Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

There are some who are saying now that February’s sharp decline in consumer confidence may portend a second dip in the recession:

Workers who have kept their jobs are not gaining confidence. Boosted production seems to be being built on the backs of the current workers, driving up worker productivity, instead of increasing incomes or employment. The apprehension about future income prospects and employment is growing, not diminishing.

This could have some dire consequences. The inventory build was premised on the idea of the recovering consumer. Since that premise is wrong, businesses will find they have made a mistake. Inventory will have to be discounted and or scrapped. New equipment will remain under-utilized, and some of the new hires will have to be let go. In other words, the half of the recovery equation we got will simply have to be liquidated or put in cold-storage because of the half we didn’t get.

How did we screw up the recovery? Why did businesses get this so wrong that we’re headed back for the double dip instead of slowly climbing out of the recession?

The answer will sound familiar to anyone acquainted with the work of Ludwig Von Mises or Friedrich Hayek. Cheap money created an illusion of wealth that businessmen interpreted as pent up demand. They invest money in inventory and equipment on the assumption that the consumer would recovery. And there assumption was based on very good evidence from past recoveries and the notion that loose monetary policy inevitably spurs a recovery.

Why was it different this time? The problem this time is that we’re in what the Keynesians would call a “liquidity trap.” Consumers, having been savaged by the housing bubble and its consequences, continue to be fearful of the future.

It might be naive of me but, if the problem is that consumers are fearful of the future, isn’t reassuring them the solution rather than continuing to stir the pot?