CMP Associates Regulation Blog: Tapering Quantitative Easing, Mediocre and Decelerating US Economic Growth, World Inflation Waves, Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits and Fiscal Imbalance, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation and Productivity Growth, US Industrial Production, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

Tapering Quantitative Easing, Mediocre and Decelerating US Economic Growth, World Inflation Waves, Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits and Fiscal Imbalance, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation and Productivity Growth, US Industrial Production, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

Executive Summary

I Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth

IA Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth

IA1 Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment

IA2 Swelling Undistributed Corporate Profits

II World Inflation Waves

IIA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy

IB1 Theory

IB2 Policy

IB3 Evidence

IB4 Unwinding Strategy

IIB United States Inflation

IIC Long-term US Inflation

IID Current US Inflation

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

IIF United States Industrial Production and External and Fiscal Imbalances

IIA Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits and Fiscal Imbalance Threatening Risk Premium on Treasury Securities

IIA1 United States Unsustainable Deficit/Debt

IIA2 Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits

IIF United States Industrial Production

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

Contents of Executive Summary

ESI Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Steepening Yield Curve and Global Financial and Economic Risk

ESII Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth

ESIII Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment

ESIV Swelling Undistributed Corporate Profits

ESV Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits and Fiscal Imbalance Threatening Risk Premium on Treasury Securities

ESVIA World Inflation Waves

ESVI Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates

ESVII United States Industrial Production

ESVIII Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation and Productivity Growth

ESI Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Steepening Yield Curve and 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 for both theory and measurement. 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 for both theory and measurement. The IMF (2013WEOOct) provides surveillance of the world economy with its Global Economic Outlook (WEO) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/), of the world financial system with its Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) (IMF 2013GFSROct) (http://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/GFSR/2013/02/index.htm) and of fiscal affairs with the Fiscal Monitor (IMF 2013FMOct) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2013/02/fmindex.htm). There appears to be a moment of transition in global economic and financial variables that may prove of difficult analysis and measurement. It is useful to consider a summary of global economic and financial risks, which are analyzed in detail in the comments of this blog in Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets, Table VI-4.

Economic risks include the following:

China’s Economic Growth. China is lowering its growth target to 7.5 percent per year. China’s GDP growth decelerated significantly from annual equivalent 10.8 percent in IIQ2011 to 7.4 percent in IVQ2011 and 5.7 percent in IQ2012, rebounding to 9.1 percent in IIQ2012, 8.2 percent in IIIQ2012 and 7.8 percent in IVQ2012. Annual equivalent growth in IQ2013 fell to 6.1 percent and to 7.8 percent in IIQ2013, rebounding to 9.1 percent in IIIQ2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/tapering-quantitative-easing-policy-and_7005.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/recovery-without-hiring-world-inflation.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/world-inflation-waves-stagnating-united_21.html).
United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. The US is growing slowly with 28.1 million in job stress, fewer 10 million full-time jobs, high youth unemployment, historically low hiring and declining/stagnating real wages.
Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. There is still high unemployment in advanced economies.
World Inflation Waves. Inflation continues in repetitive waves globally (Section II and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world.html).

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

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

Chart VIII-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate on the overnight fed funds rate and the yields of the 10-year constant maturity Treasury and the Baa seasoned corporate bond. Table VIII-3 provides the data for selected points in Chart VIII-1. There are two important economic and financial events, illustrating the ease of inducing carry trade with extremely low interest rates and the resulting financial crash and recession of abandoning extremely low interest rates.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). Central bank commitment to maintain the fed funds rate at 1.00 percent induced adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMS) linked to the fed funds rate. Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment. The exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at interest rates close to zero, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV). The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper with the objective of purchasing default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever-increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because the put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VIII-1. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 caused the financial crisis and global recession.
On Dec 16, 2008, the policy determining committee of the Fed decided (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm): “The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.” Policymakers emphasize frequently that there are tools to exit unconventional monetary policy at the right time. At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states that: “The Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.” Perception of withdrawal of $2466 billion, or $2.5 trillion bank reserves (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1), would cause Himalayan increase in interest rates that would provoke another recession. There is no painless gradual or sudden exit from zero interest rates because reversal of exposures created on the commitment of zero interest rates forever.

In his classic restatement of the Keynesian demand function in terms of “liquidity preference as behavior toward risk,” James Tobin (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1981/tobin-bio.html) identifies the risks of low interest rates in terms of portfolio allocation (Tobin 1958, 86):

“The assumption that investors expect on balance no change in the rate of interest has been adopted for the theoretical reasons explained in section 2.6 rather than for reasons of realism. Clearly investors do form expectations of changes in interest rates and differfrom each other in their expectations. For the purposes of dynamic theory and of analysis of specific market situations, the theories of sections 2 and 3 are complementary rather than competitive. The formal apparatus of section 3 will serve just as well for a non-zero expected capital gain or loss as for a zero expected value of g. Stickiness of interest rate expectations would mean that the expected value of g is a function of the rate of interest r, going down when r goes down and rising when r goes up. In addition to the rotation of the opportunity locus due to a change in r itself, there would be a further rotation in the same direction due to the accompanying change in the expected capital gain or loss. At low interest rates expectation of capital loss may push the opportunity locus into the negative quadrant, so that the optimal position is clearly no consols, all cash. At the other extreme, expectation of capital gain at high interest rates would increase sharply the slope of the opportunity locus and the frequency of no cash, all consols positions, like that of Figure 3.3. The stickier the investor's expectations, the more sensitive his demand for cash will be to changes in the rate of interest (emphasis added).”

Tobin (1969) provides more elegant, complete analysis of portfolio allocation in a general equilibrium model. The major point is equally clear in a portfolio consisting of only cash balances and a perpetuity or consol. Let g be the capital gain, r the rate of interest on the consol and r^e the expected rate of interest. The rates are expressed as proportions. The price of the consol is the inverse of the interest rate, (1+r^e). Thus, g = [(r/r^e) – 1]. The critical analysis of Tobin is that at extremely low interest rates there is only expectation of interest rate increases, that is, dr^e>0, such that there is expectation of capital losses on the consol, dg<0. Investors move into positions combining only cash and no consols. Valuations of risk financial assets would collapse in reversal of long positions in carry trades with short exposures in a flight to cash. There is no exit from a central bank created liquidity trap without risks of financial crash and another global recession. The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Ibid). According to a subsequent statement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:

W = Y/r (10)

Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r→0, W grows without bound, W→∞. Unconventional monetary policy lowers interest rates to increase the present value of cash flows derived from projects of firms, creating the impression of long-term increase in net worth. An attempt to reverse unconventional monetary policy necessarily causes increases in interest rates, creating the opposite perception of declining net worth. As r→∞, W = Y/r →0. There is no exit from unconventional monetary policy without increasing interest rates with resulting pain of financial crisis and adverse effects on production, investment and employment.

Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Dec 19, 2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Table VIII-3, Selected Data Points in Chart VIII-1, % per Year

	Fed Funds Overnight Rate	10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity	Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond
1/2/2001	6.67	4.92	7.91
10/1/2002	1.85	3.72	7.46
7/3/2003	0.96	3.67	6.39
6/22/2004	1.00	4.72	6.77
6/28/2006	5.06	5.25	6.94
9/17/2008	2.80	3.41	7.25
10/26/2008	0.09	2.16	8.00
10/31/2008	0.22	4.01	9.54
4/6/2009	0.14	2.95	8.63
4/5/2010	0.20	4.01	6.44
2/4/2011	0.17	3.68	6.25
7/25/2012	0.15	1.43	4.73
5/1/13	0.14	1.66	4.48
9/5/13	0.08	2.98	5.53
11/21/2013	0.09	2.79	5.44
11/27/13	0.09	2.74	5.34 (11/26/13)
12/6/13	0.09	2.88	5.47
12/12/13	0.09	2.89
12/19/13

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Professionals use a variety of techniques in measuring interest rate risk (Fabozzi, Buestow and Johnson, 2006, Chapter Nine, 183-226):

Full valuation approach in which securities and portfolios are shocked by 50, 100, 200 and 300 basis points to measure their impact on asset values
Stress tests requiring more complex analysis and translation of possible events with high impact even if with low probability of occurrence into effects on actual positions and capital
Value at Risk (VaR) analysis of maximum losses that are likely in a time horizon
Duration and convexity that are short-hand convenient measurement of changes in prices resulting from changes in yield captured by duration and convexity
Yield volatility

Analysis of these methods is in Pelaez and Pelaez (International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-162) and Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the States, Vol. (I) (2008a), 78-100). Frederick R. Macaulay (1938) introduced the concept of duration in contrast with maturity for analyzing bonds. Duration is the sensitivity of bond prices to changes in yields. In economic jargon, duration is the yield elasticity of bond price to changes in yield, or the percentage change in price after a percentage change in yield, typically expressed as the change in price resulting from change of 100 basis points in yield. The mathematical formula is the negative of the yield elasticity of the bond price or –[dB/d(1+y)]((1+y)/B), where d is the derivative operator of calculus, B the bond price, y the yield and the elasticity does not have dimension (Hallerbach 2001). The duration trap of unconventional monetary policy is that duration is higher the lower the coupon and higher the lower the yield, other things being constant. Coupons and yields are historically low because of unconventional monetary policy. Duration dumping during a rate increase may trigger the same crossfire selling of high duration positions that magnified the credit crisis. Traders reduced positions because capital losses in one segment, such as mortgage-backed securities, triggered haircuts and margin increases that reduced capital available for positioning in all segments, causing fire sales in multiple segments (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009; see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 217-24). Financial markets are currently experiencing fear of duration resulting from the debate within and outside the Fed on tapering quantitative easing. Table VIII-2 provides the yield curve of Treasury securities on Dec 20, 2013, Sep 5, 2013, May 1, 2013, Dec 20, 2012 and Dec 20, 2006. There is ongoing steepening of the yield curve for longer maturities, which are also the ones with highest duration. The 10-year yield increased from 1.45 percent on Jul 26, 2012 to 2.98 percent on Sep 5, 2013, as measured by the United States Treasury. Assume that a bond with maturity in 10 years were issued on Sep 5, 2013 at par or price of 100 with coupon of 1.45 percent. The price of that bond would be 86.8530 with instantaneous increase of the yield to 2.98 percent for loss of 13.1 percent and far more with leverage. Assume that the yield of a bond with exactly ten years to maturity and coupon of 2.89 percent as occurred on Dec 20, 2013 would jump instantaneously from yield of 2.89 percent on Dec 20, 2013 to 4.60 percent as occurred on Dec 20, 2006 when the economy was closer to full employment. The price of the hypothetical bond issued with coupon of 2.89 percent would drop from 100 to 86.4159 after an instantaneous increase of the yield to 4.60 percent. The price loss would be 13.6 percent. Losses absorb capital available for positioning, triggering crossfire sales in multiple asset classes (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009). What is the path of adjustment of zero interest rates on fed funds and artificially low bond yields? There is no painless exit from unconventional monetary policy. Chris Dieterich, writing on “Bond investors turn to cash,” on Jul 25, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578625900935618178.html), uses data of the Investment Company Institute (http://www.ici.org/) in showing withdrawals of $43 billion in taxable mutual funds in Jun, which is the largest in history, with flows into cash investments such as $8.5 billion in the week of Jul 17 into money-market funds.

Table VIII-2, United States, Treasury Yields

	12/20/13	9/05/13	5/01/13	12/20/12	12/20/06
1 M	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.02	4.87
3 M	0.07	0.02	0.06	0.06	4.96
6 M	0.09	0.06	0.08	0.10	5.08
1 Y	0.13	0.16	0.11	0.15	4.96
2 Y	0.37	0.52	0.20	0.28	4.71
3 Y	0.74	0.97	0.30	0.39	4.62
5 Y	1.66	1.85	0.65	0.77	4.57
7 Y	2.33	2.45	1.07	1.24	4.57
10 Y	2.89	2.98	1.66	1.81	4.60
20 Y	3.57	3.64	2.44	2.57	4.82
30 Y	3.82	3.88	2.83	2.98	4.73

Source: United States Treasury

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield

Interest rate risk is increasing in the US. Chart VI-13 of the Board of Governors provides the conventional mortgage rate for a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage. The rate stood at 5.87 percent on Jan 8, 2004, increasing to 6.79 percent on Jul 6, 2006. The rate bottomed at 3.35 percent on May 2, 2013. Fear of duration risk in longer maturities such as mortgage-backed securities caused continuing increases in the conventional mortgage rate that rose to 4.51 percent on Jul 11, 2013, 4.58 percent on Aug 22, 2013 and 4.47 percent on Dec 19, 2013, which is the last data point in Chart VI-13.

Chart VI-13, US, Conventional Mortgage Rate, Jan 8, 2004 to Dec 12, 2013

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/

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 real interest rate equals the nominal interest rate discounted by the expectation of inflation in time term of the interest rate. Fisher (1933) analyzed 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 May 17, 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 1.1 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The real rate of interest would be obtained as follows:

(1 + 0.00114)/(1 + 0.011) = (1 + r_r) = 0.9902

That is, i_r is equal to 1 – 0.9902 or minus 0.98 percent. Investing in a one-year Treasury security results in a loss of 0.98 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).

Current focus is on tapering quantitative easing by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There is sharp distinction between the two measures of unconventional monetary policy: (1) fixing of the overnight rate of fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent; and (2) outright purchase of Treasury and agency securities and mortgage-backed securities for the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Market are overreacting to the so-called “paring” of outright purchases of $85 billion of securities per month for the balance sheet of the Fed (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20131218a.htm):

“In light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions, the Committee decided to modestly reduce the pace of its asset purchases. Beginning in January, the Committee will add to its holdings of agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $35 billion per month rather than $40 billion per month, and will add to its holdings of longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $40 billion per month rather than $45 billion per month. 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 and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee's sizable and still-increasing holdings of longer-term securities should maintain downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative, which in turn should promote a stronger economic recovery and help to ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with the Committee's dual mandate.”

What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Dec 18, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20131218a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view 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. The Committee also reaffirmed its expectation that the current exceptionally low target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent 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 (emphasis added).

There is a critical phrase in the statement of Sep 19, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20130918a.htm): “but mortgage rates have risen further.” Did the increase of mortgage rates influence the decision of the FOMC not to taper? Is FOMC “communication” and “guidance” successful? Will the FOMC increase purchases of mortgage-backed securities if mortgage rates increase?

At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states needs and intentions of policy:

“We have made good progress, but we have farther to go to regain the ground lost in the crisis and the recession. Unemployment is down from a peak of 10 percent, but at 7.3 percent in October, it is still too high, reflecting a labor market and economy performing far short of their potential. At the same time, inflation has been running below the Federal Reserve's goal of 2 percent and is expected to continue to do so for some time.

For these reasons, the Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.”

W = Y/r (10

The argument that anemic population growth causes “secular stagnation” in the US (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941) is as misplaced currently as in the late 1930s (for early dissent see Simons 1942). There is currently population growth in the ages of 16 to 24 years but not enough job creation and discouragement of job searches for all ages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/theory-and-reality-of-secular.html). This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals.

In delivering the biannual report on monetary policy (Board of Governors 2013Jul17), Chairman Bernanke (2013Jul17) advised Congress that:

“Instead, we are providing additional policy accommodation through two distinct yet complementary policy tools. The first tool is expanding the Federal Reserve's portfolio of longer-term Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS); we are currently purchasing $40 billion per month in agency MBS and $45 billion per month in Treasuries. We are using asset purchases and the resulting expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet primarily to increase the near-term momentum of the economy, with the specific goal of achieving a substantial improvement in the outlook for the labor market in a context of price stability. We have made some progress toward this goal, and, with inflation subdued, we intend to continue our purchases until a substantial improvement in the labor market outlook has been realized. We are relying on near-zero short-term interest rates, together with our forward guidance that rates will continue to be exceptionally low--our second tool--to help maintain a high degree of monetary accommodation for an extended period after asset purchases end, even as the economic recovery strengthens and unemployment declines toward more-normal levels. In appropriate combination, these two tools can provide the high level of policy accommodation needed to promote a stronger economic recovery with price stability.

The Committee's decisions regarding the asset purchase program (and the overall stance of monetary policy) depend on our assessment of the economic outlook and of the cumulative progress toward our objectives. Of course, economic forecasts must be revised when new information arrives and are thus necessarily provisional.”

Friedman (1953) argues there are three lags in effects of monetary policy: (1) between the need for action and recognition of the need; (2) the recognition of the need and taking of actions; and (3) taking of action and actual effects. Friedman (1953) finds that the combination of these lags with insufficient knowledge of the current and future behavior of the economy causes discretionary economic policy to increase instability of the economy or standard deviations of real income σ_y and prices σ_p. Policy attempts to circumvent the lags by policy impulses based on forecasts. We are all naïve about forecasting. Data are available with lags and revised to maintain high standards of estimation. Policy simulation models estimate economic relations with structures prevailing before simulations of policy impulses such that parameters change as discovered by Lucas (1977). Economic agents adjust their behavior in ways that cause opposite results from those intended by optimal control policy as discovered by Kydland and Prescott (1977). Advance guidance attempts to circumvent expectations by economic agents that could reverse policy impulses but is of dubious effectiveness. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities).

The key policy is maintaining fed funds rate between 0 and ¼ percent. An increase in fed funds rates could cause flight out of risk financial markets worldwide. There is no exit from this policy without major financial market repercussions. Indefinite financial repression induces carry trades with high leverage, risks and illiquidity. 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 14,164.53 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 16,221.14 on Fri Dec 20, 2013, which is higher by 14.5 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 14.2 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.

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 67.5 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 2, 2010 to Dec 20, 2013; S&P 500 has gained 77.8 percent and DAX 65.8 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 12/20/13” 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 12.5 percent below the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 79.9 percent above the trough. DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 23.9 percent above the trough. Dow Global is 43.0 percent above the trough. STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 24.5 percent above the trough. NYSE Financial Index is 46.7 percent above the trough. DJ UBS Commodities is 2.9 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 65.8 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 79.9 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 39.3 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 15,870.42 on Fri Dec 20, 2013 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 54.8 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 14.7 percent relative to the euro and even higher before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 12/20/13” in Table VI-4 shows decrease of 5.1 percent in the week for China’s Shanghai Composite. DJ Asia Pacific increased 0.4 percent. NYSE Financial increased 2.6 percent in the week. DJ UBS Commodities increased 1.2 percent. Dow Global increased 2.3 percent in the week of Dec 20, 2013. The DJIA increased 3.0 percent and S&P 500 increased 2.4 percent. DAX of Germany increased 4.4 percent. STOXX 50 increased 3.8 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 VI-4 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 12/20/13” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Dec 20, 2013. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 12/20/13” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 12/20/13.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table VI-4: DJIA 44.8 percent, S&P 500 49.4 percent, DAX 48.5 percent, Dow Global 16.7 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 8.5 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 16.8 percent, Nikkei Average 39.3 percent and STOXX 50 5.5 percent. There is only one equity index below the peak: Shanghai Composite by 34.1 percent. DJ UBS Commodities Index is now 12.0 percent below the peak. The US dollar strengthened 9.6 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. Alexandra Scaggs, writing on “Tepid profits, roaring stocks,” on May 16, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487460105747412.html), analyzes stabilization of earnings growth: 70 percent of 458 reporting companies in the S&P 500 stock index reported earnings above forecasts but sales fell 0.2 percent relative to forecasts of increase of 0.5 percent. Paul Vigna, writing on “Earnings are a margin story but for how long,” on May 17, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/17/earnings-are-a-margin-story-but-for-how-long/), analyzes that corporate profits increase with stagnating sales while companies manage costs tightly. More than 90 percent of S&P components reported moderate increase of earnings of 3.7 percent in IQ2013 relative to IQ2012 with decline of sales of 0.2 percent. Earnings and sales have been in declining trend. In IVQ2009, growth of earnings reached 104 percent and sales jumped 13 percent. Net margins reached 8.92 percent in IQ2013, which is almost the same at 8.95 percent in IIIQ2006. Operating margins are 9.58 percent. There is concern by market participants that reversion of margins to the mean could exert pressure on earnings unless there is more accelerated growth of sales. Vigna (op. cit.) finds sales growth limited by weak economic growth. 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. Future company cash flows derive from investment projects. In IQ1980, gross private domestic investment in the US was $951.6 billion of 2009 dollars, growing to $1,143.0 billion in IVQ1986 or 20.1 percent. Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 0.8 percent from $2,605.2 billion of 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,627.2 billion in IIIQ2013. As shown in Table IAI-2, real private fixed investment fell 3.6 percent from $2,586.3 billion of 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,494.0 billion in IIIQ2013. Growth of real private investment is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/global-financial-risk-mediocre-united.html). The investment decision of United States corporations has been fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA fell $26.6 billion in IQ2013 after increasing $34.9 billion in IVQ2012 and $13.9 billion in IIIQ2012. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded with $66.8 billion in IIQ2013 and $39.2 billion in IIIQ2013. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA fell $1.7 billion in IQ2013 after increasing $40.8 billion in IVQ2012 and $4.5 billion in IIIQ2012. In IIQ2013, profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased $56.9 billion and $39.5 billion in IIIQ2013. Anticipation of higher taxes in the “fiscal cliff” episode caused increase of $120.9 billion in net dividends in IVQ2012 followed with adjustment in the form of decrease of net dividends by $103.8 billion in IQ2013, rebounding with $273.5 billion in IIQ2013. Net dividends fell at $179.0 billion in IIIQ2013. There is similar decrease of $80.1 billion in undistributed profits with IVA and CCA in IVQ2012 followed by increase of $102.1 billion in IQ2013 and decline of $216.6 billion in IIQ2013. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA rose at $218.6 billion in IIIQ2013. Undistributed profits of US corporations swelled 382.4 percent from $107.7 billion IQ2007 to $519.5 billion in IIIQ2013 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in billion in IVQ2007 (Section IA2). In IQ2013, corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustment fell $26.6 billion relative to IVQ2012, from $2047.2 billion to $2020.6 billion at the quarterly rate of minus 1.3 percent. In IIQ2013, corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased $66.8 billion from $2020.6 billion in IQ2013 to $2087.4 billion at the quarterly rate of 3.3 percent. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased $39.2 billion from $2087.4 billion in IIQ2013 to $2126.6 billion in IIIQ2013 at the annual rate of 1.9 percent (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp3q13_3rd.pdf). Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment. Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment. The investment decision of US business is fractured. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:

clip_image003

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

clip_image003

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) popularized the view of the elusive relation between stock markets and economic activity in an often-quoted phrase “the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions.” In the presence of zero interest rates forever, valuations of risk financial assets are likely to differ from the performance of the overall economy. The interrelations of financial and economic variables prove difficult to analyze and measure.

Table VI-4, Stock Indexes, Commodities, Dollar and 10-Year Treasury

	Peak	Trough	∆% to Trough	∆% Peak to 12/20/ /13	∆% Week 12/20/13	∆% Trough to 12/20/ 13
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	44.8	3.0	67.5
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	49.4	2.4	77.8
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	16.8	2.6	46.7
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	16.7	2.3	43.0
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	8.5	0.4	23.9
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	39.3	3.0	79.9
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	-34.1	-5.1	-12.5
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	5.5	3.8	24.5
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	48.5	4.4	65.8
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	9.6	0.5	-14.7
DJ UBS Comm.	1/6/ 10	7/2/10	-14.5	-12.0	1.2	2.9
10-Year T Note	4/5/ 10	4/6/10	3.986	2.784	2.891

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

ESII Mediocre and Decelerating United States Economic Growth. Valuations of risk financial assets approach historical highs. Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 17 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the third estimate of GDP for IIIQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp3q13_3rd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,738.0 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,356.9 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,738.0/$14,356.9 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). As a result, there are 28.1 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 17.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/global-financial-risk-mediocre-united.html). The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May).

The economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as decelerating from mediocre growth of 2.5 percent on an annual basis in 2010 to 1.8 percent in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2012. The following calculations show that actual growth is around 2.0 to 2.6 percent per year. This rate is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which the economy of the US always attained for entire cycles in expansions after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). Revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) provide important information on long-term growth and cyclical behavior. Table Summary provides relevant data.

Long-term. US GDP grew at the average yearly rate of 3.3 percent from 1929 to 2012 and at 3.2 percent from 1947 to 2012. There were periodic contractions or recessions in this period but the economy grew at faster rates in the subsequent expansions, maintaining long-term economic growth at trend.
Cycles. The combined contraction of GDP in the two almost consecutive recessions in the early 1980s is 4.7 percent. The contraction of US GDP from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 during the global recession was 4.3 percent. The critical difference in the expansion is growth at average 7.8 percent in annual equivalent in the first four quarters of recovery from IQ1983 to IVQ1983. The average rate of growth of GDP in four cyclical expansions in the postwar period is 7.7 percent. In contrast, the rate of growth in the first four quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 was only 2.7 percent. Average annual equivalent growth in the expansion from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986 was 5.4 percent and 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986. In contrast, average annual equivalent growth in the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013 was only 2.3 percent. The US appears to have lost its dynamism of income growth and employment creation.

Table Summary, Long-term and Cyclical Growth of GDP, Real Disposable Income and Real Disposable Income per Capita

	GDP
Long-Term
1929-2012	3.3
1947-2012	3.2
Cyclical Contractions ∆%
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980, IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	-4.7
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	-4.3
Cyclical Expansions Average Annual Equivalent ∆%
IQ1983 to IVQ1985 IQ1983-IQ1986 IQ1983-IIIQ1986 IQ1983-IVQ1986 IQ1983-IQ1987	5.9 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	7.8
IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013	2.3
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010	2.7
	Real Disposable Income	Real Disposable Income per Capita
Long-Term
1929-2012	3.2	2.0
1947-1999	3.7	2.3
Whole Cycles
1980-1989	3.5	2.6
2006-2012	1.4	0.6

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

The revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) also provide critical information in assessing the current rhythm of US economic growth. The economy appears to be moving at a pace from 2.0 to 2.6 percent per year. Table Summary GDP provides the data.

1. Average Annual Growth in the Past Six Quarters. GDP growth in the four quarters of 2012 and the first three quarters of 2013 accumulated to 3.9 percent. This growth is equivalent to 2.2 percent per year, obtained by dividing GDP in IIIQ2013 of $15,839.3 billion by GDP in IVQ2011 of $15,242.1 billion and compounding by 4/7: {[($15,839.3/$15,242.1)^4/7 -1]100 = 2.2.

2. Average Annual Growth in the First Three Quarters of 2013. GDP growth in the first three quarters of 2013 accumulated to 1.9 percent that is equivalent to 2.6 percent in a year. This is obtained by dividing GDP in IIIQ2013 of $15,839.3 by GDP in IVQ2012 of $15,539.6 and compounding by 4/3: {[($15,839.3/$15,539.6)^4/3 -1]100 = 2.6%}. The US economy grew 2.0 percent in IIIQ2013 relative to the same quarter a year earlier in IIIQ2012. Another important revelation of the revisions and enhancements is that GDP was flat in IVQ2012, which is just at the borderline of contraction. The rate of growth of GDP in the third estimate of IIIQ2013 is 4.1 percent in seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). Inventory accumulation contributed 1.67 percentage points to this rate of growth. The actual rate without this impulse of unsold inventories would have been 2.43 percent, or 0.6 percent in IIIQ2013, such that annual equivalent growth in 2013 is closer to 2.0 percent {[(1.003)(1.006)(1.006)^4/3-1]100 = 2.0%}, compounding the quarterly rates and converting into annual equivalent.

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

	Real GDP, Billions Chained 2009 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	14,996.1	NA	NA	1.9
IVQ2011	15,242.1	1.6	1.2	2.0
IQ2012	15,381.6	2.6	0.9	3.3
IIQ2012	15,427.7	2.9	0.3	2.8
IIIQ2012	15,534.0	3.6	0.7	3.1
IVQ2012	15,539.6	3.6	0.0	2.0
IQ2013	15,583.9	3.9	0.3	1.3
IIQ2013	15,679.7	4.6	0.6	1.6
IIIQ2013	15,839.3	5.6	1.0	2.0
Cumulative ∆% IQ2012 to IIIQ2013	3.9		3.9
Annual Equivalent ∆%	2.2		2.2

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

ESIII Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment. The United States economy has grown at the average yearly rate of 3 percent per year and 2 percent per year in per capita terms from 1870 to 2010, as measured by Lucas (2011May). An important characteristic of the economic cycle in the US has been rapid growth in the initial phase of expansion after recessions.

Inferior performance of the US economy and labor markets is the critical current issue of analysis and policy design. Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 17 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the third estimate of GDP for IIIQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp3q13_3rd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,738.0 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,356.9 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,738.0/$14,356.9 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). As a result, there are 28.1 million unemployed or underemployed in the United States for an effective unemployment rate of 17.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/global-financial-risk-mediocre-united.html). The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). Table IA1-1 provides quarterly seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) of growth of private fixed investment for the recessions of the 1980s and the current economic cycle. In the cyclical expansion beginning in IQ1983 (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html), real private fixed investment in the United States grew at the average annual rate of 14.7 percent in the first eight quarters from IQ1983 to IVQ1984. Growth rates fell to an average of 2.2 percent in the following eight quarters from IQ1985 to IVQ1986. There were only two quarters of contraction of private fixed investment from IQ1983 to IVQ1986. There is quite different behavior of private fixed investment in the seventeen quarters of cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013. The average annual growth rate in the first eight quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2011 was 3.3 percent, which is significantly lower than 14.7 percent in the first eight quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1984. There is only strong growth of private fixed investment in the four quarters of expansion from IIQ2011 to IQ2012 at the average annual rate of 10.5 percent. Growth has fallen from the SAAR of 14.8 percent in IIIQ2011 to 2.7 percent in IIIQ2012, recovering to 11.6 percent in IVQ2012 and falling to minus 1.5 percent in IQ2013. The SAAR of fixed investment rose to 6.5 percent in IIQ2013 and fell to 5.9 percent in IIIQ2013. Sudeep Reddy and Scott Thurm, writing on “Investment falls off a cliff,” on Nov 18, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578123593211825394.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories) analyze the decline of private investment in the US and inform that a review by the Wall Street Journal of filing and conference calls finds that 40 of the largest publicly traded corporations in the US have announced intentions to reduce capital expenditures in 2012. The SAAR of real private fixed investment jumped to 11.6 percent in IVQ2012 but declined to minus 1.5 percent in IQ2013, recovering to 6.5 percent in IIQ2013 and falling to 5.9 percent in IIIQ2013.

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

Q	1981	1982	1983	1984	2008	2009	2010
I	3.8	-12.2	9.4	13.1	-7.1	-27.4	0.8
II	3.2	-12.1	16.0	16.6	-5.5	-14.2	13.6
III	0.1	-9.3	24.4	8.2	-12.1	-0.5	-0.4
IV	-1.5	0.2	24.3	7.3	-23.9	-2.8	8.5
				1985			2011
I				3.7			-0.5
II				5.2			8.6
III				-1.6			14.8
IV				7.8			10.0
				1986			2012
I				1.1			8.6
II				0.1			4.7
III				-1.8			2.7
IV				3.1			11.6
				1987			2013
I				-6.7			-1.5
II				6.3			6.5
III				7.1			5.9
IV				-0.2

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Weak behavior of real private fixed investment from 2007 to 2013 is shown in Chart IA1-2. Growth rates of real private fixed investment were much lower during the initial phase of expansion in the current economic cycle and have entered sharp trend of decline.

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Table IA1-2 provides real private fixed investment at seasonally adjusted annual rates from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 or for the complete economic cycle. The first column provides the quarter, the second column percentage change relative to IVQ2007, the third column the quarter percentage change in the quarter relative to the prior quarter and the final column percentage change in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. In IQ1980, gross private domestic investment in the US was $951.6 billion of 2009 dollars, growing to $1,143.0 billion in IVQ1986 or 20.1 percent. Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 0.8 percent from $2,605.2 billion of 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,627.2 billion in IIIQ2013. As shown in Table IAI-2, real private fixed investment fell 3.6 percent from $2,586.3 billion of 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,494.0 billion in IIIQ2013. Growth of real private investment in Table IA1-2 is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012.

Table IA1-2, US, Real Private Fixed Investment and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions of Chained 2009 Dollars and ∆%

	Real PFI, Billions Chained 2009 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	2586.3	NA	-1.2	-1.4
IQ2008	2539.1	-1.8	-1.8	-3.0
IIQ2008	2503.4	-3.2	-1.4	-4.6
IIIQ2008	2424.1	-6.3	-3.2	-7.1
IV2008	2263.8	-12.5	-6.6	-12.5
IQ2009	2089.3	-19.2	-7.7	-17.7
IIQ2009	2011.0	-22.2	-3.7	-19.7
IIIQ2009	2008.4	-22.3	-0.1	-17.1
IVQ2009	1994.1	-22.9	-0.7	-11.9
IQ2010	1997.9	-22.8	0.2	-4.4
IIQ2010	2062.8	-20.2	3.2	2.6
IIIQ2010	2060.8	-20.3	-0.1	2.6
IVQ2010	2103.1	-18.7	2.1	5.5
IQ2011	2100.7	-18.8	-0.1	5.1
IIQ2011	2144.4	-17.1	2.1	4.0
IIIQ2011	2219.8	-14.2	3.5	7.7
IVQ2011	2273.4	-12.1	2.4	8.1
IQ2012	2320.8	-10.3	2.1	10.5
IIQ2012	2347.9	-9.2	1.2	9.5
IIIQ2012	2363.5	-8.6	0.7	6.5
IVQ2012	2429.1	-6.1	2.8	6.8
IQ2013	2420.0	-6.4	-0.4	4.3
IIQ2013	2458.4	-4.9	1.6	4.7
IIIQ2013	2,494.0	-3.6	1.4	5.5

PFI: Private Fixed Investment

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

Chart IA1-3 provides real private fixed investment in billions of chained 2009 dollars from IQ2007 to IIIQ2013. Real private fixed investment has not recovered, stabilizing at a level in IIIQ2013 that is 3.6 percent below the level in IVQ2007.

Chart IA1-3, US, Real Private Fixed Investment, Billions of Chained 2009 Dollars, IQ2007 to IIIQ2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart IA1-4 provides real gross private domestic investment in chained dollars of 2009 from 1980 to 1986. Real gross private domestic investment climbed 20.1 percent to $1143.0 billion of 2009 dollars in IVQ1986 above the level of $951.6 billion in IQ1980.

Chart IA1-4, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2009 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 1980-1986

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart IA1-5 provides real gross private domestic investment in the United States in billions of dollars of 2009 from 2006 to 2013. Gross private domestic investment reached a level of $2627.2 in IIIQ2013, which was 0.8 percent higher than the level of $2605.2 billion in IVQ2007 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm).

Chart IA1-5, US, Real Gross Private Domestic Investment, Billions of Chained 2009 Dollars at Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, 2007-2013

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

ESIV Swelling Undistributed Corporate Profits. Table IA1-5 provides value added of corporate business, dividends and corporate profits in billions of current dollars at seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) in IVQ2007 and IIIQ2013 together with percentage changes. The last three rows of Table IA1-5 provide gross value added of nonfinancial corporate business, consumption of fixed capital and net value added in billions of chained 2009 dollars at SAARs. Deductions from gross value added of corporate profits down the rows of Table IA1-5 end with undistributed corporate profits. Profits after taxes with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and capital consumption adjustment (CCA) increased by 103.6 percent in nominal terms from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 while net dividends increased 11.7 percent and undistributed corporate profits swelled 382.4 percent from $107.7 billion in IQ2007 to $519.5 billion in IIQ2013 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in current dollars in IVQ2007. The investment decision of United States corporations has been fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash. Gross value added of nonfinancial corporate business adjusted for inflation increased 5.4 percent from IVQ2007 to IIQ2013, which is much lower than nominal increase of 16.6 percent in the same period for gross value added of total corporate business.

Table IA1-5, US, Value Added of Corporate Business, Corporate Profits and Dividends, IVQ2007-IQ2013

	IVQ2007	IIIQ2013	∆%
Current Billions of Dollars Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR)
Gross Value Added of Corporate Business	8,165.9	9,521.0	16.6
Consumption of Fixed Capital	1,216.5	1,429.5	17.5
Net Value Added	6,949.4	8,091.5	16.4
Compensation of Employees	4,945.8	5,414.3	9.5
Taxes on Production and Imports Less Subsidies	688.5	759.1	10.3
Net Operating Surplus	1,315.1	1,918.1	45.9
Net Interest and Misc	204.2	118.1	-42.2
Business Current Transfer Payment Net	68.9	93.2	35.3
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustments	1,042.0	1,706.8	63.8
Taxes on Corporate Income	408.8	417.8	2.2
Profits after Tax with IVA and CCA Adjustment	633.2	1,289.0	103.6
Net Dividends	689.1	769.4	11.7
Undistributed Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustment	-55.9	519.5	NA ∆% 382.4 relative to 107.7 in IQ2007
Billions of Chained USD 2009 SAAR
Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Corporate Business	7,519.3	7,924.2	5.4
Consumption of Fixed Capital	1,066.0	1,173.1	10.0
Net Value Added	6,453.4	6,751.1	4.6

IVA: Inventory Valuation Adjustment; CCA: Capital Consumption Adjustment

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

Table IA1-6 provides comparable United States value added of corporate business, corporate profits and dividends from IQ1980 to IVQ1986. There is significant difference both in nominal and inflation-adjusted data. Between IQ1980 and IVQ1986, profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased 66.6 percent with dividends growing 118.6 percent and undistributed profits increasing 15.5 percent. There was much higher inflation in the 1980s than in the current cycle. For example, the consumer price index for all items not seasonally adjusted increased 37.9 percent between Mar 1980 and Dec 1986 but only 11.5 percent between Dec 2007 and Sep 2013 (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm). The comparison is still valid in terms of inflation-adjusted data: gross value added of nonfinancial corporate business adjusted for inflation increased 25.5 percent between IQ1980 and IVQ1986 but only 5.4 percent between IVQ2007 and IIIQ2013 while net value added adjusted for inflation increased 24.3 percent between IQ1980 and IVQ1986 but only 4.6 percent between IVQ2007 and IIIQ2013.

Table IA1-6, US, Value Added of Corporate Business, Corporate Profits and Dividends, IQ1980-IVQ1985

	IQ1980	IVQ1986	∆%
Current Billions of Dollars Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR)
Gross Value Added of Corporate Business	1,654.1	2,756.0	66.6
Consumption of Fixed Capital	200.5	357.7	78.4
Net Value Added	1,453.6	2,398.4	65.0
Compensation of Employees	1,072.9	1,765.1	64.5
Taxes on Production and Imports Less Subsidies	121.5	224.5	84.8
Net Operating Surplus	259.2	408.7	57.7
Net Interest and Misc.	50.4	106.0	110.3
Business Current Transfer Payment Net	11.5	26.3	128.7
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustments	197.2	276.4	40.2
Taxes on Corporate Income	97.0	118.5	22.2
Profits after Tax with IVA and CCA Adjustment	100.2	158.0	57.7
Net Dividends	40.9	89.4	118.6
Undistributed Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustment	59.3	68.5	15.5
Billions of Chained USD 2009 SAAR
Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Corporate Business	2,952.3	3,704.6	25.5
Consumption of Fixed Capital	315.6	428.0	35.6
Net Value Added	2,636.7	3,276.6	24.3

IVA: Inventory Valuation Adjustment; CCA: Capital Consumption Adjustment

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

Chart IA1-12 of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis provides quarterly corporate profits after tax and undistributed profits with IVA and CCA from 1979 to 2013. There is tightness between the series of quarterly corporate profits and undistributed profits in the 1980s with significant gap developing from 1988 and to the present with the closest approximation peaking in IVQ2005 and surrounding quarters. These gaps widened during all recessions including in 1991 and 2001 and recovered in expansions with exceptionally weak performance in the current expansion.

Chart IA1-14, US, Corporate Profits after Tax and Undistributed Profits with Inventory Valuation Adjustment and Capital Consumption Adjustment, Quarterly, 1979-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Table IA1-7 provides price, costs and profit per unit of gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate income for IVQ2007 and IIIQ2013 in the upper block and for IQ1980 and IVQ1986 in the lower block. Compensation of employees or labor costs per unit of gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate income hardly changed from 0.577 in IVQ2007 to 0.600 in IIIQ2013 in a fractured labor market but increased from 0.340 in IQ1980 to 0.436 in IVQ1986 in a more vibrant labor market. Unit nonlabor costs increased mildly from 0.270 per unit of gross value added in IVQ2007 to 0.296 in IIIQ2013 but increased from 0.124 in IQ1980 to 0.181 in IVQ1986 in an economy closer to full employment of resources. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA per unit of gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate income increased from 0.076 in IVQ2007 to 0.123 in IIIQ2013 and from 0.029 in IQ1980 to 0.037 in IVQ1986.

Table IA1-7, US, Price, Costs and Profit per Unit of Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Domestic Corporate Income

	IVQ2007	IIIQ2013
Price per Unit of Real Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Corporate Business	0.961	1.052
Compensation of Employees (Unit Labor Cost)	0.577	0.600
Unit Nonlabor Cost	0.270	0.296
Consumption of Fixed Capital	0.140	0.157
Taxes on Production and Imports less Subsidies plus Business Current Transfer Payments (net)	0.093	0.099
Net Interest and Misc. Payments	0.037	0.040
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustment (Unit Profits from Current Production)	0.114	0.157
Taxes on Corporate Income	0.038	0.033
Profits after Tax with IVA and CCA Adjustment	0.076	0.123
	IQ1980	IVQ1986
Price per Unit of Real Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Corporate Business	0.518	0.678
Compensation of Employees (Unit Labor Cost)	0.340	0.436
Unit Nonlabor Cost	0.124	0.181
Consumption of Fixed Capital	0.064	0.087
Taxes on Production and Imports less Subsidies plus Business Current Transfer Payments (net)	0.042	0.064
Net Interest and Misc. Payments	0.018	0.030
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA Adjustment (Unit Profits from Current Production)	0.055	0.060
Taxes on Corporate Income	0.026	0.023
Profits after Tax with IVA and CCA Adjustment	0.029	0.037

IVA: Inventory Valuation Adjustment; CCA: Capital Consumption Adjustment

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

Chart IA1-13 provides quarterly profits after tax with IVA and CCA per unit of gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate income from 1980 to 2013. In an environment of idle labor and other productive resources nonfinancial corporate income increased after tax profits with IVA and CCA per unit of gross value added at a faster pace in the weak economy from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 than in the vibrant expansion of the cyclical contractions of the 1980s. Part of the profits was distributed as dividends and significant part was retained as undistributed profits in the current economic cycle with frustrated investment decision.

Chart IA1-15, US, Profits after Tax with Inventory Valuation Adjustment and Capital Consumption Adjustment per Unit of Gross Value Added of Nonfinancial Domestic Corporate Income, 1980-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Table IA1-8 provides seasonally adjusted annual rates of change of corporate profits from IVQ2012 to IIIQ2013. US corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and capital consumption adjustment (CCA) fell 1.3 percent in IQ2013 and 0.1 percent after taxes. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded at 3.3 percent in IIQ2013 and at 3.5 percent after taxes. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased at 1.9 percent in IIIQ2013 and 2.4 percent after taxes. Net dividends jumped 16.2 percent in IVQ2012 in generalized anticipation of income because of fear of the so-called “fiscal cliff,” or increases in taxes in 2013, and fell 12.0 percent in IQ2013 in adjustment to normal levels. Net dividends jumped at 35.8 percent in IIQ2013 and fell at 17.3 percent in IIIQ2013. Undistributed profits fell 9.7 percent in IVQ2012 in anticipation of tax increases and adjusted by increasing 13.7 percent in IQ2013. Undistributed profits fell at 25.5 percent in IIQ2013 and increased at 34.6 percent in IIIQ2013.

Table IA1-8, Quarterly Seasonally Adjusted Annual Equivalent Percentage Rates of Change of Corporate Profits, ∆%

	IVQ2012	IQ2013	IIQ2013	IIIQ2013
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA	1.7	-1.3	3.3	1.9
Corporate Income Taxes	-1.3	-5.8	2.4	-0.1
After Tax Profits with IVA and CCA	2.6	-0.1	3.5	2.4
Net Dividends	16.2	-12.0	35.8	-17.3
Und Profits with IVA and CCA	-9.7	13.7	-25.5	34.6

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

Table IA1-9 provides change from prior quarter of the level of seasonally adjusted annual rates of US corporate profits. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA fell $26.6 billion in IQ2013 after increasing $34.9 billion in IVQ2012 and $13.9 billion in IIIQ2012. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded with $66.8 billion in IIQ2013 and $39.2 billion in IIIQ2013. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA fell $1.7 billion in IQ2013 after increasing $40.8 billion in IVQ2012 and $4.5 billion in IIIQ2012. In IIQ2013, profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased $56.9 billion and $39.5 billion in IIIQ2013. Anticipation of higher taxes in the “fiscal cliff” episode caused increase of $120.9 billion in net dividends in IVQ2012 followed with adjustment in the form of decrease of net dividends by $103.8 billion in IQ2013, rebounding with $273.5 billion in IIQ2013. Net dividends fell at $179.0 billion in IIIQ2013. There is similar decrease of $80.1 billion in undistributed profits with IVA and CCA in IVQ2012 followed by increase of $102.1 billion in IQ2013 and decline of $216.6 billion in IIQ2013. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA rose at $218.6 billion in IIIQ2013. Undistributed profits of US corporations swelled 382.4 percent from $107.7 billion IQ2007 to $519.5 billion in IIIQ2013 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in billion in IVQ2007 (Section IA2). In IQ2013, corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustment fell $26.6 billion relative to IVQ2012, from $2047.2 billion to $2020.6 billion at the quarterly rate of minus 1.3 percent. In IIQ2013, corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased $66.8 billion from $2020.6 billion in IQ2013 to $2087.4 billion at the quarterly rate of 3.3 percent. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA increased $39.2 billion from $2087.4 billion in IIQ2013 to $2126.6 billion in IIIQ2013 at the annual rate of 1.9 percent (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2013/pdf/gdp3q13_3rd.pdf). Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment.

Table IA1-9, Change from Prior Quarter of Level of Seasonally Adjusted Annual Equivalent Rates of Corporate Profits, Billions of Dollars

	IVQ2012	IQ2013	IIQ2013	IIIQ2013
Corporate Profits with IVA and CCA	34.9	-26.6	66.8	39.2
Corporate Income Taxes	-5.9	-25.0	10.0	-0.4
After Tax Profits with IVA and CCA	40.8	-1.7	56.9	39.5
Net Dividends	120.9	-103.8	273.5	-179.0
Und Profits with IVA and CCA	-80.1	102.1	-216.6	218.6

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

ESV Unresolved US Balance of Payments Deficits and Fiscal Imbalance Threatening Risk Premium on Treasury Securities. The current account of the US balance of payments is provided in Table IIA2-1 for IIIQ2012 and IIIQ2013. The US has a large deficit in goods or exports less imports of goods but it has a surplus in services that helps to reduce the trade account deficit or exports less imports of goods and services. The current account deficit of the US not seasonally adjusted decreased from $122.5 billion in IIIQ2012 to $110.1 billion in IIIQ2013. The current account deficit seasonally adjusted at annual rate fell from 2.6 percent of GDP in IIIQ2012 to 2.3 percent of GDP in IIQ2013 and 2.2 percent of GDP in IIIQ2013. The ratio of the current account deficit to GDP has stabilized around 3 percent of GDP compared with much higher percentages before the recession but is combined now with much higher imbalance in the Treasury budget (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 183-94, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 167-71).

Table IIA2-1, US, Balance of Payments, Millions of Dollars NSA

	IIIQ2012	IIIQ2013	Difference
Goods Balance	-197,538	-197,137	4,010
X Goods	382,343	392,155	2.6 ∆%
M Goods	-579,881	-589,292	1.6 ∆%
Services Balance	52,940	61,771	8,813
X Services	166,800	177,595	6.5 ∆%
M Services	-113,860	-115,824	1.7 ∆%
Balance Goods and Services	-144,599	-135,366	-9,233
Balance Income	55,269	60,519	5,250
Unilateral Transfers	-33,140	-35,208	2,068
Current Account Balance	-122,470	-110,055	-12,415
% GDP	IIIQ2012	IIIQ2013	IIQ2013
	2.6	2.2	2.3

X: exports; M: imports

Balance on Current Account = Balance on Goods and Services + Balance on Income + Unilateral Transfers

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop

In their classic work on “unpleasant monetarist arithmetic,” Sargent and Wallace (1981, 2) consider a regime of domination of monetary policy by fiscal policy (emphasis added):

“Imagine that fiscal policy dominates monetary policy. The fiscal authority independently sets its budgets, announcing all current and future deficits and surpluses and thus determining the amount of revenue that must be raised through bond sales and seignorage. Under this second coordination scheme, the monetary authority faces the constraints imposed by the demand for government bonds, for it must try to finance with seignorage any discrepancy between the revenue demanded by the fiscal authority and the amount of bonds that can be sold to the public. Suppose that the demand for government bonds implies an interest rate on bonds greater than the economy’s rate of growth. Then if the fiscal authority runs deficits, the monetary authority is unable to control either the growth rate of the monetary base or inflation forever. If the principal and interest due on these additional bonds are raised by selling still more bonds, so as to continue to hold down the growth of base money, then, because the interest rate on bonds is greater than the economy’s growth rate, the real stock of bonds will growth faster than the size of the economy. This cannot go on forever, since the demand for bonds places an upper limit on the stock of bonds relative to the size of the economy. Once that limit is reached, the principal and interest due on the bonds already sold to fight inflation must be financed, at least in part, by seignorage, requiring the creation of additional base money.”

The alternative fiscal scenario of the CBO (2012NovCDR, 2013Sep17) resembles an economic world in which eventually the placement of debt reaches a limit of what is proportionately desired of US debt in investment portfolios. This unpleasant environment is occurring in various European countries.

The current real value of government debt plus monetary liabilities depends on the expected discounted values of future primary surpluses or difference between tax revenue and government expenditure excluding interest payments (Cochrane 2011Jan, 27, equation (16)). There is a point when adverse expectations about the capacity of the government to generate primary surpluses to honor its obligations can result in increases in interest rates on government debt.

This analysis suggests that there may be a point of saturation of demand for United States financial liabilities without an increase in interest rates on Treasury securities. A risk premium may develop on US debt. Such premium is not apparent currently because of distressed conditions in the world economy and international financial system. Risk premiums are observed in the spread of bonds of highly indebted countries in Europe relative to bonds of the government of Germany.

The issue of global imbalances centered on the possibility of a disorderly correction (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b) 183-94, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 167-71). Such a correction has not occurred historically but there is no argument proving that it could not occur. The need for a correction would originate in unsustainable large and growing United States current account deficits (CAD) and net international investment position (NIIP) or excess of financial liabilities of the US held by foreigners net relative to financial liabilities of foreigners held by US residents. The IMF estimated that the US could maintain a CAD of two to three percent of GDP without major problems (Rajan 2004). The threat of disorderly correction is summarized by Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 15):

“It is possible that foreigners may be unwilling to increase their positions in US financial assets at prevailing interest rates. An exit out of the dollar could cause major devaluation of the dollar. The depreciation of the dollar would cause inflation in the US, leading to increases in American interest rates. There would be an increase in mortgage rates followed by deterioration of real estate values. The IMF has simulated that such an adjustment would cause a decline in the rate of growth of US GDP to 0.5 percent over several years. The decline of demand in the US by four percentage points over several years would result in a world recession because the weakness in Europe and Japan could not compensate for the collapse of American demand. The probability of occurrence of an abrupt adjustment is unknown. However, the adverse effects are quite high, at least hypothetically, to warrant concern.”

The United States could be moving toward a situation typical of heavily indebted countries, requiring fiscal adjustment and increases in productivity to become more competitive internationally. The CAD and NIIP of the United States are not observed in full deterioration because the economy is well below potential. There are two complications in the current environment relative to the concern with disorderly correction in the first half of the past decade. In the release of Jun 14, 2013, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/transactions/2013/pdf/trans113.pdf) informs of revisions of US data on US international transactions since 1999:

“The statistics of the U.S. international transactions accounts released today have been revised for the first quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter of 2012 to incorporate newly available and revised source data, updated seasonal adjustments, changes in definitions and classifications, and improved estimating methodologies.”

Table IIA2-2 provides data on the US fiscal and balance of payments imbalances. In 2007, the federal deficit of the US was $161 billion corresponding to 1.1 percent of GDP while the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2013Sep11) estimates the federal deficit in 2012 at $1087 billion or 6.8 percent of GDP. The combined record federal deficits of the US from 2009 to 2012 are $5090 billion or 31.6 percent of the estimate of GDP for fiscal year 2012 implicit in the CBO (CBO 2013Sep11) estimate of debt/GDP. The deficits from 2009 to 2012 exceed one trillion dollars per year, adding to $5.090 trillion in four years, using the fiscal year deficit of $1087 billion for fiscal year 2012, which is the worst fiscal performance since World War II. Federal debt in 2007 was $5035 billion, less than the combined deficits from 2009 to 2012 of $5090 billion. Federal debt in 2012 was 70.1 percent of GDP (CBO 2013Sep11). This situation may worsen in the future (CBO 2013Sep17):

“Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy. Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely.

The gap between federal spending and revenues would widen steadily after 2015 under the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects. By 2038, the deficit would be 6½ percent of GDP, larger than in any year between 1947 and 2008, and federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP, more than in any year except 1945 and 1946. With such large deficits, federal debt would be growing faster than GDP, a path that would ultimately be unsustainable.

Incorporating the economic effects of the federal policies that underlie the extended baseline worsens the long-term budget outlook. The increase in debt relative to the size of the economy, combined with an increase in marginal tax rates (the rates that would apply to an additional dollar of income), would reduce output and raise interest rates relative to the benchmark economic projections that CBO used in producing the extended baseline. Those economic differences would lead to lower federal revenues and higher interest payments. With those effects included, debt under the extended baseline would rise to 108 percent of GDP in 2038.”

Table IIA2-2, US, Current Account, NIIP, Fiscal Balance, Nominal GDP, Federal Debt and Direct Investment, Dollar Billions and %

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Goods & Services	-699	-702	-384	-499	-557	-535
Income	101	146	124	178	233	224
UT	-115	-125	-122	-128	-134	-130
Current Account	-713	-681	-382	-449	-458	-440
NGDP	14480	14720	14418	14958	15534	16245
Current Account % GDP	-4.9	-4.6	-2.6	-3.0	-2.9	-2.7
NIIP	-1796	-3260	-2275	-2250	-3730	-3863
US Owned Assets Abroad	18400	19464	18558	20555	21636	21638
Foreign Owned Assets in US	20196	22724	20833	22805	25366	25501
NIIP % GDP	-12.4	-22.1	-15.8	-15.0	-24.0	-23.8
Exports Goods Services Income	2487	2654	2185	2523	2874	2987
NIIP % Exports Goods Services Income	-72	-123	-104	-89	-130	-129
DIA MV	5274	3102	4322	4809	4514	5249
DIUS MV	3551	2486	2995	3422	3510	3924
Fiscal Balance	-161	-459	-1413	-1294	-1296	-1087
Fiscal Balance % GDP	-1.1	-3.1	-9.8	-8.7	-8.4	-6.8
Federal Debt	5035	5803	7545	9019	10128	11281
Federal Debt % GDP	35.1	39.3	52.3	61.0	65.8	70.1
Federal Outlays	2729	2983	3518	3456	3598	3537
∆%	2.8	9.3	17.9	-1.8	4.1	-1.7
% GDP	19.0	20.2	24.4	23.4	23.4	22.0
Federal Revenue	2568	2524	2105	2162	2302	2450
∆%	6.7	-1.7	-16.6	2.7	6.5	6.4
% GDP	17.9	17.1	14.6	14.6	15.0	15.2

Sources:

Notes: UT: unilateral transfers; NGDP: nominal GDP or in current dollars; NIIP: Net International Investment Position; DIA MV: US Direct Investment Abroad at Market Value; DIUS MV: Direct Investment in the US at Market Value. There are minor discrepancies in the decimal point of percentages of GDP between the balance of payments data and federal debt, outlays, revenue and deficits in which the original number of the CBO source is maintained. These discrepancies do not alter conclusions. Budget http://www.cbo.gov/ Balance of Payments and NIIP http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Table IIA2-3 provides quarterly estimates NSA of the external and internal imbalances of the United States. The current account deficit seasonally adjusted falls from 3.0 percent of GDP in IQ2012 to 2.5 percent in IQ2013 and 2.3 percent of GDP in IIQ2013. The net international investment position increases from $3.9 trillion in IQ2012 to $4.3 trillion in IQ2013 and $4.5 trillion in IIQ2013.

Table IIA2-3, US, Current Account, NIIP, Fiscal Balance, Nominal GDP, Federal Debt and Direct Investment, Dollar Billions and % NSA

	IIQ2012	IIIQ2012	IVQ2012	IQ2013	IIQ2013
Goods & Services	-145	-145	-122	-100	-126
Income	58	55	55	52	57
UT	-31	-33	-32	-34	-33
Current Account	-118	-123	-99	-82	-102
Current Account % GDP	-2.7	-2.6	-2.5	-2.5	-2.3
NIIP	-4332	-4109	-3863	-4236	-4504
US Owned Assets Abroad	20948	21551	21638	21590	20984
Foreign Owned Assets in US	-25280	-25660	-25501	-25826	-25488
DIA MV	4679	5059	5249	5501	5430
DIUS MV	3765	3962	3924	4251	4343

Sources:

Notes: UT: unilateral transfers; NIIP: Net International Investment Position; DIA MV: US Direct Investment Abroad at Market Value; DIUS MV: Direct Investment in the US at Market Value..

Sources: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop

ESVIA World Inflation Waves. 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 3.2 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 7.5 percent in Mar-Apr 2013 with worldwide portfolio reallocation toward equities and high-yield bonds and away from commodity exposures. (12) Inflation of producer prices returned at 5.2 percent in annual equivalent in May-Aug 2013. (13) Continuing reallocation of investment portfolios away from commodities into equities is causing downward pressure on prices. In Sep-Nov 2013, the US producer price index fell at the annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent. 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 prices at a faster pace than 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 and relative portfolio reallocation away from commodities and into equities and high-yield bonds. 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. Lower inflation recently originates in portfolio reallocations away from commodity exposures into equities. 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. The result is 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 ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% May-Aug 2013	5.2
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2013	-7.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	5.5
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-3.2
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 ∆% Nov 2013	1.2
AE ∆% Oct 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Sep 2013	3.3
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-5.5
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.0
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-2.1
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.8
China Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	1.8
AE ∆% Mar-Jul 2013	-4.9
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	2.4
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 ∆% Oct 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2013	1.6
AE ∆% Mar-Jun 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Oct 2012	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	6.8
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	7.9
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-0.6
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	11.3
Germany Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Nov	-1.8 NSA –1.8 SA
AE ∆% Sep	3.7 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Aug 2013	-1.8 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2013	-2.4 NSA –3.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	7.4 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-0.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	4.3 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8 NSA –0.4 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.9 NSA 2.0 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4 NSA 3.2 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4 NSA 6.2 SA
France Producer Price Index for the French Market
AE ∆% Oct 2013	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2013	-11.0
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-4.1
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	7.4
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-4.3
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 ∆% Oct 2013	-14.5
AE ∆% Jun-Sep 2013	0.3
AE ∆% Apr-May 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	1.2
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 ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	2.0
AE ∆% Jun-Aug 2013	2.0
AE ∆% Apr-May 2013	-0.6
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	4.1
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-3.5
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Nov 2011-Jan-2012	1.2
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	1.6
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.0
UK Input Prices
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2013	-8.6
AE ∆% Jul 2013	18.2
AE ∆% Mar-Jun 2013	-9.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	24.6
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	3.0
AE ∆% Aug 2012	23.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jul 2012	-16.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	14.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2011	0.0
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	-1.3
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	30.6
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2010	31.8

AE: Annual Equivalent

Sources: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ http://www.boj.or.jp/en/

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 3.5 percent annual equivalent in Mar-Apr 2013. (12) Inflation rose at 2.7 percent in annual equivalent in May-Sep 2013. (3) Inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 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→∞ in 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-Nov 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 and increased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Apr 2013. Adjustment to lower food prices caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 7.0 percent in May 2013 and minus 3.5 percent in annual equivalent in May-Jun 2013. Inflation in China returned at annual equivalent 4.6 percent in Jul-Oct 2013, falling at 1.2 percent in annual equivalent in Nov 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 10.0 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. As in most countries and regions, euro zone inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent in Apr 2013. Prices in the euro zone rose at 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2013. Inflation in the euro zone fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jul 2013. Inflation returned in the euro zone at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2013. Euro zone inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 2.4 percent in Oct-Nov 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 inflation of producer prices in the UK in Jul-Oct 2012 at 4.1 percent for output prices and 23.9 percent for input prices in Aug 2012 (see Table IA-1). Consumer prices in the UK fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jan 2013. Inflation returned in the UK with annual equivalent 4.3 percent in Feb-May 2013 and fell at 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2013. UK annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.0 percent in Aug-Nov 2013.

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

Index 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-0.6
AE ∆% May-Sep 2013	2.7
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2013	-3.5
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 ∆% Nov 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2013	4.6
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Apr 2013	2.4
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 ∆% Oct-Nov	-2.4
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Jul 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	1.2
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-1.2
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 ∆% Nov 2013	2.4 NSA 2.4 SA
AE ∆% Oct 2013	-2.4 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	0.0 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2013	4.1 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-5.8 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	4.9 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-1.2 NSA 0.6 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.5 NSA 2.4 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 ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Aug 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Jul 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	1.8
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	2.7
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-0.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.3
Italy Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-3.2
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Aug 2013	2.0
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 ∆% Aug-Nov 2013	3.0
AE ∆% Jun-Jul 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Feb-May 2013	4.3
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

ESVI Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates. Long-term economic growth in Japan significantly improved by increasing competitiveness in world markets. Net trade of exports and imports is an important component of the GDP accounts of Japan. Table VB-9 provides quarterly data for net trade, exports and imports of Japan. Net trade had strong positive contributions to GDP growth in Japan in all quarters from IQ2007 to IIQ2009 with exception of IVQ2008, IIIQ2008 and IQ2009. The US recession is dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as beginning in IVQ2007 (Dec) and ending in IIQ2009 (Jun) (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html). Net trade contributions helped to cushion the economy of Japan from the global recession. Net trade deducted from GDP growth in seven of the nine quarters from IVQ2010 IQ2012. The only strong contribution of net trade was 3.9 percent in IIIQ2011. Net trade added 1.6 percentage points to GDP growth in IQ2013 and 0.6 percentage points in IIQ2013 but deducted 1.9 percentage points in IIIQ2013. Private consumption assumed the role of driver of Japan’s economic growth but should moderate as in most mature economies.

Table VB-9, Japan, Contributions to Changes in Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR), %

	Net Trade	Exports	Imports
2013
I	1.6	2.2	-0.7
II	0.6	1.7	-1.1
III	-1.9	-0.4	-1.5
2012
I	0.4	1.6	-1.2
II	-1.3	-0.3	-1.0
III	-2.1	-2.3	0.2
IV	-0.6	-1.8	1.2
2011
I	-1.2	-0.5	-0.7
II	-4.3	-4.7	0.4
III	3.9	5.8	-1.9
IV	-3.1	-1.9	-1.2
2010
I	2.1	3.4	-1.3
II	0.1	2.7	-2.6
III	0.5	1.4	-0.9
IV	-0.5	0.1	-0.5
2009
I	-4.4	-16.4	12.0
II	7.4	4.7	2.7
III	2.2	5.2	-3.0
IV	2.7	4.1	-1.4
2008
I	1.1	2.1	-1.0
II	0.5	-1.6	2.1
III	0.0	0.2	-0.1
IV	-11.5	-10.2	-1.3
2007
I	1.1	1.7	-0.5
II	0.8	1.6	-0.8
III	2.0	1.4	0.6
IV	1.4	2.1	-0.7

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html

http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html

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 VB-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 IV-5 trends down with oscillations after a brief rise in the final part of the recession in 2009. The export corporate goods price index on the yen basis fell from 104.9 in Jun 2009 to 94.0 in Jan 2012 or minus 10.4 percent and increased to 107.8 in Nov 2013 for a gain of 14.7 percent relative to Jan 2012 and 2.8 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 VB-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 VB-1A 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 103.1 in Apr 2012 or 5.3 percent but dropped to 100.2 in Apr 2013 or minus 2.8 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gained 1.0 percent to 98.9 in Nov 2013 relative to Jun 2009.

Chart VB-1A, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

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 VB-2 shows an upward trend after declining from the increase during the global recession in 2008 driven by carry trades from fed funds rates. The index increases with carry trades from zero interest rates into commodity futures and declines 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 113.1 in Apr 2012 or 21.0 percent and to 124.5 in Nov 2013 or gain of 10.1 percent relative to Apr 2012 and 33.2 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart VB-2, 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 VB-2A 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 119.5 in Apr 2012 or 38.6 percent and to 112.7 in Nov 2013 or minus 5.7 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gain of 30.7 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 1.0 percent from Jun 2009 to Nov 2013 while the import corporate goods price index increased 30.7 percent. Prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 5.3 percent from Jun 2009 to Apr 2012, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 38.6 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. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.

Chart VB-2A, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Table VB-10 provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Nov 2013. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Nov 2013, the export index on the contract currency basis decreased 0.3 percent and decreased 6.7 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Nov 2013, the import index increased 11.9 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 4.6 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 VB-10, 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	99.0	99.9	99.8
2010/08	99.1	97.3	99.5	97.5
2010/09	99.4	97.0	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	94.0	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	98.7	119.5	113.1
2012/05	102.3	96.3	118.1	109.8
2012/06	101.4	95.0	115.2	106.7
2012/07	100.6	94.0	112.0	103.5
2012/08	100.9	94.1	112.4	103.6
2012/09	101.0	94.1	114.7	105.2
2012/10	101.1	94.8	113.8	105.2
2012/11	100.9	95.9	113.2	106.5
2012/12	100.7	98.0	113.4	109.5
2013/01	101.0	102.4	113.8	115.4
2013/02	101.5	105.9	114.8	120.2
2013/03	101.3	106.6	115.1	122.0
2013/04	100.2	107.5	114.1	123.8
2013/05	99.6	109.1	112.6	125.3
2013/06	99.2	106.1	112.0	121.2
2013/07	99.0	107.4	111.6	122.9
2013/08	98.9	106.0	111.7	121.3
2013/09	99.0	107.1	112.9	123.9
2013/10	99.0	106.5	112.9	122.7
2013/11	98.9	107.8	112.7	124.5

Source: Bank of Japan http://www.boj.or.jp/en/

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

Chart VB-3 provides the monthly corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan from 1970 to 2013. Japan also experienced sharp increase in inflation during the 1970s as in the episode of the Great Inflation in the US. Monetary policy focused on accommodating higher inflation, with emphasis solely on the mandate of promoting employment, has been blamed as deliberate or because of model error or imperfect measurement for creating the Great Inflation (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 Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). A remarkable similarity with US experience is the sharp rise of the CGPI of Japan in 2008 driven by carry trades from policy interest rates rapidly falling to zero to exposures in commodity futures during a global recession. Japan had the same sharp waves of consumer price inflation during the 1970s as in the US (see Chart IV-1 and associated table at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/exit-risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world_1.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or_561.html and at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/increasing-interest-rate-risk_1.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/recovery-without-jobs-stagnating-real_09.html).

Chart VB-3, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 1970-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

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

The producer price index of the US from 1970 to 2013 in Chart VB-4 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 supporti1ng 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 VB-4, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 1970-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table VB-11. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent decreased 0.3 percent in Nov 2013 and increased 12.6 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 0.3 percent in Nov 2013 and decreased 1.1 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 (for analysis of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez (1979, 1976a). There are now inflation effects of the intentional policy of devaluing the yen.

Table VB-11, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%

Oct 2013	Weight	Month ∆%	12 Month ∆%
Total	1000.0	0.1	2.7
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs	137.5	0.0	0.7
Petroleum & Coal	57.4	-0.3	12.6
Production Machinery	30.8	0.3	-1.1
Electronic Components	31.0	-0.1	-1.8
Electric Power, Gas & Water	52.7	-0.5	10.8
Iron & Steel	56.6	0.2	4.4
Chemicals	92.1	-0.1	3.9
Transport Equipment	136.4	0.0	-0.5

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1311.pdf

Percentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Oct 2013 are provided in Table VB-12 divided into domestic, export and import segments. In the domestic CGPI, increasing 0.1 percent in Nov 2013, the energy shock is evident in the deduction of 0.03 percentage points by electric power, gas and water in new reversal of carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 0.1 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.09 percentage points by electric and electronic products. The imports CGPI decreased 0.2 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal and natural gas products deducted 0.13 percentage points. 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 VB-12, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index

Groups Nov 2013	Contribution to Change Percentage Points
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index	Monthly Change: 0.1%
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products	0.05
Scrap & Waste	0.04
Iron & Steel	0.02
Electric Power, Gas & Water	-0.03
Petroleum & Coal Products	-0.02
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.01
B. Export Price Index	Monthly Change: -0.1 % contract currency
Electric & Electronic Products	-0.09
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.06
Transportation Equipment	-0.02
General Purpose, Production & Business Oriented Machinery	0.05
Metals & Related Products	0.02
C. Import Price Index	Monthly Change: –0.2 % contract currency basis
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas	-0.13
Metals & Related Products	-0.02
Chemicals & Related Products	0.03

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1311.pdf

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 IV-5 provides indexes for the two categories and within them for the two types of prices from Jan 2011 to Dec 2013. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs decreased from 16.13 in Dec 2012 to 15.66 in Nov 2013 while the index of current prices received or sales prices increased from 1.08 in Dec 2012 to 3.61 in Nov 2013. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. Prices paid or of inputs at 15.66 in Dec 2013 are expanding more rapidly than prices received or of sales of products at 3.61. 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 48.19 in Dec 2013 while the index of future prices received or expectation of sales prices in the next six months increased from 25.81 in Dec 2012 to 27.71 in Dec 2013. Priced paid or of inputs are expected to increase at a faster pace in the next six months than prices received or prices of sales products. 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, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Instability of sales/costs margins discourages investment and hiring.

Table IV-5, 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
Dec 2013	15.66	3.61	48.19	27.71
Nov	17.11	-3.95	42.11	17.11
Oct	21.69	2.41	45.78	25.30
Sep	21.51	8.60	39.78	24.73
Aug	20.48	3.61	40.96	19.28
Jul	17.39	1.09	28.26	11.96
Jun	20.97	11.29	45.16	17.74
May	20.45	4.55	29.55	14.77
Apr	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 IV-6. As inflation waves throughout the world (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world.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 decreased from 23.5 in Dec 2012 to 20.1 in Dec 2013. The index of current prices received was minus 3.3 in May 2013, indicating decrease of prices received. The index of current prices received increased from 12.4 in Dec 2012 to 12.9 in Dec 2013. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs at 20.1 in Dec 2013 indicates faster increase than the index of current prices received or sales prices of production at 12.9. The index of future prices paid decreased to 43.7 in Dec 2013 from 45.8 in Dec 2012 while the index of future prices received increased from 25.6 in Dec 2012 to 33.6 in Dec 2013. Expectations are incorporating faster increases in prices of inputs or costs of production, 43.7 in Dec 2013, than of sales of produced goods, 33.6 in Dec 2013, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Volatility of margins of sales/costs discourage investment and hiring.

Table IV-6, 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 Received
10-Dec	44.3	6.6	59.6	25.3
11-Jan	48.9	11.9	58.3	34.4
11-Feb	58.9	13.1	62.1	33.3
11-Mar	57.5	16.8	60.2	31.8
11-Apr	49.4	19.8	54.2	32.4
11-May	47.7	18.5	52.7	27.6
11-Jun	38.9	8.1	38.3	6.8
11-Jul	35.6	6	49.6	16.7
11-Aug	23.3	-4.7	44.3	22.7
11-Sep	31.6	7.6	41.8	21.8
11-Oct	25.4	4.1	44.5	28.4
11-Nov	26.3	7.6	39	29.1
11-Dec	27.5	8.2	46.7	23.5
12-Jan	27.1	7.9	47.2	21.9
12-Feb	30.2	9.7	43.5	28.6
12-Mar	14.3	5.4	35.9	22
12-Apr	16	5.3	33.3	18.6
12-May	5.4	-2.2	37.2	8.3
12-Jun	5.4	-3.4	29.6	16.6
12-Jul	10.3	4.2	29.3	19.6
12-Aug	15.7	4.7	38	23.9
12-Sep	15.4	4	42.8	27.4
12-Oct	20.6	8.4	48.1	16.1
12-Nov	27.9	7.5	50.7	14
12-Dec	23.5	12.4	45.8	25.6
13-Jan	14.7	-1.1	34.3	21.7
13-Feb	8.9	-0.5	26.4	25.4
13-Mar	8.5	-0.8	30.9	16.6
13-Apr	3.1	-7.5	26.6	8.3
13-May	6.9	-3.3	30.7	18.2
13-Jun	22.5	14.6	26.4	23.5
13-Jul	21.5	7.0	42.1	23.9
13-Aug	17.3	9.9	38.7	23
13-Sep	25.3	12.7	43.1	31.7
13-Oct	21.7	14.2	46.1	35.6
13-Nov	29.9	10.0	46.9	38.4
13-Dec	20.1	12.9	43.7	33.6

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

http://www.phil.frb.org/index.cfm

Chart IV-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 and flows of capital away from commodities into stocks and high-yield bonds caused sharp decline in the index of prices paid followed by another recent rebound with marginal decline and new increase. The index falls in the final segment.

Chart IV-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 IV-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 IV-1 and the index of current prices received in Chart IV-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 pursued by unconventional monetary policy.

Chart IV-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

ESVII United States Industrial Production. Industrial production increased 1.1 percent in Nov 2013 after increasing 0.1 percent in Oct 2013 and increasing 0.5 percent in Se 2013, as shown in Table I-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 increased 1.1 percent in November after having edged up 0.1 percent in October; output was previously reported to have declined 0.1 percent in October. The gain in November was the largest since November 2012, when production rose 1.3 percent. Manufacturing output increased 0.6 percent in November for its fourth consecutive monthly gain. Production at mines advanced 1.7 percent to more than reverse a decline of 1.5 percent in October. The index for utilities was up 3.9 percent in November, as colder-than-average temperatures boosted demand for heating. At 101.3 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production was 3.2 percent above its year-earlier level. In November, industrial production surpassed for the first time its pre-recession peak of December 2007 and was 21 percent above its trough of June 2009. Capacity utilization for the industrial sector increased 0.8 percentage point in November to 79.0 percent, a rate 1.2 percentage points below its long-run (1972-2012) average.”

In the six months ending in Nov 2013, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 2.2 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 4.5 percent, which is higher than growth of 3.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. Excluding growth of 1.1 percent in Nov 2013, growth in the remaining five months from Jun 2012 to Oct 2013 accumulated to 1.1 percent or 2.2 percent annual equivalent. Industrial production fell in one of the past six months. Business equipment accumulated growth of 1.4 percent in the six months from Jun to Nov 2013 at the annual equivalent rate of 2.8 percent, which is higher than growth of 2.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. The Fed analyzes capacity utilization of total industry in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm): “Capacity utilization for the industrial sector increased 0.8 percentage point in November to 79.0 percent, a rate 1.2 percentage points below its long-run (1972-2012) average.” United States industry apparently decelerated to a lower growth rate with possible acceleration in Nov 2013.

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

2012-2013	Nov 13	Oct 13	Sep 13	Aug 13	Jul 13	Jun 13	Nov 13/ Nov 12
Total	1.1	0.1	0.5	0.5	-0.2	0.2	3.2
Market Groups
Final Products	0.9	0.0	0.9	0.6	-1.0	0.4	2.4
Consumer Goods	1.5	-0.1	0.8	0.5	-1.1	0.3	2.7
Business Equipment	-0.5	0.2	1.1	0.7	-0.8	0.7	2.2
Non Industrial Supplies	0.9	0.3	0.8	0.3	0.1	0.1	3.6
Construction	0.6	0.6	1.0	0.2	0.3	0.6	4.9
Materials	1.4	0.2	0.1	0.5	0.5	0.0	3.8
Industry Groups
Manufacturing	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.7	-0.5	0.3	2.9
Mining	1.7	-1.5	0.8	0.4	1.6	1.1	5.2
Utilities	3.9	-0.3	3.2	-0.9	-0.2	-2.0	2.8
Capacity	79.0	78.2	78.3	78.0	77.7	79.0	1.8

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Manufacturing increased 0.6 percent in No 2013 after increasing 0.5 percent in Oct 2013 and increasing 0.1 percent in Sep 2013 seasonally adjusted, increasing 3.0 percent not seasonally adjusted in 12 months ending in Nov 2013, as shown in Table I-2. Manufacturing grew cumulatively 1.7 percent in the six months ending in Nov 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent. Excluding the increase of 0.6 percent in Nov 2013, manufacturing accumulated growth of 1.1 percent from Jun 2013 to Oct 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 2.2 percent. Table I-2 provides a longer perspective of manufacturing in the US. 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 weakness 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 I-2 shows decline of manufacturing by 21.9 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increase by 16.8 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2012. Manufacturing grew 20.5 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Nov 2013. Manufacturing output in Nov 2013 is 5.9 percent below the peak in Jun 2007.

Table I-2, US, Monthly and 12-Month Rates of Growth of Manufacturing ∆%

	Month SA ∆%	12-Month NSA ∆%
Nov 2013	0.6	3.0
Oct	0.5	3.7
Sep	0.1	2.5
Aug	0.7	2.6
Jul	-0.5	1.4
Jun	0.3	1.8
May	0.3	1.8
Apr	-0.3	2.2
Mar	-0.2	1.8
Feb	0.6	1.9
Jan	-0.1	2.4
Dec 2012	0.9	3.0
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 93.9456 in 12/2012		-8.8
∆% Peak 103.0005 on 06/2007 to Trough 80.4617 in 4/2009		-21.9
∆% Trough 80.4617 in 04/2009 to 93.9456 in 12/2012		16.8
∆% Trough 80.4617 in 04/2009 to 96.9199 in 11/2013		20.5
∆% Peak 103.0005 on 06/2007 to Trough 96.9199 in 11/2013		-5.9

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

ESVIII Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation and Productivity Growth. There is current interest in past theories of “secular stagnation.” Alvin H. Hansen (1939, 4, 7; see Hansen 1938, 1941; for an early critique see Simons 1942) argues:

“Not until the problem of full employment of our productive resources from the long-run, secular standpoint was upon us, were we compelled to give serious consideration to those factors and forces in our economy which tend to make business recoveries weak and anaemic (sic) and which tend to prolong and deepen the course of depressions. This is the essence of secular stagnation-sick recoveries which die in their infancy and depressions which feed on themselves and leave a hard and seemingly immovable core of unemployment. Now the rate of population growth must necessarily play an important role in determining the character of the output; in other words, the com-position of the flow of final goods. Thus a rapidly growing population will demand a much larger per capita volume of new residential building construction than will a stationary population. A stationary population with its larger proportion of old people may perhaps demand more personal services; and the composition of consumer demand will have an important influence on the quantity of capital required. The demand for housing calls for large capital outlays, while the demand for personal services can be met without making large investment expenditures. It is therefore not unlikely that a shift from a rapidly growing population to a stationary or declining one may so alter the composition of the final flow of consumption goods that the ratio of capital to output as a whole will tend to decline.”

The argument that anemic population growth causes “secular stagnation” in the US (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941) is as misplaced currently as in the late 1930s (for early dissent see Simons 1942). Youth workers would obtain employment at a premium in an economy with declining population. In fact, there is currently population growth in the ages of 16 to 24 years but not enough job creation and discouragement of job searches for all ages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/theory-and-reality-of-secular.html). This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. Inferior performance of the US economy and labor markets is the critical current issue of analysis and policy design.

In revealing research, Edward P. Lazear and James R. Spletzer (2012JHJul22) use the wealth of data in the valuable database and resources of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/) in providing clear thought on the nature of the current labor market of the United States. The critical issue of analysis and policy currently is whether unemployment is structural or cyclical. Structural unemployment could occur because of (1) industrial and demographic shifts and (2) mismatches of skills and job vacancies in industries and locations. Consider the aggregate unemployment rate, Y, expressed in terms of share s_i of a demographic group in an industry i and unemployment rate y_i of that demographic group (Lazear and Spletzer 2012JHJul22, 5-6):

Y = ∑_is_iy_i (1)

This equation can be decomposed for analysis as (Lazear and Spletzer 2012JHJul22, 6):

∆Y = ∑_i∆s_iy*_i+ ∑_i∆y_is*_i (2)

The first term in (2) captures changes in the demographic and industrial composition of the economy ∆s_i multiplied by the average rate of unemployment y*_i, or structural factors. The second term in (2) captures changes in the unemployment rate specific to a group, or ∆y_i, multiplied by the average share of the group s*_i,or cyclical factors. There are also mismatches in skills and locations relative to available job vacancies. A simple observation by Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) casts intuitive doubt on structural factors: the rate of unemployment jumped from 4.4 percent in the spring of 2007 to 10 percent in October 2009. By nature, structural factors should be permanent or occur over relative long periods. The revealing result of the exhaustive research of Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) is:

“The analysis in this paper and in others that we review do not provide any compelling evidence that there have been changes in the structure of the labor market that are capable of explaining the pattern of persistently high unemployment rates. The evidence points to primarily cyclic factors.”

The theory of secular stagnation cannot explain sudden collapse of the US economy and labor markets. The theory of secular stagnation departs from an aggregate production function in which output grows with the use of labor, capital and technology (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 11-6). 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.”

Chart VA-7 provides nonfarm-business labor productivity, measured by output per hour, from 1947 to 2013. The rate of productivity increase continued in the early part of the 2000s but then softened and fell during the global recession. The interruption of productivity increases occurred exclusively in the current business cycle. Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) find “primarily cyclic” factors in explaining the frustration of currently depressed labor markets in the United States. Stagnation of productivity is another cyclic event and not secular trend. The theory and application of secular stagnation to current US economic conditions is void of reality.

Chart VA-7, US, Nonfarm Business Labor Productivity, Output per Hour, 1947-2013, Index 2005=100

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

Unit labor costs increased sharply during the Great Inflation from the late 1960s to 1981 as shown by sharper slope in Chart VA-8. Unit labor costs continued to increase but at a lower rate because of cyclic factors and not because of imaginary secular stagnation.

Chart VA-8, US, Nonfarm Business, Unit Labor Costs, 1947-2013, Index 2005=100

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

Real hourly compensation increased at relatively high rates after 1947 to the early 1970s but reached a plateau that lasted until the early 1990s, as shown in Chart VA-9. There were rapid increases until the global recession. Cyclic factors and not alleged secular stagnation explain the interruption of increases in real hourly compensation.

Chart VA-6, US, Nonfarm Business, Real Hourly Compensation, 1947-2013, Index 2005=100

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

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment