BusinessWeek, I love and despise you

New economic article by BusinessWeek talks about how bottlenecks could cause inflation. Ostensibly a "economic bottleneck" follows the same logic as water through a pipe. It would be limited by the exit of each section of the pipe. If there are not enough factories, or steel or workers than firms will not be able to respond to increased demand. Thus, prices will rise in a short period to allow the market to clear.

Seems plausible, the author even cites James Bullard, President of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in which he points to the stagflation period after the recession in 1974. He states that the Fed at the time overestimated the productive capacity of the economy and inflation resulted until Mr. Volcker killed it in the early 1980s.

Three charts in retort.


This is duration of median unemployment hitting all time highs. These are workers who have not had work in almost 6 months. You think their demands for pay will be higher or lower than that of the workers in the 1975 who had been out of work for 3 months?


Here is the employment-to-population graph. You can see we have a lot of room to fall to hit the level of jobs related to the entire population that we experienced in the 1975 recession.


Finally, you can see here that unemployment rate is also higher than that of the 1970s, also showing that inflationary fears are very dim.

Now the article does take a balanced view of the economic environment. The author still feels that deflation is the bigger threat at this point, but that inflation always needs to be watched. While I can agree with the sentiment, I find it very dull to be espousing this information in this manner to the non-economic audience reading Businessweek. It is a very nuanced argument that needs to be made, just like the one Bullard made that the article cites.

What the Fed is doing is telegraphing its actions for when it actually defeats deflation. There are methods in which it stops buying Treasury securities, where it stops repo'ing [very short term loans to i-banks] collateral, where it stops buying MBS, stops buying Frannie paper and removes reserves from banks by changing the amount of interest it credits to banks. This will remove the monetary stimulus from the economy very quickly, if needs to be, but can also be done at the margin, like a Father guiding the handlebars on his child's bicycle.

Given the last paragraph, I find it very disenginous to discuss inflation to an audience that does not understand what the Fed has done, and is going to do. BW should be cheering on the Federal Reserve and hoping for inflation because deflation is far, far worse.

The Waning Threat of Deflation versus Two Easy-Money Pieces

I swear I had to read the latest James C Cooper piece in BusinessWeek twice just to be sure what I was reading. So I thought about doing a comparison to various academics and their current surveys of economic conditions, one was Paul Krugman's latest piece. This would provide a look to see where consensus was and where it was not, so I could gauge which argument(s) I found to have a more solid foundation.

James, an alumnus from NC State where he received his bachelors and masters degree, shows that Personal Consumption Expenditures declined from a year ago by 0.5% or 0.0005. He attributes most of this to the drop in gasoline prices. Here is the table from the BEA release.

Click to enlarge

As you can read from the chart his argument is correct. The index declined 23.7% in the energy good/services subcategory in the same time period.

However, now we can contrast this with Mr. Krugman's, with a BA from Yale in Economics followed by a PHD in Economics from MIT, evidence. He looks at the similar indicator formed from the Consumer Price Index. It also has a total value and one excluding energy and food prices because of their noted volatility. However, in this version instead of removing food and energy totally, he chooses to trim the data, that is remove the most volatile price movements to get to a "core" price movement. Here is the chart.

Click to enlarge

Here we can see the quarterly data from the 1st and 2nd quarter plus the data from September. So you can see the total annualized CPI for the three periods, in order, are: 1.5%, 3.3% and 2.0%. However, if you trim out the volatile prices, depending on the amount trimmed you usually what is basically a horizontal asymptote and those are: 2.3%, 1.0% and 0.5%, a clear downward trend. In fact if you look at James's chart it shows the same information, that both core and the more volatile are in a downward trend. So we have to separate pieces of data that suggest inflation will not be a concern moving forward.



The title of the chart even states in full caps CORE INFLATION WILL CONTINUE TO DRIFT LOWER. So rationally you could think that Mr Cooper and Mr Krugman are on the same page. "This suggests that disinflation is proceeding rapidly. And a falling inflation rate, possibly even deflation, means that a zero interest rate is less expansionary than it seems."

James, however, entitles his piece The Waning Threat of Deflation?!?!

It seems to me and anyone looking at these charts that are provided as evidence that deflation is on its way.

James bases his assertion on a few observations: inventories may have been cut too deeply along with capital spending (investment) and payrolls. He argues that inventory restocking, the actual fall of capital stock which affects the denominator in capacity utilization therefore utilization rates could increase faster in a recovery, and the fact that 6% productivity is unsustainable, thus new employees will need to be added. I would argue that the latter is the most important in James's arsenal as Consumption provides 70% of GDP, however a person cannot be a consumer without a job.

Luckily, just this morning I was reading a post by James Hamilton, a PHD and Masters in Economics from UC-Berkley, about unemployment and inflation. He found that by running a model of two year average of inflation and inflation expectation he could arrive at a very high correlation. Here is his chart.
Click to enlarge

His chart shows that inflation is still falling off a cliff and until unemployment turns, not just the stemming of jobless claims but actual growth of jobs that inflation will continue to fall. From his words, "but the forecast of the model for the average inflation rate between 2009:Q4 and 2011:Q4 is -0.5%." Again reiterating that without jobs no growth of GDP is sustainable, thus no inflation.

Finally, there is my new favorite graph. Median Duration of Unemployment. That is to say unemployment is not a bad thing per se, there is a natural creative destruction as employees from a dying industry like paper sales move to a more dynamic industry like alternative energy or health care. Unemployment is bad however when the economy cannot quickly move applicable skill sets, like sales of paper to sales of solar panels. Both require knowledge of a product and industry so they should be quick substitutes but when the economy is not doing this task people stay unemployed for long bouts of time. This, of course, impinges on growth. Let us see what the current outlook looks like.



Highest ever since it has been tracked.

The Fed has to act as training wheels for the US economy. It must support and guide the economy into growth but even as growth resumes it must not remove it stimulus too soon or relapse will occur. I do not believe Bernanke will remove stimulus until unemployment falls below 7%.

So in conclusion, I am not certain what James's article is about at all. He states that inflation will allow the Fed leeway to raise rates but does not specify how inflation will be brought about except for plausible stories without an econometric model to show how inflation will be transmitted. Merely stating that an inventory build or utilization rate climbing by decreasing the stock of capital does not guarantee sustainable growth based on an organic recovery. One of the major lessons for Bernanke as a student of the Depression was that the removal of stimulus in 1936 and 1937 caused the economy to crash in 1938. Then again James was the chief economist of the American Forest and Paper Association.

Serial Inflation or the cost of inflation

Everyone knows that inflation is a bad thing; deflation may be worse but neither is desirable. What central banks shoot for is price stability, so that businesses and consumers can plan accordingly to maximize their utility. However, it was Mark Twain that said “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

What do I mean? Well, inflation may be the cruelest tax but the drop in purchasing power may not be all that it is cracked up to be. See that is why people dislike inflation. It is ingrained in their head that if the dollar loses value, that their dollar purchases less goods and services. This is a bad thing, no? Here is their evidence.


Pretty rough. Since the advent of the Federal Reserve, the private bank has eroded each Americans wealth by 93.4%. The thinking described must advances a theory that American standard of living has dropped in step with the fall of the dollar. However, I don't remember seeing any HDTV, MRI machines, air conditioners during the 1913 period in my history textbooks. Not seeing these items is not direct proof per se, but until I see one I will assume they weren't prevalent, at least to the degree that they are today.

Another way of saying this would be that, the dollar is used to purchase goods and services. People provide goods and services at their job. Thus, the price level rising (the dollar's value declining) tends to net out because the inflation that drives down the purchasing power is also being inflated in the person's offered labor.

One last way of putting this is by numerical example. The CPI index states that inflation rose by 3% last year, (made up.) Last year, you received a 3% raise, so net net you are even. You have not lost purchasing power; your yearly bonus helps safeguard your standard of living.

**Addendum**
I re-read my post and it makes sense but I wanted to add flavor and nuance to the argument. So I needed a multi-year argument to further convince you. So I went and grabbed the Census department's median income in current (nominal) dollars and in real terms as well. I also added the BLS CPI price levels matching set of data from 1975 to 2008 year end.

So first I took a compound annual growth rate for both series, to bring about a unified number so that an apple to apple comparison could be made. To do this I took the last year of my data for each set and divided it by the initial year. I then raised it to 1 over the number of years difference, which is 1/33 years. I then subtracted by one to end up with a annual growth rate percentage. For median income it was 4.49% and for the CPI price level data it was 4.39%. What these two figures mean is that over the period between 1975 and 2008 on average, that is linearly, median income outpaced inflation (what the CPI price levels measure.) You may then draw the conclusion that standards of living have risen because income has outpaced inflation.


If you still do not believe me the Census bureau in the same data set provides the median income in real terms. From 1975 to 2008 the "real" amount of annual wealth accumulation has risen from $42,936 to $50,303. Meaning most households can purchase more than they could back in 1975, thus their standard of living has increased. (Note: I use median income because average income can be skewed by the Bill Gates-s of the world. Ever hear the quip, when Bill Gates walks into the room on average we are all billionaires?)

Though the fallacy should relieve you, inflation still does have an effect and can lower your standard of living in other ways. One is called shoe leather cost. It is the affect, where you have to change your paycheck into a store of value. That is instead of placing your paycheck into a demand deposit account, you because of your knowledge of inflation instead place your funds into a money market account. Now though you have to transfer funds back to the demand deposit account when you go to the restaurant or take the children to the amusement park. This isn't bad in the United States. However, imagine you were in Zimbabwe last year where inflation ran at 36,000%. The cost of your meal would be more the longer you ate, so I am positive that the Zimbabwe equivalent of McDonald's did brisk business last year.

Another is an effect called the menu effect, after restaurant menus. It means that businesses set prices and are reluctant to change them. Again our low inflation environment makes the effect a bit myopic but if inflation ran at a higher rate, businesses would be forced to change their "menu" more often so as to not be burned by their margin contraction as their inputs cost more while their own prices stayed the same.

Finally, there is one last way in which inflation can hurt you and it is in investing. Hypothetically, you buy a share of GM in 1971 for 100 dollars. Now almost 40 years later, after counting for splits the stock is worth 300 dollars. You would be assessed a capital gain tax on 200 dollars at a 20% rate. Here is where inflation stings. Look at the chart above. The dollar was worth 24 cents. Now it is worth 4.6 cents. It has lost almost 6 times its value. Meaning your 100 1971 dollars could buy almost 600 dollars today. So in fact your capital gain is not real, you have lost 50% of your money over the time period. Yet you are still taxed 40 dollars because taxes are assessed nominally and not indexed. Ouch!

The Federal Reserve

I have been searching, fruitlessly, for a chart depicting the year on year change in price levels before the Federal Reserve and since its creation in the early 1910s. I cannot find it and will instead describe it. It shows a noise chart above and below zero. In the beginning the variance is large if it were a seismograph it would be showing an earthquake. (Shown above) As the Federal Reserve is instituted the variations shrink and adhere more closely to a long-term trend. The chart shows why the Federal Reserve exists and why interest rates are not allowed to freely float.

The Federal Reserve is made up of 12 regional banks and a board of directors. The regional banks are tasked with regulating and keeping the banking system healthy. These banks also act as a lender of last resort or the banks’ bank. The Board has a distinctive but related task to control the country’s money supply. The Board of Governors plus 5 regional bank presidents together make up the Federal Open Market Committee. 4 of the bank presidents rotate, as the New York bank always has a spot.

The committee controls the money supply in three ways:
A) By buying and selling bonds via the open market operations,
B) Reserve requirements, and
C) The discount rate

A) Open Market Operations - When it buys bonds it adds new money to the financial system and when it sells bonds it takes away money from the financial system. This seems counterintuitive but view it from the viewpoint of a bank. When the bank sells its bond to the Federal Reserve it now has cash instead. It can then lend this cash out. However, when the Federal Reserve sells bonds the bank must use its cash to purchase the bonds and thus loses the ability to lend out the money it purchased the bond with.

B) Reserve requirements – regulations on the minimum amount of “cash” reserves a bank must hold against customer deposits. This affects the money supply because if the banks have to hold more in reserve the banks then have less to lend out. Vice versa, lowering the requirement allows banks to loan out more money.

Here is how it works:
Bank A
Assets
Reserves 100.00
Liabilities
Deposits 100.00

This is if there was a 100% reserve requirement. Obviously this is untenable as the banks could only keep the money safe, as a warehouse. No entity would undertake this responsibility, as there would be no profit. So the banking system consists of a “fractional reserve system,” which only means that a fraction of each dollar of deposits is actually held at the bank. The rest is loaned out, which is a banking asset, to create profit for the bank.

Bank A
Assets
Reserves: 20.00
Loans: 80.00
Total: 100.00
Liabilities
Deposits: 100.00
Total: 100.00

Thus, seemingly the banks has created money, in an earlier post we said that money was currency plus demand deposits. So 80 + 100 = $180. However, it must be said that the economy is not wealthier, there is just more money or liquidity. This is because those 80 dollars of loans, though bank assets, are liabilities to entities that undertake them.

The process does not end here though. If the person, who took the $80 loan, maybe did not have an immediate need for the funds, so he deposited it at his bank.

Bank B
Assets
Reserves: 16.00
Loans: 64.00
Total: 80.00
Liabilities
Deposits: 80.00
Total: 80.00

This iterative process can be completed ad infitnitum, so as a general solution we can take the initial deposit and divide it by the reserve requirement ratio. So $100 divided by 20/100= 500. Thus, the money multiplier at this reserve requirement will be 5.

C) The Discount Rate – Acting as the banks’ bank it loans out reserves to bank who find them short of the reserve requirement. Picture the end of the day and a customer comes in at 4:30 PM and withdraws 10 dollars of deposits from Bank A. Bank A would still have 80 dollars worth of loans but now only 10 dollars of reserves. It would need to find 10 dollars of reserves to meet the Federal Reserve’s requirement. It thus can go to the Fed and borrow the 10 dollars at the discount rate. Then it would to try and unwind one of its loans to rid itself of the borrowings from the discount window.

Bank A (after 10 dollar withdrawal)
Assets
Reserves: 10.00
Borrowed: 10.00
Loans: 80.00
Total: 100.00
Liabilities
Deposits: 90.00
Borrowings: 10.00
Total: 100.00

The discount rate follows the laws of supply and demand. So when the rate is high banks wants to borrow less and when the rate is low the banks are more willing to borrow. Finally, this also acts as insurance against a bank run, as the banks can borrow from the discount window freely, thus generating the liquidity to survive a financial crisis like in 2008 and in 1987.

Greg Mankiw in his Principles of Economics points to two major problems with controlling the money supply through these three mechanisms. First, the Fed cannot control how much money people will want to hold on deposit with banks. Thus, a bank run can have systemic effects on the money supply. Secondly, the Fed cannot control how much the banks lend. Unlike China, you cannot force the banks to underwrite loans that the banks deem too risky given a current economic situation.

These two forces have been a key puzzle for economist over the past century. It is described by a simple equation M x V= P x Y, where:

M= quantity of money
V= velocity; the link between money, price and output
P= price level
Y= aggregate income or GDP

In the short run V and Y can be held constant thus the price level would be affected only by the money supply. This is how Milton Friedman came out with the proclamation that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”

However, as we have experienced lately the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have instituted a number of initiatives to increase the money supply and velocity but velocity has only declined to negate their works. I will expand on this in the next post on Inflation.