World Inflation Waves, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

 

World Inflation Waves, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Executive Summary

I World Inflation Waves

IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy

IA1 Theory

IA2 Policy

IA3 Evidence

IA4 Unwinding Strategy

IB United States Inflation

IC Long-term US Inflation

ID Current US Inflation

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

II United States Industrial Production

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 World Inflation Waves. The major reason and channel of transmission of unconventional monetary policy is through expectations of inflation. Fisher (1930) provided theoretical and historical relation of interest rates and inflation. Let i_n be the nominal interest rate, i_r the real or inflation-adjusted interest rate and π^e the expectation of inflation in the time term of the interest rate, which are all expressed as proportions. The following expression provides the relation of real and nominal interest rates and the expectation of inflation:

(1 + i_r) = (1 + i_n)/(1 + π^e) (1)

That is, the nominal interest rate equals the real interest rate discounted by the expectation of inflation in time term of the interest rate. Fisher (1933) observed the devastating effect of deflation on debts. Nominal debt contracts remained at original principal interest but net worth and income of debtors contracted during deflation. Real interest rates increase during declining inflation. For example, if the interest rate is 3 percent and prices decline 0.2 percent, equation (1) calculates the real interest rate as:

(1 +0.03)/(1 – 0.02) = 1.03/(0.998) = 1.032

That is, the real rate of interest is (1.032 – 1) 100 or 3.2 percent. If inflation were 2 percent, the real rate of interest would be 0.98 percent, or about 1.0 percent {[(1.03/1.02) -1]100 = 0.98%}.

The yield of the one-year Treasury security was quoted in the Wall Street Journal at 0.114 percent on Fri Apr 19, 2013 (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_marketdata_main). The expected rate of inflation π^e in the next twelve months is not observed. Assume that it would be equal to the rate of inflation in the past twelve months estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS) at 1.5 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The real rate of interest would be obtained as follows:

(1 + 0.00114)/(1 + 0.015) = (1 + i_r) = 0.9863

That is, i_r is equal to 1 – 0.9863 or minus 1.37 percent. Investing in a one-year Treasury security results in a loss of 1.37 percent relative to inflation. The objective of unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates is to induce consumption and investment because of the loss to inflation of riskless financial assets. Policy would be truly irresponsible if it intended to increase inflationary expectations or π^e. The result could be the same rate of unemployment with higher inflation (Kydland and Prescott 1977).

Friedman (1953) analyzed the effects of full-employment economic policy on economic stability. There are two critical issues. First, there are lags in effect of monetary policy on aggregate income and prices (Friedman 1961, Culbertson 1960, 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). Second, concrete knowledge on the functioning of the economy is inadequate. The result of shocking the economy with policies at the wrong time could be an increase in instability in the form of higher volatility of prices, or σ_p (standard deviation of prices), and higher volatility of real income, or σ_y (standard deviation of real income.

Carry trades from zero interest rates to highly leveraged exposures in risk financial assets characterize the current environment. Some analytical aspects of the carry trade are instructive (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 101-5, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 202-4), Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c), 70-4). Consider the following symbols: R_t is the exchange rate of a country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t of initiation of the carry trade; R_t+τ is the exchange of the country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t+τ when the carry trade is unwound; i_f is the domestic interest rate of the high-yielding country where investment will be made; i_usd is the interest rate on short-term dollar debt assumed to be 0.5 percent per year; i_f >i_usd, which expresses the fact that the interest rate on the foreign country is much higher than that in short-term USD (US dollars); S_t is the dollar value of the investment principal; and π is the dollar profit from the carry trade. The investment of the principal S_t in the local currency debt of the foreign country provides a profit of:

π = (1 + i_f)(R_tS_t)(1/R_t+τ) – (1 + i_usd)S_t (2)

The profit from the carry trade, π, is nonnegative when:

(1 + i_f)/ (1 + i_usd) ≥ R_t+τ/R_t (3)

In words, the difference in interest rate differentials, left-hand side of inequality (3), must exceed the percentage devaluation of the currency of the host country of the carry trade, right hand side of inequality (3). The carry trade must earn enough in the host-country interest rate to compensate for depreciation of the host-country at the time of return to USD. A simple example explains the vulnerability of the carry trade in fixed-income. Let i_f be 0.10 (10 percent), i_usd 0.005 (0.5 percent), S_t USD100 and R_t CUR 1.00/USD. Adopt the fixed-income rule of months of 30 days and years of 360 days. Consider a strategy of investing USD 100 at 10 percent for 30 days with borrowing of USD 100 at 0.5 percent for 30 days. At time t, the USD 100 are converted into CUR 100 and invested at [(30/360)10] equal to 0.833 percent for thirty days. At the end of the 30 days, assume that the rate R_t+30 is still CUR 1/USD such that the return amount from the carry trade is USD 0.833. There is still a loan to be paid [(0.005)(30/360)USD100] equal to USD 0.042. The investor receives the net amount of USD 0.833 minus USD 0.042 or US 0.791. The rate of return on the investment of the USD 100 is 0.791 percent, which is equivalent to the annual rate of return of 9.49 percent {(0.791)(360/30)}. This is incomparably better than earning 0.5 percent. There are alternatives of hedging by buying forward the exchange for conversion back into USD.

Carry trades induced by zero interest rates increase the volatility of inflation σ_p and real income σ_y. World inflation waves originating in carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures and options deteriorate the sales prices of producing and investing companies and real income of consumers. The main objective of monetary policy is providing for financial stability. Unconventional monetary policy creates economic instability with higher volatilities of prices and real income as well as financial stability with major oscillations of risk financial assets. Carry trades induced by zero interest rates cause improvements and deteriorations of net margins of sales prices less costs of raw materials and real income of consumers disrupting decisions on production, investment and consumption.

Table ESI-1 provides annual equivalent rates of inflation for producer price indexes followed in this blog of countries and regions that account for close to three quarters of world output. The behavior of the US producer price index in 2011 and into 2012-2013 shows neatly multiple waves. (1) In Jan-Apr 2011, without risk aversion, US producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 10.0 percent. (2) After risk aversion, producer prices increased in the US at the annual equivalent rate of 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) From Jul to Sep 2011, under alternating episodes of risk aversion, producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.9 percent. (4) Under the pressure of risk aversion because of the European debt crisis, US producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2011. (5) From Dec 2011 to Jan 2012, US producer were flat at the annual equivalent rate of 0.0 percent. (6) Inflation of producer prices returned with 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Mar 2012. (7) With return of risk aversion from the European debt crisis, producer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of 4.7 percent in Apr-May 2012. (8) New positions in commodity futures even with continuing risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 3.0 percent in Jun-Jul 2012. (9) Relaxed risk aversion because of announcement of sovereign bond buying by the European Central Bank induced carry trades that resulted in annual equivalent producer price inflation in the US of 12.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2012. (10) Renewed risk aversion caused unwinding of carry trades of zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures with annual equivalent inflation of minus 3.5 percent in Oct-Dec 2012. (10) In Jan-Feb 2013, producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 5.5 percent with more relaxed risk aversion at the margin. (11) Return of risk aversion resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 7.0 percent in Mar 2013. Resolution of the European debt crisis if there is not an unfavorable growth event with political development in China would result in jumps of valuations of risk financial assets. Increases in commodity prices would cause the same high producer price inflation experienced in Jan-Apr 2011 and Aug-Sep 2012. An episode of exploding commodity prices could ignite inflationary expectations that would result in an inflation phenomenon of costly resolution. There are nine producer-price indexes in Table ESI-1 for seven countries (two for the UK) and one region (euro area) showing very similar behavior. Zero interest rates without risk aversion cause increases in commodity prices that in turn increase input and output prices. Producer price inflation rose at very high rates during the first part of 2011 for the US, Japan, China, Euro Area, Germany, France, Italy and the UK when risk aversion was contained. With the increase in risk aversion in May and Jun 2011, inflation moderated because carry trades were unwound. Producer price inflation returned after Jul 2011, with alternating bouts of risk aversion. In the final months of the year producer price inflation collapsed because of the disincentive to exposures in commodity futures resulting from fears of resolution of the European debt crisis. There is renewed worldwide inflation in the early part of 2012 with subsequent collapse because of another round of sharp risk aversion. Sharp worldwide jump in producer prices occurred recently because of the combination of zero interest rates forever or QE→∞ with temporarily relaxed risk aversion. Producer prices were moderating or falling in the final months of 2012 because of renewed risk aversion that causes unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures. In the first months of 2013, new carry trades caused higher worldwide inflation. Unconventional monetary policy fails in stimulating the overall real economy, merely introducing undesirable instability because monetary authorities cannot control allocation of floods of money at zero interest rates to carry trades into risk financial assets. The economy is constrained in a suboptimal allocation of resources that is perpetuated along a continuum of short-term periods results in long-term or dynamic inefficiency in the form of a trajectory of economic activity that is lower than what would be attained with rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html).

Table ESI-1, Annual Equivalent Rates of Producer Price Indexes

INDEX 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Producer Price Index
AE  ∆% Mar	-7.0
AE  ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	5.5
AE  ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-3.5
AE  ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	12.7
AE  ∆% Jun-Jul 2012	3.0
AE  ∆% Apr-May 2012	-4.7
AE  ∆% Feb-Mar 2012	2.4
AE  ∆% Dec 2011-Jan-2012	0.0
AE  ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.0
Japan Corporate Goods Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Mar 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	3.0
AE ∆%  May-Jul 2012	-5.8
AE ∆%  Feb-Apr 2012	2.0
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-2.2
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.9
China Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Jan-Mar  2013	1.6
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-1.2
AE ∆% Oct 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Sep 2012	-5.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Jun 2011	6.4
Euro Zone Industrial Producer Prices
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Oct 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	7.4
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-3.2
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	8.3
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	11.4
Germany Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	-1.8 NSA –3.0 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	10.0 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-1.6 NSA 1.6 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	4.9 NSA 4.9 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8 NSA –0.4 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.9 NSA 1.6 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	1.2 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	1.8 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.8 NSA 3.2 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 4.3 SA
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4 NSA 6.5 SA
France Producer Price Index for the French Market
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-4.1
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	7.1
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-5.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.8
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.7
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4
Italy Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Sep 2012-Jan 2013	-5.2
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	9.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2012	6.8
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2012	8.1
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-April 2011	10.7
UK Output Prices
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	5.3
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	4.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-5.3
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	7.9
AE ∆% Nov 2011-Jan-2012	1.6
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	12.0
UK Input Prices
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	30.5
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	14.0
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-21.9
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	18.1
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	-3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	35.6

AE: Annual Equivalent

Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.stats.gov.cn/enGliSH/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Homepage.html

http://www.insee.fr/en/default.asp

http://www.istat.it/en/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

Similar world inflation waves are in the behavior of consumer price indexes of six countries and the euro zone in Table ESI-2. US consumer price inflation shows similar waves. (1) Under risk appetite in Jan-Apr 2011, consumer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.6 percent. (2) Risk aversion caused the collapse of inflation to annual equivalent 3.0 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) Risk appetite drove the rate of consumer price inflation in the US to 3.3 percent in Jul-Sep 2011. (4) Gloomier views of carry trades caused the collapse of inflation in Oct-Nov 2011 to annual equivalent 0.6 percent. (5) Consumer price inflation resuscitated with increased risk appetite at annual equivalent of 1.2 percent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. (6) Consumer price inflation returned at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Apr 2012. (7) Under renewed risk aversion, annual equivalent consumer price inflation in the US was 0.0 percent in May-Jul 2012. (8) Inflation jumped to annual equivalent 4.9 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. (9) Unwinding of carry trades caused negative annual equivalent inflation of 0.8 percent in Nov 2012-Jan 2013 but some countries experienced higher inflation in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. (10) Inflation jumped again with annual equivalent inflation of 8.7 percent in Feb 2013 in a mood of relaxed risk aversion. (11) Inflation fell at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Mar 2013. Inflationary expectations can be triggered in one of these episodes of accelerating inflation because of commodity carry trades induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates in perpetuity or QE→∞ or almost continuous time. Alternating episodes of increase and decrease of inflation introduce uncertainty in household planning that frustrates consumption and home buying. Announcement of purchases of impaired sovereign bonds by the European Central Bank relaxed risk aversion that induced carry trades into commodity exposures, increasing prices of food, raw materials and energy. There is similar behavior in all the other consumer price indexes in Table ESI-2. China’s CPI increased at annual equivalent 8.3 percent in Jan-Mar 2011, 2.0 percent in Apr-Jun, 2.9 percent in Jul-Dec and resuscitated at 5.8 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Mar 2012, declining to minus 3.9 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but resuscitating at 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2012, declining to minus 1.2 percent in Oct 2012 and 0.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2012. High inflation in China at annual equivalent 5.5 percent in Nov-Dec 2012 is attributed to inclement winter weather that caused increases in food prices. Continuing pressure of food prices caused annual equivalent inflation of 12.2 percent in China in Dec 2012 to Feb 2013. Inflation in China fell at annual equivalent 10.3 percent in Mar 2013. The euro zone harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP) increased at annual equivalent 5.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, minus 2.4 percent in May-Jul 2011, 4.3 percent in Aug-Dec 2011, minus 3.0 percent in Dec 2011-Jan 2012 and then 9.6 percent in Feb-Apr 2012, falling to minus 2.8 percent annual equivalent in May-Jul 2012 but resuscitating at 5.3 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. The recent shock of risk aversion forced minus 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2012. As in several European countries, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 4.9 percent in the euro area in Dec 2012. The HICP price index fell at annual equivalent 11.4 percent in Jan 2013 and increased at 10.9 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. The price indexes of the largest members of the euro zone, Germany, France and Italy, and the euro zone as a whole, exhibit the same inflation waves. The United Kingdom CPI increased at annual equivalent 6.5 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, falling to only 0.4 percent in May-Jul 2011 and then increasing at 4.6 percent in Aug-Nov 2011. UK consumer prices fell at 0.6 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 but increased at 6.2 percent annual equivalent from Feb to Apr 2012. In May-Jun 2012, with renewed risk aversion, UK consumer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of minus 3.0 percent. Inflation returned in the UK at average annual equivalent of 4.5 percent in Jul-Dec 2012 with inflation in Oct 2012 caused mostly by increases of university tuition fees. Inflation returned at 4.5 percent annual equivalent in Jul-Dec 2012 and was higher in annual equivalent producer price inflation in the UK in Jul-Oct 2012 at 4.0 percent for output prices and 14.0 percent for input prices in Jul-Aug 2012 (see Table ESI-1). Consumer prices in the UK fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jan 2013, rebounding at 6.2 percent in Feb-Mar 2013.

Table ESI-2, Annual Equivalent Rates of Consumer Price Indexes

Index 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-2.4
AE ∆% Feb 2013	8.7
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-0.8
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan  2012	1.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.3
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.6
China Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-10.3
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Feb 2013	12.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2012	4.1
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-3.9
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Mar 2012	5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	2.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2011	8.3
Euro Zone Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	10.0
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-11.4
AE ∆% Dec 2012	4.9
AE ∆% Nov 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	5.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	9.6
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-2.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.2
Germany Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8 NSA –1.2 SA
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5 NSA 1.5 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	4.9 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-1.2 NSA  1.2 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.5 NSA 2.0 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.6 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	1.7 NSA 1.9 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2011	3.0 NSA 2.4 SA
France Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	2.8
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.3
Italy Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Mar 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2012	-0.8
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.7
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	4.3
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.9
UK Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Dec 2012	4.5
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.6
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	6.5

AE: Annual Equivalent

Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.stats.gov.cn/enGliSH/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Homepage.html

http://www.insee.fr/en/default.asp

http://www.istat.it/en/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

ESII Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates I. There are two categories of responses in the Empire State Manufacturing Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html): current conditions and expectations for the next six months. There are responses in the survey for two types of prices: prices received or inputs of production and prices paid or sales prices of products. Table ESII-1 provides indexes for the two categories and within them for the two types of prices from Jan 2011 to Apr 2013. There are two categories of responses in the Empire State Manufacturing Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html): current conditions and expectations for the next six months. There are responses in the survey for two types of prices: prices received or inputs of production and prices paid or sales prices of products. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs increased from 14.61 in Dec 2012 while the index of current prices received or sales prices increased from 1.08 in Dec 2012 to 5.68 in Apr 2013. The index of future prices paid or expectations of costs of inputs in the next six months fell from 51.61 in Dec 2012 to 44.32 in Apr 2013 while the index of future prices received or expectation of sales prices in the next six months fell from 25.81 in Dec 2012 to 14.77 in Apr 2013. Prices of sales of finished products are less dynamic than prices of costs of inputs during waves of increases. Prices of costs of costs of inputs fall less rapidly than prices of sales of finished products during waves of price decreases. As a result, margins of prices of sales less costs of inputs oscillate with typical deterioration against producers.

Table ESII-1, US, FRBNY Empire State Manufacturing Survey, Diffusion Indexes, Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Six Months Prices Paid	Six Months Prices Received
Apr 2013	28.41	5.68	44.32	14.77
Mar	25.81	2.15	50.54	23.66
Feb	26.26	8.08	44.44	13.13
Jan	22.58	10.75	38.71	21.51
Dec 2012	16.13	1.08	51.61	25.81
Nov	14.61	5.62	39.33	15.73
Oct	17.20	4.30	44.09	24.73
Sep	19.15	5.32	40.43	23.40
Aug	16.47	2.35	31.76	14.12
Jul	7.41	3.70	35.80	16.05
Jun	19.59	1.03	34.02	17.53
May	37.35	12.05	57.83	22.89
Apr	45.78	19.28	50.60	22.89
Mar	50.62	13.58	66.67	32.10
Feb	25.88	15.29	62.35	34.12
Jan	26.37	23.08	53.85	30.77
Dec 2011	24.42	3.49	56.98	36.05
Nov	18.29	6.10	36.59	25.61
Oct	22.47	4.49	40.45	17.98
Sep	32.61	8.70	53.26	22.83
Aug	28.26	2.17	42.39	15.22
Jul	43.33	5.56	51.11	30.00
Jun	56.12	11.22	55.10	19.39
May	69.89	27.96	68.82	35.48
Apr	57.69	26.92	56.41	38.46
Mar	53.25	20.78	71.43	36.36
Feb	45.78	16.87	55.42	27.71
Jan	35.79	15.79	60.00	42.11

Source: http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html

Price indexes of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey are provided in Table ESII-2. As inflation waves throughout the world (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html), indexes of both current and expectations of future prices paid and received were quite high until May 2011. Prices paid, or inputs, were more dynamic, reflecting carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. All indexes softened after May 2011 with even decline of prices received in Aug 2011 during the first round of risk aversion. Current and future price indexes have increased again but not back to the levels in the beginning of 2011 because of risk aversion frustrating carry trades even under zero interest rates. The index of prices paid or prices of inputs fell from 23.5 in Dec 2012 to 3/1 in Apr 2013. The index of current prices received was minus 7.5 in Apr 2013, indicating decrease of prices received. The index of future prices paid fell to 26.6 in Apr 2013 from 45.8 in Dec 2012, indicating expectation of lower pressure of increases of input prices, while the index of future prices received fell marginally from 25.6 in Dec 2012 to 8.3 in Apr 2013. Expectations are incorporating faster increases in prices of inputs or costs of production than of sales of produced goods.

Table ESII-2, US, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current and Future Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA  

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Future Prices Paid	Future Prices Paid
Dec-10	44.3	6.6	59.6	25.3
Jan-11	48.9	11.9	58.3	34.4
Feb-11	58.9	13.1	62.1	33.3
Mar-11	57.5	16.8	60.2	31.8
Apr-11	49.4	19.8	54.2	32.4
May-11	47.7	18.5	52.7	27.6
Jun-11	38.9	8.1	38.3	6.8
Jul-11	35.6	6	49.6	16.7
Aug-11	23.3	-4.7	44.3	22.7
Sep-11	31.6	7.6	41.8	21.8
Oct-11	25.4	4.1	44.5	28.4
Nov-11	26.3	7.6	39	29.1
Dec-11	27.5	8.2	46.7	23.5
Jan-12	27.1	7.9	47.2	21.9
Feb-12	30.2	9.7	43.5	28.6
Mar-12	14.3	5.4	35.9	22
Apr-12	16	5.3	33.3	18.6
May-12	5.4	-2.2	37.2	8.3
Jun-12	5.4	-3.4	29.6	16.6
Jul-12	10.3	4.2	29.3	19.6
Aug-12	15.7	4.7	38	23.9
Sep-12	15.4	4	42.8	27.4
Oct-12	20.6	8.4	48.1	16.1
Nov-12	27.9	7.5	50.7	14
Dec-12	23.5	12.4	45.8	25.6
Jan-13	14.7	-1.1	34.3	21.7
Feb-13	8.9	-0.5	26.4	25.4
Mar-13	8.5	-0.8	30.9	16.6
Apr-13	3.1	-7.5	26.6	8.3

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

Chart ESII-1 of the Business Outlook Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices paid or prices of inputs from 2006 to 2013. Recession dates are in shaded areas. In the middle of deep global contraction after IVQ2007, input prices continued to increase in speculative carry trades from central bank policy rates falling toward zero into commodities futures. The index peaked above 70 in the second half of 2008. Inflation of inputs moderated significantly during the shock of risk aversion in late 2008, even falling briefly into contraction territory below zero during several months in 2009 in the flight away from risk financial assets into US government securities (Cochrane and Zingales 2009) that unwound carry trades. Return of risk appetite induced carry trade with significant increase until return of risk aversion in the first round of the European sovereign debt crisis in Apr 2010. Carry trades returned during risk appetite in expectation that the European sovereign debt crisis was resolved. The various inflation waves originating in carry trades induced by zero interest rates with alternating episodes of risk aversion are mirrored in the prices of inputs after 2011, in particular after Aug 2012 with the announcement of the Outright Monetary Transactions Program of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html). Subsequent risk aversion caused sharp decline in the index of prices paid.

Chart ESII-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Current Prices Paid Diffusion Index SA

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

Chart ESII-2 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices received from 2006 to 2013. The significant difference between the index of current prices paid in Chart ESII-1 and the index of current prices paid in Chart ESII-2 is that increases in prices paid are significantly sharper than increases in prices received. There were several periods of negative readings of prices received from 2010 to 2013 but none of prices paid. Prices paid relative to prices received deteriorate most of the time largely because of the carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. Profit margins of business are compressed intermittently by fluctuations of commodity prices induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates, frustrating production, investment and hiring decisions of business, which is precisely the opposite outcome desired by unconventional monetary policy.

Chart ESII-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Current Prices Received Diffusion Index SA

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

ESIII Squeeze of Economy Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates II. The geographical breakdown of exports and imports of Japan with selected regions and countries is provided in Table ESIII-3 for Mar 2013. The share of Asia in Japan’s trade is more than one half, 54.2 percent of exports and 43.2 percent of imports. Within Asia, exports to China are 17.7 percent of total exports and imports from China 20.2 percent of total imports. While exports to China fell 2.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013, imports from China increased 1.0 percent. The second largest export market for Japan in Mar 2013 is the US with share of 17.5 percent of total exports and share of imports from the US of 8.1 percent in total imports. Western Europe has share of 9.8 percent in Japan’s exports and of 10.5 percent in imports. Rates of growth of exports of Japan in Mar 2013 are negative for several countries and regions with the exception of growth of 7.0 percent for exports to the US, 22.3 for exports to Mexico, 3.6 percent for exports to Brazil and 1.0 percent for exports to Australia. Comparisons relative to 2011 may have some bias because of the effects of the Tōhoku or Great East Earthquake and Tsunami of Mar 11, 2011. Deceleration of growth in China and the US and threat of recession in Europe can reduce world trade and economic activity, which could be part of the explanation for the increase of Japan’s exports by 1.1 percent in Mar 2013 while imports increased 5.5 percent but higher levels after the earthquake and declining prices may be another factor. Growth rates of imports in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013 are positive for most trading partners. Imports from Asia increased 3.8 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013 while imports from China increased 1.0 percent. Data are in millions of yen, which has effects of recent depreciation of the yen relative to the United States dollar (USD).

Table ESIII-3, Japan, Value and 12-Month Percentage Changes of Exports and Imports by Regions and Countries, ∆% and Millions of Yens

Mar 2013	Exports Millions Yen	12 months ∆%	Imports Millions Yen	12 months ∆%
Total	6,271,355	1.1	6,633,776	5.5
Asia	3,399,786	0.3	2,863,414	3.8
China	1,108,606	-2.5	1,342,491	1.0
USA	1,096,769	7.0	535,136	-0.4
Canada	78,247	-7.9	91,097	5.0
Brazil	50,166	3.6	86,684	10.4
Mexico	88,090	22.3	31,335	-6.8
Western Europe	615,009	-4.7	696,019	10.8
Germany	153,886	-1.4	185,366	0.4
France	49,858	-16.6	103,961	30.1
UK	80,750	-12.4	47,673	-14.4
Middle East	224,218	-7.1	1,313,653	2.7
Australia	150,352	1.0	399,424	6.1

Source: Japan, Ministry of Finance http://www.customs.go.jp/toukei/info/index_e.htm

Japan registered another deficit in the trade balance of JPY 362,421 million, as shown in Table ESIII-2. The significantly large deficits of JPY 1,089,435 million with the Middle East, JPY 233,372 million with China, JPY 249,072 with China and JPY 81,010 with Western Europe are not compensated by surpluses of JPY 536,372 with Asia and JPY 561,633 with the US

Table ESIII-2, Japan, Trade Balance, Millions of Yen

Mar 2013	Millions of Yen
Total	-362,421
Asia	536,372
China	-233,885
USA	561,633
Canada	-12,850
Brazil	-36,518
Mexico	56,755
Western Europe	-81,010
Germany	-31,480
France	-54,103
UK	33,077
Middle East	-1,089,435
Australia	-249,072

Source: Japan, Ministry of Finance http://www.customs.go.jp/toukei/info/index_e.htm

There was milder increase in Japan’s export corporate goods price index during the global recession in 2008 but similar sharp decline during the bank balance sheets effect in late 2008, as shown in Chart ESIII-1 of the Bank of Japan. Japan exports industrial goods whose prices have been less dynamic than those of commodities and raw materials. As a result, the export CGPI on the yen basis in Chart ESIII-1 trends down with oscillations after a brief rise in the final part of the recession in 2009. The export corporate goods price index fell from 104.9 in Jun 2009 to 94 in Jan 2012 or minus 10.4 percent and increased to 106.6 in Mar 2013 for a gain of 13.4 percent relative to Jan 2012 and 1.6 percent relative to Jun 2009. The choice of Jun 2009 is designed to capture the reversal of risk aversion beginning in Sep 2008 with the announcement of toxic assets in banks that would be withdrawn with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Reversal of risk aversion in the form of flight to the USD and obligations of the US government opened the way to renewed carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets such as commodities. Japan exports industrial products and imports commodities and raw materials.

Chart ESIII-1, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Chart ESIII-2 provides the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency. The export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 97.9 in Jun 2009 to 102.4 in Feb 2012 or 4.6 percent but dropped to 101.3 in Mar 2013 or minus 1.1 percent relative to Feb 2012 and gained 3.5 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart ESIII-2, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Japan imports primary commodities and raw materials. As a result, the import corporate goods price index on the yen basis in Chart ESIII-3 shows an upward trend after the rise during the global recession in 2008 driven by carry trades from fed funds rates collapsing to zero into commodity futures and decline during risk aversion from late 2008 into beginning of 2008 originating in doubts about soundness of US bank balance sheets. More careful measurement should show that the terms of trade of Japan, export prices relative to import prices, declined during the commodity shocks originating in unconventional monetary policy. The decline of the terms of trade restricted potential growth of income in Japan. The import corporate goods price index on the yen basis increased from 93.5 in Jun 2009 to 106.4 in Feb 2012 or 13.8 percent and to 122.2 in Mar 2013 or gain of 14.8 percent relative to Feb 2012 and 30.7 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart VB-3, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Chart ESIII-4 provides the import corporate goods price index on the contract currency basis. The import corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 86.2 in Jun 2009 to 115.8 in Feb 2012 or 34.3 percent and to 115.3 in Mar 2013 or minus 0.4 percent relative to Feb 2012 and gain of 33.8 percent relative to Jun 2009. There is evident deterioration of the terms of trade of Japan: the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased 4.6 percent from Jun 2009 to Feb 2012 while the import corporate goods price index increased 34.3 percent. Prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 3.5 percent from Jun 2009 to Mar 2013, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 33.8 percent. Unconventional monetary policy induces carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in commodities that squeeze economic activity of industrial countries by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials during periods without risk aversion. Reversals of carry trades during periods of risk aversion decrease prices of exported commodities and raw materials that squeeze economic activity in economies exporting commodities and raw materials. Devaluation of the dollar by unconventional monetary policy could increase US competitiveness in world markets but economic activity is squeezed by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials. Devaluation of the dollar by unconventional monetary policy could increase US competitiveness in world markets but economic activity is squeezed by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.

materials. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.

Chart ESIII-4, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Table ESIII-3 provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Mar 2013. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Mar 2013, the export index on the contract currency basis increased 2.1 percent and fell 7.7 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Mar 2013, the import index increased 14.5 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 2.7 percent on the yen basis. The charts show sharp deteriorations in relative prices of exports to prices of imports during multiple periods. Price margins of Japan’s producers are subject to periodic squeezes resulting from carry trades from zero interest rates of monetary policy to exposures in commodities.

Table ESIII-3, Japan, Exports and Imports Corporate Goods Price Index, Contract Currency Basis and Yen Basis

Month	Exports Contract Currency	Exports Yen	Imports Contract Currency	Imports Yen
2008/01	99.2	115.5	100.7	119.0
2008/02	99.8	116.1	102.4	120.6
2008/03	100.5	112.6	104.5	117.4
2008/04	101.6	115.3	110.1	125.2
2008/05	102.4	117.4	113.4	130.4
2008/06	103.5	120.7	119.5	140.3
2008/07	104.7	122.1	122.6	143.9
2008/08	103.7	122.1	123.1	147.0
2008/09	102.7	118.3	117.1	137.1
2008/10	100.2	109.6	109.1	121.5
2008/11	98.6	104.5	97.8	105.8
2008/12	97.9	100.6	89.3	93.0
2009/01	98.0	99.5	85.6	88.4
2009/02	97.5	100.1	85.7	89.7
2009/03	97.3	104.2	85.2	93.0
2009/04	97.6	105.6	84.4	93.0
2009/05	97.5	103.8	84.0	90.8
2009/06	97.9	104.9	86.2	93.5
2009/07	97.5	103.1	89.2	95.0
2009/08	98.3	104.4	89.6	95.8
2009/09	98.3	102.1	91.0	94.7
2009/10	98.0	101.2	91.0	94.0
2009/11	98.4	100.8	92.8	94.8
2009/12	98.3	100.7	95.4	97.5
2010/01	99.4	102.2	97.0	100.0
2010/02	99.7	101.6	97.6	99.8
2010/03	99.7	101.8	97.0	99.2
2010/04	100.5	104.6	99.9	104.6
2010/05	100.7	102.9	101.7	104.9
2010/06	100.1	101.6	100.0	102.3
2010/07	99.4	99	99.9	99.8
2010/08	99.1	97.3	99.5	97.5
2010/09	99.4	97	100.0	97.2
2010/10	100.1	96.4	100.5	95.8
2010/11	100.7	97.4	102.6	98.2
2010/12	101.2	98.3	104.4	100.6
2011/01	102.1	98.6	107.2	102.6
2011/02	102.9	99.5	109.0	104.3
2011/03	103.5	99.6	111.8	106.3
2011/04	104.1	101.7	115.9	111.9
2011/05	103.9	99.9	118.8	112.4
2011/06	103.8	99.3	117.5	110.5
2011/07	103.6	98.3	118.3	110.2
2011/08	103.6	96.6	118.6	108.1
2011/09	103.7	96.1	117.0	106.2
2011/10	103.0	95.2	116.6	105.6
2011/11	101.9	94.8	115.4	105.4
2011/12	101.5	94.5	116.1	106.2
2012/01	101.8	94	115.0	104.2
2012/02	102.4	95.8	115.8	106.4
2012/03	102.9	99.2	118.3	112.9
2012/04	103.1	98.6	119.5	113.1
2012/05	102.2	96.3	118.1	109.9
2012/06	101.4	95.0	115.2	106.7
2012/07	100.6	94.0	112.0	103.6
2012/08	100.8	94.1	112.4	103.6
2012/09	100.9	94.0	114.7	105.2
2012/10	101.0	94.7	113.8	105.2
2012/11	100.9	95.9	113.3	106.6
2012/12	100.7	98.0	113.6	109.7
2013/01	101.0	102.5	114.0	115.5
2013/02	101.5	105.9	114.9	120.4
2013/03	101.3	106.6	115.3	122.2

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html

Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table ESIII-4. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent increased 0.6 percent in Mar 2013 and increased 1.6 percent in 12 months. Japan exports manufactured products and imports raw materials and commodities such that the country’s terms of trade, or export prices relative to import prices, deteriorate during commodity price increases. In contrast, prices of production machinery, with weight of 3.1 percent, increased 0.4 percent in Mar 2013 and increased 0.2 percent in 12 months. In general, most manufactured products have been experiencing negative or low increases in prices while inflation rates have been high in 12 months for products originating in raw materials and commodities. Ironically, unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing that intended to increase aggregate demand and GDP growth deteriorated the terms of trade of advanced economies with adverse effects on real income.

Table ESIII-4, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%

Mar 2013	Weight	Month ∆%	12 Month ∆%
Total	1000.0	0.1	-0.5
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs	137.5	-0.1	0.4
Petroleum & Coal	57.4	0.6	1.6
Production Machinery	30.8	0.4	0.2
Electronic Components	31.0	-0.3	-1.9
Electric Power, Gas & Water	52.7	0.4	4.2
Iron & Steel	56.6	0.3	-7.5
Chemicals	92.1	0.3	0.9
Transport Equipment	136.4	0.0	-2.2

Source: Bank of Japan http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1303.pdf

Percentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Mar 2013 are provided in Table ESIII-5 divided into domestic, export and import segments. In the domestic CGPI, increasing 0.1 percent in Mar 2013, the energy shock resulting from carry trades is evident in the contribution of 0.04 percentage points by petroleum and coal products in new carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 0.2 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.08 percentage points by general purpose, production & business oriented machinery. The imports CGPI increased 0.3 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal & natural gas added 0.45 percentage points because of new carry trades into energy commodity exposures. Shocks of risk aversion cause unwinding carry trades that result in declining commodity prices with resulting downward pressure on price indexes. The volatility of inflation adversely affects financial and economic decisions worldwide.

Table ESIII-5, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index

Groups Mar 2013	Contribution to Change Percentage Points
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index	Monthly Change:  0.1%
Petroleum & Coal Products	0.04
Scrap & Waste	0.03
Chemicals & Related Products	0.02
Electric Power, Gas & Water	0.02
Iron & Steel	0.02
Nonferrous Metals	-0.02
B. Export Price Index	Monthly Change:  -0.2% contract currency
General Purpose, Production & Business Oriented Machinery	-0.08
Textiles	-0.07
Metals & Related Products	-0.06
Chemicals & Related Products	0.07
C. Import Price Index	Monthly Change: 0.3 % contract currency basis
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas	0.45
Metals & Related Products	-0.09

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1303.pdf

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:

1. 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).
2. United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. The US is growing slowly with 30.8 million in job stress, fewer 10 million full-time jobs, high youth unemployment, historically low hiring and declining real wages.
3. Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. There is still high unemployment in advanced economies.
4. World Inflation Waves. Inflation continues in repetitive waves globally (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html).

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

1. Euro Area Survival Risk. The resilience of the euro to fiscal and financial doubts on larger member countries is still an unknown risk.
2. Foreign Exchange Wars. Exchange rate struggles continue as zero interest rates in advanced economies induce devaluation of their currencies.
3. Valuation of Risk Financial Assets. Valuations of risk financial assets have reached extremely high levels in markets with lower volumes.
4. 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.
5. Credibility and Commitment of Central Bank Policy. There is a credibility issue of the commitment of monetary policy (Sargent and Silber 2012Mar20).
6. 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 14,547.51

on Fri Apr 19, 2013, which is higher by 2.7 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 2.5 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007.

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Jobs upturn isn’t enough to satisfy Fed,” on Mar 8, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324582804578348293647760204.html), finds that much stronger labor market conditions are required for the Fed to end quantitative easing. Unconventional monetary policy with zero interest rates and quantitative easing is quite difficult to unwind because of the adverse effects of raising interest rates on valuations of risk financial assets and home prices, including the very own valuation of the securities held outright in the Fed balance sheet. Gradual unwinding of 1 percent fed funds rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 by seventeen consecutive increases of 25 percentage points from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006 to reach 5.25 percent caused default of subprime mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages linked to the overnight fed funds rate. The zero interest rate has penalized liquidity and increased risks by inducing carry trades from zero interest rates to speculative positions in risk financial assets. There is no exit from zero interest rates without provoking another financial crash.

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 50.2 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 2, 2010 to Apr 19, 2013, S&P 500 has gained 52.1 percent and DAX 31.6 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 4/19/13” 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 5.8 percent below the trough; Japan’s Nikkei Average is 50.9 percent above the trough; DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 21.5 percent above the trough; Dow Global is 23.3 percent above the trough; STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 14.3 percent above the trough; and NYSE Financial Index is 28.7 percent above the trough. DJ UBS Commodities is 6.1 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 31.6 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 50.9 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 16.9 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 13,316.48

on Fri Apr 12, 2013 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 29.9 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 9.5 percent relative to the euro and even higher before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 4/19/13” in Table ESIV-1 shows that there were increases of valuations of risk financial assets in the week of Apr 19, 2013 such as 1.7 percent for China’s Shanghai Composite. DJ Asia Pacific decreased 1.2 percent. NYSE Financial decreased 2.0 percent in the week. DJ UBS Commodities decreased 1.7 percent. Dow Global decreased 2.1 percent in the week of Apr 19, 2013. The DJIA decreased 2.1 percent and S&P 500 decreased 2.1 percent. DAX of Germany decreased 3.7 percent. STOXX 50 decreased 2.1 percent. The USD appreciated 0.5 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 4/19/13” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Apr 19, 2013. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 4/19/13” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 4/19/13.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table ESIV-1: DJIA 29.8 percent, S&P 500 27.8 percent, DAX 17.8 percent, Dow Global 0.6 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 6.4 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 2.5 percent and Nikkei Average 16.9 percent. There are two equity indexes below the peak: Shanghai Composite by 29.1 percent and STOXX 50 by 3.2 percent. DJ UBS Commodities Index is now 9.3 percent below the peak. The US dollar strengthened 13.7 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).

Table ESIV-1, Stock Indexes, Commodities, Dollar and 10-Year Treasury  

	Peak	Trough	∆% to Trough	∆% Peak to 4/19/ /13	∆% Week 4/19/13	∆% Trough to 4/19/ 13
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	29.8	-2.1	50.2
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	27.8	-2.1	52.1
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	2.5	-2.0	28.7
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	0.6	-2.1	23.3
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	6.4	-1.2	21.5
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	16.9	-1.3	50.9
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	-29.1	1.7	-5.8
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	-3.2	-2.1	14.3
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	17.8	-3.7	31.6
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	13.7	0.5	-9.5
DJ UBS Comm.	1/6/ 10	7/2/10	-14.5	-9.3	-1.7	6.1
10-Year T Note	4/5/ 10	4/6/10	3.986	1.702

T: trough; Dollar: positive sign appreciation relative to euro (less dollars paid per euro), negative sign depreciation relative to euro (more dollars paid per euro)

Source: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata

I World Inflation Waves. This section provides analysis and data on world inflation waves. IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy provides more technical analysis. Section IB United States Inflation analyzes inflation in the United States in two subsections: IC Long-term US Inflation and ID Current US Inflation. There is similar lack of reality in economic history as in monetary policy based on fear of deflation as analyzed in Subsection IAE Theory and Reality of Economic History and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation

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 in also reducing 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 savers obtaining funds from investors 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. During periods of risk aversion such as fears of disruption of world financial markets and the global economy resulting from events such as 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.

Symmetric inflation targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even with the economy growing at or close to potential output. Monetary easing by unconventional measures is now open ended in perpetuity, or QE→∞, as provided in the statement of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 13, 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm):

“To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.

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 economic recovery strengthens.”

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.”

The actual objective is attempting to bring the unemployment rate to 5.2 percent but because of the lag in effect of monetary policy impulses on income and prices policy uses “projections” such that the target of monetary policy is a forecast of unemployment and inflation. 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 1.6 to 2.1 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 2.1 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 14 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2012. 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, calculations show that actual growth is around 1.6 to 2.1 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). Growth is not only mediocre but sharply decelerating to a rhythm that is not consistent with reduction of unemployment and underemployment of 30.8 million people corresponding to 19.0 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 and the four quarters of 2012, 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 and 0.4 percent in IVQ2012. GDP growth in IIIQ2012 was revised from 2.7 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) to 3.1 percent but mostly because of contribution of 0.73 percentage points of inventory accumulation and one-time contribution of 0.64 percentage points of expenditures in national defense that without them would have reduced growth from 3.1 percent to 1.73 percent. Equally, GDP growth in IVQ2012 is measured in the third estimate as 0.4 percent but mostly because of deduction of divestment of inventories of 1.52 percentage points and deduction of one-time national defense expenditures of 1.28 percentage points. The annual equivalent rate of growth of GDP for the four quarters of 2011 and the four quarters of 2012 is 1.8 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); and discounting 0.4 percent to one quarter is 0.1 percent {[(1.004)^1/4 – 1]100}. Real GDP growth in the four quarters of 2011 and the four quarters of 2012 accumulated to 3.7 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001) - 1]100 = 3.7%}. This is equivalent to growth from IQ2011 to IVQ2012 obtained by dividing the seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of IVQ2012 of $13,665.4 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 {[($13,665.4/$13,181.2) - 1]100 = 3.7%} with a minor rounding discrepancy. The growth rate in annual equivalent for the four quarters of 2011 and the four quarters of 2012 is 1.8 percent {[(1.00025 x 1.0062 x 1.0032 x 1.010 x 1.005 x 1.0032 x 1.0077 x 1.001)^4/8 -1]100 = 1.8%], or {[($13,665.4/$13,181.2)]^4/8-1]100 = 1.8%} dividing the SAAR of IVQ2012 by the SAAR of IVQ2010 in Table I-6 below, obtaining the average for eight 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. Excluding growth at the SAAR of 2.5 percent in IIQ2011 and 4.1 percent in IVQ2011 while converting growth in IIIQ2012 to 1.73 percent by deducting from 3.1 percent one-time inventory accumulation of 0.73 percentage points and national defense expenditures of 0.64 percentage points and converting growth in IVQ2012 by adding 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of national defense expenditure reductions to obtain 3.2 percent, the US economy grew at 1.6 percent in the remaining six quarters {[(1.00025x1.0032x1.005x1.0032x1.0043x1.0079)^4/6 – 1]100 = 1.6%} with declining growth trend in three consecutive quarters from 4.1 percent in IVQ2011, to 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012, 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012 that is more like 1.73 percent without inventory accumulation and national defense expenditures and 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 that is more likely 3.2 percent by adding 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of national defense expenditures. Weakness of growth is more clearly shown by adjusting the exceptional one-time contributions to growth from items that are not aggregate demand: 2.53 percentage points contributed by inventory change to growth of 4.1 percent in IVQ2011; 0.64 percentage points contributed by expenditures in national defense together with 0.73 points of inventory accumulation to growth of 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012; and deduction of 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of national defense expenditure reductions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the US Department of Commerce released on Wed Jan 30, 2012, the third estimate of GDP for IVQ2012 at 0.4 percent seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp4q12_3rd.pdf). In the four quarters of 2012, the US economy is growing at the annual equivalent rate of 2.1 percent {([(1.02^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.0173)^1/4(1.032)^1/4]-1)100 = 2.1%} by excluding inventory accumulation of 0.73 percentage points and exceptional defense expenditures of 0.64 percentage points from growth 3.1 percent at SAAR in IIIQ2012 to obtain adjusted 1.73 percent SSAR and adding 1.52 percentage points of national defense expenditure reductions and 1.28 percentage points of inventory divestment to growth of 0.4 percent SAAR in IVQ2012 to obtain 3.2 percent.

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.

The major reason and channel of transmission of unconventional monetary policy is through expectations of inflation. Fisher (1930) provided theoretical and historical relation of interest rates and inflation. Let i_n be the nominal interest rate, i_r the real or inflation-adjusted interest rate and π^e the expectation of inflation in the time term of the interest rate, which are all expressed as proportions. The following expression provides the relation of real and nominal interest rates and the expectation of inflation:

(1 + i_r) = (1 + i_n)/(1 + π^e) (1)

That is, the nominal interest rate equals the real interest rate discounted by the expectation of inflation in time term of the interest rate. Fisher (1933) observed the devastating effect of deflation on debts. Nominal debt contracts remained at original principal interest but net worth and income of debtors contracted during deflation. Real interest rates increase during declining inflation. For example, if the interest rate is 3 percent and prices decline 0.2 percent, equation (1) calculates the real interest rate as:

(1 +0.03)/(1 – 0.02) = 1.03/(0.998) = 1.032

That is, the real rate of interest is (1.032 – 1) 100 or 3.2 percent. If inflation were 2 percent, the real rate of interest would be 0.98 percent, or about 1.0 percent {[(1.03/1.02) -1]100 = 0.98%}.

The yield of the one-year Treasury security was quoted in the Wall Street Journal at 0.114 percent on Fri Apr 19, 2013 (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_marketdata_main). The expected rate of inflation π^e in the next twelve months is not observed. Assume that it would be equal to the rate of inflation in the past twelve months estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS) at 1.5 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The real rate of interest would be obtained as follows:

(1 + 0.00114)/(1 + 0.015) = (1 + i_r) = 0.9863

That is, i_r is equal to 1 – 0.9863 or minus 1.37 percent. Investing in a one-year Treasury security results in a loss of 1.37 percent relative to inflation. The objective of unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates is to induce consumption and investment because of the loss to inflation of riskless financial assets. Policy would be truly irresponsible if it intended to increase inflationary expectations or π^e. The result could be the same rate of unemployment with higher inflation (Kydland and Prescott 1977).

Friedman (1953) analyzed the effects of full-employment economic policy on economic stability. There are two critical issues. First, there are lags in effect of monetary policy on aggregate income and prices (Friedman 1961, Culbertson 1960, 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). Second, concrete knowledge on the functioning of the economy is inadequate. The result of shocking the economy with policies at the wrong time could be an increase in instability in the form of higher volatility of prices, or σ_p (standard deviation of prices), and higher volatility of real income, or σ_y (standard deviation of real income.

Carry trades from zero interest rates to highly leveraged exposures in risk financial assets characterize the current environment. Some analytical aspects of the carry trade are instructive (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 101-5, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 202-4), Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c), 70-4). Consider the following symbols: R_t is the exchange rate of a country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t of initiation of the carry trade; R_t+τ is the exchange of the country receiving carry trade denoted in units of domestic currency per dollars at time t+τ when the carry trade is unwound; i_f is the domestic interest rate of the high-yielding country where investment will be made; i_usd is the interest rate on short-term dollar debt assumed to be 0.5 percent per year; i_f >i_usd, which expresses the fact that the interest rate on the foreign country is much higher than that in short-term USD (US dollars); S_t is the dollar value of the investment principal; and π is the dollar profit from the carry trade. The investment of the principal S_t in the local currency debt of the foreign country provides a profit of:

π = (1 + i_f)(R_tS_t)(1/R_t+τ) – (1 + i_usd)S_t (2)

The profit from the carry trade, π, is nonnegative when:

(1 + i_f)/ (1 + i_usd) ≥ R_t+τ/R_t (3)

In words, the difference in interest rate differentials, left-hand side of inequality (3), must exceed the percentage devaluation of the currency of the host country of the carry trade, right hand side of inequality (3). The carry trade must earn enough in the host-country interest rate to compensate for depreciation of the host-country at the time of return to USD. A simple example explains the vulnerability of the carry trade in fixed-income. Let i_f be 0.10 (10 percent), i_usd 0.005 (0.5 percent), S_t USD100 and R_t CUR 1.00/USD. Adopt the fixed-income rule of months of 30 days and years of 360 days. Consider a strategy of investing USD 100 at 10 percent for 30 days with borrowing of USD 100 at 0.5 percent for 30 days. At time t, the USD 100 are converted into CUR 100 and invested at [(30/360)10] equal to 0.833 percent for thirty days. At the end of the 30 days, assume that the rate R_t+30 is still CUR 1/USD such that the return amount from the carry trade is USD 0.833. There is still a loan to be paid [(0.005)(30/360)USD100] equal to USD 0.042. The investor receives the net amount of USD 0.833 minus USD 0.042 or US 0.791. The rate of return on the investment of the USD 100 is 0.791 percent, which is equivalent to the annual rate of return of 9.49 percent {(0.791)(360/30)}. This is incomparably better than earning 0.5 percent. There are alternatives of hedging by buying forward the exchange for conversion back into USD.

Carry trades induced by zero interest rates increase the volatility of inflation σ_p and real income σ_y. World inflation waves originating in carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures and options deteriorate the sales prices of producing and investing companies and real income of consumers. The main objective of monetary policy is providing for financial stability. Unconventional monetary policy creates economic instability with higher volatilities of prices and real income as well as financial stability with major oscillations of risk financial assets. Carry trades induced by zero interest rates cause improvements and deteriorations of net margins of sales prices less costs of raw materials and real income of consumers disrupting decisions on production, investment and consumption.

Table IA-1 provides annual equivalent rates of inflation for producer price indexes followed in this blog of countries and regions that account for close to three quarters of world output. The behavior of the US producer price index in 2011 and into 2012-2013 shows neatly multiple waves. (1) In Jan-Apr 2011, without risk aversion, US producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 10.0 percent. (2) After risk aversion, producer prices increased in the US at the annual equivalent rate of 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) From Jul to Sep 2011, under alternating episodes of risk aversion, producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.9 percent. (4) Under the pressure of risk aversion because of the European debt crisis, US producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2011. (5) From Dec 2011 to Jan 2012, US producer were flat at the annual equivalent rate of 0.0 percent. (6) Inflation of producer prices returned with 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Mar 2012. (7) With return of risk aversion from the European debt crisis, producer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of 4.7 percent in Apr-May 2012. (8) New positions in commodity futures even with continuing risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 3.0 percent in Jun-Jul 2012. (9) Relaxed risk aversion because of announcement of sovereign bond buying by the European Central Bank induced carry trades that resulted in annual equivalent producer price inflation in the US of 12.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2012. (10) Renewed risk aversion caused unwinding of carry trades of zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures with annual equivalent inflation of minus 3.5 percent in Oct-Dec 2012. (10) In Jan-Feb 2013, producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 5.5 percent with more relaxed risk aversion at the margin. (11) Return of risk aversion resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 7.0 percent in Mar 2013. Resolution of the European debt crisis if there is not an unfavorable growth event with political development in China would result in jumps of valuations of risk financial assets. Increases in commodity prices would cause the same high producer price inflation experienced in Jan-Apr 2011 and Aug-Sep 2012. An episode of exploding commodity prices could ignite inflationary expectations that would result in an inflation phenomenon of costly resolution. There are nine producer-price indexes in Table IA-1 for seven countries (two for the UK) and one region (euro area) showing very similar behavior. Zero interest rates without risk aversion cause increases in commodity prices that in turn increase input and output prices. Producer price inflation rose at very high rates during the first part of 2011 for the US, Japan, China, Euro Area, Germany, France, Italy and the UK when risk aversion was contained. With the increase in risk aversion in May and Jun 2011, inflation moderated because carry trades were unwound. Producer price inflation returned after Jul 2011, with alternating bouts of risk aversion. In the final months of the year producer price inflation collapsed because of the disincentive to exposures in commodity futures resulting from fears of resolution of the European debt crisis. There is renewed worldwide inflation in the early part of 2012 with subsequent collapse because of another round of sharp risk aversion. Sharp worldwide jump in producer prices occurred recently because of the combination of zero interest rates forever or QE→∞ with temporarily relaxed risk aversion. Producer prices were moderating or falling in the final months of 2012 because of renewed risk aversion that causes unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures. In the first months of 2013, new carry trades caused higher worldwide inflation. Unconventional monetary policy fails in stimulating the overall real economy, merely introducing undesirable instability because monetary authorities cannot control allocation of floods of money at zero interest rates to carry trades into risk financial assets. The economy is constrained in a suboptimal allocation of resources that is perpetuated along a continuum of short-term periods results in long-term or dynamic inefficiency in the form of a trajectory of economic activity that is lower than what would be attained with rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html).

Table IA-1, Annual Equivalent Rates of Producer Price Indexes

INDEX 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Producer Price Index
AE  ∆% Mar	-7.0
AE  ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	5.5
AE  ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-3.5
AE  ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	12.7
AE  ∆% Jun-Jul 2012	3.0
AE  ∆% Apr-May 2012	-4.7
AE  ∆% Feb-Mar 2012	2.4
AE  ∆% Dec 2011-Jan-2012	0.0
AE  ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.0
Japan Corporate Goods Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Mar 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	3.0
AE ∆%  May-Jul 2012	-5.8
AE ∆%  Feb-Apr 2012	2.0
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-2.2
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.9
China Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Jan-Mar  2013	1.6
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-1.2
AE ∆% Oct 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Sep 2012	-5.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Jun 2011	6.4
Euro Zone Industrial Producer Prices
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Oct 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	7.4
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-3.2
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	8.3
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	11.4
Germany Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	-1.8 NSA –3.0 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	10.0 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-1.6 NSA 1.6 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	4.9 NSA 4.9 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8 NSA –0.4 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.9 NSA 1.6 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	1.2 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	1.8 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.8 NSA 3.2 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 4.3 SA
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4 NSA 6.5 SA
France Producer Price Index for the French Market
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-4.1
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	7.1
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-5.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.8
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.7
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4
Italy Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Sep 2012-Jan 2013	-5.2
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	9.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2012	6.8
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2012	8.1
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-April 2011	10.7
UK Output Prices
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	5.3
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	4.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-5.3
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	7.9
AE ∆% Nov 2011-Jan-2012	1.6
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	12.0
UK Input Prices
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	30.5
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	14.0
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-21.9
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	18.1
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	-3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	35.6

AE: Annual Equivalent

Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.stats.gov.cn/enGliSH/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Homepage.html

http://www.insee.fr/en/default.asp

http://www.istat.it/en/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

Similar world inflation waves are in the behavior of consumer price indexes of six countries and the euro zone in Table IA-2. US consumer price inflation shows similar waves. (1) Under risk appetite in Jan-Apr 2011, consumer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.6 percent. (2) Risk aversion caused the collapse of inflation to annual equivalent 3.0 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) Risk appetite drove the rate of consumer price inflation in the US to 3.3 percent in Jul-Sep 2011. (4) Gloomier views of carry trades caused the collapse of inflation in Oct-Nov 2011 to annual equivalent 0.6 percent. (5) Consumer price inflation resuscitated with increased risk appetite at annual equivalent of 1.2 percent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. (6) Consumer price inflation returned at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Apr 2012. (7) Under renewed risk aversion, annual equivalent consumer price inflation in the US was 0.0 percent in May-Jul 2012. (8) Inflation jumped to annual equivalent 4.9 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. (9) Unwinding of carry trades caused negative annual equivalent inflation of 0.8 percent in Nov 2012-Jan 2013 but some countries experienced higher inflation in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. (10) Inflation jumped again with annual equivalent inflation of 8.7 percent in Feb 2013 in a mood of relaxed risk aversion. (11) Inflation fell at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Mar 2013. Inflationary expectations can be triggered in one of these episodes of accelerating inflation because of commodity carry trades induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates in perpetuity or QE→∞ or almost continuous time. Alternating episodes of increase and decrease of inflation introduce uncertainty in household planning that frustrates consumption and home buying. Announcement of purchases of impaired sovereign bonds by the European Central Bank relaxed risk aversion that induced carry trades into commodity exposures, increasing prices of food, raw materials and energy. There is similar behavior in all the other consumer price indexes in Table IA-2. China’s CPI increased at annual equivalent 8.3 percent in Jan-Mar 2011, 2.0 percent in Apr-Jun, 2.9 percent in Jul-Dec and resuscitated at 5.8 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Mar 2012, declining to minus 3.9 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but resuscitating at 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2012, declining to minus 1.2 percent in Oct 2012 and 0.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2012. High inflation in China at annual equivalent 5.5 percent in Nov-Dec 2012 is attributed to inclement winter weather that caused increases in food prices. Continuing pressure of food prices caused annual equivalent inflation of 12.2 percent in China in Dec 2012 to Feb 2013. Inflation in China fell at annual equivalent 10.3 percent in Mar 2013. The euro zone harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP) increased at annual equivalent 5.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, minus 2.4 percent in May-Jul 2011, 4.3 percent in Aug-Dec 2011, minus 3.0 percent in Dec 2011-Jan 2012 and then 9.6 percent in Feb-Apr 2012, falling to minus 2.8 percent annual equivalent in May-Jul 2012 but resuscitating at 5.3 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. The recent shock of risk aversion forced minus 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2012. As in several European countries, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 4.9 percent in the euro area in Dec 2012. The HICP price index fell at annual equivalent 11.4 percent in Jan 2013 and increased at 10.9 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. The price indexes of the largest members of the euro zone, Germany, France and Italy, and the euro zone as a whole, exhibit the same inflation waves. The United Kingdom CPI increased at annual equivalent 6.5 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, falling to only 0.4 percent in May-Jul 2011 and then increasing at 4.6 percent in Aug-Nov 2011. UK consumer prices fell at 0.6 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 but increased at 6.2 percent annual equivalent from Feb to Apr 2012. In May-Jun 2012, with renewed risk aversion, UK consumer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of minus 3.0 percent. Inflation returned in the UK at average annual equivalent of 4.5 percent in Jul-Dec 2012 with inflation in Oct 2012 caused mostly by increases of university tuition fees. Inflation returned at 4.5 percent annual equivalent in Jul-Dec 2012 and was higher in annual equivalent producer price inflation in the UK in Jul-Oct 2012 at 4.0 percent for output prices and 14.0 percent for input prices in Jul-Aug 2012 (see Table IA-1). Consumer prices in the UK fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jan 2013, rebounding at 6.2 percent in Feb-Mar 2013.

Table IA-2, Annual Equivalent Rates of Consumer Price Indexes

Index 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-2.4
AE ∆% Feb 2013	8.7
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-0.8
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan  2012	1.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.3
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.6
China Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-10.3
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Feb 2013	12.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2012	4.1
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-3.9
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Mar 2012	5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	2.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2011	8.3
Euro Zone Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	10.0
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-11.4
AE ∆% Dec 2012	4.9
AE ∆% Nov 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	5.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	9.6
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-2.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.2
Germany Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8 NSA –1.2 SA
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5 NSA 1.5 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	4.9 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-1.2 NSA  1.2 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.5 NSA 2.0 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.6 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	1.7 NSA 1.9 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2011	3.0 NSA 2.4 SA
France Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	2.8
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.3
Italy Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Mar 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2012	-0.8
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.7
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	4.3
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.9
UK Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Dec 2012	4.5
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.6
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	6.5

AE: Annual Equivalent

Sources:

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

http://www.stats.gov.cn/enGliSH/

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Homepage.html

http://www.insee.fr/en/default.asp

http://www.istat.it/en/

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

IIA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy. Janet L. Yellen, Vice Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, provides analysis of the policy of purchasing large amounts of long-term securities for the Fed’s balance sheet. The new analysis provides three channels of transmission of quantitative easing to the ultimate objectives of increasing growth and employment and increasing inflation to “levels of 2 percent or a bit less that most Committee participants judge to be consistent, over the long run, with the FOMC’s dual mandate” (Yellen 2011AS, 4, 7):

“There are several distinct channels through which these purchases tend to influence aggregate demand, including a reduced cost of credit to consumers and businesses, a rise in asset prices that boost household wealth and spending, and a moderate change in the foreign exchange value of the dollar that provides support to net exports.”

The new analysis by Yellen (2011AS) is considered below in four separate subsections: IIA1 Theory; IIA2 Policy; IIA3 Evidence; and IIA4 Unwinding Strategy.

IIA1 Theory. The transmission mechanism of quantitative easing can be analyzed in three different forms. (1) Portfolio choice theory. General equilibrium value theory was proposed by Hicks (1935) in analyzing the balance sheets of individuals and institutions with assets in the capital segment consisting of money, debts, stocks and productive equipment. Net worth or wealth would be comparable to income in value theory. Expected yield and risk would be the constraint comparable to income in value theory. Markowitz (1952) considers a portfolio of individual securities with mean μ_p and variance σ_p. The Markowitz (1952, 82) rule states that “investors would (or should” want to choose a portfolio of combinations of (μ_p, σ_p) that are efficient, which are those with minimum variance or risk for given expected return μ_p or more and maximum expected μ_p for given variance or risk or less. The more complete model of Tobin (1958) consists of portfolio choice of monetary assets by maximizing a utility function subject to a budget constraint. Tobin (1961, 28) proposes general equilibrium analysis of the capital account to derive choices of capital assets in balance sheets of economic units with the determination of yields in markets for capital assets with the constraint of net worth. A general equilibrium model of choice of portfolios was developed simultaneously by various authors (Hicks 1962; Treynor 1962; Sharpe 1964; Lintner 1965; Mossin 1966). If shocks such as by quantitative easing displace investors from the efficient frontier, there would be reallocations of portfolios among assets until another efficient point is reached. Investors would bid up the prices or lower the returns (interest plus capital gains) of long-term assets targeted by quantitative easing, causing the desired effect of lowering long-term costs of investment and consumption.

(2) General Equilibrium Theory. Bernanke and Reinhart (2004, 88) argue that “the possibility monetary policy works through portfolio substitution effects, even in normal times, has a long intellectual history, having been espoused by both Keynesians (James Tobin 1969) and monetarists (Karl Brunner and Allan Meltzer 1973).” Andres et al. (2004) explain the Tobin (1969) contribution by optimizing agents in a general-equilibrium model. Both Tobin (1969) and Brunner and Meltzer (1973) consider capital assets to be gross instead of perfect substitutes with positive partial derivatives of own rates of return and negative partial derivatives of cross rates in the vector of asset returns (interest plus principal gain or loss) as argument in portfolio balancing equations (see Pelaez and Suzigan 1978, 113-23). Tobin (1969, 26) explains portfolio substitution after monetary policy:

“When the supply of any asset is increased, the structure of rates of return, on this and other assets, must change in a way that induces the public to hold the new supply. When the asset’s own rate can rise, a large part of the necessary adjustment can occur in this way. But if the rate is fixed, the whole adjustment must take place through reductions in other rates or increases in prices of other assets. This is the secret of the special role of money; it is a secret that would be shared by any other asset with a fixed interest rate.”

Andrés et al. (2004, 682) find that in their multiple-channels model “base money expansion now matters for the deviations of long rates from the expected path of short rates. Monetary policy operates by both the expectations channel (the path of current and expected future short rates) and this additional channel. As in Tobin’s framework, interest rates spreads (specifically, the deviations from the pure expectations theory of the term structure) are an endogenous function of the relative quantities of assets supplied.”

The interrelation among yields of default-free securities is measured by the term structure of interest rates. This schedule of interest rates along time incorporates expectations of investors. (Cox, Ingersoll and Ross 1985). The expectations hypothesis postulates that the expectations of investors about the level of future spot rates influence the level of current long-term rates. The normal channel of transmission of monetary policy in a recession is to lower the target of the fed funds rate that will lower future spot rates through the term structure and also the yields of long-term securities. The expectations hypothesis is consistent with term premiums (Cox, Ingersoll and Ross 1981, 774-7) such as liquidity to compensate for risk or uncertainty about future events that can cause changes in prices or yields of long-term securities (Hicks 1935; see Cox, Ingersoll and Ross 1981, 784; Chung et al. 2011, 22).

(3) Preferred Habitat. Another approach is by the preferred-habitat models proposed by Culbertson (1957, 1963) and Modigliani and Sutch (1966). This approach is formalized by Vayanos and Vila (2009). The model considers investors or “clientele” who do not abandon their segment of operations unless there are extremely high potential returns and arbitrageurs who take positions to profit from discrepancies. Pension funds matching benefit liabilities would operate in segments above 15 years; life insurance companies operate around 15 years or more; and asset managers and bank treasury managers are active in maturities of less than 10 years (Ibid, 1). Hedge funds, proprietary trading desks and bank maturity transformation activities are examples of potential arbitrageurs. The role of arbitrageurs is to incorporate “information about current and future short rates into bond prices” (Ibid, 12). Suppose monetary policy raises the short-term rate above a certain level. Clientele would not trade on this information, but arbitrageurs would engage in carry trade, shorting bonds and investing at the short-term rate, in a “roll-up” trade, resulting in decline of bond prices or equivalently increases in yields. This is a situation of an upward-sloping yield curve. If the short-term rate were lowered, arbitrageurs would engage in carry trade borrowing at the short-term rate and going long bonds, resulting in an increase in bond prices or equivalently decline in yields, or “roll-down” trade. The carry trade is the mechanism by which bond yields adjust to changes in current and expected short-term interest rates. The risk premiums of bonds are positively associated with the slope of the term structure (Ibid, 13). Fama and Bliss (1987, 689) find with data for 1964-85 that “1-year expected returns for US Treasury maturities to 5 years, measured net of the interest rate on a 1-year bond, vary through time. Expected term premiums are mostly positive during good times but mostly negative during recessions.” Vayanos and Vila (2009) develop a model with two-factors, the short-term rate and demand or quantity. The term structure moves because of shocks of short-term rates and demand. An important finding is that demand or quantity shocks are largest for intermediate and long maturities while short-rate shocks are largest for short-term maturities.

IIA2 Policy. A simplified analysis could consider the portfolio balance equations A_ij = f(r, x) where A_ij is the demand for i = 1,2,∙∙∙n assets from j = 1,2, ∙∙∙m sectors, r the 1xn vector of rates of return, r_i, of n assets and x a vector of other relevant variables. Tobin (1969) and Brunner and Meltzer (1973) assume imperfect substitution among capital assets such that the own first derivatives of A_ij are positive, demand for an asset increases if its rate of return (interest plus capital gains) is higher; and cross first derivatives are negative, demand for an asset decreases if the rate of return of alternative assets increases. Theoretical purity would require the estimation of the complete model with all rates of return. In practice, it may be impossible to observe all rates of return such as in the critique of Roll (1976). Policy proposals by the Fed have been focused on the likely impact of withdrawals of stocks of securities in specific segments, that is, of effects of one or several specific rates of return among the n possible rates. There have been at least seven approaches on the role of monetary policy in purchasing long-term securities that have increased the classes of rates of return targeted by the Fed:

(1) Suspension of Auctions of 30-year Treasury Bonds. Auctions of 30-year Treasury bonds were suspended between 2001 and 2005. This was Treasury policy not Fed policy. The effects were similar to those of quantitative easing: withdrawal of supply from the segment of 30-year bonds would result in higher prices or lower yields for close-substitute mortgage-backed securities with resulting lower mortgage rates. The objective was to encourage refinancing of house loans that would increase family income and consumption by freeing income from reducing monthly mortgage payments.

(2) Purchase of Long-term Securities by the Fed. Between Nov 2008 and Mar 2009 the Fed announced the intention of purchasing $1750 billion of long-term securities: $600 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities and agency debt announced on Nov 25 and $850 billion of agency mortgaged-backed securities and agency debt plus $300 billion of Treasury securities announced on Mar 18, 2009 (Yellen 2011AS, 5-6). The objective of buying mortgage-backed securities was to lower mortgage rates that would “support the housing sector” (Bernanke 2009SL). The FOMC statement on Dec 16, 2008 informs that: “over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and its stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm). The Mar 18, 2009, statement of the FOMC explained that: “to provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities, bringing its total purchases of these securities up to $1.25 trillion this year, and to increase its purchase of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion. Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20090318a.htm). Policy changed to increase prices or reduce yields of mortgage-backed securities and Treasury securities with the objective of supporting housing markets and private credit markets by lowering costs of housing and long-term private credit.

(3) Portfolio Reinvestment. On Aug 10, 2010, the FOMC statement explains the reinvestment policy: “to help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in long-term Treasury securities. The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm). The objective of policy appears to be supporting conditions in housing and mortgage markets with slow transfer of the portfolio to Treasury securities that would support private-sector markets.

(4) Increasing Portfolio. As widely anticipated, the FOMC decided on Dec 3, 2010: “to promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101103a.htm). The emphasis appears to shift from housing markets and private-sector credit markets to the general economy, employment and preventing deflation.

(5) Increasing Stock Market Valuations. Chairman Bernanke (2010WP) explained on Nov 4 the objectives of purchasing an additional $600 billion of long-term Treasury securities and reinvesting maturing principal and interest in the Fed portfolio. Long-term interest rates fell and stock prices rose when investors anticipated the new round of quantitative easing. Growth would be promoted by easier lending such as for refinancing of home mortgages and more investment by lower corporate bond yields. Consumers would experience higher confidence as their wealth in stocks rose, increasing outlays. Income and profits would rise and, in a “virtuous circle,” support higher economic growth. Bernanke (2000) analyzes the role of stock markets in central bank policy (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 99-100). Fed policy in 1929 increased interest rates to avert a gold outflow and failed to prevent the deepening of the banking crisis without which the Great Depression may not have occurred. In the crisis of Oct 19, 1987, Fed policy supported stock and futures markets by persuading banks to extend credit to brokerages. Collapse of stock markets would slow consumer spending.

(6) Devaluing the Dollar. Yellen (2011AS, 6) broadens the effects of quantitative easing by adding dollar devaluation: “there are several distinct channels through which these purchases tend to influence aggregate demand, including a reduced cost of credit to consumers and businesses, a rise in asset prices that boosts household wealth and spending, and a moderate change in the foreign exchange value of the dollar that provides support to net exports.”

(7) Let’s Twist Again Monetary Policy. The term “operation twist” grew out of the dance “twist” popularized by successful musical performer Chubby Chekker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWaJ0s0-E1o). Meulendyke (1998, 39) describes the coordination of policy by Treasury and the FOMC in the beginning of the Kennedy administration in 1961 (see Modigliani and Sutch 1966, 1967; http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/imf-view-of-world-economy-and-finance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/collapse-of-household-income-and-wealth.html):

“In 1961, several developments led the FOMC to abandon its “bills only” restrictions. The new Kennedy administration was concerned about gold outflows and balance of payments deficits and, at the same time, it wanted to encourage a rapid recovery from the recent recession. Higher rates seemed desirable to limit the gold outflows and help the balance of payments, while lower rates were wanted to speed up economic growth.

To deal with these problems simultaneously, the Treasury and the FOMC attempted to encourage lower long-term rates without pushing down short-term rates. The policy was referred to in internal Federal Reserve documents as “operation nudge” and elsewhere as “operation twist.” For a few months, the Treasury engaged in maturity exchanges with trust accounts and concentrated its cash offerings in shorter maturities.

The Federal Reserve participated with some reluctance and skepticism, but it did not see any great danger in experimenting with the new procedure.

It attempted to flatten the yield curve by purchasing Treasury notes and bonds while selling short-term Treasury securities. The domestic portfolio grew by $1.7 billion over the course of 1961. Note and bond holdings increased by a substantial $8.8 billion, while certificate of indebtedness holdings fell by almost $7.4 billion (Table 2). The extent to which these actions changed the yield curve or modified investment decisions is a source of dispute, although the predominant view is that the impact on yields was minimal. The Federal Reserve continued to buy coupon issues thereafter, but its efforts were not very aggressive. Reference to the efforts disappeared once short-term rates rose in 1963. The Treasury did not press for continued Fed purchases of long-term debt. Indeed, in the second half of the decade, the Treasury faced an unwanted shortening of its portfolio. Bonds could not carry a coupon with a rate above 4 1/4 percent, and market rates persistently exceeded that level. Notes—which were not subject to interest rate restrictions—had a maximum maturity of five years; it was extended to seven years in 1967.”

As widely anticipated by markets, perhaps intentionally, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided at its meeting on Sep 21 that it was again “twisting time” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20110921a.htm):

“Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that economic growth remains slow. Recent indicators point to continuing weakness in overall labor market conditions, and the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending has been increasing at only a modest pace in recent months despite some recovery in sales of motor vehicles as supply-chain disruptions eased. Investment in nonresidential structures is still weak, and the housing sector remains depressed. However, business investment in equipment and software continues to expand. Inflation appears to have moderated since earlier in the year as prices of energy and some commodities have declined from their peaks. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee continues to expect some pickup in the pace of recovery over coming quarters but anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline only gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Moreover, there are significant downside risks to the economic outlook, including strains in global financial markets. The Committee also anticipates that inflation will settle, over coming quarters, at levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate as the effects of past energy and other commodity price increases dissipate further. However, the Committee will continue to pay close attention to the evolution of inflation and inflation expectations.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with the dual mandate, the Committee decided today to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities. The Committee intends to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less. This program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more accommodative. The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.

To help support conditions in mortgage markets, the Committee will now reinvest principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. In addition, the Committee will maintain its existing policy of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.

The Committee also decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013.

The Committee discussed the range of policy tools available to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability. It will continue to assess the economic outlook in light of incoming information and is prepared to employ its tools as appropriate.”

The FOMC decided at its meeting on Jun 20, 2012, to continue “Let’s Twist Again” monetary policy until the end of 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120620a.htm http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_120620.html):

“The Committee also decided to continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities. Specifically, the Committee intends to purchase Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years at the current pace and to sell or redeem an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of approximately 3 years or less. This continuation of the maturity extension program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative. The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. The Committee is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”

IIA3 Evidence. There are multiple empirical studies on the effectiveness of quantitative easing that have been covered in past posts such as (Andrés et al. 2004, D’Amico and King 2010, Doh 2010, Gagnon et al. 2010, Hamilton and Wu 2010). On the basis of simulations of quantitative easing with the FRB/US econometric model, Chung et al (2011, 28-9) find that:

”Lower long-term interest rates, coupled with higher stock market valuations and a lower foreign exchange value of the dollar, provide a considerable stimulus to real activity over time. Phase 1 of the program by itself is estimated to boost the level of real GDP almost 2 percent above baseline by early 2012, while the full program raises the level of real GDP almost 3 percent by the second half of 2012. This boost to real output in turn helps to keep labor market conditions noticeably better than they would have been without large scale asset purchases. In particular, the model simulations suggest that private payroll employment is currently 1.8 million higher, and the unemployment rate ¾ percentage point lower, that would otherwise be the case. These benefits are predicted to grow further over time; by 2012, the incremental contribution of the full program is estimated to be 3 million jobs, with an additional 700,000 jobs provided by the most recent phase of the program alone.”

An additional conclusion of these simulations is that quantitative easing may have prevented actual deflation. Empirical research is continuing.

IIA4 Unwinding Strategy. Fed Vice-Chair Yellen (2011AS) considers four concerns on quantitative easing discussed below in turn. First, Excessive Inflation. Yellen (2011AS, 9-12) considers concerns that quantitative easing could result in excessive inflation because fast increases in aggregate demand from quantitative easing could raise the rate of inflation, posing another problem of adjustment with tighter monetary policy or higher interest rates. The Fed estimates significant slack of resources in the economy as measured by the difference of four percentage points between the high current rate of unemployment above 9 percent and the NAIRU (non-accelerating rate of unemployment) of 5.75 percent (Ibid, 2). Thus, faster economic growth resulting from quantitative easing would not likely result in upward trend of costs as resources are bid up competitively. The Fed monitors frequently slack indicators and is committed to maintaining inflation at a “level of 2 percent or a bit less than that” (Ibid, 13), say, in the narrow open interval (1.9, 2.1).

Second, Inflation and Bank Reserves. On Jan 12, 2012, the line “Reserve Bank credit” in the Fed balance sheet stood at $2450.6 billion, or $2.5 trillion, with the portfolio of long-term securities of $2175.7 billion, or $2.2 trillion, composed of $987.6 billion of notes and bonds, $49.7 billion of inflation-adjusted notes and bonds, $146.3 billion of Federal agency debt securities, and $992.1 billion of mortgage-backed securities; reserves balances with Federal Reserve Banks stood at $1095.5 billion, or $1.1 trillion (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1). The concern addressed by Yellen (2011AS, 12-4) is that this high level of reserves could eventually result in demand growth that could accelerate inflation. Reserves would be excessively high relative to the levels before the recession. Reserves of depository institutions at the Federal Reserve Banks rose from $45.6 billion in Aug 2008 to $1084.8 billion in Aug 2010, not seasonally adjusted, multiplying by 23.8 times, or to $1038.2 billion in Nov 2010, multiplying by 22.8 times. The monetary base consists of the monetary liabilities of the government, composed largely of currency held by the public plus reserves of depository institutions at the Federal Reserve Banks. The monetary base not seasonally adjusted, or issue of money by the government, rose from $841.1 billion in Aug 2008 to $1991.1 billion or by 136.7 percent and to $1968.1 billion in Nov 2010 or by 133.9 percent (http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/hist/h3hist1.pdf). Policy can be viewed as creating government monetary liabilities that ended mostly in reserves of banks deposited at the Fed to purchase $2.1 trillion of long-term securities or assets, which in nontechnical language would be “printing money” (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html). The marketable debt of the US government in Treasury securities held by the public stood at $8.7 trillion on Nov 30, 2010 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2010/opds112010.pdf). The current holdings of long-term securities by the Fed of $2.1 trillion, in the process of converting fully into Treasury securities, are equivalent to 24 percent of US government debt held by the public, and would represent 29.9 percent with the new round of quantitative easing if all the portfolio of the Fed, as intended, were in Treasury securities. Debt in Treasury securities held by the public on Dec 31, 2009, stood at $7.2 trillion (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds122009.pdf), growing on Nov 30, 2010, to $1.5 trillion or by 20.8 percent. In spite of this growth of bank reserves, “the 12-month change in core PCE [personal consumption expenditures] prices dropped from about 2 ½ percent in mid-2008 to around 1 ½ percent in 2009 and declined further to less than 1 percent by late 2010” (Yellen 2011AS, 3). The PCE price index, excluding food and energy, is around 0.8 percent in the past 12 months, which could be, in the Fed’s view, too close for comfort to negative inflation or deflation. Yellen (2011AS, 12) agrees “that an accommodative monetary policy left in place too long can cause inflation to rise to undesirable levels” that would be true whether policy was constrained or not by “the zero bound on interest rates.” The FOMC is monitoring and reviewing the “asset purchase program regularly in light of incoming information” and will “adjust the program as needed to meet its objectives” (Ibid, 12). That is, the FOMC would withdraw the stimulus once the economy is closer to full capacity to maintain inflation around 2 percent. In testimony at the Senate Committee on the Budget, Chairman Bernanke stated that “the Federal Reserve has all the tools its needs to ensure that it will be able to smoothly and effectively exit from this program at the appropriate time” (http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20110107a.htm). The large quantity of reserves would not be an obstacle in attaining the 2 percent inflation level. Yellen (2011A, 13-4) enumerates Fed tools that would be deployed to withdraw reserves as desired: (1) increasing the interest rate paid on reserves deposited at the Fed currently at 0.25 percent per year; (2) withdrawing reserves with reverse sale and repurchase agreement in addition to those with primary dealers by using mortgage-backed securities; (3) offering a Term Deposit Facility similar to term certificates of deposit for member institutions; and (4) sale or redemption of all or parts of the portfolio of long-term securities. The Fed would be able to increase interest rates and withdraw reserves as required to attain its mandates of maximum employment and price stability.

Third, Financial Imbalances. Fed policy intends to lower costs to business and households with the objective of stimulating investment and consumption generating higher growth and employment. Yellen (2011A, 14-7) considers a possible consequence of excessively reducing interest rates: “a reasonable fear is that this process could go too far, encouraging potential borrowers to employ excessive leverage to take advantage of low financing costs and leading investors to accept less compensation for bearing risks as they seek to enhance their rates of return in an environment of very low yields. This concern deserves to be taken seriously, and the Federal Reserve is carefully monitoring financial indicators for signs of potential threats to financial stability.” Regulation and supervision would be the “first line of defense” against imbalances threatening financial stability but the Fed would also use monetary policy to check imbalances (Yellen 2011AS, 17).

Fourth, Adverse Effects on Foreign Economies. The issue is whether the now recognized dollar devaluation would promote higher growth and employment in the US at the expense of lower growth and employment in other countries.

IC Long-term US Inflation. Key percentage average yearly rates of the US economy on growth and inflation are provided in Table I-1 updated with release of new data. The choice of dates prevents the measurement of long-term potential economic growth because of two recessions from IQ2001 (Mar) to IVQ2001 (Nov) with decline of GDP of 0.4 percent and the drop in GDP of 4.7 percent in the recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (June) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html) followed with unusually low economic growth for an expansion phase after recession (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html). Calculations show that actual US GDP growth is around 1.7 to 2.1 percent per year that will perpetuate unemployment/underemployment (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). This rate of 1.7 to 2.1 percent is well below trend growth of 3 percent per year from 1870 to 2010, which has been always recovered after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). Weakness of growth is more clearly shown by adjusting the exceptional one-time contributions to growth from items that are not aggregate demand: 2.53 percentage points contributed by inventory change to growth of 4.1 percent in IVQ2011; 0.64 percentage points contributed by expenditures in national defense together with 0.73 points of inventory accumulation to growth of 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012; and deduction of 1.52 percentage points of inventory divestment and 1.28 percentage points of national defense expenditure reductions. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the US Department of Commerce released on Wed Jan 30, 2012, the third estimate of GDP for IVQ2012 at 0.4 percent seasonally-adjusted annual rate (SAAR) (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp4q12_3rd.pdf). In the four quarters of 2012, the US economy is growing at the annual equivalent rate of 2.1 percent {([(1.02^1/4(1.013)^1/4(1.0173)^1/4(1.032)^1/4]-1)100 = 2.1%} by excluding inventory accumulation of 0.73 percentage points and exceptional defense expenditures of 0.64 percentage points from growth 3.1 percent at SAAR in IIIQ2012 to obtain adjusted 1.73 percent SSAR and adding 1.52 percentage points of national defense expenditure reductions and 1.28 percentage points of inventory divestment to growth of 0.4 percent SAAR in IVQ2012 to obtain 3.2 percent.

In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. In the two periods from 1929 to 2012 and 1947 to 2012 the average rate of growth of GDP was 3.2 percent, which is almost the same as 3.0 percent from 1870 to 2010 measured by Lucas (2011May), as shown in Table I-1. From 1929 to 2012 nominal GDP grew at the average rate of 6.2 percent and 6.6 percent from 1947 to 2012; the implicit deflator increased at the average rate of 2.9 percent from 1929 to 2012 and at 3.3 percent from 1947 to 2012. Between 2000 and 2012, real GDP grew at the average rate of 1.6 percent per year, nominal GDP at 3.9 percent and the implicit deflator at 2.2 percent. The annual average rate of CPI increase was 3.2 percent from 1913 to 2012 and 3.7 percent from 1947 to 2012. Between 2000 and 2012, the average rate of CPI inflation was 2.5 percent per year and 2.0 percent excluding food and energy. From 2000 to 2013, the average rate of CPI inflation was 2.4 percent and 2.0 percent excluding food and energy. The average annual rate of PPI inflation was 3.1 percent from 1947 to 2012. PPI inflation increased at 3.0 percent per year on average from 2000 to 2012, 2.8 percent on average from 2000 to 2013 and at 1.7 percent excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2012 and 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2013. Producer price inflation of finished energy goods increased at average 6.6 percent between 2000 and 2012 and 6.0 percent between 2000 and 2013. There is also inflation in international trade. Import prices increased at 3.1 percent per year between 2000 and 2012 and 2.6 percent between 2000 and 2013. The commodity price shock is revealed by inflation of import prices of petroleum increasing at 12.7 percent per year between 2000 and 2012 and at 10.8 percent between 2000 and 2013. The average percentage rates of increase of import prices excluding fuels are much lower at 1.9 percent for 2002 to 2012 and 1.7 percent for 2002 to 2013. Export prices rose at the average rate of 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2012 and at 2.3 percent from 2000 to 2013. What spared the US of sharper decade-long deterioration of the terms of trade, (export prices)/(import prices), was its diversification and competitiveness in agriculture. Agricultural export prices grew at the average yearly rate of 6.2 percent from 2000 to 2012 and at 6.4 percent from 2000 to 2013. US nonagricultural export prices rose at 2.1 percent per year from 2000 to 2012 and at 1.9 percent from 2000 to 2013. The share of petroleum imports in US trade far exceeds that of agricultural exports. Unconventional monetary policy inducing carry trades in commodities has deteriorated US terms of trade, prices of exports relative to prices of imports, tending to restrict growth of US aggregate real income. These dynamic inflation rates are not similar to those for the economy of Japan where inflation was negative in seven of the 10 years in the 2000s. There is no reality of the proposition of need of unconventional monetary policy in the US because of deflation panic.

Table I-1, US, Average Growth Rates of Real and Nominal GDP, Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index and Import and Export Prices, Percent per Year

Real GDP	2000-2012: 1.6% 1929-2012: 3.2% 1947-2012: 3.2%
Nominal GDP	2000-2012: 3.9% 1929-2012: 6.2% 1947-2012: 6.6%
Implicit Price Deflator	2000-2012: 2.2% 1929-2012: 2.9% 1947-2012: 3.3%
CPI	2000-2012: 2.5% 2000-2013: 2.4% Annual 1913-2012: 3.2% 1947-2012: 3.7
CPI ex Food and Energy	2000-2012: 2.0% 2000-2013: 2.0%
PPI	2000-2012: 3.0% 2000-2013: 2.8% Annual 1947-2012: 3.1%
PPI ex Food and Energy	2000-2012: 1.7% 2000-2013: 1.7%
PPI Finished Energy Goods	2000-2012: 6.6% 2000-2013: 6.0%
Import Prices	2000-2012: 3.1% 2000-2013: 2.6%
Import Prices of Petroleum and Petroleum Products	2000-2012: 12.7% 2000-2013: 10.8%
Import Prices Excluding Petroleum	2000-2012: 1.3% 2000-2013: 1.2%
Import Prices Excluding Fuels	2002-2012: 1.9% 2002-2013:  1.7%
Export Prices	2000-2012: 2.5% 2000-2013: 2.3%
Agricultural Export Prices	2000-2012: 6.2% 2000-2013: 6.4%
Nonagricultural Export Prices	2000-2012: 2.1% 2000-2013: 1.9%

Note: rates for price indexes in the row beginning with “CPI” and ending in the row “Nonagricultural Export Prices” are for Mar 2000 to Mar 2012 and for Mar 2000 to Mar 2013 using not seasonally adjusted indexes. Import prices excluding fuels are not available before Dec 2001.

Sources: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ http://www.bls.gov/mxp/home.htm

Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and large-scale purchases of long-term securities for the balance sheet of the central bank is proposed to prevent deflation. The data of CPI inflation of all goods and CPI inflation excluding food and energy for the past six decades show only one negative change by 0.4 percent in the CPI all goods annual index in 2009 but not one year of negative annual yearly change in the CPI excluding food and energy measuring annual inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/world-financial-turbulence-global.html). Zero interest rates and quantitative easing are designed to lower costs of borrowing for investment and consumption, increase stock market valuations and devalue the dollar. In practice, the carry trade is from zero interest rates to a large variety of risk financial assets including commodities. Resulting commodity price inflation squeezes family budgets and deteriorates the terms of trade with negative effects on aggregate demand and employment. Excessive valuations of risk financial assets eventually result in crashes of financial markets with possible adverse effects on economic activity and employment.

Producer price inflation history in the past five decades does not provide evidence of deflation. The finished core PPI does not register even one single year of decline. The headline PPI experienced only six isolated cases of decline (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/world-financial-turbulence-global.html):

-0.3 percent in 1963,

-1.4 percent in 1986,

-0.8 percent in 1998,

-1.3 percent in 2002

-2.6 percent in 2009.

Deflation should show persistent cases of decline of prices and not isolated events. Fear of deflation in the US has caused a distraction of monetary policy. Symmetric inflation targets around 2 percent in the presence of multiple lags in effect of monetary policy and imperfect knowledge and forecasting are mostly unfeasible and likely to cause price and financial instability instead of desired price and financial stability.

Chart I-1 provides US nominal GDP from 1929 to 2012. The chart disguises the decline of nominal GDP during the 1930s from $103.6 billion in 1929 to $56.4 billion in 1933 or by 45.6 percent (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The level of nominal GDP reached $101.4 billion in 1940 and exceeded the $103.6 billion only with $126.7 billion in 1941. The only major visible bump in the chart occurred in the recession of IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 with revised cumulative decline of real GDP of 4.7 percent. US nominal GDP fell from $14,291.5 billion in 2008 to $13,973.7 billion in 2009 or by 2.2 percent but rose to $14,498.9 billion in 2010 or by 3.8 percent, to $15,075.7 billion in 2011 for an additional 4.0 percent for cumulative increase of 7.9 percent relative to 2009 and to $15,681.5 billion in 2012 for an additional 4.0 percent and cumulative increase of 12.2 percent relative to 2009. US nominal GDP increased from $14,028.7 in 2007 to $15,681.5 billion in 2012 or by 11.8 percent (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Tendency for deflation would be reflected in persistent bumps. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.6 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html).

Chart I-1, US, Nominal GDP 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-2 provides US real GDP from 1929 to 2012. The chart also disguises the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.6 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 from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Persistent deflation threatening real economic activity would also be reflected in the series of long-term growth of real GDP. There is no such behavior in Chart I-2 except for periodic recessions in the US economy that have occurred throughout history.

Chart I-2, US, Real GDP 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Deflation would also be in evidence in long-term series of prices in the form of bumps. The GDP implicit deflator series in Chart I-3 from 1929 to 2012 shows sharp dynamic behavior over time. There is decline of the implicit price deflator of GDP by 25.8 percent from 1929 to 1933 (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). In contrast, the implicit price deflator of GDP of the US increased from 106.227 (2005 =100) in 2007 to 109.529 in 2009 or by 3.1 percent and to 115.381 in 2012 or by 5.3 percent relative to 2009 and 8.6 percent relative to 2007. The implicit price deflator of US GDP increased in every quarter from IVQ2007 to IVQ2012 with only a decline from 109.539 in IQ2009 to 109.325 in IIQ2009 or by 0.2 percent (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Wars are characterized by rapidly rising prices followed by declines when peace is restored. The US economy is not plagued by deflation but by long-run inflation.

Chart I-3, US, GDP Implicit Price Deflator 1929-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-4 provides percent change from preceding quarter in prices of GDP at seasonally-adjusted annual rates (SAAR) from 1980 to 2012. There is one case of negative change by 0.8 percent in IIQ2009 that was adjustment from 3.1 percent in IIIQ2008 following 2.5 percent in both IQ2008 and IIQ2008 caused by carry trades from policy interest rates being moved to zero into commodity futures reversed by the fear of toxic assets in banks in the proposal of TARP in late 2008 (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). There has not been actual deflation or risk of deflation threatening depression in the US that would justify unconventional monetary policy.

Chart I-4, Percent Change from Preceding Period in Prices for GDP Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates 1980-2012

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-5 provides percent change from preceding year in prices of GDP from 1929 to 2012. There are four consecutive years of declines of prices of GDP during the Great Depression: 3.9 percent in 1930, 9.9 percent in 1931, 11.4 percent in 1932 and 2.6 percent in 1933. There were two consecutive declines of 1.9 percent in 1938 and 1.3 percent in 1939. Prices of GDP were unchanged in 1949 after increasing 11.5 percent in 1946, 11.1 percent in 1947 and 5.7 percent in 1948, which is similar to experience with wars in other countries. There are no other negative changes of annual prices of GDP in 72 years from 1939 to 2012.

Chart I-5, Percent Change from Preceding Year in Prices for Gross Domestic Product 1930-2012

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

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2013 in Chart I-6 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 I-6, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, NSA, 1947-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-7 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2013. The distinguishing event in Chart I-7 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 I-7, 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-1A. 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 I-1A, 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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi

The producer price index excluding food and energy from 1973 to 2013, the first historical date of availability in the dataset of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows similarly dynamic behavior as the overall index, as shown in Chart I-8. There is no evidence of persistent deflation in the US PPI.

Chart I-8, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1973-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-9 provides 12-month percentage rates of change of the finished goods index excluding food and energy. The dominating characteristic is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The double hump illustrates how inflation may appear to be subdued and then returns with strength.

Chart I-9, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The producer price index of energy goods from 1974 to 2013 is provided in Chart I-10. The first jump occurred during the Great Inflation of the 1970s analyzed in various comments of this blog (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html) and in Appendix I. There is relative stability of producer prices after 1986 with another jump and decline in the late 1990s into the early 2000s. The episode of commodity price increases during a global recession in 2008 could only have occurred with interest rates dropping toward zero, which stimulated the carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in commodity futures. Commodity futures exposures were dropped in the flight to government securities after Sep 2008. Commodity future exposures were created again when risk aversion diminished around Mar 2011 after the finding that US bank balance sheets did not have the toxic assets that were mentioned in proposing TARP in Congress (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Fluctuations in commodity prices and other risk financial assets originate in carry trade when risk aversion ameliorates.

Chart I-10, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 1974-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-11 shows 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of finished energy goods from 1975 to 2013. This index is only available after 1974 and captures only one of the humps of energy prices during the Great Inflation. Fluctuations in energy prices have occurred throughout history in the US but without provoking deflation. Two cases are the decline of oil prices in 2001 to 2002 that has been analyzed by Barsky and Kilian (2004) and the collapse of oil prices from over $140/barrel with shock of risk aversion to the carry trade in Sep 2008.

Chart I-11, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/ppi

Chart I-12 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 I-12, US, Consumer Price Index, NSA, 1914-2013

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

Chart I-13 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 I-13, 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 I-2 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 I-2, 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

Chart I-14 provides the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1960 to 2013. There is long-term inflation in the US without episodes of persistent deflation.

Chart I-14, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1957-2013

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

Chart I-15 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1960 to 2013. There are three waves of inflation in the 1970s during the Great Inflation. There is no episode of deflation.

Chart I-15, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1958-2013

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

The consumer price index of housing is provided in Chart I-16. There was also acceleration during the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The index flattens after the global recession in IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. Housing prices collapsed under the weight of construction of several times more housing than needed. Surplus housing originated in subsidies and artificially low interest rates in the shock of unconventional monetary policy in 2003 to 2004 in fear of deflation.

Chart I-16, US, Consumer Price Index Housing, NSA, 1967-2013

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

Chart I-17 provides 12-month percentage changes of the housing CPI. The Great Inflation also had extremely high rates of housing inflation. Housing is considered as potential hedge of inflation.

Chart I-17, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, 12- Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1968-2013

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

ID Current US Inflation. Consumer price inflation has fluctuated in recent months. Table I-3 provides 12-month consumer price inflation in Mar 2013 and annual equivalent percentage changes for the months of Jan to Mar 2013 of the CPI and major segments. The final column provides inflation from Feb 2013 to Mar 2013. CPI inflation in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013 reached 1.5 percent, the annual equivalent rate Jan to Mar 2013 was 2.0 percent in the new episode of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodities exposures and the monthly inflation rate of -0.2 percent annualizes at minus 2.4 percent. These inflation rates fluctuate in accordance with inducement of risk appetite or frustration by risk aversion of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. At the margin, the decline in commodity prices in sharp recent risk aversion in financial markets caused lower inflation worldwide (with return in some countries in Dec 2012 and Jan-Feb 2013) that followed a jump in Aug-Sep 2012 because of the relaxed risk aversion resulting from the bond-buying program of the European Central Bank or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html). With zero interest rates, commodity prices would increase again in an environment of risk appetite. Excluding food and energy, CPI inflation was 1.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2013 and 2.4 percent in annual equivalent in Jan to Mar 2013. There is no deflation in the US economy that could justify further quantitative easing, which is now open-ended or forever with zero interest rates and bond-buying by the central bank, or QE→∞, even if the economy grows back to potential. Financial repression of zero interest rates is now intended as a permanent distortion of resource allocation by clouding risk/return decisions, preventing the economy from expanding along its optimal growth path. Consumer food prices in the US have risen 1.5 percent in 12 months ending in Mar 2013 and at 0.4 percent in annual equivalent in Jan to Mar 2013. Monetary policies stimulating carry trades of commodities futures that increase prices of food constitute a highly regressive tax on lower income families for whom food is a major portion of the consumption basket especially with wage increases below inflation in a recovery without hiring (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html) and without jobs (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/thirty-million-unemployed-or.html). Energy consumer prices decreased 1.6 percent in 12 months, increased 3.7 percent in annual equivalent in Jan to Mar 2013 and decreased 2.6 percent in Mar 2013 or at 27.1 percent in annual equivalent as carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures are unwound and repositioned during alternating risk aversion and risk appetite originating in the European debt crisis and increasingly in growth and politics in China. For lower income families, food and energy are a major part of the family budget. Inflation is not persistently low or threatening deflation in annual equivalent in Dec Jan to Mar 2013 in any of the categories in Table I-2 but simply reflecting waves of inflation originating in carry trades. An upward trend is determined by carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures positions with episodes of risk aversion causing fluctuations.

Table I-3, US, Consumer Price Index Percentage Changes 12 months NSA and Annual Equivalent ∆%

	% RI	∆% 12 Months Mar 2013/Mar 2012 NSA	∆% Annual Equivalent Jan 2013 to Mar 2013 SA	∆% Mar 2013/Feb 2013 SA
CPI All Items	100.000	1.5	2.0	-0.2
CPI ex Food and Energy	75.742	1.9	2.4	0.1
Food	14.208	1.5	0.4	0.0
Food at Home	8.545	1.0	0.0	-0.1
Food Away from Home	5.663	2.3	1.6	0.2
Energy	10.050	-1.6	3.7	-2.6
Gasoline	5.756	-3.1	4.8	-4.4
Electricity	2.861	0.9	3.2	-0.6
Commodities less Food and Energy	19.451	0.0	0.4	-0.1
New Vehicles	3.170	1.1	-0.4	0.1
Used Cars and Trucks	1.842	0.1	9.2	1.2
Medical Care Commodities	1.704	0.6	-0.8	0.1
Apparel	3.542	0.8	-1.2	-1.0
Services Less Energy Services	56.291	2.5	2.8	0.2
Shelter	31.503	2.2	2.4	0.2
Rent of Primary Residence	6.501	2.8	2.8	0.2
Owner’s Equivalent Rent of Residences	23.861	2.1	2.0	0.1
Transportation Services	5.804	3.1	3.2	0.2
Medical Care Services	5.457	3.9	3.2	0.3

% RI: Percent Relative Importance Oct 2012

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

The weights of the CPI, US city average for all urban consumers representing about 87 percent of the US population (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiovrvw.htm#item1), are shown in Table I-4 with the BLS update for Dec 2012 (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2012.pdf). Housing has a weight of 41.021 percent. The combined weight of housing and transportation is 57.867 percent or more than one-half of consumer expenditures of all urban consumers. The combined weight of housing, transportation and food and beverages is 73.128 percent of the US CPI. Table I-3 provides relative importance of key items in Mar 2013.

Table I-4, US, Relative Importance, 2009-2010 Weights, of Components in the Consumer Price Index, US City Average, Dec 2012

All Items	100.000
Food and Beverages	15.261
Food	14.312
Food at home	8.898
Food away from home	5.713
Housing	41.021
Shelter	31.681
Rent of primary residence	6.545
Owners’ equivalent rent	22.622
Apparel	3.564
Transportation	16.846
Private Transportation	15.657
New vehicles	3.189
Used cars and trucks	1.844
Motor fuel	5.462
Gasoline	5.274
Medical Care	7.163
Medical care commodities	1.714
Medical care services	5.448
Recreation	5.990
Education and Communication	6.779
Other Goods and Services	3.376

Note: reissued Mar 7, 2012. Refers to all urban consumers, covering approximately 87 percent of the US population (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiovrvw.htm#item1). Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiriar.htm http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2012.pdf

Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiri2011.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiriar.htm

Chart I-18 provides the US consumer price index for housing from 2001 to 2013. Housing prices rose sharply during the decade until the bump of the global recession and increased again in 2011-2012 with some stabilization. The CPI excluding housing would likely show much higher inflation. Income remaining after paying for indispensable shelter has been compressed by the commodity carry trades resulting from unconventional monetary policy.

Chart I-18, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, NSA, 2001-2013

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

Chart I-19 provides 12-month percentage changes of the housing CPI. Percentage changes collapsed during the global recession but have been rising into positive territory in 2011 and 2012 but with the rate declining and then increasing.

Chart I-19, US, Consumer Price Index, Housing, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm

There have been waves of consumer price inflation in the US in 2011 and into 2012 (Section IA and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html) that are illustrated in Table I-5. The first wave occurred in Jan-Apr 2011 and was caused by the carry trade of commodity prices induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates. Cheap money at zero opportunity cost in environment of risk appetite was channeled into financial risk assets, causing increases in commodity prices. The annual equivalent rate of increase of the all-items CPI in Jan-Apr 2011 was 4.6 percent and the CPI excluding food and energy increased at annual equivalent rate of 2.1 percent. The second wave occurred during the collapse of the carry trade from zero interest rates to exposures in commodity futures as a result of risk aversion in financial markets created by the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. The annual equivalent rate of increase of the all-items CPI dropped to 3.0 percent in May-Jun 2011 while the annual equivalent rate of the CPI excluding food and energy increased at 3.0 percent. In the third wave in Jul-Sep 2011, annual equivalent CPI inflation rose to 3.3 percent while the core CPI increased at 2.0 percent. The fourth wave occurred in the form of decrease of the CPI all-items annual equivalent rate to 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2011 with the annual equivalent rate of the CPI excluding food and energy remaining at 2.4 percent. The fifth wave occurred in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 with annual equivalent headline inflation of 1.2 percent and core inflation of 2.4 percent. In the sixth wave, headline CPI inflation increased at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Feb-Mar 2012 and core CPI inflation at 1.8 percent but including Apr, the annual equivalent inflation of the headline CPI was 2.4 percent in Feb-Apr and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. The seventh wave in May-Jul occurred with annual equivalent inflation of 0.0 percent for the headline CPI in May-Jul 2012 and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. The eighth wave is with annual equivalent inflation of 6.2 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 but 4.9 percent including Oct. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Nov 2012 was minus 2.4 percent under the new shock of risk aversion and 0.0 percent in Dec 2012 with annual equivalent of minus 0.8 percent in Nov 2012-Jan 2013 and 2.0 percent for the core CPI. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent of headline CPI was 8.7 percent in Feb 2013 and 2.4 percent for the core CPI. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent was minus 2.4 percent in Mar 2013 and 1.2 percent for the core index. The conclusion is that inflation accelerates and decelerates in unpredictable fashion that turns symmetric inflation targets in a source of destabilizing shocks to the financial system and eventually the overall economy. Inflation waves are destabilizing because of unpredictable moods of risk aversion and risk appetite. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and withdrawal of bonds to lower long-term interest rates distorts risk/return decisions required for efficient allocation of resources and attaining optimal growth paths and prosperity.

Table I-5, US, Headline and Core CPI Inflation Monthly SA and 12 Months NSA ∆%

	All Items  SA Month	All Items NSA 12 month	Core SA Month	Core NSA 12 months
Mar 2013	-0.2	1.5	0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Mar	-2.4		1.2
Feb	0.7	2.0	0.2	2.0
AE ∆% Feb	8.7		2.4
Jan	0.0	1.6	0.3	1.9
Dec 2012	0.0	1.7	0.1	1.9
Nov	-0.2	1.8	0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Nov-Jan	-0.8		2.0
Oct	0.2	2.2	0.2	2.0
Sep	0.5	2.0	0.2	2.0
Aug	0.5	1.7	0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Aug-Oct	4.9		2.0
Jul	0.0	1.4	0.1	2.1
Jun	0.1	1.7	0.2	2.2
May	-0.1	1.7	0.2	2.3
AE ∆% May-Jul	0.0		2.0
Apr	0.0	2.3	0.2	2.3
Mar	0.3	2.7	0.2	2.3
Feb	0.3	2.9	0.1	2.2
AE ∆% Feb-Apr	2.4		2.0
Jan	0.2	2.9	0.2	2.3
Dec 2011	0.0	3.0	0.2	2.2
AE ∆% Dec-Jan	1.2		2.4
Nov	0.1	3.4	0.2	2.2
Oct	0.0	3.5	0.2	2.1
AE ∆% Oct-Nov	0.6		2.4
Sep	0.3	3.9	0.1	2.0
Aug	0.3	3.8	0.2	2.0
Jul	0.2	3.6	0.2	1.8
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	3.3		2.0
Jun	0.1	3.6	0.2	1.6
May	0.4	3.6	0.3	1.5
AE ∆%  May-Jun	3.0		3.0
Apr	0.3	3.2	0.2	1.3
Mar	0.5	2.7	0.1	1.2
Feb	0.4	2.1	0.2	1.1
Jan	0.3	1.6	0.2	1.0
AE ∆%  Jan-Apr	4.6		2.1
Dec 2010	0.5	1.5	0.1	0.8
Nov	0.2	1.1	0.1	0.8
Oct	0.3	1.2	0.0	0.6
Sep	0.1	1.1	0.1	0.8
Aug	0.2	1.1	0.1	0.9
Jul	0.2	1.2	0.1	0.9
Jun	0.0	1.1	0.1	0.9
May	0.0	2.0	0.1	0.9
Apr	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.9
Mar	0.0	2.3	0.0	1.1
Feb	-0.1	2.1	0.1	1.3
Jan	0.1	2.6	-0.1	1.6

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

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

The behavior of the US consumer price index NSA from 2001 to 2013 is provided in Chart I-20. Inflation in the US is very dynamic without deflation risks that would justify symmetric inflation targets. The hump in 2008 originated in the carry trade from interest rates dropping to zero into commodity futures. There is no other explanation for the increase of the Cushing OK Crude Oil Future Contract 1 from $55.64/barrel on Jan 9, 2007 to $145.29/barrel on July 3, 2008 during deep global recession, collapsing under a panic of flight into government obligations and the US dollar to $37.51/barrel on Feb 13, 2009 and then rising by carry trades to $113.93/barrel on Apr 29, 2012, collapsing again and then recovering again to $105.23/barrel, all during mediocre economic recovery with peaks and troughs influenced by bouts of risk appetite and risk aversion (data from the US Energy Information Administration EIA, http://www.eia.gov/). The unwinding of the carry trade with the TARP announcement of toxic assets in banks channeled cheap money into government obligations (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009).

Chart I-20, US, Consumer Price Index, NSA, 2001-2013

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

Chart I-21 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index from 2001 to 2013. There was no deflation or threat of deflation from 2008 into 2009. Commodity prices collapsed during the panic of toxic assets in banks. When stress tests in 2009 revealed US bank balance sheets in much stronger position, cheap money at zero opportunity cost exited government obligations and flowed into carry trades of risk financial assets. Increases in commodity prices drove again the all items CPI with interruptions during risk aversion originating in multiple fears but especially from the sovereign debt crisis of Europe.

Chart I-21, US, Consumer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2013

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

The trend of increase of the consumer price index excluding food and industry in Chart I-22 does not reveal any threat of deflation that would justify symmetric inflation targets. There are mild oscillations in a neat upward trend.

Chart I-22, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2001-2013

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

Chart I-23 provides 12-month percentage change of the consumer price index excluding food and energy. Past-year rates of inflation fell toward 1 percent from 2001 into 2003 as a result of the recession and the decline of commodity prices beginning before the recession with declines of real oil prices. Near zero interest rates with fed funds at 1 percent between Jun 2003 and Jun 2004 stimulated carry trades of all types, including in buying homes with subprime mortgages in expectation that low interest rates forever would increase home prices permanently, creating the equity that would permit the conversion of subprime mortgages into creditworthy mortgages (Gorton 2009EFM; see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html). Inflation rose and then collapsed during the unwinding of carry trades and the housing debacle of the global recession. Carry trades into 2011 and 2012 gave a new impulse to CPI inflation, all items and core. Symmetric inflation targets destabilize the economy by encouraging hunts for yields that inflate and deflate financial assets, obscuring risk/return decisions on production, investment, consumption and hiring.

Chart I-23, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2001-2013

Headline and core producer price indexes are in Table I-6. The headline PPI SA decreased 0.6 percent in Mar 2013 and increased 1.1 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013. The core PPI SA increased 0.2 percent in Mar 2013 and rose 1.7 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the average equivalent rate of 10.0 percent in the headline PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 4.0 percent in the core PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline PPI inflation collapsed to 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was higher at 2.4 percent. In the third wave, headline PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 4.9 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.7 percent. Core PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, jumping from annual equivalent at 1.5 percent in the first four months of 2010 to 3.0 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline PPI inflation of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2011 and 1.8 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Dec 2011 to Jan 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 0.0 percent for the headline index but 4.3 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Feb-Mar 2012 was 2.4 percent for the headline PPI and 2.4 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, renewed risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of minus 4.7 percent in Apr-May 2012 while core PPI inflation was at annual equivalent 1.2 percent. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.0 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 and 4.3 percent for the core index. In the ninth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of producer prices of the United States at 12.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 3.5 percent in Oct-Dec in the headline index and 0.8 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 5.5 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 2.4 percent in the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent was minus 7.0 percent in Mar 2012 and 2.4 percent for the core index. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

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

Table I-6, US, Headline and Core PPI Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

	Finished Goods SA Month	Finished Goods NSA 12 months	Finished Core SA Month	Finished Core NSA 12 months
Mar 2013	-0.6	1.1	0.2	1.7
AE ∆%  Mar	-7.0		2.4
Feb	0.7	1.7	0.2	1.7
Jan	0.2	1.4	0.2	1.8
AE ∆%  Jan-Feb	5.5		2.4
Dec 2012	-0.2	1.3	0.1	2.0
Nov	-0.5	1.5	0.1	2.2
Oct	-0.2	2.3	0.0	2.2
AE ∆%  Oct-Dec	-3.5		0.8
Sep	1.0	2.1	0.1	2.4
Aug	1.0	1.9	0.0	2.6
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	12.7		0.6
Jul	0.4	0.5	0.5	2.6
Jun	0.1	0.7	0.2	2.6
AE ∆% Jun-Jul	3.0		4.3
May	-0.6	0.6	0.1	2.7
Apr	-0.2	1.8	0.1	2.7
AE ∆% Apr-May	-4.7		1.2
Mar	0.1	2.8	0.2	2.9
Feb	0.3	3.4	0.2	3.1
AE ∆% Feb-Mar	2.4		2.4
Jan	0.1	4.1	0.4	3.1
Dec 2011	-0.1	4.7	0.3	3.0
AE ∆% Dec-Jan	0.0		4.3
Nov	0.4	5.6	0.1	3.0
Oct	-0.3	5.8	0.2	2.9
AE ∆% Oct-Nov	0.6		1.8
Sep	0.9	7.0	0.3	2.8
Aug	-0.3	6.6	0.1	2.7
Jul	0.6	7.1	0.5	2.7
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	4.9		3.7
Jun	-0.1	6.9	0.3	2.3
May	0.4	7.1	0.1	2.1
AE ∆%  May-Jun	1.8		2.4
Apr	0.7	6.6	0.3	2.3
Mar	0.7	5.6	0.3	2.0
Feb	1.1	5.4	0.3	1.8
Jan	0.7	3.6	0.4	1.6
AE ∆%  Jan-Apr	10.0		4.0
Dec 2010	0.9	3.8	0.2	1.4
Nov	0.6	3.4	0.0	1.2
Oct	0.7	4.3	-0.1	1.6
Sep	0.4	3.9	0.2	1.6
Aug	0.4	3.3	0.1	1.3
Jul	0.3	4.1	0.1	1.5
Jun	-0.3	2.7	0.1	1.1
May	0.0	5.1	0.3	1.3
Apr	-0.2	5.4	0.0	0.9
Mar	0.7	5.9	0.2	0.9
Feb	-0.7	4.2	0.0	1.0
Jan	1.0	4.5	0.3	1.0

Note: Core: excluding food and energy; AE: annual equivalent

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

The US producer price index NSA from 2000 to 2013 is shown in Chart I-24. There are two episodes of decline of the PPI during recessions in 2001 and in 2008. Barsky and Kilian (2004) consider the 2001 episode as one in which real oil prices were declining when recession began. Recession and the fall of commodity prices instead of generalized deflation explain the behavior of US inflation in 2008.

Chart I-24, US, Producer Price Index, NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the PPI NSA from 2000 to 2013 are shown in Chart I-25. It may be possible to forecast trends a few months in the future under adaptive expectations but turning points are almost impossible to anticipate especially when related to fluctuations of commodity prices in response to risk aversion. In a sense, monetary policy has been tied to behavior of the PPI in the negative 12-month rates in 2001 to 2003 and then again in 2009 to 2010. Monetary policy following deflation fears caused by commodity price fluctuations would introduce significant volatility and risks in financial markets and eventually in consumption and investment.

Chart I-25, US, Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The US PPI excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2013 is shown in Chart I-26. There is here again a smooth trend of inflation instead of prolonged deflation as in Japan.

Chart I-26, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the producer price index excluding food and energy are shown in Chart I-27. Fluctuations replicate those in the headline PPI. There is an evident trend of increase of 12 months rates of core PPI inflation in 2011 but lower rates in 2012.

Chart I-27, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The US producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2013 is in Chart I-28. There is a clear upward trend with fluctuations that would not occur under persistent deflation.

Chart I-28, US, Producer Price Index Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-29 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2013. The episode of declining prices of energy goods in 2001 to 2002 is related to the analysis of decline of real oil prices by Barsky and Kilian (2004). Interest rates dropping to zero during the global recession explain the rise of the PPI of energy goods toward 30 percent. Bouts of risk aversion with policy interest rates held close to zero explain the fluctuations in the 12-month rates of the PPI of energy goods in the expansion phase of the economy. Symmetric inflation targets induce significant instability in inflation and interest rates with adverse effects on financial markets and the overall economy.

Chart I-29, US, Producer Price Index Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2000-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Table I-3 provides 12-month percentage changes of the CPI all items, CPI core and CPI housing from 2001 to 2013. There is no evidence in these data supporting symmetric inflation targets that would only induce greater instability in inflation, interest rates and financial markets. Unconventional monetary policy drives wide swings in allocations of positions into risk financial assets that generate instability instead of intended pursuit of prosperity without inflation. There is insufficient knowledge and imperfect tools to maintain the gap of actual relative to potential output constantly at zero while restraining inflation in an open interval of (1.99, 2.0). Symmetric targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even with the economy growing at or close to potential output (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20130320a.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.  In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments.  When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.”

Table I-7, CPI All Items, CPI Core and CPI Housing, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA 2001-2013

Feb	CPI All Items	CPI Core ex Food and Energy	CPI Housing
2013	1.5	1.9	1.9
2012	2.7	2.3	1.7
2011	2.7	1.2	0.8
2010	2.3	1.1	-0.6
2009	-0.4	1.8	1.4
2008	4.0	2.4	3.0
2007	2.8	2.5	3.4
2006	3.4	2.1	3.7
2005	3.1	2.3	3.3
2004	1.7	1.6	2.0
2003	3.0	1.7	2.9
2002	1.5	2.4	2.1
2001	2.9	2.7	4.5

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

IE 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 (Hicks 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.

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 IIE-1 uses 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 IE-1 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 IE-1, 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.

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. If deflation causes depressions as embedded in the theory of unconventional monetary policy, the United Kingdom would not have been a growth leader in the nineteenth century while staying almost half of the time in deflation.

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.”

II United States Industrial Production. Industrial production fell 0.1 percent in Oct, rebounded 1.2 percent in Nov, increased 0.1 percent in Dec, fell 0.1 percent in Jan 2013, and increased 0.7 percent in Feb 3013 and 0.4 percent in Mar 2013, as shown in Table II-1, with all data seasonally adjusted. The report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm):

“Industrial production rose 0.4 percent in March after having increased 1.1 percent in February. For the first quarter as a whole, output moved up at an annual rate of 5.0 percent, its largest gain since the first quarter of 2012. Manufacturing output edged down 0.1 percent in March after having risen 0.9 percent in February; the index advanced at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter. Production at mines decreased 0.2 percent in March and edged down in the first quarter. In March, the output of utilities jumped 5.3 percent, as unusually cold weather drove up heating demand. At 99.5 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in March was 3.5 percent above its year-earlier level. “

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.

Table II-1, US, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, SA, ∆%, % 

2012-2013	Mar 13	Feb 13	Jan	Dec 12	Nov	Oct	Feb  13/ Feb  12
Total	0.4	1.1	-0.1	0.1	1.2	-0.1	3.5
Market Groups
Final Products	0.8	1.2	-0.4	-0.1	1.6	-0.7	3.9
Consumer Goods	1.1	1.1	0.0	-0.2	1.4	-0.6	4.2
Business Equipment	0.1	1.9	-1.4	0.4	2.4	-1.1	5.1
Non Industrial Supplies	0.0	1.1	0.7	0.0	1.3	-0.2	3.1
Construction	-1.3	2.1	1.3	0.8	2.2	-0.2	3.9
Materials	0.2	0.9	0.0	0.2	0.9	0.4	3.2
Industry Groups
Manufacturing	-0.1	0.9	-0.3	0.8	1.4	-0.4	2.5
Mining	-0.2	0.9	-0.9	0.0	0.8	0.7	3.8
Utilities	5.3	2.5	2.6	-5.4	0.7	1.2	10.5
Capacity	78.5	78.3	77.6	77.7	77.8	77.0	1.9

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

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. A longer perspective of manufacturing in the US is provided by Table II-2. There has been evident deceleration of manufacturing growth in the US from 2010 and the first three months of 2011 into more recent months as shown by 12 months rates of growth. Growth rates appeared to be increasing again closer to 5 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but deteriorated. The rates of decline of manufacturing in 2009 are quite high with a drop of 18.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2009. Manufacturing recovered from this decline and led the recovery from the recession. Rates of growth appeared to be returning to the levels at 3 percent or higher in the annual rates before the recession but the pace of manufacturing fell steadily in the past six months with some strength at the margin. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System conducted the annual revision of industrial production released on Mar 22, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm):

“The Federal Reserve has revised its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization. Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, total IP is now reported to have increased 0.7 percentage point less in 2011 than was previously published. The revisions to IP for other years were smaller: Compared to the previous estimates, industrial production fell slightly less in 2008 and 2009 and increased slightly less in 2010 and 2012. At 97.7 percent of its 2007 average, the index in the fourth quarter of 2012 now stands 0.4 percent below its previous estimate. With these revisions, IP is still estimated to have advanced about 6 percent in 2010, the first full year following the trough in June 2009 of the most recent recession, but it is now estimated to have risen about 3 percent both in 2011 and in 2012. Since the trough of the recession, total IP has reversed about 90 percent of its peak-to-trough decline.”

The bottom part of Table II-2 shows decline of manufacturing 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-2, US, Monthly and 12-Month Rates of Growth of Manufacturing ∆%

	Month SA ∆%	12-Month NSA ∆%
Mar 2013	-0.1	2.1
Feb	0.9	2.0
Jan	-0.3	2.2
Dec 2012	0.8	2.9
Nov	1.4	3.3
Oct	-0.4	2.1
Sep	0.1	3.1
Aug	-0.7	3.5
Jul	0.2	4.0
Jun	0.3	5.0
May	-0.3	4.8
Apr	0.6	5.1
Mar	-0.5	3.9
Feb	0.6	5.3
Jan	1.0	4.2
Dec 2011	1.0	3.8
Nov	0.0	3.2
Oct	0.6	3.1
Sep	0.4	3.0
Aug	0.4	2.4
Jul	0.7	2.5
Jun	0.1	2.1
May	0.3	1.9
Apr	-0.7	3.1
Mar	0.7	4.9
Feb	0.0	5.4
Jan	0.2	5.6
Dec 2010	0.6	6.2
Nov	0.2	5.3
Oct	0.1	6.6
Sep	0.1	7.0
Aug	0.1	7.4
Jul	0.7	7.8
Jun	0.0	9.3
May	1.4	8.9
Apr	0.9	7.1
Mar	1.3	4.9
Feb	0.0	1.3
Jan	1.0	1.2
Dec 2009	0.0	-3.1
Nov	1.1	-6.1
Oct	0.1	-9.1
Sep	0.8	-10.6
Aug	1.1	-13.6
Jul	1.2	-15.2
Jun	-0.3	-17.6
May	-1.1	-17.6
Apr	-0.8	-18.2
Mar	-1.9	-17.3
Feb	-0.2	-16.1
Jan	-2.9	-16.4
Dec 2008	-3.4	-14.0
Nov	-2.2	-11.3
Oct	-0.6	-9.0
Sep	-3.4	-8.6
Aug	-1.3	-5.1
Jul	-1.1	-3.5
Jun	-0.5	-3.1
May	-0.5	-2.4
Apr	-1.1	-1.1
Mar	-0.3	-0.5
Feb	-0.6	0.9
Jan	-0.4	2.3
Dec 2007	0.2	2.0
Nov	0.5	3.4
Oct	-0.4	2.8
Sep	0.5	3.0
Aug	-0.4	2.6
Jul	0.1	3.4
Jun	0.3	2.9
May	-0.1	3.1
Apr	0.7	3.6
Mar	0.7	2.4
Feb	0.4	1.6
Jan	-0.5	1.3
Dec 2006		2.7
Dec 2005		3.4
Dec 2004		4.0
Dec 2003		1.7
Dec 2002		2.4
Dec 2001		-5.5
Dec 2000		0.4
Dec 1999		5.4
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2012		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 1999		4.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2006		1.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2012		0.4
∆% Peak 103.0005 in 06/2007 to 93.8711 in 12/2012		-8.9
∆% Peak 103.0005 on 06/2007 to Trough 80.2365 in 4/2009		-22.1
∆% Trough  80.4617 in 04/2009 to 93.8711 in 12/2012		16.7

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

Chart II-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides industrial production, manufacturing and capacity since the 1970s. There was acceleration of growth of industrial production, manufacturing and capacity in the 1990s because of rapid growth of productivity in the US (Cobet and Wilson (2002); see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). The slopes of the curves flatten in the 2000s. Production and capacity have not recovered to the levels before the global recession.

Chart II-1, US, Industrial Production, Capacity and Utilization

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg1.gif

The modern industrial revolution of Jensen (1993) is captured in Chart II-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (for the literature on M&A and corporate control see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009a), 143-56, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 49-59, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 46-49). The slope of the curve of total industrial production accelerates in the 1990s to a much higher rate of growth than the curve excluding high-technology industries. Growth rates decelerate into the 2000s and output and capacity utilization have not recovered fully from the strong impact of the global recession. Growth in the current cyclical expansion has been more subdued than in the prior comparably deep contractions in the 1970s and 1980s. Chart II-2 shows that the past recessions after World War II are the relevant ones for comparison with the recession after 2007 instead of common comparisons with the Great Depression (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html). The bottom left-hand part of Chart II-2 shows the strong growth of output of communication equipment, computers and semiconductor that continued from the 1990s into the 2000s. Output of semiconductors has already surpassed the level before the global recession.

Chart II-2, US, Industrial Production, Capacity and Utilization of High Technology Industries

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg3.gif

Additional detail on industrial production and capacity utilization is provided in Chart II-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Production of consumer durable goods fell sharply during the global recession by more than 30 percent and is still around the level before the contraction. Output of nondurable consumer goods fell around 10 percent and is some 5 percent below the level before the contraction. Output of business equipment fell sharply during the contraction of 2001 but began rapid growth again after 2004. An important characteristic is rapid growth of output of business equipment in the cyclical expansion after sharp contraction in the global recession. Output of defense and space only suffered reduction in the rate of growth during the global recession and surged ahead of the level before the contraction. Output of construction supplies collapsed during the global recession and is well below the level before the contraction. Output of energy materials was stagnant before the contraction but has recovered sharply above the level before the contraction.

Chart II-3, US, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg2.gif

United States manufacturing output from 1919 to 2012 on a monthly basis is provided by Chart II-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The second industrial revolution of Jensen (1993) is quite evident in the acceleration of the rate of growth of output given by the sharper slope in the 1980s and 1990s. Growth was robust after the shallow recession of 2001 but dropped sharply during the global recession after IVQ2007. Manufacturing output recovered sharply but has not reached earlier levels and is losing momentum at the margin.

Chart II-4, US, Manufacturing Output, 1919-2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

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. 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-11. 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 II-3, 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

Chart II-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve provides output of motor vehicles and parts in the United States from 1972 to 2013. Output has stagnated since the late 1990s.

Chart II-5, US, Motor Vehicles and Parts Output, 1972-2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

Motor vehicle sales and production in the US have been in long-term structural change. Table II-4 provides the data on new motor vehicle sales and domestic car production in the US from 1990 to 2010. New motor vehicle sales grew from 14,137 thousand in 1990 to the peak of 17,806 thousand in 2000 or 29.5 percent. In that same period, domestic car production fell from 6,231 thousand in 1990 to 5,542 thousand in 2000 or -11.1 percent. New motor vehicle sales fell from 17,445 thousand in 2005 to 11,772 in 2010 or 32.5 percent while domestic car production fell from 4,321 thousand in 2005 to 2,840 thousand in 2010 or 34.3 percent. In Jan-Mar 2013, light vehicle sales accumulated to 3,688,662, which is higher by 6.4 percent relative to 3,467,496 a year earlier (http://motorintelligence.com/m_frameset.html). The seasonally adjusted annual rate of light vehicle sales in the US reached 15.27 million in Mar 2013, lower than 15.38 million in Feb 2013 and higher than 14.12 million in Mar 2012 (http://motorintelligence.com/m_frameset.html).

Table II-4, US, New Motor Vehicle Sales and Car Production, Thousand Units

	New Motor Vehicle Sales	New Car Sales and Leases	New Truck Sales and Leases	Domestic Car Production
1990	14,137	9,300	4,837	6,231
1991	12,725	8,589	4,136	5,454
1992	13,093	8,215	4,878	5,979
1993	14,172	8,518	5,654	5,979
1994	15,397	8,990	6,407	6,614
1995	15,106	8,536	6,470	6,340
1996	15,449	8,527	6,922	6,081
1997	15,490	8,273	7,218	5,934
1998	15,958	8,142	7,816	5,554
1999	17,401	8,697	8,704	5,638
2000	17,806	8,852	8,954	5,542
2001	17,468	8,422	9,046	4,878
2002	17,144	8,109	9,036	5,019
2003	16,968	7,611	9,357	4,510
2004	17,298	7,545	9,753	4,230
2005	17,445	7,720	9,725	4,321
2006	17,049	7,821	9,228	4,367
2007	16,460	7,618	8,683	3,924
2008	13,494	6,814	6.680	3,777
2009	10,601	5,456	5,154	2,247
2010	11,772	5,729	6,044	2,840

Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/wholesale_retail_trade/motor_vehicle_sales.html

Chart II-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides output of computers and electronic products in the United States from 1972 to 2013. Output accelerated sharply in the 1990s and 2000s and has surpassed the level before the global recession beginning in IVQ2007.

Chart II-6, US, Output of Computers and Electronic Products, 1972-2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

Chart II-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shows that output of durable manufacturing accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s with slower growth in the 2000s perhaps because processes matured. Growth was robust after the major drop during the global recession but appears to vacillate in the final segment.

Chart II-7, US, Output of Durable Manufacturing, 1972-2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

Chart II-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides output of aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment from 1972 to 2013. There is long-term upward trend with oscillations around the trend and cycles of large amplitude.

Chart II-8, US, Output of Aerospace and Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment, 1972-2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey Index in Table II-5 provides continuing deterioration that started in Jun 2012 well before Hurricane Sandy in Oct 2012. The current general index has been in negative contraction territory from minus 3.78 in Aug 2012 to minus 7.78 in Jan 2012. There was a jump from contraction in Jan 2013 to expansion at 10.04 in Feb 2013 and continuing expansion at 9.24 in Mar 2013 but marginal expansion at 3.05 in Apr 2013. The index of current orders has also been in negative contraction territory from minus 4.63 in Aug 2012 to minus 7.18 in Jan 2013 with exception of 2.93 in Nov 2012 but jumped to expansion at 13.31 in Feb 2013 and 8.18 in Mar 2013 but marginal expansion at 2.20 in Apr 2013. Number of workers and hours worked have registered negative or declining readings since Sep 2012 but with increase to 8.08 in expansion territory for number of workers in Feb 2013, 3.23 in Mar 2013 and 6.82 in Apr 2013. There is improvement in the general index for the next six months to 10.75 in Jan 2013 from 1.08 in Dec 2012 but marginal decline to 5.68 in Apr 2013 and in new orders to 39.28 in Apr 2013 from 34.94 in Apr 2013.

Table II-5, US, New York Federal Reserve Bank Empire State Manufacturing Survey Index SA

	General Index	New Orders	Shipments	# Workers	Average Work-week
Current
Apr 2013	3.05	2.20	0.75	6.82	5.68
Mar	9.24	8.18	7.76	3.23	0.0
Feb	10.04	13.31	13.08	8.08	-4.04
Jan	-7.78	-7.18	-3.08	-4.30	-5.38
Dec 2012	-7.30	-3.44	11.93	-9.68	-10.75
Nov	-4.31	2.93	14.18	-14.61	-7.87
Oct	-6.75	-7.21	-6.48	-1.08	-4.30
Sep	-7.54	-10.60	7.30	4.26	-1.06
Aug	-3.78	-4.63	6.37	16.47	3.53
Jul	7.08	-2.27	11.52	18.52	0.00
Jun	4.15	2.28	6.34	12.37	3.09
May	14.52	8.99	23.11	20.48	12.05
Apr	6.40	4.81	4.51	19.28	6.02
Mar	18.00	6.55	15.97	13.58	18.52
Feb	18.31	7.93	19.90	11.76	7.06
Jan	12.12	11.21	18.94	12.09	6.59
Dec 2011	9.6	6.35	23.77	2.33	-2.33
Nov	1.82	-0.97	11.34	-3.66	2.44
Oct	-7.39	1.51	2.46	3.37	-4.49
Sep	-4.75	-4.31	-4.48	-5.43	-2.17
Six Months
Apr 2013	5.68	36.23	39.28	25.00	7.95
Mar	2.15	34.94	41.60	19.35	2.15
Feb	8.08	29.11	26.82	15.15	11.11
Jan	10.75	25.11	23.86	7.53	3.23
Dec 2012	1.08	17.19	22.46	10.75	5.38
Nov	5.62	15.96	25.67	-1.12	0.00
Oct	4.30	22.79	17.39	0.00	-11.83
Sep	5.32	27.85	23.35	8.51	2.13
Aug	2.35	14.34	21.16	3.53	-8.24
Jul	3.70	19.85	21.60	6.17	-4.94
Jun	1.03	26.02	22.18	16.49	2.06
May	12.05	31.26	26.00	12.05	8.43
Apr	19.28	38.95	40.75	27.71	10.84
Mar	13.58	39.18	41.64	32.10	20.99
Feb	15.29	39.25	40.92	29.41	18.82
Jan	23.08	45.70	44.12	28.57	17.58
Dec 2011	3.49	42.20	40.36	24.42	22.09
Nov	6.10	30.89	33.01	14.63	8.54
Oct	4.49	19.71	22.65	6.74	-2.25
Sep	8.70	23.52	22.89	0.00	-6.52

Source: http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html

The Business Outlook Survey Diffusion Index of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in Table II-6 also shows deterioration followed with improvement. The general index fell deeper into contraction territory of minus 12.5 in Feb 2013 with improvement to 1.3 in Apr 2012 and the index of new orders fell to minus 7.8 with continuing contraction at 1.0 in Apr 2013. Employment segments also show weakness in Apr 2013: minus 6.8 for number of workers and minus 2.1 for hours worked. Expectations for the next six months are brighter with the general index at 24.3 in Apr 2013 and the index of new orders at 26.5.

Table II-6, FRB of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Diffusion Index SA

	General Index	New Orders	Ship- ments	# of Workers	Average Workweek
Current
Jan-11	15.0	19.1	11.1	13.9	8.0
Feb-11	25.6	15.7	24.0	19.6	6.9
Mar-11	36.1	33.2	28.1	16.1	7.3
Apr-11	13.7	12.6	23	9.9	15.1
May-11	4.0	6.8	5.4	22.2	2.8
Jun-11	-1.1	-1.2	5.7	3.4	3.7
Jul-11	9.4	4.7	9	12.6	-0.8
Aug-11	-19.0	-18.6	-4.7	-0.5	-7.6
Sep-11	-10.0	-4.5	-7.4	9.4	-2.8
Oct-11	9.7	8.8	11.2	7.8	5.2
Nov-11	5.0	3.6	6.9	10.9	6.8
Dec-11	4.2	5.9	6.2	8	-0.3
Jan-12	4.7	9.0	4.4	9.6	3.9
Feb-12	5.0	5.3	8.6	0.9	5.7
Mar-12	8.6	-0.7	0.2	5.9	-0.6
Apr-12	6.5	-0.8	0.5	13.4	-3.4
May-12	-4.9	-0.6	2.7	-0.2	-6.4
Jun-12	-12.8	-13.1	-13.8	2.3	-16.9
Jul-12	-9.1	-2.1	-7.5	-4.7	-13.9
Aug-12	-1.7	-0.8	-5.9	-7.6	-9.9
Sep-12	1.4	2.5	-10.4	-4.9	-2.9
Oct-12	4.2	-0.5	-3.5	-7.6	-6.5
Nov-12	-8.9	-4.7	-6.3	-6.9	-7.4
Dec-12	4.6	4.9	14.7	-0.2	0.4
Jan-13	-5.8	-4.3	0.4	-5.2	-8.3
Feb-13	-12.5	-7.8	2.4	0.9	-1.6
Mar-13	2	0.5	3.5	2.7	-12.9
Apr-13	1.3	-1	9.1	-6.8	-2.1

Future	General Index	New Orders	Ship- ments	# of Workers	Average Workweek
10-Dec	42.1	41.9	14.5	28.0	22.0
11-Jan	35.9	39.8	10.3	29.1	19.6
11-Feb	38.6	42.7	14.2	22.6	11.8
11-Mar	53.6	52.3	12.6	25.2	13.0
11-Apr	26.6	33.5	8.8	32.3	15.9
11-May	22.4	26.1	3.8	20.9	12.5
11-Jun	9.6	7.7	-4.7	7.2	4.2
11-Jul	35	31	8	16.2	6.6
11-Aug	26.4	22.8	3.5	13.9	2.4
11-Sep	26.6	27	6	13.4	5.7
11-Oct	29.8	31	5.3	17.5	8.2
11-Nov	36.2	34	8.9	27.9	4.5
11-Dec	37.7	31.6	4.4	7.9	2
12-Jan	43.9	46.1	13	17.8	6.8
12-Feb	32.2	26.3	5.7	20.2	8.7
12-Mar	34.4	28.6	6	19.2	8
12-Apr	34.8	29.6	5.6	23.6	6.9
12-May	30.2	26	10.1	11.8	1.2
12-Jun	35.5	35.6	6	19.1	5
12-Jul	30.8	24.7	6.5	15.3	14.6
12-Aug	25.3	17.3	4.8	14.5	8.8
12-Sep	52	42.8	12.6	21.2	13.8
12-Oct	22.6	22.7	8.6	9.8	10.5
12-Nov	23.2	24.9	2.7	7	8.2
12-Dec	28.3	28	2.7	11.2	14.4
13-Jan	32.5	38.9	2.9	10.7	8.9
13-Feb	38	30.3	4.3	14.9	6.5
13-Mar	34.5	31.2	6.6	8.1	3.4
12-Apr	24.3	26.5	-2.1	8.2	6.6

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

Chart II-9 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is very useful, providing current and future general activity indexes from Jan 1995 to Jun 2012. The shaded areas are the recession cycle dates of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). The Philadelphia Fed index dropped during the initial period of recession and then led the recovery, as industry overall. There was a second decline of the index into 2011 followed now by what hopefully appeared as renewed strength from late 2011 into Jan 2012 with decline to negative territory of the current activity index in Nov 2012 and return to positive territory in Dec 2012 with decline of current conditions into contraction in Jan-Feb 2013 and rebound to mild expansion in Mar-Apr 2013.

Chart II-9, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current and Future Activity Indexes

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

The index of current new orders of the Business Outlook Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in Table II-10 illustrates the weakness of the cyclical expansion. The index weakened in 2006 and 2007 and then fell sharply into contraction during the global recession. There have been eleven readings into contraction from Jan 2012 to Apr 2013 and generally weak readings with some exceptions.

Chart II-10, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Current New Orders Diffusion Index

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.philadelphiafed.org/index.cfm

III World Financial Turbulence. Financial markets are being shocked by multiple factors including (1) world economic slowdown; (2) slowing growth in China with political development and slowing growth in Japan and world trade; (3) slow growth propelled by savings/investment reduction in the US with high unemployment/underemployment, falling wages, hiring collapse, contraction of real private fixed investment, decline of wealth of households over the business cycle by 8.4 percent adjusted for inflation while growing 617.2 percent adjusted for inflation from IVQ1945 to IVQ2012 and unsustainable fiscal deficit/debt threatening prosperity that can cause risk premium on Treasury debt with Himalayan interest rate hikes; and (3) the outcome of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. This section provides current data and analysis. Subsection IIIA Financial Risks provides analysis of the evolution of valuations of risk financial assets during the week. There are various appendixes for convenience of reference of material related to the euro area debt crisis. Some of this material is updated in Subsection IIIA when new data are available and then maintained in the appendixes for future reference until updated again in Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies discusses arguments and measures of currency intervention and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact provides analysis of the restructuring of the fiscal affairs of the European Union in the agreement of European leaders reached on Dec 9, 2011 and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort considers the policies of the European Central Bank and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Appendix IIIE Euro Zone Survival Risk analyzes the threats to survival of the European Monetary Union and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation provides more technical analysis and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis provides analysis of proposals to finance growth with budget deficits together with experience of the economic history of Brazil and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment.

IIIA Financial Risks. The past half year has been characterized by financial turbulence, attaining unusual magnitude in recent months. Table III-1, updated with every comment in this blog, provides beginning values on Fri Apr 12 and daily values throughout the week ending on Apr 19, 2013 of various financial assets. Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets provides a set of more complete values. All data are for New York time at 5 PM. The first column provides the value on Fri Apr 12 and the percentage change in that prior week below the label of the financial risk asset. For example, the first column “Fri Apr 12, 2013”, first row “USD/EUR 1.3111 -0.9%,” provides the information that the US dollar (USD) depreciated 0.9 percent to USD 1.3111/EUR in the week ending on Fri Apr 12 relative to the exchange rate on Fri Apr 5. The first five asset rows provide five key exchange rates versus the dollar and the percentage cumulative appreciation (positive change or no sign) or depreciation (negative change or negative sign). Positive changes constitute appreciation of the relevant exchange rate and negative changes depreciation. Financial turbulence has been dominated by reactions to the new program for Greece (see section IB in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html), modifications and new approach adopted in the Euro Summit of Oct 26 (European Commission 2011Oct26SS, 2011Oct26MRES), doubts on the larger countries in the euro zone with sovereign risks such as Spain and Italy but expanding into possibly France and Germany, the growth standstill recession and long-term unsustainable government debt in the US, worldwide deceleration of economic growth and continuing waves of inflation. The most important current shock is that resulting from the agreement by European leaders at their meeting on Dec 9 (European Council 2911Dec9), which is analyzed in IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact. European leaders reached a new agreement on Jan 30 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/127631.pdf) and another agreement on Jun 29, 2012 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf).

The dollar/euro rate is quoted as number of US dollars USD per one euro EUR, USD 1.3111/EUR in the first row, first column in the block for currencies in Table III-1 for Fri Apr 12, appreciating to USD 1.3036/EUR on Mon Apr 15, 2013, or by 0.6 percent. The dollar appreciated because fewer dollars, $1.3036, were required on Mon Apr 15 to buy one euro than $1.3111 on Apr 12. Table III-1 defines a country’s exchange rate as number of units of domestic currency per unit of foreign currency. USD/EUR would be the definition of the exchange rate of the US and the inverse [1/(USD/EUR)] is the definition in this convention of the rate of exchange of the euro zone, EUR/USD. A convention used throughout this blog is required to maintain consistency in characterizing movements of the exchange rate such as in Table III-1 as appreciation and depreciation. The first row for each of the currencies shows the exchange rate at 5 PM New York time, such as USD 1.3111/EUR on Apr 12; the second row provides the cumulative percentage appreciation or depreciation of the exchange rate from the rate on the last business day of the prior week, in this case Fri Apr 12, to the last business day of the current week, in this case Fri Apr 19, such as appreciation to USD 1.3052/EUR by Apr 19; and the third row provides the percentage change from the prior business day to the current business day. For example, the USD appreciated (denoted by positive sign) by 0.5 percent from the rate of USD 1.3111/EUR on Fri Apr 12 to the rate of USD 1.3052/EUR on Fri Apr 19 {[(1.3052/1.3111) – 1]100 = -0.5%} and depreciated (denoted by negative sign) by 0.2 percent from the rate of USD 1.3031 on Wed Apr 17 to USD 1.3052/EUR on Thu Apr 18 {[(1.3052/1.3031) -1]100 = 0.2%}. Other factors constant, appreciation of the dollar relative to the euro is caused by increasing risk aversion, with rising uncertainty on European sovereign risks increasing dollar-denominated assets with sales of risk financial investments. Funds move away from higher yielding risk assets to the safety of dollar-denominated assets during risk aversion and return to higher yielding risk assets during risk appetite.

Table III-I, Weekly Financial Risk Assets Apr 15 to Apr 19, 2013

Fri Apr 12, 2013	M 15	Tue 16	W 17	Thu 18	Fri 19
USD/EUR 1.3111 -0.9%	1.3036 0.6% 0.6%	1.3177 -0.5% -1.1%	1.3031 0.6% 1.1%	1.3052 0.5% -0.2%	1.3052 0.5% 0.0%
JPY/  USD 98.41 -0.9%	96.77 1.7% 1.7%	97.55 0.9% -0.8%	98.12 0.3% -0.6%	98.16 0.3% 0.0%	99.54 -1.1% -1.4%
CHF/  USD 0.9274 0.7%	0.9313 -0.4% -0.4%	0.9226 0.5% 0.9%	0.9328 -0.6% -1.1%	0.9326 -0.6% 0.0%	0.9336 -0.7% -0.1%
CHF/ EUR 1.2161 -0.1%	1.2139 0.2% 0.2%	1.2155 0.0% -0.1%	1.2156 0.0% 0.0%	1.2174 -0.1% -0.1%	1.2187 -0.2% -0.1%
USD/  AUD 1.0507 0.9517 1.1%	1.0313 0.9696 -1.9% -1.9%	1.0391 0.9624 -1.1% 0.7%	1.0297 0.9712 -2.0% -0.9%	1.0301 0.9708 -2.0% 0.0%	1.0276 0.9731 -2.2% -0.2%
10 Year  T Note 1.719	1.689	1.722	1.699	1.686	1.702
2 Year     T Note 0.228	0.22	0.226	0.228	0.228	0.232
German Bond 2Y 0.02 10Y 1.26	2Y 0.02 10Y 1.25	2Y 0.03 10Y 1.28	2Y 0.01 10Y 1.23	2Y 0.01 10Y 1.23	2Y 0.02 10Y 1.25
DJIA 14865.06 2.1%	14599.20 -1.8% -1.8%	14756.78 -0.7% 1.1%	14618.59 -1.7% -0.9%	14537.14 -2.2% -0.6%	14547.51 -2.1% 0.1%
DJ Global 2144.60 3.2%	2113.93 -1.4% -1.4%	2121.13 -1.1% 0.3%	2095.31 -2.3% -1.2%	2082.87 -2.9% -0.6%	2100.03 -2.1% 0.8%
DJ Asia Pacific 1407.68 3.2%	1396.96 -0.8% -0.8%	1391.82 -1.1% -0.4%	1402.19 -0.4% 0.7%	1386.81 -1.5% -1.1%	1391.04 -1.2% 0.3%
Nikkei 13485.14 5.1%	13275.66 -1.6% -1.6%	13221.44 -2.0% -0.4%	13382.89 -0.8% 1.2%	13220.07 -2.0% -1.2%	13316.48 -1.3% 0.7%
Shanghai 2206.78 -0.8%	2181.94 -1.1% -1.1%	2194.85 -0.5% 0.6%	2193.80 -0.6% -0.1%	2197.60 -0.4% 0.2%	2244.64 1.7% 2.1%
DAX 7744.77 1.1%	7712.63 -0.4% -0.4%	7682.58 -0.8% -0.4%	7503.03 -3.1% -2.3%	7473.73 -3.5% -0.4%	7459.96 -3.7 -0.2%
DJ UBS Comm. 133.85 -0.2%	129.94 -2.9% -2.9%	131.11 -2.0% 0.9%	130.32 -2.6% -0.6%	131.61 -1.6% 1.0%	131.51 -1.7% -0.1%
WTI $ B 90.85 -2.3%	88.05 -3.1% -3.1%	88.76 -2.3% 0.8%	86.50 -4.8% -2.5%	88.00 -3.1% 1.7%	87.98 -3.2% 0.0%
Brent    $/B 103.04 -1.3%	100.39 -2.6% -2.6%	99.91 -3.0% -0.5%	97.69 -5.2% -2.2%	99.13 -3.8% 1.5%	99.46 -3.5% 0.3%
Gold  $/OZ 1484.7 -6.1%	1347.6 -9.2% -9.2%	1366.4 -8.0% 1.4%	1375.9 -7.3% 0.7%	1388.7 -6.5% 0.9%	1402.8 -5.5% 1.0%

Note: USD: US dollar; JPY: Japanese Yen; CHF: Swiss

Franc; AUD: Australian dollar; Comm.: commodities; OZ: ounce

Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/

http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata

Discussion of current and recent risk-determining events is followed below by analysis of risk-measuring yields of the US and Germany and the USD/EUR rate. Financial markets in Japan and worldwide were shocked by new bold measures of “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing” by the Bank of Japan (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf). The objective of policy is to “achieve the price stability target of 2 percent in terms of the year-on-year rate of change in the consumer price index (CPI) at the earliest possible time, with a time horizon of about two years” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf). The main elements of the new policy are as follows:

1. Monetary Base Control. Most central banks in the world pursue interest rates instead of monetary aggregates, injecting bank reserves to lower interest rates to desired levels. The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has shifted back to monetary aggregates, conducting money market operations with the objective of increasing base money, or monetary liabilities of the government, at the annual rate of 60 to 70 trillion yen. The BOJ estimates base money outstanding at “138 trillion yen at end-2012) and plans to increase it to “200 trillion yen at end-2012 and 270 trillion yen at end 2014” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf).
2. Maturity Extension of Purchases of Japanese Government Bonds. Purchases of bonds will be extended even up to bonds with maturity of 40 years with the guideline of extending the average maturity of BOJ bond purchases from three to seven years. The BOJ estimates the current average maturity of Japanese government bonds (JGB) at around seven years. The BOJ plans to purchase about 7.5 trillion yen per month (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/rel130404d.pdf). Takashi Nakamichi, Tatsuo Ito and Phred Dvorak, wiring on “Bank of Japan mounts bid for revival,” on Apr 4, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323646604578401633067110420.html ), find that the limit of maturities of three years on purchases of JGBs was designed to avoid views that the BOJ would finance uncontrolled government deficits.
3. Seigniorage. The BOJ is pursuing coordination with the government that will take measures to establish “sustainable fiscal structure with a view to ensuring the credibility of fiscal management” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf).
4. Diversification of Asset Purchases. The BOJ will engage in transactions of exchange traded funds (ETF) and real estate investment trusts (REITS) and not solely on purchases of JGBs. Purchases of ETFs will be at an annual rate of increase of one trillion yen and purchases of REITS at 30 billion yen.

The European sovereign debt crisis continues to shake financial markets and the world economy. Debt resolution within the international financial architecture requires that a country be capable of borrowing on its own from the private sector. Mechanisms of debt resolution have included participation of the private sector (PSI), or “bail in,” that has been voluntary, almost coercive, agreed and outright coercive (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture: G7, IMF, BIS, Creditors and Debtors (2005), Chapter 4, 187-202). Private sector involvement requires losses by the private sector in bailouts of highly indebted countries. The essence of successful private sector involvement is to recover private-sector credit of the highly indebted country. Mary Watkins, writing on “Bank bailouts reshuffle risk hierarchy,” published on Mar 19, 2013, in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7666546a-9095-11e2-a456-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OSpbvCn8) analyzes the impact of the bailout or resolution of Cyprus banks on the hierarchy of risks of bank liabilities. Cyprus banks depend mostly on deposits with less reliance on debt, raising concerns in creditors of fixed-income debt and equity holders in banks in the euro area. Uncertainty remains as to the dimensions and structure of losses in private sector involvement or “bail in” in other rescue programs in the euro area. Alkman Granitsas, writing on “Central bank details losses at Bank of Cyprus,” on Mar 30, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324000704578392502889560768.html), analyzes the impact of the agreement with the €10 billion agreement with IMF and the European Union on the banks of Cyprus. The recapitalization plan provides for immediate conversion of 37.5 percent of all deposits in excess of €100,000 to shares of special class of the bank. An additional 22.5 percent will be frozen without interest until the plan is completed. The overwhelming risk factor is the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). Another rising risk is division within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on risks and benefits of current policies as expressed in the minutes of the meeting held on Jan 29-30, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20130130.pdf 13):

“However, many participants also expressed some concerns about potential costs and risks arising from further asset purchases. Several participants discussed the possible complications that additional purchases could cause for the eventual withdrawal of policy accommodation, a few mentioned the prospect of inflationary risks, and some noted that further asset purchases could foster market behavior that could undermine financial stability. Several participants noted that a very large portfolio of long-duration assets would, under certain circumstances, expose the Federal Reserve to significant capital losses when these holdings were unwound, but others pointed to offsetting factors and one noted that losses would not impede the effective operation of monetary policy.

Jon Hilsenrath and Victoria McGrane, writing on “Fed slip over how long to keep cash spigot open,” published on Feb 20, 2013 in the Wall street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578298121033876536.html), analyze the minutes of the Fed, comments by members of the FOMC and data showing increase in holdings of riskier debt by investors, record issuance of junk bonds, mortgage securities and corporate loans.

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 14,547.51

on Fri Apr 19, 2013, which is higher by 2.7 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 2.5 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial are approaching or exceeding historical highs. Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Jobs upturn isn’t enough to satisfy Fed,” on Mar 8, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324582804578348293647760204.html), finds that much stronger labor market conditions are required for the Fed to end quantitative easing. Unconventional monetary policy with zero interest rates and quantitative easing is quite difficult to unwind because of the adverse effects of raising interest rates on valuations of risk financial assets and home prices, including the very own valuation of the securities held outright in the Fed balance sheet. Gradual unwinding of 1 percent fed funds rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 by seventeen consecutive increases of 25 percentage points from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006 to reach 5.25 percent caused default of subprime mortgages and adjustable-rate mortgages linked to the overnight fed funds rate. The zero interest rate has penalized liquidity and increased risks by inducing carry trades from zero interest rates to speculative positions in risk financial assets. There is no exit from zero interest rates without provoking another financial crash.

An important risk event is the reduction of growth prospects in the euro zone discussed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in “Introductory statement to the press conference,” on Dec 6, 2012 (http://www.ecb.int/press/pressconf/2012/html/is121206.en.html):

“This assessment is reflected in the December 2012 Eurosystem staff macroeconomic projections for the euro area, which foresee annual real GDP growth in a range between -0.6% and -0.4% for 2012, between -0.9% and 0.3% for 2013 and between 0.2% and 2.2% for 2014. Compared with the September 2012 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the ranges for 2012 and 2013 have been revised downwards.

The Governing Council continues to see downside risks to the economic outlook for the euro area. These are mainly related to uncertainties about the resolution of sovereign debt and governance issues in the euro area, geopolitical issues and fiscal policy decisions in the United States possibly dampening sentiment for longer than currently assumed and delaying further the recovery of private investment, employment and consumption.”

Reuters, writing on “Bundesbank cuts German growth forecast,” on Dec 7, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e845114-4045-11e2-8f90-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EMQxzs3u), informs that the central bank of Germany, Deutsche Bundesbank reduced its forecast of growth for the economy of Germany to 0.7 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.0 percent in Jun and to 0.4 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.6 percent while the forecast for 2014 is at 1.9 percent.

The major risk event during earlier weeks was sharp decline of sovereign yields with the yield on the ten-year bond of Spain falling to 5.309 percent and that of the ten-year bond of Italy falling to 4.473 percent on Fri Nov 30, 2012 and 5.366 percent for the ten-year of Spain and 4.527 percent for the ten-year of Italy on Fri Nov 14, 2012 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Vanessa Mock and Frances Robinson, writing on “EU approves Spanish bank’s restructuring plans,” on Nov 28, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578146520774638316.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the European Union regulators approved restructuring of four Spanish banks (Bankia, NCG Banco, Catalunya Banc and Banco de Valencia), which helped to calm sovereign debt markets. Harriet Torry and James Angelo, writing on “Germany approves Greek aid,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578150532603095790.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the German parliament approved the plan to provide Greece a tranche of €44 billion in promised financial support, which is subject to sustainability analysis of the bond repurchase program later in Dec 2012. A hurdle for sustainability of repurchasing debt is that Greece’s sovereign bonds have appreciated significantly from around 24 percent for the bond maturing in 21 years and 20 percent for the bond maturing in 31 years in Aug 2012 to around 17 percent for the 21-year maturity and 15 percent for the 31-year maturing in Nov 2012. Declining years are equivalent to increasing prices, making the repurchase more expensive. Debt repurchase is intended to reduce bonds in circulation, turning Greek debt more manageable. Ben McLannahan, writing on “Japan unveils $11bn stimulus package,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/adc0569a-3aa5-11e2-baac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN

), informs that the cabinet in Japan approved another stimulus program of $11 billion, which is twice larger than another stimulus plan in late Oct and close to elections in Dec. Henry Sender, writing on “Tokyo faces weak yen and high bond yields,” published on Nov 29, 2012 in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9a7178d0-393d-11e2-afa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN), analyzes concerns of regulators on duration of bond holdings in an environment of likelihood of increasing yields and yen depreciation.

First, Risk-Determining Events. The European Council statement on Nov 23, 2012 asked the President of the European Commission “to continue the work and pursue consultations in the coming weeks to find a consensus among the 27 over the Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2014-2020” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf) Discussions will continue in the effort to reach agreement on a budget: “A European budget is important for the cohesion of the Union and for jobs and growth in all our countries” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf). There is disagreement between the group of countries requiring financial assistance and those providing bailout funds. Gabrielle Steinhauser and Costas Paris, writing on “Greek bond rally puts buyback in doubt,” on Nov 23, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578136362599130992.html?mg=reno64-wsj) find a new hurdle in rising prices of Greek sovereign debt that may make more difficult buybacks of debt held by investors. European finance ministers continue their efforts to reach an agreement for Greece that meets with approval of the European Central Bank and the IMF. The European Council (2012Oct19 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133004.pdf ) reached conclusions on strengthening the euro area and providing unified financial supervision:

“The European Council called for work to proceed on the proposals on the Single Supervisory Mechanism as a matter of priority with the objective of agreeing on the legislative framework by 1st January 2013 and agreed on a number of orientations to that end. It also took note of issues relating to the integrated budgetary and economic policy frameworks and democratic legitimacy and accountability which should be further explored. It agreed that the process towards deeper economic and monetary union should build on the EU's institutional and legal framework and be characterised by openness and transparency towards non-euro area Member States and respect for the integrity of the Single Market. It looked forward to a specific and time-bound roadmap to be presented at its December 2012 meeting, so that it can move ahead on all essential building blocks on which a genuine EMU should be based.”

Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. The Bank of Spain released new data on doubtful debtors in Spain’s credit institutions (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/Agenda/Datos_de_credit_a6cd708c59cf931.html). In 2006, the value of doubtful credits reached €10,859 million or 0.7 percent of total credit of €1,508,626 million. In Aug 2012, doubtful credit reached €178,579 million or 10.5 percent of total credit of €1,698,714 million.

There are three critical factors influencing world financial markets. (1) Spain could request formal bailout from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) that may also affect Italy’s international borrowing. David Roman and Jonathan House, writing on “Spain risks backlash with budget plan,” on Sep 27, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443916104578021692765950384.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) analyze Spain’s proposal of reducing government expenditures by €13 billion, or around $16.7 billion, increasing taxes in 2013, establishing limits on early retirement and cutting the deficit by €65 billion through 2014. Banco de España, Bank of Spain, contracted consulting company Oliver Wyman to conduct rigorous stress tests of the resilience of its banking system. (Stress tests and their use are analyzed by Pelaez and Pelaez Globalization and the State Vol. I (2008b), 95-100, International Financial Architecture (2005) 112-6, 123-4, 130-3).) The results are available from Banco de España (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/infointeres/reestructuracion/ http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). The assumptions of the adverse scenario used by Oliver Wyman are quite tough for the three-year period from 2012 to 2014: “6.5 percent cumulative decline of GDP, unemployment rising to 27.2 percent and further declines of 25 percent of house prices and 60 percent of land prices (http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). Fourteen banks were stress tested with capital needs estimates of seven banks totaling €59.3 billion. The three largest banks of Spain, Banco Santander (http://www.santander.com/csgs/Satellite/CFWCSancomQP01/es_ES/Corporativo.html), BBVA (http://www.bbva.com/TLBB/tlbb/jsp/ing/home/index.jsp) and Caixabank (http://www.caixabank.com/index_en.html), with 43 percent of exposure under analysis, have excess capital of €37 billion in the adverse scenario in contradiction with theories that large, international banks are necessarily riskier. Jonathan House, writing on “Spain expects wider deficit on bank aid,” on Sep 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444138104578028484168511130.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), analyzes the 2013 budget plan of Spain that will increase the deficit of 7.4 percent of GDP in 2012, which is above the target of 6.3 percent under commitment with the European Union. The ratio of debt to GDP will increase to 85.3 percent in 2012 and 90.5 percent in 2013 while the 27 members of the European Union have an average debt/GDP ratio of 83 percent at the end of IIQ2012. (2) Symmetric inflation targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even after the economy grows again at or close to potential output. Monetary easing by unconventional measures is now apparently open ended in perpetuity as provided in the statement of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 13, 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm):

“To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.

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 economic recovery strengthens.”

In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is the concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation.

(2) The European Central Bank (ECB) approved a new program of bond purchases under the name “Outright Monetary Transactions” (OMT). The ECB will purchase sovereign bonds of euro zone member countries that have a program of conditionality under the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) that is converting into the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). These programs provide enhancing the solvency of member countries in a transition period of structural reforms and fiscal adjustment. The purchase of bonds by the ECB would maintain debt costs of sovereigns at sufficiently low levels to permit adjustment under the EFSF/ESM programs. Purchases of bonds are not limited quantitatively with discretion by the ECB as to how much is necessary to support countries with adjustment programs. Another feature of the OMT of the ECB is sterilization of bond purchases: funds injected to pay for the bonds would be withdrawn or sterilized by ECB transactions. The statement by the European Central Bank on the program of OTM is as follows (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html):

“6 September 2012 - Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions

As announced on 2 August 2012, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has today taken decisions on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets that aim at safeguarding an appropriate monetary policy transmission and the singleness of the monetary policy. These will be known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) and will be conducted within the following framework:

Conditionality

A necessary condition for Outright Monetary Transactions is strict and effective conditionality attached to an appropriate European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism (EFSF/ESM) programme. Such programmes can take the form of a full EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programme or a precautionary programme (Enhanced Conditions Credit Line), provided that they include the possibility of EFSF/ESM primary market purchases. The involvement of the IMF shall also be sought for the design of the country-specific conditionality and the monitoring of such a programme.

The Governing Council will consider Outright Monetary Transactions to the extent that they are warranted from a monetary policy perspective as long as programme conditionality is fully respected, and terminate them once their objectives are achieved or when there is non-compliance with the macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary programme.

Following a thorough assessment, the Governing Council will decide on the start, continuation and suspension of Outright Monetary Transactions in full discretion and acting in accordance with its monetary policy mandate.

Coverage

Outright Monetary Transactions will be considered for future cases of EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programmes or precautionary programmes as specified above. They may also be considered for Member States currently under a macroeconomic adjustment programme when they will be regaining bond market access.

Transactions will be focused on the shorter part of the yield curve, and in particular on sovereign bonds with a maturity of between one and three years.

No ex ante quantitative limits are set on the size of Outright Monetary Transactions.

Creditor treatment

The Eurosystem intends to clarify in the legal act concerning Outright Monetary Transactions that it accepts the same (pari passu) treatment as private or other creditors with respect to bonds issued by euro area countries and purchased by the Eurosystem through Outright Monetary Transactions, in accordance with the terms of such bonds.

Sterilisation

The liquidity created through Outright Monetary Transactions will be fully sterilised.

Transparency

Aggregate Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and their market values will be published on a weekly basis. Publication of the average duration of Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and the breakdown by country will take place on a monthly basis.

Securities Markets Programme

Following today’s decision on Outright Monetary Transactions, the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) is herewith terminated. The liquidity injected through the SMP will continue to be absorbed as in the past, and the existing securities in the SMP portfolio will be held to maturity.”

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Fed sets stage for stimulus,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623220212805132.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes the essay presented by Chairman Bernanke at the Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers, as defending past stimulus with unconventional measures of monetary policy that could be used to reduce extremely high unemployment. Chairman Bernanke (2012JHAug31, 18-9) does support further unconventional monetary policy impulses if required by economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm):

“Over the past five years, the Federal Reserve has acted to support economic growth and foster job creation, and it is important to achieve further progress, particularly in the labor market. Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”

Professor John H Cochrane (2012Aug31), at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, writing on “The Federal Reserve: from central bank to central planner,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609384030304936.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion), analyzes that the departure of central banks from open market operations into purchase of assets with risks to taxpayers and direct allocation of credit subject to political influence has caused them to abandon their political independence and accountability. Cochrane (2012Aug31) finds a return to the proposition of Milton Friedman in the 1960s that central banks can cause inflation and macroeconomic instability.

Mario Draghi (2012Aug29), President of the European Central Bank, also reiterated the need of exceptional and unconventional central bank policies (http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120829.en.html):

“Yet it should be understood that fulfilling our mandate sometimes requires us to go beyond standard monetary policy tools. When markets are fragmented or influenced by irrational fears, our monetary policy signals do not reach citizens evenly across the euro area. We have to fix such blockages to ensure a single monetary policy and therefore price stability for all euro area citizens. This may at times require exceptional measures. But this is our responsibility as the central bank of the euro area as a whole.

The ECB is not a political institution. But it is committed to its responsibilities as an institution of the European Union. As such, we never lose sight of our mission to guarantee a strong and stable currency. The banknotes that we issue bear the European flag and are a powerful symbol of European identity.”

Buiter (2011Oct31) analyzes that the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) would need a “bigger bazooka” to bail out euro members in difficulties that could possibly be provided by the ECB. Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. Table III-7 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides the combined GDP in 2012 of the highly indebted euro zone members estimated in the latest World Economic Outlook of the IMF at $4167 billion or 33.1 percent of total euro zone GDP of $12,586 billion. Using the WEO of the IMF, Table III-8 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides debt of the highly indebted euro zone members at $3927.8 billion in 2012 that increases to $5809.9 billion when adding Germany’s debt, corresponding to 167.0 percent of Germany’s GDP. There are additional sources of debt in bailing out banks. The dimensions of the problem may require more firepower than a bazooka perhaps that of the largest conventional bomb of all times of 44,000 pounds experimentally detonated only once by the US in 1948 (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html).

Second, Risk-Measuring Yields and Exchange Rate. The ten-year government bond of Spain was quoted at 6.868 percent on Aug 10, 2012, declining to 6.447 percent on Aug 17 and 6.403 percent on Aug 24, 2012, and the ten-year government bond of Italy fell from 5.894 percent on Aug 10, 2012 to 5.709 percent on Aug 17 and 5.618 percent on Aug 24, 2012. The yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain traded at 4.615 percent on Apr 19, 2013 and that of the ten-year sovereign bond of Italy at 4.177 percent (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Risk aversion is captured by flight of investors from risk financial assets to the government securities of the US and Germany. Diminishing aversion is captured by increase of the yield of the two- and ten-year Treasury notes and the two- and ten-year government bonds of Germany. Table III-1A provides yields of US and German governments bonds and the rate of USD/EUR. Yields of US and German government bonds decline during shocks of risk aversion and the dollar strengthens in the form of fewer dollars required to buy one euro. The yield of the US ten-year Treasury note fell from 2.202 percent on Aug 26, 2011 to 1.459 percent on Jul 20, 2012, reminiscent of experience during the Treasury-Fed accord of the 1940s that placed a ceiling on long-term Treasury debt (Hetzel and Leach 2001), while the yield of the ten-year government bond of Germany fell from 2.16 percent to 1.17 percent. In the week of Apr 19, 2013, the yield of the two-year Treasury stabilized 0.232 percent and that of the ten-year Treasury increased to 1.702 percent while the two-year bond of Germany stabilized at 0.02 percent and the ten-year decreased to 1.25 percent; and the dollar appreciated to USD 1.3052/EUR. The zero interest rates for the monetary policy rate of the US, or fed funds rate, carry trades ensure devaluation of the dollar if there is no risk aversion but the dollar appreciates in flight to safe haven during episodes of risk aversion. Unconventional monetary policy induces significant global financial instability, excessive risks and low liquidity. The ten-year Treasury yield is about equal to consumer price inflation of 2.0 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/recovery-without-hiring-ten-million.html) and the expectation of higher inflation if risk aversion diminishes. Treasury securities continue to be safe haven for investors fearing risk but with concentration in shorter maturities such as the two-year Treasury. The lower part of Table III-1A provides the same flight to government securities of the US and Germany and the USD during the financial crisis and global recession and the beginning of the European debt crisis in the spring of 2010 with the USD trading at USD 1.192/EUR on Jun 7, 2010.

Table III-1A, Two- and Ten-Year Yields of Government Bonds of the US and Germany and US Dollar/EUR Exchange rate

	US 2Y	US 10Y	DE 2Y	DE 10Y	USD/ EUR
4/19/13	0.232	1.702	0.02	1.25	1.3052
4/12/13	0.228	1.719	0.02	1.26	1.3111
4/5/13	0.228	1.706	0.01	1.21	1.2995
3/29/13	0.244	1.847	-0.02	1.29	1.2818
3/22/13	0.242	1.931	0.03	1.38	1.2988
3/15/13	0.246	1.992	0.05	1.46	1.3076
3/8/13	0.256	2.056	0.09	1.53	1.3003
3/1/13	0.236	1.842	0.03	1.41	1.3020
2/22/13	0.252	1.967	0.13	1.57	1.3190
2/15/13	0.268	2.007	0.19	1.65	1.3362
2/8/13	0.252	1.949	0.18	1.61	1.3365
2/1/13	0.26	2.024	0.25	1.67	1.3642
1/25/13	0.278	1.947	0.26	1.64	1.3459
1/18/13	0.252	1.84	0.18	1.56	1.3321
1/11/13	0.247	1.862	0.13	1.58	1.3343
1/4/13	0.262	1.898	0.08	1.54	1.3069
12/28/12	0.252	1.699	-0.01	1.31	1.3218
12/21/12	0.272	1.77	-0.01	1.38	1.3189
12/14/12	0.232	1.704	-0.04	1.35	1.3162
12/7/12	0.256	1.625	-0.08	1.30	1.2926
11/30/12	0.248	1.612	0.01	1.39	1.2987
11/23/12	0.273	1.691	0.00	1.44	1.2975
11/16/12	0.24	1.584	-0.03	1.33	1.2743
11/9/12	0.256	1.614	-0.03	1.35	1.2711
11/2/12	0.274	1.715	0.01	1.45	1.2838
10/26/12	0.299	1.748	0.05	1.54	1.2942
10/19/12	0.296	1.766	0.11	1.59	1.3023
10/12/12	0.264	1.663	0.04	1.45	1.2953
10/5/12	0.26	1.737	0.06	1.52	1.3036
9/28/12	0.236	1.631	0.02	1.44	1.2859
9/21/12	0.26	1.753	0.04	1.60	1.2981
9/14/12	0.252	1.863	0.10	1.71	1.3130
9/7/12	0.252	1.668	0.03	1.52	1.2816
8/31/12	0.225	1.543	-0.03	1.33	1.2575
8/24/12	0.266	1.684	-0.01	1.35	1.2512
8/17/12	0.288	1.814	-0.04	1.50	1.2335
8/10/12	0.267	1.658	-0.07	1.38	1.2290
8/3/12	0.242	1.569	-0.02	1.42	1.2387
7/27/12	0.244	1.544	-0.03	1.40	1.2320
7/20/12	0.207	1.459	-0.07	1.17	1.2158
7/13/12	0.24	1.49	-0.04	1.26	1.2248
7/6/12	0.272	1.548	-0.01	1.33	1.2288
6/29/12	0.305	1.648	0.12	1.58	1.2661
6/22/12	0.309	1.676	0.14	1.58	1.2570
6/15/12	0.272	1.584	0.07	1.44	1.2640
6/8/12	0.268	1.635	0.04	1.33	1.2517
6/1/12	0.248	1.454	0.01	1.17	1.2435
5/25/12	0.291	1.738	0.05	1.37	1.2518
5/18/12	0.292	1.714	0.05	1.43	1.2780
5/11/12	0.248	1.845	0.09	1.52	1.2917
5/4/12	0.256	1.876	0.08	1.58	1.3084
4/6/12	0.31	2.058	0.14	1.74	1.3096
3/30/12	0.335	2.214	0.21	1.79	1.3340
3/2/12	0.29	1.977	0.16	1.80	1.3190
2/24/12	0.307	1.977	0.24	1.88	1.3449
1/6/12	0.256	1.957	0.17	1.85	1.2720
12/30/11	0.239	1.871	0.14	1.83	1.2944
8/26/11	0.20	2.202	0.65	2.16	1.450
8/19/11	0.192	2.066	0.65	2.11	1.4390
6/7/10	0.74	3.17	0.49	2.56	1.192
3/5/09	0.89	2.83	1.19	3.01	1.254
12/17/08	0.73	2.20	1.94	3.00	1.442
10/27/08	1.57	3.79	2.61	3.76	1.246
7/14/08	2.47	3.88	4.38	4.40	1.5914
6/26/03	1.41	3.55	NA	3.62	1.1423

Note: DE: Germany

Source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/

http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013