Information Security & US & Life & Love & Fashion & Hacking & Passion

The Walt Disney Co. says it has cut 1,900 positions at its U.S. theme parks due to the slumping economy.

Some 1,200 people were laid off and 700 open positions will be left unfilled.

Disney ( DIS - news - people ) spokeswoman Tasia Filippatos said Friday the cuts "reflect today's economic realities."

The cuts were part of a reorganization announced in February. Among the cuts were 50 executives who accepted a voluntary buyout that was offered to 600 people.

The vast majority of the cuts came from managerial and other salaried staff, not from employees in the parks who interact with park visitors.

Economic output in the United States shrank more than feared during the last quarter of 2008, raising new questions on the country's path to recovery.

On Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department revised its fourth-quarter gross domestic product reading downward, to a 6.2% drop. At the end of January, the government had initially reported a GDP contraction of 3.8%, but that figure was less severe than the 5.4% annualized contraction Wall Street had been predicting for the last three months of the year. (See "U.S. GDP: Less Ugly Than Feared.")

"It was a really lousy report, but we expected that," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor's, "and it can be added to all the other really lousy reports we've had this week." (See "U.S.: Jobless Up, Factory Orders Down, Nobody's Home.")

Most of the revision came from inventories. "There was also a fairly significant downward revision in trade, particularly exports," Wyss said.

Friday's reading was the worst since the 6.4% drop in recorded the first quarter of 1982, when the country was suffering a severe recession. This time around, the U.S. economy has been sucked into a housing, credit and financial conflagration that led to widespread job losses and a massive pullback in spending. (See "Rebuilding Global Markets.")

The government also reported that personal consumption fell by 4.3%, which was also below the 3.7% drop anticipated by Wall Street.

Friday's report added insult to injury for the U.S. markets, which also had to had to also grapple with the news of Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) reaching a deal with the U.S. government, in which the Treasury would convert up to $25.0 billion in Citigroup preferred shares to common. (See "Citi Nears Rescue From Uncle Sam.")

U.S. stocks recovered from deep losses in late-morning trading, while the yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note rose to 3.02%, from 2.98% Thursday

Forbes editors and writers take a look ahead at U.S. business and the economy in 2009. Click on the authors to read what they think will be the big trend, hear their unconventional wisdom, be cautioned against misplaced assumptions, check the watch list and get a bold prediction

VICTORIA BARRETAccelerated change is everywhere. Industry shifts that would have taken years had the economy kept humming along will now occur in months
RICH KARLGAARDThe unevenness of U.S. prosperity will smooth out for individuals as the rich and upper-middle classes are socked by higher taxes on top of their recent asset losses, but will get more jagged by region.

ROBERT LENZNERDe-leveraging requires an extended period when credit market debt is 350% of gross domestic product. This will require the Fed to expand its balance sheets (and other central banks to follow suit).




MICHAEL NOERExpect the beginnings of a green tech bubble by mid-2010.

Sponsorships are down, attendance is slipping and staffers are being jettisoned to the unemployment line.

The San Diego Padres owner wants out of baseball, while his counterpart at the New York Mets reportedly lost a fortune with Bernie Madoff. Neither the Dallas Cowboys nor the New York Giants can find a company willing to put its name on the door of their new stadiums. NBA season-ticket renewal rates are down. The Arena Football League is closing its doors--at least for now--while the Houston Comets basketball team, the original powerhouse of the WNBA, is folding the tent for good.

NBA Commissioner David Stern says the league says he's concerned about the economy's effect on the league, but he doesn't plan to scale back aggressive plans to grow the business in China and other overseas locations. "We're moving along prudently," he says, "We fully expect to have to work doubly hard when the economy is difficult."

For the first time anyone can remember, the usually bulletproof sports industry is feeling an economic pinch along with the rest of the world. Make no mistake, pro sports should weather the economic storm better than most industries. People are passionate about sports and are willing to shell out cash for the diversion a game can provide. Still, teams and players will be making do with less for a while. As with any other business, sometimes it takes an economic slump to shake management into paying closer attention to costs.

"No one is immune," says NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy, whose league has seen a 1% dip in attendance this year, even though most of those tickets were purchased well in advance of the financial crisis. Think of how many empty seats that could mean by the fall of 2009. "We're concerned about next year's attendance," McCarthy says.

As a media-driven league, the NFL is less susceptible to a slump at the gate than most other sports. But other concerns include the drawn-out naming-rights sagas in New York and Dallas and the ability to charge premium prices for the post season games. The NFL is lowering prices 10% across the board for January 2009 playoff games and scaling back some Super Bowl tickets to $500 a pop from $800.

Despite an investment boom, GDP growth is hurt by falling E.U. demand for the nation's exports.

Economic reforms and European Union membership have generated an investment boom in Slovakia's manufacturing, construction and service sectors. Gross domestic product growth peaked at 10.4% in 2007 as new automobile and electronic plants started full-scale production.

However, Slovakia's performance is tied closely to E.U. demand for its exports, and the slowdown in E.U. growth is starting to be felt in Slovakia. The Statistical Office reported GDP growth in the third quarter slowing to 7% year-on-year after 9.3% and 7.6% in the first and second quarters, respectively. The government estimates that the economy will grow by 4.7% in 2009, with export growth slowing from 10% in 2008 to 5.9%. Recent data do not yet fully reflect the impact of the crisis, and some fear that growth could slow below 4%.

Anti-crisis package. Prime Minister Robert Fico argues that higher domestic consumption will help Slovakia get through the crisis and perhaps reverse disturbing trends in employment. Accordingly, the government has drafted a package of new economic measures to stimulate demand. These include completing a nuclear power station on the Bohunice site and using public-private partnerships to build new roads and expand Bratislava's Stefanik airport. The government also seeks to reform the labor market and provide loans to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Euro perspective. Meanwhile, Standard & Poor's 500 and Moody's have upgraded Slovakia's sovereign rating from A to A+. They cite Slovakia's modest debt burden, investment-oriented policies and the switch to the euro in January 2009.

Critics have argued that Slovakia is needlessly surrendering control over monetary policy and setting itself up for high inflation due to the switch-over. However, the timing for euro adoption now looks fortunate:

--The drive for the euro has meant long-term fiscal frugality and restrained the spending desires of Slovakia's left-leaning government.

--Slovakia's relatively low fiscal deficit of 2.25% of GDP in 2008 has reduced its need to borrow during the global financial crisis.

Many observers are pessimistic about the economy because they believe a vicious downward cycle has taken hold, where less spending leads to fewer jobs, which reduces purchasing power, leading to even more job losses. Many just can't see how this vicious cycle will stop.

We are frequently asked, what is the "catalyst" for a recovery? What force (external or internal) will break the downward cycle of job losses? How does it ever end?

Taking this thought process to its conclusion clearly shows that something is missing. If job losses beget less spending and more job losses, then recessions would never end. On the other hand, if job gains beget more spending and more job gains, then expansions would never end.

A cursory look at history shows that this can't be true. Since 1854, the U.S. economy has gone through 32 business cycles (recessions and recoveries). In other words, the direction of economic activity eventually changed. Many times in these past cycles, the economy started to recover well before employment turned up. Take the last time consumption fell during a recession, in the early 1990s. In the four quarters after the end of the official recession, "real" (inflation-adjusted) consumption increased 2.9% even as payrolls continued to decline.

There are a number of reasons why this is true. The first reason is that the combined decisions we make as independent members of a free society tend to generate economic growth. When people lose their jobs, it does not mean they lose their ability to be productive. It may take time for them to find a new position that matches their skill set, but as long as they have worthwhile abilities, they will eventually get another chance to produce.

In the meantime, companies can use layoffs to increase efficiency, laying the groundwork for future increases in profits and wages for their remaining workers. What that means is that a 1% loss in jobs results in a smaller than 1% loss of production. And using assets more productively frees up resources to do "new" things. We have lost millions of farming jobs over the decades and centuries, but the nation as a whole is more prosperous as a result, not less.

In addition, if a recession is partly caused by over-investment in a particular sector, two forces drive down jobs in that sector, but one is temporary. For example, home building exceeded demand, and those extra jobs were unnecessary. Reducing inventories of homes will cause employment to fall even further. But once excess inventories are worked off, the industry will add jobs, even if it does not ramp up to the previous peak in production.

For years, Bernie Madoff, all-around nice guy, pulled billions of dollars of foreign and domestic money into his investment fund. His lure? He promised the implausible combination of good returns and low risk—and people believed him.

Painfully, the allegations of fraud surrounding the Madoff affair are also exposing the fundamental fallacy of the global economy. Like Madoff's trusting investors, the rest of the world was willing to assume that the U.S. economy as a whole was a low-risk, good-return investment. This belief drove the entire structure of global trade and finance for the past 10 years. And when the subprime crisis showed this assumption of low risk to be false, the financial crisis resulted.

Consider this: Since the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98, the rest of the world has been willing to lend money to finance the U.S.'s huge and growing trade deficit. Not just small amounts of cash either: over the past decade, the U.S. borrowed a cumulative total of $5 trillion from foreigners at relatively low interest rates.

Why were foreigners so generous?

Without this flow of easy money into the U.S., globalization in its current form would not have been possible. The U.S. was the consumer of last resort, absorbing cars from Germany and Japan, electronics from Taiwan and Korea, and clothes and furniture from China. The earth was flat, and why not? Pluck a laptop from Taiwan and pay for it with a home equity loan, which—if you trace back the connections—was at least partly funded with foreign money, too.

The big unanswered question, for years, was why this money flow persisted. Why the heck were foreign investors willing to lend the U.S. such large amounts of money on such good terms? Economists and journalists spun out hypothesis after hypothesis (we'll see more below), but there was no agreement on why.

Now we see what happened. Wall Street firms—big operators like Lehman and relatively small fish like Madoff—told foreign investors they could put their money into the U.S.—the world's safest economy—and still make decent returns. Madoff, of course, appears to have lied. He allegedly ran an investment scam that has resulted in billions of dollars of losses reported around the world, including $4 billion in Switzerland and $3 billion in Spain.

exporting 'low risk' Derivatives

But it wasn't simply Madoff. The Wall Street boom of recent years was built, as far as I can figure out, on selling the low-risk story to foreign investors. In fact, most of the financial innovations of recent years were about making investments in the U.S. 'safer' for foreign investors. The enormous growth of foreign exchange derivatives enabled those abroad to protect their U.S. investments from exchange-rate fluctuations. The sudden increase in credit default swaps could be used to protect foreign bond investors from problems with individual countries. And collateralized debt obligations, which could be divided into high-risk and low-risk pieces, increased the supply of low-risk investments to be sold outside the U.S.

This low-risk, good-return story attracted investors from around the world. One example: Lehman sold $2 billion in 'mini-bonds' to Hong Kong investors, including many retirees.

However, the low-risk, good-return story simply wasn't true, for two key reasons: First, the U.S. economy was supposed to be on the cutting edge of innovation. Innovation through technological change, by nature, is a very risky activity. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. If the investment in innovation pays off, the economy booms, as it did during the second half of the 1990s.

U.S. Regulation Failed

But innovation has fallen short in recent years. Biotech and nanotech still have not come to fruition, and alternative energy is moving slowly. As a result, the U.S. economy has fallen short of expectations. The income isn't there, and the debt just piles up.

The second reason why the low-risk, good-return story wasn't true: the breakdown of regulation. And that's where we come back to the alleged Madoff scam. His was no complicated global securitization, based on black-box rocket science. Instead, it appears to be a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, enabled by a lack of government supervision.

What comes next? The fallacy is punctured. Globalization will be seen as what it is—a game with risks that can't be wished away. And U.S. prosperity will depend on the success or failure of its ability to innovate—not its ability to tell an implausible story to foreign investors.

The war between the intangible and tangible sectors of the U.S. economy is over—and intangibles have won. Since the economy went into recession a year ago, the industries producing or distributing physical or tangible goods—including construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and transportation—have lost an astounding 1.8 million jobs. That includes a decline of 260,000 jobs in the much-beleaguered auto industry and its dealer network, and a drop of 300,000 in residential construction employment.

Meanwhile, the intangible sector, which includes such industries as education and health care, has received far less attention than autos and housing. But since the recession start date of December 2007, the intangible-producing industries have gained about 500,000 jobs.

In fact, today's troubles in autos and housing are indications of a long-term shift: The U.S. economy, in part because of globalization but also because of the nature of knowledge-based growth, has been moving toward producing outputs that have long-lasting effects but don't have a solid and visible forms. One such intangible produced by the education system is human capital, which is another phrase for the long-term value of education. Another important intangible is intellectual capital, which is the accumulation of scientific knowledge, business and financial knowhow, and artistic accomplishments. Finally, the U.S. is spending heavily on building up health capital. That's the dollar value of a person's lifetime health, according to David Cutler, a Harvard University economist and a key adviser to President-elect Barack Obama.

These intangibles—critical for today's knowledge-based economy—are not well measured by the gross domestic product figures produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. However, intangibles do produce jobs. Consider the last business cycle, which ran from March 2001 to December 2007. Over that stretch, health and education alone added 3.5 million jobs, roughly 63% of all the net jobs produced by the economy. Altogether, the intangible sector accounted for about 75% of job growth. By comparison, the tangible sector, led by manufacturing, lost some 1.8 million jobs over the same period.

A Fine Line?

Of course, this division between the tangible and intangible sectors is a bit messy in practice. Some manufacturing companies, such as Intel (INTC) and IBM (IBM), are big producers of intangibles in the form of research and technological knowledge. Oil companies, which are dedicated to the tangible act of drilling for crude, also invest heavily in the intangible knowledge of where to find the oil. At the same time, the intangible sector is not immune to the downturn. Publishing is losing jobs, as newspapers, magazines, and book companies wrestle with the shift to digital formats. And finance is experiencing big job losses, which will only accelerate in the coming months. Education and health-care spending, meanwhile, is tied to state and local budgets, which are likely to crater without help from the federal government.

But at least so far, the intangible sector, notably health care, has remained remarkably buoyant. In September 2006, I predicted that 30% to 40% of all new jobs created over the next quarter-century would be in health care. That long-term forecast turned out to be an understatement in the short run. Since that story was published, health care has added roughly 800,000 jobs, while employment has declined sharply in the rest of the economy.

For Obama and his incoming Administration, the question is whether the shift to intangible production is a sustainable economic strategy over the long run. Better education, improved health, and more research are clearly necessary to be globally competitive. But it's not clear yet whether a country such as the U.S. can afford to let all its tangible industries shift abroad. That's why Washington is grappling with the knotty problem of spending billions to save the domestic automakers. But Americans who want jobs have no such dilemma. For them, intangible is the way to go.

The Indian government plans to spend an additional $4 billion to boost the nation's slowing economy, the Prime Minister's Office said Sunday.

The government also announced targeted measures to help exporters, small businesses and textile manufacturers, a plan to expand mortgage lending and a cut in a valued-added tax.

It also said a state-run financing firm will be allowed to issue $2 billion worth of tax-free bonds to finance infrastructure projects.

"The government is keeping a close watch on the evolving economic situation and will not hesitate to take any additional steps that may be needed to counter recessionary trends and maintain the pace of economic activity," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

Growth skidded to 7.6 percent last quarter - off from 9.3 percent in the third quarter of 2007_ and exports shrank in October for the first time in seven years.

India's ballooning fiscal deficit means it can do far less than a country like China - which last month announced a $586 billion stimulus package - to spend its way out of an economic slump.

Citibank said in a report Thursday that it expects India's deficit in this fiscal year will swell from 6 percent to 8.6 percent of its gross domestic product - far higher than the government's target.