home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
042693
/
04269927.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
5KB
|
111 lines
<text id=93TT1512>
<title>
Apr. 26, 1993: The Recovery: Starting to Fade
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Apr. 26, 1993 The Truth about Dinosaurs
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE ADMINISTRATION, Page 22
The Recovery: Starting to Fade
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By JOHN GREENWALD--With reporting by Dan Cray/Los Angeles,
William McWhirter/Detroit and Adam Zagorin/Washington
</p>
<p> For all those who believed that the U.S. economy had
finally climbed out of the doldrums, the news from the nation's
shopping malls last week came as a slap in the face. The
Commerce Department reported that Americans shut their wallets
in March and sent retail sales down 1% for the steepest monthly
decline in more than two years. While part of that drop
reflected the severe March weather, Commerce revised its earlier
optimistic figures for February, saying store sales had fallen
0.3% instead of rising 0.3%, as it had originally reported. "The
momentum of the recovery is decidedly fading," says Allen Sinai,
chief economist of the Boston Co. Economic Advisors. "The surge
late last year was not, and is not, sustainable."
</p>
<p> Economists did not need to look far for the meaning: the
decline in consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of
U.S. economic activity, was a clear sign that the euphoria that
greeted Bill Clinton's election has ended. Propelled by optimism
about the new President, consumer confidence soared in the final
three months of 1992 and the economy expanded a healthy 4.7%.
But Treasury officials now privately concede that the pace of
growth could dip below 2% in the first quarter of this year and
bump along at no more than 3% for all of 1993. That would do
little to lower the unemployment rate, which has been stuck for
the past two months at 7%.
</p>
<p> After a brief and hopeful interlude, Americans seem to
have contracted a fresh case of the jitters. "I was walking
through the mall the other day, and I thought, Hey, I can buy
all these things again," says Stuart Schwartz, a Los Angeles
department-store clerk who recently spent two months on the
unemployment rolls. "But then I thought, No, I'd rather hang on
to the money."
</p>
<p> Like Schwartz, millions of Americans may be ready to
switch from impulse buying to panic saving, driven in part by
fear of layoffs. That turnabout would be rich in irony. After
years of being exhorted to save money and reduce debt, consumers
who finally do that are likely to find their newfound thrift
hobbling the recovery.
</p>
<p> In another irony, the growing mood of caution comes at a
time when many households have fresh cash on hand. Americans
pocketed $12 billion last year just by renegotiating their
mortgages. "The nation has some money to burn for a change,"
says Gail Fosler, chief economist for the Conference Board, a
business research group. "But no one wants to light the first
match. It's not a recovery. It's only an improvement."
</p>
<p> While candidate Clinton promised to "focus like a laser on
the economy," much of the current reluctance to spend stems
from confusion about President Clinton's economic policies.
"Clinton has had so many mixed messages that people don't know
what to think," Fosler says. Concurs William Hoglund, executive
vice president of General Motors: "The so-called recovery is
the slowest that man has ever seen, and it hasn't resulted in
any more employment. The President's program merely adds
another note of uncertainty. So the consumer doesn't feel that
anything is happening at all."
</p>
<p> Americans have also been paying for policies that George
Bush enacted last year. To spur the economy before the
election, Bush lowered income-tax withholding rates for 1992 and
thereby gave workers more take-home pay. But that triggered
unpleasant surprises in the past few weeks when consumers found
that they either owed more taxes than usual or could expect
smaller refund checks to make up for the reduced amounts
withheld in 1992. Overall, the Bush program is costing taxpayers
an estimated $6 billion this year.
</p>
<p> Many economists are no less skeptical of Clinton's
stimulus proposals. Critics call the increased spending a
pointless distraction from Administration plans to cut the
federal deficit; the prospect of a smaller deficit has already
sharply lowered interest rates. "The drop in rates is the most
important thing that has happened to the economy since the
election," says Van Doorn Ooms, a former chief economist for the
House Budget Committee. "It's something that is worth four or
five stimulus packages." Georgia State University economist
Donald Rataj czak agrees: "The stimulus package is a bad idea
at this stage in the business cycle."
</p>
<p> For now, consumers seem content to sit on their wallets
and leave companies wondering when they will return. "It's very
nerve-racking, I can tell you that," says Alex Trotman,
president of Ford's automotive operations. "It's like we just
can't seem to get off the runway before we start falling back."
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>