(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence of Biden-Flation’s Toll

Tags

American Rescue Plan, Biden administration, Covid relief, energy prices, Federal Reserve, food prices, hunger, inflation, monetary policy, progressives, recession, supply chain, Ukraine War, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Left-of-center critics of the Federal Reserve’s inflation-fighting efforts keep insisting that risking recession to tame prices would unnecessarily harm the most vulnerable Americans and their struggling working class counterparts. Instead,  many have claimed that living costs can be cut sufficiently by forcing greedy corporations to charge less through windfall profits taxes, price controls, and the like.

And they’ve bridled in particular at charges that the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) greatly worsened the problem by handing trillions of dollars of CCP Virus relief – and therefore purchasing power – to U.S. consumers well after economic growth had already rebounded strongly and unemployment had already nosedived.

Any development that can engulf the gargantuan American economy, like historically high inflation, almost by definition has many different causes. But anyone doubting the economic overheating role of the ARP should check out the graph below, which is found in this Reuters piece from over the weekend.

The article adds to the evidence that still-towering inflation rates are devastating low-income Americans by super-charging the prices of that most basic of basics: food. But the graph makes clear as can be how the ARP contributed to the problem.

As it shows, prices of food (the darker line) began taking off just about the time that the ARP’s strings-free child tax credit payments started to be sent out (July 15, 2021, to be precise) – and not just to the needy, but to considerably better off households as well. Not so coincidentally, the share of American families with children reporting to U.S. Census Bureau surveys being “sometimes or often” short of food (the lighter line) started taking off soon after. And also noteworthy – these food price rises began many months before Russia’s February, 2022 invasion of Ukraine began playing its own major food inflation role. 

As the article also emphasizes, between 2020 and 2022, “as pandemic restrictions eased, so did the appetite for congress and some states to fund hunger prevention efforts.” But continuing federal purchases for “pantries, schools and indigenous reservations” were needed in the first place largely because food – not to mention other necessities – kept becoming so much more expensive.

The lesson here isn’t that no pandemic assistance should have been provided at all. After all, genuine suffering was widespread in its early phases and no one knew how long they would last. And the Fed’s left-of-center critics are correct that ongoing CCP Virus-related and Ukraine War-related energy supply disruptions have greatly boosted prices recently, too.

But as noted here previously, the supply- and demand-side roots of inflation are very closely related (because businesses can be relied on to continue raising prices as long as they can find enough buyers, and to cut them when customers start balking). Moreover, although in economists’ lingo, some prices are “inelastic” (because they’re for goods and services that are essential enough to prevent purchasing cutbacks even after major price increases), when they rise high enough, they can still foster lower prices for other purchases that are deemed less important.

Therefore anything, like big government checks, that fills consumer pockets will strongly tend to spur inflation sooner or later. So when help does need to be provided, it should be much more precisely focused on relieving genuine privation than pandemic relief was.

Even more important: The inflationary effects of supporting household consumption can be offset – and are best offset – by policies to support more production. When the Fed’s left-of-center critics start addressing defects in that supply side of the economy, rather than trafficking in gimmicks sure to exacerbate them, their complaints about excessive central bank monetary medicine will deserve a much bigger audience. In the process, they’ll be able to deliver lasting assistance to those whose plight they rightly emphasize.        

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Another Dreadful U.S. Consumer Inflation Report

Tags

Commerce Department, consumer price index, consumers, core inflation, cost of living, CPI, demand, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, supply chains, Ukraine War, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Optimism about U.S. inflation took another blow yesterday morning – though it shouldn’t have been unexpected – with the release of the latest data on the Federal Reserve’s favorite measure of price changes. I said “shouldn’t have been unexpected” because, as Fed Chair Jerome Powell and others have noted, this gauge and the higher profile Consumer Price Index (CPI) put out by the Labor Department normally track each other pretty closely over the long run, and those CPI results were deeply discouraging.

Nonetheless, latest results from the Price Indexes for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) monitored by the Commerce Department matter because they strongly confirmed the latest CPI figures – which were pretty awful – starting with the month-to-month changes for the entire economy.

In June, headline PCE inflation shot up sequentially by a full one percent – much faster than May’s 0.6 percent and indeed the fastest rate not only throughout this latest high-inflation period, but the fastest since it increased by one percent in September, 2005.

But another observation should make even clearer how unusual that monthly headline increase was. The Commerce Department has been keeping these data since February, 1959. That’s 749 months worth of results through last month. How many times has monthly headline PCE inflation been one percent or higher? Twelve. And the all-time record is just 1.2 percent, hit in March, 1980, and February and March, 1974.

The annual figures were no better, and RealityChek regulars know that they’re more reliable than the monthlies because they measure changes over a longer time period, and therefore smooth out short-term fluctations.

June’s 6.8 percent rise was the strongest of the current high inflation era, and a significant pickup from May’s 6.3 percent. And it looks even worse when the fading baseline effect is taken into account. The June yearly jump in headline PCE came off a June, 2020-21 increase of four percent. So that year’s June PCE rate was already twice the Federal Reserve’s two percent annual inflation target.

By comparison, headline PCE this March was only a little lower than the June result – 6.6 percent. But the baseline figure for the previous March was only 2.5 percent. That rate was still higher than the Fed target, but not by much. So arguably unlike the price advances of June, this March’s inflation reflected some catching up from price increases that were still somewhat subdued due to the economy’s stop-go recovery from earlier during the pandemic.

Core PCE was lower by both measures, because it strips out the food and particularly energy prices that have spearheaded much headline inflation, and that are excluded supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons having little to do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation. But here the monthly figures revealed new momentum, with the June seqential increase of 0.6 percent twice that of May’s 0.3 percent, and the highest such number since May and June of 2021.

Before then, however, core inflation hadn’t seen a monthly handle in the 0.6 percent neighborhood since September and October of 2001, which registered gains of 0.6 and 0.7percent, respectively.

On an annual basis, June’s core PCE increase of 4.8 percent was slightly higher than May’s 4.7 percent, but well below the recent peak of 5.3 percent in February. But the baseline effect should dispel any notions of progess being made. For June-to-June inflation for the previous year was 3.5 percent – meaningfully above the Fed’s two percent target. Core annual PCE inflation for the previous Februarys was just 1.5 percent – meaningfully below the Fed target.

As with most measures of U.S. economic perfomance, an unprecedented number of wild cards that can affect both PCE and CPI inflation has rendered most crystal balls (including mine) pretty unreliable. To cite just a few examples: Will China’s Zero Covid policy keep upending global supply chains and thus the prices of Chinese exports? Will the ongoing Ukraine War have similar impacts on many raw materials, especially energy? Will the Federal Reserve’s tightening of U.S. credit conditions per se bring inflation down significantly in the foreseeable future by dramatically slowing the nation’s growth? Will high and still soaring prices, coupled with vanishing savings rates, achieve the same objective if the Fed’s inflation-fighting zeal wanes? Or will the still huge amounts of money in most consumers’ bank accounts along with continuing robust job creation keep the demand for goods and services elevated for the time being whatever the Fed does?

Here’s what seems pretty certain to me: As long as that consumer demand remains strong, and as long as producer prices keep jumping, businesses will pass these rising costs on to their customers and keep consumer inflation worrisomely high. That seemed to be precisely the case in the last two months, with a torrid May read on producer prices being followed by the equally torrid June consumer inflation reports. So unless this wholesale inflation cooled a great deal this month, I’d expect at least another month of red hot consumer inflation. That producer price report is due out August 11.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Hold Your Applause on Inflation Progress Signs

Tags

consumers, demand, Employment, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, gas prices, GDP, gross domestic product, household spending, housing, inflation, Jobs, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing production, monetary policy, mortgages, personal consumption, personal spending, recession, retail sales, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

At the end of last month, I wrote that if a national government (including its central bank) wants to get inflation down, it’s not a rocket science-type challenge.” Basically all that’s needed is the willingness to take some combination of the kinds of fiscal and monetary measures that are guaranteed to slow economic growth.

Keep that in mind as you read the mushrooming number of claims that America’s recent historic burst of inflation is either peaking (see, e.g., here, here, and here) or should peak soon (e.g., here, here, and here). Because wherever softening prices can be seen, levels of demand have fallen off either because goods and services are becoming unaffordable and sales are down, or because easy money has gotten harder, or some degree of both. So let’s not conclude that inflation progress stems from a sudden outburst of policy-making genius.

Anyone doubting the start of a economic downshifting should check out the many of the latest reports released by the federal government on the economy’s performance. In the first quarter of this year, the gross domestic product (GDP – the standard measure of the economy’s size) fell by 1.58 percent at an annual rate adjusted for inflation, and the pretty reliable forecasters at the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve system expect about the same kind of contraction for the second quarter.

If this prediction holds, the United States will have entered a recession by the most widely used yardstick – two straight quarters of what economists call “negative growth.”   

Manufacturing production – which RealityChek regulars know has held up very well during the pandemic period – has now dropped sequentially for two straight months. And a downshifting U.S. economy is importing less, which has reduced the bloated trade deficit for two straight months as well.

The employment picture is better (including in manufacturing) but on an economy-wide basis some signs of deterioration are visible as well. Chiefly, if you look at three-month averages (which help smooth out often misleading short-term fluctuations, you see that from January through March, this measure of private sector job growth totalled 527,000. From April through June, it dropped to just under 362,000, and may sink lower, as the April and May figures have been downwardly revised, signaling that the same may be in store for June’s results.

Some of the best evidence of declining affordability – across the board – come from the official retail sales figures. On an annual basis, their increase is down from the mid-double digit levels of January and February (propped up by the unusually weak numbers from the heavily pandemic-affected figures for the previous – baseline – winter), to 9.26 percent in June.

That may not sound like a lot, but when inflation is considered, these retail sales increases turn into decreases for three of the last four months through June’s preliminary report. In other words, because of rapidly rising prices, consumers weren’t actually buying more in the way of goods and services. They were simply paying more for quantities that had actually shrunk. And the month-on-month sales numbers have been negative for three of the last four months, too.

The affordability issue is especially clear from the recent decrease in gasoline prices. Yes, they’ve tumbled for more than a month. But less driving is the obvious reason. For example, here we are in the middle of peak summer driving season, when the subsiding of the pandemic supposedly has millions of Americans determined to engage in so-called “revenge travel.”

But according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gasoline consumption “is just above the same time two years ago [when revenge travel was popular, too, as the virus’ first wave receded, but was still taking a much bigger toll than today] but below every other year going back to 2000.”

The American Petroleum Institute added that last month’s 9.1 million barrels per day of demand was “down 2.3% y/y compared with June 2021—a third straight month in which gasoline trailed its year-ago levels.” Moreover, so far, this year’s May-June increase of 0.4 percent in gasoline use has badly “lagged the average 2.9% seasonal increase seen between May and June in 2012-2021.”

Meanwhile, the role of higher interest rates (and consequently tighter credit) is best seen in the housing market. Summarizing the latest findings of the National Association of Realtors, The Wall Street Journal just reported that “sales of previously owned homes fell for a fifth straight month, dropping 5.4% in June to an annualized rate of 5.12 million.”

The main reason? The big run up in mortgage rates has depressed mortage applications for three straight weeks has pushed them down to their lowest levels since 2000. That means they’re below where they were even during the deflation of the mid-2000s housing bubble that helped trigger the global financial crisis and Great Recession.

Most important of all, even those believing that American leaders deserve credit for figuring out a successful anti-inflation fighting strategy, should remember that although interest rates are higher, they’re far from historically high and even fall well short of even recent very low norms; and that even though some prices are down, they’re still historically high. And that’s not even considering that the supply chain troubles also contributing to recent inflation could well intensify as long as the Ukraine war drags on, and the threat of more over-the-top Zero Covid lockdowns in China can’t be dismissed.

So even though this kind of bitter policy medicine is needed to avoid worse inflation down the road, and genuinely harsh austerity measures (especially as long as U.S. leaders seem to lack a clue regarding the inflation-fighting potential of productivity growth improvement), American voters aren’t likely to be grateful this November – or in any elections in the foreseeable future. And who could blame them?

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Second Straight Month of Production Shrinkage for U.S. Manufacturing

Tags

aircraft, aircraft parts, apparel, appliances, automotive, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, dollar, electrical components, electrical equipment, exchange rates, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, inflation, inflation-adjusted growth, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, metals, miscellaneous durable goods, monetary policy, personal protective equipment, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, production, real output, recession, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, stimulus, supply chains, textiles, Trade Deficits, Wuhan virus, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s after-inflation U.S. manufacturing production report (for June) marked a second straight decline in real output for domestic industry, adding to the evidence that this so far resilient sector is finally suffering the effects of the entire economy’s recent slowdown.

Another possible implication of the new downbeat results: The record and surging trade deficits being run in manufacturing lately may finally be starting undermine U.S.-based manufacturing’s growth. (See here for how and why.)

Also important to note: This release from the Federal Reserve incorporated the results of both typical monthly revisions but also its annual “benchmark” revision, which reexamined its data going back several years (in this case, to 2020), and updated the figures in light of any new findings.

And the combination has revealed some big surprises – notably that the domestic semiconductor industry, which along with its foreign competition has been struggling to keep up with recently booming worldwide demand, has turned out fully 36 percent less worth of microchips on a price-adjusted basis since the CCP Virus struck than was calculable from the (pre-revisions) May report.

In real terms, U.S.-based manufacturing shrank by 0.54 percent on month in June – the worst such result since last September’s 0.78 percent drop. Moreover, May’s originally reported 0.07 sequential percent dip is now judged to be a decrease of 0.52 percent.

The April results remained good, but were downgraded a second time, from 0.75 percent monthly growth in after inflation to 0.66 percent, while the March numbers told a similar story, with a third consecutive modest downward revision still leaving that month’s inflation-adjusted expansion at 0.76 percent.

Especially discouraging, though – the June report plus the two revisions left constant dollar U.S. manufacturing output just 2.98 percent greater than just before the pandemic struck the economy in full force and began distorting it, in February, 2020. The pre-benchmark revision May release pegged its virus-era real growth at a much higher 4.94 percent, and the first post-benchmark number was 4.12 percent.

May’s biggest manufacturing growth winners among the broadest manufacturing categories tracked by the Fed were:

>the very small apparel and leather goods industry. Its price-adjusted output surged by 2.54 percent month-to-month in June – its best such perfomance since May, 2021’s 2.63 percent. May’s initially reported 0.88 percent gain was revised down to a 0.34 percent loss, though. April’s upgraded 0.30 percent rise is now judged to be a 0.33 percent decrease, and March’s figures were revised down after two upgrades – from 1.54 to a still solid 1.30 percent. But whereas last month’s Fed release showed inflation-adjusted production in this sector up 4.59 percent during the pandemic era, this growth is now pegged at just 0.56 percent; 

>the miscellaneous durable goods sector, which contains the medical products like personal protective equipment looked to as major CCP Virus fighters. It’s June sequential output jump of 2.25 percent was its biggest since March, 2021’s 2.61 percent, and revisions were overall positive. May’s initially reported 0.96 percent monthly price-adjusted production gain was downgraded to 0.49 percent, but the April figure was revised up for a second time – to 0.71 percent – and March’s results were upgraded a third straight time, to 0.51 percent.

These industries are now 14.11 percent bigger in constant dollar terms than in February, 2020, versus the 11.41 percent gain calculable last month; and

>the electrical equipment, appliances, and components cluster, where price-adjusted production climbed 1.34 percent on a monthly basis in June, the strongest such showing since February’s 2.29 percent.. Revisions were positive on net, with May’s originally reported 1.83 percent monthly falloff downgraded to one of 2.35 percent, but April’s initially estimated -0.60 percent decrease upgraded a second time,to a 0.49 percent gain, and March’s three revisions resulting in an originally judged 1.03 percent increase now pegged at 1.23 percent. These results pushed these companies’ real production 5.59 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, not the 2.19 percent calculable last month;

The list of biggest manufacturing inflation-adjusted output losers for June was considerably longer, starting with

>printing and related support activities, where the monthly inflation-adjusted production loss of 2.16 percent was the worst such showing since February, 2021’s 2.26 percent. Revisions were actually net positive, with May’s initially reported dip of 0.35 percent upgraded to one of 0.15 percent; April’s results downgraded from a one percent advance to one of 0.33 percent after being revised up from an initially reported 0.49 percent; and March’s totals rising cumulatively from an initially reported 1.10 percent decrease to a decline of just 0.05 percent. All the same, the printing cluster is now judged to be 11.37 percent smaller in real terms than in February, 2020, not the 1.89 percent calculable last month;

>petroleum and coal products, whose June sequential production decrease of 1.92 percent was its biggest since January’s 2.96 percent. Revisions here were mixed, too, with May’s figure revised up from a 2.53 percent improvement to one of 2.61 percent; April’s totals downgraded a second time, from a 0.13 rise to one of 0.04 percent to a decrease of 1.91 percent; and March’s results increasing from an initial estimate of 0.72 percent to one of 1.03 percent. But whereas last month’s Fed release showed petroleum and coal products’ after-inflation output 1.21 percent above its last pre-pandemic level, this month’s reports that it’s 0.27 percent below.

>textiles and products, where price-adjusted output sank on month by 1.80 percent for its worst month since March’s 2.45 percent shrinkage. Revisions were negative, with May’s initially reported 0.02 percent real production decline downgraded to one of 0.35 percent, April’s upgraded 0.45 percent increase now pegged as a 0.05 percent decrease, and March’s initially reported 1.55 percent falloff now judged to be one of 2.45 percent. As a result, the sector is now 5.35 percent smaller in terms of constant dollar output, rather than down 3.80 percent as calculable last month; and

>primary metals, whose inflation-adjusted production sagged by 1.60 percent on month – its poorest performance since March’s 1.42 retreat. Revisions were overall positive here, with May’s initially reported 0.77 percent real output rise downgraded to one of 0.66 percent, April’s initially downgraded 1.22 percent increase revised up to 1.46 percent, and March’s initially reported 1.69 percent drop now judged to be that aforementioned 1.42 percent. Even so, primary metals price-adjusted production is now estimated as having inched up only 0.50 percent since the pandemic arrived, not the 4.45 percent increase calculable last month.

In addition, an unusually high three other major industry sectors suffered constant dollar output declines of more than one percent on month in June. On top of plastics and rubber products (1.25 percent), the were two that RealityChek has followed especially closely during the pandemic period – machinery and automotive.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the machinery industry is a bellwether for both the rest of manufacturing and the entire economy, since use of its products is so widespread. But in June, its real production was off by 1.14 percent on month, and May’s initially reported 2.14 percent decrease is now estimated at-3.14 percent – its worst figure since the 18.64 collapse recorded in pandemic-y April, 2020. And although this April’s numbers have been revised up twice, to have reached 2.20 percen, March’s initially reported 0.78 percent inflation-adjusted increase is now estimated to have been a 0.89 decrease. Consequently, in price-adjusted terms, the machinery sector is now estimated to be 4.70 percent larger than in February, 2020, not the 6.29 percent calculable last month.

As for motor vehicles and parts makers, dogged for months by that aforementioned semiconductor shortage, their real output was off by 1.49 percent on month in June, and May’s initially reported rise of 0.70 percent is now estimated as a1.86 percent decline. Following a slight downgrade, April’s output is now pegged as growing by 3.85 percent rather than 3.34 percent, and March’s initially reported 7.80 percent advance is now pegged at 9.08 percent – the best such total since last October’s 10.34 percent. Nonetheless, after-inflation automotive output is now reported to be 1.07 percent lower than just before the pandemic arrive in force, not the 1.17 percent higher calculable last month.

Notably, other industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic outperformed the rest of manufacturing in June.

Constant dollar output by aircraft- and aircraft parts-makers was up 0.26 percent month-to-month in June, but revisions were mixed. May’s initially reported 0.33 percent rise has now been downgraded to a 0.23 percent decline – snapping a four-month winning streak. April’s results were upgraded a second straight time – from a hugely upgraded 2.90 percent to an excellent 3.13 percent (the best such performance since January, 2021’s 8.60 percent burst). But the March figures have been substantially downgraded from an initially reported 2.31 percent to a gain of just 0.53 percent. After all this volatility, though, real aircaft and parts production is now 25.58 percent greater than in February, 2020, much better than the 19.08 percent calculable last month.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry grew its real putput by another 0.39 percent in June, but revisions were generally negative. May’s initially reported 0.42 percent improvement, however, is now judged to be just an infinitesimal 0.01 percent. April’s upgraded 0.15 percent rise is now pegged as a 0.04 percent loss, and March’s results have been downgraded all the way from an initially reported 1.17 percent increase to one of just 0.49 percent. Price-adjusted output in these sectors, therefore, is now estimated at 12.98 percent higher than in February, 2020, versus the 14.64 percent calculable last month.

Medical equipment and supplies firms boosted their inflation-adjusted output for a sixth straight month in June, and by a stellar 3.12 percent – their best such performance since January’s 3.15 percent. May’s growth was downgraded from 1.44 percent to 1.01 percent, but April’s estimate rose again, from 0.51 percent to 1.01 percent, and March’s initially reported 1.81 percent improvement has been slightly downgraded to 1.67 percent. This progress pushed these companies’ real pandemic era output growth from the 11.51 percent calculable last month to 17.27 percent.

The news was significantly worse, though, in that shortage-plagued semiconductor industry. Real production rose by 0.18 percent sequentially in June, but May’s initially reported 0.52 percent advance is now judged to have been a 2.24 percent drop. Meanwhile, April’s already dreary initially reported 1.85 percent slump has now been downgraded again to one of 2.71 percent (the sector’s worst such performance since the 11.26 percent plunge in December, 2008 – in the middle of the Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis). Even March’s initially reported impressive 1.99 percent monthly price-adjusted production increase has been revised all the way down to 0.52 percent.

The bottom line: The pandemic-era semiconductor real production increase that was estimated at 23.82 percent last month is now judged to have been just 15.22 percent.

It’s not as if the recent official manufacturing data has been all disappointing. Employment, notably, rose respectably on month in June. And the pace of capital spending has actually sped up some (at least through May) – which, like employment is a sign of continued optimism among manufacturers about their future outlook.

But at this point, the headwinds look stronger – including continued credit tightening by the Federal Reserve (not to mention a drawdown in the massive bond purchases that also have significantly propped up the entire economy); the resulting downshifting in domestic economic growth at which the Fed is aiming in order to bring down raging inflation; an even worse slump in economies overseas, which have been important markets for U.S.-based industry; the strongest dollar in about two decades, which puts Made in America products at a price disadvantage the world over; and the ongoing supply chain snags resulting from the Ukraine-Russia War and China’s lockdowns-happy Zero Covid policy.

And don’t forget those stratospheric and still-rising manufacturing trade deficits, which could well mean that, once the unprecedented pandemic fiscal and monetary stimulus/virus relief that have helped create so much business for domestic industry starts fading significantly, U.S.-based manufacturers could might themselves further behind the eight-ball than ever.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New U.S. Wholesale Price Results Belie Biden’s Inflation Optimism

Tags

Biden, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, credit, energy prices, Federal Reserve, food prices, inflation, monetary policy, PPI, Producer Price Index, recession, retail inflation, wholesale inflation, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday, I wrote that we’ll know if President Biden’s optimism about the direction of multi-decade high consumer inflation is well founded when today’s data about producer prices come in. Now they’ve been released, and Mr. Biden or one of his aides might want to consider walking that one back. Because the new producer price index results (PPI) were as bad as those consumer price index (CPI) figures the President tried to explain away.

According to Mr. Biden, yesterday’s worrisome CPI release (taking the story up through June) is “out-of-date.” The reason? Oil prices, which have done so much to spur the recent “headline” (economy-wide) inflation, have come down this month. He added that “core inflation” (which strips out food and energy prices supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons having little to do with the economy’s underlying vulnerability to inflation) was subsiding, too.

As I noted, the PPI results would matter so crucially because they measure what businesses pay for the goods and services they need to create the output they try to sell to their customers. And if customer demand is strong enough (which yesterday’s numbers made clear is the case), these companies can and will pass along any higher prices they pay. So as long as producer price (or wholesale) inflation is bad, it’s a safe bet that succeeding consumer price (or retail) inflation will follow suit for a while.

And that’s exactly the message being sent by the new PPI report – especially when you take into account the baseline effect (which you always should).

The headline annual June PPI increase of 11.19 percent was the highest since March’s 11.57 percent. And although it does include those food and energy prices, since energy in particular is a major input for so many of the U.S. businesses that turn out so much of what consumers buy, it’s likely that these higher costs will wind up keeping both the headline and the core CPI numbers troublingly high next month – and possibly push them higher.

June’s core wholesale inflation read looks considerably better. Indeed, at 6.33 percent, it was the lowest since last October’s 6.26 percent. But here’s where the baseline effect comes in. The baseline figure for the October, 2021 annual PPI increase was the October, 2019-20 rise of 0.90 percent. In othe words, back then, wholesale inflation was super-low, thanks mainly to continuing worries about the course of the CCP Virus and its impact on the overall economy and therefore on consume spending.

And as known by RealityChek regulars, because that baseline annual increase was so unusually low, the subsequent return to some version of economic normality was bound to produce an unusually high annual increase the following year.

But check out the baseline for last month: It was 5.84 percent – more than six times higher than that of October, 2020. Therefore, a 6.33 percent yearly wholesale inflation increase coming off that baseline is powerful evidence that major producer and consumer price increases are going to remain facts of American economic life for the time being – specifically, as long as demand holds up.

Sooner or later, President Biden will be right. Unfortunately, as I’ve written, that’s sure to be because either the Federal Reserve will tighten credit conditions so much that demand weakens enough to produce a recession, because ever higher prices weaken demand substantially on their own, or some combination of the two. If that happens while he’s still President, somehow I don’t think Mr. Biden will be saying “I told you so.”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Figures Show Biden’s Inflation Optimism is Premature – At Best

Tags

baseline effect, Biden, consumer price index, core inflation, cost of living, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, interest rates, monetary policy, PPI, Producer Price Index, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I guess it’s nice that President Biden is taking some comfort from this morning’s monthly inflation report (for June) from the Labor Department. I’m sure not. Nor should you be.

The President does acknowledge that the increase in the headline Consumer Price Index (CPI) is “unacceptably high.” But he also insists that it’s

“out-of-date. Energy alone comprised nearly half of the monthly increase in inflation. Today’s data does not reflect the full impact of nearly 30 days of decreases in gas prices, that have reduced the price at the pump by about 40 cents since mid-June. Those savings are providing important breathing room for American families. And, other commodities like wheat have fallen sharply since this report.”

The overarching problem is that these improvements undoubtedly stem from an economy that’s not only slowing dramatically, but that already may have entered a recession. Partly that’s because the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates (which makes borrowing costs more expensive for individals and companies) and partly that’s because inflation is finally showing signs of making many goods and services literally unaffordable at their current prices.

And when growth slows (or of course slips into reverse), the condition of most households and businesses worsens. Overall buying goes down, overall selling goes down, the employment picture darkens (either in the form of weaker hiring, smaller wage gains and even decreases, and often both), and the the typical American family’s well-being either stagnates or deteriorates.

This may be the medicine the nation needs to take to cure “unacceptable” inflation. But as I observed two weeks ago, let’s not view these kinds of results, even if the alleged inflation progress continues, as any great triumph of economic policymaking.

And how much inflation progress really is revealed in today’s report?

On a monthly basis, the overall CPI jumped by 1.32 percent in June. That’s the biggest such surge since July, 1980’s 1.33 percent. It’s also a substantial increase from May’s 0.97 percent.

As known by RealityChek regulars, year-on-year figures are usually more valuable than month-on-month results, since they show trends over a longer time frame and therefore are less prone to often random fluctuations.

Since June, 2021, headline CPI has advanced by nine percent. That’s the worst upswing since November, 1981’s 12.63 percent, and also a robust increase since May’s 8.52 percent. It’s also the greatest monthly acceleration in the annual overall inflation rate (5.63 percent) since March’s 8.22 percent.

To be sure, Mr. Biden based his take on inflation not only on the assumption that energy prices will keep falling. He also noted that “what economists call annual ‘core inflation’ came down for the third month in a row, and is the first month since last year where the annual ‘core’ inflation rate is below six percent.”

This measure of inflation strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons having little do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation (like the problems in these sectors created by the Ukraine War). And the President is correct about the most recent yearly results.

But even assuming that food and energy prices don’t regularly bleed into and affect headline inflation (not a remotely realistic assumption IMO), President Biden has forgotten about the baseline effect – which can distort results over any time period if the relevant comparison figure is out of line either to the upside or downside.

RealityChek regulars know that this statistical phenomenon has been throwing off all the inflation figures for most of the time since the CCP Virus’ arrival in force in early spring, 2020 – which sent price increases way below their trend rates. As a result, once the economy started recovering, business’ ability to regain their normal levels of pricing power produced yearly inflation totals that were above normal.

But this baseline effect has vanished for core inflation. As recently as this past January, that month’s annual core inflation number of 6.04 percent could be partly explained by the fact that between January, 2020 and January, 2021 (the baseline number) the core rate climbed by just 1.52 percent – well below the two percent overall rate considered a sign of economic health by the Federal Reserve, which is regarded as the federal government’s lead inflation-fighting agency.

The baseline figure for this June? It’s 4.45 percent – more than twice as high as the Fed target. And the baseline figure for last December – the last month, as Mr. Biden correctly noted, when annual core inflation fell short of six percent? It was just 1.60 percent. So if anything, the new June annual core CPI reading is signaling that this kind of inflation has acquired a life of its own.

Further strengthening this argument: On a monthly basis, core inflation rate has sped up since March. Indeed, it’s more than doubled, from that month’s 0.32 percent.

The next set of official inflation data comes out tomorrow, and is especially important because it measures changes in wholesale prices as opposed to the CPI, which tracks consumer inflation, and because whenever these wholesale prices go up (as they did strongly last month), you can bet consumer prices will follow closely behind. These Producer Price Index (PPI) numbers will also indicate whether the President’s confidence that core inflation is indeed slowing meaningfully, and that the headline numbers are out of date, are reality-based or not.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S.-Based Manufacturing Returns to Pre-Pandemic Job Levels

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, fabricated metal products, Federal Reserve, food products, inflation, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, miscellaneous non-durable goods, monetary policy, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, printing, private sector, recession, semiconductors, supply chain, surgical equipment, textiles, transportation equipment, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

A power outage in my Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C. prevented me from filing my usual same-day post on the manufacturing highlights of the latest official U.S. jobs release, but the big news is still eminently worth reporting:

Specifically, “It’s back.” According to yesterday’s employment report from the Labor Department (for June), as was the case with the private sector overall, U.S.-based manufacturing last month finally regained all the jobs it lost – and then some – during the deep but short CCP Virus- and lockdowns-induced recession of spring, 2020.

The new figures show that by adding 29,000 workers on net sequentially during June, and having added slightly more to their headcounts in April than previously reported, domestic industry’s employment last month stood at 12.797 million. That’s 0.09 percent more than the 12.785 million on their payrolls in February, 2020, the last full data month before the pandemic’s arrival in force began decimating and distorting the economy.

As of June, American private sector workers now number 129.765 million – 0.11 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level of 129.625 million.

Yet the entire non-farm economy (the employment universe of the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks employment trends for the federal government) still hasn’t recovered all the jobs it lost during March and April, 2020. Because public sector employment is still off some, June’s 151.980 million non-farm payroll count remains 2.38 percent below the February, 2020 total of 152.504 million.

The June jobs report left manufacturing employment at the same level of total non-farm employment (8.42 percent) as in May, and a slightly smaller (9.86 percent versus 9.87 percent) share of total pivate sector employment that month.

But since the CCP Virus’ large-scale arrival, domestic industry has boosted these percentages from 8.38 percent and 9.83 percent, respectively.

Another reason for optimism about the manufacturing results of the June jobs report: The 29,000 payrolls boost was a nice increase from May’s unrevised 18,000 increase – the worst monthly performance since April, 2021’s 28,000. And as noted above, this past April’s excellent results saw their second upward revision – from 58,000 to 61,000 (the highest month-to-month gain since last July’s 62,000).

May’s biggest manufacturing jobs winners among the broadest Individual industry categories monitored by the Labor Department were:

>transportation equipment, which has been on a genuine rollercoaster. June’s hiring increase of 7,200 followed a May loss revised down from 7,900 to 9,800 – the worst such monthly drop since February’s 19,900. Yet the April figure for the sector was upgraded from an unrevised 19,500 to 20,100 – and followed a March advance of 25,000. That was the best such performance since October’s 28,200.

Yet all this tumult – due largely to an ongoing semiconductor shortage still plaguing the automotive sector in particular – still left transportation equipment employment 2.23 percent lower than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020 – as opposed to the 2.57 percent figure calculable last month;

>miscellaneous non-durable goods, where headcounts improved by 5,400 – the biggest monthly increase since February, 2021’s 5,500. But volatility is evident here, too, as May’s previously reported 2,900 jobs decrease was revised downgraded 3,400 – the biggest decline since December, 2020’s -9,400. Yet payrolls in this catch-all sector are now 9.68 percent higher than in February, 2020 – up from the 8.12 percent calculable from last month’s figures;

>plastics and rubber products, whose 5,300 hiring advance was its best since April’s now twice upgraded 8,000 rise. Moreover, May’s initially reported jobs decrease of 400 is now judged to have been a gain of 2,600. These companies now employ 4.33 percent more workers than just before the pandemic’s large-scale arrival in February, 2020, versus the 2.88 percent calculable last month; and

>food manufacturing, which added 4,800 employees on month in June. In addition, May’s initially reported 6,100 increase was revised up to 7,600, more than offsetting a second downgrade of the April advance from 7,700 0 7,100. This huge industry’s workforce is now 2.87 percent greater than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 2.53 percent figure calculable last month.

The biggest jobs losers in June among the broadest manufacturing sectors were:

>printing and related support activities, where 900 jobs were cut in the biggest monthly decrease since January’s 1,800. Worse, May’s initially reported employment retreat of 400 is now estimated at 700, and April’s upgraded increase (of 3,100) was revised down to 3,900. Employment by these companies is now down by 10.63 percent since just before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force in February, 2020, versus the 10.23 percent calculable last month;

>textile product mills, whose sequential June jobs loss of 700 was its worst since last September’s 900. May’s initially reported 100 employment dip stayed unrevised, but April’s initially upgraded results (from a headcount loss of 400 to one of 300) is now judged to be a decline of 400 once again. Consequently, payrolls in this sector are now off by 5.32 percent since February, 2020, as opposed t the 4.60 percent calculable last month; and

>fabricated metal products, whose 600 job loss in June was its worst such retreat since April, 2021’s 1,600, and the first fall-off since then. Revisions were mixed, with May’s initially reported increase of 7,100 downgraded to 6,900 (still its best sequential performance since February’s 9,300 surge) but April’s losses were revised down again, from 1,600 to 1,400. Despite its recent hiring hot streak, however, payrolls in this large sector are still 2.31 percent below pre-pandemic-y February, 2020’s level, versus the 2.24 percent calculable last month.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the big machinery industry is a bellwether for all of domestic manufacturing and indeed the entire U.S. economy, since so many industries use its products. So it was definitely good news that employment in this sector rose on month in June by 1,000 after having dropped by a downwardly adjusted 3,200 in May. That’s the sector’s worst such performance since it shed 7,000 workers last November. (Note: Last month, I mistakenly reported the May, 2021 decrease at 7,900.)

Yet April’s hiring gains were revised down again – from 5,900 to 5,800 – and machinery employment is still off since just before the pandemic’s arrival by 2.05 percent, versus the 2.12 percent calculable last month.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and interestingly, their May performance was generally better than that for domestic industry as a whole.

The semiconductor industry still struggling with the aforementioned shortages boosted employment on month in May by 800, and April’s initially reported 900 increase was revised up to 1,100 – the best since December’s 1,400. Even though March’s jobs improvement remained at a downgraded 400, payrolls in the sector moved up to 2.20 percent higher than just before the pandemic arrived in February, 2020 from the 1.66 percent calculable last month. And although progress seems modest, it must be remembered that even during the early spring, 2020 downturn, these companies added to their headcounts.

In surgical appliances and supplies (which includes all the personal protective equipment and other medical goods so widely used to fight the CCP Virus), employment in May climbed by 400 on month, April’s initially reported 200 loss is now estimated at just 100, and March’s unrevised 1,100 increase stayed unrevised. These results mean that these sectors have increased their workforces by 4.36 percent since February, 2020, versus the 3.88 percent calculable last month.

The large pharmaceuticals and medicines industry was a partial exception to this pattern, losing 100 jobs sequentially in May. But April’s initially reported 1,400 rise (the best monthly performance since last June’s 2,600) is now judged to have been 1,500. And March’s advance stayed at an upwardly revised 1,200. As a result, these industries now employ 10.10 percent more workers than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, versus the 9.78 percent calculable last month.

The medicines subsector containing vaccines hired 600 net new employees on month in May, April’s 1,100 payrolls increase (the best such performance since December’s 2,000), stayed unrevised, as was March’s previously upgraded 600 increase. Consequently, these companies’ headcounts are now 25.08 percent above their February, 2020 levels, versus the 24.47 percent improvement calculable last month.

Good job creation also continued throughout an aerospace cluster hit especially hard by CCP Virus-related travel restrictions. Aircraft manufacturers added 1,300 workers in May, their most robust monthly hiring since last June’s 4,000 jump. April’s initially reported climb of 200 was upgraded to 500, and March’s results stayed at an upwardly revised 1,200. These companies’ workforces have now crept to within 10.30 percent of their pre-pandemic total, versus the 10.96 percent shortfall calculable last month.\

In aircraft engines and engine parts, jobs rose by 700 sequentially in May, and though April’s initially reported increase of 900 is now judged to be 800, it was still the best such performance since February’s increase of 900. March’s new hires stayed at an upwardly revised 600, leaving employment in this sector 10.91 percent below February, 2020 levels, versus the 11.56 percent calculable last month.\

Non-engine aircraft parts and equipment makers kept making steady employment progress as well. They added 300 workers on month in May, and their initially reported new April hiring of 300 is now estimated at 400. March’s employment increase stayed unrevised at 700, but this sector still employs 15.14 percent fewer workers than in February, 2020, versus the 15.48 percent calculable last month.

With the Federal Reserve still on record as seeing the need for slowing the economy’s growth (at best) in order to fight inflation, signs of recession multiplying (e.g., here), domestic industry’s major export markets looking increasingly weak as well, the Ukraine War dragging on, and supply chain problems ongoing (see, e.g., here and here) it’s difficult to expect U.S.-based manufacturers to escape these powerful downdrafts. But these companies have kept turning in remarkably strong results in production as well as hiring, so who’s to say they can’t keep bucking the odds?

(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: Will Americans Need “That Seventies Show” to Tame Inflation?

Tags

consumer price index, consumers, CPI, demand, economics, elasticity, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, interest rates, Jerome Powell, monetary policy, Paul A. Volcker, recession, retail sales, supply, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I haven’t commented much in detail on dccisions by the Federal Reserve to fight inflation, mainly because they’re so thooughly covered in the press. But yesterday’s announcement by the central bank that it would raise the short-term interest rate it controls by an amount not matched in nearly thirty years could loom especially large over the nation’s economic future, and some of its ramifications deserve more attention than they’ve received.

First, as widely noted, the Fed could be tightening monetary policy – in an effort to slow and eventually reverse price increases by slowing economic activity – even though a recession sooner rather than later looks likely. In fact, the timing of yesterday’s interest rate hike and seemingly solid assurances that increases will continue for the foreseeable future may be even stranger, because the recession may already be here.

Some important signs:  Yesterday also saw the release of a Census Bureau report indicating that U.S. retail sales dipped on a monthly basis in May.  If this result holds (and we’ll find out on July 15), that would mark the first such decrease since December, and the news would be ominous given the dominant role played by personal spending in the American economy. 

In addition, on top of the economy’s shrinkage during the first quarter of this year, a well regarded source of forecasts on the path of the gross domestic product (GDP – economist’s main measure of the economy’s size and how it changes) is predicting no growth whatever in the second quarter. That result would enable the nation to skirt a recession according to one popular definition of the term holding that such slumps only occur when GDP adjusted for inflation falls for two consecutive quarters.

At the same time, a flat-line real GDP for the second quarter would mean that, on a cumulative basis, the economy has contracted over a two-quarter stretch. That sounds like a pretty good approximation of a recession to me. In fact, this cumulative shrinkage could still take place even if after-inflation GDP eaks out a small gain between April and June. (We’ll get the first official read on the subject on July 28.)

And maybe more important, when it comes to the lives of most Americans, what’s the difference between a recession (especially if it’s modest) and very slow growth? Indeed, for the record, the Fed itself yesterday lowered its own projection for real U.S. growth for this entire year from 2.8 percent to 1.7 percent.

Second, examining the Fed’s inflation-fighting record during the late-1970s – which it’s also been widely noted bears some strong resemblances to the present – raises immense questions regarding the central bank’s chances of making major inflation progress without triggering a recession that would be anything but modest.

In case you’re not old enough to remember that historical episode, inflation was actually higher during the late-1970s, and also stemmed partly a combination of oil price shocks generated by overseas events plus a development that’s too often ignored nowadays – a substantial deterioration in the nation’s international financial position. Though this current account deficit back then was tiny by today’s standards, it had just become a noteworthy shortfall as a share of GDP after years of small surplus or balance, and was broadly interpreted as a sign that Americans’s spending was spinning out of control (You’ll find a great account of this period here.)

As current Fed Chair Jerome Powell is fond of recalling, that towering late-1970s inflation was broken mainly by the steadfastness of that period’s Chair, Paul A. Volcker – who raised interest rates to levels that were as astronomical as they were wholly unprecedented. But although Volcker took the helm of the Fed when inflation (as measured by the headline Consumer Price Index, or CPI) wasn’t that much higher than today’s rates, it took a near-doubling of these rates from levels that also were much higher than today’s to bring price increases down to acceptable levels, and even this effort took three and a half years and dragged the economy into not just one, but two recessions – and severe ones at that. (My sources for the interest rate infomation is here. For the inflation and growth data, I’ve relied on the official government data tables I always use.)

Specifically, on Volcker’s first day as Fed Chair (in August, 1979), the federal funds rate it controls stood at 11 percent – versus the 1.75 percent ceiling to which the Powell Fed just approved. The annual inflation rate was 11.84 percent – versus the 8.52 percent recorded last month. And the economy was growing by three percent annually – versus the current rate of probably one percent at best.

Volcker engineered rate hikes to the 20 percent neighborhood – three times! (as depicted in the chart below) – and recessions that produced real GDP nosedives of eight and 6.1 percent (in the second quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1982), but the CPI didn’t retreat back into the single digits until May, 1981, and it took until the end of 1982 for a read of 3.8 percent to be recorded.

 

That history doesn’t seem to warrant much optimism that the Powell Fed can cut headline inflation to 5.2 percent by year end while increasing rates only to 3.4 percent (as it’s now expecting).

Third, at his press conference following the rate hike announcement, Powell echoed the conventional wisdom: that although the Fed can cut excessive levels of economic demand enough to tame inflation, it can’t address inflation by affecting economy’s ability to create enough supply to meet that demand, and thereby restore a satisfactory inflationary balance between the two.

But supply and demand are actuallly very closely connected. As I’ve discussed when posting about possible tariff cuts on imports from China, when consumer demand is strong enough, companies can pass along increases in their prices because their customers literally are willing to pay. When consumers are cautious, however, such price hikes become much more difficult.

To be sure, these rules don’t always hold. The big exceptions are products on which consumers will cut spending only as a last resort – like food and energy. They’re (rightly) seen as so important that demand for them is called “inelastic” by economists.

Since food and energy prices have been so central to today’s inflation, it’s easy to see why the conventional wisdom on the Fed and the economy’s supply side is generally accepted. But it’s also true that if consumers become stressed enough (for example, by interest rate increases high enough to slash growth, employment, and income levels), they’ll cut their overall spending even if they keep paying higher prices for those staples. Further, they can in principle reduce their purchases on non-staples enough to bring demand down substantially, and with it, inflationary pressures.

No one could reasonably relish this kind of outcome. But if the 1970s experience teaches any lessons for today, it’s that serious hardship for much of the population can’t be avoided if the inflation war is to be won. In my view, Powell has rightly stated that this victory is essential for America’s long-term prosperity. And President Biden deserves credit for endorsing such priorities. But will the Fed Chair actually take the Volcker-like steps needed to beat down inflation? Will a U.S. President still declaring he wants to be reelected remain a fan if he does? Because I can’t yet bring myself to believe either proposition, I can’t yet bring myself to be optimistic that inflation will drop significantly any time soon.

Following Up: Back on National Radio Tonight & Podcast On-Line of Yesterday’s Appearance

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Federal Reserve, Following Up, inflation, manufacturing, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, monetary policy, recession, tariffs, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my interview late last night on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari.” Click here to and scroll down a bit till you see my name for a timely discussion about the Federal Reserve’s latest inflation-fighting moves, the odds that its tighter monetary policies will trigger a U.S. recession, and where President Biden’s trade policies toward China and the rest of the world may be heading.

In addition, as mentioned yesterday, I’m scheduled to return to the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor” to update the U.S. China policy story. The exact time for the segment hasn’t yet been set, but the show is broadcast weeknights between 9 PM and 1 AM EST, and is always worth tuning in.

If you can’t listen live on-line at websites like this one, as always, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments