A lesson to learn

"Cycle-proof regulation"

This article written by a former IMF economist details his idea of a possible "non-band aid" solution. He basically comes up with an idea to keep banks capable of producing the necessary cash when times are good, so that they can use it when the economy turns bad. The author comments that regulation usually is allowed to progress when times are bad and public sentiment is in the regulators favor. This idea needs to be implemented by more than just banks. The public could use this dose of medicine, too. What's interesting is who will actually put this into practice. My bet is that the financial sector will put on a face for the public to show sorrow and a "real change of heart," and may even make some actual changes here and there. The public on the other hand will make the more significant and long lasting change to prevent a crisis again. I could be wrong. Maybe the banks will actually figure out a way to cash in on public savings.

US foreclosures up 24% in first quarter

I came across this article after responding to a post made about the 4.7% increase in new home sales. I thought it was interesting that in February new home sales rebounded nearly 5%. It's even more interesting that US foreclosures are up 24% now and in February new home sales were up 4.7%. I would have to say that this article about foreclosures show us that the 4.7% increase in new home sales wasn't much of a sign that the economy is recovering. "The faltering economy is causing the housing crisis to spread. Nationwide, nearly 804,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice from January through March, up from about 650,000 in the same time period a year earlier. Wow! That is such a huge jump in just a years time. The article states that while foreclosures were down 13% in the fourth quarter last year they project that it will continue to rise and hopefully taper of in the summer.

Here is a link to the article.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-foreclosures-up-24-percent-apf-14940685.html

Is China a threat?

Spurred by the time-deadline placed before me, I read an article in the New York Times about China expanding it's influence in Latin America. This article explained that China has negotiated deals with Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil, giving them large sums of money. This move either shows that China cares, or that they have a lot to gain by doing this. David Rothkopf is quoted in this article as saying, "This is how the balance of power shifts quietly during times of crisis." This comment sort of put me on the edge of my seat thinking that China is secretly taking over the world. Then i thought about it some more and realized that we owe China a lot of money so it's not like we aren't aware just how much influence China already has with us, and in the world in general.

It’s Okay if you lose your Job

I saw an interesting advertisement on TV a few days ago and thought I would share it with those who might have not seen it. Saturn has a new protection plan for their vehicle buyers. They offer to pay up to nine months of your payments if you lose your job. I know they are trying to promote sales, but how is this going to help them? Yes, they might get a few more cars off the lot, but their company just got bailed out and is on the chopping block to be sold. There terms state: “You have to be employed for at least 30 hours per week for 90 days after you buy or lease the vehicle and for 12 consecutive weeks prior to your first day of unemployment. Then, if you lose your job due to economic conditions during the next 21 months you are eligible for benefits. If you lose your job for other reasons, you may not be covered.” How would someone go about proving they lost their job due to “economic conditions”?

Terms and Conditons

G-20 2009

What I would like to know is what changed, this big meeting amongst world leaders, large and small countries, highest security ever assembled, etc. I here very little of Obama coming back from the Summit with new ideas, for that fact I hear nothing about change in other countries due to the summit. I was looking up the agenda for the summit and what was to take place during it. With all of the things being discussed, I would have expected more. We talked about the relevance of each country that attended and what they brought to the table in class. The one thing that I feel is missing is the outcome, there were more stories about the security at the conference than the outcome of it. (Wikipedia: 2009 G-20 London Summit)

China's New Investment

I found an article from the Wall Street Journal Online entitled China's Growth Slowest in Two Decades. Given that we study growth theory, and China is a major player in the world economy, and tonight is the deadline for submitting new posts, I thought I would give it a read. The article is pretty basic and talks about how the numbers don't accurately portray Chinese growth because they only release numbers on a year-to-year basis, unlike our quarterly releases. The main thing that caught my attention was the noted increase in Chinese domestic investments.

The government's stimulus program has been ramping up investment to counteract the weakness in export demand. Fixed-asset investment in urban areas, China's benchmark measure of capital spending, rose 30.3% in March from the year-ago period, picking up from 26.5% growth in the first two months of this year.

I may have this completely wrong, but this seems to be a step in the right direction as far as their policy goes. Reinvesting back into your countries own capital is vital to growth and if the Chinese begin investing some of their billions back into their own country as it becomes more stable and reliable they could experience substantial gains in well-being, I think. Here is a link to the article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984767545423661.html#mod=testMod.

Same Game Different Rules

The Post-Recession Appetite for Risk and Regulation
This article points out the various questions currently being asked in regard to initiating new regulation of banks and the financial sector. It features various economists giving their take on what needs to be done to ensure that a meltdown like the current one doesn't happen again. I'm really not sure what the point of new regulation is. Any regulation on the banking system will have its moment in the sun and be played up as Washington and Obama "getting things done." But the financial system runs on taking risk, and whether they are called hedge funds or something else, they will find a way to get around any new laws and regulations. It has been going on for years with tax evasion, and when this crisis blows over the game will continue and their will be new winners and losers.

Consumer Prices Falling

This article on bloomber.com caught my attention:
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aiLW5X3YKx8U&refer=economy

Many economist have been warning that as the Fed continues to inject hoards of cash into our struggling economy that inflation will soar, thus effecting the purchasing power of Americans. Such effects are not yet evident as consumer prices actually saw an annual drop for the first time in over 50 years. It was reported that the consumer price index fell .4 percent in March from the previous year. These figures signal deflation and may be due to the global recession keeping prices low. Some would view this as a bigger danger than current manufacturing and production data that is effecting businesses' outlook on the economy. It is not likely however that consumer prices will downspiral. As senior economist Carl Riccadonna stated,“The more slack there is in the system, the longer it will take for inflation to become a concern.” The effect of the Fed's massive spending I would assume will be seen further down the road.

Is Lebron James Overpaid??

I have often heard people talking about the salaries of professional athletes. It's no secret that most professional athletes make more in one year than most of us will ever make in our life times. And I can see how people might think that paying people millions of dollars to run around playing like they were still in kindergarten could seem a little ridiculous. Just as an example, Lebron James plays for the Cleveland Caveliers. He came straight out of high school and is already making the individual salary cap of 20 million per year. That's some serious dough for just playing a game of basketball!! Most people see those kinds of numbers and are just disgusted. I used to think the same thing until I took a class on sports economics. There are certainly cases where players are overpaid for what they actually do in their profession. This is not the case for Lebron James.

It seems logical that a worker in his field should be paid what he is worth. For Example, I work in a factory driving a large fork lift doing very skill based maneuvers. It is not an easy job to do for most people. If I were to apply to work somewhere else, I know that I am at least worth what I am making. If an offer were less than what I am making now, why would I ever accept it? The only problem with most jobs, is that there is no effective way of measuring productivity. It is a very hard thing to do in most cases. In basketball however, productivity is perfectly measured. It is a very simple thing to see what a player contributes to his team. And it would make sense that a player should be payed according to his productivity.

Lebron James is one case where his productivity can be measured very well. In his profession, he would expect to make what he is worth compared to other players in the league, just like any other industry. If we use the stats to determine how much money James should be payed, there is very clear data showing that he is actually underpaid! If he were paid for the amount of money that he alone generates for the Caveliers, he would make a lot more money than he does. He brings in a lot more revenue than he is paid. This is determined by looking at the number of wins that he himself produces and the revenue that is made from the gate, merchandise, and other factors. So despite common belief, some professional players are not being payed what they should.

Don't read if you're a right wing republican

Due to the responses another blog of mine received, I decided to make another blog that goes into further detail of why the Federal Reserve needs to rescue the banks, and letting them fail would be a grave mistake with enormous economical consequences. MSN published an article a few months ago listing the 10 biggest mistakes the Federal Reserve has made thus far in this recession. I realize it's a little early for such hindsight, but bear with me. MSN stated that the #1 worst mistake our country has made was letting Lehman Brothers fail. Once that happened, it sent investors scrambling for the exits as that meant no company is 'too big to fail.' This panic also sent a run on the banks, which is blamed for the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, as well as the further destruction of Citigroup, Bank of America, and others. This panic spread throughout the economy and news outlets, causing consumer spending to plummet and the Dow Jones to get into the 6000's.

As a moderate Republican, I side with the Republican party on most aspects, but this issue is simply impossible to ignore. In most economies we can allow major companies to fail, as inevitably a replacement will come, replacing the lost jobs. However, we cannot allow every major bank and insurance company in the nation to fail all at once, as this panic and devastation would easily plunge us into a great depression that could take years or decades to recover from. If some major banks fail, this will likely trickle down to all the financial institutions, as they are so tightly correlated, and virtually all of them are in financial trouble. For a long time I've criticized those who compared this recession to the Great Depression because things aren't close to that bad. I believe though that if the government does nothing, and lets the economy repair itself, things could get much, much worse, ultimately dwarfing the Great Depression. Thank goodness that isn't the case, as the Fed is rescuing all the major banks that could cause us to spiral out of control.

Some Republicans believe that the best policy is Pure-Capitalism. I believe that system is just about as bad as Pure-Communism. What we need is a Capitalistic market, with the regulations that are necessary for optimal economic growth, and government intervention when necessary. I hope that doesn't sound too much like Socialism, as I'm certainly not Socialist. No one wants to relive the Great Depression, that's why I'd rather have the government spend billions, knowing that much of it will be wasted. At the very least, this optimism is getting people to spend, in turn causing us to climb out of this awful economy.

I couldn't find that old MSN article, but here's an interesting one: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/letting-lehman-go-was-big-mistake-lagarde/370911/

China isn't stupid

Last time we were in class we discussed the problem of a lot of foreign ownership of U.S. treasury bonds and the risks that we are facing by deflating the value of the dollar on purpose. China currently owns 70% of the $2 trillion of foreign held reserves. China recently asked for a guarantee of safety of their assets, due to rising concerns of U.S. spending. Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher recently pointed out that China wouldn’t dare do anything to harm U.S. interests, like dumping the treasuries they own, because U.S. and Chinese interests are directly connected. We rely on Chinese investment in our treasuries for revenue, and China’s economy relies on U.S. consumer spending. And despite the continuing economic turmoil, the U.S. dollar is still the preferred currency of the business world. China would be giving itself a huge kick to the crotch if it tried to get rid of the treasuries it’s currently holding. Whether they wish they had bought them or not, they’re stuck with them for the foreseeable future. You can read more about what Mr. Fisher said about the situation here:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090414/bs_nm/us_fed_fisher;_ylt=AqlZtLX_x97QmqMFhr.BFXXv5rEF

The Future of American Roadway Maintenance Unclear

I came across on article entitled “Oil Industry Braces for Drop in U.S. Thirst for Gasoline” in the April 13 copy of the Wall Street Journal. The article explains that since the introduction of the mass-produced Model T nearly a century ago, U.S. demand for oil has been on the rise until now. The article claims that many of the oil industry’s most prominent members including Exxon Mobil Corp., believe that U.S. gasoline consumption has peaked and will never again attain such levels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that American drivers consumed 371.2 million gallons of petroleum-based gasoline a day in 2007 and that this figure is expected to decline in 2009 to 345.7 million gallons daily. One might say the current recession is to blame for decreased gasoline consumption which is essentially true but Americans have begun to alter their lifestyles as well. Americans have recently made a concentrated effort to decrease commuting distances and driving overall as gasoline prices skyrocketed as recent as last summer. Those deeply involved in the industry believe that even after the economy strengthens, gasoline consumption will never again reach the levels it did in 2007 due to the emergence of biofuels and more energy efficient vehicles such the hybrid. One might additionally argue that certain policies promoted by the Obama administration are fueling the energy revolution and thus will have a decreasing impact on overall gasoline consumption. While this trend is generally regarded positively as a step in the right direction, concern has risen regarding the tax revenue that gasoline consumption supplies. The article notes that federal gasoline-tax revenue fell 3% last year and that the trend must inevitably continue as consumption declines. This reveals a major concern that needs to be addressed. What is the future of America’s highways and roads that are currently funded primarily by gasoline-tax revenue? How will the United States maintain and repair its massive highway system as funds decrease? One suggestion is to tax drivers per mile driven rather than by the gallon to incorporate the use of biofuels and more energy efficient vehicles but how would such a policy be enacted? Would one have to report miles driven annually with your income taxes? In my mind such a policy seems implausible, but I can’t think of any alternatives. Are there any better suggestions? How can America continue to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund as gasoline-tax revenues decline?

Obama Sees...

I read an article from the New York Times called "Obama Sees More Pain Now but Hope Later on Economy." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/business/economy/15obama.html?_r=1&hp The article discusses a speach given by Obama on the economy, in his speech, Obama states that the near $800 billion stimulus plan was "starting to generate signs of economic progress." I agree that we are starting to see signs of improvement in many of the economic indicators (ie. the stock market). Assuming the economy has turned the corner (which I am in no way stating, only hoping), perhaps it is/was due to the injection of Obama's stimulus plan. But I for one feel it is too early to tell whether or not the turn-around is a direct result of Obama's stimulus. People have been talking about a turn-around since late last year. In my opinion, we were due for a turn-around. The inefficient companies failed (more would have failed had the government not bailed out the entire world) and the stronger companies are left to carry on. I think the reason for the recent upswing in the stock market, and hopefully the economy, is because businesses have reduced waste. They have slashed costs in order to save, and are now position to succeed for the future. I tend to agree with Obama that the worst is over and that rough times are still ahead of us. I'm just not quite ready to bow down and worship Obama because he saved us from economic collapse.

Finally...signs of life

In an article from http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13411349 the author states how this recession is likely bottoming, but a full recovery will likely take some time. Over the last month, we've seen more and more positive economic reports, in contrast to three months ago where positive news was nowhere in sight. National home prices are now considered 10% undervalued relative to income, and this is leading buyers back into the market. Auto sales recently saw an 8% jump from February to March, creating a glimmer of hope in a dismal market. Larry Summers recently said that the current annualised vehicle sales of 9 million are well below the 14 million needed for replacement and rising population. Larry continued to say that the current level of the stock market might be the 'sale of the century.' Investors certainly have known how cheap stocks and houses have become, but with the good news we're seeing people are starting to buy once again. Despite all this good news, certain parts of the economy are likely to take longer to recover. Consumer spending in general will continue to be depressed by the 18% drop in household net worth last year. More job losses are inevitable as unemployment is a lagging indicator. These job losses are likely to lead to more defaults on loans, thus causing more problems for an already battered financial system. The Federal Reserve should counter this by continuing to buy the bad assets, as an economic recovery isn't likely without the financial industry on board. It will take macro economists months to call March 2009 the trough, but I think the evidence exists to already label it as such. The lagging indicators will certainly take a while to get better, but the leading indicators (such as the stock market) are pointing to a recovery.

Shifty Savings

In the April 6th edition of the Wall Street Journal, Kelly Evans discusses the United States’ savings rate in, “Frugality Forged in Today’s Recession Has Potential to Outlast It.” He quotes Richard Berner from Morgan Stanley by saying that, “consumer spending will grow at an inflation-adjusted 2% to 2.5% annual rate over the next several years, compared with 3.5% in the decade ended in 2007.” In a previous blog, Professor Tufte explained that people save because they:
Lack insurance
Lack social security
Lack a pension
Lack material possessions
Are more worried about the future than the present.
Based on these incentives, it is no surprise that Americans are saving more. While Social Security hasn’t really changed, the other four incentives have had an effect on the personal savings rate. Many Americans have lost their jobs and with that they have lost benefits such as insurance. Due to the financial crisis, many citizens have lost their entire pensions or have at least lost a good portion of it. During the recession, discretionary incomes are lower; therefore, material possessions are not necessarily in abundance. With countless doom and gloom reports or at least reports that do not look favorably on the near future, expectations of the future are grim. The personal savings rate should be expected to increase during these conditions. Is it not true, however, that the savings was always there it just was not counted? Most Americans previously stored their savings by purchasing homes, which was counted as investment. Due to the financial crisis, investments in homes have decreased. This has resulted in moving our way of saving to a type that is now counted.

Stimulus -Not- Thinking

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/business/economy/01leonhardt.html?_r=1
I found this gem of an article on the New York Times website, it is titled "Stimulus Thinking, and Nuance." The article relates Obama's recent presence at the G20 Summit with that attented by global leaders back in 1933. The author sets out defending stimulus packages and how throughout history they were nothing but effective. He names three! The Germans in the 30s, FDR, and the Japanese in the 90s. I'm sure we can go out on a limb and say there were more than three recessions and more than three attempts at stimulating the economy. I'm not sure where the Times dug up this guy, but it is apparent he hasn't done his research. I'd like to focus on his defense of FDR and his use of stimulus in boosting the economy. The author says the following: "When Roosevelt stuck to a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all — World War II — did the rest." One could argue that FDR kept our country in a recession (or depression) longer than if nothing had happened at all. For the author to claim FDR saved us is silly and uneducated. Unemployment rates were sky high and not to mention a tax bracket reaching as high as 94%. The biggest stimulus of all truly was the war, because it put people to work. Right now jobs are being slashed left and right, even as we are in the midst of a war. This just goes to show how we cannot accurately compare different recessions across time. There are just too many variables to accurately predict what the effects of a stimulus will be. Maybe this guy knows something we don't, but chances are he is just ill-informed on just about everything except dates and names.

Global Economy?

I don't think we realize just how global our economy is. There are so many nations that have trade with us and invest in us, that it is impossible to separate our problems from theirs anymore. We need to realize that we are all working towards the same things and our fates are interrelated. I read an article that talked about Obama meeting with the Group of 20 to discuss the economy. In this article Charlene Barshefsky is quoted as saying, “This is a classic case of countries bending to domestic political pressure because it is too difficult to make the political argument that if everyone restricts imports, everyone loses." You would think that these leaders would be able to agree on that, seeing as how it is one of the most basic economic principles being taught in our schools.

Does a 4.7% increase in new home sales say anything about the economy?

According the article (New home sales in surprise rebound) I found on CNNMoney.com a 4.7% increase is generally a good sign but it’s definitely not enough to say the economy is recovering. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that the median sales were $200,900, down 18% from a year ago. The economist at Moody’s Economy.com also stated that this information is only a months worth of information and that there needs to be at least three months of information to tell if the economy is recovering. It also explained that the Mortgage Bankers Association showed a 30% increase in loan applications last week. The main cause was due to Americans refinancing existing loans. I believe this is a good sign, but my gut feeling tells me that the worst has yet to come. I know this article says there is an increase in sales, but I have yet to hear good news of much of an increase in new home sales around my home town.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/25/real_estate/new_home_sales_Feb/index.htm?postversion=2009032512

One down, hopefully more to come

The evening news two days ago brought what I believe is encouraging news to the government bailout plan. GM CEO Rick Wagoner was forced out of the company by the Obama Administration as part of its agreement to loan the failing car company more money. Finally, after billions of dollars already handed out to companies such as Ford, GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc. Someone is being held accountable for the mistakes that helped cause such financial problems within these organizations. I just hope the same thing happens with AIG, who has infuriated the public and congress for handing out $165 million in employee bonuses since first receiving government assistance. No employee, especially CEO’s, CFO’s, and other top tier managers who are directly responsible for the success or failure of their companies should be getting million dollar bonuses. While bonuses were not a deciding factor at GM, I am happy that the government is finally holding people accountable for poor management. You can’t give some who’s lost billions of dollars due to poor choices another couple billion in aid and expect them to suddenly be much smarter in their management decisions. Hopefully this is just the first of several “boots” of failing company’s managers. You can read about Rick Wagoners forced resignation here: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=7204767

A Possible Turnaround

Fed’s Stern: Expects Some Econ Improvement Midyear
Gary Stern who has been through the previous two recessions as head of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank offers a few words of encouragement towards the possible end of the current recession. As we have discussed in class it is hard to predict when recessions end and the economy picks up again, and normally don't have evidence until well after the event takes place. That being said, as the first quarter of draws to an end there seems to be initial signs that by midyear things could be turning around. March seemed to be a great month for the Dow-Jones-finding many stocks hitting lows and now rebounding well. Other reports show that while many retailers have offered, and continue to offer great deals, their are faint signs that pickup in the consumer spending trend should continue. With the G-20 summit looming with loud cries from several governments calling for increased regulation over companies with multinational financial risks, time will tell how strong this possible turnaround may be.

We Don't Want Your Money

There is an article on cnnmoney.com that talks about how hard it is to give the money back that banks received from TARP funding. Some banks are saying that the funds that were given to them are actually preventing them from growing. The banks want the government out of their hair and allow them to run their bank as usual. None of them want to be the next AIG.

If the government was going to force banks to take money even though they didn’t need it to try to cover up the ones that did, why are they not making it easier for the people to pay back what they didn’t need in the first place? It is obvious which of the big banks needed the funds; the government really isn’t covering up anything.

(Bankers: Take your TARP money back http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/27/news/economy/tarp_takeback/index.htm)

Could it just fix itself?

In the news lately I am seeing a huge influx of information regarding approval polls of something. One of the latest is who is being blamed for the current economic crisis. Surprise that the banks are being blamed the most for it and then George Bush Jr. This is not a shocker considering they are highly suspect in the current economic crisis. With President Obama being elected only a handful of people are saying it’s his fault, in fact 42% of Americans are saying the country is on the right track. (Washington Post, March 31, 2009: Blame for Downturn Not Fixed on Obama) I was a huge fan of saying that once a new president is elected the economy would turn around. I believe that any change would have spurred the economy around, rather that people seeing change, make them change and would help to make things better. With history we have seen that all recessions have a trough, and that a lot of presidents loose elections because bad economic problems. But would all recessions end if we did nothing and let them run their course? Do we need to do anything at all, or would a simple change of thought help to pull us from despair.

White House to Accept Some Blame for Economic Crisis

An interesting article was published in the Wall Street Journal this week. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/31/white-house-to-accept-some-blame-for-economic-crisis/?mod=rss_WSJBlog?mod=marketbeat. It is entitled Real Time Economics, White House to accept blame for Economic Crisis. This is a surprising article to find in our day and time. It talks about a statement that a White House Official made. He stated how the White House was accepting some of the responsibility for the economic situation that we are currently in. The article does not specify exactly for how much they find themselves at fault for, but just the fact that they are accepting any at all and actually admitting it is quite amazing! He tells how part of the problem is believed to be in the weakness of the regulatory system of our country. This confession came about due to accusations by other large Economy countries that the US is running some sort of a "free-wheeling style capitalism" that led to the crisis crushing their economies, and they are now looking to punish the US for this. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said, "This crisis was caused by no black man or woman or by no indigenous person or by no poor person. This crisis was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of some people that are white, blue-eyed. Before the crisis they looked like they knew everything about economics, and they have demonstrated they know nothing about economics." Plans have been made to expand the scope of regulations to any institution, market or product that's important to the international financial system.

Is Inflation the Answer?!?

In the March 30, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal, an article entitled, "Inflation Is Tempting for Indebted Nations", discusses the implication that inflation can have on a country which is heavily indebted. The United States is considering using inflation to reduce the value of the U.S. dollar, which would significantly reduce the burden of money owed to other countries. Economists are saying that it would be "epic, a terrible thing to do" but it would be better than outright default. The United States is planning to increase the money supply by more than $1 trillion with the hope of causing some inflation to weaken the value of the dollar and reduce the current federal deficit. Some are concerned with the idea and speculate that this will cause hyperinflation, comparing the current situation to that of the 1920s Germany and the 2000s Zimbabwe in which the local currency was debased and hyperinflation followed. Most economists are saying that this "doomsday" is possible but extremely unlikely. Policy makers will be trying to stimulate some inflation but will be closely monitoring it to prevent it from getting out of hand. While I agree that hyperinflation is not a likely possibility, I am concerned about investing and the stock market. As the dollar weakens, the amount of consumer confidence could fall, causing the stock market to continue to plummet. On the other hand, the burden of debt, which in the U.S. rests heavily on the taxpayers, would be lightened and nominal wages, house prices and tax revenues would increase while mortgage and bond debt would remain constant.

Mid-Size Success

I ran across this article on the WSJ website today. The article caught my interest immediately because Provo and Ogden were among the cities that were beating the recession. The article did mention that a lot of the smaller cities that are doing well have been fortuitous with regard to the housing crisis that has stopped a lot of lending, yet that cannot be the only reason they are doing well.