Are we doomed to build another bubble?

When the dot-com bubble burst in 2001 and the economy entered a recession, it…

by Colin Campbell on Friday, December 12, 2008 12:42pm - 12 Comments

When the dot-com bubble burst in 2001 and the economy entered a recession, it wasn’t long before a new bubble started to grow and fill the void—money started pouring into the housing sector. That, somewhat predictably, burst even more spectacularly than the Internet one. So, what’s next?  There’s a pretty strong argument that yet another bubble is being primed. What it will be is still unclear (could it be infrastructure or alternative energies?). But like it or not, the bubble cycle could well be finding a permanent place in our economy—a kind of vicious cycle.  The most complete, and interesting, argument appeared in Harper’s earlier this year (it is worth reading in its entirety).

There’s also research that suggests this is simply human nature. In a controlled study, outlined here, people were given money and shares to trade, and 90 percent of the time, ended up creating bubbles. “Again and again, in experiment after experiment, the trading price runs up way above fundamental value. Then… it crashes,” explains the Atlantic article.  So, are we set to repeat the same mistakes? Or will this downturn be deep and long enough to convince us of the error of our ways?

Update: more on bubbles in the latest Atlantic (the Henry Blodget piece that Sisyphus points out)

Bookmark and Share
  • Sean Stokholm

    I recently saw an interview with an economist/scholar type on the Daily Show (his name escapes me). He argued that bubbles (technological ones, anyway) can be positive forces in that they represent an intense focus on particular technologies, and that they leave enduring legacies. The IT bubble left us with internet as we know it, and the railway bubble of over a century ago left us with a rail system (until we began to dismantle it in the 1970s and 80s). I don’t know if I buy the argument wholly, and the housing bubble is tough to defend with the same logic (suburban mansions don’t seem like much of a legacy), but it’s food for thought.

  • Ti-Guy

    What we are “doomed” to do depends on whether the mass media will start entertaining radically skeptical, dissenting or alternative viewpoints while working harder to popularise complex issues…which can in fact be explained without recourse to expert opinion that no one besides experts in the exact same field can decode anyway.

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    Or will this downturn be deep and long enough to convince us of the error of our ways?

    When have we ever been convinced of the error of our ways? Human civilization has always stumbled from calamity to calamity and it’s doubtful that will ever change. What’s really disheartening though, is that we’ve become no more adept at extricating ourselves from these dilemmas than we have been in the past. You’d think that in all this time somebody would have had the foresight to prepare a lifeboat for when we inevitably and repeatedly run the ship into a rocky shoal and begin sinking.

  • Austin So

    I suppose if the world continues the route of placing value in paper rather than tangible items such as gold, then the only way to regain this artificial wealth is to blow some more bubbles before someone (say China) recognizes “wait a minute, this is just paper”.

    But both the article and the experiment seem to suggest that strong regulatory oversight is a requirement to restrict growth to more sustainable levels and keep this tendency in check.

    Another great article from Harper’s…one magazine that truly shines above the rest for critical pieces (no offense Macleans)…

    Austin

  • T. Thwim

    Colin, to answer your final question, no, it won’t.

    This is why the free-market uber alles people always end up wrong. A belief that the free market works is based on two faulty beliefs:
    1. People are rational.
    2. Memory is constant.

  • Sisyphus

    Henry Blodget , in a recent Atlantic, made a similar argument. He knows a thing or two about bubbles.

    I know they’ve been around forever, but there does seem to be an increased frequency.

    I’ve seen discussions where they have been related to an excess of easy money. And investors avoiding productive enterprise in favour of what they see as less risky trading opportunities.

    My own bias makes me wonder about the role of option compensation leading managers to running the business in order to inflate stock values rather than building a better business.

    Maybe the “alignment of interests” isn’t.

  • Critical Reasoning

    What’s our next bubble going to be? Good question; I wish I knew. The prize for guessing the correct answer is $millions of easy money.

    There are only three ways to make money without really trying:
    1. Inheritance
    2. Lottery
    3. Being an investor or entrepreneur in the early stages of a bubble.

    The best part about route #3 is that people will also think you are a genius, at least until the bubble pops.

  • Austin So

    Well it ain’t going to be the tar sands…

    Austin

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    Housing wasn’t the only bubble. Natural resources seemed quite bubbly to me. Potash Corp as the largest firm in Canada by market cap was a bit of a give-away.

  • http://vent.itsonlysteam.com len

    Here’s to hoping there are enough shreds left to construct the next bubble and not follow Japan into the nether regions of anti-bubbles ;) where liquidity gets sucked up and burned in the vortex of its ‘carry trade’.

  • http://ragingranter.blogspot.com Raging Ranter

    Bubbles can be avoided through prudent monetary policy. That means keeping interest rates MUCH higher during good times than most of us would be comfortable with. Cheap credit has created every bubble that existed in the past century or more, and will create every one of the future. Maintain some reasonable restrictions on monetary policies, and broaden the measure of inflation to include not just the CPI but asset prices as well, and adjust interest rates accordingly. I’m not talking about the double-digit rates of the early 1980s. Just keeping them a couple points higher would be enough to prevent insane stock market, housing, and commercial real estate bubbles from inflating like that have. Oh, and stricter, higher reserve requirements for all lending institutions would also help.

    Don’t want more bubbles? Stop blowing air into the goddam things with monetary policy designed with the express purpose of inflating them.

  • Austin So

    Of course. And don’t elect those that encourage them and caused this mess to migrate to Canada.

    Austin

From Macleans