When to Expect the Next US Economic Crash: Bloomberg - Nouriel Roubini

요약 보기

결론: 2017년 1월 기준 미국 경제는 재정긴축(세금 인상·sequester)으로 성장이 둔화되고, 완화적 통화정책은 자산시장 거품과 더 큰 폭락 위험을 키울 수 있다. 재정긴축 영향: 세금·급여세 인상과 sequester가 소비와 성장을 깎아 올해 재정 긴축 효과가 약 1.6~1.7%p에 달하며, 미국 성장률은 1.6%를 크게 넘기 어렵다고 봤다. 긍정 요인: 주택 회복과 제조업 일부 복원이 있으나, 정치·정책 불확실성이 크다. 정책 평가: 재정 긴축이 너무 앞당겨져 있어 잘못된 방식이라고 비판했다. 연준 평가: 양적완화와 제로금리는 현재 경기에는 적절하나, 실업률 6.5% 이하까지 제로금리를 유지하고 2004~2006년처럼 매우 느리게 출구 전략을 쓰면 3~4년간 저금리가 이어진다. 자산시장 전망: 그 결과 신용·자산시장에 거품이 생기고, 이후 더 큰 폭락이 올 수 있다는 우려를 제기했다. 앞으로 몇 년간 자산가격 파티가 있을 수 있으나 그 뒤 큰 붕괴 위험이 있다. 중앙은행 정책 딜레마: 미국뿐 아니라 일본(BOJ), 영국(BOE), 스위스(SNB), 유럽(ECB) 모두 완화를 이어가는 상황에서, 유동성이 실물 투자·소비보다 금융 레버리지로 흘러 위험이 된다. 긴축 논쟁: IMF 춘계총회에서 긴축 정책에 대한 반발이 커졌고, 동시 긴축은 재정승수를 음(-)으로 만들어 성장을 해친다. 다만 장기적으로는 재정적자 축소가 필요하다. 리스크: 재정긴축 과속, 저금리 장기화에 따른 자산 거품과 이후 붕괴 가능성.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. certainly people underestimated how much the increase in taxes payroll in income and how the sequester would affect the economy my view was that that would imply a fiscal drug of at least 1.6 1.7% this year and therefore the economy this year is not going to grow much more than 1.6% given this significant fiscal drug there are some positive of course sh has recovery of housing some restoring of manufacturing but there is a huge amount of political and policy uncertainty there's the grid l in Congress we're doing the wrong type of fiscal consolidation is way too front loaded and the significant increase in taxes especially parol and income taxes now having a drug on consumption and on economic growth so us this year is going to have subpar economic growth below Trend anemic and onom rate is going to remain high is the Fed helping at all alleviate some of the pressure from the fiscal side well the FED is doing quantitive easing and given the economy is so weak probably given the amount of a fiscal drug the FED is doing the right thing for the time being my concern about the FED is that while this policy is correct right now another year of quantity vising another year after that of keeping zero policy rates until the unemployment rate is 6 and a half or lower and then exiting from zero policy rate very slowly as slowly as we did in 2004 2006 when it took us about 2 years of measure pays pre-announce six every 6 weeks of 25 basis points that means we're going to have easy money for the next 3 or four years and there is already fress in credit markets so the real economy requires more QE and low policy rates but then the fress in credit and asset markets could lead to another significant bubble in the US economy and we could end up making the mistake we did in 2004 2006 exiting to slowly creating a huge bubble and Then followed by bust and a crash I think that's a big worry down the line so you'll have a big party in asset prices for the next couple of years but you could have a big crash even bigger than before followed by that I have to say that I've been hearing more and more about that idea the risks of Central Bank policy not just in the US but around the world are we getting to the point where the risks are starting to outweigh the potential benefits well it's a dilemma because economic growth is an Amic if not outright recession like the Euro Zone and UK and even Japan has to be aggressive so economic condition high unemployment rate weak economic growth after recession suggest more quantity easing more low uh policy rates more forward guidance of keeping those rates low for a long time the boj is doing it the FED is doing it the Boe will be doing it the Swiss National Bank is doing it and even the ECB they're going to do cutting rates credit easing something down the line sooner than later and the real economies require that liquidity but this liquidity is not going into credit grow to the real economy consumption and investment is growing now in credit Market it goes into financial leverage and it goes into fress that eventually becomes dangerous here at the IMF spring uh meetings there's a big S push back of austerity like we haven't seen before perhaps some of the rogar Reinhard criticism from the UMass paper is there a crumbling case for austerity economics right now well there is a crumbling case for front loed austerity we're in a world in which until last year the austerity was concentrated in the periphery of the Euro Zone in the UK but now we have a massive fiscal drug in the United States we'll have a significant fiscal drug also in the core of the Euro Zone because the fiscal compact applies also to German and everybody and the reason IMF studies correctly suggest that when everybody is doing austerity at the same time then it's synchronized and then fiscal multipliers that are negative on economic activity because raising taxes reducing disposable income reducing government spending as a negative effect on economic growth so the risk that we're facing right now is that the austerity is too front loaded of course over time you have to reduce budget deficits in order to make sure that that become stable and sustainable