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

 

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

Carlos M. Pelaez

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

I IMF View

IIA United States Industrial Production

IIB United States Producer Prices

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

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

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

I IMF View of World Economy and Finance. The International Financial Institutions (IFI) consist of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank Group, Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the multilateral development banks, which are the European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), The Global Recession Risk (2007), 8-19, 218-29, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008b), 114-48, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 145-54). There are four types of contributions of the IFIs:

1. Safety Net. The IFIs contribute to crisis prevention and crisis resolution.

i. Crisis Prevention. An important form of contributing to crisis prevention is by surveillance of the world economy and finance by regions and individual countries. The IMF and World Bank conduct periodic regional and country evaluations and recommendations in consultations with member countries and also jointly with other international organizations. The IMF and the World Bank have been providing the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) by monitoring financial risks in member countries that can serve to mitigate them before they can become financial crises.

ii. Crisis Resolution. The IMF jointly with other IFIs provides assistance to countries in resolution of those crises that do occur. Currently, the IMF is cooperating with the government of Greece, European Union and European Central Bank in resolving the debt difficulties of Greece as it has done in the past in numerous other circumstances. Programs with other countries involved in the European debt crisis may also be developed.

2. Surveillance. The IMF conducts surveillance of the world economy, finance and public finance with continuous research and analysis. Important documents of this effort are the World Economic Outlook (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=29), Global Financial Stability Report (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/gfsr/index.htm) and Fiscal Monitor (http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=262).

3. Infrastructure and Development. The IFIs also engage in infrastructure and development, in particular the World Bank Group and the multilateral development banks.

4. Soft Law. Significant activity by IFIs has consisted of developing standards and codes under multiple forums. It is easier and faster to negotiate international agreements under soft law that are not binding but can be very effective (on soft law see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2008c), 114-25). These norms and standards can solidify world economic and financial arrangements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*General Government Net Lending/Borrowing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(“expenditure reduction”) in deficit economies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reducing their net external liabilities.”

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

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

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

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

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt

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

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

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

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

Source: calculation with IMF data IMF World Economic Outlook databank

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

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

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

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

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

Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook databank

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

II United States Industrial Production. There is socio-economic stress in the combination of adverse events and cyclical performance: 

• Mediocre economic growth below potential and long-term trend, resulting in idle productive resources with GDP two trillion dollars below trend (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks.html). US GDP grew at the average rate of 3.3 percent per year from 1929 to 2013 with similar performance in whole cycles of contractions and expansions but only at 0.9 percent per year on average from 2007 to 2013. GDP in IIQ2014 is 12.5 percent lower than what it would have been had it grown at trend of 3.0 percent.
• Private fixed investment stagnating at change of 0.3 percent in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIQ2014 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks.html)
• Twenty seven million or 16.1 percent of the effective labor force unemployed or underemployed in involuntary part-time jobs with stagnating or declining real wages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-financial-turbulence-twenty-seven.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/competitive-monetary-policy-and.html)
• Stagnating real disposable income per person or income per person after inflation and taxes (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/world-financial-turbulence-twenty-seven.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks.html)
• Depressed hiring that does not afford an opportunity for reducing unemployment/underemployment and moving to better-paid jobs (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/global-financial-volatility-recovery.html)

• Productivity growth fell from 2.2 percent per year on average from 1947 to 2013 to 1.5 percent per year on average from 2007 to 2013 deteriorating future growth and prosperity (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/competitive-monetary-policy-and.html)
• Output of manufacturing in Aug at 17.4 percent below long-term trend since 1919 and at 11.8 percent below trend since 1986 (Section II and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html)
• Unsustainable government deficit/debt and balance of payments deficit (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/valuation-risks-world-inflation-waves.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/interest-rate-risks-world-inflation.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html)
• Worldwide waves of inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html)
• Deteriorating terms of trade and net revenue margins of production across countries in squeeze of economic activity by carry trades induced by zero interest rates (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html)
• Financial repression of interest rates and credit affecting the most people without means and access to sophisticated financial investments with likely adverse effects on income distribution and wealth disparity (Section II and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/fluctuating-financial-valuations.html)
• 45 million in poverty and 41 million without health insurance with family income adjusted for inflation regressing to 1995 levels (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html)
• Net worth of households and nonprofits organizations increasing by 7.5 percent after adjusting for inflation in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIQ2014 when it would have been over 22.0 percent at trend of 3.1 percent per year in real terms from 1945 to 2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/financial-indecision-mediocre-cyclical.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/global-financial-risks-recovery-without.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/collapse-of-united-states-dynamism-of.html). Financial assets increased $14.2 trillion while nonfinancial assets increased $224.1 billion with likely concentration of wealth in those with access to sophisticated financial investments. Real estate assets adjusted for inflation fell 13.5 percent from 2007 to IIQ2014.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Manufacturing increased 0.5 percent in Sep 2014 after decreasing 0.5 percent in Aug 2014 and increasing 0.7 percent in Jul 2014 seasonally adjusted, increasing 3.6 percent not seasonally adjusted in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014, as shown in Table I-2. Manufacturing grew cumulatively 1.7 percent in the six months ending in Sep 2014 or at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent. Excluding the increase of 0.7 percent in Jul 2014, manufacturing accumulated growth of 1.0 percent from Apr 2013 to Sep 2014 or at the annual equivalent rate of 2.4 percent. Table I-2 provides a longer perspective of manufacturing in the US. There has been evident deceleration of manufacturing growth in the US from 2010 and the first three months of 2011 into more recent months as shown by 12 months rates of growth. Growth rates appeared to be increasing again closer to 5 percent in Apr-Jun 2012 but deteriorated. The rates of decline of manufacturing in 2009 are quite high with a drop of 18.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2009. Manufacturing recovered from this decline and led the recovery from the recession. Rates of growth appeared to be returning to the levels at 3 percent or higher in the annual rates before the recession but the pace of manufacturing fell steadily in the past six months with some strength at the margin. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System conducted the annual revision of industrial production released on Mar 28, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/revisions/Current/DefaultRev.htm):

“The Federal Reserve has revised its index of industrial production (IP) and the related measures of capacity and capacity utilization. The annual revision for 2014 was more limited than in recent years because the source data required to extend the annual benchmark indexes of production into 2012 were mostly unavailable. Consequently, the IP indexes published with this revision are very little changed from previous estimates. Measured from fourth quarter to fourth quarter, total IP is now reported to have increased about 3 1/3 percent in each year from 2011 to 2013. Relative to the rates of change for total IP published earlier, the new rates are 1/2 percentage point higher in 2012 and little changed in any other year. Total IP still shows a peak-to-trough decline of about 17 percent for the most recent recession, and it still returned to its pre-recession peak in the fourth quarter of 2013.”

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

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

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

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart I-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides industrial production, manufacturing and capacity since the 1970s. There was acceleration of growth of industrial production, manufacturing and capacity in the 1990s because of rapid growth of productivity in the US (Cobet and Wilson (2002); see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). The slopes of the curves flatten in the 2000s. Production and capacity have not recovered sufficiently above levels before the global recession, remaining like GDP below historical trend.

Chart I-1, US, Industrial Production, Capacity and Utilization

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg1.gif

The modern industrial revolution of Jensen (1993) is captured in Chart I-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (for the literature on M&A and corporate control see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009a), 143-56, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 49-59, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 46-49). The slope of the curve of total industrial production accelerates in the 1990s to a much higher rate of growth than the curve excluding high-technology industries. Growth rates decelerate into the 2000s and output and capacity utilization have not recovered fully from the strong impact of the global recession. Growth in the current cyclical expansion has been more subdued than in the prior comparably deep contractions in the 1970s and 1980s. Chart II-2 shows that the past recessions after World War II are the relevant ones for comparison with the recession after 2007 instead of common comparisons with the Great Depression (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html). The bottom left-hand part of Chart II-2 shows the strong growth of output of communication equipment, computers and semiconductor that continued from the 1990s into the 2000s. Output of semiconductors has already surpassed the level before the global recession.

Chart I-2, US, Industrial Production, Capacity and Utilization of High Technology Industries

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg3.gif

Additional detail on industrial production and capacity utilization is provided in Chart I-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Production of consumer durable goods fell sharply during the global recession by more than 30 percent and is still around the level before the contraction. Output of nondurable consumer goods fell around 10 percent and is some 5 percent below the level before the contraction. Output of business equipment fell sharply during the contraction of 2001 but began rapid growth again after 2004. An important characteristic is rapid growth of output of business equipment in the cyclical expansion after sharp contraction in the global recession. Output of defense and space only suffered reduction in the rate of growth during the global recession and surged ahead of the level before the contraction. Output of construction supplies collapsed during the global recession and is well below the level before the contraction. Output of energy materials was stagnant before the contraction but has recovered sharply above the level before the contraction.

Chart I-3, US, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/Current/ipg2.gif

United States manufacturing output from 1919 to 2014 on a monthly basis is in Chart I-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The second industrial revolution of Jensen (1993) is quite evident in the acceleration of the rate of growth of output given by the sharper slope in the 1980s and 1990s. Growth was robust after the shallow recession of 2001 but dropped sharply during the global recession after IVQ2007. Manufacturing output recovered sharply but has not reached earlier levels and is losing momentum at the margin. Current output is well below the extrapolation of a long-term trend. The long-term trend is growth at average 3.3 percent per year from Jan 1919 to Sep 2014. Growth at 3.3 percent per year would raise the NSA index of manufacturing output from 99.2392 in Dec 2007 to 123.5550 in Sep 2014. The actual index NSA in Sep 2014 is 102.0228, which is 17.4 percent below trend. Manufacturing output grew at average 2.3 percent between Dec 1986 and Dec 2013, raising the index at trend to 115.7028 in Sep 2014. The output of manufacturing at 102.0228 in Sep 2014 is 11.8 percent below trend under this alternative calculation.

Chart I-4, US, Manufacturing Output, 1919-2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

Motor vehicle sales and production in the US have been in long-term structural change. Table VA-1 provides the data on new motor vehicle sales and domestic car production in the US from 1990 to 2010. New motor vehicle sales grew from 14,137 thousand in 1990 to the peak of 17,806 thousand in 2000 or 29.5 percent. In that same period, domestic car production fell from 6,231 thousand in 1990 to 5,542 thousand in 2000 or -11.1 percent. New motor vehicle sales fell from 17,445 thousand in 2005 to 11,772 in 2010 or 32.5 percent while domestic car production fell from 4,321 thousand in 2005 to 2,840 thousand in 2010 or 34.3 percent. In Sep 2014, light vehicle sales accumulated to 12,431,305, which is higher by 5.5 percent relative to 11,786,536 a year earlier (http://motorintelligence.com/m_frameset.html). The seasonally adjusted annual rate of light vehicle sales in the US reached 16.43 million in Sep 2014, lower than 17.53 million in Aug 2014 and higher than 15.42 million in Sep 2013 (http://motorintelligence.com/m_frameset.html).

Table VA-1, US, New Motor Vehicle Sales and Car Production, Thousand Units

	New Motor Vehicle Sales	New Car Sales and Leases	New Truck Sales and Leases	Domestic Car Production
1990	14,137	9,300	4,837	6,231
1991	12,725	8,589	4,136	5,454
1992	13,093	8,215	4,878	5,979
1993	14,172	8,518	5,654	5,979
1994	15,397	8,990	6,407	6,614
1995	15,106	8,536	6,470	6,340
1996	15,449	8,527	6,922	6,081
1997	15,490	8,273	7,218	5,934
1998	15,958	8,142	7,816	5,554
1999	17,401	8,697	8,704	5,638
2000	17,806	8,852	8,954	5,542
2001	17,468	8,422	9,046	4,878
2002	17,144	8,109	9,036	5,019
2003	16,968	7,611	9,357	4,510
2004	17,298	7,545	9,753	4,230
2005	17,445	7,720	9,725	4,321
2006	17,049	7,821	9,228	4,367
2007	16,460	7,618	8,683	3,924
2008	13,494	6,814	6.680	3,777
2009	10,601	5,456	5,154	2,247
2010	11,772	5,729	6,044	2,840

Source: US Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/wholesale_retail_trade/motor_vehicle_sales.html

Chart II-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve provides output of motor vehicles and parts in the United States from 1972 to 2014. Output virtually stagnated since the late 1990s.

Chart II-5, US, Motor Vehicles and Parts Output, 1972-2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart I-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides output of computers and electronic products in the United States from 1972 to 2014. Output accelerated sharply in the 1990s and 2000s and has surpassed the level before the global recession beginning in IVQ2007.

Chart I-6, US, Output of Computers and Electronic Products, 1972-2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart I-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shows that output of durable manufacturing accelerated in the 1980s and 1990s with slower growth in the 2000s perhaps because processes matured. Growth was robust after the major drop during the global recession but appears to vacillate in the final segment.

Chart I-7, US, Output of Durable Manufacturing, 1972-2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Chart I-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides output of aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment from 1972 to 2014. There is long-term upward trend with oscillations around the trend and cycles of large amplitude.

Chart I-8, US, Output of Aerospace and Miscellaneous Transportation Equipment, 1972-2014

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

The Empire State Manufacturing Survey Index in Table VA-1 provides continuing deterioration that started in Jun 2012 well before Hurricane Sandy in Oct 2012. The current general index has been in negative contraction territory from minus 3.86 in Aug 2012 to minus 7.93 in Jan 2013 and 0.27 in May 2013. The current general index edged to 6.17 in Oct 2014. The index of current orders has also been in negative contraction territory from minus 3.24 in Aug 2012 to minus 8.48 in Jan 2013 and minus 4.32 in Jun 2013. The index of current new orders decreased to minus 1.73 in Oct 2014. Number of workers and hours worked have registered negative or declining readings since Sep 2012 with weakness to 10.23 for number of workers in Oct 2014 and also minus 1.14 for average workweek. There is improvement in the general index for the next six months at 41.66 in Oct 2014 and strengthening new orders at 42.34.

Table VA-1, US, New York Federal Reserve Bank Empire State Manufacturing Survey Index SA

Current	General Index	New Orders	Shipments	Number of Workers	Average Workweek
Sep-11	-4.55	-4.13	-5.6	-5.43	-2.17
Oct-11	-6.07	0.64	1.48	3.37	-4.49
Nov-11	4.09	0.66	13.22	-3.66	2.44
Dec-11	10.7	8.03	22.09	2.33	-2.33
Jan-12	11.63	10.42	19.7	12.09	6.59
Feb-12	16.36	5.28	17.16	11.76	7.06
Mar-12	15.97	4.67	13.76	13.58	18.52
Apr-12	5.92	4.21	4.24	19.28	6.02
May-12	15.85	9.29	22.95	20.48	12.05
Jun-12	3.48	4.75	11.39	12.37	3.09
Jul-12	6.64	-2.2	11	18.52	0
Aug-12	-3.86	-3.24	8.41	16.47	3.53
Sep-12	-7.41	-10.41	6.4	4.26	-1.06
Oct-12	-4.91	-8.25	-7.44	-1.08	-4.3
Nov-12	-1.8	5.02	17.01	-14.61	-7.87
Dec-12	-6.35	-1.9	10.04	-9.68	-10.75
Jan-13	-7.93	-8.48	-2.13	-4.3	-5.38
Feb-13	7.25	9.84	9.72	8.08	-4.04
Mar-13	6.45	5.8	5.39	3.23	0
Apr-13	2.46	1.4	0.51	6.82	5.68
May-13	0.27	-0.67	-0.36	5.68	-1.14
Jun-13	7.09	-4.32	-6.3	0	-11.29
Jul-13	8.88	3.99	8.26	3.26	-7.61
Aug-13	8.3	1.88	4	10.84	4.82
Sep-13	6.78	2.62	15.69	7.53	1.08
Oct-13	3.24	6.6	12.98	3.61	3.61
Nov-13	0.83	-3.46	1.46	0	-5.26
Dec-13	2.22	-1.69	4.69	0	-10.84
Jan-14	12.51	10.98	15.52	12.2	1.22
Feb-14	4.48	-0.21	2.13	11.25	3.75
Mar-14	5.61	3.13	3.97	5.88	4.71
Apr-14	1.29	-2.77	3.15	8.16	2.04
May-14	19.01	10.44	17.44	20.88	2.2
Jun-14	19.28	18.36	14.15	10.75	9.68
Jul-14	25.6	18.77	23.64	17.05	2.27
Aug-14	14.69	14.14	24.59	13.64	7.95
Sep-14	27.54	16.86	27.08	3.26	3.26
Oct-14	6.17	-1.73	1.12	10.23	-1.14

Future	General Index	New Orders	Shipments	Number of Workers	Average Workweek
Sep-11	22.77	23.38	22.66	0	-6.52
Oct-11	14.41	18.95	23.42	6.74	-2.25
Nov-11	35.91	30.35	32.7	14.63	8.54
Dec-11	46.81	45.01	41.56	24.42	22.09
Jan-12	51.83	45.4	44.3	28.57	17.58
Feb-12	45.6	38.41	41.41	29.41	18.82
Mar-12	42.56	37.16	39.87	32.1	20.99
Apr-12	40.21	36.97	38.62	27.71	10.84
May-12	33.49	30.86	25.03	12.05	8.43
Jun-12	26.78	28.74	23.59	16.49	2.06
Jul-12	22.79	20.36	21.46	6.17	-4.94
Aug-12	20.15	15.26	22.39	3.53	-8.24
Sep-12	27.17	27.74	23.17	8.51	2.13
Oct-12	20.23	22.03	18.34	0	-11.83
Nov-12	18.53	15.49	25.5	-1.12	0
Dec-12	21.18	21.43	23.86	10.75	5.38
Jan-13	22.54	24.4	24.1	7.53	3.23
Feb-13	30.39	28.04	27.94	15.15	11.11
Mar-13	33.2	32.59	39.59	19.35	2.15
Apr-13	30.42	34.02	37	25	7.95
May-13	27.3	28.85	24.72	11.36	1.14
Jun-13	26.85	22.9	22.13	1.61	-9.68
Jul-13	32.59	31.53	33.97	1.09	-1.09
Aug-13	37	31.33	31.71	8.43	-6.02
Sep-13	40.39	37.71	37.66	4.3	-2.15
Oct-13	40.86	36.94	33.74	7.23	2.41
Nov-13	38.32	39.31	37.09	22.37	-3.95
Dec-13	38.96	30.15	33.31	9.64	1.2
Jan-14	37.51	39.1	30.58	20.73	9.76
Feb-14	38.99	45.31	43.33	25	7.5
Mar-14	33.21	36.02	35.17	17.65	9.41
Apr-14	38.23	32.69	38.83	22.45	1.02
May-14	43.96	36.71	33.8	17.58	-3.3
Jun-14	39.84	44.52	45.15	20.43	0
Jul-14	28.47	25.57	24.59	17.05	-4.55
Aug-14	46.76	50.44	54.48	22.73	0
Sep-14	46.72	45.56	47.46	14.13	5.43
Oct-14	41.66	42.34	42.54	12.5	-2.27

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York

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

Chart VA-1 of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York provides indexes of current and expected economic activity. There were multiple contractions in current activity after the global recession shown in shade. Current activity is weakening relative to strong recovery in the initial expansion in 2010 and 2011.

Chart VA-1, US, US, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Diffusion Index of Current and Expected Activity, Seasonally Adjusted

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York

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

The Business Outlook Survey Diffusion Index of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in Table VA-1 also shows improvement after prior deterioration followed by current improvement. The general index moved out of contraction at 1.7 in May 2013 to 20.7 in Oct 2014 together with 17.3 for new orders. Expectations for the next six months are brighter with the general index at 54.5 in Oct 2014 and the index of new orders at 51.4.

Table VA-1, FRB of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey Diffusion Index

	Current General Index	Current New Orders	Current Shipments	Future General Index	Future New Orders	Future Shipments
11-Jan	15.3	19.1	10.9	42.9	35.1	36.8
11-Feb	27	15.8	22.3	41.1	37.4	42.4
11-Mar	34.7	32.4	27.5	54.7	52.8	52.6
11-Apr	13.7	13.2	20.9	30.5	28	34.5
11-May	5.5	7.6	8	24.8	24.1	27.4
11-Jun	-0.6	-1.7	7.6	8.3	10.3	9.7
11-Jul	8.2	5.2	9.4	29.7	33.4	29.3
11-Aug	-17.1	-17.5	-2.4	14.6	28.9	25.9
11-Sep	-11.9	-4.7	-8	23.2	22.8	24.9
11-Oct	7.7	7	10	27.6	29.6	30.5
11-Nov	6.6	4.3	7.9	39.1	37.5	34.8
11-Dec	3.8	5	6	35.5	39	32.2
12-Jan	4.9	8.8	3.8	42.6	42.3	41.6
12-Feb	6.4	5.7	6	28.7	30.1	25.7
12-Mar	6.2	-2.3	-1.4	26.8	33.2	27.9
12-Apr	6.3	-0.3	-3.3	31.8	37.2	31.2
12-May	-2.1	0.6	6.4	22	32.8	28.3
12-Jun	-12	-13.3	-10.9	25.5	36.6	38.1
12-Jul	-10.7	-1.3	-7.2	23.8	28.2	22.6
12-Aug	1.1	1.7	-2.3	23.6	29.6	21.9
12-Sep	-0.9	2.1	-10.7	38.2	47.2	39.5
12-Oct	1	-3.5	-5.6	19.4	22.2	21.9
12-Nov	-6.9	-3.2	-4.4	21.2	25.1	26.1
12-Dec	4.4	3.6	13.9	25.3	29.8	28.9
13-Jan	-5.6	-4.5	-0.2	26.2	30.1	33.3
13-Feb	-11.9	-7.7	-1.4	29.2	35.6	29.3
13-Mar	-1.4	-1.9	1.4	30.1	32.7	30
13-Apr	1	-0.8	4	19.9	27.1	28.2
13-May	-1.7	-6.6	-3.9	35.1	37.9	35
13-Jun	14.4	17.3	8.2	37.2	43	40.4
13-Jul	18	11.3	14.5	45	56	49.1
13-Aug	13.1	8.9	3.9	44.1	44.8	46
13-Sep	20	20.8	21.9	57	57.2	54.4
13-Oct	15.6	23.8	17.3	58.3	63.4	52.6
13-Nov	9.2	14	7.8	48.1	49.3	43.5
13-Dec	6.4	12.9	11.9	44.8	45.7	42
14-Jan	9.4	5.1	12.1	34.4	38.4	33.2
14-Feb	-6.3	-5.2	-9.9	40.2	35.4	36
14-Mar	9	5.7	5.7	35.4	32.2	41.1
14-Apr	16.6	14.8	22.7	26.6	29.7	32.8
14-May	15.4	10.5	14.2	37.4	36.5	38.7
14-Jun	17.8	16.8	15.5	52	57.8	48
14-Jul	23.9	34.2	34.2	58.1	53.5	57.9
14-Aug	28	14.7	16.5	66.4	58.9	67.4
14-Sep	22.5	15.5	21.6	56	51.7	58.8
14-Oct	20.7	17.3	16.6	54.5	51.4	52.3

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

Chart VA-1 of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is very useful, providing current and future general activity indexes from Jan 1995 to Jul 2014. The shaded areas are the recession cycle dates of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). The Philadelphia Fed index dropped during the initial period of recession and then led the recovery, as industry overall. There was a second decline of the index into 2011 followed now by what hopefully appeared as renewed strength from late 2011 into Jan 2012. There is decline to negative territory of the current activity index in Nov 2012 and return to positive territory in Dec 2012 with decline of current conditions into contraction in Jan-Feb 2013 and rebound to mild expansion in Mar-Apr 2013. The index of current activity moved into expansion in Jun-Oct 2013 with weakness in Nov-Dec 2013, improving in Jan 2014. There is renewed deterioration in Feb 2014 with rebound in Apr-Sep 2014 and mild deterioration in Oct 2014.

Chart VA-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current and Future Activity Indexes

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

The index of current new orders of the Business Outlook Survey of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia in Chart VA-2 illustrates the weakness of the cyclical expansion. The index weakened in 2006 and 2007 and then fell sharply into contraction during the global recession. There have been twelve readings into contraction from Jan 2012 to May 2013 and generally weak readings with some exceptions. The index of new orders moved into expansion in Jun-Oct 2013 with moderation in Nov-Dec 2013 and into Jan 2014. The index fell into contraction in Feb 2014, recovering in Mar-Apr 2014 but weaker reading in May 2014. There is marked improvement in Jun-Jul 2014 with slowing in Aug-Oct 2014.

Chart VA-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Outlook Survey, Current New Orders Diffusion Index SA

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

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

IIB United States Producer Prices. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and large-scale purchases of long-term securities for the balance sheet of the central bank is proposed to prevent deflation. The data of CPI inflation of all goods and CPI inflation excluding food and energy for the past six decades does not show even one negative change, as shown in Table CPIEX.

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

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

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

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

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

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

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

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

The producer price index of the US from 1947 to 2014 in Chart I-6 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.

Chart I-6, US, Producer Price Index, Finished Goods, NSA, 1947-2014

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

Chart I-7 provides 12-month percentage changes of the producer price index from 1948 to 2014. The distinguishing event in Chart I-7 is the Great Inflation of the 1970s. The shape of the two-hump Bactrian camel of the 1970s resembles the double hump from 2007 to 2014.

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Year	Annual ∆%
1948	8.0
1949	-2.8
1950	1.8
1951	9.2
1952	-0.6
1953	-1.0
1954	0.3
1955	0.3
1956	2.6
1957	3.8
1958	2.2
1959	-0.3
1960	0.9
1961	0.0
1962	0.3
1963	-0.3
1964	0.3
1965	1.8
1966	3.2
1967	1.1
1968	2.8
1969	3.8
1970	3.4
1971	3.1
1972	3.2
1973	9.1
1974	15.4
1975	10.6
1976	4.5
1977	6.4
1978	7.9
1979	11.2
1980	13.4
1981	9.2
1982	4.1
1983	1.6
1984	2.1
1985	1.0
1986	-1.4
1987	2.1
1988	2.5
1989	5.2
1990	4.9
1991	2.1
1992	1.2
1993	1.2
1994	0.6
1995	1.9
1996	2.7
1997	0.4
1998	-0.8
1999	1.8
2000	3.8
2001	2.0
2002	-1.3
2003	3.2
2004	3.6
2005	4.8
2006	3.0
2007	3.9
2008	6.3
2009	-2.6
2010	4.2
2011	6.0
2012	1.9
2013	1.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

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

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

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

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

III World Financial Turbulence. Financial markets are being shocked by multiple factors including:

(1) World economic slowdown

(2) Slowing growth in China with political development and slowing growth in Japan and world trade

(3) Slow growth propelled by savings/investment reduction in the US with high unemployment/underemployment, falling wages, hiring collapse, contraction of real private fixed investment. Wealth of households increased over the business cycle by total 7.5 percent adjusted for inflation from IVQ2007 to IIQ2014 while growing at 3.1 percent per year adjusted for inflation from IVQ1945 to IVQ2013 with unsustainable fiscal deficit/debt threatening prosperity that can cause risk premium on Treasury debt with Himalayan interest rate hikes

(4) Outcome of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.

This section provides current data and analysis. Subsection IIIA Financial Risks provides analysis of the evolution of valuations of risk financial assets during the week. There are various appendixes for convenience of reference of material related to the debt crisis of the euro area. Some of this material is updated in Subsection IIIA when new data are available and then maintained in the appendixes for future reference until updated again in Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies discusses arguments and measures of currency intervention and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact provides analysis of the restructuring of the fiscal affairs of the European Union in the agreement of European leaders reached on Dec 9, 2011 and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort considers the policies of the European Central Bank and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Appendix IIIE Euro Zone Survival Risk analyzes the threats to survival of the European Monetary Union and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation provides more technical analysis and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis provides analysis of proposals to finance growth with budget deficits together with experience of the economic history of Brazil and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment.

IIIA Financial Risks. Financial turbulence, attaining unusual magnitude in recent months, characterized the expansion from the global recession since IIIQ2009. Table III-1, updated with every comment in this blog, provides beginning values on Oct 10 and daily values throughout the week ending on Oct 17, 2014 of various financial assets. Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets provides a set of more complete values. All data are for New York time at 5 PM. The first column provides the value on Fri Oct 10 and the percentage change in that prior week below the label of the financial risk asset. For example, the first column “Fri Oct 10, 2014”, first row “USD/EUR 1.2629 -0.9% 0.5%,” provides the information that the US dollar (USD) depreciated 0.9 percent to USD 1.2629/EUR in the week ending on Fri Oct 10 relative to the exchange rate on Fri Oct 3 and appreciated 0.5 percent relative to Thu Oct 9. The first five asset rows provide five key exchange rates versus the dollar and the percentage cumulative appreciation (positive change or no sign) or depreciation (negative change or negative sign). Positive changes constitute appreciation of the relevant exchange rate and negative changes depreciation. Financial turbulence has been dominated by reactions to the new program for Greece (see section IB in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html), modifications and new approach adopted in the Euro Summit of Oct 26 (European Commission 2011Oct26SS, 2011Oct26MRES), doubts on the larger countries in the euro zone with sovereign risks such as Spain and Italy but expanding into possibly France and Germany, the growth standstill recession and long-term unsustainable government debt in the US, worldwide deceleration of economic growth and continuing waves of inflation. An important current shock is that resulting from the agreement by European leaders at their meeting on Dec 9 (European Council 2911Dec9), which is analyzed in IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact. European leaders reached a new agreement on Jan 30 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/127631.pdf) and another agreement on Jun 29, 2012 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf). The most important source of financial turbulence is shifting toward fluctuating interest rates. The dollar/euro rate is quoted as number of US dollars USD per one euro EUR, USD 1.2629/EUR in the first row, first column in the block for currencies in Table III-1 for Fri Oct 10, depreciating to USD 1.2752/EUR on Mon Oct 13, 2014, or by 1.0 percent. The dollar depreciated because more dollars, 1.2752, were required on Mon Oct 13 to buy one euro than $1.2629 on Fri Oct 10. Table III-1 defines a country’s exchange rate as number of units of domestic currency per unit of foreign currency. USD/EUR would be the definition of the exchange rate of the US and the inverse [1/(USD/EUR)] is the definition in this convention of the rate of exchange of the euro zone, EUR/USD. A convention used throughout this blog is required to maintain consistency in characterizing movements of the exchange rate such as in Table III-1 as appreciation and depreciation. The first row for each of the currencies shows the exchange rate at 5 PM New York time, such as USD 1.2629/EUR on Oct 10. The second row provides the cumulative percentage appreciation or depreciation of the exchange rate from the rate on the last business day of the prior week, in this case Fri Oct 10, to the last business day of the current week, in this case Fri Oct 17, such as depreciation of 1.0 percent to USD 1.2760/EUR by Oct 17. The third row provides the percentage change from the prior business day to the current business day. For example, the USD depreciated (denoted by negative sign) by 1.0 percent from the rate of USD 1.2629/EUR on Fri Oct 10 to the rate of USD 1.2760/EUR on Fri Oct 17 {[(1.2760/1.2629) – 1]100 = 1.0%}. The dollar appreciated (denoted by positive sign) by 0.4 percent from the rate of USD 1.2809 on Thu Oct 16 to USD 1.2760/EUR on Fri Oct 17 {[(1.2760/1.2809) -1]100 = -0.4 %}. Other factors constant, appreciation of the dollar relative to the euro is caused by increasing risk aversion, with rising uncertainty on European and global sovereign risks increasing dollar-denominated assets with sales of risk financial investments. Funds move away from higher yielding risk assets to the safety of dollar-denominated assets during risk aversion and return to higher yielding risk assets during risk appetite.

Table III-I, Weekly Financial Risk Assets Oct 6 to Oct 10, 2014

Fri Oct 10, 2014	Mon 13	Tue 14	Wed 15	Thu 16	Fri 17
USD/ EUR 1.2629 -0.9% 0.5%	1.2752 -1.0% -1.0%	1.2659 -0.2% 0.7%	1.2837 -1.6% -1.4%	1.2809 -1.4% 0.2%	1.2760 -1.0% 0.4%
JPY/ USD 107.65 1.9% 0.2%	106.84 0.8% 0.8%	107.06 0.5% -0.2%	105.92 1.6% 1.1%	106.33 1.2% -0.4%	106.90 0.7% -0.5%
CHF/ USD 0.9571 1.1% -0.3%	0.9480 1.0% 1.0%	0.9537 0.4% -0.6%	0.9401 1.8% 1.4%	0.9425 1.5% -0.3%	0.9464 1.1% -0.4%
CHF/ EUR 1.2088 0.1% 0.2%	1.2088 0.0% 0.0%	1.2073 0.1% 0.1%	1.2068 0.2% 0.0%	1.2073 0.1% 0.0%	1.2076 0.1% 0.0%
USD/ AUD 0.8686 1.1513 0.1% -1.1%	0.8772 1.1400 1.0% 1.0%	0.8713 1.1477 0.3% -0.7%	0.8829 1.1326 1.6% 1.3%	0.8756 1.1421 0.8% -0.8%	0.8748 1.1431 0.7% -0.1%
10Y Note 2.292	2.275	2.201	2.135	2.157	2.197
2Y Note 0.434	0.412	0.378	0.318	0.335	0.373
German Bond 2Y -0.06 10Y 0.89	2Y -0.05 10Y 0.89	2Y -0.05 10Y 0.84	2Y -0.07 10Y 0.75	2Y -0.06 10Y 0.82	2Y -0.06 10Y 0.86
DJIA 16544.10 -2.7% -0.7%	16321.07 -1.3% -1.3%	16315.19 -1.4% 0.0%	16141.74 -2.4% -1.1%	16117.24 -2.6% -0.2%	16380.41 -1.0% 1.6%
Dow Global 2430.85 -2.5% -1.5%	2421.40 -0.4% -0.4%	2418.73 -0.5% -0.1%	2391.50 -1.6% -1.1%	2378.15 -2.2% -0.6%	2409.74 -0.9% 1.3%
DJ Asia Pacific 1415.85 -1.3% -1.5%	1412.67 -0.2% -0.2%	1402.90 -0.9% -0.7%	1413.78 -0.1% 0.8%	1396.02 -1.4% -1.3%	1385.34 -2.2% -0.8%
Nikkei 15300.55 -2.6% -1.2%	15300.55 0.0% 0.0%	14936.51 -2.4% -2.4%	15073.52 -1.5% 0.9%	14738.38 -3.7% -2.2%	14532.51 -5.0% -1.4%
Shanghai 2374.54 0.5% -0.6%	2366.01 -0.4% -0.4%	2359.47 -0.6% -0.3%	2373.67 0.0% 0.6%	2356.50 -0.8% -0.7%	2341.18 -1.4% -0.7%
DAX 8788.81 -4.4% -2.4%	8812.43 0.3% 0.3%	8825.21 0.4% 0.1%	8571.95 -2.5% -2.9%	8582.90 -2.3% 0.1%	8850.27 0.7% 3.1%
DJ UBS Comm. NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
WTI $/B 85.82 -4.4% 0.1%	85.74 -0.1% -0.1%	81.84 -4.6% -4.5%	81.78 -4.7% -0.1%	82.70 -3.6% 1.1%	82.75 -3.6% 0.1%
Brent $/B 90.21 -2.3% 0.2%	88.89 -1.5% -1.5%	85.04 -5.7% -4.3%	83.78 -7.1% -1.5%	84.47 -6.4% 0.8%	86.16 -4.5% 2.0%
Gold $/OZ 1221.0 2.4% -0.3%	1229.3 0.7% 0.7%	1233.6 1.0% 0.3%	1244.1 1.9% 0.9%	1240.5 1.6% -0.3%	1238.3 1.4% -0.2%

Note: USD: US dollar; JPY: Japanese Yen; CHF: Swiss

Franc; AUD: Australian dollar; Comm.: commodities; OZ: ounce

Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/

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

There is initial discussion of current and recent risk-determining events followed below by analysis of risk-measuring yields of the US and Germany and the USD/EUR rate.

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

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

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

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

Prior risk determining events are in an appendix below following Table III-1A. Current focus is on “tapering” quantitative easing by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). At the meeting on Sep 17, 2014, the FOMC decided additional tapering monthly bond purchases. Earlier programs are continued with an additional lower open-ended $15 billion of bond purchases per month, increasing the stock of $4,188,166 million “securities held outright” and bank reserves deposited at the Fed of $2,685,947 million (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1) (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm):

“The Committee currently judges that there is sufficient underlying strength in the broader economy to support ongoing improvement in labor market conditions. In light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions since the inception of the current asset purchase program, the Committee decided to make a further measured reduction in the pace of its asset purchases. Beginning in October, the Committee will add to its holdings of agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $5 billion per month rather than $10 billion per month, and will add to its holdings of longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $10 billion per month rather than $15 billion per month. The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee's sizable and still-increasing holdings of longer-term securities should maintain downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative, which in turn should promote a stronger economic recovery and help to ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with the Committee's dual mandate.“

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

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

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

There is sharp distinction between the two measures of unconventional monetary policy: (1) fixing of the overnight rate of fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent; and (2) outright purchase of Treasury and agency securities and mortgage-backed securities for the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Market are overreacting to the so-called “tapering” of outright purchases of $85 billion of securities per month for the balance sheet of the Fed. What is truly important is the fixing of the overnight fed funds at 0 to ¼ percent for which there is no end in sight as evident in the FOMC statement for Sep 17, 2014 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20140917a.htm):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another critical concern in the statement of the FOMC on Sep 18, 2013, is on the effects of tapering expectations on interest rates (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20130918a.htm):

“Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has been strengthening, but mortgage rates have risen further and fiscal policy is restraining economic growth” (emphasis added).

Will the FOMC increase purchases of mortgage-backed securities if mortgage rates increase?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenspan (1996) made similar warnings:

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

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

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

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

In testimony before the Committee on the Budget of the US Senate on May 8, 2014, Chair Yellen provides analysis of the current economic situation and outlook (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20140507a.htm):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W = Y/r (10

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

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

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

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

Friedman (1953) argues there are three lags in effects of monetary policy: (1) between the need for action and recognition of the need; (2) the recognition of the need and taking of actions; and (3) taking of action and actual effects. Friedman (1953) finds that the combination of these lags with insufficient knowledge of the current and future behavior of the economy causes discretionary economic policy to increase instability of the economy or standard deviations of real income σ_y and prices σ_p. Policy attempts to circumvent the lags by policy impulses based on forecasts. We are all naïve about forecasting. Data are available with lags and revised to maintain high standards of estimation. Policy simulation models estimate economic relations with structures prevailing before simulations of policy impulses such that parameters change as discovered by Lucas (1977). Economic agents adjust their behavior in ways that cause opposite results from those intended by optimal control policy as discovered by Kydland and Prescott (1977). Advance guidance attempts to circumvent expectations by economic agents that could reverse policy impulses but is of dubious effectiveness. There is strong case for using rules instead of discretionary authorities in monetary policy (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/search?q=rules+versus+authorities http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html).

There is concern of declining inflation and appreciation of the euro. In the “Introductory statement to the press conference,” on May 8, 2014, the President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi states (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140508.en.html):

“We will maintain a high degree of monetary accommodation and act swiftly, if required, with further monetary policy easing. We firmly reiterate that we continue to expect the key ECB interest rates to remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time. This expectation is based on an overall subdued outlook for inflation extending into the medium term, given the broad-based weakness of the economy, the high degree of unutilised capacity, and subdued money and credit creation. The Governing Council is unanimous in its commitment to using also unconventional instruments within its mandate in order to cope effectively with risks of a too prolonged period of low inflation. Further information and analysis concerning the outlook for inflation and the availability of bank loans to the private sector will be available in early June.”

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

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

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

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

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

“4 September 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

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

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

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

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

On Jun 5, 2014, the European Central Bank introduced cuts in interest rates and a negative rate paid on deposits of banks (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2014/html/pr140605.en.html):

“5 June 2014 - Monetary policy decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi analyzed the measures at a press conference (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140605.en.html).

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi reaffirmed the policy stance at the press conference following the meeting on Feb 6, 2014 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2014/html/is140206.en.html): “As I have said several times we are willing to act and we stand ready to act. We confirmed our forward guidance, so interest rates will stay at the present or lower levels for an extended period of time.”

The President of the European Central Bank (ECB) Mario Draghi explained the indefinite period of low policy rates during the press conference following the meeting on Jul 4, 2013 (http://www.ecb.int/press/pressconf/2013/html/is130704.en.html):

“Yes, that is why I said you haven’t listened carefully. The Governing Council has taken the unprecedented step of giving forward guidance in a rather more specific way than it ever has done in the past. In my statement, I said “The Governing Council expects the key…” – i.e. all interest rates – “…ECB interest rates to remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time.” It is the first time that the Governing Council has said something like this. And, by the way, what Mark Carney [Governor of the Bank of England] said in London is just a coincidence.”

The European Central Bank (ECB) lowered the policy rates on Nov 7, 2013 (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/date/2013/html/pr131107.en.html):

“PRESS RELEASE

7 November 2013 - Monetary policy decisions

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

1. The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 25 basis points to 0.25%, starting from the operation to be settled on 13 November 2013.
2. The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 25 basis points to 0.75%, with effect from 13 November 2013.
3. The interest rate on the deposit facility will remain unchanged at 0.00%.

The President of the ECB will comment on the considerations underlying these decisions at a press conference starting at 2.30 p.m. CET today.”

Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, explained as follows (http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pressconf/2013/html/is131107.en.html):

“Based on our regular economic and monetary analyses, we decided to lower the interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem by 25 basis points to 0.25% and the rate on the marginal lending facility by 25 basis points to 0.75%. The rate on the deposit facility will remain unchanged at 0.00%. These decisions are in line with our forward guidance of July 2013, given the latest indications of further diminishing underlying price pressures in the euro area over the medium term, starting from currently low annual inflation rates of below 1%. In keeping with this picture, monetary and, in particular, credit dynamics remain subdued. At the same time, inflation expectations for the euro area over the medium to long term continue to be firmly anchored in line with our aim of maintaining inflation rates below, but close to, 2%. Such a constellation suggests that we may experience a prolonged period of low inflation, to be followed by a gradual upward movement towards inflation rates below, but close to, 2% later on. Accordingly, our monetary policy stance will remain accommodative for as long as necessary. It will thereby also continue to assist the gradual economic recovery as reflected in confidence indicators up to October.”

The ECB decision together with the employment situation report on Fri Nov 8, 2013, influenced revaluation of the dollar. Market expectations were of relatively easier monetary policy in the euro area.

The statement of the meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England on Jul 4, 2013, may be leading toward the same forward guidance (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2013/007.aspx):

“At its meeting today, the Committee noted that the incoming data over the past couple of months had been broadly consistent with the central outlook for output growth and inflation contained in the May Report.  The significant upward movement in market interest rates would, however, weigh on that outlook; in the Committee’s view, the implied rise in the expected future path of Bank Rate was not warranted by the recent developments in the domestic economy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenspan (1996) made similar warnings:

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

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

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

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

In remarkable anticipation in 2005, Professor Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) warned of low liquidity and high risks of central bank policy rates approaching the zero bound (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 218-9). Professor Rajan excelled in a distinguished career as an academic economist in finance and was chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Shefali Anand and Jon Hilsenrath, writing on Oct 13, 2013, on “India’s central banker lobbies Fed,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304330904579133530766149484?KEYWORDS=Rajan), interviewed Raghuram G Rajan, who is the current Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which is India’s central bank (http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/AboutusDisplay.aspx). In this interview, Rajan argues that central banks should avoid unintended consequences on emerging market economies of inflows and outflows of capital triggered by monetary policy. Professor Rajan, in an interview with Kartik Goyal of Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/rajan-warns-of-global-policy-breakdown-as-emerging-markets-slide.html), warns of breakdown of global policy coordination. Portfolio reallocations induced by combination of zero interest rates and risk events stimulate carry trades that generate wide swings in world capital flows.

Professor Ronald I. McKinnon (2013Oct27), writing on “Tapering without tears—how to end QE3,” on Oct 27, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579153693500945608?KEYWORDS=Ronald+I+McKinnon), finds that the major central banks of the world have fallen into a “near-zero-interest-rate trap.” World economic conditions are weak such that exit from the zero interest rate trap could have adverse effects on production, investment and employment. The maintenance of interest rates near zero creates long-term near stagnation. The proposal of Professor McKinnon is credible, coordinated increase of policy interest rates toward 2 percent. Professor John B. Taylor at Stanford University, writing on “Economic failures cause political polarization,” on Oct 28, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303442004579121010753999086?KEYWORDS=John+B+Taylor), analyzes that excessive risks induced by near zero interest rates in 2003-2004 caused the financial crash. Monetary policy continued in similar paths during and after the global recession with resulting political polarization worldwide.

Second, Risk-Measuring Yields and Exchange Rate. The ten-year government bond of Spain was quoted at 6.868 percent on Aug 17, 2012, declining to 6.447 percent on Aug 17 and 6.403 percent on Aug 24, 2012, and the ten-year government bond of Italy fell from 5.894 percent on Aug 10, 2012 to 5.709 percent on Aug 17 and 5.618 percent on Aug 24, 2012. The yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain traded at 2.155 percent on Oct 17, 2014, and that of the ten-year sovereign bond of Italy at 2.482 percent (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Risk aversion is captured by flight of investors from risk financial assets to the government securities of the US and Germany. Diminishing aversion is captured by increase of the yield of the two- and ten-year Treasury notes and the two- and ten-year government bonds of Germany. Table III-1A provides yields of US and German governments bonds and the rate of USD/EUR. Yields of US and German government bonds decline during shocks of risk aversion and the dollar strengthens in the form of fewer dollars required to buy one euro. The yield of the US ten-year Treasury note fell from 2.202 percent on Aug 26, 2011 to 1.459 percent on Jul 20, 2012, reminiscent of experience during the Treasury-Fed accord of the 1940s that placed a ceiling on long-term Treasury debt (Hetzel and Leach 2001), while the yield of the ten-year government bond of Germany fell from 2.16 percent to 1.17 percent. In the week of Oct 17, 2014, the yield of the two-year Treasury decreased to 0.373 percent and that of the ten-year Treasury decreased to 2.197 percent while the yield of the two-year bond of Germany stabilized at minus 0.06 percent and the ten-year yield decreased to 0.86 percent; and the dollar depreciated at USD 1.2760/EUR. The zero interest rates for the monetary policy rate of the US, or fed funds rate, induce carry trades that ensure devaluation of the dollar if there is no risk aversion but the dollar appreciates in flight to safe haven during episodes of risk aversion. Unconventional monetary policy induces significant global financial instability, excessive risks and low liquidity. The ten-year Treasury yield of 2.197 percent is higher than consumer price inflation of 1.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/monetary-policy-world-inflation-waves.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/valuation-risks-world-inflation-waves.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html) and the expectation of higher inflation if risk aversion diminishes. The one-year Treasury yield of 0.104 percent (http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_bonds.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3002) is well below the 12-month consumer price inflation of 1.7 percent. Treasury securities continue to be safe haven for investors fearing risk but with concentration in shorter maturities such as the two-year Treasury. The lower part of Table III-1A provides the same flight to government securities of the US and Germany and the USD during the financial crisis and global recession and the beginning of the European debt crisis in the spring of 2010 with the USD trading at USD 1.192/EUR on Jun 7, 2010.

Table III-1A, Two- and Ten-Year Yields of Government Bonds of the US and Germany and US Dollar/EUR Exchange rate

	US 2Y	US 10Y	DE 2Y	DE 10Y	USD/ EUR
10/17/14	0.373	2.197	-0.06	0.86	1.2760
10/10/14	0.434	2.292	-0.06	0.89	1.2629
10/03/14	0.562	2.437	-0.07	0.92	1.2514
09/26/14	0.581	2.527	-0.07	0.97	1.2683
09/19/14	0.567	2.576	-0.07	1.04	1.2829
09/12/14	0.562	2.606	-0.06	1.08	1.2965
09/05/14	0.510	2.457	-0.08	0.93	1.2952
08/29/14	0.490	2.342	-0.04	0.89	1.3133
08/22/14	0.490	2.399	0.00	0.98	1.3242
08/15/14	0.405	2.341	-0.02	0.95	1.3400
08/08/14	0.446	2.420	0.00	1.05	1.3411
08/01/14	0.470	2.497	0.02	1.13	1.3430
07/25/14	0.494	2.464	0.02	1.15	1.3431
07/18/14	0.478	2.484	0.02	1.15	1.3525
07/11/14	0.446	2.516	0.01	1.20	1.3608
07/04/14	0.502	2.641	0.02	1.26	1.3595
06/27/14	0.463	2.536	0.03	1.26	1.3649
06/20/14	0.458	2.609	0.03	1.34	1.3600
06/13/14	0.451	2.605	0.02	1.36	1.3540
06/06/14	0.405	2.598	0.05	1.35	1.3643
05/30/14	0.373	2.473	0.06	1.36	1.3632
05/23/14	0.345	2.532	0.06	1.41	1.3630
05/16/14	0.357	2.520	0.09	1.33	1.3694
05/09/14	0.385	2.624	0.13	1.45	1.3760
05/02/14	0.421	2.583	0.12	1.45	1.3873
04/25/14	0.432	2.668	0.17	1.48	1.3833
04/18/14	0.401	2.724	0.17	1.51	1.3813
04/11/14	0.357	2.628	0.16	1.50	1.3885
04/04/14	0.413	2.724	0.16	1.55	1.3704
03/28/14	0.448	2.721	0.14	1.55	1.3752
03/21/14	0.431	2.743	0.20	1.63	1.3793
03/14/14	0.340	2.654	0.15	1.54	1.3912
03/07/14	0.367	2.792	0.17	1.65	1.3877
02/28/14	0.323	2.655	0.13	1.62	1.3801
02/21/14	0.316	2.730	0.12	1.66	1.3739
02/14/14	0.313	2.743	0.11	1.68	1.3693
02/07/14	0.305	2.681	0.09	1.66	1.3635
1/31/14	0.330	2.645	0.07	1.66	1.3488
1/24/14	0.342	2.720	0.12	1.66	1.3677
1/17/14	0.373	2.818	0.17	1.75	1.3541
1/10/14	0.372	2.858	0.18	1.84	1.3670
1/3/14	0.398	2.999	0.20	1.94	1.3588
12/27/13	0.393	3.004	0.24	1.95	1.3746
12/20/13	0.377	2.891	0.22	1.87	1.3673
12/13/13	0.328	2.865	0.24	1.83	1.3742
12/6/13	0.304	2.858	0.21	1.84	1.3705
11/29/13	0.283	2.743	0.11	1.69	1.3592
11/22/13	0.280	2.746	0.13	1.74	1.3557
11/15/13	0.292	2.704	0.10	1.70	1.3497
11/8/13	0.316	2.750	0.10	1.76	1.3369
11/1/13	0.311	2.622	0.11	1.69	1.3488
10/25/13	0.305	2.507	0.18	1.75	1.3804
10/18/13	0.321	2.588	0.17	1.83	1.3686
10/11/13	0.344	2.688	0.18	1.86	1.3543
10/4/13	0.335	2.645	0.17	1.84	1.3557
9/27/13	0.335	2.626	0.16	1.78	1.3523
9/20/13	0.333	2.734	0.21	1.94	1.3526
9/13/13	0.433	2.890	0.22	1.97	1.3297
9/6/13	0.461	2.941	0.26	1.95	1.3179
8/23/13	0.401	2.784	0.23	1.85	1.3221
8/23/13	0.374	2.818	0.28	1.93	1.3380
8/16/13	0.341	2.829	0.22	1.88	1.3328
8/9/13	0.30	2.579	0.16	1.68	1.3342
8/2/13	0.299	2.597	0.15	1.65	1.3281
7/26/13	0.315	2.565	0.15	1.66	1.3279
7/19/13	0.300	2.480	0.08	1.52	1.3141
7/12/13	0.345	2.585	0.10	1.56	1.3068
7/5/13	0.397	2.734	0.11	1.72	1.2832
6/28/13	0.357	2.486	0.19	1.73	1.3010
6/21/13	0.366	2.542	0.26	1.72	1.3122
6/14/13	0.276	2.125	0.12	1.51	1.3345
6/7/13	0.304	2.174	0.18	1.54	1.3219
5/31/13	0.299	2.132	0.06	1.50	1.2996
5/24/13	0.249	2.009	0.00	1.43	1.2932
5/17/13	0.248	1.952	-0.03	1.32	1.2837
5/10/13	0.239	1.896	0.05	1.38	1.2992
5/3/13	0.22	1.742	0.00	1.24	1.3115
4/26/13	0.209	1.663	0.00	1.21	1.3028
4/19/13	0.232	1.702	0.02	1.25	1.3052
4/12/13	0.228	1.719	0.02	1.26	1.3111
4/5/13	0.228	1.706	0.01	1.21	1.2995
3/29/13	0.244	1.847	-0.02	1.29	1.2818
3/22/13	0.242	1.931	0.03	1.38	1.2988
3/15/13	0.246	1.992	0.05	1.46	1.3076
3/8/13	0.256	2.056	0.09	1.53	1.3003
3/1/13	0.236	1.842	0.03	1.41	1.3020
2/22/13	0.252	1.967	0.13	1.57	1.3190
2/15/13	0.268	2.007	0.19	1.65	1.3362
2/8/13	0.252	1.949	0.18	1.61	1.3365
2/1/13	0.26	2.024	0.25	1.67	1.3642
1/25/13	0.278	1.947	0.26	1.64	1.3459
1/18/13	0.252	1.84	0.18	1.56	1.3321
1/11/13	0.247	1.862	0.13	1.58	1.3343
1/4/13	0.262	1.898	0.08	1.54	1.3069
12/28/12	0.252	1.699	-0.01	1.31	1.3218
12/21/12	0.272	1.77	-0.01	1.38	1.3189
12/14/12	0.232	1.704	-0.04	1.35	1.3162
12/7/12	0.256	1.625	-0.08	1.30	1.2926
11/30/12	0.248	1.612	0.01	1.39	1.2987
11/23/12	0.273	1.691	0.00	1.44	1.2975
11/16/12	0.24	1.584	-0.03	1.33	1.2743
11/9/12	0.256	1.614	-0.03	1.35	1.2711
11/2/12	0.274	1.715	0.01	1.45	1.2838
10/26/12	0.299	1.748	0.05	1.54	1.2942
10/19/12	0.296	1.766	0.11	1.59	1.3023
10/12/12	0.264	1.663	0.04	1.45	1.2953
10/5/12	0.26	1.737	0.06	1.52	1.3036
9/28/12	0.236	1.631	0.02	1.44	1.2859
9/21/12	0.26	1.753	0.04	1.60	1.2981
9/14/12	0.252	1.863	0.10	1.71	1.3130
9/7/12	0.252	1.668	0.03	1.52	1.2816
8/31/12	0.225	1.543	-0.03	1.33	1.2575
8/24/12	0.266	1.684	-0.01	1.35	1.2512
8/17/12	0.288	1.814	-0.04	1.50	1.2335
8/10/12	0.267	1.658	-0.07	1.38	1.2290
8/3/12	0.242	1.569	-0.02	1.42	1.2387
7/27/12	0.244	1.544	-0.03	1.40	1.2320
7/20/12	0.207	1.459	-0.07	1.17	1.2158
7/13/12	0.24	1.49	-0.04	1.26	1.2248
7/6/12	0.272	1.548	-0.01	1.33	1.2288
6/29/12	0.305	1.648	0.12	1.58	1.2661
6/22/12	0.309	1.676	0.14	1.58	1.2570
6/15/12	0.272	1.584	0.07	1.44	1.2640
6/8/12	0.268	1.635	0.04	1.33	1.2517
6/1/12	0.248	1.454	0.01	1.17	1.2435
5/25/12	0.291	1.738	0.05	1.37	1.2518
5/18/12	0.292	1.714	0.05	1.43	1.2780
5/11/12	0.248	1.845	0.09	1.52	1.2917
5/4/12	0.256	1.876	0.08	1.58	1.3084
4/6/12	0.31	2.058	0.14	1.74	1.3096
3/30/12	0.335	2.214	0.21	1.79	1.3340
3/2/12	0.29	1.977	0.16	1.80	1.3190
2/24/12	0.307	1.977	0.24	1.88	1.3449
1/6/12	0.256	1.957	0.17	1.85	1.2720
12/30/11	0.239	1.871	0.14	1.83	1.2944
8/26/11	0.20	2.202	0.65	2.16	1.450
8/19/11	0.192	2.066	0.65	2.11	1.4390
6/7/10	0.74	3.17	0.49	2.56	1.192
3/5/09	0.89	2.83	1.19	3.01	1.254
12/17/08	0.73	2.20	1.94	3.00	1.442
10/27/08	1.57	3.79	2.61	3.76	1.246
7/14/08	2.47	3.88	4.38	4.40	1.5914
6/26/03	1.41	3.55	NA	3.62	1.1423

Note: DE: Germany

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/

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

Appendix: Prior Risk Determining Events. Current risk analysis concentrates on deciphering what the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may decide on quantitative easing. The week of May 24 was dominated by the testimony of Chairman Bernanke to the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress on May 22, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20130522a.htm), followed by questions and answers and the release on May 22, 2013 of the minutes of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) from Apr 30 to May 1, 2013 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20130501.htm). Monetary policy emphasizes communication of policy intentions to avoid that expectations reverse outcomes in reality (Kydland and Prescott 1977). Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “In bid for clarity, Fed delivers opacity,” on May 23, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323336104578501552642287218.html?KEYWORDS=articles+by+jon+hilsenrath), analyzes discrepancies in communication by the Fed. The annotated chart of values of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) during trading on May 23, 2013 provided by Hinselrath, links the prepared testimony of Chairman Bernanke at 10:AM, following questions and answers and the release of the minutes of the FOMC at 2PM. Financial markets strengthened between 10 and 10:30AM on May 23, 2013, perhaps because of the statement by Chairman Bernanke in prepared testimony (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20130522a.htm):

“A premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise temporarily but would also carry a substantial risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further. Such outcomes tend to be associated with extended periods of lower, not higher, interest rates, as well as poor returns on other assets. Moreover, renewed economic weakness would pose its own risks to financial stability.”

In that testimony, Chairman Bernanke (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20130522a.htm) also analyzes current weakness of labor markets:

“Despite this improvement, the job market remains weak overall: The unemployment rate is still well above its longer-run normal level, rates of long-term unemployment are historically high, and the labor force participation rate has continued to move down. Moreover, nearly 8 million people are working part time even though they would prefer full-time work. High rates of unemployment and underemployment are extraordinarily costly: Not only do they impose hardships on the affected individuals and their families, they also damage the productive potential of the economy as a whole by eroding workers' skills and--particularly relevant during this commencement season--by preventing many young people from gaining workplace skills and experience in the first place. The loss of output and earnings associated with high unemployment also reduces government revenues and increases spending on income-support programs, thereby leading to larger budget deficits and higher levels of public debt than would otherwise occur.”

Hilsenrath (op. cit. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323336104578501552642287218.html?KEYWORDS=articles+by+jon+hilsenrath) analyzes the subsequent decline of the market from 10:30AM to 10:40AM as Chairman Bernanke responded questions with the statement that withdrawal of stimulus would be determined by data but that it could begin in one of the “next few meetings.” The DJIA recovered part of the losses between 10:40AM and 2PM. The minutes of the FOMC released at 2PM on May 23, 2013, contained a phrase that troubled market participants (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20130501.htm): “A number of participants expressed willingness to adjust the flow of purchases downward as early as the June meeting if the economic information received by that time showed evidence of sufficiently strong and sustained growth; however, views differed about what evidence would be necessary and the likelihood of that outcome.” The DJIA closed at 15,387.58 on May 21, 2013 and fell to 15,307.17 at the close on May 22, 2013, with the loss of 0.5 percent occurring after release of the minutes of the FOMC at 2PM when the DJIA stood at around 15,400. The concern about exist of the Fed from stimulus affected markets worldwide as shown in declines of equity indexes in Table III-1 with delays because of differences in trading hours. This behavior shows the trap of unconventional monetary policy with no exit from zero interest rates without risking financial crash and likely adverse repercussions on economic activity.

Financial markets worldwide were affected by the reduction of policy rates of the European Central Bank (ECB) on May 2, 2013. (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2013/html/pr130502.en.html):

“2 May 2013 - Monetary policy decisions

At today’s meeting, which was held in Bratislava, the Governing Council of the ECB took the following monetary policy decisions:

1. The interest rate on the main refinancing operations of the Eurosystem will be decreased by 25 basis points to 0.50%, starting from the operation to be settled on 8 May 2013.
2. The interest rate on the marginal lending facility will be decreased by 50 basis points to 1.00%, with effect from 8 May 2013.
3. The interest rate on the deposit facility will remain unchanged at 0.00%.”

Financial markets in Japan and worldwide were shocked by new bold measures of “quantitative and qualitative monetary easing” by the Bank of Japan (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf). The objective of policy is to “achieve the price stability target of 2 percent in terms of the year-on-year rate of change in the consumer price index (CPI) at the earliest possible time, with a time horizon of about two years” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf). The main elements of the new policy are as follows:

1. Monetary Base Control. Most central banks in the world pursue interest rates instead of monetary aggregates, injecting bank reserves to lower interest rates to desired levels. The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has shifted back to monetary aggregates, conducting money market operations with the objective of increasing base money, or monetary liabilities of the government, at the annual rate of 60 to 70 trillion yen. The BOJ estimates base money outstanding at “138 trillion yen at end-2012) and plans to increase it to “200 trillion yen at end-2012 and 270 trillion yen at end 2014” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf).
2. Maturity Extension of Purchases of Japanese Government Bonds. Purchases of bonds will be extended even up to bonds with maturity of 40 years with the guideline of extending the average maturity of BOJ bond purchases from three to seven years. The BOJ estimates the current average maturity of Japanese government bonds (JGB) at around seven years. The BOJ plans to purchase about 7.5 trillion yen per month (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/rel130404d.pdf). Takashi Nakamichi, Tatsuo Ito and Phred Dvorak, wiring on “Bank of Japan mounts bid for revival,” on Apr 4, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323646604578401633067110420.html), find that the limit of maturities of three years on purchases of JGBs was designed to avoid views that the BOJ would finance uncontrolled government deficits.
3. Seigniorage. The BOJ is pursuing coordination with the government that will take measures to establish “sustainable fiscal structure with a view to ensuring the credibility of fiscal management” (http://www.boj.or.jp/en/announcements/release_2013/k130404a.pdf).
4. Diversification of Asset Purchases. The BOJ will engage in transactions of exchange traded funds (ETF) and real estate investment trusts (REITS) and not solely on purchases of JGBs. Purchases of ETFs will be at an annual rate of increase of one trillion yen and purchases of REITS at 30 billion yen.

The European sovereign debt crisis continues to shake financial markets and the world economy. Debt resolution within the international financial architecture requires that a country be capable of borrowing on its own from the private sector. Mechanisms of debt resolution have included participation of the private sector (PSI), or “bail in,” that has been voluntary, almost coercive, agreed and outright coercive (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture: G7, IMF, BIS, Creditors and Debtors (2005), Chapter 4, 187-202). Private sector involvement requires losses by the private sector in bailouts of highly indebted countries. The essence of successful private sector involvement is to recover private-sector credit of the highly indebted country. Mary Watkins, writing on “Bank bailouts reshuffle risk hierarchy,” published on Mar 19, 2013, in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7666546a-9095-11e2-a456-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2OSpbvCn8) analyzes the impact of the bailout or resolution of Cyprus banks on the hierarchy of risks of bank liabilities. Cyprus banks depend mostly on deposits with less reliance on debt, raising concerns in creditors of fixed-income debt and equity holders in banks in the euro area. Uncertainty remains as to the dimensions and structure of losses in private sector involvement or “bail in” in other rescue programs in the euro area. Alkman Granitsas, writing on “Central bank details losses at Bank of Cyprus,” on Mar 30, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324000704578392502889560768.html), analyzes the impact of the agreement with the €10 billion agreement with IMF and the European Union on the banks of Cyprus. The recapitalization plan provides for immediate conversion of 37.5 percent of all deposits in excess of €100,000 to shares of special class of the bank. An additional 22.5 percent will be frozen without interest until the plan is completed. The overwhelming risk factor is the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). 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):

“However, many participants also expressed some concerns about potential costs and risks arising from further asset purchases. Several participants discussed the possible complications that additional purchases could cause for the eventual withdrawal of policy accommodation, a few mentioned the prospect of inflationary risks, and some noted that further asset purchases could foster market behavior that could undermine financial stability. Several participants noted that a very large portfolio of long-duration assets would, under certain circumstances, expose the Federal Reserve to significant capital losses when these holdings were unwound, but others pointed to offsetting factors and one noted that losses would not impede the effective operation of monetary policy.

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.

An important risk event is the reduction of growth prospects in the euro zone discussed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in “Introductory statement to the press conference,” on Dec 6, 2012 (http://www.ecb.int/press/pressconf/2012/html/is121206.en.html):

“This assessment is reflected in the December 2012 Eurosystem staff macroeconomic projections for the euro area, which foresee annual real GDP growth in a range between -0.6% and -0.4% for 2012, between -0.9% and 0.3% for 2013 and between 0.2% and 2.2% for 2014. Compared with the September 2012 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the ranges for 2012 and 2013 have been revised downwards.

The Governing Council continues to see downside risks to the economic outlook for the euro area. These are mainly related to uncertainties about the resolution of sovereign debt and governance issues in the euro area, geopolitical issues and fiscal policy decisions in the United States possibly dampening sentiment for longer than currently assumed and delaying further the recovery of private investment, employment and consumption.”

Reuters, writing on “Bundesbank cuts German growth forecast,” on Dec 7, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e845114-4045-11e2-8f90-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EMQxzs3u), informs that the central bank of Germany, Deutsche Bundesbank reduced its forecast of growth for the economy of Germany to 0.7 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.0 percent in Jun and to 0.4 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.6 percent while the forecast for 2014 is at 1.9 percent.

The major risk event during earlier weeks was sharp decline of sovereign yields with the yield on the ten-year bond of Spain falling to 5.309 percent and that of the ten-year bond of Italy falling to 4.473 percent on Fri Nov 30, 2012 and 5.366 percent for the ten-year of Spain and 4.527 percent for the ten-year of Italy on Fri Nov 14, 2012 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Vanessa Mock and Frances Robinson, writing on “EU approves Spanish bank’s restructuring plans,” on Nov 28, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578146520774638316.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the European Union regulators approved restructuring of four Spanish banks (Bankia, NCG Banco, Catalunya Banc and Banco de Valencia), which helped to calm sovereign debt markets. Harriet Torry and James Angelo, writing on “Germany approves Greek aid,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578150532603095790.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the German parliament approved the plan to provide Greece a tranche of €44 billion in promised financial support, which is subject to sustainability analysis of the bond repurchase program later in Dec 2012. A hurdle for sustainability of repurchasing debt is that Greece’s sovereign bonds have appreciated significantly from around 24 percent for the bond maturing in 21 years and 20 percent for the bond maturing in 31 years in Aug 2012 to around 17 percent for the 21-year maturity and 15 percent for the 31-year maturing in Nov 2012. Declining years are equivalent to increasing prices, making the repurchase more expensive. Debt repurchase is intended to reduce bonds in circulation, turning Greek debt more manageable. Ben McLannahan, writing on “Japan unveils $11bn stimulus package,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/adc0569a-3aa5-11e2-baac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN), informs that the cabinet in Japan approved another stimulus program of $11 billion, which is twice larger than another stimulus plan in late Oct and close to elections in Dec. Henry Sender, writing on “Tokyo faces weak yen and high bond yields,” published on Nov 29, 2012 in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9a7178d0-393d-11e2-afa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN), analyzes concerns of regulators on duration of bond holdings in an environment of likelihood of increasing yields and yen depreciation.

First, Risk-Determining Events. The European Council statement on Nov 23, 2012 asked the President of the European Commission “to continue the work and pursue consultations in the coming weeks to find a consensus among the 27 over the Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2014-2020” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf) Discussions will continue in the effort to reach agreement on a budget: “A European budget is important for the cohesion of the Union and for jobs and growth in all our countries” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf). There is disagreement between the group of countries requiring financial assistance and those providing bailout funds. Gabrielle Steinhauser and Costas Paris, writing on “Greek bond rally puts buyback in doubt,” on Nov 23, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578136362599130992.html?mg=reno64-wsj) find a new hurdle in rising prices of Greek sovereign debt that may make more difficult buybacks of debt held by investors. European finance ministers continue their efforts to reach an agreement for Greece that meets with approval of the European Central Bank and the IMF. The European Council (2012Oct19 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133004.pdf ) reached conclusions on strengthening the euro area and providing unified financial supervision:

“The European Council called for work to proceed on the proposals on the Single Supervisory Mechanism as a matter of priority with the objective of agreeing on the legislative framework by 1st January 2013 and agreed on a number of orientations to that end. It also took note of issues relating to the integrated budgetary and economic policy frameworks and democratic legitimacy and accountability which should be further explored. It agreed that the process towards deeper economic and monetary union should build on the EU's institutional and legal framework and be characterised by openness and transparency towards non-euro area Member States and respect for the integrity of the Single Market. It looked forward to a specific and time-bound roadmap to be presented at its December 2012 meeting, so that it can move ahead on all essential building blocks on which a genuine EMU should be based.”

Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. The Bank of Spain released new data on doubtful debtors in Spain’s credit institutions (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/Agenda/Datos_de_credit_a6cd708c59cf931.html). In 2006, the value of doubtful credits reached €10,859 million or 0.7 percent of total credit of €1,508,626 million. In Aug 2012, doubtful credit reached €178,579 million or 10.5 percent of total credit of €1,698,714 million.

There are three critical factors influencing world financial markets. (1) Spain could request formal bailout from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) that may also affect Italy’s international borrowing. David Roman and Jonathan House, writing on “Spain risks backlash with budget plan,” on Sep 27, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443916104578021692765950384.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) analyze Spain’s proposal of reducing government expenditures by €13 billion, or around $16.7 billion, increasing taxes in 2013, establishing limits on early retirement and cutting the deficit by €65 billion through 2014. Banco de España, Bank of Spain, contracted consulting company Oliver Wyman to conduct rigorous stress tests of the resilience of its banking system. (Stress tests and their use are analyzed by Pelaez and Pelaez Globalization and the State Vol. I (2008b), 95-100, International Financial Architecture (2005) 112-6, 123-4, 130-3).) The results are available from Banco de España (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/infointeres/reestructuracion/ http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). The assumptions of the adverse scenario used by Oliver Wyman are quite tough for the three-year period from 2012 to 2014: “6.5 percent cumulative decline of GDP, unemployment rising to 27.2 percent and further declines of 25 percent of house prices and 60 percent of land prices (http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). Fourteen banks were stress tested with capital needs estimates of seven banks totaling €59.3 billion. The three largest banks of Spain, Banco Santander (http://www.santander.com/csgs/Satellite/CFWCSancomQP01/es_ES/Corporativo.html), BBVA (http://www.bbva.com/TLBB/tlbb/jsp/ing/home/index.jsp) and Caixabank (http://www.caixabank.com/index_en.html), with 43 percent of exposure under analysis, have excess capital of €37 billion in the adverse scenario in contradiction with theories that large, international banks are necessarily riskier. Jonathan House, writing on “Spain expects wider deficit on bank aid,” on Sep 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444138104578028484168511130.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), analyzes the 2013 budget plan of Spain that will increase the deficit of 7.4 percent of GDP in 2012, which is above the target of 6.3 percent under commitment with the European Union. The ratio of debt to GDP will increase to 85.3 percent in 2012 and 90.5 percent in 2013 while the 27 members of the European Union have an average debt/GDP ratio of 83 percent at the end of IIQ2012. (2) Symmetric inflation targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even after the economy grows again at or close to potential output. Monetary easing by unconventional measures is now apparently open ended in perpetuity as provided in the statement of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 13, 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm):

“To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it 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. These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.

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 economic recovery strengthens.”

In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is the concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation.

(2) The European Central Bank (ECB) approved a new program of bond purchases under the name “Outright Monetary Transactions” (OMT). The ECB will purchase sovereign bonds of euro zone member countries that have a program of conditionality under the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) that is converting into the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). These programs provide enhancing the solvency of member countries in a transition period of structural reforms and fiscal adjustment. The purchase of bonds by the ECB would maintain debt costs of sovereigns at sufficiently low levels to permit adjustment under the EFSF/ESM programs. Purchases of bonds are not limited quantitatively with discretion by the ECB as to how much is necessary to support countries with adjustment programs. Another feature of the OMT of the ECB is sterilization of bond purchases: funds injected to pay for the bonds would be withdrawn or sterilized by ECB transactions. The statement by the European Central Bank on the program of OTM is as follows (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html):

“6 September 2012 - Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions

As announced on 2 August 2012, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has today taken decisions on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets that aim at safeguarding an appropriate monetary policy transmission and the singleness of the monetary policy. These will be known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) and will be conducted within the following framework:

Conditionality

A necessary condition for Outright Monetary Transactions is strict and effective conditionality attached to an appropriate European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism (EFSF/ESM) programme. Such programmes can take the form of a full EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programme or a precautionary programme (Enhanced Conditions Credit Line), provided that they include the possibility of EFSF/ESM primary market purchases. The involvement of the IMF shall also be sought for the design of the country-specific conditionality and the monitoring of such a programme.

The Governing Council will consider Outright Monetary Transactions to the extent that they are warranted from a monetary policy perspective as long as programme conditionality is fully respected, and terminate them once their objectives are achieved or when there is non-compliance with the macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary programme.

Following a thorough assessment, the Governing Council will decide on the start, continuation and suspension of Outright Monetary Transactions in full discretion and acting in accordance with its monetary policy mandate.

Coverage

Outright Monetary Transactions will be considered for future cases of EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programmes or precautionary programmes as specified above. They may also be considered for Member States currently under a macroeconomic adjustment programme when they will be regaining bond market access.

Transactions will be focused on the shorter part of the yield curve, and in particular on sovereign bonds with a maturity of between one and three years.

No ex ante quantitative limits are set on the size of Outright Monetary Transactions.

Creditor treatment

The Eurosystem intends to clarify in the legal act concerning Outright Monetary Transactions that it accepts the same (pari passu) treatment as private or other creditors with respect to bonds issued by euro area countries and purchased by the Eurosystem through Outright Monetary Transactions, in accordance with the terms of such bonds.

Sterilisation

The liquidity created through Outright Monetary Transactions will be fully sterilised.

Transparency

Aggregate Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and their market values will be published on a weekly basis. Publication of the average duration of Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and the breakdown by country will take place on a monthly basis.

Securities Markets Programme

Following today’s decision on Outright Monetary Transactions, the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) is herewith terminated. The liquidity injected through the SMP will continue to be absorbed as in the past, and the existing securities in the SMP portfolio will be held to maturity.”

Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Fed sets stage for stimulus,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623220212805132.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes the essay presented by Chairman Bernanke at the Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers, as defending past stimulus with unconventional measures of monetary policy that could be used to reduce extremely high unemployment. Chairman Bernanke (2012JHAug31, 18-9) does support further unconventional monetary policy impulses if required by economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm):

“Over the past five years, the Federal Reserve has acted to support economic growth and foster job creation, and it is important to achieve further progress, particularly in the labor market. Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”

Professor John H Cochrane (2012Aug31), at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, writing on “The Federal Reserve: from central bank to central planner,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609384030304936.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion), analyzes that the departure of central banks from open market operations into purchase of assets with risks to taxpayers and direct allocation of credit subject to political influence has caused them to abandon their political independence and accountability. Cochrane (2012Aug31) finds a return to the proposition of Milton Friedman in the 1960s that central banks can cause inflation and macroeconomic instability.

Mario Draghi (2012Aug29), President of the European Central Bank, also reiterated the need of exceptional and unconventional central bank policies (http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120829.en.html):

“Yet it should be understood that fulfilling our mandate sometimes requires us to go beyond standard monetary policy tools. When markets are fragmented or influenced by irrational fears, our monetary policy signals do not reach citizens evenly across the euro area. We have to fix such blockages to ensure a single monetary policy and therefore price stability for all euro area citizens. This may at times require exceptional measures. But this is our responsibility as the central bank of the euro area as a whole.

The ECB is not a political institution. But it is committed to its responsibilities as an institution of the European Union. As such, we never lose sight of our mission to guarantee a strong and stable currency. The banknotes that we issue bear the European flag and are a powerful symbol of European identity.”

Buiter (2011Oct31) analyzes that the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) would need a “bigger bazooka” to bail out euro members in difficulties that could possibly be provided by the ECB. Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. Table III-7 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides the combined GDP in 2012 of the highly indebted euro zone members estimated in the latest World Economic Outlook of the IMF at $4167 billion or 33.1 percent of total euro zone GDP of $12,586 billion. Using the WEO of the IMF, Table III-8 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides debt of the highly indebted euro zone members at $3927.8 billion in 2012 that increases to $5809.9 billion when adding Germany’s debt, corresponding to 167.0 percent of Germany’s GDP. There are additional sources of debt in bailing out banks. The dimensions of the problem may require more firepower than a bazooka perhaps that of the largest conventional bomb of all times of 44,000 pounds experimentally detonated only once by the US in 1948 (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html).

Chart III-1A of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the ten-year, two-year and one-month Treasury constant maturity yields together with the overnight fed funds rate, and the yield of the corporate bond with Moody’s rating of Baa. The riskier yield of the Baa corporate bond exceeds the relatively riskless yields of the Treasury securities. The beginning yields in Chart III-1A for Jan 2, 1962, are 2.75 percent for the fed fund rates and 4.06 percent for the ten-year Treasury constant maturity. On July 31, 2001, the yields in Chart III-1A are 3.67 percent for one month, 3.79 percent for two years, 5.07 percent for ten years, 3.82 percent for the fed funds rate and 7.85 percent for the Baa corporate bond. On July 30, 2007, yields inverted with the one-month at 4.95 percent, the two-year at 4.59 percent and the ten-year at 5.82 percent with the yield of the Baa corporate bond at 6.70 percent. Another interesting point is for Oct 31, 2008, with the yield of the Baa jumping to 9.54 percent and the Treasury yields declining: one month 0.12 percent, two years 1.56 percent and ten years 4.01 percent during a flight to the dollar and government securities analyzed by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). Another spike in the series is for Apr 4, 2006 with the yield of the corporate Baa bond at 8.63 and the Treasury yields of 0.12 percent for one month, 0.94 for two years and 2.95 percent for ten years. During the beginning of the flight from risk financial assets to US government securities (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009), the one-month yield was 0.07 percent, the two-year yield 1.64 percent and the ten-year yield 3.41. The combination of zero fed funds rate and quantitative easing caused sharp decline of the yields from 2008 and 2009. Yield declines have also occurred during periods of financial risk aversion, including the current one of stress of financial markets in Europe. The final point of Chart III1-A is for Oct 16, 2014, with the one-month yield at 0.04 percent, the two-year at 0.35 percent, the ten-year at 2.17 percent, the fed funds rate at 0.09 percent and the corporate Baa bond at 4.64 percent. There is an evident increase in the yields of the 10-year Treasury constant maturity and the Moody’s Baa corporate bond with subsequent decline in wide swings of portfolio reallocations.

Chart III-1A, US, Ten-Year, Two-Year and One-Month Treasury Constant Maturity Yields, Overnight Fed Funds Rate and Yield of Moody’s Baa Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 1962-Oct 16, 2014

Note: US Recessions in shaded areas

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

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

Inyoung Hwang, writing on “Fed optimism spurs record bets against stock volatility,” on Aug 21, 2014, published in Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-21/fed-optimism-spurs-record-bets-against-stock-voalitlity.html), informs that the S&P 500 is trading at 16.6 times estimated earnings, which is higher than the five-year average of 14.3 Tom Lauricella, writing on Mar 31, 2014, on “Stock investors see hints of a stronger quarter,” published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304157204579473513864900656?mod=WSJ_smq0314_LeadStory&mg=reno64-wsj), finds views of stronger earnings among many money managers with positive factors for equity markets in continuing low interest rates and US economic growth. There is important information in the Quarterly Markets review of the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/quarterly-markets-review-03312014.html) for IQ2014. Alexandra Scaggs, writing on “Tepid profits, roaring stocks,” on May 16, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487460105747412.html), analyzes stabilization of earnings growth: 70 percent of 458 reporting companies in the S&P 500 stock index reported earnings above forecasts but sales fell 0.2 percent relative to forecasts of increase of 0.5 percent. Paul Vigna, writing on “Earnings are a margin story but for how long,” on May 17, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/17/earnings-are-a-margin-story-but-for-how-long/), analyzes that corporate profits increase with stagnating sales while companies manage costs tightly. More than 90 percent of S&P components reported moderate increase of earnings of 3.7 percent in IQ2013 relative to IQ2012 with decline of sales of 0.2 percent. Earnings and sales have been in declining trend. In IVQ2009, growth of earnings reached 104 percent and sales jumped 13 percent. Net margins reached 8.92 percent in IQ2013, which is almost the same at 8.95 percent in IIIQ2006. Operating margins are 9.58 percent. There is concern by market participants that reversion of margins to the mean could exert pressure on earnings unless there is more accelerated growth of sales. Vigna (op. cit.) finds sales growth limited by weak economic growth. Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Falling revenue dings stocks,” on Oct 20, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578066933466076070.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), identifies a key financial vulnerability: falling revenues across markets for United States reporting companies. Global economic slowdown is reducing corporate sales and squeezing corporate strategies. Linebaugh quotes data from Thomson Reuters that 100 companies of the S&P 500 index have reported declining revenue only 1 percent higher in Jun-Sep 2012 relative to Jun-Sep 2011 but about 60 percent of the companies are reporting lower sales than expected by analysts with expectation that revenue for the S&P 500 will be lower in Jun-Sep 2012 for the entities represented in the index. Results of US companies are likely repeated worldwide. Future company cash flows derive from investment projects. In IQ1980, real gross private domestic investment in the US was $951.6 billion of chained 2009 dollars, growing to $1,254.6 billion in IVQ1987 or 31.8 percent. Real gross private domestic investment in the US increased 3.8 percent from $2,605.2 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,703.7 billion in IIQ2014, which is stagnation in comparison with growth of 31.8 percent in the comparable first twenty quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1987. Real private fixed investment increased 0.3 percent from $2,586.3 billion of chained 2009 dollars in IVQ2007 to $2,594.5 billion in IIQ2014. Private fixed investment fell relative to IVQ2007 in all quarters preceding IIQ2014. Growth of real private investment in is mediocre for all but four quarters from IIQ2011 to IQ2012. The investment decision of United States corporations has been fractured in the current economic cycle in preference of cash. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA rebounded with $37.1 billion in IIIQ2013 and $3.1 billion in IVQ2013. Corporate profits with IVA and CCA fell $201.7 billion in IIQ2014 and increased $164.1 billion in IIQ2014. In IIIQ2013, profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased $28.7 billion and decreased $24.7 billion in IVQ2013. In IQ2014, profits after tax with IVA and CCA decreased $268.6 billion. Profits after tax with IVA and CCA increased at $118.4 billion in IIQ2014. Net dividends fell at $187.0 billion in IIIQ2013 and increased at $80.6 billion in IVQ2013. Net dividends fell at $89.5 billion in IIQ2014 and fell at $0.5 billion in IIQ2014. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA rose at $215.8 billion in IIIQ2013 and fell at $105.5 billion in IVQ2013. Undistributed profits with IVA and CCA fell $178.9 percent in IQ2014 and increased at $118.8 billion in IIQ2014. Undistributed corporate profits swelled 262.2 percent from $107.7 billion in IQ2007 to $390.1 billion in IIQ2014 and changed signs from minus $55.9 billion in current dollars in IVQ2007. Uncertainty originating in fiscal, regulatory and monetary policy causes wide swings in expectations and decisions by the private sector with adverse effects on investment, real economic activity and employment.

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

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

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

There is mixed performance in equity indexes with several indexes in Table III-1 decreasing in the week ending on Oct 17, 2014, after wide swings caused by reallocations of investment portfolios worldwide. Stagnating revenues, corporate cash hoarding and declining investment are causing reevaluation of discounted net earnings with deteriorating views on the world economy and United States fiscal sustainability but investors have been driving indexes higher. DJIA increased 1.6 percent on Oct 17, decreasing 1.0 percent in the week. Germany’s DAX increased 3.1 percent on Oct 17 and increased 0.7 percent in the week. Dow Global increased 1.3 percent on Oct 17 and decreased 0.9 percent in the week. Japan’s Nikkei Average decreased 1.4 percent on Oct 17 and decreased 5.0 percent in the week as the yen continues oscillating but relatively weaker and the stock market gains in expectations of success of fiscal stimulus by a new administration and monetary stimulus by a new board of the Bank of Japan. Dow Asia Pacific TSM decreased 0.8 percent on Oct 17 and decreased 2.2 percent in the week. Shanghai Composite that decreased 0.2 percent on Mar 8 and decreased 1.7 percent in the week of Mar 8, falling below 2000 to close at 1980.13 on Fri Nov 30 but closing at 2341.18 on Oct 17 for decrease of 0.7 percent and decreasing 1.4 percent in the week. There is deceleration with oscillations of the world economy that could affect corporate revenue and equity valuations, causing fluctuations in equity markets with increases during favorable risk appetite.

Commodities were mixed in the week of Oct 17, 2014. Table III-1 shows that WTI decreased 3.6 percent in the week of Oct 17 while Brent decreased 4.5 percent in the week with turmoil in oil producing regions. Gold decreased 0.2 percent on Oct 17 and increased 1.4 percent in the week.

Table III-2 provides an update of the consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem. The balance sheet has swollen with the long-term refinancing operations (LTROs). Line 5 “Lending to Euro Area Credit Institutions Related to Monetary Policy” increased from €546,747 million on Dec 31, 2010, to €879,130 million on Dec 28, 2011 and €506,760 million on Oct 10, 2014, with some repayment of loans already occurring. The sum of line 5 and line 7 (“Securities of Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro”) has reached €1,067,853 million in the statement of Oct 17, 2014, with marginal reduction. There is high credit risk in these transactions with capital of only €95,312 million as analyzed by Cochrane (2012Aug31).

Table III-2, Consolidated Financial Statement of the Eurosystem, Million EUR

	Dec 31, 2010	Dec 28, 2011	Oct 10, 2014
1 Gold and other Receivables	367,402	419,822	334,531
2 Claims on Non Euro Area Residents Denominated in Foreign Currency	223,995	236,826	262,961
3 Claims on Euro Area Residents Denominated in Foreign Currency	26,941	95,355	28,773
4 Claims on Non-Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro	22,592	25,982	21,114
5 Lending to Euro Area Credit Institutions Related to Monetary Policy Operations Denominated in Euro	546,747	879,130	506,760
6 Other Claims on Euro Area Credit Institutions Denominated in Euro	45,654	94,989	65,653
7 Securities of Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro	457,427	610,629	561,093
8 General Government Debt Denominated in Euro	34,954	33,928	26,727
9 Other Assets	278,719	336,574	235,114
TOTAL ASSETS	2,004, 432	2,733,235	2,042,685
Memo Items
Sum of 5 and  7	1,004,174	1,489,759	1,067,853
Capital and Reserves	78,143	81,481	95,312

Source: European Central Bank

http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2011/html/fs110105.en.html

http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2011/html/fs111228.en.html

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pr/wfs/2014/html/fs141014.en.html

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk. Resolution of the European sovereign debt crisis with survival of the euro area would require success in the restructuring of Italy. Growth of the Italian economy would assure that success. A critical problem is that the common euro currency prevents Italy from devaluing the exchange to parity or the exchange rate that would permit export growth to promote internal economic activity, which could generate fiscal revenues for primary fiscal surpluses that ensure creditworthiness.

Professors Ricardo Caballero and Francesco Giavazzi (2012Jan15) find that the resolution of the European sovereign crisis with survival of the euro area would require success in the restructuring of Italy. Growth of the Italian economy would ensure that success. A critical problem is that the common euro currency prevents Italy from devaluing the exchange rate to parity or the exchange rate that would permit export growth to promote internal economic activity, which could generate fiscal revenues for primary fiscal surpluses that ensure creditworthiness. Fiscal consolidation and restructuring are important but of long-term gestation. Immediate growth of the Italian economy would consolidate the resolution of the sovereign debt crisis. Caballero and Giavazzi (2012Jan15) argue that 55 percent of the exports of Italy are to countries outside the euro area such that devaluation of 15 percent would be effective in increasing export revenue. Newly available data in Table III-3 providing Italy’s trade with regions and countries supports the argument of Caballero and Giavazzi (2012Jan15). Italy’s exports to the European Monetary Union (EMU), or euro area, are only 39.8 percent of the total in Aug 2014. Exports to the non-European Union area with share of 46.3 percent in Italy’s total exports are growing at minus 2.1 percent in Jan-Aug 2014 relative to Jan-Aug 2013 while those to EMU are growing at 2.5 percent.

Table III-3, Italy, Exports and Imports by Regions and Countries, % Share and 12-Month ∆%

Jul 2014	Exports % Share	∆% Jan-Aug 2014/ Jan-Aug 2013	Imports % Share	∆% Jan-Aug 2014/ Jan-Aug 2013
EU	53.7	3.5	55.3	0.8
EMU 18	39.8	2.5	44.3	-0.2
France	10.8	-1.1	8.4	0.6
Germany	12.4	3.9	14.7	2.6
Spain	4.4	4.0	4.5	2.4
UK	5.0	4.5	2.7	2.5
Non EU	46.3	-2.1	44.7	-5.8
Europe non EU	13.0	-9.0	12.1	-6.0
USA	6.9	9.0	3.2	6.4
China	2.5	6.1	6.4	4.7
OPEC	6.0	-6.9	8.1	-33.2
Total	100.0	0.9	100.0	-2.2

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

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/134544

Table III-4 provides Italy’s trade balance by regions and countries. Italy had trade deficit of €471 million with the 18 countries of the euro zone (EMU 18) in Aug 2014 and cumulative surplus of €1252 million in Jan-Aug 2014. Depreciation to parity could permit greater competitiveness in improving the trade surplus of €3748 million in Jan-Aug 2014 with Europe non-European Union, the trade surplus of €11,085 million with the US and the trade surplus with non-European Union of €14,712 million in Jan-Aug 2014. There is significant rigidity in the trade deficit in Jan-Aug 2014 of €9419 million with China. There is a trade surplus of €380 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 Aug 2014 Millions of Euro	Trade Balance Cumulative Jan-Aug 2014 Millions of Euro
EU	339	11,615
EMU 18	-471	1,252
France	370	7,843
Germany	-336	-2,198
Spain	-19	768
UK	688	6,922
Non EU	1,717	14,712
Europe non EU	662	3,748
USA	1,193	11,085
China	-1,166	-9,419
OPEC	-246	380
Total	2,056	26,327

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

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/134544

Growth rates of Italy’s trade and major products are in Table III-5 for the period Jan-Aug 2014 relative to Jan-Aug 2013. Growth rates of cumulative imports relative to a year earlier are negative for energy with minus 18.4 percent. Exports of durable goods grew 1.9 percent and exports of capital goods increased 2.6 percent. The higher rate of growth of exports of 0.9 percent in Jan-Aug 2014/Jan-Aug 2013 relative to that of imports of minus 2.2 percent may reflect weak demand in Italy with GDP declining during nine consecutive quarters from IIIQ2011 through IIIQ2013 together with softening commodity prices. GDP decreased marginally 0.1 percent in IVQ2013, changed 0.0 percent in IQ2014 and fell 0.2 percent in IIQ2014.

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

	Exports Share %	Exports ∆% Jan-Aug 2014/ Jan-Aug 2013	Imports Share %	Imports ∆% Jan-Aug 2014/ Jan-Aug 2013
Consumer Goods	31.0	2.8	27.3	2.6
Durable	6.0	1.9	2.9	7.7
Non-Durable	25.1	3.0	24.4	2.0
Capital Goods	32.3	2.6	20.3	3.3
Inter- mediate Goods	32.3	-0.8	32.5	0.6
Energy	4.4	-12.5	19.9	-18.4
Total ex Energy	95.6	1.5	80.1	1.9
Total	100.0	0.9	100.0	-2.2

Note: % Share for 2012 total trade.

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/134544

Table III-6 provides Italy’s trade balance by product categories in Aug 2014 and cumulative Jan-Aug 2014. Italy’s trade balance excluding energy, generated surplus of 4,946 million in Aug 2014 and €55,829 million cumulative in Jan-Aug 2014 but the energy trade balance created deficit of €2890 million in Aug 2014 and cumulative €29,502 million in Jan-Aug 2014. The overall surplus in Aug 2014 was €2056 million with cumulative surplus of €26,237 million in Jan-Aug 2014. 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

	Aug 2014	Cumulative Jan-Aug 2014
Consumer Goods	843	14,968
Durable	665	8,226
Nondurable	178	6,743
Capital Goods	3,419	35,612
Intermediate Goods	684	5,248
Energy	-2,890	-29,502
Total ex Energy	4,946	55,829
Total	2,056	26,327

Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/134544

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/ns/cs.aspx?id=28) for GDP in USD billions, primary net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP and general government debt as percent of GDP for selected regions and countries in 2015.

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

*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt

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

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

Table III-8, Guarantees of Debt of Sovereigns in Euro Area as Percent of GDP of Germany and France, USD Billions and %

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

Source: calculation with IMF data IMF World Economic Outlook databank

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

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 Aug 2014. German exports to other European Union (EU) members are 56.7 percent of total exports in Aug 2014 and 58.1 percent in cumulative Jan-Aug 2014. Exports to the euro area are 34.7 percent of the total in Aug and 36.7 percent cumulative in Jan-Aug. Exports to third countries are 43.3 percent of the total in Aug and 41.9 percent cumulative in Jan-Aug. There is similar distribution for imports. Exports to non-euro countries are increasing 4.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014, increasing 9.6 percent cumulative in Jan-Aug 2014 while exports to the euro area are increasing 0.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014 and increasing 2.5 percent cumulative in Jan-Aug 2014. Exports to third countries, accounting for 43.3 percent of the total in Aug 2014, are decreasing 4.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014 and decreasing 0.1 percent cumulative in Jan-Aug 2014, accounting for 41.9 percent of the cumulative total in Jan-Aug 2014. 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 ∆%

	Aug 2014  € Billions	Aug 12-Month ∆%	Cumulative Jan-Aug 2014 € Billions	Cumulative Jan-Aug 2014/ Jan-Aug 2013 ∆%
Total Exports	84.1	-1.0	743.6	2.8
A. EU Members	47.7 % 56.7	2.0	432.0 % 58.1	5.0
Euro Area	29.2 % 34.7	0.4	273.2 % 36.7	2.5
Non-euro Area	18.5 % 22.0	4.5	158.7 % 21.3	9.6
B. Third Countries	36.4 % 43.3	-4.7	311.6 % 41.9	-0.1
Total Imports	70.0	-2.4	606.6	1.8
C EU Members	44.3 % 63.3	0.0	395.8 % 65.2	3.5
Euro Area	30.5 % 43.6	0.7	272.4 % 44.9	1.9
Non-euro Area	13.7 % 19.6	-1.3	123.4 % 20.3	7.3
D Third Countries	25.7 % 36.7	-6.3	210.8 % 34.8	-1.3

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

Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland

https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/10/PE14_352_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.

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