Cover Story March 13, 2008, 5:00PM EST

Recession Time

As the economy teeters between bad and worse, one question looms: What's the best course of action? Here's what can be done. And what can't

by Peter Coy

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/370/0313_mz_cover1.jpg

Kevin Van Aeist

Wall Street got its hopes up on Mar. 11. Elated by a Federal Reserve move to stop the credit crunch, the U.S. stock market posted its biggest one-day gain in five years, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising more than 400 points. Look out, though. Fed officials are the first to acknowledge that their initiative attacks only one problem, the liquidity squeeze at big banks. It does nothing about the central risk to the U.S. economy: an unprecedented crash in home values that is sapping households' wealth and confidence while putting an enormous strain on the banking system.

How bad will this downturn get? No one can know because we've never experienced such a headlong slide in the housing market—and this comes at a time when its current value of $20 trillion accounts for the vast majority of most families' wealth. Right now most economists expect the U.S. to experience a mild, short recession in 2008. But there is at least a possibility of a steeper decline that the traditional recession remedies—interest-rate cuts here, deficit spending there—won't be able to handle.

What should be done? For policymakers in Washington—Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and congressional leaders—the sensible course is to insure against the small but scary possibility that things could go very wrong. The potential "insurance policies" are government actions that have a real cost but lessen the risk that a mild recession turns into something worse. The International Monetary Fund endorsed that approach on Mar. 12 as First Deputy Managing Director John Lipsky urged policymakers globally to "think the unthinkable and guard against a downward credit spiral."

Broadly speaking, policymakers have three options for putting a safety net under the economy. Each has its pros and cons, and the cons become most apparent when the measures are taken to an extreme. That's why a three-pronged approach that uses each option in moderation may be the best way to go.

The first option is to depend mainly on aggressive measures by the Fed to flood the economy with liquidity. That's already under way. On Mar. 11, the central bank announced an innovative program to lend $200 billion in high-grade Treasury securities to big commercial and investment banks. It will allow them to use, as collateral for the loans, valuable but harder-to-trade assets such as AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities. The measure could enable them to start lending and borrowing again. The cons: no direct help for distressed homeowners who don't qualify for refinancing.

A second option would be some sort of a government-led bailout of homeowners, which reduces the burden of looming debt and high interest rates, and limits foreclosures. The third option would be assistance to the lenders and holders of mortgage-backed securities in an effort to thaw the credit markets. The trouble is, both of these options are seen as unfair by those who don't require bailouts. And it's up in the air who would have to bear the biggest share of the housing-related losses: homeowners, investors, or taxpayers.

It's indisputable, though, what policy changes cannot accomplish. There's no way to stop home prices from falling; they got way too high, and the current crisis won't end until they get back to what the market concludes is a sustainable level. It's not reasonable to try to avoid a recession, either. When a sector as huge as housing goes into a deep dive, it's pretty much inevitable that the rest of the economy will be affected. "We saw a once-in-a-hundred-years runup in housing prices, and now we're seeing a once-in-a-hundred-years collapse," says Harvard University economist Kenneth S. Rogoff. "It's very, very difficult to do much about it."

"GAMBLERS, LIARS, AND SLEAZY LENDERS"

The airwaves and blogosphere are alive with people who say nothing should be done. They argue that intervening now would only delay the inevitable liquidation of credit-fueled excesses. "Under proposed bailouts, responsible people lose and have to give their money to gamblers, liars, and sleazy lenders,"

Reader Discussion

 

BW Mall - Sponsored Links