News

"Thankfully, recessions are a rare and brief event in the United States," The Globe's Barrie McKenna wrote Saturday in his Globe essay The coming rust-belt recovery for the ever-resilient U.S. economy

"Since World War II, the United States has experienced just 10 recessions, lasting an average of 10 months each . . .

"You can thank the remarkable resilience of the U.S. economy — the largest, most diverse and open economy on the planet.

"It isn't easy to keep the United States down for long.

"The same, often reckless, dynamism that causes this country to repetitively binge — on real estate, technology stocks, or some other bobble-du-jour — is precisely what will pull the economy out the other side.

"It's way too early to write an obit for the U.S. economy."

That's a provocative thesis, especially after the turmoil of the past week.

So we're pleased that Mr. McKenna will be online Monday from 2-3 p.m. EST to take your questions on his argument, and on the state of the American political and economic systems.

Join the Conversation at that time or submit a question or comment in advance.

Your questions and Mr. McKenna's answers will appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.

Barrie McKenna has been a Globe and Mail correspondent and columnist in Washington since 1997. Before that, he worked in The Globe's Ottawa and Montreal bureaus.

He has written extensively on Canada-U.S. relations, business, trade, economics and politics.

During his U.S. posting, he has traveled widely, filing stories from more than 30 states.

Mr. McKenna has also been a frequent visitor to Japan and South Korea on reporting assignments.

He is a two-time finalist for Canada's National Newspaper Awards.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Cathryn Motherwell, Deputy Editor, Report on Business: Welcome, Barrie, and thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com. Kevin Wells and several other U.S. residents had high praise for your Globe essay Saturday on the resilient U.S. economy. Mr. Wells wanted to know why the mainstream U.S. media is generally taking a more pessimistic view of the situation than your analysis. First of all, do you agree with him about the overall approach of the U.S. media? If so, why do you think they are less likely to see the big picture? Too focused on the trees to see the forest?

Barrie McKenna: I don't think the U.S. media is any more pessimistic than the Canadian or European media. It's quite natural and appropriate to focus on the most imminent threat. It's now very possible that we are in, or near, a recession. That will be the dominant story of the next several months. Jobs will be lost. Investments will decline in value and companies will suffer. We need to cover this story.

What I wanted to do was step back and look at the U.S. economy through a wider lens. Even if there is a recession, the economy will recover and grow again. Some of the natural economic shock absorbers are already in working, including the declining value of the U.S. dollar.

And among the beneficiaries of that trend is the much-maligned manufacturing sector. Many people have this notion that North America has de-industrialized. This simply isn't true. U.S. manufacturers will be a big part of the next growth cycle.

Cathryn Motherwell: One of the commenters on your story, Robert Miller of Halifax, raised some issues.

Robert Miller, Halifax: Is there any reason to believe any of this? Does the author have any facts on which to base his arguments? China's productivity is hugely superior to America's. America also has to pay a military that is currently stationed in more than 100 countries and is currently stuck in two wars that if they are not losing, they are certainly not clearing winning either. Russia seems to be showing signs that they may be interested in starting up another Cold War too. Most of the world's central banks' printing presses have kicked into high gear of late. This article currently reads more like a far-fetched commercial to me. What are you trying to sell, Mr. McKenna?

Would you like to respond?

Barrie McKenna: I'm not trying to sell anything other than an alternative to all the doom-and-gloom chatter. The reality is that vast swaths of U.S. manufacturing are thriving, as are exports. Manufacturers had record output in 2006, and appears on pace for the same in 2007. Yes, there are certain products that China and other low-wage countries can produce far better than high cost countries. And certain industries have moved elsewhere. But not everything. U.S. factories have become very good at integrating imported goods and new technology into its production. Think back to the 1980s and 1990s. US steel makers were on the ropes. Today, the US produces as much steel as ever, albeit with fewer workers. Faced with global threats, they've become a lot more efficient.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a separate issue. If anything, war spending is a boost to the U.S. economy, not a drain.

Cathryn Motherwell: Hugh Campbell posted the following comment on your essay. Care to respond? "Yes, we know that American corporations are doing just fine. Their upper management is doing just fine, as well. On the other hand, the middle class is plummeting to lower class status, and there are now fewer people holding a greater proportion of the nation's wealth than at any earlier period. [Won't that impact any economic rebound?]

Barrie McKenna: You are correct that executive salaries are out of whack, and that middle class wages have stagnated. This has exacerbated economic disparities, along with a sense of unfairness. But I think it's unfair to say the middle-class is disappearing. There is no evidence of that. If big U.S. employers are thriving, their workers will also thrive. The reverse is also true. If U.S. companies are faltering, then their employees will suffer. The issue of wage disparities is a longer-term concern that investors and academics are concerned about. But it won't likely hold back the next recovery.

Cathryn Motherwell: Steve Allen, Welland, Ont. posted the following comment on your essay. Care to respond?

"I hate to say it but manufacturing is a moribund sector of the American economy and it isn't going to lift the U.S. out of recession. Too much production capacity has been shipped overseas for manufacturing to rebound. The consumer sector is the only growth sector of the American economy and it is all built on illusion.

Americans carry personal debt equivalent to more than 120% of GDP and that debt is what fueled the economy for the last 15 years. The consumer is tapped out and fearful. That spells bad news for the economy over the next few years. Manufacturing, or what's left of it, is benefiting from the weaker dollar but the impact is marginal."

Barrie McKenna: Personal debt levels are clearly high by international standards, and should not be ignored. But you must compare debt to wealth. U.S. wealth has also grown over the past 15 years. So Americans' ability to carry debt has also improved. Some of that is now being eroded with lower house and equity prices. But substantial gains remain. Many experts have lost big betting against the U.S. consumer.

Cathryn Motherwell: David Brown, Victoria, B.C., posted the following comment on your essay. Care to respond?

"Mr. McKenna ignores two realities of the American situation -- its huge federal deficit and its huge trade deficit. Even with the dramatic drop in the value of the American dollar, the U.S. is still running a very significant trade deficit. The trade deficit has a two-decade-plus history and it is unlikely to be reversed even at the present currency exchange rates. What this means is the U.S. has issued a lot of IOUs mostly to Asian countries and particularly China. This can not go on forever even if both parties to the lending arrangement have reasons of their own to try to keep it going. Just as with the tech bubble and the housing bubble, at the end of the day there turns out to be no new parameters."

Barrie McKenna: I agree that the federal budget deficit is a concern, particularly as the US Congress considers another large tax cut. But you will notice that the deficit came way down in 2007, as tax revenue soared. The concern here is again a long-term one versus a short-term one. Unlike Canada, the US has not figured out a way to finance the retirement and medical benefits of its aging baby boomers. To give them everything today's retirees get would break the bank. Americans will have to pay more or get less in return. There are no other options. Doing nothing will make today's deficit look mild in 20 years time.

On the trade deficit side, I am less pessimistic than many. It will take time to get back to greater balance. But I'm more fearful of all the proposals that have been made to cut the trade deficit, such as sanctions on China or other protectionist measures. These surely would have far more negative consequences on the U.S. economy. The trade deficit is partly a measure of strong U.S. consumption and the previously inflated value of the dollar. A U.S. recession and a lower dollar will naturally ease the trade deficit.

Cathryn Motherwell: The U.S. Federal Reserve begins a two-day meeting Tuesday, and the markets are anticipating - indeed, almost demanding - another interest rate cut. After last week's surprise 75-basis point reduction, what impact does looser credit have on the nation's ability to regroup and rebuild?

Barrie McKenna: In theory, looser credit is the tonic a slowing economy needs. The catch is that while central bank interest rate cuts can buoy investor sentiment in the short-term, it takes six months or more to filter through to the real economy. Equity prices and bonds generally move in opposite directions. Lower rates means bonds are less attractive, so more money moves into stocks, chasing better returns. It will take a lot longer for Americans to resume buying homes, or for US banks and businesses to feel confident again. There is also the tricky issue of the credit markets, where exotic investments products have badly distorted risk and caused a freeze-up of certain kinds of lending.

Lower interest should help there too, but there's no guarantee. Above all else, Ben Bernanke and the US Federal Reserve Board need to re-establish confidence that they have a handle on the problem.

Cathryn Motherwell:

Thanks Barrie for your time today. Your essay was a provocative and compelling take on the challenges of the U.S. economy that I know our readers greatly enjoyed.