It's an axiom of business theory that change is continual in market economies, but as economist David H. Wang points out, there's change that corporations and citizens can prepare for, and then there's change that few expect.

The latter is, by its nature, Wang says, more disruptive - - driving companies out of business, compelling triage-like changes in business models of others, while also triggering wholesale changes to family budgets, career paths, and students' educational objectives.

Wang groups change in three categories: cyclical (as in the business cycle), technological (such as the Internet, car, telephone, electrification, railroad etc.), and structural (globalization, Cold War, Marshall Plan, Bolshevik Revolution, the Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation, etc).

Does the election of Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who Tuesday will take the oath of office to become the 44th president of the United States, herald a new economic era?

American University professor and political historian Allan J. Lichtman, speaking Monday on CNN, went so far as to argue that it is the end of the conservative economic era ushered in by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and that the Obama election represents the start of a new liberal era.

In November 1980, Reagan won the presidency in a landslide, with Republicans capturing the Senate, in an election that marked the start of the Reagan Revolution of tax cuts, increases in defense spending, and decreases in the growth of social programs. Reagan's presidency ushered in a broad, secular trend toward privatization and free markets that would eventually encompass all of the world's major economies, including China, and the former Soviet Union, which disbanded in 1991.

The times, they are a changin'

During his Monday interview on CNN, Lichtman went so far as to say that Obama's election marks the end of economic conservatism and the start of new era of liberalism. However, in a column published on January 16 at Gazette.com, a Maryland Community Newspaper, he argued that "Obama should recognize that there is no consensus answer to recovery and reform, and experiment with a mix of market and regulatory approaches." Further, rather than 'governing from the center,' Lichtman said Obama should "move the middle to [him] them by changing the conversation about government and implementing programs that work."

To say current economic conditions are challenging the acumen of those who are charged with adjusting to them or planning for them would be an understatement.

And it goes without saying that in these volatile times, investors, like business executives, have to keep an eye on the near-term and the long-term.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has embarked on various liquidity measures, including quantitative easing. Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury, as a result of $350 billion in deployed TARP money (and another $350 billion available to be deployed if Congress approves), has stabilized the financial system, at least for the time being. And if economic history is any indicator, look for the bulk of the Fed's monetary stimulus to begin to take effect within three months of deployment.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration and new U.S. Congress are expected to act quickly on a large fiscal stimulus package that could pump an additional $800 billion into the U.S. economy over two years. And if economic history is valid here, as well, look for the fiscal stimulus to begin to take effect within six months.

A journalism professor of yours truly, Jon Sandberg, who also served in key positions for several Connecticut governors, had an interesting technique that he frequently deployed in seminars. A student would pose a question and Sandberg would say, "That's a good question. Is it acceptable and ethical to publish information that you know would show ethical and other lapses by the current president, if you know that information would also harm innocent individuals? That's a good question."

Then Sandberg would grab his cup of coffee and walk to the window side of the classroom, and stare out the window, sipping his coffee, saying nothing, for an eternity. Eventually, a student or two would begin the discussion.

What's a good question for today? Maybe this: where have all the consumers gone in the U.S. economy? BloggingStocks had a chance to grill economist Peter Dawson on the matter, and he has a few theories.

The first concerns structural and technological factors, he said. The U.S. is in the midst of adjusting to globalization, which, as most investors know, has resulted in the transfer of millions of good-paying U.S. jobs overseas to lower-cost centers. "The U.S. has also gained some jobs from globalization, but the net is still a major loss of good-paying jobs in the United States," Dawson said. "Some economists argue that's at the root of declining consumption. We are net-negative in the good-paying jobs category, so far, in globalization, and there simply aren't enough citizens with incomes adequate to buy the products."

"My Maserati does one eighty five,
I lost my license, now I don't drive."
-- "Life's Been Good," Joe Walsh

U.S. auto sales most likely will register yet another year-over-year decline when Big Three auto manufacturers report November sales on Tuesday.

But that's not to say that all segments of the auto market are in free-fall, revenue wise: sales of many high-end or luxury cars are doing just fine. Sales of many high-end luxury cars are flat or down just slightly this year, in contrast to double-digit declines seen in typical vehicle categories.

Ferrari's U.S. sales are down just 3%, Mazerati's sales are up 10%, and Rolls-Royce's sales have risen an eye-opening 32%, according to data collected by Autodata.

It's been a great decade . . . for the gentry

Economist David H. Wang said the luxury car statistics are consistent with a macro-consumption theme pervasive throughout the decade: for the most part, luxury brands and super-exclusive brands did well.

"One thing the decade's economic policies did accomplish was a substantial increase in wealth among upper income groups, especially the already wealthy and the super rich. Most people earning more than $300,000 a year have had their best decade ever," Wang said. "That's been very good for luxury product sales, like luxury cars, luxury homes, fine art, jewelry, and vacation homes. Unfortunately, the decade's income and wealth gains at the high end doesn't mean too much for broad-based consumer demand, and for the overall U.S. economy." Wang added that he does not have a rating on or an investment stake in any auto manufacturer.

Time provides the advantage of not only additional events, but also the ability to the compare these events to conditions and issues in previous eras -- an argument against 'instant-analysis' and a major reason my Ph.D. advisor said, "Don't study any public official's decisions until he or she has been dead for 20 years."

Hence, time is naturally providing more evidence and perspective on the recently-ended period of global economic growth, and increasingly the evidence is showing that it was a global economy of unsustainable imbalances -- balances that policy makers mistakenly ignored.

2001-2007: a policy void

First and probably foremost there was the oil price imbalance. Whether they were driven up by speculators, by institutional investors seeking a return on equity, global energy demand, and/or by other factors, economists had warned for years that the U.S. and global economies could not continue to grow at adequate rates with oil above $80 per barrel. In fact, every previous oil shock in the modern era was followed by a recession in the United States. Still, little was done from a policy standpoint to stem oil's price rise.

Similarly, the U.S.'s then-increasing trade deficit, a good part of which had been fed by purchases of imported oil, and the notion that U.S. consumers could serve perpetually as the growth engine of the export-oriented developing world, was unsustainable, given stagnant U.S. incomes, and its nadir savings rate. Yet little was done to address this imbalance.