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

I recently spent a few days in Moscow meeting with a variety of economic and financial officials and analysts, both in the public and private sector.

Until July of this year, Russia was rosy: It was growing at an annual rate close to 8%; oil prices were peaking at $140 a barrel; the country was running a large fiscal and current account surplus; it had a war chest of $600 billion-plus of foreign reserves; and its stock market, bond markets and currency values were strong. Policy makers were thinking of turning the ruble into a major reserve currency, at least for the CIS bloc.

This economic and financial success led Russia to flex its geopolitical muscle, challenging the U.S. on a number of political and military issues and using its energy power as an instrument of foreign policy in its relations with the Eurozone and its former Soviet neighbors. The peak of this resurgence of the Russian bear came during the August war with Georgia, when Russia flaunted its military power as the U.S. looked impotent in its inability to defend an ally.

But what a difference a short time makes. Six months later, Russia is in deep economic and financial trouble.

The S&P has just announced that it has lowered Russia's foreign-currency credit rating by one notch from BBB+ to BBB. In less than six months, oil prices have fallen to under $50 a barrel (from the $140-plus peak of July). The stock market has fallen by over 60%, and on some days it has been shut down to prevent a free-fall. The current account surplus has turned into a near deficit and a sure deficit by 2009. The country has experienced a capital flight of over $100 billion and has lost about $150 billion of foreign reserves (now down to about a $450 billion level). It is facing massive external debt-financing problems as its banks financed their lending with foreign currency borrowings and its corporate firms financed massive expansion with foreign currency debt. It is now desperately trying to prevent a sharp depreciation of its currency by aggressive foreign exchange intervention. It may face a large fiscal deficit (2% of GDP) next year, and its GDP growth rate is sharply slowing down, leading the World Bank to predict a rate of only 3% in 2009--with leading local analysts predicting an actual recession (negative growth of as much as -2%) in 2009. (See the recent analysis by RGE's Rachel Ziemba for more on the risks of a hard landing in Russia.)

Given this sudden change in Russian fortunes, there are several key policy issues that the authorities need to deal with. Of course, given the external shocks (terms of trade worsening and a sudden stop of capital and credit), it was important to use the buffer of foreign reserves to avoid a bank run by providing liquidity and capital to banks--and by providing a fiscal stimulus to a country that is sharply slowing down.

But the key unresolved policy issue is what to do with the exchange rate. Until recently, Russia was on an effective basket peg (with 55% for the dollar and a 45% weight for the euro). But with oil prices now down over 60% from the peak of the summer, and with incipient current account and fiscal deficits and a likely recession in 2009, the currency is obviously overvalued. A reasonable estimate of the needed exchange-rate depreciation--with oil at about $50 a barrel in 2009--is 25%. But until recently, the authorities resisted the needed depreciation through aggressive foreign exchange intervention.

Among the sector activity stories for Wednesday, Dec. 10, from AP Financial News:

CHICAGO (AP) - Shares of the nation's office suppliers rose Wednesday after Office Depot Inc. (nyse: ODP - news - people ) said it would eliminate 2,200 jobs and close 112 stores in a cost-cutting effort.

NEW YORK (AP) - An FBR Capital Markets (nasdaq: FBCM - news - people ) analyst said Wednesday that Apple Inc. (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people )'s production cutbacks appear to be slackening, in a welcome sign for the company's parts suppliers.

NEW YORK (AP) - Airlines stocks fluctuated Wednesday as the broader markets rose but oil prices also increased.

NEW YORK (AP) - Shares of online travel companies Orbitz Worldwide (nyse: OWW - news - people ) Inc. and Expedia Inc. (nasdaq: EXPE - news - people ) edged lower Wednesday as an analyst said deteriorating travel trends and poor visibility are concerns for both online travel companies.

NEW YORK (AP) - Shares of drybulk shipping companies rose strongly Wednesday on signs that ships may be moving again and rates for the vessels are rising.

NEW YORK (AP) - Shares of credit-card lenders and processors moved slightly lower Wednesday as analysts worried about recent data indicating consumers are pulling out the plastic less frequently as the economy continues to weaken.

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.

Mandel is chief economist for BusinessWeek.