Showing posts with label US economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US economy. Show all posts

Monday 19 July 2010

U.S. economy: From Recovery to Sustainable Growth

July 15, 2010, 10:21PM EST

Analysts Pare Revenue Growth Expectations

Investors may not be able to count on robust rates of sales growth to boost earnings in coming quarters

By David Bogoslaw

Equity analysts and investment strategists have been closely watching corporate revenue trends since last summer to see what's driving any improvement in earnings. But investors may not be able to count on improving sales growth as a way to pump up profits: Analysts are dialing back expectations for revenue growth for some of the world's biggest companies.

In a July 13 market commentary, Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at BNY ConvergEx Group, an investment technology provider, published data showing that analysts' consensus revenue estimates for the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones industrial average for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2010 have been declining since April or May. Forecasts were lower in July than in April or May for 21 companies of the Dow 30 for the second quarter, for 22 for the third quarter, and for 19 for the fourth quarter, the report said.

The trend toward lower revenue expectations is present in the broader market. In the three months leading up to July 15, 48.7 percent of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index with available data had their revenue estimates cut, vs. 39.3 percent in the comparable period leading up to Apr. 30 and 37.1 percent in the three months leading up to Jan. 29, according to Bloomberg data. The start of fourth-quarter earnings releases is typically mid-January, while first-quarter earnings are released beginning in mid-April.

Colas has been tracking analysts' projections for revenue growth for the past year and says that until April those numbers had continued to climb "every single month, month in and month out," reflecting analysts' expectations for further improvement in quarterly earnings. But the trend over the past two months has flattened and is now declining. That's coincided with an 8.0 percent pullback in the S&P 500 index between Apr. 15 and July 15, and Colas believes there's a link between the two.

"For the first time since the [March 2009] market lows, analysts now realize they have overshot on revenue expectations and now are starting to pull them back in," he says. "Earnings expectations have not declined, so analysts have cut revenue expectations but have given companies more credit for [continuing] cost cuts."

IMPACT ON STOCKS
Doubts about the strength of revenue growth over the past year could pose problems for continuing advances in stock prices. "What do you pay for earnings if you're not sure what the structural growth rates are? That's a big, big question," says Colas. "One proxy for structural growth is revenue growth."

While two-thirds of the 30 Dow components seems like a large proportion, the index contains a lot of blue chip companies whose sales are highly correlated to U.S. gross domestic product, says Jeffrey Kleintop, chief market strategist at LPL Financial in Boston. As GDP projections for 2010 have moderated, it makes sense that consensus estimates for revenue growth would follow suit, he says. On July 14, the Federal Reserve lowered its economic growth estimate for 2010 to 3 percent to 3.5 percent from a forecast of 3.2 percent to 3.7 percent given in April.

It's fair to wonder whether the increasing percentage of downward revisions reflects the extent to which analysts may have been blindsided by the European sovereign debt crisis and the slowdown in China, not to mention the soft patch that the U.S. economy has hit. It may be that analysts' optimism about economic growth at the start of a new year tends to fade as the year wears on, which is borne out by patterns in 2009 and so far in 2010, says Peter Nielsen, manager of the Sextant Core Fund (SCORX) at privately held Saturna Capital in Bellingham, Wash.

Another thing to keep in mind: "There's a lot of noise" in the year-over-year comparisons for revenue due to the absence of growth drivers such as cash for clunkers and other government stimulus programs that boosted companies' sales in 2009, says Nielsen. That may be one reason for the conservative revenue numbers coming from many brokerage analysts, he adds. Nielsen thinks year-over-year comparisons will become more difficult as the year progresses and expects "very modest" revenue gains in the third quarter.

It also makes sense that analysts would be paring their revenue estimates around the one-year anniversary of what most economists agree was the bottom of the economic cycle, says Craig Peckham, equity product strategist at Jefferies & Co. (JEF). It's logical to conclude that revenue growth will disappoint investors as year-over-year earnings comparisons become more challenging later this year, he says.

REASSURING EARNINGS REPORTS
The central issue is that investors are unwilling to pay as much for earnings growth driven more by cost-cutting than by improvement in sales. "What you pay for an earnings multiple for cost-cutting is less than what you pay for revenue growth because cost-cutting has to stop somewhere" while revenue growth has "a longer runway," says Colas.

Encouraging second-quarter earnings reports may be enough to stanch the flow of negative revisions and confirm the view that analysts have reduced estimates too far on concerns about Europe, as well as doubts about consumer spending in the U.S., says Jefferies' Peckham. The performance of some equity market bellwethers seems to suggest that analysts may be relying too heavily on pessimistic macroeconomic data that have come out in the last two months, he adds.

Alcoa (AA) reported earnings of 13 cents per share on July 12, beating the Street's forecast by a penny, on a 22.2 percent rise in revenue from a year earlier. On July 13, Intel (INTC) posted a profit of 51 cents per share, up from 18 cents a year earlier and beating analysts' expectations by 8 cents. The microchip manufacturer's revenue rose $2.7 billion, or 33 percent, from a year earlier, exceeding the consensus forecast by $549.9 million, or 5.5 percent. Intel projected third-quarter revenue of $11.2 billion to $12 billion, the lower range of which was ahead of the consensus estimate by $289.35 million, or 2.7 percent, a day prior to the earnings release.

In making the transition from recovery to sustainable growth, the U.S. economy faces some key obstacles such as Europe's fiscal problems and the weak domestic labor market, according to a midyear outlook report by LPL Financial published on July 12. While U.S. banks are fairly insulated from European debt woes, LPL said that U.S. exports and business spending are vulnerable to a pullback in global economic growth that could result from another freeze of liquidity and trade, as well as to the euro zone slipping back into recession due to cuts in government spending, tax hikes, and higher borrowing costs.

TYPICAL RECOVERY SLOWDOWN
Kleintop thinks analysts were caught by surprise by negative macroeconomic data on home sales, retail sales, and job creation. That's not unusual since analysts tend to focus more on microeconomic data related to companies they cover than what's happening in the broader economy. But the fact that the economy has hit a soft patch a year into the recovery is typical of each of the past several recoveries, he says. Each time, the soft period didn't halt the expansion, but it did slow the pace of economic growth and result in a flat stock market for about a year, he says.

Another source of confusion for the market is the divergence between robust manufacturing data and a resurgence of caution among consumers. While the manufacturing strength is encouraging, that's a small part of the economy relative to consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of GDP. The fact that the dominant sector is so sluggish "makes this recovery somewhat fragile and susceptible to a downside shock," says David Joy, chief market strategist at RiverSource Investments. He thinks consumer spending will probably remain soft, making a 3.0 percent gain in GDP the best the U.S. can muster for the foreseeable future.

It's worth noting how questions about economic growth have been translating into stock performance, he says. "We're noticing valuations within the market are very compressed. Investors are saying large caps are no better than small caps, that high-quality stocks are no better than low-quality ones," he says. "That tells us where you want to be is in large-cap, high-quality stocks," which have more reliable earnings growth and tend to pay dividends and aren't selling at a premium to lesser-quality names as they usually would.

But by focusing on revenue growth, investors may be overly conservative in their outlook for earnings growth. U.S. companies slashed costs dramatically at the bottom of the cycle, paving the way for outsized earnings growth once revenues recover even modestly, says Peckham. "Companies have been able to create cost structures with a ton of operating leverage. If you've got a model with good operating leverage, your earnings should go up a lot faster than your revenues," he says.

CORPORATE OUTLOOK WATCH
Second-quarter earnings, which have just begun to be reported, are likely to ease market jitters as key economic questions such as the impact of Europe's debt and growth problems are put in perspective, says Kleintop. Although many companies in the S&P 500 export goods and services to Europe, most of the demand from overseas in the past year has come from Asia. Large U.S. companies can still generate strong double-digit profit growth without help from Europe, he says.

Saturna's Nielsen is particularly eager to hear comments from pharmaceutical executives on earnings conference calls to get a sense of the impact they expect fiscal austerity measures in Europe to have on their European sales. He's deeply skeptical of the confidence sell-side analysts have in European governments' willingness to continue to pay up for drugs and joint replacements based on aging demographics in those countries, in the face of their fiscal difficulties.

Conference calls should also provide more clarity on the tangible costs of health-care and financial reform as companies disclose what they think the impact of these regulatory changes will be on their businesses, says Kleintop. "Once you can define them, they start to lose some of their potency to sway sentiment," he says. That could help sustain the recent stock rally. While the market seems stuck in a broad range, he says the S&P 500 could see further gains of 5 percent to 7 percent before another round of profit-taking kicks in.

The increasing number of downward earnings revisions doesn't bode well for stock market gains in 2010 relative to 2009. Roughly 200 companies in the S&P 500 have had downward revisions in the past three months, vs. 250 that have had upward revisions, according to data that Kleintop has been watching. Three months ago, only 150 companies had had downward revisions vs. 300 that had had upward revisions. The percentage of total analyst revisions that are positive "moves in lockstep with the year-over-year performance of the S&P [500 index]" going back 30 years, he says.

The steam that's come out of revenue growth expectations makes the 2011 consensus forecast for aggregate earnings of $96 per share for the S&P 500 look less and less realistic, says RiverSource's Joy. With the broad market now trading at around 12 times that number, even if you scale revenue growth back slightly, stocks still seem inexpensive, he says. That makes him think there's a cushion for equities even if revenue growth isn't robust enough to generate the earnings analysts are expecting.

Bogoslaw is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek's Finance channel.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/investor/content/jul2010/pi20100715_477248.htm

Tuesday 29 June 2010

RBS tells clients to prepare for 'monster' money-printing by the Federal Reserve

As recovery starts to stall in the US and Europe with echoes of mid-1931, bond experts are once again dusting off a speech by Ben Bernanke given eight years ago as a freshman governor at the Federal Reserve.

 
Entitled "Deflation: Making Sure It Doesn’t Happen Here", it is a warfare manual for defeating economic slumps by use of extreme monetary stimulus once interest rates have dropped to zero, and implicitly once governments have spent themselves to near bankruptcy.
The speech is best known for its irreverent one-liner: "The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."
Bernanke began putting the script into action after the credit system seized up in 2008, purchasing $1.75 trillion of Treasuries, mortgage securities, and agency bonds to shore up the US credit system. He stopped far short of the $5 trillion balance sheet quietly pencilled in by the Fed Board as the upper limit for quantitative easing (QE).
Investors basking in Wall Street's V-shaped rally had assumed that this bizarre episode was over. So did the Fed, which has been shutting liquidity spigots one by one. But the latest batch of data is disturbing.
The ECRI leading indicator produced by the Economic Cycle Research Institute plummeted yet again last week to -6.9, pointing to contraction in the US by the end of the year. It is dropping faster that at any time in the post-War era.
The latest data from the CPB Netherlands Bureau shows that world trade slid 1.7pc in May, with the biggest fall in Asia. The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates on bulk goods has dropped 40pc in a month. This is a volatile index that can be distorted by the supply of new ships, but those who watch it as an early warning signal for China and commodities are nervous.
Andrew Roberts, credit chief at RBS, is advising clients to read the Bernanke text very closely because the Fed is soon going to have to the pull the lever on "monster" quantitative easing (QE)".
"We cannot stress enough how strongly we believe that a cliff-edge may be around the corner, for the global banking system (particularly in Europe) and for the global economy. Think the unthinkable," he said in a note to investors.
Roberts said the Fed will shift tack, resorting to the 1940s strategy of capping bond yields around 2pc by force majeure said this is the option "which I personally prefer".
A recent paper by the San Francisco Fed argues that interest rates should now be minus 5pc under the bank's "rule of thumb" measure of capacity use and unemployment. The rate is currently minus 2pc when QE is factored in. You could conclude, very crudely, that the Fed must therefore buy another $2 trillion of bonds, and even more if Europe's EMU debacle goes from bad to worse. I suspect that this hints at the Bernanke view, but it is anathema to hardliners at the Kansas, Richmond, Philadephia, and Dallas Feds.
Societe Generale's uber-bear Albert Edwards said the Fed and other central banks will be forced to print more money whatever they now say, given the "stinking fiscal mess" across the developed world. "The response to the coming deflationary maelstrom will be additional money printing that will make the recent QE seem insignificant," he said.
Despite the apparent rift with Europe, the US is arguably tightening fiscal policy just as hard. Congress has cut off benefits for those unemployed beyond six months, leaving 1.3m without support. California has to slash $19bn in spending this year, as much as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Hungary, and Romania combined. The states together must cut $112bn to comply with state laws.
The Congressional Budget Office said federal stimulus from the Obama package peaked in the first quarter. The effect will turn sharply negative by next year as tax rises automatically kick in, a net swing of 4pc of GDP. This is happening as the US housing market tips into a double-dip. New homes sales crashed 33pc to a record low of 300,000 in May after subsidies expired.
It is sobering that zero rates, QE a l'outrance, and an $800bn fiscal blitz should should have delivered so little. Just as it is sobering that Club Med bond purchases by the European Central Bank and the creation of the EU's €750bn rescue "shield" have failed to stabilize Europe's debt markets. Greek default contracts reached an all-time high of 1,125 on Friday even though the €110bn EU-IMF rescue is up and running. Are investors questioning EU solvency itself, or making a judgment on German willingness to back pledges with real money?
Clearly we are nearing the end of the "Phoney War", that phase of the global crisis when it seemed as if governments could conjure away the Great Debt. The trauma has merely been displaced from banks, auto makers, and homeowners onto the taxpayer, lifting public debt in the OECD bloc from 70pc of GDP to 100pc by next year. As the Bank for International Settlements warns, sovereign debt crises are nearing "boiling point" in half the world economy.
Fiscal largesse had its place last year. It arrested the downward spiral at a crucial moment, but that moment has passed. There is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. The Krugman doctrine of perma-deficits is ruinous - and has in fact ruined Japan. The only plausible escape route for the West is a decade of fiscal austerity offset by helicopter drops of printed money, for as long as it takes.
Some say that the Fed's QE policies have failed. I profoundly disagree. The US property market - and therefore the banks - would have imploded if the Fed had not pulled down mortgage rates so aggressively, but you can never prove a counter-factual.
The case for fresh QE is not to inflate away the debt or default on Chinese creditors by stealth devaluation. It is to prevent deflation.
Bernanke warned in that speech eight years ago that "sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy" because it leads to slow death from a rising real burden of debt.
At the time, the broad money supply war growing at 6pc and the Dallas Fed's `trimmed mean' index of core inflation was 2.2pc.
We are much nearer the tipping today. The M3 money supply has contracted by 5.5pc over the last year, and the pace is accelerating: the 'trimmed mean' index is now 0.6pc on a six-month basis, the lowest ever. America is one twist shy of a debt-deflation trap.
There is no doubt that the Fed has the tools to stop this. "Sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation," said Bernanke. The question is whether he can muster support for such action in the face of massive popular disgust, a Republican Fronde in Congress, and resistance from the liquidationsists at the Kansas, Philadelphia, and Richmond Feds. If he cannot, we are in grave trouble.

A Lost Decade for U.S. Stocks

Dec 23, 2009


I came across two charts that show the dismal performance of U.S. equities in this decade. The first chart below is from the Numbers column in the latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek. It shows the return of the S&P 500 Index from Dec 31, 1999 through Dec. 14, 2009. The S&P 500 lost 23% in this period. During the same period market indices in developed countries like France, Finland, etc. showed relatively better performance. The main stock market indices in the Netherlands, Japan and Greece performed worse than the S&P 500.
It is interesting to note that while the S&P lost 23%, the Brazilian Bovespa Index gained an astonishing 318% during the same time frame. This is one reason why US investors should look beyond the US for better returns.
click to enlarge
Stock-Markets-Soared-Sank
Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek
The second chart is from a Wall Street Journal December 20th article titled “Investors Hope the ’10s Beat the ‘00“. From the article:
“The U.S. stock market is wrapping up what is likely to be its worst decade ever.
In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade.
The period has provided a lesson for ordinary Americans who used stocks as their primary way of saving for retirement.
Many investors were lured to the stock market by the bull market that began in the early 1980s and gained force through the 1990s. But coming out of the 1990s—when a 17.6% average annual gain made it the second-best decade in history behind the 1950s—stocks simply had gotten too expensive. Companies also pared dividends, cutting into investor returns. And in a time of financial panic like 2008, stocks were a terrible place to invest.
With two weeks to go in 2009, the declines since the end of 1999 make the last 10 years the worst calendar decade for stocks going back to the 1820s, when reliable stock market records begin, according to data compiled by Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann. He estimates it would take a 3.6% rise between now and year end for the decade to come in better than the 0.2% decline suffered by stocks during the Depression years of the 1930s.
The past decade also well underperformed other decades with major financial panics, such as in 1907 and 1893.
The last 10 years have been a nightmare, really poor,” for U.S. stocks, said Michele Gambera, chief economist at Ibbotson Associates.”
Chart - U.S. Stocks’ Cumulative Returns by Decade
“This decade is on pace to be the worst period ever for owning stocks. On the right are the annual returns, by year and decade, for a broad measure of stock-ownership. Stock returns were even better during the Civil War and World War I than from 2000 to 2009.”
Worst-Decade-Stocks

Friday 25 June 2010

G20 nations see different paths for securing recovery

REUTERS, Jun 25, 2010, 08.47am IST


TORONTO/WASHINGTON: World leaders aimed for a common target on Thursday of securing the economic recovery, but disagreed over how best to reach it.

With two days to go before the Group of 20 summit convenes in Toronto, officials tried to downplay differences between the United States and Europe over how quickly to shift from crisis-fighting mode to budgetary belt-tightening.

"That's the delicate balance that we need to try to strike this weekend," Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty said.

His US counterpart, Timothy Geithner, said each country needed to decide what policy mix made sense to ensure both growth and fiscal responsibility.

"Our job is to make sure we're all sitting there together, focused on this challenge of growth and confidence because growth and confidence are paramount," he said in an interview with BBC World News America.

The G20 club of rich and emerging economies joined forces at the height of the global financial panic and poured an estimated $5 trillion into stimulus spending, emergency loans and bank guarantees, helping to ward off a global depression. 

The group still has a long and difficult to-do list, including forging consensus on new rules about how much capital that banks must hold, and making sure national financial regulatory reforms do not clash on a global scale.

The cost of fighting the financial crisis and recession left gaping holes in government finances, and Greece's debt troubles have focused Europe's attention on the need to shrink budget deficits before investors lose patience. 

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said Europe could no longer afford to borrow and spend, and must repair budgets in order to rebuild confidence for growth. 

"It will not be a change overnight but
there is no more room for deficit spending," Barroso told a news conference in Toronto.

The United States wants to make sure European countries - Germany, in particular - do not remove government supports too quickly because that could derail the recovery.

US stocks fell on Thursday on concerns over the durability of the economic rebound.

President Barack Obama, pushing Washington's pro-growth, line, said "surplus countries" - often code for Germany and China - must find ways to stimulate growth. But he also acknowledged that countries including the United States with medium- and long-term deficit problems would have to address them.

"Not every country is going to respond exactly the same way, but all of us are going to have responsibilities to rebalance in ways that allow for long-term, sustained economic growth," Obama said in Washington during an appearance with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers, in an interview with Reuters, also stressed that growth would be key, but said it was not simply a matter of choosing between austerity and expansion.

"There obviously is an importance in having a growth strategy, but I think it's too simple to think of growth strategies only as running budget deficits or printing money," he said. 


In Europe, senior officials were in no mood to back down on their plans to cut spending.

Saying she expected "controversial discussions" in Toronto over Europe's budget priorities, German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted Berlin would forge ahead with its biggest program of fiscal cutbacks since World War II.

European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet dismissed the idea budget cuts could torpedo the fragile economic recovery that is taking hold.

"The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect," Trichet told Italian newspaper La Repubblica, describing the German budget plans as "good" and repeating calls for more fiscal discipline in the 16-nation euro zone. 

Merkel, who aims to save 80 billion euros in the next four years, told ARD television that sustained growth could only be guaranteed through getting a grip on deficits and debt. 

"I and the EU will argue this position. There are others who are not yet so convinced of this exit strategy," she said.

The G20, which includes the world's biggest economies and two-thirds of its population, holds its summit in Toronto on Saturday and Sunday. It will be preceded by a meeting on Friday and Saturday of the G8, composed of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.

Downtown Toronto's downtown banking district has seen business drop off as heavy security is mounted. Canadian police said on Thursday they had arrested the driver of a car near the meeting site who was carrying a chainsaw, crossbow and fuel containers.

BANKING REFORM

Economic policy has not been the only issue dividing the G20, which has also seen its unity tested by reforms to the banking sector.

European proposals for global taxes on banks and financial transactions have run into opposition from countries like Canada that say their banks are in good health. 

European countries are concerned that planned new rules requiring banks to set aside more capital may crimp lending.

Obama, meanwhile, hopes to sign off on rules to regulate finance within weeks as lawmakers raced to meet a Thursday deadline they had set themselves to agree on their own financial overhaul package.

Obama signalled on Thursday that China's move this week to relax the peg of its currency, the yuan, to the dollar may not be enough to shield Beijing from accusations that it is using the currency to gain an unfair trade advantage. 

"The initial signs were positive. But it is too early to tell whether the appreciation, that will track the market, is sufficient to allow for the rebalancing that we think is appropriate," Obama said.

The yuan has risen by about 0.4 percent against the dollar since Beijing's policy change - a significant step relative to its earlier freeze, but far less than the 25 to 40 per cent increase that some analysts say it needs to make to achieve fair value.

"Cut versus growth" debate: Barack Obama is refusing to listen to reason on economic policy

Barack Obama is refusing to listen to reason on economic policy

President Barack Obama could learn from the old-fashioned German habit of saving money before spending it, argues Jeremy Warner.

 
Barack Obama is refusing to listen to reason on economic policy; Barack Obama will meet other world leaders at the G20 summit; AFP
Barack Obama will meet other world leaders at the G20 summit Photo: AFP
Rarely has the dismal science of economics inflamed such passions. While the "cuts versus growth" debate has been building steadily for more than a year on both sides of the Atlantic, over the past week it has exploded into open international hostilities.
A compromised form of words will already have been agreed for the communiqué to follow this weekend's meeting of G8 and G20 leaders; the sherpas who do the preparatory donkey work for these stage-managed events will have ensured it.
But behind the anodyne platitudes of any statement, the tensions have reached fever pitch. Gone is the co-operative consensus that, in adversity 18 months ago, brought G20 nations together to fight the downturn.
In its place lies a clear line of demarcation that almost exactly mirrors our own political debate in Britain over the economic consequences of George Osborne's Emergency Budget cuts. Yet though this debate masquerades as high intellect, it has about as much to do with economics as the outcome of the World Cup.
President Barack Obama, backed to some extent by Nicolas Sarkozy of France, wants economic stimulus to continue until the global recovery is unambiguously secure. In the opposite corner is Germany's Angela Merkel, now oddly aligned with Britain's new political leadership in thinking the time is right for fiscal austerity.
Like much of what Mr Obama says and does these days, the US position is cynically political. With mid-term elections looming and the Democrats down in the polls, the administration hasn't yet even begun to think about deficit reduction. Obama is much more worried by the possibility of a double-dip recession and the damage this would do to his chances of a second term, than the state of the public finances.
As it happens, the public debt trajectory is rather worse in the US than it is in Europe, yet Obama has adopted an overtly "spend until we are broke" approach in a calculated bid for growth and votes.
Part of the reason he can afford to do this is that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency of choice. For some reason, international investors still want to hold dollar assets, which for the time being gives the US government an almost limitless capacity to borrow. As we know, not everyone enjoys this luxury.
Mr Obama's cheerleader-in-chief in arguing the case for continued international deficit spending is the American economist Paul Krugman. This hyperactive Nobel prize winner has achieved almost celebrity status for his extreme neo-Keynesian views. Unfortunately, his frequent polemics on the supposed merits of letting rip public spending long since ceased to be based on objective analysis, and are instead argued as a matter of almost ideological conviction. He's as much a fundamentalist as the "deficit hawks" he mocks.
As it happens, nobody is asking America to axe and burn with immediate effect, though you might not think this to read Professor Krugman's ever more hysterical commentaries on the fiscal austerity sweeping Europe. But some sort of a plan for long-term debt reduction, other than blind reliance on growth, might be helpful.
Chancellor Merkel's approach looks equally political. With her own position under some threat, she has taken, with growing conviction, to preaching the teutonic virtues of fiscal discipline and long-term economic planning. Self-flagellation is judged to play as well with German voters as profligacy does with Americans.
These culturally very different approaches to politics and economics were brilliantly described by the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schauble, in a recent newspaper article. "While US policymakers like to focus on short-term corrective measures," he wrote, "we take the longer view and are therefore more preoccupied with the implications of excessive deficits and the dangers of high inflation… This aversion, which has its roots in German history, may appear peculiar to our American friends, whose economic culture is in part shaped by deflationary episodes. Yet these fears are among the most potent factors of consumption and savings rates in our country."
Just as America takes its popular understanding of economic catastrophe from the Great Depression of the 1930s, for Germans it is the great inflations of the inter- and post-war years, the first of which destroyed middle-class savings and contributed to the rise of political extremism.
There are no rights and wrongs in this debate, but by implicitly criticising Germany for not doing enough to stimulate domestic demand, Mr Obama displays his usual lack of understanding of foreign affairs – or rather, perhaps deliberately chooses to dismiss perfectly legitimate alternative approaches to the same problem.
Few countries did as much as Germany to sustain economic activity in the downturn. What's more, despite the rhetoric of deficit reduction, its fiscal stance remains expansionary throughout the remainder of this year and is only mildly negative next year. The goal of returning to balanced budgets by 2015/16 is entirely reasonable given the demands and constraints of an ageing population, is in line with the same ambition set by George Osborne this week, and can in any case be suspended if the economy begins to shrink again.
As Mr Schauble has repeatedly pointed out, seeking to engineer greater domestic demand by taking on more government borrowing is, for Germany at least, counter-productive, for Germans do not feel confident in their spending unless cushioned by adequate savings. Some might think these the sort of old-fashioned virtues that need to be relearnt in more profligate advanced economies, such as America and Britain.
I don't want to push the argument too far, for there is no doubt that by exporting debt to its neighbours, Germany played a central role in the fiscal crisis that has engulfed the fringe nations of the eurozone. There is no obvious answer to these inherent fault lines within the European monetary union, other perhaps than a return to sovereign currencies.
But to expect Germany to become less competitive so that the Greeks and Spaniards can be more so is absurd. It's a bit like arguing that elite marathon runners should slow down to allow others to catch up.
In berating others to carry on spending, Mr Obama is being neither politically wise nor economically sound. He should instead be attending to his own back yard by mapping out some sort of credible, long-term plan for returning the US to balanced budgets.
David Cameron is going to find himself ahead of the curve among the G8 this weekend, for his own plans for fiscal retrenchment are, if anything, rather more advanced and detailed than even those of Germany. In Britain, only the Labour Opposition and its supporters still think this the wrong approach – but given they were the ones that got us into this fiscal mess in the first place, they would do, wouldn't they?