What Caused the Stock Market Crash of 2008-2009?

[Written for the Borsen-Kurier]
What caused the US stock market to spectacularly crash in 2008 is intimately connected to what caused the market to boom from 1980 to 2007. In broad terms, the long market boom, which took the Dow from 875 to over 14,000 at its peak in the fall of 2007, was the result of two interconnected forces: money creation and redistribution.
Economically, the great puzzle to solve is not why the market crashed, but why it performed so far above the rate of economic growth for so long. Why should the stock market, which is composed of nothing more than a broad section of corporations, on average perform any better than the overall rate of economic growth, upon which it surely rests?
Consider the following graph of the stock market and M3, the Federal Reserve’s broadest measure of money creation (M3 was discontinued in 2006, but the series is kept up by several different private economists). Notice that the performance of the stock market (as measured by the Dow) is far above the rate of productivity growth or the rate of real economic growth.

The fractional reserve nature of most modern banking systems means that money creation takes place in a decentralized manner; during this period, much of that money found its way into financial markets, in the form of leveraged buyouts, stock buybacks, and the effects of increasing leverage on the part of investment banks and the explosive growth of the highly-leveraged hedge fund industry. Much of this borrowing went to purchase equities, bidding up prices dramatically.
At the same time, the shifting balance of power between labor and capital made it possible for corporations to hold down wage growth, resulting in an unprecedented 20 year period of falling real wages in the US. This caused corporate profits to increase, along with share prices, as stockholders re-evaluated the new distribution of income between labor and capital.
The problem, of course, is that neither of these forces are sustainable. The share of income going to labor can fall, allowing the share that goes to profits to rise, but labor’s share cannot fall far without producing resistance. In the US, that resistance was weak, in part because of a new innovation: leverage for consumers. Unfortunately, the new kinds of consumer credit that were invented and eagerly used by US consumers were rarely used for any kind of investment, so debts mounted without an increase in income to pay them back.
As for money creation, it must eventually lead to inflation. No one can truly create wealth out of thin air, so when money is created far in excess of economic growth it must cause rising prices somewhere. If it causes rising consumer prices, we notice it and demand a solution, but if it causes rising stock prices, we celebrate it. But the money is not real, and the prices cannot last. At this point, it seems likely that the Dow will fall to 5500, which would give the Dow a traditional bear market dividend yield of 6%. Given the extent of money creation thus far, a strong possibility is that the Dow shows strong growth, perhaps rising above 10,000, or even above its record heights. While this may reassure investors, such an outcome would simply be the first manifestation of inflation that will not be confined to financial markets this time around.

Economic Stimulus and the Banking Sector

The incoming Obama administration has been steadily increasing the size of the proposed economic stimulus, which now stands at $850 billion. Thus far, much of the debate has centered around the question of how big a stimulus ought to be, and what should be the mix of tax cuts versus government spending. This week, discussion has centered on what kind of spending would be desirable, and while the proposal of ‘green tech’ and repairing infrastructure is appealing, the criticism has been raised that since 97% of construction workers are male, and most are white, infrastructure projects leave out many of the most vulnerable poor, among them women and minorities.
The size of the stimulus will no doubt continue to grow as economic conditions worsen, particularly in the job market, where job losses appear to be accelerating, with 524,000 jobs lost last month. As for the overall effect of the stimulus package, Macroeconomic Advisers estimates that the Obama stimulus will increase GDP growth by 3.2%, and reduce unemployment by 1.7% by creating 3.3 million jobs.
Given the sudden reluctance of consumers to spend, it seems likely that the $275 billion portion of the stimulus package that is tax cuts will effectively disappear into savings or toward paying off household debt. But if lenders receive payment, they can make new loans, right?
I wonder. So far lending has fallen by $133 billion since October 2008, which means the money supply is contracting just as the stimulus is put in place, perhaps by as much as $1.33 trillion, assuming a money multiplier of 10. The big question is if banks continue to reduce their lending. It seems likely that banks will have reduced demand for loans without the mergers and acquisitions boom, and with de-leveraging occurring on all sides. If lending falls by another $100 billion in 2009, it means another $1 trillion decrease in the money supply, which would easily swamp the stimulus. This is one of the great weaknesses of the fractional reserve system: it tends to destroy money at exactly the wrong moment.
Think of the classical quantity theory of money: MV = PQ. The money supply is falling, and it seems likely that the velocity of money is also falling, as consumers spend less and save more. (It’s hard to measure the velocity of money directly, and it is typically inferred by measurements of the other variables.) This leads to falling prices and economic output. The adjustment process shouldn’t take long, if left alone: a year or two at most to purge failed ideas and business models, to de-leverage and move toward saving.
But of course it is hardly being left alone. Instead an ocean of money is being created and borrowed, all to prevent the natural adjustment of the economy back to a sustainable course. This adjustment cannot be prevented, though it may be delayed, it may be drawn out. The casualty of all this will be the US dollar, which is in its last days of being the world’s reserve currency.