(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: 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: New U.S. Inflation Numbers Show New U.S. Inflation Momentum

Tags

Biden administration, Commerce Department, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, Federal Reserve, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption, supply chains, transitory, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Claims made by Federal Reserve leaders and the Biden administration (along with Yours Truly) that current lofty levels of U.S. inflation are transitory took another hit this morning with the Commerce Department’s release of the October figures for the Personal Consumption Exepnditures (PCE) price indices.

For some reason, these data don’t get the same attention as the Labor Department’s Consumer Price Index (CPI), but they should, since they’re the Fed’s inflation gauge of choice, and the Fed’s power to control inflation (or not) through monetary so profoundly influences the cost of credit, and therefore how fast or slowly the economy grows.

And the new PCE numbers show that between September and October, monthly and yearly price increases regained momentum that had previously showed signs of waning. Let’s go the statistics lists (an economist’s version of “Let’s go to the videotape”). First, the year’s monthly percentage changes in overalll PCE inflation:

Jan.             0.3

Feb.            0.3

March         0.6

April           0.6

May            0.5

June            0.5

July            0.4

Aug.           0.4

Sept.           0.4

Oct.            0.6

Moreover, not only is the October increase back to the previous peaks in March and April, but the August and September results were each revised up from 0.3 percent.

As you can see from the next list, the same kind of pick up can be seen in overall PCE inflation rates on a year-on-year basis. And these percentage canges are more important than the monthly changes because they measure the trend over a longer period of time, and also smooth out the kind of fluctuations that can pop up for random reasons in the short term. Just FYI, the July result was revised down from 4.2 percent.

Jan.              1.4

Feb.             1.6

March          2.5

April            3.6

May             4.0

June             4.0

July              4.1

Aug.             4.2

Sept.             4.4

Oct.              5.0

The monthly core inflation figures strip out food and energy prices – because they can be volatile for reasons like weather, and foreign oil cartels, that have nothing to do with the economy’s underlying proneness to price increases (or decreases). They’ve been somewhat lower in absolute terms than the overall PCE monthly increases. In October, moreover, though they doubled over the September rate, they’re still lower than the price rises recorded in spring and early summer. But that doubling snapped a five-month streak of stabilization or declines. Here are these percentage changes.

Jan.              0.2

Feb.             0.1

March         0.4

April           0.6

May            0.6

June            0.5

July             0.3

Aug.            0.3

Sept.           0.2

Oct.            0.4

As for the year-on-year core percentage changes, they’ve arguably been worse momentum-wise than their monthly counterparts because they’d shown no signs of decline through September. Now they’ve become worse still with the jump to 4.1 percent in October (the biggest such surge in decades). And September’s rate has been revised up from 3.6 percent.

Jan.             1.5

Feb.            1.5

March        2.0

April          3.1

May           3.5

June           3.5

July            3.6

Aug.          3.6

Sept.          3.7

Oct.           4.1

My gut still tells me that current inflation will be transitory – and in some meaningful sense, not because “nothing lasts forever except death and taxes.” That’s because the CCP Virus-era economy is still so downright weird, and because its disruptions – along with the current severity of the disease – are bound to at least calm down at some point in the foreseeable future.

But the new numbers revealing new inflation momentum are telling the opposite story, and their importance is all the more impressive for basically matching the trends shown by the CPI figures. So the burden of proof on inflation’s future has definitely shifted to the shoulders of the transitory-istas.

(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: U.S. Growth Takes a Bubbly Turn

Tags

Barack Obama, bubble decade, Financial Crisis, GDP, gross domestic product, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, personal consumption, real GDP, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As encouraging as last week’s official report on U.S. economic growth was – with the rate picking up even more than expected in the second quarter despite numerous forecasts of continued and even worsening slowdown – one big fly was visible in this ointment. The quality of the nation’s expansion has been weakening considerably this year, and as known by RealityChek regulars, growth overly dependent on the wrong engines can inflate the kinds of bubbles that burst so disastrously a decade ago, and triggered a frightful global financial crisis and a deep, punishing recession.

The specific internals of these reports on the gross domestic product (GDP) to track for signs of bubble-ization are personal consumption and housing. For their bloat provided most of the hot air during the 2000s (along with most of the actual growth). And the GDP report for the third quarter of this year (the most recent data available), as was the case since the second quarter, showed that these two GDP elements have driven growth much more powerfully than during that deceptively prosperous era. Further, during the last two quarters overall, growth has looked far bubblier by this measure than at any time during former President Barack Obama’s administration, with one exception. In fact, the second quarter of this year was the bubbliest ever. (More specifically, since 2002, when government figures enabled these calculations to be made.)

The table below shows the actual annual figures from 2002 through 2018 (leaving out only the recession years 2007-2008, and 2008-2009). The left-hand column shows how much total inflation-adjusted growth (the growth rate most closely followed by students of the economy) in each year was fueled by growth in personal consumption plus growth in housing. The center column shows the annual after-inflation growth rate for that year. And the right-hand column shows the difference between that toxic combination’s growth rate, and growth itself.

That ratio is important because it helps makes clear the relationship between growth’s health on the one hand and its rate on the other. Put differently, it makes possible answering the question of whether and when the U.S. economy has been growing acceptably without excessive contributions from the toxic combination.

                      percent of growth       actual growth rate          difference

02-03:                     91.11%                     2.86%             31.86 times greater

03-04:                     74.65%                    3.80%              19.64 times greater

04-05:                     79.25%                    3.51%              22.58 times greater

05-06:                    58.86%                     2.86%              20.58 times greater

06-07:                    27.01%                     1.88%              14.37 times greater

09-10:                    43.77%                     2.56%              17.10 times greater

10-11:                    82.80%                    1.55%               53.42 times greater

11-12:                   59.64%                     2.25%               26.51 times greater

12-13:                   71.58%                    1.84%               38.90 times greater

13-14:                   83.80%                    2.54%               32.99 times greater

14-15:                   96.58%                    2.91%                33.19 times greater

15-16:                127.04%                    1.64%               77.46 times greater

16-17:                  81.13%                    2.37%               34.23 times greater

17-18:                 69.55%                     2.93%                23.74 times greater

One conclusion that leaps out from these results: They bounce around considerably. But they show that growth during the Obama years was somewhat bubblier than during the previous and notorious bubble decade (even leaving out the huge jump in 2015-16), and that its health from that anomalous year steadily improved during the first two years of the Trump administration.

Especially noteworthy: The best Trump growth year (2017-18) was significantly less bubbly than the best Obama year (2014-15) even though that Trump year saw somewhat faster growth.

But what a turnaround since then! As the table below shows, major growth quality improvement continued into the first quarter of this year. Was the economy finally demonstrating the ability to grow strongly by using much safer engines? Unfortunately not, as growth’s quality simply collapsed in the second quarter, and even the third quarter improvement registered so far has kept it in the danger zone. 

                       percent of growth           actual growth rate           difference 

1Q 19:                   24.62%                            3.06%              8.05 times greater

2Q 19:                 150.42%                            2.00%            75.21 times greater

3Q 19*                102.70%                            2.11%            48.67 times greater

*still preliminary

On a standstill basis, the economy lately has looked bubblier than at any time during the Obama years, and in fact is approaching its bubble decade condition. During that period, personal consumption and housing combined regularly stayed above 73 percent of real GDP. Its annual peak came in 2005 – 73.50 percent.

The toxic combination’s share of the economy fell fairly steadily thereafter until 2012 – as did the growth rate itself – and then began rising again (while growth itself continued to slump) from 70.62 percent to 72.58 percent in 2016.

The trend continued into 2017 (72.96 percent) before the percentage dropped the following year to 72.69 – as growth itself picked up.

After falling further in the first quarter of this year (to 72.35) as growth itself rose further, the toxic combination’s role swelled to 72.90 percent in the third quarter – not far off the bubble decade levels. Unfortunately, growth itself has tailed off dramatically to 2.11 percent annualized.

Overall, the Trump economy still remains less bubbly

than the Obama economy. For the 32 months during which the former President was in charge of economic performance, the toxic combination generated 80.74 percent of total growth. During the nine months of Mr. Trump’s economic stewardship, that figure stands at 72.64 percent. But the gap has been closing this year, and as long as it keeps narrowing, President Trump’s economic legacy will remain very much up in the air.

(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.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence that U.S. Growth is Healthier Under Trump

Tags

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

The current U.S. economic recovery has lasted so long (at more than ten years old, it’s already tied with the 1990s expansion as the longest on record), that anxiety about how long it might last, and when a new recession might begin, is entirely understandable. Yet what most economy watchers keep missing is what RealityChek regulars have understood for years – the quality of America’s growth matters at least as much as the quantity.

As a result, the latest government report shedding light on this growth – the preliminary look at the gross domestic product (GDP) for the first quarter of this year – was important not only for revealing that the economy expanded at a healthy 3.21 percent at an annual rate. It was also important for showing that by several crucial measures, the growth recipe was by far the healthiest since at least the period during which United States enjoyed its last period of robust expansion – back in 2014 and 2015.

The definition of healthy growth used by RealityChek is growth that depends relatively little on increases in personal consumption and housing investment. Those segments of the GDP and their bloat were most responsible for inflating the previous decades’ bubbles that burst so disastrously in 2007 and 2008, nearly blew up the entire global economy, and triggered the worst national economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Fortunately, the GDP data compiled by the Commerce Department make it easy to calculate how their current growth contribution compares with their past record. And, as with the latest trade figures, they show that progress towards improving growth’s health has been dramatic so far during President Trump’s administration.

In particular, during that previous high growth period (under President Obama), the economy’s quarterly expansion ranged from 2.60 percent at an annual rate to 3.81 percent after inflation. But the growth contributions made by personal consumption and housing (which I’ve called a “toxic combination”) generally ranged from 62.86 percent to 79.70 percent (with one outlier quarter – the fourth of 2014 – coming in at nearly 187 percent, meaning that other elements of the GDP worked to shrink the economy).

During the high growth period under President Trump, which began in the first quarter of 2018, inflation-adjusted quarterly GDP has actually risen by a somewhat slower pace: between 2.58 percent annualized and that 3.21 percent rate of the first quarter of this year. But the contributions made by the toxic combination have ranged only from ten percent to 67.27 percent. And the figure for that high-growth first quarter of this year was only 22.19 percent.

Also worth noting are the growth rates during the Obama years when the role of the toxic combination was within that Trump range. They were somewhat lower.

Principally, in the second and third quarters of 2014, the toxic combination’s combined real growth contribution was 65.69 percent and 62.86 percent, respectively. Annualized constant dollar growth during those quarters was 2.60 percent and 3.04 percent. Those are solid results, but not quite as good as those from the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2018. Then, the toxic combination’s growth contribution ranged between 60 percent and 67.27 percent, and growth ranged from 2.87 percent to three percent.

As indicated above, these results can be pretty volatile from quarter to quarter. But smoothing them out by using annual figures tells a story even more favorable to the Trump record. Here are those annual figures starting with 2009-10, the first recovery year.

From left to right, the columns represent the personal consumption contribution to after-inflation growth measured in percentage points (e.g., the very first figures shows 0.99 percentage points of 1.80 percent growth), the housing contribution, the total percent – not percentage points – of growth they fueled, and the growth rate for the year in question.

09-10:          1.20/2.60       -0.08/2.60         1.12/2.60         46.92%         2.56%

10-11:          1.29/1.60        0.00/1.60         1.29/1.60         80.63%         1.55%

11-12:          1.03/2.20        0.31/2.20         1.34/2.20         60.91%         2.25%

12-13:          0.99/1.80        0.34/1.80         1.33/1.80         73.89%         1.84%

13-14:          1.97/2.50        0.12/1.80         2.09/1.80       116.11%         2.45%

14-15:          2.50/2.90        0.33/2.90         2.83/2.90         97.59%        2.88%

15-16:          1.85/1.60        0.23/1.60         2.08/1.60      130.00%         1.57%

16-17:          1.73/2.20        0.13/2.20         1.86/2.20        84.55%         2.22%

17-18           1.80/2.90      -0.01/2.90         1.79/2.90        61.72%          2.86%

From left to right, the columns represent the personal consumption contribution to after-inflation growth measured in percentage points (e.g., the very first figures shows 0.99 percentage points of 1.80 percent growth), the housing contribution, the total percent – not percentage points – of growth they fueled, and the growth rate for the year in question.

As with the quarterly figures, during the Obama years, when the growth contribution of the toxic combination was low, so was growth.  During the two full Trump data years, as growth itself sped up, the toxic combination’s contribution has plummeted to multi-year (at least) lows.

But a big question remains unanswered: When, under the Obama administration, the economy did manage to grow satisfactorily with a relatively small contribution by the toxic combination, this health growth recipe didn’t last. Indeed, by the third quarter of 2015, growth itself began slowing markedly, until it bottomed at 1.30 annualized in the second quarter of 2016. And it never broke two percent again. But the toxic combination’s contributions during that decelerating growth period ranged from 91.05 percent to a stunning 430 percent (in the fourth quarter of 2015).

The Trump years’ much better performance in this respect has lasted only two years. Only if this strengthening proves to have legs will it be legitimate to start considering the economy genuinely Great Again.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Don’t Forget About the Quality of U.S. Growth

Tags

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

One of the biggest economic questions facing Americans this holiday season – whether they’re heavily into the roller-coaster stock market or not – is whether the nation will slide into recession. I’m skeptical on that score, but I’m still wondering more about what I’ve long regarded as an even more important question: Will the quality of America’s growth start improving meaningfully?

As I’ve often explained, I prioritize this issue because, as significant as maintaining economic growth is, not all growth is created equal. In particular, unhealthy growth eventually tends to produce terrible results – the prime lesson Americans should have learned since the bubble-ized expansion of the previous decade collapsed into a terrifying financial crisis and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

So this looks like a good time once again to check into whether the U.S. growth recipe has changed since then, and if so, how much. As known by RealityChek regulars, the main indicator is how heavily increases in the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (the growth measure most widely followed by knowledgeable students of the economy) depend on personal consumption and housing. For these are the parts of the economy whose bubble-decade bloat directly sparked the crisis. And the big takeaway as of last week’s release of the final (for now) figures on third quarter GDP? The situation is turning around, but at supertanker-like (i.e., painfully slow) speed.

Specifically, what I’ve called the toxic combination of personal consumption and housing (parts of the economy dominated by spending and borrowing, rather than saving and investing) came in at 72.66 percent of real GDP in the third quarter. This means that it’s decreased consistently since the first quarter of 2017 – the first quarter of the Trump administration’s stewardship of the economy – when it stood at 73.01 percent. For the record, as of the last quarter of the Obama economy (the fourth quarter of 2016), this figure stood at 72.93 percent

So that’s cause for encouragement. It’s also crucial, however, to recall that at the start of the last recession – at the end of 2007 – personal consumption plus housing as a share of real GDP was 71.49 percent. As a result, over that key time-span, the economy has evolved exactly the way we shouldn’t want. But at least by this measure the economy isn’t nearly as bubbly as at its peak during that bubble decade – when the toxic combination reached 73.74 percent of after-inflation GDP.

Another measure of America’s progress toward recreating an “economy built to last” (a wonderfully on-target phrase used by former President Obama) is the share of real GDP devoted business spending. Here, however, the trends show some troubling recent signs of backsliding.

At the start of the current economic recovery, in the middle of 2009, such spending represented 11.19 percent of price-adjusted GDP. The annual numbers since then, through 2017, are presented below:

2010: 11.42 percent

2011: 12.22 percent

2012: 13.08 percent

2013: 13.37 percent

2014: 13.95 percent

2015: 13.80 percent

2016: 13.65 percent

2017: 14.06 percent

Through 2014, in other words, business spending (or investment, if you prefer) as a share of the economy rose healthily. But this growth shifted into reverse in 2015 and 2016, before rebounding in 2017.

For the third quarter of 2018, business investment as a share of real GDP reached 14.61 percent – which represents further improvement. But the quarterly story isn’t as positive:

1Q 18 14.48 percent

2Q 18 14.64 percent

3Q 18 14.61 percent

That is, business investment as a share of inflation-adjusted GDP dipped between the second and third quarters. Is this dip a blip? Or the start of a longer-term decline? I’m not in the crystal ball business; that’s why I’ll be watching these numbers closely going forward – and why I believe you should, too.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: First Quarter U.S. Growth was Encouraging Quality-Wise, Too

Tags

business spending, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, non-residential fixed investment, personal consumption, real GDP, recovery, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last Friday’s report from the government on America’s economic growth generally was hailed by the conventional wisdom both for beating most economists’ expectations, and for breaking a two-year string of absolutely dismal advances in the price-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) during the first quarter of the year. (Actually, three of the previous four first quarters saw lousy GDP reads, including 2014’s dip in the country’s real production of goods and services).

I see an additional reason for liking the 2.30 percent annualized figure: This first estimate showed that first quarter growth was considerably healthier than the American pattern during the current economic recovery.

As known by RealityChek regulars, this expansion, which began in the middle of 2009, is one of the longest on record. But in addition to growth being notably weak, it’s been largely driven by the same dangerous engines that inflated the credit bubble of the previous decade – whose bursting of course led to a frightening global financial crisis and the worst U.S. economic slump since the Great Depression of the 1930s. More specifically, growth has relied heavily on personal consumption and housing, which I’ve called the “toxic combination.”

On a standstill basis, the new figures show that the economy’s make-up is only slightly less dominated by these two components of the GDP than it was at the height of the bubble decade. As of the first quarter, personal consumption and housing combined accounted for 72.89 percent of real GDP, not too far short of the record of 73.27 percent that was hit in the third quarter of 2005.

At the same time, this share was lower than the 73.12 percent of the fourth quarter of last year, and is the second lowest since the third quarter of 2016 (72.71 percent).

Especially encouraging in this regard were the personal consumption results. Quarter-to-quarter, it fell from 69.62 percent of the inflation-adjusted economy (an all-time high) to 69.41 percent – the very lowest since that third quarter of 2016 (69.25 percent).

As for personal consumption’s growth role, the new numbers reveal that it made its smallest relative contribution to real GDP expansion in the first quarter (0.73 percentage points – or 31.74 percent – of 2.30 percent annualized growth) since the second quarter of 2012 (0.45 percentage points – or 2406 percent – of 1.87 percent annualized growth).

And partly as a result, a much better guarantor of healthy growth – business spending – made its best contribution to the real GDP’s advance in the first quarter in more than a year. Non-residential fixed investment fueled 0.76 percentage points (33.04 percent) of that 2.30 percent annual first quarter growth. In the first quarter of 2017, such business spending’s contribution was much bigger (71.66 percent). But annualized growth was only 1.23 percent.

What about housing? Its share of real GDP has fluctuated in a pretty narrow range over the last year or so – between 3.42 percent and 3.58 percent. But this share is so much smaller than that of personal consumption, and has stayed so much lower than during the bubble decade (when it peaked at 6.17 percent in the second quarter of 2005), that it’s just not moving the growth quality needle much.

There’s no guarantee that this mildly encouraging trend will continue. In fact, many prominent observers argue that personal consumption in the first quarter was simply taking a breather after a torrid fourth quarter of 2017, and expect a rebound to show up in the second quarter figures. But more consumer spending wouldn’t necessarily be bad for the American economy – provided that the healthy growth engines, like business spending (and better trade performances) aren’t once again completely lost in the shuffle.