CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Chart IV-7A provides the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency. The export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 97.9 in Jun 2009 to 103.1 in Apr 2012 or 5.3 percent but dropped to 100.2 in Apr 2013 or minus 2.8 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gained 1.0 percent to 98.9 in Dec 2013 relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-7A, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

Japan imports primary commodities and raw materials. As a result, the import corporate goods price index on the yen basis in Chart IV-8 shows an upward trend after declining from the increase during the global recession in 2008 driven by carry trades from fed funds rates. The index increases with carry trades from zero interest rates into commodity futures and declines during risk aversion from late 2008 into beginning of 2008 originating in doubts about soundness of US bank balance sheets. More careful measurement should show that the terms of trade of Japan, export prices relative to import prices, declined during the commodity shocks originating in unconventional monetary policy. The decline of the terms of trade restricted potential growth of income in Japan. The import corporate goods price index on the yen basis increased from 93.5 in Jun 2009 to 113.1 in Apr 2012 or 21.0 percent and to 128.8 in Dec 2013 or gain of 13.9 percent relative to Apr 2012 and 37.8 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-8, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

Chart IV-8A provides the import corporate goods price index on the contract currency basis. The import corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 86.2 in Jun 2009 to 119.5 in Apr 2012 or 38.6 percent and to 113.6 in Dec 2013 or minus 4.9 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gain of 31.8 percent relative to Jun 2009. There is evident deterioration of the terms of trade of Japan: the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased 1.0 percent from Jun 2009 to Dec 2013 while the import corporate goods price index increased 31.8 percent. Prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 5.3 percent from Jun 2009 to Apr 2012, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 38.6 percent. Unconventional monetary policy induces carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in commodities that squeeze economic activity of industrial countries by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials during periods without risk aversion. Reversals of carry trades during periods of risk aversion decrease prices of exported commodities and raw materials that squeeze economic activity in economies exporting commodities and raw materials. Devaluation of the dollar by unconventional monetary policy could increase US competitiveness in world markets but economic activity is squeezed by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.

Chart IV-8A, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Table IV-8 provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Dec 2013. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Dec 2013, the export index on the contract currency basis decreased 0.3 percent and decreased 4.6 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Dec 2013, the import index increased 12.8 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 8.2 percent on the yen basis. The charts show sharp deteriorations in relative prices of exports to prices of imports during multiple periods. Price margins of Japan’s producers are subject to periodic squeezes resulting from carry trades from zero interest rates of monetary policy to exposures in commodities.

Table IV-8, Japan, Exports and Imports Corporate Goods Price Index, Contract Currency Basis and Yen Basis

Month	Exports Contract Currency	Exports Yen	Imports Contract Currency	Imports Yen
2008/01	99.2	115.5	100.7	119.0
2008/02	99.8	116.1	102.4	120.6
2008/03	100.5	112.6	104.5	117.4
2008/04	101.6	115.3	110.1	125.2
2008/05	102.4	117.4	113.4	130.4
2008/06	103.5	120.7	119.5	140.3
2008/07	104.7	122.1	122.6	143.9
2008/08	103.7	122.1	123.1	147.0
2008/09	102.7	118.3	117.1	137.1
2008/10	100.2	109.6	109.1	121.5
2008/11	98.6	104.5	97.8	105.8
2008/12	97.9	100.6	89.3	93.0
2009/01	98.0	99.5	85.6	88.4
2009/02	97.5	100.1	85.7	89.7
2009/03	97.3	104.2	85.2	93.0
2009/04	97.6	105.6	84.4	93.0
2009/05	97.5	103.8	84.0	90.8
2009/06	97.9	104.9	86.2	93.5
2009/07	97.5	103.1	89.2	95.0
2009/08	98.3	104.4	89.6	95.8
2009/09	98.3	102.1	91.0	94.7
2009/10	98.0	101.2	91.0	94.0
2009/11	98.4	100.8	92.8	94.8
2009/12	98.3	100.7	95.4	97.5
2010/01	99.4	102.2	97.0	100.0
2010/02	99.7	101.6	97.6	99.8
2010/03	99.7	101.8	97.0	99.2
2010/04	100.5	104.6	99.9	104.6
2010/05	100.7	102.9	101.7	104.9
2010/06	100.1	101.6	100.0	102.3
2010/07	99.4	99.0	99.9	99.8
2010/08	99.1	97.3	99.5	97.5
2010/09	99.4	97.0	100.0	97.2
2010/10	100.1	96.4	100.5	95.8
2010/11	100.7	97.4	102.6	98.2
2010/12	101.2	98.3	104.4	100.6
2011/01	102.1	98.6	107.2	102.6
2011/02	102.9	99.5	109.0	104.3
2011/03	103.5	99.6	111.8	106.3
2011/04	104.1	101.7	115.9	111.9
2011/05	103.9	99.9	118.8	112.4
2011/06	103.8	99.3	117.5	110.5
2011/07	103.6	98.3	118.3	110.2
2011/08	103.6	96.6	118.6	108.1
2011/09	103.7	96.1	117.0	106.2
2011/10	103.0	95.2	116.6	105.6
2011/11	101.9	94.8	115.4	105.4
2011/12	101.5	94.5	116.1	106.2
2012/01	101.8	94.0	115.0	104.2
2012/02	102.4	95.8	115.8	106.4
2012/03	102.9	99.2	118.3	112.9
2012/04	103.1	98.7	119.5	113.1
2012/05	102.3	96.3	118.1	109.8
2012/06	101.4	95.0	115.2	106.7
2012/07	100.6	94.0	112.0	103.5
2012/08	100.9	94.1	112.4	103.6
2012/09	101.0	94.1	114.7	105.2
2012/10	101.1	94.8	113.8	105.2
2012/11	100.9	95.9	113.2	106.5
2012/12	100.7	98.0	113.4	109.5
2013/01	101.0	102.4	113.8	115.4
2013/02	101.5	105.9	114.8	120.2
2013/03	101.3	106.6	115.1	122.0
2013/04	100.2	107.5	114.1	123.8
2013/05	99.6	109.1	112.6	125.3
2013/06	99.2	106.1	112.0	121.2
2013/07	99.0	107.4	111.6	122.9
2013/08	98.9	106.0	111.7	121.3
2013/09	98.9	107.1	112.9	123.9
2013/10	99.1	106.6	112.9	122.7
2013/11	99.0	107.9	112.9	124.7
2013-12	98.9	110.2	113.6	128.8

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

Chart IV-9 provides the monthly corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan from 1970 to 2013. Japan also experienced sharp increase in inflation during the 1970s as in the episode of the Great Inflation in the US. Monetary policy focused on accommodating higher inflation, with emphasis solely on the mandate of promoting employment, has been blamed as deliberate or because of model error or imperfect measurement for creating the Great Inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). A remarkable similarity with US experience is the sharp rise of the CGPI of Japan in 2008 driven by carry trades from policy interest rates rapidly falling to zero to exposures in commodity futures during a global recession. Japan had the same sharp waves of consumer price inflation during the 1970s as in the US (see Chart IV-18 and associated table at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/collapse-of-united-states-dynamism-of.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/exit-risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world_1.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or_561.html and at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/increasing-interest-rate-risk_1.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/recovery-without-jobs-stagnating-real_09.html).

Chart IV-9, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 1970-2013

Source: Bank of Japan

The producer price index of the US from 1970 to 2013 in Chart IV-10 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 IV-10, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 1970-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/

Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table IV-9. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent increased 1.9 percent in Dec 2013 and increased 12.1 percent in 12 months. Japan exports manufactured products and imports raw materials and commodities such that the country’s terms of trade, or export prices relative to import prices, deteriorate during commodity price increases. In contrast, prices of production machinery, with weight of 3.1 percent, decreased 0.8 percent in Dec 2013 and decreased 1.1 percent in 12 months. In general, most manufactured products have been experiencing negative or low increases in prices while inflation rates have been high in 12 months for products originating in raw materials and commodities. Ironically, unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing that intended to increase aggregate demand and GDP growth deteriorated the terms of trade of advanced economies with adverse effects on real income (for analysis of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez (1979, 1976a). There are now inflation effects of the intentional policy of devaluing the yen.

Table IV-9, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%

Dec 2013	Weight	Month ∆%	12 Month ∆%
Total	1000.0	0.3	2.5
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs	137.5	-0.1	0.6
Petroleum & Coal	57.4	1.9	12.1
Production Machinery	30.8	-0.8	-1.1
Electronic Components	31.0	-0.2	-2.5
Electric Power, Gas & Water	52.7	-0.5	10.6
Iron & Steel	56.6	0.5	5.2
Chemicals	92.1	0.4	3.6
Transport Equipment	136.4	0.1	-0.3

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1312.pdf

ercentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Dec 2013 are provided in Table IV-10 divided into domestic, export and import segments. In the domestic CGPI, increasing 0.3 percent in Dec 2013, the energy shock is evident in the contribution of 0.14 percentage points by petroleum and coal products in new carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 0.1 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.08 percentage points by metals and related products. The imports CGPI increased 0.6 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal and natural gas products contributed 0.55 percentage points. Shocks of risk aversion cause unwinding carry trades that result in declining commodity prices with resulting downward pressure on price indexes. The volatility of inflation adversely affects financial and economic decisions worldwide.

Table IV-10, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index

Groups Dec 2013	Contribution to Change Percentage Points
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index	Monthly Change: 0.3%
Petroleum & Coal Products	0.14
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products	0.05
Nonferrous Metals	0.04
Chemicals & Related Products	0.04
Iron & Steel	0.03
Scrap & Waste	0.02
Electric Power, Gas & Water	-0.03
B. Export Price Index	Monthly Change: -0.1 % contract currency
Metals & Related Products	-0.08
Electric & Electronic Products	-0.03
Transportation Equipment	-0.02
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.02
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods	0.07
C. Import Price Index	Monthly Change: 0.6% contract currency basis
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas	0.55
Chemicals & Related Products	0.05
Wood, Lumber & Related Products	0.02
Metals & Related Products	-0.03

Source: Bank of Japan

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/

http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/pi/cgpi_release/cgpi1312.pdf

There are two categories of responses in the Empire State Manufacturing Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://www.newyorkfed.org/survey/empire/empiresurvey_overview.html): current conditions and expectations for the next six months. There are responses in the survey for two types of prices: prices received or inputs of production and prices paid or sales prices of products. Table IV-5 provides indexes for the two categories and within them for the two types of prices from Jan 2011 to Jan 2014. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs increased from 16.13 in Dec 2012 to 36.59 in Jan 2014 while the index of current prices received or sales prices increased from 1.08 in Dec 2012 to 13.41 in Jan 2014. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. Prices paid or of inputs at 36.59 in Jan 2014 are expanding more rapidly than prices received or of sales of products at 13.41. The index of future prices paid or expectations of costs of inputs in the next six months fell from 51.61 in Dec 2012 to 44.12 in Jan 2014 while the index of future prices received or expectation of sales prices in the next six months decreased from 25.81 in Dec 2012 to 23.17 in Jan 2014. Priced paid or of inputs are expected to increase at a faster pace in the next six months than prices received or prices of sales products. Prices of sales of finished products are less dynamic than prices of costs of inputs during waves of increases. Prices of costs of costs of inputs fall less rapidly than prices of sales of finished products during waves of price decreases. As a result, margins of prices of sales less costs of inputs oscillate with typical deterioration against producers, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Instability of sales/costs margins discourages investment and hiring.

Table IV-5, US, FRBNY Empire State Manufacturing Survey, Diffusion Indexes, Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Six Months Prices Paid	Six Months Prices Received
Jan 2014	36.59	13.41	45.12	23.17
Dec 2013	15.66	3.61	48.19	27.71
Nov	17.11	-3.95	42.11	17.11
Oct	21.69	2.41	45.78	25.30
Sep	21.51	8.60	39.78	24.73
Aug	20.48	3.61	40.96	19.28
Jul	17.39	1.09	28.26	11.96
Jun	20.97	11.29	45.16	17.74
May	20.45	4.55	29.55	14.77
Apr	28.41	5.68	44.32	14.77
Mar	25.81	2.15	50.54	23.66
Feb	26.26	8.08	44.44	13.13
Jan	22.58	10.75	38.71	21.51
Dec 2012	16.13	1.08	51.61	25.81
Nov	14.61	5.62	39.33	15.73
Oct	17.20	4.30	44.09	24.73
Sep	19.15	5.32	40.43	23.40
Aug	16.47	2.35	31.76	14.12
Jul	7.41	3.70	35.80	16.05
Jun	19.59	1.03	34.02	17.53
May	37.35	12.05	57.83	22.89
Apr	45.78	19.28	50.60	22.89
Mar	50.62	13.58	66.67	32.10
Feb	25.88	15.29	62.35	34.12
Jan	26.37	23.08	53.85	30.77
Dec 2011	24.42	3.49	56.98	36.05
Nov	18.29	6.10	36.59	25.61
Oct	22.47	4.49	40.45	17.98
Sep	32.61	8.70	53.26	22.83
Aug	28.26	2.17	42.39	15.22
Jul	43.33	5.56	51.11	30.00
Jun	56.12	11.22	55.10	19.39
May	69.89	27.96	68.82	35.48
Apr	57.69	26.92	56.41	38.46
Mar	53.25	20.78	71.43	36.36
Feb	45.78	16.87	55.42	27.71
Jan	35.79	15.79	60.00	42.11

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

Price indexes of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey are provided in Table IV-6. As inflation waves throughout the world (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html), indexes of both current and expectations of future prices paid and received were quite high until May 2011. Prices paid, or inputs, were more dynamic, reflecting carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. All indexes softened after May 2011 with even decline of prices received in Aug 2011 during the first round of risk aversion. Current and future price indexes have increased again but not back to the levels in the beginning of 2011 because of risk aversion frustrating carry trades even under zero interest rates. The index of prices paid or prices of inputs decreased from 20.6 in Dec 2012 to 18.6 in Jan 2014. The index of current prices received was minus 7.2 in Apr 2013, indicating decrease of prices received. The index of current prices received increased from 10.9 in Dec 2012 to 5.1 in Jan 2014. The farther the index is from the area of no change at zero, the faster the rate of change. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs at 18.1 in Jan 2014 indicates faster increase than the index of current prices received or sales prices of production at 5.1. The index of future prices paid decreased to 35.3 in Jan 2014 from 41.9 in Dec 2012 while the index of future prices received decreased from 27.3 in Dec 2012 to 11.8 in Jan 2014. Expectations are incorporating faster increases in prices of inputs or costs of production, 35.3 in Jan 2014, than of sales prices of produced goods, 11.8 in Jan 2014, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Volatility of margins of sales/costs discourage investment and hiring.

Table IV-6, US, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current and Future Prices Paid and Prices Received, SA

	Current Price Paid	Current Prices Received	Future Prices Paid	Future Prices Received
10-Dec	42.6	6.0	56.8	25.7
11-Jan	47.9	12.1	58.7	34.1
11-Feb	61.1	13.2	62.6	30.7
11-Mar	57.6	17	62.1	32.4
11-Apr	50.9	20.8	55.3	33.7
11-May	49.3	20.5	54.6	28.5
11-Jun	38.9	7.7	41.6	6.8
11-Jul	35.6	6.3	48.3	16.7
11-Aug	24.6	-4	45.2	23.4
11-Sep	32	7.1	40.9	22.2
11-Oct	24.3	2.8	42.9	27.8
11-Nov	22.8	6.3	35.4	28.3
11-Dec	25	7	43.1	24.7
12-Jan	25.3	8	47.5	20.8
12-Feb	31.9	9.4	43.4	24.8
12-Mar	14.1	5.3	37.8	22.6
12-Apr	18.1	6.2	35.2	20.2
12-May	7.7	0.7	39.5	9.7
12-Jun	5.5	-3.7	34.8	16.9
12-Jul	10.8	4.9	27.9	20.3
12-Aug	18	5.6	39.5	25
12-Sep	15.8	3.5	42.2	27.5
12-Oct	19.9	7.1	45.8	15.3
12-Nov	23.6	6.5	47.6	12.8
12-Dec	20.6	10.9	41.9	27.3
13-Jan	11.8	-1.6	33.9	20
13-Feb	10.6	-1.3	25.4	20.6
13-Mar	7.6	-1.3	32.4	16.8
13-Apr	5	-7.2	28.9	9.9
13-May	9.7	0.2	33.5	19.9
13-Jun	23.7	14.6	33.3	24.3
13-Jul	22.7	8	41	25.6
13-Aug	20.4	11.1	40.7	24.5
13-Sep	25.9	12.5	43	31.6
13-Oct	21	12.8	43.1	34.6
13-Nov	25.4	9	43.5	38.1
13-Dec	16.4	10.8	39.1	34.8
14-Jan	18.7	5.1	35.3	11.8

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

Chart IV-1 of the Business Outlook Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices paid or prices of inputs from 2006 to 2014. Recession dates are in shaded areas. In the middle of deep global contraction after IVQ2007, input prices continued to increase in speculative carry trades from central bank policy rates falling toward zero into commodities futures. The index peaked above 70 in the second half of 2008. Inflation of inputs moderated significantly during the shock of risk aversion in late 2008, even falling briefly into contraction territory below zero during several months in 2009 in the flight away from risk financial assets into US government securities (Cochrane and Zingales 2009) that unwound carry trades. Return of risk appetite induced carry trade with significant increase until return of risk aversion in the first round of the European sovereign debt crisis in Apr 2010. Carry trades returned during risk appetite in expectation that the European sovereign debt crisis was resolved. The various inflation waves originating in carry trades induced by zero interest rates with alternating episodes of risk aversion are mirrored in the prices of inputs after 2011, in particular after Aug 2012 with the announcement of the Outright Monetary Transactions Program of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html). Subsequent risk aversion and flows of capital away from commodities into stocks and high-yield bonds caused sharp decline in the index of prices paid followed by another recent rebound with marginal decline and new increase. The index falls in the final segment.

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

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

Chart IV-2 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Outlook Survey provides the diffusion index of current prices received from 2006 to 2014. The significant difference between the index of current prices paid in Chart IV-1 and the index of current prices received in Chart IV-2 is that increases in prices paid are significantly sharper than increases in prices received. There were several periods of negative readings of prices received from 2010 to 2014 but none of prices paid. Prices paid relative to prices received deteriorate most of the time largely because of the carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. Profit margins of business are compressed intermittently by fluctuations of commodity prices induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates, frustrating production, investment and hiring decisions of business, which is precisely the opposite outcome pursued by unconventional monetary policy.

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

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

ESIII World Inflation Waves. Table IA-1 provides annual equivalent rates of inflation for producer price indexes followed in this blog of countries and regions that account for close to three quarters of world output. The behavior of the US producer price index in 2011 and into 2012-2013 shows neatly multiple waves. (1) In Jan-Apr 2011, without risk aversion, US producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 10.0 percent. (2) After risk aversion, producer prices increased in the US at the annual equivalent rate of 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) From Jul to Sep 2011, under alternating episodes of risk aversion, producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.9 percent. (4) Under the pressure of risk aversion because of the European debt crisis, US producer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2011. (5) From Dec 2011 to Jan 2012, US producer were flat at the annual equivalent rate of 0.0 percent. (6) Inflation of producer prices returned with 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Mar 2012. (7) With return of risk aversion from the European debt crisis, producer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of 4.7 percent in Apr-May 2012. (8) New positions in commodity futures even with continuing risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 3.0 percent in Jun-Jul 2012. (9) Relaxed risk aversion because of announcement of sovereign bond buying by the European Central Bank induced carry trades that resulted in annual equivalent producer price inflation in the US of 12.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2012. (10) Renewed risk aversion caused unwinding of carry trades of zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures with annual equivalent inflation of minus 3.2 percent in Oct-Dec 2012. (10) In Jan-Feb 2013, producer prices rose at the annual equivalent rate of 5.5 percent with more relaxed risk aversion at the margin. (11) Return of risk aversion resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 7.5 percent in Mar-Apr 2013 with worldwide portfolio reallocation toward equities and high-yield bonds and away from commodity exposures. (12) Inflation of producer prices returned at 4.9 percent in annual equivalent in May-Aug 2013. (13) Continuing reallocation of investment portfolios away from commodities into equities is causing downward pressure on prices. In Sep-Nov 2013, the US producer price index fell at the annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent. (14) Renewed carry trades caused annual equivalent inflation of 4.9 percent in US producer prices in Dec 2013. Resolution of the European debt crisis if there is not an unfavorable growth event with political development in China would result in jumps of valuations of risk financial assets. Increases in commodity prices would cause the same high producer price inflation experienced in Jan-Apr 2011 and Aug-Sep 2012. An episode of exploding commodity prices could ignite inflationary expectations that would result in an inflation phenomenon of costly resolution. There are nine producer-price indexes in Table IA-1 for seven countries (two for the UK) and one region (euro area) showing very similar behavior. Zero interest rates without risk aversion cause increases in commodity prices that in turn increase input prices at a faster pace than output prices. Producer price inflation rose at very high rates during the first part of 2011 for the US, Japan, China, Euro Area, Germany, France, Italy and the UK when risk aversion was contained. With the increase in risk aversion in May and Jun 2011, inflation moderated because carry trades were unwound. Producer price inflation returned after Jul 2011, with alternating bouts of risk aversion. In the final months of the year producer price inflation collapsed because of the disincentive to exposures in commodity futures resulting from fears of resolution of the European debt crisis. There is renewed worldwide inflation in the early part of 2012 with subsequent collapse because of another round of sharp risk aversion and relative portfolio reallocation away from commodities and into equities and high-yield bonds. Sharp worldwide jump in producer prices occurred recently because of the combination of zero interest rates forever or QE→∞ with temporarily relaxed risk aversion. Producer prices were moderating or falling in the final months of 2012 because of renewed risk aversion that causes unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures exposures. In the first months of 2013, new carry trades caused higher worldwide inflation. Inflation of producer prices returned in the US and Japan in Dec 2013. Lower inflation recently originates in portfolio reallocations away from commodity exposures into equities. Unconventional monetary policy fails in stimulating the overall real economy, merely introducing undesirable instability because monetary authorities cannot control allocation of floods of money at zero interest rates to carry trades into risk financial assets. The economy is constrained in a suboptimal allocation of resources that monetary policy perpetuates along a continuum of short-term periods. The result is long-term or dynamic inefficiency in the form of a trajectory of economic activity that is lower than what would be attained with rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). Inflation of producer prices returned in the US and Japan in Dec 2013.

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

INDEX 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% May-Aug 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2013	-7.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	5.5
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-3.2
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	12.7
AE ∆% Jun-Jul 2012	3.0
AE ∆% Apr-May 2012	-4.7
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan-2012	0.0
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.0
Japan Corporate Goods Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-0.6
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Sep 2013	3.3
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-5.5
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.0
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-2.1
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.8
China Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2013	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	1.8
AE ∆% Mar-Jul 2013	-4.9
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-1.2
AE ∆% Oct 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Sep 2012	-5.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	-3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Jun 2011	6.4
Euro Zone Industrial Producer Prices
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2013	1.6
AE ∆% Mar-Jun 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Oct 2012	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	6.8
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	7.9
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-0.6
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	11.3
Germany Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-1.8 NSA –1.8 SA
AE ∆% Sep 2013	3.7 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Aug 2013	-1.8 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2013	-2.4 NSA –3.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	7.4 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2012	-0.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2012	4.3 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8 NSA –0.4 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.9 NSA 2.0 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0 NSA –0.6 SA
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4 NSA 3.2 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 3.7 SA
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4 NSA 6.2 SA
France Producer Price Index for the French Market
AE ∆% Nov 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Oct 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2013	5.3
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2013	-11.0
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-4.1
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	7.4
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-4.3
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.8
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.7
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	-1.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.4
Italy Producer Price Index
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-6.4
AE ∆% Jun-Sep 2013	0.3
AE ∆% Apr-May 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	1.2
AE ∆% Sep 2012-Jan 2013	-5.2
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	9.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2012	6.8
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2012	8.1
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.8
AE ∆% Jan-April 2011	10.7
UK Output Prices
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2013	-1.5
AE ∆% Jun-Aug 2013	2.0
AE ∆% Apr-May 2013	-0.6
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2013	4.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2012	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-3.5
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Nov 2011-Jan-2012	1.2
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	1.6
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	10.0
UK Input Prices
AE ∆% Dec 2013	1.2
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2013	-8.6
AE ∆% Jul 2013	18.2
AE ∆% Mar-Jun 2013	-9.5
AE ∆% Jan-Feb 2013	24.6
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	3.0
AE ∆% Aug 2012	23.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jul 2012	-16.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2012	14.9
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2011	0.0
AE ∆% May-Oct 2011	-1.3
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	30.6
AE ∆% Oct-Dec 2010	31.8

AE: Annual Equivalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar world inflation waves are in the behavior of consumer price indexes of six countries and the euro zone in Table IA-2. US consumer price inflation shows similar waves. (1) Under risk appetite in Jan-Apr 2011, consumer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 4.6 percent. (2) Risk aversion caused the collapse of inflation to annual equivalent 3.0 percent in May-Jun 2011. (3) Risk appetite drove the rate of consumer price inflation in the US to 3.3 percent in Jul-Sep 2011. (4) Gloomier views of carry trades caused the collapse of inflation in Oct-Nov 2011 to annual equivalent 0.6 percent. (5) Consumer price inflation resuscitated with increased risk appetite at annual equivalent of 1.2 percent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. (6) Consumer price inflation returned at 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Feb-Apr 2012. (7) Under renewed risk aversion, annual equivalent consumer price inflation in the US was 0.0 percent in May-Jul 2012. (8) Inflation jumped to annual equivalent 4.9 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. (9) Unwinding of carry trades caused negative annual equivalent inflation of 0.8 percent in Nov 2012-Jan 2013 but some countries experienced higher inflation in Dec 2012 and Jan 2013. (10) Inflation jumped again with annual equivalent inflation of 8.7 percent in Feb 2013 in a mood of relaxed risk aversion. (11) Inflation fell at 3.5 percent annual equivalent in Mar-Apr 2013. (12) Inflation rose at 2.7 percent in annual equivalent in May-Sep 2013. (13) Inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2013. (14) Inflation jumped at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Dec 2013. Inflationary expectations can be triggered in one of these episodes of accelerating inflation because of commodity carry trades induced by unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates in perpetuity or QE→∞ in almost continuous time. Alternating episodes of increase and decrease of inflation introduce uncertainty in household planning that frustrates consumption and home buying. Announcement of purchases of impaired sovereign bonds by the European Central Bank relaxed risk aversion that induced carry trades into commodity exposures, increasing prices of food, raw materials and energy. There is similar behavior in all the other consumer price indexes in Table IA-2. China’s CPI increased at annual equivalent 8.3 percent in Jan-Mar 2011, 2.0 percent in Apr-Jun, 2.9 percent in Jul-Nov and resuscitated at 5.8 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Mar 2012, declining to minus 3.9 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but resuscitating at 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2012, declining to minus 1.2 percent in Oct 2012 and 0.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2012. High inflation in China at annual equivalent 5.5 percent in Nov-Dec 2012 is attributed to inclement winter weather that caused increases in food prices. Continuing pressure of food prices caused annual equivalent inflation of 12.2 percent in China in Dec 2012 to Feb 2013. Inflation in China fell at annual equivalent 10.3 percent in Mar 2013 and increased at annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Apr 2013. Adjustment to lower food prices caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 7.0 percent in May 2013 and minus 3.5 percent in annual equivalent in May-Jun 2013. Inflation in China returned at annual equivalent 4.6 percent in Jul-Oct 2013, falling at 1.2 percent in annual equivalent in Nov 2013. As in most countries, inflation in China surged at 3.7 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2013. The euro zone harmonized index of consumer prices (HICP) increased at annual equivalent 5.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, minus 2.4 percent in May-Jul 2011, 4.3 percent in Aug-Dec 2011, minus 3.0 percent in Dec 2011-Jan 2012 and then 9.6 percent in Feb-Apr 2012, falling to minus 2.8 percent annual equivalent in May-Jul 2012 but resuscitating at 5.3 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. The recent shock of risk aversion forced minus 2.4 percent annual equivalent in Nov 2012. As in several European countries, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 4.9 percent in the euro area in Dec 2012. The HICP price index fell at annual equivalent 11.4 percent in Jan 2013 and increased at 10.0 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. As in most countries and regions, euro zone inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 1.2 percent in Apr 2013. Prices in the euro zone rose at 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2013. Inflation in the euro zone fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jul 2013. Inflation returned in the euro zone at annual equivalent 3.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2013. Euro zone inflation fell at the annual equivalent rate of 2.4 percent in Oct-Nov 2013. Euro zone inflation jumped at 3.7 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2013 as in most countries worldwide. The price indexes of the largest members of the euro zone, Germany, France and Italy, and the euro zone as a whole, exhibit the same inflation waves. The United Kingdom CPI increased at annual equivalent 6.5 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, falling to only 0.4 percent in May-Jul 2011 and then increasing at 4.6 percent in Aug-Nov 2011. UK consumer prices fell at 0.6 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 but increased at 6.2 percent annual equivalent from Feb to Apr 2012. In May-Jun 2012, with renewed risk aversion, UK consumer prices fell at the annual equivalent rate of minus 3.0 percent. Inflation returned in the UK at average annual equivalent of 4.5 percent in Jul-Dec 2012 with inflation in Oct 2012 caused mostly by increases of university tuition fees. Inflation returned at 4.5 percent annual equivalent in Jul-Dec 2012 and was higher in annual equivalent inflation of producer prices in the UK in Jul-Oct 2012 at 3.0 percent for output prices and 23.9 percent for input prices in Aug 2012 (see Table IA-1). Consumer prices in the UK fell at annual equivalent 5.8 percent in Jan 2013. Inflation returned in the UK with annual equivalent 4.3 percent in Feb-May 2013 and fell at 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2013. UK annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.4 percent in Aug-Dec 2013.

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

Index 2011-2013	AE ∆%
US Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-0.6
AE ∆% May-Sep 2013	2.7
AE ∆% Mar-Apr 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Feb 2013	8.7
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-0.8
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	4.9
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	2.4
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	0.6
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	3.3
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.6
China Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Nov 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Jul-Oct 2013	4.6
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% Apr 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Mar 2013	-10.3
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Feb 2013	12.2
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2012	4.1
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2012	-3.9
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Mar 2012	5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	2.9
AE ∆% Apr-Jun 2011	2.0
AE ∆% Jan-Mar 2011	8.3
Euro Zone Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices
AE ∆% Dec 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2013	-2.4
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Jul 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	1.2
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	10.0
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-11.4
AE ∆% Dec 2012	4.9
AE ∆% Nov 2012	-2.4
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	5.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.8
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	9.6
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.3
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-2.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	5.2
Germany Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Nov-Dec 2013	3.7 NSA 2.4 SA
AE ∆% Oct 2013	-2.4 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Aug-Sep 2013	0.0 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jul 2013	4.1 NSA 3.2 SA
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-5.8 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8 NSA 1.2 SA
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8 NSA 0.0 SA
AE ∆% Sep-Dec 2012	1.5 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	4.9 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-1.2 NSA 0.6 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	4.5 NSA 2.4 SA
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.6 NSA 1.8 SA
AE ∆% Jul-Nov 2011	1.7 NSA 1.9 SA
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	0.6 NSA 3.0 SA
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2011	3.0 NSA 2.4 SA
France Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	3.7
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Aug 2013	6.2
AE ∆% Jul 2013	-3.5
AE ∆% May-Jun 2013	1.8
AE ∆% Apr 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Mar 2013	6.8
AE ∆% Nov 2012-Jan 2013	-1.6
AE ∆% Aug-Oct 2012	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jul 2012	-2.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.3
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	0.0
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	2.7
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	-0.8
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.3
Italy Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Dec 2013	2.4
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2013	-3.2
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Aug 2013	2.0
AE ∆% Sep-Nov 2012	-0.8
AE ∆% Jul-Aug 2012	3.0
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	1.2
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	5.7
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	4.3
AE ∆% Oct-Nov 2011	3.0
AE ∆% Jul-Sep 2011	2.4
AE ∆% May-Jun 2011	1.2
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	4.9
UK Consumer Price Index
AE ∆% Aug-Dec 2013	3.4
AE ∆% Jun-Jul 2013	-1.2
AE ∆% Feb-May 2013	4.3
AE ∆% Jan 2013	-5.8
AE ∆% Jul-Dec 2012	4.5
AE ∆% May-Jun 2012	-3.0
AE ∆% Feb-Apr 2012	6.2
AE ∆% Dec 2011-Jan 2012	-0.6
AE ∆% Aug-Nov 2011	4.6
AE ∆% May-Jul 2011	0.4
AE ∆% Jan-Apr 2011	6.5

AE: Annual Equivalent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ESIV United States Industrial Production. Industrial production increased 0.3 percent in Dec 2013 after increasing 1.0 percent in Nov 2013 and increasing 0.3 percent in Oct 2013, as shown in Table I-1, with all data seasonally adjusted. The report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm):

“Industrial production rose 0.3 percent in December, its fifth consecutive monthly increase. For the fourth quarter as a whole, industrial production advanced at an annual rate of 6.8 percent, the largest quarterly increase since the second quarter of 2010; gains were widespread across industries. Following increases of 0.6 percent in each of the previous two months, factory output rose 0.4 percent in December and was 2.6 percent above its year-earlier level. The production of mines moved up 0.8 percent; the index has advanced 6.6 percent over the past 12 months. The output of utilities fell 1.4 percent after three consecutive monthly gains. At 101.8 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in December was 3.7 percent above its year-earlier level and 0.9 percent above its pre-recession peak in December 2007. Capacity utilization for total industry moved up 0.1 percentage point to 79.2 percent, a rate 1.0 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2012) average.”

In the six months ending in Dec 2013, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 2.7 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.5 percent, which is higher than growth of 3.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. Excluding growth of 1.0 percent in Nov 2013, growth in the remaining five months from Jul 2012 to Dec 2013 accumulated to 1.1 percent or 2.2 percent annual equivalent. Industrial production fell in one of the past six months. Business equipment accumulated growth of 1.7 percent in the six months from Jun to Nov 2013 at the annual equivalent rate of 4.2 percent, which is higher than growth of 3.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013. The Fed analyzes capacity utilization of total industry in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm): “Capacity utilization for total industry moved up 0.1 percentage point to 79.2 percent, a rate 1.0 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2012) average.” United States industry apparently decelerated to a lower growth rate with possible acceleration in the past few months.

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

2012-2013	Dec 13	Nov 13	Oct 13	Sep 13	Aug 13	Jul 13	Nov 13/ Nov 12
Total	0.3	1.0	0.3	0.6	0.5	-0.2	3.7
Market Groups
Final Products	0.2	0.7	0.3	1.0	0.7	-1.0	3.1
Consumer Goods	0.5	1.2	0.4	0.9	0.5	-1.1	3.6
Business Equipment	-0.5	-0.3	0.2	1.1	0.8	-0.7	1.8
Non Industrial Supplies	0.3	0.6	0.3	0.7	0.3	0.2	3.8
Construction	0.4	0.6	0.4	1.1	0.2	0.4	4.4
Materials	0.4	1.4	0.2	0.2	0.5	0.4	4.2
Industry Groups
Manufacturing	0.4	0.6	0.6	0.2	0.7	-0.5	2.6
Mining	0.8	1.9	-1.5	0.9	0.4	1.5	6.6
Utilities	-1.4	3.0	1.0	3.3	-1.0	-0.1	7.6
Capacity	79.2	79.1	78.4	78.3	78.0	77.7	1.8

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Manufacturing increased 0.4 percent in Dec 2013 after increasing 0.6 percent in Nov 2013 and increasing 0.6 percent in Oct 2013 seasonally adjusted, increasing 2.5 percent not seasonally adjusted in 12 months ending in Dec 2013, as shown in Table I-2. Manufacturing grew cumulatively 2.0 percent in the six months ending in Dec 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 4.1 percent. Excluding the increase of 0.7 percent in Aug 2013, manufacturing accumulated growth of 1.3 percent from Aug 2013 to Dec 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 3.2 percent. Excluding decline of 0.5 percent in Jul 2013, manufacturing grew 2.5 percent from Aug to Dec 2013 or at the annual equivalent rate of 6.2 percent. Table I-2 provides a longer perspective of manufacturing in the US. There has been evident deceleration of manufacturing growth in the US from 2010 and the first three months of 2011 into more recent months as shown by 12 months rates of growth. Growth rates appeared to be increasing again closer to 5 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but deteriorated. The rates of decline of manufacturing in 2009 are quite high with a drop of 18.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2009. Manufacturing recovered from this decline and led the recovery from the recession. Rates of growth appeared to be returning to the levels at 3 percent or higher in the annual rates before the recession but the pace of manufacturing fell steadily in the past six months with some strength at the margin. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System conducted the annual revision of industrial production released on Mar 22, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm):

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

The bottom part of Table I-2 shows decline of manufacturing by 21.9 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increase by 19.6 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2013. Manufacturing grew 19.6 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2013. Manufacturing output in Dec 2013 is 6.6 percent below the peak in Jun 2007.

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

	Month SA ∆%	12-Month NSA ∆%
Dec 2013	0.4	2.5
Nov	0.6	3.1
Oct	0.6	3.9
Sep	0.2	2.6
Aug	0.7	2.6
Jul	-0.5	1.4
Jun	0.3	1.8
May	0.3	1.8
Apr	-0.3	2.2
Mar	-0.2	1.8
Feb	0.6	1.9
Jan	-0.1	2.4
Dec 2012	0.9	3.0
Nov	1.4	3.3
Oct	-0.4	2.1
Sep	0.1	3.1
Aug	-0.7	3.5
Jul	0.2	4.0
Jun	0.3	5.0
May	-0.3	4.8
Apr	0.6	5.1
Mar	-0.5	3.9
Feb	0.6	5.3
Jan	1.0	4.2
Dec 2011	1.0	3.8
Nov	0.0	3.2
Oct	0.6	3.1
Sep	0.4	3.0
Aug	0.4	2.4
Jul	0.7	2.5
Jun	0.1	2.1
May	0.3	1.9
Apr	-0.7	3.1
Mar	0.7	4.9
Feb	0.0	5.4
Jan	0.2	5.6
Dec 2010	0.6	6.2
Nov	0.2	5.3
Oct	0.1	6.6
Sep	0.1	7.0
Aug	0.1	7.4
Jul	0.7	7.8
Jun	0.0	9.3
May	1.4	8.9
Apr	0.9	7.1
Mar	1.3	4.9
Feb	0.0	1.3
Jan	1.0	1.2
Dec 2009	0.0	-3.1
Nov	1.1	-6.1
Oct	0.1	-9.1
Sep	0.8	-10.6
Aug	1.1	-13.6
Jul	1.2	-15.2
Jun	-0.3	-17.6
May	-1.1	-17.6
Apr	-0.8	-18.2
Mar	-1.9	-17.3
Feb	-0.2	-16.1
Jan	-2.9	-16.4
Dec 2008	-3.4	-14.0
Nov	-2.2	-11.3
Oct	-0.6	-9.0
Sep	-3.4	-8.6
Aug	-1.3	-5.1
Jul	-1.1	-3.5
Jun	-0.5	-3.1
May	-0.5	-2.4
Apr	-1.1	-1.1
Mar	-0.3	-0.5
Feb	-0.6	0.9
Jan	-0.4	2.3
Dec 2007	0.2	2.0
Nov	0.5	3.4
Oct	-0.4	2.8
Sep	0.5	3.0
Aug	-0.4	2.6
Jul	0.1	3.4
Jun	0.3	2.9
May	-0.1	3.1
Apr	0.7	3.6
Mar	0.7	2.4
Feb	0.4	1.6
Jan	-0.5	1.3
Dec 2006		2.7
Dec 2005		3.4
Dec 2004		4.0
Dec 2003		1.7
Dec 2002		2.4
Dec 2001		-5.5
Dec 2000		0.4
Dec 1999		5.4
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2013		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2012		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 1999		4.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2006		1.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2013		0.6
∆% Peak 103.0005 in 06/2007 to 96.2534 in 12/2013		-6.6
∆% Peak 103.0005 on 06/2007 to Trough 80.4617 in 4/2009		-21.9
∆% Trough 80.4617 in 04/2009 to 96.2534 in 12/2013		19.6
∆% Trough 80.4617 in 04/2009 to 96.2534 in 12/2013		19.6
∆% Peak 103.0005 on 06/2007 to Trough 96.2534 in 12/2013		-6.6

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

ESV Theory and Reality of Economic History, Cyclical Slow Growth Not Secular Stagnation and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and large-scale purchases of long-term securities for the balance sheet of the central bank is proposed to prevent deflation. The data of CPI inflation of all goods and CPI inflation excluding food and energy for the past six decades does not show even one negative change, as shown in Table CPIEX.

Table CPIEX, Annual Percentage Changes of the CPI All Items Excluding Food and Energy

Year	Annual ∆%
1958	2.4
1959	2.0
1960	1.3
1961	1.3
1962	1.3
1963	1.3
1964	1.6
1965	1.2
1966	2.4
1967	3.6
1968	4.6
1969	5.8
1970	6.3
1971	4.7
1972	3.0
1973	3.6
1974	8.3
1975	9.1
1976	6.5
1977	6.3
1978	7.4
1979	9.8
1980	12.4
1981	10.4
1982	7.4
1983	4.0
1984	5.0
1985	4.3
1986	4.0
1987	4.1
1988	4.4
1989	4.5
1990	5.0
1991	4.9
1992	3.7
1993	3.3
1994	2.8
1995	3.0
1996	2.7
1997	2.4
1998	2.3
1999	2.1
2000	2.4
2001	2.6
2002	2.4
2003	1.4
2004	1.8
2005	2.2
2006	2.5
2007	2.3
2008	2.3
2009	1.7
2010	1.0
2011	1.7
2012	2.1
2013	1.8

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

Zero interest rates and quantitative easing are designed to lower costs of borrowing for investment and consumption, increase stock market valuations and devalue the dollar. In practice, the carry trade is from zero interest rates to a large variety of risk financial assets including commodities. Resulting commodity price inflation squeezes family budgets and deteriorates the terms of trade with negative effects on aggregate demand and employment. Excessive valuations of risk financial assets eventually result in crashes of financial markets with possible adverse effects on economic activity and employment.

The history of producer price inflation in the past five decades does not provide evidence of deflation. The finished core PPI does not register even one single year of decline, as shown in Table PPIEX.

Table PPIEX, Annual Percentage Changes of the PPI Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy

Year	Annual ∆%
1974	11.4
1975	11.4
1976	5.7
1977	6.0
1978	7.5
1979	8.9
1980	11.2
1981	8.6
1982	5.7
1983	3.0
1984	2.4
1985	2.5
1986	2.3
1987	2.4
1988	3.3
1989	4.4
1990	3.7
1991	3.6
1992	2.4
1993	1.2
1994	1.0
1995	2.1
1996	1.4
1997	0.3
1998	0.9
1999	1.7
2000	1.3
2001	1.4
2002	0.1
2003	0.2
2004	1.5
2005	2.4
2006	1.5
2007	1.9
2008	3.4
2009	2.6
2010	1.2
2011	2.4
2012	2.6
2013	1.5

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2013 in Chart I-6 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.

Chart I-6, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, NSA, 1947-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-7, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1948-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Annual percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2013 are shown in Table I-1A. The producer price index fell 2.8 percent in 1949 following the adjustment to World War II and fell 0.6 percent in 1952 and 1.0 percent in 1953 around the Korean War. There are two other mild decline of 0.3 percent in 1959 and 0.3 percent in 1963. There are only few subsequent and isolated declines of the producer price index of 1.4 percent in 1986, 0.8 percent in 1998, 1.3 percent in 2002 and 2.6 percent in 2009. The decline of 2009 was caused by unwinding of carry trades in 2008 that had lifted oil prices to $140/barrel during deep global recession because of the panic of probable toxic assets in banks that would be removed with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). There is no evidence in this history of 65 years of the US producer price index suggesting that there is frequent and persistent deflation shock requiring aggressive unconventional monetary policy. The design of such anti-deflation policy could provoke price and financial instability because of lags in effect of monetary policy, model errors, inaccurate forecasts and misleading analysis of current economic conditions.

Table I-1A, US, Annual PPI Inflation ∆% 1948-2013

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
2013	1.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Chart I-13 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index from 1914 to 2013. The only episode of deflation after 1950 is in 2009, which is explained by the reversal of speculative commodity futures carry trades that were induced by interest rates driven to zero in a shock of monetary policy in 2008. The only persistent case of deflation is from 1930 to 1933, which has little if any relevance to the contemporary United States economy. There are actually three waves of inflation in the second half of the 1960s, in the mid-1970s and again in the late 1970s. Inflation rates then stabilized in a range with only two episodes above 5 percent.

Chart I-13, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, 12- Month Percentage Change 1914-2013

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

Table I-2 provides annual percentage changes of United States consumer price inflation from 1914 to 2013. There have been only cases of annual declines of the CPI after wars: (1)

World War I minus 10.5 percent in 1921 and minus 6.1 percent in 1922 following cumulative increases of 83.5 percent in four years from 1917 to 1920 at the average of 16.4 percent per year
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
Minus 0.4 percent in 1955 two years after the end of the Korean War
Minus 0.4 percent in 2009.
The decline of 0.4 percent in 2009 followed increase of 3.8 percent in 2008 and is explained by the reversal of speculative carry trades into commodity futures that were created in 2008 as monetary policy rates were driven to zero. The reversal occurred after misleading statement on toxic assets in banks in the proposal for TARP (Cochrane and Zingales 2009).

There were declines of 1.7 percent in both 1927 and 1928 during the episode of revival of rules of the gold standard. The only persistent deflationary period since 1914 was during the Great Depression in the years from 1930 to 1933 and again in 1938-1939. Fear of deflation on the basis of that experience does not justify unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates that has failed to stop deflation in Japan. Financial repression causes far more adverse effects on allocation of resources by distorting the calculus of risk/returns than alleged employment-creating effects or there would not be current recovery without jobs and hiring after zero interest rates since Dec 2008 and intended now forever in a self-imposed forecast growth and employment mandate of monetary policy.

Table I-2, US, Annual CPI Inflation ∆% 1914-2013

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
2013	1.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T= (∆P^e/∆Pⁱ)∆Q

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The experience of the United Kingdom with deflation and economic growth is relevant and rich. Table IE-1 uses yearly percentage changes of the composite index of prices of the United Kingdom of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004). There are 73 declines of inflation in the 145 years from 1751 to 1896. Prices declined in 50.3 percent of 145 years. Some price declines were quite sharp and many occurred over several years. Table IE-1 also provides yearly percentage changes of the UK composite price index of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) from 1929 to 1934. Deflation was much sharper in continuous years in earlier periods than during the Great Depression. The United Kingdom could not have led the world in modern economic growth if there were meaningful causality from deflation to depression.

Table IE-1, United Kingdom, Negative Percentage Changes of Composite Price Index, 1751-1896, 1929-1934, Yearly ∆%

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

Source:

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

Lucas (2011May) estimates US economic growth in the long-term at 3 percent per year and about 2 percent per year in per capita terms. There are displacements from this trend caused by events such as wars and recessions but the economy then returns to trend. Historical US GDP data exhibit remarkable growth: Lucas (2011May) estimates an increase of US real income per person by a factor of 12 in the period from 1870 to 2010. The explanation by Lucas (2011May) of this remarkable growth experience is that government provided stability and education while elements of “free-market capitalism” were an important driver of long-term growth and prosperity. The analysis is sharpened by comparison with the long-term growth experience of G7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan) and Spain from 1870 to 2010. Countries benefitted from “common civilization” and “technology” to “catch up” with the early growth leaders of the US and UK, eventually growing at a faster rate. Significant part of this catch up occurred after World War II. If deflation causes depressions as embedded in the theory of unconventional monetary policy, the United Kingdom would not have been a growth leader in the nineteenth century while staying almost half of the time in deflation.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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. Professor Lawrence H. Summers (2013Nov8) finds that “a set of older ideas that went under the phrase secular stagnation are not profoundly important in understanding Japan’s experience in the 1990s and may not be without relevance to America’s experience today” (emphasis added). Summers (2013Nov8) argues there could be an explanation in “that the short-term real interest rate that was consistent with full employment had fallen to -2% or -3% sometime in the middle of the last decade. Then, even with artificial stimulus to demand coming from all this financial imprudence, you wouldn’t see any excess demand. And even with a relative resumption of normal credit conditions, you’d have a lot of difficulty getting back to full employment.” The US economy could be in a situation where negative real rates of interest with fed funds rates close to zero as determined by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) do not move the economy to full employment or full utilization of productive resources. Summers (2013Oct8) finds need of new thinking on “how we manage an economy in which the zero nominal interest rates is a chronic and systemic inhibitor of economy activity holding our economies back to their potential.”

Former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (2014Jan8) finds three major risks in prolonged unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing: (1) incentive of delaying action by political leaders; (2) “financial moral hazard” in inducing excessive exposures pursuing higher yields of risker credit classes; and (3) major risks in exiting unconventional policy. Rubin (2014Jan8) proposes reduction of deficits by structural reforms that could promote recovery by improving confidence of business attained with sound fiscal discipline.

Professor John B. Taylor (2014Jan01, 2014Jan3) 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, 2014Jan3) 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, 2014Jan3) finds another contradiction in the low ratio of investment to GDP currently and reduced investment and hiring by US business firms.
Taylor (2014Jan01, 2014Jan3) argues that the financial crisis and global recession were caused by weak implementation of existing regulation and departure from rules-based policies.
Taylor (2014Jan01, 2014Jan3) argues that the recovery from the global recession was constrained by a change in the regime of regulation and fiscal/monetary policies.

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.”

Table I-4b and Chart I-12-b provide the US labor force participation rate or percentage of the labor force in population. It is not likely that simple demographic trends caused the sharp decline during the global recession and failure to recover earlier levels. The civilian labor force participation rate dropped from the peak of 66.9 percent in Jul 2006 to 62.6 percent in Dec 2013. The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.7 percent on an annual basis in 1979 and 63.4 percent in Dec 1980 and Dec 1981, reaching even 62.9 percent in both Apr and May 1979. The civilian labor force participation rate jumped with the recovery to 64.8 percent on an annual basis in 1985 and 65.9 percent in Jul 1985. Structural factors cannot explain these sudden changes vividly shown visually in the final segment of Chart I-12b. Seniors would like to delay their retiring especially because of the adversities of financial repression on their savings. Labor force statistics are capturing the disillusion of potential workers with their chances in finding a job in what Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) characterize as accentuated cyclical factors. 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). “Secular stagnation” would be a process over many years and not from one year to another. This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. The key current event is not secular stagnation but cyclical slow growth.

Table I-4b, US, Labor Force Participation Rate, Percent of Labor Force in Population, NSA, 1979-2013

Year	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1979	62.9	62.9	64.5	64.9	64.5	63.8	64.0	63.8	63.8	63.7
1980	63.2	63.5	64.6	65.1	64.5	63.6	63.9	63.7	63.4	63.8
1981	63.6	63.9	64.6	65.0	64.6	63.5	64.0	63.8	63.4	63.9
1982	63.3	63.9	64.8	65.3	64.9	64.0	64.1	64.1	63.8	64.0
1983	63.2	63.4	65.1	65.4	65.1	64.3	64.1	64.1	63.8	64.0
1984	63.7	64.3	65.5	65.9	65.2	64.4	64.6	64.4	64.3	64.4
1985	64.3	64.6	65.5	65.9	65.4	64.9	65.1	64.9	64.6	64.8
1986	64.6	65.0	66.3	66.6	66.1	65.3	65.5	65.4	65.0	65.3
1987	64.9	65.6	66.3	66.8	66.5	65.5	65.9	65.7	65.5	65.6
1988	65.3	65.5	66.7	67.1	66.8	65.9	66.1	66.2	65.9	65.9
1989	65.9	66.2	67.4	67.7	67.2	66.3	66.6	66.7	66.3	66.5
1990	66.1	66.5	67.4	67.7	67.1	66.4	66.5	66.3	66.1	66.5
1991	66.0	66.0	67.2	67.3	66.6	66.1	66.1	66.0	65.8	66.2
1992	66.0	66.4	67.6	67.9	67.2	66.3	66.2	66.2	66.1	66.4
1993	65.6	66.3	67.3	67.5	67.0	66.1	66.4	66.3	66.2	66.3
1994	66.0	66.5	67.2	67.5	67.2	66.5	66.8	66.7	66.5	66.6
1995	66.4	66.4	67.2	67.7	67.1	66.5	66.7	66.5	66.2	66.6
1996	66.2	66.7	67.4	67.9	67.2	66.8	67.1	67.0	66.7	66.8
1997	66.7	67.0	67.8	68.1	67.6	67.0	67.1	67.1	67.0	67.1
1998	66.6	67.0	67.7	67.9	67.3	67.0	67.1	67.1	67.0	67.1
1999	66.7	67.0	67.7	67.9	67.3	66.8	67.0	67.0	67.0	67.1
2000	67.0	67.0	67.7	67.6	67.2	66.7	66.9	66.9	67.0	67.1
2001	66.7	66.6	67.2	67.4	66.8	66.6	66.7	66.6	66.6	66.8
2002	66.4	66.5	67.1	67.2	66.8	66.6	66.6	66.3	66.2	66.6
2003	66.2	66.2	67.0	66.8	66.3	65.9	66.1	66.1	65.8	66.2
2004	65.7	65.8	66.5	66.8	66.2	65.7	66.0	66.1	65.8	66.0
2005	65.8	66.0	66.5	66.8	66.5	66.1	66.2	66.1	65.9	66.0
2006	65.8	66.0	66.7	66.9	66.5	66.1	66.4	66.4	66.3	66.2
2007	65.7	65.8	66.6	66.8	66.1	66.0	66.0	66.1	65.9	66.0
2008	65.7	66.0	66.6	66.8	66.4	65.9	66.1	65.8	65.7	66.0
2009	65.4	65.5	66.2	66.2	65.6	65.0	64.9	64.9	64.4	65.4
2010	64.9	64.8	65.1	65.3	65.0	64.6	64.4	64.4	64.1	64.7
2011	63.9	64.1	64.5	64.6	64.3	64.2	64.1	63.9	63.8	64.1
2012	63.4	63.8	64.3	64.3	63.7	63.6	63.8	63.5	63.4	63.7
2013	63.1	63.5	64.0	64.0	63.4	63.2	62.9	62.9	62.6	63.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart I-12b, US, Labor Force Participation Rate, Percent of Labor Force in Population, NSA, 1979-2013

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Broader perspective is provided by Chart I-12c of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The United States civilian noninstitutional population has increased along a consistent trend since 1948 that continued through earlier recessions and the global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 and the cyclical expansion after IIIQ2009.

Chart I-12c, US, Civilian Noninstitutional Population, Thousands, NSA, 1948-2013

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

The labor force of the United States in Chart I-12d has increased along a trend similar to that of the civilian noninstitutional population in Chart I-12c. There is an evident stagnation of the civilian labor force in the final segment of Chart I-12d during the current economic cycle. This stagnation is explained by cyclical factors similar to those analyzed by Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) that motivated an increasing population to drop out of the labor force instead of structural factors. Large segments of the potential labor force are not observed, constituting unobserved unemployment and of more permanent nature because those afflicted have been seriously discouraged from working by the lack of opportunities.

Chart I-12d, US, Labor Force, Thousands, NSA, 1948-2013

Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

The civilian labor force in Chart I-24 grew steadily on an upward trend in the 2000s until it contracted together with the economy after 2007. There has not been recovery during the expansion but rather decline and marginal turn of the year 2011 into expansion in 2012 followed by stability and oscillation into 2013. The ratio of the labor force of 154.871 million in Jul 2007 to the noninstitutional population of 231.958 million in Jul 2007 was 66.8 percent while the ratio of the labor force of 154.408 million in Dec 2013 to the noninstitutional population of 246.745 million in Dec 2013 was 62.6 percent. The labor force of the US in Dec 2013 corresponding to 66.8 percent of participation in the population would be 164.826 million (0.668 x 246.745). The difference between the measured labor force in Dec 2013 of 154.408 million and the labor force in Dec 2013 with participation rate of 66.8 percent (as in Jul 2007) of 164.826 million is 10.418 million. The level of the labor force in the US has stagnated and is 10.418 million lower than what it would have been had the same participation rate been maintained. Millions of people have abandoned their search for employment because they believe there are no jobs available for them. The key issue is whether the decline in participation of the population in the labor force is the result of people giving up on finding another job.

Chart I-24, US, Civilian Labor Force, Thousands, 2001-2013

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics