IMF View, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, United States Producer Prices, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part I

 

IMF View, Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates, United States Industrial Production, United States Producer Prices, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

I IMF View

IIA United States Industrial Production

IIB United States Producer Prices

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

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

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

Executive Summary

Contents of Executive Summary

ESI Financial “Irrational Exuberance,” Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Competitive Devaluations, Steepening Yield Curve and Global Financial and Economic Risk

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

ESIII IMF View

ESIV United States Industrial Production

ESV United States Producer Prices

ESI “Financial “Irrational Exuberance,” Increasing Interest Rate Risk, Tapering Quantitative Easing, Duration Dumping, Steepening Yield Curve and Global Financial and Economic Risk. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides an international safety net for prevention and resolution of international financial crises. The IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) provides analysis of the economic and financial sectors of countries (see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-62, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008), 114-23). Relating economic and financial sectors is a challenging task for both theory and measurement. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provides an international safety net for prevention and resolution of international financial crises. The IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) provides analysis of the economic and financial sectors of countries (see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-62, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008), 114-23). Relating economic and financial sectors is a challenging task for both theory and measurement. The IMF provides surveillance of the world economy with its Global Economic Outlook (WEO) (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=29), of the world financial system with its Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/index.htm) and of fiscal affairs with the Fiscal Monitor (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=262). There appears to be a moment of transition in global economic and financial variables that may prove of difficult analysis and measurement. It is useful to consider a summary of global economic and financial risks, which are analyzed in detail in the comments of this blog in Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets, Table VI-4.

Economic risks include the following:

1. China’s Economic Growth. China is lowering its growth target to 7.5 percent per year. Growth of China’s GDP in IIQ2014 relative to the same period in 2013 was 7.5 percent. Secondary industry accounts for 46.0 percent of GDP of which industry alone for 39.7 percent in cumulative IIQ2014 and construction with the remaining 6.3 percent. Tertiary industry accounts for 46.6 percent of GDP in cumulative IIQ2014 and primary industry for 7.4 percent. China’s growth strategy consisted of rapid increases in productivity in industry to absorb population from agriculture where incomes are lower (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 56-80). The strategy is changing to lower growth rates while improving living standards. GDP growth decelerated from 12.1 percent in IQ2010 and 11.2 percent in IIQ2010 to 7.7 percent in IQ2013, 7.5 percent in IIQ2013 and 7.8 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP grew 7.7 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 1.7 percent relative to IIIQ2013, which is equivalent to 7.0 percent per year. GDP grew 7.4 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 1.5 percent in IQ2014 that is equivalent to 6.1 percent per year. GP grew 7.5 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 2.0 percent relative to the prior quarter, which is equivalent 8.2 percent (Section VC an earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/imf-view-world-inflation-waves-squeeze.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/capital-flows-exchange-rates-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/tapering-quantitative-easing-policy-and_7005.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/recovery-without-hiring-world-inflation.html and earlier at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/world-inflation-waves-stagnating-united_21.html). There is also concern about indebtedness, move to devaluation and deep policy reforms.
2. United States Economic Growth, Labor Markets and Budget/Debt Quagmire. The US is growing slowly with 26.5 million in job stress, fewer 10 million full-time jobs, high youth unemployment, historically low hiring and declining/stagnating real wages. Actual GDP is about two trillion dollars lower than trend GDP.
3. Economic Growth and Labor Markets in Advanced Economies. Advanced economies are growing slowly. There is still high unemployment in advanced economies.
4. World Inflation Waves. Inflation continues in repetitive waves globally (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html). There is growing concern on capital outflows and currency depreciation of emerging markets.

A list of financial uncertainties includes:

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

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

• The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). Central bank commitment to maintain the fed funds rate at 1.00 percent induced adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMS) linked to the fed funds rate. Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment. The exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at interest rates close to zero, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV). The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper with the objective of purchasing default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever-increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. The put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VIII-1. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2004/20040630/default.htm) to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20060629a.htm) caused the financial crisis and global recession.
• On Dec 16, 2008, the policy determining committee of the Fed decided (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm): “The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.” Policymakers emphasize frequently that there are tools to exit unconventional monetary policy at the right time. At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states that: “The Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.” Perception of withdrawal of $2671 billion, or $2.7 trillion, of bank reserves (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1), would cause Himalayan increase in interest rates that would provoke another recession. There is no painless gradual or sudden exit from zero interest rates because reversal of exposures created on the commitment of zero interest rates forever.

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

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

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

W = Y/r (1)

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

Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Oct 16, 2014 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

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

	Fed Funds Overnight Rate	10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity	Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond
1/2/2001	6.67	4.92	7.91
10/1/2002	1.85	3.72	7.46
7/3/2003	0.96	3.67	6.39
6/22/2004	1.00	4.72	6.77
6/28/2006	5.06	5.25	6.94
9/17/2008	2.80	3.41	7.25
10/26/2008	0.09	2.16	8.00
10/31/2008	0.22	4.01	9.54
4/6/2009	0.14	2.95	8.63
4/5/2010	0.20	4.01	6.44
2/4/2011	0.17	3.68	6.25
7/25/2012	0.15	1.43	4.73
5/1/13	0.14	1.66	4.48
9/5/13	0.08	2.98	5.53
11/21/2013	0.09	2.79	5.44
11/26/13	0.09	2.74	5.34 (11/26/13)
12/5/13	0.09	2.88	5.47
12/11/13	0.09	2.89	5.42
12/18/13	0.09	2.94	5.36
12/26/13	0.08	3.00	5.37
1/1/2014	0.08	3.00	5.34
1/8/2014	0.07	2.97	5.28
1/15/2014	0.07	2.86	5.18
1/22/2014	0.07	2.79	5.11
1/30/2014	0.07	2.72	5.08
2/6/2014	0.07	2.73	5.13
2/13/2014	0.06	2.73	5.12
2/20/14	0.07	2.76	5.15
2/27/14	0.07	2.65	5.01
3/6/14	0.08	2.74	5.11
3/13/14	0.08	2.66	5.05
3/20/14	0.08	2.79	5.13
3/27/14	0.08	2.69	4.95
4/3/14	0.08	2.80	5.04
4/10/14	0.08	2.65	4.89
4/17/14	0.09	2.73	4.89
4/24/14	0.10	2.70	4.84
5/1/14	0.09	2.63	4.77
5/8/14	0.08	2.61	4.79
5/15/14	0.09	2.50	4.72
5/22/14	0.09	2.56	4.81
5/29/14	0.09	2.45	4.69
6/05/14	0.09	2.59	4.83
6/12/14	0.09	2.58	4.79
6/19/14	0.10	2.64	4.83
6/26/14	0.10	2.53	4.71
7/2/14	0.10	2.64	4.84
7/10/14	0.09	2.55	4.75
7/17/14	0.09	2.47	4.69
7/24/14	0.09	2.52	4.72
7/31/14	0.08	2.58	4.75
8/7/14	0.09	2.43	4.71
8/14/14	0.09	2.40	4.69
8/21/14	0.09	2.41	4.69
8/28/14	0.09	2.34	4.57
9/04/14	0.09	2.45	4.70
9/11/14	0.09	2.54	4.79
9/18/14	0.09	2.63	4.91
9/25/14	0.09	2.52	4.79
10/02/14	0.09	2.44	4.76
10/09/14	0.08	2.34	4.68
10/16/14	0.09	2.17	4.64

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Sep 17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. The Committee continues to anticipate, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored” (emphasis added).

Perhaps one of the most critical statements on policy is the answer to a question of Peter Barnes by Chair Janet Yellen at the press conference following the meeting on Jun 18, 2014 (page 19 at http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20140618.pdf):

So I don't have a sense--the committee doesn't try to gauge what is the right level of equity prices. But we do certainly monitor a number of different metrics that give us a feeling for where valuations are relative to things like earnings or dividends, and look at where these metrics stand in comparison with previous history to get a sense of whether or not we're moving to valuation levels that are outside of historical norms, and I still don't see that. I still don't see that for equity prices broadly” (emphasis added).

Chart S provides the yield of the two-year Treasury constant maturity from Mar 17, 2014, two days before the guidance of Chair Yellen on Mar 19, 2014, to Oct 16, 2014. Chart SA provides the yields of the seven-, ten- and thirty-year Treasury constant maturity in the same dates. Yields increased right after the guidance of Chair Yellen. The two-year yield remain at a higher level than before while the ten-year yield fell and increased again. There could be more immediate impact on two-year yields of an increase in the fed funds rates but the effects would spread throughout the term structure of interest rates (Cox, Ingersoll and Ross 1981, 1985, Ingersoll 1987). Yields converged toward slightly lower earlier levels in the week of Apr 24, 2014 with reallocation of portfolios of risk financial assets away from equities and into bonds and commodities. There is ongoing reshuffling of portfolios to hedge against geopolitical events and world/regional economic performance.

Chart S, US, Yield of Two-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, Mar 17 to Oct 16, 2014 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart SA, US, Yield of Seven-Year, Ten-Year and Thirty-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, Mar 17 to Oct 16, 2014 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

At a speech on Mar 31, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed labor market conditions as follows (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140331a.htm):

“And based on the evidence available, it is clear to me that the U.S. economy is still considerably short of the two goals assigned to the Federal Reserve by the Congress. The first of those goals is maximum sustainable employment, the highest level of employment that can be sustained while maintaining a stable inflation rate. Most of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee and I estimate that the unemployment rate consistent with maximum sustainable employment is now between 5.2 percent and 5.6 percent, well below the 6.7 percent rate in February.

Let me explain what I mean by that word "slack" and why it is so important.

Slack means that there are significantly more people willing and capable of filling a job than there are jobs for them to fill. During a period of little or no slack, there still may be vacant jobs and people who want to work, but a large share of those willing to work lack the skills or are otherwise not well suited for the jobs that are available. With 6.7 percent unemployment, it might seem that there must be a lot of slack in the U.S. economy, but there are reasons why that may not be true.”

Inflation and unemployment in the period 1966 to 1985 is analyzed by Cochrane (2011Jan, 23) by means of a Phillips circuit joining points of inflation and unemployment. Chart VI-1B for Brazil in Pelaez (1986, 94-5) was reprinted in The Economist in the issue of Jan 17-23, 1987 as updated by the author. Cochrane (2011Jan, 23) argues that the Phillips circuit shows the weakness in Phillips curve correlation. The explanation is by a shift in aggregate supply, rise in inflation expectations or loss of anchoring. The case of Brazil in Chart VI-1B cannot be explained without taking into account the increase in the fed funds rate that reached 22.36 percent on Jul 22, 1981 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm) in the Volcker Fed that precipitated the stress on a foreign debt bloated by financing balance of payments deficits with bank loans in the 1970s. The loans were used in projects, many of state-owned enterprises with low present value in long gestation. The combination of the insolvency of the country because of debt higher than its ability of repayment and the huge government deficit with declining revenue as the economy contracted caused adverse expectations on inflation and the economy.  This interpretation is consistent with the case of the 24 emerging market economies analyzed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 4), concluding that “higher debt levels are associated with significantly higher levels of inflation in emerging markets. Median inflation more than doubles (from less than seven percent to 16 percent) as debt rises from the low (0 to 30 percent) range to above 90 percent. Fiscal dominance is a plausible interpretation of this pattern.”

The reading of the Phillips circuits of the 1970s by Cochrane (2011Jan, 25) is doubtful about the output gap and inflation expectations:

“So, inflation is caused by ‘tightness’ and deflation by ‘slack’ in the economy. This is not just a cause and forecasting variable, it is the cause, because given ‘slack’ we apparently do not have to worry about inflation from other sources, notwithstanding the weak correlation of [Phillips circuits]. These statements [by the Fed] do mention ‘stable inflation expectations. How does the Fed know expectations are ‘stable’ and would not come unglued once people look at deficit numbers? As I read Fed statements, almost all confidence in ‘stable’ or ‘anchored’ expectations comes from the fact that we have experienced a long period of low inflation (adaptive expectations). All these analyses ignore the stagflation experience in the 1970s, in which inflation was high even with ‘slack’ markets and little ‘demand, and ‘expectations’ moved quickly. They ignore the experience of hyperinflations and currency collapses, which happen in economies well below potential.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) states that “Historically, slack has accounted for only a small portion of the fluctuations in inflation. Indeed, unusual aspects of the current recovery may have shifted the lead-lag relationship between a tightening labor market and rising inflation pressures in either direction.”

Chart VI-1B provides the tortuous Phillips Circuit of Brazil from 1963 to 1987. There were no reliable consumer price index and unemployment data in Brazil for that period. Chart VI-1B used the more reliable indicator of inflation, the wholesale price index, and idle capacity of manufacturing as a proxy of unemployment in large urban centers.

ChVI1-B, Brazil, Phillips Circuit, 1963-1987

Source:

©Carlos Manuel Pelaez, O Cruzado e o Austral: Análise das Reformas Monetárias do Brasil e da Argentina. São Paulo: Editora Atlas, 1986, pages 94-5. Reprinted in: Brazil. Tomorrow’s Italy, The Economist, 17-23 January 1987, page 25.

The minutes of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 16-17, 2014, reveal concern with global economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20140917.htm):

“Most viewed the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as broadly balanced. However, a number of participants noted that economic growth over the medium term might be slower than they expected if foreign economic growth came in weaker than anticipated, structural productivity continued to increase only slowly, or the recovery in residential construction continued to lag.”

It is quite difficult to measure inflationary expectations because they tend to break abruptly from past inflation. There could still be an influence of past and current inflation in the calculation of future inflation by economic agents. Table VIII-1 provides inflation of the CPI. In the three months from Jun 2014 to Aug 2014, CPI inflation for all items seasonally adjusted was 0.8 percent in annual equivalent, obtained by calculating accumulated inflation from Jun 2014 to Aug 2014 and compounding for a full year. In the 12 months ending in Aug 2014, CPI inflation of all items not seasonally adjusted was 1.7 percent. Inflation in Aug 2014 seasonally adjusted was minus 0.2 percent relative to Jul 2014, or minus 2.4 percent annual equivalent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The second row provides the same measurements for the CPI of all items excluding food and energy: 1.7 percent in 12 months and 0.8 percent in annual equivalent Jun 2014-Aug 2014. The Wall Street Journal provides the yield curve of US Treasury securities (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_bonds.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3000). The shortest term is 0.033 percent for one month, 0.023 percent for three months, 0.048 percent for six months, 0.104 percent for one year, 0.375 percent for two years, 0.790 percent for three years, 1.420 percent for five years, 1.861 percent for seven years, 2.197 percent for ten years and 2.970 percent for 30 years. The Irving Fisher (1930) definition of real interest rates is approximately the difference between nominal interest rates, which are those estimated by the Wall Street Journal, and the rate of inflation expected in the term of the security, which could behave as in Table VIII-1. Inflation in Aug 2014 is low in 12 months because of the unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures prices but could ignite again with subdued risk aversion. Real interest rates in the US have been negative during substantial periods in the past decade while monetary policy pursues a policy of attaining its “dual mandate” of (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm):

“Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”

Negative real rates of interest distort calculations of risk and returns from capital budgeting by firms, through lending by financial intermediaries to decisions on savings, housing and purchases of households. Inflation on near zero interest rates misallocates resources away from their most productive uses and creates uncertainty of the future path of adjustment to higher interest rates that inhibit sound decisions.

Table VIII-1, US, Consumer Price Index Percentage Change 12 Months NSA and Annual Equivalent

	∆% 12 Months Aug 2014/Aug 2013 NSA	∆% Annual Equivalent Jun 2014 to Aug 2014 SA
CPI All Items	1.7	0.8
CPI ex Food and Energy	1.7	0.8

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Analysis of these methods is in Pelaez and Pelaez (International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-162) and Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. (I) (2008a), 78-100). Frederick R. Macaulay (1938) introduced the concept of duration in contrast with maturity for analyzing bonds. Duration is the sensitivity of bond prices to changes in yields. In economic jargon, duration is the yield elasticity of bond price to changes in yield, or the percentage change in price after a percentage change in yield, typically expressed as the change in price resulting from change of 100 basis points in yield. The mathematical formula is the negative of the yield elasticity of the bond price or –[dB/d(1+y)]((1+y)/B), where d is the derivative operator of calculus, B the bond price, y the yield and the elasticity does not have dimension (Hallerbach 2001). The duration trap of unconventional monetary policy is that duration is higher the lower the coupon and higher the lower the yield, other things being constant. Coupons and yields are historically low because of unconventional monetary policy. Duration dumping during a rate increase may trigger the same crossfire selling of high duration positions that magnified the credit crisis. Traders reduced positions because capital losses in one segment, such as mortgage-backed securities, triggered haircuts and margin increases that reduced capital available for positioning in all segments, causing fire sales in multiple segments (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009; see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 217-24). Financial markets are currently experiencing fear of duration and riskier asset classes resulting from the debate within and outside the Fed on tapering quantitative easing. Table VIII-2 provides the yield curve of Treasury securities on Oct 17, 2014, Dec 31, 2013, May 1, 2013, Oct 17, 2013 and Oct 17, 2006. There is oscillating steepening of the yield curve for longer maturities, which are also the ones with highest duration. The 10-year yield increased from 1.45 percent on Jul 26, 2012 to 3.04 percent on Dec 31, 2013 and 2.22 percent on Oct 17, 2014, as measured by the United States Treasury. Assume that a bond with maturity in 10 years were issued on Dec 31, 2013, at par or price of 100 with coupon of 1.45 percent. The price of that bond would be 86.3778 with instantaneous increase of the yield to 3.04 percent for loss of 13.6 percent and far more with leverage. Assume that the yield of a bond with exactly ten years to maturity and coupon of 2.22 percent would jump instantaneously from yield of 2.22 percent on Oct 17, 2014 to 4.78 percent as occurred on Oct 17, 2006 when the economy was closer to full employment. The price of the hypothetical bond issued with coupon of 2.22 percent would drop from 100 to 79.8370 after an instantaneous increase of the yield to 4.78 percent. The price loss would be 20.2 percent. Losses absorb capital available for positioning, triggering crossfire sales in multiple asset classes (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009). What is the path of adjustment of zero interest rates on fed funds and artificially low bond yields? There is no painless exit from unconventional monetary policy. Chris Dieterich, writing on “Bond investors turn to cash,” on Jul 25, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578625900935618178.html), uses data of the Investment Company Institute (http://www.ici.org/) in showing withdrawals of $43 billion in taxable mutual funds in Jun, which is the largest in history, with flows into cash investments such as $8.5 billion in the week of Jul 17 into money-market funds.

Table VIII-2, United States, Treasury Yields

	10/17/14	12/31/13	5/01/13	10/17/13	10/17/06
1 M	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.01	5.06
3 M	0.02	0.07	0.06	0.05	5.09
6 M	0.05	0.10	0.08	0.08	5.15
1 Y	0.11	0.13	0.11	0.13	5.04
2 Y	0.39	0.38	0.20	0.33	4.83
3 Y	0.79	0.78	0.30	0.61	4.77
5 Y	1.44	1.75	0.65	1.35	4.73
7 Y	1.88	2.45	1.07	1.98	4.74
10 Y	2.22	3.04	1.66	2.61	4.78
20 Y	2.70	3.72	2.44	3.36	4.99
30 Y	2.98	3.96	2.83	3.66	4.91

M: Months; Y: Years

Source: United States Treasury

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

Interest rate risk is increasing in the US with amplifying fluctuations. Chart VI-13 of the Board of Governors provides the conventional mortgage rate for a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage. The rate stood at 5.87 percent on Jan 8, 2004, increasing to 6.79 percent on Jul 6, 2006. The rate bottomed at 3.35 percent on May 2, 2013. Fear of duration risk in longer maturities such as mortgage-backed securities caused continuing increases in the conventional mortgage rate that rose to 4.51 percent on Jul 11, 2013, 4.58 percent on Aug 22, 2013 and 3.97 percent on Oct 16, 2014, which is the last data point in Chart VI-13. Shayndi Raice and Nick Timiraos, writing on “Banks cut as mortgage boom ends,” on Jan 9, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310940019239208), analyze the drop in mortgage applications to a 13-year low, as measured by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Demand for home loans plunges,” on Apr 24, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304788404579522051733228402?mg=reno64-wsj), analyzes data in Inside Mortgage Finance that mortgage lending of $235 billion in IQ2014 is 58 percent lower than a year earlier and 23 percent below IVQ2013. Mortgage lending collapsed to the lowest level in 14 years. In testimony before the Committee on the Budget of the US Senate on May 8, 2004, Chair Yellen provides analysis of the current economic situation and outlook (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140507a.htm): “One cautionary note, though, is that readings on housing activity--a sector that has been recovering since 2011--have remained disappointing so far this year and will bear watching.”

Chart VI-13, US, Conventional Mortgage Rate, Jan 8, 2004 to Oct 16, 2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

There is a false impression of the existence of a monetary policy “science,” measurements and forecasting with which to steer the economy into “prosperity without inflation.” Market participants are remembering the Great Bond Crash of 1994 shown in Table VI-7G when monetary policy pursued nonexistent inflation, causing trillions of dollars of losses in fixed income worldwide while increasing the fed funds rate from 3 percent in Jan 1994 to 6 percent in Dec. The exercise in Table VI-7G shows a drop of the price of the 30-year bond by 18.1 percent and of the 10-year bond by 14.1 percent. CPI inflation remained almost the same and there is no valid counterfactual that inflation would have been higher without monetary policy tightening because of the long lag in effect of monetary policy on inflation (see Culbertson 1960, 1961, Friedman 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). The pursuit of nonexistent deflation during the past ten years has resulted in the largest monetary policy accommodation in history that created the 2007 financial market crash and global recession and is currently preventing smoother recovery while creating another financial crash in the future. The issue is not whether there should be a central bank and monetary policy but rather whether policy accommodation in doses from zero interest rates to trillions of dollars in the fed balance sheet endangers economic stability.

Table VI-7G, Fed Funds Rates, Thirty and Ten Year Treasury Yields and Prices, 30-Year Mortgage Rates and 12-month CPI Inflation 1994

1994	FF	30Y	30P	10Y	10P	MOR	CPI
Jan	3.00	6.29	100	5.75	100	7.06	2.52
Feb	3.25	6.49	97.37	5.97	98.36	7.15	2.51
Mar	3.50	6.91	92.19	6.48	94.69	7.68	2.51
Apr	3.75	7.27	88.10	6.97	91.32	8.32	2.36
May	4.25	7.41	86.59	7.18	88.93	8.60	2.29
Jun	4.25	7.40	86.69	7.10	90.45	8.40	2.49
Jul	4.25	7.58	84.81	7.30	89.14	8.61	2.77
Aug	4.75	7.49	85.74	7.24	89.53	8.51	2.69
Sep	4.75	7.71	83.49	7.46	88.10	8.64	2.96
Oct	4.75	7.94	81.23	7.74	86.33	8.93	2.61
Nov	5.50	8.08	79.90	7.96	84.96	9.17	2.67
Dec	6.00	7.87	81.91	7.81	85.89	9.20	2.67

Notes: FF: fed funds rate; 30Y: yield of 30-year Treasury; 30P: price of 30-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 6.29 percent and maturity in exactly 30 years; 10Y: yield of 10-year Treasury; 10P: price of 10-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 5.75 percent and maturity in exactly 10 years; MOR: 30-year mortgage; CPI: percent change of CPI in 12 months

Sources: yields and mortgage rates http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm CPI ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.t

Chart VI-14 provides the overnight fed funds rate, the yield of the 10-year Treasury constant maturity bond, the yield of the 30-year constant maturity bond and the conventional mortgage rate from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. In Jan 1991, the fed funds rate was 6.91 percent, the 10-year Treasury yield 8.09 percent, the 30-year Treasury yield 8.27 percent and the conventional mortgage rate 9.64 percent. Before monetary policy tightening in Oct 1993, the rates and yields were 2.99 percent for the fed funds, 5.33 percent for the 10-year Treasury, 5.94 for the 30-year Treasury and 6.83 percent for the conventional mortgage rate. After tightening in Nov 1994, the rates and yields were 5.29 percent for the fed funds rate, 7.96 percent for the 10-year Treasury, 8.08 percent for the 30-year Treasury and 9.17 percent for the conventional mortgage rate.

Chart VI-14, US, Overnight Fed Funds Rate, 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity, 30-Year Treasury Constant Maturity and Conventional Mortgage Rate, Monthly, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart VI-15 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the all items consumer price index from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. There does not appear acceleration of consumer prices requiring aggressive tightening.

Chart VI-15, US, Consumer Price Index All Items, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart IV-16 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics provides 12-month percentage changes of the all items consumer price index from Jan 1991 to Dec 1996. Inflation collapsed during the recession from Jul 1990 (III) and Mar 1991 (I) and the end of the Kuwait War on Feb 25, 1991 that stabilized world oil markets. CPI inflation remained almost the same and there is no valid counterfactual that inflation would have been higher without monetary policy tightening because of the long lag in effect of monetary policy on inflation (see Culbertson 1960, 1961, Friedman 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). Policy tightening had adverse collateral effects in the form of emerging market crises in Mexico and Argentina and fixed income markets worldwide.

Chart VI-16, US, Consumer Price Index All Items, Twelve-Month Percentage Change, Jan 1991 to Dec 1996

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Table VI-2, Dollar/Euro (USD/EUR) Exchange Rate and Chinese Yuan/Dollar (CNY/USD) Exchange Rate

USD/EUR	12/26/03	7/14/08	6/07/10	10/17/14
Rate	1.1423	1.5914	1.192	1.2760
CNY/USD	01/03 2000	07/21 2005	7/15 2008	10/17/ 2014
Rate	8.2765	8.2765	6.8211	6.1246
Weekly Rates	9/26/2014	10/3/2014	10/10/2014	10/17/ 2014
CNY/USD	6.1271	6.1363	6.1299	6.1246
∆% from Earlier Week*	0.2	-0.1	0.1	0.1

*Negative sign is depreciation; positive sign is appreciation

Source: http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_currencies.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3000

The Dow Jones Newswires informs on Oct 15, 2011, that the premier of China Wen Jiabao announced that the Chinese yuan will not be further appreciated to prevent adverse effects on exports (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203914304576632790881396896.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection).

Professor Edward P Lazear (2013Jan7), writing on “Chinese ‘currency manipulation’ is not the problem,” on Jan 7, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578213203581231448.html), provides clear thought on the role of the yuan in trade between China and the United States and trade between China and Europe. There is conventional wisdom that Chinese exchange rate policy causes the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, which is shown by Lazear (2013Jan7) to be erroneous. The fact is that manipulation of the CNY/USD rate by China has only minor effects on US employment. Lazear (2013Jan7) shows that the movement of monthly exports of China to its major trading partners, United States and Europe, since 1995 cannot be explained by the fixing of the CNY/USD rate by China. The period is quite useful because it includes rapid growth before 2007, contraction until 2009 and weak subsequent expansion. Chart VI-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the CNY/USD exchange rate from Jan 3, 1995 to Oct 10, 2014 together with US recession dates in shaded areas. China fixed the CNY/USD rate for a long period as shown in the horizontal segment from 1995 to 2005. There was systematic revaluation of 17.6 percent from CNY 8.2765 on Jul 21, 2005 to CNY 6.8211 on Jul 15, 2008. China fixed the CNY/USD rate until Jun 7, 2010, to avoid adverse effects on its economy from the global recession, which is shown as a horizontal segment from 2009 until mid 2010. China then continued the policy of appreciation of the CNY relative to the USD with oscillations until the beginning of 2012 when the rate began to move sideways followed by a final upward slope of devaluation that is measured in Table VI-2A but virtually disappeared in the rate of CNY 6.3589/USD on Aug 17, 2012 and was nearly unchanged at CNY 6.3558/USD on Aug 24, 2012. China then appreciated 0.2 percent in the week of Dec 21, 2012, to CNY 6.2352/USD for cumulative 1.9 percent revaluation from Oct 28, 2011 and left the rate virtually unchanged at CNY 6.2316/USD on Jan 11, 2013, appreciating to CNY 6.1308/USD on Oct 10, 2014, which is the last data point in Chart VI-1. Revaluation of the CNY relative to the USD by 26.0 percent by Oct 17, 2014 has not reduced the trade surplus of China but reversal of the policy of revaluation could result in international confrontation. The interruption with upward slope in the final segment on the right of Chart VI-I is measured as virtually stability in Table VI-2A followed with decrease or revaluation and subsequent increase or devaluation. The final segment shows decline or revaluation. Linglin Wei, writing on “China intervenes to lower yuan,” on Feb 26, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579406810684766716?KEYWORDS=china+yuan&mg=reno64-wsj), finds from informed sources that the central bank of China conducted the ongoing devaluation of the yuan with the objective of driving out arbitrageurs to widen the band of fluctuation. There is concern if the policy of revaluation is changing to devaluation.

Chart VI-1, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (USD), Business Days, Jan 3, 1995-Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-1A provides the daily CNY/USD rate from Jan 5, 1981 to Oct 10, 2014. The exchange rate was CNY 1.5418/USD on Jan 5, 1981. There is sharp cumulative depreciation of 107.8 percent to CNY 3.2031 by Jul 2, 1986, continuing to CNY 5.8145/USD on Dec 29, 1993 for cumulative 277.1 percent since Jan 5, 1981. China then devalued sharply to CNY 8.7117/USD on Jan 7, 1994 for 49.8 percent relative to Dec 29, 1993 and cumulative 465.0 percent relative to Jan 5, 1981. China then fixed the rate at CNY 8.2765/USD until Jul 21, 2005 and revalued as analyzed in Chart VI-1. The final data point in Chart VI-1A is CNY 6.1308/USD on Oct 10, 2014. To be sure, China fixed the exchange rate after substantial prior devaluation. It is unlikely that the devaluation could have been effective after many years of fixing the exchange rate with high inflation and multiple changes in the world economy. The argument of Lazear (2013Jan7) is still valid in view of the lack of association between monthly exports of China to the US and Europe since 1995 and the exchange rate of China.

Chart VI-1A, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (USD), Business Days, Jan 5, 1981-Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-1B provides finer details with the rate of Chinese Yuan (CNY) to the US Dollar (USD) from Oct 28, 2011 to Oct 10, 2014. There have been alternations of revaluation and devaluation. The initial data point is CNY 6.5370 on Oct 28, 2011. There is an episode of devaluation from CNY 6.2790 on Apr 30, 2012 to CNY 6.3879 on Jul 25, 2012, or devaluation of 1.4 percent. Another devaluation is from CNY 6.0402/USD on Jan 14, 2014 to CNY 6.1308 on Oct 10, 2014, or devaluation of 1.5 percent. The United States Treasury estimates US government debt held by private investors at $9670 billion in Jun 2014. China’s holding of US Treasury securities represent 13.1 percent of US government marketable interest-bearing debt held by private investors (http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html). Min Zeng, writing on “China plays a big role as US Treasury yields fall,” on Jul 16, 2004, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/articles/china-plays-a-big-role-as-u-s-treasury-yields-fall-1405545034?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj), finds that acceleration in purchases of US Treasury securities by China has been an important factor in the decline of Treasury yields in 2014. Japan increased its holdings from $1149.1 billion in Aug 2013 to $1230.1 billion in Aug 2014 or 7.0 percent. The combined holdings of China and Japan in Aug 2014 add to $2500 billion, which is equivalent to 25.9 percent of US government marketable interest-bearing securities held by investors of $9670 billion in Jun 2014 (http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html). Total foreign holdings of Treasury securities rose from $5595.8 billion in Aug 2013 to $6066.6 billion in Aug 2014, or 8.4 percent. The US continues to finance its fiscal and balance of payments deficits with foreign savings (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007)). A point of saturation of holdings of US Treasury debt may be reached as foreign holders evaluate the threat of reduction of principal by dollar devaluation and reduction of prices by increases in yield, including possibly risk premium. Shultz et al (2012) find that the Fed financed three-quarters of the US deficit in fiscal year 2011, with foreign governments financing significant part of the remainder of the US deficit while the Fed owns one in six dollars of US national debt. Concentrations of debt in few holders are perilous because of sudden exodus in fear of devaluation and yield increases and the limit of refinancing old debt and placing new debt. In their classic work on “unpleasant monetarist arithmetic,” Sargent and Wallace (1981, 2) consider a regime of domination of monetary policy by fiscal policy (emphasis added):

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

Chart VI-1B, Chinese Yuan (CNY) per US Dollar (US), Business Days, Oct 28, 2011-Oct 10, 2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-3 provides three indexes of the US Dollars (USD) from Jan 4, 1995 to Oct 10, 2014.

Chart VI-3A provides the overnight fed funds rate and yields of the three-month constant maturity Treasury bill, the ten-year constant maturity Treasury note and Moody’s Baa bond from Jan 4, 1995 to Oct 16, 2014. The first phase from 1995 to 2001 shows sharp trend of appreciation of the USD while interest rates remained at relatively high levels. The dollar revalued partly because of the emerging market crises that provoked inflows of financial investment into the US and partly because of a deliberate strong dollar policy. DeLong and Eichengreen (2001, 4-5) argue:

“That context was an economic and political strategy that emphasized private investment as the engine for U.S. economic growth. Both components of this term, "private" and "investment," had implications for the administration’s international economic strategy. From the point of view of investment, it was important that international events not pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, since this would have curtailed capital formation and vitiated the effects of the administration’s signature achievement: deficit reduction. A strong dollar -- or rather a dollar that was not expected to weaken -- was a key component of a policy which aimed at keeping the Fed comfortable with low interest rates. In addition, it was important to create a demand for the goods and services generated by this additional productive capacity. To the extent that this demand resided abroad, administration officials saw it as important that the process of increasing international integration, of both trade and finance, move forward for the interest of economic development in emerging markets and therefore in support of U.S. economic growth.”

The process of integration consisted of restructuring “international financial architecture” (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture: G7, IMF, BIS, Debtors and Creditors (2005)). Policy concerns subsequently shifted to the external imbalances, or current account deficits, and internal imbalances, or government deficits (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk: Dollar Devaluation and the World Economy (2007)). Fed policy consisted of lowering the policy rate or fed funds rate, which is close to the marginal cost of funding of banks, toward zero during the past decade. Near zero interest rates induce carry trades of selling dollar debt (borrowing), shorting the USD and investing in risk financial assets. Without risk aversion, near zero interest rates cause devaluation of the dollar. Chart VI-3 shows the weakening USD between the recession of 2001 and the contraction after IVQ2007. There was a flight to dollar assets and especially obligations of the US government after Sep 2008. Cochrane and Zingales (2009) show that flight was coincident with proposals of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) to withdraw “toxic assets” in US banks (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a) and Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b)). There are shocks to globalization in the form of regulation, trade and devaluation wars and breakdown of international cooperation (Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State: Vol. I (2008a), Globalization and the State: Vol. II (2008b) and Government Intervention in Globalization: Regulation, Trade and Devaluation Wars (2008c)). As evident in Chart VI-3A, there is no exit from near zero interest rates without a financial crisis and economic contraction, verified by the increase of interest rates from 1 percent in Jun 2004 to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VI-3A. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2004/20040630/default.htm) to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20060629a.htm) caused the financial crisis and global recession. There are conflicts on exchange rate movements among central banks. There is concern of declining inflation in the euro area and appreciation of the euro. On Jun 5, 2014, the European Central Bank introduced cuts in interest rates and a negative rate paid on deposits of banks (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140605.en.html):

“5 June 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

At today’s meeting the Governing Council of the ECB took the following monetary policy decisions:

1. The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.15%, starting from the operation to be settled on 11 June 2014.
2. The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 35 basis points to 0.40%, with effect from 11 June 2014.
3. The interest rate on the deposit facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to -0.10%, with effect from 11 June 2014. A separate press release to be published at 3.30 p.m. CET today will provide details on the implementation of the negative deposit facility rate.”

The ECB also introduced new measures of monetary policy on Jun 5, 2014 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140605_2.en.html):

“5 June 2014 - ECB announces monetary policy measures to enhance the functioning of the monetary policy transmission mechanism

In pursuing its price stability mandate, the Governing Council of the ECB has today announced measures to enhance the functioning of the monetary policy transmission mechanism by supporting lending to the real economy. In particular, the Governing Council has decided:

1. To conduct a series of targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) aimed at improving bank lending to the euro area non-financial private sector ^[1], excluding loans to households for house purchase, over a window of two years.
2. To intensify preparatory work related to outright purchases of asset-backed securities (ABS).”

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi analyzed the measures at a press conference (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140605.en.html). At the press conference following the meeting of the ECB on Jul 3, 2014, Mario Draghi stated (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140703.en.html): “In fact, as I said, interest rates will stay low for an extended period of time, and the Governing Council is unanimous in its commitment to use also nonstandard, unconventional measures to cope with the risk of a too-prolonged period of time of low inflation.”

The President of the ECB Mario Draghi analyzed unemployment in the euro area and the policy response policy in a speech at the Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers on Aug 22, 2014 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2014/html/sp140822.en.html):

“We have already seen exchange rate movements that should support both aggregate demand and inflation, which we expect to be sustained by the diverging expected paths of policy in the US and the euro area (Figure 7). We will launch our first Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation in September, which has so far garnered significant interest from banks. And our preparation for outright purchases in asset-backed security (ABS) markets is fast moving forward and we expect that it should contribute to further credit easing. Indeed, such outright purchases would meaningfully contribute to diversifying the channels for us to generate liquidity.”

On Sep 4, 2014, the European Central Bank lowered policy rates (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140904.en.html):

“4 September 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

At today’s meeting the Governing Council of the ECB took the following monetary policy decisions:

1. The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.05%, starting from the operation to be settled on 10 September 2014.
2. The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to 0.30%, with effect from 10 September 2014.
3. The interest rate on the deposit facility will be decreased by 10 basis points to -0.20%, with effect from 10 September 2014.”

The President of the European Central Bank announced on Sep 4, 2014, the decision to expand the balance sheet by purchases of asset-backed securities (ABS) in a new ABS Purchase Program (ABSPP) and covered bonds (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140904.en.html):

“Based on our regular economic and monetary analyses, the Governing Council decided today to lower the interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem by 10 basis points to 0.05% and the rate on the marginal lending facility by 10 basis points to 0.30%. The rate on the deposit facility was lowered by 10 basis points to -0.20%. In addition, the Governing Council decided to start purchasing non-financial private sector assets. The Eurosystem will purchase a broad portfolio of simple and transparent asset-backed securities (ABSs) with underlying assets consisting of claims against the euro area non-financial private sector under an ABS purchase programme (ABSPP). This reflects the role of the ABS market in facilitating new credit flows to the economy and follows the intensification of preparatory work on this matter, as decided by the Governing Council in June. In parallel, the Eurosystem will also purchase a broad portfolio of euro-denominated covered bonds issued by MFIs domiciled in the euro area under a new covered bond purchase programme (CBPP3). Interventions under these programmes will start in October 2014. The detailed modalities of these programmes will be announced after the Governing Council meeting of 2 October 2014. The newly decided measures, together with the targeted longer-term refinancing operations which will be conducted in two weeks, will have a sizeable impact on our balance sheet.”

At the Thirtieth Meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the IMF (IMFC), the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Mario Draghi stated (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2014/html/sp141010.en.html):

“Our monetary policy continues to aim at firmly anchoring medium to long-term inflation expectations, in line with our objective of maintaining inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term. In this context, we have taken both conventional and unconventional measures that will contribute to a return of inflation rates to levels closer to our aim. Our unconventional measures, more specifically our TLTROs (Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations) and our new purchase programmes for ABSs and covered bonds, will further enhance the functioning of our monetary policy transmission mechanism and facilitate credit provision to the real economy. Should it become necessary to further address risks of too prolonged a period of low inflation, the ECB’s Governing Council is unanimous in its commitment to using additional unconventional instruments within its mandate.”

Chart VI-3, US Dollar Currency Indexes, Jan 4, 1995-Oct 10, 2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-3A, US, Overnight Fed Funds Rate, Yield of Three-Month Treasury Constant Maturity, Yield of Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity and Yield of Moody’s Baa Bond, Jan 4, 1995 to Oct 9, 2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Carry trades induced by zero interest rates increase capital flows into emerging markets that appreciate exchange rates. Portfolio reallocations away from emerging markets depreciate their exchange rates in reversals of capital flows. Chart VI-4A provides the exchange rate of the Mexican peso (MXN) per US dollar from Nov 8, 1993 to Oct 10, 2014. The first data point in Chart VI-4A is MXN 3.1520 on Nov 8, 1993. The rate devalued to 11.9760 on Nov 14, 1995 during emerging market crises in the 1990s and the increase of interest rates in the US in 1994 that stressed world financial markets (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture 2005, The Global Recession Risk 2007, 147-77). The MXN depreciated sharply to MXN 15.4060/USD on Mar 2, 2009, during the global recession. The rate moved to MXN 11.5050/USD on May 2, 2011, during the sovereign debt crisis in the euro area. The rate depreciated to 11.9760 on May 9, 2013. The final data point in the current flight from emerging markets is MXN 13.4270/USD on Oct 10, 2014.

Chart VI-4A, Mexican Peso (MXN) per US Dollar (USD), Nov 8, 1993 to Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

There are collateral effects worldwide from unconventional monetary policy. In remarkable anticipation in 2005, Professor Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) warned of low liquidity and high risks of central bank policy rates approaching the zero bound (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 218-9). Professor Rajan excelled in a distinguished career as an academic economist in finance and was chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Shefali Anand and Jon Hilsenrath, writing on Oct 13, 2013, on “India’s central banker lobbies Fed,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304330904579133530766149484?KEYWORDS=Rajan), interviewed Raghuram G Rajan, who is the current Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank (http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AboutusDisplay.aspx). In this interview, Rajan argues that central banks should avoid unintended consequences on emerging market economies of inflows and outflows of capital triggered by monetary policy. Professor Rajan, in an interview with Kartik Goyal of Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/rajan-warns-of-global-policy-breakdown-as-emerging-markets-slide.html), warns of breakdown of global policy coordination. Professor Willem Buiter (2014Feb4), a distinguished economist currently Global Chief Economist at Citigroup (http://www.willembuiter.com/resume.pdf), writing on “The Fed’s bad manners risk offending foreigners,” on Feb 4, 2014, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fbb09572-8d8d-11e3-9dbb-00144feab7de.html#axzz2suwrwkFs), concurs with Raghuram Rajan. Buiter (2014Feb4) argues that international policy cooperation in monetary policy is both in the interest of the world and the United States. Portfolio reallocations induced by combination of zero interest rates and risk events stimulate carry trades that generate wide swings in world capital flows. In a speech at the Brookings Institution on Apr 10, 2014, Raghuram G. Rajan (2014Apr10, 1, 10) argues:

“As the world seems to be struggling back to its feet after the great financial crisis, I want to draw attention to an area we need to be concerned about: the conduct of monetary policy in this integrated world. A good way to describe the current environment is one of extreme monetary easing through unconventional policies. In a world where debt overhangs and the need for structural change constrain domestic demand, a sizeable portion of the effects of such policies spillover across borders, sometimes through a weaker exchange rate. More worryingly, it prompts a reaction. Such competitive easing occurs both simultaneously and sequentially, as I will argue, and both advanced economies and emerging economies engage in it. Aggregate world demand may be weaker and more distorted than it should be, and financial risks higher. To ensure stable and sustainable growth, the international rules of the game need to be revisited. Both advanced economies and emerging economies need to adapt, else I fear we are about to embark on the next leg of a wearisome cycle. A first step to prescribing the right medicine is to recognize the cause of the sickness. Extreme monetary easing, in my view, is more cause than medicine. The sooner we recognize that, the more sustainable world growth we will have.”

Professor Raguram G Rajan, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank, warned about risks in high valuations of asset prices in an interview with Christopher Jeffery of Central Banking Journal on Aug 6, 2014 (http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking-journal/interview/2358995/raghuram-rajan-on-the-dangers-of-asset-prices-policy-spillovers-and-finance-in-india). Professor Rajan demystifies in the interview “competitive easing” by major central banks as equivalent to competitive devaluation.

Chart VI-4B provides the rate of the Indian rupee (INR) per US dollar (USD) from Jan 2, 1973 to Oct 10, 2014. The first data point is INR 8.0200 on Jan 2, 1973. The rate depreciated sharply to INR 51.9600 on Mar 3, 2009, during the global recession. The rate appreciated to INR 44.0300/USD on Jul 28, 2011 in the midst of the sovereign debt event in the euro area. The rate overshot to INR 68.8000 on Aug 28, 2013. The final data point is INR 61.2700/USD on Oct 10, 2014.

Chart VI-4B, Indian Rupee (INR) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1973 to Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-5 provides the exchange rate of JPY (Japan yen) per USD (US dollars). The first data point on the extreme left is JPY 357.7300/USD for Jan 4, 1971. The JPY has appreciated over the long term relative to the USD with fluctuations along an evident long-term appreciation. Before the global recession, the JPY stood at JPY 124.0900/USD on Jun 22, 2007. The use of the JPY as safe haven is evident by sharp appreciation during the global recession to JPY 110.48/USD on Aug 15, 2008, and to JPY 87.8000/USD on Jan 21, 2009. The final data point in Chart VI-5 is JPY 107.8300/USD on Oct 10, 2014 for appreciation of 13.1 percent relative to JPY 124.0900/USD on Jun 22, 2007 before the global recession and expansion characterized by recurring bouts of risk aversion. Takashi Nakamichi and Eleanor Warnock, writing on “Japan lashes out over dollar, euro,” on Dec 29, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323530404578207440474874604.html?mod=WSJ_markets_liveupdate&mg=reno64-wsj), analyze the “war of words” launched by Japan’s new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his finance minister Taro Aso, arguing of deliberate devaluations of the USD and EUR relative to the JPY, which are hurting Japan’s economic activity. Gerard Baker and Jacob M. Shlesinger, writing on “Bank of Japan’s Kuroda signals impatience with Abe government,” on May 23, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579579311491068756?KEYWORDS=bank+of+japan+kuroda&mg=reno64-wsj), analyze concerns of the Governor of the Bank of Japan Haruhiko Kuroda that the JPY has strengthened relative to the USD, partly eroding earlier depreciation. The data in Table VI-6 is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).

Chart VI-5, Japanese Yen JPY per US Dollars USD, Monthly, Jan 4, 1971-Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

The financial crisis and global recession were caused by interest rate and housing subsidies and affordability policies that encouraged high leverage and risks, low liquidity and unsound credit (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-66, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 217-27, International Financial Architecture (2005), 15-18, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b), 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 182-4). Several past comments of this blog elaborate on these arguments, among which: http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/professor-mckinnons-bubble-economy.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-inflation-quantitative-easing.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/treasury-yields-valuation-of-risk.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-theory-evidence-and.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html

Zero interest rates in the United States forever tend to depreciate the dollar against every other currency if there is no risk aversion preventing portfolio rebalancing toward risk financial assets, which include the capital markets and exchange rates of emerging-market economies. The objective of unconventional monetary policy as argued by Yellen 2011AS) is to devalue the dollar to increase net exports that increase US economic growth. Increasing net exports and internal economic activity in the US is equivalent to decreasing net exports and internal economic activity in other countries.

Continental territory, rich endowment of natural resources, investment in human capital, teaching and research universities, motivated labor force and entrepreneurial initiative provide Brazil with comparative advantages in multiple economic opportunities. Exchange rate parity is critical in achieving Brazil’s potential but is difficult in a world of zero interest rates. Chart IV-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate of Brazilian real (BRL) per US dollar (USD) from BRL 1.2074/USD on Jan 4, 1999 to BRL 2.4096/USD on Oct 10, 2014. The rate reached BRL 3.9450/USD on Oct 10, 2002 appreciating 60.5 percent to BRL 1.5580/USD on Aug 1, 2008. The rate depreciated 68.1 percent to BRL 2.6187/USD on Dec 5, 2008 during worldwide flight from risk. The rate appreciated again by 41.3 percent to BRL 1.5375/USD on Jul 26, 2011. The final data point in Chart VI-6 is BRL 2.4096/USD on Oct 10, 2014 for depreciation of 56.7 percent. The data in Table VI-6 is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).

Chart VI-6, Brazilian Real (BRL) per US Dollar (USD) Jan 4, 1999 to Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

Chart VI-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the history of the BRL beginning with the first data point of BRL 0.8440/USD on Jan 2, 1995. The rate jumped to BRL 2.0700/USD on Jan 29, 1999 after changes in exchange rate policy and then to BRL 2.2000/USD on Mar 3, 1999. The rate depreciated 26.7 percent to BRL 2.7880/USD on Sep 21, 2001 relative to Mar 3, 1999.

Chart VI-7, Brazilian Real (BRL) per US Dollar (USD), Jan 2, 1995 to Oct 10, 2014

Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas 

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H10/default.htm

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

(1 + i_r) = (1 + i_n)/(1 + π^e) (1)

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

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

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

The yield of the one-year Treasury security was quoted in the Wall Street Journal at 0.114 percent on Fri May 17, 2013 (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_marketdata_main). The expected rate of inflation π^e in the next twelve months is not observed. Assume that it would be equal to the rate of inflation in the past twelve months estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS) at 1.1 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The real rate of interest would be obtained as follows:

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

That is, i_r is equal to 1 – 0.9902 or minus 0.98 percent. Investing in a one-year Treasury security results in a loss of 0.98 percent relative to inflation. The objective of unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates is to induce consumption and investment because of the loss to inflation of riskless financial assets. Policy would be truly irresponsible if it intended to increase inflationary expectations or π^e. The result could be the same rate of unemployment with higher inflation (Kydland and Prescott 1977).

Focus is shifting from tapering quantitative easing by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). There is sharp distinction between the two measures of unconventional monetary policy: (1) fixing of the overnight rate of fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent; and (2) outright purchase of Treasury and agency securities and mortgage-backed securities for the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Markets overreacted to the so-called “paring” of outright purchases to $15 billion of securities per month for the balance sheet of the Fed. What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Sep 17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. The Committee continues to anticipate, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored” (emphasis added).

What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Sep 17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess progress--both realized and expected--toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. The Committee continues to anticipate, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored” (emphasis added).

How long is “considerable time”? At the press conference following the meeting on Mar 19, 2014, Chair Yellen answered a question of Jon Hilsenrath of the Wall Street Journal explaining “In particular, the Committee has endorsed the view that it anticipates that will be a considerable period after the asset purchase program ends before it will be appropriate to begin to raise rates. And of course on our present path, well, that's not utterly preset. We would be looking at next, next fall. So, I think that's important guidance” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20140319.pdf). Many focused on “next fall,” ignoring that the path of increasing rates is not “utterly preset.”

At a speech on Mar 31, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed labor market conditions as follows (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140331a.htm):

“And based on the evidence available, it is clear to me that the U.S. economy is still considerably short of the two goals assigned to the Federal Reserve by the Congress. The first of those goals is maximum sustainable employment, the highest level of employment that can be sustained while maintaining a stable inflation rate. Most of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee and I estimate that the unemployment rate consistent with maximum sustainable employment is now between 5.2 percent and 5.6 percent, well below the 6.7 percent rate in February.

Let me explain what I mean by that word "slack" and why it is so important.

Slack means that there are significantly more people willing and capable of filling a job than there are jobs for them to fill. During a period of little or no slack, there still may be vacant jobs and people who want to work, but a large share of those willing to work lack the skills or are otherwise not well suited for the jobs that are available. With 6.7 percent unemployment, it might seem that there must be a lot of slack in the U.S. economy, but there are reasons why that may not be true.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) provides comprehensive review of the theory and measurement of labor markets. Monetary policy pursues a policy of attaining its “dual mandate” of (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm):

“Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”

Yellen (2014Aug22) finds that the unemployment rate is not sufficient in determining slack:

“One convenient way to summarize the information contained in a large number of indicators is through the use of so-called factor models. Following this methodology, Federal Reserve Board staff developed a labor market conditions index from 19 labor market indicators, including four I just discussed. This broadly based metric supports the conclusion that the labor market has improved significantly over the past year, but it also suggests that the decline in the unemployment rate over this period somewhat overstates the improvement in overall labor market conditions.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) restates that the FOMC determines monetary policy on newly available information and interpretation of labor markets and inflation and does not follow a preset path:

“But if progress in the labor market continues to be more rapid than anticipated by the Committee or if inflation moves up more rapidly than anticipated, resulting in faster convergence toward our dual objectives, then increases in the federal funds rate target could come sooner than the Committee currently expects and could be more rapid thereafter. Of course, if economic performance turns out to be disappointing and progress toward our goals proceeds more slowly than we expect, then the future path of interest rates likely would be more accommodative than we currently anticipate. As I have noted many times, monetary policy is not on a preset path. The Committee will be closely monitoring incoming information on the labor market and inflation in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy.”

Yellen (2014Aug22) states that “Historically, slack has accounted for only a small portion of the fluctuations in inflation. Indeed, unusual aspects of the current recovery may have shifted the lead-lag relationship between a tightening labor market and rising inflation pressures in either direction.”

The minutes of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 16-17, 2014, reveal concern with global economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20140917.htm):

“Most viewed the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as broadly balanced. However, a number of participants noted that economic growth over the medium term might be slower than they expected if foreign economic growth came in weaker than anticipated, structural productivity continued to increase only slowly, or the recovery in residential construction continued to lag.”

Chair Yellen analyzes the view of inflation (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140416a.htm):

“Inflation, as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures, has slowed from an annual rate of about 2-1/2 percent in early 2012 to less than 1 percent in February of this year. This rate is well below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run objective. Many advanced economies are observing a similar softness in inflation.

To some extent, the low rate of inflation seems due to influences that are likely to be temporary, including a deceleration in consumer energy prices and outright declines in core import prices in recent quarters. Longer-run inflation expectations have remained remarkably steady, however. We anticipate that, as the effects of transitory factors subside and as labor market gains continue, inflation will gradually move back toward 2 percent.”

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

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

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

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

In testimony on the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress before the Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives, on Feb 11, 2014, Chair Janet Yellen states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140211a.htm):

“Turning to monetary policy, let me emphasize that I expect a great deal of continuity in the FOMC's approach to monetary policy. I served on the Committee as we formulated our current policy strategy and I strongly support that strategy, which is designed to fulfill the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability.  If incoming information broadly supports the Committee's expectation of ongoing improvement in labor market conditions and inflation moving back toward its longer-run objective, the Committee will likely reduce the pace of asset purchases in further measured steps at future meetings. That said, purchases are not on a preset course, and the Committee's decisions about their pace will remain contingent on its outlook for the labor market and inflation as well as its assessment of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases.  In December of last year and again this January, the Committee said that its current expectation--based on its assessment of a broad range of measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments--is that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate well past the time that the unemployment rate declines below 6-1/2 percent, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the 2 percent goal. I am committed to achieving both parts of our dual mandate: helping the economy return to full employment and returning inflation to 2 percent while ensuring that it does not run persistently above or below that level (emphasis added).”

In testimony before the Committee on the Budget of the US Senate on May 8, 2004, Chair Yellen provides analysis of the current economic situation and outlook (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140507a.htm):

“The economy has continued to recover from the steep recession of 2008 and 2009. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth stepped up to an average annual rate of about 3-1/4 percent over the second half of last year, a faster pace than in the first half and during the preceding two years. Although real GDP growth is currently estimated to have paused in the first quarter of this year, I see that pause as mostly reflecting transitory factors, including the effects of the unusually cold and snowy winter weather. With the harsh winter behind us, many recent indicators suggest that a rebound in spending and production is already under way, putting the overall economy on track for solid growth in the current quarter. One cautionary note, though, is that readings on housing activity--a sector that has been recovering since 2011--have remained disappointing so far this year and will bear watching.

Conditions in the labor market have continued to improve. The unemployment rate was 6.3 percent in April, about 1-1/4 percentage points below where it was a year ago. Moreover, gains in payroll employment averaged nearly 200,000 jobs per month over the past year. During the economic recovery so far, payroll employment has increased by about 8-1/2 million jobs since its low point, and the unemployment rate has declined about 3-3/4 percentage points since its peak.

While conditions in the labor market have improved appreciably, they are still far from satisfactory. Even with recent declines in the unemployment rate, it continues to be elevated. Moreover, both the share of the labor force that has been unemployed for more than six months and the number of individuals who work part time but would prefer a full-time job are at historically high levels. In addition, most measures of labor compensation have been rising slowly--another signal that a substantial amount of slack remains in the labor market.

Inflation has been quite low even as the economy has continued to expand. Some of the factors contributing to the softness in inflation over the past year, such as the declines seen in non-oil import prices, will probably be transitory. Importantly, measures of longer-run inflation expectations have remained stable. That said, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) recognizes that inflation persistently below 2 percent--the rate that the Committee judges to be most consistent with its dual mandate--could pose risks to economic performance, and we are monitoring inflation developments closely.

Looking ahead, I expect that economic activity will expand at a somewhat faster pace this year than it did last year, that the unemployment rate will continue to decline gradually, and that inflation will begin to move up toward 2 percent. A faster rate of economic growth this year should be supported by reduced restraint from changes in fiscal policy, gains in household net worth from increases in home prices and equity values, a firming in foreign economic growth, and further improvements in household and business confidence as the economy continues to strengthen. Moreover, U.S. financial conditions remain supportive of growth in economic activity and employment.”

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

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

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

W = Y/r (10

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

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 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/weakening-world-economic-growth.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-risk-recovery-without-hiring.html). This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. The current reality is cyclical slow growth.

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

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

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

Friedman (1953) argues there are three lags in effects of monetary policy: (1) between the need for action and recognition of the need; (2) the recognition of the need and taking of actions; and (3) taking of action and actual effects. Friedman (1953) finds that the combination of these lags with insufficient knowledge of the current and future behavior of the economy causes discretionary economic policy to increase instability of the economy or standard deviations of real income σ_y and prices σ_p. Policy attempts to circumvent the lags by policy impulses based on forecasts. We are all naïve about forecasting. Data are available with lags and revised to maintain high standards of estimation. Policy simulation models estimate economic relations with structures prevailing before simulations of policy impulses such that parameters change as discovered by Lucas (1977). Economic agents adjust their behavior in ways that cause opposite results from those intended by optimal control policy as discovered by Kydland and Prescott (1977). Advance guidance attempts to circumvent expectations by economic agents that could reverse policy impulses but is of dubious effectiveness. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html). Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “New view into Fed’s response to crisis,” on Feb 21, 2014, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579396803024281322?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes 1865 pages of transcripts of eight formal and six emergency policy meetings at the Fed in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm). If there were an infallible science of central banking, models and forecasts would provide accurate information to policymakers on the future course of the economy in advance. Such forewarning is essential to central bank science because of the long lag between the actual impulse of monetary policy and the actual full effects on income and prices many months and even years ahead (Romer and Romer 2004, Friedman 1961, 1953, Culbertson 1960, 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002). The transcripts of the Fed meetings in 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomchistorical2008.htm) analyzed by Jon Hilsenrath demonstrate that Fed policymakers frequently did not understand the current state of the US economy in 2008 and much less the direction of income and prices. The conclusion of Friedman (1953) is that monetary impulses increase financial and economic instability because of lags in anticipating needs of policy, taking policy decisions and effects of decisions. This is a fortiori true when untested unconventional monetary policy in gargantuan doses shocks the economy and financial markets.

A competing event is the high level of valuations of risk financial assets (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/peaking-valuation-of-risk-financial.html).

Matt Jarzemsky, writing on “Dow industrials set record,” on Mar 5, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324156204578275560657416332.html), analyzes that the DJIA broke the closing high of 14,164.53 set on Oct 9, 2007, and subsequently also broke the intraday high of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. The DJIA closed at 16,380.41 on Fri Oct 17, 2014, which is higher by 15.6 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 15.4 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial are approaching or exceeding historical highs.

Perhaps one of the most critical statements on policy is the answer to a question of Peter Barnes by Chair Janet Yellen at the press conference following the meeting on Jun 18, 2014 (page 19 at http://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20140618.pdf):

So I don't have a sense--the committee doesn't try to gauge what is the right level of equity prices. But we do certainly monitor a number of different metrics that give us a feeling for where valuations are relative to things like earnings or dividends, and look at where these metrics stand in comparison with previous history to get a sense of whether or not we're moving to valuation levels that are outside of historical norms, and I still don't see that. I still don't see that for equity prices broadly” (emphasis added).

In a speech at the IMF on Jul 2, 2014, Chair Yellen analyzed the link between monetary policy and financial risks (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20140702a.htm):

“Monetary policy has powerful effects on risk taking. Indeed, the accommodative policy stance of recent years has supported the recovery, in part, by providing increased incentives for households and businesses to take on the risk of potentially productive investments. But such risk-taking can go too far, thereby contributing to fragility in the financial system. This possibility does not obviate the need for monetary policy to focus primarily on price stability and full employment--the costs to society in terms of deviations from price stability and full employment that would arise would likely be significant. In the private sector, key vulnerabilities included high levels of leverage, excessive dependence on unstable short-term funding, weak underwriting of loans, deficiencies in risk measurement and risk management, and the use of exotic financial instruments that redistributed risk in nontransparent ways.”

Yellen (2014Jul14) warned again at the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on Jul 15, 2014:

“The Committee recognizes that low interest rates may provide incentives for some investors to “reach for yield,” and those actions could increase vulnerabilities in the financial system to adverse events. While prices of real estate, equities, and corporate bonds have risen appreciably and valuation metrics have increased, they remain generally in line with historical norms. In some sectors, such as lower-rated corporate debt, valuations appear stretched and issuance has been brisk. Accordingly, we are closely monitoring developments in the leveraged loan market and are working to enhance the effectiveness of our supervisory guidance. More broadly, the financial sector has continued to become more resilient, as banks have continued to boost their capital and liquidity positions, and growth in wholesale short-term funding in financial markets has been modest” (emphasis added).

Greenspan (1996) made similar warnings:

“Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? And how do we factor that assessment into monetary policy? We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability. Indeed, the sharp stock market break of 1987 had few negative consequences for the economy. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy” (emphasis added).

Bernanke (2010WP) and Yellen (2011AS) reveal the emphasis of monetary policy on the impact of the rise of stock market valuations in stimulating consumption by wealth effects on household confidence. What is the success in evaluating deviations of valuations of risk financial assets from “historical norms”? What are the consequences on economic activity and employment of deviations of valuations of risk financial assets from those “historical norms”? What are the policy tools and their effectiveness in returning valuations of risk financial assets to their “historical norms”?

The key policy is maintaining fed funds rate between 0 and ¼ percent. An increase in fed funds rates could cause flight out of risk financial markets worldwide. There is no exit from this policy without major financial market repercussions. There are high costs and risks of this policy because indefinite financial repression induces carry trades with high leverage, risks and illiquidity.

Professor Raguram G Rajan, governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank, warned about risks in high valuations of asset prices in an interview with Christopher Jeffery of Central Banking Journal on Aug 6, 2014 (http://www.centralbanking.com/central-banking-journal/interview/2358995/raghuram-rajan-on-the-dangers-of-asset-prices-policy-spillovers-and-finance-in-india). Professor Rajan demystifies in the interview “competitive easing” by major central banks as equivalent to competitive devaluation. Rajan (2005) anticipated the risks of the world financial crisis. Professor John B. Taylor (2014Jul15, 2014Jun26) building on advanced research (Taylor (1993, 1998LB, 1999, 1998LB, 1999, 2007JH, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012JMCB, 2014Jan3) finds that a monetary policy rule would function best in promoting an environment of low inflation and strong economic growth with stability of financial markets. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html).

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

The carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in risk financial assets had proved strongest for commodity exposures but US equities have regained leadership. The DJIA has increased 69.1 percent since the trough of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe on Jul 2, 2010 to Oct 17, 2014; S&P 500 has gained 84.5 percent and DAX 56.1 percent. Before the current round of risk aversion, almost all assets in the column “∆% Trough to 10/17/14” had double digit gains relative to the trough around Jul 2, 2010 followed by negative performance but now some valuations of equity indexes show varying behavior. China’s Shanghai Composite is 1.8 percent below the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 64.7 percent above the trough. DJ Asia Pacific TSM is 21.0 percent above the trough. Dow Global is 41.5 percent above the trough. STOXX 50 of 50 blue-chip European equities (http://www.stoxx.com/indices/index_information.html?symbol=sx5E) is 24.4 percent above the trough. NYSE Financial Index is 47.0 percent above the trough. DAX index of German equities (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/DAX:IND) is 56.1 percent above the trough. Japan’s Nikkei Average is 64.7 percent above the trough on Aug 31, 2010 and 27.6 percent above the peak on Apr 5, 2010. The Nikkei Average closed at 14,532.51 on Fri Oct 17, 2014 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata), which is 41.7 percent higher than 10,254.43 on Mar 11, 2011, on the date of the Tōhoku or Great East Japan Earthquake/tsunami. Global risk aversion erased the earlier gains of the Nikkei. The dollar depreciated by 7.0 percent relative to the euro and even higher before the new bout of sovereign risk issues in Europe. The column “∆% week to 10/17/14” in Table VI-4 shows decrease of 1.4 percent in the week for China’s Shanghai Composite. DJ Asia Pacific decreased 2.2 percent. NYSE Financial decreased 0.5 percent in the week. Dow Global decreased 0.9 percent in the week of Oct 17, 2014. The DJIA decreased 1.0 percent and S&P 500 decreased 1.0 percent. DAX of Germany increased 0.7 percent. STOXX 50 decreased 1.0 percent. The USD depreciated 1.0 percent. There are still high uncertainties on European sovereign risks and banking soundness, US and world growth slowdown and China’s growth tradeoffs. Sovereign problems in the “periphery” of Europe and fears of slower growth in Asia and the US cause risk aversion with trading caution instead of more aggressive risk exposures. There is a fundamental change in Table VI-4 from the relatively upward trend with oscillations since the sovereign risk event of Apr-Jul 2010. Performance is best assessed in the column “∆% Peak to 10/17/14” that provides the percentage change from the peak in Apr 2010 before the sovereign risk event to Oct 17, 2014. Most risk financial assets had gained not only relative to the trough as shown in column “∆% Trough to 10/17/14” but also relative to the peak in column “∆% Peak to 10/17/14.” There are now several equity indexes above the peak in Table VI-4: DJIA 46.2 percent, S&P 500 55.0 percent, DAX 39.8 percent, Dow Global 15.5 percent, DJ Asia Pacific 6.0 percent, NYSE Financial Index (http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/nykid.shtml) 17.1 percent, Nikkei Average 27.6 percent and STOXX 50 5.3 percent. There is only one equity index below the peak: Shanghai Composite by 26.0 percent. The US dollar strengthened 15.7 percent relative to the peak. The factors of risk aversion have adversely affected the performance of risk financial assets. The performance relative to the peak in Apr 2010 is more important than the performance relative to the trough around early Jul 2010 because improvement could signal that conditions have returned to normal levels before European sovereign doubts in Apr 2010. Inyoung Hwang, writing on “Fed optimism spurs record bets against stock volatility,” on Aug 21, 2014, published in Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-21/fed-optimism-spurs-record-bets-against-stock-voalitlity.html), informs that the S&P 500 is trading at 16.6 times estimated earnings, which is higher than the five-year average of 14.3 Tom Lauricella, writing on Mar 31, 2014, on “Stock investors see hints of a stronger quarter,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473513864900656?mod=WSJ_smq0314_LeadStory&mg=reno64-wsj), finds views of stronger earnings among many money managers with positive factors for equity markets in continuing low interest rates and US economic growth. There is important information in the Quarterly Markets review of the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/quarterly-markets-review-03312014.html) for IQ2014. Alexandra Scaggs, writing on “Tepid profits, roaring stocks,” on May 16, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487460105747412.html), analyzes stabilization of earnings growth: 70 percent of 458 reporting companies in the S&P 500 stock index reported earnings above forecasts but sales fell 0.2 percent relative to forecasts of increase of 0.5 percent. Paul Vigna, writing on “Earnings are a margin story but for how long,” on May 17, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/17/earnings-are-a-margin-story-but-for-how-long/), analyzes that corporate profits increase with stagnating sales while companies manage costs tightly. More than 90 percent of S&P components reported moderate increase of earnings of 3.7 percent in IQ2013 relative to IQ2012 with decline of sales of 0.2 percent. Earnings and sales have been in declining trend. In IVQ2009, growth of earnings reached 104 percent and sales jumped 13 percent. Net margins reached 8.92 percent in IQ2013, which is almost the same at 8.95 percent in IIIQ2006. Operating margins are 9.58 percent. There is concern by market participants that reversion of margins to the mean could exert pressure on earnings unless there is more accelerated growth of sales. Vigna (op. cit.) finds sales growth limited by weak economic growth. Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Falling revenue dings stocks,” on Oct 20, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578066933466076070.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), identifies a key financial vulnerability: falling revenues across markets for United States reporting companies. Global economic slowdown is reducing corporate sales and squeezing corporate strategies. Linebaugh quotes data from Thomson Reuters that 100 companies of the S&P 500 index have reported declining revenue only 1 percent higher in Jun-Sep 2012 relative to Jun-Sep 2011 but about 60 percent of the companies are reporting lower sales than expected by analysts with expectation that revenue for the S&P 500 will be lower in Jun-Sep 2012 for the entities represented in the index. Results of US companies are likely repeated worldwide. Future company cash flows derive from investment projects. In IQ1980, real gross private domestic investment in the US was $951.6 billion of chained 2009 dollars, growing to $1,254.6 billion in IVQ1987 or 31.8 percent. Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 3.8 percent from $2,605.2 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,703.7 billion in IIQ2014, which is stagnation in comparison with growth of 31.8 percent in the comparable first twenty quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1987. Real private fixed investment increased 0.3 percent from $2,586.3 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,594.5 billion in IIQ2014. Private fixed investment fell relative to IVQ2007 in all quarters preceding IIQ2014. Growth of real private investment in is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012. The investment decision of United States corporations has been fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded with $37.1 billion in IIIQ2013 and $3.1 billion in IVQ2013. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA fell $201.7 billion in IIQ2014 and increased $164.1 billion in IIQ2014. In IIIQ2013, profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased $28.7 billion and decreased $24.7 billion in IVQ2013. In IQ2014, profits after tax with IVA and CCA decreased $268.6 billion. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased at $118.4 billion in IIQ2014. Net dividends fell at $187.0 billion in IIIQ2013 and increased at $80.6 billion in IVQ2013. Net dividends fell at $89.5 billion in IIQ2014 and fell at $0.5 billion in IIQ2014. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA rose at $215.8 billion in IIIQ2013 and fell at $105.5 billion in IVQ2013. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA fell $178.9 percent in IQ2014 and increased at $118.8 billion in IIQ2014. Undistributed corporate profits swelled 262.2 percent from $107.7 billion in IQ2007 to $390.1 billion in IIQ2014 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in current dollars in IVQ2007. Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment.

The investment decision of US business is fractured.

The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:

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

declines. Equally, decline in expected revenue from the stock or project, R_τ, causes decline in valuation.

An intriguing issue is the difference in performance of valuations of risk financial assets and economic growth and employment. Paul A. Samuelson (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1970/samuelson-bio.html) popularized the view of the elusive relation between stock markets and economic activity in an often-quoted phrase “the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions.” In the presence of zero interest rates forever, valuations of risk financial assets are likely to differ from the performance of the overall economy. The interrelations of financial and economic variables prove difficult to analyze and measure.

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

	Peak	Trough	∆% to Trough	∆% Peak to 10/17/ /14	∆% Week 10/17/14	∆% Trough to 10/17/ 14
DJIA	4/26/ 10	7/2/10	-13.6	46.2	-1.0	69.1
S&P 500	4/23/ 10	7/20/ 10	-16.0	55.0	-1.0	84.5
NYSE Finance	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-20.3	17.1	-0.5	47.0
Dow Global	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-18.4	15.5	-0.9	41.5
Asia Pacific	4/15/ 10	7/2/10	-12.5	6.0	-2.2	21.0
Japan Nikkei Aver.	4/05/ 10	8/31/ 10	-22.5	27.6	-5.0	64.7
China Shang.	4/15/ 10	7/02 /10	-24.7	-26.0	-1.4	-1.8
STOXX 50	4/15/10	7/2/10	-15.3	5.3	-1.0	24.4
DAX	4/26/ 10	5/25/ 10	-10.5	39.8	0.7	56.1
Dollar Euro	11/25 2009	6/7 2010	21.2	15.7	-1.0	-7.0
DJ UBS Comm.	1/6/ 10	7/2/10	-14.5	NA	NA	NA
10-Year T Note	4/5/ 10	4/6/10	3.986	2.784	2.197

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

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

ESII Squeeze of Economic Activity by Carry Trades Induced by Zero Interest Rates. Long-term economic growth in Japan significantly improved by increasing competitiveness in world markets. Net trade of exports and imports is an important component of the GDP accounts of Japan. Table VB-3 provides quarterly data for net trade, exports and imports of Japan. Net trade had strong positive contributions to GDP growth in Japan in all quarters from IQ2007 to IIQ2009 with exception of IVQ2008 and IQ2009. The US recession is dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as beginning in IVQ2007 (Dec) and ending in IIQ2009 (Jun) (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html). Net trade contributions helped to cushion the economy of Japan from the global recession. Net trade deducted from GDP growth in seven of the nine quarters from IVQ2010 IQ2012. The only strong contribution of net trade was 3.9 percent in IIIQ2011. Net trade added 1.7 percentage points to GDP growth in IQ2013 and 0.2 percentage points in IIQ2013 but deducted 1.6 percentage points in IIIQ2013 and deducted 2.4 percentage points in IVQ2013. Net trade deducted 0.8 percentage points from GDP growth in IQ2014. Net trade added 4.3 percentage points to GDP growth in IIQ2014. Private consumption assumed the role of driver of Japan’s economic growth but should moderate as in most mature economies.

Table VB-3, Japan, Contributions to Changes in Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rates (SAAR), %

	Net Trade	Exports	Imports
2014
I	-0.8	4.2	-5.0
II	4.3	-0.3	4.7
2013
I	1.7	2.4	-0.8
II	0.2	1.8	-1.5
III	-1.6	-0.4	-1.2
IV	-2.4	0.2	-2.5
2012
I	0.4	1.7	-1.3
II	-1.4	-0.3	-1.2
III	-1.9	-2.5	0.5
IV	-0.5	-1.9	1.3
2011
I	-1.2	-0.4	-0.7
II	-4.5	-4.6	0.2
III	3.9	5.7	-1.9
IV	-3.0	-1.9	-1.0
2010
I	2.2	3.5	-1.3
II	0.0	2.6	-2.7
III	0.5	1.4	-0.9
IV	-0.3	0.1	-0.4
2009
I	-4.4	-16.4	12.0
II	7.3	4.7	2.7
III	2.2	5.3	-3.1
IV	2.8	4.1	-1.3
2008
I	1.2	2.1	-0.9
II	0.4	-1.6	2.0
III	0.0	0.2	-0.2
IV	-11.4	-10.2	-1.2
2007
I	1.2	1.7	-0.5
II	0.7	1.6	-0.9
III	2.0	1.5	0.6
IV	1.4	2.1	-0.6

Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office

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

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

There was milder increase in Japan’s export corporate goods price index during the global recession in 2008 but similar sharp decline during the bank balance sheets effect in late 2008, as shown in Chart IV-5 of the Bank of Japan. Japan exports industrial goods whose prices have been less dynamic than those of commodities and raw materials. As a result, the export CGPI on the yen basis in Chart IV-5 trends down with oscillations after a brief rise in the final part of the recession in 2009. The export corporate goods price index on the yen basis fell from 104.9 in Jun 2009 to 94.0 in Jan 2012 or minus 10.4 percent and increased to 111.1 in Sep 2014 for a gain of 18.2 percent relative to Jan 2012 and 5.9 percent relative to Jun 2009. The choice of Jun 2009 is designed to capture the reversal of risk aversion beginning in Sep 2008 with the announcement of toxic assets in banks that would be withdrawn with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Reversal of risk aversion in the form of flight to the USD and obligations of the US government opened the way to renewed carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets such as commodities. Japan exports industrial products and imports commodities and raw materials.

Chart IV-5, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2014

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Chart IV-5A 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 98.0 in Sep 2014 or minus 4.9 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gained 0.1 percent to 98.0 in Sep 2014 relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-5A, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2014

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Japan imports primary commodities and raw materials. As a result, the import corporate goods price index on the yen basis in Chart IV-6 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 (for the relation of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez 1979, 1976a). 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 129.5 in Sep 2014 or gain of 14.5 percent relative to Apr 2012 and 38.5 percent relative to Jun 2009.

Chart IV-6, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2014

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Chart IV-6A 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 111.6 in Sep 2014 or minus 6.6 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gain of 29.5 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 0.1 percent from Jun 2009 to Sep 2014 while the import corporate goods price index increased 29.5 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-6A, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2014

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Table IV-6B provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Sep 2014. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Sep 2014, the export index on the contract currency basis decreased 1.2 percent and decreased 3.8 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Sep 2014, the import price index increased 10.8 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 8.8 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-6B, Japan, Exports and Imports Corporate Goods Price Index, Contract Currency Basis and Yen Basis

	X-CC	X-Y	M-CC	M-Y
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	94.7	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	99.1	107.5	111.6	122.8
2013/08	99.0	106.1	111.8	121.3
2013/09	99.0	107.2	113.0	124.0
2013/10	99.2	106.7	113.1	122.9
2013/11	99.1	108.0	113.1	124.9
2013-12	99.1	110.4	113.8	129.0
2014-01	99.2	110.7	114.5	130.2
2014-02	98.9	109.2	113.9	127.8
2014-03	98.6	109.1	113.5	127.5
2014-04	98.5	109.2	112.8	127.0
2014-05	98.3	108.5	112.5	126.0
2014-06	98.1	108.3	112.6	126.3
2014-07	98.2	108.2	112.6	126.0
2014-08	98.3	109.0	112.4	126.8
2014-09	98.0	111.1	111.6	129.5

Note: X-CC: Exports Contract Currency; X-Y: Exports Yen; M-CC: Imports Contract; M-Y: Imports Yen

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Chart IV-7 provides the monthly corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan from 1970 to 2014. 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-5 and associated table at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks_71.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states_49.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/financial-indecision-mediocre-cyclical_6089.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/financial-instability-mediocre-cyclical_4827.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-uncertainty-mediocre-cyclical_8145.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-risks-slow-cyclical-united.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html 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-7, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 1970-2014

Source: Bank of Japan

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

The producer price index of the US from 1970 to 2014 in Chart IV-8 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-8, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 1970-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table IV-7. The increase in the tax on value added of consumption caused sharp increases in prices across all segments. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent decreased 1.3 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 6.7 percent in 12 months. Japan exports manufactured products and imports raw materials and commodities such that the country’s terms of trade, or export prices relative to import prices, deteriorate during commodity price increases. In contrast, prices of production machinery, with weight of 3.1 percent, increased 0.5 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 3.5 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-7, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%

Sep 2014	Weight	Month ∆%	12 Month ∆%
Total	1000.0	-0.1	3.5
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs	137.5	0.1	3.3
Petroleum & Coal	57.4	-1.3	6.7
Production Machinery	30.8	0.5	3.5
Electronic Components	31.0	-0.2	-1.0
Electric Power, Gas & Water	52.7	-0.4	6.7
Iron & Steel	56.6	-0.1	4.4
Chemicals	92.1	-0.2	3.0
Transport Equipment	136.4	0.1	2.9

Source: Bank of Japan

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

Percentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Jul 2014 are provided in Table IV-8 divided into domestic, export and import segments. The final block provides change in the corporate goods price without the effects of the increase in the tax on value added of consumption. In the domestic CGPI, decreasing 0.1 percent in Sep 2014, the energy shock is evident in the deduction of 0.03 percentage points by electric power, gas and water and 0.10 percentage points in petroleum and coal products in reversal of carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 0.3 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.03 percentage points by electric and electronic products and 0.06 percentage points by metals and related products. The imports CGPI decreased 0.7 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal and natural gas products deducted 0.74 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. The final block D shows that the change in the domestic corporate goods price index without the effects of the consumption tax is minus 0.1 percent.

Table IV-8, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index

Groups Sep 2014	Contribution to Change Percentage Points
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index	Monthly Change:  -0.1%
Petroleum & Coal Products	-0.10
Electric Power, Gas & Water	-0.03
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.02
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products	0.03
Nonferrous Metals	0.02
B. Export Price Index	Monthly Change:    -0.3% contract currency
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.09
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods	-0.09
Metals & Related Products	-0.06
Electric & Electronic Products	-0.03
Transportation Equipment	-0.03
General Purpose, Production & Business Oriented Machinery	-0.02
C. Import Price Index	Monthly Change: -0.7% contract currency basis
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas	-0.74
Metals & Related Products	-0.04
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods	-0.02
Textiles	0.04
Electric & Electronic Products	0.03
Foodstuffs & Feedstuffs	0.02
D. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index Excluding Consumption Tax	Monthly Change: -0.1%
Petroleum & Coal Products	-0.10
Electric Power, Gas & Water	-0.03
Chemicals & Related Products	-0.02

Source: Bank of Japan

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

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 Oct 2014. The index of current prices paid or costs of inputs increased from 16.13 in Dec 2012 to 11.36 in Oct 2014 while the index of current prices received or sales prices increased from 1.08 in Dec 2012 to 6.82 in Oct 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 11.36 in Oct 2014 are expanding at faster pace than prices received or of sales of products at 6.82. 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 42.05 in Oct 2014 while the index of future prices received or expectation of sales prices in the next six months increased from 25.81 in Dec 2012 to 26.14 in Oct 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
Oct 2014	11.36	6.82	42.05	26.14
Sep	23.91	17.39	43.48	32.61
Aug	27.27	7.95	42.05	21.59
Jul	25.00	6.82	37.50	18.18
Jun	17.20	4.30	36.56	16.13
May	19.78	6.59	31.87	14.29
Apr	22.45	10.20	33.67	14.29
Mar	21.18	2.35	43.53	25.88
Feb	25.00	15.00	40.00	23.75
Jan	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 2011	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 in Table IV-6. As inflation waves throughout the world (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.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 intensity in the beginning of 2011 because of risk aversion frustrating carry trades even induced by zero interest rates. The index of prices paid or prices of inputs increased from 20.6 in Dec 2012 to 27.6 in Oct 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 20.8 in Oct 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 27.6 in Oct 2014 indicates faster increase than the index of current prices received or sales prices of production at 20.8. The index of future prices paid decreased to 32.9 in Oct 2014 from 41.9 in Dec 2012 while the index of future prices received decreased from 27.3 in Dec 2012 to 22.5 in Oct 2014. Expectations are incorporating faster increases in prices of inputs or costs of production, 32.9 in Oct 2014, than of sales prices of produced goods, 22.5 in Oct 2014, forcing companies to manage tightly costs and labor inputs. Volatility of margins of sales/costs discourages investment and hiring.

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

	Current Prices Paid	Current Prices Received	Future Prices Paid	Future Prices Received
10-Dec	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
14-Feb	14.2	7.6	18.2	16.3
14-Mar	13.9	4.3	29.4	15.9
14-Apr	11.3	4.3	35.1	13
14-May	23	17	36.1	29.5
14-Jun	35	14.1	44.5	30
14-Jul	34.7	16.8	38.2	23.5
14-Aug	24.9	4.2	50.3	29.5
14-Sep	27	8.8	46.2	31.3
14-Oct	27.6	20.8	32.9	22.5

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 and then rebounds in the final segment but there are no episodes of contraction after 2009.

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 IMF View. The objective of this section is to analyze current projections of the IMF database for the most important indicators.

Table I-1 is constructed with the database of the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) to show GDP in dollars in 2012 and the growth rate of real GDP of the world and selected regional countries from 2013 to 2016. The data illustrate the concept often repeated of “two-speed recovery” of the world economy from the recession of 2007 to 2009. The IMF has changed its forecast of the world economy to 3.3 percent in 2013 but accelerating to 3.3 percent in 2014, 3.8 percent in 2015 and 4.0 percent in 2016. Slow-speed recovery occurs in the “major advanced economies” of the G7 that account for $34,523 billion of world output of $72,688 billion, or 47.5 percent, but are projected to grow at much lower rates than world output, 1.9 percent on average from 2013 to 2016 in contrast with 3.6 percent for the world as a whole. While the world would grow 15.2 percent in the four years from 2013 to 2016, the G7 as a whole would grow 8.5 percent. The difference in dollars of 2012 is rather high: growing by 15.2 percent would add around $11.0 trillion of output to the world economy, or roughly, two times the output of the economy of Japan of $5,938 billion but growing by 8.0 percent would add $5.8 trillion of output to the world, or about the output of Japan in 2012. The “two speed” concept is in reference to the growth of the 150 countries labeled as emerging and developing economies (EMDE) with joint output in 2012 of $27,512 billion, or 37.8 percent of world output. The EMDEs would grow cumulatively 20.7 percent or at the average yearly rate of 4.8 percent, contributing $5.7 trillion from 2013 to 2016 or the equivalent of somewhat less than the GDP of $8,387 billion of China in 2012. The final four countries in Table I-1 often referred as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), are large, rapidly growing emerging economies. Their combined output in 2012 adds to $14,511 billion, or 19.9 percent of world output, which is equivalent to 42.0 percent of the combined output of the major advanced economies of the G7.

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

	GDP USD 2012	Real GDP ∆% 2013	Real GDP ∆% 2014	Real GDP ∆% 2015	Real GDP ∆% 2016
World	72,688	3.3	3.3	3.8	4.0
G7	34,523	1.5	1.7	2.3	2.3
Canada	1,709	2.0	2.3	2.4	2.4
France	2,688	0.3	0.4	1.0	1.6
DE	3,428	0.5	1.4	1.5	1.8
Italy	2,014	-1.9	-0.2	0.9	1.3
Japan	5,938	1.5	0.9	0.8	0.8
UK	2,471	1.7	3.2	2.7	2.4
US	16,163	2.2	2.2	3.1	3.0
Euro Area	12,220	-0.4	0.8	1.3	1.7
DE	3,428	0.5	1.4	1.5	1.8
France	2,688	0.3	0.4	1.0	1.6
Italy	2,014	-1.9	-0.2	0.9	1.3
POT	212	-1.4	1.0	1.5	1.7
Ireland	211	-0.3	1.7	2.5	2.5
Greece	249	-3.9	0.6	2.9	3.7
Spain	1,323	-1.2	1.3	1.7	1.8
EMDE	27,512	4.7	4.4	5.0	5.2
Brazil	2,248	2.5	0.3	1.4	2.2
Russia	2,017	1.3	0.2	0.5	1.5
India	1,859	5.0	5.6	6.4	6.5
China	8,387	7.7	7.4	7.1	6.8

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

Continuing high rates of unemployment in advanced economies constitute another characteristic of the database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28). Table I-2 is constructed with the WEO database to provide rates of unemployment from 2012 to 2016 for major countries and regions. In fact, unemployment rates for 2013 in Table I-2 are high for all countries: unusually high for countries with high rates most of the time and unusually high for countries with low rates most of the time. The rates of unemployment are particularly high in 2013 for the countries with sovereign debt difficulties in Europe: 16.2 percent for Portugal (POT), 13.0 percent for Ireland, 27.3 percent for Greece, 26.1 percent for Spain and 12.2 percent for Italy, which is lower but still high. The G7 rate of unemployment is 7.1 percent. Unemployment rates are not likely to decrease substantially if slow growth persists in advanced economies.

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

	% Labor Force 2012	% Labor Force 2013	% Labor Force 2014	% Labor Force 2015	% Labor Force 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	7.4	7.1	6.5	6.3	6.1
Canada	7.3	7.1	7.0	6.9	6.8
France	9.8	10.3	10.0	10.0	9.9
DE	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3
Italy	10.7	12.2	12.6	12.0	11.3
Japan	4.3	4.0	3.7	3.8	3.8
UK	8.0	7.6	6.3	5.8	5.5
US	8.1	7.4	6.3	5.9	5.8
Euro Area	11.3	11.9	11.6	11.2	10.7
DE	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.3	5.3
France	9.8	10.3	10.0	10.0	9.9
Italy	10.7	12.2	12.6	12.0	11.3
POT	15.5	16.2	14.2	13.5	13.0
Ireland	14.7	13.0	11.2	10.5	10.1
Greece	24.2	27.3	25.8	23.8	20.9
Spain	24.8	26.1	24.6	23.5	22.4
EMDE	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Brazil	5.5	5.4	5.5	6.1	5.9
Russia	5.5	5.5	5.6	6.5	6.0
India	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
China	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1	4.1

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

The database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) is used to construct the debt/GDP ratios of regions and countries in Table I-3. The concept used is general government debt, which consists of central government debt, such as Treasury debt in the US, and all state and municipal debt. Net debt is provided for all countries except for the only available gross debt for China, Russia and India. The net debt/GDP ratio of the G7 increases from 85.5 in 2012 to 86.2 in 2016. G7 debt is pulled by the high debt of Japan that grows from 129.5 percent of GDP in 2012 to 140.3 percent of GDP in 2016. US general government debt increases from 79.4 percent of GDP in 2012 to 81.0 percent of GDP in 2016. Debt/GDP ratios of countries with sovereign debt difficulties in Europe are particularly worrisome. General government net debts of Italy, Greece and Portugal exceed 100 percent of GDP or are expected to exceed 100 percent of GDP by 2016. The only country with relatively lower debt/GDP ratio is Spain with 52.6 in 2012 but growing to 70.7 in 2016. Ireland’s debt/GDP ratio increases from 88.0 in 2012 to 91.2 in 2016. Fiscal adjustment, voluntary or forced by defaults, may squeeze further economic growth and employment in many countries as analyzed by Blanchard (2012WEOApr). Defaults could feed through exposures of banks and investors to financial institutions and economies in countries with sounder fiscal affairs.

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

	% Debt/ GDP 2012	% Debt/ GDP 2013	% Debt/ GDP 2014	% Debt/ GDP 2015	% Debt/ GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	85.5	85.5	86.2	86.5	86.2
Canada	36.7	37.6	38.6	39.1	39.0
France	81.7	84.7	88.1	90.6	91.9
DE	58.2	56.1	53.9	51.6	49.1
Italy	106.1	110.8	114.3	114.0	112.1
Japan	129.5	134.0	137.8	140.0	140.3
UK	80.9	82.5	83.9	85.0	84.8
US	79.4	80.4	80.8	80.9	81.0
Euro Area	70.1	72.3	73.9	74.0	73.2
DE	58.2	56.1	53.9	51.6	49.1
France	81.7	84.7	88.1	90.6	91.9
Italy	106.1	110.8	114.3	114.0	112.1
POT	114.0	118.5	123.8	123.6	121.5
Ireland	88.0	92.2	93.0	93.1	91.2
Greece	153.5	169.7	168.8	166.6	157.6
Spain	52.6	60.5	65.6	68.8	70.7
EMDE*	38.6	39.3	40.1	40.7	40.9
Brazil	35.3	33.6	33.7	32.9	32.5
Russia*	12.7	13.9	15.7	16.5	16.3
India*	66.6	61.5	60.5	59.5	58.5
China*	37.4	39.4	40.7	41.8	42.9

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

The primary balance consists of revenues less expenditures but excluding interest revenues and interest payments. It measures the capacity of a country to generate sufficient current revenue to meet current expenditures. There are various countries with primary surpluses in 2012: Germany 1.9 percent, Italy 2.3 percent, Brazil 2.1 percent and Russia 0.8 percent. There are also various countries with expected primary surpluses by 2016: Greece 4.5 percent, Italy 4.2 percent and so on. Most countries in Table I-4 face significant fiscal adjustment in the future without “fiscal space.” Investors in government securities may require higher yields when the share of individual government debts hit saturation shares in portfolios. The tool of analysis of Cochrane (2011Jan, 27, equation (16)) is the government debt valuation equation:

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

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

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

	% GDP 2012	% GDP 2013	% GDP 2014	% GDP 2015	% GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-4.7	-3.1	-2.8	-1.8	-1.3
Canada	-2.8	-2.7	-2.1	-1.6	-1.1
France	-2.4	-2.1	-2.3	-2.2	-1.7
DE	1.9	1.8	1.5	1.5	1.6
Italy	2.3	2.0	1.9	2.9	4.2
Japan	-7.8	-7.4	-6.3	-5.0	-3.7
UK	-5.6	-4.5	-3.5	-1.9	-0.3
US	-6.3	-3.6	-3.4	-2.2	-2.0
Euro Area	-1.0	-0.5	-0.4	0.0	0.7
DE	1.9	1.8	1.5	1.5	1.6
France	-2.4	-2.1	-2.3	-2.2	-1.7
Italy	2.3	2.0	1.9	2.9	4.2
POT	-2.5	-0.6	0.3	1.8	2.1
Ireland	-4.7	-2.9	-0.3	1.2	2.3
Greece	-1.3	0.8	1.5	3.0	4.5
Spain	-8.1	-4.2	-2.7	-1.7	-0.7
EMDE	0.8	-0.1	-0.5	-0.4	-0.3
Brazil	2.1	1.9	1.3	2.0	2.5
Russia	0.8	-0.9	-0.4	-0.5	0.03
India	-3.1	-2.6	-2.6	-2.3	-2.2
China	0.7	-0.4	-0.5	-0.3	-0.3

*General Government Net Lending/Borrowing

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

The database of the World Economic Outlook of the IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) is used to obtain government net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP in Table I-5. Interest on government debt is added to the primary balance to obtain overall government fiscal balance in Table I-4. For highly indebted countries there is an even tougher challenge of fiscal consolidation. Adverse expectations on the success of fiscal consolidation may drive up yields on government securities that could create hurdles to adjustment, growth and employment.

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

	% GDP 2012	% GDP 2013	% GDP 2014	% GDP 2015	% GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-6.8	-5.1	-4.7	-3.8	-3.3
Canada	-3.4	-3.0	-2.6	-2.1	-1.7
France	-4.9	-4.2	-4.4	-4.3	-3.7
DE	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3
Italy	-2.9	-3.0	-3.0	-2.3	-1.2
Japan	-8.7	-8.2	-7.1	-5.8	-4.6
UK	-8.0	-5.8	-5.3	-4.1	-2.9
US	-8.6	-5.8	-5.5	-4.3	-4.2
Euro Area	-3.7	-3.0	-2.9	-2.5	-1.9
DE	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.3
France	-4.9	-4.2	-4.4	-4.3	-3.7
Italy	-2.9	-3.0	-3.0	-2.3	-1.2
POT	-6.5	-5.0	-4.0	-2.5	-2.3
Ireland	-7.8	-6.7	-4.2	-2.8	-1.7
Greece	-6.4	-3.2	-2.7	-1.9	-0.6
Spain	-10.6	-7.1	-5.7	-4.7	-3.8
EMDE	-0.8	-1.7	-2.1	-2.0	-1.9
Brazil	-2.8	-3.3	-3.9	-3.1	-3.0
Russia	0.4	-1.3	-0.9	-1.1	-0.6
India	-7.4	-7.2	-7.2	-6.7	-6.5
China	0.2	-0.9	-1.0	-0.8	-0.8

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

There were some hopes that the sharp contraction of output during the global recession would eliminate current account imbalances. Table I-6 constructed with the database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) shows that external imbalances have been maintained in the form of current account deficits and surpluses. China’s current account surplus is 2.6 percent of GDP for 2012 and is projected to stabilize at 2.3 percent of GDP in 2016. At the same time, the current account deficit of the US is 2.9 percent of GDP in 2012 and is projected at 2.8 percent of GDP in 2016. The current account surplus of Germany is 7.4 percent for 2012 and remains at a high 5.5 percent of GDP in 2016. Japan’s current account surplus is 1.0 percent of GDP in 2012 and increases to 1.2 percent of GDP in 2016.

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

	% CA/ GDP 2012	% CA/ GDP 2013	% CA/ GDP 2014	% CA/ GDP 2015	% CA/ GDP 2016
World	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
G7	-1.1	-0.9	-0.9	-1.0	-1.0
Canada	-3.4	-3.2	-2.7	-2.5	-2.4
France	-2.1	-1.3	-1.4	-1.0	-0.7
DE	7.4	7.0	6.2	5.8	5.5
Italy	-0.3	1.0	1.2	1.2	0.9
Japan	1.0	0.7	1.0	1.1	1.2
UK	-3.8	-4.5	-4.2	-3.8	-3.3
US	-2.9	-2.4	-2.5	-2.6	-2.8
Euro Area	1.4	2.4	2.0	1.9	1.9
DE	7.4	7.0	6.2	5.8	5.5
France	-2.1	-1.3	-1.4	-1.0	-0.7
Italy	-0.3	1.0	1.2	1.2	0.9
POT	-2.0	0.5	0.6	0.8	0.9
Ireland	1.6	4.4	3.3	2.4	2.9
Greece	-2.5	0.7	0.7	0.1	0.1
Spain	-1.2	0.8	0.1	0.4	0.7
EMDE	1.4	0.8	0.8	0.5	0.5
Brazil	-2.4	-3.6	-3.5	-3.6	-3.6
Russia	3.5	1.6	2.7	3.1	3.0
India	-4.7	-1.7	-2.1	-2.2	-2.4
China	2.6	1.9	1.8	2.0	2.3

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The database of the WEO (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) is used to contract Table I-7 with fiscal and current account imbalances projected for 2014 and 2016. The WEO finds the need to rebalance external and domestic demand (IMF 2011WEOSep xvii):

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

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

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

The IMF (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/pdf/c4.pdf) analyzes global imbalances as:

• Global current account imbalances have narrowed by more than a third from

their peak in 2006. Key imbalances—the large deficit of the United States and

the large surpluses of China and Japan—have more than halved.

• The narrowing in imbalances has largely been driven by demand contraction

(“expenditure reduction”) in deficit economies.

• Exchange rate adjustment has facilitated rebalancing in China and the United

States, but in general the contribution of exchange rate changes (“expenditure

switching”) to current account adjustment has been relatively modest.

• The narrowing of imbalances is expected to be durable, as domestic demand in

deficit economies is projected to remain well below pre-crisis trends.

• Since flow imbalances have narrowed but not reversed, net creditor and debtor

positions have widened further. Weak growth has also contributed to still high

ratios of net external liabilities to GDP in some debtor economies.

• Risks of a disruptive adjustment in global current account balances have

decreased, but global demand rebalancing remains a policy priority. Stronger

external demand will be instrumental for reviving growth in debtor countries and

reducing their net external liabilities.”

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

	GDP $B 2014	FD %GDP 2014	CAD %GDP 2014	Debt %GDP 2014	FD%GDP 2016	CAD%GDP 2016	Debt %GDP 2016
US	17416	-3.4	-2.5	80.8	-2.0	-2.8	81.0
Japan	4770	-6.3	1.0	137.8	-3.7	1.2	140.3
UK	2847	-3.5	-4.2	84.4	-0.3	-3.3	85.4
Euro	13241	-0.4	2.0	73.9	0.7	1.9	73.2
Ger	3820	1.5	6.2	53.9	1.6	5.5	49.1
France	2902	-2.3	-1.4	88.1	-1.7	-0.7	91.9
Italy	2129	1.9	1.2	114.3	4.2	0.9	112.1
Can	1794	-2.1	-2.7	38.6	-1.1	-2.4	39.0
China	10355	-0.5	1.8	40.7	-0.3	2.3	42.9
Brazil	2244	1.3	-3.5	33.6	2.5	-3.6	32.5

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

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

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

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

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

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

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

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

The prospects of survival of the euro zone are dire. Table I-8 is constructed with IMF World Economic Outlook database (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) for GDP in USD billions, primary net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP and general government debt as percent of GDP for selected regions and countries in 2015.

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

	GDP 2015 USD Billions	Primary Net Lending Borrowing % GDP 2015	General Government Net Debt % GDP 2015
World	81,544
Euro Zone	13,466	0.0	74.0
Portugal	232	1.8	123.6
Ireland	253	1.2	93.1
Greece	252	3.0	166.6
Spain	1,422	-1.7	68.8
Major Advanced Economies G7	37,042	-1.8	86.5
United States	18,287	-2.2	80.9
UK	3,003	-1.9	85.0
Germany	3,909	1.5	51.6
France	2,935	-2.2	90.6
Japan	4,882	-5.0	140.0
Canada	1,873	-1.6	39.1
Italy	2,153	2.9	114.0
China	11,285	-0.3	41.8**

*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

The data in Table I-8 are used for some very simple calculations in Table I-9. The column “Net Debt USD Billions 2015” in Table I-9 is generated by applying the percentage in Table I-8 column “General Government Net Debt % GDP 2015” to the column “GDP 2015 USD Billions.” The total debt of France and Germany in 2015 is $4676.1 billion, as shown in row “B+C” in column “Net Debt USD Billions 2015” The sum of the debt of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland is $4374.8 billion, adding rows D+E+F+G+H in column “Net Debt USD billions 2015.” There is some simple “unpleasant bond arithmetic” in the two final columns of Table I-9. Suppose the entire debt burdens of the five countries with probability of default were to be guaranteed by France and Germany, which de facto would be required by continuing the euro zone. The sum of the total debt of these five countries and the debt of France and Germany is shown in column “Debt as % of Germany plus France GDP” to reach $9050.9 billion, which would be equivalent to 132.2 percent of their combined GDP in 2015. Under this arrangement, the entire debt of selected members of the euro zone including debt of France and Germany would not have nil probability of default. The final column provides “Debt as % of Germany GDP” that would exceed 231.5 percent if including debt of France and 163.5 percent of German GDP if excluding French debt. The unpleasant bond arithmetic illustrates that there is a limit as to how far Germany and France can go in bailing out the countries with unsustainable sovereign debt without incurring severe pains of their own such as downgrades of their sovereign credit ratings. A central bank is not typically engaged in direct credit because of remembrance of inflation and abuse in the past. There is also a limit to operations of the European Central Bank in doubtful credit obligations. Wriston (1982) would prove to be wrong again that countries do not bankrupt but would have a consolation prize that similar to LBOs the sum of the individual values of euro zone members outside the current agreement exceeds the value of the whole euro zone. Internal rescues of French and German banks may be less costly than bailing out other euro zone countries so that they do not default on French and German banks. Analysis of fiscal stress is quite difficult without including another global recession in an economic cycle that is already mature by historical experience.

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

	Net Debt USD Billions 2015	Debt as % of Germany Plus France GDP	Debt as % of Germany GDP
A Euro Area	9,964.8
B Germany	2,017.0		$9050.9 as % of $3909 =231.5% $6391.8 as % of $3909 =163.5%
C France	2,659.1
B+C	4,676.1	GDP $6,844.0 Total Debt $9,050.9 Debt/GDP: 132.2%
D Italy	2,454.4
E Spain	978.3
F Portugal	286.8
G Greece	419.8
H Ireland	235.5
Subtotal D+E+F+G+H	4,374.8

Source: calculation with IMF data IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

World trade projections of the IMF are in Table I-10. There is increasing growth of the volume of world trade of goods and services from 3.0 percent in 2013 to 5.0 percent in 2015 and 5.6 percent on average from 2016 to 2019. World trade would be slower for advanced economies while emerging and developing economies (EMDE) experience faster growth. World economic slowdown would be more challenging with lower growth of world trade.

Table I-10, IMF, Projections of World Trade, USD Billions, USD/Barrel and Annual ∆%

	2013	2014	2015	Average ∆% 2016-2019
World Trade Volume (Goods and Services)	3.0	3.8	5.0	5.6
Exports Goods & Services	3.2	3.7	5.0	5.5
Imports Goods & Services	2.8	3.9	5.0	5.6
World Trade Value of Exports Goods & Services USD Billion	23,114	23,928	24,948	Average ∆% 2006-2015 20,259
Value of Exports of Goods USD Billion	18,671	19,299	20,107	Average ∆% 2006-2015 16,312
Average Oil Price USD/Barrel	104.07	102.76	99.36	Average ∆% 2006-2015 88.85
Average Annual ∆% Export Unit Value of Manufactures	-1.1	-0.2	-0.5	Average ∆% 2006-2015 -0.6
Exports of Goods & Services	2013	2014	2015	Average ∆% 2016-2019
Euro Area	1.8	3.5	4.3	4.7
EMDE	4.4	3.9	5.8	6.1
G7	1.8	2.9	4.2	4.9
Imports Goods & Services
Euro Area	0.5	3.4	3.9	4.7
EMDE	5.3	4.4	6.1	6.3
G7	1.2	3.6	4.1	4.9
Terms of Trade of Goods & Services
Euro Area	0.8	-0.4	-0.3	-0.1
EMDE	-0.2	-0.02	-0.6	-0.4
G7	0.8	0.7	-0.2	0.0
Terms of Trade of Goods
Euro Area	1.2	0.03	-0.02	-0.2
EMDE	-0.2	0.2	-0.4	-0.3
G7	0.9	0.3	-0.1	-0.1

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

Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28

ESIV United States Industrial Production. Industrial production increased 1.0 percent in Sep 2014 and decreased 0.2 percent in Aug 2014 after increasing 0.2 percent in Jul 2014, as shown in Table I-1, with all data seasonally adjusted. The Federal Reserve completed its annual revision of industrial production and capacity utilization on Mar 28, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm). The report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm):

“Industrial production increased 1.0 percent in September and advanced at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014, roughly its average quarterly increase since the end of 2010. In September, manufacturing output moved up 0.5 percent, while the indexes for mining and for utilities climbed 1.8 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively. For the third quarter as a whole, manufacturing production rose at an annual rate of 3.5 percent and mining output increased at an annual rate of 8.7 percent. The output of utilities fell at an annual rate of 8.5 percent for a second consecutive quarterly decline. At 105.1 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in September was 4.3 percent above its level of a year earlier. The capacity utilization rate for total industry moved up 0.6 percentage point in September to 79.3 percent, a rate that is 1.0 percentage point above its level of 12 months earlier but 0.8 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2013) average.”

In the six months ending in Sep 2014, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 1.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.9 percent, which is lower than growth of 4.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. Excluding growth of 1.0 percent in Sep 2014, growth in the remaining five months from Apr to Aug 2014 accumulated to 0.9 percent or 2.2 percent annual equivalent. Industrial production declined in one of the past six months. Industrial production expanded at annual equivalent 4.1 percent in the most recent quarter from Jul to Sep 2014 and at 3.7 percent in the prior quarter Apr-Jun 2014. Business equipment accumulated growth of 2.2 percent in the six months from Apr to Sep 2014 at the annual equivalent rate of 4.5 percent, which is close growth of 4.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. The Fed analyzes capacity utilization of total industry in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm): “The capacity utilization rate for total industry moved up 0.6 percentage point in September to 79.3 percent, a rate that is 1.0 percentage point above its level of 12 months earlier but 0.8 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2013) average.” United States industry apparently decelerated to a lower growth rate with possible acceleration in past months.

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

2014	Sep  14	Aug  14	Jul 14	Jun   14	May  14	Apr  14	Sep  14/ Sep 13
Total	1.0	-0.2	0.2	0.3	0.5	0.1	4.3
Market Groups
Final Products	0.5	-0.5	0.6	-0.3	0.0	-0.2	2.9
Consumer Goods	0.5	-0.7	0.4	-0.3	-0.4	-0.6	2.2
Business Equipment	0.3	-0.2	1.2	-0.3	0.8	0.4	4.6
Non Industrial Supplies	1.1	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.6	-0.4	3.4
Construction	0.4	0.0	1.4	0.6	1.3	-0.8	4.9
Materials	1.4	0.0	-0.1	0.8	0.8	0.5	5.7
Industry Groups
Manufacturing	0.5	-0.5	0.7	0.3	0.4	0.3	3.7
Mining	1.8	0.3	0.0	1.5	1.0	2.1	9.1
Utilities	3.9	1.2	-3.0	-2.0	0.2	-5.1	0.9
Capacity	79.3	78.7	79.1	79.1	79.1	79.0	2.9

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Manufacturing increased 0.5 percent in Sep 2014 after decreasing 0.5 percent in Aug 2014 and increasing 0.7 percent in Jul 2014 seasonally adjusted, increasing 3.6 percent not seasonally adjusted in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014, as shown in Table I-2. Manufacturing grew cumulatively 1.7 percent in the six months ending in Sep 2014 or at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent. Excluding the increase of 0.7 percent in Jul 2014, manufacturing accumulated growth of 1.0 percent from Apr 2013 to Sep 2014 or at the annual equivalent rate of 2.4 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 28, 2014 (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. The annual revision for 2014 was more limited than in recent years because the source data required to extend the annual benchmark indexes of production into 2012 were mostly unavailable. Consequently, the IP indexes published with this revision are very little changed from previous estimates. Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, total IP is now reported to have increased about 3 1/3 percent in each year from 2011 to 2013. Relative to the rates of change for total IP published earlier, the new rates are 1/2 percentage point higher in 2012 and little changed in any other year. Total IP still shows a peak-to-trough decline of about 17 percent for the most recent recession, and it still returned to its pre-recession peak in the fourth quarter of 2013.”

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 19.9 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2013. Manufacturing grew 26.8 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Sep 2014. Manufacturing output in Sep 2014 is 1.0 percent below the peak in Jun 2007. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIQ2014 would have accumulated to 22.1 percent. GDP in IIQ2014 would be $18,305.0 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,294.6 billion than actual $16,010.4 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 26.5 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 16.1 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-financial-turbulence-twenty-seven.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/competitive-monetary-policy-and.html). US GDP in IIQ2014 is 12.5 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,010.4 billion in IIQ2014 or 6.8 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.0 percent. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because growth rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. There is similar behavior in manufacturing. The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Sep 2014. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 123.5550 in Sep 2014. The actual index NSA in Sep 2014 is 102.0228, which is 17.4 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.3 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2013, raising the index at trend to 115.7028 in Sep 2014. The output of manufacturing at 102.0228 in Sep 2014 is 11.8 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

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

	Month SA ∆%	12-Month NSA ∆%
Sep 2014	0.5	3.6
Aug	-0.5	3.4
Jul	0.7	4.0
Jun	0.3	3.5
May	0.4	3.5
Apr	0.3	3.0
Mar	0.8	3.4
Feb	1.3	2.4
Jan	-1.0	1.4
Dec 2013	0.2	2.2
Nov	0.3	2.8
Oct	0.4	3.7
Sep	0.3	2.8
Aug	0.7	2.9
Jul	-0.4	1.7
Jun	0.3	2.3
May	0.3	2.4
Apr	-0.2	2.7
Mar	0.1	2.6
Feb	0.6	2.5
Jan	-0.2	2.9
Dec 2012	0.7	3.8
Nov	1.3	3.8
Oct	-0.4	2.6
Sep	0.2	3.5
Aug	-0.5	3.8
Jul	0.4	4.3
Jun	0.4	5.0
May	-0.2	4.9
Apr	0.8	5.1
Mar	-0.3	3.8
Feb	0.6	5.1
Jan	1.0	4.0
Dec 2011	0.7	3.5
Nov	-0.1	2.9
Oct	0.5	3.0
Sep	0.4	2.9
Aug	0.3	2.3
Jul	0.8	2.6
Jun	0.1	2.1
May	0.2	1.9
Apr	-0.6	3.2
Mar	0.7	4.9
Feb	0.0	5.4
Jan	0.2	5.7
Dec 2010	0.4	6.3
Nov	0.2	5.4
Oct	0.1	6.6
Sep	0.1	6.9
Aug	0.1	7.4
Jul	0.8	7.8
Jun	0.0	9.3
May	1.5	8.8
Apr	0.9	7.0
Mar	1.3	4.8
Feb	-0.1	1.3
Jan	1.1	1.2
Dec 2009	-0.1	-3.1
Nov	1.0	-6.0
Oct	0.2	-9.1
Sep	0.8	-10.6
Aug	1.0	-13.6
Jul	1.4	-15.2
Jun	-0.3	-17.7
May	-1.1	-17.6
Apr	-0.7	-18.2
Mar	-1.8	-17.3
Feb	-0.3	-16.1
Jan	-2.9	-16.4
Dec 2008	-3.4	-13.9
Nov	-2.4	-11.3
Oct	-0.6	-8.9
Sep	-3.4	-8.5
Aug	-1.2	-5.0
Jul	-1.1	-3.5
Jun	-0.6	-3.1
May	-0.5	-2.4
Apr	-1.1	-1.1
Mar	-0.3	-0.6
Feb	-0.6	0.9
Jan	-0.4	2.2
Dec 2007	0.1	1.9
Nov	0.5	3.3
Oct	-0.4	2.8
Sep	0.5	2.9
Aug	-0.4	2.6
Jul	0.2	3.5
Jun	0.3	3.0
May	-0.1	3.1
Apr	0.7	3.6
Mar	0.8	2.5
Feb	0.4	1.6
Jan	-0.5	1.3
Dec 2006		2.7
Dec 2005		3.5
Dec 2004		3.8
Dec 2003		2.0
Dec 2002		2.4
Dec 2001		-5.7
Dec 2000		0.7
Dec 1999		5.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2013		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 2012		2.3
Average ∆% Dec 1986-Dec 1999		4.2
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2006		1.3
Average ∆% Dec 1999-Dec 2013		0.6
∆% Peak 103.0351 in 06/2007 to 96.4739 in 12/2013		-6.4
∆% Peak 103.0351 in 06/2007 to Trough 80.4551 in 4/2009		-21.9
∆% Trough  80.4551 in 04/2009 to 96.4739 in 12/2013		19.9
∆% Trough  80.4551 in 04/2009 to 102.0228 in 9/2014		26.8
∆% Peak 103.0351 on 06/2007 to 102.0228 in 9/2014		-1.0

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Manufacturing jobs not seasonally adjusted increased 157,000 from Sep 2013 to
Sep 2014 or at the average monthly rate of 13,083. There are effects of the weaker economy and international trade together with the yearly adjustment of labor statistics. Industrial production increased 1.0 percent in Sep 2014 and decreased 0.2 percent in Aug 2014 after increasing 0.2 percent in Jul 2014, as shown in Table I-1, with all data seasonally adjusted. The Federal Reserve completed its annual revision of industrial production and capacity utilization on Mar 28, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm). The report of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System states (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm):

“Industrial production increased 1.0 percent in September and advanced at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014, roughly its average quarterly increase since the end of 2010. In September, manufacturing output moved up 0.5 percent, while the indexes for mining and for utilities climbed 1.8 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively. For the third quarter as a whole, manufacturing production rose at an annual rate of 3.5 percent and mining output increased at an annual rate of 8.7 percent. The output of utilities fell at an annual rate of 8.5 percent for a second consecutive quarterly decline. At 105.1 percent of its 2007 average, total industrial production in September was 4.3 percent above its level of a year earlier. The capacity utilization rate for total industry moved up 0.6 percentage point in September to 79.3 percent, a rate that is 1.0 percentage point above its level of 12 months earlier but 0.8 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2013) average.”

In the six months ending in Sep 2014, United States national industrial production accumulated increase of 1.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.9 percent, which is lower than growth of 4.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. Excluding growth of 1.0 percent in Sep 2014, growth in the remaining five months from Apr to Aug 2014 accumulated to 0.9 percent or 2.2 percent annual equivalent. Industrial production declined in one of the past six months. Industrial production expanded at annual equivalent 4.1 percent in the most recent quarter from Jul to Sep 2014 and at 3.7 percent in the prior quarter Apr-Jun 2014. Business equipment accumulated growth of 2.2 percent in the six months from Apr to Sep 2014 at the annual equivalent rate of 4.5 percent, which is close growth of 4.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. The Fed analyzes capacity utilization of total industry in its report (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/default.htm): “The capacity utilization rate for total industry moved up 0.6 percentage point in September to 79.3 percent, a rate that is 1.0 percentage point above its level of 12 months earlier but 0.8 percentage point below its long-run (1972–2013) average.” United States industry apparently decelerated to a lower growth rate with possible acceleration in past months.

Manufacturing by 21.9 from the peak in Jun 2007 to the trough in Apr 2009 and increased by 19.9 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Dec 2013. Manufacturing grew 26.8 percent from the trough in Apr 2009 to Sep 2014. Manufacturing output in Sep 2014 is 1.0 percent below the peak in Jun 2007. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIQ2014 would have accumulated to 22.1 percent. GDP in IIQ2014 would be $18,305.0 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,294.6 billion than actual $16,010.4 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 26.5 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 16.1 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-financial-turbulence-twenty-seven.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/competitive-monetary-policy-and.html). US GDP in IIQ2014 is 12.5 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,010.4 billion in IIQ2014 or 6.8 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.0 percent. Cochrane (2014Jul2) estimates US GDP at more than 10 percent below trend. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because growth rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. There is similar behavior in manufacturing. The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Sep 2014. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 123.5550 in Sep 2014. The actual index NSA in Sep 2014 is 102.0228, which is 17.4 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.3 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2013, raising the index at trend to 115.7028 in Sep 2014. The output of manufacturing at 102.0228 in Sep 2014 is 11.8 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

Table I-13 provides national income by industry without capital consumption adjustment (WCCA). “Private industries” or economic activities have share of 87.3 percent in IIQ2014. Most of US national income is in the form of services. In Sep 2014, there were 139.752 million nonfarm jobs NSA in the US, according to estimates of the establishment survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm Table B-1). Total private jobs of 117.940 million NSA in Sep 2014 accounted for 84.4 percent of total nonfarm jobs of 139.752 million, of which 12.222 million, or 10.4 percent of total private jobs and 8.7 percent of total nonfarm jobs, were in manufacturing. Private service-producing jobs were 98.463 million NSA in Sep 2014, or 70.5 percent of total nonfarm jobs and 83.5 percent of total private-sector jobs. Manufacturing has share of 11.3 percent in US national income in IIQ2014 and durable goods 6.4 percent, as shown in Table I-13. Most income in the US originates in services. Subsidies and similar measures designed to increase manufacturing jobs will not increase economic growth and employment and may actually reduce growth by diverting resources away from currently employment-creating activities because of the drain of taxation.

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

	SAAR IQ2014	% Total	SAAR IIQ2014	% Total
National Income WCCA	14,982.0	100.0	15,276.2	100.0
Domestic Industries	14,771.0	98.6	15,062.8	98.6
Private Industries	13,055.8	87.1	13,342.0	87.3
Agriculture	161.0	1.1	178.6	1.2
Mining	273.1	1.8	260.5	1.7
Utilities	209.1	1.4	215.7	1.4
Construction	660.3	4.4	666.8	4.4
Manufacturing	1642.5	11.0	1721.4	11.3
Durable Goods	950.2	6.3	982.0	6.4
Nondurable Goods	692.3	4.6	739.3	4.8
Wholesale Trade	908.7	6.1	925.1	6.1
Retail Trade	1029.8	6.9	1051.9	6.9
Transportation & WH	465.6	3.1	478.0	3.1
Information	560.5	3.7	578.0	3.8
Finance, Insurance, RE	2638.0	17.6	2661.9	17.4
Professional & Business Services	2026.8	13.5	2086.1	13.7
Education, Health Care	1461.8	9.8	1487.5	9.7
Arts, Entertainment	593.9	4.0	605.2	4.0
Other Services	424.7	2.8	425.4	2.8
Government	1715.1	11.4	1720.8	11.3
Rest of the World	211.0	1.4	213.5	1.4

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

ESV United States Producer Prices. 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

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

Chart I-1 provides US nominal GDP from 1929 to 2013. The chart disguises the decline of nominal GDP during the 1930s from $104.6 billion in 1929 to $57.2 billion in 1933 or by 45.3 percent (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). The level of nominal GDP reached $102.9 billion in 1940 and exceeded the $104.6 billion of 1929 only with $129.4 billion in 1941. The only major visible bump in the chart occurred in the recession of IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 with revised cumulative decline of real GDP of 4.3 percent. US nominal GDP fell from $14,718.6 billion in 2008 to $14,418.7 billion in 2009 or by 2.0 percent. US nominal GDP rose to $14,964.4 billion in 2010 or by 3.8 percent and to $15,517.9 billion in 2011 for an additional 3.7 percent for cumulative increase of 7.6 percent relative to 2009 and to $16,163.2 billion in 2012 for an additional 4.2 percent and cumulative increase of 12.1 percent relative to 2009. US nominal GDP increased from $14,477.6 in 2007 to $16,768.1 billion in 2013 or by 15.8 percent at the average annual rate of 2.5 percent per year (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Tendency for deflation would be reflected in persistent bumps. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.3 percent cumulatively and fell 45.3 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7). The comparison of the global recession after 2007 with the Great Depression is entirely misleading (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html).

Chart I-1, US, Nominal GDP 1929-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-2 provides US real GDP from 1929 to 2013. The chart also disguises the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the four years of 1929 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.3 percent cumulatively and fell 45.3 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7; data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Persistent deflation threatening real economic activity would also be reflected in the series of long-term growth of real GDP. There is no such behavior in Chart I-2 except for periodic recessions in the US economy that have occurred throughout history.

Chart I-2, US, Real GDP 1929-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Deflation would also be in evidence in long-term series of prices in the form of bumps. The GDP implicit deflator series in Chart I-3 from 1929 to 2013 shows sharp dynamic behavior over time. There is decline of the implicit price deflator of GDP by 25.8 percent from 1929 to 1933 (data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). In contrast, the implicit price deflator of GDP of the US increased from 97.337 (2009 =100) in 2007 to 100.00 in 2009 or by 2.7 percent and increased to 106.733 in 2013 or by 6.7 percent relative to 2009 and 9.7 percent relative to 2007. The implicit price deflator of US GDP increased in every quarter from IVQ2007 to IVQ2012 with only two declines from 100.062 in IQ2009 to 99.895 in IIQ2009 or by 0.2 percent and to 99.873 in IIIQ2009 for cumulative 0.2 percent relative to IQ2009 and -0.02 percent relative to IIQ2009 (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Wars are characterized by rapidly rising prices followed by declines when peace is restored. The US economy is not plagued by deflation but by long-run inflation.

Chart I-3, US, GDP Implicit Price Deflator 1929-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-4 provides percent change from preceding quarter in prices of GDP at seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) from 1980 to 2014. There is one case of negative change by 0.6 percent in IIQ2009 that was adjustment from 2.8 percent in IIIQ2008 following 2.3 percent in IQ2008 and 1.8 percent IIQ2008 caused by carry trades from policy interest rates being moved to zero into commodity futures. These positions were reversed because of the fear of toxic assets in banks in the proposal of TARP in late 2008 (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). There has not been actual deflation or risk of deflation threatening depression in the US that would justify unconventional monetary policy.

Chart I-4, Percent Change from Preceding Period in Prices for GDP Seasonally Adjusted at Annual Rates 1980-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Chart I-5 provides percent change from preceding year in prices of GDP from 1929 to 2013. There are four consecutive years of declines of prices of GDP during the Great Depression: 3.8 percent in 1930, 9.9 percent in 1931, 11.4 percent in 1932 and 2.7 percent in 1933. There were two consecutive declines of 1.8 percent in 1938 and 1.3 percent in 1939. Prices of GDP fell 0.1 percent in 1949 after increasing 12.6 percent in 1946, 11.2 percent in 1947 and 5.6 percent in 1948, which is similar to experience with wars in other countries. There are no other negative changes of annual prices of GDP in 74 years from 1939 to 2013.

Chart I-5, Percent Change from Preceding Year in Prices for Gross Domestic Product 1930-2013

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

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2014 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, 1947-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-7 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2014. 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 2014.

Chart I-7, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1948-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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/ppi/

The producer price index excluding food and energy from 1973 to 2014, the first historical date of availability in the dataset of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), shows similarly dynamic behavior as the overall index, as shown in Chart I-8. There is no evidence of persistent deflation in the US PPI.

Chart I-8, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1973-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

Chart I-9, US Producer Price Index, Finished Goods Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The producer price index of energy goods from 1974 to 2014 is provided in Chart I-10. The first jump occurred during the Great Inflation of the 1970s analyzed in various comments of this blog (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html) and in Appendix I. There is relative stability of producer prices after 1986 with another jump and decline in the late 1990s into the early 2000s. The episode of commodity price increases during a global recession in 2008 could only have occurred with interest rates dropping toward zero, which stimulated the carry trade from zero interest rates to leveraged positions in commodity futures. Commodity futures exposures were dropped in the flight to government securities after Sep 2008. Commodity future exposures were created again when risk aversion diminished around Mar 2010 after the finding that US bank balance sheets did not have the toxic assets that were mentioned in proposing TARP in Congress (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Fluctuations in commodity prices and other risk financial assets originate in carry trade when risk aversion ameliorates. There are also fluctuations originating in shifts in preference for asset classes such as between commodities and equities.

Chart I-10, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 1974-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-11 shows 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of finished energy goods from 1975 to 2014. This index is only available after 1974 and captures only one of the humps of energy prices during the Great Inflation. Fluctuations in energy prices have occurred throughout history in the US but without provoking deflation. Two cases are the decline of oil prices in 2001 to 2002 that has been analyzed by Barsky and Kilian (2004) and the collapse of oil prices from over $140/barrel with shock of risk aversion to the carry trade in Sep 2008.

Chart I-11, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1974-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Headline and core producer price indexes are in Table I-6. The headline PPI SA decreased 0.2 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 2.1 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. The core PPI SA increased 0.2 percent in Sep 2014 and rose 2.1 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the annual equivalent rate of 10.4 percent in the headline PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 3.7 percent in the core PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline PPI inflation collapsed to 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was higher at 2.4 percent. In the third wave, headline PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.7 percent. Core PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, jumping from annual equivalent at 2.0 percent in the first four months of 2010 to 3.0 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline PPI inflation of minus 0.4 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and 2.4 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 2.8 percent for the headline index but 3.2 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was minus 4.1 percent for the headline PPI and 1.8 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of 0.6 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core PPI inflation was at annual equivalent 3.7 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of producer prices of the United States at 12.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of minus 2.8 percent in Oct 2011-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 0.8 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 6.2 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 2.4 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 6.4 percent in Mar-Apr 2012 and 1.2 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 4.0 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 0.9 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 0.0 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline PPI and 1.2 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 4.9 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and 3.7 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent for the general PPI index in Mar 2014 and minus 1.2 percent for the core PPI index. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent headline PPI inflation jumped at 4.0 percent in Apr-Jul 2014 and 1.8 percent for the core PPI. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Aug-Sep 2014 was minus 3.5 percent and 1.8 percent for the core index. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

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

	Finished Goods SA Month	Finished Goods NSA 12 months	Finished Core SA Month	Finished Core NSA 12 months
Sep 2014	-0.2	2.1	0.2	2.1
Aug	-0.4	2.2	0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	-3.5		1.8
July	0.1	2.9	0.1	1.8
Jun	0.6	2.7	0.2	1.9
May	0.0	2.5	0.2	1.8
Apr	0.6	3.1	0.1	1.7
AE ∆% Apr-Jul	4.0		1.8
Mar	0.2	1.9	-0.1	1.7
AE ∆% Mar	2.4		-1.2
Feb	0.2	1.3	0.1	1.9
Jan	0.6	1.6	0.5	2.0
Dec 2013	0.4	1.4	0.5	1.6
AE ∆% Dec-Feb	4.9		3.7
Nov	0.0	0.8	0.2	1.3
Oct	0.2	0.3	0.0	1.2
Sep	-0.2	0.3	0.1	1.2
AE ∆% Sep-Nov	0.0		1.2
Aug	0.3	1.3	0.0	1.2
Jul	0.0	2.1	0.1	1.3
Jun	0.4	2.3	0.1	1.6
May	0.6	1.6	0.1	1.7
AE ∆%  May-Aug	4.0		0.9
Apr	-0.6	0.5	0.1	1.7
Mar	-0.5	1.1	0.1	1.7
AE ∆%  Mar-Apr	-6.4		1.2
Feb	0.6	1.8	0.2	1.8
Jan	0.4	1.5	0.2	1.8
AE ∆%  Jan-Feb	6.2		2.4
Dec 2012	-0.2	1.4	0.1	2.1
Nov	-0.6	1.5	0.1	2.2
Oct	0.1	2.3	0.0	2.2
AE ∆%  Oct-Dec	-2.8		0.8
Sep	0.9	2.1	0.0	2.4
Aug	1.1	1.9	0.1	2.6
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	12.7		0.6
Jul	0.2	0.5	0.5	2.6
Jun	-0.1	0.7	0.1	2.6
AE ∆% Jun-Jul	0.6		3.7
May	-0.6	0.6	0.1	2.7
Apr	-0.1	1.8	0.2	2.7
AE ∆% Apr-May	-4.1		1.8
Mar	0.1	2.8	0.2	2.9
Feb	0.3	3.4	0.2	3.1
Jan	0.3	4.1	0.4	3.1
AE ∆% Jan-Mar	2.8		3.2
Dec 2011	-0.2	4.7	0.3	3.0
Nov	0.3	5.6	0.1	3.0
Oct	-0.2	5.8	0.2	2.9
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	-0.4		2.4
Sep	0.9	7.0	0.3	2.8
Aug	-0.3	6.6	0.1	2.7
Jul	0.4	7.1	0.5	2.7
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	4.1		3.7
Jun	-0.2	6.9	0.3	2.3
May	0.4	7.1	0.1	2.1
AE ∆%  May-Jun	1.2		2.4
Apr	0.8	6.6	0.3	2.3
Mar	0.6	5.6	0.3	2.0
Feb	1.1	5.4	0.2	1.8
Jan	0.8	3.6	0.4	1.6
AE ∆%  Jan-Apr	10.4		3.7
Dec 2010	0.8	3.8	0.2	1.4
Nov	0.4	3.4	0.0	1.2
Oct	0.8	4.3	-0.1	1.6
Sep	0.4	3.9	0.2	1.6
Aug	0.4	3.3	0.1	1.3
Jul	0.2	4.1	0.1	1.5
Jun	-0.3	2.7	0.1	1.1
May	0.0	5.1	0.3	1.3
Apr	-0.1	5.4	0.0	0.9
Mar	0.6	5.9	0.2	0.9
Feb	-0.5	4.2	0.1	1.0
Jan	1.0	4.5	0.2	1.0

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

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

The US producer price index NSA from 2000 to 2014 is shown in Chart I-24. There are two episodes of decline of the PPI during recessions in 2001 and in 2008. Barsky and Kilian (2004) consider the 2001 episode as one in which real oil prices were declining when recession began. Recession and the fall of commodity prices instead of generalized deflation explain the behavior of US inflation in 2008.

Chart I-24, US, Producer Price Index, NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the PPI NSA from 2000 to 2014 are shown in Chart I-25. It may be possible to forecast trends a few months in the future under adaptive expectations but turning points are almost impossible to anticipate especially when related to fluctuations of commodity prices in response to risk aversion. In a sense, monetary policy has been tied to behavior of the PPI in the negative 12-month rates in 2001 to 2003 and then again in 2009 to 2010. Monetary policy following deflation fears caused by commodity price fluctuations would introduce significant volatility and risks in financial markets and eventually in consumption and investment.

Chart I-25, US, Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The US PPI excluding food and energy from 2000 to 2014 is shown in Chart I-26. There is here again a smooth trend of inflation instead of prolonged deflation as in Japan.

Chart I-26, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the producer price index excluding food and energy are shown in Chart I-27. Fluctuations replicate those in the headline PPI. There is an evident trend of increase of 12 months rates of core PPI inflation in 2011 but lower rates in 2012-2014.

Chart I-27, US, Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 12-Month Percentage Changes, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The US producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2014 is in Chart I-28. There is a clear upward trend with fluctuations that would not occur under persistent deflation.

Chart I-28, US, Producer Price Index Finished Energy Goods, NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-29 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index of energy goods from 2000 to 2014. Barsky and Kilian (2004) relate the episode of declining prices of energy goods in 2001 to 2002 to the analysis of decline of real oil prices. Interest rates dropping to zero during the global recession in 2008 induced carry trades that explain the rise of the PPI of energy goods toward 30 percent. Bouts of risk aversion with policy interest rates held close to zero explain the fluctuations in the 12-month rates of the PPI of energy goods in the expansion phase of the economy. Symmetric inflation targets induce significant instability in inflation and interest rates with adverse effects on financial markets and the overall economy.

Chart I-29, US, Producer Price Index Energy Goods, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2000-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is enhancing the producer price index of the US with the final demand producer price index (FD PPI) beginning in Jan 2014 (http://www.bls.gov/ppi/fdidtransition.htm):

“Effective with the January 2014 Producer Price Index (PPI) data release in February 2014, BLS transitioned from the Stage of Processing (SOP) to the Final Demand-Intermediate Demand (FD-ID) aggregation system. This shift resulted in significant changes to the PPI news release, as well as other documents available from PPI. The transition to the FD-ID system was the culmination of a long-standing PPI objective to improve the current SOP aggregation system by incorporating PPIs for services, construction, government purchases, and exports. In comparison to the SOP system, the FD-ID system more than doubled PPI coverage of the United States economy to over 75 percent of in-scope domestic production. The FD-ID system was first introduced as a set of experimental indexes in January 2011. Nearly all new FD-ID goods, services, and construction indexes provide historical data back to either November 2009 or April 2010, while the indexes for goods that correspond with the historical SOP indexes go back to the 1970s or earlier.”

Headline and core final demand producer price indexes are in Table I-6A. The headline FD PPI SA decreased 0.1 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 1.6 percent NSA in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. The core FD PPI SA changed 0.0 percent in Sep 2014 and rose 1.6 percent in 12 months. Analysis of annual equivalent rates of change shows inflation waves similar to those worldwide. In the first wave, the absence of risk aversion from the sovereign risk crisis in Europe motivated the carry trade from zero interest rates into commodity futures that caused the average equivalent rate of 7.1 percent in the headline FD PPI in Jan-Apr 2011 and 4.9 percent in the core FD PPI. In the second wave, commodity futures prices collapsed in Jun 2011 with the return of risk aversion originating in the sovereign risk crisis of Europe. The annual equivalent rate of headline FD PPI inflation collapsed to 2.4 percent in May-Jun 2011 but the core annual equivalent inflation rate was lower at 1.8 percent. In the third wave, headline FD PPI inflation resuscitated with annual equivalent at 3.2 percent in Jul-Sep 2011 and core PPI inflation at 3.2 percent. Core FD PPI inflation was persistent throughout 2011, from annual equivalent at 4.9 percent in the first four months of 2011 to 2.6 percent in 12 months ending in Dec 2011. Unconventional monetary policy is based on the proposition that core rates reflect more fundamental inflation and are thus better predictors of the future. In practice, the relation of core and headline inflation is as difficult to predict as future inflation (see IIID Supply Shocks in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html). In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the lack of resolution of the European debt crisis caused unwinding of carry trades with annual equivalent headline FD PPI inflation of minus 0.8 percent in Oct-Dec 2011 and minus 0.4 percent in the core annual equivalent. In the fifth wave from Jan to Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent for the headline index and 3.2 percent for the core index excluding food and energy. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr-May 2012 during renewed risk aversion was 0.6 percent for the headline FD PPI and 3.7 percent for the core. In the seventh wave, continuing risk aversion caused reversal of carry trades into commodity exposures with annual equivalent headline inflation of minus 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2012 while core FD PPI inflation was at annual equivalent minus 0.6 percent. In the eighth wave, relaxed risk aversion because of the announcement of the impaired bond buying program or Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) of the European Central Bank (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html) induced carry trades that drove annual equivalent inflation of final demand producer prices of the United States at 5.5 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the ninth wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent inflation of 1.2 percent in Oct 2011-Dec 2012 in the headline index and 2.4 percent in the core index. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.8 percent in the headline index in Jan-Feb 2013 and 0.6 percent in the core index. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent was minus 0.6 percent in Mar-Apr 2012 and 2.4 percent for the core index. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 1.8 percent in May-Aug 2013 and 1.2 percent in the core index. In the thirteenth wave, portfolio reallocations away from commodities and into equities reversed commodity carry trade with annual equivalent inflation of 1.2 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 in the headline FD PPI and 2.0 percent in the core. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.0 percent annual equivalent for the headline index in Dec 2013-Feb 2014 and minus 0.4 percent for the core index. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased to 2.7 percent in the headline FD PPI and 2.2 percent in the core in Mar-Jul 2014. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 0.6 percent for the headline FD index and 0.6 percent for the core FD index in Aug-Sep 2014. It is almost impossible to forecast PPI inflation and its relation to CPI inflation. “Inflation surprise” by monetary policy could be proposed to climb along a downward sloping Phillips curve, resulting in higher inflation but lower unemployment (see Kydland and Prescott 1977, Barro and Gordon 1983 and past comments of this blog http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). The architects of monetary policy would require superior inflation forecasting ability compared to forecasting naivety by everybody else. In practice, we are all naïve in forecasting inflation and other economic variables and events.

Table I-6B, US, Headline and Core Final Demand Producer Price Inflation Monthly SA and 12-Month NSA ∆%

	Final Demand SA Month	Final Demand NSA 12 months	Final Demand Core SA Month	Final Demand Core NSA 12 months
Sep 2014	-0.1	1.6	0.0	1.6
Aug	0.0	1.8	0.1	1.8
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	-0.6		0.6
Jul	0.1	1.7	0.2	1.6
Jun	0.3	1.9	0.1	1.8
May	0.2	2.1	0.3	2.1
Apr	0.2	1.8	0.1	1.5
Mar	0.3	1.6	0.2	1.6
AE ∆% Mar-Jul	2.7		2.2
Feb	0.2	1.2	0.3	1.6
Jan	0.3	1.3	0.2	1.4
Dec 2013	0.0	1.2	-0.1	1.2
AE ∆% Dec-Feb	2.0		-0.4
Nov	0.0	1.1	0.1	1.4
Oct	0.3	1.3	0.2	1.7
Sep	0.1	1.1	0.2	1.6
AE ∆% Sep-Nov	1.2		2.0
Aug	-0.1	1.7	-0.1	1.8
Jul	0.3	2.0	0.3	1.7
Jun	0.5	1.7	0.5	1.3
May	-0.1	0.9	-0.3	0.9
AE ∆%  May-Aug	1.8		1.2
Apr	0.0	0.9	0.2	1.3
Mar	-0.1	1.3	0.2	1.5
AE ∆%  Mar-Apr	-0.6		2.4
Feb	0.2	1.6	0.1	1.4
Jan	0.1	1.6	0.0	1.7
AE ∆%  Jan-Feb	1.8		0.6
Dec 2012	0.1	1.9	0.2	2.0
Nov	0.0	1.7	0.3	1.8
Oct	0.2	1.9	0.1	1.6
AE ∆%  Oct-Dec	1.2		2.4
Sep	0.6	1.5	0.4	1.4
Aug	0.3	1.2	-0.2	1.2
AE ∆% Aug-Sep	5.5		1.2
Jul	0.0	1.0	0.0	1.7
Jun	-0.2	1.3	-0.1	1.9
AE ∆% Jun-Jul	-1.2		-0.6
May	-0.1	1.6	0.2	2.2
Apr	0.2	2.0	0.4	2.1
AE ∆% Apr-May	0.6		3.7
Mar	0.2	2.4	0.1	2.3
Feb	0.3	2.8	0.3	2.6
Jan	0.4	3.1	0.4	2.5
AE ∆% Jan-Mar	3.7		3.2
Dec 2011	-0.2	3.2	0.0	2.6
Nov	0.3	3.7	0.1	2.7
Oct	-0.3	3.7	-0.2	2.7
AE ∆% Oct-Dec	-0.8		-0.4
Sep	0.4	4.5	0.2	2.9
Aug	0.2	4.4	0.3	3.0
Jul	0.2	4.5	0.3	2.7
AE ∆% Jul-Sep	3.2		3.2
Jun	0.1	4.3	0.2	2.6
May	0.3	4.2	0.1	2.3
AE ∆%  May-Jun	2.4		1.8
Apr	0.6	4.2	0.4	2.5
Mar	0.6	4.0	0.6	NA
Feb	0.6	3.3	0.2	NA
Jan	0.5	2.4	0.4	NA
AE ∆%  Jan-Apr	7.1		4.9
Dec 2010	0.4	2.8	0.1	NA
Nov	0.3	2.6	0.1	NA
Oct	0.4	NA	0.1	NA
Sep	0.3	NA	0.2	NA
Aug	0.2	NA	0.0	NA
Jul	0.2	NA	0.2	NA
Jun	-0.2	NA	-0.1	NA
May	0.2	NA	0.3	NA
Apr	0.3	NA	NA	NA
Mar	0.1	NA	NA	NA
Feb	-0.2	NA	NA	NA
Jan	0.9	NA	NA	NA

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

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

Chart I-24B provides the FD PPI NSA from 2009 to 2014. There is persistent inflation with periodic declines in inflation waves similar to those worldwide.

Chart I-24B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD PPI from 2010 to 2014 are in Chart I-25B. There are fluctuations in the rates with evident trend of decline to more subdued inflation. Reallocations of investment portfolios of risk financial assets from commodities to stocks explain much lower FD PPI inflation.

Chart I-25B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change NSA, 2010-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The core FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-26B. The behavior is similar to the headline index but with much less cumulative inflation.

Chart I-26B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 2009-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Percentage changes in 12 months of the core FD PPI are in Chart I-27B. There are fluctuations in 12 months percentage changes but with evident declining trend to more moderate inflation.

Chart I-27B, US, Final Demand Producer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

The energy FD PPI NSA is in Chart I-28B. The index increased during the reposition of carry trades after the discovery of lack of toxic assets in banks that caused flight away from risk financial assets into government obligations of the US (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Alternating risk aversion and appetite with reallocations among classes of risk financial assets explain the behavior of the index after late 2010.

Chart I-28B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, NSA, 2009-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Twelve-month percentage changes of the FD energy PPI are in Chart I-29B. Rates moderated from late 2010 to the present. There are multiple negative rates. Investors create and reverse carry trades from zero interest rates to derivatives of commodities in accordance with relative risk evaluations of classes of risk financial assets.

Chart I-29B, US, Final Demand Energy Producer Price Index, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 2010-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.