CMP Associates Regulation Blog: Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

Executive Summary

I Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets

IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation

II United States Housing

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

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

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

Executive Summary

Contents of Executive Summary

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

ESII Peaking Valuation of Risk Financial Assets since 2006

ESIII Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation

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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.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 by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. 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 $2249 billion, or $2.2 trillion, of 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 differ from 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 Jan 3, 2014

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	5.42
12/19/13	0.09	2.94	5.36
12/26/13	0.08	3.00	5.37
1/2/2014	0.08	3.00	5.34

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 State, 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 Jan 3, 2014, Dec 31, 2013, May 1, 2013, Jan 3, 2013 and Jan 3, 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 3.04 percent on Dec 31, 2013 and 3.01 percent on Jan 3, 2014, as measured by the United States Treasury. Assume that a bond with maturity in 10 years were issued on Dec 31, 2013, at par or price of 100 with coupon of 1.45 percent. The price of that bond would be 86.3778 with instantaneous increase of the yield to 3.04 percent for loss of 13.6 percent and far more with leverage. Assume that the yield of a bond with exactly ten years to maturity and coupon of 3.01 percent as occurred on Jan 3, 2013 would jump instantaneously from yield of 3.01 percent on Jan 3, 2014 to 4.37 percent as occurred on Jan 3, 2006 when the economy was closer to full employment. The price of the hypothetical bond issued with coupon of 3.01 percent would drop from 100 to 89.0770 after an instantaneous increase of the yield to 4.37 percent. The price loss would be 10.9 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

	1/3/14	12/31/13	5/01/13	1/3/13	1/3/06
1 M	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.06	4.05
3 M	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.08	4.16
6 M	0.10	0.10	0.08	0.12	4.40
1 Y	0.13	0.13	0.11	0.15	4.38
2 Y	0.41	0.38	0.20	0.27	4.34
3 Y	0.80	0.78	0.30	0.40	4.30
5 Y	1.73	1.75	0.65	0.81	4.30
7 Y	2.42	2.45	1.07	1.31	4.32
10 Y	3.01	3.04	1.66	1.92	4.37
20 Y	3.69	3.72	2.44	2.70	4.62
30 Y	3.93	3.96	2.83	3.12	NA

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 4.53 percent on Jan 2, 2014, which is the last data point in Chart VI-13.

Chart VI-13, US, Conventional Mortgage Rate, Jan 8, 2004 to Jan 2, 2014

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.”

“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).”

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 16,469.99 on Fri Jan 3, 2014, which is higher by 16.3 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 16.0 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 70.0 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 2, 2010 to Jan 3, 2014; S&P 500 has gained 79.1 percent and DAX 66.4percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 1/3/14” 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 12.6 percent below the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 84.6 percent above the trough. DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 25.8 percent above the trough. Dow Global is 44.5 percent above the trough. STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 26.6 percent above the trough. NYSE Financial Index is 48.6 percent above the trough. DJ UBS Commodities is 0.7 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 66.4 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 84.6 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 43.0 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 16,291.31 on Fri Jan 3, 2014 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 58.9 percent higher than 10,254.43 on Mar 11, 2011, on the date of the Tōhoku or Great East Japan Earthquake/tsunami. Global risk aversion erased the earlier gains of the Nikkei. The dollar depreciated by 14.0 percent relative to the euro and even higher before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 1/3/14” in Table VI-4 shows decrease of 0.9 percent in the week for China’s Shanghai Composite. DJ Asia Pacific increased 0.2 percent. NYSE Financial decreased 0.1 percent in the week. DJ UBS Commodities decreased 2.1 percent. Dow Global decreased 0.7 percent in the week of Jan 3, 2014. The DJIA decreased 0.1 percent and S&P 500 decreased 0.5 percent. DAX of Germany decreased 1.6 percent. STOXX 50 decreased 0.4 percent. The USD appreciated 1.1 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 1/3/14” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Jan 3, 2014. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 1/3/14” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 1/3/14.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table VI-4: DJIA 47.0 percent, S&P 500 50.4 percent, DAX 49.0 percent, Dow Global 17.9 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 10.2 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 18.3 percent, Nikkei Average 43.0 percent and STOXX 50 7.2 percent. There is only one equity index below the peak: Shanghai Composite by 34.2 percent. DJ UBS Commodities Index is now 13.9 percent below the peak. The US dollar strengthened 10.2 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 1/3/ /14	∆% Week 1/3/14	∆% Trough to 1/3/ 14
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	47.0	-0.1	70.0
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	50.4	-0.5	79.1
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	18.3	-0.1	48.6
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	17.9	-0.7	44.5
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	10.2	0.2	25.8
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	43.0	0.7	84.6
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	-34.2	-0.9	-12.6
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	7.2	-0.4	26.6
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	49.0	-1.6	66.4
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	10.2	1.1	-14.0
DJ UBS Comm.	1/6/ 10	7/2/10	-14.5	-13.9	-2.1	0.7
10-Year T Note	4/5/ 10	4/6/10	3.986	2.784	2.99

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 Peaking Valuation of Risk Financial Assets since 2006. Percentage changes of risk financial assets from the last day of the year relative to the last day of the earlier year are in Table I-1 from 2007 to 2013. Calendar year 2013 was excellent for most equity indexes. Nikkei Average outperformed all equity indexes in Table I-1 in 2013 with increase of 56.7 percent after 22.9 percent in 2012. The second highest increase is 26.5 percent for the Dow Jones Industrials Average (DJIA). DAX of Germany gained 25.5 percent. NYSE Financial increased 24.2 percent and Dow Global 24.5 percent. Dow Asia Pacific gained 10.2 percent while S&P 500 increased 15.6 percent. The USD depreciated 4.2 percent relative to the EUR and the DJ UBS Commodities Index fell 9.6 percent. China’s Shanghai Composite fell 6.7 percent. Equities also outperformed in calendar year 2012. DAX gained 29.1 percent and NYSE Financial 25.9 percent. Nikkei Average gained 22.9 percent in 2012. S&P increased 13.4 percent and DJIA 7.3 percent. Shanghai Composite increased 3.2 percent. Dow Global increased 10.8 percent and Dow Asia Pacific 13.1 percent. DJ UBS Commodities fell 1.1 percent. The only gain for a major equity index in Table I-1 for 2011 is 5.5 percent for the DJIA. S&P 500 is better than other equity markets by remaining flat for 2011. With the exception of a drop of 8.4 percent of the European equity index STOXX 50, all declines of equity markets in 2011 are in excess of 10 percent. China’s Shanghai Composite lost 21.7 percent. The equity index of Germany DAX fell 14.7 percent. The DJ UBS Commodities Index dropped 13.4 percent. Robin Wigglesworth, writing on Dec 30, 2011, on “$6.3tn wiped off markets in 2011,” published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/483069d8-32f3-11e1-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1i2BE7OPa), provides an estimate of $6.3 trillion erased from equity markets globally in 2011. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates US nominal GDP in 2011 at $15,533.8 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The loss in equity markets worldwide in 2011 of $6.3 trillion is equivalent to about 40.6 percent of US GDP or economic activity in 2011. Table I-1 also provides the exchange rate of number of US dollars (USD) required in buying a unit of euro (EUR), USD/EUR. The dollar appreciated 3.2 percent on the last day of trading in 2011 relative to the last day of trading in 2010, suggesting risk aversion. Depreciation of the dollar by 2.0 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013 suggests more favorable environment of risk appetite for carry trades from zero interest rates into risk financial assets. The final row of Table I-1 provides the yield of the ten-year Treasury, increasing to 3.030 percent in 2013, which is the highest since 3.292 percent in 2010 and 3.844 percent in 2008. The yield at year-end 2007 was 4.077 percent.

Table I-1, Percentage Change of Year-end Values of Financial Assets Relative to Earlier Year-end Values 2007-2013 and Year-end Yield of 10-Year Treasury Note

∆%	2013	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007
DJIA	26.5	7.3	5.5	11.0	18.8	-33.8	6.1
S&P 500	15.6	13.4	0.0	12.8	23.5	-38.5	3.1
NYSE Fin	24.2	25.9	-18.1	5.0	22.7	-53.6	-13.5
Dow Global	24.5	10.8	-13.7	4.6	30.8	-45.5	30.9
Dow Asia-Pacific	10.2	13.1	-17.6	16.0	36.4	-44.2	14.2
Nikkei Av	56.7	22.9	-17.3	-3.0	20.6	-42.9	-10.8
Shanghai	-6.7	3.2	-21.7	-11.9	73.9	-65.2	104.9
STOXX 50	13.3	8.8	-8.4	-0.1	28.5	-44.6	-2.2
DAX	25.5	29.1	-14.7	16.1	23.8	-40.4	22.0
USD/EUR*	-4.2	-2.0	3.2	6.7	-3.0	4.7	-10.7
DJ UBS Com	-9.6	-1.1	-13.4	16.7	18.7	-36.6	11.2
Year-end Yield 10-Year Treasury %	3.030	1.758	2.027	3.292	3.844	2.157	4.077

*Negative sign is dollar devaluation; positive sign is dollar appreciation

Sources: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata

The other yearly percentage changes in Table I-2 are also revealing wide fluctuations in valuations of risk financial assets. To be sure, economic conditions and perceptions of the future do influence valuations of risk financial assets. It is also valid to contend that unconventional monetary policy magnifies fluctuations in these valuations by inducing carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures with high leverage in risk financial assets such as equities, emerging equities, currencies, high-yield structured products and commodities futures and options. In fact, one of the alleged channels of transmission of unconventional monetary policy is through higher consumption induced by increases in wealth resulting from higher valuations of stock markets. Unconventional monetary policy could also result in magnification of values of risk financial assets beyond actual discounted future cash flows, creating financial instability. Separating all these effects in practice may be quite difficult because they are observed simultaneously. Conclusive evidence would require contrasting what actually happened with the counterfactual of what would have happened in the absence of unconventional monetary policy and other effects (on counterfactuals see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State Vol I (2008a), 125, 136, Harberger (1971, 1997), Fishlow 1965, Fogel 1964, Fogel and Engerman 1974, North and Weingast 1989, Pelaez 1979, 26-7). There is no certainty or evidence that unconventional policies attain their intended effects without risks of costly side effects. Yearly fluctuations of financial assets in Table I-1 are quite wide. In 2007, for example, the equity index Dow Global increased 30.9 percent while Dax gained 22.0 percent and the Shanghai Composite jumped 104.9 percent. The DJIA gained only 6.1 percent as recession began in IVQ2007. The flight to government obligations in 2008 (Cochrane and Zingales 2009, Cochrane 2011Jan) was equivalent to the astronomical declines of world equity markets and commodities. The flight from risk is also in evidence in the appreciation of the dollar by 4.7 percent in 2008 with unwinding carry trades and with renewed carry trades in the depreciation of the dollar by 3.0 percent in 2009. Recovery still continued in 2010 with shocks of the European debt crisis in the spring and in Nov 2010. The flight from risk exposures dominated declines of valuations of risk financial assets in 2011.

Table I-2 is designed to provide a comparison of valuations of risk financial assets at the end of 2013 relative to valuations at the end of every year from 2006 to 2012. For example, the DJIA index is 26.5 percent higher at the end of 2013 relative to the valuation at the end of 2012, 25.0 percent above the valuation at the end of 2007 and 32.6 percent higher relative to the valuation at the end of 2006. It is higher by 88.9 percent at the end of 2013 relative to the depressed valuation at the end of 2008. Several indexes are still lower at the end of 2013 relative to the values at the end of 2007 with exception of gains of 25.0 for DJIA, 12.3 percent for S&P 500, 6.4 percent for Nikkei Average and 18.4 percent for DAX. Some equity indexes are higher at the end of 2013 relative to the end of 2006: DJIA by 32.6 percent, S&P by 15.7 percent, Dow Global by 16.2 percent, Dow Asia Pacific by 3.6 percent and DAX by 44.5 percent. Although the Nikkei Average increased 56.7 percent in 2013 relative to 2012, it is still 5.1 percent lower than in 2006 but 6.4 percent higher than in 2007. At the end of 2013, Dow Global is 11.3 percent lower than at the end of 2007 and 16.2 percent higher than at the end of 2006. The Shanghai Composite is 59.8 percent lower than at the end of 2007 and 17.6 percent lower than at the end of 2006. DJ UBS Commodities is 32.0 percent lower at the end of 2013 relative to 2007 and 24.4 percent lower relative to 2006. The USD is 5.9 stronger at the end of 2013 relative to 2007 and 4.2 percent lower relative to 2006. Low valuations of risk financial assets are intimately related to risk aversion in international financial markets because of the European debt crisis, weakness and unemployment in advanced economies, fiscal imbalances and slowing growth worldwide. Valuations of stock indexes for the US and Germany are peaking at the turn of 2013 into 2014 relative to 2007 and 2006.

Table I-2, Percentage Change of Year-end 2012 Values of Financial Assets Relative to Year-end Values 2006-2011

	∆% 2013/ 2012	∆% 2013/ 2011	∆% 2013/ 2010	∆% 2013/2009	∆% 2013/ 2008	∆% 2013/2007	∆% 2013/ 2006
DJIA	26.5	35.7	43.2	58.9	88.9	25.0	32.6
S&P 500	15.6	31.1	31.1	47.8	82.5	12.3	15.7
NYSE Fin	24.2	56.4	28.1	34.6	65.1	-23.5	-33.8
Dow Global	24.5	38.0	19.1	24.6	62.9	-11.3	16.2
Dow Asia-Pacific	10.2	24.7	2.7	19.1	62.5	-9.3	3.6
Nikkei Av	56.7	92.7	59.3	54.5	86.2	6.4	-5.1
Shanghai	-6.7	-3.8	-24.6	-33.6	5.0	-59.8	-17.6
STOXX 50	13.3	23.2	12.9	12.7	44.9	-19.7	-21.4
DAX	25.5	61.9	38.2	60.3	98.6	18.4	44.5
USD/EUR*	-4.2	-6.2	-2.8	4.1	1.3	5.9	-4.2
DJ UBS Com	-9.6	-10.6	-22.6	-9.7	7.3	-32.0	-24.4

*Negative sign is dollar devaluation; positive sign is dollar appreciation

Sources: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata

The valuable report on Financial Accounts of the United States formerly Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States provided by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/ http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/fof/) is rich in important information and analysis. Table I-3, updated in this blog for every new quarterly release, shows the balance sheet of US households combined with nonprofit organizations in 2007, 2011, 2012 and IIIQ2013. The data show the strong shock to US wealth during the contraction. Assets fell from $82.4 trillion in 2007 to $78.4 trillion in 2011 even after nine consecutive quarters of growth beginning in IIIQ2009 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html http://wwwdev.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html), for decline of $4.0 trillion or 4.9 percent. Assets stood at $84.5 trillion in 2012 for gain of $2.1 trillion relative to $82.4 trillion in 2007 or increase by 2.6 percent. Assets increased to $90.9 trillion in IIIQ2013 by $8.5 trillion relative to 2007 or 10.4 percent. Liabilities declined from $14.4 trillion in 2007 to $13.6 trillion in 2011 or by $825.8 billion equivalent to decline by 5.7 percent. Liabilities declined $795.0 billion or 5.5 percent from 2007 to 2012 and increased 0.2 percent from 2011 to 2012. Liabilities fell from $14.4 trillion in 2007 to $13.7 trillion in IIIQ2013, by $714.8 billion or decline of 5.0 percent. Net worth shrank from $68.0 trillion in 2007 to $64.9 trillion in 2011, that is, $3.1 trillion equivalent to decline of 4.6 percent. Net worth increased from $67,990.3 billion in 2007 to $77,259.3 billion in IIIQ2013 by $9,269.0 billion or 13.6 percent. The US consumer price index for all items increased from 210.036 in Dec 2007 to 234.149 in Sep 2013 (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm) or 11.5 percent. Net worth adjusted by CPI inflation increased 1.9 percent from 2007 to IIIQ2013. Nonfinancial assets fell $1,228.7 billion from $28,272.8 billion in 2007 to $27,044.1 billion in IIIQ2013 or 4.3 percent. There was brutal decline from 2007 to IIIQ2013 of $1.839 trillion in real estate assets or by 7.8 percent. The National Association of Realtors estimated that the gains in net worth in homes by Americans were about $4 trillion between 2000 and 2005 (quoted in Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 224-5).

Table I-3, US, Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations, Billions of Dollars Outstanding End of Period, NSA

	2007	2011	2012	IIIQ2013
Assets	82,384.1	78,448.9	84,526.0	90,938.3
Nonfinancial	28,272.8	23,278.9	25,004.5	27,044.1
Real Estate	23,449.8	18,124.3	19,709.0	21,610.9
Durable Goods	4,476.0	4,726.4	4,848.0	4,973.7
Financial	54,111.3	55,170.0	59,521.5	63,894.2
Deposits	7,564.0	8,738.9	9,184.5	9,274.7
Credit Market	5,036.7	5,489.0	5,627.9	5,500.1
Mutual Fund Shares	4,682.9	4,449.2	5,293.7	6,193.9
Equities Corporate	10,118.3	9,049.9	10,327.0	12,104.6
Equity Noncorporate	9,097.3	7,495.6	8,181.0	8,820.2
Pension	14,956.6	17,115.2	18,075.1	19,098.4
Liabilities	14,393.8	13,568.0	13,598.8	13,679.0
Home Mortgages	10,610.3	9,677.8	9,436.9	9,373.3
Consumer Credit	2,616.6	2,757.0	2,924.3	3,039.5
Net Worth	67,990.3	64,881.0	70,927.3	77,259.3

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2013. Flow of funds, balance sheets and integrated macroeconomic accounts: third quarter 2013. Washington, DC, Federal Reserve System, Dec 9.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

The apparent improvement in Table I-8 is mostly because of increases in valuations of risk financial assets by the carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged exposures in risk financial assets such as stocks, high-yield bonds, emerging markets, commodities and so on. Zero interest rates also act to increase net worth by reducing debt or liabilities. The net worth of households has become an instrument of unconventional monetary policy by zero interest rates in the theory that increases in net worth increase consumption that accounts for 68.2 percent of GDP in IIIQ2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html), generating demand to increase aggregate economic activity and employment. There are neglected and counterproductive risks in unconventional monetary policy. Between 2007 and IIIQ2013, real estate fell in value by $1838.9 billion and financial assets increased $9782.9 billion for net gain of real estate and financial assets of $7944.0 billion, explaining most of the increase in net worth of $9269.0 billion obtained by adding the decrease in liabilities of $714.8 billion to the increase of assets of $8554.2 billion. Net worth increased from $67,990.3 billion in 2007 to $77,259.3 billion in IIIQ2013 by $9269.0 billion or 13.6 percent. The US consumer price index for all items increased from 210.036 in Dec 2007 to 234.149 in Sep 2013 (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm) or 11.5 percent. Net worth adjusted by CPI inflation increased 1.9 percent from 2007 to IIIQ2013. There are multiple complaints that unconventional monetary policy concentrates income on wealthier individuals because of their holdings of financial assets while the middle class has gained less because of fewer holdings of financial assets and higher share of real estate in family wealth. There is nothing new in these arguments. Interest rate ceilings on deposits and loans have been commonly used. The Banking Act of 1933 imposed prohibition of payment of interest on demand deposits and ceilings on interest rates on time deposits. These measures were justified by arguments that the banking panic of the 1930s was caused by competitive rates on bank deposits that led banks to engage in high-risk loans (Friedman, 1970, 18; see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 74-5). The objective of policy was to prevent unsound loans in banks. Savings and loan institutions complained of unfair competition from commercial banks that led to continuing controls with the objective of directing savings toward residential construction. Friedman (1970, 15) argues that controls were passive during periods when rates implied on demand deposit were zero or lower and when Regulation Q ceilings on time deposits were above market rates on time deposits. The Great Inflation or stagflation of the 1960s and 1970s changed the relevance of Regulation Q. Friedman (1970, 26-7) predicted the future:

“The banks have been forced into costly structural readjustments, the European banking system has been given an unnecessary competitive advantage, and London has been artificially strengthened as a financial center at the expense of New York.”

In short, Depression regulation exported the US financial system to London and offshore centers. What is vividly relevant currently from this experience is the argument by Friedman (1970, 27) that the controls affected the most people with lower incomes and wealth who were forced into accepting controlled-rates on their savings that were lower than those that would be obtained under freer markets. As Friedman (1970, 27) argues:

“These are the people who have the fewest alternative ways to invest their limited assets and are least sophisticated about the alternatives.” 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 I-8, US, Difference of Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations Billions of Dollars from 2007 to 2011 and 2012

	Value 2007	Change to 2011	Change to 2012	Change to IIIQ2013
Assets	82,384.1	-3,935.2	2,141.9	8,554.2
Nonfinancial	28,272.8	-4,993.9	-3,268.3	-1,228.7
Real Estate	23,449.8	-5,325.5	-3,740.8	-1,838.9
Financial	54,018.1	1,058.7	5,410.2	9,782.9
Liabilities	14,371.1	-825.8	-795.0	-714.8
Net Worth	67,990.3	-3,109.3	2,937.0	9,269.0

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

Source: Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

The comparison of net worth of households and nonprofit organizations in the entire economic cycle from IQ1980 (and from IVQ1979) to IQ1987 and from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 is provided in Table I-9. The data reveal the following facts for the cycles in the 1980s:

IVQ1979 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 94.1 percent from IVQ1979 to IQ1987, the all items CPI index increased 46.2 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 32.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 65.7 percent, the all items CPI index increased 36.5 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 21.4 percent.
IVQ1979 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 69.4 percent, the all items CPI index increased 42.5 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 18.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 89.9 percent, the all items CPI index increased 39.9 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 35.7 percent.

There is disastrous performance in the current economic cycle:

IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013. Net worth increased 13.6 percent, the all items CPI increased 11.5 percent from 210.036 in Dec 2007 to 234.149 in Sep 2013 and real or inflation adjusted net worth increased 1.9 percent.

The explanation is partly in the sharp decline of wealth of households and nonprofit organizations and partly in the mediocre growth rates of the cyclical expansion beginning in IIIQ2009. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 17 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013. 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[CP1] (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 I-9, Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations in Billions of Dollars, IVQ1979 to IVQ1985 and IVQ2007 to IVQ2012

Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ1979 IQ1980	9,021.2 9,220.3
IVQ1985 IIIQ1986 IVQ1986 IQ1987	15,278.5 16,292.9 16,845,1 17,509.1
∆ USD Billions IVQ1985 IQ1987 IQ1980-IVQ1985 IQ1980-IIIQ1986 IQ1980-IVQ1986 IQ1980-IQ1987	+6,257.3 ∆%69.4 R∆%18.8 +8,487.9 ∆%94.1 R∆%32.8 +6,058.2 ∆%65.7 R∆%21.4 +7,072.6 ∆%76.7 R∆%28.4 +7,624.8 ∆%82.7 R∆%32.4 +8,288.8 ∆%89.9 R∆%35.7
Period IVQ2007 to IQ2013
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ2007	67,990.3
IIIQ2013	77,259.3
∆ USD Billions	9,269.0 ∆%13.6 R∆%1.9

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities. R∆% real percentage change or adjusted for CPI percentage change.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

ESIII Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation. 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 composition 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.”

In the analysis of Hansen (1939, 3) of secular stagnation, economic progress consists of growth of real income per person driven by growth of productivity. The “constituent elements” of economic progress are “(a) inventions, (b) the discovery and development of new territory and new resources, and (c) the growth of population” (Hansen 1939, 3). Secular stagnation originates in decline of population growth and discouragement of inventions. According to Hansen (1939, 2), US population grew by 16 million in the 1920s but grew by one half or about 8 million in the 1930s with forecasts at the time of Hansen’s writing in 1938 of growth of around 5.3 million in the 1940s. Hansen (1939, 2) characterized demography in the US as “a drastic decline in the rate of population growth. Hansen’s plea was to adapt economic policy to stagnation of population in ensuring full employment. In the analysis of Hansen (1939, 8), population caused half of the growth of US GDP per year. Growth of output per person in the US and Europe was caused by “changes in techniques and to the exploitation of new natural resources.” In this analysis, population caused 60 percent of the growth of capital formation in the US. Declining population growth would reduce growth of capital formation. Residential construction provided an important share of growth of capital formation. Hansen (1939, 12) argues that market power of imperfect competition discourages innovation with prolonged use of obsolete capital equipment. Trade unions would oppose labor-savings innovations. The combination of stagnating and aging population with reduced innovation caused secular stagnation. Hansen (1939, 12) concludes that there is role for public investments to compensate for lack of dynamism of private investment but with tough tax/debt issues.

Table SE1 provides contributions to growth of GDP in the 1930s. These data were not available until much more recently. Residential investment (RSI) contributed 1.03 percentage points to growth of GDP of 8.0 percent in 1939, which is a high percentage of the contribution of gross private domestic investment of 2.39 percentage points. Residential investment contributed 0.42 percentage points to GDP growth of 8.8 percent in 1940 with gross private domestic investment contributing 3.99 percentage points.

Table SE1, US, Contributions to Growth of GDP

	GDP ∆%	PCE PP	GDI PP	NRI PP	RSI PP	Net Trade PP	GOVT PP
1930	-8.5	-3.96	-5.18	-1.84	-1.50	-0.31	0.94
1931	-6.4	-2.37	-4.28	-3.32	-0.40	-0.22	0.48
1932	-12.9	-7.00	-5.28	-2.78	-1.02	-0.20	-0.42
1933	-1.3	-1.79	1.16	-0.44	-0.24	-0.11	-0.52
1934	10.8	5.71	2.83	1.31	0.38	0.33	1.91
1935	8.9	4.69	4.54	1.41	0.56	-0.83	0.50
1936	12.9	7.68	2.58	2.10	0.47	0.24	2.44
1937	5.1	2.72	2.57	1.42	0.17	0.45	-0.64
1938	-3.3	-1.15	-4.13	-2.13	0.01	0.88	1.09
1939	8.0	4.11	2.39	0.71	1.03	0.07	1.41
1940	8.8	3.72	3.99	1.60	0.42	0.52	0.57

GDP ∆%: Annual Growth of GDP; PCE PP: Percentage Points Contributed by Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE); GDI PP: Percentage Points Contributed by Gross Private Domestic Investment (GDI); NRI PP: Percentage Points Contributed by Nonresidential Investment (NRI); RSI: Percentage Points Contributed by Residential Investment; Net Trade PP: Percentage Points Contributed by Net Exports less Imports of Goods and Services; GOVT PP: Percentage Points Contributed by Government Consumption and Gross Investment

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Table ES2 provides percentage shares of GDP in 1929, 1939, 1940, 2006 and 2012. The share of residential investment was 3.9 percent in 1929, 3.4 percent in 1939 and 6.0 percent in 2006 at the peak of the real estate boom. The share of residential investment in GDP has not been very high historically.

Table ES2, Percentage Shares in GDP

	1929	1939	1940	2006	2012
GDP	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
PCE	74.0	71.9	69.2	67.1	68.6
GDI	16.4	10.9	14.2	19.3	15.2
NRI	11.1	7.3	8.3	12.8	12.1
RSI	3.9	3.4	3.5	6.0	2.7
Net Trade	0.4	0.9	1.4	-5.5	-3.4
GOVT	9.2	16.3	15.2	19.1	19.5

PCE: Personal Consumption Expenditures; GDI: Gross Domestic Investment; NRI: Nonresidential Investment; RSI: Residential Investment; Net Trade: Net Exports less Imports of Goods and Services; GOVT: Government Consumption and Gross Investment

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

PCE: Personal Consumption Expenditures; GDI: Gross Private Domestic Investment; NRI: Nonresidential Investment; RSI: Residential Investment; Net Trade: Net Exports less Imports of Goods and Services; GOVT: Government Consumption and Gross Investment

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

An interpretation of the New Deal is that fiscal stimulus must be massive in recovering growth and employment and that it should not be withdrawn prematurely to avoid a sharp second contraction as it occurred in 1937 (Christina Romer 2009). Proposals for another higher dose of stimulus explain the current weakness by insufficient fiscal expansion and warn that failure to spend more can cause another contraction as in 1937. According to a different interpretation, private hours worked declined by 25 percent by 1939 compared with the level in 1929, suggesting that the economy fell to a lower path of expansion than in 1929 (works by Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian (1999) (cited in Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 215-7). Major real variables of output and employment were below trend by 1939: -26.8 percent for GNP, -25.4 percent for consumption, -51 percent for investment and -25.6 percent for hours worked. Surprisingly, total factor productivity increased by 3.1 percent and real wages by 21.8 percent (Cole and Ohanian 1999). The policies of the Roosevelt administration encouraged increasing unionization to maintain high wages with lower hours worked and high prices by lax enforcement of antitrust law to encourage cartels or collusive agreements among producers. The encouragement by the government of labor bargaining by unions and higher prices by collusion depressed output and employment throughout the 1930s until Roosevelt abandoned the policies during World War II after which the economy recovered full employment (Cole and Ohanian 1999). The fortunate ones who worked during the New Deal received higher real wages at the expense of many who never worked again. In a way, the administration behaved like the father of the unionized workers and the uncle of the collusive rich, neglecting the majority in the middle. Inflation-adjusted GDP increased by 10.8 percent in 1934, 8.9 percent in 1935, 12.9 percent in 1936 but only 5.1 percent in 1937, contracting by -3.3 percent in 1938 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis cited in Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 151, Globalization and the State, Vol. II, 206). The competing explanation is that the economy did not decline from 1937 to 1938 because of lower government spending in 1937 but rather because of the expansion of unions promoted by the New Deal and increases in tax rates (Thomas Cooley and Lee Ohanian 2010). Government spending adjusted for inflation fell only 0.7 percent in 1936 and 1937 and could not explain the decline of GDP by 3.4 percent in 1938. In 1936, the administration imposed a tax on retained profits not distributed to shareholders according to a sliding scale of 7 percent for retaining 1 percent of total net income up to 27 percent for retaining 70 percent of total net income, increasing costs of investment that were mostly financed in that period with retained earnings (Cooley and Ohanian 2010). The tax rate on dividends jumped from 10.1 percent in 1929 to 15.9 percent in 1932 and doubled by 1936. A recent study finds that “tax rates on dividends rose dramatically during the 1930s and imply significant declines in investment and equity values and nontrivial declines in GDP and hours of work” (Ellen McGrattan 2010), explaining a significant part of the decline of 26 percent in business fixed investment in 1937-1938. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 caused an increase in union membership from 12 percent in 1934 to 25 percent in 1938. The alternative lesson from the 1930s is that capital income taxes and higher unionization caused increases in business costs that perpetuated job losses of the recession with current risks of repeating the 1930s (Cooley and Ohanian 1999).

Professor John B. Taylor (2014Jan01) provides clear thought on the lack of relevance of Hansen’s contention of secular stagnation to current economic conditions. The application of secular stagnation argues that the economy of the US has attained full-employment equilibrium since around 2000 only with negative real rates of interest of minus 2 to minus 3 percent. At low levels of inflation, the so-called full-employment equilibrium of negative interest rates of minus 2 to minus 3 percent cannot be attained and the economy stagnates. Taylor (2014Jan01) analyzes multiple contradictions with current reality in this application of the theory of secular stagnation:

Secular stagnation would predict idle capacity, in particular in residential investment when fed fund rates were fixed at 1 percent from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004. Taylor (2014Jan01) finds unemployment at 4.4 percent with house prices jumping 7 percent from 2002 to 2003 and 14 percent from 2004 to 2005 before dropping from 2006 to 2007. GDP prices doubled from 1.7 percent to 3.4 percent when interest rates were low from 2003 to 2005.
Taylor (2014Jan01) finds another contradiction in the application of secular stagnation based on low interest rates because of savings glut and lack of investment opportunities. Taylor (2009) shows that there was no savings glut. The savings rate of the US in the past decade is significantly lower than in the 1980s.
Taylor (2014Jan01) finds another contradiction in the low ratio of investment to GDP currently and reduced investment and hiring by US business firms.

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. 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. There are accentuated cyclic factors for both the entire population and the young population of ages 16 to 24 years. Table Summary provides the total noninstitutional population (ICP) of the US, full-time employment level (FTE), employment (EMP), civilian labor force (CLF), civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP), employment/population ratio (EPOP) and unemployment level (UNE). Secular stagnation would not be secular but immediate. All indicators of the labor market weakened sharply during the contraction and did not recover. Population continued to grow but all other variables collapsed and did not recover. 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). Hansen (1938, 1939) finds secular stagnation in lower growth of an aging population and disincentive to innovation because of imperfect competition in product and labor markets. In the current US economy, Table Summary Total shows that population is dynamic while the labor market is fractured. There is key explanation in the behavior of the civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP) and the employment population ratio (EPOP) that collapsed during the global recession with inadequate recovery. Abandoning job searches are difficult to capture in labor statistics but likely explain the decline in the participation of the population in the labor force. Allowing for abandoning job searches, the total number of people unemployed or underemployed is 28.1 million or 17.2 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html).

Table Summary Total, US, Total Noninstitutional Civilian Population, Full-time Employment, Employment, Civilian Labor Force, Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, Employment Population Ratio, Unemployment, NSA, Millions and Percent

	ICP	FTE	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE
2006	288.8	119.7	144.4	151.4	66.2	63.1	7.0
2009	235.8	112.6	139.9	154.1	65.4	59.3	14.3
2012	243.3	114.8	142.5	155.0	63.7	58.6	12.5
12/07	233.2	121.0	146.3	153.7	65.9	62.8	7.4
9/09	236.3	112.0	139.1	153.6	65.0	58.9	14.5
11/13	246.6	116.9	144.8	155.0	62.9	58.7	10.3

ICP: Total Noninstitutional Civilian Population; FT: Full-time Employment Level, EMP: Total Employment Level; CLF: Civilian Labor Force; CLFP: Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate; EPOP: Employment Population Ratio; UNE: Unemployment

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

The same situation is present in the labor market for young people in ages 16 to 24 years with data in Table Summary Youth. The youth noninstitutional civilian population (ICP) continued to increase during and after the global recession. There is the same disastrous labor market with decline for young people in employment (EMP), civilian labor force (CLF), civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP) and employment population ratio (EPOP). There are only increases for unemployment of young people (UNE) and youth unemployment rate (UNER). If aging were a factor of secular stagnation, growth of population of young people would attract a premium in remuneration in labor markets. The sad fact is that young people are also facing tough labor markets. The application of the theory of secular stagnation to the US economy and labor markets is void of reality in the form of key facts.

Table Summary Youth, US, Youth, Ages 16 to 24 Years, Noninstitutional Civilian Population, Full-time Employment, Employment, Civilian Labor Force, Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, Employment Population Ratio, Unemployment, NSA, Millions and Percent

	ICP	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE	UNER
2006	36.9	20.0	22.4	60.6	54.2	2.4	10.5
2009	37.6	17.6	21.4	56.9	46.9	3.8	17.6
2012	38.8	17.8	21.3	54.9	46.0	3.5	16.2
12/07	37.5	19.4	21.7	57.8	51.6	2.3	10.7
9/09	37.6	17.0	20.7	55.2	45.1	3.8	18.2
11/13	38.8	18.1	20.8	53.7	46.7	2.7	13.1

ICP: Youth Noninstitutional Civilian Population; EMP: Youth Employment Level; CLF: Youth Civilian Labor Force; CLFP: Youth Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate; EPOP: Youth Employment Population Ratio; UNE: Unemployment; UNER: Youth Unemployment Rate

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

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/

Table IB-1 provides the data required for broader comparison of long-term and cyclical performance of the United States economy. 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. First, Long-term performance. Using annual data, US GDP grew at the average rate of 3.3 percent per year from 1929 to 2012 and at 3.2 percent per year from 1947 to 2012. Real disposable income grew at the average yearly rate of 3.2 percent from 1929 to 2012 and at 3.7 percent from 1947 to 1999. Real disposable income per capita grew at the average yearly rate of 2.0 percent from 1929 to 2012 and at 2.3 percent from 1947 to 1999. US economic growth was much faster during expansions, compensating contractions in maintaining trend growth for whole cycles. Using annual data, US real disposable income grew at the average yearly rate of 3.5 percent from 1980 to 1989 and real disposable income per capita at 2.6 percent. The US economy has lost its dynamism in the current cycle: real disposable income grew at the yearly average rate of 1.4 percent from 2006 to 2012 and real disposable income per capita at 0.6 percent. Table IB-1 illustrates the contradiction of long-term growth with the proposition of secular stagnation (Hansen 1938, 1938, 1941 with early critique by Simons (1942). Secular stagnation would occur over long periods. Table IB-1 also provides the corresponding rates of population growth that is only marginally lower at 0.8 to 0.9 percent recently from 1.1 percent over the long-term. GDP growth fell abruptly from 2.6 percent on average from 2000 to 2006 to 0.9 percent from 2006 to 2012 and real disposable income growth fell from 2.9 percent from 2000 to 2006 to 1.4 percent from 2006 to 2012. The decline of real per capita disposable income is even sharper from average 2.0 percent from 2000 to 2006 to 0.6 percent from 2006 to 2012 while population growth was 0.8 percent on average. Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul122) provide theory and measurements showing that cyclic factors explain currently depressed labor markets. This is also the case of the overall economy. Second, first four quarters of expansion. Growth in the first four quarters of expansion is critical in recovering loss of output and employment occurring during the contraction. In the first four quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1983: GDP increased 7.8 percent, real disposable personal income 5.3 percent and real disposable income per capita 4.4 percent. In the first four quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010: GDP increased 2.7 percent, real disposable personal income 0.3 percent and real disposable income per capita decreased 0.5 percent. Third, first 17 quarters of expansion. In the expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1987: GDP grew 23.1 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.0 percent; real disposable income grew 19.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 4.3 percent; and real disposable income per capita grew 15.1 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent. In the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013: GDP grew 10.3 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.3 percent; real disposable income grew 6.3 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.4 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita grew 2.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent. Fourth, entire quarterly cycle. In the entire cycle combining contraction and expansion from IQ1980 to IQ1987: GDP grew 22.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.8 percent; real disposable personal income 26.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.2 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita 18.1 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.2 percent. In the entire cycle combining contraction and expansion from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013: GDP grew 5.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.9 percent; real disposable personal income 7.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.3 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita 3.1 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.5 percent. The United States grew during its history at high rates of per capita income that made its economy the largest in the world. That dynamism is disappearing. Bordo (2012 Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide strong evidence that recoveries have been faster after deeper recessions and recessions with financial crises, casting serious doubts on the conventional explanation of weak growth during the current expansion allegedly because of the depth of the contraction of 4.3 percent from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 and the financial crisis. The proposition of secular stagnation should explain a long-term process of decay and not the actual abrupt collapse of the economy and labor markets currently.

Table IB-1, US, GDP, Real Disposable Personal Income, Real Disposable Income per Capita and Population in 1983-85 and 2007-2013, %

Long-term Average ∆% per Year	GDP	Population
1929-2012	3.3	1.1
1947-2012	3.2	1.2
1947-1999	3.6	1.3
2000-2012	1.7	0.9
2000-2006	2.6	0.9
2006-2012	0.9	0.8
Long-term Average ∆% per Year	Real Disposable Income	Real Disposable Income per Capita	Population
1929-2012	3.2	2.0	1.1
1947-1999	3.7	2.3	1.3
2000-2012	2.2	1.3	0.9
2000-2006	2.9	2.0	0.9
Whole Cycles Average ∆% per Year
1980-1989	3.5	2.6	0.9
2006-2012	1.4	0.6	0.8
Comparison of Cycles	# Quarters	∆%	∆% Annual Equivalent
GDP
I83 to IV83 IQ83 to IQ87	4 17
I83 to IV83 I83 to IQ87	4 17	7.8 23.1	7.8 5.0
RDPI
I83 to IV83 I83 to I87	4 17	5.3 19.5	5.3 4.3
RDPI Per Capita
I83 to IV83 I83 to I87	4 17	4.4 15.1	4.4 3.4
Whole Cycle IQ1980 to IQ1987
GDP	30	22.9	2.8
RDPI	30	26.4	3.2
RDPI per Capita	30	18.1	2.2
Population	30	7.0	0.9
GDP
III09 to II10 III09 to III13	4 17	2.7 10.3	2.7 2.3
RDPI
III09 to II10 III09 to III13	4 17	0.3 6.3	0.3 1.4
RDPI per Capita
III09 to II10 II09 to IIIQ13	4 17	-0.5 2.9	-0.5 0.7
Population
II09 to II010 II09 to III13	4 17	0.9 3.2	0.8 0.8
IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	23
GDP	24	5.6	0.9
RDPI	24	7.9	1.3
RDPI per Capita	24	3.1	0.5
Population	24	4.6	0.8

RDPI: Real Disposable Personal Income

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

The current application of Hansen’s (1938, 1939, 1941) proposition argues that secular stagnation occurs because full employment equilibrium can be attained only with negative real interest rates between minus 2 and minus 3 percent. Taylor (2014Jan1) finds major contradictions between the theory of secular stagnation and the behavior of the US economy. “Equilibrium” consists of market clearing that occurs in markets without government intervention. Negative real interest have not occurred in a market without intervention in conditions of full employment. In fact, monetary policy has consisted of unconventional measures of injecting bank reserves to maintain the fed funds rate close to zero and attempting to lower medium-term yields of securities at very low levels. The allegation of full employment equilibrium only with negative real rates of interests is theoretically deficient because monetary policy caused the negative real rates of interest. Disproving a weak theoretical argument is quite difficult because it requires measurement of counterfactuals. Conclusive evidence would require contrasting what actually happened with the counterfactual of what would have happened in the absence of unconventional monetary policy and other effects (on counterfactuals see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State Vol I (2008a), 125, 136, Harberger (1971, 1997), Fishlow 1965, Fogel 1964, Fogel and Engerman 1974, North and Weingast 1989, Pelaez 1979, 26-7). Employment is observed only with the effects of unconventional monetary policy. The counterfactual would require measuring employment in the absence of unconventional monetary policy. There is no valid measurement of what monetary policy would have promoted full employment. An important alternative to unconventional monetary policy is that rules instead of discretionary authorities would have better promoted employment and price/financial stability (Taylor 1993, 1998LB, 1999, 2007JH, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012FP, 2012JMCB).

There is a strong case on the collateral effects of unconventional monetary policy. 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 by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. 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 $2249 billion, or $2.2 trillion, of 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.

W = Y/r (10)

Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 3, 2014

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	5.42
12/19/13	0.09	2.94	5.36
12/26/13	0.08	3.00	5.37
1/2/2014	0.08	3.00

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Bernanke (2013Mar 25) reinterprets devaluation and recovery from the Great Depression:

“The uncoordinated abandonment of the gold standard in the early 1930s gave rise to the idea of "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies. According to this analysis, as put forth by important contemporary economists like Joan Robinson, exchange rate depreciations helped the economy whose currency had weakened by making the country more competitive internationally. Indeed, the decline in the value of the pound after 1931 was associated with a relatively early recovery from the Depression by the United Kingdom, in part because of some rebound in exports. However, according to this view, the gains to the depreciating country were equaled or exceeded by the losses to its trading partners, which became less internationally competitive--hence, ‘beggar thy neighbor.’ Economists still agree that Smoot-Hawley and the ensuing tariff wars were highly counterproductive and contributed to the depth and length of the global Depression. However, modern research on the Depression, beginning with the seminal 1985 paper by Barry Eichengreen and Jeffrey Sachs, has changed our view of the effects of the abandonment of the gold standard. Although it is true that leaving the gold standard and the resulting currency depreciation conferred a temporary competitive advantage in some cases, modern research shows that the primary benefit of leaving gold was that it freed countries to use appropriately expansionary monetary policies. By 1935 or 1936, when essentially all major countries had left the gold standard and exchange rates were market-determined, the net trade effects of the changes in currency values were certainly small. Yet the global economy as a whole was much stronger than it had been in 1931. The reason was that, in shedding the strait jacket of the gold standard, each country became free to use monetary policy in a way that was more commensurate with achieving full employment at home.”

Nurkse (1944) raised concern on the contraction of trade by competitive devaluations during the 1930s. Haberler (1937) dwelled on the issue of flexible exchange rates. Bordo and James (2001) provide perceptive exegesis of the views of Haberler (1937) and Nurkse (1944) together with the evolution of thought by Haberler. Policy coordination among sovereigns may be quite difficult in practice even if there were sufficient knowledge and sound forecasts. Friedman (1953) provided strong case in favor of a system of flexible exchange rates.

Eichengreen and Sachs (1985) argue theoretically with measurements using a two-sector model that it is possible for series of devaluations to improve the welfare of all countries. There were adverse effects of depreciation on other countries but depreciation by many countries could be beneficial for all. The important counterfactual is if depreciations by many countries would have promoted faster recovery from the Great Depression. Depreciation in the model of Eichengreen and Sachs (1985) affected domestic and foreign economies through real wages, profitability, international competitiveness and world interest rates. Depreciation causes increase in the money supply that lowers world interest rates, promoting growth of world output. Lower world interest rates could compensate contraction of output from the shift of demand away from home goods originating in neighbor’s exchange depreciation. Eichengreen and Sachs (1985, 946) conclude:

“This much, however, is clear. We do not present a blanket endorsement of the competitive devaluations of the 1930s. Though it is indisputable that currency depreciation conferred macroeconomic benefits on the initiating country, because of accompanying policies the depreciations of the 1930s had beggar-thy-neighbor effects. Though it is likely that currency depreciation (had it been even more widely adopted) would have worked to the benefit of the world as a whole, the sporadic and uncoordinated approach taken to exchange-rate policy in the 1930s tended, other things being equal, to reduce the magnitude of the benefits.”

There could major difference in the current world economy. The initiating impulse for depreciation originates in zero interest rates on the fed funds rate. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency. Risk aversion intermittently channels capital flight to the safe haven of the dollar and US Treasury securities. In the absence of risk aversion, zero interest rates induce carry trades of short positions in dollars and US debt (borrowing) together with long leveraged exposures in risk financial assets such as stocks, emerging stocks, commodities and high-yield bonds. Without risk aversion, the dollar depreciates against every currency in the world. The dollar depreciated against the euro by 39.3 percent from USD 1.1423/EUR con Jun 26, 2003 to USD 1.5914/EUR on Jun 14, 2008 during unconventional monetary policy before the global recession (Table VI-1). Unconventional monetary policy causes devaluation of the dollar relative to other currencies, which can increases net exports of the US that increase aggregate economic activity (Yellen 2011AS). The country issuing the world’s reserve currency appropriates the advantage from initiating devaluation that in policy intends to generate net exports that increase domestic output.

Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 208-209) summarize the experience of Brazil as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-18 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2013. The distinguishing event in Chart I-7 is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The shape of the two-hump Bactrian camel of the 1970s resembles the double hump from 2007 to 2013.

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-19 provides the consumer price index NSA from 1914 to 2013. The dominating characteristic is the increase in slope during the Great Inflation from the middle of the 1960s through the 1970s. There is long-term inflation in the US and no evidence of deflation risks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T= (∆P^e/∆Pⁱ)∆Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

The eminent economist and historian Professor Rondo E. Cameron (1989, 3) searches for the answer of “why are some nations rich and others poor?” by analyzing economic history since Paleolithic times. Cameron (1989, 4) argues that:

“Policymakers and their staffs of experts, faced with the responsibility of proposing and implementing policies for development, frequently shrug off the potential contributions of historical analysis to the solution of their problems with the observation that the contemporary situation is unique and therefore history is irrelevant to their concerns. Such an attitude contains a double fallacy. In the first place, those who are ignorant of the past are not qualified to generalize about it. Second, it implicitly denies the uniformity of nature, including human behavior and the behavior of social institutions—an assumption on which all scientific inquiry is founded. Such attitudes reveal how easy it is, without historical perspective, to mistake the symptoms of a problem for its causes.”

Scholars detached from practical issues of economic policy are more likely to discover sound knowledge (Cohen and Nagel 1934). There is troublesome sacrifice of rigorous scientific objectivity in cutting the economic past by a procrustean bed fitting favored current economic policies.

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

I Peaking Valuation of Risk Financial Assets since 2006. Percentage changes of risk financial assets from the last day of the year relative to the last day of the earlier year are in Table I-1 from 2007 to 2013. Calendar year 2013 was excellent for most equity indexes. Nikkei Average outperformed all equity indexes in Table I-1 in 2013 with increase of 56.7 percent after 22.9 percent in 2012. The second highest increase is 26.5 percent for the Dow Jones Industrials Average (DJIA). DAX of Germany gained 25.5 percent. NYSE Financial increased 24.2 percent and Dow Global 24.5 percent. Dow Asia Pacific gained 10.2 percent while S&P 500 increased 15.6 percent. The USD depreciated 4.2 percent relative to the EUR and the DJ UBS Commodities Index fell 9.6 percent. China’s Shanghai Composite fell 6.7 percent. Equities also outperformed in calendar year 2012. DAX gained 29.1 percent and NYSE Financial 25.9 percent. Nikkei Average gained 22.9 percent in 2012. S&P increased 13.4 percent and DJIA 7.3 percent. Shanghai Composite increased 3.2 percent. Dow Global increased 10.8 percent and Dow Asia Pacific 13.1 percent. DJ UBS Commodities fell 1.1 percent. The only gain for a major equity index in Table I-1 for 2011 is 5.5 percent for the DJIA. S&P 500 is better than other equity markets by remaining flat for 2011. With the exception of a drop of 8.4 percent of the European equity index STOXX 50, all declines of equity markets in 2011 are in excess of 10 percent. China’s Shanghai Composite lost 21.7 percent. The equity index of Germany DAX fell 14.7 percent. The DJ UBS Commodities Index dropped 13.4 percent. Robin Wigglesworth, writing on Dec 30, 2011, on “$6.3tn wiped off markets in 2011,” published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/483069d8-32f3-11e1-8e0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1i2BE7OPa), provides an estimate of $6.3 trillion erased from equity markets globally in 2011. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates US nominal GDP in 2011 at $15,533.8 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The loss in equity markets worldwide in 2011 of $6.3 trillion is equivalent to about 40.6 percent of US GDP or economic activity in 2011. Table I-1 also provides the exchange rate of number of US dollars (USD) required in buying a unit of euro (EUR), USD/EUR. The dollar appreciated 3.2 percent on the last day of trading in 2011 relative to the last day of trading in 2010, suggesting risk aversion. Depreciation of the dollar by 2.0 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013 suggests more favorable environment of risk appetite for carry trades from zero interest rates into risk financial assets. The final row of Table I-1 provides the yield of the ten-year Treasury, increasing to 3.030 percent in 2013, which is the highest since 3.292 percent in 2010 and 3.844 percent in 2008. The yield at year-end 2007 was 4.077 percent.

Table I-1, Percentage Change of Year-end Values of Financial Assets Relative to Earlier Year-end Values 2007-2013 and Year-end Yield of 10-Year Treasury Note

∆%	2013	2012	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007
DJIA	26.5	7.3	5.5	11.0	18.8	-33.8	6.1
S&P 500	15.6	13.4	0.0	12.8	23.5	-38.5	3.1
NYSE Fin	24.2	25.9	-18.1	5.0	22.7	-53.6	-13.5
Dow Global	24.5	10.8	-13.7	4.6	30.8	-45.5	30.9
Dow Asia-Pacific	10.2	13.1	-17.6	16.0	36.4	-44.2	14.2
Nikkei Av	56.7	22.9	-17.3	-3.0	20.6	-42.9	-10.8
Shanghai	-6.7	3.2	-21.7	-11.9	73.9	-65.2	104.9
STOXX 50	13.3	8.8	-8.4	-0.1	28.5	-44.6	-2.2
DAX	25.5	29.1	-14.7	16.1	23.8	-40.4	22.0
USD/EUR*	-4.2	-2.0	3.2	6.7	-3.0	4.7	-10.7
DJ UBS Com	-9.6	-1.1	-13.4	16.7	18.7	-36.6	11.2
Year-end Yield 10-Year Treasury %	3.030	1.758	2.027	3.292	3.844	2.157	4.077

*Negative sign is dollar devaluation; positive sign is dollar appreciation

Sources: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata

Table I-2, Percentage Change of Year-end 2012 Values of Financial Assets Relative to Year-end Values 2006-2011

	∆% 2013/ 2012	∆% 2013/ 2011	∆% 2013/ 2010	∆% 2013/2009	∆% 2013/ 2008	∆% 2013/2007	∆% 2013/ 2006
DJIA	26.5	35.7	43.2	58.9	88.9	25.0	32.6
S&P 500	15.6	31.1	31.1	47.8	82.5	12.3	15.7
NYSE Fin	24.2	56.4	28.1	34.6	65.1	-23.5	-33.8
Dow Global	24.5	38.0	19.1	24.6	62.9	-11.3	16.2
Dow Asia-Pacific	10.2	24.7	2.7	19.1	62.5	-9.3	3.6
Nikkei Av	56.7	92.7	59.3	54.5	86.2	6.4	-5.1
Shanghai	-6.7	-3.8	-24.6	-33.6	5.0	-59.8	-17.6
STOXX 50	13.3	23.2	12.9	12.7	44.9	-19.7	-21.4
DAX	25.5	61.9	38.2	60.3	98.6	18.4	44.5
USD/EUR*	-4.2	-6.2	-2.8	4.1	1.3	5.9	-4.2
DJ UBS Com	-9.6	-10.6	-22.6	-9.7	7.3	-32.0	-24.4

*Negative sign is dollar devaluation; positive sign is dollar appreciation

Sources: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata

Table I-3, US, Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations, Billions of Dollars Outstanding End of Period, NSA

	2007	2011	2012	IIIQ2013
Assets	82,384.1	78,448.9	84,526.0	90,938.3
Nonfinancial	28,272.8	23,278.9	25,004.5	27,044.1
Real Estate	23,449.8	18,124.3	19,709.0	21,610.9
Durable Goods	4,476.0	4,726.4	4,848.0	4,973.7
Financial	54,111.3	55,170.0	59,521.5	63,894.2
Deposits	7,564.0	8,738.9	9,184.5	9,274.7
Credit Market	5,036.7	5,489.0	5,627.9	5,500.1
Mutual Fund Shares	4,682.9	4,449.2	5,293.7	6,193.9
Equities Corporate	10,118.3	9,049.9	10,327.0	12,104.6
Equity Noncorporate	9,097.3	7,495.6	8,181.0	8,820.2
Pension	14,956.6	17,115.2	18,075.1	19,098.4
Liabilities	14,393.8	13,568.0	13,598.8	13,679.0
Home Mortgages	10,610.3	9,677.8	9,436.9	9,373.3
Consumer Credit	2,616.6	2,757.0	2,924.3	3,039.5
Net Worth	67,990.3	64,881.0	70,927.3	77,259.3

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

The explanation of the sharp contraction of household wealth can probably be found in the origins of the financial crisis and global recession. Let V(T) represent the value of the firm’s equity at time T and B stand for the promised debt of the firm to bondholders and assume that corporate management, elected by equity owners, is acting on the interests of equity owners. Robert C. Merton (1974, 453) states:

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

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

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

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

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

W = Y/r (1)

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

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

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

There are significant elements of the theory of bank financial fragility of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) and Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b) that help to explain the financial fragility of banks during the credit/dollar crisis (see also Diamond 2007). The theory of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) as exposed by Diamond (2007) is that banks funding with demand deposits have a mismatch of liquidity (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 58-66). A run occurs when too many depositors attempt to withdraw cash at the same time. All that is needed is an expectation of failure of the bank. Three important functions of banks are providing evaluation, monitoring and liquidity transformation. Banks invest in human capital to evaluate projects of borrowers in deciding if they merit credit. The evaluation function reduces adverse selection or financing projects with low present value. Banks also provide important monitoring services of following the implementation of projects, avoiding moral hazard that funds be used for, say, real estate speculation instead of the original project of factory construction. The transformation function of banks involves both assets and liabilities of bank balance sheets. Banks convert an illiquid asset or loan for a project with cash flows in the distant future into a liquid liability in the form of demand deposits that can be withdrawn immediately.

In the theory of banking of Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b), the bank creates liquidity by tying human assets to capital. The collection skills of the relationship banker convert an illiquid project of an entrepreneur into liquid demand deposits that are immediately available for withdrawal. The deposit/capital structure is fragile because of the threat of bank runs. In these days of online banking, the run on Washington Mutual was through withdrawals online. A bank run can be triggered by the decline of the value of bank assets below the value of demand deposits.

Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance 2009b, 60, 64-5) find immediate application of the theories of banking of Diamond, Dybvig and Rajan to the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. It is a credit crisis because the main issue was the deterioration of the credit portfolios of securitized banks as a result of default of subprime mortgages. It is a dollar crisis because of the weakening dollar resulting from relatively low interest rate policies of the US. It caused systemic effects that converted into a global recession not only because of the huge weight of the US economy in the world economy but also because the credit crisis transferred to the UK and Europe. Management skills or human capital of banks are illustrated by the financial engineering of complex products. The increasing importance of human relative to inanimate capital (Rajan and Zingales 2000) is revolutionizing the theory of the firm (Zingales 2000) and corporate governance (Rajan and Zingales 2001). Finance is one of the most important examples of this transformation. Profits were derived from the charter in the original banking institution. Pricing and structuring financial instruments was revolutionized with option pricing formulas developed by Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1973, 1974, 1998) that permitted the development of complex products with fair pricing. The successful financial company must attract and retain finance professionals who have invested in human capital, which is a sunk cost to them and not of the institution where they work.

The complex financial products created for securitized banking with high investments in human capital are based on houses, which are as illiquid as the projects of entrepreneurs in the theory of banking. The liquidity fragility of the securitized bank is equivalent to that of the commercial bank in the theory of banking (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65). Banks created off-balance sheet structured investment vehicles (SIV) that issued commercial paper receiving AAA rating because of letters of liquidity guarantee by the banks. The commercial paper was converted into liquidity by its use as collateral in SRPs at the lowest rates and minimal haircuts because of the AAA rating of the guarantor bank. In the theory of banking, default can be triggered when the value of assets is perceived as lower than the value of the deposits. Commercial paper issued by SIVs, securitized mortgages and derivatives all obtained SRP liquidity on the basis of illiquid home mortgage loans at the bottom of the pyramid. The run on the securitized bank had a clear origin (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65):

“The increasing default of mortgages resulted in an increase in counterparty risk. Banks were hit by the liquidity demands of their counterparties. The liquidity shock extended to many segments of the financial markets—interbank loans, asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), high-yield bonds and many others—when counterparties preferred lower returns of highly liquid safe havens, such as Treasury securities, than the risk of having to sell the collateral in SRPs at deep discounts or holding an illiquid asset. The price of an illiquid asset is near zero.”

Gorton and Metrick (2010H, 507) provide a revealing quote to the work in 1908 of Edwin R. A. Seligman, professor of political economy at Columbia University, founding member of the American Economic Association and one of its presidents and successful advocate of progressive income taxation. The intention of the quote is to bring forth the important argument that financial crises are explained in terms of “confidence” but as Professor Seligman states in reference to historical banking crises in the US the important task is to explain what caused the lack of confidence. It is instructive to repeat the more extended quote of Seligman (1908, xi) on the explanations of banking crises:

“The current explanations may be divided into two categories. Of these the first includes what might be termed the superficial theories. Thus it is commonly stated that the outbreak of a crisis is due to lack of confidence,--as if the lack of confidence was not in itself the very thing which needs to be explained. Of still slighter value is the attempt to associate a crisis with some particular governmental policy, or with some action of a country’s executive. Such puerile interpretations have commonly been confined to countries like the United States, where the political passions of democracy have had the fullest way. Thus the crisis of 1893 was ascribed by the Republicans to the impending Democratic tariff of 1894; and the crisis of 1907 has by some been termed the ‘[Theodore] Roosevelt panic,” utterly oblivious of the fact that from the time of President Jackson, who was held responsible for the troubles of 1837, every successive crisis had had its presidential scapegoat, and has been followed by a political revulsion. Opposed to these popular, but wholly unfounded interpretations, is the second class of explanations, which seek to burrow beneath the surface and to discover the more occult and fundamental causes of the periodicity of crises.”

Scholars ignore superficial explanations in the effort to seek good and truth. The problem of economic analysis of the credit/dollar crisis is the lack of a structural model with which to attempt empirical determination of causes (Gorton and Metrick 2010SB). There would still be doubts even with a well-specified structural model because samples of economic events do not typically permit separating causes and effects. There is also confusion is separating the why of the crisis and how it started and propagated, all of which are extremely important.

In true heritage of the principles of Seligman (1908), Gorton (2009EFM) discovers a prime causal driver of the credit/dollar crisis. The objective of subprime and Alt-A mortgages was to facilitate loans to populations with modest means so that they could acquire a home. These borrowers would not receive credit because of (1) lack of funds for down payments; (2) low credit rating and information; (3) lack of information on income; and (4) errors or lack of other information. Subprime mortgage “engineering” was based on the belief that both lender and borrower could benefit from increases in house prices over the short run. The initial mortgage would be refinanced in two or three years depending on the increase of the price of the house. According to Gorton (2009EFM, 13, 16):

“The outstanding amounts of Subprime and Alt-A [mortgages] combined amounted to about one quarter of the $6 trillion mortgage market in 2004-2007Q1. Over the period 2000-2007, the outstanding amount of agency mortgages doubled, but subprime grew 800%! Issuance in 2005 and 2006 of Subprime and Alt-A mortgages was almost 30% of the mortgage market. Since 2000 the Subprime and Alt-A segments of the market grew at the expense of the Agency (i.e., the government sponsored entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) share, which fell from almost 80% (by outstanding or issuance) to about half by issuance and 67% by outstanding amount. The lender’s option to rollover the mortgage after an initial period is implicit in the subprime mortgage. The key design features of a subprime mortgage are: (1) it is short term, making refinancing important; (2) there is a step-up mortgage rate that applies at the end of the first period, creating a strong incentive to refinance; and (3) there is a prepayment penalty, creating an incentive not to refinance early.”

The prime objective of successive administrations in the US during the past 20 years and actually since the times of Roosevelt in the 1930s has been to provide “affordable” financing for the “American dream” of home ownership. The US housing finance system is mixed with public, public/private and purely private entities. The Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system was established by Congress in 1932 that also created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 with the objective of insuring homes against default. In 1938, the government created the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, to foster a market for FHA-insured mortgages. Government-insured mortgages were transferred from Fannie Mae to the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, to permit Fannie Mae to become a publicly-owned company. Securitization of mortgages began in 1970 with the government charter to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, with the objective of bundling mortgages created by thrift institutions that would be marketed as bonds with guarantees by Freddie Mac (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 42-8). In the third quarter of 2008, total mortgages in the US were $12,057 billion of which 43.5 percent, or $5423 billion, were retained or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 45). In 1990, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a share of only 25.4 percent of total mortgages in the US. Mortgages in the US increased from $6922 billion in 2002 to $12,088 billion in 2007, or by 74.6 percent, while the retained or guaranteed portfolio of Fannie and Freddie rose from $3180 billion in 2002 to $4934 billion in 2007, or by 55.2 percent.

According to Pinto (2008) in testimony to Congress:

“There are approximately 25 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding, with an unpaid principal amount of over $4.5 trillion, about half of them held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. Their high risk activities were allowed to operate at 75:1 leverage ratio. While they may deny it, there can be no doubt that Fannie and Freddie now own or guarantee $1.6 trillion in subprime, Alt-A and other default prone loans and securities. This comprises over 1/3 of their risk portfolios and amounts to 34% of all the subprime loans and 60% of all Alt-A loans outstanding. These 10.5 million unsustainable, nonprime loans are experiencing a default rate 8 times the level of the GSEs’ 20 million traditional quality loans. The GSEs will be responsible for a large percentage of an estimated 8.8 million foreclosures expected over the next 4 years, accounting for the failure of about 1 in 6 home mortgages. Fannie and Freddie have subprimed America.”

In perceptive analysis of growth and macroeconomics in the past six decades, Rajan (2012FA) argues that “the West can’t borrow and spend its way to recovery.” The Keynesian paradigm is not applicable in current conditions. Advanced economies in the West could be divided into those that reformed regulatory structures to encourage productivity and others that retained older structures. In the period from 1950 to 2000, Cobet and Wilson (2002) find that US productivity, measured as output/hour, grew at the average yearly rate of 2.9 percent while Japan grew at 6.3 percent and Germany at 4.7 percent (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). In the period from 1995 to 2000, output/hour grew at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US but at lower rates of 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in the US. Rajan (2012FA) argues that the differential in productivity growth was accomplished by deregulation in the US at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s. In contrast, Europe did not engage in reform with the exception of Germany in the early 2000s that empowered the German economy with significant productivity advantage. At the same time, technology and globalization increased relative remunerations in highly-skilled, educated workers relative to those without skills for the new economy. It was then politically appealing to improve the fortunes of those left behind by the technological revolution by means of increasing cheap credit. As Rajan (2012FA) argues:

“In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, partly to gain more control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant private mortgage agencies, and partly to promote affordable homeownership for low-income groups. Such policies helped money flow to lower-middle-class households and raised their spending—so much so that consumption inequality rose much less than income inequality in the years before the crisis. These policies were also politically popular. Unlike when it came to an expansion in government welfare transfers, few groups opposed expanding credit to the lower-middle class—not the politicians who wanted more growth and happy constituents, not the bankers and brokers who profited from the mortgage fees, not the borrowers who could now buy their dream houses with virtually no money down, and not the laissez-faire bank regulators who thought they could pick up the pieces if the housing market collapsed. The Federal Reserve abetted these shortsighted policies. In 2001, in response to the dot-com bust, the Fed cut short-term interest rates to the bone. Even though the overstretched corporations that were meant to be stimulated were not interested in investing, artificially low interest rates acted as a tremendous subsidy to the parts of the economy that relied on debt, such as housing and finance. This led to an expansion in housing construction (and related services, such as real estate brokerage and mortgage lending), which created jobs, especially for the unskilled. Progressive economists applauded this process, arguing that the housing boom would lift the economy out of the doldrums. But the Fed-supported bubble proved unsustainable. Many construction workers have lost their jobs and are now in deeper trouble than before, having also borrowed to buy unaffordable houses. Bankers obviously deserve a large share of the blame for the crisis. Some of the financial sector’s activities were clearly predatory, if not outright criminal. But the role that the politically induced expansion of credit played cannot be ignored; it is the main reason the usual checks and balances on financial risk taking broke down.”

In fact, Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) anticipated low liquidity in financial markets resulting from low interest rates before the financial crisis that caused distortions of risk/return decisions provoking the credit/dollar crisis and global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. Near zero interest rates of unconventional monetary policy induced excessive risks and low liquidity in financial decisions that were critical as a cause of the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. Rajan (2012FA) argues that it is not feasible to return to the employment and income levels before the credit/dollar crisis because of the bloated construction sector, financial system and government budgets.

Table I-4 shows the euphoria of prices during the housing boom and the subsequent decline. House prices rose 96.0 percent in the 10-city composite of the Case-Shiller home price index and 81.2 percent in the 20-city composite between Oct 2000 and Oct 2005. Prices rose around 100 percent from Oct 2000 to Oct 2006, increasing 101.1 percent for the 10-city composite and 86.7 percent for the 20-city composite. House prices rose 38.9 percent between Oct 2003 and Oct 2005 for the 10-city composite and 34.9 percent for the 20-city composite propelled by low fed funds rates of 1.0 percent between Jun 2003 and Jun 2004. Fed funds rates increased by 0.25 basis points at every meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) until Jun 2006, reaching 5.25 percent. Simultaneously, the suspension of auctions of the 30-year Treasury bond caused decline of yields of mortgage-backed securities with intended decrease in mortgage rates. Similarly, between Oct 2003 and Oct 2006, the 10-city index gained 42.5 percent and the 20-city index increased 39.0 percent. House prices have fallen from Oct 2006 to Oct 2013 by 19.8 percent for the 10-city composite and 19.2 percent for the 20-city composite. Measuring house prices is quite difficult because of the lack of homogeneity that is typical of standardized commodities. In the 12 months ending in Oct 2013, house prices increased 13.6 percent in the 10-city composite and increased 13.6 percent in the 20-city composite. Table I-4 also shows that house prices increased 61.3 percent between Oct 2000 and Oct 2013 for the 10-city composite and increased 50.8 percent for the 20-city composite. House prices are close to the lowest level since peaks during the boom before the financial crisis and global recession. The 10-city composite fell 20.3 percent from the peak in Jun 2006 to Oct 2013 and the 20-city composite fell 19.7 percent from the peak in Jul 2006 to Oct 2013. The final part of Table I-4 provides average annual percentage rates of growth of the house price indexes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller. The average annual growth rate between Dec 1987 and Dec 2012 for the 10-city composite was 3.3 percent. Data for the 20-city composite are available only beginning in Jan 2000. House prices accelerated in the 1990s with the average rate of the 10-city composite of 5.0 percent between Dec 1992 and Dec 2000 while the average rate for the period Dec 1987 to Dec 2000 was 3.8 percent. Although the global recession affecting the US between IVQ2007 (Dec) and IIQ2009 (Jun) caused decline of house prices of slightly above 30 percent, the average annual growth rate of the 10-city composite between Dec 2000 and Dec 2012 was 2.8 percent while the rate of the 20-city composite was 2.3 percent.

Table I-4, US, Percentage Changes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%

	10-City Composite	20-City Composite
∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2003	41.1	34.3
∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2005	96.0	81.2
∆% Oct 2003 to Oct 2005	38.9	34.9
∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2006	101.1	86.7
∆% Oct 2003 to Oct 2006	42.5	39.0
∆% Oct 2005 to Oct 2013	-17.7	-16.8
∆% Oct 2006 to Oct 2013	-19.8	-19.2
∆% Oct 2009 to Oct 2013	13.6	13.3
∆% Oct 2010 to Oct 2013	13.4	14.2
∆% Oct 2011 to Oct 2013	17.4	18.5
∆% Oct 2012 to Oct 2013	13.6	13.6
∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2013	61.3	50.8
∆% Peak Jun 2006 Oct 2013	-20.3
∆% Peak Jul 2006 Oct 2013		-19.7
Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2012	3.3	NA
Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2000	3.8	NA
Average ∆% Dec 1992-Dec 2000	5.0	NA
Average ∆% Dec 2000-Dec 2012	2.8	2.3

Source: http://us.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-case-shiller

Monthly house prices increased sharply from Feb to Oct 2013 for both the 10- and 20-city composites. In Oct 2013, the seasonally adjusted 10-city composite increased 1.0 percent and the 20-city 1.0 percent while the 10-city not seasonally adjusted increased 0.2 percent and the 20-city 0.2 percent. House prices increased at high monthly percentage rates from Feb to Oct 2013. With the exception of Feb through Apr 2012, house prices seasonally adjusted declined in every month for both the 10-city and 20-city Case-Shiller composites from Dec 2010 to Jan 2012, as shown in Table I-5. The most important seasonal factor in house prices is school changes for wealthier homeowners with more expensive houses. Without seasonal adjustment, house prices fell from Dec 2010 throughout Mar 2011 and then increased in every month from Apr to Aug 2011 but fell in every month from Sep 2011 to Feb 2012. The not seasonally adjusted index registers decline in Mar 2012 of 0.1 percent for the 10-city composite and is flat for the 20-city composite. Not seasonally adjusted house prices increased 1.4 percent in Apr 2012 and at high monthly percentage rates until Sep 2012. House prices not seasonally adjusted stalled from Oct 2012 to Jan 2013 and surged from Feb to Sep 2013, decelerating in Oct 2013 Declining house prices cause multiple adverse effects of which two are quite evident. (1) There is a disincentive to buy houses in continuing price declines. (2) More mortgages could be losing fair market value relative to mortgage debt. Another possibility is a wealth effect that consumers restrain purchases because of the decline of their net worth in houses.

Table I-5, US, Monthly Percentage Change of S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Seasonally Adjusted and Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%

	10-City Composite SA	10-City Composite NSA	20-City Composite SA	20-City Composite NSA
Oct 2013	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2
Sep	0.9	0.7	1.0	0.7
Aug	0.9	1.3	0.9	1.3
Jul	0.7	1.9	0.6	1.8
Jun	1.0	2.2	0.9	2.2
May	1.0	2.5	1.0	2.5
Apr	1.8	2.6	1.7	2.6
Mar	1.9	1.3	1.8	1.3
Feb	1.3	0.3	1.2	0.2
Jan	0.8	0.0	0.9	0.0
Dec 2012	1.0	0.2	1.0	0.2
Nov	0.7	-0.3	0.7	-0.2
Oct	0.6	-0.2	0.7	-0.1
Sep	0.4	0.3	0.6	0.3
Aug	0.4	0.8	0.5	0.9
Jul	0.3	1.5	0.4	1.6
Jun	0.9	2.1	1.0	2.3
May	0.8	2.2	0.9	2.4
Apr	0.6	1.4	0.6	1.4
Mar	0.5	-0.1	0.5	0.0
Feb	0.0	-0.9	0.1	-0.8
Jan	-0.3	-1.1	-0.2	-1.0
Dec 2011	-0.5	-1.2	-0.4	-1.1
Nov	-0.5	-1.4	-0.5	-1.3
Oct	-0.6	-1.3	-0.5	-1.4
Sep	-0.4	-0.6	-0.5	-0.7
Aug	-0.3	0.1	-0.3	0.1
Jul	-0.2	0.9	-0.2	1.0
Jun	-0.1	1.0	-0.1	1.2
May	-0.3	1.0	-0.4	1.0
Apr	-0.1	0.6	-0.2	0.6
Mar	-0.4	-1.0	-0.5	-1.0
Feb	-0.4	-1.3	-0.3	-1.2
Jan	-0.3	-1.1	-0.3	-1.1
Dec 2010	-0.2	-0.9	-0.2	-1.0

Source: http://us.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate/sp-case-shiller

Table I-7 summarizes the brutal drops in assets and net worth of US households and nonprofit organizations from 2007 to 2008 and 2009. Total assets fell $10.8 trillion or 13.1 percent from 2007 to 2008 and $9.3 trillion or 11.3 percent to 2009. Net worth fell $10.7 trillion from 2007 to 2008 or 15.7 percent and $8.9 trillion to 2009 or 13.2 percent. Subsidies to housing prolonged over decades together with interest rates at 1.0 percent from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 inflated valuations of real estate and risk financial assets such as equities. The increase of fed funds rates by 25 basis points until 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 reversed carry trades through exotic vehicles such as subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) and world financial markets. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper to purchase default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9).

Table I-7, Difference of Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations, Billions of Dollars from 2007 to 2008 and 2009

	2007	2008	Change to 2008	2009	Change to 2009
A	82,384.1	71,595.2	-10,788.9	73,090.6	-9,293.5
Non FIN	28,272.8	24,851.1	-3,439.7	23,676.7	-4,596.1
RE	23,449.8	19,898.7	-3,569.1	18,699.1	-4,750.7
FIN	54,111.3	46,744.0	-8,301.6	49,413.8	-4.697.5
LIAB	14,393.8	14,276.1	-136.7	14,050.7	-343.1
NW	67,990.3	57,319.1	-10,704.5	59,039.9	-8,950.4

A: Assets; Non FIN: Nonfinancial Assets; RE: Real Estate; FIN: Financial Assets; LIAB: Liabilities; NW: Net Worth

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

Table I-8, US, Difference of Balance Sheet of Households and Nonprofit Organizations Billions of Dollars from 2007 to 2011 and 2012

	Value 2007	Change to 2011	Change to 2012	Change to IIIQ2013
Assets	82,384.1	-3,935.2	2,141.9	8,554.2
Nonfinancial	28,272.8	-4,993.9	-3,268.3	-1,228.7
Real Estate	23,449.8	-5,325.5	-3,740.8	-1,838.9
Financial	54,018.1	1,058.7	5,410.2	9,782.9
Liabilities	14,371.1	-825.8	-795.0	-714.8
Net Worth	67,990.3	-3,109.3	2,937.0	9,269.0

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

Source: Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

IVQ1979 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 94.1 percent from IVQ1979 to IQ1987, the all items CPI index increased 46.2 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 32.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 65.7 percent, the all items CPI index increased 36.5 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 21.4 percent.
IVQ1979 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 69.4 percent, the all items CPI index increased 42.5 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 18.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 89.9 percent, the all items CPI index increased 39.9 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 35.7 percent.

There is disastrous performance in the current economic cycle:

IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013. Net worth increased 13.6 percent, the all items CPI increased 11.5 percent from 210.036 in Dec 2007 to 234.149 in Sep 2013 and real or inflation adjusted net worth increased 1.9 percent.

The explanation is partly in the sharp decline of wealth of households and nonprofit organizations and partly in the mediocre growth rates of the cyclical expansion beginning in IIIQ2009. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 17 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013. 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 [CP1] (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 I-9, Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations in Billions of Dollars, IVQ1979 to IVQ1985 and IVQ2007 to IVQ2012

Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ1979 IQ1980	9,021.2 9,220.3
IVQ1985 IIIQ1986 IVQ1986 IQ1987	15,278.5 16,292.9 16,845,1 17,509.1
∆ USD Billions IVQ1985 IQ1987 IQ1980-IVQ1985 IQ1980-IIIQ1986 IQ1980-IVQ1986 IQ1980-IQ1987	+6,257.3 ∆%69.4 R∆%18.8 +8,487.9 ∆%94.1 R∆%32.8 +6,058.2 ∆%65.7 R∆%21.4 +7,072.6 ∆%76.7 R∆%28.4 +7,624.8 ∆%82.7 R∆%32.4 +8,288.8 ∆%89.9 R∆%35.7
Period IVQ2007 to IQ2013
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ2007	67,990.3
IIIQ2013	77,259.3
∆ USD Billions	9,269.0 ∆%13.6 R∆%1.9

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities. R∆% real percentage change or adjusted for CPI percentage change.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

Chart I-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides US wealth of households and nonprofit organizations from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013. There is remarkable stop and go behavior in this series with two sharp declines and two standstills in the 17 quarters of expansion of the economy beginning in IIIQ2009. The increase in net worth of households and nonprofit organizations is the result of increases in valuations of risk financial assets and compressed liabilities resulting from zero interest rates. Wealth of households and nonprofits organization increased 1.9 percent from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 when adjusting for consumer price inflation.

Chart I-1, Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations in Millions of Dollars, IVQ2007 to IIQ2013

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

Chart I-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides US wealth of households and nonprofit organizations from IVQ1979 to IVQ1985. There are changes in the rates of growth of wealth suggested by the changing slopes but there is smooth upward trend. There was significant financial turmoil during the 1980s. Benston and Kaufman (1997, 139) find that there was failure of 1150 US commercial and savings banks between 1983 and 1990, or about 8 percent of the industry in 1980, which is nearly twice more than between the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1934 through 1983. More than 900 savings and loans associations, representing 25 percent of the industry, were closed, merged or placed in conservatorships (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 74-7). The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) that received $150 billion of taxpayer funds to resolve insolvent savings and loans. The GDP of the US in 1989 was $5657.7 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the partial cost to taxpayers of that bailout was around 2.65 percent of GDP in a year. US GDP in 2012 is estimated at $16,244.6 billion, such that the bailout would be equivalent to cost to taxpayers of about $430.5 billion in current GDP terms. A major difference with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for private-sector banks is that most of the costs were recovered with interest gains whereas in the case of savings and loans there was no recovery. Money center banks were under extraordinary pressure from the default of sovereign debt by various emerging nations that represented a large share of their net worth (see Pelaez 1986). Net worth of households and nonprofit organizations increased 94.1 percent from IVQ1979 to IQ1987 and 32.8 percent when adjusting for consumer price inflation. Net worth of households and nonprofit organizations increased 89.9 percent from IQ1980 to IQ1987 and 35.7 percent when adjusting for consumer price inflation.

Chart I-2, Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations in Millions of Dollars, IVQ1979 to IQ1987

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

Chart I-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides US wealth of households and nonprofit organizations from IVQ1945 at $764.7 billion to IIIQ2013 at $77,259.3 billion or increase of 10,003.2 percent. The consumer price index not seasonally adjusted was 18.2 in Dec 1945 jumping to 234.149 in Sep 2013 or increase of 1,186.5 percent. There was a gigantic increase of US net worth of households and nonprofit organizations over 67 years and three quarters with inflation-adjusted increase from $42.016 in dollars of 1945 to $329.958 in IIIQ2013 or 685.3 percent. In a simple formula: {[($77,259.3/$764.7)/(234.149/18.2)-1]100 = 685.3%}. Wealth of households and nonprofit organizations increased from $764.7 billion at year-end 1945 to $70,927.3 billion at the end of 2012 or 9175.2 percent. The consumer price index increased from 18.2 in Dec 1945 to 229.601 in Dec 2012 or 1161.5 percent. Net wealth of households and nonprofit organizations in dollars of 1945 increased from $42.016 in 1945 to $308.915 in 2012 or 635.2 percent at the average yearly rate of 3.0 percent. US real GDP grew at the average rate of 2.9 percent from 1945 to 2012 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The combination of collapse of values of real estate and financial assets during the global recession of IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 caused sharp contraction of net worth of US households and nonprofit organizations. Recovery has been in stop-and-go fashion during the worst cyclical expansion in the 67 years when US GDP grew at 2.3 percent on average in sixteen quarters between IIIQ2009 and IIIQ2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html). US GDP was $228.2 billion in 1945 and net worth of households and nonprofit organizations $764.7 for ratio of wealth to GDP of 3.35. The ratio of net worth of households and nonprofits of $67,990.3 billion in 2007 to GDP of $14,480.3 billion was 4.69. The ratio of net worth of households and nonprofits of $70,027.3 billion in 2012 to GDP of 16,244.6 billion was 4.31.

Chart I-3, Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations in Millions of Dollars, IVQ1945 to IIIQ2013

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation. There are four major approaches to the analysis of the depth of the financial crisis and global recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) and the subpar recovery from IIIQ2009 (Jul) to the present:

(1) Deeper contraction and slower recovery in recessions with financial crises

(2) Counterfactual of avoiding deeper contraction by fiscal and monetary policies

(3) Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation

(4) Counterfactual that the financial crises and global recession would have been avoided had economic policies been different

(5) Evidence that growth rates are higher after deeper recessions with financial crises.

A counterfactual consists of theory and measurements of what would have occurred otherwise if economic policies or institutional arrangements had been different. This task is quite difficult because economic data are observed with all effects as they actually occurred while the counterfactual attempts to evaluate how data would differ had policies and institutional arrangements been different (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008b), 125, 136; Pelaez 1979, 26-8). Counterfactual data are unobserved and must be calculated using theory and measurement methods. The measurement of costs and benefits of projects or applied welfare economics (Harberger 1971, 1997) specifies and attempts to measure projects such as what would be economic welfare with or without a bridge or whether markets would be more or less competitive in the absence of antitrust and regulation laws (Winston 2006). The “new economic history” of the United States used counterfactuals to measure the economy with or without railroads (Fishlow 1965, Fogel 1964) and in analyzing slavery (Fogel and Engerman 1974). A critical counterfactual in economic history is how Britain surged ahead of France (North and Weingast 1989). These four approaches are discussed below in turn followed with comparison of the two recessions of the 1980s from IQ1980 (Jan) to IIIQ1980 (Jul) and from IIIQ1981 (Jul) to IVQ1982 (Nov) with the recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) as dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). These comparisons are not idle exercises, defining the interpretation of history and even possibly critical policies and institutional arrangements. There is active debate on these issues (Bordo 2012Oct 21 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/why-this-u-s-recovery-is-weaker.html Reinhart and Rogoff, 2012Oct14 http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Is_US_Different_RR_3.pdf Taylor 2012Oct 25 http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/an-unusually-weak-recovery-as-usually.html, Wolf 2012Oct23 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/791fc13a-1c57-11e2-a63b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AotsUk1q).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Alan M. Taylor (2012) at the University of Virginia analyzes own and collaborative research on 140 years of history with data from 14 advanced economies in the effort to elucidate experience preceding, during and after financial crises. The conclusion is (Allan M. Taylor 2012, 8):

“Recessions might be painful, but they tend to be even more painful when combined with financial crises or (worse) global crises, and we already know that post-2008 experience will not overturn this conclusion. The impact on credit is also very strong: financial crises lead to strong setbacks in the rate of growth of loans as compared to what happens in normal recessions, and this effect is strong for global crises. Finally, inflation generally falls in recessions, but the downdraft is stronger in financial crisis times.”

Alan M. Taylor (2012) also finds that advanced economies entered the global recession with the largest financial sector in history. There was doubling after 1980 of the ratio of loans to GDP and tripling of the size of bank balance sheets. In contrast, in the period from 1950 to 1970 there was high investment, savings and growth in advanced economies with firm regulation of finance and controls of foreign capital flows.

(2) Counterfactual of the Global Recession. There is a difficult decision on when to withdraw the fiscal stimulus that could have adverse consequences on current growth and employment analyzed by Krugman (2011Jun18). CBO (2011JunLTBO, Chapter 2) considers the timing of withdrawal as well as the equally tough problems that result from not taking prompt action to prevent a possible debt crisis in the future. Krugman (2011Jun18) refers to Eggertsson and Krugman (2010) on the possible contractive effects of debt. The world does not become poorer as a result of debt because an individual’s asset is another’s liability. Past levels of credit may become unacceptable by credit tightening, such as during a financial crisis. Debtors are forced into deleveraging, which results in expenditure reduction, but there may not be compensatory effects by creditors who may not be in need of increasing expenditures. The economy could be pushed toward the lower bound of zero interest rates, or liquidity trap, remaining in that threshold of deflation and high unemployment.

Analysis of debt can lead to the solution of the timing of when to cease stimulus by fiscal spending (Krugman 2011Jun18). Excessive debt caused the financial crisis and global recession and it is difficult to understand how more debt can recover the economy. Krugman (2011Jun18) argues that the level of debt is not important because one individual’s asset is another individual’s liability. The distribution of debt is important when economic agents with high debt levels are encountering different constraints than economic agents with low debt levels. The opportunity for recovery may exist in borrowing by some agents that can adjust the adverse effects of past excessive borrowing by other agents. As Krugman (2011Jun18, 20) states:

“Suppose, in particular, that the government can borrow for a while, using the borrowed money to buy useful things like infrastructure. The true social cost of these things will be very low, because the spending will be putting resources that would otherwise be unemployed to work. And government spending will also make it easier for highly indebted players to pay down their debt; if the spending is sufficiently sustained, it can bring the debtors to the point where they’re no longer so severely balance-sheet constrained, and further deficit spending is no longer required to achieve full employment. Yes, private debt will in part have been replaced by public debt – but the point is that debt will have been shifted away from severely balance-sheet-constrained players, so that the economy’s problems will have been reduced even if the overall level of debt hasn’t fallen. The bottom line, then, is that the plausible-sounding argument that debt can’t cure debt is just wrong. On the contrary, it can – and the alternative is a prolonged period of economic weakness that actually makes the debt problem harder to resolve.”

Besides operational issues, the consideration of this argument would require specifying and measuring two types of gains and losses from this policy: (1) the benefits in terms of growth and employment currently; and (2) the costs of postponing the adjustment such as in the exercise by CBO (2011JunLTO, 28-31) in Table 11. It may be easier to analyze the costs and benefits than actual measurement.

An analytical and empirical approach is followed by Blinder and Zandi (2010), using the Moody’s Analytics model of the US economy with four different scenarios: (1) baseline with all policies used; (2) counterfactual including all fiscal stimulus policies but excluding financial stimulus policies; (3) counterfactual including all financial stimulus policies but excluding fiscal stimulus; and (4) a scenario excluding all policies. The scenario excluding all policies is an important reference or the counterfactual of what would have happened if the government had been entirely inactive. A salient feature of the work by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is the consideration of both fiscal and financial policies. There was probably more activity with financial policies than with fiscal policies. Financial policies included the Fed balance sheet, 11 facilities of direct credit to illiquid segments of financial markets, interest rate policy, the Financial Stability Plan including stress tests of banks, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and others (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009b), 157-67; Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009a), 224-7).

Blinder and Zandi (2010, 4) find that:

“In the scenario that excludes all the extraordinary policies, the downturn continues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning 7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010 (see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to an actual decline of about 4%. By the time employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as many as actually were lost. The unemployment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although not determined in this analysis, it would not be surprising if the underemployment rate approached one-fourth of the labor force. The federal budget deficit surges to over $2 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012. Remember, this is with no policy response. With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.”

The conclusion by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is that if the US had not taken massive fiscal and financial measures the economy could have suffered far more during a prolonged period. There are still a multitude of questions that cloud understanding of the impact of the recession and what would have happened without massive policy impulses. Some effects are quite difficult to measure. An important argument by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is that this evaluation of counterfactuals is relevant to the need of stimulus if economic conditions worsened again.

(3) Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation. 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:

Table SE1, US, Contributions to Growth of GDP

	GDP ∆%	PCE PP	GDI PP	NRI PP	RSI PP	Net Trade PP	GOVT PP
1930	-8.5	-3.96	-5.18	-1.84	-1.50	-0.31	0.94
1931	-6.4	-2.37	-4.28	-3.32	-0.40	-0.22	0.48
1932	-12.9	-7.00	-5.28	-2.78	-1.02	-0.20	-0.42
1933	-1.3	-1.79	1.16	-0.44	-0.24	-0.11	-0.52
1934	10.8	5.71	2.83	1.31	0.38	0.33	1.91
1935	8.9	4.69	4.54	1.41	0.56	-0.83	0.50
1936	12.9	7.68	2.58	2.10	0.47	0.24	2.44
1937	5.1	2.72	2.57	1.42	0.17	0.45	-0.64
1938	-3.3	-1.15	-4.13	-2.13	0.01	0.88	1.09
1939	8.0	4.11	2.39	0.71	1.03	0.07	1.41
1940	8.8	3.72	3.99	1.60	0.42	0.52	0.57

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Table ES2, Percentage Shares in GDP

	1929	1939	1940	2006	2012
GDP	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
PCE	74.0	71.9	69.2	67.1	68.6
GDI	16.4	10.9	14.2	19.3	15.2
NRI	11.1	7.3	8.3	12.8	12.1
RSI	3.9	3.4	3.5	6.0	2.7
Net Trade	0.4	0.9	1.4	-5.5	-3.4
GOVT	9.2	16.3	15.2	19.1	19.5

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Secular stagnation would predict idle capacity, in particular in residential investment when fed fund rates were fixed at 1 percent from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004. Taylor (2014Jan01) finds unemployment at 4.4 percent with house prices jumping 7 percent from 2002 to 2003 and 14 percent from 2004 to 2005 before dropping from 2006 to 2007. GDP prices doubled from 1.7 percent to 3.4 percent when interest rates were low from 2003 to 2005.
Taylor (2014Jan01) finds another contradiction in the application of secular stagnation based on low interest rates because of savings glut and lack of investment opportunities. Taylor (2009) shows that there was no savings glut. The savings rate of the US in the past decade is significantly lower than in the 1980s.
Taylor (2014Jan01) finds another contradiction in the low ratio of investment to GDP currently and reduced investment and hiring by US business firms.

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. 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.

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)

	ICP	FTE	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE
2006	288.8	119.7	144.4	151.4	66.2	63.1	7.0
2009	235.8	112.6	139.9	154.1	65.4	59.3	14.3
2012	243.3	114.8	142.5	155.0	63.7	58.6	12.5
12/07	233.2	121.0	146.3	153.7	65.9	62.8	7.4
9/09	236.3	112.0	139.1	153.6	65.0	58.9	14.5
11/13	246.6	116.9	144.8	155.0	62.9	58.7	10.3

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

	ICP	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE	UNER
2006	36.9	20.0	22.4	60.6	54.2	2.4	10.5
2009	37.6	17.6	21.4	56.9	46.9	3.8	17.6
2012	38.8	17.8	21.3	54.9	46.0	3.5	16.2
12/07	37.5	19.4	21.7	57.8	51.6	2.3	10.7
9/09	37.6	17.0	20.7	55.2	45.1	3.8	18.2
11/13	38.8	18.1	20.8	53.7	46.7	2.7	13.1

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

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/

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/

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/

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 by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. 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 $2249 billion, or $2.2 trillion, of 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.

W = Y/r (10)

Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Jan 3, 2014

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	5.42
12/19/13	0.09	2.94	5.36
12/26/13	0.08	3.00	5.37
1/2/2014	0.08	3.00	5.34

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

(4) Counterfactual of Policies Causing the Financial Crisis and Global Recession. The counterfactual of avoidance of deeper and more prolonged contraction by fiscal and monetary policies is not the critical issue. As Professor John B. Taylor (2012Oct25) argues, the critically important counterfactual is that the financial crisis and global recession would have not occurred in the first place if different economic policies had been followed. The counterfactual intends to verify that a combination of housing policies and discretionary monetary policies instead of rules (Taylor 1993) caused, deepened and prolonged the financial crisis (Taylor 2007, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB; see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html) and that the experience resembles that of the Great Inflation of the 1960s and 1970s with stop-and-go growth/inflation that coined the term stagflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I).

The explanation of the sharp contraction of United States housing can probably be found in the origins of the financial crisis and global recession. Let V(T) represent the value of the firm’s equity at time T and B stand for the promised debt of the firm to bondholders and assume that corporate management, elected by equity owners, is acting on the interests of equity owners. Robert C. Merton (1974, 453) states:

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

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

W = Y/r (1)

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

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 used in 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 intended 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).

In the theory of banking of Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b), the bank creates liquidity by tying human assets to capital. The collection of skills of the relationship banker converts an illiquid project of an entrepreneur into liquid demand deposits that are immediately available for withdrawal. The deposit/capital structure is fragile because of the threat of bank runs. In these days of online banking, the run on Washington Mutual was through withdrawals online. A bank run can be triggered by the decline of the value of bank assets below the value of demand deposits.

Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance 2009b, 60, 64-5) find immediate application of the theories of banking of Diamond, Dybvig and Rajan to the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. It is a credit crisis because the main issue was the deterioration of the credit portfolios of securitized banks caused by default of subprime mortgages. It is a dollar crisis because of the weakening dollar resulting from relatively low interest rate policies of the US. It caused systemic effects that converted into a global recession not only because of the huge weight of the US economy in the world economy but also because the credit crisis transferred to the UK and Europe. Management skills or human capital of banks are illustrated by financial engineering of complex products. The increasing importance of human relative to inanimate capital (Rajan and Zingales 2000) is revolutionizing the theory of the firm (Zingales 2000) and corporate governance (Rajan and Zingales 2001). Finance is one of the most important examples of this transformation. Bank charters were the source of profits in the original banking institution. Pricing and structuring financial instruments was revolutionized with option pricing formulas developed by Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1973, 1974, 1998) that permitted the development of complex products with fair pricing. The successful financial company must attract and retain finance professionals who have invested in human capital, which is a sunk cost to them and not of the institution where they work.

The complex financial products created for securitized banking with high investments in human capital are based on houses, which are as illiquid as the projects of entrepreneurs in the theory of banking. The liquidity fragility of the securitized bank is equivalent to that of the commercial bank in the theory of banking (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65). Banks created off-balance sheet structured investment vehicles (SIV) that issued commercial paper receiving AAA rating because of letters of liquidity guarantee by the banks. The commercial paper was converted into liquidity by its use as collateral in SRPs at the lowest rates and minimal haircuts because of the AAA rating of the guarantor bank. In the theory of banking, default can be triggered when the value of assets is perceived as lower than the value of the deposits. Commercial paper issued by SIVs, securitized mortgages and derivatives all obtained SRP liquidity based on illiquid home mortgage loans at the bottom of the pyramid. The run on the securitized bank had a clear origin (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65):

Gorton and Metrick (2010H, 507) provide a revealing quote to the work in 1908 of Edwin R. A. Seligman, professor of political economy at Columbia University, founding member of the American Economic Association and one of its presidents and successful advocate of progressive income taxation. The intention of the quote is to bring forth the important argument that financial crises are explained in terms of “confidence” but as Professor Seligman states in reference to historical banking crises in the US, the important task is to explain what caused the lack of confidence. It is instructive to repeat the more extended quote of Seligman (1908, xi) on the explanations of banking crises:

The prime objective of successive administrations in the US during the past 20 years and actually since the times of Roosevelt in the 1930s has been to provide “affordable” financing for the “American dream” of home ownership. The US housing finance system is mixed with public, public/private and purely private entities. Congress established the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system in 1932 that also created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 with the objective of insuring homes against default. In 1938, the government created the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, to foster a market for FHA-insured mortgages. Government-insured mortgages were transferred from Fannie Mae to the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, to permit Fannie Mae to become a publicly owned company. Securitization of mortgages began in 1970 with the government charter to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, with the objective of bundling mortgages created by thrift institutions that would be marketed as bonds with guarantees by Freddie Mac (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 42-8). In the third quarter of 2008, total mortgages in the US were $12,057 billion of which 43.5 percent, or $5423 billion, were retained or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 45). In 1990, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a share of only 25.4 percent of total mortgages in the US. Mortgages in the US increased from $6922 billion in 2002 to $12,088 billion in 2007, or by 74.6 percent, while the retained or guaranteed portfolio of Fannie and Freddie rose from $3180 billion in 2002 to $4934 billion in 2007, or by 55.2 percent.

According to Pinto (2008) in testimony to Congress:

In perceptive analysis of growth and macroeconomics in the past six decades, Rajan (2012FA) argues that “the West can’t borrow and spend its way to recovery.” The Keynesian paradigm is not applicable in current conditions. Advanced economies in the West could be divided into those that reformed regulatory structures to encourage productivity and others that retained older structures. In the period from 1950 to 2000, Cobet and Wilson (2002) find that US productivity, measured as output/hour, grew at the average yearly rate of 2.9 percent while Japan grew at 6.3 percent and Germany at 4.7 percent (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). In the period from 1995 to 2000, output/hour grew at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US but at lower rates of 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany. Rajan (2012FA) argues that the differential in productivity growth was accomplished by deregulation in the US at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s. In contrast, Europe did not engage in reform with the exception of Germany in the early 2000s that empowered the German economy with significant productivity advantage. At the same time, technology and globalization increased relative remunerations in highly skilled, educated workers relative to those without skills for the new economy. It was then politically appealing to improve the fortunes of those left behind by the technological revolution by means of increasing cheap credit. As Rajan (2012FA) argues:

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

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

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

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

Nicia Vilela Luz and Carlos Manuel Peláez (1972, 276) find that:

“The lack of interest on historical moments by economists may explain their emphasis on secular trends in their research on the past instead of changes in the historical process. This may be the origin of why they fill gaps in documentation with their extrapolations.”

Vilela Luz (1960) provides classic research on the struggle for industrialization of Brazil from 1808 to 1930. According to Pelaez 1976, 283) following Cameron:

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

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

“Brazil’s experience is particularly interesting in that in the period 1808-1851 there were three types of monetary systems. Between 1808 and 1829, there was only one government-related Bank of Brazil, enjoying a perfect monopoly of banking services. No new banks were established in the 1830s after the liquidation of the Bank of Brazil in 1829. During the coffee boom in the late 1830s and 1840s, a system of banks of issue, patterned after similar institutions in the industrial countries [Cameron 1967], supplied the financial services required in the first stage of modernization of the export economy.”

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

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

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

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

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

The average rate of growth of real GDP in expansions after recessions with financial crises was 8 percent but only 6.9 percent on average for recessions without financial crises (Bordo 2012Sep27). Real GDP declined 12 percent in the Panic of 1907 and increased 13 percent in the recovery, consistent with the plucking model of Friedman (Bordo 2012Sep27). Bordo (2012Sep27) finds two probable explanations for the weak recovery during the current economic cycle: (1) collapse of United States housing; and (2) uncertainty originating in fiscal policy, regulation and structural changes. There are serious doubts if monetary policy is adequate to recover the economy under these conditions.

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

Table IB-1, US, GDP, Real Disposable Personal Income, Real Disposable Income per Capita and Population in 1983-85 and 2007-2013, %

Long-term Average ∆% per Year	GDP	Population
1929-2012	3.3	1.1
1947-2012	3.2	1.2
1947-1999	3.6	1.3
2000-2012	1.7	0.9
2000-2006	2.6	0.9
2006-2012	0.9	0.8
Long-term Average ∆% per Year	Real Disposable Income	Real Disposable Income per Capita	Population
1929-2012	3.2	2.0	1.1
1947-1999	3.7	2.3	1.3
2000-2012	2.2	1.3	0.9
2000-2006	2.9	2.0	0.9
Whole Cycles Average ∆% per Year
1980-1989	3.5	2.6	0.9
2006-2012	1.4	0.6	0.8
Comparison of Cycles	# Quarters	∆%	∆% Annual Equivalent
GDP
I83 to IV83 IQ83 to IQ87	4 17
I83 to IV83 I83 to IQ87	4 17	7.8 23.1	7.8 5.0
RDPI
I83 to IV83 I83 to I87	4 17	5.3 19.5	5.3 4.3
RDPI Per Capita
I83 to IV83 I83 to I87	4 17	4.4 15.1	4.4 3.4
Whole Cycle IQ1980 to IQ1987
GDP	30	22.9	2.8
RDPI	30	26.4	3.2
RDPI per Capita	30	18.1	2.2
Population	30	7.0	0.9
GDP
III09 to II10 III09 to III13	4 17	2.7 10.3	2.7 2.3
RDPI
III09 to II10 III09 to III13	4 17	0.3 6.3	0.3 1.4
RDPI per Capita
III09 to II10 II09 to IIIQ13	4 17	-0.5 2.9	-0.5 0.7
Population
II09 to II010 II09 to III13	4 17	0.9 3.2	0.8 0.8
IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	23
GDP	24	5.6	0.9
RDPI	24	7.9	1.3
RDPI per Capita	24	3.1	0.5
Population	24	4.6	0.8

RDPI: Real Disposable Personal Income

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

There are seven basic facts illustrating the current economic disaster of the United States:

GDP maintained trend growth in the entire business cycle from IQ1980 to IQ1987, including contractions and expansions. GDP is well below trend in the entire business cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013, including contractions and expansions
Per capita real disposable income exceeded trend growth in the 1980s but is substantially below trend in IIIQ2013
Level of employed persons increased in the 1980s but declined into IIIQ2013
Level of full-time employed persons increased in the 1980s but declined into IIIQ2013
Level unemployed, unemployment rate and employed part-time for economic reasons fell in the recovery from the recessions in the 1980s but not substantially in the recovery since IIIQ2009
Wealth of households and nonprofit organizations soared in the 1980s but stagnated in real terms into IIIQ2013
Gross private domestic investment increased sharply from IQ1980 to IQ1987 but gross private domestic investment stagnated and private fixed investment fell from IVQ2007 into IIIQ2013

There is a critical issue of the United States economy will be able in the future to attain again the level of activity and prosperity of projected trend growth. Growth at trend during the entire business cycles built the largest economy in the world but there may be an adverse, permanent weakness in United States economic performance and prosperity. Table IB-2 provides data for analysis of these seven basic facts. The seven blocks of Table IB-2 are separated initially after individual discussion of each one followed by the full Table IB-2.

1. Trend Growth.

i. As shown in Table IB-2, actual GDP grew cumulatively 22.5 percent from IQ1980 to IQ1987, which is relatively close to what trend growth would have been at 24.8 percent. Real GDP grew 22.9 percent from IVQ1979 to IQ1987. Rapid growth at the average annual rate of 5.0 percent per quarter during the expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1987 erased the loss of GDP of 4.6 percent during the contraction and maintained trend growth at 2.8 percent for GDP and 3.2 percent for real disposable personal income over the entire cycle.

ii. In contrast, cumulative growth from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 was 5.6 percent while trend growth would have been 19.4 percent. GDP in IIIQ2013 at seasonally adjusted annual rate is $15,839.3 billion as estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and would have been $17,905.3 billion, or $2066.0 billion higher, had the economy grown at trend over the entire business cycle as it happened during the 1980s and throughout most of US history. There is $2.1 trillion of foregone GDP that the economy would have created as it occurred during past cyclical expansions, which explains why employment net of population growth has not rebounded to even higher than before. There would not be recovery of full employment even with growth of 3 percent per year beginning immediately because the opportunity was lost to grow faster during the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013 after the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. The United States has acquired a heavy social burden of unemployment and underemployment of 28.1 million people or 17.2 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html) that will not be significantly diminished even with return to growth of GDP of 3 percent per year because of growth of the labor force by new entrants. The US labor force grew from 142.583 million in 2000 to 153.124 million in 2007 or by 7.4 percent at the average yearly rate of 1.0 percent per year. The civilian noninstitutional population or those able to work, increased from 212.577 million in 2000 to 231.867 million in 2007 or 9.1 percent at the average yearly rate of 1.2 percent per year (data from http://www.bls.gov/data/). Data for the past five years cloud accuracy because of the number of people discouraged from seeking employment. The noninstitutional population of the United States increased from 231.867 million in 2007 to 243.284 million in 2012 or by 4.9 percent. In the same period, the labor force increased from 153.124 million in 2007 to 154.975 million in 2012 or by 1.2 percent and only by 0.9 percent to 153.617 million in 2011 while population increased 3.3 percent from 231.867 million in 2007 to 239.618 million in 2011 (data from http://www.bls.gov/data/). People ceased to seek jobs because they do not believe that there is a job available for them (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). Structural change in demography occurs over relatively long periods and not suddenly as shown by Edward P. Lazear and James R. Spletzer (2012JHJul22). There is an abrupt cyclical event and no evidence for secular stagnation and similar propositions.

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987
GDP SAAR USD Billions
IQ1980	6,517.9
IQ1987	7,986.4
∆% IQ1980 to IQ1987 (22.9 percent from IVQ1979 $6496.8 billion)	22.5
∆% Trend Growth IQ1980 to IQ1987	24.8

Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013
GDP SAAR USD Billions
IVQ2007	14,996.1
IIIQ2013	15,839.3
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 Actual	5.6
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 Trend	19.4

2. Stagnating Per Capita Real Disposable Income

i. In the entire business cycle from IQ1980 to IQ1987, as shown in Table IB-2, trend growth of per capita real disposable income, or what is left per person after inflation and taxes, grew cumulatively 18.0 percent, which is close to what would have been trend growth of 16.0 percent.

ii. In contrast, in the entire business cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013, per capita real disposable income increased 3.1 percent while trend growth would have been 12.6 percent. Income available after inflation and taxes is about the same or lower as before the contraction after 17 consecutive quarters of GDP growth at mediocre rates relative to those prevailing during historical cyclical expansions. In IIQ2013, personal income grew at the SAAR of 4.7 percent after falling at 4.1 percent in IQ2013. In IIQ2013, real personal income excluding current transfer receipts grew at 5.6 percent after falling at 7.2 percent in IQ2013. In IIQ2013, real disposable personal income grew at 4.1 percent after falling at minus 7.9 percent in IQ2013 percent (Table 6 at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi1113.pdf). The BEA explains as follows (page 3 at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi0313.pdf):

“The February and January changes in disposable personal income (DPI) mainly reflected the effect of special factors in January, such as the expiration of the “payroll tax holiday” and the acceleration of bonuses and personal dividends to November and to December in anticipation of changes in individual tax rates.”

Nominal personal income grew at 4.0 percent in IIIQ2013 and real personal income excluding current transfer receipts at 2.0 percent while real disposable income grew at 3.0 percent (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2013/pdf/pi1113.pdf).

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987

Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1980 Chained 2009 USD	20,242
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1987 Chained 2009 USD	23,891
∆% IQ1980 to IQ1987 (18.1 percent from IVQ1982 $20,230)	18.0
∆% Trend Growth	16.0

Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013

Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ2007 Chained 2009 USD	35,823
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IIIQ2013 Chained 2009 USD	36,943
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	3.1
∆% Trend Growth	12.6

3. Number of Employed Persons

i. As shown in Table IB-2, the number of employed persons increased over the entire business cycle from 98.527 million not seasonally adjusted (NSA) in IQ1980 to 110.229 million NSA in IQ1987 or by 11.9 percent.

ii. In contrast, during the entire business cycle the number employed fell from 146.334 million in IVQ2007 to 144,651 million in IIIQ2013 or by 1.2 percent. There are 28.1 million persons unemployed or underemployed, which is 17.2 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html).

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987

Employed Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	98.527
Employed Millions IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	110.229
∆% Employed IQ1980 to IQ1987	11.9

Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013

Employed Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	146.334
Employed Millions IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	144.651
∆% Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	-1.2

4. Number of Full-Time Employed Persons

i. As shown in Table IB-2, during the entire business cycle in the 1980s, including contractions and expansion, the number of employed full-time rose from 81.280 million NSA in IQ1980 to 90.270 million NSA in IQ1987 or 11.1 percent.

ii. In contrast, during the entire current business cycle, including contraction and expansion, the number of persons employed full-time fell from 121.042 million in IVQ2007 to 117.308 million in IIIQ2013 or by minus 3.1 percent.

4. Number of Full-time Employed Persons

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987

Employed Full-time Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	81.280
Employed Full-time Millions IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	90,270
∆% Full-time Employed IQ1980 to IQ1987	11.1

Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013

Employed Full-time Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	121.042
Employed Full-time Millions IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	117.308
∆% Full-time Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	-3.1

5. Unemployed, Unemployment Rate and Employed Part-time for Economic Reasons.

i. As shown in Table IB-2 and in the following block, in the cycle from IQ1980 to IQ1987: (a) The rate of unemployment was virtually the same at 6.9 percent in IQ1987 relative to 6.6 percent in IQ1980. (b) The number unemployed increased from 6.983 million in IQ1980 to 8.124 million in IQ1987 or 16.3 percent. (c) The number employed part-time for economic reasons increased 44.4 percent from 3.624 million in IQ1980 to 5.232 million in IQ1987.

ii. In contrast, in the economic cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013: (a) The rate of unemployment increased from 4.8 percent in IVQ2007 to 7.0 percent in IIIQ2013. (b) The number unemployed increased 47.7 percent from 7.371 million in IVQ2007 to 10.885 million in IIIQ2013. (c) The number employed part-time for economic reasons because they could not find any other job increased 58.4 percent from 4.750 million in IVQ2007 to 7.522 million in IIIQ2013. (d) U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA increased from 8.7 percent in IVQ2007 to 13.1 percent in IIIQ2013.

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987

Unemployment Rate IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	6.6
Unemployment Rate IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	6.9
Unemployed IQ1980 Millions End of Quarter	6.983
Unemployed IQ1987 Millions End of Quarter	8.124
∆%	16.3
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IQ1980 End of Quarter	3.624
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IQ1987 End of Quarter	5.232
∆%	44.4

Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013

Unemployment Rate IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	4.8
Unemployment Rate IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	7.0
Unemployed IVQ2007 Millions End of Quarter	7.371
Unemployed IIIQ2013 Millions End of Quarter	10.885
∆%	47.7
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IVQ2007 Millions End of Quarter	4.750
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IIIQ2013 End of Quarter	7.522
∆%	58.4
U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA
IVQ2007	8.7
IIIQ2013	13.1

6. Wealth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations.

The comparison of net worth of households and nonprofit organizations in the entire economic cycle from IQ1980 (and from IVQ1979) to IQ1987 and from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 is provided in Table IB-2 and in the following block. i. The data reveal the following facts for the cycles in the 1980s:

IVQ1979 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 94.1 percent from IVQ1979 to IQ1987, the all items CPI index increased 46.2 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 32.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 65.7 percent, the all items CPI index increased 36.5 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 21.4 percent.
IVQ1979 to IVQ1985. Net worth increased 69.4 percent, the all items CPI index increased 42.5 percent from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 and real net worth increased 18.8 percent.
IQ1980 to IQ1987. Net worth increased 89.9 percent, the all items CPI index increased 39.9 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 to 112.1 in Mar 1987 and real net worth increased 35.7 percent.

ii. There is disastrous performance in the current economic cycle:

IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013. Net worth increased 13.6 percent, the all items CPI increased 11.5 percent from 210.036 in Dec 2007 to 234.149 in Sep 2013 and real or inflation adjusted net worth increased 1.9 percent.

The explanation is partly in the sharp decline of wealth of households and nonprofit organizations and partly in the mediocre growth rates of the cyclical expansion beginning in IIIQ2009. 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html 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).

Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ1979 IQ1980	9,021.2 9,220.3
IVQ1985 IIIQ1986 IVQ1986 IQ1987	15,278.5 16,292.9 16,845,1 17,509.1
∆ USD Billions IVQ1985 IQ1987 IQ1980-IVQ1985 IQ1980-IIIQ1986 IQ1980-IVQ1986 IQ1980-IQ1987	+6,257.3 ∆%69.4 R∆%18.8 +8,487.9 ∆%94.1 R∆%32.8 +6,058.2 ∆%65.7 R∆%21.4 +7,072.6 ∆%76.7 R∆%28.4 +7,624.8 ∆%82.7 R∆%32.4 +8,288.8 ∆%89.9 R∆%35.7
Period IVQ2007 to IQ2013
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Millions
IVQ2007	67,990.3
IIIQ2013	77,259.3
∆ USD Billions	9,269.0 ∆%13.6 R∆%1.9

Net Worth = Assets – Liabilities. R∆% real percentage change or adjusted for CPI percentage change.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/

7. Gross Private Domestic Investment.

i. The comparison of gross private domestic investment in the entire economic cycles from IQ1980 to IQ1987 and from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 is in the following block and in Table IB-2. Gross private domestic investment increased from $951.6 billion in IQ1980 to $1,173.8 billion in IQ1987 or by 23.4 percent.

ii In the current cycle, gross private domestic investment increased from $2,605.2 billion in IVQ2007 to $2,627.2 billion in IIIQ2013, or 0.8 percent. Private fixed investment fell from $2,586.3 billion in IVQ2007 to $2,494.0 billion in IIIQ2013, or decline by 3.6 percent.

Period IQ1980 to IQ1987
Gross Private Domestic Investment USD 2009 Billions
IQ1980	951.6
IQ1987	1,173.8
∆%	23.4
Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013
Gross Private Domestic Investment USD Billions
IVQ2007	2,605.2
IIQ2013	2,627.2
∆%	0.8
Private Fixed Investment USD 2009 Billions
IVQ2007	2,586.3
IIIQ2013	2,494.0
∆%	-3.6

Table IB-2, US, GDP and Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita Actual and Trend Growth and Employment, 1980-1985 and 2007-2012, SAAR USD Billions, Millions of Persons and ∆%


Period IQ1980 to IQ1987
GDP SAAR USD Billions
IQ1980	6,517.9
IQ1987	7,986.4
∆% IQ1980 to IQ1987 (22.9 percent from IVQ1982 $6496.8 billion)	21.1
∆% Trend Growth IQ1980 to IQ1987	24.8
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1980 Chained 2009 USD	20,242
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1987 Chained 2009 USD	23,891
∆% IQ1980 to IQ1987 (18.1 percent from IVQ1982 $20,230 billion)	18.0
∆% Trend Growth	16.0
Employed Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	98.527
Employed Millions IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	110.229
∆% Employed IQ1980 to IQ1987	11.9
Employed Full-time Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	81.280
Employed Full-time Millions IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	90.270
∆% Full-time Employed IQ1980 to IQ1987	11.1
Unemployment Rate IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter	6.6
Unemployment Rate IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	6.9
Unemployed IQ1980 Millions NSA End of Quarter	6.983
Unemployed IQ1987 Millions NSA End of Quarter	8.124
∆%	16.3
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IQ1980 Millions NSA End of Quarter	3.624
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IQ1987 NSA End of Quarter	5.232
∆%	44.4
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions
IVQ1979	9,021.4
IQ1987	17,509.1
∆ USD Billions	+8,487.9
∆% CPI Adjusted	32.8
Gross Private Domestic Investment USD 2009 Billions
IQ1980	951.6
IQ1987	1173.8
∆%	23.4
Period IVQ2007 to IIQ2013
GDP SAAR USD Billions
IVQ2007	14,996.1
IIIQ2013	15,839.3
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	5.6
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 Trend Growth	19.4
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ2007 Chained 2009 USD	35,823
Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IIIQ2013 Chained 2009 USD	36,943
∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	3.1
∆% Trend Growth	12.6
Employed Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	146.334
Employed Millions IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	144.651
∆% Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	-1.2
Employed Full-time Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	121.042
Employed Full-time Millions IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	117.308
∆% Full-time Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013	-3.1
Unemployment Rate IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter	4.8
Unemployment Rate IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	7.0
Unemployed IVQ2007 Millions NSA End of Quarter	7.371
Unemployed IIIQ2013 Millions NSA End of Quarter	10.885
∆%	47.7
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IVQ2007 Millions NSA End of Quarter	4.750
Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IIIQ2013 NSA End of Quarter	7.522
∆%	58.4
U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA
IVQ2007	8.7
IIIQ2013	13.1
Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions
IVQ2007	67,990.3
IIIQ2013	77.259.3
∆ USD Billions	9,269 ∆%13.6 R∆%1.9
Gross Private Domestic Investment USD Billions
IVQ2007	2,605.2
IIIQ2013	2,627.2
∆%	0.8
Private Fixed Investment USD 2005 Billions
IVQ2007	2,586.3
IIIQ2013	2,494.0
∆%	-3.6

Note: GDP trend growth used is 3.0 percent per year and GDP per capita is 2.0 percent per year as estimated by Lucas (2011May) on data from 1870 to 2010.

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/data/. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2013Jun6. Flow of funds, balance sheets and integrated macroeconomic accounts. Washington, DC, Federal Reserve System, Jun 6.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2013BEOFeb5) estimates potential GDP, potential labor force and potential labor productivity provided in Table IB-3. The CBO estimates average rate of growth of potential GDP from 1950 to 2012 at 3.3 percent per year. The projected path is significantly lower at 2.2 percent per year from 2012 to 2023. The legacy of the economic cycle expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013 at 2.3 percent on average is in contrast with 5.0 percent on average in the expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1987 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html). Subpar economic growth may perpetuate unemployment and underemployment estimated at 28.1 million or 17.2 percent of the effective labor force in Nov 2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html) with much lower hiring than in the period before the current cycle (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/theory-and-reality-of-secular.html).

Table IB-3, US, Congressional Budget Office History and Projections of Potential GDP of US Overall Economy, ∆%

	Potential GDP	Potential Labor Force	Potential Labor Productivity*
Average Annual ∆%
1950-1973	3.9	1.6	2.3
1974-1981	3.3	2.5	0.8
1982-1990	3.1	1.6	1.5
1991-2001	3.1	1.3	1.8
2002-2012	2.2	0.8	1.4
Total 1950-2012	3.3	1.5	1.7
Projected Average Annual ∆%
2013-2018	2.2	0.6	1.6
2019-2023	2.3	0.5	1.8
2012-2023	2.2	0.5	1.7

*Ratio of potential GDP to potential labor force

Source: CBO (2013BEOFeb5).

Chart IB-1 of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2013BEOFeb5) provides actual and potential GDP of the United States from 2000 to 2011 and projected to 2024. Lucas (2011May) estimates trend of United States real GDP of 3.0 percent from 1870 to 2010 and 2.2 percent for per capita GDP. The United States successfully returned to trend growth of GDP by higher rates of growth during cyclical expansion as analyzed by Bordo (2012Sep27, 2012Oct21) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR). Growth in expansions following deeper contractions and financial crises was much higher in agreement with the plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988). The unusual weakness of growth at 2.3 percent on average from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2013 during the current economic expansion in contrast with 5.0 percent on average in the cyclical expansion from IQ1983 to IQ1987 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html) cannot be explained by the contraction of 4.3 percent of GDP from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 and the financial crisis. Weakness of growth in the expansion is perpetuating unemployment and underemployment of 28.1 million or 17.2 percent of the labor force as estimated for Nov 2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/risks-of-zero-interest-rates-mediocre.html). There is no exit from unemployment/underemployment and stagnating real wages because of the collapse of hiring (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/theory-and-reality-of-secular.html). The US economy and labor markets collapsed without recovery. Abrupt collapse of economic conditions can be explained only with cyclic factors (Lazear and Spletzer 2012Jul22) and not by secular stagnation (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941 with early dissent by Simons 1942).

Chart IB-1, US, Congressional Budget Office, Actual and Projections of Potential GDP, 2000-2024, Trillions of Dollars

Source: Congressional Budget Office, CBO (2013BEOFeb5).

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Theory and Reality of Secular Stagnation, Peaking Valuations of Risk Financial Assets, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, World Economic Slowdown and Global Recession Risk: Part I

No comments:

Post a Comment