China, including more than 181,000 in September. By contrast, GM in the United States in the first nine months sold 1.5 million cars in the United States, down 36.4 percent from the year before. And in September, GM sold just 156,673 cars in the United States. That growth in China is good for GM's shareholders and for some of its executives. But since most of the cars sold in China are produced there, with parts produced by suppliers in China, rising sales in the Middle Kingdom won't translate into jobs for unionized workers in the Middle West.

The rising U.S. stock market and a weak, slow-growing U.S. consumer sector aren't really in contradiction. Given the large-scale trends transforming the global economy—and the role of large U.S. companies in it—it may be possible to have a sustainable rally in American stocks without a sustainable rally by American consumers.

Daniel Gross is also the author of Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation and Pop!: Why Bubbles Are Great For The Economy.

© 2009

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Gone Rogue
Gone Rogue

How Sarah Palin hurts the GOP … and America.

The Decade's Best Quotes
The Decade's Best Quotes

NEWSWEEK's 20/10 Project recalls the lines we'll never forget.

Best Celebrity Mugshots
Best Celebrity Mugshots

10 unforgettable arrest photos from the 2000s.

An Evolutionary Edge
An Evolutionary Edge

How grandmas may play favorites.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Tea6 @ 11/07/2009 12:44:57 PM

    Business is doing a lot better than the people, especially the multinationals. One of the reasons these big businesses don't care about the United States or the American people is that they are increasingly owned by foreigners.

  • Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/04/2009 5:17:58 PM

    Buddy - Very well said. My point exactly. And levering at 1:1 is already considered optimum and "at risk".

    Laws unenforced, utter cluelessness or just plain laziness in governance. Maybe as you say below, too focused in war profits in Iraq.

  • Posted By: Apolitical @ 11/04/2009 4:33:44 PM

    Mr. JD,

    Challenge accepted. But first let me untangle you attempt to distort what I said. I did not say Bush deregulated. His fault is not by commission but by the laziness or utter cluelessness of what's going on in the financial market -- and therefore unable to prevent the catastrophe.

    In 2004, mortgage lenders began granting real estate loans willy-nilly without down-payment, proof of income, teaser rates knowing fully well than the borrowers does not have the capacity to meet their obligations. The reason is that these lenders can pass on the risk to the investment banks who bundles these loans into "asset-backed securities". The investments banks then pass the risk to investors on the mistaken belief that there is home-mortgage behind the assets and that its insured by AIG et al. Of course, when the borrowers starts to default, the whole thing began to unravel and triggered Bush Great Recession.

    I hope you people will start using the lame excuse that Bush does not have the majority in Congress. You are making him a lot more stupid, inutile and incompetent. He was the president and the economic manager. If he can't twist arms, he can at least overwhelm Congress with the strength of his character and the soundness of his arguments. If he is not listen to by Congress, then he can bring the issue directly to the people who can in turn pressure Congress to act. The problem is that the people perceived him to be a buffoon -- assuming and we'll all play dumb that he knows what he is doing, had correct analysis of the problem and had the solutions in his back-pocket (if not in his puny little brains).

    You really think its bubble money? That was actually fueling the economy prior to Bush Great Recession. My own friend had read the market well with the view that the market is overheating and gone crazy with non-downpayment no-documents required mortgages (better than Bush, huh?) and was able to unload his real estate holdings and retired early with his millions. Tell the retirees subsisting on their 401Ks that's got a hair-cut under Bush Great Recession that its only "bubble money" and I'll show you a man with blooded big loud mouth.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 
The Greediest People of All Time
From Bernard Madoff to AIG, Wall Street has reinvented excess. But the Masters of the Universe didn't invent greed. A look at the despots, robber barons and others who made our shortlist.


 
 
PHOTOS
What About Us?
Wall Street's problems have captured the attention of Congress, the White House and the media. But on the country's Main Streets ordinary folks are wondering if anyone is paying attention to them. A look at how Americans are coping with the economic crisis.