CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Table III-4 provides Italy’s trade balance by regions and countries. Italy had trade deficit of €748 million with the 19 countries of the euro zone (EMU 19) in Mar 2015 and cumulative deficit of €1586 million in Jan-Mar 2015. Depreciation to parity could permit greater competitiveness in improving the trade surplus of €1284million in Jan-Mar 2015 with Europe non-European Union, the trade surplus of €53733 million with the US and the trade surplus with non-European Union of €6186 million in Jan-Mar 2015. There is significant rigidity in the trade deficit in Jan-Mar 2015 of €5173 million with China. There is a trade surplus of €1260 million with members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Higher exports could drive economic growth in the economy of Italy that would permit less onerous adjustment of the country’s fiscal imbalances, raising the country’s credit rating.

Table III-4, Italy, Trade Balance by Regions and Countries, Millions of Euro

Regions and Countries	Trade Balance Mar 2015 Millions of Euro	Trade Balance Cumulative Jan-Mar 2015 Millions of Euro
EU	487	1,642
EMU 19	-748	-1,586
France	784	2,406
Germany	-527	-1,365
Spain	-29	91
UK	1,012	2,702
Non EU	3,573	6,186
Europe non EU	372	1,284
USA	2,160	5,373
China	-1,580	-5,173
OPEC	906	1,260
Total	4,060	7,828

Notes: EU: European Union; EMU: European Monetary Union (euro zone)

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

Growth rates of Italy’s trade and major products are in Table III-5 for the period Jan-Mar 2015 relative to Jan-Mar 2014. Growth rates of cumulative imports relative to a year earlier are negative for energy with minus 25.2 percent. Exports of durable goods increased 3.4 percent and exports of capital goods increased 8.2 percent. The rate of growth of exports of 3.2 percent in Jan-Mar 2015/Jan-Mar 2014 relative to that of imports of 2.2 percent may reflect weak demand in Italy with GDP declining during seven consecutive quarters from IIIQ2011 through IQ2013 together with softening commodity prices. GDP increased 0.1 percent in IIIQ2013, changed 0.0 percent in IVQ2013, decreased 0.2 percent in IQ2014 and fell 0.2 percent in IIQ2014. Italy’s GDP fell 0.1 percent in IIIQ2014 and changed 0.0 percent in IVQ2014. Italy’s GDP increased 0.3 percent in IQ2015.

Table III-5, Italy, Exports and Imports % Share of Products in Total and ∆%

	Exports Share %	Exports ∆% Jan-Mar 2015/ Jan-Mar 2014	Imports Share %	Imports ∆% Jan-Mar 2015/ Jan-Mar 2014
Consumer Goods	31.6	3.3	28.6	7.2
Durable	6.0	3.4	3.2	16.3
Non-Durable	25.6	3.3	25.4	6.1
Capital Goods	33.1	8.2	21.9	14.1
Inter- mediate Goods	31.7	1.1	33.2	4.6
Energy	3.7	-21.9	16.3	-25.2
Total ex Energy	96.3	4.2	83.7	7.9
Total	100.0	3.2	100.0	2.2

Note: % Share for 2014 total trade.

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

Table III-6 provides Italy’s trade balance by product categories in Mar 2015 and cumulative Jan-Mar 2015. Italy’s trade balance excluding energy, generated surplus of €7118 million in Mar 2015 and €16,371 million cumulative in Jan-Mar 2015 but the energy trade balance created deficit of €3067 million in Mar 2015 and cumulative €8543 million in Jan-Mar 2015. The overall surplus in Mar 2015 was €4060 million with cumulative surplus of €7828 million in Jan-Mar 2015. Italy has significant competitiveness in various economic activities in contrast with some other countries with debt difficulties.

Table III-6, Italy, Trade Balance by Product Categories, € Millions

	Mar 2015	Cumulative 2015
Consumer Goods	1,867	4,720
Durable	1,096	2,769
Nondurable	771	1,950
Capital Goods	4,990	11,723
Intermediate Goods	260	-72
Energy	-3,057	-8,543
Total ex Energy	7,118	16,371
Total	4,060	7,828

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx

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 III-7 is constructed with IMF World Economic Outlook database (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx) 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 III-7, 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	74,551
Euro Zone	11,681	-0.1	69.8
Portugal	201	1.7	119.2
Ireland	220	0.6	85.5
Greece	207	3.0	169.9
Spain	1,230	-1.6	67.4
Major Advanced Economies G7	34,530	-2.1	83.6
United States	18,125	-2.2	80.4
UK	2,853	-3.2	82.6
Germany	3,413	1.5	46.9
France	2,470	-2.0	89.3
Japan	4,210	-5.7	129.6
Canada	1,616	-1.4	38.3
Italy	1,843	1.4	111.9
China	11,212	-1.5	43.5**

*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook

The data in Table III-7 are used for some very simple calculations in Table III-8. The column “Net Debt USD Billions 2015” in Table III-8 is generated by applying the percentage in Table III-7 column “General Government Net Debt % GDP 2015” to the column “GDP 2015 USD Billions.” The total debt of France and Germany in 2015 is $3806.4 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 $3670.7 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 $7477.1 billion, which would be equivalent to 127.1 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 219.1 percent if including debt of France and 154.5 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	8,153.3
B Germany	1,600.7		$7477.1 as % of $3413 =219.1% $5271.4 as % of $3413 =154.5%
C France	2,205.7
B+C	3,806.4	GDP $5,883.0 Total Debt $7,477.1 Debt/GDP: 127.1%
D Italy	2,062.3
E Spain	829.0
F Portugal	239.6
G Greece	351.7
H Ireland	188.1
Subtotal D+E+F+G+H	3,670.7

Source: calculation with IMF data IMF World Economic Outlook databank

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx

There is extremely important information in Table III-9 for the current sovereign risk crisis in the euro zone. Table III-9 provides the structure of regional and country relations of Germany’s exports and imports with newly available data for Mar 2015. German exports to other European Union (EU) members are 57.2 percent of total exports in Mar 2015 and 58.7 percent in cumulative Jan-Mar 2015. Exports to the euro area are 35.9 percent of the total in Mar and 37.1 percent cumulative in Jan-Ma. Exports to third countries are 42.8 percent of the total in Mar and 41.3 percent cumulative in Jan-Mar. There is similar distribution for imports. Exports to non-euro countries are increasing 13.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2015, increasing 7.2 percent cumulative in Jan-Mar 2015 while exports to the euro area are increasing 9.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2015 and increasing 3.0 percent cumulative in Jan-Mar 2015. Exports to third countries, accounting for 42.8 percent of the total in Mar 2015, are increasing 14.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2015 and increasing 6.6 percent cumulative in Jan-Mar 2015, accounting for 41.3 percent of the cumulative total in Jan-Mar 2015. Price competitiveness through devaluation could improve export performance and growth. Economic performance in Germany is closely related to Germany’s high competitiveness in world markets. Weakness in the euro zone and the European Union in general could affect the German economy. This may be the major reason for choosing the “fiscal abuse” of the European Central Bank considered by Buiter (2011Oct31) over the breakdown of the euro zone. There is a tough analytical, empirical and forecasting doubt of growth and trade in the euro zone and the world with or without maintenance of the European Monetary Union (EMU) or euro zone. Germany could benefit from depreciation of the euro because of high share in its exports to countries not in the euro zone but breakdown of the euro zone raises doubts on the region’s economic growth that could affect German exports to other member states.

Table III-9, Germany, Structure of Exports and Imports by Region, € Billions and ∆%

	Mar 2014 € Billions	Jan-Mar 12-Month ∆%	Cumulative Jan-Mar 2015 € Billions	Cumulative Jan-Mar 2015/ Jan-Mar 2014 ∆%
Total Exports	107.5	12.4	293.2	5.4
A. EU Members	61.5 % 57.2	10.8	172.2 % 58.7	4.5
Euro Area	38.6 % 35.9	9.1	108.8 % 37.1	3.0
Non-euro Area	23.0 % 21.4	13.7	63.4 % 21.6	7.2
B. Third Countries	46.0 % 42.8	14.6	121.0 % 41.3	6.6
Total Imports	84.5	7.1	234.8	1.8
C EU Members	55.0 % 65.1	5.1	152.3 % 64.9	1.0
Euro Area	37.8 % 44.7	4.9	105.0 % 44.7	0.6
Non-euro Area	17.2 % 20.4	5.4	47.3 % 20.1	1.9
D Third Countries	29.5 % 34.9	11.1	82.5 % 35.1	3.4

Notes: Total Exports = A+B; Total Imports = C+D

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland

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

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2015/05/PE15_165_51.html

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation. There are two approaches to government finance and their implications: (1) simple unpleasant monetarist arithmetic; and (2) simple unpleasant fiscal arithmetic. Both approaches illustrate how sovereign debt can be perceived riskier under profligacy.

First, Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic. Fiscal policy is described by Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) as a time sequence of D(t), t = 1, 2,…t, …, where D is real government expenditures, excluding interest on government debt, less real tax receipts. D(t) is the real deficit excluding real interest payments measured in real time t goods. Monetary policy is described by a time sequence of H(t), t=1,2,…t, …, with H(t) being the stock of base money at time t. In order to simplify analysis, all government debt is considered as being only for one time period, in the form of a one-period bond B(t), issued at time t-1 and maturing at time t. Denote by R(t-1) the real rate of interest on the one-period bond B(t) between t-1 and t. The measurement of B(t-1) is in terms of t-1 goods and [1+R(t-1)] “is measured in time t goods per unit of time t-1 goods” (Sargent and Wallace 1981, 3). Thus, B(t-1)[1+R(t-1)] brings B(t-1) to maturing time t. B(t) represents borrowing by the government from the private sector from t to t+1 in terms of time t goods. The price level at t is denoted by p(t). The budget constraint of Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) is:

D(t) = {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)} + {B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]} (1)

Equation (1) states that the government finances its real deficits into two portions. The first portion, {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)}, is seigniorage, or “printing money.” The second part,

{B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]}, is borrowing from the public by issue of interest-bearing securities. Denote population at time t by N(t) and growing by assumption at the constant rate of n, such that:

N(t+1) = (1+n)N(t), n>-1 (2)

The per capita form of the budget constraint is obtained by dividing (1) by N(t) and rearranging:

B(t)/N(t) = {[1+R(t-1)]/(1+n)}x[B(t-1)/N(t-1)]+[D(t)/N(t)] – {[H(t)-H(t-1)]/[N(t)p(t)]} (3)

On the basis of the assumptions of equal constant rate of growth of population and real income, n, constant real rate of return on government securities exceeding growth of economic activity and quantity theory equation of demand for base money, Sargent and Wallace (1981) find that “tighter current monetary policy implies higher future inflation” under fiscal policy dominance of monetary policy. That is, the monetary authority does not permanently influence inflation, lowering inflation now with tighter policy but experiencing higher inflation in the future.

Second, Unpleasant Fiscal Arithmetic. 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 (4)

Equation (4) 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}. The second equation of Cochrane (2011Jan, 5) is:

M_tV(i_t, ·) = P_tY_t (5)

Conventional analysis of monetary policy contends that fiscal authorities simply adjust primary surpluses, s, to sanction the price level determined by the monetary authority through equation (5), which deprives the debt valuation equation (4) of any role in price level determination. The simple explanation is (Cochrane 2011Jan, 5):

“We are here to think about what happens when [4] exerts more force on the price level. This change may happen by force, when debt, deficits and distorting taxes become large so the Treasury is unable or refuses to follow. Then [4] determines the price level; monetary policy must follow the fiscal lead and ‘passively’ adjust M to satisfy [5]. This change may also happen by choice; monetary policies may be deliberately passive, in which case there is nothing for the Treasury to follow and [4] determines the price level.”

An intuitive interpretation by Cochrane (2011Jan 4) is that when the current real value of government debt exceeds expected future surpluses, economic agents unload government debt to purchase private assets and goods, resulting in inflation. If the risk premium on government debt declines, government debt becomes more valuable, causing a deflationary effect. If the risk premium on government debt increases, government debt becomes less valuable, causing an inflationary effect.

There are multiple conclusions by Cochrane (2011Jan) on the debt/dollar crisis and Global recession, among which the following three:

(1) The flight to quality that magnified the recession was not from goods into money but from private-sector securities into government debt because of the risk premium on private-sector securities; monetary policy consisted of providing liquidity in private-sector markets suffering stress

(2) Increases in liquidity by open-market operations with short-term securities have no impact; quantitative easing can affect the timing but not the rate of inflation; and purchase of private debt can reverse part of the flight to quality

(3) The debt valuation equation has a similar role as the expectation shifting the Phillips curve such that a fiscal inflation can generate stagflation effects similar to those occurring from a loss of anchoring expectations.

IV Global Inflation. There is inflation everywhere in the world economy, with slow growth and persistently high unemployment in advanced economies. Table IV-1, updated with every blog comment, provides the latest annual data for GDP, consumer price index (CPI) inflation, producer price index (PPI) inflation and unemployment (UNE) for the advanced economies, China and the highly indebted European countries with sovereign risk issues. The table now includes the Netherlands and Finland that with Germany make up the set of northern countries in the euro zone that hold key votes in the enhancement of the mechanism for solution of sovereign risk issues (Peter Spiegel and Quentin Peel, “Europe: Northern Exposures,” Financial Times, Mar 9, 2011 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55eaf350-4a8b-11e0-82ab-00144feab49a.html#axzz1gAlaswcW). Newly available data on inflation is considered below in this section. Data in Table IV-1 for the euro zone and its members are updated from information provided by Eurostat but individual country information is provided in this section as soon as available, following Table IV-1. Data for other countries in Table IV-1 are also updated with reports from their statistical agencies. Economic data for major regions and countries is considered in Section V World Economic Slowdown following with individual country and regional data tables.

Table IV-1, GDP Growth, Inflation and Unemployment in Selected Countries, Percentage Annual Rates

	GDP	CPI	PPI	UNE
US	2.7	-0.2	-4.4 FD -1.3	5.4
Japan	-1.4	0.6	-2.1	3.3
China	7.0	1.5	-4.6
UK	2.4	-0.1* CPIH 0.2	-1.7 output 0.1** input -11.7	5.5
Euro Zone	1.0	0.0	-2.3	11.3
Germany	1.0	0.3	-1.6	4.7
France	0.7	0.1	-2.1	10.6
Nether-lands	2.4	0.0	-6.5	7.0
Finland	-0.1	-0.1	-1.2	9.1
Belgium	0.9	0.4	-4.6	8.5
Portugal	1.4	0.5	-2.4	13.5
Ireland	NA	-0.4	-3.5	9.8
Italy	0.0	-0.1	-3.1	13.0
Greece	0.3	-1.8	-3.0	25.7
Spain	2.6	-0.7	-1.2	23.0

Notes: GDP: rate of growth of GDP; CPI: change in consumer price inflation; PPI: producer price inflation; UNE: rate of unemployment; all rates relative to year earlier

*Office for National Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/april-2015/index.html

**Core

PPI http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ppi2/producer-price-index/april-2015/index.html Source: EUROSTAT http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat National Statistical Offices: http://www.bls.gov/bls/other.htm

Table IV-1 shows the simultaneous occurrence of low growth, inflation and unemployment in advanced economies. US GDP fell at 0.7 percent in seasonally adjusted rate (SAAR) in IQ2015 and increased 2.7 percent in IQ2015 relative to IVQ2013 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html Table 8 in http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/pdf/gdp1q15_2nd.pdf). Japan’s GDP grew at the seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 2.4 percent in IQ2015 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/interest-rate-policy-and-dollar.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/global-exchange-rate-struggle-recovery.html). The UK grew at 0.3 percent in IQ2015 relative to IVQ2014 and GDP increased 2.4 percent in IQ2015 relative to IQ2014 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). The Euro Zone grew at 0.4 percent in IQ2015 and 1.0 percent in IQ2015 relative to IQ2014 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/fluctuating-valuations-of-financial.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/global-exchange-rate-struggle-recovery.html). These are stagnating or “growth recession” rates, which are positive or about nil growth rates with some contractions that are insufficient to recover employment. The rates of unemployment are quite high: 5.4 percent in the US but 15.4 percent for unemployment/underemployment or job stress of 25.6 million (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/quite-high-equity-valuations-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html), 3.3 percent for Japan (Section VB and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html), 5.5 percent for the UK with high rates of unemployment for young people (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/fluctuating-valuations-of-financial.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/global-portfolio-reallocations-squeeze.html). Twelve-month rates of inflation have been quite high, even when some are moderating at the margin: minus 0.2 percent in the US, 0.6 percent for Japan, 1.5 percent for China, 0.0 percent for the Euro Zone and minus 0.1 percent for the UK. Stagflation is still an unknown event but the risk is sufficiently high to be worthy of consideration (see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/risk-aversion-and-stagflation.html). The analysis of stagflation also permits the identification of important policy issues in solving vulnerabilities that have high impact on global financial risks. Six key interrelated vulnerabilities in the world economy have been causing global financial turbulence. (1) Sovereign risk issues in Europe resulting from countries in need of fiscal consolidation and enhancement of their sovereign risk ratings (see Section III and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/interest-rate-policy-and-dollar.html).

In the effort to increase transparency, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) provides both economic projections of its participants and views on future paths of the policy rate that in the US is the federal funds rate or interest on interbank lending of reserves deposited at Federal Reserve Banks. These policies and views are discussed initially followed with appropriate analysis.

Charles Evans, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, proposed an “economic state-contingent policy” or “7/3” approach (Evans 2012 Aug 27):

“I think the best way to provide forward guidance is by tying our policy actions to explicit measures of economic performance. There are many ways of doing this, including setting a target for the level of nominal GDP. But recognizing the difficult nature of that policy approach, I have a more modest proposal: I think the Fed should make it clear that the federal funds rate will not be increased until the unemployment rate falls below 7 percent. Knowing that rates would stay low until significant progress is made in reducing unemployment would reassure markets and the public that the Fed would not prematurely reduce its accommodation.

Based on the work I have seen, I do not expect that such policy would lead to a major problem with inflation. But I recognize that there is a chance that the models and other analysis supporting this approach could be wrong. Accordingly, I believe that the commitment to low rates should be dropped if the outlook for inflation over the medium term rises above 3 percent.

The economic conditionality in this 7/3 threshold policy would clarify our forward policy intentions greatly and provide a more meaningful guide on how long the federal funds rate will remain low. In addition, I would indicate that clear and steady progress toward stronger growth is essential.”

Evans (2012Nov27) modified the “7/3” approach to a “6.5/2.5” approach:

“I have reassessed my previous 7/3 proposal. I now think a threshold of 6-1/2 percent for the unemployment rate and an inflation safeguard of 2-1/2 percent, measured in terms of the outlook for total PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index) inflation over the next two to three years, would be appropriate.”

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided at its meeting on Dec 12, 2012 to implement the “6.5/2.5” approach (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm):

“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored.”

Another rising risk is division within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on risks and benefits of current policies as expressed in the minutes of the meeting held on Jan 29-30, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20130130.pdf 13):

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Fed maps exit from stimulus,” on May 11, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324744104578475273101471896.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes the development of strategy for unwinding quantitative easing and how it can create uncertainty in financial markets. Jon Hilsenrath and Victoria McGrane, writing on “Fed slip over how long to keep cash spigot open,” published on Feb 20, 2013 in the Wall street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323511804578298121033876536.html), analyze the minutes of the Fed, comments by members of the FOMC and data showing increase in holdings of riskier debt by investors, record issuance of junk bonds, mortgage securities and corporate loans. 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.

Unconventional monetary policy, or reinvestment of principal in securities and issue of bank reserves to maintain policy interest rates at zero, will remain in perpetuity, or QE→∞, changing to a “growth mandate.” There are two reasons explaining unconventional monetary policy of QE→∞: insufficiency of job creation to reduce unemployment/underemployment at current rates of job creation; and growth of GDP at around 2.0 percent, which is well below 3.0 percent estimated by Lucas (2011May) from 1870 to 2010. Unconventional monetary policy interprets the dual mandate of low inflation and maximum employment as mainly a “growth mandate” of forcing economic growth in the US at a rate that generates full employment. A hurdle to this “growth mandate” is that Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. US economic growth has been at only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 23 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IQ2015. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the second estimate of GDP for IQ2015 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/pdf/gdp1q15_2nd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,745.9 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,355.6 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,745.9/$14,355.6 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1988 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IQ2015 would have accumulated to 23.9 percent. GDP in IQ2015 would be $18,574.8 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,310.7 billion than actual $16,264.1 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 25.6 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment/underemployment of 15.4 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/quite-high-equity-valuations-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). US GDP in IQ2015 is 12.4 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,264.1 billion in IQ2015 or 8.5 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.1 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. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Apr 1919 to Apr 2015. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 125.9172 in Apr 2015. The actual index NSA in Apr 2015 is 101.1122, which is 19.7 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.4 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2014. Using trend growth of 2.4 percent per year, the index would increase to 118.0899 in Apr 2015. The output of manufacturing at 101.1122 in Apr 2015 is 14.4 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

First, total nonfarm payroll employment seasonally adjusted (SA) increased 223,000 in Apr 2015 and private payroll employment increased 213,000. The average monthly number of nonfarm jobs created from Apr 2013 to Apr 2014 was 206,333 using seasonally adjusted data, while the average number of nonfarm jobs created from Apr 2014 to Apr 2015 was 248,500, or increase by 20.4 percent. The average number of private jobs created in the US from Apr 2013 to Apr 2014 was 208,000, using seasonally adjusted data, while the average from Apr 2014 to Apr 2015 was 243,167, or increase by 16.9 percent. This blog calculates the effective labor force of the US at 165.676 million in Apr 2014 and 163.805 million in Apr 2015 (Table I-4), for growth of 1.871 million at average 155,917 per month. The difference between the average increase of 243,167 new private nonfarm jobs per month in the US from Apr 2014 to Apr 2015 and the 155,917 average monthly increase in the labor force from Apr 2014 to Apr 2015 is 87,250 monthly new jobs net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force. There are 25.559 million in job stress in the US currently. Creation of 87,250 new jobs per month net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force would require 293 months to provide jobs for the unemployed and underemployed (25.559 million divided by 87,250) or 24 years (293 divided by 12). The civilian labor force of the US in Apr 2015 not seasonally adjusted stood at 156.554 million with 7.966 million unemployed or effectively 17.088 million unemployed in this blog’s calculation by inferring those who are not searching because they believe there is no job for them for effective labor force of 165.676 million. Reduction of one million unemployed at the current rate of job creation without adding more unemployment requires 0.96 years (1 million divided by product of 87,250 by 12, which is 1,047,000). Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would be equivalent to unemployment of only 7.828 million (0.05 times labor force of 156.554 million). New net job creation would be 0.138 million (7.966 million unemployed minus 7.828 million unemployed at rate of 5 percent) that at the current rate would take 0.13 years (0.138 million divided by 1.047). Under the calculation in this blog, there are 17.088 million unemployed by including those who ceased searching because they believe there is no job for them and effective labor force of 165.676 million. Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would require creating 8.804 million jobs net of labor force growth that at the current rate would take 8.4 years (17.088 million minus 0.05(165.676 million) = 9.639 million divided by 1.047, using LF PART 66.2% and Total UEM in Table I-4). These calculations assume that there are no more recessions, defying United States economic history with periodic contractions of economic activity when unemployment increases sharply. The number employed in Apr 2015 was 148.587 million (NSA) or 1.272 million more people with jobs relative to the peak of 147.315 million in Jul 2007 while the civilian noninstitutional population of ages 16 years and over increased from 231.958 million in Jul 2007 to 250.266 million in Apr 2015 or by 18.308 million. The number employed increased 0.9 percent from Jul 2007 to Apr 2015 while the noninstitutional civilian population of ages of 16 years and over, or those available for work, increased 7.9 percent. The ratio of employment to population in Jul 2007 was 63.5 percent (147.315 million employment as percent of population of 231.958 million). The same ratio in Apr 2015 would result in 158.919 million jobs (0.635 multiplied by noninstitutional civilian population of 250.266 million). There are effectively 10.332 million fewer jobs in Apr 2015 than in Jul 2007, or 158.919 million minus 148.587 million. There is actually not sufficient job creation in merely absorbing new entrants in the labor force because of those dropping from job searches, worsening the stock of unemployed or underemployed in involuntary part-time jobs.

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

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

The argument that anemic population growth causes “secular stagnation” in the US (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941) is as misplaced currently as in the late 1930s (for early dissent see Simons 1942). There is currently population growth in the ages of 16 to 24 years but not enough job creation and discouragement of job searches for all ages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/fluctuating-valuations-of-financial.html and earlier (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/dollar-revaluation-recovery-without.html)

Second, long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. US economic growth has been at only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 23 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IQ2015. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the second estimate of GDP for IQ2015 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2015/pdf/gdp1q15_2nd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,745.9 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,355.6 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,745.9/$14,355.6 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1987, 4.9 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1988, 4.8 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1988 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth at trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IQ2015 would have accumulated to 23.9 percent. GDP in IQ2015 would be $18,574.8 billion (in constant dollars of 2009) if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,310.7 billion than actual $16,264.1 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than at trend, explaining the 25.6 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment/underemployment of 15.4 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/quite-high-equity-valuations-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). US GDP in IQ2015 is 12.4 percent lower than at trend. US GDP grew from $14,991.8 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $16,264.1 billion in IQ2015 or 8.5 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.1 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. There is classic research on analyzing deviations of output from trend (see for example Schumpeter 1939, Hicks 1950, Lucas 1975, Sargent and Sims 1977). The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Apr 1919 to Apr 2015. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 125.9172 in Apr 2015. The actual index NSA in Apr 2015 is 101.1122, which is 19.7 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.4 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2014. Using trend growth of 2.4 percent per year, the index would increase to 118.0899 in Apr 2015. The output of manufacturing at 101.1122 in Apr 2015 is 14.4 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

The economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as fluctuating from mediocre growth of 2.5 percent on an annual basis in 2010 to 1.6 percent in 2011, 2.3 percent in 2012, 2.2 percent in 2013 and 2.4 percent in 2014. The following calculations show that actual growth is around 2.2 percent per year. The rate of growth of 1.1 percent in the entire cycle from 2007 to 2014 is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which the economy of the US always attained for entire cycles in expansions after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). Revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) provide important information on long-term growth and cyclical behavior. Table Summary provides relevant data.

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

	GDP
Long-Term
1929-2014	3.3
1947-2014	3.2
Whole Cycles
1980-1989	3.5
2006-2014	1.2
2007-2014	1.1
Cyclical Contractions ∆%
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980, IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	-4.7
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	-4.2
Cyclical Expansions Average Annual Equivalent ∆%
IQ1983 to IVQ1985 IQ1983-IQ1986 IQ1983-IIIQ1986 IQ1983-IVQ1986 IQ1983-IQ1987 IQ1983-IIQ1987 IQ1983-IIIQ1987 IQ1983 to IVQ1987 IQ1983 to IQ1988 IQ1983 to IIQ1988 IQ1983 to IIIQ1988	5.9 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	7.8
IIIQ2009 to IQ2015	2.2
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010	2.7
	Real Disposable Income	Real Disposable Income per Capita
Long-Term
1929-2013	3.2	2.0
1947-1999	3.7	2.3
Whole Cycles
1980-1989	3.5	2.6
2006-2014	1.5	0.7

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

The revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) also provide critical information in assessing the current rhythm of US economic growth. The economy appears to be moving at a pace around 2.2 percent per year. Table Summary GDP provides the data.

1. Average Annual Growth in the Past Twelve Quarters. GDP growth in the four quarters of 2012, the four quarters of 2013, the four quarters of 2014 and IQ2015 accumulated to 7.1 percent. This growth is equivalent to 2.1 percent per year, obtained by dividing GDP in IQ2015 of $16,264.1 billion by GDP in IVQ2011 of $15,190.3 billion and compounding by 4/13: {[($16,264.1/$15,190.3)^4/13 -1]100 = 2.1 percent.

2. Average Annual Growth in the Past Four Quarters. GDP growth in the four quarters of IQ2014 to IQ2015 accumulated to 2.7 percent that is equivalent to 2.7 percent in a year. This is obtained by dividing GDP in IQ2015 of $16,264.1 billion by GDP in IQ2014 of $15,831.7 billion and compounding by 4/4: {[($16,264.1/$15,831.7)^4/4 -1]100 = 2.7 %}. The US economy grew 2.7 percent in IQ2015 relative to the same quarter a year earlier in IQ2014. Growth was at annual equivalent 4.6 percent in IIQ2014 and 5.0 percent IIIQ2014 and only at 2.2 percent in IVQ2014. GDP fell at annual equivalent 0.7 percent in IQ2015. Another important revelation of the revisions and enhancements is that GDP was flat in IVQ2012, which is in the borderline of contraction, and negative in IQ2014. US GDP fell 0.5 percent in IQ2014. The rate of growth of GDP in the revision of IIIQ2013 is 4.5 percent in seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). Inventory accumulation contributed 1.49 percentage points to this rate of growth. The actual rate without this impulse of unsold inventories would have been 3.0 percent, or 0.74 percent in IIIQ2013, such that annual equivalent growth in 2013 is closer to 2.9 percent {[(1.007)(1.004)(1.0074)(1.010)^4/4-1]100 = 2.9%}, compounding the quarterly rates and converting into annual equivalent. Inventory divestment deducted 1.16 percentage points from GDP growth in IQ2014. Without this deduction of inventory divestment, GDP growth would have been minus 0.9 percent in IQ2014, such that the actual growth rates in the four quarters ending in IQ2014 is closer to 2.2 percent {[(1.004)(1.011)(1.009)(0.9977)]^4/4 -1]100 = 2.2%}.

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

	Real GDP, Billions Chained 2009 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	14,991.8	NA	0.4	1.9
IVQ2011	15,190.3	1.3	1.1	1.7
IQ2012	15,275.0	1.9	0.6	2.6
IIQ2012	15,336.7	2.3	0.4	2.3
IIIQ2012	15,431.3	2.9	0.6	2.7
IVQ2012	15,433.7	2.9	0.0	1.6
IQ2013	15,538.4	3.6	0.7	1.7
IIQ2013	15,606.6	4.1	0.4	1.8
IIIQ2013	15,779.9	5.3	1.1	2.3
IVQ2013	15,916.2	6.2	0.9	3.1
IQ2014	15,831.7	5.6	-0.5	1.9
IIQ2014	16,010.4	6.8	1.1	2.6
IIIQ2014	16,205.6	8.1	1.2	2.7
IVQ2014	16,294.7	8.7	0.5	2.4
IQ2015	16,264.1	8.5	-0.2	2.7
Cumulative ∆% IQ2012 to IQ2015	7.1		7.0
Annual Equivalent ∆%	2.1		2.1

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

In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation. Even if there is no inflation, QE→∞, or reinvestment of principal in securities and issue of bank reserves to maintain interest rates at zero, cannot be abandoned because of the fear of rising interest rates. The economy would operate in an inferior allocation of resources and suboptimal growth path, or interior point of the production possibilities frontier where the optimum of productive efficiency and wellbeing is attained, because of the distortion of risk/return decisions caused by perpetual financial repression. Not even a second-best allocation is feasible with the shocks to efficiency of financial repression in perpetuity.

The statement of the FOMC at the conclusion of its meeting on Dec 12, 2012, revealed policy intentions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm) updated in the statement at its meeting on Apr 29 2015 with maintenance of the current level of the balance sheet (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150429a.htm):

“Press Release

Release Date: April 29, 2015

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in March suggests that economic growth slowed during the winter months, in part reflecting transitory factors. The pace of job gains moderated, and the unemployment rate remained steady. A range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources was little changed. Growth in household spending declined; households' real incomes rose strongly, partly reflecting earlier declines in energy prices, and consumer sentiment remains high. Business fixed investment softened, the recovery in the housing sector remained slow, and exports declined. Inflation continued to run below the Committee's longer-run objective, partly reflecting earlier declines in energy prices and decreasing prices of non-energy imports. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. Although growth in output and employment slowed during the first quarter, the Committee continues to expect that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, with labor market indicators continuing to move toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee continues to see the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced. Inflation is anticipated to remain near its recent low level in the near term, but the Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of declines in energy and import prices dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, 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 and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term.

The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee's holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.

When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Jeffrey M. Lacker; Dennis P. Lockhart; Jerome H. Powell; Daniel K. Tarullo; and John C. Williams.”

There are several important issues in this statement.

Mandate. The FOMC 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”

Open-ended Quantitative Easing or QE_∞ with End of Bond Purchases and Continuing Reinvestment of Principal in Securities. Earlier programs are continued with reinvestment of principal in securities and bank reserves at $2581 billion (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1): “The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee's holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.”
New Advance Guidance. “To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, 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 and international developments. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term” (emphasis added).
Policy Commitment with Maximum Employment. The emphasis of policy is in maintaining full employment: “When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.”

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 $25 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 Apr 29, 2015 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150318a.htm):

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

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

“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:

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:

There is similar concern in the minutes of the meeting of the FOMC on Dec 16-17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20141217.htm):

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? A competing event is the high level of valuations of risk financial assets (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/peaking-valuations-of-risk-financial.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/theory-and-reality-of-secular.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 18010.68 on Fri May 29, 2015, which is higher by 27.2 percent than the value of 14,164.53 reached on Oct 9, 2007 and higher by 26.9 percent than the value of 14,198.10 reached on Oct 11, 2007. Values of risk financial assets are approaching or exceeding historical highs.

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):

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

Greenspan (1996) made similar warnings:

The FOMC provides guidelines on the process of normalization of monetary policy at the meeting on Sep 17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917c.htm):

“All FOMC participants but one agreed on the following key elements of the approach they intend to implement when it becomes appropriate to begin normalizing the stance of monetary policy:

The Committee will determine the timing and pace of policy normalization--meaning steps to raise the federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates to more normal levels and to reduce the Federal Reserve's securities holdings--so as to promote its statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability.
- When economic conditions and the economic outlook warrant a less accommodative monetary policy, the Committee will raise its target range for the federal funds rate.
- During normalization, the Federal Reserve intends to move the federal funds rate into the target range set by the FOMC primarily by adjusting the interest rate it pays on excess reserve balances.
- During normalization, the Federal Reserve intends to use an overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility and other supplementary tools as needed to help control the federal funds rate. The Committee will use an overnight reverse repurchase agreement facility only to the extent necessary and will phase it out when it is no longer needed to help control the federal funds rate.
The Committee intends to reduce the Federal Reserve's securities holdings in a gradual and predictable manner primarily by ceasing to reinvest repayments of principal on securities held in the SOMA.
- The Committee expects to cease or commence phasing out reinvestments after it begins increasing the target range for the federal funds rate; the timing will depend on how economic and financial conditions and the economic outlook evolve.
- The Committee currently does not anticipate selling agency mortgage-backed securities as part of the normalization process, although limited sales might be warranted in the longer run to reduce or eliminate residual holdings. The timing and pace of any sales would be communicated to the public in advance.
The Committee intends that the Federal Reserve will, in the longer run, hold no more securities than necessary to implement monetary policy efficiently and effectively, and that it will hold primarily Treasury securities, thereby minimizing the effect of Federal Reserve holdings on the allocation of credit across sectors of the economy.
The Committee is prepared to adjust the details of its approach to policy normalization in light of economic and financial developments.”

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):

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

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

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

Unconventional monetary policy drives wide swings in allocations of positions into risk financial assets that generate instability instead of intended pursuit of prosperity without inflation. There is insufficient knowledge and imperfect tools to maintain the gap of actual relative to potential output constantly at zero while restraining inflation in an open interval of (1.99, 2.0). Symmetric targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even with the economy growing at or close to potential output that is actually a target of growth forecast. The impact on the overall economy and the financial system of errors of policy are magnified by large-scale policy doses of trillions of dollars of quantitative easing and zero interest rates. The US economy has been experiencing financial repression as a result of negative real rates of interest during nearly a decade and programmed in monetary policy statements until 2015 or, for practical purposes, forever. The essential calculus of risk/return in capital budgeting and financial allocations has been distorted. If economic perspectives are doomed until 2015 such as to warrant zero interest rates and open-ended bond-buying by “printing” digital bank reserves (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html; see Shultz et al 2012), rational investors and consumers will not invest and consume until just before interest rates are likely to increase. Monetary policy statements on intentions of zero interest rates for another three years or now virtually forever discourage investment and consumption or aggregate demand that can increase economic growth and generate more hiring and opportunities to increase wages and salaries. The doom scenario used to justify monetary policy accentuates adverse expectations on discounted future cash flows of potential economic projects that can revive the economy and create jobs. If it were possible to project the future with the central tendency of the monetary policy scenario and monetary policy tools do exist to reverse this adversity, why the tools have not worked before and even prevented the financial crisis? If there is such thing as “monetary policy science”, why it has such poor record and current inability to reverse production and employment adversity? There is no excuse of arguing that additional fiscal measures are needed because they were deployed simultaneously with similar ineffectiveness. 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.

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. Portfolio reallocations induced by combination of zero interest rates and risk events stimulate carry trades that generate wide swings in world capital flows. 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 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.

“The Swiss National Bank (SNB) has decided to discontinue the minimum exchange rate of

CHF 1.20 per euro with immediate effect and to cease foreign currency purchases associated with enforcing it.”

The SNB also lowered interest rates to nominal negative percentages (http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/speeches/id/ref_20150115_tjn/source/ref_20150115_tjn.en.pdf):

On Jan 22, 2015, the European Central Bank (ECB) decided to implement an “expanded asset purchase program” with combined asset purchases of €60 billion per month “until at least Sep 2016 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150122_1.en.html). The objective of the program is that (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2015/html/pr150122_1.en.html):

“Asset purchases provide monetary stimulus to the economy in a context where key ECB interest rates are at their lower bound. They further ease monetary and financial conditions, making access to finance cheaper for firms and households. This tends to support investment and consumption, and ultimately contributes to a return of inflation rates towards 2%.”

The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, does not find effects of monetary policy in inflating asset prices (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2015/html/is150122.en.html):

Fri May 1

Mon 4

Tue 5

Wed 6

Thu 7

Fri 8

DJIA

18024.06

-0.3%

1.0%

18070.40

0.3%

17928.20

-0.5%

-0.8%

17841.98

-1.0%

-0.5%

17924.06

-0.6%

0.5%

18191.11

0.9%

1.5%

Fri 27 Feb

Mon 3/2

Tue 3/3

Wed 3/4

Thu 3/5

Fri 3/6

USD/ EUR

1.1197

1.6%

0.0%

1.1185

0.1%

1.1176

0.2%

0.1%

1.1081

1.0%

0.9%

1.1030

1.5%

0.5%

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

Exchange rate volatility is increasing in response of “impatience” in financial markets with monetary policy guidance and measures:

Fri Mar 6

Mon 9

Tue 10

Wed 11

Thu 12

Fri 13

USD/ EUR

1.0843

3.2%

1.7%

1.0853

-0.1%

1.0700

1.3%

1.4%

1.0548

2.7%

1.4%

1.0637

1.9%

-0.8%

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

Fri Mar 13

Mon 16

Tue 17

Wed 18

Thu 19

Fri 20

USD/ EUR

1.0497

3.2%

1.3%

1.0570

-0.7%

1.0598

-1.0%

-0.3%

1.0864

-3.5%

-2.5%

1.0661

-1.6%

1.9%

1.0821

-3.1%

-1.5%

Fri Apr 24

Mon 27

Tue 28

Wed 29

Thu 30

May Fri 1

USD/ EUR

1.0874

-0.6%

-0.4%

1.0891

-0.2%

1.0983

-1.0%

-0.8%

1.1130

-2.4%

-1.3%

1.1223

-3.2%

-0.8%

1.1199

-3.0%

0.2%

In a speech at Brown University on May 22, 2015, Chair Yellen stated (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150522a.htm):

The US dollar appreciated 3.8 percent relative to the euro in the week of May 22, 2015:

Fri May 15

Mon 18

Tue 19

Wed 20

Thu 21

Fri 22

USD/ EUR

1.1449

-2.2%

-0.3%

1.1317

1.2%

1.1150

2.6%

1.5%

1.1096

3.1%

0.5%

1.1113

2.9%

-0.2%

1.1015

3.8%

0.9%

Table IV-2 provides economic projections of governors of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and regional presidents of Federal Reserve Banks released at the meeting of Mar 18, 2015. The Fed releases the data with careful explanations (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20141217.pdf). Columns “∆% GDP,” “∆% PCE Inflation” and “∆% Core PCE Inflation” are changes “from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.” The GDP report for IQ2015 is analyzed in Section I (and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html) and the PCE inflation data from the report on personal income and outlays in Section IV (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). The Bureau of Economic Analysis provides the estimate of IQ2015 GDP (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/dollar-revaluation-and-financial-risk.html). PCE inflation is the index of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) of the report of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on “Personal Income and Outlays” (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm), which is analyzed in Section IV (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). The report on “Personal Income and Outlays” was released on Apr 30, 2015 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/dollar-devaluation-and-carry-trade.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). PCE core inflation consists of PCE inflation excluding food and energy. Column “UNEMP %” is the rate of unemployment measured as the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides the Employment Situation Report with the civilian unemployment rate in the first Friday of every month, which is analyzed in this blog. The report for Apr was released on May 8, 2015 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/quite-high-equity-valuations-and.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/volatility-of-valuations-of-financial.html). “The longer-run projections are the rates of growth, unemployment, and inflation to which a policymaker expects the economy to converge over time—maybe in five or six years—in the absence of further shocks and under appropriate monetary policy” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20131218.pdf).

It is instructive to focus on 2015 and 2016 because 2017 and longer term are too far away. There is not much information even on what will happen in 2016-2017 and beyond. The central tendency should provide reasonable approximation of the view of the majority of members of the FOMC but the second block of numbers provides the range of projections by FOMC participants. The first row for each year shows the projection introduced after the meeting of Mar 18, 2015 and the second row “PR” the projection of the Dec 17, 2014 meeting. The projections for 2014 are those released in the Sep 2014 and Dec 2014 meetings. There are three changes in the view.

1. Growth “∆% GDP.” The FOMC lowers the forecast of GDP growth in 2015. The FOMC projects GDP growth in 2015 from 2.6 to 3.0 percent at the meeting in Dec 2014 to 2.3 to 2.7 percent at the meeting in Mar 2015.

2. Rate of Unemployment “UNEM%.” The FOMC reduced the forecast of the rate of unemployment for 2015 from 5.2 to 5.3 percent at the meeting on Dec 17, 2014 to 5.0 to 5.2 percent at the meeting on Mar 18, 2015. The projection for 2016 decreased to the range of 4.5 to 5.2 in Mar 2015 from 4.9 to 5.4 in Dec 2014. Projections of the rate of unemployment are moving closer to around 5 percent or lower with 4.8 to 5.1 percent in 2017 after the meeting on Mar 18, 2015.

3. Inflation “∆% PCE Inflation.” The FOMC lowered the forecast prices of personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation for 2015 from 1.0 to 1.6 percent at the meeting on Dec 17, 2014 to 0.6 to 0.8 percent at the meeting on Mar 18, 2015. There are no projections exceeding 2.0 percent in the central tendency but some in the range reach 2.4 percent in 2016. The longer run projection is at 2.0 percent.

4. Core Inflation “∆% Core PCE Inflation.” Core inflation is PCE inflation excluding food and energy. There is milder inflation in the projection for 2015, changing from 1.5 to 1.8 percent at the meeting on Dec 17, 2014 to 1.3 to 1.4 percent at the meeting Mar 18, 2016. In 2016, there is minor change in the projection from 1.7 to 2.0 percent at the meeting on Dec 17, 2014 to 1.5 to 1.9 percent on Mar 18. The rate of change of the core PCE is below 2.0 percent in the central tendency with 2.4 percent at the top of the range in 2016.

Table IV-2, US, Economic Projections of Federal Reserve Board Members and Federal Reserve Bank Presidents in FOMC, Sep 17, 2014 and Dec 17, 20014

∆% GDP

UNEM %

∆% PCE Inflation

∆% Core PCE Inflation

Central
Tendency

2014
Sep PR

2.3 to 2.4
2.0 to 2.2

5.8
5.9 to 6.0

1.2 to 1.3
1.5 to 1.7

1.5 to 1.6
1.5 to 1.6

2015

Dec PR

2.3 to 2.7

2.6 to 3.0

5.0 to 5.2

5.2 to 5.3

0.6 to 0.8

1.0 to 1.6

1.3 to 1.4

1.5 to 1.8

2016

Dec PR

2.3 to 2.7

2.5 to 3.0

4.9 to 5.1

5.0 to 5.2

1.7 to 1.9

1.7 to 2.0

1.5 to 1.9

1.7 to 2.0

2017

Dec PR

2.0 to 2.4

2.3 to 2.5

4.8 to 5.1

4.9 to 5.3

1.9 to 2.0

1.8 to 2.0

Longer Run

Dec PR

2.0 to 2.3

5.0 to 5.2

5.2 to 5.5

2.0

Range

2014
Sep PR

2.3 to 2.5
1.8 to 2.3

5.7 to 5.8
5.7 to 6.1

1.2 to 1.6
1.5 to 1.8

1.5 to 1.6
1.5 to 1.8

2015

Dec PR

2.1 to 3.1

2.1 to 3.2

4.8 to 5.3

5.0 to 5.5

0.6 to 1.5

1.0 to 2.2

1.2 to 1.6

1.5 to 2.2

2016

Dec PR

2.2 to 3.0

2.1 to 3.0

4.5 to 5.2

4.9 to 5.4

1.6 to 2.4

1.6 to 2.1

1.5 to 2.4

1.6 to 2.1

2017

Dec PR

1.8 to 2.5

2.0 to 2.7

4.8 to 5.5

4.7 to 5.7

1.7 to 2.2

1.8 to 2.2

1.7 to 2.2

1.8 to 2.2

Longer Run

Dec PR

1.8 to 2.5

1.8 to 2.7

4.9 to 5.8

5.0 to 5.8

2.0

Notes: UEM: unemployment; PR: Projection

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FOMC

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20140917.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20141217.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20150318.pdf

Another important decision at the FOMC meeting on Jan 25, 2012, is formal specification of the goal of inflation of 2 percent per year but without specific goal for unemployment (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120125c.htm):

“Following careful deliberations at its recent meetings, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has reached broad agreement on the following principles regarding its longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy. The Committee intends to reaffirm these principles and to make adjustments as appropriate at its annual organizational meeting each January.

The FOMC is firmly committed to fulfilling its statutory mandate from the Congress of promoting maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. The Committee seeks to explain its monetary policy decisions to the public as clearly as possible. Such clarity facilitates well-informed decision making by households and businesses, reduces economic and financial uncertainty, increases the effectiveness of monetary policy, and enhances transparency and accountability, which are essential in a democratic society.

Inflation, employment, and long-term interest rates fluctuate over time in response to economic and financial disturbances. Moreover, monetary policy actions tend to influence economic activity and prices with a lag. Therefore, the Committee's policy decisions reflect its longer-run goals, its medium-term outlook, and its assessments of the balance of risks, including risks to the financial system that could impede the attainment of the Committee's goals.

The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy, and hence the Committee has the ability to specify a longer-run goal for inflation. The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate. Communicating this inflation goal clearly to the public helps keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored, thereby fostering price stability and moderate long-term interest rates and enhancing the Committee's ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances.

The maximum level of employment is largely determined by nonmonetary factors that affect the structure and dynamics of the labor market. These factors may change over time and may not be directly measurable. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to specify a fixed goal for employment; rather, the Committee's policy decisions must be informed by assessments of the maximum level of employment, recognizing that such assessments are necessarily uncertain and subject to revision. The Committee considers a wide range of indicators in making these assessments. Information about Committee participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rates of output growth and unemployment is published four times per year in the FOMC's Summary of Economic Projections. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants' estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 6.0 percent, roughly unchanged from last January but substantially higher than the corresponding interval several years earlier.

In setting monetary policy, the Committee seeks to mitigate deviations of inflation from its longer-run goal and deviations of employment from the Committee's assessments of its maximum level. These objectives are generally complementary. However, under circumstances in which the Committee judges that the objectives are not complementary, it follows a balanced approach in promoting them, taking into account the magnitude of the deviations and the potentially different time horizons over which employment and inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with its mandate. ”

The probable intention of this specific inflation goal is to “anchor” inflationary expectations. Massive doses of monetary policy of promoting growth to reduce unemployment could conflict with inflation control. Economic agents could incorporate inflationary expectations in their decisions. As a result, the rate of unemployment could remain the same but with much higher rate of inflation (see Kydland and Prescott 1977 and Barro and Gordon 1983; 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 See Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 99-116). Strong commitment to maintaining inflation at 2 percent could control expectations of inflation.

The FOMC continues its efforts of increasing transparency that can improve the credibility of its firmness in implementing its dual mandate. Table IV-3 provides the views by participants of the FOMC of the levels at which they expect the fed funds rate in 2014, 2015, 2016 and the in the longer term. Table IV-3 is inferred from a chart provided by the FOMC with the number of participants expecting the target of fed funds rate (ttp://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20150318.pdf). The rate would still remain at 0 to ¼ percent in 2014 for 17 participants, which is now a fact. This table is consistent with the guidance statement of the FOMC that rates will remain at low levels. For 2015, 11 participants expect the rate to remain between 0.5 and 1.0 percent, 3 to be between 1.0 and 1.5 percent and 1 between 1 and 2 percent. For 2016, 1 participant expects the rate between 0.5 and 1 percent, 1 participant between 1 and 1.5 percent, 10 between 1 and 2 percent, 3 between 2.0 and 3.0 percent and 3 above 3 percent. In the long term, all 17 participants expect the fed funds rate in the range of 3.0 to 4.5 percent.

Table IV-3, US, Views of Target Federal Funds Rate at Year-End of Federal Reserve Board

Members and Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Participating in FOMC, Dec 17, 2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FOMC

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20150318.pdf

Additional information is provided in Table IV-4 with the number of participants expecting increasing interest rates in the years from 2015 to 2016. It is evident from Table IV-4 that the prevailing view of the FOMC is for interest rates to continue at low levels until 2015. This view is consistent with the economic projections of low economic growth, relatively high unemployment and subdued inflation provided in Table IV-2. The FOMC states that rates will continue to be low even after return of the economy to potential growth.

Table IV-4, US, Views of Appropriate Year of Increasing Target Federal Funds Rate of Federal Reserve Board Members and Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Participating in FOMC, Dec 17, 2014

Appropriate Year of Increasing Target Fed Funds Rate	Number of Participants
2015	15
2016	2

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FOMC

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20150318.pdf

Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing has been used in Japan and now also in the US. Table IV-5 provides the consumer price index of Japan, with inflation of 0.6 percent in 12 months ending in Apr 2015 and increase of 0.4 percent NSA (not-seasonally-adjusted) in Apr 2015. The increase of the tax on value added of consumption on Apr 1, 2014, was the driver of CPI inflation in Japan in Apr-May 2014. Inflation of consumer prices in the first three months of 2013 annualizes at 0.0 percent NSA. Inflation in Mar-Dec 2013 not seasonally adjusted annualizes at 1.9 percent. There are negative percentage changes in most of the 12-month rates in 2011 with the exception of Jul and Aug both with 0.2 percent and stability in Sep. All 12-month rates of inflation in the first five months of 2013 are negative. Inflation in the 12 months ending in Jun 2013 was 0.2 percent and 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2013. Inflation increased to 0.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2013 and 1.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013. Inflation was 1.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013 and 1.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. Inflation was 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013 and 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014. Inflation was 1.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014 and 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2014. Inflation was 3.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2014 and 3.7 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2014, mostly because of the increase in the sales tax. Inflation in 12 months ending in Mar 2015 was 2.4 percent. There are ten years of deflation, three of zero inflation and only six of inflation in the annual rate of inflation from 1995 to 2014. This experience is entirely different from that of the US that shows long-term inflation. There is only one annual negative change of the CPI all items of the US in Table IV-5, minus 0.4 percent in 2009 but following 3.8 percent in 2008 because of carry trades from policy rates moving to zero in 2008 during a global contraction that were reversed because of risk aversion in late 2008 and early 2009, causing decreasing commodity prices. Both the US and Japan experienced high rates of inflation during the US Great Inflation of the 1970s (see 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). It is difficult to justify unconventional monetary policy because of risks of deflation similar to that experienced in Japan. Fear of deflation as had occurred during the Great Depression and in Japan was used as an argument for the first round of unconventional monetary policy with 1 percent interest rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004. The 1 percent interest rate combined with quantitative easing in the form of withdrawal of supply of 30-year securities by suspension of the auction of 30-year Treasury bonds with the intention of reducing mortgage rates. For fear of deflation, see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, and Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-95. The financial crisis and global recession were caused by interest rate and housing subsidies and affordability policies that encouraged high leverage and risks, low liquidity and unsound credit (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-66, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 217-27, International Financial Architecture (2005), 15-18, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b), 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 182-4). Several past comments of this blog elaborate on these arguments, among which: http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/professor-mckinnons-bubble-economy.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-inflation-quantitative-easing.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/treasury-yields-valuation-of-risk.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-theory-evidence-and.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.htm

Table IV-5, Japan, Consumer Price Index, All Items ∆%

	∆% Month NSA	∆% 12-Month NSA
Apr 2015	0.4	0.6
Mar	0.4	2.3
Feb	-0.2	2.2
Jan	-0.2	2.4
Dec 2014	0.1	2.4
Nov	-0.4	2.4
Oct	-0.3	2.9
Sep	0.2	3.2
Aug	0.2	3.3
Jul	0.0	3.4
Jun	-0.1	3.6
May	0.4	3.7
Apr	2.1	3.4
Mar	0.3	1.6
Feb	0.0	1.5
Jan	-0.2	1.4
Dec 2013	0.1	1.6
Nov	0.0	1.5
Oct	0.1	1.1
Sep	0.3	1.1
Aug	0.3	0.9
Jul	0.2	0.7
Jun	0.0	0.2
May	0.1	-0.3
Apr	0.3	-0.7
Mar	0.2	-0.9
Feb	-0.2	-0.7
Jan	0.0	-0.3
Dec 2012	0.0	-0.1
Nov	-0.4	-0.2
Oct	0.0	-0.4
Sep	0.1	-0.3
Aug	0.1	-0.4
Jul	-0.3	-0.4
Jun	-0.5	-0.2
May	-0.3	0.2
Apr	0.1	0.4
Mar	0.5	0.5
Feb	0.2	0.3
Jan	0.2	0.1
Dec 2011	0.0	-0.2
Nov	-0.6	-0.5
Oct	0.1	-0.2
Sep	0.0	0.0
Aug	0.1	0.2
Jul	0.0	0.2
Jun	-0.2	-0.4
May	0.0	-0.4
Apr	0.1	-0.4
Mar	0.3	-0.5
Feb	0.0	-0.5
Jan	-0.1	-0.6
Dec 2010	–0.3	0.0
	CPI All Items USA	CPI All Items Japan
Annual
2014	1.6	2.7
2013	1.5	0.4
2012	2.1	0.0
2011	3.2	-0.3
2010	1.6	-0.7
2009	-0.4	-1.4
2008	3.8	1.4
2007	2.8	0.0
2006	3.2	0.3
2005	3.4	-0.3
2004	2.7	0.0
2003	2.3	-0.3
2002	1.6	-0.9
2001	2.8	-0.7
2000	3.4	-0.7
1999	2.2	-0.3
1998	1.6	0.6
1997	2.3	1.8
1996	3.0	0.1
1995	2.8	-0.1
1994	2.6	0.7
1993	3.0	1.3
1992	3.0	1.6
1991	4.2	3.3
1990	5.4	3.1
1989	4.8	2.3
1988	4.1	0.7
1987	3.6	0.1
1986	1.9	0.6
1985	3.6	2.0
1984	4.3	2.3
1983	3.2	1.9
1982	6.2	2.8
1981	10.3	4.9
1980	13.5	7.7
1979	11.3	3.7
1978	7.6	4.2
1977	6.5	8.1
1976	5.8	9.4
1975	9.1	11.7
1974	11.0	23.2
1973	6.2	11.7
1972	3.2	4.9
1971	4.4	6.3

Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

Chart IV-1 of Japan’s Statistics Bureau at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications provides the major consumer price indexes of Japan on an annual basis. There is inflexion of the trend of decline of the index of all items and the index of all items excluding fresh food in 2013 and 2014.

Chart IV-1, Japan, Consumer Price Index All Items, Consumer Price Index All Items Less Fresh Food and Consumer Price Index All Items Less Food, Alcoholic Beverages and Energy, Annual, 2001-2014

Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

Chart IV-2 of Japan’s Statistics Bureau at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications provides annual percentage changes of the consumer price index all items, excluding fresh food and excluding food, alcoholic beverages and energy. The indexes of all items and excluding fresh food increased in 2014.

Chart IV-2, Japan, Japan, Consumer Price Index, Percentage Changes Relative to Prior Year, 2001-2014

Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

Japan’s Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications provides the consumer price index for all items and regions of Japan monthly from 1971 to 2013 with 2010=100, shown in Chart IV-3. There was inflation in Japan during the 1970s and 1980s similar to other countries and regions. The index shows stability after the 1990s with sporadic cases of deflation. Slower growth with sporadic inflation has been characterized as a “lost decade” in Japan (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 82-115).

Chart IV-3, Japan, Consumer Price Index All Items, All Japan, Index 2010=100, Monthly, 1970-2013

Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

Chart IV-4 of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the US consumer price index NSA from 1916 to 2015. The dominating characteristic is the increase in slope during the Great Inflation from the middle of the 1960s through the 1970s. There is long-term inflation in the US and no evidence of deflation risks.

Chart IV-4, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, NSA, 1916-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart IV-5 of the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index for all items and regions of Japan monthly from 1971 to 2013. Japan experienced the same inflation waves of the United States during the Great Inflation of the 1970s followed by similar low inflation after the inflation-control increase of interest rates in the early 1980s. Numerous cases of negative inflation or deflation are observed after the 1990s.

Chart IV-5, Japan, CPI All Items, All Japan, 12-Month ∆%, 1971-2013

Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications

Chart IV-6 of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics provides 12-month percentage changes of the US consumer price index from 1916 to 2015. There are actually three waves of inflation in the second half of the 1960s, in the mid-1970s and again in the late 1970s. Table IV-7 provides similar inflation waves in the economy of Japan with 11.7 percent in 1973, 23.1 percent in 1974 and 11.7 percent in 1975. The Great Inflation of the 1970s is 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 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). Inflation rates then stabilized in the US in a range with only two episodes above 5 percent. There are isolated cases of deflation concentrated over extended periods only during the 1930s. There is no case in United States economic history for unconventional monetary policy because of fear of deflation. There are cases of long-term deflation without lost decades or depressions.

Delfim Netto (1958) partly reprinted in Pelaez (1973) conducted two classical nonparametric tests (Mann 1945, Wallis and Moore 1941; see Kendall and Stuart 1968) with coffee-price data in the period of free markets from 1857 to 1906 with the following conclusions (Pelaez, 1976a, 280):

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

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

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

Imlah (1958) provides decline of British export prices at 0.5 percent in the nineteenth century and there were no lost decades, depressions or unconventional monetary policies in the highly dynamic economy of England that provided the world’s growth impulse. The experience of the United Kingdom with deflation and economic growth is relevant and rich. Yearly percentage changes of the composite index of prices of the United Kingdom of O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) provide strong evidence. There are 73 declines of inflation in the 145 years from 1751 to 1896. Prices declined in 50.3 percent of 145 years. Some price declines were quite sharp and many occurred over several years. O’Donoghue and Goulding (2004) also provide inflation data for the UK from 1929 to 1934. Deflation was much sharper in continuous years in earlier periods than during the Great Depression. The United Kingdom could not have led the world in modern economic growth if there were meaningful causality from deflation to depression.

Chart IV-6, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, NSA, 12-Month Percentage Change 1916-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart IV-7 provides the US consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1957 (when it first becomes available) to 2015. There is long-term inflation in the US without episodes of deflation that would justify symmetric inflation targets to increase inflation from low levels.

Chart IV-7, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1957-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart IV-8 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1958 (when it first becomes available) to 2015. There are three waves of inflation in the 1970s during the Great Inflation. There is no episode of deflation.

Chart IV-8, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1958-2015

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

More detail on the consumer price index of Japan in Mar 2015 is in Table IV-6. Items rich in commodities, such as 2.2 percent in fuel, light and water charges in 12 months with decrease of 0.2 percent in the month, have driven inflation in the 12 months ending in Apr 2015. There are now effects of the increase in the tax on the value added of consumption throughout most segments. Fiscal and monetary policies promoting devaluation of the yen are causing inflation in Japan. There is similar behavior in the preliminary estimate for May in the Ku Area of Tokyo with decrease of 0.5 percent of fuel, light and water charges and decrease of 0.3 percent in 12 months. There is 12-month decrease of 2.4 percent of CPI transport and communications. The CPI excluding fresh food, which is the inflation indicator of the Bank of Japan, increased 0.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2015. There is mild inflation in the CPI excluding food, alcoholic beverages and energy with 0.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2015 and increase of 0.3 percent in Apr 2015. The CPI excluding imputed rent increased 0.5 percent in Apr 2015 and increased 0.8 percent in 12 months. The all-items CPI estimate for May 2015 of the Ku-Area of Tokyo shows increase of 0.1 percent in May 2015 and increase of 0.5 percent in 12 months.

Table IV-6, Japan, Consumer Price Index, ∆%

2015	Apr 2015/Mar 2015 ∆%	Year ∆%
CPI All Items	0.4	0.6
CPI Excluding Fresh Food	0.3	0.3
CPI Excluding Food, Alcoholic Beverages and Energy	0.3	0.4
CPI Goods	0.8	0.8
CPI Services	0.0	0.4
CPI Excluding Imputed Rent	0.5	0.8
CPI Fuel, Light, Water Charges	-0.2	2.2
CPI Transport & Communications	-0.1	-2.4
Ku-Area Tokyo	May 2015/Apr 2015 ∆%	Year ∆%
CPI Ku-Area Tokyo All Items	0.1	0.5
All Items less Fresh Food	0.1	0.2
CPI Excluding Food, Alcoholic Beverages and Energy	0.1	0.1
Fuel, Light, Water Charges Ku Area Tokyo	-0.5	-0.3

Note: Ku-area Tokyo CPI data preliminary for Apr 2015

Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications