Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Talking Ukraine Fallout, Inflation, and China

Tags

cost of living, energy prices, food prices, inflation, Lehman moment, Making News, nuclear war, stagflation, Ukraine, Ukraine War

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari.” Our scheduled subjects: the possibility I discussed recently that the U.S.’ strong support of Ukraine could trigger the kinds of global calamities it seeks to prevent, whether America’s torrid inflation has peaked, and what’s ahead for China’s increasingly troubled economy.

“Market Wrap” airs weeknights between 8 and 9 PM EST, these segments usually begin midway through the show, and you can listen live on-line here.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast of the inteview as soon as it’s available.

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

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Energy Security One Tanker at a Time

Tags

energy, energy crisis, energy prices, Germany, Glad I Didn't Say That!, inflation, natural gas, Olaf Scholz, Persian Gulf, Ukraine, Ukraine War

”Germany secures more gas shipments as [Chancellor Olaf] Scholz visits [Persian] Gulf”

 —Associated Press, September 25, 2022

Number of gas shipments Scholz has secured during his visit to the Persian Gulf: 1

–Bloomberg.com, September 25, 2022

 

(Sources: “Germany secures more gas shipments as Scholz visits Gulf,” by Frank Jordan, Associated Press, September 25, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-boris-johnson-united-arab-emirates-germany-b2ff121c9b7e3931ab3c89acdf76beaa and “Germany Secures Just One Tanker of Gas During Scholz’s Gulf Tour,” by Birgit Jennen and Omar Tamo,” Bloomberg.com, September 25, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-25/germany-nabs-uae-gas-deal-as-energy-squeeze-tightens?srnd=premium&leadSource=uverify%20wall)

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Other Scary Ukraine War Threat

Tags

energy, energy prices, global financial crisis, globalism, hunger, Lehman Brothers, Lehman moment, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Ukraine War, Vietnam War, vital interests, Western Europe

Take it from me – the words “Lehman” and “moment” are words that no one should ever want to see in the same sentence ever again. Yet they’ve been making a collective comeback lately (see, e.g., here, here, and here), signaling in the process that the determination of the United States and other countries to help Ukraine achieve its goal of expelling Russia from the territory it’s lost could backfire disastrously.

This specific risk has emerged not because the conflict could spread beyond Ukraine’s borders and embroil the big new concentrations of U.S. and other NATO military forces right next door – and therefore all too easily escalate to the nuclear level. It’s also emerged because of the growing economic hardship and potential political instability in major world regions created by the disruption of global energy and food trade triggered by Russia’s invasion and the sanctions it’s triggered.  

The phrase “Lehman moment” refers to the time when the national and global financial systems and economies nearly collapsed because so many of the world’s major banks and other lenders had engaged in such reckless practices, and because they were so interconnected that the failure of one – America’s Lehman Brothers – threatened to topple the whole house of cards that had been created.

Today’s Lehman moment is feared to be coming in Europe’s energy sector – also dominated by huge, closely connected institutions and also endangered by contagion. But this time the culprit hasn’t been greedy executives or asleep-at-the-switch regulators. It’s been the price of natural gas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine itself, the duration of the fighting, Russian supply curbs and threats of cut-offs have pushed it so high that many European utilities have been forced to buy the increasingly scarce fuel on the very expensive spot market and sell it to customers at the much lower prices stipulated by the contracts they’ve signed. (See here for a useful explanation of all of the above.)

As with the original Lehman moment, government bailouts are likely to save the day – at least for the foreseeable future. But the costs are shaping up to be astronomical, and even if they’re paid by all of the continent’s well- and less well-off countries alike, enormous national debts are sure to grow. Moreover, Europe’s near-term energy, and overall economic, future looks so grim because major shortages and towering prices this winter seem both inevitable and bound to bring on a serious recession and all the suffering and anxiety that accompany such downturns.

That sure sounds like a formula for even more political instability than Europe has already seen lately, including a loss of public faith in national and regional establishments and institutions of all kinds, and a further strengthening of the sort of political movements – on the right end of the political spectrum in particular – that globalists keep warning are grave dangers to the democracy and even the peace the continent has enjoyed until Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

Nor is Ukraine War-rooted turmoil confined to Europe. As the Biden administration has just warned, “protracted conflicts – including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” have been developments that have “disrupted global supply chains and dramatically increased global food prices.” As a result, “world leaders [need] to act with urgency and at scale to respond…and avert extreme hunger for hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the areas of greatest risk, has (rightly) never been seen as a high U.S. foreign policy priority. The other area, though, is the Middle East, which has become much less important even to America’s economic well-being because of the energy production revolution at home, but which continues to attract considerable attention from globalist U.S. leaders.

Hence the backfire risk – and a gigantic irony. Globalist backers of the current Ukraine strategy justify it as necessary to protect what they call a “rules-based international order” they believe has been essential for preventing great power conflict, as well as for promoting impressive degrees of prosperity and democracy around the globe. I’d give far more credit to the balance of nuclear terror that’s prevailed for nearly all of that period, but that’s not the main point.  The main point is that, along with great power conflict, the widespread international turbulence being fueled by the duration of the Ukraine War per se is another major geopolitical nightmare that globalism has striven to avert.  

It’s true that incurring great risks to protect specific, concrete interests the U.S. considers vital – like the security of Western Europe and, more recently, Taiwan (because of its leadership in manufacturing the world’s most advanced semiconductors) – by definition are worth running. This logic also holds for objectives like fostering and maximizing stability the world over, even though they’ve always been more dubious because they’re so much gauzier and less realistic. For whatever the damage possible from attempting to safeguard any of these interests, the term “vital” means that failure can generate even greater dangers – particularly national survival and independence.

But running such risks on behalf of Ukraine’s independence – which was never seen as remotely vital U.S. interest even at the height of the Cold War, which was habitually described as a Manichean struggle for the entire world’s future – is a different matter altogether, and indeed makes no sense at all.

During the Vietnam War, a U.S. Army officer is supposed to have told a reporter after one battle that “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” The Lehman moment references and mounting signs of tumult in several major regions long seen by Washington as bearing at least significantly and even vitally on America’s safety and well-being indicates how close U.S. Ukraine policy – even if it simply prolongs heavy but geographically contained fighting – is moving toward achieving that absurdly self-destructive goal.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Could the West Blink First on the Anti-Russia Sanctions?

Tags

energy, fossil fuels, G7 Summit, Group of 7, inflation, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, sanctions, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Vladimir Putin

Quite a few years ago, I fretted here that one big obstacle could appear before too long to any U.S. government ambitions to squelch cyber attacks from rogue states with cyber retaliation of its own: Some of the main rogue states (like Iran and North Korea) and larger aggressors (like Russia and China) were likely to have a higher pain threshhold than America’s because they were so much poorer and their populations so much more used to hardship. So in any prolonged cyber duel, Washington could well be forced to cry “Uncle” before its adversaries.

Fast forward to today, and this very problem seems to be plaguing the U.S. and  overall free world/western policy of punishing Russia for its invasion of Ukraine with various kinds of economic sanctions.

It’s not that Russia’s economy hasn’t suffered from these measures. But headlines and news developments like this have become awfully common in recent weeks:

>”U.S.-Led Alliance Faces Frustration, and Pain of its Own, Over Russia Sanctions”;

>”Pressed by domestic economic challenges and a desire to see European nations contribute more to Ukraine’s defense, U.S. lawmakers appear more wary of committing further military aid for Ukraine or slapping new sanctions on Russia”;

>”French energy giants tell households to ration supplies ahead of looming winter shortage”; and

>”Japan tells business and public to save power to avert Tokyo blackout”

And accompanying these reports have been news items and findings like:

>”Russia’s economy is weathering sanctions, but tough times are ahead”;

>“Why Russia’s Economy Is Holding On”;

>”Russia’s ruble hit its strongest level in 7 years despite massive sanctions”; and

>Revenue from Russia’s fossil fuel exports “exceeded the cost of the Ukraine war during the first 100 days….”

As indicated, Russian stoicism isn’t all that’s at work. The country’s immense fossil fuel deposits, the world economy’s continued crying need for them (preventing the sanctions from being global in scope), and the high prices oil in particular has been fetching ironically because sanctions have crimped overall global supply, have enabled Moscow to keep its economy a going concern. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, clearly certain that he’d antagonize many foreign powers with his expansionism plans, has also been working for years to insulate his country from just these punitive measures. (See, e.g., here.)

But by the same token, for many years, Putin’s imperial ambitions, the massive amounts of resources they’ve commanded, the curbs on personal spending required to build a fortress economy, and the pervasive corruption he’s needed to tolerate (and even encourage) to keep potential rivals placated (and of course feather his own nest) have produced a dismal failure of an economy by virtually every important non-security-related measure. (See here and here for two especially insightful analyses.) And yet there’s absolutely no sign that conditions that western populations would find completely unacceptable have remotely immiserated the Russian people enough to spark any kind of revolt.

Moreover, considering this situation in light of the recent statement by Jens Stoltenberg, head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that the Ukraine conflict could last for “years,” it’s easy to see why the mounting energy shortages and historic inflation they’ve helped feed could tip the odds surrounding the current economic conflict of wills in Moscow’s favor.

And it’s no discredit to the American character to venture that U.S. resolve seems particularly vulnerable precisely because economic sacrifices continue to be demanded on behalf of a country whose fate has never been and is not now a vital security or economic interest.

To me, there’s an obvious message being sent by these trends and circumstances – along with the steady transformation of Eastern Europe into a genuine powderkeg that could all too easily explode into a nuclear World War Three: It’s becoming more important than ever to end this conflict and its clearly unforeseen, tremendous collateral damage ASAP, even if the outcome isn’t ideal from Ukraine’s standpoint.

But that’s not what the heads of government of the Group of Seven (G7) major industrial powers think.  They’ve just declared at their current summit in Germany, “We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes” – even though before too long these leaders may start running out of followers.   

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Ukraine War Has Entered a New Phase. Will U.S. Policy?

Tags

Antony J. Blinken, Biden, diplomacy, Lloyd Austin, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Remember the wonderful opening lines of the first installment of Peter Jackson’s masterful film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings trilogy? In case you’re not a fan of J.R.R. Tolkein’s Middle Earth writings, they went like this: “The world is changed:  I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, I smell it in the air.”

They came to mind to me today upon reading some of the big national media headlines on the course of the Ukaine war.

Like this from The New York Times: “As Russia Forges Ahead, Europe Recaluclates.”

And this from The Wall Street Journal: “Ukraine Fears Defeat in East Without Surge in Military Aid.”

And this plea from a Washington Post opinion column: “We can’t let Ukraine lose. It needs a lot more aid, starting with artillery.”

In fact, this theme began appearing even before this morning.

Like the Los Angeles Times’ claim that “Momentum shifts in Ukraine war as Russia advances in the Donbas.”

And then there’s the news that’s been dribbling out from Kyiv on Ukrainian casualties – numbers that had been very closely held. But on May 31, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that his country’s military was losing up to 100 killed and 5oo wounded each day. Just over a week later, Zelenskyy aide Mykhalo Podolyak pegged the daily battlefield deaths at between 100 and 200 – which presumably means a higher wounded count, too.

Don’t get me wrong: None of this means that Ukraine is doomed to defeat at the Russian invaders’ hands. But it sure looks like we’re a long way away from the heady days of just one and two months ago, when

>U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was declaring that the Biden administration and most of the rest of the world believed that Ukraine “can win” the struggle;

>when Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken endorsed the goal of ensuring that the Ukraine invasion turned into a “strategic defeat” for Russia; and

>when Defense Department spokesman John Kirby stated that “We want Ukraine to win this fight [with Russia] and we are doing everything we can here, at the Department of Defense, to make sure they have the capabilities to do that.”

And the apparent shift in the war’s momentum, especially in Ukraine’s east, adds urgency to questions that understandably receded in importance when a victory by Kyiv seemed much more plausible.

Principally, President Biden recently stated that his goal was moving “to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Yet how will he reconcile the likelihood that the continued heavy combat bound to result from these efforts on the one hand, with the determination he expressed on the other hand — in the same article — to keep the war within Ukraine’s borders and thereby avoid a direct U.S.-Russia military confrontation that could all too easily escalate to the nuclear level?

How will he decide when Ukraine is armed well enough to negotiate successfully? And how does the President’s reference to arming Ukraine to maximize its chances in peace talks dovetail with his position that his “principle throughout this crisis has been ‘Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’ I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions. It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles to do so”?

From a purely tactical standpoint, if Ukraine continues refusing even to consider compromises on territory or on sovereignty, (which could include the issues of membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union) then how important — let alone successful — could any negotiations be?

From a broader standpoint, does Mr. Biden really believe that Ukraine should call all the shots related to this crisis once the conflict enters the diplomatic phase? And why would he keep deferring to Ukraine even though he’s implicitly acknowledged that the United States has its own crucial interests – chiefly avoiding a wider war and direct superpower conflict – that aren’t necessarily identical with Ukraine’s goals? 

At the same time, it’s possible that the President doesn’t believe that the war is in a new phase at all.  And he may be right. If that’s the case, though, he’d be well advised to level with the American public, because the kind of lengthy stalemate and lack of an exit strategy this conclusion implies means that there’s no exit strategy for the surging oil and gasoline prices, consequently worsening overall inflation, and higher federal spending brought on by the conflict, either.      

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America’s Now Definitely Inflation-Nation

Tags

baseline effect, Biden administration, consumer price index, core inflation, CPI, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, prices, recession, stimulus, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official U.S. report on consumer inflation was so bad that even what ‘s being pitched (for example, to a limited extent by President Biden) as kind of goods news isn’t anything close. As has so often been the case in the last year, one big key is looking at the so-called baseline effect. But the new (May) results for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) also highlight a reality that I and many others have been noting – the less-than-meets-the-eye difference between the headline and “core” CPI numbers.

The bad news about inflation is clear enough from the rise in the headline number – which tracks price increases throughout the entire economy. The 0.97 percent monthly increase wasn’t as scary as the 1.24 percent jump between February and March t(he highest since July, 1980’s 1.33 percent), but it was still the biggest since June, 1982’s 1.15 percent price surge.

Similarly, on an annual basis, May’s 8.52 percent overall CPI increase was lower than March’s 8.56 percent. But for all intents and purposes, both months’ results were the worst since December, 1981’s 8.91 percent disaster.

The (modest) ray of light that supposedly shone from the new inflation report came in the core figure – which strips out food and energy prices because they’re supposedly volatile for reasons having nothing to do with the economy’s alleged fundamental vulnerability to inflation.

To be sure, the monthly numbers shouldn’t have been the source of any encouragement. The May 0.63 percent sequential increase in core inflation was the hottest number since last June’s 0.80 percent, and represented the third straight month of acceleration.

Instead, glass-half-full types were pointing to the latest annual core increase. At 6.01 percent, May’s was the lowest since December’s 5.48 percent, and represented the third straight month of deceleration.

But here’s where the glass-half-empty types gain the upper hand. First, as I and – again – many others have observed, although food and energy prices do often move (down as well as up) for reasons largely unrelated to how overheated or not the economy may be. But energy prices in particular profoundly affect the cost of everything Americans make, sell, and buy that needs to be transported. And that means pretty much everything, including services, which typically rely on goods to get to customers. So there’s often an incontrovertible link between headline and core inflation.

Second, both energy and food prices are also often closely related to the economy’s overall levels of demand. And nowadays, they’re bound to keep rising as long as producers can pass them on to their customers. This in turn is the case because the latter can afford to pay more thanks to the unprecedented stimulus funds they received even after the economy was recovering strongly from the 2020 CCP Virus-induced crash,.

Third, there’s that baseline effect. Especially if its monthly rate is slowing, annual core inflation in the six percent neighborhood could be reasonably applauded if the previous year’s rate (the baseline) had been unusually low, or even negative (as it was for most of 2020). But the baseline figure for the latest May annual core inflation rate was May, 2021’s 3.81 percent (according to the latest government figures). That’s nearly twice the rate considered desirable by the nation’s chief official designated inflation-fighter, the Federal Reserve.

None of the ways to reduce this inflation rate way down reasonably quickly is a mystery to anyone influencing U.S. economic policies. Raising interest rates can get rid of a lot of the bloated consumer demand that’s contributed so much to recent price rises. For those emphasizing the Ukraine war’s major role in boosting food and energy prices, there’s the option of pressing for an end to the war sooner rather than later – even if it produces a morally ugly compromise.

But dramatically reducing consumer and business spending power enough to matter inflation-wise could bring on a recession – which the Federal Reserve still apparently believes can be avoided, at least judging from the modest monetary tightening it’s approved so far. And the Biden administration seems wed to letting the shots on ending the conflict to be called by Ukraine — which is so far rejecting the idea of making territorial or any other kinds of significant concessions.

So unless these situations change, the most reasonable conclusion is that inflation will keep raging until soaring prices finally tap consumers out by themselves. As an old adage goes, the likeliest cure for high prices may simply be high prices.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Hiring Takes a (Slight) Breather

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, chemicals, computer and electronics products, coronavirus, COVID 19, fabricated metals products, Federal Reserve, fiscal policy, food products, inflation, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, monetary policy, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, semiconductor shortages, semiconductors, stimulus, transportation equipment, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, vaccines, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

U.S.-based manufacturing’s employment performance has been so strong lately that the 18,000 net gain for May reported in today’s official U.S. jobs report was the worst such performance in more than a year – specifically, since April, 2021’s 28,000 employment loss. And even that dismal result stemmed mainly from automotive factories that were shut down due to semiconductor shortages – not from any underlying weakness in domestic industry.

Moreover, revisions of the last several months’ of sizable hiring increases were revised higher. April’s initially reported 55,000 increase is now pegged at 61,000, and March’s headcount boost was upgraded again, this time all the way from 43,000 to 58,000.

Indeed, taken together, this payroll surge has enabled U.S.-based manufacturing to increase its share of American jobs again. As of May, industry’s employment as a share of the U.S. total (called “non-farm payrolls” by the Labor Department that releases the data) rose sequentially from the 8.41 percent calculable last month to 8.42 percent. And the manufacturing share of total private sector jobs climbed from the 9.86 percent calculable last month to 9.87 percent..

The improvement since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival began roiling and distorting the entire U.S. economy – has been even greater. Then, manufacturing jobs represented just 8.38 percent of all non-farm jobs and 9.83 percent of all private sector employment.

Domestic industry still slightly lags the private sector in terms of regaining jobs lost during the worst of the pandemic-induced recession of March and April, 2020. The latter has recovered 99.01 percent of the 21.016 million jobs it shed, compared with manufacturing’s 98.75 percent of its 1.345 million lost jobs.

But the main reason is that industry’s jobs losses during those months were smaller proportionately than those of the private sector overall.

Viewed from another vantage point, the May figures mean that manufacturing employment is just 0.13 percent smaller than just before the pandemic struck.

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

>fabricated metals products, which boosted employment on month by 7,100 – the sector’s biggest rise since since February’s 9,300. Its recent hiring spree has brought fabricated metals products makers’ payrolls to within 2.24 percent of their immediate pre-CCP Virus (February, 2020) levels;

>food products,where payrolls grew by 6,100 sequentially in May. Employment in this enormous sector is now 2.53 percent higher than in February, 2020;

>the huge computer and electronics products sector, whose headcount improved by 4,400 over April’s levels. As a result, its workforce is now just 0.19 percent smaller than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>wood products, which added 3,800 employees in May over its April levels. Along with April’s identical gain, these results were these businesses’ best since May, 2020’s 13,800 jump, during the strong initial recovery from the virus-induced downturn. Wood products now employs 6.85 percent more workers than in February, 2020; and

>chemicals, a very big industry whose workforce was up in May by 3,700 over the April total. The result was the best since January’s 5,500 sequential jobs growth, and pushed employment in this industry 4.76 percent higher than in February. 2020.

The biggest May job losers among those broad manufacturing groupings were:

>transportation equipment, another enormous category where employment fell by 7,900 month-to-month in May. That drop was the biggest since February’s 19,900 nosedive. But it followed an April monthly increase that was revised up from 13,700 to 19.500. All this volatility – heavily influenced by the aforementioned semiconductor shortage that has plagued the automotive industry – has left transportation equipment payrolls 2.57 percent smaller than just before the pandemic’s arrival in February, 2020;

>machinery, whose 7,900 sequential job decline in May was its worst such result and first monthly decrease since November’s 7,000. Moreover, April’s initially reported 7,400 payroll increase in machinery is now judged to be only 5,900. These developments are discouraging because machinery’s products are used so widely throughout the entire economy, and prolonged hiring doldrums could reflect a slowdown in demand that could presage weakness in other sectors. Machinery payrolls are now down 2.12 percent since February, 2020; andent since February 2020; and

>miscellaneous nondurable goods, where employment shrank in May by 2,900 on month. But here again, a very good April increase first reported at 3,300 is now judged to have been 4,400, and thanks to recent robust hiring in this catch-all category, too, its employment levels are 8.12 percent higher than in February. 2020.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and their April job creation overall looked somewhat better than that for domestic manufacturing as a whole.

Semiconductors are still too scarce nationally and globally, but the semiconductor and related devices sector grew employment by 900 on month in April – its biggest addition since last October’s 1,000. March’s initially reported 700 jobs gain was revised down to 400, and February’s upgraded hiring increase of 100 stayed unrevised. Consequently, payrolls in this industry are up 1.66 percent since just before the pandemic arrived in full force, and it must be kept in mind that even during the deep spring, 2020 economy-wide downturn, it actually boosted employment.

The news was worse in surgical appliances and supplies – a category containing personal protective equipment (think “facemasks”) and similar medical goods. April’s sequential jobs dip of 200 was the worst such performance since October’s 300 fall-off, but at least March’s initially reported 1,100 increase remained intact (as did February’s downwardly revised – frm 800 – “no change.” Employment in surgical appliances and supplies, however, is still 3.88 percent greater than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

In the very big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry, this year’s recent strong hiring continued in April, as the sector added 1,400 new workers sequentially – its biggest gains since last June’s 2,600. In addition, March’s initially reported increase of 900 was revised up to 1,200, and February’s slightly downgraded 1,000 rise remained unchanged. Not surprisingly, therefore, this sector’s workforce is up by 9.78 percent during the CCP Virus era.

Job creation was excellent as well in the medicines subsector containing vaccines. April’s 1,100 monthly headcount growth was the greatest since last December’s 2,000. March’s initially reported payroll rise of 400 was upgraded to 600, and February’s results stayed at a slightly downgraded 500. In all, vaccine manufacturing-related jobs has now increased by fully 24.47 percent since February, 2020.

Aircraft manufacturers added just only 200 employees on month in April, but March’s jobs gain was revised up from 1,100 to 1,200 (the best such result since last June’s 4,000), and February’s upwardly revised 600 advance remained unchanged. Aircraft employment is still off by 10.96 percent since the pandemic’s arrival in force.

Aircraft engines and engine parts makers were in a hiring mood in April, too. Their employment grew by 900 sequentially, March’s 500 increase was revised up to 600, and February’s unrevised monthly increase of 900 stayed unrevised. Payrolls in this sector have now climbed to within 11.56 percent of their level just before the CCP Virus hit.

As for the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector, it made continued modest employment progress in April, with the monthly headcount addition of 300 following unrevised gains of 700 in March and 200 in February. But these companies’ workforces are still 15.48 percent smaller than their immediate pre-pandemic totals.

The U.S. economy is clearly in a period of growth much slower than last year’s, and since there’s no shortage of actual and potential headwinds (e.g., the course of the Ukraine War, the Fed’s monetary tightening campaign, persistent lofty inflation, the likely absence of further fiscal stimulus), no one can reasonably rule out a recession that drags down manufacturing’s hiring with it. But until domestic industry’s job creation and production growth starts deteriorating dramatically and remains weak, today’s so-so employment figures look like a breather at worst – and not much of one at that.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Louder Talk and Still Too Small a Stick

Tags

alliances, allies, Biden, China, Constitution, defense budget, Finland, Lippmann Gap, NATO, North Atlantic treaty Organization, nuclear umbrella, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Sweden, Taiwan, Ted Galen Carpenter, treaties, Ukraine, Walter Lippmann

The foreign policy headlines have been coming so fast-and-furiously these days that they’re obscuring a dramatic worsening of a big, underlying danger: The dramatic expansion spearheaded lately by President Biden in America’s defense commitments that’s been unaccompanied so far by a comparable increase in the U.S. military budget. The result: A further widening of an already worrisome “Lippmann Gap” – a discrepancy between America’s foreign policy goals and the means available to achieve them that was prominently identified by the twentieth century journalist, philosopher, and frequent advisor to Presidents Walter Lippmann.

The existence of such a gap of any substantial size is troubling to begin with because it could wind up ensnaring the nation in conflicts that it’s not equipped to win – or even achieve stalemate. As I wrote as early as March, 2021, a Gap seemed built in to Mr. Biden’s approach to foreign policy from the beginning, since he made clear that America’s goals would be much more ambitious than under the avowedly America First-type presidency of Donald Trump, but also signaled that no big increase in America’s defense budget was in the offing.

Since then, Biden aides have expressed a willingness to boost defense budgets to ensure that they keep up with inflation – and therefore ensure that price increases don’t actually erode real capabilities. But no indications have emerged that funding levels will be sought that increase real capabilities much. Congressional Republicans say they support this kind of spending growth to handle new contingencies, but the numbers they’ve put forward so far seem significantly inadequate to the task.

That’s largely because most of them have strongly supported Biden decisions greatly to broaden U.S. the foreign military challenges that America has promised to meet. As for the President, he’s specifically:

>not only supported the bids of Finland and Sweden to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but stated that the United States would “deter and confront any aggression while Finland and Sweden are in this accession process.” In other words, Mr. Biden both wants to (a) increase the number of countries that the United States is treaty-bound to defend to the point of exposing its territory to nuclear attack, and (b) extend that nuclear umbrella even before the two countries become legally eligible for such protection via Congress’ approval. It’ll be fascinating to see whether any lawmakers other than staunch non-interventionists like Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul question the Constitutionality of this position; and

>just this morning declared that he would use U.S. military force to defend Taiwan if it’s attacked by China even no defense treaty exists to cover this contingency, either, and even though, again, there’s been no Congressional approval of (or even debate on) this decision.

This Biden statement, moreover, lends credence to an argument just advanced by my good friend Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute – that although Ukraine has not yet joined NATO officially, ad therefore like Taiwan lacks an official security guarantee by the United States, it may have acquired de facto membership, and an equally informal promise of alliance military assistance whenever its security is threatened going forward.

As a result, Ted contends, “the Biden administration has erased the previous distinction between Alliance members and nonmembers” – and set a precedent that could help interventionist presidents intervene much more easily in a much greater number of foreign conflicts without Congressional authorization, let alone public support, than is presently the case.

To be sure, lots of legal and procedural issues have long muddied these waters. For example, the existence of a legally binding treaty commitment doesn’t automatically mean that U.S. leaders will or even must act on it. Even America’s leading security agreements (with the NATO members, Japan, and South Korea) stipulate that the signatories are simply required to meet attacks on each other in accordance with their (domestic) constitutional provisions for using their military forces.  (At the same time, breaking treaties like these, all else equal, isn’t exactly a formula for winning friends, influencing people, and foreign policy success generally. As a result, they shouldn’t be entered into lightly.)

Further complicating matters: America’s constitutional processes for war and peace decisions have long been something of a mess. The Constitution, after all, reserves to Congress the power to “declare war: and authorizes the legislature to “provide for the common Defense” and to “raise and support Armies.” Yet it also designates the President as the “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces.

There’s been a strong consensus since Founding Father James Madison made the argument that limiting the authority to declare war to Congress couldn’t and didn’t mean that the President couldn’t act to repel sudden attacks on the United States – that interpretation could be disastrous in a fast-moving world. But other than that, like most questions stemming from the document’s “separation of powers” approach to governing, the Constitution’s treatment of “war powers” is best (and IMO diplomatically) described as what the scholar Edward S. Corwin called a continuing “invitation to struggle.”

Undoubtedly, this struggle has resulted over time in a tremendous net increase in the Executive Branch’s real-world war powers. But the legal issues still exist and tend to wax in importance when presidential assertiveness leads to conflicts that turn unpopular.

I should specify that personally, I’m far from opposed yet to NATO membership for Finland and Sweden. Indeed, their militaries are so strong that their membership seems likely to strengthen the alliance on net, which would be a welcome change from NATO’s (and Washington’s) habit of welcoming countries whose main qualification seems to be their military vulnerability (like the Baltic states) and tolerating long-time members that have been inexcusable deadbeats (like Germany).

Similarly, as I’ve written, because American policymakers recklessly allowed the country’s semiconductor manufacturers to fall behind a Taiwanese company technologically, I now believe that Taiwan needs to be seen as a vital U.S. national security interest and deserves a full U.S. defense guarantee.

Yet I remain worried that the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy risks plunging the United States into a conflict with Russia that could escalate to the nuclear level on behalf of a country that (rightly) was never seen as a vital U.S. interest during the Cold War.

So my main concern today doesn’t concern the specifics of these latest Biden security commitment decisions. Instead, it concerns the overall pattern that’s emerging of talking loudly and carrying too small a stick – and ignoring the resulting Lippmann Gap widening. However Americans and their leaders come out on handling these individual crises, they need to agree that the responses  urgently need to close the Gap overall. Otherwise, it’s hard to imagine satisfactorily dealing with any of them on their own.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New Official U.S. Manufacturing Data Look Anything but Recession-y

Tags

aerospace, aircaft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, electrical equipment, electronic components, Federal Reserve, furniture, industrial production, inflation, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, metals, non-metallic mineral products, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, transportation equipment, Ukraine, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Federal Reserve industrial production report (for April) is making clearer than ever that if the U.S. economy is headed for a recession or a major growth slowdown, domestic manufacturing won’t deserve significant blame unless it takes a major nosedive before too long.

The report showed that despite the Ukraine war, despite ongoing supply chain snags, despite torrid inflation, and despite Federal Reserve plans to cool these price rises with interest rate hikes that will almost have to moderate growth if they work, U.S.-based industry increased output for the seventh straight month – and by a thoroughly respectable 0.75 percent.

Moreover, modest and mixed revisions left those strong recently results entirely intact. As a result, since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force began upending the economy – domestic manufacturing has grown in real terms by 5.07 percent, up from the 4.42 percent calculable from last month’s release. In addition, in constant dollars, these sectors’ production is now within 2.29 percent of its all-time high – reached in December, 2007, just as the Great Recession triggered by the global financial crisis was beginning.

The list of April’s main manufacturing growth leaders was headed by the volatile automotive sector, but many of the biggest industry sub-sectors tracked by the Fed enjoyed healthy expansions last month.

Especially encouraging about the combined performance of vehicle and parts makers – which continue to be plagued by the global semiconductor shortage – was the follow-through. Their vigorous April sequential 3.92 percent after-inflation output increase followed a March gain upgraded from 7.80 percent to 8.28 percent, and that represented the biggest monthly advance since last October’s 10.64 percent. And that result followed a September tumble of 6.32 percent. Moreover, February’s big monthly dropoff was upgraded again, to a 3.86 percent loss.

All told, price-adjusted automotive output in April moved above its February, 2020 immediate pre-pandemic level (by 0.77 percent) for the first time since July, 2020.

A banner April also was registered by aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment companies. They boosted inflation-adjusted production by a sequential 2.15 percent. But March’s initially reported 1.90 percent after-inflation increase – previously the best monthly performance since last July’s 4.21 percent jump – is now judged to be a negligible 0.08 percent rise, February’s downgraded 1.64 percent real production improvement, however, was revised up to 1.82 percent, leaving these businesses 17.28 percent larger than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 16.43 percent growth calculable from last month’s Fed report.

Inflation-adjusted primary metals production rose on month by 1.36 percent in April, and March’s initially reported 1.69 percent sequential drop – the biggest since January’s 2.53 percent plunge – is now judged to be just 0.75 percent. And February’s already upwardly revised constant dollar production surge was upgraded again – to a 2.94 percent figure that’s still the best since last April’s 3.48 percent. After-inflation production of these metals is now 4.01 percent greater than in February, 2020, compared with the 1.16 percent calculable last month;

Wood products output expanded nicely in real terms, too – by 1.13 percent sequentially in April. This improvement pushed this industry’s price-adjusted production to 7.85 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level.

And consistent with manufacturing’s overall output winning streak, machinery production continued in April continued to excel as well – although more unevenly. Real output in this bellwether sector – whose products are used so widely throughout the economy – climbed by 0.85 percent sequentially in April. And although March’s results were revised way down from 0.78 percent growth to 0.36 percent contraction, February’s previously reported and downgraded 0.54 percent improvement was revised way up to 1.17 percent. As a result, the sector is now 8.31 percent bigger after inflation than in immediately pre-pandemic February, 2020.

The biggest April manufacturing growth losers were:

>plastics and rubber products, where a March real output increase of a sharply downgraded 0.58 percent was followed by a 0.79 percent decrease that was the biggest monthly decline since December’s 0.94 percent. February, moreover, saw another discouraging revision – from a 3.14 percent constant dollar monthly advance to 2.80 percent. At least that result still was the best since August, 2020’s 3.85 percent. Consequently, this sector is now just 1.05 percent bigger in real output terms than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 3.56 percent calculable last month;

>non-metallic mineral products, where inflation-adjusted production dipped for a second straight month – this time by 0.67 percent. March’s drop, however, is now pegged at only 0.76 percent instead of 1.15 percent, and February’s upgraded real output burst of 3.94 percent is now estimated at 4.42 percent, its best such performance since the 9.19 percent increase in May, 2020, early during the rapid recovery from the steep recession caused by the CCP Virus’ first wave and associated economic and behavioral curbs. But whereas as of last month’s industrial production report, these sectors had grown by an inflation-adjusted 3.28 percent since February, 2020, this figure is now down to 2.58 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances, and components, where real output fell for a second straight month. The April sequential decrease was 0.60 percent and followed a 0.04 percent March drop that was first reported as a 1.03 percent increase. Fortunately, February’s results were upgraded a second time, to a 2.03 percent advance that’s still the sector’s best since last July’s 3.24 percent. But the net result is a group of industries that’s now only 3.55 percent larger in real output terms than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 5.55 percent calculable last month; and

>furniture and related products, whose price-adjusted output decreased in April for the second straight month. The 0.60 percent monthly retreat means that these sectors have shrunk by an inflation-adjusted 1.56 percent since February, 2020.

Growth, however, generally tailed off in April in industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic.

The aircraft and aircraft parts sectors were the out-performers. Their real output rose on month in April by a strong 1.67 percent. But even here, March’s initially reported even better 2.31 percent increase is now pegged at just 0.47 percent. The February estimate, however, bounced back from a downgraded 1.13 percent gain to an improvement of 1.34 percent, helping the sector to register 16.37 percent real production growth since February, 2020, compared with the 15.86 percent calculable last month.

Inflation-adjusted output in the big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry dropped sequentially in April for the third time in the last four months. More encouragingly, that 0.20 percent decline followed March growth that was revised up from 1.17 percent to 1.23 percent. But February’s 1.15 percent decrease is now estimated at a still dreary 0.96 percent retreat, and January’s previously upgraded 0.45 percent increase is now thought to be a contraction of 0.26 percent. So where as of last month, real pharmaceuticals and medicines output was reported as 14.75 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, that growth is now down to 14.64 percent.

As for medical equipment and supplies, these sectors suffered their first monthly production decline (0.06 percent) since December’s 0.68 percent. In addition, March’s previously reported 1.81 percent rise was revised down to 1.28 percent, February’s previously upgraded 1.73 percent increase was cut back to 1.46 percent, and January’s upwardly revised gains were trimmed from 3.28 percent to 2.94 percent. As a result, these industries’ post-February, 2020 real production increase is now estimated at 8.92 percent, down from the 10.28 percent improvement calculable last month.

Even semiconductor output took a hit in April. The shortage-plagued sector saw real production sink by 1.85 percent sequentially last month – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent. Revisions were mixed, with March’s initially reported 1.99 percent constant dollar advance reduced to 1.83 percent; February’s big jump upgraded again to 2.91 percent; and January’s fractional 0.05 percent increase revised up to 0.06 percent. These results still left price-adjusted semiconductor production up 23.38 percent since February, 2020, but that figure is down from the 25.99 percent calculable last month.

An entirely new hurdle to domestic manufacturing output could appear in late June. That’s when the Fed’s data gatherers tell us they’ll issue their next annual benchmark revision – which could reveal that U.S.-based industry’s performance has been weaker in recent years than they’d thought. At the same time, it could turn out to be stronger.  Given how domestic manufacturing has overcome so many other headwinds recently, that would be an upside surprise that I at least wouldn’t find completely surprising.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Signs that High U.S. Inflation is Here to Stay

Tags

baseline effect, core PCE, cost of living, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new official figures on the Federal Reserve’s preferred gauge of consumer inflation are a good news/bad news story only if you follow the economy closely.

They amounted to good news for that group because they’ve made the inflation picture clearer than it’s been since the economy began recovering from the deep spring, 2020 downturn generated by the arrival in force of the CCP Virus and all the mandated and voluntary curbs on individual and business behavior it produced. And it’s noteworthy that the group includes the Fed, which bears the federal government’s prime responsibility for keeping inflation under control.

Specifically, today’s data represent annual inflation figures (the ones that attract the most attention because they measure price changes over a reasonable period of time) that finally aren’t being substantially distorted by baseline effects. That is, the multi-decade highs they’ve hit no longer stem significantly from the fact that the previous pandemic-y year’s inflation levels were so abnormally low.

But the new results for the price indexes for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) were bad news for everyone else. For they still did show near-multi-decade highs, and the baseline boost has now been in essence replaced by an energy price boost largely created by Ukraine war-related disruptions that aren’t likely to end any time soon.

It’s true that the U.S. government and most students of the economy distinguish between the inflation rates with and without energy prices, since the latter, along with food prices, are seen as prone to shocks that have nothing to do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation. But it’s also true that this distinction can get awfully artificial awfully quickly because energy is used so prominently to turn out practically every good and service that Americans buy. So if energy prices remain strongly on the rise, prices everywhere else are bound to feel the effects. Or at least they’re bound to feel the effects until and unless businesses figure out how to offset their higher energy costs with greater efficiencies.

The first clues that energy prices are now unquestionably major inflation drivers comes from the month-to-month figures for overall PCE percentage change – which do include food and energy prices – starting with January, 2021.

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.           0.3

Oct.            0.6 

Nov.           0.6

Dec.           0.5

Jan.            0.5

Feb.           0.6 revised to 0.5

March       0.9

As is clear, overall monthly PCE really took off in March – reaching its highest level during this period after several months of virtually identical monthly increases (which themselves jumped to a new level starting in October).

Keep in mind that these numbers don’t show that prices stopped rising during that period. What they show is that they weren’t rising at ever faster rates, which matters because one of the biggest fears harbored about inflation concerns its tendency to feed on itself and spiral out of control.

When food and energy prices are stripped out, and so-called core inflation can be seen, the monthly trend since January, 2021, is significantly different. Since last October, weakening momentum (though not actually falling prices) is the story here. And the sequential percentage increases in absolute terms have been lower recently. That’s why it’s ever more obvious that recent inflation is due mainly to those two supposedly volatile food and energy sectors. Here are these core PCE rises:

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.            0.5

Nov.           0.5

Dec.           0.5

Jan.            0.5

Feb.           0.4 revised to 0.3

March        0.3

As always, the baseline effect emerges upon examining the annual rates of change in inflation. Here they are for overall inflation since January, 2021:

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.            5.1

Nov.           5.6

Dec.           5.8

Jan.  21-22           6..0

Feb. 21-22           6.4 revised to 6.3

March 21-22        6.6

Again, the latest March figure is the highest in the series, and again, the pace quickened dramatically starting last October.

The annual inflation rates for the previous year, though, demonstrate a big fade in the baseline effect starting in March. Here they are in percentage terms.  

Jan.             1.8

Feb.            1.8

March        1.3

April          0.6

May          0.5

June          0.9

July          1.0

Aug.         1.2

Sept.         1.4

Oct.          1.2

Nov.         1.2

Dec.         1.3

Jan. 20-21           1.4

Feb. 20-21          1.6

March 20-21       2.5

Think of it this way: For many years before the CCP Virus began distorting the economy the Federal Reserve struggled to push yearly inflation up to two percent and keep it there for decent intervals. The central bank reasoned (correctly, IMO), that when prices rise too slowly, that can threaten deflation – a period prices that are falling in absolute terms. And when that happens, consumers in particular keep putting off purchases in hopes of finding better bargains in the future, demand for goods and services keeps dropping, production eventually follows suit, and a recession can ensue that’s not only deep but very difficult to escape as the new sets of expectations create their own downward spiral.

But as shown above, for all of (pandemic-y) 2020, annual inflation rates were well below two percent, and they stayed there till March, 2021. So the latest annual overall PCE figure of 6.9 percent (for this March) is coming off an overall PCE figure for last March that was already pretty strong. And the upcoming number for April, 2022 will represent the change from an April, 2021 figure that was much stronger – 3.6 percent. Unless that next annual overall inflation rate comes down considerably, the case that overall price increases have entered a new, more worrisome phase, will look awfully convincing.

The baseline fade is less pronounced so far for core PCE. Here are the annual percentage change figures starting again with January, 2021:

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.           4.2

Nov.          4.7

Dec.          4.9

Jan. 21-22             5.2

Feb. 21-22            5.4 revised to 5.3

March 21-22        5.2

Where the month-to-month figures showed weakened recent momentum as well as lower prices, these show stalled recent momentum – which isn’t greatly different given inflation’s above-noted tendency to keep speeding up.

And here are the annual core figures for the preceding year

Jan.             1.7

Feb.            1.9

March        1.7

April          0.9

May           1.0

June           1.1

July           1.3

Aug.          1.4

Sept.          1.5

Oct.           1.4

Nov.          1.3

Dec.          1.4

Jan. 20-21             1.4

Feb. 20-21            1.5

March 20-21         2.0

Judging by that two percent Fed target, these 2020 and early 2021 annual core inflation rates were decidedly feeble, and only hit two percent in March, 2021. So a baseline effect arguably remains in place here, and as I wrote previously, and probably won’t end until next month – because the April, 2021 annual core inflation rate breached the Fed target (and then some), rising all the way to 3.1 percent.

And as with overall PCE inflation, if that next core result (for April) doesn’t fall significantly, this type of price increase will start looking troublingly elevated for reasons related to current, not past, economic trends and developments. Further, even though the absolute core PCE rate is, as noted, lower than the over PCE rate, it’s still near multi-decade highs and, again, it’s sure to be increasingly affected by lofty energy prices for the foreseeable future.

Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip wrote Wednesday that the Ukraine war and its fallout could be “a prelude to an era in which geopolitical tensions, protectionist policies and natural disasters repeatedly stress the world’s supply networks. Central banks, which spent the last decade fighting off deflationary headwinds, might spend the next battling inflationary headwinds.”

Today’s PCE data look like they support that call to me.