CMP Associates Regulation Blog: Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth, Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment, IMF View, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing Collapse, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth, Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment, IMF View, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing Collapse, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

Executive Summary

I Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth

IA Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth

IA1 Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment

IB IMF View of World Economy and Finance

IIA United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities

IIA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy

IIA2 Functions of Banks

IIA3 United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities

IIA4 Theory and Reality of Economic History and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation

IIB United States Housing Collapse

IIB1 United States New House Sales

IIB2 United States House Prices

IIB3 Factors of United States Housing Collapse

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

Executive Summary

ESI Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth. The US is experiencing the first expansion from a recession after World War II without growth, jobs (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html) and hiring (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html), unsustainable government deficit/debt (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html

http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html), waves of inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html) and deteriorating terms of trade and net revenue margins in squeeze of economic activity by carry trades induced by zero interest rates

(http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html) while valuations of risk financial assets approach historical highs. Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. The expansion since the third quarter of 2009 (IIIQ2009 (Jun)) to the latest available measurement for IQ(2013) has been at the average annual rate of 2.1 percent per quarter. In contrast, Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). As a result, there are 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 18.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html).

The economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as decelerating from mediocre growth of 2.4 percent on an annual basis in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011 to 2.2 percent in 2012. Calculations below show that actual growth is around 1.9 percent per year. This rate is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which has been always recovered after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). United States real GDP grew at the rate of 3.2 percent between 1929 and 2012 and at 3.2 percent between 1947 and 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html). Growth is not only mediocre but also sharply decelerating to a rhythm that is not consistent with reduction of unemployment and underemployment of 29.6 million people corresponding to 18.2 percent of the effective labor force of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). In the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, US real GDP grew at the seasonally-adjusted annual equivalent rates of 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2011 (IQ2011), 2.5 percent in IIQ2011, 1.3 percent in IIIQ2011, 4.1 percent in IVQ2011, 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012, revised 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012, 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 and 2.5 percent in IQ2013. The annual equivalent rate of growth of GDP for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent, obtained as follows. Discounting 0.1 percent to one quarter is 0.025 percent {[(1.001)^1/4 -1]100 = 0.025}; discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 4.1 percent to one quarter is 1.0 {[(1.04)^1/4 -1]100; discounting 2.0 percent to one quarter is 0.50 percent {[(1.020)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 -1]100}; discounting 3.1 percent to one quarter is 0.77 {[(1.031)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 0.4 percent to one quarter is 0.1 percent {[(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100}; and discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 -1}100}. Real GDP growth in the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 accumulated to 4.3 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. This is equivalent to growth from IQ2011 to IVQ2012 obtained by dividing the seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of IQ2013 of $13,750.1 billion by the SAAR of IVQ2010 of $13,181.2 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 and Table ESI-3 below) and expressing as percentage {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062)^4/9 -1]100 = 1.9%], or {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2)]^4/9-1]100 = 1.9%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table ESI-3 below, obtaining the average for nine quarters and the annual average for one year of four quarters. Growth in the four quarters of 2012 accumulates to 1.7 percent {[(1.02)^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.031)^1/4(1.004)^1/4 -1]100 = 1.7%}. This is equivalent to dividing the SAAR of $13,665.4 billion for IVQ2012 in Table ESI-3 by the SAAR of $13,441.0 billion in IVQ2011 except for a rounding discrepancy to obtain 1.7 percent {[($13,665.4/$13,441.0) – 1]100 = 1.7%}. The US economy is still close to a standstill especially considering the GDP report in detail.

Characteristics of the four cyclical contractions are provided in Table ESI-1 with the first column showing the number of quarters of contraction; the second column the cumulative percentage contraction; and the final column the average quarterly rate of contraction. There were two contractions from IQ1980 to IIIQ1980 and from IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 separated by three quarters of expansion. The drop of output combining the declines in these two contractions is 4.8 percent, which is almost equal to the decline of 4.7 percent in the contraction from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1930 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.7 percent cumulatively and fell 45.6 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). The comparison of the global recession after 2007 with the Great Depression is entirely misleading.

Table ESI-1, US, Number of Quarters, Cumulative Percentage Contraction and Average Percentage Annual Equivalent Rate in Cyclical Contractions

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Percentage Contraction	Average Percentage Rate
IIQ1953 to IIQ1954	4	-2.5	-0.64
IIIQ1957 to IIQ1958	3	-3.1	-1.1
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980	2	-2.2	-1.1
IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	4	-2.6	-0.67
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	6	-4.7	-0.80

Sources: Business Cycle Reference Dates: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table ESI-2 shows the extraordinary contrast between the mediocre average annual equivalent growth rate of 2.1 percent of the US economy in the fourteen quarters of the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012 and the average of 5.7 percent in the first thirteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1986 and 5.3 percent in the first fifteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986. The line “average first four quarters in four expansions” provides the average growth rate of 7.8 with 7.9 percent from IIIQ1954 to IIQ1955, 9.6 percent from IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959, 6.1 percent from IIIQ1975 to IIQ1986 and 7.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983. The United States missed this opportunity of high growth in the initial phase of recovery. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). Table ESI-2 provides an average of 7.8 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions while the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 is only 3.2 percent obtained by diving GDP of $13,103.5 billion in IIIQ2010 by GDP of $12,701.0 billion in IIQ2009 {[$13.103.5/$12,701.0 -1]100 = 3.2%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates. As a result, there are 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 18.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). BEA data show the US economy in standstill with annual growth of 2.4 percent in 2010 decelerating to 1.8 percent annual growth in 2011, 2.2 percent in 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and cumulative 1.7 percent in the four quarters of 2012 {[(1.02)^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.031)^1/4(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100 = 1.7%} with minor rounding discrepancy using the SSAR of $13,665.4 billion in IVQ2012 relative to the SAAR of $13,441.0 billion in IVQ2011 {[($13665.4/$13441.00-1]100 = 1.7%}. %}. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062)^4/9 -1]100 = 1.9%], or {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2)]^4/9-1]100 = 1.9%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table ESI-3 below, obtaining the average for nine quarters and the annual average for one year of four quarters. The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent and at 7.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983.

Table ESI-2, US, Number of Quarters, Cumulative Growth and Average Annual Equivalent Growth Rate in Cyclical Expansions

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Growth ∆%	Average Annual Equivalent Growth Rate
IIIQ 1954 to IQ1957	11	12.6	4.4
First Four Quarters IIIQ1954 to IIQ1955	4	7.9
IIQ1958 to IIQ1959	5	10.2	8.1
First Four Quarters IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959	4	9.6
IIQ1975 to IVQ1976	8	9.5	4.6
First Four Quarters IIIQ1975 to IIQ1976	4	6.1
IQ1983 to IQ1986 IQ1983 to IIIQ1986	13 15	19.6 21.3	5.7 5.3
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	4	7.7
Average First Four Quarters in Four Expansions*		7.8
IIIQ2009 to IQ2013	15	8.3	2.1
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2010		3.2

*First Four Quarters: 7.9% IIIQ1954-IIQ1955; 9.6% IIIQ1958-IIQ1959; 6.1% IIIQ1975-IIQ1976; 7.7% IQ1983-IVQ1983

Sources: Business Cycle Reference Dates: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESI-1 shows US real quarterly GDP growth from 1980 to 1989. The economy contracted during the recession and then expanded vigorously throughout the 1980s, rapidly eliminating the unemployment caused by the contraction.

Chart ESI-1, US, Real GDP, 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESI-2 shows the entirely different situation of real quarterly GDP in the US between 2007 and 2012. The economy has underperformed during the first fifteen quarters of expansion for the first time in the comparable contractions since the 1950s. The US economy is now in a perilous standstill.

Chart ESI-2, US, Real GDP, 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

As shown in Tables ESI-1 and ESI-2 above the loss of real GDP in the US during the contraction was 4.7 percent but the gain in the cyclical expansion has been only 8.3 percent (last row in Table I-5), using all latest revisions. As a result, the level of real GDP in IQ2013 with the third estimate and revisions is only higher by 3.2 percent than the level of real GDP in IVQ2007. Table ESI-3 provides in the second column real GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars. The third column provides the percentage change of the quarter relative to IVQ2007; the fourth column provides the percentage change relative to the prior quarter; and the final fifth column provides the percentage change relative to the same quarter a year earlier. The contraction actually concentrated in two quarters: decline of 2.3 percent in IVQ2008 relative to the prior quarter and decline of 1.3 percent in IQ2009 relative to IVQ2008. The combined fall of GDP in IVQ2008 and IQ2009 was 3.6 percent {[(1-0.023) x (1-0.013) -1]100 = -3.6%}, or {[(IQ2009 $12,711.0)/(IIIQ2008 $13,186.9) – 1]100 = -3.6%}. Those two quarters coincided with the worst effects of the financial crisis. GDP fell 0.1 percent in IIQ2009 but grew 0.4 percent in IIIQ2009, which is the beginning of recovery in the cyclical dates of the NBER. Most of the recovery occurred in five successive quarters from IVQ2009 to IVQ2010 of growth of 1.0 percent in IVQ2009 and equal growth at 0.6 percent in IQ2010, IIQ2010, IIIQ2010 and IVQ2010 for cumulative growth in those five quarters of 3.4 percent, obtained by accumulating the quarterly rates {[(1.01 x 1.006 x 1.006 x 1.006 x 1.006) – 1]100 = 3.4%} or {[(IVQ2010 $13,181.2)/(IIIQ2009 $12,746.7) – 1]100 = 3.4%}. The economy lost momentum already in 2010 growing at 0.6 percent in each quarter, or annual equivalent 2.4 per cent {[(1.006)⁴ – 1]100 = 2.4%}, compared with annual equivalent 4.1 percent in IV2009 {[(1.01)⁴ – 1]100 = 4.1%}. The economy then stalled during the first half of 2011 with growth of 0.0025 percent in IQ2011 and 0.6 percent in IIQ2011 for combined annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent {(1.00025 x 1.006)²}. The economy grew 0.3 percent in IIIQ2011 for annual equivalent growth of 1.2 percent in the first three quarters {[(1.00025 x 1.006 x 1.003)^4/3 -1]100 = 1.2%}. Growth picked up in IVQ2011 with 1.0 percent relative to IIIQ2011. Growth in a quarter relative to a year earlier in Table I-6 slows from over 2.4 percent during three consecutive quarters from IIQ2010 to IVQ2010 to 1.8 percent in IQ2011, 1.9 percent in IIQ2011, 1.6 percent in IIIQ2011 and 2.0 percent in IVQ2011. As shown below, growth of 1.0 percent in IVQ2011 was partly driven by inventory accumulation. In IQ2012, GDP grew 0.5 percent relative to IVQ2011 and 2.4 percent relative to IQ2011, decelerating to 0.3 percent in IIQ2012 and 2.1 percent relative to IIQ2011 and 0.8 percent in IIIQ2012 and 2.6 percent relative to IIIQ2011 largely because of inventory accumulation and national defense expenditures. Growth was 0.1 percent in IVQ2012 with 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier but mostly because of 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of reduction of one-time national defense expenditures. Growth was 0.6 percent in IQ2013 and 1.8 percent relative to IQ2012 in large part because of burning savings to consume caused by financial repression of zero interest rates. Rates of a quarter relative to the prior quarter capture better deceleration of the economy than rates on a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. The critical question for which there is not yet definitive solution is whether what lies ahead is continuing growth recession with the economy crawling and unemployment/underemployment at extremely high levels or another contraction or conventional recession. Forecasts of various sources continued to maintain high growth in 2011 without taking into consideration the continuous slowing of the economy in late 2010 and the first half of 2011. The sovereign debt crisis in the euro area is one of the common sources of doubts on the rate and direction of economic growth in the US but there is weak internal demand in the US with almost no investment and spikes of consumption driven by burning saving because of financial repression forever in the form of zero interest rates.

Table ESI-3, US, Real GDP and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars and ∆%

	Real GDP, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	13,326.0	NA	NA	2.2
IQ2008	13,266.8	-0.4	-0.4	1.6
IIQ2008	13,310.5	-0.1	0.3	1.0
IIIQ2008	13,186.9	-1.0	-0.9	-0.6
IVQ2008	12,883.5	-3.3	-2.3	-3.3
IQ2009	12,711.0	-4.6	-1.3	-4.2
IIQ2009	12,701.0	-4.7	-0.1	-4.6
IIIQ2009	12,746.7	-4.3	0.4	-3.3
IV2009	12,873.1	-3.4	1.0	-0.1
IQ2010	12,947.6	-2.8	0.6	1.9
IIQ2010	13,019.6	-2.3	0.6	2.5
IIIQ2010	13,103.5	-1.7	0.6	2.8
IVQ2010	13,181.2	-1.1	0.6	2.4
IQ2011	13,183.8	-1.1	0.0	1.8
IIQ2011	13,264.7	-0.5	0.6	1.9
IIIQ2011	13,306.9	-0.1	0.3	1.6
IV2011	13,441.0	0.9	1.0	2.0
IQ2012	13,506.4	1.4	0.5	2.4
IIQ2012	13,548.5	1.7	0.3	2.1
IIIQ2012	13,652.5	2.5	0.8	2.6
IVQ2012	13,665.4	2.5	0.1	1.7
IQ2013	13,750.1	3.2	0.6	1.8

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESI-3 provides the percentage change of real GDP from the same quarter a year earlier from 1980 to 1989. There were two contractions almost in succession in 1980 and from 1981 to 1983. The expansion was marked by initial high rates of growth as in other recession in the postwar US period during which employment lost in the contraction was recovered. Growth rates continued to be high after the initial phase of expansion.

Chart ESI-3, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Quarter a Year Earlier 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The experience of recovery after 2009 is not as complete as during the 1980s. Chart ESI-4 shows the much lower rates of growth in the early phase of the current expansion and how they have sharply declined from an early peak. The US missed the initial high growth rates in cyclical expansions during which unemployment and underemployment are eliminated.

Chart ESI-4, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Quarter a Year Earlier 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESI-5 provides growth rates from a quarter relative to the prior quarter during the 1980s. There is the same strong initial growth followed by a long period of sustained growth.

Chart ESI-5, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Prior Quarter 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESI-6 provides growth rates in a quarter relative to the prior quarter from 2007 to 2012. Growth in the current expansion after IIIQ2009 has not been as strong as in other postwar cyclical expansions.

Chart ESI-6, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Prior Quarter 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

ESII Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment. Table ESII-1 provides real private fixed investment at seasonally adjusted annual rates from IVQ2007 to IQ2013 or for the complete economic cycle. The first column provides the quarter, the second column percentage change relative to IVQ2007, the third column the quarter percentage change in the quarter relative to the prior quarter and the final column percentage change in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. In IQ1980, gross private domestic investment in the US was $778.3 billion of 2005 dollars, growing to $965.9 billion in IVQ1985 or 24.1 percent, as shown in Table IB-2 of IB Collapse of Dynamism of United States Income Growth and Employment Creation (IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). Gross private domestic investment in the US decreased 6.2 percent from $2,123.6 billion of 2005 dollars in IVQ2007 to $1,991.8 billion in IQ2013. As shown in Table IAI-2, real private fixed investment fell 8.8 percent from $2111.5 billion of 2005 dollars in IVQ2007 to $1925.5 billion in IVQ2012. Growth of real private investment in Table IA1-2 is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012.

Table ESII-1, US, Real Private Fixed Investment and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars and ∆%

	Real PFI, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	2111.5	NA	-1.2	-1.0
IQ2008	2066.4	-2.1	-2.1	-2.9
IIQ2008	2039.1	-3.4	-1.3	-5.0
IIIQ2008	1973.5	-6.5	-3.2	-7.7
IV2008	1835.4	-13.1	-7.0	-13.1
IQ2009	1677.3	-20.6	-8.6	-18.8
IIQ2009	1593.7	-24.5	-5.0	-21.8
IIIQ2009	1581.2	-25.1	-0.8	-19.9
IVQ2009	1556.8	-26.3	-1.5	-15.2
IQ2010	1553.1	-26.4	-0.2	-7.4
IIQ2010	1606.5	-23.9	3.4	0.8
IIIQ2010	1602.7	-24.1	-0.2	1.4
IVQ2010	1632.3	-22.7	1.8	4.8
IQ2011	1627.0	-22.9	-0.3	4.8
IIQ2011	1675.4	-20.7	3.0	4.3
IIIQ2011	1736.8	-17.7	3.7	8.4
IVQ2011	1778.7	-15.8	2.4	9.0
IQ2012	1820.6	-13.8	2.4	11.9
IIQ2012	1840.6	-12.8	1.1	9.9
IIIQ2012	1844.8	-12.6	0.2	6.2
IVQ2012	1906.3	-9.7	3.3	7.2
IQ2013	1925.5	-8.8	1.0	5.8

PFI: Private Fixed Investment

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESII-1 provides real private fixed investment in billions of chained 2005 dollars from IV2007 to IQ2013. Real private fixed investment has not recovered, stabilizing at a level in IQ2013 that is 8.8 percent below the level in IVQ2007.

Chart ESII-1, US, Real Private Fixed Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars, IQ2007 to IQ2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESII-2 provides real gross private domestic investment in chained dollars of 2005 from 1980 to 1986. Real gross private domestic investment climbed 24.1 percent in IVQ1985 above the level on IQ1980.

Chart ESII-2, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 1980-1986

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart ESII-3 provides real gross private domestic investment in the United States in billions of dollars of 2005 from 2006 to 2013. Gross private domestic investment reached a level in IQ2013 that was 8.8 percent lower than the level in IVQ2007.

Chart ESII-3, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

ESIII United States Housing Collapse. The depressed level of residential construction and new house sales in the US is evident in Table ESIII-1 providing new house sales not seasonally adjusted in Jan-Mar of various years. Sales of new houses in Jan-Mar 2013 are substantially lower than in any year between 1963 and 2013 with the exception of 2009 to 2012. There are only four increases of 19.6 percent relative to Jan-Mar 2012, 46.5 percent relative to Jan-Mar 2011, 20.9 percent relative to Jan-Mar 2010 and 23.8 percent relative to Jan-Mar 2009. Sales of new houses in Jan-Mar 2013 are lower by 26.2 percent relative to Jan-Mar 2008, 51.1 percent relative to 2007, 63.5 percent relative to 2006 and 68.3 percent relative to 2005. The housing boom peaked in 2005 and 2006 when increases in fed funds rates to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 from 1.0 percent in Jun 2004 affected subprime mortgages that were programmed for refinancing in two or three years on the expectation that price increases forever would raise home equity. Higher home equity would permit refinancing under feasible mortgages incorporating full payment of principal and interest (Gorton 2009EFM; see other references in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html). Sales of new houses in Jan-Mar 2013 relative to the same period in 2004 fell 66.9 percent and 59.4 percent relative to the same period in 2003. Similar percentage declines are also observed for 2013 relative to years from 2000 to 2004. Sales of new houses in Jan-Mar 2013 fell 32.5 per cent relative to the same period in 1995. The population of the US was 179.3 million in 1960 and 281.4 million in 2000 (Hobbs and Stoops 2002, 16). Detailed historical census reports are available from the US Census Bureau at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html). The US population reached 308.7 million in 2010 (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/). The US population increased by 129.4 million from 1960 to 2010 or 72.2 percent. The final row of Table IIB-3 reveals catastrophic data: sales of new houses in Jan-Mar 2013 of 104 thousand units are lower by 14.0 percent relative to 121 thousand units houses sold in Jan-Mar 1963, the first year when data become available, while population increased 72.2 percent.

Table ESIII-1, US, Sales of New Houses Not Seasonally Adjusted, Thousands and %

	Not Seasonally Adjusted Thousands
Jan-Mar 2013	104
Jan-Mar 2012	87
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/Jan-Mar 2012	19.6*
Jan-Mar 2011	71
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/Jan-Mar 2011	46.5
Jan-Mar 2010	86
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2010	20.9
Jan-Mar 2009	84
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2009	23.8
Jan-Mar 2008	141
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2008	-26.2
Jan-Mar 2007	213
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2007	-51.1
Jan-Mar 2006	285
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/Jan-Mar 2006	-63.5
Jan-Mar 2005	328
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/Jan-Mar 2005	-68.3
Jan-Feb 2004	314
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/Jan-Mar 2004	-66.9
Jan-Mar 2003	256
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2003	-59.4
Jan-Mar 2002	239
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2002	-56.5
Jan-Mar 2001	251
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2001	-58.6
Jan-Mar 2000	233
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 2000	-55.4
Jan-Mar 1995	154
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 1995	-32.5
Jan-Mar 1963	121
∆% Jan-Mar 2013/ Jan-Mar 1963	-14.0

*Computed using unrounded data

Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

Chart ESIII-1 of the US Bureau of the Census provides the entire monthly sample of new houses sold in the US between Jan 1963 and Mar 2013 without seasonal adjustment. The series is almost stationary until the 1990s. There is sharp upward trend from the early 1990s to 2005-2006 after which new single-family houses sold collapse to levels below those in the beginning of the series in the 1960s.

Chart ESIII-1, US, New Single-family Houses Sold, NSA, 1963-2013

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/

ESIV Global Financial and Economic Risk. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides an international safety net for prevention and resolution of international financial crises. The IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) provides analysis of the economic and financial sectors of countries (see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-62, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008), 114-23). Relating economic and financial sectors is a challenging task both for theory and measurement. The IMF (2012WEOOct) provides surveillance of the world economy with its Global Economic Outlook (WEO) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/index.htm), of the world financial system with its Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) (IMF 2012GFSROct) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/2012/02/index.htm) and of fiscal affairs with the Fiscal Monitor (IMF 2012FMOct) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2012/02/fmindex.htm). There appears to be a moment of transition in global economic and financial variables that may prove of difficult analysis and measurement. It is useful to consider a summary of global economic and financial risks, which are analyzed in detail in the comments of this blog in Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets, Table VI-4.

Economic risks include the following:

China’s Economic Growth. China is lowering its growth target to 7.5 percent per year. China’s GDP growth decelerated significantly from annual equivalent 9.9 percent in IIQ2011 to 7.4 percent in IVQ2011 and 6.6 percent in IQ2012, rebounding to 7.8 percent in IIQ2012, 8.7 percent in IIIQ2012 and 8.2 percent in IVQ2012. Annual equivalent growth in IQ2013 fell to 6.6 percent. (See Subsection VC and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/recovery-without-hiring-world-inflation.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/world-inflation-waves-stagnating-united_21.html).
United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. The US is growing slowly with 29.6 million in job stress, fewer 10 million full-time jobs, high youth unemployment, historically low hiring and declining real wages.
Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. There is still high unemployment in advanced economies.
World Inflation Waves. Inflation continues in repetitive waves globally (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html ).

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

Euro Area Survival Risk. The resilience of the euro to fiscal and financial doubts on larger member countries is still an unknown risk.
Foreign Exchange Wars. Exchange rate struggles continue as zero interest rates in advanced economies induce devaluation of their currencies.
Valuation of Risk Financial Assets. Valuations of risk financial assets have reached extremely high levels in markets with lower volumes.
Duration Trap of the Zero Bound. The yield of the US 10-year Treasury rose from 2.031 percent on Mar 9, 2012, to 2.294 percent on Mar 16, 2012. Considering a 10-year Treasury with coupon of 2.625 percent and maturity in exactly 10 years, the price would fall from 105.3512 corresponding to yield of 2.031 percent to 102.9428 corresponding to yield of 2.294 percent, for loss in a week of 2.3 percent but far more in a position with leverage of 10:1. Min Zeng, writing on “Treasurys fall, ending brutal quarter,” published on Mar 30, 2012, in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577313400029412564.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_markets), informs that Treasury bonds maturing in more than 20 years lost 5.52 percent in the first quarter of 2012.
Credibility and Commitment of Central Bank Policy. There is a credibility issue of the commitment of monetary policy (Sargent and Silber 2012Mar20).
Carry Trades. Commodity prices driven by zero interest rates have resumed their increasing path with fluctuations caused by intermittent risk aversion

A competing event is the high level of valuations of risk financial assets (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/peaking-valuation-of-risk-financial.html). Matt Jarzemsky, writing on Dow industrials set record,” on Mar 5, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578275560657416332.html), analyzes that the DJIA broke the closing high of 14164.53 set on Oct 9, 2007, and subsequently also broke the intraday high of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. The DJIA closed at 14712.55

on Fri Apr 26, 2013, which is higher by 3.9 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 3.6 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial are approaching or exceeding historical highs.

The carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in risk financial assets had proved strongest for commodity exposures but US equities have regained leadership. The DJIA has increased 51.9 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 2, 2010 to Apr 26, 2013, S&P 500 has gained 54.7 percent and DAX 37.8 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 4/26/13” in Table ESIV-1 had double digit gains relative to the trough around Jul 2, 2010 followed by negative performance but now some valuations of equity indexes show varying behavior: China’s Shanghai Composite is 8.6 percent below the trough; Japan’s Nikkei Average is 57.3 percent above the trough; DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 25.2 percent above the trough; Dow Global is 26.4 percent above the trough; STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 18.3 percent above the trough; and NYSE Financial Index is 32.3 percent above the trough. DJ UBS Commodities is 6.4 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 37.8 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 57.3 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 21.9 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 13884.13

on Fri Apr 26, 2013 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 35.4 percent higher than 10,254.43 on Mar 11, 2011, on the date of the Tōhoku or Great East Japan Earthquake/tsunami. Global risk aversion erased the earlier gains of the Nikkei. The dollar depreciated by 9.3 percent relative to the euro and even higher before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 4/26/13” in Table ESIV-1 shows that there were decreases of valuations of risk financial assets in the week of Apr 26, 2013 such as 3.0 percent for China’s Shanghai Composite. DJ Asia Pacific increased 3.0 percent. NYSE Financial increased 2.8 percent in the week. DJ UBS Commodities increased 0.3 percent. Dow Global increased 2.5 percent in the week of Apr 26, 2013. The DJIA increased 1.1 percent and S&P 500 increased 1.7 percent. DAX of Germany increased 4.8 percent. STOXX 50 increased 3.5 percent. The USD appreciated 0.2 percent. There are still high uncertainties on European sovereign risks and banking soundness, US and world growth slowdown and China’s growth tradeoffs. Sovereign problems in the “periphery” of Europe and fears of slower growth in Asia and the US cause risk aversion with trading caution instead of more aggressive risk exposures. There is a fundamental change in Table ESIV-1 from the relatively upward trend with oscillations since the sovereign risk event of Apr-Jul 2010. Performance is best assessed in the column “∆% Peak to 4/26/13” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Apr 26, 2013. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 4/26/13” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 4/26/13.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table ESIV-1: DJIA 31.3 percent, S&P 500 30.0 percent, DAX 23.4 percent, Dow Global 3.1 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 9.6 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 5.4 percent, Nikkei Average 21.9 percent and STOXX 50 0.2 percent. There is only one equity indexes below the peak: Shanghai Composite by 23.4 percent. DJ UBS Commodities Index is now 9.0 percent below the peak. The US dollar strengthened 13.9 percent relative to the peak. The factors of risk aversion have adversely affected the performance of risk financial assets. The performance relative to the peak in Apr 2010 is more important than the performance relative to the trough around early Jul 2010 because improvement could signal that conditions have returned to normal levels before European sovereign doubts in Apr 2010. Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Falling revenue dings stocks,” on Oct 20, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578066933466076070.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), identifies a key financial vulnerability: falling revenues across markets for United States reporting companies. Global economic slowdown is reducing corporate sales and squeezing corporate strategies. Linebaugh quotes data from Thomson Reuters that 100 companies of the S&P 500 index have reported declining revenue only 1 percent higher in Jun-Sep 2012 relative to Jun-Sep 2011 but about 60 percent of the companies are reporting lower sales than expected by analysts with expectation that revenue for the S&P 500 will be lower in Jun-Sep 2012 for the entities represented in the index. Results of US companies are likely repeated worldwide. It may be quite painful to exit QE→∞ or use of the balance sheet of the central together with zero interest rates forever. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:

Where R_τ is expected revenue in the time horizon from τ =1 to T; C_τ denotes costs; and ρ is an appropriate rate of discount. In words, the value today of a stock or investment project is the net revenue, or revenue less costs, in the investment period from τ =1 to T discounted to the present by an appropriate rate of discount. In the current weak economy, revenues have been increasing more slowly than anticipated in investment plans. An increase in interest rates would affect discount rates used in calculations of present value, resulting in frustration of investment decisions. If V represents value of the stock or investment project, as ρ → ∞, meaning that interest rates increase without bound, then V → 0, or

declines. Equally, decline in expected revenue from the stock or project, R_τ, causes decline in valuation. An intriguing issue is the difference in performance of valuations of risk financial assets and economic growth and employment. Paul A. Samuelson (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1970/samuelson-bio.html).

IA Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth. The US is experiencing the first expansion from a recession after World War II without growth, jobs (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html) and hiring (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html), unsustainable government deficit/debt (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html

The economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as decelerating from mediocre growth of 2.4 percent on an annual basis in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011 to 2.2 percent in 2012. Calculations below show that actual growth is around 1.9 percent per year. This rate is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which has been always recovered after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). United States real GDP grew at the rate of 3.2 percent between 1929 and 2012 and at 3.2 percent between 1947 and 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html). Growth is not only mediocre but also sharply decelerating to a rhythm that is not consistent with reduction of unemployment and underemployment of 29.6 million people corresponding to 18.2 percent of the effective labor force of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). In the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, US real GDP grew at the seasonally-adjusted annual equivalent rates of 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2011 (IQ2011), 2.5 percent in IIQ2011, 1.3 percent in IIIQ2011, 4.1 percent in IVQ2011, 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012, revised 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012, 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 and 2.5 percent in IQ2013. The annual equivalent rate of growth of GDP for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent, obtained as follows. Discounting 0.1 percent to one quarter is 0.025 percent {[(1.001)^1/4 -1]100 = 0.025}; discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 4.1 percent to one quarter is 1.0 {[(1.04)^1/4 -1]100; discounting 2.0 percent to one quarter is 0.50 percent {[(1.020)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 -1]100}; discounting 3.1 percent to one quarter is 0.77 {[(1.031)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 0.4 percent to one quarter is 0.1 percent {[(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100}; and discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 -1}100}. Real GDP growth in the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 accumulated to 4.3 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. This is equivalent to growth from IQ2011 to IVQ2012 obtained by dividing the seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of IQ2013 of $13,750.1 billion by the SAAR of IVQ2010 of $13,181.2 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 and Table I-6 below) and expressing as percentage {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062)^4/9 -1]100 = 1.9%], or {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2)]^4/9-1]100 = 1.9%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table I-6 below, obtaining the average for nine quarters and the annual average for one year of four quarters. Growth in the four quarters of 2012 accumulates to 1.7 percent {[(1.02)^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.031)^1/4(1.004)^1/4 -1]100 = 1.7%}. This is equivalent to dividing the SAAR of $13,665.4 billion for IVQ2012 in Table I-6 by the SAAR of $13,441.0 billion in IVQ2011 except for a rounding discrepancy to obtain 1.7 percent {[($13,665.4/$13,441.0) – 1]100 = 1.7%}. The US economy is still close to a standstill especially considering the GDP report in detail.

The objective of this section is analyzing US economic growth in the current cyclical expansion. There is initial discussion of the conventional explanation of the current recovery as being weak because of the depth of the contraction and the financial crisis and also brief discussion of the concept of “slow-growth recession.” Analysis that is more complete is in IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, which is updated with release of more information on the United States economic cycle (IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). The bulk of the section consists of comparison of the current growth experience of the US with earlier expansions after past deep contractions and consideration of recent performance.

This blog has analyzed systematically the weakness of the United States recovery in the current business cycle from IIIQ2009 to the present in comparison with the recovery from the two recessions in the 1980s from IQ1983 to IVQ1985. The United States has grown on average at 2.1 percent annual equivalent in the 15 quarters of expansion since IIIQ2009 while growth was 5.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1985. In contrast, Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). As a result, there are 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 18.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html).

The conventional explanation is that the recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) was so profound that it caused subsequent weak recovery and that historically growth after recessions with financial crises has been weaker. Michael D. Bordo (2012Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide evidence contradicting the conventional explanation: recovery is much stronger on average after profound contractions and also much stronger after recessions with financial crises than after recessions without financial crises. Insistence on the conventional explanation prevents finding policies that can accelerate growth, employment and prosperity.

A monumental effort of data gathering, calculation and analysis by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff is highly relevant to banking crises, financial crash, debt crises and economic growth (Reinhart 2010CB; Reinhart and Rogoff 2011AF, 2011Jul14, 2011EJ, 2011CEPR, 2010FCDC, 2010GTD, 2009TD, 2009AFC, 2008TDPV; see also Reinhart and Reinhart 2011Feb, 2010AF and Reinhart and Sbrancia 2011). See http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html The dataset of Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 1) is quite unique in breadth of countries and over time periods:

“Our results incorporate data on 44 countries spanning about 200 years. Taken together, the data incorporate over 3,700 annual observations covering a wide range of political systems, institutions, exchange rate and monetary arrangements and historic circumstances. We also employ more recent data on external debt, including debt owed by government and by private entities.”

Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 2011CEPR) classify the dataset of 2317 observations into 20 advanced economies and 24 emerging market economies. In each of the advanced and emerging categories, the data for countries is divided into buckets according to the ratio of gross central government debt to GDP: below 30, 30 to 60, 60 to 90 and higher than 90 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Table 1, 4). Median and average yearly percentage growth rates of GDP are calculated for each of the buckets for advanced economies. There does not appear to be any relation for debt/GDP ratios below 90. The highest growth rates are for debt/GDP ratios below 30: 3.7 percent for the average and 3.9 for the median. Growth is significantly lower for debt/GDP ratios above 90: 1.7 for the average and 1.9 percent for the median. GDP growth rates for the intermediate buckets are in a range around 3 percent: the highest 3.4 percent average is for the bucket 60 to 90 and 3.1 percent median for 30 to 60. There is even sharper contrast for the United States: 4.0 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio below 30; 3.4 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 30 to 60; 3.3 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 60 to 90; and minus 1.8 percent, contraction, of GDP for debt/GDP ratio above 90.

For the five countries with systemic financial crises—Iceland, Ireland, UK, Spain and the US—real average debt levels have increased by 75 percent between 2007 and 2009 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Figure 1). The cumulative increase in public debt in the three years after systemic banking crisis in a group of episodes after World War II is 86 percent (Reinhart and Rogoff 2011CEPR, Figure 2, 10).

An important concept is “this time is different syndrome,” which “is rooted in the firmly-held belief that financial crises are something that happens to other people in other countries at other times; crises do not happen here and now to us” (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010FCDC, 9). There is both an arrogance and ignorance in “this time is different” syndrome, as explained by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 34):

“The ignorance, of course, stems from the belief that financial crises happen to other people at other time in other places. Outside a small number of experts, few people fully appreciate the universality of financial crises. The arrogance is of those who believe they have figured out how to do things better and smarter so that the boom can long continue without a crisis.”

There is sober warning by Reinhart and Rogoff (2011CEPR, 42) on the basis of the momentous effort of their scholarly data gathering, calculation and analysis:

“Despite considerable deleveraging by the private financial sector, total debt remains near its historic high in 2008. Total public sector debt during the first quarter of 2010 is 117 percent of GDP. It has only been higher during a one-year sting at 119 percent in 1945. Perhaps soaring US debt levels will not prove to be a drag on growth in the decades to come. However, if history is any guide, that is a risky proposition and over-reliance on US exceptionalism may only be one more example of the “This Time is Different” syndrome.”

As both sides of the Atlantic economy maneuver around defaults the experience on debt and growth deserves significant emphasis in research and policy. The world economy is slowing with high levels of unemployment in advanced economies. Countries do not grow themselves out of unsustainable debts but rather through de facto defaults by means of financial repression and in some cases through inflation. This time is not different.

Professor Michael D. Bordo (2012Sep27), at Rutgers University, is providing clear thought on the correct comparison of the current business cycles in the United States with those in United States history. There are two issues raised by Professor Bordo: (1) incomplete conclusions by lumping together countries with different institutions, economic policies and financial systems; and (2) the erroneous contention that growth is mediocre after financial crises and deep recessions, which is repeated daily in the media, but that Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) persuasively demonstrate to be inconsistent with United States experience.

Depriving economic history of institutions is perilous as is illustrated by the economic history of Brazil. Douglass C. North (1994) emphasized the key role of institutions in explaining economic history. Rondo E. Cameron (1961, 1967, 1972) applied institutional analysis to banking history. Friedman and Schwartz (1963) analyzed the relation of money, income and prices in the business cycle and related the monetary policy of an important institution, the Federal Reserve System, to the Great Depression. Bordo, Choudhri and Schwartz (1995) analyze the counterfactual of what would have been economic performance if the Fed had used during the Great Depression the Friedman (1960) monetary policy rule of constant growth of money(for analysis of the Great Depression see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 198-217). Alan Meltzer (2004, 2010a,b) analyzed the Federal Reserve System over its history. The reader would be intrigued by Figure 5 in Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 15) in which Brazil is classified in external default for seven years between 1828 and 1834 but not again until 64 years later in 1989, above the 50 years of incidence for serial default. This void has been filled in scholarly research on nineteenth-century Brazil by William R. Summerhill, Jr. (2007SC, 2007IR). There are important conclusions by Summerhill on the exceptional sample of institutional change or actually lack of change, public finance and financial repression in Brazil between 1822 an 1899, combining tools of economics, political science and history. During seven continuous decades, Brazil did not miss a single interest payment with government borrowing without repudiation of debt or default. What is really surprising is that Brazil borrowed by means of long-term bonds and even more surprising interest rates fell over time. The external debt of Brazil in 1870 was ₤41,275,961 and the domestic debt in the internal market was ₤25,708,711, or 62.3 percent of the total (Summerhill 2007IR, 73).

The experience of Brazil differed from that of Latin America (Summerhill 2007IR). During the six decades when Brazil borrowed without difficulty, Latin American countries becoming independent after 1820 engaged in total defaults, suffering hardship in borrowing abroad. The countries that borrowed again fell again in default during the nineteenth century. Venezuela defaulted in four occasions. Mexico defaulted in 1827, rescheduling its debt eight different times and servicing the debt sporadically. About 44 percent of Latin America’s sovereign debt was in default in 1855 and approximately 86 percent of total government loans defaulted in London originated in Spanish American borrowing countries.

External economies of commitment to secure private rights in sovereign credit would encourage development of private financial institutions, as postulated in classic work by North and Weingast (1989), Summerhill 2007IR, 22). This is how banking institutions critical to the Industrial Revolution were developed in England (Cameron 1967). The obstacle in Brazil found by Summerhill (2007IR) is that sovereign debt credibility was combined with financial repression. There was a break in Brazil of the chain of effects from protecting public borrowing, as in North and Weingast (1989), to development of private financial institutions. According to Pelaez 1976, 283) following Cameron (1971, 1967):

“The banking law of 1860 placed severe restrictions on two basic modern economic institutions—the corporation and the commercial bank. The growth of the volume of bank credit was one of the most significant factors of financial intermediation and economic growth in the major trading countries of the gold standard group. But Brazil placed strong restrictions on the development of banking and intermediation functions, preventing the channeling of coffee savings into domestic industry at an earlier date.”

Brazil actually abandoned the gold standard during multiple financial crises in the nineteenth century, as it should have to protect domestic economic activity. Pelaez (1975, 447) finds similar experience in the first half of nineteenth-century Brazil:

“Brazil’s experience is particularly interesting in that in the period 1808-1851 there were three types of monetary systems. Between 1808 and 1829, there was only one government-related Bank of Brazil, enjoying a perfect monopoly of banking services. No new banks were established in the 1830s after the liquidation of the Bank of Brazil in 1829. During the coffee boom in the late 1830s and 1840s, a system of banks of issue, patterned after similar institutions in the industrial countries, supplied the financial services required in the first stage of modernization of the export economy.”

Financial crises in the advanced economies were transmitted to nineteenth-century Brazil by the arrival of a ship (Pelaez and Suzigan 1981). The explanation of those crises and the economy of Brazil requires knowledge and roles of institutions, economic policies and the financial system chosen by Brazil, in agreement with Bordo (2012Sep27).

The departing theoretical framework of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) is the plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988). Friedman (1988, 1) recalls “I was led to the model in the course of investigating the direction of influence between money and income. Did the common cyclical fluctuation in money and income reflect primarily the influence of money on income or of income on money?” Friedman (1964, 1988) finds useful for this purpose to analyze the relation between expansions and contractions. Analyzing the business cycle in the United States between 1870 and 1961, Friedman (1964, 15) found that “a large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion.” The depth of the contraction opens up more room in the movement toward full employment (Friedman 1964, 17):

“Output is viewed as bumping along the ceiling of maximum feasible output except that every now and then it is plucked down by a cyclical contraction. Given institutional rigidities and prices, the contraction takes in considerable measure the form of a decline in output. Since there is no physical limit to the decline short of zero output, the size of the decline in output can vary widely. When subsequent recovery sets in, it tends to return output to the ceiling; it cannot go beyond, so there is an upper limit to output and the amplitude of the expansion tends to be correlated with the amplitude of the contraction.”

Kim and Nelson (1999) test the asymmetric plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988) relative to a symmetric model using reference cycles of the NBER, finding evidence supporting the Friedman model. Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) analyze 27 cycles beginning in 1872, using various measures of financial crises while considering different regulatory and monetary regimes. The revealing conclusion of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR, 2) is that:

“Our analysis of the data shows that steep expansions tend to follow deep contractions, though this depends heavily on when the recovery is measured. In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength. For many configurations, the evidence for a robust bounce-back is stronger for cycles with financial crises than those without.”

The average rate of growth of real GDP in expansions after recessions with financial crises was 8 percent but only 6.9 percent on average for recessions without financial crises (Bordo 2012Sep27). Real GDP declined 12 percent in the Panic of 1907 and increased 13 percent in the recovery, consistent with the plucking model of Friedman (Bordo 2012Sep27). The comparison of recovery from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 is appropriate even when considering financial crises. There was significant financial turmoil during the 1980s. Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR, 11) identify a financial crisis in the United States starting in 1981. Benston and Kaufman (1997, 139) find that there was failure of 1150 US commercial and savings banks between 1983 and 1990, or about 8 percent of the industry in 1980, which is nearly twice more than between the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1934 through 1983. More than 900 savings and loans associations, representing 25 percent of the industry, were closed, merged or placed in conservatorships (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 74-7). The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) that received $150 billion of taxpayer funds to resolve insolvent savings and loans. The GDP of the US in 1989 was $5482.1 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the partial cost to taxpayers of that bailout was around 2.74 percent of GDP in a year. US GDP in 2011 is estimated at $15,075.7 billion, such that the bailout would be equivalent to cost to taxpayers of about $412.5 billion in current GDP terms. A major difference with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for private-sector banks is that most of the costs were recovered with interest gains whereas in the case of savings and loans there was no recovery. Money center banks were under extraordinary pressure from the default of sovereign debt by various emerging nations that represented a large share of their net worth (see Pelaez 1986).

Bordo (2012Sep27) finds two probable explanations for the weak recovery during the current economic cycle: (1) collapse of United States housing; and (2) uncertainty originating in fiscal policy, regulation and structural changes. There are serious doubts if monetary policy is adequate to recover the economy under these conditions.

The concept of growth recession was popular during the stagflation from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. The economy of the US underperformed with several recession episodes in “stop and go” fashion of policy and economic activity while the rate of inflation rose to the highest in a peacetime period (see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/risk-aversion-and-stagflation.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/global-inflation-seigniorage-monetary.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html Appendix I; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1999, 1998LB, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012FP, 2012JMCB). A growth recession could be defined as a period in which economic growth is insufficient to move the economy toward full employment of humans, equipment and other productive resources. The US is experiencing a dramatic slow growth recession with 29.550 million people in job stress, consisting of an effective number of unemployed of 19.490 million, 7.734 million employed part-time because they cannot find full employment and 2.326 million marginally attached to the labor force (see Table I-4 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). The discussion of the growth recession issue in the 1970s by two recognized economists of the twentieth century, James Tobin and Paul A. Samuelson, is worth recalling.

In analysis of the design of monetary policy in 1974, Tobin (1974, 219) finds that the forecast of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was also the target such that monetary policy would have to be designed and implemented to attain that target. The concern was with maintaining full employment as provided in the Employment Law of 1946 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1021.html http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C21.txt http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED164974.pdf) see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html), which also created the CEA. Tobin (1974, 219) describes the forecast/target of the CEA for 1974:

“The expected and approved path appears to be quarter-to-quarter rates of growth of real gross national product in 1974 of roughly -0.5, 0.1, and 1 percent, with unemployment rising to about 5.6 percent in the second quarter and remaining there the rest of the year. The rate of price inflation would fall shortly in the second quarter, but rise slightly toward the end of the year.”

Referring to monetary policy design, Tobin (1974, 221) states: “if interest rates remain stable or rise during the current (growth) recession and recovery, this will be a unique episode in business cycle annals.” Subpar economic growth is often called a “growth recession.” The critically important concept is that economic growth is not sufficient to move the economy toward full employment, creating the social and economic adverse outcome of idle capacity and unemployed and underemployed workers, much the same as currently.

The unexpected incidence of inflation surprises during growth recessions is considered by Samuelson (1974, 76):

“Indeed, if there were in Las Vegas or New York a continuous casino on the money GNP of 1974’s fourth quarter, it would be absurd to think that the best economic forecasters could improve upon the guess posted there. Whatever knowledge and analytical skill they possess would already have been fed into the bidding. It is a manifest contradiction to think that most economists can be expected to do better than their own best performance. I am saying that the best forecasters have been poor in predicting the general price level’s movements and level even a year ahead. By Valentine’s Day 1973 the best forecasters were beginning to talk of the growth recession that we now know did set in at the end of the first quarter. Aside from their end-of-1972 forecasts, the fashionable crowd has little to blame itself for when it comes to their 1973 real GNP projections. But, of course, they did not foresee the upward surge of food and decontrolled industrial prices. This has been a recurring pattern: surprise during the event at the virulence of inflation, wisdom after the event in demonstrating that it did, after all, fit with past patterns of experience.”

Economists are known for their forecasts being second only to those of astrologers. Accurate forecasts are typically realized for the wrong reasons. In contrast with meteorologists, economists do not even agree on what happened. There is not even agreement on what caused the global recession and why the economy has reached a perilous standstill.

Historical parallels are instructive but have all the limitations of empirical research in economics. The more instructive comparisons are not with the Great Depression of the 1930s but rather with the recessions in the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s. The growth rates and job creation in the expansion of the economy away from recession are subpar in the current expansion compared to others in the past. Four recessions are initially considered, following the reference dates of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html ): IIQ1953-IIQ1954, IIIQ1957-IIQ1958, IIIQ1973-IQ1975 and IQ1980-IIIQ1980. The data for the earlier contractions illustrate that the growth rate and job creation in the current expansion are inferior. The sharp contractions of the 1950s and 1970s are considered in Table I-1, showing the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) quarter-to-quarter, seasonally adjusted (SA), yearly-equivalent growth rates of GDP. The recovery from the recession of 1953 consisted of four consecutive quarters of high percentage growth rates from IIIQ1954 to IIIQ1955: 4.6, 8.3, 12.0, 6.8 and 5.4. The recession of 1957 was followed by four consecutive high percentage growth rates from IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959: 9.7, 9.7, 8.3 and 10.5. The recession of 1973-1975 was followed by high percentage growth rates from IIQ1975 to IIQ1976: 6.9, 5.3, 9.4 and 3.0. The disaster of the Great Inflation and Unemployment of the 1970, which made stagflation notorious, is even better in growth rates during the expansion phase in comparison with the current slow-growth recession.

Table I-1, US, Quarterly Growth Rates of GDP, % Annual Equivalent SA

	IQ	IIQ	IIIQ	IVQ
1953	7.7	3.1	-2.4	-6.2
1954	-1.9	0.5	4.6	8.3
1955	12.0	6.8	5.5	2.2
1957	2.5	-1.0	3.9	-4.1
1958	-10.4	2.5	9.7	9.7
1959	8.3	10.5	-0.5	1.4
1973	10.6	4.7	-2.1	3.9
1974	3.5	1.0	-3.9	6.9
1975	-4.8	3.1	6.9	5.3
1976	9.4	3.0	2.0	2.9
1979	0.7	0.4	2.9	1.1
1980	1.3	-7.9	-0.7	7.6

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The NBER dates another recession in 1980 that lasted about half a year. If the two recessions from IQ1980s to IIIQ1980 and IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 are combined, the impact of lost GDP of 4.8 percent is more comparable to the latest revised 4.7 percent drop of the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. The recession in 1981-1982 is quite similar on its own to the 2007-2009 recession. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1930 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.5 percent cumulatively and fell 45.6 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). Table I-2 provides the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) quarterly growth rates of GDP in SA yearly equivalents for the recessions of 1981 to 1982 and 2007 to 2009, using the latest major revision published on Jul 29, 2011 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/pdf/gdp2q11_adv.pdf) and the revision back to 2009 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp2q12_adv.pdf) and the first estimate for IQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp1q13_adv.pdf), which are available in the dataset of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). There were four quarters of contraction in 1981-1982 ranging in rate from -1.5 percent to -6.4 percent and five quarters of contraction in 2007-2009 ranging in rate from -0.3 percent to -8.9 percent. The striking difference is that in the first fifteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, shown in Table I-2 in relief, GDP grew at the high quarterly percentage growth rates of 5.1, 9.3, 8.1, 8.5, 8.0, 7.1, 3.9, 3.3, 3.8, 3.4, 6.4, 3.1, 3.9, 1.6 and 3.9 while the percentage growth rates in the first fourteen quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012, shown in relief in Table I-2, were mediocre: 1.4, 4.0, 2.3, 2.2, 2.6, 2.4, 0.1, 2.5, 1.3, 4.1, 2.0, 1.3, 3.1, 0.4 and 2.5. Asterisks denote the estimates that have been revised by the BEA in the first round of Jul 29, 2011 and double asterisks the revisions released on Jul 27, 2012. During the four quarters of 2011 GDP grew at annual equivalent rates of 0.1 percent in IQ2011, 2.5 percent in IIQ2011, 1.3 percent in IIIQ2011 and 4.1 percent in IVQ2011. The rate of growth of the US economy decelerated from seasonally-adjusted annual equivalent of 4.1 percent in IVQ2011 to 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012, 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012, which is more like 1.73 percent without contributions of 0.73 percentage points by inventory change and 0.64 percentage points by one-time expenditures in national defense and 0.4 percent in IVQ2012, which is more like 3.2 percent without deductions of 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percent of reductions of one-time national defense expenditures. Inventory change contributed to initial growth but was rapidly replaced by growth in investment and demand in 1983. Inventory accumulation contributed 2.53 percentage points to the rate of growth of 4.1 percent in IVQ2011, which is the only relatively high rate from IQ2011 to IIIQ2012, and 0.73 percentage points to the rate of 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012. Economic growth and employment creation decelerated rapidly during 2012 and in 2013 as would be required from movement to full employment.

Table I-2, US, Quarterly Growth Rates of GDP, % Annual Equivalent SA

Q	1981	1982	1983	1984	2008	2009	2010
I	8.6	-6.4	5.1	8.0	-1.8*	-5.3**	2.3**
II	-3.2	2.2	9.3	7.1	1.3*	-0.3**	2.2**
III	4.9	-1.5	8.1	3.9	-3.7*	1.4**	2.6**
IV	-4.9	0.3	8.5	3.3	-8.9*	4.0**	2.4**
				1985			2011
I				3.8			0.1**
II				3.4			2.5**
III				6.4			1.3**
IV				3.1			4.1**
				1986			2012
I				3.9			2.0**
II				1.6			1.3
III				3.9			3.1
IV				1.9			0.4
				1987			2013
I				2.2			2.5
II				4.3
III				3.5
IV				7.0

*Revision of Jul 29, 2011 **Revision of Jul 27, 2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-1 of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides strong growth of real GDP in the US between 1947 and 1999 at the yearly average rate of 3.5 percent. There is an evident acceleration of the rate of GDP growth in the 1990s as shown by a much sharper slope of the growth curve. Cobet and Wilson (2002) define labor productivity as the value of manufacturing output produced per unit of labor input used (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). Between 1950 and 2000, labor productivity in the US grew less rapidly than in Germany and Japan. The major part of the increase in productivity in Germany and Japan occurred between 1950 and 1973 while the rate of productivity growth in the US was relatively subdued in several periods. While Germany and Japan reached their highest growth rates of productivity before 1973, the US accelerated its rate of productivity growth in the second half of the 1990s. Between 1950 and 2000, the rate of productivity growth in the US of 2.9 percent per year was much lower than 6.3 percent in Japan and 4.7 percent in Germany. Between 1995 and 2000, the rate of productivity growth of the US of 4.6 percent exceeded that of Japan of 3.9 percent and the rate of Germany of 2.6 percent.

Chart I-1, US, Real GDP 1947-1999

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-2 provides the growth of real quarterly GDP in the US between 1947 and 2012. The drop of output in the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 has been followed by anemic recovery compared with return to trend at 3.0 percent from 1870 to 2010 after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May) and a standstill that can lead to growth recession, or low rates of economic growth, but perhaps even another contraction or conventional recession. The average rate of growth from 1947 to 2012 has dropped to 3.2 percent. The average growth rate from 2000 to 2012 is only 1.6 percent with 2.7 percent annual equivalent from the end of the recession in IVQ2001 to the end of the expansion in IVQ2007.

Chart I-2, US, Real GDP 1947-2012

Source:

US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-3 provides real GDP percentage change on the quarter a year earlier for 1983-1984. The objective is simply to compare expansion in two recoveries from sharp contractions as shown in Table II-2. Growth rates in the early phase of the recovery in 1983 and 1984 were very high, which is the opportunity to reduce unemployment that has characterized cyclical expansion in the postwar US economy.

Chart I-3, Real GDP Percentage Change on Quarter a Year Earlier 1983-1985

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

In contrast, growth rates in the comparable first fourteen quarters of expansion from 2009 to 2012 in Chart I-4 have been mediocre. As a result, growth has not provided the exit from unemployment and underemployment as in other cyclical expansions in the postwar period. Growth rates did not rise in V shape as in earlier expansions and then declined close to the standstill of growth recessions.

Chart I-4, US, Real GDP Percentage Change on Quarter a Year Earlier 2009-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table II-3 provides percentage change of real GDP in the United States in the 1930s, 1980s and 2000s. The recession in 1981-1982 is quite similar on its own to the 2007-2009 recession. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1930 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.7 percent cumulatively and fell 45.6 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). Data are available for the 1930s only on a yearly basis. US GDP fell 4.8 percent in the two recessions (1) from IQ1980 to IIIQ1980 and (2) from III1981 to IVQ1981 to IVQ1982 and 4.7 percent cumulatively in the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. It is instructive to compare the first three years of the expansions in the 1980s and the current expansion. GDP grew at 4.5 percent in 1983, 7.2 percent in 1984 and 4.1 percent in 1985 while GDP grew, 2.4 percent in 2010, 1.8 percent in 2011 and 2.2 percent in 2012. Actual cumulative GDP growth in the four quarters of 2012 is 1.7 percent. GDP grew at 4.1 percent in 1985 and 3.5 percent in 1986 while the forecasts of participants of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) are in the range of 2.3 to 2.8 percent in 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20130320.pdf).

Table I-3, US, Percentage Change of GDP in the 1930s, 1980s and 2000s, ∆%

Year	GDP ∆%	Year	GDP ∆%	Year	GDP ∆%
1930	-8.6	1980	-0.3	2000	4.1
1931	-6.5	1981	2.5	2001	1.1
1932	-13.1	1982	-1.9	2002	1.8
1933	-1.3	1983	4.5	2003	2.5
1934	10.9	1984	7.2	2004	3.5
1935	8.9	1985	4.1	2005	3.1
1936	13.1	1986	3.5	2006	2.7
1937	5.1	1987	3.2	2007	1.9
1938	-3.4	1988	4.1	2008	-0.3
1930	8.1	1989	3.6	2009	-3.1
1940	8.8	1990	1.9	2010	2.4
1941	17.1	1991	-0.2	2011	1.8
1942	18.5	1992	3.4	2012	2.2

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-5 provides percentage change of GDP in the US during the 1930s. There is vast literature analyzing the Great Depression (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009), 198-217). Cole and Ohanian (1999) find that US real per capita output was 11 percent lower in 1939 than in 1929 while the typical expansion of real per capita output in the US during a decade is 31 percent. Private hours worked in the US were 25 percent lower in 1939 relative to 1929.

Chart I-5, US, Percentage Change of GDP in the 1930s

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

In contrast, Chart I-6 shows rapid recovery from the recessions in the 1980s. High growth rates in the initial quarters of expansion eliminated the unemployment and underemployment created during the contraction. The economy then returned to grow at the trend of expansion, interrupted by another contraction in 1991.

Chart I-6, US, Percentage Change of GDP in the 1980s

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-7 provides the rates of growth during the 2000s. Growth rates in the initial fifteen quarters of expansion have been relatively lower than during recessions after World War II. As a result, unemployment and underemployment continue at the rate of 19.2 percent of the US labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html) with weak hiring (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html).

Chart I-7, US, Percentage Change of GDP in the 2000s

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Characteristics of the four cyclical contractions are provided in Table I-4 with the first column showing the number of quarters of contraction; the second column the cumulative percentage contraction; and the final column the average quarterly rate of contraction. There were two contractions from IQ1980 to IIIQ1980 and from IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 separated by three quarters of expansion. The drop of output combining the declines in these two contractions is 4.8 percent, which is almost equal to the decline of 4.7 percent in the contraction from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1930 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.7 percent cumulatively and fell 45.6 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). The comparison of the global recession after 2007 with the Great Depression is entirely misleading.

Table I-4, US, Number of Quarters, Cumulative Percentage Contraction and Average Percentage Annual Equivalent Rate in Cyclical Contractions

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Percentage Contraction	Average Percentage Rate
IIQ1953 to IIQ1954	4	-2.5	-0.64
IIIQ1957 to IIQ1958	3	-3.1	-1.1
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980	2	-2.2	-1.1
IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	4	-2.6	-0.67
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	6	-4.7	-0.80

Sources: Business Cycle Reference Dates: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table I-5 shows the extraordinary contrast between the mediocre average annual equivalent growth rate of 2.1 percent of the US economy in the fourteen quarters of the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012 and the average of 5.7 percent in the first thirteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1986 and 5.3 percent in the first fifteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986. The line “average first four quarters in four expansions” provides the average growth rate of 7.8 with 7.9 percent from IIIQ1954 to IIQ1955, 9.6 percent from IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959, 6.1 percent from IIIQ1975 to IIQ1986 and 7.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983. The United States missed this opportunity of high growth in the initial phase of recovery. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). Table I-5 provides an average of 7.8 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions while the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 is only 3.2 percent obtained by diving GDP of $13,103.5 billion in IIIQ2010 by GDP of $12,701.0 billion in IIQ2009 {[$13.103.5/$12,701.0 -1]100 = 3.2%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates. As a result, there are 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 18.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). BEA data show the US economy in standstill with annual growth of 2.4 percent in 2010 decelerating to 1.8 percent annual growth in 2011, 2.2 percent in 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and cumulative 1.7 percent in the four quarters of 2012 {[(1.02)^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.031)^1/4(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100 = 1.7%} with minor rounding discrepancy using the SSAR of $13,665.4 billion in IVQ2012 relative to the SAAR of $13,441.0 billion in IVQ2011 {[($13665.4/$13441.00-1]100 = 1.7%}. %}. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062)^4/9 -1]100 = 1.9%], or {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2)]^4/9-1]100 = 1.9%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table I-6 below, obtaining the average for nine quarters and the annual average for one year of four quarters. The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent and at 7.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983.

Table I-5, US, Number of Quarters, Cumulative Growth and Average Annual Equivalent Growth Rate in Cyclical Expansions

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Growth ∆%	Average Annual Equivalent Growth Rate
IIIQ 1954 to IQ1957	11	12.6	4.4
First Four Quarters IIIQ1954 to IIQ1955	4	7.9
IIQ1958 to IIQ1959	5	10.2	8.1
First Four Quarters IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959	4	9.6
IIQ1975 to IVQ1976	8	9.5	4.6
First Four Quarters IIIQ1975 to IIQ1976	4	6.1
IQ1983 to IQ1986 IQ1983 to IIIQ1986	13 15	19.6 21.3	5.7 5.3
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	4	7.7
Average First Four Quarters in Four Expansions*		7.8
IIIQ2009 to IQ2013	15	8.3	2.1
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2010		3.2

*First Four Quarters: 7.9% IIIQ1954-IIQ1955; 9.6% IIIQ1958-IIQ1959; 6.1% IIIQ1975-IIQ1976; 7.7% IQ1983-IVQ1983

Sources: Business Cycle Reference Dates: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-8 shows US real quarterly GDP growth from 1980 to 1989. The economy contracted during the recession and then expanded vigorously throughout the 1980s, rapidly eliminating the unemployment caused by the contraction.

Chart I-8, US, Real GDP, 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-9 shows the entirely different situation of real quarterly GDP in the US between 2007 and 2012. The economy has underperformed during the first fifteen quarters of expansion for the first time in the comparable contractions since the 1950s. The US economy is now in a perilous standstill.

Chart I-9, US, Real GDP, 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

As shown in Tables I-4 and I-5 above the loss of real GDP in the US during the contraction was 4.7 percent but the gain in the cyclical expansion has been only 8.3 percent (last row in Table I-5), using all latest revisions. As a result, the level of real GDP in IQ2013 with the third estimate and revisions is only higher by 3.2 percent than the level of real GDP in IVQ2007. Table I-6 provides in the second column real GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars. The third column provides the percentage change of the quarter relative to IVQ2007; the fourth column provides the percentage change relative to the prior quarter; and the final fifth column provides the percentage change relative to the same quarter a year earlier. The contraction actually concentrated in two quarters: decline of 2.3 percent in IVQ2008 relative to the prior quarter and decline of 1.3 percent in IQ2009 relative to IVQ2008. The combined fall of GDP in IVQ2008 and IQ2009 was 3.6 percent {[(1-0.023) x (1-0.013) -1]100 = -3.6%}, or {[(IQ2009 $12,711.0)/(IIIQ2008 $13,186.9) – 1]100 = -3.6%}. Those two quarters coincided with the worst effects of the financial crisis. GDP fell 0.1 percent in IIQ2009 but grew 0.4 percent in IIIQ2009, which is the beginning of recovery in the cyclical dates of the NBER. Most of the recovery occurred in five successive quarters from IVQ2009 to IVQ2010 of growth of 1.0 percent in IVQ2009 and equal growth at 0.6 percent in IQ2010, IIQ2010, IIIQ2010 and IVQ2010 for cumulative growth in those five quarters of 3.4 percent, obtained by accumulating the quarterly rates {[(1.01 x 1.006 x 1.006 x 1.006 x 1.006) – 1]100 = 3.4%} or {[(IVQ2010 $13,181.2)/(IIIQ2009 $12,746.7) – 1]100 = 3.4%}. The economy lost momentum already in 2010 growing at 0.6 percent in each quarter, or annual equivalent 2.4 per cent {[(1.006)⁴ – 1]100 = 2.4%}, compared with annual equivalent 4.1 percent in IV2009 {[(1.01)⁴ – 1]100 = 4.1%}. The economy then stalled during the first half of 2011 with growth of 0.0025 percent in IQ2011 and 0.6 percent in IIQ2011 for combined annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent {(1.00025 x 1.006)²}. The economy grew 0.3 percent in IIIQ2011 for annual equivalent growth of 1.2 percent in the first three quarters {[(1.00025 x 1.006 x 1.003)^4/3 -1]100 = 1.2%}. Growth picked up in IVQ2011 with 1.0 percent relative to IIIQ2011. Growth in a quarter relative to a year earlier in Table I-6 slows from over 2.4 percent during three consecutive quarters from IIQ2010 to IVQ2010 to 1.8 percent in IQ2011, 1.9 percent in IIQ2011, 1.6 percent in IIIQ2011 and 2.0 percent in IVQ2011. As shown below, growth of 1.0 percent in IVQ2011 was partly driven by inventory accumulation. In IQ2012, GDP grew 0.5 percent relative to IVQ2011 and 2.4 percent relative to IQ2011, decelerating to 0.3 percent in IIQ2012 and 2.1 percent relative to IIQ2011 and 0.8 percent in IIIQ2012 and 2.6 percent relative to IIIQ2011 largely because of inventory accumulation and national defense expenditures. Growth was 0.1 percent in IVQ2012 with 1.7 percent relative to a year earlier but mostly because of 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of reduction of one-time national defense expenditures. Growth was 0.6 percent in IQ2013 and 1.8 percent relative to IQ2012 in large part because of burning savings to consume caused by financial repression of zero interest rates. Rates of a quarter relative to the prior quarter capture better deceleration of the economy than rates on a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. The critical question for which there is not yet definitive solution is whether what lies ahead is continuing growth recession with the economy crawling and unemployment/underemployment at extremely high levels or another contraction or conventional recession. Forecasts of various sources continued to maintain high growth in 2011 without taking into consideration the continuous slowing of the economy in late 2010 and the first half of 2011. The sovereign debt crisis in the euro area is one of the common sources of doubts on the rate and direction of economic growth in the US but there is weak internal demand in the US with almost no investment and spikes of consumption driven by burning saving because of financial repression forever in the form of zero interest rates.

Table I-6, US, Real GDP and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars and ∆%

	Real GDP, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	13,326.0	NA	NA	2.2
IQ2008	13,266.8	-0.4	-0.4	1.6
IIQ2008	13,310.5	-0.1	0.3	1.0
IIIQ2008	13,186.9	-1.0	-0.9	-0.6
IVQ2008	12,883.5	-3.3	-2.3	-3.3
IQ2009	12,711.0	-4.6	-1.3	-4.2
IIQ2009	12,701.0	-4.7	-0.1	-4.6
IIIQ2009	12,746.7	-4.3	0.4	-3.3
IV2009	12,873.1	-3.4	1.0	-0.1
IQ2010	12,947.6	-2.8	0.6	1.9
IIQ2010	13,019.6	-2.3	0.6	2.5
IIIQ2010	13,103.5	-1.7	0.6	2.8
IVQ2010	13,181.2	-1.1	0.6	2.4
IQ2011	13,183.8	-1.1	0.0	1.8
IIQ2011	13,264.7	-0.5	0.6	1.9
IIIQ2011	13,306.9	-0.1	0.3	1.6
IV2011	13,441.0	0.9	1.0	2.0
IQ2012	13,506.4	1.4	0.5	2.4
IIQ2012	13,548.5	1.7	0.3	2.1
IIIQ2012	13,652.5	2.5	0.8	2.6
IVQ2012	13,665.4	2.5	0.1	1.7
IQ2013	13,750.1	3.2	0.6	1.8

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-10 provides the percentage change of real GDP from the same quarter a year earlier from 1980 to 1989. There were two contractions almost in succession in 1980 and from 1981 to 1983. The expansion was marked by initial high rates of growth as in other recession in the postwar US period during which employment lost in the contraction was recovered. Growth rates continued to be high after the initial phase of expansion.

Chart I-10, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Quarter a Year Earlier 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The experience of recovery after 2009 is not as complete as during the 1980s. Chart I-11 shows the much lower rates of growth in the early phase of the current expansion and how they have sharply declined from an early peak. The US missed the initial high growth rates in cyclical expansions during which unemployment and underemployment are eliminated.

Chart I-11, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Quarter a Year Earlier 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-12 provides growth rates from a quarter relative to the prior quarter during the 1980s. There is the same strong initial growth followed by a long period of sustained growth.

Chart I-12, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Prior Quarter 1980-1989

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-13 provides growth rates in a quarter relative to the prior quarter from 2007 to 2012. Growth in the current expansion after IIIQ2009 has not been as strong as in other postwar cyclical expansions.

Chart I-13, Percentage Change of Real Gross Domestic Product from Prior Quarter 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The revised estimates and earlier estimates from IQ2008 to IQ2012 in seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rates are shown in Table I-7. The strongest revision is for IVQ2008 for which the contraction of GDP is revised from minus 6.8 percent to minus 8.9 percent. IQ2009 is also revised from contraction of minus 4.9 percent to minus 6.7 percent but then lowered to contraction of 5.3 percent. There is only minor revision in IIIQ2008 of the contraction of minus 4.0 percent to minus 3.7 percent. Growth of 5.0 percent in IV2009 is revised to 3.8 percent and then increased to 4.0 percent. Growth in IQ2010 is lowered from 3.9 percent to 2.3 percent. Growth in IIQ2010 is upwardly revised to 3.8 percent but then lowered to 2.2 percent. The revisions do not alter the conclusion that the current expansion is much weaker than historical sharp contractions since the 1950s and is now changing into slow growth recession with higher risks of contraction.

Table I-7, US, Quarterly Growth Rates of GDP, % Annual Equivalent SA, Revised and Earlier Estimates

Quarters	Revised Estimate Jul 27, 2012	Revised Estimate Jul 29, 2011	Earlier Estimate
2008
I		-1.8	-0.7
II		1.3	0.6
III		-3.7	-4.0
IV		-8.9	-6.8
2009
I	-5.3	-6.7	-4.9
II	-0.3	-0.7	-0.7
III	1.4	1.7	1.6
IV	4.0	3.8	5.0
2010
I	2.3	3.9	3.7
II	2.2	3.8	1.7
III	2.6	2.5	2.6
IV	2.4	2.3	3.1
2011
I	0.1	0.4	1.9
II	2.5
III	1.3
IV	4.1
2012
I	2.0
II	1.3
III	3.1
IV	0.4
2013
I	2.5

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Aggregate demand, personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and gross private domestic investment (GDI) were much stronger during the expansion phase in IQ1983 to IIQ1984 than in IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012, as shown in Table I-8. GDI provided the impulse of growth in 1983 and 1984, which has not been the case from 2009 to 2013. The investment decision in the US economy has been frustrated in the current cyclical expansion. Growth of GDP in IQ2013 at seasonally-adjusted rate of 2.5 percent consisted of positive contribution of 2.24 percentage points of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) plus positive contribution of 1.56 percentage points of gross private domestic investment (GDI) of which 1.03 percentage points of inventory investment (∆PI), negative net exports (trade or exports less imports) of 0.50 percentage points and negative 0.80 percentage points of government consumption expenditures and gross investment (GOV) mostly because of one-time reduction of national defense expenditures of 0.60 percentage points. Growth of GDP in IVQ2012 at seasonally-adjusted rate of 0.4 percent consisted of positive contribution of 1.28 percentage points of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) plus positive contribution of 0.17 percentage points of gross private domestic investment (GDI) of which minus 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment (∆PI), positive net exports (trade or exports less imports) of 0.33 percentage points and negative 1.41 percentage points of government consumption expenditures and gross investment (GOV) mostly because of one-time reduction of national defense expenditures of 1.28 percentage points. Growth of GDP in IIIQ2012 of 3.1 percent at seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) consisted of positive contributions of 1.12 percentage points of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) + 0.85 percentage points of gross domestic investment (GDI) but inventory change adding 0.73 percentage points (∆ PI) plus 0.38 percentage points of net exports (net trade or exports less imports) plus 0.75 percentage points of government consumption expenditures and gross investment (GOV) but national defense expenditures adding 0.64 percentage points. While the contribution of personal consumption expenditures decreased from 1.72 percentage points in IQ2012 to 1.06 percentage points in IIQ2012 and 1.12 percentage points in IIIQ2012, the contribution of government expenditures increased from deduction of 0.14 percentage points in IIQ2012 to adding 0.75 percentage points in IIIQ2012. The bulk of the contribution of government consisted of 0.64 percentage points of one-time national defense expenditures resulting from growth of national defense expenditures at the seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 12.9 percent in IIIQ2012. In IVQ2012, national defense expenditures fell at the SAAR of 22.1 percent, deducting 1.28 percentage points from GDP growth. The contribution of PCE fell from 1.72 percentage points in IQ2012 to 1.06 percentage points in IIQ2012 and 1.12 percentage points in IIIQ2012 as savings decreased but increased to contribution of 1.28 percentage points in IVQ2012 and 2.24 percentage points in IQ2013. The contribution of GDI decreased from 0.78 percentage points in IQ2012 to 0.09 percentage points in IIQ2012 and 0.85 percentage points in IIIQ2012 with inventory accumulation adding 0.73 percentage points in IIIQ2012 relative to deduction of 0.46 percentage points in IIQ2012. GDI added 0.17 percentage points to growth in IVQ2012 mostly because of inventory divestment of 1.52 percentage points. GDI contributed 1.56 percentage points in IQ2013 of which 1.03 percentage points contributed by inventory accumulation. Growth in IVQ2011 was driven mainly by increase in private inventories of 2.53 percentage points. The economy of the United States has lost the dynamic growth impulse of earlier cyclical expansions with mediocre growth resulting from consumption forced by one-time effects of financial repression, national defense expenditures and inventory accumulation.

Table I-8, US, Contributions to the Rate of Growth of GDP in Percentage Points

	GDP	PCE	GDI	∆ PI	Trade	GOV
2013
I	2.5	2.24	1.56	1.03	-0.50	-0.80
2012
I	2.0	1.72	0.78	-0.39	0.06	-0.60
II	1.3	1.06	0.09	-0.46	0.23	-0.14
III	3.1	1.12	0.85	0.73	0.38	0.75
IV	0.4	1.28	0.17	-1.52	0.33	-1.41
2011
I	0.1	2.22	-0.68	-0.54	0.03	-1.49
II	2.5	0.70	1.40	0.01	0.54	-0.16
III	1.3	1.18	0.68	-1.07	0.02	-0.60
IV	4.1	1.45	3.72	2.53	-0.64	-0.43
2010
I	2.3	1.72	2.13	2.23	-0.83	-0.69
II	2.2	1.81	1.65	0.07	-1.81	0.59
III	2.6	1.75	1.87	1.97	-0.95	-0.06
IV	2.4	2.84	-0.75	-1.61	1.24	-0.94
2009
I	-5.3	-1.06	-7.02	-2.29	2.45	0.37
II	-0.3	-1.21	-3.52	-1.03	2.47	1.94
III	1.4	1.50	-0.14	0.19	-0.70	0.79
IV	4.0	-0.01	3.85	4.55	-0.05	0.23
1982
I	-6.4	1.62	-7.50	-5.47	-0.49	-0.03
II	2.2	0.90	-0.05	2.35	0.84	0.50
III	-1.5	1.92	-0.72	1.15	-3.31	0.57
IV	0.3	4.64	-5.66	-5.48	-0.10	1.44
1983
I	5.1	2.54	2.20	0.94	-0.30	0.63
II	9.3	5.22	5.87	3.51	-2.54	0.75
III	8.1	4.66	4.30	0.60	-2.32	1.48
IV	8.5	4.20	6.84	3.09	-1.17	-1.35
1984
I	8.0	2.35	7.15	5.07	-2.37	0.86
II	7.1	3.75	2.44	-0.30	-0.89	1.79
III	3.9	2.02	1.67	0.21	-0.36	0.62
IV	3.3	3.38	-1.26	-2.50	-0.58	1.75
1985
I	3.8	4.34	-2.38	-2.94	0.91	0.95
II	3.4	2.35	1.24	0.35	-2.01	1.85
III	6.4	4.91	-0.68	-0.16	-0.01	2.18
IV	3.1	0.54	2.72	1.45	-0.68	0.50

Note: PCE: personal consumption expenditures; GDI: gross private domestic investment; ∆ PI: change in private inventories; Trade: net exports of goods and services; GOV: government consumption expenditures and gross investment; – is negative and no sign positive

GDP: percent change at annual rate; percentage points at annual rates

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (page 2 http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp1q13_adv.pdf) explains growth of GDP in IVQ2012 as follows:

“The acceleration in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private inventory investment, an acceleration in PCE, an upturn in exports, and a smaller decrease in federal government spending that were partly offset by an upturn in imports and a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment. “

There are positive contributions to growth in IQ2013 shown in Table II-9:

Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) growing at 3.2 percent with consumption of durable goods growing at 8.1 percent
Residential fixed investment (RFI) growing at 12.6 percent
Nonresidential fixed investment growing at 2.1 percent
Private inventory investment contributing 1.03 percentage points

There were negative contributions in IVQ2012:

Federal government expenditures declining at 8.4 percent mostly because of decline of national defense expenditures at 11.5 percent that deducted 0.60 percentage points from GDP growth
Growth of imports, which are deduction to growth, at 5.4 percent while exports, which are a contribution to growth, grew at the lower rate of 2.9 percent
Reduction of consumption expenditures and gross investment of state and local government at 1.2 percent

The BEA explains acceleration in real GDP growth in IQ2013 by:

Increase in the rate of growth of PCE from 1.8 percent in IVQ2012 to 3.2 percent in IQ2013
Change in private inventories of 1.03 percentage points in IQ2013 compared with decline of 1.52 percentage points in IV2012

An important aspect of growth in the US is the decline in growth of real disposable personal income, or what is left after taxes and inflation, which increased at the rate of 0.9 percent in IQ2013 compared with a year earlier. The effects of financial repression, or zero interest, are vividly shown in the decline of the savings rate, or personal saving as percent of disposable income from 4.7 percent in IVQ2012 to 2.6 percent in IQ2013. Zero interest rates induce risky investments with high leverage and can contract balance sheets of families, business and financial institutions when interest rates inevitably increase in the future. There is a tradeoff of weaker economy in the future when interest rates increase by meager growth in the present with forced consumption by zero interest rates.

Table I-9, US, Percentage Seasonally Adjusted Annual Equivalent Quarterly Rates of Increase, %

	IQ 2012	IIQ 2012	IIIQ 2012	IVQ 2012	IQ 2013
GDP	2.0	1.3	3.1	0.4	2.5
PCE	2.4	1.5	1.6	1.8	3.2
Durable Goods	11.5	-0.2	8.9	13.6	8.1
NRFI	7.5	3.6	-1.8	13.2	2.1
RFI	20.5	8.5	13.5	17.6	12.6
Exports	4.4	5.3	1.9	-2.8	2.9
Imports	3.1	2.8	-0.6	-4.2	5.4
GOV	-3.0	-0.7	3.9	-7.0	-4.1
Federal GOV	-4.2	-0.2	9.5	-14.8	-8.4
National Defense	-7.1	-0.2	12.9	-22.1	-11.5
Cont to GDP Growth % Points	-0.39	-0.01	0.64	-1.28	-0.60
State/Local GOV	-2.2	-1.0	0.3	-1.5	-1.2
∆ PI (PP)	-0.39	-0.46	0.73	-1.52	1.03
Final Sales of Domestic Product	2.4	1.7	2.4	1.9	1.5
Gross Domestic Purchases	1.8	1.0	2.6	0.0	2.9
Prices Gross Domestic Purchases	2.5	0.7	1.4	1.6	1.1
Prices of GDP	2.0	1.6	2.7	1.0	1.2
Prices of GDP Excluding Food and Energy	2.6	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.5
Prices of PCE	2.5	0.7	1.6	1.6	0.9
Prices of PCE Excluding Food and Energy	2.2	1.7	1.1	1.0	1.2
Prices of Market Based PCE	2.5	0.6	1.9	1.5	1.2
Prices of Market Based PCE Excluding Food and Energy	2.2	1.8	1.3	0.9	1.6
Real Disposable Personal Income*	0.2	1.1	1.6	3.2	0.9
Personal Savings As % Disposable Income	3.6	3.8	3.6	4.7	2.6

Note: PCE: personal consumption expenditures; NRFI: nonresidential fixed investment; RFI: residential fixed investment; GOV: government consumption expenditures and gross investment; ∆ PI: change in

private inventories; GDP - ∆ PI: final sales of domestic product; PP: percentage points; Personal savings rate: savings as percent of disposable income

*Percent change from quarter one year ago

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Percentage shares of GDP are shown in Table I-10. PCE is equivalent to 71.0 percent of GDP and is under pressure with stagnant real disposable income, high levels of unemployment and underemployment and higher savings rates than before the global recession, temporarily interrupted by financial repression in the form of zero interest rates. Gross private domestic investment is also growing slowly even with about two trillions of dollars in cash holdings by companies. In a slowing world economy, it may prove more difficult to grow exports faster than imports to generate higher growth. Bouts of risk aversion revalue the dollar relative to most currencies in the world as investors increase their holdings of dollar-denominated assets.

Table I-10, US, Percentage Shares of GDP, %

	IQ2013
GDP	100.0
PCE	71.0
Goods	24.1
Durable	8.0
Nondurable	16.2
Services	46.8
Gross Private Domestic Investment	13.5
Fixed Investment	13.1
NRFI	10.5
Structures	3.0
Equipment & Software	7.5
RFI	2.7
Change in Private Inventories	0.4
Net Exports of Goods and Services	-3.4
Exports	13.8
Goods	9.7
Services	4.1
Imports	17.3
Goods	14.4
Services	2.9
Government	18.9
Federal	7.4
National Defense	4.8
Nondefense	2.6
State and Local	11.6

PCE: personal consumption expenditures; NRFI: nonresidential fixed investment; RFI: residential fixed investment

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table I-11 shows percentage point (PP) contributions to the annual levels of GDP growth in the earlier recessions 1958-1959, 1975-1976, 1982-1983 and 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The data incorporate the new revisions released by the BEA on Jul 29, 2011 and Jul 27, 2012 and the first estimate of IQ2013 GDP released on Apr 26, 2013. The most striking contrast is in the rates of growth of annual GDP in the expansion phases of 7.2 percent in 1959, 4.5 percent in 1983 followed by 7.2 percent in 1984 and 4.1 percent in 1985 but only 2.4 percent in 2010 after six consecutive quarters of growth, 1.8 percent in 2011 after ten consecutive quarters of expansion and 2.2 percent in 2012 after 14 quarters of expansion. Annual levels also show much stronger growth of PCEs in the expansions after the earlier contractions than in the expansion after the global recession of 2007. Gross domestic investment was much stronger in the earlier expansions than in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Table I-11, US, Percentage Point Contributions to the Annual Growth Rate of GDP

	GDP	PCE	GDI	∆ PI	Trade	GOV
1958	-0.9	0.54	-1.25	-0.18	-0.89	0.70
1959	7.2	3.61	2.80	0.86	0.00	0.76
1975	-0.2	1.40	-2.98	-1.27	0.89	0.48
1976	5.4	3.51	2.84	1.41	-1.08	0.10
1982	-1.9	0.86	-2.55	-1.34	-0.60	0.35
1983	4.5	3.65	1.45	0.29	-1.35	0.76
1984	7.2	3.43	4.63	1.95	-1.58	0.70
1985	4.1	3.32	-0.17	-1.06	-0.42	1.41
2009	-3.1	-1.36	-3.59	-0.78	1.14	0.74
2010	2.4	1.28	1.50	1.52	-0.52	0.14
2011	1.8	1.79	0.62	-0.14	0.07	-0.67
2012	2.2	1.32	1.19	0.14	0.04	-0.34

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table I-12 provides more detail of the contributions to growth of GDP from 2009 to 2012 using annual-level data. PCEs contributed 1.28 PPs to GDP growth in 2010 of which 0.82 percentage points (PP) in goods and 0.46 PP in services. Gross private domestic investment (GPDI) deducted 3.59 PPs of GDP growth in 2009 of which -2.80 PPs by fixed investment and -0.78 PPs of inventory change (∆PI) and added 1.50 PPs of GPDI in 2010 of which minus 0.03 PPs of fixed investment and 1.52 PPs of inventory accumulation (∆PI). Trade, or exports of goods and services net of imports, contributed 1.14 PPs in 2009 of which exports deducted 1.14 PPs and imports added 2.28 PPs. In 2010, trade deducted 0.52 PPs with exports contributing 1.29 PPs and imports deducting 1.81 PPs likely benefitting from dollar devaluation. In 2009, government added 0.74 PP of which 0.46 PPs by the federal government and 0.28 PPs by state and local government; in 2010, government added 0.14 PPs of which 0.37 PPs by the federal government with state and local government deducting 0.23 PPs. The final two columns of Table I-12 provide the estimate for 2011. PCE contributed 1.79 PPs in 2011 after 1.28 PPs in 2010. The contribution of PCE fell to 1.32 points in 2012. The breakdown into goods and services is similar but with declining contributions in 2012 of goods, 0.74 PPs, and services, 0.58 PPs. Gross private domestic investment contributed 1.50 PPs in 2010 with addition of 1.52 PPs of change of private inventories but the contribution of gross private domestic investment was only 0.62 PPs in 2011. The contribution of GPDI in 2012 increased to 1.19 PPs with fixed investment increasing its contribution to 1.05 PPs and residential investment contributing 0.27 PPs for the first time since 2009. Net exports of goods and services contributed marginally in 2011 with 0.07 PPs and 0.04 PPs in 2012. The contribution of exports fell from 1.29 PPs in 2010 and 0.87 PPs in 2011 to only 0.47 PPs in 2012. Government deducted 0.67 PPs in 2011 and 0.34 PPs in 2012. The expansion since IIIQ2009 has been characterized by weak contributions of aggregate demand, which is the sum of personal consumption expenditures plus gross private domestic investment. The US did not recover strongly from the global recessions as typical in past cyclical expansions. Recoveries tend to be more sluggish as expansions mature. At the margin in IVQ2011, the acceleration of expansion was driven by inventory accumulation instead of aggregate demand of consumption and investment. Growth of PCE was partly the result of burning savings because of financial repression, which may not be sustainable in the future while creating multiple distortions of resource allocation and growth restraint.

Table I-12, US, Contributions to Growth of Gross Domestic Product in Percentage Points

	2009	2010	2011	2012
GDP Growth ∆%	-3.1	2.4	1.8	2.2
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)	-1.36	1.28	1.79	1.32
Goods	-0.69	0.82	0.89	0.74
Durable	-0.41	0.45	0.53	0.58
Nondurable	-0.28	0.37	0.36	0.15
Services	-0.67	0.46	0.90	0.58
Gross Private Domestic Investment (GPDI)	-3.59	1.50	0.62	1.19
Fixed Investment	-2.80	-0.03	0.76	1.05
Nonresidential	-2.08	0.07	0.80	0.78
Structures	-0.85	-0.50	0.07	0.29
Equipment, software	-1.23	0.56	0.72	0.49
Residential	-0.73	-0.09	-0.03	0.27
Change Private Inventories	-0.78	1.52	-0.14	0.14
Net Exports of Goods and Services	1.14	-0.52	0.07	0.04
Exports	-1.14	1.29	0.87	0.47
Goods	-1.05	1.11	0.65	0.41
Services	-0.10	0.18	0.22	0.06
Imports	2.28	-1.81	-0.80	-0.43
Goods	2.19	-1.74	-0.72	-0.31
Services	0.09	-0.07	-0.08	-0.12
Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment	0.74	0.14	-0.67	-0.34
Federal	0.46	0.37	-0.23	-0.18
National Defense	0.31	0.17	-0.15	-0.17
Nondefense	0.16	0.20	-0.09	-0.01
State and Local	0.28	-0.23	-0.43	-0.17

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Manufacturing jobs decreased 3,000 in Mar 2013 relative to Feb 2013, seasonally adjusted and increased 25,000 in Mar 2013 relative to Feb 2013, not seasonally adjusted, as shown in Table I-10 at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html. Manufacturing jobs not seasonally adjusted increased 80,000 from Mar 2012 to Mar 2013 or at the average monthly rate of 6,667. There are effects of the weaker economy and international trade together with the yearly adjustment of labor statistics. In the six months ending in Mar 2013, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 2.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.3 percent, which is higher than 3.5 percent growth in 12 months. Business equipment decreased 1.1 percent in Oct, increased 2.4 percent in Nov, increased 0.4 percent in Dec, fell 1.4 percent in Jan, increased 1.9 percent in Feb 2013 and 0.1 percent in Mar, growing 5.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2013 and at the annual equivalent rate of 4.6 percent in the six months ending in Mar 2013. Capacity utilization of total industry is analyzed by the Fed in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm) “ The rate of capacity utilization for total industry moved up in March to 78.5 percent, a rate that is 1.2 percentage points above its level of a year earlier but 1.7 percentage points below its long-run (1972--2012) average.” United States industry is apparently decelerating with some strength at the margin.

Manufacturing decreased 0.1 percent in Mar 2013 seasonally adjusted, increasing 2.1 percent not seasonally adjusted in 12 months, and increased 2.3 percent in the six months ending in Mar 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 4.7 percent. Manufacturing fell by 22.1 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increased 16.7 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2012. Manufacturing fell 7.0 percent from the peak in Jun 2007 to Mar 2013 and increased 19.4 from the trough in Apr 2008 to Mar 2013.

Table II-13 provides national income by industry without capital consumption adjustment (WCCA). “Private industries” or economic activities have share of 86.3 percent in US national income in IVQ2012 and 86.4 percent in IIIQ2012. Most of US national income is in the form of services. In Mar 2013, there were 134.485 million nonfarm jobs NSA in the US, according to estimates of the establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Table B-1). Total private jobs of 112.205 million NSA in Mar 2013 accounted for 83.4 percent of total nonfarm jobs of 134.485 million, of which 11.902 million, or 10.6 percent of total private jobs and 8.9 percent of total nonfarm jobs, were in manufacturing. Private service-producing jobs were 93.961 million NSA in Mar 2013, or 69.9 percent of total nonfarm jobs and 83.7 percent of total private-sector jobs. Manufacturing has share of 11.1 percent in US national income in IVQ2011 and 11.1 percent in IIIQ2012, as shown in Table I-13. Most income in the US originates in services. Subsidies and similar measures designed to increase manufacturing jobs will not increase economic growth and employment and may actually reduce growth by diverting resources away from currently employment-creating activities because of the drain of taxation.

Table I-13, US, National Income without Capital Consumption Adjustment by Industry, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates, Billions of Dollars, % of Total

	SAAR IIIQ2012	% Total	SAAR IVQ2012	% Total
National Income WCCA	13,976.7	100.0	14,122.2	100.0
Domestic Industries	13,733.6	98.3	13,855.6	98.1
Private Industries	12,075.0	86.4	12,192.5	86.3
Agriculture	138.6	1.0	138.9	1.0
Mining	205.3	1.5	214.7	1.5
Utilities	216.6	1.6	209.5	1.5
Construction	589.3	4.2	603.5	4.3
Manufacturing	1548.9	11.1	1563.1	11.1
Durable Goods	892.8	6.4	893.8	6.3
Nondurable Goods	656.1	4.7	669.3	4.7
Wholesale Trade	837.8	6.0	857.8	6.1
Retail Trade	957.4	6.9	972.8	6.9
Transportation & WH	415.5	3.0	415.8	2.9
Information	504.4	3.6	490.5	3.5
Finance, Insurance, RE	2330.6	16.7	2352.0	16.7
Professional, BS	2003.4	14.3	2029.0	14.4
Education, Health Care	1385.6	9.9	1395.5	9.9
Arts, Entertainment	539.4	3.9	544.4	3.9
Other Services	402.3	2.9	405.1	2.9
Government	1658.6	11.9	1663.0	11.8
Rest of the World	243.1	1.7	266.6	1.9

Notes: SSAR: Seasonally-Adjusted Annual Rate; WCCA: Without Capital Consumption Adjustment by Industry; WH: Warehousing; RE, includes rental and leasing: Real Estate; Art, Entertainment includes recreation, accommodation and food services; BS: business services

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

IA1. Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment. The United States economy has grown at the average yearly rate of 3 percent per year and 2 percent per year in per capita terms from 1870 to 2010, as measured by Lucas (2011May). An important characteristic of the economic cycle in the US has been rapid growth in the initial phase of expansion after recessions. In cyclical expansions since 1950, US GDP has grown at the average rate of 7.8 percent in the first four quarters after the trough, moving the economy back to long-term trend. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). As a result, there are 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 18.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html).

Growth of GDP has been only 2.1 percent on average during the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IQ2013. Weakness in the current cyclical expansion has occurred in growth, labor markets and wealth, as analyzed in IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation incorporating additional data on private investment (IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). Inferior performance of the US economy and labor markets is the critical current issue of analysis and policy design. Table IA1-1 provides quarterly seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) of growth of private fixed investment for the recessions of the 1980s and the current economic cycle. In the cyclical expansion beginning in IQ1983 (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html), real private fixed investment in the United States grew at the average annual rate of 15.3 percent in the first eight quarters from IQ1983 to IVQ1984. Growth rates fell to an average of 1.6 percent in the following eight quarters from IQ1985 to IVQ1986. There were only four quarters of contraction of private fixed investment from IQ1983 to IVQ1986. There is quite different behavior of private fixed investment in the fourteen quarters of cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012. The average annual growth rate in the first eight quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2011 was 2.5 percent, which is significantly lower than 15.3 percent in the first eight quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1984. There is only strong growth of private fixed investment in the four quarters of expansion from IIQ2011 to IQ2012 at the average annual rate of 11.9 percent. Growth has fallen from the SAAR of 15.5 percent in IIIQ2011 to 0.9 percent in IIIQ2012, recovering to 14.0 percent in IVQ2012 and falling to 4.1 percent in IQ2013. Sudeep Reddy and Scott Thurm, writing on “Investment falls off a cliff,” on Nov 18, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578123593211825394.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories) analyze the decline of private investment in the US and inform that a review by the Wall Street Journal of filing and conference calls finds that 40 of the largest publicly traded corporations in the US have announced intentions to reduce capital expenditures in 2012. The SAAR of real private fixed investment jumped to 14.0 percent in IVQ2012 but declined to 4.1 percent in IQ2013.

Table IA1-1, US, Quarterly Growth Rates of Real Private Fixed Investment, % Annual Equivalent SA

Q	1981	1982	1983	1984	2008	2009	2010
I	3.0	-11.6	9.0	13.1	-8.3	-30.2	-0.9
II	2.7	-13.3	16.4	17.5	-5.2	-18.5	14.5
III	0.0	-10.7	26.1	8.8	-12.3	-3.1	-1.0
IV	-1.4	0.6	25.6	7.4	-25.2	-6.0	7.6
				1985			2011
I				3.1			-1.3
II				5.1			12.4
III				-3.2			15.5
IV				7.8			10.0
				1986			2012
I				0.6			9.8
II				-1.0			4.5
III				-2.2			0.9
IV				2.7			14.0
				1987			2013
I				-7.7			4.1
II				7.4
III				8.8
IV				-0.1

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-1 of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides seasonally adjusted annual rates of growth of real private fixed investment from 1981 to 1986. Growth rates recovered sharply during the first eight quarters, which was essential in returning the economy to trend growth and eliminating unemployment and underemployment accumulated during the contractions.

Chart IA1-1, US, Real Private Fixed Investment, Seasonally-Adjusted Annual Rates Percent Change from Prior Quarter, 1981-1986

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Weak behavior of real private fixed investment from 2007 to 2012 is shown in Chart IA1-2. Growth rates of real private fixed investment were much lower during the initial phase of expansion in the current economic cycle and have entered sharp trend of decline.

Chart IA1-2, US, Real Private Fixed Investment, Seasonally-Adjusted Annual Rates Percent Change from Prior Quarter, 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table IA1-2 provides real private fixed investment at seasonally adjusted annual rates from IVQ2007 to IQ2013 or for the complete economic cycle. The first column provides the quarter, the second column percentage change relative to IVQ2007, the third column the quarter percentage change in the quarter relative to the prior quarter and the final column percentage change in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. In IQ1980, gross private domestic investment in the US was $778.3 billion of 2005 dollars, growing to $965.9 billion in IVQ1985 or 24.1 percent, as shown in Table IB-2 of IB Collapse of Dynamism of United States Income Growth and Employment Creation (IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). Gross private domestic investment in the US decreased 6.2 percent from $2,123.6 billion of 2005 dollars in IVQ2007 to $1,991.8 billion in IQ2013. As shown in Table IAI-2, real private fixed investment fell 8.8 percent from $2111.5 billion of 2005 dollars in IVQ2007 to $1925.5 billion in IVQ2012. Growth of real private investment in Table IA1-2 is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012.

Table IA1-2, US, Real Private Fixed Investment and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars and ∆%

	Real PFI, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	2111.5	NA	-1.2	-1.0
IQ2008	2066.4	-2.1	-2.1	-2.9
IIQ2008	2039.1	-3.4	-1.3	-5.0
IIIQ2008	1973.5	-6.5	-3.2	-7.7
IV2008	1835.4	-13.1	-7.0	-13.1
IQ2009	1677.3	-20.6	-8.6	-18.8
IIQ2009	1593.7	-24.5	-5.0	-21.8
IIIQ2009	1581.2	-25.1	-0.8	-19.9
IVQ2009	1556.8	-26.3	-1.5	-15.2
IQ2010	1553.1	-26.4	-0.2	-7.4
IIQ2010	1606.5	-23.9	3.4	0.8
IIIQ2010	1602.7	-24.1	-0.2	1.4
IVQ2010	1632.3	-22.7	1.8	4.8
IQ2011	1627.0	-22.9	-0.3	4.8
IIQ2011	1675.4	-20.7	3.0	4.3
IIIQ2011	1736.8	-17.7	3.7	8.4
IVQ2011	1778.7	-15.8	2.4	9.0
IQ2012	1820.6	-13.8	2.4	11.9
IIQ2012	1840.6	-12.8	1.1	9.9
IIIQ2012	1844.8	-12.6	0.2	6.2
IVQ2012	1906.3	-9.7	3.3	7.2
IQ2013	1925.5	-8.8	1.0	5.8

PFI: Private Fixed Investment

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-3 provides real private fixed investment in billions of chained 2005 dollars from IV2007 to IQ2013. Real private fixed investment has not recovered, stabilizing at a level in IQ2013 that is 8.8 percent below the level in IVQ2007.

Chart IA1-3, US, Real Private Fixed Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars, IQ2007 to IQ2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-4 provides real gross private domestic investment in chained dollars of 2005 from 1980 to 1986. Real gross private domestic investment climbed 24.1 percent in IVQ1985 above the level on IQ1980.

Chart IA1-4, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 1980-1986

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-5 provides real gross private domestic investment in the United States in billions of dollars of 2005 from 2006 to 2013. Gross private domestic investment reached a level in IQ2013 that was 8.8 percent lower than the level in IVQ2007.

Chart IA1-5, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2005 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 2007-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table IA1-3 provides percentage shares in GDP of gross private domestic investment and its components in IQ2013, IQ2006 and IQ2000. The share of gross private domestic investment in GDP has fallen from 17.4 percent in IQ2000 and 17.8 percent in IQ2006 to 13.5 percent in IQ2013. There are declines in percentage shares in GDP of all components with sharp reduction of residential investment from 4.6 percent in IQ2000 and 6.2 percent in IQ2006 to 2.7 percent in IQ2013. The share of fixed investment in GDP fell from 17.2 percent in IQ2000 and 17.3 percent in IQ2006 to 13.1 percent in IQ2013.

Table IA1-3, Percentage Shares of Gross Private Domestic Investment and Components in Gross Domestic Product, % of GDP, IQ2013

	IQ2013	IQ2006	IQ2000
Gross Private Domestic Investment	13.5	17.8	17.4
Fixed Investment	13.1	17.3	17.2
Nonresidential	10.5	11.1	12.6
Structures	3.0	3.0	3.1
Equipment and Software	7.5	8.1	9.5
Residential	2.7	6.2	4.6
Change in Private Inventories	0.4	0.5	0.2

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Broader perspective is provided in Chart IA1-6 with the percentage share of gross private domestic investment in GDP in annual data from 1929 to 2012. There was sharp drop during the current economic cycle with almost no recovery in contrast with sharp recovery after the recessions of the 1980s.

Chart IA1-6, US, Percentage Share of Gross Domestic Investment in Gross Domestic Product, Annual, 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-8 provides percentage shares in GDP of nonresidential investment from 1929 to 2012. There is again recovery from sharp contraction in the 1980s but inadequate recovery in the current economic cycle.

Chart IA1-7 provides percentage shares of private fixed investment in GDP with annual data from 1929 to 2012. The sharp contraction after the recessions of the 1980s was followed by sustained recovery while the sharp drop in the current economic cycle has not been recovered.

Chart IA1-7, US, Percentage Share of Private Fixed Investment in Gross Domestic Product, Annual, 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-8, US, Percentage Share of Nonresidential Investment in Gross Domestic Product, Annual, 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-9 provides percentage shares of business equipment and software in GDP with annual data from 1929 to 2012. There is again inadequate recovery in the current economic cycle.

Chart IA1-9, US, Percentage Share of Business Equipment and Software in Gross Domestic Product, Annual, 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IA1-10 provides percentage shares of residential investment in GDP with annual data from 1929 to 2012. The salient characteristic of Chart IA1-10 is the vertical increase of the share of residential investment in GDP up to 2006 and subsequent collapse.

Chart IA1-10, US, Percentage Share of Residential Investment in Gross Domestic Product, Annual, 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Finer detail is provided by the quarterly share of residential investment in GDP from 1979 to 2012 in Chart IA1-11. There was protracted growth of that share that accelerated sharply into 2006 followed with nearly vertical drop. The explanation of the sharp contraction of United States housing can probably be found in the origins of the financial crisis and global recession. Let V(T) represent the value of the firm’s equity at time T and B stand for the promised debt of the firm to bondholders and assume that corporate management, elected by equity owners, is acting on the interests of equity owners. Robert C. Merton (1974, 453) states:

“On the maturity date T, the firm must either pay the promised payment of B to the debtholders or else the current equity will be valueless. Clearly, if at time T, V(T) > B, the firm should pay the bondholders because the value of equity will be V(T) – B > 0 whereas if they do not, the value of equity would be zero. If V(T) ≤ B, then the firm will not make the payment and default the firm to the bondholders because otherwise the equity holders would have to pay in additional money and the (formal) value of equity prior to such payments would be (V(T)- B) < 0.”

Pelaez and Pelaez (The Global Recession Risk (2007), 208-9) apply this analysis to the US housing market in 2005-2006 concluding:

“The house market [in 2006] is probably operating with low historical levels of individual equity. There is an application of structural models [Duffie and Singleton 2003] to the individual decisions on whether or not to continue paying a mortgage. The costs of sale would include realtor and legal fees. There could be a point where the expected net sale value of the real estate may be just lower than the value of the mortgage. At that point, there would be an incentive to default. The default vulnerability of securitization is unknown.”

There are multiple important determinants of the interest rate: “aggregate wealth, the distribution of wealth among investors, expected rate of return on physical investment, taxes, government policy and inflation” (Ingersoll 1987, 405). Aggregate wealth is a major driver of interest rates (Ibid, 406). Unconventional monetary policy, with zero fed funds rates and flattening of long-term yields by quantitative easing, causes uncontrollable effects on risk taking that can have profound undesirable effects on financial stability. Excessively aggressive and exotic monetary policy is the main culprit and not the inadequacy of financial management and risk controls.

The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Ibid). According to a subsequent restatement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption decisions is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (1)

Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r →0, W grows without bound, W→∞.

Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment but the exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at close to zero interest rates, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV).

The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper to purchase default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because the put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4).

Chart IA1-11, US, Percentage Share of Residential Investment in Gross Domestic Product, Quarterly, 1979-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table IA1-4 provides the seasonally adjusted annual rate of real GDP percentage change and contributions in percentage points in annual equivalent rate of gross domestic investment (GDI), real private fixed investment (PFI), nonresidential investment (NRES), business equipment and software (BES), residential investment (RES) and change in inventories (∆INV) for the cyclical expansions from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 and from IIIQ2009 to IQ2013. GDI provided strong percentage points contributions to GDP growth in the critical first year of expansion in 1983 and also in several quarters in 1984 and 1985 while it has been muted in the cyclical expansion since IIIQ2009 with contributions largely only from IQ2010 to IVQ2011. Gross domestic investment added 1.56 percentage points to GDP growth of 2.5 percent in IQ2013 mostly because of change of inventories of 1.03 percentage points with PFI adding 0.53 percentage points. Nonresidential investment added 0.22 percentage points and residential investment added 0.31 percentage points to GDP growth of 2.5 percent in IQ2013. GDI added 0.17 percentage points in IVQ2012 mostly because of minus 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment while private fixed investment contributed 1.69 percentage points, nonresidential investment 1.28 percentage points, business equipment and software 0.82 percentage points and residential investment 0.41 percentage points. Much of the strong performance of GDI in the cyclical expansion after IQ1983 originated in contributions by real private fixed investment (PFI). Nonresidential investment also contributed strongly to growth in the expansion of the 1980s but has been muted in the current expansion. The contribution of business equipment and software collapsed to negative 0.19 percentage points in IIIQ2012 as business scales down investment but rebounded with 0.82 percentage points in IVQ2012 and 0.23 percentage points in IQ2013. Residential investment (RES) was relatively strong in 1983 but was muted in following quarters. Residential investment only contributed significantly to growth of GDP in the four quarters of 2012 and IQ2013.

Table IA1-4, US, Contributions to the Rate of Growth of Real GDP in Percentage Points

	GDP	GDI	PFI	NRES	BES	RES	∆INV
2013
I	2.5	1.56	0.53	0.22	0.23	0.31	1.03
2012
I	2.0	0.78	1.18	0.74	0.39	0.43	-0.39
II	1.3	0.09	0.56	0.36	0.35	0.19	-0.46
III	3.1	0.85	0.12	-0.19	-0.19	0.31	0.73
IV	0.4	0.17	1.69	1.28	0.82	0.41	-1.52
2011
I	0.1	-0.68	-0.14	-0.11	0.72	-0.03	-0.54
II	2.5	1.40	1.39	1.30	0.53	0.09	0.01
III	1.3	0.68	1.75	1.71	1.20	0.03	-1.07
IV	4.1	3.72	1.19	0.93	0.62	0.26	2.53
2010
I	2.3	2.13	-0.10	0.20	0.90	-0.30	2.23
II	2.2	1.65	1.58	1.07	0.76	0.51	0.07
III	2.6	1.87	-0.10	0.70	0.76	-0.80	1.97
IV	2.4	-0.75	0.87	0.83	0.60	0.03	-1.61
2009
I	-5.3	-7.02	-4.73	-3.54	-2.16	-1.18	-2.29
II	-0.3	-3.52	-2.49	-1.86	-0.54	-0.63	-1.03
III	1.4	-0.14	-0.32	-0.73	0.25	0.40	0.19
IV	4.0	3.85	-0.69	-0.57	0.40	-0.12	4.55
1982
I	-6.4	-7.50	-2.04	-1.25	-0.47	-0.79	-5.47
II	2.2	-0.05	-2.40	-1.98	-1.19	-0.42	2.35
III	-1.5	-0.72	-1.87	-1.82	-0.57	-0.04	1.15
IV	0.3	-5.66	-0.18	-1.09	-0.60	0.92	-5.48
1983
I	5.1	2.20	1.26	-1.02	-0.18	2.28	0.94
II	9.3	5.87	2.36	0.52	1.40	1.84	3.51
III	8.1	4.30	3.70	2.02	1.62	1.68	0.60
IV	8.5	6.84	3.76	2.98	2.50	0.77	3.09
1984
I	8.0	7.15	2.08	1.55	0.57	0.52	5.07
II	7.1	2.44	2.74	2.39	1.50	0.35	-0.30
III	3.9	1.67	1.45	1.62	1.05	-0.17	0.21
IV	3.3	-1.26	1.24	1.22	1.03	0.02	-2.50
1985
I	3.8	-2.38	0.57	0.62	-0.16	-0.06	-2.94
II	3.4	1.24	0.88	0.74	0.75	0.14	0.35
III	6.4	-0.68	-0.53	-0.75	-0.37	0.23	-0.16
IV	3.1	2.72	1.27	0.85	0.62	0.42	1.45

GDP: Gross Domestic Product; GDI: Gross Domestic Investment; PFI: Private Fixed Investment; NRES: Nonresidential; BES: Business Equipment and Software; RES: Residential; ∆INV: Change in Private Inventories.

GDI = PFI + ∆INV, may not add exactly because of errors of rounding.

GDP: Seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rate of growth in a quarter; components: percentage points at annual rate.

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table IB-1 is constructed with the database of the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) to show GDP in dollars in 2012 and the growth rate of real GDP of the world and selected regional countries from 2013 to 2016. The data illustrate the concept often repeated of “two-speed recovery” of the world economy from the recession of 2007 to 2009. The IMF has lowered its forecast of the world economy to 3.3 percent in 2013 but accelerating to 4.0 percent in 2014, 4.4 percent in 2015 and 4.5 percent in 2016. Slow-speed recovery occurs in the “major advanced economies” of the G7 that account for $33,932 billion of world output of $71,707 billion, or 47.3 percent, but are projected to grow at much lower rates than world output, 2.1 percent on average from 2013 to 2016 in contrast with 4.1 percent for the world as a whole. While the world would grow 17.2 percent in the four years from 2013 to 2016, the G7 as a whole would grow 8.8 percent. The difference in dollars of 2012 is rather high: growing by 17.2 percent would add $12.3 trillion of output to the world economy, or roughly, two times the output of the economy of Japan of $5,964 but growing by 8.8 percent would add $6.3 trillion of output to the world, or about the output of Japan in 2012. The “two speed” concept is in reference to the growth of the 150 countries labeled as emerging and developing economies (EMDE) with joint output in 2012 of $27,290 billion, or 38.1 percent of world output. The EMDEs would grow cumulatively 25.2 percent or at the average yearly rate of 5.8 percent, contributing $6.9 trillion from 2013 to 2016 or the equivalent of somewhat less than the GDP of $8,227 billion of China in 2012. The final four countries in Table 1 often referred as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), are large, rapidly growing emerging economies. Their combined output in 2012 adds to $14,470 billion, or 20.2 percent of world output, which is equivalent to 42.6 percent of the combined output of the major advanced economies of the G7.

Table IB-1, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections of Real GDP Growth

	GDP USD 2012	Real GDP ∆% 2013	Real GDP ∆% 2014	Real GDP ∆% 2015	Real GDP ∆% 2016
World	71,707	3.3	4.0	4.4	4.5
G7	33,932	1.3	2.2	2.5	2.5
Canada	1,819	1.5	2.4	2.5	2.4
France	2,609	-0.1	0.9	1.5	1.7
DE	3,401	0.6	1.5	1.3	1.3
Italy	2,014	-1.5	0.5	1.2	1.4
Japan	5,964	1.6	1.4	1.1	1.2
UK	2,441	0.7	1.5	1.8	1.9
US	15,685	1.9	2.9	3.6	3.4
Euro Area	12,198	-0.3	1.1	1.4	1.6
DE	3,401	0.6	1.5	1.3	1.3
France	2,609	-0.1	0.9	1.5	1.7
Italy	2,014	-1.5	0.5	1.2	1.4
POT	213	-2.3	0.6	1.5	1.8
Ireland	210	1.1	2.2	2.7	2.7
Greece	249	-4.2	0.6	2.9	3.7
Spain	1,352	-1.6	0.7	1.4	1.5
EMDE	27,290	5.3	5.7	6.0	6.1
Brazil	2,396	3.0	4.0	4.1	4.2
Russia	2,022	3.4	3.8	3.7	3.6
India	1,825	5.7	6.2	6.6	6.9
China	8,227	8.0	8.2	8.5	8.5

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries); POT: Portugal

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

Continuing high rates of unemployment in advanced economies constitute another characteristic of the database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx). Table IB-2 is constructed with the WEO database to provide rates of unemployment from 2012 to 2016 for major countries and regions. In fact, unemployment rates for 2012 in Table I-2 are high for all countries: unusually high for countries with high rates most of the time and unusually high for countries with low rates most of the time. The rates of unemployment are particularly high for the countries with sovereign debt difficulties in Europe: 15.7 percent for Portugal (POT), 14.7 percent for Ireland, 24.2 percent for Greece, 25.0 percent for Spain and 10.6 percent for Italy, which is lower but still high. The G7 rate of unemployment is 7.4 percent. Unemployment rates are not likely to decrease substantially if slow growth persists in advanced economies.

Table IB-2, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections of Unemployment Rate as Percent of Labor Force

	% Labor Force 2012	% Labor Force 2013	% Labor Force 2014	% Labor Force 2015	% Labor Force 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	7.4	7.4	7.3	7.0	6.6
Canada	7.3	7.3	7.2	7.1	7.0
France	10.2	11.2	11.6	11.4	10.9
DE	5.5	5.6	5.7	5.6	5.6
Italy	10.6	12.0	12.4	12.0	11.2
Japan	4.4	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1
UK	8.0	7.8	7.8	7.4	6.9
US	8.1	7.7	7.5	6.9	6.3
Euro Area	11.4	12.3	12.3	11.9	11.4
DE	5.5	5.6	5.7	5.6	5.6
France	10.2	11.2	11.6	11.4	10.9
Italy	10.6	12.0	12.4	12.0	11.2
POT	15.7	18.3	18.5	18.1	17.5
Ireland	14.7	14.2	13.8	12.9	11.9
Greece	24.2	27.0	26.1	24.0	21.0
Spain	25.0	27.0	26.5	25.6	24.7
EMDE	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Brazil	5.5	6.0	6.5	6.5	6.5
Russia	6.0	5.5	5.5	5.5	5.5
India	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
China	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries)

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

The database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) is used to construct the debt/GDP ratios of regions and countries in Table IB-3. The concept used is general government debt, which consists of central government debt, such as Treasury debt in the US, and all state and municipal debt. Net debt is provided for all countries except for gross debt for China, Russia and India. The net debt/GDP ratio of the G7 increases from 90.4 in 2012 to 91.8 in 2016. G7 debt is pulled by the high debt of Japan that grows from 134.3 percent of GDP in 2012 to 151.4 percent of GDP in 2016. US general government debt remains virtually unchanged from 87.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 87.6 percent of GDP in 2016. Debt/GDP ratios of countries with sovereign debt difficulties in Europe are particularly worrisome. General government net debts of Italy, Ireland, Greece and Portugal exceed 100 percent of GDP or are expected to exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2016. The only country with relatively lower debt/GDP ratio is Spain with 71.9 in 2012 but growing to 91.9 in 2016. Fiscal adjustment, voluntary or forced by defaults, may squeeze further economic growth and employment in many countries as analyzed by Blanchard (2012WEOApr). Defaults could feed through exposures of banks and investors to financial institutions and economies in countries with sounder fiscal affairs.

Table IB-3, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections, General Government Net Debt as Percent of GDP

	% Debt/ GDP 2012	% Debt/ GDP 2013	% Debt/ GDP 2014	% Debt/ GDP 2015	% Debt/ GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	90.4	91.5	92.6	92.4	91.8
Canada	34.6	35.9	36.6	36.7	36.3
France	84.1	86.5	87.8	87.8	86.6
DE	57.2	56.2	54.7	53.5	51.9
Italy	103.2	105.8	106.0	105.4	104.1
Japan	134.3	143.4	146.7	149.5	151.4
UK	82.8	86.1	89.6	92.2	93.2
US	87.8	89.0	89.7	88.6	87.6
Euro Area	71.9	73.9	74.5	74.4	73.6
DE	56.1	54.1	53.4	54.4	52.4
France	80.4	83.2	84.9	84.8	83.8
Italy	99.6	102.3	102.6	102.5	101.5
POT	111.6	115.0	116.5	115.6	113.2
Ireland	102.3	106.2	107.5	105.6	102.8
Greece	155.4	176.1	172.2	166.0	156.8
Spain	71.9	79.1	84.7	88.6	91.9
EMDE	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Brazil	35.2	33.6	32.3	31.3	30.8
Russia*	9.6	8.4	7.9	9.0	9.7
India*	66.8	66.4	66.7	66.6	66.2
China*	22.8	21.3	19.9	18.3	16.4

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries); *General Government Gross Debt as percent of GDP

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

The primary balance consists of revenues less expenditures but excluding interest revenues and interest payments. It measures the capacity of a country to generate sufficient current revenue to meet current expenditures. There are various countries with primary surpluses in 2012: Germany 2.4 percent, Italy 2.3 percent, Brazil 2.1 percent and Russia 0.8 percent. There are also various countries with expected primary surpluses by 2016: Greece 4.5 percent, Italy 3.8 percent and so on. Most countries in Table I-4 face significant fiscal adjustment in the future without “fiscal space.” Investors in government securities may require higher yields when the share of individual government debts hit saturation shares in portfolios. The tool of analysis of Cochrane (2011Jan, 27, equation (16)) is the government debt valuation equation:

(M_t + B_t)/P_t = E_t∫(1/R_t_{, t+τ})s_t_+τdτ (1)

Equation (1) expresses the monetary, M_t, and debt, B_t, liabilities of the government, divided by the price level, P_t, in terms of the expected value discounted by the ex-post rate on government debt, R_t_{, t+τ}, of the future primary surpluses s_t_+τ, which are equal to T_t_+τ – G_t_+τ or difference between taxes, T, and government expenditures, G. Cochrane (2010A) provides the link to a web appendix demonstrating that it is possible to discount by the ex post R_t_{, t+τ}. Expectations by investors of future primary balances of indebted governments may be less optimistic than those in Table IB-4 because of government revenues constrained by low growth and government expenditures rigid because of entitlements. Political realities may also jeopardize structural reforms and fiscal austerity.

Table IB-4, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections of Primary General Government Net Lending/Borrowing as Percent of GDP

	% GDP 2012	% GDP 2013	% GDP 2014	% GDP 2015	% GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-5.0	-3.8	-2.7	-1.7	-1.2
Canada	-2.7	-2.4	-1.9	-1.3	-0.8
France	-2.1	-1.4	-1.1	-0.2	0.7
DE	2.4	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.6
Italy	2.3	2.7	3.0	3.2	3.8
Japan	-9.3	-9.0	-6.2	-4.9	-3.8
UK	-6.1	-5.0	-4.4	-3.3	-1.6
US	-6.4	-4.6	-3.4	-2.1	-1.9
Euro Area	-0.8	-0.04	0.2	0.7	1.1
DE	0.7	1.0	1.3	1.4	1.4
France	-2.9	-2.2	-1.5	-0.6	0.3
Italy	2.3	2.7	3.0	3.2	3.8
POT	-0.8	-1.4	-0.07	1.5	2.2
Ireland	-4.6	-3.2	-0.1	2.0	2.6
Greece	-1.2	--	1.5	3.0	4.5
Spain	-7.9	-3.5	-3.6	-3.1	-2.5
EMDE*	-1.1	-1.0	-1.1	-1.2	-1.2
Brazil	2.1	3.3	3.1	3.1	3.1
Russia	0.8	0.3	-0.4	-0.7	-1.0
India	-3.9	-3.8	-3.7	-3.5	-3.4
China*	-2.2	-2.1	-1.8	-1.1	-0.6

*General Government Net Lending/Borrowing

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries)

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

The database of the World Economic Outlook of the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) is used to obtain government net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP in Table IB-5. Interest on government debt is added to the primary balance to obtain overall government fiscal balance in Table IB-5. For highly indebted countries there is an even tougher challenge of fiscal consolidation. Adverse expectations on the success of fiscal consolidation may drive up yields on government securities that could create hurdles to adjustment, growth and employment.

Table IB-5, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections of General Government Net Lending/Borrowing as Percent of GDP

	% GDP 2012	% GDP 2013	% GDP 2014	% GDP 2015	% GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-7.0	-5.7	-4.7	-3.7	-3.3
Canada	-3.2	-2.8	-2.3	-1.7	-1.2
France	-4.6	-3.7	-3.5	-2.6	-1.8
DE	0.2	-0.3	-0.1	-0.007	0.017
Italy	-3.0	-2.6	-2.3	-2.1	-1.8
Japan	-10.2	-9.8	-7.0	-5.8	-5.0
UK	-8.3	-7.0	-6.4	-5.6	-4.2
US	-8.5	-6.5	-5.4	-4.1	-4.1
Euro Area	-3.6	-2.9	-2.6	-2.2	-1.7
DE	0.2	-0.3	-0.1	-0.007	0.017
France	-4.6	-3.7	-3.5	-2.6	-1.8
Italy	-3.0	-2.6	-2.3	-2.1	-1.8
POT	-4.9	-5.5	-4.0	-2.5	-1.9
Ireland	-7.7	-7.5	-4.5	-2.4	-1.7
Greece	-6.4	-4.6	-3.4	-2.2	-0.6
Spain	-10.3	-6.6	-6.9	-6.6	-6.2
EMDE	-1.6	-1.8	-1.9	-1.8	-1.6
Brazil	-2.8	-1.2	-1.7	-1.8	-1.6
Russia	0.4	-0.3	-1.0	-1.4	-1.7
India	-8.3	-8.3	-8.4	-8.3	-8.2
China	-2.2	-2.1	-1.8	-1.1	-0.6

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries)

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

There were some hopes that the sharp contraction of output during the global recession would eliminate current account imbalances. Table IB-6 constructed with the database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) shows that external imbalances have been maintained in the form of current account deficits and surpluses. China’s current account surplus is 2.6 percent of GDP for 2012 and is projected to climb to 3.7 percent of GDP in 2016. At the same time, the current account deficit of the US is 3.0 percent of GDP in 2012 and is projected to remain almost unchanged at 3.3 percent of GDP in 2016. The current account surplus of Germany is 7.0 percent for 2012 and remains at a high 5.0 percent of GDP in 2016. Japan’s current account surplus is 1.0 percent of GDP in 2012 and increases slightly to 2.0 percent of GDP in 2016.

Table IB-6, IMF World Economic Outlook Databank Projections, Current Account of Balance of Payments as Percent of GDP

	% CA/ GDP 2012	% CA/ GDP 2013	% CA/ GDP 2014	% CA/ GDP 2015	% CA/ GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-1.2	-1.1	-1.2	-1.2	-1.3
Canada	-3.7	-3.5	-3.4	-2.9	-2.6
France	-2.4	-1.3	-1.4	-1.1	-0.6
DE	7.0	6.1	5.7	5.4	5.0
Italy	-0.5	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
Japan	1.0	1.2	1.9	2.0	2.0
UK	-3.5	-4.4	-4.3	-4.1	-3.7
US	-3.0	-2.9	-3.0	-3.1	-3.3
Euro Area	1.8	2.3	2.3	2.4	2.5
DE	7.0	6.1	5.7	5.4	5.0
France	-2.4	-1.3	-1.4	-1.1	-0.6
Italy	-0.5	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.2
POT	-1.5	0.1	-0.1	-0.3	0.0
Ireland	4.9	3.3	3.9	4.0	4.1
Greece	-2.9	-0.3	0.4	0.6	0.9
Spain	-1.1	1.1	2.2	2.8	3.0
EMDE	1.4	1.1	0.7	0.6	0.6
Brazil	-2.3	-2.4	-3.2	-3.3	-3.3
Russia	4.0	2.5	1.6	0.9	0.2
India	-5.1	-4.9	-4.6	-4.3	-3.9
China	2.6	2.6	2.9	3.3	3.7

Notes; DE: Germany; EMDE: Emerging and Developing Economies (150 countries)

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

The G7 meeting in Washington on Apr 21 2006 of finance ministers and heads of central bank governors of the G7 established the “doctrine of shared responsibility” (G7 2006Apr):

“We, Ministers and Governors, reviewed a strategy for addressing global imbalances. We recognized that global imbalances are the product of a wide array of macroeconomic and microeconomic forces throughout the world economy that affect public and private sector saving and investment decisions. We reaffirmed our view that the adjustment of global imbalances:

Is shared responsibility and requires participation by all regions in this global process;
Will importantly entail the medium-term evolution of private saving and investment across countries as well as counterpart shifts in global capital flows; and
Is best accomplished in a way that maximizes sustained growth, which requires strengthening policies and removing distortions to the adjustment process.

In this light, we reaffirmed our commitment to take vigorous action to address imbalances. We agreed that progress has been, and is being, made. The policies listed below not only would be helpful in addressing imbalances, but are more generally important to foster economic growth.

In the United States, further action is needed to boost national saving by continuing fiscal consolidation, addressing entitlement spending, and raising private saving.
In Europe, further action is needed to implement structural reforms for labor market, product, and services market flexibility, and to encourage domestic demand led growth.
In Japan, further action is needed to ensure the recovery with fiscal soundness and long-term growth through structural reforms.

Others will play a critical role as part of the multilateral adjustment process.

In emerging Asia, particularly China, greater flexibility in exchange rates is critical to allow necessary appreciations, as is strengthening domestic demand, lessening reliance on export-led growth strategies, and actions to strengthen financial sectors.

In oil-producing countries, accelerated investment in capacity, increased economic diversification, enhanced exchange rate flexibility in some cases.

Other current account surplus countries should encourage domestic consumption and investment, increase micro-economic flexibility and improve investment climates.

We recognized the important contribution that the IMF can make to multilateral surveillance.”

The concern at that time was that fiscal and current account global imbalances could result in disorderly correction with sharp devaluation of the dollar after an increase in premiums on yields of US Treasury debt (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007)). The IMF was entrusted with monitoring and coordinating action to resolve global imbalances. The G7 was eventually broadened to the formal G20 in the effort to coordinate policies of countries with external surpluses and deficits.

The database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) is used to contract Table IB-7 with fiscal and current account imbalances projected for 2013 and 2015. The WEO finds the need to rebalance external and domestic demand (IMF 2011WEOSep xvii):

“Progress on this front has become even more important to sustain global growth. Some emerging market economies are contributing more domestic demand than is desirable (for example, several economies in Latin America); others are not contributing enough (for example, key economies in emerging Asia). The first set needs to restrain strong domestic demand by considerably reducing structural fiscal deficits and, in some cases, by further removing monetary accommodation. The second set of economies needs significant currency appreciation alongside structural reforms to reduce high surpluses of savings over investment. Such policies would help improve their resilience to shocks originating in the advanced economies as well as their medium-term growth potential.”

The IMF (2012WEOApr, XVII) explains decreasing importance of the issue of global imbalances as follows:

“The latest developments suggest that global current account imbalances are no longer expected to widen again, following their sharp reduction during the Great Recession. This is largely because the excessive consumption growth that characterized economies that ran large external deficits prior to the crisis has been wrung out and has not been offset by stronger consumption in surplus economies. Accordingly, the global economy has experienced a loss of demand and growth in all regions relative to the boom years just before the crisis. Rebalancing activity in key surplus economies toward higher consumption, supported by more market-determined exchange rates, would help strengthen their prospects as well as those of the rest of the world.”

Table IB-7, Fiscal Deficit, Current Account Deficit and Government Debt as % of GDP and 2011 Dollar GDP

	GDP $B 2012	FD %GDP 2013	CAD %GDP 2013	Debt %GDP 2013	FD%GDP 2015	CAD%GDP 2015	Debt %GDP 2015
US	15685	-7.3	-3.1	80.3	-2.3	-3.2	88.3
Japan	5964	-9.1	2.0	126.6	-5.8	2.4	155.0
UK	2441	-5.8	-1.9	78.3	-0.8	-0.4	88.1
Euro	12198	-1.6	0.3	68.4	1.1	1.2	71.3
Ger	3401	0.7	5.7	56.1	1.4	4.3	52.4
France	2609	-2.9	-2.2	80.4	0.3	-0.8	83.8
Italy	2014	0.8	-3.2	99.6	4.4	-1.6	101.5
Can	1819	-4.1	-2.8	33.3	-1.1	-2.5	37.4
China	8227	-1.2	2.7	25.8	-0.1	3.4	14.8
Brazil	2396	3.3	-2.4	33.6	3.1	-3.3	30.8

Note: GER = Germany; Can = Canada; FD = fiscal deficit; CAD = current account deficit

FD is primary except total for China; Debt is net except gross for China

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

Brazil faced in the debt crisis of 1982 a more complex policy mix. Between 1977 and 1983, Brazil’s terms of trade, export prices relative to import prices, deteriorated 47 percent and 36 percent excluding oil (Pelaez 1987, 176-79; Pelaez 1986, 37-66; see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 178-87). Brazil had accumulated unsustainable foreign debt by borrowing to finance balance of payments deficits during the 1970s. Foreign lending virtually stopped. The German mark devalued strongly relative to the dollar such that Brazil’s products lost competitiveness in Germany and in multiple markets in competition with Germany. The resolution of the crisis was devaluation of the Brazilian currency by 30 percent relative to the dollar and subsequent maintenance of parity by monthly devaluation equal to inflation and indexing that resulted in financial stability by parity in external and internal interest rates avoiding capital flight. With a combination of declining imports, domestic import substitution and export growth, Brazil followed rapid growth in the US and grew out of the crisis with surprising GDP growth of 4.5 percent in 1984.

The euro zone faces a critical survival risk because several of its members may default on their sovereign obligations if not bailed out by the other members. The valuation equation of bonds is essential to understanding the stability of the euro area. An explanation is provided in this paragraph and readers interested in technical details are referred to the Subsection IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation. Contrary to the Wriston doctrine, investing in sovereign obligations is a credit decision. The value of a bond today is equal to the discounted value of future obligations of interest and principal until maturity. On Dec 30, 2011, the yield of the 2-year bond of the government of Greece was quoted around 100 percent. In contrast, the 2-year US Treasury note traded at 0.239 percent and the 10-year at 2.871 percent while the comparable 2-year government bond of Germany traded at 0.14 percent and the 10-year government bond of Germany traded at 1.83 percent. There is no need for sovereign ratings: the perceptions of investors are of relatively higher probability of default by Greece, defying Wriston (1982), and nil probability of default of the US Treasury and the German government. The essence of the sovereign credit decision is whether the sovereign will be able to finance new debt and refinance existing debt without interrupting service of interest and principal. Prices of sovereign bonds incorporate multiple anticipations such as inflation and liquidity premiums of long-term relative to short-term debt but also risk premiums on whether the sovereign’s debt can be managed as it increases without bound. The austerity measures of Italy are designed to increase the primary surplus, or government revenues less expenditures excluding interest, to ensure investors that Italy will have the fiscal strength to manage its debt exceeding 100 percent of GDP, which is the third largest in the world after the US and Japan. Appendix IIIE links the expectations on the primary surplus to the real current value of government monetary and fiscal obligations. As Blanchard (2011SepWEO) analyzes, fiscal consolidation to increase the primary surplus is facilitated by growth of the economy. Italy and the other indebted sovereigns in Europe face the dual challenge of increasing primary surpluses while maintaining growth of the economy (for the experience of Brazil in the debt crisis of 1982 see Pelaez 1986, 1987).

Much of the analysis and concern over the euro zone centers on the lack of credibility of the debt of a few countries while there is credibility of the debt of the euro zone as a whole. In practice, there is convergence in valuations and concerns toward the fact that there may not be credibility of the euro zone as a whole. The fluctuations of financial risk assets of members of the euro zone move together with risk aversion toward the countries with lack of debt credibility. This movement raises the need to consider analytically sovereign debt valuation of the euro zone as a whole in the essential analysis of whether the single-currency will survive without major changes.

Welfare economics considers the desirability of alternative states, which in this case would be evaluating the “value” of Germany (1) within and (2) outside the euro zone. Is the sum of the wealth of euro zone countries outside of the euro zone higher than the wealth of these countries maintaining the euro zone? On the choice of indicator of welfare, Hicks (1975, 324) argues:

“Partly as a result of the Keynesian revolution, but more (perhaps) because of statistical labours that were initially quite independent of it, the Social Product has now come right back into its old place. Modern economics—especially modern applied economics—is centered upon the Social Product, the Wealth of Nations, as it was in the days of Smith and Ricardo, but as it was not in the time that came between. So if modern theory is to be effective, if it is to deal with the questions which we in our time want to have answered, the size and growth of the Social Product are among the chief things with which it must concern itself. It is of course the objective Social Product on which attention must be fixed. We have indexes of production; we do not have—it is clear we cannot have—an Index of Welfare.”

If the burden of the debt of the euro zone falls on Germany and France or only on Germany, is the wealth of Germany and France or only Germany higher after breakup of the euro zone or if maintaining the euro zone? In practice, political realities will determine the decision through elections.

The prospects of survival of the euro zone are dire. Table I-8 is constructed with IMF World Economic Outlook database (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx) for GDP in USD billions, primary net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP and general government debt as percent of GDP for selected regions and countries in 2013.

Table IB-8, World and Selected Regional and Country GDP and Fiscal Situation

	GDP 2013 USD Billions	Primary Net Lending Borrowing % GDP 2013	General Government Net Debt % GDP 2013
World	74,172
Euro Zone	12,752	-0.04	73.9
Portugal	218	-1.4	115.0
Ireland	222	-3.2	106.2
Greece	244	--	155.4
Spain	1,388	-3.5	79.1
Major Advanced Economies G7	34,068	-3.8	91.5
United States	16,238	-4.6	89.0
UK	2,423	-5.0	86.1
Germany	3,598	1.8	54.1
France	2,739	-1.4	86.5
Japan	5,150	-9.0	143.4
Canada	1,844	-2.4	35.9
Italy	2,076	2.7	102.3
China	9,020	-2.1*	21.3**

*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

The data in Table IB-8 are used for some very simple calculations in Table IB-9. The column “Net Debt USD Billions” in Table IB-9 is generated by applying the percentage in Table IB-8 column “General Government Net Debt % GDP 2013” to the column “GDP USD Billions.” The total debt of France and Germany in 2013 is $4315.7 billion, as shown in row “B+C” in column “Net Debt USD Billions” The sum of the debt of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland is $4087.3 billion, adding rows D+E+F+G+H in column “Net Debt USD billions.” There is some simple “unpleasant bond arithmetic” in the two final columns of Table IB-9. Suppose the entire debt burdens of the five countries with probability of default were to be guaranteed by France and Germany, which de facto would be required by continuing the euro zone. The sum of the total debt of these five countries and the debt of France and Germany is shown in column “Debt as % of Germany plus France GDP” to reach $8403.0 billion, which would be equivalent to 132.6 percent of their combined GDP in 2013. Under this arrangement, the entire debt of the euro zone including debt of France and Germany would not have nil probability of default. The final column provides “Debt as % of Germany GDP” that would exceed 233.5 percent if including debt of France and 167.7 percent of German GDP if excluding French debt. The unpleasant bond arithmetic illustrates that there is a limit as to how far Germany and France can go in bailing out the countries with unsustainable sovereign debt without incurring severe pains of their own such as downgrades of their sovereign credit ratings. A central bank is not typically engaged in direct credit because of remembrance of inflation and abuse in the past. There is also a limit to operations of the European Central Bank in doubtful credit obligations. Wriston (1982) would prove to be wrong again that countries do not bankrupt but would have a consolation prize that similar to LBOs the sum of the individual values of euro zone members outside the current agreement exceeds the value of the whole euro zone. Internal rescues of French and German banks may be less costly than bailing out other euro zone countries so that they do not default on French and German banks.

Table IB-9, Guarantees of Debt of Sovereigns in Euro Area as Percent of GDP of Germany and France, USD Billions and %

	Net Debt USD Billions	Debt as % of Germany Plus France GDP	Debt as % of Germany GDP
A Euro Area	9,423.7
B Germany	1,946.5		$8403.0 as % of $3598 =233.5% $6033.8 as % of $3598 =167.7%
C France	2,369.2
B+C	4,315.7	GDP $6,337.0 Total Debt $8403.0 Debt/GDP: 132.6%
D Italy	2,123.7
E Spain	1,097.9
F Portugal	250.7
G Greece	379.2
H Ireland	235.8
Subtotal D+E+F+G+H	4,087.3

Source: calculation with IMF data IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

World trade projections of the IMF are in Table IB-10. There is increasing growth of the volume of world trade of goods and services from 3.6 percent in 2013 to 6.1 percent in 2015 and 5.7 percent in 2018. World trade would be slower for advanced economies while emerging and developing economies (EMDE) experience faster growth. World economic slowdown would more challenging with lower growth of world trade.

Table IB-10, IMF, Projections of World Trade, ∆%

	2013	2014	2015	Average ∆% 2013-2018
World Trade Volume (Goods and Services)	3.6	5.3	6.1	5.7
Oil Price USD/Barrel	102.60	97.58	NA	NA
Commodity Price Index	181.84	174.06	NA	NA
Commodity Industrial Inputs Price 2005=100	170.04	164.66	NA	NA
Imports Goods & Services
G7	1.8	4.0	4.7	4.3
EMDE	6.2	7.3	7.9	7.5
Exports Goods & Services
G7	2.2	4.4	4.9	4.5
EMDE	4.8	6.5	7.6	7.1

Notes: Commodity Price Index includes Fuel and Non-fuel Prices; Commodity Industrial Inputs Price includes agricultural raw materials and metal prices; Oil price is average of WTI, Brent and Dubai

Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/index.aspx

IIA United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities. Subsection IIA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy recapitulates the mechanism of transmission of monetary policy. Subsection IIA2 Functions of Banking analyzes the functions of banks in modern banking theory. Subsection IIA3 United States Commercial Bank Assets and Liabilities provides data and analysis of US commercial bank balance sheets in report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm). Subsection IIA4 Theory and Reality of Economic History and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation analyzes and compares unconventional monetary policy.

IIA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy. The critical fact of current world financial markets is the combination of “unconventional” monetary policy with intermittent shocks of financial risk aversion. There are two interrelated unconventional monetary policies. First, unconventional monetary policy consists of (1) reducing short-term policy interest rates toward the “zero bound” such as fixing the fed funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent by decision of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) since Dec 16, 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm). Second, unconventional monetary policy also includes a battery of measures to also reduce long-term interest rates of government securities and asset-backed securities such as mortgage-backed securities.

When inflation is low, the central bank lowers interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand in the economy, which consists of consumption and investment. When inflation is subdued and unemployment high, monetary policy would lower interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand, reducing unemployment. When interest rates decline to zero, unconventional monetary policy would consist of policies such as large-scale purchases of long-term securities to lower their yields. A major portion of credit in the economy is financed with long-term asset-backed securities. Loans for purchasing houses, automobiles and other consumer products are bundled in securities that in turn are sold to investors. Corporations borrow funds for investment by issuing corporate bonds. Loans to small businesses are also financed by bundling them in long-term bonds. Securities markets bridge the needs of higher returns by investors obtaining funds from savers that are channeled to consumers and business for consumption and investment. Lowering the yields of these long-term bonds could lower costs of financing purchases of consumer durables and investment by business. The essential mechanism of transmission from lower interest rates to increases in aggregate demand is portfolio rebalancing. Withdrawal of bonds in a specific maturity segment or directly in a bond category such as currently mortgage-backed securities causes reductions in yield that are equivalent to increases in the prices of the bonds. There can be secondary increases in purchases of those bonds in private portfolios in pursuit of their increasing prices. Lower yields translate into lower costs of buying homes and consumer durables such as automobiles and also lower costs of investment for business. There are two additional intended routes of transmission.

1. Unconventional monetary policy or its expectation can increase stock market valuations (Bernanke 2010WP). Increases in equities traded in stock markets can augment perceptions of the wealth of consumers inducing increases in consumption.

2. Unconventional monetary policy causes devaluation of the dollar relative to other currencies, which can cause increases in net exports of the US that increase aggregate economic activity (Yellen 2011AS).

Monetary policy can lower short-term interest rates quite effectively. Lowering long-term yields is somewhat more difficult. The critical issue is that monetary policy cannot ensure that increasing credit at low interest cost increases consumption and investment. There is a large variety of possible allocation of funds at low interest rates from consumption and investment to multiple risk financial assets. Monetary policy does not control how investors will allocate asset categories. A critical financial practice is to borrow at low short-term interest rates to invest in high-risk, leveraged financial assets. Investors may increase in their portfolios asset categories such as equities, emerging market equities, high-yield bonds, currencies, commodity futures and options and multiple other risk financial assets including structured products. If there is risk appetite, the carry trade from zero interest rates to risk financial assets will consist of short positions at short-term interest rates (or borrowing) and short dollar assets with simultaneous long positions in high-risk, leveraged financial assets such as equities, commodities and high-yield bonds. Low interest rates may induce increases in valuations of risk financial assets that may fluctuate in accordance with perceptions of risk aversion by investors and the public. During periods of muted risk aversion, carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets cause temporary waves of inflation that may foster instead of preventing financial instability (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). During periods of risk aversion such as fears of disruption of world financial markets and the global economy resulting from collapse of the European Monetary Union, carry trades are unwound with sharp deterioration of valuations of risk financial assets. More technical discussion is in IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html.

Charles Evans, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, proposed an “economic state-contingent policy” or “7/3” approach (Evans 2012 Aug 27):

“I think the best way to provide forward guidance is by tying our policy actions to explicit measures of economic performance. There are many ways of doing this, including setting a target for the level of nominal GDP. But recognizing the difficult nature of that policy approach, I have a more modest proposal: I think the Fed should make it clear that the federal funds rate will not be increased until the unemployment rate falls below 7 percent. Knowing that rates would stay low until significant progress is made in reducing unemployment would reassure markets and the public that the Fed would not prematurely reduce its accommodation.

Based on the work I have seen, I do not expect that such policy would lead to a major problem with inflation. But I recognize that there is a chance that the models and other analysis supporting this approach could be wrong. Accordingly, I believe that the commitment to low rates should be dropped if the outlook for inflation over the medium term rises above 3 percent.

The economic conditionality in this 7/3 threshold policy would clarify our forward policy intentions greatly and provide a more meaningful guide on how long the federal funds rate will remain low. In addition, I would indicate that clear and steady progress toward stronger growth is essential.”

Evans (2012Nov27) modified the “7/3” approach to a “6.5/2.5” approach:

“I have reassessed my previous 7/3 proposal. I now think a threshold of 6-1/2 percent for the unemployment rate and an inflation safeguard of 2-1/2 percent, measured in terms of the outlook for total PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index) inflation over the next two to three years, would be appropriate.”

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided at its meeting on Dec 12, 2012 to implement the “6.5/2.5” approach (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored.”

Unconventional monetary policy will remain in perpetuity, or QE∞, changing to a “growth mandate.” There are two reasons explaining unconventional monetary policy of QE∞: insufficiency of job creation to reduce unemployment/underemployment at current rates of job creation; and growth of GDP at 1.7 percent, which is well below 3.0 percent estimated by Lucas (2011May) from 1870 to 2010. Unconventional monetary policy interprets the dual mandate of low inflation and maximum employment as mainly a “growth mandate” of forcing economic growth in the US at a rate that generates full employment. A hurdle to this “growth mandate” is that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent on average during cyclical expansions in the postwar period while growth has been at only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 13 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing have not provided the impulse for growth and were not required in past successful cyclical expansions.

First, the number of nonfarm jobs and private jobs created has been declining in 2012 from 311,000 in Jan 2012 to 87,000 in Jun, 138,000 in Sep, 160,000 in Oct, 247,000 in Nov and 219,000 in Dec 2012 for total nonfarm jobs and from 323,000 in Jan 2012 to 78,000 in Jun, 118,000 in Sep, 217,000 in Oct, 256,000 in Nov and 224,000 in Dec 2012 for private jobs. Average new nonfarm jobs in the quarter Dec 2011 to Feb 2012 were 270,667 per month, declining to average 159,909 per month in the eleven months from Mar 2012 to Jan 2013. Average new private jobs in the quarter Dec 2011 to Feb 2012 were 279,000 per month, declining to average 167,727 per month in the eleven months from Mar 2012 to Jan 2013. The number of 164,000 new private new jobs created in Jan 2013 is lower than the average 167,727 per month created from Mar 2012 to Jan 2013. New farm jobs created in Feb 2013 were 268,000 and 254,000 in private jobs, which exceeds the average for the prior eleven months. In Mar 2013 the US economy created 88,000 new farm jobs, which is 52 percent of the average of 169,000 jobs per month created in the past 12 months (page 2 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf). The US labor force increased from 153.617 million in 2011 to 154.975 million in 2012 by 1.358 million or 113,167 per month. The average increase of nonfarm jobs in the six months from Oct 2012 to Mar 2013 was 188,333, which is a rate of job creation inadequate to reduce significantly unemployment and underemployment in the United States because of 113,167 new entrants in the labor force per month with 29.6 million unemployed or underemployed. The difference between the average increase of 188,333 new private nonfarm jobs per month in the US from Oct 2012 to Mar 2013 and the 113,167 average monthly increase in the labor force from 2011 to 2012 is 75,166 monthly new jobs net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force. There are 29.6 million in job stress in the US currently. The provision of 75,166 new jobs per month net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force would require 393 months to provide jobs for the unemployed and underemployed (29.550 million divided by 75,166) or 32.8 years (393 divided by 12). The civilian labor force of the US in Mar 2013 not seasonally adjusted stood at 154.512 million with 11.815 million unemployed or effectively 19.490 million unemployed in this blog’s calculation by inferring those who are not searching because they believe there is no job for them for effective labor force of 162.187 million. Reduction of one million unemployed at the current rate of job creation without adding more unemployment requires 1.1 years (1 million divided by product of 75,166 by 12, which is 901,992). Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would be equivalent to unemployment of only 7.726 million (0.05 times labor force of 154.512 million) for new net job creation of 4.089 million (11.815 million unemployed minus 7.726 million unemployed at rate of 5 percent) that at the current rate would take 4.5 years (4.089 million divided by 901.992). Under the calculation in this blog there are 19.490 million unemployed by including those who ceased searching because they believe there is no job for them and effective labor force of 162.187 million. Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would require creating 11.381 million jobs net of labor force growth that at the current rate would take 12.6 years (19.490 million minus 0.05(162.187 million) or 11.381 million divided by 901,992, using LF PART 66.2% and Total UEM in Table I-4). These calculations assume that there are no more recessions, defying United States economic history with periodic contractions of economic activity when unemployment increases sharply. The number employed in the US fell from 147.118 million in Nov 2007 to 142.698 million in Mar 2013, by 4.420 million, or decline of 3.0 percent, while the noninstitutional population increased from 232.939 million in Nov 2007 to 244.995 million in Mar 2013, by 12.056 million or increase of 5.2 percent, using not seasonally adjusted data. There is actually not sufficient job creation to merely absorb new entrants in the labor force because of those dropping from job searches, worsening the stock of unemployed or underemployed in involuntary part-time jobs.

Second, the economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as decelerating from mediocre growth of 2.4 percent on an annual basis in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011 to 2.2 percent in 2012. Calculations below show that actual growth is around 1.9 percent per year. This rate is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which has been always recovered after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). United States real GDP grew at the rate of 3.2 percent between 1929 and 2012 and at 3.2 percent between 1947 and 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html). Growth is not only mediocre but also sharply decelerating to a rhythm that is not consistent with reduction of unemployment and underemployment of 29.6 million people corresponding to 18.2 percent of the effective labor force of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). In the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, US real GDP grew at the seasonally-adjusted annual equivalent rates of 0.1 percent in the first quarter of 2011 (IQ2011), 2.5 percent in IIQ2011, 1.3 percent in IIIQ2011, 4.1 percent in IVQ2011, 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012, revised 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012, 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 and 2.5 percent in IQ2013. The annual equivalent rate of growth of GDP for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent, obtained as follows. Discounting 0.1 percent to one quarter is 0.025 percent {[(1.001)^1/4 -1]100 = 0.025}; discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 – 1]100}; discounting 4.1 percent to one quarter is 1.0 {[(1.04)^1/4 -1]100; discounting 2.0 percent to one quarter is 0.50 percent {[(1.020)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 1.3 percent to one quarter is 0.32 percent {[(1.013)^1/4 -1]100}; discounting 3.1 percent to one quarter is 0.77 {[(1.031)^1/4 -1]100); discounting 0.4 percent to one quarter is 0.1 percent {[(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100}; and discounting 2.5 percent to one quarter is 0.62 percent {[(1.025)^1/4 -1}100}. Real GDP growth in the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 accumulated to 4.3 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. This is equivalent to growth from IQ2011 to IVQ2012 obtained by dividing the seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of IQ2013 of $13,750.1 billion by the SAAR of IVQ2010 of $13,181.2 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 and Table I-6 below) and expressing as percentage {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2) - 1]100 = 4.3%}. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011, the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 is 1.9 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001 x 1.0062)^4/9 -1]100 = 1.9%], or {[($13,750.1/$13,181.2)]^4/9-1]100 = 1.9%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table I-6 below, obtaining the average for nine quarters and the annual average for one year of four quarters. Growth in the four quarters of 2012 accumulates to 1.7 percent {[(1.02)^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.031)^1/4(1.004)^1/4 -1]100 = 1.7%}. This is equivalent to dividing the SAAR of $13,665.4 billion for IVQ2012 in Table I-6 by the SAAR of $13,441.0 billion in IVQ2011 except for a rounding discrepancy to obtain 1.7 percent {[($13,665.4/$13,441.0) – 1]100 = 1.7%}. The US economy is still close to a standstill especially considering the GDP report in detail.

In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation. Even if there is no inflation QE∞ cannot be abandoned because of the fear of rising interest rates. The economy would operate in an inferior allocation of resources and suboptimal growth path, or interior point of the production possibilities frontier where the optimum of productive efficiency and wellbeing is attained, because of the distortion of risk/return decisions caused by perpetual financial repression. Not even a second-best allocation is feasible with the shocks to efficiency of financial repression in perpetuity.

It may be quite painful to exit QE∞ or use of the balance sheet of the central bank together with zero interest rates forever. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:

clip_image004[1]

Where R_τ is expected revenue in the time horizon from τ =1 to T; C_τ denotes costs; and ρ is an appropriate rate of discount. In words, the value today of a stock or investment project is the net revenue, or revenue less costs, in the investment period from τ =1 to T discounted to the present by an appropriate rate of discount. In the current weak economy, revenues have been increasing more slowly than anticipated in investment plans. An increase in interest rates would affect discount rates used in calculations of present value, resulting in frustration of investment decisions. If V represents value of the stock or investment project, as ρ → ∞, meaning that discount rates increase without bound, then V → 0, or

clip_image004[1]

declines.

The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Friedman 1957, 10). According to a subsequent restatement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption decisions is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (1)

Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r →0, W grows without bound, W→∞. Equally, as r→∞, W→0. Monetary policy is constrained in a QE∞ trap with all adverse effects of financial repression and resource misallocation because an increase in interest rates causes contraction of wealth, which in the United States is concentrated in home ownership and stocks in own investment portfolios and pension funds that decline during interest rate increases.

IIA2 Functions of Banks. Modern banking theory analyzes three important functions provided by banks: monitoring of borrowers, provision of liquidity services and transformation of illiquid assets into immediately liquid assets (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 51-60). These functions require valuation of alternative investment projects that may be distorted by zero interest rates of monetary policy and artificially low long-term interest rates. The QE∞ trap frustrates essential banking functions.

Monitoring. Banks monitor projects to ensure that funds are allocated to their intended projects (Diamond 1984, 1996). Banks issue deposits, which are secondary assets, to acquire loans, which are primary assets. Monitoring reduces costs of participating in business projects. Acting as delegated monitor, banks obtain information on the borrower, allowing less costly participation through the issue of unmonitored deposits. Monitoring of borrowers provides enhanced less costly participation by investors through the issue of deposits. There is significant reduction of monitoring costs by delegating to a bank. If there are many potential investors, monitoring by the bank of a credit name is less costly than the sum of individual monitoring of the same credit name by all potential investors. Banks permit borrowers to reach many investors for their projects while affording investors less costly participation in the returns of projects of bank borrowers.
Transformation of Illiquid Loans into Liquid Deposits. Diamond and Dybvig (1986) analyze bank services through bank balance sheets.

i. Assets. Banks provide loans to borrowers. The evaluation of borrowers prevents “adverse selection,” which consists of banks choosing unsound projects and failing to finance sound projects. Monitoring of loans prevents “moral hazard,” which consists of borrowers using the funds of the loan for purposes other than the project for which they were lent, as for example, using borrowed bank funds for speculative real estate instead of for the intended industrial project. Relationship banking improves the information on borrowers and the monitoring function.

ii. Liabilities. Banks provide numerous services to their clients such as holding deposits, clearing transactions, currency inventory and payments for goods, services and obligations.

iii. Assets and Liabilities: Transformation Function. The transformation function operates through both sides of the balance sheet: banks convert illiquid loans in the asset side into liquid deposits in the liability side. There is rich theory of banking (Diamond and Rajan 2000, 2001a,b). Securitized banking provides the same transformation function by bundling mortgage and other consumer loans into securities that are then sold to investors who finance them in short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 61-6).

Banking was important in facilitating economic growth in historical periods (Cameron 1961, 1967, 1972; Cameron et al. 1992). Banking is also important currently because small- and medium-size business may have no other form of financing than banks in contrast with many options for larger and more mature companies that have access to capital markets. Personal consumptions expenditures have share of 70.5 percent of GDP in IIIQ2012 (Table I-10 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states_24.html). Most consumers rely on their banks for real estate loans, credit cards and personal consumer loans. Thus, it should be expected that success of monetary policy in stimulating the economy would be processed through bank balance sheets.

IIA3 United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities. Selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars, from Report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table IIA-1. Data are not seasonally adjusted to permit comparison between Mar 2012 and Mar 2013. Total assets of US commercial banks grew 2.2 percent from $12,645.8 billion in Mar 2012 to $13,307.8 billion in Mar 2013. US GDP in 2012 is estimated at $15,684.8 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Thus, total assets of US commercial banks are equivalent to around 85 percent of US GDP. Bank credit grew 4.2 percent from $9566.3 billion in Mar 2012 to $9963.5 billion in Mar 2013. Securities in bank credit increased 5.4 percent from $2578.7 billion in Mar 2012 to $2718.0 billion in Mar 2013. A large part of securities in banking credit consists of US Treasury and agency securities, growing 4.1 percent from $1780.7 billion in Mar 2012 to $1853.6 billion in Mar 2013. Credit to the government that issues or backs Treasury and agency securities of $1853.6 billion in Mar 2013 is about 18.6 percent of total bank credit of US commercial banks of $9963.5 billion. Mortgage-backed securities, providing financing of home loans, grew 1.4 percent, from $1314.9 billion in Mar 2012 to $1333.4 billion in Mar 2013. Loans and leases were less dynamic, growing 3.7 percent from $6988.0 billion in Mar 2012 to $7245.5 billion in Mar 2013. The only dynamic class is commercial and industrial loans, growing 11.5 percent from Mar 2012 to Mar 2013 and providing $1544.0 billion or 21.3 percent of total loans and leases of $7245.5 billion in Mar 2013. Real estate loans increased only 0.3 percent, providing $3547.7 billion in Feb 2013 or 48.8 percent of total loans and leases. Consumer loans increased only 2.5 percent, providing $1112.3 billion in Mar 2013 or 15.4 percent of total loans. Cash assets are measured to “include vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm). Cash assets in US commercial banks increased 16.5 percent from $1652.8 billion in Mar 2012 to $1925.9 billion in Mar 2013 but a single year of the series masks exploding cash in banks because of unconventional monetary policy, which is discussed below. Bank deposits increased 8.3 percent from $8624.4 billion to $9343.5 billion. The difference between bank deposits and total loans and leases in banks increased from $1636.4 billion in Mar 2012 to $2098.0 billion in Mar 2013 or by $461.6 billion, which is similar to the increase in securities in bank credit by $139.3 billion from $2578.7 billion in Mar 2012 to $2718.0 billion in Mar 2013 and to the increase in Treasury and agency securities by $72.9 billion from $1780.7 billion in Mar 2012 to $1853.6 billion in Mar 2013. Loans and leases increased $257.5 billion from $6988.0 billion in Mar 2012 to $7245.5 billion in Mar 2013. Banks expanded both lending and investment in lower risk securities partly because of the weak economy and credit disappointments during the global recession that has resulted in an environment of fewer sound lending opportunities. Lower interest rates resulting from monetary policy may not necessarily encourage higher borrowing in the current loss of dynamism of the US economy with real disposable income per capita in IVQ2012 higher by 0.9 percent than in IVQ2007 (Table IIA-3 below; see IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html) in contrast with 10.9 percent higher if the economy had performed in long-term growth of per capita income in the United States at 2 percent per year from 1870 to 2010 (Lucas 2011May) and growth of real disposable income by 15.7 percent in the cycle from IQ1980 to IQ1986 that was higher than trend growth of 13.2 percent.

Table IIA-1, US, Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, NSA, Billions of Dollars

	Mar 2012	Mar 2013	∆%
Total Assets	12,645.8	13,307.8	5.2
Bank Credit	9566.3	9963.5	4.2
Securities in Bank Credit	2578.7	2718.0	5.4
Treasury & Agency Securities	1780.7	1853.6	4.1
Mortgage-Backed Securities	1314.9	1333.4	1.4
Loans & Leases	6988.0	7245.5	3.7
Real Estate Loans	3533.5	3533.2	0.0
Consumer Loans	1085.1	1112.3	2.5
Commercial & Industrial Loans	1384.9	1544.0	11.5
Other Loans & Leases	984.5	1056.0	7.3
Cash Assets*	1652.8	1925.9	16.5
Total Liabilities	11,180.3	11,803.5	5.6
Deposits	8624.4	9343.5	8.3

Note: balancing item of residual assets less liabilities not included

*”Includes vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks.”

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rates (SAAR) of change of selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks from the report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table IIA-2 annually from 2007 to 2012 and for Feb 2013 and Mar 2013. The global recession had strong impact on bank assets as shown by declines of total assets of 6.0 percent in 2009 and 2.7 percent in 2010. Loans and leases fell 10.2 percent in 2009 and 5.8 percent in 2010. Commercial and industrial loans fell 18.6 percent in 2009 and 9.0 percent in 2010. Unconventional monetary policy caused an increase of cash assets of banks of 158.3 percent in 2008, 48.2 percent in 2009, 47.9 percent in 2011 followed by decline by 2.4 percent in 2012 and at the SAAR of 22.4 percent in Aug 2012 but contraction by 49.6 percent in Sep 2012 and 6.3 percent in Oct 2012 followed by increase of 56.0 percent in Nov 2012, minus 7.8 percent in Dec 2012, 38.8 percent in Jan 2013, 66.2 percent in Feb 2013 and 85.5 percent in Mar 2013. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank injected reserves in depository institutions that were held as cash and reserves at the central bank because of the lack of sound lending opportunities and the adverse expectations in the private sector on doing business. The truly dynamic investment of banks has been in securities in bank credit, growing at the SAAR of 15.4 percent in Jul 2012, 2.6 percent in Aug 2012, 5.3 percent in Sep 2012, 4.7 percent in Oct 2012, 1.7 percent in Nov 2012 and 20.5 percent in Dec 2012 with declines at 2.5 percent in Jan 2013 and 3.2 percent in Feb 2013. Throughout the crisis banks allocated increasing part of their assets to the safety of Treasury and agency securities, or credit to the US government and government-backed credit, with growth of 15.3 percent in 2009 and 15.2 percent in 2010 and at the rate of 16.3 percent in Jul 2012, declining to the rate of 3.4 percent in Aug 2012, 2.1 percent in Sep 2012 and 0.7 percent in Oct 2012 but falling at the rate of 0.8 percent in Nov 2012, increasing at 17.2 percent in Dec 2012 but falling at 6.1 percent in Jan 2013, 3.3 percent in Feb 2013 and 4.3 percent in Mar 2013. Deposits grew at the rate of 10.5 percent in Jul 2012, with the rate declining as for most assets of commercial banks to the rate of 6.2 percent in Aug 2012 but increasing to 7.2 percent in Sep 2012, 8.4 percent in Oct 2012, 5.7 percent in Nov 2012, 18.7 percent in Dec 2012, 2.6 percent in Jan 2013, 4.5 percent in Feb 2013 and 7.6 percent in Mar 2013. The credit intermediation function of banks is broken because of adverse expectations on future business and is not easily mended simply by monetary and fiscal policy. Incentives to business and consumers are more likely to be effective in this environment in recovering willingness to assume risk on the part of the private sector, which is the driver of growth and job creation.

Table IIA-2, US, Selected Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, ∆%

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	Feb 2013	Mar 2013
Total Assets	7.9	-6.0	-2.7	5.4	2.5	9.0	11.1
Bank Credit	2.1	-6.6	-2.8	1.8	3.9	0.6	0.4
Securities in Bank Credit	-2.0	6.8	6.7	1.7	7.4	-3.3	-4.3
Treasury & Agency Securities	3.1	15.3	15.2	2.9	8.5	-3.3	-9.2
Other Securities	-8.3	-4.9	-7.2	-0.8	5.0	-3.2	6.4
Loans & Leases	3.3	-10.2	-5.8	1.8	2.7	2.0	2.1
Real Estate Loans	-0.2	-5.6	-5.5	-3.7	-1.1	-2.2	-1.5
Consumer Loans	5.1	-3.3	-7.1	-0.7	1.1	3.1	5.3
Commercial & Industrial Loans	12.9	-18.6	-9.0	9.5	11.4	6.4	9.7
Other Loans & Leases	1.8	-23.3	0.3	19.4	6.3	9.0	0.1
Cash Assets	158.3	48.2	-7.9	47.9	-2.4	66.2	85.5
Total Liabilities	10.6	-7.2	-3.4	5.5	2.2	4.1	8.9
Deposits	5.4	5.2	2.4	6.6	7.1	4.5	7.6

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides quarterly seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) of cash assets in US commercial banks from 1973 to 2013. Unconventional monetary policy caused an increase in cash assets in late 2008 of close to 500 percent at SAAR and also in following policy impulses. Such aggressive policies were not required for growth of GDP at the average rate of 5.7 percent in 13 quarters of cyclical expansion from IQ1983 to IV1985 while the average rate in 15 quarters of cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IQ2013 has been at the rate of 2.1 percent (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html). The difference in magnitude of the recessions is not sufficient to explain weakness of the current cyclical expansion. Bordo (2012Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) find that growth is higher after deeper contractions and contractions with financial crises. There were two consecutive contractions in the 1980s with decline of 2.2 percent in two quarters from IQ1980 to IIIQ1980 and 2.7 percent from IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 that are almost identical to the contraction of 4.7 percent from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. There was also a decade-long financial and banking crisis during the 1980s. The debt crisis of 1982 (Pelaez 1986) wiped out a large part of the capital of large US money-center banks. Benston and Kaufman (1997, 139) find that there was failure of 1150 US commercial and savings banks between 1983 and 1990, or about 8 percent of the industry in 1980, which is nearly twice more than between the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1934 through 1983. More than 900 savings and loans associations, representing 25 percent of the industry, were closed, merged or placed in conservatorships (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 74-7). The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) that received $150 billion of taxpayer funds to resolve insolvent savings and loans. The GDP of the US in 1989 was $5482.1 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the partial cost to taxpayers of that bailout was around 2.74 percent of GDP in a year. US GDP in 2012 is estimated at $15,684.8 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the bailout would be equivalent to cost to taxpayers of about $429.8 billion in current GDP terms. A major difference with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for private-sector banks is that most of the costs were recovered with interest gains whereas in the case of savings and loans there was no recovery.

Chart IIA-1, US, Cash Assets, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides quarterly SAARs of bank credit at US commercial banks from 1973 to 2013. Rates collapsed sharply during the global recession as during the recessions of the 1980s and then rebounded. In both episodes, rates of growth of bank credit did not return to earlier magnitudes.

Chart IIA-2, US, Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides deposits at US commercial banks from 1973 to 2013. Deposits fell sharp during and after the global recession but then rebounded in the cyclical expansion.

Chart IIA-3, US, Deposits, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

There is similar behavior in the 1980s and in the current cyclical expansion of SAARs holdings of Treasury and agency securities in US commercial banks provided in Chart IIA-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the period 1973 to 2013. Sharp reductions of holdings during the contraction were followed by sharp increases.

Chart IIA-4, US, Treasury and Agency Securities in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides SAARs of change of total loans and leases in US commercial banks from 1973 to 2013. The decline in the current cycle of SAARs was much sharper and the rebound did not recover earlier growth rates. Part of the explanation originates in demand for loans that was high during rapid economic growth at 5.7 percent per year on average in the cyclical expansion of the 1980s in contrast with lower demand during tepid economic growth at 2.1 percent per year on average in the current weak expansion.

Chart IIA-5, US, Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

There is significant difference in the two cycles of the 1980s and the current one in quarterly SAARs of real estate loans in US commercial banks provided in Chart IIA-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The difference is explained by the debacle in real estate after 2006 compared to expansion during the 1980s even in the midst of the crisis of savings and loans and real estate credit. In both cases, government policy tried to influence recovery and avoid market clearing.

Chart IIA-6, US, Real Estate Loans in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

There is significant difference in quarterly SAARs of change of consumer loans in US commercial banks in the 1980s and during the current cycle as shown in Chart IIA-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Quarterly SAARs of consumer loans in US commercial banks fell sharply during the contraction of 1980 and oscillated with upward trend during the contraction of 1983-1984 but increased sharply in the cyclical expansion. In contrast, SAARs of consumer loans in US commercial banks collapsed to high negative magnitudes during the contraction and have increased at very low magnitudes during the current cyclical expansion.

Chart IIA-7, US, Consumer Loans in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2013, ∆%

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Lucas (2011May) estimates US economic growth in the long-term at 3 percent per year and about 2 percent per year in per capita terms. There are displacements from this trend caused by events such as wars and recessions but the economy then returns to trend. Historical US GDP data exhibit remarkable growth: Lucas (2011May) estimates an increase of US real income per person by a factor of 12 in the period from 1870 to 2010. The explanation by Lucas (2011May) of this remarkable growth experience is that government provided stability and education while elements of “free-market capitalism” were an important driver of long-term growth and prosperity. The analysis is sharpened by comparison with the long-term growth experience of G7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan) and Spain from 1870 to 2010. Countries benefitted from “common civilization” and “technology” to “catch up” with the early growth leaders of the US and UK, eventually growing at a faster rate. Significant part of this catch up occurred after World War II. Lucas (2011May) finds that the catch up stalled in the 1970s. The analysis of Lucas (2011May) is that the 20-40 percent gap that developed originated in differences in relative taxation and regulation that discouraged savings and work incentives in comparison with the US. A larger welfare and regulatory state, according to Lucas (2011May), could be the cause of the 20-40 percent gap. Cobet and Wilson (2002) provide estimates of output per hour and unit labor costs in national currency and US dollars for the US, Japan and Germany from 1950 to 2000 (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). The average yearly rate of productivity change from 1950 to 2000 was 2.9 percent in the US, 6.3 percent for Japan and 4.7 percent for Germany while unit labor costs in USD increased at 2.6 percent in the US, 4.7 percent in Japan and 4.3 percent in Germany. From 1995 to 2000, output per hour increased at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US, 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany while unit labor costs in USD fell at minus 0.7 percent in the US, 4.3 percent in Japan and 7.5 percent in Germany. There was increase in productivity growth in Japan and France within the G7 in the second half of the 1990s but significantly lower than the acceleration of 1.3 percentage points per year in the US. Long-term economic growth and prosperity are measured by the key indicators of growth of real income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation. A refined concept would include real disposable income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation and taxes.

Table IIA-3 provides the data required for broader comparison of the cyclical expansions of IQ1983 to IVQ1985 and the current one from 2009 to 2012. First, in the 13 quarters from IQ1983 to IQ1986, GDP increased 19.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.7 percent; real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 14.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 4.4 percent; RDPI per capita increased 11.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.5 percent; and population increased 2.7 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent. Second, in the 14 quarters of the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012, GDP increased 7.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.1 percent. In the 14 quarters of cyclical expansion real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 7.0 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.0 percent; RDPI per capita increased 4.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.3 percent; and population increased 2.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent. Third, since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IVQ2012, GDP increased 2.5 percent, or barely above the level before the recession. Since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IVQ2012, real disposable personal income increased 5.0 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.9 percent; population increased 4.1 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita is 0.9 percent higher than the level before the recession. Real disposable personal income is the actual take home pay after inflation and taxes and real disposable income per capita is what is left per inhabitant. The current cyclical expansion is the worst in the period after World War II in terms of growth of economic activity and income. The United States grew during its history at high rates of per capita income that made its economy the largest in the world. That dynamism is disappearing. Bordo (2012 Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide strong evidence that recoveries have been faster after deeper recessions and recessions with financial crises, casting serious doubts on the conventional explanation of weak growth during the current expansion allegedly because of the depth of the contraction from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 of 4.7 percent and the financial crisis.

Table IIA-3, US, GDP, Real Disposable Personal Income, Real Disposable Income per Capita and Population in 1983-85 and 2007-2012, %

	# Quarters	∆%	∆% Annual Equivalent
IQ1983 to IVQ1986	13
GDP		19.6	5.7
RDPI		14.9	4.4
RDPI Per Capita		11.9	3.5
Population		2.7	0.8
IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012	14
GDP		7.5	2.1
RDPI		7.0	2.0
RDPI per Capita		4.4	1.3
Population		2.5	0.7
IVQ2007 to IVQ2012	21
GDP		2.5	0.5
RDPI		5.0	0.9
RDPI per Capita		0.9	0.2
Population		4.1	0.8

RDPI: Real Disposable Personal Income

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart IIA-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides cash assets in commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank were processed by increases in bank cash reserves. There is no comparable experience in US economic history and such flood of money was never required to return US economic growth to trend of 3 percent per year and 2 percent per year in per capita income after events such as recessions and wars (Lucas 2011May). It is difficult to argue that higher magnitudes of monetary and fiscal policy impulses would have been more successful. Discovery of such painless and fast adjustment by gigantic impulses of monetary policy of zero interest rates and trillions of dollars of bond buying would have occurred earlier with prior cases of successful implementation. Selective incentives to the private sector of a long-term nature could have been more effective.

Chart IIA-8, US, Cash Assets in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart I-9 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total assets of Federal Reserve Banks in millions of dollars on Wednesdays from Dec 18, 2002 to Mar 24, 2013. This is what is referred as the leverage of the central bank balance sheet in monetary policy (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-62, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b) 224-27). Consecutive rounds of unconventional monetary policy increased total assets by purchase of mortgage-backed securities, agency securities and Treasury securities. Bank reserves in cash and deposited at the central bank swelled as shown in Chart I-8. The central bank created assets in the form of securities financed with creation of liabilities in the form of reserves of depository institutions.

Chart IIA-9, US, Total Assets of Federal Reserve Banks, Wednesday Level, Millions of Dollars, Dec 18, 2002 to Apr 24, 2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1

Chart IIA-10 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides deposits in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Deposit growth clearly accelerated after 2001 and continued during the current cyclical expansion after bumps during the global recession

Chart IIA-10, US, Deposits in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-11 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides Treasury and agency securities in US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Holdings stabilized between the recessions of 2001 and after IVQ2007. There was rapid growth during the global contraction especially after unconventional monetary policy in 2008 and nearly vertical increase without prior similar historical experience during the various bouts of unconventional monetary policy. Banks hoard cash and less risky Treasury and agency securities instead of risky lending because of the weakness of the economy and the lack of demand for financing sound business projects.

Chart IIA-11, US, Treasury and Agency Securities in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-12 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total loans and leases in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Total loans and leases of US commercial banks contracted sharply and have stalled during the cyclical expansion.

Chart IIA-12, US, Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-13 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides real estate loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Housing subsidies and low interest rates caused a point of inflexion to higher, nearly vertical growth until 2007. Real estate loans have contracted in downward trend partly because of adverse effects of uncertainty on the impact on balance sheets of the various mechanisms of resolution imposed by policy. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Push for cheaper credit hits wall,” on Dec 24, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324660404578197782701079650.html), provides important information and analysis on housing finance. Quantitative easing consists of withdrawing supply of mortgage-backed securities by acquiring them as assets in the Fed balance sheet. Lending banks obtain funds for mortgages by bundling them according to risk and other characteristics and selling them to investors, using the proceeds from the sale to provide the loans to homebuyers or refinancing homeowners. Banks earn net revenue to remunerate capital required for operations from the spread between the rate received from mortgage debtors and the rate implicit in the yield of the mortgage-backed securities. Nick Timiraos (Ibid) finds that the spread was around 0.5 percentage points before the financial crisis of 2007, widening to 1 percentage point after the crisis but jumping to 1.6 percentage points after the Fed engaged in another program of buying mortgage-backed securities, oscillating currently around 1.3 percentage points. The spread has widened because banks have higher costs originating in regulation, litigation on repurchasing defaulted mortgages, loss in case of default and more prudent but more costly scrutiny of property appraisals and income verification. As a result, even if quantitative easing does lower yields of mortgage-backed securities there would not be proportionate reduction in mortgage rates and even less likely construction and sales of houses.

Chart IIA-13, US, Real Estate Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-14 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides consumer loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Consumer loans even increased during the contraction then declined and increased vertically to decline again. There was high demand for reposition of durable goods that exhausted and limited consumption again with increase in savings rates in recent periods.

Chart IIA-14, US, Consumer Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, US Commercial Banks, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-15 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides commercial and industrial loans not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2013. Commercial and industrial loans fell sharply during both contractions in 2001 and after IVQ2007 and then rebounded with accelerated growth. Commercial and industrial loans have not reached again the peak during the global recession.

Chart IIA-15, US, Commercial and Industrial Loans in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

Chart IIA-16 is quite revealing in analyzing the state of bank credit in the US economy. The upper curves are deposits and loans and leases in bank credit. Historically since 1973, the level and rate of change of deposits and loans and leases in bank credit were almost identical. The lower two curves are Treasury and agency securities in bank credit and cash assets with treasury and agency securities moving closely with cash assets until the 1990s when Treasury and agency securities exceeded cash assets. The shaded area of the recession from IV2007 to IIQ2009 shows a break in the level and rate of movement of the series. Deposits continued to expand rapidly through the recession and the following expansion period. Loans and leases fell and barely recovered the level before the recession while deposits moved nearly vertically well above the level before the recession. While Treasury and agency securities in bank credit continued to expand at a higher rate, reaching a level well above that before the recession, cash assets jumped as the counterpart of excess reserves in banks that financed quantitative easing or massive outright purchases of securities for the balance sheet of the Fed. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and outright purchases of securities has result in sharp increases of deposits, cash assets and Treasury and agency securities in bank credit but not in loans and leases. Much is said about the almost impossible task of evaluating monetary policy in terms of costs and benefits. Before the financial crisis, Chairman Greenspan (2004) analyzes monetary policy and its limitations (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 13-4, 212-13) that do not differ from those of private financial institutions:

“The Federal Reserve's experiences over the past two decades make it clear that uncertainty is not just a pervasive feature of the monetary policy landscape; it is the defining characteristic of that landscape. The term "uncertainty" is meant here to encompass both "Knightian uncertainty," in which the probability distribution of outcomes is unknown, and "risk," in which uncertainty of outcomes is delimited by a known probability distribution. In practice, one is never quite sure what type of uncertainty one is dealing with in real time, and it may be best to think of a continuum ranging from well-defined risks to the truly unknown.

As a consequence, the conduct of monetary policy in the United States has come to involve, at its core, crucial elements of risk management. This conceptual framework emphasizes understanding as much as possible the many sources of risk and uncertainty that policymakers face, quantifying those risks when possible, and assessing the costs associated with each of the risks. In essence, the risk management approach to monetary policymaking is an application of Bayesian decision making.

This framework also entails devising, in light of those risks, a strategy for policy directed at maximizing the probabilities of achieving over time our goals of price stability and the maximum sustainable economic growth that we associate with it. In designing strategies to meet our policy objectives, we have drawn on the work of analysts, both inside and outside the Fed, who over the past half century have devoted much effort to improving our understanding of the economy and its monetary transmission mechanism. A critical result has been the identification of a relatively small set of key relationships that, taken together, provide a useful approximation of our economy's dynamics. Such an approximation underlies the statistical models that we at the Federal Reserve employ to assess the likely influence of our policy decisions.

However, despite extensive efforts to capture and quantify what we perceive as the key macroeconomic relationships, our knowledge about many of the important linkages is far from complete and, in all likelihood, will always remain so. Every model, no matter how detailed or how well designed, conceptually and empirically, is a vastly simplified representation of the world that we experience with all its intricacies on a day-to-day basis.

Given our inevitably incomplete knowledge about key structural aspects of an ever-changing economy and the sometimes asymmetric costs or benefits of particular outcomes, a central bank needs to consider not only the most likely future path for the economy but also the distribution of possible outcomes about that path. The decision makers then need to reach a judgment about the probabilities, costs, and benefits of the various possible outcomes under alternative choices for policy.”

“Whale” trades at official institutions do not receive the same media attention as those in large private banking institutions such as the teapot storm over JP Morgan Chase.

Chart IIA-16, US, Deposits, Treasury and Government Securities in Bank Credit and Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2013, Billions of Dollars

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm

IIA4 Theory and Reality of Economic History and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation. Fear of deflation as had occurred during the Great Depression and in Japan was used as an argument for the first round of unconventional monetary policy with 1 percent interest rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 and quantitative easing in the form of withdrawal of supply of 30-year securities by suspension of the auction of 30-year Treasury bonds with the intention of reducing mortgage rates (for fear of deflation see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, and Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-95). The financial crisis and global recession were caused by interest rate and housing subsidies and affordability policies that encouraged high leverage and risks, low liquidity and unsound credit (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-66, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 217-27, International Financial Architecture (2005), 15-18, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b), 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 182-4). Several past comments of this blog elaborate on these arguments, among which: http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/professor-mckinnons-bubble-economy.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-inflation-quantitative-easing.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/treasury-yields-valuation-of-risk.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-theory-evidence-and.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html

If the forecast of the central bank is of recession and low inflation with controlled inflationary expectations, monetary policy should consist of lowering the short-term policy rate of the central bank, which in the US is the fed funds rate. The intended effect is to lower the real rate of interest (Svensson 2003LT, 146-7). The real rate of interest, r, is defined as the nominal rate, i, adjusted by expectations of inflation, π*, with all variables defined as proportions: (1+r) = (1+i)/(1+π*) (Fisher 1930). If i, the fed funds rate, is lowered by the Fed, the numerator of the right-hand side is lower such that if inflationary expectations, π*, remain unchanged, the left-hand (1+r) decreases, that is, the real rate of interest, r, declines. Expectations of lowering short-term real rates of interest by policy of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) fixing a lower fed funds rate would lower long-term real rates of interest, inducing with a lag investment and consumption, or aggregate demand, that can lift the economy out of recession. Inflation also increases with a lag by higher aggregate demand and inflation expectations (Fisher 1933). This reasoning explains why the FOMC lowered the fed funds rate in Dec 2008 to 0 to 0.25 percent and left it unchanged.

The fear of the Fed is expected deflation or negative π*. In that case, (1+ π*) < 1, and (1+r) would increase because the right-hand side of the equation would be divided by a fraction. A simple numerical example explains the effect of deflation on the real rate of interest. Suppose that the nominal rate of interest or fed funds rate, i, is 0.25 percent, or in proportion 0.25/100 = 0.0025, such that (1+i) = 1.0025. Assume now that economic agents believe that inflation will remain at 1 percent for a long period, which means that π* = 1 percent, or in proportion 1/100 =0.01. The real rate of interest, using the equation, is (1+0.0025)/(1+0.01) = (1+r) = 0.99257, such that r = 0.99257 - 1 = -0.00743, which is a proportion equivalent to –(0.00743)100 = -0.743 percent. That is, Fed policy has created a negative real rate of interest of 0.743 percent with the objective of inducing aggregate demand by higher investment and consumption. This is true if expected inflation, π*, remains at 1 percent. Suppose now that expectations of deflation become generalized such that π* becomes -1 percent, that is, the public believes prices will fall at the rate of 1 percent in the foreseeable future. Then the real rate of interest becomes (1+0.0025) divided by (1-0.01) equal to (1.0025)/(0.99) = (1+r) = 1.01263, or r = (1.01263-1) = 0.01263, which results in positive real rate of interest of (0.01263)100 = 1.263 percent.

Irving Fisher also identified the impact of deflation on debts as an important cause of deepening contraction of income and employment during the Great Depression illustrated by an actual example (Fisher 1933, 346):

“By March, 1933, liquidation had reduced the debts about 20 percent, but had increased the dollar about 75 percent, so that the real debt, that is the debt measured in terms of commodities, was increased about 40 percent [100%-20%)X(100%+75%) =140%]. Unless some counteracting cause comes along to prevent the fall in the price level, such a depression as that of 1929-1933 (namely when the more the debtors pay the more they owe) tends to continue, going deeper, in a vicious spiral, for many years. There is then no tendency of the boat to stop tipping until it has capsized”

The nominal rate of interest must always be nonnegative, that is, i ≥ 0 (Hick 1937, 154-5):

“If the costs of holding money can be neglected, it will always be profitable to hold money rather than lend it out, if the rate of interest is not greater than zero. Consequently the rate of interest must always be positive. In an extreme case, the shortest short-term rate may perhaps be nearly zero. But if so, the long-term rate must lie above it, for the long rate has to allow for the risk that the short rate may rise during the currency of the loan, and it should be observed that the short rate can only rise, it cannot fall”

The interpretation by Hicks of the General Theory of Keynes is the special case in which at interest rates close to zero liquidity preference is infinitely or perfectly elastic, that is, the public holds infinitely large cash balances at that near zero interest rate because there is no opportunity cost of foregone interest. Increases in the money supply by the central bank would not decrease interest rates below their near zero level, which is called the liquidity trap. The only alternative public policy would consist of fiscal policy that would act similarly to an increase in investment, increasing employment without raising the interest rate.

An influential view on the policy required to steer the economy away from the liquidity trap is provided by Paul Krugman (1998). Suppose the central bank faces an increase in inflation. An important ingredient of the control of inflation is the central bank communicating to the public that it will maintain a sustained effort by all available policy measures and required doses until inflation is subdued and price stability is attained. If the public believes that the central bank will control inflation only until it declines to a more benign level but not sufficiently low level, current expectations will develop that inflation will be higher once the central bank abandons harsh measures. During deflation and recession the central bank has to convince the public that it will maintain zero interest rates and other required measures until the rate of inflation returns convincingly to a level consistent with expansion of the economy and stable prices. Krugman (1998, 161) summarizes the argument as:

“The ineffectuality of monetary policy in a liquidity trap is really the result of a looking-glass version of the standard credibility problem: monetary policy does not work because the public expects that whatever the central bank may do now, given the chance, it will revert to type and stabilize prices near their current level. If the central bank can credibly promise to be irresponsible—that is, convince the market that it will in fact allow prices to rise sufficiently—it can bootstrap the economy out of the trap”

This view is consistent with results of research by Christina Romer that “the rapid rates of growth of real output in the mid- and late 1930s were largely due to conventional aggregate demand stimulus, primarily in the form of monetary expansion. My calculations suggest that in the absence of these stimuli the economy would have remained depressed far longer and far more deeply than it actually did” (Romer 1992, 757-8, cited in Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 210-2). The average growth rate of the money supply in 1933-1937 was 10 percent per year and increased in the early 1940s. Romer calculates that GDP would have been much lower without this monetary expansion. The growth of “the money supply was primarily due to a gold inflow, which was in turn due to the devaluation in 1933 and to capital flight from Europe because of political instability after 1934” (Romer 1992, 759). Gold inflow coincided with the decline in real interest rates in 1933 that remained negative through the latter part of the 1930s, suggesting that they could have caused increases in spending that was sensitive to declines in interest rates. Bernanke finds dollar devaluation against gold to have been important in preventing further deflation in the 1930s (Bernanke 2002):

“There have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation. A striking example from US history is Franklin Roosevelt’s 40 percent devaluation of the dollar against gold in 1933-34, enforced by a program of gold purchases and domestic money creation. The devaluation and the rapid increase in money supply it permitted ended the US deflation remarkably quickly. Indeed, consumer price inflation in the United States, year on year, went from -10.3 percent in 1932 to -5.1 percent in 1933 to 3.4 percent in 1934. The economy grew strongly, and by the way, 1934 was one of the best years of the century for the stock market”

Fed policy is seeking what Irving Fisher proposed “that great depressions are curable and preventable through reflation and stabilization” (Fisher 1933, 350).

The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago argues that (Charles Evans 2010):

“I believe the US economy is best described as being in a bona fide liquidity trap. Highly plausible projections are 1 percent for core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation at the end of 2012 and 8 percent for the unemployment rate. For me, the Fed’s dual mandate misses are too large to shrug off, and there is currently no policy conflict between improving employment and inflation outcomes”

There are two types of monetary policies that could be used in this situation. First, the Fed could announce a price-level target to be attained within a reasonable time frame (Evans 2010):

“For example, if the slope of the price path is 2 percent and inflation has been underunning the path for some time, monetary policy would strive to catch up to the path. Inflation would be higher than 2 percent for a time until the path was reattained”

Optimum monetary policy with interest rates near zero could consist of “bringing the price level back up to a level even higher than would have prevailed had the disturbance never occurred” (Gauti Eggertsson and Michael Woodford 2003, 207). Bernanke (2003JPY) explains as follows:

“Failure by the central bank to meet its target in a given period leads to expectations of (and public demands for) increased effort in subsequent periods—greater quantities of assets purchased on the open market for example. So even if the central bank is reluctant to provide a time frame for meetings its objective, the structure of the price-level objective provides a means for the bank to commit to increasing its anti-deflationary efforts when its earlier efforts prove unsuccessful. As Eggertsson and Woodford show, the expectations that an increasing price level gap will give rise to intensified effort by the central bank should lead the public to believe that ultimately inflation will replace deflation, a belief that supports the central bank’s own objectives by lowering the current real rate of interest”

Second, the Fed could use its balance sheet to increase purchases of long-term securities together with credible commitment to maintain the policy until the dual mandates of maximum employment and price stability are attained.

In the restatement of the liquidity trap and large-scale policies of monetary/fiscal stimulus, Krugman (1998, 162) finds:

“In the traditional open economy IS-LM model developed by Robert Mundell [1963] and Marcus Fleming [1962], and also in large-scale econometric models, monetary expansion unambiguously leads to currency depreciation. But there are two offsetting effects on the current account balance. On one side, the currency depreciation tends to increase net exports; on the other side, the expansion of the domestic economy tends to increase imports. For what it is worth, policy experiments on such models seem to suggest that these effects very nearly cancel each other out.

Krugman (1998) uses a different dynamic model with expectations that leads to similar conclusions.

The central bank could also be pursuing competitive devaluation of the national currency in the belief that it could increase inflation to a higher level and promote domestic growth and employment at the expense of growth and unemployment in the rest of the world. An essay by Chairman Bernanke in 1999 on Japanese monetary policy received attention in the press, stating that (Bernanke 2000, 165):

“Roosevelt’s specific policy actions were, I think, less important than his willingness to be aggressive and experiment—in short, to do whatever it took to get the country moving again. Many of his policies did not work as intended, but in the end FDR deserves great credit for having the courage to abandon failed paradigms and to do what needed to be done”

Quantitative easing has never been proposed by Chairman Bernanke or other economists as certain science without adverse effects. What has not been mentioned in the press is another suggestion to the Bank of Japan (BOJ) by Chairman Bernanke in the same essay that is very relevant to current events and the contentious issue of ongoing devaluation wars (Bernanke 2000, 161):

“Because the BOJ has a legal mandate to pursue price stability, it certainly could make a good argument that, with interest rates at zero, depreciation of the yen is the best available tool for achieving its mandated objective. The economic validity of the beggar-thy-neighbor thesis is doubtful, as depreciation creates trade—by raising home country income—as well as diverting it. Perhaps not all those who cite the beggar-thy-neighbor thesis are aware that it had its origins in the Great Depression, when it was used as an argument against the very devaluations that ultimately proved crucial to world economic recovery. A yen trading at 100 to the dollar is in no one’s interest”

Chairman Bernanke is referring to the argument by Joan Robinson based on the experience of the Great Depression that: “in times of general unemployment a game of beggar-my-neighbour is played between the nations, each one endeavouring to throw a larger share of the burden upon the others” (Robinson 1947, 156). Devaluation is one of the tools used in these policies (Robinson 1947, 157). Banking crises dominated the experience of the United States, but countries that recovered were those devaluing early such that competitive devaluations rescued many countries from a recession as strong as that in the US (see references to Ehsan Choudhri, Levis Kochin and Barry Eichengreen in Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 205-9; for the case of Brazil that devalued early in the Great Depression recovering with an increasing trade balance see Pelaez, 1968, 1968b, 1972; Brazil devalued and abandoned the gold standard during crises in the historical period as shown by Pelaez 1976, Pelaez and Suzigan 1981). Beggar-my-neighbor policies did work for individual countries but the criticism of Joan Robinson was that it was not optimal for the world as a whole. Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 208-209) summarize the experience of Brazil as follows:

“During 1927–9, Brazil accumulated ￡30 million of foreign exchange of which ￡20 million were deposited at its stabilization fund (Pelaez 1968, 43–4). After the decline in coffee prices and the first impact of the Great Depression in Brazil a hot money movement wiped out foreign exchange reserves. In addition, capital inflows stopped entirely. The deterioration of the terms of trade further complicated matters, as the value of exports in foreign currency declined abruptly. Because of this exchange crisis, the service of the foreign debt of Brazil became impossible. In August 1931, the federal government was forced to cancel the payment of principal on certain foreign loans. The balance of trade in 1931 was expected to yield ￡20 million whereas the service of the foreign debt alone amounted to ￡22.6 million. Part of the solution given to these problems was typical of the 1930s. In September 1931, the government of Brazil required that all foreign transactions were to be conducted through the Bank of Brazil. This monopoly of foreign exchange was exercised by the Bank of Brazil for the following three years. Export permits were granted only after the exchange derived from sales abroad was officially sold to the Bank, which in turn allocated it in accordance with the needs of the economy. An active black market in foreign exchange developed. Brazil was in the first group of countries that abandoned early the gold standard, in 1931, and suffered comparatively less from the Great Depression. The Brazilian federal government, advised by the BOE, increased taxes and reduced expenditures in 1931 to compensate a decline in custom receipts (Pelaez 1968, 40). Expenditures caused by a revolution in 1932 in the state of Sao Paulo and a drought in the northeast explain the deficit. During 1932–6, the federal government engaged in strong efforts to stabilize the budget. Apart from the deliberate efforts to balance the budget during the 1930s, the recovery in economic activity itself may have induced a large part of the reduction of the deficit (Ibid, 41). Brazil’s experience is similar to that of the United States in that fiscal policy did not promote recovery from the Great Depression.”

Is depreciation of the dollar the best available tool currently for achieving the dual mandate of higher inflation and lower unemployment? Bernanke (2002) finds dollar devaluation against gold to have been important in preventing further deflation in the 1930s (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm):

“Although a policy of intervening to affect the exchange value of the dollar is nowhere on the horizon today, it's worth noting that there have been times when exchange rate policy has been an effective weapon against deflation. A striking example from U.S. history is Franklin Roosevelt's 40 percent devaluation of the dollar against gold in 1933-34, enforced by a program of gold purchases and domestic money creation. The devaluation and the rapid increase in money supply it permitted ended the U.S. deflation remarkably quickly. Indeed, consumer price inflation in the United States, year on year, went from -10.3 percent in 1932 to -5.1 percent in 1933 to 3.4 percent in 1934.¹⁷ The economy grew strongly, and by the way, 1934 was one of the best years of the century for the stock market. If nothing else, the episode illustrates that monetary actions can have powerful effects on the economy, even when the nominal interest rate is at or near zero, as was the case at the time of Roosevelt's devaluation.”

Should the US devalue following Roosevelt? Or has monetary policy intended devaluation? Fed policy is seeking, deliberately or as a side effect, what Irving Fisher proposed “that great depressions are curable and preventable through reflation and stabilization” (Fisher, 1933, 350). The Fed has created not only high volatility of assets but also what many countries are regarding as a competitive devaluation similar to those criticized by Nurkse (1944). Yellen (2011AS, 6) admits that Fed monetary policy results in dollar devaluation with the objective of increasing net exports, which was the policy that Joan Robinson (1947) labeled as “beggar-my-neighbor” remedies for unemployment.

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2013 in Chart I-17 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.

Chart IIA-17, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, NSA, 1947-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Chart I-18 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2013. The distinguishing event in Chart I-18 is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The shape of the two-hump Bactrian camel of the 1970s resembles the double hump from 2007 to 2013.

Chart IIA-18, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1948-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Annual percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2012 are shown in Table I-4. The producer price index fell 2.8 percent in 1949 following the adjustment to World War II and fell 0.6 percent in 1952 and 1.0 percent in 1953 around the Korean War. There are two other mild decline of 0.3 percent in 1959 and 0.3 percent in 1963. There are only few subsequent and isolated declines of the producer price index of 1.4 percent in 1986, 0.8 percent in 1998, 1.3 percent in 2002 and 2.6 percent in 2009. The decline of 2009 was caused by unwinding of carry trades in 2008 that had lifted oil prices to $140/barrel during deep global recession because of the panic of probable toxic assets in banks that would be removed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). There is no evidence in this history of 65 years of the US producer price index suggesting that there is frequent and persistent deflation shock requiring aggressive unconventional monetary policy. The design of such anti-deflation policy could provoke price and financial instability because of lags in effect of monetary policy, model errors, inaccurate forecasts and misleading analysis of current economic conditions.

Table IIA-4, US, Annual PPI Inflation ∆% 1948-2012

Year	Annual
1948	8.0
1949	-2.8
1950	1.8
1951	9.2
1952	-0.6
1953	-1.0
1954	0.3
1955	0.3
1956	2.6
1957	3.8
1958	2.2
1959	-0.3
1960	0.9
1961	0.0
1962	0.3
1963	-0.3
1964	0.3
1965	1.8
1966	3.2
1967	1.1
1968	2.8
1969	3.8
1970	3.4
1971	3.1
1972	3.2
1973	9.1
1974	15.4
1975	10.6
1976	4.5
1977	6.4
1978	7.9
1979	11.2
1980	13.4
1981	9.2
1982	4.1
1983	1.6
1984	2.1
1985	1.0
1986	-1.4
1987	2.1
1988	2.5
1989	5.2
1990	4.9
1991	2.1
1992	1.2
1993	1.2
1994	0.6
1995	1.9
1996	2.7
1997	0.4
1998	-0.8
1999	1.8
2000	3.8
2001	2.0
2002	-1.3
2003	3.2
2004	3.6
2005	4.8
2006	3.0
2007	3.9
2008	6.3
2009	-2.6
2010	4.2
2011	6.0
2012	1.9

http://www.bls.gov/ppi

Chart IIA-19 provides the consumer price index NSA from 1913 to 2013. The dominating characteristic is the increase in slope during the Great Inflation from the middle of the 1960s through the 1970s. There is long-term inflation in the US and no evidence of deflation risks.

Chart IIA-19, US, Consumer Price Index, NSA, 1914-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Chart I-20 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index from 1914 to 2013. The only episode of deflation after 1950 is in 2009, which is explained by the reversal of speculative commodity futures carry trades that were induced by interest rates driven to zero in a shock of monetary policy in 2008. The only persistent case of deflation is from 1930 to 1933, which has little if any relevance to the contemporary United States economy. There are actually three waves of inflation in the second half of the 1960s, in the mid 1970s and again in the late 1970s. Inflation rates then stabilized in a range with only two episodes above 5 percent.

Chart IIA-20, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, 12- Month Percentage Change 1914-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Table IIA-5 provides annual percentage changes of United States consumer price inflation from 1914 to 2013. There have been only cases of annual declines of the CPI after wars: (1) World War I minus 10.5 percent in 1921 and minus 6.1 percent in 1922 following cumulative increases of 83.5 percent in four years from 1917 to 1920 at the average of 16.4 percent per year; (2) World War II: minus 1.2 percent in 1949 following cumulative 33.9 percent in three years from 1946 to 1948 at average 10.2 percent per year (3) minus 0.4 percent in 1955 two years after the end of the Korean War; and (4) minus 0.4 percent in 2009. The decline of 0.4 percent in 2009 followed increase of 3.8 percent in 2008 and is explained by the reversal of speculative carry trades into commodity futures that were created in 2008 as monetary policy rates were driven to zero. The reversal occurred after misleading statement on toxic assets in banks in the proposal for TARP (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). There were declines of 1.7 percent in both 1927 and 1928 during the episode of revival of rules of the gold standard. The only persistent deflationary period since 1914 was during the Great Depression in the years from 1930 to 1933 and again in 1938-1939. Fear of deflation on the basis of that experience does not justify unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates that has failed to stop deflation in Japan. Financial repression causes far more adverse effects on allocation of resources by distorting the calculus of risk/returns than alleged employment-creating effects or there would not be current recovery without jobs and hiring after zero interest rates since Dec 2008 and intended now forever in a self-imposed forecast growth and employment mandate of monetary policy.

Table IIA-5, US, Annual CPI Inflation ∆% 1914-2012

Year	Annual
1914	1.0
1915	1.0
1916	7.9
1917	17.4
1918	18.0
1919	14.6
1920	15.6
1921	-10.5
1922	-6.1
1923	1.8
1924	0.0
1925	2.3
1926	1.1
1927	-1.7
1928	-1.7
1929	0.0
1930	-2.3
1931	-9.0
1932	-9.9
1933	-5.1
1934	3.1
1935	2.2
1936	1.5
1937	3.6
1938	-2.1
1939	-1.4
1940	0.7
1941	5.0
1942	10.9
1943	6.1
1944	1.7
1945	2.3
1946	8.3
1947	14.4
1948	8.1
1949	-1.2
1950	1.3
1951	7.9
1952	1.9
1953	0.8
1954	0.7
1955	-0.4
1956	1.5
1957	3.3
1958	2.8
1959	0.7
1960	1.7
1961	1.0
1962	1.0
1963	1.3
1964	1.3
1965	1.6
1966	2.9
1967	3.1
1968	4.2
1969	5.5
1970	5.7
1971	4.4
1972	3.2
1973	6.2
1974	11.0
1975	9.1
1976	5.8
1977	6.5
1978	7.6
1979	11.3
1980	13.5
1981	10.3
1982	6.2
1983	3.2
1984	4.3
1985	3.6
1986	1.9
1987	3.6
1988	4.1
1989	4.8
1990	5.4
1991	4.2
1992	3.0
1993	3.0
1994	2.6
1995	2.8
1996	3.0
1997	2.3
1998	1.6
1999	2.2
2000	3.4
2001	2.8
2002	1.6
2003	2.3
2004	2.7
2005	3.4
2006	3.2
2007	2.8
2008	3.8
2009	-0.4
2010	1.6
2011	3.2
2012	2.1

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

Friedman (1969) finds that the optimal rule for the quantity of money is deflation at a rate that results in a zero nominal interest rate (see Ireland 2003 and Cole and Kocherlakota 1998). Atkeson and Kehoe (2004) argue that central bankers are not inclined to implement policies that could result in deflation because of the interpretation of the Great Depression as closely related to deflation. They use panel data on inflation and growth of real output for 17 countries over more than 100 years. The time-series data for each individual country are broken into five-year events with deflation measured as average negative inflation and depression as average negative growth rate of real output. Atkeson and Kehoe (2004) find that the Great Depression from 1929 to 1934 is the only case of association between deflation and depression without any evidence whatsoever of such relation in any other period. Their conclusion is (Atkeson and Kehoe 2004, 99): “Our finding thus suggests that policymakers’ fear of anticipated policy-induced deflation that would result from following, say, the Friedman rule is greatly overblown.” Their conclusion on the experience of Japan is (Atkeson and Kehoe 2004, 99):

“Since 1960, Japan’s average growth rates have basically fallen monotonically, and since 1970, its average inflation rates have too. Attributing this 40-year slowdown to monetary forces is a stretch. More reasonable, we think, is that much of the slowdown is the natural pattern for a country that was far behind the world leaders and had begun to catch up.”

In the sample of Atkeson and Kehoe (2004), there are only eight five-year periods besides the Great Depression with both inflation and depression. Deflation and depression is shown in 65 cases with 21 of depression without deflation. There is no depression in 65 of 73 five-year periods and there is no deflation in 29 episodes of depression. There is a remarkable result of no depression in 90 percent of deflation episodes. Excluding the Great Depression, there is virtually no relation of deflation and depression. Atkeson and Kehoe (2004, 102) find that the average growth rate of Japan of 1.41 percent in the 1990s is “dismal” when compared with 3.20 percent in the United States but is not “dismal” when compared with 1.61 percent for Italy and 1.84 percent for France, which are also catch-up countries in modern economic growth (see Atkeson and Kehoe 1998). The conclusion of Atkeson and Kehoe (2004), without use of controls, is that there is no association of deflation and depression in their dataset.

Benhabib and Spiegel (2009) use a dataset similar to that of Atkeson and Kehoe (2004) but allowing for nonlinearity and inflation volatility. They conclude that in cases of low and negative inflation an increase of average inflation of 1 percent is associated with an increase of 0.31 percent of average annual growth. The analysis of Benhabib and Spiegel (2009) leads to the significantly different conclusion that inflation and economic performance are strongly associated for low and negative inflation. There is no claim of causality by Atkeson and Kehoe (2004) and Benhabib and Spiegel (2009).

Delfim Netto (1959) partly reprinted in Pelaez (1973) conducted two classical nonparametric tests (Mann 1945, Wallis and Moore 1941; see Kendall and Stuart 1968) with coffee-price data in the period of free markets from 1857 to 1906 with the following conclusions (Pelaez, 1976a, 280):

“First, the null hypothesis of no trend was accepted with high confidence; secondly, the null hypothesis of no oscillation was rejected also with high confidence. Consequently, in the nineteenth century international prices of coffee fluctuated but without long-run trend. This statistical fact refutes the extreme argument of structural weakness of the coffee trade.”

In his classic work on the theory of international trade, Jacob Viner (1937, 563) analyzed the “index of total gains from trade,” or “amount of gain per unit of trade,” denoted as T:

T= (∆P^e/∆Pⁱ)∆Q

Where ∆P^e is the change in export prices, ∆Pⁱ is the change in import prices and ∆Q is the change in export volume. Dorrance (1948, 52) restates “Viner’s index of total gain from trade” as:

“What should be done is to calculate an index of the value (quantity multiplied by price) of exports and the price of imports for any country whose foreign accounts are to be analysed. Then the export value index should be divided by the import price index. The result would be an index which would reflect, for the country concerned, changes in the volume of imports obtainable from its export income (i.e. changes in its "real" export income, measured in import terms). The present writer would suggest that this index be referred to as the ‘income terms of trade’ index to differentiate it from the other indexes at present used by economists.”

What really matters for an export activity especially during modernization is the purchasing value of goods that it exports in terms of prices of imports. For a primary producing country, the purchasing power of exports in acquiring new technology from the country providing imports is the critical measurement. The barter terms of trade of Brazil improved from 1857 to 1906 because international coffee prices oscillated without trend (Delfim Netto 1959) while import prices from the United Kingdom declined at the rate of 0.5 percent per year (Imlah 1958). The accurate measurement of the opportunity afforded by the coffee exporting economy was incomparably greater when considering the purchasing power in British prices of the value of coffee exports, or Dorrance’s (1948) income terms of trade.

The conventional theory that the terms of trade of Brazil deteriorated over the long term is without reality (Pelaez 1976a, 280-281):

“Moreover, physical exports of coffee by Brazil increased at the high average rate of 3.5 per cent per year. Brazil's exchange receipts from coffee-exporting in sterling increased at the average rate of 3.5 per cent per year and receipts in domestic currency at 4.5 per cent per year. Great Britain supplied nearly all the imports of the coffee economy. In the period of the free coffee market, British export prices declined at the rate of 0.5 per cent per year. Thus, the income terms of trade of the coffee economy improved at the relatively satisfactory average rate of 4.0 per cent per year. This is only a lower bound of the rate of improvement of the terms of trade. While the quality of coffee remained relatively constant, the quality of manufactured products improved significantly during the fifty-year period considered. The trade data and the non-parametric tests refute conclusively the long-run hypothesis. The valid historical fact is that the tropical export economy of Brazil experienced an opportunity of absorbing rapidly increasing quantities of manufactures from the "workshop" countries. Therefore, the coffee trade constituted a golden opportunity for modernization in nineteenth-century Brazil.”

Imlah (1958) provides decline of British export prices at 0.5 percent in the nineteenth century and there were no lost decades, depressions or unconventional monetary policies in the highly dynamic economy of England that drove the world’s growth impulse. Inflation in the United Kingdom between 1857 and 1906 is measured by the composite price index of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) at minus 7.0 percent or average rate of decline of 0.2 percent per year.

Simon Kuznets (1971) analyzes modern economic growth in his Lecture in Memory of Alfred Nobel:

“The major breakthroughs in the advance of human knowledge, those that constituted dominant sources of sustained growth over long periods and spread to a substantial part of the world, may be termed epochal innovations. And the changing course of economic history can perhaps be subdivided into economic epochs, each identified by the epochal innovation with the distinctive characteristics of growth that it generated.Without considering the feasibility of identifying and dating such economic epochs, we may proceed on the working assumption that modern economic growth represents such a distinct epoch - growth dating back to the late eighteenth century and limited (except in significant partial effects) to economically developed countries. These countries, so classified because they have managed to take adequate advantage of the potential of modern technology, include most of Europe, the overseas offshoots of Western Europe, and Japan—barely one quarter of world population.”

Cameron (1961) analyzes the mechanism by which the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain spread throughout Europe and Cameron (1967) analyzes the financing by banks of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) provide consumer price inflation in England since 1750 and MacFarlane and Mortimer-Lee (1994) analyze inflation in England over 300 years. Lucas (2004) estimates world population and production since the year 1000 with sustained growth of per capita incomes beginning to accelerate for the first time in English-speaking countries and in particular in the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain. The conventional theory is unequal distribution of the gains from trade and technical progress between the industrialized countries and developing economies (Singer 1950, 478):

“Dismissing, then, changes in productivity as a governing factor in changing terms of trade, the following explanation presents itself: the fruits of technical progress may be distributed either to producers (in the form of rising incomes) or to consumers (in the form of lower prices). In the case of manufactured commodities produced in more developed countries, the former method, i.e., distribution to producers through higher incomes, was much more important relatively to the second method, while the second method prevailed more in the case of food and raw material production in the underdeveloped countries. Generalizing, we may say -that technical progress in manufacturing industries showed in a rise in incomes while technical progress in the production of food and raw materials in underdeveloped countries showed in a fall in prices”

Temin (1997, 79) uses a Ricardian trade model to discriminate between two views on the Industrial Revolution with an older view arguing broad-based increases in productivity and a new view concentration of productivity gains in cotton manufactures and iron:

“Productivity advances in British manufacturing should have lowered their prices relative to imports. They did. Albert Imlah [1958] correctly recognized this ‘severe deterioration’ in the net barter terms of trade as a signal of British success, not distress. It is no surprise that the price of cotton manufactures fell rapidly in response to productivity growth. But even the price of woolen manufactures, which were declining as a share of British exports, fell almost as rapidly as the price of exports as a whole. It follows, therefore, that the traditional ‘old-hat’ view of the Industrial Revolution is more accurate than the new, restricted image. Other British manufactures were not inefficient and stagnant, or at least, they were not all so backward. The spirit that motivated cotton manufactures extended also to activities as varied as hardware and haberdashery, arms, and apparel.”

Phyllis Deane (1968, 96) estimates growth of United Kingdom gross national product (GNP) at around 2 percent per year for several decades in the nineteenth century. The facts that the terms of trade of Great Britain deteriorated during the period of epochal innovation and high rates of economic growth while the income terms of trade of the coffee economy of nineteenth-century Brazil improved at the average yearly rate of 4.0 percent from 1857 to 1906 disprove the hypothesis of weakness of trade as an explanation of relatively lower income and wealth. As Temin (1997) concludes, Britain did pass on lower prices and higher quality the benefits of technical innovation. Explanation of late modernization must focus on laborious historical research on institutions and economic regimes together with economic theory, data gathering and measurement instead of grand generalizations of weakness of trade and alleged neocolonial dependence (Stein and Stein 1970, 134-5):

“Great Britain, technologically and industrially advanced, became as important to the Latin American economy as to the cotton-exporting southern United States. [After Independence in the nineteenth century] Latin America fell back upon traditional export activities, utilizing the cheapest available factor of production, the land, and the dependent labor force.”

The experience of the United Kingdom with deflation and economic growth is relevant and rich. Table IIA-6 provides yearly percentage changes of the composite index of prices of the United Kingdom of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004). There are 73 declines of inflation in the 145 years from 1751 to 1896. Prices declined in 50.3 percent of 145 years. Some price declines were quite sharp and many occurred over several years. Table I-6 also provides yearly percentage changes of the UK composite price index of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) from 1929 to 1934. Deflation was much sharper in continuous years in earlier periods than during the Great Depression. The United Kingdom could not have led the world in modern economic growth if there were meaningful causality from deflation to depression.

Table IIA-6, United Kingdom, Negative Percentage Changes of Composite Price Index, 1751-1896, 1929-1934, Yearly ∆%

Year	∆%	Year	∆%	Year	∆%	Year	∆%
1751	-2.7	1797	-10.0	1834	-7.8	1877	-0.7
1753	-2.7	1798	-2.2	1841	-2.3	1878	-2.2
1755	-6.0	1802	-23.0	1842	-7.6	1879	-4.4
1758	-0.3	1803	-5.9	1843	-11.3	1881	-1.1
1759	-7.9	1806	-4.4	1844	-0.1	1883	-0.5
1760	-4.5	1807	-1.9	1848	-12.1	1884	-2.7
1761	-4.5	1811	-2.9	1849	-6.3	1885	-3.0
1768	-1.1	1814	-12.7	1850	-6.4	1886	-1.6
1769	-8.2	1815	-10.7	1851	-3.0	1887	-0.5
1770	-0.4	1816	-8.4	1857	-5.6	1893	-0.7
1773	-0.3	1819	-2.5	1858	-8.4	1894	-2.0
1775	-5.6	1820	-9.3	1859	-1.8	1895	-1.0
1776	-2.2	1821	-12.0	1862	-2.6	1896	-0.3
1777	-0.4	1822	-13.5	1863	-3.6	1929	-0.9
1779	-8.5	1826	-5.5	1864	-0.9	1930	-2.8
1780	-3.4	1827	-6.5	1868	-1.7	1931	-4.3
1785	-4.0	1828	-2.9	1869	-5.0	1932	-2.6
1787	-0.6	1830	-6.1	1874	-3.3	1933	-2.1
1789	-1.3	1832	-7.4	1875	-1.9	1934	0.0
1791	-0.1	1833	-6.1	1876	-0.3

Source:

O’Donoghue, Jim and Louise Goulding, 2004. Consumer Price Inflation since 1750. UK Office for National Statistics Economic Trends 604, Mar 2004, 38-46.

Nicholas Georgescu-Rogen (1960, 1) reprinted in Pelaez (1973) argues that “the agrarian economy has to this day remained a reality without theory.” The economic history of Latin America shares with the relation of deflation and unconventional monetary policy a more frustrating intellectual misfortune: theory without reality. MacFarlane and Mortimer-Lee (1994, 159) quote in a different context a phrase by Thomas Henry Huxley in the President’s Address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science on Sep 14, 1870 that is appropriate to these issues: “The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth, Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment, IMF View, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing Collapse, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

No comments:

Post a Comment