Those Stubborn Facts: The Biggest Bubble of Them All?

Tags

bubbles, China, housing, property, real estate, Those Stubborn Facts

Number of people who could be housed in currently empty apartments in China: 90 million

Area of purchased but unbuilt properties in China: 500-600 million square meters:

Number of Manhattans this figure adds up to: 10

Estimated cost of finishing these projects: $300 billion

 

(Source: “Real estate will defeat Beijing, again,” by Pete Sweeney, Breaking Views, Reuters, July 21, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/real-estate-will-defeat-beijing-again-2022-07-21/) 

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Renaissance or a Bubble in Buffalo?

Tags

bubbles, Buffalo, Buffalo shooting, cities, Commerce Department, economic growth, income, per capita income, Rustbelt, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’ve only visited Buffalo, New York once in my adult life, to speak at a conference in 2009, but between meeting lots of interesting folks, downing a humongous portion of buffalo wings at the Anchor Bar that claims to have invented them, and seeing Niagara Falls for the first time since childhood, I’ve got great memories of the place.

So I was initially thrilled to see The New York Times run a lengthy piece July 3 reporting that this grand old city is enjoying a strong comeback from decades of Rustbelt-type industrial and therefore economic decline. The article, moreover, seemed especially encouraging given the appalling massacre of ten residents in May in the city’s heavily African American East Side neighborhood.

When I finished reading, though, I wasn’t so sure how on target the piece was. That’s both because it was almost entirely data free, and because I’m not convinced that the kinds of economic activity that are emerging as new growth engines for Buffalo – like “city-wide initiatives to pour billions into parks, public art projects and apartment complexes,” “office and educational complexes,” and food halls, gyms, and craft breweries – can enable it to regain the kind of prosperity created by its now-shiveled industrial base.

So I looked at the data – from the U.S. Commerce Department – and the relatively few of the findings sure don’t scream “Renaissance!” to me, or even close. And this observation holds whether the comparison is between Buffalo and the rest of the country, or between Buffalo during the last decade and Buffalo during roughly the previous decade.

I focus on these timeframes because the only hard statistic presented by the Times reporters to show progress in Buffalo was the finding that “Its population of 278,000 in the 2020 census was up 7 percent from 261,000 in 2010.”

The following statistics don’t cover just Buffalo. The closest approximation permitted by the Commerce Department numbers is what the U.S. Census Bureau (a part of Commerce) calls the Buffalo Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes smaller neighboring cities like Cheektowaga and (yes!) Niagara Falls. But let’s call it “close enough.”

First I looked at how the Buffalo metro area economy overall, and some major portions of it (including some emphasized in the Times article), have grown (or not) in inflation-adjusted terms versus how their counterparts in U.S. metropolitan areas have fared. The individual sectors are construction, manufacturing, retail, real estate, professional and scientific services, and the arts-recreation-accommodation- and-food-services cluster.

Unfortunately, this analysis shows that Buffalo continues to be a serious laggard. Between 2010 and 2020, its MSA increased its output of goods and services by just 4.13 percent after adjusting for inflation – versus 17.69 percent for urban America as a whole. Buffalo also trailed its national metro area counterparts in real growth during this period in every one of the six individual economic sectors examined. Indeed, in three (construction, manufacturing, and the arts etc cluster), real output shrank during that decade, whereas for all metro areas, such decline took place only in the arts cluster. Moreover, in all cases (including that arts cluster) Buffalo not only lagged – it lagged badly.

The Buffalo MSA fared much better in terms of its residents’ income. In pre-inflation dollars (the only data tracked at this level of national detail), its total personal income rose by 43.55 percent between 2010 and 2020, versus 55.78 percent for U.S. metro areas as a whole. On a per capita basis, the results were almost equal: 44.82 percent current dollar growth for the Buffalo MSA versus 45.39 percent for its all U.S. MSAs.

The big takeaway so far: The Buffalo region’s growth has been sluggish at best over the last decade, but area residents made awfully good money.

Comparing Buffalo area growth and income between 2010 and 2020, and during the previous decade, yields even stranger (at least to me) results. In all the categories I examined except one, its growth performance was worse during the latter decade than during the former (even taking into account that data for the Buffalo MSA only goes back to 2001).

Overall, it was much worse, with real gross product improving by 13.94 percent during that earlier decade – more than three times faster than from 2010 to 2020. In addition, in the six individual sectors examined, decade-to-decade improvement was registered only in construction – which contracted much more slowly in price-adjusted terms than in 2000-2010. That decade, remember, featured the great national housing bubble and its bursting.

In terms of income, though, Buffalo’s between 2000 and 2010 grew more slowly than during the ten years after according to both the aggregate (32.43 percent) and per capita (35.86 percent) figures.

Curiously, on a national level, metro area economic growth in toto between 2001 and 2010 and in 2010-2020 were about the same (17.12 percent in the former and 17.69 percent in the latter).  Further, on the whole, expansion in the six specific sectors examined (except for the contractionary arts cluster) was less dramatically different than in Buffalo and environs, too. Yet both income indicators increased significantly more slowly for all U.S. metro areas during that latter period, too, despite the slightly better economic growth.

Gauged by total income, the Buffalo MSA fell behind U.S. metro areas overall during both decades at about the same pace. Yet measured by per capita income, the Buffalo region generated modest catch-up during the stronger growth 2000-2010 decade but fell back during the much weaker growth decade that began in 2010. Could that be partly because its population rebounded, even modestly?

To me, the big picture looks like this: During the last decade, the typical Buffalo-nian somehow figured out better than the typical U.S. metro dweller how to generate considerably more income even though his region was producing goods and services at a considerably slower rate. That could account for the optimism expressed by so many in the city to the Times reporters. I just wonder how much longer they can pull this off?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real Message Behind the New U.S. Inflation Figures

Tags

bubbles, consumer price index, core PCE, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, inflation, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption, personal consumption expenditures index, productivity, recession, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There – that wasn’t so hard, was it? Meaning that if a national government (including its central bank) wants to get inflation down, it’s not a rocket science-type challenge. Elected officials (or dictators) can cut public spending, monetary authorities like America’s Federal Reserve can tighten monetary policy, and voila. Receiving less financial juice, consumers stop consuming so much, businesses stop investing and hiring so robustly, and the lower level of economic activity begins depriving sellers of pricing power – at least if they want to keep their sales up. 

Moreover, these governments can enjoy the benefits of a venerable economic adage: an effective cure for high prices is high prices. That is, at some point, regardless of government policies, goods and services begin getting unaffordable. So businesses and consumers alike don’t buy so much of them, and the reduced demand also forces sellers that want to keep sales up to start marking them down.

At least that’s a message that’s easy to take away from the today’s new official report on U.S. “Personal Income and Outlays,” which, as usual, contains data on price increases and consumer spending, and which shows a softening in both.

Before delving into the specifics, however, it’s important to point out that (1) less economic activity means less prosperity – and in many instanaces can mean much worse – for most of the population; and (2), the higher inflation has become, the more belt tightening is needed, and the more economic suffering must be imposed, in order to bring it to levels considered acceptable. And since the new, better numbers from Washington still reveal price increases near multi-decade highs, it figures that returning to satisfactory inflation will require many Americans to experience significantly more economic pain.

In other words, the “soft landing” that Fed officials in particular describe as the goal of their anti-inflation policy – that is, taming inflation while still fostering some growth – still looks like much less than a sure bet. Even Fed Chair Jerome Powell acknowledges this.

Powell and many others insist that even if the landing is hard, the anti-inflation medicine will be necessary, since, in his words, “Economies don’t work without price stability.” Often they add that the steps necessary to defeat inflation will also help cure the economy of its long-time addiction to bubble-ized growth – that is, prosperity based on credit conditions that are kept way too loose, that deprive producers of the market-based disciplines needed to keep prosperity sustained, and that in fact spur so many bad and even reckless choices by all economic actors that they inevitably end in torrents of tears.

I’m sympathetic to these arguments, but the main point here is that killing off inflation per se has always been first and foremost a matter of will – which has clearly been lacking for too long. Avoiding recession, conversely, is no great accomplishment, either: Just keep inflating bubbles with easy money. It’s fostering soundly based, sustainable growth that’s been the challenge that American leaders have long failed to meet.

As for the specifics, let’s start with the inflation figures contained in today’s report from the Commerce Department. They’re somewhat different from the more widely covered Consumer Price Index (CPI) tracked by the Labor Department, but this Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index matters a lot because it’s the inflation measure favored by the Fed, which has major inflation-fighting responsibilities.

On a monthly basis, “headline” PCE inflation (the broadest measure) bounced up from April’s 0.2 percent (the weakest such figure since the flatlline of November, 2020) to 0.6 percent (the worst such figure since March’s 0.9 percent). The “core” figure (which strips out food and energy prices supposedly because they’re volatile for reason largely unrelated to the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation), increased sequentially in May by 0.3 percent for the fourth straight month. Those are the smallest such increases since September, 2020’s 0.2 percent.

These results are one sign that spending has fallen off enough to prevent still strong energy inflation from bleeding over into the rest of the economy – just about all of which uses energy as a key input. And indeed, the new Commerce release reports that adjusting for inflation, personal consumption fell on month (by 0.4 percent) for the first time since last December (1.4 percent).

As known by RealityChek regulars, the annual rates of change are usually more important than the monthly, because they gauge developments over longer time periods and are therefore less likely to be thrown off by short-term developments or sheer statistical randomness. And encouragingly, they tell a similar story. The headline annual PCE inflation rate of 6.3 percent was the same as April’s, and lower than March’s 6.6 percent. Annual core PCE inflation dropped to 4.7 percent from April’s 4.9 percent and hit its lowest level since last November’s 4.7 percent – another sign that because consumers have pulled back, hot inflation in energy isn’t stoking ever stronger price rises elsewhere.

No one could reasonably call today’s inflation report “good” – especially since the baseline effect (which RealityChek readers know throughout 2021 produced annual inflation rates that were unusually high because of a catch-up effect from the unusually low inflation results of 2020) is gone. In other words, price increases much higher than the Fed’s two percent target rate are persisting.

But to this point, anyway, these increases aren’t coming faster – which is crucial because one reason inflation is so feared is its tendency to feed upon itself.

As pointed out above, though, weakening inflation by tanking the economy is no great triumph of economic policy. Worse, it’s all too easy to conclude from recent history that, even though a recession hasn’t officially arrived, once it does, most politicians will rev up the spending engines again, and (successfully) pressure the Fed to at least stop the tightening. And inflation will take off again. 

There’s a much better inflation-fighting alternative that’s available, at least in principle:  Increase the nation’s sagging productivity growth.  Boosting business’ efficiency enables companies to deal with cost increases — including wage hikes — without passing them on to consumers.  But a productivity rebound seems nowhere in sight, seemingly leaving the nation stuck in a pattern of blowing up bubbles to achieve periods of acceptable growth and employment, popping them at least occasionally to keep prices in check, and hoping the whole Ponzi scheme can somehow continue indefinitely.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New U.S. GDP Report Shows the Economy Not Just Shrinking but Bubblier Than Ever

Tags

bubbles, GDP, global financial crisis, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, personal consumption, real GDP, toxic combination, {What's Left of) Our Economy

For an official report showing that the U.S. economy shrank, the Commerce Department’s initial read on the gross domestic product (GDP – the leading measure of the economy’s size) for the first quarter of this year garnered lots of good reviews. (See, e.g., here and here.)

According to these cheerleaders, when you look under the hood and examine why GDP fell, the details are encouraging – and even point to growth resuming shortly. I’m not so sure about that – and especially about the claim that the skyrocketing trade deficit so largely responsible for the negative print is only an accounting phenomenon that results from the peculiar way GDP changes are calculated, and therefore says nothing about the economy’s main fundamentals. (Indeed, I’ll have more to say on this point later this week.)

But if we’re going to examine carefully the components of the economy’s growth and shrinkage, let’s examine them all. Because some other key details of the latest GDP report – and some immediate predecessors – draw a more troubling picture. They show that the economy is looking even more bubble-ized than in the mid-2000s, when expansion became over-dependent on booms in consumer spending and housing, neglected the income, savings, and investment needed to generate sustainable growth, and inevitably imploded into the global financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession. 

The pre-crisis bloat in personal consumption and housing is clear from the magnitude they reached at the bubble-era’s peak. In the third quarter of 2005, this toxic combination of GDP components accounted for a then-record 73.90 percent of the total economy after inflation (the measure most widely followed) on a stand-still basis. And for that quarter, they were responsible for 85.26 percent of the 3.45 percent real growth that had taken place over the previous year.

During the first quarter of this year, consumer spending and housing accounted for 88.17 percent of the 3.57 percent real growth that had taken place since the first quarter of 2021. (Remember – inflation-adjusted growth for all of 2021was a strong 5.67 percent.) And on a stand-still basis, the toxic combination made up a new record 74.04 percent of the economy in price-adjusted terms. 

For the full year 2021, personal spending and housing represented 73.78 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP on a stand-still basis, and generated 101.5 percent of its constand dollar growth.  (Some other GDP components acted as drags on growth.) That stand-still number topped the old full-year record of 73.68 percent (also set in 2005) and share-of-growth figure trailed only the 114.3 percent in very-slow-growth 2016.    

There are three big differences, though, between the peak bubble period of the mid-2000s and today. Back then, the federal funds rate – the interest rate set by the Federal Reserve that strongly influences the cost of credit, and therefore the economic growth rate for the entire economy, was about four percent. Today, it’s in a range between 0.25 and 0.50 percent. That is, it’s only about a tenth as high.

In addition, the Fed hadn’t spent years stimulating the economy by buying tens of billions of dollars worth of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities each month. This disparity alone justifies concern about the health and durability of the current economic recovery. Finally, inflation during that bubble period was much lower.

Even worse, these purchases have now stopped and the central bank has made clear its determination to bring torrid current inflation down by raising interest rates. If these tightening moves cut back on toxic combination spending, it’ll be legitimate to ask where else adequate levels of U.S. economic growth are going to come from, and whether policymakers will try to revive the expansion in an even bubblier way.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How to Really Make Trade Fair

Tags

automotive, BBB, Biden administration, bubbles, Build Back Better, Canada, consumption, Donald Trump, electric vehicles, EVs, fossil fuels, manufacturing, Mexico, NAFTA, North America, production, tax breaks, Trade, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s no doubt that the next few weeks will see a spate of (low-profile) news articles on how unhappy Canada and Mexico are about proposed new U.S. tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles (EVs) and how these measures could trigger a major new international trade dispute.

There’s also no doubt that any such disputes could be quickly resolved, and legitimate U.S. interests safeguarded, if only Washington would finally start basing U.S. trade policy on economic fundamentals and facts on the ground rather than on the abstract and downright childishly rigid notions of fairness that excessively influenced the approach taken by Donald Trump’s presidency.

The Canadian and Mexican complaints concern a provision in the Biden administration’s Build Back Better (BBB) bill that’s been passed by the House of Representatives but is stuck so far in the Senate. In order to encourage more EV sales, and help speed a transition away from fossil fuel use for climate change reasons, the latest version of BBB would award a refundable tax break of up to $12,500 for most purchases of these vehicles.

The idea is controversial because the administration and other BBB supporters see these rebates as a great opportunity to promote EV production and jobs in the United State by reserving his subsidy for vehicles Made in America. (As you’ll see here, the actual proposed rules get more complicated still – and could change some more.) And according to Canada and Mexico, this arrangement also violates the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) governing North American trade that replaced the old NAFTA during the Trump years in July, 2020.

Because USMCA largely reflects those prevailing concepts of global economic equity, Canada and Mexico probably have a strong case. But that’s only because this framework continues classifying all countries signing a trade agreement as economic equals. Even worse, there’s no better illustration of this position’s absurdity is the economy of North America.

After all, the United States has always accounted for vast majority of the continent’s total economic output and therefore market for traded goods. According for the latest (2020) World Bank figures, the the United States turned out 87.51 percent of North America’s gross product adjusted for inflation. And when it comes to new car and light truck sales, the U.S. share was 84.24 percent in 2019 (the last full pre-pandemic year, measured by units, and as calculated from here, here, and here).

But in 2019, the United States produced only 68.88 percent of all light vehicles made in North America (also measured by units and calculated from here, here, and here.) Moreover, more than 70 percent of all vehicles manufactured in Mexico were exported to the United States according to the latest U.S. government figures. And for Canada, the most recent data pegs this share at just under 54 percent (based on and calculated from here and here).

What this means is that, without the American market, there probably wouldn’t even be any Canadian and Mexican auto industries at all. They simply wouldn’t have enough customers to reach and maintain the production scale needed to make any economic sense.

So real fairness, stemming from the nature of the North American economy and the North American motor vehicle industry, leads to an obvious solution: Give vehicles from Canada and Mexico shares of the EV tax credits that match their shares of the continent’s light vehicle sales – just under 16 percent.

Therefore, using, say, 2019 as a baseline, from now on, the first just-under-16 percent of their combined light vehicle exports to the United States would be eligible for the credits for each successive year, and the rest would need to be offered at each manufacturer’s full price (a pretty plastic notion in the auto industry, I know, but a decision that would need to be left to whatever the manufacturers choose).

Nothing in this decision would force Canada or Mexico to subject themselves to these requirements; they would remain, as they always have been, completely free to try to sell as many EVs as they could to other markets (including each other’s).

What would change dramatically, though, is a situation that’s needlessly harmed the productive heart of the U.S. economy for far too long, resulting from trade agreements that lock America into an outsized consuming and importing role, but an undersized production and exporting role. In other words, what would change dramatically is a strategy bearing heavy responsibility for addicting the nation to bubble-ized growth. And forgive me for not being impressed by whatever legalistic arguments Mexico, Canada, any other country, or the global economics and trade policy establishments, are sure to raise in objection.

Those Stubborn Facts: How to Keep Inflating a China Bubble

Tags

bubbles, China, Evergrande, finance, investment, investors, property, real estate, Those Stubborn Facts, Wall Street

Share of global finance industry recommendations on China

investment that were “buys” at the start of this year, before its giant

real estate firms started going broke: 86 percent

 

Share of global finance industry recommendations on China

investment that are “buys” today, when its giant real estate firms

have started going broke: 87 percent

 

(Source: “Down Is Still Up for Foreign Investors Piling Into China,” by Nikos Chrysoloras and Abhishek Vishnoi, Bloomberg.com, October 16, 2021, China Stock Market: Down Is Still Up for Foreign Investors – Bloomberg)

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Dangerous New Bubbles or a Virus Mirage?

Tags

bubbles, business investment, CCP Virus, consumer spending, coronavirus, COVID 19, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, lockdowns, logistics, nonresidential fixed investment, real GDP, recession, recovery, reopening, Richard F. Moody, semiconductor shortage, toxic combination, transportation, West Coast ports, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Here’s a great example of how badly the U.S. economy might be getting distorted by last year’s steep, sharp, largely government-mandated recession, and by the V-shaped recovery experienced since then.as CCPVirus-related restrictions have been lifted. Therefore, it’s also a great example of how the many of the resulting statistics may still be of limited usefulness at best in figuring out the economy’s underlying health.

The possible example?  New official figures showing that, as of the second quarter of this year, the U.S. economy is even more dangerously bubble-ized than it was just before the financial crisis of 2007-08.

As RealityChek regulars might recall, for several years I wrote regularly on what I called the quality of America’s growth. (Here‘s my most recent post.) I viewed the subject as important because there’s broad agreement that a big reason the financial crisis erupted was the over-reliance earlier in that decade n the wrong kind of growth. Specifically, personal spending and housing had become predominant engines of expansion – and therefore prosperity. Their bloated roles inflated intertwined bubbles whose bursting nearly collapsed the U.S. and entire global economies, and produced the worst American economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As a result, there was equally broad agreement that the nation needed to transform what you might call its business model from one depending largely on borrowing, spending, and paying for them by counting on home prices to rise forever, to one based on saving, investing, and producing. As former President Obama cogently put it, America needed “an economy built to last.”

Therefore, I decided to track how well the nation was succeeding at this version of “build back better” by monitoring the official quarterly reports on economic growth to examine the importance of housing and consumption (which I called the “toxic combination”) in the nation’s economic profile and whether and how they were changing.

For some perspective, in the third quarter of 2005, as the spending and housing bubbles were at their worst, these two segments of the economy accounted for 73.90 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP – the standard measure of the economy’s size) adjusted for inflation (the most widely followed of the GDP data. By the end of the Great Recession caused by the bursting of these bubbles, in the second quarter of 2009, this figure was down to 71.55 percent – mainly because housing had crashed.

At the end of the Obama administration (the fourth quarter of 2016), the toxic combination has rebounded to represent 72.31 percent of after-inflation GDP. So in quality-of-growth terms, the economy was heading in the wrong direction. And under President Trump, this discouraging trend continued. As of the fourth quarter of 2019 (the last quarter before the pandemic began significantly affecting the economy), this figure rose further, to 73.19 percent.

Yesterday, the government reported on GDP for the second quarter of this year, and it revealed that the toxic combination share of the economy in constant dollar terms to 74.24 percent. In other words, the toxic combination had become a bigger part of the economy than during the most heated housing and spending bubble days.

But does that mean that the economy really is even more, and more worrisomely lopsided than it was back then? That’s far from clear. Pessimists could argue that recent growth has relied heavily on the unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus provided by Washington since spring, 2020. Optimists could point out that far from overspending, consumers have been saving massively. Something else of note: Business investment’s share of real GDP in the second quarter of this year came to 14.80 percent – awfully lofty by recent standards.  During the 2005 peak of the last bubble, that spending (officially called “nonresidential fixed investment”) was 11.62 percent. 

My own take is that this situation mainly reflects the unexpected strength of the reopening-driven recovery and the transportation and logistics bottlenecks it’s created. An succinct summary of the situation was provided by Richard F. Moody, chief economist of Regions Bank. He wrote yesterday that the new GDP data “embody the predicament facing the U.S. economy, which is that the supply side of the economy has simply been unable to keep pace with demand.” The result is not only the strong recent inflation figures, but a ballooning of personal spending’s share of the economy.

Moody expects that both problems will end “later rather than sooner,” and for all I know, he (and other inflation pessimists) are right. But unless you believe that West Coast ports will remain clogged forever, that semiconductors will remain in short supply forever, that truck drivers will remain scarce forever, that businesses will never adjust adequately to any of this, and/or that new CCP Virus variants will keep the whole economy on lockdown-related pins and needles forever, the important point is that these problems will end. Once they do, or when the end is in sight, we’ll be able to figure out just how bubbly the economy has or hasn’t grown – but not, I’m afraid, one moment sooner.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The U.S. is Racing to the Bottom in Growth Quality Again

Tags

Barack Obama, bubbles, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, personal consumption, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although Thursday’s latest official report on U.S. economic growth was encouraging from a trade policy and national self-sufficiency perspective, as I contended, it was much less heartening from a quality of growth perspective. That, as known by RealityChek regulars, is the crucial issue of whether America’s output is being powered by the kind of engines that can last, or by the kinds (specifically housing spending and personal consumption) that tend to inflate bubbles and produce calamitous burstings.

Specifically, Thursday’s figures pegging a pretty solid rate of economic growth  both for the fourth quarter of 2019 (2.06 percent at an annual rate), and for the entirety of last year (2.33 percent least preliminarily), also made clear that way too much of this growth stemmed from housing and personal consumption – which I call the toxic combination because their combined and indeed intertwined bloat produced the last (terrifying) financial crisis and ensuing (punishing) Great Recession.

The highlights (lowlights?): On a quarterly basis, the toxic combination’s share of the total U.S. economy (technically, the gross domestic product, or GDP) in real terms (how all the following dollar figures will be presented) during the last three months of last year came to 72.91 percent. That’s nothing less than the highest such figure during the current economic recovery.

The personal consumption share alone totaled 69.78 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP and actually fell slightly from the third quarter’s 69.79 percent. Even so, that figure was the recovery’s second highest. The housing share of the after-inflation economy hit 3.13 percent – up from the third quarter’s 3.10 percent, but the highest total only since the fourth quarter of 2018 (3.16 percent). That’s an indication that housing spending has been notably subdued for about the last three years – and in fact that only personal consumption levels still deserve that “toxic” label.

On a yearly basis, the combined personal consumption and housing share of price-adjusted GDP climbed from 72.68 percent in 2018 to 72.90 percent in 2019 – the highest such level since the 73.04 percent of 2006, when the bubbles were about to burst. Personal consumption climbed from 69.45 percent in 2018 to 69.79 percent – its highest since 2004, when the previous decade’s bubbles were inflating strongly. De-toxified housing’s real GDP share fell from 3.23 percent in 2018 to 3.11 percent in 2019 – its lowest level since 2014’s 2.98 percent.

Another sign of some recent decline in the quality of U.S. growth: the combined personal consumption and housing share not of constant dollar GDP on a standstill basis, but on the economy’s annual real growth. In 2019, they powered 74.25 percent of a 2.33 percent expansion in after-inflation output. The previous year’s share was just 68.62 percent.

This performance still leaves Trump era price-adjusted growth less bubblier and higher quality by this measure than growth during Barack Obama’s presidency (as shown by the table below). But it’s a regression all the same – as growth itself slowed:

                                  Toxic combination share of total growth      Total growth

09-10:                                               46.92%                                       2.56%

10-11:                                               80.63%                                       1.55%

11-12:                                               60.91%                                       2.25%

12-13:                                               73.89%                                       1.84%

13-14:                                             117.22%                                       2.53%

14-15:                                              96.90%                                        2.91%

15-16:                                            130.00%                                         1.64%

16-17:                                               86.82%                                        2.37%

17-18:                                               68.62%                                        2.93%

18-19″                                              74.25%                                        2.33%

In fact, overall, 80.74 percent of U.S. inflation-adjusted growth during the 32 full quarters of the Obama presidency’s stewardship of the economy stemmed from the growth of personal consumption and housing. The figure for the eleven quarters of the Trump economy has totaled 74.12 percent. But that Trump percentage is gaining on the Obama figure, and this kind of race to the bottom in growth quality isn’t one the President and his supporters should want to win.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Amazon.com Could Kill the Entire Economy

Tags

Amazon.com, bubble decade, bubbles, consumption, credit, Financial Crisis, gig economy, Great Depression, Great Recession, Henry George School of Social Science, housing, housing bubble, production, productivity, Robin Gaster, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday I was in New York City, on one of my monthly trips to attend board meetings of the Henry George School of Social Science, an economic research and educational institute I serve as a Trustee. And beforehand, I was privileged to moderate a school seminar focusing on the possibly revolutionary economic as well as social and cultural implications of Amazon.com’s move into book publishing.

You can watch the eye-opening presentation by economic and technology consultant Robin Gaster here, but I’m posting this item for another reason: It’s an opportunity to spotlight and explore a little further two Big Think questions raised toward the event’s end.

The first concerns what Amazon’s overall success means for the rough balance that any soundly structured economic needs between consumption and production. As known by RealityChek readers, consumption’s over-growth during the previous decade deserves major blame for the terrifying financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession – whose longer term effects have included the weakest (though longest) economic recovery in American history. (See, e.g., here.)

Simply put, the purchases (in particular of homes) by too many Americans way outpaced their ability to finance this spending responsibly, artificially and unprecedentedly cheap credit eagerly offered by the country’s foreign creditors and the Federal Reserve filled the gap. But once major repayment concerns (inevitably) surfaced, the consumption boom was exposed as a mega-bubble that proceeded to collapse and plunge the entire world economy into the deepest abyss since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As also known by RealityChek regulars, U.S. consumption nowadays isn’t much below the dangerous and ultimately disastrous levels it reached during the Bubble Decade. And one of the points made by Gaster yesterday (full disclosure: he’s a personal friend as well as a valued professional colleague) is that by using its matchless market power to squeeze its supplier companies in industry after industry to provide their goods (and services, in the case of logistics companies) at the lowest possible prices, Amazon has delivered almost miraculous benefits to consumers (not only record low prices, but amazing convenience). But this very success may be threatening the ability of the economy’s productive dimension to play its vital role in two ways.

First, it may drive producing businesses out of business by denying them the profitability needed to survive over any length of time. Second, Amazon’s success may encourage so many of its suppliers to stay afloat by cutting labor costs so drastically that it prevents the vast majority of consumers who are also workers from financing adequate levels of consumption with their incomes, not via unsustainable borrowing. Indeed, as Gaster noted, it may push many of these suppliers to adopt Amazon’s practice of turning as much of it own enormous workforce into gig employees – i.e., workers paid bare bones wages and denied both benefits and any meaningful job security. And that can only undermine their ability to finance consumption responsibly and sustainably. 

I tried to identify a possible silver lining: The pricing pressures exerted by Amazon could force many of its suppliers to compensate, and preserve and even expand their profits, by boosting productivity. Such efficiency improvements would be an undeniable plus for the entire economy, and historically, anyway, they’ve helped workers, too, by creating entirely new industries and related new opportunities (along, eventually, with higher wages). Gaster was somewhat skeptical, and I can’t say I blame him. History never repeats itself exactly.

But to navigate the future successfully, Americans will need to know what’s emerging in the present. And when it comes to the economic impact of a trail-blazing, disruption-spreading corporate behemoth like Amazon, I can think of only one better place to start than Gaster’s presentation yesterday –  his upcoming book on the subject. I’ll be sure to plug it here on RealityChek as soon as it’s out.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is Growth’s Quality Again Turning for the Worse?

Tags

bubbles, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, Obama, personal consumption, real GDP, real growth, toxic combination, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

“The consumer will save us,” or some variation thereof, has become a rallying cry for those believing that the U.S. economy will avoid recession, at least for the foreseeable future. For RealityChek regulars, however, it’s a red flag, possibly revealing that too many economy watchers have forgotten, or never learned, the most important lesson of the global financial crisis of the previous decade and the Great Recession it triggered: The quality of American growth matters at least as much as the quantity – and more specifically, economic expansion that’s too heavily reliant on consuming rather than producing is too likely to end in tears.

That’s why last week’s latest official report on America’s economic growth has me somewhat worried. It’s true, as I reported, that it contained some good news on the trade front, showing a continuing Trump administration trend of decent growth rates no longer tightly linked with huge, soaring trade deficits. But the figures (the second look of three looks at the second quarter’s performance – at least for the time being) also confirm major backsliding when it comes to the domestic determinants of healthy and unhealthy growth – a big surge in the role of consumption and housing combined as growth engines. That’s exactly the toxic combination that inflated the last decade’s historic bubble. And it could become a reversal of a positive Trump-period trend.

According to those official data, consumption and housing in the second quarter fueled 150 percent of that period’s 2.02 percent annualized inflation-adjusted growth – the most closely followed measure of change in gross domestic product (GDP – economists’ term for the economy as a whole). A figure greater than 100 percent, by the way, is possible because other components of GDP can subtract from growth – and in the second quarter, obviously did..

That 150 percent figure is the biggest by far since the third and fourth quarters of 2015. The only saving grace for that figure is that back in 2015, much stronger performance in personal consumption and housing was producing only roughly comparable overall growth.

The second quarter numbers are somewhat better on a standstill basis, but point in the wrong direction as well. From March through June this year, the toxic combination represented 72.67 percent of the economy in constant dollar terms. That’s the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2017 (72.87 percent). Moreover, back then, the economy was growing a good deal faster (at a 3.50 versus a 2.02 percent annual rate).

None of this means that the U.S. economy is now firmly on an unhealthy growth track. In fact, the worrisome second quarter “growth contribution” figures followed an especially good first quarter. From January through March, personal consumption and housing together produced only 23.87 percent of that stretch’s solid 3.01 percent annualized real growth – the lowest such figure since the fourth quarter of 2011 (16.38 percent of 4.64 percent annualized growth).

On a standstill basis, the last time that the toxic combination represented a lower share of the total economy in real terms was the fourth quarter of 2015 (72.15 percent). And during that period, there was almost (0.13 percent) real annualized economic growth.

Further, the Trump healthy growth record so far is better than the record during President Obama’s two terms in office. During the latter’s administrations, the toxic combination generated 80.74 percent of its $2.2537 trillion in after-inflation growth. Under President Trump, personal consumption plus housing has been responsible for 72.64 percent of $1.002 trillion of such growth. (Both calculations begin the these two administrations in the second quarter of their first year in office, since Inauguration Day doesn’t take place until January 20.)

Real growth, moreover, has been somewhat faster so far. Over 32 quarters, the U.S. economy grew by 18.44 percent after inflation under Obama. Over nine Trump quarters, the economy has become 5.56 percent larger – which translates into 19.80 percent growth over a 32-quarter stretch. All in all, that’s a pretty good reflection on this President’s performance.

Economically, though, the big question is whether it will continue. And politically, it’s whether it will suffice, in tandem with any other perceived strengths, to bring a second Trump term.