As we’ve been saying here in Syntagma for some months, a long, deep worldwide recession now looks more likely than not. Opinions are hardening among key players, principally in America and Britain.

Davos : the great and the good are assembling here amid world crisis

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal proclaimed : “U.S. warning signs point toward deep recession”.

Most economic analysts regard the stock market as an early indicator of economic conditions in a year or 18 months time. London’s market has lost more than 13 percent of its value in just three weeks. Wall Street was closed yesterday, but will doubtless catch up today.

The current consensus is that 2008 will be bad, but 2009 could be much worse. The second decade of this century may resemble the 1930s in the worst-case scenario.

Problems continue to pile up. Banks have been writing off around 14 percent of the 2006 batch of collaterallized debt obligations (CDOs). This percentage is currently being upgraded to 19 percent, ensuring more pain to come. The total exposure by banks could be as much as $500 billion.

Making matters worse, the insurance companies, or Monolines, that underwrite possible defaults, are also in trouble, with two of the biggest in the U.S. said to be close to Chapter 11 status (a form of bankruptcy protection against creditors).

Moreover, the very banks relied upon to rescue Western institutions, like the Bank of China, are also said to be exposed to the U.S. sub-prime slice and dice fantasy.

Another crushing problem — now endemic in developed countries — is the level of personal debt. A typical person now spends one-seventh of their income on debt repayments, compared to around 10 percent a decade ago. In Britain alone, household debt is running at an unprecedented £1.4 trillion ($2.75 trillion). Add to that the massive levels of public spending in recent years and it’s clear this can’t be sustained for much longer.

The principle of “moral hazard” means that sooner rather than later everyone has to face up to their debts and start paying them off. There are no lenders out there now who will aggregate them at a lower repayment level. The adjustment to lower debt levels is desperately needed.

Unhappily, it will represent very hard times for many, some very poor indeed, and a massive writedown of Western assets, many transferring to Asia. The loss of that income in future decades will materially affect the West’s ability to dominate as it has done in the past.

Many businesses are also going to be in deep shock this year and next. Those that survive will have low levels of debt, and shares in safe hands — not bankers, buyers or lenders who are desperate for cash to rebuild shattered balance sheets.

So, is a recession a good outcome or is it as disastrous as it seems? On one level it’s totally disastrous, especially to those innocently caught up in the credit crash. It’s also bad for the reason that we’re being pulled down by voracious greed. Greed by the banks for giving NINJA morgages (no income, no job, no assets) and then selling them on in bits and pieces. Greed also by the banks that bought them. And greed by consumers in running up such heavy debts in the good times, leaving little to repay them in the bad.

However, this can also be seen as a necessary correction to a self-inflicted train wreck. Moral hazard demands a reckoning. Our Faustian deal with the Devil has a repayment package at its fulfilment. Soon, we will know the worst.

Update : The Fed has just cut American base rates by an unusually large 75 basis points or 0.75 percent, a sign that Bernanke is serious about taking a machete to rates to head off a recession.

The White House has also indicated the President may increase his upcoming fiscal stimulus (tax cut) from the $150billion already announced.

Here’s a question often posed in the business small ads of many newspapers : “Is this the greatest moneymaker of all time?”

Whatever it is, the answer is No.

There are a few organizations, central banks and Treasury departments, which can chop down a tree worth a few thousand dollars, pulp it into paper, print some ink on it and call it a billion dollars.

A lot of that is going on right now.

So money making is the greatest moneymaker of all.

Have a nice day.

It’s Boxing Day here in England, a day traditionally reserved for giving presents (Christmas boxes) to the extended family and friends. I was going to take a rest from posting on Syntagma and other sites until January 2, but something is jangling away at me : the upcoming downturn/recession/depression/crash, depending on which view you take. The nasty end of that spectrum is now a real and menacing possibility.

The optimistic view says that Sovereign Wealth Funds — vast reserves of cash held by Gulf oil sheiks and “new economy” developing countries like China — will save world stock markets from collapse. Indeed such funds are buying up wagonloads of equity in some of the biggest Western corporations, Citicorp and Merrill Lynch, for example, and great chunks of Britain’s FTSE 100 companies.

Quite how allowing our biggest companies to be owned and run by a small group of Oriental potentates will look in 10 years time is anyone’s guess. I doubt we will think it such a smart move.

The pessimistic view — which I confess I’m now leaning strongly toward, despite my normally sunny nature — comes from the banks. Never mind the stock markets, look at how the bankers are reacting on the ground.

All banks are now hoarding cash like Ebeneezer Scrooge and virtually ceasing to lend. With house price indices slithering down a slope like novice ice skaters, and inter-bank rates running at around 8 percent, this has become a total banking crisis worldwide, and that has the potential for real evil in our economies.

Japan’s decade-long woes in the 1990s were caused by crises in its overprotected banking system, as were the Far-Eastern “Tiger” economies that collapsed at around the same time.

So how are we all reacting to this worldwide financial mess, now a “perfect storm” according to another banking pundit? Are we hoarding cash like the banks, or are we spend, spend, spending in the post-Christmas sales?

The real crunch comes if we all stop spending, as the Japanese did in 1990. Our economies will then spiral out of control as the High Street suffers and all kinds of businesses lay off staff in droves. Do we protect ourselves first by reining in, or do we support the wider economy? Since there will be little money to spend, the economy will suffer whatever anyone does. It’s a no-win situation from whatever angle you view it.

In retrospect it’s now clear that Alan Greenspan left rates too low for too long and spawned the mad rush to lend to the sub-prime market (Ninja mortgages : no income, no job, no assets). But on top of that, it is also now normal to be permanently in debt and to service it by moving it continuously between lenders engaged in a bitter battle for market share and a bigger slice of the easy action. These lenders are no longer willing to cough up, even if they were in a position to do so.

In Britain, the situation is getting dire. From the UK’s Telegraph : “Tim Congdon, a banking historian at the London School of Economics, said the rot had seeped through the foundations of British lending. … ‘How on earth did the Financial Services Authority let this happen?’ he asks. Worse, changes pushed through by Gordon Brown in 1998 have caused the de facto cash and liquid assets ratio to collapse from post-war levels above 30 per cent to near zero. ‘Brown hadn’t got a clue what he was doing,’ he says.”

And European treaties, like Maastricht, will make matters worse not better, says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard : “Maastricht rules may force the Government to raise taxes or slash spending into a recession. This way lies crucifixion. … Brown has disarmed us on every front.”

Crucifixion is a powerful word, especially at this time of year. “Brown has disarmed us on every front” is a damning indictment of the UK’s new Prime Minister, more particularly because he has just signed us up to another Euro treaty.

I wish Syntagma could bring you a better box on Boxing Day, but I fear it may be much worse than even the news we’re now getting suggests.

Maybe I should have continued with my holiday. See you on January 2.

Last Christmas I wrote a post with 10 predictions for blogs and blog networks over the coming year. It was meant to be humorous, so not many came true.

This season it would be difficult to do the same as most of the buzz has disappeared. Top bloggers have gone pro, and startup networks have become serious and less inclined to gossip — except incomprehensibly on Twitter, where it’s like listening to one side of a telephone conversation spoken in code. So I’m not going to do ten predictions this year.

2007 has been the year of unblogging. Blogging about blogging has hit the deadpool. The tedium just turned us off in the end, as it always does.

That’s good. When the medium becomes the message something is out of kilter. To say that A is B is gobbledigook since, if true, there would be no need for B. Now the message is clearly the message and we can all get back to simple basics, i.e. content, and use weblog software for what it was meant to be, an easy way to publish our thoughts online without giving an interminable running commentary.

Has that taken some steam out of the blogosphere? You bet it has. Google spotted this and is currently downgrading all but the very best examples of the blogging art. Money will be much tighter until the next boom, which may be some years away.

Advertisers too are reining in their drive into blogs, converting big downpayments into PayPerClick models. Who can blame them? Goldrushes never last.

So I’m going to make one prediction for 2008. It will be much harder financially for everyone, and only the best will survive. The credit crunch will squeeze out those who haven’t put something by for the hard times, and leave the dabblers stranded.

It’s going to be a long, hard haul, but hey, that’s where the fun is, isn’t it?

Chins up and mind how you grow.