Fluctuating Financial Variables, Recovery without Hiring, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk
Carlos M. Pelaez
© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
I Recovery without Hiring
IA1 Hiring Collapse
IA2 Labor Underutilization
ICA3 Ten Million Fewer Full-time Jobs
IA4 Theory and Reality of Cyclical Slow Growth Not Secular Stagnation: Youth and
Middle-Age Unemployment
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
IV Global Inflation. There is inflation everywhere in the world economy, with slow growth and persistently high unemployment in advanced economies. Table IV-1, updated with every blog comment, provides the latest annual data for GDP, consumer price index (CPI) inflation, producer price index (PPI) inflation and unemployment (UNE) for the advanced economies, China and the highly indebted European countries with sovereign risk issues. The table now includes the Netherlands and Finland that with Germany make up the set of northern countries in the euro zone that hold key votes in the enhancement of the mechanism for solution of sovereign risk issues (Peter Spiegel and Quentin Peel, “Europe: Northern Exposures,” Financial Times, Mar 9, 2011 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55eaf350-4a8b-11e0-82ab-00144feab49a.html#axzz1gAlaswcW). Newly available data on inflation is considered below in this section. Data in Table IV-1 for the euro zone and its members are updated from information provided by Eurostat but individual country information is provided in this section as soon as available, following Table IV-1. Data for other countries in Table IV-1 are also updated with reports from their statistical agencies. Economic data for major regions and countries is considered in Section V World Economic Slowdown following with individual country and regional data tables.
Table IV-1, GDP Growth, Inflation and Unemployment in Selected Countries, Percentage Annual Rates
GDP | CPI | PPI | UNE | |
US | 2.6 | 1.7 | 2.2 FD 1.8 | 5.8 |
Japan | -0.1 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.6 |
China | 7.5 | 1.6 | -2.2 | |
UK | 3.0 | 1.2* CPIH 1.2 | -0.4 output | 6.0 |
Euro Zone | 0.8 | 0.4 | -1.4 | 11.5 |
Germany | 1.2 | 0.7 | -1.0 | 5.0 |
France | 0.4 | 0.5 | -1.4 | 10.5 |
Nether-lands | 1.1 | 0.4 | -2.8 | 6.5 |
Finland | -0.3 | 1.2 | -0.8 | 8.7 |
Belgium | 0.8 | 0.3 | -3.9 | 8.5 |
Portugal | 1.0 | 0.1 | -1.0 | 13.6 |
Ireland | NA | 0.4 | -0.8 | 11.2 |
Italy | -0.4 | 0.2 | -2.0 | 12.6 |
Greece | 1.4 | -1.8 | 0.1 | 26.4 |
Spain | 1.6 | -0.2 | -0.3 | 24.0 |
Notes: GDP: rate of growth of GDP; CPI: change in consumer price inflation; PPI: producer price inflation; UNE: rate of unemployment; all rates relative to year earlier
*Office for National Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/cpi/consumer-price-indices/september-2014/index.html
**Core
PPI http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ppi2/producer-price-index/september-2014/index.html Source: EUROSTAT http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/; country statistical sources http://www.census.gov/aboutus/stat_int.html
Inflation in advanced economies has been fluctuating in waves at the production level with alternating surges and moderation of commodity price shocks. Table IV-5B provides month and 12-month percentage rates of inflation of Japan’s corporate goods price index (CGPI). Inflation measured by the CGPI decreased 0.8 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 2.9 percent in 12 months, partly because of the increase in the tax on value added of consumption in Apr 2014. Measured by 12-month rates, CGPI inflation increased from minus 0.2 percent in Jul 2010 to a high of 2.2 percent in Jul-Aug 2011, 2.3 percent in Aug 2013 and 2.6 percent in Nov 2013. Calendar-year inflation is 1.3 percent for 2013. Calendar-year inflation for 2012 is minus 0.9 percent and 1.5 percent for 2011, which is the highest after declines in 2009 and 2010 but lower than 4.6 percent in the commodity shock driven by zero interest rates during the global recession in 2008. Inflation of the corporate goods prices follows waves similar to those in other indices around the world (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html). In the first wave, annual equivalent inflation reached 5.8 percent in Jan-Apr 2011, driven by commodity price shocks of the carry trade from zero interest rates to commodity futures. In the second wave, carry trades were unwound because of risk aversion caused by the European debt crisis, resulting in average annual equivalent inflation of minus 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2011. In the third wave, renewed risk aversion caused annual equivalent decline of the CGPI of minus 2.1 percent in Jul-Nov 2011. In the fourth wave, continuing risk aversion resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 0.6 percent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. In the fifth wave, renewed risk appetite resulted in annual equivalent inflation of 2.0 percent in Feb-Apr 2012. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation dropped to minus 5.5 percent in May-Jul 2012. In the seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 2.4 percent in Aug-Sep 2012. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2012 in a new round of risk aversion. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 3.4 percent in Dec 2012-Sep 2013. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 0.6 percent in Oct-Nov 2013. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.0 percent from Dec 2013 to Jan 2014. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Feb-Mar 2014. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 11.6 percent in Apr-Jul 2014 almost entirely because of the increase in the tax on value added of consumption. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.9 percent in Aug-Oct 2014.
Table IV-5B, Japan, Corporate Goods Price Index (CGPI) ∆%
Month | Year | |
Oct 2014 | -0.8 | 2.9 |
Sep | 0.0 | 3.6 |
Aug | -0.2 | 3.9 |
AE ∆% Aug-Oct | -3.9 | |
Jul | 0.4 | 4.4 |
Jun | 0.2 | 4.5 |
May | 0.3 | 4.3 |
Apr | 2.8 | 4.1 |
AE ∆% Apr-Jul | 11.6 | |
Mar | 0.0 | 1.7 |
Feb | -0.2 | 1.8 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | -1.2 | |
Jan | 0.2 | 2.5 |
Dec 2013 | 0.3 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | 3.0 | |
Nov | 0.0 | 2.6 |
Oct | -0.2 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | -0.6 | |
Sep | 0.3 | 2.3 |
Aug | 0.3 | 2.3 |
Jul | 0.5 | 2.1 |
Jun | 0.0 | 1.2 |
May | 0.1 | 0.6 |
Apr | 0.4 | 0.1 |
Mar | 0.1 | -0.5 |
Feb | 0.5 | -0.1 |
Jan | 0.2 | -0.4 |
Dec 2012 | 0.4 | -0.7 |
AE ∆% Dec-Sep | 3.4 | |
Nov | -0.1 | -1.1 |
Oct | -0.4 | -1.1 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | -3.0 | |
Sep | 0.3 | -1.5 |
Aug | 0.1 | -2.0 |
AE ∆% Aug-Sep | 2.4 | |
Jul | -0.4 | -2.2 |
Jun | -0.6 | -1.5 |
May | -0.4 | -0.9 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | -5.5 | |
Apr | -0.2 | -0.7 |
Mar | 0.5 | 0.3 |
Feb | 0.2 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 2.0 | |
Jan | -0.1 | 0.3 |
Dec 2011 | 0.0 | 0.8 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | -0.6 | |
Nov | -0.1 | 1.3 |
Oct | -0.8 | 1.3 |
Sep | -0.2 | 2.0 |
Aug | -0.1 | 2.2 |
Jul | 0.3 | 2.2 |
AE ∆% Jul-Nov | -2.1 | |
Jun | 0.0 | 1.9 |
May | -0.2 | 1.6 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | -1.2 | |
Apr | 0.8 | 1.8 |
Mar | 0.6 | 1.3 |
Feb | 0.1 | 0.7 |
Jan | 0.4 | 0.6 |
AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 5.8 | |
Dec 2010 | 0.5 | 1.2 |
Nov | -0.1 | 0.9 |
Oct | -0.1 | 0.9 |
Sep | 0.0 | -0.1 |
Aug | -0.1 | 0.0 |
Jul | 0.0 | -0.2 |
Calendar Year | ||
2013 | 1.3 | |
2012 | -0.9 | |
2011 | 1.5 | |
2010 | -0.1 | |
2009 | -5.3 | |
2008 | 4.6 | |
2007 | 1.8 | |
2006 | 2.2 | |
2005 | 1.6 | |
2004 | 1.3 | |
2003 | -0.9 | |
2002 | -2.1 | |
2001 | -2.3 |
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/
Chart IV-1B of the Bank of Japan provides year-on-year percentage changes of the domestic and services Corporate Goods Price Index (CGPI) of Japan from 1970 to 2014. Percentage changes of inflation of services are not as sharp as for goods. Japan had the same sharp waves of inflation during the 1970s as in the US (see Chart IV-5 and associated table at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks_71.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-uncertainty-mediocre-cyclical_8145.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-risks-slow-cyclical-united.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/collapse-of-united-states-dynamism-of.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/exit-risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world_1.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or_561.html and at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/increasing-interest-rate-risk_1.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/recovery-without-jobs-stagnating-real_09.html).). Behavior of the CGPI of Japan in the 1970s mirrors the Great Inflation episode in the United States with waves of inflation rising to two digits. Both political pressures and errors abounded in the unhappy stagflation of the 1970s also known as the US Great Inflation (see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html) http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/financial-irrational-exuberance.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states.html). Inflation also collapsed in the beginning of the 1980s because of tight monetary policy in the US with focus on inflation instead of on the gap of actual relative to potential output. The areas in shade correspond to the dates of cyclical recessions. The salient event is the sharp rise of inflation of the domestic goods CGPI in 2008 during the global recession that was mostly the result of carry trades from fed funds rates collapsing to zero to long positions in commodity futures in an environment of relaxed financial risk appetite. The panic of toxic assets in banks to be withdrawn by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009) drove unusual risk aversion with unwinding of carry trades of exposures in commodities and other risk financial assets. Carry trades returned once TARP was clarified as providing capital to financial institutions and stress tests verified the soundness of US banks. The return of carry trades explains the rise of CGPI inflation after mid-2009. Inflation of the CGPI fluctuated with zero interest rates in alternating episodes of risk aversion and risk appetite.
Chart IV-1B, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price and Services Index, Year-on-Year Percentage Change, 1970-2014
Notes: Blue: Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index All Commodities; Red: Corporate Price Services Index
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html#
There is similar behavior of year-on-year percentage changes of the US producer price index from 1970 to 2014 in Chart IV-2B of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as in Chart IV-1 with the domestic goods CGPI. The behavior of the CGPI of Japan in the 1970s is quite similar to that of the US PPI. The US producer price index increased together with the CGPI driven by the period of one percent fed funds rates from 2003 to 2004 inducing carry trades into commodity futures and other risk financial assets and the slow adjustment in increments of 25 basis points at every FOMC meeting from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006. There is also the same increase in inflation in 2008 during the global recession followed by collapse because of unwinding positions during risk aversion and new rise of inflation during risk appetite.
Chart IV-2B, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Year-on-Year Percentage Change, 1970-2014
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Finer detail is provided by Chart IV-3 of the domestic CGPI from 2008 to 2014. The CGPI rose almost vertically in 2008 as the collapse of fed funds rates toward zero drove exposures in commodities and other risk financial assets because of risk appetite originating in the belief that the financial crisis was restricted to structured financial products and not to contracts negotiated in commodities and other exchanges. The panic with toxic assets in banks to be removed by TARP (Cochrane and Zingales 2009) caused unwinding carry trades in flight to US government obligations that drove down commodity prices and price indexes worldwide. Apparent resolution of the European debt crisis of 2010 drove risk appetite in 2011 with new carry trades from zero fed funds rates into commodity futures and other risk financial assets. Domestic CGPI inflation returned in waves with upward slopes during risk appetite and downward slopes during risk aversion. Yen devaluation promoted by monetary and fiscal policy translates imported inputs in higher domestic prices. The increase in the tax on value added of consumption caused the sharp increase in Apr-Jun 2014. The CGPI declines and stabilizes in Aug-Oct 2014.
Chart IV-3, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 2008-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
There is similar behavior of the US producer price index from 2008 to 2014 in Chart IV-4 as in the domestic CGPI in Chart IV-3. A major difference is the strong long-term trend in the US producer price index with oscillations originating mostly in bouts of risk aversion such as the downward slope in the final segment in Chart IV-4 followed by increasing slope during periods of risk appetite. Carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures and other risk financial assets drive the upward trend of the US producer price index while oscillations originate in alternating episodes of risk aversion and risk appetite.
Chart IV-4, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 2008-2014
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
There was milder increase in Japan’s export corporate goods price index during the global recession in 2008 but similar sharp decline during the bank balance sheets effect in late 2008, as shown in Chart IV-5 of the Bank of Japan. Japan exports industrial goods whose prices have been less dynamic than those of commodities and raw materials. As a result, the export CGPI on the yen basis in Chart IV-5 trends down with oscillations after a brief rise in the final part of the recession in 2009. The export corporate goods price index on the yen basis fell from 104.9 in Jun 2009 to 94.0 in Jan 2012 or minus 10.4 percent and increased to 111.0 in Oct 2014 for a gain of 18.1 percent relative to Jan 2012 and 5.8 percent relative to Jun 2009. The choice of Jun 2009 is designed to capture the reversal of risk aversion beginning in Sep 2008 with the announcement of toxic assets in banks that would be withdrawn with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Reversal of risk aversion in the form of flight to the USD and obligations of the US government opened the way to renewed carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets such as commodities. Japan exports industrial products and imports commodities and raw materials.
Chart IV-5, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
Chart IV-5A provides the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency. The export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 97.9 in Jun 2009 to 103.1 in Apr 2012 or 5.3 percent but dropped to 97.5 in Oct 2014 or minus 5.4 percent relative to Apr 2012 and fell 0.4 percent to 97.5 in Oct 2014 relative to Jun 2009.
Chart IV-5A, Japan, Export Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
Japan imports primary commodities and raw materials. As a result, the import corporate goods price index on the yen basis in Chart IV-6 shows an upward trend after declining from the increase during the global recession in 2008 driven by carry trades from fed funds rates. The index increases with carry trades from zero interest rates into commodity futures and declines during risk aversion from late 2008 into beginning of 2008 originating in doubts about soundness of US bank balance sheets. More careful measurement should show that the terms of trade of Japan, export prices relative to import prices, declined during the commodity shocks originating in unconventional monetary policy. The decline of the terms of trade restricted potential growth of income in Japan (for the relation of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez 1979, 1976a). The import corporate goods price index on the yen basis increased from 93.5 in Jun 2009 to 113.1 in Apr 2012 or 21.0 percent and to 128.2 in Oct 2014 or gain of 13.4 percent relative to Apr 2012 and 37.1 percent relative to Jun 2009.
Chart IV-6, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Yen Basis, 2008-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
Chart IV-6A provides the import corporate goods price index on the contract currency basis. The import corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency increased from 86.2 in Jun 2009 to 119.5 in Apr 2012 or 38.6 percent and to 109.9 in Oct 2014 or minus 8.0 percent relative to Apr 2012 and gain of 27.5 percent relative to Jun 2009. There is evident deterioration of the terms of trade of Japan: the export corporate goods price index on the basis of the contract currency decreased 0.4 percent from Jun 2009 to Oct 2014 while the import corporate goods price index increased 27.5 percent. Prices of Japan’s exports of corporate goods, mostly industrial products, increased only 5.3 percent from Jun 2009 to Apr 2012, while imports of corporate goods, mostly commodities and raw materials increased 38.6 percent. Unconventional monetary policy induces carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in commodities that squeeze economic activity of industrial countries by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials during periods without risk aversion. Reversals of carry trades during periods of risk aversion decrease prices of exported commodities and raw materials that squeeze economic activity in economies exporting commodities and raw materials. Devaluation of the dollar by unconventional monetary policy could increase US competitiveness in world markets but economic activity is squeezed by increases in prices of imported commodities and raw materials. Unconventional monetary policy causes instability worldwide instead of the mission of central banks of promoting financial and economic stability.
Chart IV-6A, Japan, Import Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, Contract Currency Basis, 2008-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
Table IV-6B provides the Bank of Japan’s Corporate Goods Price indexes of exports and imports on the yen and contract bases from Jan 2008 to Oct 2014. There are oscillations of the indexes that are shown vividly in the four charts above. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Oct 2014, the export index on the contract currency basis decreased 1.7 percent and decreased 3.9 percent on the yen basis. For the entire period from Jan 2008 to Oct 2014, the import price index increased 9.1 percent on the contract currency basis and increased 7.7 percent on the yen basis. The charts show sharp deteriorations in relative prices of exports to prices of imports during multiple periods. Price margins of Japan’s producers are subject to periodic squeezes resulting from carry trades from zero interest rates of monetary policy to exposures in commodities.
Table IV-6B, Japan, Exports and Imports Corporate Goods Price Index, Contract Currency Basis and Yen Basis
X-CC | X-Y | M-CC | M-Y | |
2008/01 | 99.2 | 115.5 | 100.7 | 119.0 |
2008/02 | 99.8 | 116.1 | 102.4 | 120.6 |
2008/03 | 100.5 | 112.6 | 104.5 | 117.4 |
2008/04 | 101.6 | 115.3 | 110.1 | 125.2 |
2008/05 | 102.4 | 117.4 | 113.4 | 130.4 |
2008/06 | 103.5 | 120.7 | 119.5 | 140.3 |
2008/07 | 104.7 | 122.1 | 122.6 | 143.9 |
2008/08 | 103.7 | 122.1 | 123.1 | 147.0 |
2008/09 | 102.7 | 118.3 | 117.1 | 137.1 |
2008/10 | 100.2 | 109.6 | 109.1 | 121.5 |
2008/11 | 98.6 | 104.5 | 97.8 | 105.8 |
2008/12 | 97.9 | 100.6 | 89.3 | 93.0 |
2009/01 | 98.0 | 99.5 | 85.6 | 88.4 |
2009/02 | 97.5 | 100.1 | 85.7 | 89.7 |
2009/03 | 97.3 | 104.2 | 85.2 | 93.0 |
2009/04 | 97.6 | 105.6 | 84.4 | 93.0 |
2009/05 | 97.5 | 103.8 | 84.0 | 90.8 |
2009/06 | 97.9 | 104.9 | 86.2 | 93.5 |
2009/07 | 97.5 | 103.1 | 89.2 | 95.0 |
2009/08 | 98.3 | 104.4 | 89.6 | 95.8 |
2009/09 | 98.3 | 102.1 | 91.0 | 94.7 |
2009/10 | 98.0 | 101.2 | 91.0 | 94.0 |
2009/11 | 98.4 | 100.8 | 92.8 | 94.8 |
2009/12 | 98.3 | 100.7 | 95.4 | 97.5 |
2010/01 | 99.4 | 102.2 | 97.0 | 100.0 |
2010/02 | 99.7 | 101.6 | 97.6 | 99.8 |
2010/03 | 99.7 | 101.8 | 97.0 | 99.2 |
2010/04 | 100.5 | 104.6 | 99.9 | 104.6 |
2010/05 | 100.7 | 102.9 | 101.7 | 104.9 |
2010/06 | 100.1 | 101.6 | 100.0 | 102.3 |
2010/07 | 99.4 | 99.0 | 99.9 | 99.8 |
2010/08 | 99.1 | 97.3 | 99.5 | 97.5 |
2010/09 | 99.4 | 97.0 | 100.0 | 97.2 |
2010/10 | 100.1 | 96.4 | 100.5 | 95.8 |
2010/11 | 100.7 | 97.4 | 102.6 | 98.2 |
2010/12 | 101.2 | 98.3 | 104.4 | 100.6 |
2011/01 | 102.1 | 98.6 | 107.2 | 102.6 |
2011/02 | 102.9 | 99.5 | 109.0 | 104.3 |
2011/03 | 103.5 | 99.6 | 111.8 | 106.3 |
2011/04 | 104.1 | 101.7 | 115.9 | 111.9 |
2011/05 | 103.9 | 99.9 | 118.8 | 112.4 |
2011/06 | 103.8 | 99.3 | 117.5 | 110.5 |
2011/07 | 103.6 | 98.3 | 118.3 | 110.2 |
2011/08 | 103.6 | 96.6 | 118.6 | 108.1 |
2011/09 | 103.7 | 96.1 | 117.0 | 106.2 |
2011/10 | 103.0 | 95.2 | 116.6 | 105.6 |
2011/11 | 101.9 | 94.8 | 115.4 | 105.4 |
2011/12 | 101.5 | 94.5 | 116.1 | 106.2 |
2012/01 | 101.8 | 94.0 | 115.0 | 104.2 |
2012/02 | 102.4 | 95.8 | 115.8 | 106.4 |
2012/03 | 102.9 | 99.2 | 118.3 | 112.9 |
2012/04 | 103.1 | 98.7 | 119.5 | 113.1 |
2012/05 | 102.3 | 96.3 | 118.1 | 109.8 |
2012/06 | 101.4 | 95.0 | 115.2 | 106.7 |
2012/07 | 100.6 | 94.0 | 112.0 | 103.5 |
2012/08 | 100.9 | 94.1 | 112.4 | 103.6 |
2012/09 | 101.0 | 94.1 | 114.7 | 105.2 |
2012/10 | 101.1 | 94.7 | 113.8 | 105.2 |
2012/11 | 100.9 | 95.9 | 113.2 | 106.5 |
2012/12 | 100.7 | 98.0 | 113.4 | 109.5 |
2013/01 | 101.0 | 102.4 | 113.8 | 115.4 |
2013/02 | 101.5 | 105.9 | 114.8 | 120.2 |
2013/03 | 101.3 | 106.6 | 115.1 | 122.0 |
2013/04 | 100.2 | 107.5 | 114.1 | 123.8 |
2013/05 | 99.6 | 109.1 | 112.6 | 125.3 |
2013/06 | 99.2 | 106.1 | 112.0 | 121.2 |
2013/07 | 99.1 | 107.5 | 111.6 | 122.8 |
2013/08 | 99.0 | 106.1 | 111.8 | 121.3 |
2013/09 | 99.0 | 107.2 | 113.0 | 124.0 |
2013/10 | 99.2 | 106.7 | 113.1 | 122.9 |
2013/11 | 99.1 | 108.0 | 113.1 | 124.9 |
2013-12 | 99.1 | 110.4 | 113.8 | 129.0 |
2014-01 | 99.2 | 110.7 | 114.5 | 130.2 |
2014-02 | 98.9 | 109.2 | 113.9 | 127.8 |
2014-03 | 98.6 | 109.1 | 113.5 | 127.5 |
2014-04 | 98.5 | 109.2 | 112.8 | 127.0 |
2014-05 | 98.3 | 108.5 | 112.5 | 126.0 |
2014-06 | 98.1 | 108.3 | 112.6 | 126.3 |
2014-07 | 98.2 | 108.2 | 112.6 | 126.0 |
2014-08 | 98.3 | 109.0 | 112.4 | 126.8 |
2014-09 | 98.1 | 111.2 | 111.7 | 129.6 |
2014-10 | 97.5 | 111.0 | 109.9 | 128.2 |
Note: X-CC: Exports Contract Currency; X-Y: Exports Yen; M-CC: Imports Contract; M-Y: Imports Yen
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/
Chart IV-7 provides the monthly corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan from 1970 to 2014. Japan also experienced sharp increase in inflation during the 1970s as in the episode of the Great Inflation in the US. Monetary policy focused on accommodating higher inflation, with emphasis solely on the mandate of promoting employment, has been blamed as deliberate or because of model error or imperfect measurement for creating the Great Inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html). A remarkable similarity with US experience is the sharp rise of the CGPI of Japan in 2008 driven by carry trades from policy interest rates rapidly falling to zero to exposures in commodity futures during a global recession. Japan had the same sharp waves of consumer price inflation during the 1970s as in the US (see Chart IV-5 and associated table at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/financial-volatility-mediocre-cyclical.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/geopolitical-and-financial-risks_71.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/world-inflation-waves-united-states_49.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/financial-indecision-mediocre-cyclical_6089.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/06/financial-instability-mediocre-cyclical_4827.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-uncertainty-mediocre-cyclical_8145.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/financial-risks-slow-cyclical-united.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/collapse-of-united-states-dynamism-of.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/exit-risks-of-zero-interest-rates-world_1.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or_561.html and at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/increasing-interest-rate-risk_1.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/recovery-without-jobs-stagnating-real_09.html).
Chart IV-7, Japan, Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index, Monthly, 1970-2014
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.stat-search.boj.or.jp/index_en.html
The producer price index of the US from 1970 to 2014 in Chart IV-8 shows various periods of more rapid or less rapid inflation but no bumps. The major event is the decline in 2008 when risk aversion because of the global recession caused the collapse of oil prices from $148/barrel to less than $80/barrel with most other commodity prices also collapsing. The event had nothing in common with explanations of deflation but rather with the concentration of risk exposures in commodities after the decline of stock market indexes. Eventually, there was a flight to government securities because of the fears of insolvency of banks caused by statements supporting proposals for withdrawal of toxic assets from bank balance sheets in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as explained by Cochrane and Zingales (2009). The bump in 2008 with decline in 2009 is consistent with the view that zero interest rates with subdued risk aversion induce carry trades into commodity futures.
Chart IV-8, US, Producer Price Index Finished Goods, Monthly, 1970-2014
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Further insight into inflation of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) of Japan is provided in Table IV-7. The increase in the tax on value added of consumption caused sharp increases in prices across all segments. Petroleum and coal with weight of 5.7 percent decreased 3.7 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 2.0 percent in 12 months. Japan exports manufactured products and imports raw materials and commodities such that the country’s terms of trade, or export prices relative to import prices, deteriorate during commodity price increases. In contrast, prices of production machinery, with weight of 3.1 percent, decreased 0.1 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 3.0 percent in 12 months. In general, most manufactured products have been experiencing negative or low increases in prices while inflation rates have been high in 12 months for products originating in raw materials and commodities. Ironically, unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing that intended to increase aggregate demand and GDP growth deteriorated the terms of trade of advanced economies with adverse effects on real income (for analysis of terms of trade and growth see Pelaez (1979, 1976a). There are now inflation effects of the intentional policy of devaluing the yen.
Table IV-7, Japan, Corporate Goods Prices and Selected Components, % Weights, Month and 12 Months ∆%
Oct 2014 | Weight | Month ∆% | 12 Month ∆% |
Total | 1000.0 | -0.8 | 2.9 |
Food, Beverages, Tobacco, Feedstuffs | 137.5 | -0.3 | 3.1 |
Petroleum & Coal | 57.4 | -3.7 | 2.0 |
Production Machinery | 30.8 | -0.1 | 3.9 |
Electronic Components | 31.0 | -0.1 | -1.1 |
Electric Power, Gas & Water | 52.7 | -4.0 | 6.2 |
Iron & Steel | 56.6 | -0.4 | 3.2 |
Chemicals | 92.1 | -0.9 | 1.8 |
Transport | 136.4 | 0.0 | 2.9 |
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/
Percentage point contributions to change of the corporate goods price index (CGPI) in Jul 2014 are provided in Table IV-8 divided into domestic, export and import segments. The final block provides change in the corporate goods price without the effects of the increase in the tax on value added of consumption. In the domestic CGPI, decreasing 0.8 percent in Oct 2014, the energy shock is evident in the deduction of 0.28 percentage points by electric power, gas and water and 0.27 percentage points in petroleum and coal products in reversal of carry trades of exposures in commodity futures. The exports CGPI decreased 0.6 percent on the basis of the contract currency with deduction of 0.32 percentage points by metals and related products and 0.13 percentage points by chemicals and related products. The imports CGPI decreased 1.6 percent on the contract currency basis. Petroleum, coal and natural gas products deducted 1.07 percentage points. Shocks of risk aversion cause unwinding carry trades that result in declining commodity prices with resulting downward pressure on price indexes. The volatility of inflation adversely affects financial and economic decisions worldwide. The final block D shows that the change in the domestic corporate goods price index without the effects of the consumption tax is minus 0.8 percent.
Table IV-8, Japan, Percentage Point Contributions to Change of Corporate Goods Price Index
Groups Oct 2014 | Contribution to Change Percentage Points |
A. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index | Monthly Change: |
Electric Power, Gas & Water | -0.28 |
Petroleum & Coal Products | -0.27 |
Chemicals & Related Products | -0.09 |
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products | -0.07 |
Food, Beverages, Tobacco & Feedstuffs | -0.03 |
Scrap & Waster | -0.03 |
Iron & Steel | -0.02 |
B. Export Price Index | Monthly Change: |
Metals & Related Products | -0.32 |
Chemicals & Related Products | -0.13 |
Other Primary Products & Manufactured Goods | -0.13 |
General Purpose, Production & Business Oriented Machinery | -0.04 |
Transportation Equipment | 0.05 |
C. Import Price Index | Monthly Change: -1.6% contract currency basis |
Petroleum, Coal & Natural Gas | -1.07 |
Metals & Related Products | -0.44 |
Foodstuffs & Feedstuffs | -0.04 |
Chemicals & Related Products | -0.03 |
D. Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index Excluding Consumption Tax | Monthly Change: -0.8% |
Electric Power, Gas & Water | -0.28 |
Petroleum & Coal Products | -0.27 |
Chemicals & Related Products | -0.09 |
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishery Products | -0.07 |
Food, Beverages, Tobacco & Feedstuffs | -0.03 |
Scrap & Waste | -0.03 |
Iron & Steel | -0.02 |
Source: Bank of Japan
http://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/index.htm/
China is experiencing similar inflation behavior as the advanced economies in several prior months in the form of declining commodity prices but differs in decreasing inflation of producer prices relative to a year earlier. As shown in Table IV-9, inflation of the price indexes for industry in Oct 2014 is minus 0.4 percent; 12-month inflation is minus 2.2 percent in Oct; and cumulative inflation in Jan-Oct 2014 relative to Jan-Oct 2013 is minus 1.7 percent. Inflation of segments in Oct 2013 in China is provided in Table IV-9 in column “Month Oct 2014 ∆%.” There were decreases of prices of mining & quarrying of 1.7 percent in Oct and decrease of 8.9 percent in 12 months. Prices of consumer goods changed 0.0 percent in Oct and changed 0.0 percent in 12 months. Prices of inputs in the purchaser price index decreased 0.6 percent in Oct and declined 2.5 percent in 12 months. Fuel and power decreased 0.8 percent in Oct and declined 3.8 percent in 12 months. An important category of inputs for exports is textile raw materials, decreasing 0.3 percent in Oct and decreasing 1.7 percent in 12 months.
Table IV-9, China, Price Indexes for Industry ∆%
Month Oct 2014 ∆% | 12-Month Oct 2014 ∆% | Jan-Oct 2014/Jan-Oct 2013 ∆% | |
I Producer Price Indexes | -0.4 | -2.2 | -1.7 |
Means of Production | -0.6 | -3.0 | -2.2 |
Mining & Quarrying | -1.7 | -8.9 | -5.4 |
Raw Materials | -1.0 | -3.7 | -2.5 |
Processing | -0.3 | -2.0 | -1.7 |
Consumer Goods | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Food | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Clothing | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Daily Use Articles | -0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Durable Consumer Goods | 0.1 | -0.7 | -0.9 |
II Purchaser Price Indexes | -0.6 | -2.5 | -1.9 |
Fuel and Power | -0.8 | -3.8 | -2.3 |
Ferrous Metals | -1.1 | -6.9 | -4.8 |
Nonferrous Metals | -1.0 | -2.5 | -4.1 |
Chemical Raw Materials | -0.6 | -1.4 | -1.4 |
Wood & Pulp | 0.0 | -0.6 | -0.5 |
Building Materials | 0.0 | -1.1 | 0.2 |
Other Industrial Raw Materials | -0.2 | -1.3 | -1.1 |
Agricultural | -0.9 | -1.1 | -0.3 |
Textile Raw Materials | -0.3 | -1.7 | -0.9 |
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
China’s producer price inflation follows waves similar to those around the world but with declining trend since May 2012, as shown in Table IV-10. In the first wave, annual equivalent inflation was 6.4 percent in Jan-Jun 2011, driven by carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. In the second wave, risk aversion unwound carry trades, resulting in annual equivalent inflation of minus 3.1 percent in Jul-Nov 2011. In the third wave, renewed risk aversion resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 2.4 percent in Dec 2011-Jan 2012. In the fourth wave, new carry trades resulted in annual equivalent inflation of 2.4 percent in Feb-Apr 2012. In the fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation is minus 5.8 percent in May-Sep 2012. There are declining producer prices in China in Aug-Sep 2012 in contrast with increases worldwide. In a sixth wave, producer prices increased 0.2 percent in Oct 2012, which is equivalent to 2.4 percent in a year. In an eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Nov-Dec 2012. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Jan-Feb 2013 is 2.4 percent. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 4.9 percent in Mar-Jul 2013. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.8 percent in Aug-Sep 2013. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.2 percent in Oct 2013-Oct 2014.
Table IV-10, China, Month and 12-Month Rate of Change of Producer Price Index, ∆%
12-Month ∆% | Month ∆% | |
Oct 2014 | -2.2 | -0.4 |
Sep | -1.8 | -0.4 |
Aug | -1.2 | -0.2 |
Jul | -0.9 | -0.1 |
Jun | -1.1 | -0.2 |
May | -1.4 | -0.1 |
Apr | -2.0 | -0.2 |
Mar | -2.3 | -0.3 |
Feb | -2.0 | -0.2 |
Jan | -1.6 | -0.1 |
Dec 2013 | -1.4 | 0.0 |
Nov | -1.4 | 0.0 |
Oct | -1.5 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Oct-Oct | -2.2 | |
Sep | -1.3 | 0.2 |
Aug | -1.6 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Aug-Sep | 1.8 | |
Jul | -2.3 | -0.3 |
Jun | -2.7 | -0.6 |
May | -2.9 | -0.6 |
Apr | -2.6 | -0.6 |
Mar | -1.9 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Mar-Jul | -4.9 | |
Feb | -1.6 | 0.2 |
Jan | -1.6 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Jan-Feb | 2.4 | |
Dec 2012 | -1.9 | -0.1 |
Nov | -2.2 | -0.1 |
AE ∆% Nov-Dec | -1.2 | |
Oct | -2.8 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Oct | 2.4 | |
Sep | -3.6 | -0.1 |
Aug | -3.5 | -0.5 |
Jul | -2.9 | -0.8 |
Jun | -2.1 | -0.7 |
May | -1.4 | -0.4 |
AE ∆% May-Sep | -5.8 | |
Apr | -0.7 | 0.2 |
Mar | -0.3 | 0.3 |
Feb | 0.0 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 2.4 | |
Jan | 0.7 | -0.1 |
Dec 2011 | 1.7 | -0.3 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | -2.4 | |
Nov | 2.7 | -0.7 |
Oct | 5.0 | -0.7 |
Sep | 6.5 | 0.0 |
Aug | 7.3 | 0.1 |
Jul | 7.5 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Jul-Nov | -3.1 | |
Jun | 7.1 | 0.0 |
May | 6.8 | 0.3 |
Apr | 6.8 | 0.5 |
Mar | 7.3 | 0.6 |
Feb | 7.2 | 0.8 |
Jan | 6.6 | 0.9 |
AE ∆% Jan-Jun | 6.4 | |
Dec 2010 | 5.9 | 0.7 |
AE: Annual Equivalent
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart IV-9 of the National Bureau of Statistics of China provides monthly and 12-month rates of inflation of the price indexes for the industrial sector. Negative monthly rates in Oct, Nov, Dec 2011, Jan, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Nov and Dec 2012 pulled down the 12-month rates to 5.0 percent in Oct 2011, 2.7 percent in Nov, 1.7 percent in Dec, 0.7 percent in Jan 2012, 0.0 percent in Feb, minus 0.3 percent in Mar, minus 0.7 percent in Apr, minus 1.4 percent in May, 2.1 in Jun, minus 2.9 percent in Jul, minus 3.5 percent in Aug, minus 3.6 percent in Sep. The increase of 0.2 percent in Oct 2012 pulled up the 12-month rate to minus 2.8 percent and the rate eased to minus 2.2 percent in Nov 2012 and minus 1.9 percent in Dec 2012. Increases of 0.2 percent in Jan and Feb 2013 pulled the 12-month rate to minus 1.6 percent while no change in Mar 2013 brought down the 12-month rate to minus 1.9 percent. Declines of prices of 0.6 percent in Apr, May and Jun 2013 pushed the 12-month rate to minus 2.7 percent. Producer prices fell 2.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2013 and minus 1.6 percent in Aug 2013 with increase of 0.1 percent in the month of Aug 2013. Producer price inflation was minus 1.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013 and minus 1.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013. Producer price inflation was minus 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013 and minus 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013. Producer price inflation was minus 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014 and minus 2.0 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014. In Mar 2014, producer price inflation was minus 0.3 percent and minus 2.3 percent in 12 months followed by minus 0.2 percent in Apr 2014 and minus 2.0 percent in 12 months. Producer prices fell 0.1 percent in May 2014 and decreased 1.4 percent in 12 months. The producer price index fell 0.2 percent in Jun 2014 and decreased 1.1 percent in 12 months. The producer price index fell 0.1 percent in Jul 2014 and decreased 0.9 percent in 12 months. The producer price index fell 0.2 percent in Aug 2014 and declined 1.2 percent in 12 months. The producer price index fell 0.4 percent in Sep 2014 and declined 1.8 percent in 12 months. The producer price index fell 0.4 percent in Oct 2014 and declined 2.2 percent in 12 months.
Chart IV-9, China, Producer Prices for the Industrial Sector Month and 12 Months ∆%
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart IV-9, China, Producer Prices for the Industrial Sector Month and 12 Months ∆%
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart IV-10 of the National Bureau of Statistics of China provides monthly and 12-month inflation of the purchaser product indices for the industrial sector. Decreasing monthly inflation with four successive contractions from Oct 2011 to Jan 2012 and May-Aug 2012 pulled down the 12-month rate to minus 4.1 percent in Aug and Sep. Consecutive increases of 0.1 percent in Sep and Oct 2012 raised the 12-month rate to minus 3.3 percent in Oct 2012. The rate eased to minus 2.8 in Nov 2012 with decrease of 0.2 percent in Nov 2012 and minus 2.4 percent in Dec 2012 with monthly decrease of 0.1 percent. Increase of 0.3 percent in Jan 2013 and 0.2 in Feb 2013 pulled the 12-month rate to minus 1.9 percent. Decrease of prices of 0.1 percent in Mar 2013 brought down the 12-month rate to minus 2.0 percent. Declining prices of 0.6 percent in Apr and May 2013 and 0.5 percent in Jun 2013 pushed down the 12-month rate to minus 2.6 percent. The index fell 2.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2013 and 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2013. The index fell 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013 and 1.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013. Purchaser price inflation was minus 1.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013 and minus 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013. Purchaser price inflation was minus 1.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014 and minus 2.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014. In Mar 2014, inflation of the purchaser price index was minus 0.5 percent and minus 2.5 percent in 12 months followed by minus 0.4 percent in Apr 2014 and minus 2.3 percent in 12 months. The purchaser price index fell 0.1 percent in May 2014 and decreased 1.8 percent in 12 months. In Jun 2014, the purchaser price index fell 0.1 percent and decreased 1.5 percent in 12 months. The purchaser price index changed 0.0 percent in Jul 2014 and fell 1.1 percent in 12 months. The purchaser price index fell 0.1 percent in Aug 2014 and fell 1.4 percent in 12 months. The purchaser price index fell 0.4 percent in Sep 2014 and declined 1.9 percent in 12 months. The purchaser price index fell 0.6 percent in Oct 2014 and declined 2.5 percent in 12 months.
Chart IV-10, China, Purchaser Product Indices for Industrial Sector, Month and 12 Months ∆%
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
China is highly conscious of food price inflation because of its high weight in the basket of consumption of the population. Consumer price inflation in China in Oct 2014 was 0.0 percent and 1.6 percent in 12 months, as shown in Table IV-11. Food prices decreased 0.2 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 2.5 percent in 12 months. Food prices increased 0.8 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 1.6 percent in 12 months. Food prices decreased 0.1 percent in Jul 2013 and increased 3.6 percent in 12 months. Food prices increased 0.2 percent in May 2014 and 4.1 percent in 12 months. Food prices decreased 1.3 percent in Apr 2014, increasing 2.3 percent in 12 months ending in Apr 2014 and 3.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2014 relative to a year earlier. Food prices increased 2.4 percent in Jan 2014, 3.7 percent in 12 months and 3.7 percent in the cumulative Jan 2014 relative to a year earlier. Food prices fell 0.2 percent in Nov 2013, increasing 5.9 percent in 12 months and 4.7 percent in the cumulative to Nov 2013 relative to a year earlier. Food prices decreased 0.4 percent in Oct 2013, increasing 6.5 percent in 12 months in adjustment to sharp increase in Sep 2013. Adjustment from the prior shock had occurred in May with decline of food prices by 1.6 percent and increase of 3.8 percent in 12 months and 3.8 percent in Jan-May 2013 relative to a year earlier. Food prices increased 0.7 percent in Aug 2014 and increased 3.0 percent in 12 months. Another area of concern is housing inflation, which was 0.2 percent in Jan and increased 2.8 percent in 12 months. House inflation was 0.3 percent in Feb 2014 and 2.8 percent in 12 months. House inflation was 0.2 percent in Mar 2014 and 2.5 percent in 12 months. House inflation was 0.1 percent in Apr 2014 and 2.4 percent in 12 months. House inflation was 0.0 percent in May 2014 and 2.3 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.1 percent in Jun and gained 2.6 percent in 12 months. House prices changed 0.0 percent in Jul 2014 and increased 2.0 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.1 percent in Aug 2014 and 1.9 percent in 12 months. House renting increased 0.2 percent in Aug 2014 and 2.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.1 percent in Sep 2014 and 1.6 percent in 12 months. House prices increased 0.2 percent in Oct 2014 and 1.6 percent in 12 months. House renting increased 0.3 percent in Sep 2014 and increased 2.6 percent in 12 months. House renting increased 0.3 percent in Oct 2014 and 2.7 percent in 12 months.
Table IV-11, China, Consumer Price Index
2014 | Oct 2014 Month ∆% | Oct 2014 12-Month ∆% | Jan-Oct 2014 ∆%/ Jan-Oct 2013 |
Consumer Prices | 0.0 | 1.6 | 2.1 |
Urban | 0.1 | 1.7 | 2.2 |
Rural | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
Food | -0.2 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
Non-food | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 |
Consumer Goods | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
Services | 0.1 | 2.0 | 2.6 |
Excluding Food and Energy | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
Commodity Categories: | |||
Food | -0.2 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
Tobacco, Liquor | 0.1 | -0.5 | -0.6 |
Clothing | 1.0 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
Household | 0.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Healthcare & Personal Articles | 0.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
Transportation & Communication | -0.3 | -0.3 | 0.1 |
Recreation, Education, Culture & Services | 0.0 | 1.1 | 2.1 |
Residence | 0.2 | 1.6 | 2.2 |
House Renting | 0.3 | 2.7 | 3.4 |
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Month and 12-month rates of change of consumer prices are provided in Table IV-12. There are waves of consumer price inflation in China similar to those around the world (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html). In the first wave, consumer prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 8.3 percent in Jan-Mar 2011, driven by commodity price increases resulting from unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates. In the second wave, risk aversion unwound carry trades with annual equivalent inflation falling to the rate of 2.0 percent in Apr-Jun 2011. In the third wave, inflation returned at 2.9 percent with renewed interest in commodity exposures in Jul-Nov 2011. In the fourth wave, inflation returned at a high 5.8 percent annual equivalent in Dec 2011 to Mar 2012. In the fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.9 percent in Apr to Jun 2012. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 4.1 percent in Jul-Sep 2012. In the seventh wave, inflation was minus 1.2 percent annual equivalent in Oct 2012 and 0.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2012. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 12.2 percent in Dec 2012-Feb 2013 primarily because of winter weather that caused increases in food prices. In the ninth wave, collapse of food prices resulted in annual equivalent inflation of minus 10.3 percent in Mar 2013. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 2.4 percent in Apr 2013. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.5 percent in May-Jun 2013. In the twelfth wave, inflation rose at annual equivalent 4.6 percent in Jul-Oct 2013 with sharp increase of food prices in Sep 2013. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Nov 2013. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 7.4 percent in Dec 2013-Feb 2014. In the fifteenth wave, annual inflation was minus 4.7 percent in Mar-Apr 2014. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.2 percent in May 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Jun 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Jul-Oct 2014. Inflation volatility originating in unconventional monetary policy clouds investment and consumption decisions by business and households. There is local problem in China with food prices.
Table IV-12, China, Month and 12-Month Rates of Change of Consumer Price Index ∆%
Month ∆% | 12-Month ∆% | |
Oct 2014 | 0.0 | 1.6 |
Sep | 0.5 | 1.6 |
Aug | 0.2 | 2.0 |
Jul | 0.1 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Jul-Oct | 2.4 | |
Jun | -0.1 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Jun | -1.2 | |
May | 0.1 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% May | 1.2 | |
Apr | -0.3 | 1.8 |
Mar | -0.5 | 2.4 |
AE ∆% Mar-Apr | -4.7 | |
Feb | 0.5 | 2.0 |
Jan | 1.0 | 2.5 |
Dec 2013 | 0.3 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% Dec-Feb | 7.4 | |
Nov | -0.1 | 3.0 |
AE ∆% Nov | -1.2 | |
Oct | 0.1 | 3.2 |
Sep | 0.8 | 3.1 |
Aug | 0.5 | 2.6 |
Jul | 0.1 | 2.7 |
AE ∆% Jul-Oct | 4.6 | |
Jun | 0.0 | 2.7 |
May | -0.6 | 2.1 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | -3.5 | |
Apr | 0.2 | 2.4 |
AE ∆% Apr | 2.4 | |
Mar 2013 | -0.9 | 2.1 |
AE ∆% Mar | -10.3 | |
Feb | 1.1 | 3.2 |
Jan | 1.0 | 2.0 |
Dec 2012 | 0.8 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% Dec-Feb | 12.2 | |
Nov | 0.1 | 2.0 |
Oct | -0.1 | 1.7 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | 0.0 | |
Sep | 0.3 | 1.9 |
Aug | 0.6 | 2.0 |
Jul | 0.1 | 1.8 |
AE ∆% Jul-Sep | 4.1 | |
Jun | -0.6 | 2.2 |
May | -0.3 | 3.0 |
Apr | -0.1 | 3.4 |
AE ∆% Apr to Jun | -3.9 | |
Mar | 0.2 | 3.6 |
Feb | -0.1 | 3.2 |
Jan | 1.5 | 4.5 |
Dec 2011 | 0.3 | 4.1 |
AE ∆% Dec to Mar | 5.8 | |
Nov | -0.2 | 4.2 |
Oct | 0.1 | 5.5 |
Sep | 0.5 | 6.1 |
Aug | 0.3 | 6.2 |
Jul | 0.5 | 6.5 |
AE ∆% Jul to Nov | 2.9 | |
Jun | 0.3 | 6.4 |
May | 0.1 | 5.5 |
Apr | 0.1 | 5.3 |
AE ∆% Apr to Jun | 2.0 | |
Mar | -0.2 | 5.4 |
Feb | 1.2 | 4.9 |
Jan | 1.0 | 4.9 |
AE ∆% Jan to Mar | 8.3 | |
Dec 2010 | 0.5 | 4.6 |
AE: Annual Equivalent
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart IV-11 of the National Bureau of Statistics of China provides monthly and 12-month rates of consumer price inflation. In contrast with producer prices, consumer prices had not moderated at the monthly marginal rates. Consumer prices fell 0.2 percent in Nov 2011 after increasing only 0.1 percent in Oct but increased 0.3 percent in Dec and a high 1.5 percent in Jan 2012, declining 0.1 percent in Feb, rising 0.2 percent in Mar and declining 0.1 percent in Apr, 0.3 percent in May and 0.6 percent in Jun 2012 but increasing 0.1 percent in Jul, 0.6 percent in Aug 2012 and 0.3 percent in Sep 2012. Consumer prices fell 0.1 percent in Oct 2012. The decline of 0.1 percent in Feb 2012 pulled down the 12-month rate to 3.2 percent, which bounced back to 3.6 percent in Mar with the monthly increase of 0.2 percent and fell to 2.2 percent in Jun with increasing pace of monthly decline from Apr to Jun 2012. Even with increase of 0.1 percent in Jul 2012, consumer price inflation in 12 months fell to 1.8 percent in Jul 2012 but bounced back to 2.0 percent with increase of 0.6 percent in Aug. In Sep, increase of 0.3 percent still maintained 12-month inflation at 1.9 percent. The decline of 0.1 percent in Oct 2012 pulled down the 12-month rate to 1.7 percent, which is the lowest in Chart IV-3. Increase of 0.1 percent in Nov 2012 pulled up the 12-month rate to 2.0 percent. Abnormal increase of 0.8 percent in Dec 2012 because of winter weather pulled up the 12-month rate to 2.5 percent. Even with increase of 1.0 percent in Jan 2013 12-month inflation fell to 2.0 percent. Inflation of 1.1 percent in Feb 2013 pulled the 12-month rate to 3.2 percent. Collapse of food prices with decline of consumer prices by 0.9 percent in Mar 2013 brought down the 12-month rate to 2.1 percent. Renewed inflation of 0.2 percent in Apr 2013 raised the 12-month rate to 2.4 percent. Decline of inflation by 0.6 percent in May reduced 12-month inflation to 2.1 percent. Inflation rose to 2.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Jun 2013 with unchanged monthly inflation. Consumer prices increased 0.1 percent in Jul 2013 and 2.7 percent in 12 months. In combination of increases of food prices and other prices, inflation returned with 0.5 percent in Aug 2013 and 2.6 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 0.8 percent in Sept 2013 and 3.1 percent in 12 months with increase in food prices of 1.5 in the month of Sep 2013. Consumer prices increased 0.1 percent in Oct 2013 and 3.2 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices fell 0.1 percent in Nov 2013 and increased 3.0 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 0.3 percent in Dec 2013 and increased 2.5 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 1.0 percent in Jan 2014 and 2.5 percent in 12 months. In Feb 2014, consumer prices increased 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices fell 0.5 percent in Mar 2014 and increased 2.4 percent in 12 months followed by 0.3 percent in Apr 2014 and 1.8 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 0.1 percent in May 2014 and 2.5 percent in 12 months. In Jun 2014, consumer prices fell 0.1 percent and increased 2.3 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 0.1 percent in Jul 2014 and increased 2.3 percent in 12 months. In Aug 2014, consumer prices increased 0.2 percent and rose 2.0 percent in 12 months. CPI inflation was 0.5 percent in Sep 2014 and 1.6 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices changed 0.0 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 1.6 percent in 12 months.
Chart IV-11, China, Consumer Prices ∆% Month and 12 Months
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
The producer price index of the euro zone increased 0.2 percent in Sep 2014 and decreased 0.2 percent in Aug 2014, as shown in Table IV-13. The producer price index of the euro zone decreased in five consecutive months in 2014: 0.1 percent in May, 0.2 percent in Apr, 0.2 percent in Mar, 0.2 percent in Feb and 0.3 percent in Jan. Energy inflation has oscillated with the shocks of risk aversion, and alternating portfolio reallocations, that cause unwinding of carry trade positions from zero interest rates to commodity futures. Energy prices fell 0.8 percent in Dec 2012 but increased 0.3 percent in Feb 2013 and 0.9 percent in Jan 2013. Energy prices fell 0.8 percent in Dec 2012, 0.5 percent in Nov 2012 and fell 0.4 percent in Oct 2012 after -0.1 percent in Sep 2012, increased 2.4 percent in Aug, and 1.4 percent in Jul 2012 or at the annual equivalent rate of 16.2 percent in the quarter Jul-Sep 2012 and at 25.3 percent in Jul-Aug 2012. Energy prices increased 5.2 percent cumulatively in Jan-Mar 2012 or at the annual equivalent rate of 22.5 percent. Energy prices increased 0.7 percent in Jul 2013, 0.1 percent in Aug 2013 and 0.6 percent in Sep 2013. Energy prices fell 1.3 percent in Oct 2013 and increased 0.1 percent in Nov 2013. Energy prices increased 0.5 percent in Dec 2013 and fell 1.2 percent in Jan 2014. Energy prices fell 0.7 percent in Feb 2014 and decreased 0.9 percent in Mar 2014. Energy prices fell 0.9 percent in Apr 2014 and fell 0.3 percent in May 2014. Energy prices increased 0.6 percent in Jun 2014 and fell 0.9 percent in Jul 2014. Energy prices fell 0.5 percent in Aug 2014 and increased 1.0 percent in Sep 2014. During periods of relaxed risk aversion, carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity exposures drive high inflation waves. Portfolio reallocations created exposures in equities while reversing exposures in commodities. Prices of capital goods have barely moved. Prices of durable consumer goods have been subdued in 2013-2014. Purchasing managers’ indexes worldwide reflect increasing prices of inputs for business while sales prices are stagnant or declining, squeezing economic activity (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/imf-view-squeeze-of-economic-activity.html). Unconventional monetary policy causes uncertainty in business decisions with shocks of declining net revenue margins during worldwide inflation waves (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html).
Table IV-13, Euro Area, Industrial Producer Prices Month ∆%
Sep 2014 | Aug 2014 | Jul 2014 | Jun 2013 | May 2014 | Apr 2014 | |
Industry ex | 0.2 | -0.2 | -0.2 | 0.2 | -0.1 | -0.2 |
Industry ex | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Intermediate | -0.1 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Energy | 1.0 | -0.5 | -0.9 | 0.6 | -0.3 | -0.9 |
Capital Goods | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Durable Consumer Goods | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Nondurable Consumer Goods | -0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Twelve-month percentage changes of industrial prices in the euro zone have moderated significantly, as shown in Table IV-14. The 12-month percentage change of industrial prices excluding construction fell from 4.4 percent in Dec 2011 to minus 0.3 percent in Apr 2013 and minus 0.3 percent in May 2013. The 12-month percentage change of industrial producer prices increased 0.2 percent in Jun 2013 but was flat in Jul 2013 and fell 0.9 percent in Aug 2013. Industrial producer prices in the euro area fell 0.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013 and fell 1.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013. Industrial producer prices fell 1.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. Industrial producer prices fell 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013 and fell 1.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014. Industrial producer prices in the euro zone fell 1.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014 and decreased 1.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2014. Producer prices in the euro area fell 1.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2014 and fell 1.1 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2014. Producer prices in the euro area fell 0.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Jun 2014 and declined 1.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2014. Producer prices in the euro area fell 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014 and fell 1.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. Energy prices increased 9.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2011 and Jan 2011 but the rate fell to 4.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2012, increasing to 7.5 percent in Aug 2012 and 6.4 percent in Sep 2012. Energy prices fell 5.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2012, 3.9 percent in Nov 2012, 3.6 percent in Dec 2012, 2.2 percent in Jan 2013 and 1.6 percent in Feb 2013. Energy prices fell 0.6 in the 12 months ending in Mar 2013, minus 2.3 percent in Apr 2013, minus 2.2 percent in May 2013 and minus 1.0 percent in Jun 2013. The 12-month percentage change of energy prices was minus 1.5 percent in Jul 2013 and minus 3.7 percent in Aug 2013. Energy prices fell 2.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013, 3.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013 and 3.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013. Energy prices fell 1.8 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013 and fell 3.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014. Energy prices fell 4.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014 and decreased 4.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2014. Energy prices fell 3.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2014 and fell 3.1 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2014. Energy prices fell 2.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Jun 2013 and decreased 4.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2014. Energy prices decreased 4.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014 and fell 4.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014. There is major vulnerability in producer price inflation that can return together with long positions in commodity futures with carry trades from zero interest during relaxation of risk aversion. Business net revenue or prices of goods sold less costs of inputs suffer wide oscillation preventing sound calculation of risk/returns and capital budgeting (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/world-inflation-waves-squeeze-of.html).
Table IV-14, Euro Area, Industrial Producer Prices 12-Month ∆%
Sep 2014 | Aug | Jul 2014 | Jun 2013 | May 2014 | Apr 2014 | |
Industry ex | -1.4 | -1.4 | -1.3 | -0.9 | -1.1 | -1.3 |
Industry ex | -0.2 | -0.2 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.3 |
Intermediate | -0.5 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.9 | -1.2 | -1.5 |
Energy | -4.3 | -4.7 | -4.1 | -2.5 | -3.1 | -3.6 |
Capital Goods | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
Durable Consumer Goods | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
Nondurable Consumer Goods | -0.5 | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Industrial producer prices in the euro area are following similar inflation waves as in the rest of the world (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html), as shown in Table IV-15. In the first wave in Jan-Apr 2011, annual equivalent producer price inflation was 11.3 percent driven by carry trades from zero interest rates into commodity futures. In the second wave in May-Jun 2011, annual equivalent inflation of producer prices declined at 0.6 percent. In the third wave in Jul-Sep 2011, annual equivalent inflation increased at 2.4 percent. In the fourth wave in Oct-Dec 2011, risk aversion originating in the European sovereign debt crisis interrupted commodity carry trades, resulting in annual equivalent inflation of only 0.4 percent. In the fifth wave in Jan-Mar 2012, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 7.9 percent with a high annual equivalent rate of 8.7 percent in Jan-Feb 2012. In the sixth wave, risk aversion from the European sovereign debt event caused reversal of commodity carry trades with equivalent annual inflation of minus 2.4 percent in Apr-Jun 2012. In the seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 6.8 percent in Jul-Aug 2012 while energy prices driven by carry trades increased at the annual equivalent rate of 25.3 percent. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation retreated to 0.6 percent in Sep-Oct 2012. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Nov-Dec 2012. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Jan-Feb 2013. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.5 percent in Mar-Jun 2013. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.6 percent in Jul-Sep 2013. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.0 percent in Oct-Nov 2013. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 2.4 percent in Dec 2013. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.6 percent in Jan-May 2014.In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Jun 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Jul-Aug 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Sep 2014. The bottom part of Table IV-15 provides 12-month percentage changes from 1999 to 2013. The final row of Table IV-15 provides the average annual rate of producer-price inflation in the euro area at 2.3 percent in Dec from 1999 to 2013.
Table IV-15, Euro Area, Industrial Producer Prices Excluding Construction, Month and 12-Month ∆%
Month ∆% | 12-Month ∆% | |
Sep 2014 | 0.2 | -1.4 |
AE ∆% Sep | 2.4 | |
Aug | -0.2 | -1.4 |
Jul | -0.2 | -1.3 |
AE ∆% Jul-Aug | -2.4 | |
Jun | 0.2 | -0.9 |
AE ∆% Jun | 2.4 | |
May | -0.1 | -1.1 |
Apr | -0.2 | -1.3 |
Mar | -0.2 | -1.7 |
Feb | -0.2 | -1.7 |
Jan | -0.3 | -1.3 |
AE ∆% Jan-May | -2.4 | |
Dec 2013 | 0.2 | -0.7 |
AE ∆% Dec | 2.4 | |
Nov | 0.0 | -1.2 |
Oct | -0.5 | -1.3 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | -3.0 | |
Sep | 0.2 | -0.9 |
Aug | 0.0 | -0.9 |
Jul | 0.2 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Jul-Sep | 1.6 | |
Jun | 0.0 | 0.2 |
May | -0.3 | -0.3 |
Apr | -0.6 | -0.3 |
Mar | -0.3 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% Mar-Jun | -3.5 | |
Feb | 0.1 | 1.3 |
Jan | 0.3 | 1.7 |
AE ∆% Jan-Feb | 2.4 | |
Dec 2012 | -0.2 | 2.2 |
Nov | -0.2 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Nov-Dec | -2.4 | |
Oct | 0.0 | 2.6 |
Sep | 0.1 | 2.8 |
AE ∆% Sep-Oct | 0.6 | |
Aug | 0.8 | 2.9 |
Jul | 0.3 | 1.9 |
AE ∆% Jul-Aug | 6.8 | |
Jun | -0.5 | 2.1 |
May | -0.3 | 2.7 |
Apr | 0.2 | 2.9 |
AE ∆% Apr-Jun | -2.4 | |
Mar | 0.5 | 3.6 |
Feb | 0.6 | 3.9 |
Jan | 0.8 | 4.0 |
AE ∆% Jan-Mar | 7.9 | |
Dec 2011 | -0.2 | 4.4 |
Nov | 0.2 | 5.4 |
Oct | 0.1 | 5.5 |
AE ∆% Oct-Dec | 0.4 | |
Sep | 0.2 | 5.6 |
Aug | -0.1 | 5.7 |
Jul | 0.5 | 5.8 |
AE ∆% Jul-Sep | 2.4 | |
Jun | 0.0 | 5.5 |
May | -0.1 | 5.9 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | -0.6 | |
Apr | 0.9 | 6.4 |
Mar | 0.8 | 6.4 |
Feb | 0.7 | 6.1 |
Jan | 1.2 | 5.4 |
AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 11.3 | |
Dec 2013 | -0.7 | |
Dec 2012 | 2.2 | |
Dec 2011 | 4.4 | |
Dec 2010 | 5.1 | |
Dec 2009 | -3.0 | |
Dec 2008 | 1.5 | |
Dec 2007 | 4.4 | |
Dec 2006 | 3.8 | |
Dec 2005 | 4.5 | |
Dec 2004 | 3.7 | |
Dec 2003 | 1.0 | |
Dec 2002 | 1.5 | |
Dec 2001 | -0.5 | |
Dec 2000 | 4.6 | |
Dec 1999 | 2.5 | |
Average ∆% 1999-2013 | 2.3 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
The harmonized index of consumer prices of the euro area in Table IV-16 has similar inflation waves as in most countries (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html). In the first wave, consumer prices in the euro area increased at the annual equivalent rate of 5.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2011. In the second wave, risk aversion caused unwinding of commodity carry trades with inflation decreasing at the annual equivalent rate of minus 2.4 percent in May-Jul 2011. In the third wave, improved risk appetite resulted in annual equivalent inflation in Aug-Nov 2011 at 4.3 percent. In the fourth wave, return of risk aversion caused decline of consumer prices at the annual equivalent rate of minus 3.0 percent in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. In the fifth wave, improved attitudes toward risk aversion resulted in higher consumer price inflation at the high annual equivalent rate of 9.6 percent in Feb-Apr 2012. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell to minus 2.8 percent in May-Jul 2012. In the seventh wave, increasing risk appetite caused new carry trade exposures that resulted in annual equivalent inflation of 6.8 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 5.3 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. In the eighth wave, annual-equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Nov 2012. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 4.9 percent in Dec 2012. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 11.4 percent in Jan 2013. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 10.0 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Apr 2013. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2013. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 5.8 percent in Jul 2013. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent in Aug-Sep 2013. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Oct-Nov 2013. In the eighteenth wave, annual inflation returned at 4.9 percent in Dec 2013. In the nineteenth wave, inflation fell at annual equivalent 12.4 percent in Jan 2014. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was at 5.7 percent in Feb-Apr 2014. In the twenty-first wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in May 2014. Inflation volatility around the world is confusing the information required in investment and consumption decisions. In the twenty-second wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.2 percent in Jun 2014. In the twenty-third wave, annual equivalent inflation was at minus 8.1 percent in Jul 2014. In the twenty-fourth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.0 percent in Aug-Sep 2014. In the twenty-fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Oct 2014. The bottom part of Table IV-16 provides annual inflation in the euro area from 1999 to 2013. HICP inflation was 3.3 percent in 2008 mostly because of carry trades from interest rates falling to zero into commodity futures. Exposures in commodity futures were reversed in the flight to US government obligations with resulting inflation of 0.3 percent in 2009. Reallocations of portfolios of financial investors according to risk aversion caused high volatility of inflation in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.
Table IV-16, Euro Area Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices Month and 12 Months ∆%
Month ∆% | 12 Months ∆% | |
Oct 2014 | -0.1 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Oct | -1.2 | |
Sep | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Aug | 0.1 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Aug-Sep | 3.0 | |
Jul | -0.7 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Jul | -8.1 | |
Jun | 0.1 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% Jun | 1.2 | |
May | -0.1 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% May | -1.2 | |
Apr | 0.2 | 0.7 |
Mar | 0.9 | 0.5 |
Feb | 0.3 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 5.7 | |
Jan | -1.1 | 0.8 |
AE ∆% Jan | -12.4 | |
Dec 2013 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
AE ∆% Dec | 4.9 | |
Nov | -0.1 | 0.8 |
Oct | -0.1 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | -2.4 | |
Sep | 0.5 | 1.1 |
Aug | 0.1 | 1.3 |
AE ∆% Aug- Sep | 3.7 | |
Jul 2013 | -0.5 | 1.6 |
AE ∆% Jul | -5.8 | |
Jun | 0.1 | 1.6 |
May | 0.1 | 1.4 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | 1.2 | |
Apr | -0.1 | 1.2 |
AE ∆% Apr | -1.2 | |
Mar | 1.2 | 1.7 |
Feb | 0.4 | 1.8 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | 10.0 | |
Jan | -1.0 | 2.0 |
AE ∆% Jan | -11.4 | |
Dec 2012 | 0.4 | 2.2 |
AE ∆% Dec | 4.9 | |
Nov | -0.2 | 2.2 |
AE ∆% Nov | -2.4 | |
Oct | 0.2 | 2.5 |
Sep | 0.7 | 2.6 |
Aug | 0.4 | 2.6 |
AE ∆% Aug-Oct | 5.3 | |
Jul 2012 | -0.5 | 2.4 |
Jun | -0.1 | 2.4 |
May | -0.1 | 2.4 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | -2.8 | |
Apr | 0.5 | 2.6 |
Mar | 1.3 | 2.7 |
Feb | 0.5 | 2.7 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 9.6 | |
Jan | -0.8 | 2.6 |
Dec 2011 | 0.3 | 2.8 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | -3.0 | |
Nov | 0.1 | 3.0 |
Oct | 0.4 | 3.0 |
Sep | 0.7 | 3.0 |
Aug | 0.2 | 2.6 |
AE ∆% Aug-Nov | 4.3 | |
Jul | -0.6 | 2.6 |
Jun | 0.0 | 2.7 |
May | 0.0 | 2.7 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | -2.4 | |
Apr | 0.6 | 2.8 |
Mar | 1.4 | 2.7 |
Feb | 0.4 | 2.4 |
Jan | -0.7 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 5.2 | |
Dec 2010 | 0.6 | 2.2 |
Annual ∆% | ||
2013 | 1.3 | |
2012 | 2.5 | |
2011 | 2.7 | |
2010 | 1.6 | |
2009 | 0.3 | |
2008 | 3.3 | |
2007 | 2.2 | |
2006 | 2.2 | |
2005 | 2.2 | |
2004 | 2.2 | |
2003 | 2.1 | |
2002 | 2.3 | |
2001 | 2.4 | |
2000 | 2.2 | |
1999 | 1.2 |
AE: annual equivalent Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table IV-17 provides weights and inflation of selected components of the HICP of the euro area. Inflation of all items excluding energy increased 0.7 percent in Oct 2014 relative to Oct 2013. Prices of non-energy industrial goods decreased 0.1 percent in Oct 2014 relative to a year earlier. Inflation of services was 1.2 percent in Oct 2014 relative to a year earlier.
Table IV-17, Euro Area, HICP Inflation and Selected Components, ∆%
Weight 2014 | Oct 2014/ Oct 2013 | Sep 2014/Sep 2013 | ∆% Aug 2014/Aug 2013 | |
All Items | 1000.0 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
All Items ex Energy | 891.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
All Items ex Energy, Food, Alcohol & Tobacco | 694.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
All Items ex Energy & Unprocessed Food | 817.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
All Items ex Energy & Seasonal Food | 853.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
All Items ex Tobacco | 976.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Energy | 108.1 | -2.0 | -2.3 | -2.0 |
Food, Alcohol & Tobacco | 197.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | -0.3 |
Non-energy Industrial Goods | 266.6 | -0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Services | 427.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
AE: annual equivalent
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
The estimate of consumer price inflation in Germany in Table IV-18 is 0.8 percent in 12 months ending in Oct 2014, minus 0.3 percent NSA (not seasonally adjusted) in Oct 2014 relative to Sep 2014 and 0.0 percent CSA (calendar and seasonally adjusted) in Oct 2014 relative to Sep 2014. There are waves of consumer price inflation in Germany similar to those worldwide (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html). In the first wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.0 percent in Feb-Apr 2011 NSA and 2.4 percent CSA during risk appetite in carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures. In the second wave, annual equivalent consumer price inflation collapsed to 0.6 percent NSA and 3.0 percent CSA in May-Jun 2011 because of risk aversion caused by the European sovereign debt event. In the third wave, annual equivalent consumer price inflation was 1.7 percent NSA and 1.9 percent CSA in Jul-Nov 2011 because of relaxed risk aversion. In the fourth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 0.6 percent NSA and 1.8 percent CSA in Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. In the fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 4.5 percent NSA and 2.4 percent CSA in Feb-Apr 2012 during another energy-commodity carry trade shock. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation in May-Jun 2012 is minus 1.2 percent NSA and 0.6 percent CSA. In the seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation NSA is 4.9 percent in Jul-Aug 2012 and 3.0 percent CSA. In the eighth wave in Sep-Dec 2012, annual equivalent inflation is 1.5 percent NSA and 1.5 percent CSA. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell to minus 5.8 percent NSA in Jan 2013 and 1.2 percent CSA. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 6.8 percent NSA in Feb-Mar 2013 and 1.2 percent CSA. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Apr fell to minus 5.8 percent NSA and 0.0 percent CSA in reversal of carry trades into commodity futures. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 4.1 percent in May-Jul 2013 NSA and 2.8 percent CSA. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was nil NSA and 0.6 percent CSA in Aug-Sep 2013. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent NSA in Oct 2013 and 0.0 percent CSA. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent NSA and 1.8 percent CSA in Nov-Dec 2013. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 7.0 percent NSA in Jan 2014 and 0.0 percent CSA. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 4.9 percent in Feb-Mar 2014 and 0.0 percent CSA. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.8 percent NSA and 0.6 CSA in Apr-May 2014. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent in Jun-Jul NSA and 1.2 percent CSA. In the twenty-first wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent NSA and 0.4 percent CSA in Aug-Oct 2014. Under unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing, inflation becomes highly volatile during alternative shocks of risk aversion and risk appetite, preventing sound investment and consumption decisions.
Table IV-18, Germany, Consumer Price Index ∆%
12-Month ∆% | Month ∆% NSA | Month ∆% CSA | |
Oct 2014 | 0.8 | -0.3 | 0.0 |
Sep | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Aug | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Aug-Oct | -1.2 | 0.4 | |
Jul | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
Jun | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Jun-Jul | 3.7 | 1.2 | |
May | 0.9 | -0.1 | -0.2 |
Apr | 1.3 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Apr-May | -1.8 | 0.0 | |
Mar | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
Feb | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | 4.9 | 0.0 | |
Jan | 1.3 | -0.6 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Jan | -7.0 | 0.0 | |
Dec 2013 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
Nov | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Nov-Dec | 3.7 | 1.8 | |
Oct | 1.2 | -0.2 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Oct | -2.4 | 0.0 | |
Sep | 1.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Aug | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Aug-Sep | 0.0 | 0.6 | |
Jul | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
Jun | 1.8 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
May | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | 4.1 | 2.8 | |
Apr | 1.2 | -0.5 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Apr | -5.8 | 0.0 | |
Mar | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
Feb | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | 6.8 | 1.2 | |
Jan | 1.7 | -0.5 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Jan | -5.8 | 1.2 | |
Dec 2012 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
Nov | 1.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Oct | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Sep | 2.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Sep-Dec | 1.5 | 1.5 | |
Aug | 2.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Jul | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Jul-Aug | 4.9 | 3.0 | |
Jun | 1.7 | -0.2 | 0.0 |
May | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | -1.2 | 0.6 | |
Apr | 2.0 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
Mar | 2.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Feb | 2.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 4.5 | 2.4 | |
Jan | 2.1 | -0.1 | 0.3 |
Dec 2011 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | 0.6 | 1.8 | |
Nov | 2.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Oct | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
Sep | 2.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Aug | 2.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Jul | 2.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Jul-Nov | 1.7 | 1.9 | |
Jun | 2.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
May | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | 0.6 | 3.0 | |
Apr | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Mar | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Feb | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Jan | 1.7 | -0.2 | 0.2 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 3.0 | 2.4 | |
Dec 2010 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
Nov | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Oct | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
Sep | 1.2 | -0.1 | 0.1 |
Aug | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Annual Average ∆% | |||
2013 | 1.5 | ||
2012 | 2.0 | ||
2011 | 2.1 | ||
2010 | 1.1 | ||
2009 | 0.4 | ||
2008 | 2.6 | ||
Dec 2009 | 0.8 | ||
Dec 2008 | 1.1 | ||
Dec 2007 | 3.2 | ||
Dec 2006 | 1.4 | ||
Dec 2005 | 1.4 | ||
Dec 2004 | 2.2 | ||
Dec 2003 | 1.1 | ||
Dec 2002 | 1.1 | ||
Dec 2001 | 1.6 |
AE: Annual Equivalent
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/ShortTermIndicators/ShortTermIndicators.html
Chart IV-12 of the Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, or federal statistical office of Germany, provides the unadjusted consumer price index of Germany from 2006 to 2014. There is evident acceleration in the form of sharper slope in the first months of 2011 and then a flattening in subsequent months with renewed strength in Dec 2011, decline in Jan 2012 and another upward spike from Feb to Apr 2012, new drop in May-Jun 2012 and increases in Jul and Aug 2012 relaxed in Sep-Nov 2012. Inflation returned in Dec 2012 and fell in Jan 2013, rebounding in Feb-Mar 2013. Inflation fell in Apr 2013 and rebounded in May 2013. Reversals of commodity exposures caused the decline in Apr 2013 followed by increases in May-Jul 2013. Inflation stabilized in Aug-Sep 2013 and fell in Oct 2013. Inflation increased in Nov-Dec 2013 and fell in Jan 2014. Consumer prices increased again in Feb-Mar 2014 and fell in Apr-May 2014. If risk aversion declines, new carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures could again result in higher inflation. Inflation increased in Jun-Jul 2014 and was unchanged in Aug-Sep 2014, decreasing in Oct 2014.
Chart IV-12, Germany, Consumer Price Index, Unadjusted, 2010=100
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/ShortTermIndicators/ShortTermIndicators.html
Chart IV-12A provides the consumer price index NSA of the US from 2006 to 2014. The salient similarity is the hump in 2008 caused by commodity carry trades driven by the movement to zero interest rates. Inflation communicated worldwide through carry trade from zero interest rates to exposures in commodity futures, creating instability in financial and economic decisions.
Chart IV-12A, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, NSA, 2006-2014
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm4
Chart IV-13, of the Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland, or Federal Statistical Agency of Germany, provides the unadjusted consumer price index and trend of Germany from 2010 to 2014. Chart IV-13 captures inflation waves with alternation of periods of positive and negative slopes resulting from zero interest rates with shocks of risk appetite and risk aversion. For example, the negative slope of decline of inflation by 0.2 percent in Jun 2012 and 0.0 percent in May 2012 follows an upward slope of price increases in Feb-Apr 2012 after decline of inflation by 0.1 percent in Jan 2012. The is another positive slope caused by inflation of 0.4 percent in Jul 2012, which is followed by 0.4 percent in Aug 2012 and flattening segment, as inflation remains almost unchanged with 0.1 percent in Sep and 0.0 percent in Oct 2012, increasing 0.1 percent in Nov 2012 and increasing 0.3 percent in Dec 2012. Inflation fell 0.5 percent in Jan 2013 and jumped 0.6 percent in Feb 2013 and 0.5 percent in Mar 2013. Another declining segment indicates the decline of 0.5 percent in Apr 2013 followed by the increases in May-Jul 2013. Inflation was nil in Aug-Sep 2013 and fell in Oct 2013. Inflation increased in Nov-Dec 2013 and fell in Jan 2014. Inflation returned in Feb-Mar 2014 and fell in Apr-May 2014. Inflation returned in Jun-Jul 2014 and prices did not change in Aug-Sep 2014. Prices fell in Oct 2014. The waves occur around an upward trend of prices, disproving the proposition of fear of deflation.
Chart IV-13, Germany, Consumer Price Index, Unadjusted and Trend, 2010=100
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/ShortTermIndicators/ShortTermIndicators.html
Table IV-19 provides 12-month and monthly consumer price inflation in Germany in Oct 2014. Services decreased 0.2 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 1.7 percent in 12 months. Excluding heating oil and motor fuels, consumer prices decreased 0.1 percent in Oct and increased 1.1 percent in 12 months.
Table IV-19, Germany, Consumer Price Index ∆%
Oct 2014 | Weight | 12- Month ∆% | Month ∆% |
Total | 1,000.00 | 0.8 | -0.3 |
Excluding heating oil and motor fuels | 950.52 | 1.1 | -0.1 |
Excluding household energy | 931.81 | 1.0 | -0.2 |
Excluding Energy | 893.44 | 1.2 | -0.1 |
Total Goods | 479.77 | -0.1 | -0.4 |
Nondurable Consumer Goods | 307.89 | 0.1 | -0.4 |
Energy | 106.56 | -2.3 | -1.5 |
Services | 520.23 | 1.7 | -0.2 |
Energy Components | |||
Motor Fuels | 38.37 | -3.5 | -2.4 |
Household Energy | 68.19 | -1.6 | -1.0 |
Heating Oil | 11.11 | -10.8 | -5.8 |
Food | 90.52 | 0.7 | 0.0 |
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_398_611.html
Table IV-20 provides monthly and 12 months consumer price inflation in France. There are the same waves as in inflation worldwide (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html). In the first wave, annual equivalent inflation in Jan-Apr 2011 was 4.3 percent driven by the carry trade from zero interest rates to commodity futures positions in an environment of risk appetite. In the second wave, risk aversion caused the reversal of carry trades into commodity futures, resulting in the fall of the annual equivalent inflation rate to minus 1.2 percent in May-Jul 2011. In the third wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 3.0 percent in Aug-Nov 2011 with alternations of risk aversion and risk appetite. In the fourth wave, risk aversion originating in the European debt crisis caused annual equivalent inflation of 0.0 percent from Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. In the fifth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased to 5.3 percent in Feb-Apr 2012. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in May-Jul 2012 during another bout of risk aversion causing reversal of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity price futures exposures. In the seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation jumped to 8.7 percent in Aug 2012, 3.0 percent in Aug-Sep 2012 and 2.8 percent in Aug-Oct 2012. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Nov 2012 and minus 1.6 percent in Nov 2012 to Jan 2013. In the ninth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 6.8 percent in Feb-Mar 2013. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Apr because of reversal of commodity carry trades. In the eleventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.8 percent in May-Jun 2013. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.5 percent in Jul 2013. In the thirteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 6.2 percent in Aug 2013. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.6 percent in Sep-Nov 2013. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 3.7 percent in Dec 2013. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 7.0 percent in Jan 2014. In the sixteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 6.8 percent in Feb-Mar 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 0.0 percent in Apr-Jun 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.5 percent in Jul 2014. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 4.9 percent in Aug 2014. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 2.4 percent in Sep-Oct 2014.
Table V-20, France, Consumer Price Index, Month and 12-Month ∆%
Month ∆% | 12-Month ∆% | |
Oct 2014 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
Sep | -0.4 | 0.3 |
AE ∆% Sep-Oct | -2.4 | |
Aug | 0.4 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Aug | 4.9 | |
Jul | -0.3 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% Jul | -3.5 | |
Jun | 0.0 | 0.5 |
May | 0.0 | 0.7 |
Apr | 0.0 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Apr-Jun | 0.0 | |
Mar | 0.5 | 0.6 |
Feb | 0.6 | 0.9 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | 6.8 | |
Jan | -0.6 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Jan | -7.0 | |
Dec 2013 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Dec | 3.7 | |
Nov | -0.1 | 0.7 |
Oct | -0.1 | 0.6 |
Sep | -0.2 | 0.9 |
AE ∆% Sep-Nov | -1.6 | |
Aug | 0.5 | 0.9 |
AE ∆% Aug | 6.2 | |
Jul | -0.3 | 1.1 |
AE ∆% Jul | -3.5 | |
Jun | 0.2 | 0.9 |
May | 0.1 | 0.8 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | 1.8 | |
Apr | -0.1 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Apr | -1.2 | |
Mar | 0.8 | 1.0 |
Feb | 0.3 | 1.0 |
AE ∆% Feb-Mar | 6.8 | |
Jan | -0.5 | 1.2 |
Dec 2012 | 0.3 | 1.3 |
Nov | -0.2 | 1.4 |
AE ∆% Nov-Jan | -1.6 | |
Oct | 0.2 | 1.9 |
Sep | -0.2 | 1.9 |
Aug | 0.7 | 2.1 |
AE ∆% Aug-Oct | 2.8 | |
Jul | -0.5 | 1.9 |
Jun | 0.0 | 1.9 |
May | -0.1 | 2.0 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | -2.4 | |
Apr | 0.1 | 2.1 |
Mar | 0.8 | 2.3 |
Feb | 0.4 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 5.3 | |
Jan | -0.4 | 2.4 |
Dec 2011 | 0.4 | 2.5 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | 0.0 | |
Nov | 0.3 | 2.5 |
Oct | 0.3 | 2.4 |
Sep | -0.1 | 2.2 |
Aug | 0.5 | 2.2 |
AE ∆% Aug-Nov | 3.0 | |
Jul | -0.5 | 1.9 |
Jun | 0.1 | 2.1 |
May | 0.1 | 2.0 |
AE ∆% May-Jul | -1.2 | |
Apr | 0.3 | 2.1 |
Mar | 0.8 | 2.0 |
Feb | 0.5 | 1.6 |
Jan | -0.2 | 1.8 |
AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 4.3 | |
Dec 2010 | 0.4 | 1.8 |
Annual | ||
2013 | 0.9 | |
2012 | 2.0 | |
2011 | 2.1 | |
2010 | 1.5 | |
2009 | 0.1 | |
2008 | 2.8 | |
2007 | 1.5 | |
2006 | 1.6 | |
2005 | 1.8 | |
2004 | 2.1 | |
2003 | 2.1 | |
2002 | 1.9 | |
2001 | 1.7 | |
2000 | 1.7 | |
1999 | 0.5 | |
1998 | 0.7 | |
1997 | 1.2 | |
1996 | 2.0 | |
1995 | 1.8 | |
1994 | 1.6 | |
1993 | 2.1 | |
1992 | 2.4 | |
1991 | 3.2 |
AE: Annual Equivalent Metropolitan France
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=29&date=20141113
Chart IV-14 provides the consumer price index of France. There is the hump caused by speculative carry trades in 2008 from zero interest rates into derivatives of commodities and reversal of exposures during flight to the dollar and obligations of the US government (Cochrane and Zingales 2009). Inflation oscillated in waves along an upward trend and stabilized in current reversal of exposures in commodities in reallocations of portfolios among classes of risk financial assets.
Chart IV-14, France, Consumer Price Index, Jan 1998-Oct 2014, 1998=100
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=29&date=20141113
Table IV-21 provides consumer price inflation in France and of various items in Oct 2014 and in the 12 months ending in Oct 2014. Inflation of all items was minus 0.0 percent in Oct 2014 and 0.5 percent in 12 months. Energy prices decreased 0.4 percent in Oct 2014 and decreased 1.2 percent in 12 months. Transport and communications decreased 0.4 percent in Oct 2014 and fell 0.5 percent in 12 months. Rentals and dwellings show higher 12-month increase of 1.4 percent. Services increased 0.1 percent in Oct 2014 and increased 1.5 percent in 12 months.
Table IV-21, France, Consumer Price Index, Month and 12-Month Percentage Changes of Index and Components, ∆%
Oct 2014 | Weights | Month ∆% | 12-Month ∆% |
All Items | 10000 | 0.0 | 0.5 |
Food | 1653 | 0.4 | -0.1 |
Manufactured Products | 2653 | -0.2 | -0.8 |
Energy | 850 | -0.4 | -1.2 |
Petroleum Products | 475 | -1.7 | -3.6 |
Services | 4640 | 0.1 | 1.5 |
Rentals, Dwellings | 748 | 0.7 | 1.4 |
Transport and Communications | 503 | -0.4 | -0.5 |
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=29&date=20141113
Chart IV-15 of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE) of France shows headline and core consumer price inflation of France. Inflation rose during the commodity price shock of unconventional monetary policy. Risk aversion in late 2008 and beginning of 2009 caused collapse of valuation of commodity futures with resulting decline in inflation. The current downward trend of inflation originates in concentration of carry trades in equities and high-yield bonds with reversal of exposures in commodities.
Chart IV-15, France, Consumer Price Index (IPC) and Core Consumer Price Index (ISJ) 12 Months Rates of Change
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=29&date=20141113
The first wave of commodity price increases in the first four months of Jan-Apr 2011 also influenced the surge of consumer price inflation in Italy shown in Table IV-22. Annual equivalent inflation in the first four months of 2011 from Jan to Apr was 4.9 percent. The crisis of confidence or risk aversion resulted in reversal of carry trades on commodity positions. Consumer price inflation in Italy was subdued in the second wave in Jun and May 2011 at 0.1 percent for annual equivalent 1.2 percent. In the third wave in Jul-Sep 2011, annual equivalent inflation increased to 2.4 percent. In the fourth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Oct-Nov 2011 jumped again at 3.0 percent. Inflation returned in the fifth wave from Dec 2011 to Jan 2012 at annual equivalent 4.3 percent. In the sixth wave, annual equivalent inflation rose to 5.7 percent in Feb-Apr 2012. In the seventh wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.2 percent in May-Jun 2012. In the eighth wave, annual equivalent inflation increased to 3.0 percent in Jul-Aug 2012. In the ninth wave, inflation collapsed to zero in Sep-Oct 2012 and was minus 0.8 percent in annual equivalent in Sep-Nov 2012. In the tenth wave, annual equivalent inflation in Dec 2012 to Aug 2013 was 2.0 percent. In the twelfth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 3.2 percent in Sep-Nov 2013 during reallocations of investment portfolios away from commodity futures. In the thirteenth wave, inflation returned in annual equivalent 2.4 percent in Dec 2013-Jan 2014. In the fourteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation fell at 1.2 percent in Feb 2014. In the fifteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.8 percent in Mar-Apr 2014. In the sixteen wave, annual inflation was minus 1.2 percent in May 2014. In the seventeenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 1.2 percent in Jun 2014. In the eighteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 1.2 percent in Jul 2014. In the nineteenth wave, annual equivalent inflation was 2.4 percent in Aug 2014. In the twentieth wave, annual equivalent inflation was minus 4.7 percent in Sep 2014. In the twenty-first wave, annual equivalent inflation returned at 1.2 percent in Oct 2014. There are worldwide shocks to economies by intermittent waves of inflation originating in combination of zero interest rates and quantitative easing with alternation of risk appetite and risk aversion (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html).
Table IV-22, Italy, Consumer Price Index
Month | 12 Months | |
Oct 2014 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Oct | 1.2 | |
Sep | -0.4 | -0.2 |
AE ∆% Sep | -4.7 | |
Aug | 0.2 | -0.1 |
AE ∆% Aug | 2.4 | |
Jul | -0.1 | 0.1 |
AE ∆% Jul | -1.2 | |
Jun | 0.1 | 0.3 |
AE ∆% Jun | 1.2 | |
May | -0.1 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% May | -1.2 | |
Apr | 0.2 | 0.6 |
Mar | 0.1 | 0.4 |
AE ∆% Mar-Apr | 1.8 | |
Feb | -0.1 | 0.5 |
AE ∆% Feb | -1.2 | |
Jan | 0.2 | 0.7 |
Dec 2013 | 0.2 | 0.7 |
AE ∆% Dec 2013-Jan 2014 | 2.4 | |
Nov | -0.3 | 0.7 |
Oct | -0.2 | 0.8 |
Sep | -0.3 | 0.9 |
AE ∆% Sep-Nov | -3.2 | |
Aug | 0.4 | 1.2 |
Jul | 0.1 | 1.2 |
Jun | 0.3 | 1.2 |
May | 0.0 | 1.1 |
Apr | 0.0 | 1.1 |
Mar | 0.2 | 1.6 |
Feb | 0.1 | 1.9 |
Jan | 0.2 | 2.2 |
Dec 2012 | 0.2 | 2.3 |
AE ∆% Dec 2012-Aug 2013 | 2.0 | |
Nov | -0.2 | 2.5 |
Oct | 0.0 | 2.6 |
Sep | 0.0 | 3.2 |
AE ∆% Sep-Nov | -0.8 | |
Aug | 0.4 | 3.2 |
Jul | 0.1 | 3.1 |
AE ∆% Jul-Aug | 3.0 | |
June | 0.2 | 3.3 |
May | 0.0 | 3.2 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | 1.2 | |
Apr | 0.5 | 3.3 |
Mar | 0.5 | 3.3 |
Feb | 0.4 | 3.3 |
AE ∆% Feb-Apr | 5.7 | |
Jan | 0.3 | 3.2 |
Dec 2011 | 0.4 | 3.3 |
AE ∆% Dec-Jan | 4.3 | |
Nov | -0.1 | 3.3 |
Oct | 0.6 | 3.4 |
AE ∆% Oct-Nov | 3.0 | |
Sep | 0.0 | 3.0 |
Aug | 0.3 | 2.8 |
Jul | 0.3 | 2.7 |
AE ∆% Jul-Sep | 2.4 | |
Jun | 0.1 | 2.7 |
May | 0.1 | 2.6 |
AE ∆% May-Jun | 1.2 | |
Apr | 0.5 | 2.6 |
Mar | 0.4 | 2.5 |
Feb | 0.3 | 2.4 |
Jan | 0.4 | 2.1 |
AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 4.9 | |
Dec 2010 | 0.4 | 1.9 |
Annual | ||
2013 | 1.2 | |
2012 | 3.0 | |
2011 | 2.8 | |
2010 | 1.5 | |
2009 | 0.8 | |
2008 | 3.3 | |
2007 | 1.8 | |
2006 | 2.1 |
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/138384
Chart IV-16 of the Istituto Nazionale di Statistica shows moderation in 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index of Italy with marginal increase followed by decline to 2.5 percent in Nov 2012, 2.3 percent in Dec 2012, 2.2 percent in Jan 2013, 1.9 percent in Feb 2013 and 1.6 percent in Mar 2013. Consumer prices increased 1.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr-May 2013 and 1.2 percent in Jun-Jul 2013. In Aug 2013, consumer prices increased 1.2 percent in 12 months. Consumer prices increased 0.9 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2013 and 0.8 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2013. Consumer price inflation increased 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov 2013 and 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Dec 2013. Consumer prices increased 0.7 percent in the 12 months ending in Jan 2014 and 0.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2014. Consumer prices increased 0.4 percent in the 12 months ending in Mar 2014 and 0.6 percent in the 12 months ending in Apr 2014. Consumer prices increased 0.5 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2014 and 0.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Jun 2014. Consumer prices increased 0.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Jul 2014 and fell 0.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Aug 2014. Consumer prices fell 0.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Sep 2014 and increased 0.1 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct 2014.
Chart IV-15, Italy, Consumer Price Index 12-Month Percentage Changes
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
Consumer price inflation in Italy by segments in the estimate by ISTAT for Oct 2014 is provided in Table IV-20. Total consumer price inflation in Sep 2014 was 0.1 percent and 0.1 percent in 12 months. Inflation of goods was 0.3 percent in Oct 2014 and minus 0.3 percent in 12 months. Prices of durable goods changed 0.0 percent in Oct and decreased 0.3 percent in 12 months, as typical in most countries. Prices of energy increased 0.9 percent in Oct and decreased 2.5 percent in 12 months. Food prices changed 0.0 percent in Oct and increased 0.2 percent in 12 months. Prices of services decreased 0.1 percent in Oct and rose 0.7 percent in 12 months. Transport prices, also influenced by commodity prices, decreased 0.7 percent in Oct and increased 0.4 percent in 12 months. Carry trades from zero interest rates to positions in commodity futures cause increases in commodity prices. Waves of inflation originate in periods when there is no risk aversion and commodity prices decline during periods of risk aversion and portfolio reallocations (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/financial-oscillations-world-inflation.html).
Table IV-23, Italy, Consumer Price Index and Segments, Month and 12-Month ∆%
Oct 2014 | Weights | Month ∆% | 12-Month ∆% |
General Index All Items | 1,000,000 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
I Goods | 546,724 | 0.3 | -0.3 |
Food | 173,611 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
Energy | 85,796 | 0.9 | -2.5 |
Durable | 80,901 | 0.0 | -0.3 |
Nondurable | 74,391 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
II Services | 453,276 | -0.1 | 0.7 |
Housing | 77,009 | 0.0 | 1.5 |
Communications | 18,206 | 0.3 | -1.0 |
Transport | 81,924 | -0.7 | 0.4 |
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/138384
V World Economic Slowdown. Table V-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 V-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 V-1, IMF World Economic Outlook Database Projections of Real GDP Growth
GDP USD 2012 | Real GDP ∆% | Real GDP ∆% | Real GDP ∆% | Real GDP ∆% | |
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 V-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 V-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
VB Japan. The GDP of Japan grew at 1.0 percent per year on average from 1991 to 2002, with the GDP implicit deflator falling at 0.8 percent per year on average. The average growth rate of Japan’s GDP was 4 percent per year on average from the middle of the 1970s to 1992 (Ito 2004). Low growth in Japan in the 1990s is commonly labeled as “the lost decade” (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 81-115). Table VB-GDP provides yearly growth rates of Japan’s GDP from 1995 to 2013. Growth weakened from 2.7 per cent in 1995 and 1996 to contractions of 1.5 percent in 1999 and 0.4 percent in 2001 and growth rates below 2 percent with exception of 2.3 percent in 2003. Japan’s GDP contracted sharply by 3.7 percent in 2006 and 2.0 percent in 2009. As in most advanced economies, growth was robust at 3.4 percent in 2010 but mediocre at 0.3 percent in 2011 and 0.7 percent in 2013. Japan’s GDP grew 2.3 percent in 2013.
Table VB-GDP, Japan, Yearly Percentage Change of GDP ∆%
Calendar Year | ∆% |
1995 | 2.7 |
1996 | 2.7 |
1997 | 0.1 |
1998 | -1.5 |
1999 | 0.5 |
2000 | 2.0 |
2001 | -0.4 |
2002 | 1.1 |
2003 | 2.3 |
2004 | 1.5 |
2005 | 1.9 |
2006 | 1.8 |
2007 | 1.8 |
2008 | -3.7 |
2009 | -2.0 |
2010 | 3.4 |
2011 | 0.3 |
2012 | 0.7 |
2013 | 2.3 |
Source: Source: Japan Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office
http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/index-e.html
http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/en/sna/sokuhou/sokuhou_top.html
The employment report for Japan in Sep 2014 is in Table VB-2. The number unemployed reached 2.33 million in Sep 2014, declining 250 thousand from a year earlier or 9.7 percent. The rate of unemployment not seasonally adjusted reached 3.5 percent, decreasing 0.4 percentage points from a year earlier. Population decreased 0.1 percent from a year earlier. The labor force increased 0.3 percentage points from a year earlier and the labor participation rate stood at 59.9, increasing 0.1 percentage points from a year earlier. The employment rate increased to 57.4 percent, which is higher by 0.2 percentage points relative to a year earlier.
Table VB-1, Japan, Employment Report Sep 2014
Sep 2014 Unemployed | 2.33 million |
Change since last year | -250 thousand; ∆% –9.7 |
Unemployment rate | SA 3.6%, 0.1 from earlier month; NSA 3.5%, -0.4 from earlier year |
Population ≥ 15 years | 110.84 million |
Change since last year | ∆% -0.1 |
Labor Force | 66.35 million |
Change since last year | ∆% 0.3 |
Employed | 64.02 million |
Change since last year | ∆% 0.7 |
Labor force participation rate | 59.9 |
Change since last year | 0.2 |
Employment rate | 57.8% |
Change since last year | 0.5 |
Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/roudou/results/month/index.htm
Table VB-2A provides the rate of unemployment of Japan seasonally adjusted that decreased to 3.6 percent in Sep 2014 from 3.8 percent in Jul 2014. The rate of unemployment SA fell 0.4 percentage points from 4.0 percent in Sep 2013 to 3.6 percent in Sep 2014.
Table VB-2, Japan, Unemployment Rate, SA
Unemployment Rate SA | |
Sep 2014 | 3.6 |
Aug | 3.5 |
Jul | 3.8 |
Jun | 3.7 |
May | 3.5 |
Apr | 3.6 |
Mar | 3.6 |
Feb | 3.6 |
Jan | 3.7 |
Dec 2013 | 3.7 |
Nov | 3.9 |
Oct | 4.0 |
Sep | 4.0 |
Aug | 4.1 |
Jul | 3.9 |
Jun | 3.9 |
May | 4.1 |
Apr | 4.1 |
Mar | 4.1 |
Feb | 4.3 |
Jan | 4.2 |
Dec 2012 | 4.3 |
Nov | 4.1 |
Oct | 4.1 |
Sep | 4.3 |
Aug | 4.2 |
Jul | 4.4 |
Jun | 4.3 |
May | 4.4 |
Source: Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/roudou/results/month/index.htm
Chart VB-1 of Japan’s Statistics Bureau at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications provides the unemployment rate of Japan from 2011 to 2014. There is clear trend of decline with multiple oscillations and increase in Jun-Jul 2014. The rate increased in Sep 2014.
Chart VB-1, Japan, Unemployment Rate, Seasonally Adjusted
Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/roudou/results/month/index.htm
During the “lost decade” of the 1990s from 1991 to 2002 (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 82-3), Japan’s GDP grew at the average yearly rate of 1.0 percent, the CPI at 0.1 percent and the implicit deflator at minus 0.8 percent. Japan’s growth rate from the mid-1970s to 1992 was 4 percent (Ito 2004). Table VB-3 provides Japan’s rates of unemployment, participation in labor force and employment for selected years from 1953 to 1985 and yearly from 1990 to 2013. The rate of unemployment jumped from 2.1 percent in 1991 to 5.4 percent in 2002, which was a year of global economic weakness. The participation rate dropped from 64.0 percent in 1992 to 61.2 percent in 2002 and the employment rate fell from 62.6 percent in 1992 to 57.9 percent in 2002. The rate of unemployment rose from 3.9 percent in 2007 to 5.1 percent in 2010, falling to 4.6 percent in 2011, 4.3 percent in 2012 and 4.0 percent in 2013. The participation rate fell from 60.4 percent in 2007 to 59.6 percent in 2010, falling to 59.3 percent in 2011 and 59.1 in 2012 and increasing to 59.3 percent in 2013. The employment rate fell from 58.1 in percent in 2007 to 56.6 percent in 2010 and 56.5 percent in 2011 and 2012, increasing to 56.9 percent in 2013. The global recession adversely affected labor markets in advanced economies.
Table VB-3, Japan, Rates of Unemployment, Participation in Labor Force and Employment, %
Participation | Employment Rate | Unemployment Rate | |
1953 | 70.0 | 68.6 | 1.9 |
1960 | 69.2 | 68.0 | 1.7 |
1965 | 65.7 | 64.9 | 1.2 |
1970 | 65.4 | 64.6 | 1.1 |
1975 | 63.0 | 61.9 | 1.9 |
1980 | 63.3 | 62.0 | 2.0 |
1985 | 63.0 | 61.4 | 2.6 |
1990 | 63.3 | 61.9 | 2.1 |
1991 | 63.8 | 62.4 | 2.1 |
1992 | 64.0 | 62.6 | 2.2 |
1993 | 63.8 | 62.2 | 2.5 |
1994 | 63.6 | 61.8 | 2.9 |
1995 | 63.4 | 61.4 | 3.2 |
1996 | 63.5 | 61.4 | 3.4 |
1997 | 63.7 | 61.5 | 3.4 |
1998 | 63.3 | 60.7 | 4.1 |
1999 | 62.9 | 59.9 | 4.7 |
2000 | 62.4 | 59.5 | 4.7 |
2001 | 62.0 | 58.9 | 5.0 |
2002 | 61.2 | 57.9 | 5.4 |
2003 | 60.8 | 57.6 | 5.3 |
2004 | 60.4 | 57.6 | 4.7 |
2005 | 60.4 | 57.7 | 4.4 |
2006 | 60.4 | 57.9 | 4.1 |
2007 | 60.4 | 58.1 | 3.9 |
2008 | 60.2 | 57.8 | 4.0 |
2009 | 59.9 | 56.9 | 5.1 |
2010 | 59.6 | 56.6 | 5.1 |
2011 | 59.3 | 56.5 | 4.6 |
2012 | 59.1 | 56.5 | 4.3 |
2013 | 59.3 | 56.9 | 4.0 |
Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/roudou/results/month/index.htm
VC China. China estimates an index of nonmanufacturing purchasing managers based on a sample of 1200 nonmanufacturing enterprises across the country (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/pressrelease/t20121009_402841094.htm). Table CIPMNM provides this index and components. The total index increased from 55.7 in Jan 2011 to 58.0 in Mar 2012, decreasing to 53.9 in Aug 2013. The index decreased from 56.0 in Nov 2013 to 54.6 in Dec 2013, easing to 53.4 in Jan 2014. The index moved to 53.8 in Oct 2014. The index of new orders increased from 52.2 in Jan 2012 to 54.3 in Dec 2012 but fell to 50.1 in May 2013, barely above the neutral frontier of 50.0. The index of new orders stabilized at 51.0 in Nov-Dec 2013, easing to 50.9 in Jan 2014. The index of new orders increased to 51.0 in Oct 2014.
Table CIPMNM, China, Nonmanufacturing Index of Purchasing Managers, %, Seasonally Adjusted
Total Index | New Orders | Interm. | Subs Prices | Exp | |
Oct 2014 | 53.8 | 51.0 | 52.0 | 48.8 | 59.9 |
Sep | 54.0 | 49.5 | 49.8 | 47.3 | 60.9 |
Aug | 54.4 | 50.0 | 52.2 | 48.3 | 61.2 |
Jul | 54.2 | 50.7 | 53.4 | 49.5 | 61.5 |
Jun | 55.0 | 50.7 | 56.0 | 50.8 | 60.4 |
May | 55.5 | 52.7 | 54.5 | 49.0 | 60.7 |
Apr | 54.8 | 50.8 | 52.4 | 49.4 | 61.5 |
Mar | 54.5 | 50.8 | 52.8 | 49.5 | 61.5 |
Feb | 55.0 | 51.4 | 52.1 | 49.0 | 59.9 |
Jan | 53.4 | 50.9 | 54.5 | 50.1 | 58.1 |
Dec 2013 | 54.6 | 51.0 | 56.9 | 52.0 | 58.7 |
Nov | 56.0 | 51.0 | 54.8 | 49.5 | 61.3 |
Oct | 56.3 | 51.6 | 56.1 | 51.4 | 60.5 |
Sep | 55.4 | 53.4 | 56.7 | 50.6 | 60.1 |
Aug | 53.9 | 50.9 | 57.1 | 51.2 | 62.9 |
Jul | 54.1 | 50.3 | 58.2 | 52.4 | 63.9 |
Jun | 53.9 | 50.3 | 55.0 | 50.6 | 61.8 |
May | 54.3 | 50.1 | 54.4 | 50.7 | 62.9 |
Apr | 54.5 | 50.9 | 51.1 | 47.6 | 62.5 |
Mar | 55.6 | 52.0 | 55.3 | 50.0 | 62.4 |
Feb | 54.5 | 51.8 | 56.2 | 51.1 | 62.7 |
Jan | 56.2 | 53.7 | 58.2 | 50.9 | 61.4 |
Dec 2012 | 56.1 | 54.3 | 53.8 | 50.0 | 64.6 |
Nov | 55.6 | 53.2 | 52.5 | 48.4 | 64.6 |
Oct | 55.5 | 51.6 | 58.1 | 50.5 | 63.4 |
Sep | 53.7 | 51.8 | 57.5 | 51.3 | 60.9 |
Aug | 56.3 | 52.7 | 57.6 | 51.2 | 63.2 |
Jul | 55.6 | 53.2 | 49.7 | 48.7 | 63.9 |
Jun | 56.7 | 53.7 | 52.1 | 48.6 | 65.5 |
May | 55.2 | 52.5 | 53.6 | 48.5 | 65.4 |
Apr | 56.1 | 52.7 | 57.9 | 50.3 | 66.1 |
Mar | 58.0 | 53.5 | 60.2 | 52.0 | 66.6 |
Feb | 57.3 | 52.7 | 59.0 | 51.2 | 63.8 |
Jan | 55.7 | 52.2 | 58.2 | 51.1 | 65.3 |
Notes: Interm.: Intermediate; Subs: Subscription; Exp: Business Expectations
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart CIPMNM provides China’s nonmanufacturing purchasing managers’ index. The index fell from 56.3 in Oct 2013 to 53.8 in Oct 2014.
Chart CIPMNM, China, Nonmanufacturing Index of Purchasing Managers, Seasonally Adjusted
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Table CIPMMFG provides the index of purchasing managers of manufacturing seasonally adjusted of the National Bureau of Statistics of China. The general index (IPM) rose from 50.5 in Jan 2012 to 53.3 in Apr 2012, falling to 49.2 in Aug 2012, rebounding to 50.6 in Dec 2012. The index fell to 50.1 in Jun 2013, barely above the neutral frontier at 50.0, recovering to 51.4 in Nov 2013 but falling to 51.0 in Dec 2013. The index fell to 50.5 in Jan 2014 and 50.8 in Oct 2014. The index of new orders fell from 54.5 in Apr 2012 to 51.2 in Dec 2012. The index of new orders fell from 52.3 in Nov 2013 to 52.0 in Dec 2013. The index fell to 50.9 in Jan 2014 and increased to 51.6 in Oct 2014.
Table CIPMMFG, China, Manufacturing Index of Purchasing Managers, %, Seasonally Adjusted
IPM | PI | NOI | INV | EMP | SDEL | |
Oct 2014 | 50.8 | 53.1 | 51.6 | 48.4 | 48.4 | 50.1 |
Sep | 51.1 | 53.6 | 52.2 | 48.8 | 48.2 | 50.1 |
Aug | 51.1 | 53.2 | 52.5 | 48.6 | 48.2 | 50.0 |
Jul | 51.7 | 54.2 | 53.6 | 49.0 | 48.3 | 50.2 |
Jun | 51.0 | 53.0 | 52.8 | 48.0 | 48.6 | 50.5 |
May | 50.8 | 52.8 | 52.3 | 48.0 | 48.2 | 50.3 |
Apr | 50.4 | 52.5 | 51.2 | 48.1 | 48.3 | 50.1 |
Mar | 50.3 | 52.7 | 50.6 | 47.8 | 48.3 | 49.8 |
Feb | 50.2 | 52.6 | 50.5 | 47.4 | 48.0 | 49.9 |
Jan | 50.5 | 53.0 | 50.9 | 47.8 | 48.2 | 49.8 |
Dec 2013 | 51.0 | 53.9 | 52.0 | 47.6 | 48.7 | 50.5 |
Nov | 51.4 | 54.5 | 52.3 | 47.8 | 49.6 | 50.6 |
Oct | 51.4 | 54.4 | 52.5 | 48.6 | 49.2 | 50.8 |
Sep | 51.1 | 52.9 | 52.8 | 48.5 | 49.1 | 50.8 |
Aug | 51.0 | 52.6 | 52.4 | 48.0 | 49.3 | 50.4 |
Jul | 50.3 | 52.4 | 50.6 | 47.6 | 49.1 | 50.1 |
Jun | 50.1 | 52.0 | 50.4 | 47.4 | 48.7 | 50.3 |
May | 50.8 | 53.3 | 51.8 | 47.6 | 48.8 | 50.8 |
Apr | 50.6 | 52.6 | 51.7 | 47.5 | 49.0 | 50.8 |
Mar | 50.9 | 52.7 | 52.3 | 47.5 | 49.8 | 51.1 |
Feb | 50.1 | 51.2 | 50.1 | 49.5 | 47.6 | 48.3 |
Jan | 50.4 | 51.3 | 51.6 | 50.1 | 47.8 | 50.0 |
Dec 2012 | 50.6 | 52.0 | 51.2 | 47.3 | 49.0 | 48.8 |
Nov | 50.6 | 52.5 | 51.2 | 47.9 | 48.7 | 49.9 |
Oct | 50.2 | 52.1 | 50.4 | 47.3 | 49.2 | 50.1 |
Sep | 49.8 | 51.3 | 49.8 | 47.0 | 48.9 | 49.5 |
Aug | 49.2 | 50.9 | 48.7 | 45.1 | 49.1 | 50.0 |
Jul | 50.1 | 51.8 | 49.0 | 48.5 | 49.5 | 49.0 |
Jun | 50.2 | 52.0 | 49.2 | 48.2 | 49.7 | 49.1 |
May | 50.4 | 52.9 | 49.8 | 45.1 | 50.5 | 49.0 |
Apr | 53.3 | 57.2 | 54.5 | 48.5 | 51.0 | 49.6 |
Mar | 53.1 | 55.2 | 55.1 | 49.5 | 51.0 | 48.9 |
Feb | 51.0 | 53.8 | 51.0 | 48.8 | 49.5 | 50.3 |
Jan | 50.5 | 53.6 | 50.4 | 49.7 | 47.1 | 49.7 |
IPM: Index of Purchasing Managers; PI: Production Index; NOI: New Orders Index; EMP: Employed Person Index; SDEL: Supplier Delivery Time Index
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
China estimates the manufacturing index of purchasing managers on the basis of a sample of 820 enterprises (http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/pressrelease/t20121009_402841094.htm). Chart CIPMMFG provides the manufacturing index of purchasing managers. The index fell to 50.1 in Jun 2013. The index decreased from 51.4 in Nov 2013 to 51.0 in Dec 2013. The index moved to 50.8 in Oct 2014.
Chart CIPMMFG, China, Manufacturing Index of Purchasing Managers, Seasonally Adjusted
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Cumulative growth of China’s GDP in IIIQ2014 relative to the same period in 2013 was 7.4 percent, as shown in Table VC-GDP. Secondary industry accounts for 44.2 percent of cumulative GDP in IIIQ2014. In cumulative IIIQ2014, industry alone accounts for 37.4 percent of GDP and construction with the remaining 6.8 percent. Tertiary industry accounts for 46.7 percent of cumulative GDP in IIIQ2014 and primary industry for 9.0 percent. China’s growth strategy consisted of rapid increases in productivity in industry to absorb population from agriculture where incomes are lower (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 56-80). The strategy is shifting to lower growth rates with improvement in living standards. The bottom block of Table VC-GDP provides quarter-on-quarter growth rates of GDP and their annual equivalent. China’s GDP growth decelerated significantly from annual equivalent 10.4 percent in IIQ2011 to 7.4 percent in IVQ2011 and 5.7 percent in IQ2012, rebounding to 8.7 percent in IIQ2012, 8.2 percent in IIIQ2012 and 7.8 percent in IVQ2012. Annual equivalent growth in IQ2013 fell to 6.6 percent and to 7.3 percent in IIQ2013, rebounding to 9.5 percent in IIIQ2013. Annual equivalent growth was 7.0 percent in IVQ2013, declining to 6.1 percent in IQ2014 and increasing to 8.2 percent in IIQ2014. Annual equivalent growth slowed to 7.8 percent in IIIQ2014.
Table VC-GDP, China, Quarterly Growth of GDP, Current CNY 100 Million and Inflation Adjusted ∆%
Cumulative GDP IIIQ2014 | Value Current CNY Billion | 2014 Year-on-Year Constant Prices ∆% |
GDP | 41,990.8 | 7.4 |
Primary Industry | 3799.6 | 4.2 |
Farming | 3799.6 | 4.2 |
Secondary Industry | 18,578.7 | 7.4 |
Industry | 15,705.7 | 7.1 |
Construction | 2873.0 | 9.0 |
Tertiary Industry | 19,612.5 | 7.9 |
Transport, Storage, Post | 2337.0 | 7.0 |
Wholesale, Retail Trades | 3893.0 | 9.7 |
Hotel & Catering Services | 847.6 | 6.2 |
Financial Intermediation | 2965.5 | 9.1 |
Real Estate | 2641.4 | 2.3 |
Other | 6928.0 | 9.0 |
Growth in Quarter Relative to Prior Quarter | ∆% on Prior Quarter | ∆% Annual Equivalent |
2014 | ||
IIIQ2014 | 1.9 | 7.8 |
IIQ2014 | 2.0 | 8.2 |
IQ2014 | 1.5 | 6.1 |
2013 | ||
IVQ2013 | 1.7 | 7.0 |
IIIQ2013 | 2.3 | 9.5 |
IIQ2013 | 1.8 | 7.4 |
IQ2013 | 1.6 | 6.6 |
2012 | ||
IVQ2012 | 1.9 | 7.8 |
IIIQ2012 | 2.0 | 8.2 |
IIQ2012 | 2.1 | 8.7 |
IQ2012 | 1.4 | 5.7 |
2011 | ||
IVQ2011 | 1.8 | 7.4 |
IIIQ2011 | 2.2 | 9.1 |
IIQ2011 | 2.5 | 10.4 |
IQ2011 | 2.3 | 9.5 |
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Growth of China’s GDP in IIIQ2014 relative to the same period in 2013 was 7.3 percent, as shown in Table VC-GDPA. Secondary industry accounts for 44.2 percent of GDP of which industry alone for 37.4 percent in cumulative IIIQ2014 and construction with the remaining 6.8 percent. Tertiary industry accounts for 46.7 percent of GDP in cumulative IIQ2014 and primary industry for 9.0 percent. China’s growth strategy consisted of rapid increases in productivity in industry to absorb population from agriculture where incomes are lower (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 56-80). The strategy is changing to lower growth rates while improving living standards. GDP growth decelerated from 12.1 percent in IQ2010 and 11.2 percent in IIQ2010 to 7.7 percent in IQ2013, 7.5 percent in IIQ2013 and 7.8 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP grew 7.7 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 1.7 percent relative to IIIQ2013, which is equivalent to 7.0 percent per year. GDP grew 7.4 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 1.5 percent in IQ2014 that is equivalent to 6.1 percent per year. GP grew 7.5 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 2.0 percent relative to the prior quarter, which is equivalent 8.2 percent. In IIIQ2014, GDP grew 7.3 percent relative to a year earlier and 1.9 percent relative to the prior quarter, which is 7.8 percent in annual equivalent.
Table VC-GDPA, China, Growth Rate of GDP, ∆% Relative to a Year Earlier and ∆% Relative to Prior Quarter
IQ 2013 | IIQ 2013 | IIIQ 2013 | IVQ 2013 | IQ 2014 | IIQ 2014 | IIIQ 2014 | ||
GDP | 7.7 | 7.5 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.3 | |
Primary Industry | 3.4 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.9 | 4.2 | |
Secondary Industry | 7.8 | 7.6 | 7.8 | 7.8 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.4 | |
Tertiary Industry | 8.3 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 8.0 | 7.9 | |
GDP ∆% Relative to a Prior Quarter | 1.6 | 1.8 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.9 | |
IQ 2011 | IIQ 2011 | IIIQ 2011 | IVQ 2011 | IQ 2012 | IIQ 2012 | IIIQ 2012 | IVQ 2012 | |
GDP | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.1 | 7.6 | 7.4 | 7.9 |
Primary Industry | 3.5 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 3.8 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.5 |
Secondary Industry | 11.1 | 11.0 | 10.8 | 10.6 | 9.1 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 8.1 |
Tertiary Industry | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 7.7 | 7.9 | 8.1 |
GDP ∆% Relative to a Prior Quarter | 2.3 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
IQ 2010 | IIQ 2010 | IIIQ 2010 | IVQ 2010 | |||||
GDP | 12.1 | 11.2 | 10.7 | 12.1 | ||||
Primary Industry | 3.8 | 3.6 | 4.0 | 3.8 | ||||
Secondary Industry | 14.5 | 13.3 | 12.6 | 14.5 | ||||
Tertiary Industry | 10.5 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.5 |
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart VC-GDP of the National Bureau of Statistics of China provides annual value and growth rates of GDP. China’s GDP growth in 2013 is still high at 7.7 percent but at the lowest rhythm in five years.
Chart VC-GDP, China, Gross Domestic Product, Million Yuan and ∆%, 2009-2013
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Chart VC-FXR provides China’s foreign exchange reserves. FX reserves grew from $2399.2 billion in 2009 to $3821.3 billion in 2013 driven by high growth of China’s trade surplus.
Chart VC-FXR, China, Foreign Exchange Reserves, 2009-2013
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english
Chart VC-Trade provides China’s imports and exports. Exports exceeded imports with resulting large trade balance surpluses that increased foreign exchange reserves.
Chart VC-Trade, China, Imports and Exports of Goods, 2009-2013, $100 Million US Dollars
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China http://www.stats.gov.cn/english
VD Euro Area. Table VD-EUR provides yearly growth rates of the combined GDP of the members of the European Monetary Union (EMU) or euro area since 1996. Growth was very strong at 3.3 percent in 2006 and 3.0 percent in 2007. The global recession had strong impact with growth of only 0.4 percent in 2008 and decline of 4.4 percent in 2009. Recovery was at lower growth rates of 2.0 percent in 2010 and 1.6 percent in 2011. EUROSTAT estimates growth of GDP of the euro area of minus 0.7 percent in 2012 and minus 0.4 percent in 2013 but 1.1 percent in 2014 and 1.7 percent in 2015.
Table VD-EUR, Euro Area, Yearly Percentage Change of Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, Unemployment and GDP ∆%
Year | HICP ∆% | Unemployment | GDP ∆% |
1999 | 1.2 | 9.6 | 2.9 |
2000 | 2.2 | 8.8 | 3.8 |
2001 | 2.4 | 8.2 | 2.0 |
2002 | 2.3 | 8.5 | 0.9 |
2003 | 2.1 | 9.0 | 0.7 |
2004 | 2.2 | 9.2 | 2.2 |
2005 | 2.2 | 9.1 | 1.7 |
2006 | 2.2 | 8.4 | 3.3 |
2007 | 2.2 | 7.5 | 3.0 |
2008 | 3.3 | 7.6 | 0.4 |
2009 | 0.3 | 9.6 | -4.5 |
2010 | 1.6 | 10.1 | 1.9 |
2011 | 2.7 | 10.1 | 1.6 |
2012 | 2.5 | 11.3 | -0.7 |
2013* | 1.3 | 12.0 | -0.4 |
2014* | 1.1 | ||
2015* | 1.7 |
*EUROSTAT forecast Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
The GDP of the euro area in 2012 in current US dollars in the dataset of the World Economic Outlook (WEO) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is $12,199.1 billion or 16.9 percent of world GDP of $72,216.4 billion (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/index.aspx). The sum of the GDP of France $2613.9 billion with the GDP of Germany of $3429.5 billion, Italy of $2014.1 billion and Spain $1323.5 billion is $9381.0 billion or 76.9 percent of total euro area GDP and 13.0 percent of World GDP. The four largest economies account for slightly more than three quarters of economic activity of the euro area. Table VD-EUR1 is constructed with the dataset of EUROSTAT, providing growth rates of the euro area as a whole and of the largest four economies of Germany, France, Italy and Spain annually from 1996 to 2011 with the estimate of 2012 and forecasts for 2013, 2014 and 2015 by EUROSTAT. The impact of the global recession on the overall euro area economy and on the four largest economies was quite strong. There was sharp contraction in 2009 and growth rates have not rebounded to earlier growth with exception of Germany in 2010 and 2011.
Table VD-EUR1, Euro Area, Real GDP Growth Rate, ∆%
Euro Area | Germany | France | Italy | Spain | |
2015* | 1.7 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.7 |
2014* | 1.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
2013* | -0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | -1.9 | -1.2 |
2012 | -0.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | -2.4 | -1.6 |
2011 | 1.6 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
2010 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | -0.2 |
2009 | -4.5 | -5.1 | -3.1 | -5.5 | -3.8 |
2008 | 0.4 | 1.1 | -0.1 | -1.2 | 0.9 |
2007 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 3.5 |
2006 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 4.1 |
2005 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 3.6 |
2004 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 3.3 |
2003 | 0.7 | -0.4 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 3.1 |
2002 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.7 |
2001 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 3.7 |
2000 | 3.8 | 3.1 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 5.0 |
1999 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 4.7 |
1998 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 4.5 |
1997 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 3.9 |
1996 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 2.5 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table VD-1 provides percentage changes of euro area real GDP in a quarter relative to the prior quarter. Real GDP fell 0.2 percent in IVQ2011, fell 0.1 in IQ2012 and fell in the final three quarters of 2012: 0.3 percent in IIQ2012, 0.2 percent in IIIQ2012 and 0.5 percent in IVQ2012. GDP fell 0.2 percent in IQ2013 and increased 0.3 percent in IIQ2013. Growth slowed at 0.1 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP increased 0.3 percent in IVQ2013. The GDP of the euro area increased 0.3 percent in IQ2014 and increased 0.1 percent in IIQ2014. GDP in the euro area increased 0.2 percent in IIIQ2014. The global recession manifested in the euro area in five consecutive quarterly declines from IIQ2008 to IIQ2009. The strongest impact was contraction of 2.9 percent in IQ2009. Recovery began in IIIQ2009 with cumulative growth of 4.1 percent to IQ2011 or at the annual equivalent rate of 2.3 percent. Growth was much more vigorous from IVQ2003 to IQ2008.
Table VD-1, Euro Area, Real GDP, Percentage Change from Prior Quarter, Calendar and Seasonally and Working Day Adjusted ∆%
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IVQ | |
2014 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
2013 | -0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
2012 | -0.1 | -0.3 | -0.2 | -0.5 |
2011 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.0 | -0.2 |
2010 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
2009 | -2.9 | -0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
2008 | 0.6 | -0.4 | -0.6 | -1.7 |
2007 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
2006 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
2005 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
2004 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
2003 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
2002 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
2001 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
2000 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
1999 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table VD-2 provides percentage change in real GDP in the euro area in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. Growth rates were quite strong from 2004 to 2007. There were five consecutive quarters of sharp declines in GDP in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier from IVQ2008 to IVQ2009 with sharp contractions of 5.5 percent in IQ2009, 5.4 percent in IIQ2009 and 4.4 percent in IIIQ2009. Growth rates decline in magnitude with 1.5 percent in IIIQ2011, 0.7 percent in IVQ211 and -0.2 percent in IQ2012 followed by contractions of 0.5 percent in IIQ2012, 0.7 percent in IIIQ2012 and 1.0 percent in IVQ2012. GDP contracted 1.1 percent in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier and contracted 0.6 percent in IIQ2013 relative to a year earlier. Euro area GDP contracted 0.3 percent in IIIQ2013 relative to a year earlier. The GDP of the euro area increased 0.4 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. The GDP of the euro area increased 1.0 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier. In IIQ2014, the GDP of the euro area increased 0.8 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of the euro area increased 0.8 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier.
Table VD-2, Euro Area, Real GDP Percentage Change in a Quarter Relative to Same Quarter a
Year Earlier, Seasonally and Working Day Adjusted ∆%
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IV | |
2014 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | |
2013 | -1.1 | -0.6 | -0.3 | 0.4 |
2012 | -0.2 | -0.5 | -0.7 | -1.0 |
2011 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 0.7 |
2010 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.3 |
2009 | -5.5 | -5.4 | -4.4 | -2.3 |
2008 | 2.1 | 1.2 | -0.1 | -2.2 |
2007 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.3 |
2006 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
2005 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 2.2 |
2004 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.8 |
2003 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.2 |
2002 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
2001 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 |
2000 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 3.3 |
1999 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.8 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table VD-3 provides growth of euro area real GDP in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier not seasonally adjusted. GDP increased 0.1 percent in IIIQ2013 NSA relative to a year earlier and increased 0.5 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.9 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 0.5 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. GDP fell 0.5 percent in IIQ2013 relative to a year earlier without seasonal adjustment and declined 1.8 percent in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier without seasonal adjustment. Growth rates in 2006 and 2007 were quite strong followed by sharp declines of 5.7 percent in IQ2009, 5.9 percent in IIQ2009 and 4.2 percent in IQ2009.
Table VD-3, Euro Area, Real GDP Percentage Change in a Quarter Relative to Same Quarter a Year Earlier, Not Seasonally Adjusted ∆%
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IV | |
2014 | 0.9 | 0.5 | ||
2013 | -1.8 | -0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
2012 | 0.2 | -0.9 | -0.9 | -1.0 |
2011 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 |
2010 | 1.1 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.1 |
2009 | -5.7 | -5.9 | -4.2 | -2.0 |
2008 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | -2.2 |
2007 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
2006 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 3.7 |
2005 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
2004 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
2003 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 |
2002 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 0.9 |
2001 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.5 |
2000 | 4.9 | 4.2 | 3.3 | 2.7 |
1999 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table VD-4 provides GDP growth in IIQ2014 and relative to the same quarter a year earlier with SAWDA (seasonal and working day adjustment) and NSA (not seasonally adjusted) for the euro zone, European Union, Japan and the US. The GDP of the euro zone increased 0.2 percent in IIIQ2014 and increased 0.8 percent relative to a year earlier SWDA and 0.5 percent NSA for IIQ2014. The GDP of the European Union increased 0.3 percent in IIIQ2014, increased 1.3 percent SWDA in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier and increased 1.3 percent relative to a year earlier NSA in IIQ2014. Growth in IIIQ2014 was weak worldwide with somewhat stronger performance by the US but still insufficient to reduce unemployment and underemployment (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/rules-discretionary-authorities-and.html) and motivate hiring (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/global-financial-volatility-recovery.html).
Table VD-4, Euro Zone, European Union, Japan and USA, Real GDP Growth
∆% IIIQ2014/ IIQ2014 SAWDA | ∆% IIIQ2014/ IIIQ2013 SWDA | ∆% IIQ2014/ IIQ2013 NSA | |
Euro Zone | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.5 |
European Union | 0.3 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Germany | 0.1 | 1.2 | NA |
France | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
Netherlands | 0.2 | 1.1 | NA |
Finland | 0.2 | -0.3 | NA |
Belgium | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
Portugal | 0.2 | 1.0 | NA |
Ireland | NA | NA | NA |
Italy | -0.1 | -0.4 | -0.6 |
Greece | 0.7 | 1.4 | -0.3 |
Spain | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.1 |
United Kingdom | 0.7 | 3.0 | 5.5 |
Japan | NA | NA | -0.1 |
USA | 0.9 | 2.3 | NA |
*SAWDA: Seasonally and Working Day Adjusted except UK, Japan and USA
***NSA
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
EUROSTAT estimates the rate of unemployment in the euro area at 11.5 percent in
Sep 2014, as shown in Table VD-5. The number of unemployed in Sep 2014 was 18.347 million, which was 0.826 million lower than 19.173 million in Sep 2013. The rate of unemployment stabilized from 12.0 percent in Sep 2013 to 11.5 percent in Sep 2014.
Table VD-5, Euro Area, Unemployment Rate and Number of Unemployed, % and Millions, SA
Unemployment Rate % | Number Unemployed | |
Sep 2014 | 11.5 | 18.347 |
Aug | 11.5 | 18.366 |
Jul | 11.5 | 18.454 |
Jun | 11.5 | 18.452 |
May | 11.6 | 18.540 |
Apr | 11.6 | 18.559 |
Mar | 11.7 | 18.649 |
Feb | 11.7 | 18.725 |
Jan | 11.8 | 18.818 |
Dec 2013 | 11.8 | 18.859 |
Nov | 11.9 | 19.033 |
Oct | 11.9 | 19.074 |
Sep | 12.0 | 19.173 |
Aug | 12.0 | 19.165 |
Jul | 11.9 | 19.128 |
Jun | 12.0 | 19.204 |
May | 12.0 | 19.203 |
Apr | 12.0 | 19.200 |
Mar | 12.0 | 19.143 |
Feb | 12.0 | 19.134 |
Jan | 11.9 | 19.098 |
Dec 2012 | 11.8 | 18.898 |
Nov | 11.7 | 18.781 |
Oct | 11.7 | 18.703 |
Sep | 11.5 | 18.448 |
Aug | 11.4 | 18.269 |
Jul | 11.4 | 18.250 |
Jun | 11.3 | 18.152 |
May | 11.2 | 17.933 |
Apr | 11.1 | 17.778 |
Mar | 11.0 | 17.498 |
Feb | 10.8 | 17.239 |
Jan | 10.7 | 17.022 |
Dec 2011 | 10.6 | 16.913 |
Nov | 10.6 | 16.819 |
Oct | 10.4 | 16.542 |
Sep | 10.3 | 16.371 |
Aug | 10.2 | 16.139 |
Jul | 10.1 | 15.967 |
Jun | 9.9 | 15.759 |
May | 9.9 | 15.688 |
Apr | 9.8 | 15.557 |
Mar | 9.9 | 15.631 |
Feb | 9.9 | 15.671 |
Jan | 9.9 | 15.746 |
Dec 2010 | 10.0 | 15.851 |
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Table VD-2 shows the disparity in rates of unemployment in the euro area with 11.5 percent for the region as a whole and 18.347 million unemployed but 5.0 percent in Germany and 2.144 million unemployed. At the other extreme is Spain with rate of unemployment of 24.0 percent and 5.498 million unemployed. The rate of unemployment of the European Union in Sep 2014 is 10.1 percent with 24.512 million unemployed.
Table VD-6, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate in Countries and Regions, Millions and %
Sep 2014 | Unemployment Rate % | Unemployed Millions |
Euro Zone | 11.5 | 18.347 |
Germany | 5.0 | 2.144 |
France | 10.5 | 3.094 |
Netherlands | 6.5 | 0.580 |
Finland | 8.7 | 0.233 |
Portugal | 13.6 | 0.702 |
Ireland | 11.2 | 0.243 |
Italy | 12.6 | 3.236 |
Greece | 26.4* | 1.282* |
Spain | 24.0 | 5.498 |
Belgium | 8.5 | 0.425 |
European Union | 10.1 | 24.512 |
*Jul 2014
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/
Chart VD-1 of EUROSTAT illustrates the wide difference in rates of unemployment in countries and regions.
Chart VD-1, Unemployment Rate in Various Countries and Regions
Source: EUROSTAT
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
VE Germany. Table VE-DE provides yearly growth rates of the German economy from 1971 to 2013, price adjusted chain-linked and price and calendar-adjusted chain-linked. Germany’s GDP fell 5.6 percent in 2009 after growing below trend at 1.1 percent in 2008. Recovery has been robust in contrast with other advanced economies. The German economy grew at 4.1 percent in 2010, 3.6 percent in 2011 and 0.4 percent in 2012. Growth decelerated to 0.1 percent in 2013.
The Federal Statistical Agency of Germany analyzes the fall and recovery of the German economy (http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/Content/Statistics/VolkswirtschaftlicheGesamtrechnungen/Inlandsprodukt/Aktuell,templateId=renderPrint.psml):
“The German economy again grew strongly in 2011. The price-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 3.0% compared with the previous year. Accordingly, the catching-up process of the German economy continued during the second year after the economic crisis. In the course of 2011, the price-adjusted GDP again exceeded its pre-crisis level. The economic recovery occurred mainly in the first half of 2011. In 2009, Germany experienced the most serious post-war recession, when GDP suffered a historic decline of 5.1%. The year 2010 was characterised by a rapid economic recovery (+3.7%).”
Table VE-4 provides annual growth rates of the German economy from 1970 to 2013, price adjusted chain-linked and price and calendar-adjusted chain-linked. Germany’s GDP fell 5.6 percent in 2009 after growing below trend at 1.1 percent in 2008. Recovery has been robust in contrast with other advanced economies. The German economy grew at 4.1 percent in 2010, 3.6 percent in 2011 and 0.4 percent in 2012. Growth in 2013 was 0.1 percent.
Table VE-DE, Germany, GDP ∆% on Prior Year
Price Adjusted Chain-Linked | Price- and Calendar-Adjusted Chain Linked | |
Average ∆% 1991-2013 | 1.3 | |
Average ∆% 1991-1999 | 1.5 | |
Average ∆% 2000-2007 | 1.4 | |
Average ∆% 2003-2007 | 2.2 | |
Average ∆% 2007-2013 | 0.5 | |
Average ∆% 2009-2013 | 2.0 | |
2013 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
2012 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
2011 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
2010 | 4.1 | 3.9 |
2009 | -5.6 | -5.6 |
2008 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
2007 | 3.3 | 3.4 |
2006 | 3.7 | 3.9 |
2005 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
2004 | 1.2 | 0.7 |
2003 | -0.7 | -0.7 |
2002 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
2001 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
2000 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
1999 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
1998 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
1997 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
1996 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
1995 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
1994 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
1993 | -1.0 | -1.0 |
1992 | 1.9 | 1.5 |
1991 | 5.1 | 5.2 |
1990 | 5.3 | 5.5 |
1989 | 3.9 | 4.0 |
1988 | 3.7 | 3.4 |
1987 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
1986 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
1985 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
1984 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
1983 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
1982 | -0.4 | -0.5 |
1981 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
1980 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
1979 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
1978 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
1977 | 3.3 | 3.5 |
1976 | 4.9 | 4.5 |
1975 | -0.9 | -0.9 |
1974 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
1973 | 4.8 | 5.0 |
1972 | 4.3 | 4.3 |
1971 | 3.1 | 3.0 |
1970 | NA | NA |
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis)
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/02/PE14_048_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2013/08/PE13_278_811.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2013/11/PE13_381_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/01/PE14_016_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/05/PE14_167_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/09/PE14_306_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_401_811.html
Table VE-1 provides percentage change of Germany’s GDP in one quarter relative to the prior quarter from 2001 to 2014. Germany’s GDP contracted during four consecutive quarters from IIQ2008 to IQ2009. The deepest contraction was 4.5 percent in IQ2009. Growth was quite strong from IIIQ2009 to IQ2011 for cumulative growth of 7.8 percent in seven quarters or at the average rate of 1.1 percent per quarter, which is equivalent to 4.4 percent per year. Economic growth decelerated in IIQ2011 to 0.2 percent and 0.4 percent in IIIQ2011. The economy grew 0.0 percent in IVQ2011 and grew 0.3 percent in IQ2012 but at 0.1 percent in IIQ2012. GDP growth in IIIQ2012 was 0.1 percent relative to IIQ2012. Germany’s GDP contracted 0.4 percent in IVQ2012 relative to IIIQ2012. GDP decreased 0.4 percent in IQ2013 and increased 0.8 percent in IIQ2013. Growth of GDP was 0.3 percent in IIIQ2013 and 0.4 percent in IVQ2013. Germany’s growth was robust at 0.8 percent in IQ2014 or 3.2 percent in annual equivalent. GDP contracted 0.1 percent in IIQ2014. GDP increased 0.1 percent in IIIQ2014.
Table VE-1, Germany Quarter GDP ∆% Relative to Prior Quarter, Seasonally and Calendar Adjusted
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IV | |
2014 | 0.8 | -0.1 | 0.1 | |
2013 | -0.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
2012 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.4 |
2011 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
2010 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
2009 | -4.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.9 |
2008 | 0.8 | -0.2 | -0.4 | -2.0 |
2007 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
2006 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
2005 | -0.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
2004 | 0.0 | 0.4 | -0.2 | 0.1 |
2003 | -1.2 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
2002 | -0.3 | 0.2 | 0.5 | -0.2 |
2001 | 1.6 | 0.1 | -0.3 | 0.2 |
Seasonal and calendar adjusted Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis)
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_401_811.html
Table VE-2 provides percentage changes of Germany’s GDP in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier. Growth was weak in the recovery from the recession of 2001 through 2005, as in most of the euro area (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 116-46). Germany’s economy then grew robustly in 2006 and 2007 until the global recession after 2007. Germany recovered with strong growth in 2010 and vigorous 6.0 percent in IQ2011. The economy decelerated in the final three quarters of 2011, growing 1.5 percent in IQ2012 relative to IQ2011. Growth decelerated further to 0.3 percent in IIQ2012 without calendar adjustment and 0.8 percent with calendar adjustment and to 0.1 percent in IIIQ2012. Growth in IVQ2012 relative to IVQ2011 was minus 0.3 percent. GDP fell 1.8 percent in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier and increased 0.5 percent in IIQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.8 percent in IIIQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 1.0 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 2.6 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and 1.0 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 1.2 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier.
Table VE-2, Germany, Quarter GDP ∆% Relative to Same Quarter a Year Earlier, Price Adjusted NCSA
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IV | |
2014 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.2 | |
2013 | -1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
2012 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | -0.3 |
2011 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 1.8 |
2010 | 2.6 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.4 |
2009 | -6.6 | -7.9 | -5.6 | -2.4 |
2008 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.1 | -1.9 |
2007 | 4.3 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 2.1 |
2006 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 4.6 |
2005 | -0.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
2004 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
2003 | -0.4 | -1.3 | -0.8 | -0.3 |
2002 | -1.1 | 0.2 | 1.1 | -0.1 |
2001 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
Price adjusted NSA Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis)
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/ShortTermIndicators/ShortTermIndicators.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/09/PE14_306_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_401_811.html
There are strong calendar effects in economic activity in Germany. Table VE-3 provides Germany’s percentage change in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier adjusting for price changes and calendar effects. Germany’s GDP increased 0.8 percent in IIQ2012 calendar-adjusted in contrast with only 0.3 percent without calendar adjustment. GDP growth adjusting for calendar effects was 0.5 percent in IIIQ2012 relative to IIIQ2011 and 0.1 percent without calendar adjustment. Growth in IVQ2012 was 0.0 percent calendar and price adjusted in contrast with minus 0.3 percent without calendar adjustment. Growth in IQ2013 was minus 0.5 percent relative to a year earlier with adjustment for calendar effects and minus 1.8 percent without adjustment. GDP without calendar adjustment increased 0.5 percent in IIQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 0.0 percent with calendar adjustment. In IIIQ2013, growth without calendar adjustment was 0.8 percent in contrast with 0.3 percent calendar adjusted. In IVQ2013, GDP with calendar adjustment increased 1.1 percent relative to a year earlier and 1.0 percent without calendar adjustment. In IQ2014, GDP increased 2.6 percent without calendar adjustment and 2.4 percent with calendar adjustment. GDP increased 1.4 percent in IIQ2014 with calendar adjustment and 1.0 percent without calendar adjustment. GDP increased 1.2 percent relative to a year earlier in IIIQ2014 without calendar adjustment and 1.2 percent with calendar adjustment.
Table VE-3, Germany, Quarter GDP ∆% Relative to Same Quarter a Year Earlier, Calendar and Price Adjusted NSA
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IV | |
2014 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.2 | |
2013 | -0.5 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.1 |
2012 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 |
2011 | 5.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 2.3 |
2010 | 2.5 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.3 |
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis)
https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/Indicators/ShortTermIndicators/ShortTermIndicators.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/09/PE14_306_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_401_811.html
Table VE-4 provides annual growth rates of the German economy from 1970 to 2013, price adjusted chain-linked and price and calendar-adjusted chain-linked. Germany’s GDP fell 5.6 percent in 2009 after growing below trend at 1.1 percent in 2008. Recovery has been robust in contrast with other advanced economies. The German economy grew at 4.1 percent in 2010, 3.6 percent in 2011 and 0.4 percent in 2012. Growth in 2013 was 0.1 percent.
Table VE-4, Germany, GDP ∆% on Prior Year
Price Adjusted Chain-Linked | Price- and Calendar-Adjusted Chain Linked | |
Average ∆% 1991-2013 | 1.3 | |
Average ∆% 1991-1999 | 1.5 | |
Average ∆% 2000-2007 | 1.4 | |
Average ∆% 2003-2007 | 2.2 | |
Average ∆% 2007-2013 | 0.5 | |
Average ∆% 2009-2013 | 2.0 | |
2013 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
2012 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
2011 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
2010 | 4.1 | 3.9 |
2009 | -5.6 | -5.6 |
2008 | 1.1 | 0.8 |
2007 | 3.3 | 3.4 |
2006 | 3.7 | 3.9 |
2005 | 0.7 | 0.9 |
2004 | 1.2 | 0.7 |
2003 | -0.7 | -0.7 |
2002 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
2001 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
2000 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
1999 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
1998 | 2.0 | 1.7 |
1997 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
1996 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
1995 | 1.7 | 1.8 |
1994 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
1993 | -1.0 | -1.0 |
1992 | 1.9 | 1.5 |
1991 | 5.1 | 5.2 |
1990 | 5.3 | 5.5 |
1989 | 3.9 | 4.0 |
1988 | 3.7 | 3.4 |
1987 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
1986 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
1985 | 2.3 | 2.3 |
1984 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
1983 | 1.6 | 1.5 |
1982 | -0.4 | -0.5 |
1981 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
1980 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
1979 | 4.2 | 4.3 |
1978 | 3.0 | 3.1 |
1977 | 3.3 | 3.5 |
1976 | 4.9 | 4.5 |
1975 | -0.9 | -0.9 |
1974 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
1973 | 4.8 | 5.0 |
1972 | 4.3 | 4.3 |
1971 | 3.1 | 3.0 |
1970 | NA | NA |
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis)
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/02/PE14_048_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2013/08/PE13_278_811.html https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2013/11/PE13_381_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/01/PE14_016_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/05/PE14_167_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/09/PE14_306_811.html
https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2014/11/PE14_401_811.html
VF France. Table VF-FR provides growth rates of GDP of France with the estimates of Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE). The long-term rate of GDP growth of France from IVQ1949 to IVQ2012 is quite high at 3.2 percent. France’s growth rates were quite high in the four decades of the 1950s, 1960, 1970s and 1980s with an average growth rate of 4.0 percent compounding the average rates in the decades and discounting to one decade. The growth impulse diminished with 2.0 percent in the 1990s and 1.8 percent from 2000 to 2007. The average growth rate from 2000 to 2012, using fourth quarter data, is 1.1 percent because of the sharp impact of the global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. The growth rate from 2000 to 2012 is 1.1 percent. Cobet and Wilson (2002) provide estimates of output per hour and unit labor costs in national currency and US dollars for the US, Japan and Germany from 1950 to 2000 (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). The average yearly rate of productivity change from 1950 to 2000 was 2.9 percent in the US, 6.3 percent for Japan and 4.7 percent for Germany while unit labor costs in USD increased at 2.6 percent in the US, 4.7 percent in Japan and 4.3 percent in Germany. From 1995 to 2000, output per hour increased at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US, 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany while unit labor costs in US fell at minus 0.7 percent in the US, 4.3 percent in Japan and 7.5 percent in Germany. There was increase in productivity growth in the G7 in Japan and France in the second half of the 1990s but significantly lower than the acceleration of 1.3 percentage points per year in the US. Lucas (2011May) compares growth of the G7 economies (US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada) and Spain, finding that catch-up growth with earlier rates for the US and UK stalled in the 1970s.
Table VF-FR, France, Average Growth Rates of GDP Fourth Quarter, 1949-2013
Period | Average ∆% |
1949-2013 | 3.2 |
2007-2013 | 0.3 |
2000-2013 | 1.1 |
2000-2012 | 1.1 |
2000-2007 | 1.8 |
1990-1999 | 2.1 |
1980-1989 | 2.6 |
1970-1979 | 3.7 |
1960-1969 | 5.7 |
1950-1959 | 4.2 |
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
Growth of GDP in a quarter relative to the prior quarter is provided for France in Table VF-1. GDP fell 0.3 percent in IVQ2012 and changed 0.0 percent in IQ2013, rebounding with growth of 0.7 percent in IIQ2013. GDP fell 0.1 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP increased 0.2 percent in IVQ2013. GDP changed 0.0 percent in IQ2014. GDP decreased 0.1 percent in IIQ2014. GDP increased 0.3 percent in IIIQ2014. The French economy grew 0.2 percent in IVQ2011, 0.2 percent in IQ2012, contracting 0.2 percent in IIQ2011 and growing 0.3 percent in IIIQ2012. In the four quarters of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013, France’s GDP contracted in two quarters and stagnated in one. Growth in the ten quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2011 accumulated 4.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.8 percent. Recovery has been much weaker than the cumulative 2.6 percent in the four quarters of 2006. Weak recoveries in advanced economies have prevented full utilization of labor, capital and productive resources.
Table VF-1, France, Quarterly Real GDP Growth, Quarter on Prior Quarter ∆%
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IVQ | |
2014 | 0.0 | -0.1 | 0.3 | |
2013 | 0.0 | 0.7 | -0.1 | 0.2 |
2012 | 0.2 | -0.2 | 0.2 | -0.3 |
2011 | 1.1 | -0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
2010 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
2009 | -1.6 | -0.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
2008 | 0.5 | -0.5 | -0.2 | -1.6 |
2007 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
2006 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.8 |
2005 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
2004 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
2003 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
2002 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.2 | -0.1 |
2001 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.2 | -0.2 |
2000 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
1999 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
Growth rates of France’s real GDP in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier are shown in Table VF-2. France has not recovered the rates of growth in excess of 2 percent prior to the global recession. GDP fell 3.9 percent in IQ2009, 3.5 percent in IIQ2009, 3.1 percent in IIIQ2009 and 0.9 percent in IVQ2009. Growth in IVQ2011 relative to IVQ2010 was 1.5 percent and GDP growth declined to 0.6 percent in IQ2012, 0.4 percent in IIQ2012 relative to the same quarter a year earlier, 0.4 percent in IIIQ2012 relative to a year earlier and 0.0 percent in IVQ2012 relative to a year earlier. Growth in IQ2013 relative to a year earlier was minus 0.2 percent. France’s GDP increased 0.7 percent in IIQ2013 relative to a year earlier and 0.3 percent in IIIQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.8 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. France’s GDP increased 0.8 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and grew 0.0 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. GDP increased 0.4 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier.
Table VF-2, France, Real GDP Growth Current Quarter Relative to Same Quarter Year Earlier ∆%
IQ | IIQ | IIIQ | IVQ | |
2014 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.4 | |
2013 | -0.2 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
2012 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
2011 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
2010 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.3 | 2.2 |
2009 | -3.9 | -3.5 | -3.1 | -0.9 |
2008 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | -1.9 |
2007 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
2006 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.6 |
2005 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
2004 | 2.1 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.5 |
2003 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.6 |
2002 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
2001 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 |
2000 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 3.5 |
1999 | 3.2 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 3.8 |
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
Chart VF-1 of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques provides France’s quarterly real GDP from IQ1949 to IIIQ2014. France’s economy has grown dynamically over decades. Recovery from the global recession in 2008-2009 has flattened.
Chart VF-1, France, Quarterly Real GDP, Seasonally and Working Day Adjusted, IQ1949-IIIQ2014
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
Percentage changes and contributions of segments of GDP in France are provided in Table VF-3. Internal demand contributed 0.3 percentage points to growth in IVQ2013, subtracting 0.3 percentage points in IQ2014. Internal demand added 0.1 percentage points to GDP growth in IIQ2014 and 0.2 percentage points in IIIQ2014. Net foreign trade added 0.2 percentage points in IIIQ2013. Net trade added 0.1 percentage points to growth in IQ2014. Net trade deducted 0.1 percentage points in IIQ2014 and deducted 0.2 percentage points in IIIQ2014.
Table VF-3, France, Contributions to GDP Growth, Calendar and Seasonally Adjusted, %
∆% from Prior Period | IVQ | IQ 2014 | IIQ 2014 | IIIQ | 2013 | 2014 (ovhg) |
GDP | 0.2 | 0.0 | -0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Imports | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.8 |
Household Consump. | 0.4 | -0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Govt. | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
GFCF | -0.1 | -0.7 | -0.8 | -0.6 | -0.8 | -1.6 |
General Government | -0.1 | 0.2 | -0.7 | -1.2 | 1.1 | -0.4 |
Exports | 1.1 | 0.5 | -0.1 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 1.9 |
% Point | ||||||
Internal Demand ex Inventory Changes | 0.3 | -0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
Inventory Changes | -0.3 | 0.4 | -0.1 | 0.3 | -0.2 | 0.4 |
Net Foreign Trade | 0.2 | -0.1 | -0.1 | -0.2 | 0.1 | -0.3 |
Notes: Consump.: Consumption; Gvt.: Government; GFCF: Gross Fixed Capital Formation; Contribus.: Contributions; OVHG: “annual growth rate carried over at the mid-year point.
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
Chart VF-2 of France’s Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques provides percentage point contributions to GDP growth. The economy was driven in IQ2013 by consumption with net trade, inventory changes and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) deducting from growth. Final consumption drove the economy in IIQ2013 together with contribution by net trade and capital formation. Gross fixed capital formation and net trade constrained the economy in IIIQ2013. Inventory changed deducted from growth in IVQ2013 with contributions by consumption and net trade. Inventory change contributed to growth in IQ2014 with deductions by consumption, GFCF and net foreign trade. Consumption contributed to growth in IIQ2014 with deductions by GFCF, inventory change and net trade. Consumption and inventory change drove the economy in IIIQ2014 with deductions by net trade and gross fixed capital formation.
Chart VF-2, France, Percentage Point Contributions to GDP Growth
Source: Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques
http://www.insee.fr/en/themes/info-rapide.asp?id=26&date=20141114
VG Italy. Table VG-IT provides percentage changes in a quarter relative to the same quarter a year earlier of Italy’s expenditure components in chained volume measures. GDP has been declining at sharper rates from minus 0.8 percent in IVQ2011 to minus 2.5 percent in IVQ2012, minus 2.4 percent in IQ2013, minus 2.2 percent in IIQ2013 and minus 1.9 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP fell 1.1 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP fell 0.3 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and decreased 0.3 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. The aggregate demand components of consumption and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) have been declining at faster rates. The rates of decline of GDP, consumption and GFCF were somewhat milder in IIIQ2013 and IVQ2013 than in IQ2013 and the final three quarters of 2012. Consumption fell 0.3 percent in IQ2014 and GFCF fell 1.7 percent. In IIQ2014, consumption increased 0.2 percent relative to a year earlier and GFCF fell 2.5 percent. GDP fell 0.4 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier.
Table VG-IT, Italy, GDP and Expenditure Components, Chained Volume Measures, Quarter ∆% on Same Quarter Year Earlier
GDP | Imports | Consumption | GFCF | Exports | |
2014 | |||||
IIIQ | -0.4 | ||||
IIQ | -0.3 | 2.5 | 0.2 | -2.5 | 2.4 |
IQ | -0.3 | 0.8 | -0.3 | -1.7 | 1.7 |
2013 | |||||
IVQ | -1.1 | 0.5 | -1.1 | -3.4 | 1.6 |
IIIQ | -1.9 | -1.8 | -2.2 | -4.3 | 0.4 |
IIQ | -2.2 | -4.1 | -2.7 | -6.1 | 0.3 |
IQ | -2.4 | -4.9 | -2.9 | -7.7 | 1.2 |
2012 | |||||
IVQ | -2.5 | -7.4 | -3.5 | -7.7 | 1.3 |
IIIQ | -2.5 | -8.0 | -3.7 | -8.1 | 2.5 |
IIQ | -2.4 | -8.7 | -3.6 | -7.7 | 1.2 |
IQ | -1.9 | -8.5 | -3.0 | -6.6 | 1.5 |
2011 | |||||
IVQ | -0.8 | -7.0 | -2.1 | -3.8 | 2.4 |
IIIQ | 0.5 | 0.4 | -0.8 | -2.7 | 4.6 |
IIQ | 1.3 | 3.7 | 0.4 | -1.1 | 7.7 |
IQ | 1.9 | 8.4 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 10.3 |
2010 | |||||
IVQ | 2.3 | 14.6 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 13.0 |
IIIQ | 1.8 | 12.9 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 12.4 |
IIQ | 1.9 | 14.2 | 1.0 | -0.3 | 13.2 |
IQ | 0.7 | 6.7 | 0.9 | -3.3 | 6.8 |
2009 | |||||
IVQ | -3.5 | -6.3 | 0.2 | -8.2 | -9.3 |
IIIQ | -5.0 | -12.2 | -0.8 | -12.6 | -16.4 |
IIQ | -6.6 | -17.9 | -1.4 | -13.6 | -21.4 |
IQ | -6.9 | -17.2 | -1.8 | -12.4 | -22.8 |
2008 | |||||
IVQ | -3.0 | -8.2 | -0.9 | -8.3 | -10.3 |
IIIQ | -1.9 | -5.0 | -0.8 | -4.5 | -3.9 |
IIQ | -0.2 | -0.1 | -0.3 | -1.5 | 0.4 |
IQ | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.1 | -1.0 | 2.9 |
GFCF: Gross Fixed Capital Formation
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/134394
Table VG-1 provides revised percentage changes of GDP in Italy of quarter on prior quarter and quarter on same quarter a year earlier. GDP fell 0.2 percent in IIIQ2014 and fell 0.4 percent relative to a year earlier. Italy’s GDP fell 0.2 percent in IIQ2014 and declined 0.3 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Italy changed 0.0 percent in IQ2014 and fell 0.3 percent relative to a year earlier. Italy’s GDP decreased 0.1 percent in IVQ2013 and fell 1.2 percent relative to a year earlier. The GDP of Italy changed 0.0 percent in IIIQ2013, interrupting eight consecutive quarterly declines, and fell 1.8 percent relative to a year earlier. Italy’s GDP fell 0.2 percent in IIQ2013 and fell 2.2 percent relative to a year earlier. Italy’s GDP fell 0.9 percent in IQ2013 and declined 2.4 percent relative to IQ2012. GDP had been growing during six consecutive quarters but at very low rates from IQ2010 to IIQ2011. Italy’s GDP fell in eight consecutive quarters from IIIQ2011 to IQ2013 at increasingly higher rates of contraction from 0.3 percent in IIIQ2011 to 0.8 percent in IVQ2011, 0.9 percent in IQ2012 and 0.4 percent in IIQ2012 and 0.4 percent in IIIQ2012. The pace of decline accelerated to minus 0.8 percent in IVQ2012 and 0.9 percent in IQ2013, declining to minus 0.2 percent in IIQ2013 and 0.0 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP contracted cumulatively 4.6 percent in eight consecutive quarterly contractions from IIIQ2011 to IIQ2013 at the annual equivalent rate of 2.3 percent. The total contraction in the 12 quarters including IVQ2013, IIQ2014 and IIIQ2014 accumulates to 5.0 percent. The yearly rate has fallen from 2.3 percent in IVQ2010 to minus 2.4 percent in IQ2013, minus 2.2 percent in IIQ2013 and minus 1.8 percent in IIIQ2013. GDP fell 1.2 percent in IVQ2013 relative to a year earlier. GDP fell 0.3 percent in IQ2014 relative to a year earlier and fell 0.3 percent in IIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. GDP fell 0.4 percent in IIIQ2014 relative to a year earlier. The fiscal adjustment of Italy is significantly more difficult with the economy not growing especially on the prospects of increasing government revenue. The strategy is for reforms to improve productivity, facilitating future fiscal consolidation.
Table VG-1, Italy, GDP ∆%
Quarter ∆% Relative to Preceding Quarter | Quarter ∆% Relative to Same Quarter Year Earlier | |
IIIQ2014 | -0.1 | -0.4 |
IIQ2014 | -0.2 | -0.3 |
IQ2014 | 0.0 | -0.3 |
IVQ2013 | -0.1 | -1.2 |
IIIQ2013 | 0.0 | -1.8 |
IIQ2013 | -0.2 | -2.2 |
IQ2013 | -0.9 | -2.4 |
IVQ2012 | -0.8 | -2.5 |
IIIQ2012 | -0.4 | -2.5 |
IIQ2012 | -0.4 | -2.4 |
IQ2012 | -0.9 | -1.9 |
IVQ2011 | -0.8 | -0.7 |
IIIQ2011 | -0.3 | 0.5 |
IIQ2011 | 0.2 | 1.3 |
IQ2011 | 0.3 | 1.9 |
IVQ2010 | 0.4 | 2.3 |
IIIQ2010 | 0.4 | 1.8 |
IIQ2010 | 0.8 | 1.9 |
IQ2010 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
IVQ2009 | -0.1 | -3.5 |
IIIQ2009 | 0.4 | -5.0 |
IIQ2009 | -0.3 | -6.6 |
IQ2009 | -3.5 | -6.9 |
IVQ2008 | -1.6 | -3.0 |
IIIQ2008 | -1.3 | -1.9 |
IIQ2008 | -0.5 | -0.2 |
IQ2008 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
IV2007 | -0.4 | 0.1 |
IIIQ2007 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
IIQ2007 | 0.2 | 2.0 |
IQ2007 | 0.0 | 2.4 |
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/138591
Chart VG-1, Italy, GDP at Market Prices, ∆% on Same Quarter Year Earlier
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica
VH United Kingdom. Annual data in Table VH-UK show the strong impact of the global recession in the UK with decline of GDP of 4.3 percent in 2009 after dropping 0.3 percent in 2008. Recovery of 1.9 percent in 2010 is relatively low in comparison with annual growth rates in 2007 and earlier years. Growth was only 1.6 percent in 2011 and 0.7 percent in 2012. Growth increased to 1.7 percent in 2013. The bottom part of Table VH-UK provides average growth rates of UK GDP since 1948. The UK economy grew at 2.6 percent per year on average between 1948 and 2013, which is relatively high for an advanced economy. The growth rate of GDP between 2000 and 2007 is higher at 2.9 percent. Growth in the current cyclical expansion has been only at 1.2 percent as advanced economies struggle with weak internal demand and world trade. GDP in 2013 higher by 1.2 percent relative to 2007.
Table VH-UK, UK, Gross Domestic Product, ∆%
∆% on Prior Year | |
1998 | 3.5 |
1999 | 3.2 |
2000 | 3.8 |
2001 | 2.7 |
2002 | 2.5 |
2003 | 4.3 |
2004 | 2.5 |
2005 | 2.8 |
2006 | 3.0 |
2007 | 2.6 |
2008 | -0.3 |
2009 | -4.3 |
2010 | 1.9 |
2011 | 1.6 |
2012 | 0.7 |
2013 | 1.7 |
Average Growth Rates ∆% per Year | |
1948-2013 | 2.6 |
1950-1959 | 3.1 |
1960-1969 | 3.1 |
1970-1979 | 2.6 |
1980-1989 | 3.1 |
1990-1999 | 2.2 |
2000-2007 | 2.9 |
2007-2012* | -0.6 |
2007-2013* | 1.2 |
2000-2013 | 1.6 |
*Absolute change from 2007 to 2012 an from 2007 to 2013
Source: UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/gva/gross-domestic-product--preliminary-estimate/q3-2014/index.html
The UK Office for National Statistics provides important analysis of the relation of GDP and the labor market (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q2-2014--august-quarterly-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--may-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--april-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q4--march-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--january-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--december-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--november-gdp-update/sum-nov-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--october-gdp-update/sum-october-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q2--august-labour-market-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q1--may-labour-market-update/sum-may13-labour.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q1--may-labour-market-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2012-q4--january-gdp-update/sum-jan13.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2012-q4--february-labour-market-update/sum-2012-q4---february-labour-update.html). The UK economy grew 0.7 percent in IIIQ2014 with output 3.4 percent above the level before the global recession in IQ2008 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q2-2014--august-quarterly-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--april-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q4--march-gdp-update/index.html
(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--january-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--december-gdp-update/sum-dec-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--october-gdp-update/sum-october-gdp.html). Chart VH-1 of the UK Office for National Statistics (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--may-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--april-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--october-gdp-update/sum-october-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q1--may-labour-market-update/sum-may13-labour.html) shows weakening output but relatively faster increases in employment and hours worked. Output growth and labor market improvement are converging.
Chart VH-1, UK, Employment Level Ages 16 and Over, Total Weekly Hours, GDP and Output per Hour, 2008-2014
Source: UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html
Table VH-L1 of the UK Office for national Statistics provides the data for GDP and the labor market (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q2-2014--august-quarterly-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--may-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q1-2014--april-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q4--march-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--february-gdp-update/index.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--january-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--december-gdp-update/sum-dec-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--november-gdp-update/sum-nov-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2013--october-gdp-update/sum-october-gdp.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q2--august-labour-market update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q1--may-gdp-update/index.html http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/2013-q1--may-labour-market-update/sum-may13-labour.html) Table VH-L1 provides total weekly hours, output and employment quarterly from 2008 to 2014. Improving output has been accompanied recently by improvements in hours worked and employment. From IQ2008 to IIIQ2014, employment increased 3.7 percent and hours worked 3.4 percent while GDP was 3.3 percent higher. In IIIQ2014, GDP grew 0.7 percent relative to IIQ2012 and 3.0 percent relative to IIIQ2013 and is now 3.4 percent above the peak in IQ2008 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q3-2014--quaterly-update/index.html).
Table VH-L1, UK, Indices of Quarterly Employment Ages 16 and Over, Total Hours Worked, GDP and Output per Hour, 2008-2014
Index, Q1 2008 =100 | |||
GDP, CVM | Employment, Aged 16 + | Total weekly hours, Aged 16 + | |
YBEZ | MGRZ | YBUS | |
2008 Q1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Q2 | 99.7 | 100.1 | 98.9 |
Q3 | 98.0 | 99.6 | 99.0 |
Q4 | 95.9 | 99.5 | 98.4 |
2009 Q1 | 94.1 | 98.9 | 96.7 |
Q2 | 94.0 | 98.0 | 96.3 |
Q3 | 94.1 | 97.9 | 95.8 |
Q4 | 94.5 | 98.0 | 95.9 |
2010 Q1 | 94.9 | 97.7 | 95.7 |
Q2 | 95.9 | 98.3 | 96.6 |
Q3 | 96.5 | 99.0 | 97.0 |
Q4 | 96.6 | 98.8 | 97.5 |
2011 Q1 | 97.1 | 99.2 | 97.5 |
Q2 | 97.3 | 99.2 | 96.5 |
Q3 | 98.0 | 98.6 | 97.0 |
Q4 | 98.0 | 98.8 | 97.3 |
2012 Q1 | 98.0 | 99.2 | 97.9 |
Q2 | 97.9 | 99.9 | 98.5 |
Q3 | 98.6 | 100.2 | 99.4 |
Q4 | 98.3 | 100.8 | 99.8 |
2013 Q1 | 98.8 | 100.6 | 100.0 |
Q2 | 99.5 | 100.8 | 100.1 |
Q2 | 100.3 | 101.4 | 101.2 |
Q4 | 101.0 | 102.0 | 101.5 |
2014 Q1 | 101.7 | 102.9 | 102.4 |
Q2 | 102.6 | 103.4 | 103.3 |
Q3 | 103.3 | 103.7 | 103.4 |
Source: UK Office for National Statistics
Chart VH-2 of the UK Office for National Statistics provides comparison of output performance during four cycles in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Output is indexed to the pre-recession peak. For example, the index for the current economic cycles is 100 for IQ2008. Output performance was stronger in the earlier economic cycles.
Chart VH-2, UK, Index of Output in Economic Cycles
UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--january-gdp-update/index.html
Table VH-L2 provides output in the four economic cycles. Output increased 8.8 percent in the cycle of the early 1970s, 11.7 percent in the cycle of the 1980s and 15.8 percent in the cycle of the 1990s. Output is 1.3 percent below the pre-recession peak in IQ2008.
Table VH-L2, Index of Output in Economic Cycles, Pre-Contraction = 100
Early 70s (1973 Q2=100) | Early 80s (1979 Q4=100) | Early 90s (1990 Q2=100) | Latest (2008 Q1=100) |
ABMI | ABMI | ABMI | ABMI |
100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
99.1 | 99.0 | 99.1 | 99.1 |
99.1 | 97.3 | 98.4 | 97.6 |
96.8 | 97.1 | 98.3 | 95.6 |
98.6 | 95.8 | 97.9 | 93.2 |
99.5 | 95.4 | 97.6 | 92.8 |
98.4 | 95.4 | 97.9 | 92.8 |
98.6 | 96.6 | 98.4 | 93.2 |
97.2 | 96.6 | 98.6 | 93.7 |
97.0 | 97.1 | 99.4 | 94.6 |
98.4 | 98.3 | 100.3 | 95.0 |
100.0 | 98.3 | 101.4 | 94.8 |
99.1 | 99.0 | 102.1 | 95.3 |
100.0 | 100.4 | 103.2 | 95.4 |
102.1 | 101.3 | 104.1 | 95.9 |
102.3 | 102.5 | 105.5 | 95.8 |
101.8 | 103.8 | 107.1 | 95.7 |
102.5 | 104.8 | 108.7 | 95.4 |
104.1 | 104.2 | 109.6 | 96.1 |
104.6 | 104.6 | 110.1 | 96.0 |
105.5 | 106.3 | 110.9 | 96.5 |
106.7 | 107.5 | 112.3 | 97.3 |
107.6 | 109.2 | 112.9 | 98.0 |
106.7 | 109.2 | 114.2 | 98.7 |
111.3 | 110.1 | 114.8 | |
108.8 | 111.7 | 115.8 |
UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/gdp-and-the-labour-market/q4-2013--january-gdp-update/index.html
Labor market statistics of the UK for the quarter Jul 2014-Sep 2014 are provided in Table VH-L2. The unemployment rate fell to 6.0 percent and the number unemployed decreased 529,000 in the year, reaching 1.959 million. The employment rate is 73.0 percent. Earnings growth including bonuses increased 1.0 percent over the earlier year. The claimant count or those receiving unemployment benefits stands at 2.8 percent, down 0.1 percentage points on the month and down 1.1 percentage points on the year.
Table VH-L2, UK, Labor Market Statistics
Quarter Jul 2014-Sep 2014 | |
Unemployment Rate | 6.0 %, 6.3% prior quarter and 7.6% year earlier |
Number Unemployed | (1) Down 115,000 on quarter and down 529,000 from year earlier to reach 1.959 million (2) Unemployment rate 16 to 24 years of age 16.6% of that age group (3) Unemployed 16 to 24 years excluding those in full-time education 489,000 (248,000 in full-time education); unemployment rate 16.2% down 0.7% Points |
Number Unemployed > one and two years | (1) Number unemployed over one year: 688,000, down 53,000 on quarter, down 206,000 on year (2) Number unemployed over two years: 376,000, down 32,000 on quarter, down 84,000 on year |
Inactivity Rate 16-64 Years of Age (Definition: Not in employment but have not been seeking employment in the past four weeks or are unable to start work in two weeks) | (1) 22.2%, 22.1% prior quarter, 22.3% year earlier (2) Economically inactive 16-64 years up 38,000 on quarter and down 16,000 on year to 9.030 million |
Employment Rate | 73.0%, 72.8% prior quarter, 71.6% year earlier |
Number Employed | (1) Up 112,000 on quarter, +694,000 on year to 30.793 million (2) Number of employees up 455,000 on year to 26.027 million (3) Self-employed rose 279,000 on year to 4.520 million (4) Full-time 22.523 million, up 590,000 on year (5) 8.270 million working part-time, up105,000 on year |
Earnings Growth Rates Year on Year | (1) Total 1.0% (including bonuses) over year earlier; regular 1.3%; private sector 1.1% on year earlier, public sector 0.8 % on year earlier (2) Regular private 1.6% (excluding bonuses); regular public 1.0% on year earlier |
Full-time and Part-time | (1) Number employees full-time 19.149 million, up 422,000 on year; self-employed full-time 3.255 million up 187,000 on year (2) Number employees part-time 6.837 million, up 62,000 on year; self-employed part-time 1.268 million, up 92,000 in year |
Claimant Count (Jobseeker’s Allowance, JSA) | (1) Latest estimate: 931,700; down 20,400 in month, down 373,100 on year earlier (2) Claimant count 2.8%, down 0.1 on month and down 1.1 % points on year |
Note: Labor Force Survey does not measure monthly changes. Comparisons on quarter are on quarter before prior quarter
Source: UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2014/index.html
Table VH-L3 provides indicators of the labor force survey of the UK for Jul 2014-Sep 2014 and earlier quarters. There has been improvement in UK labor markets with the rate of unemployment decreasing from 7.6 percent in Jun-Sep 2013 to 6.0 percent in Jul-Sep 2014.
Table VH-L3, UK, Labor Force Survey Indicators
LFHP | EMP | PART | UNE | RATE | |
Jul-Sep 2012 | 40,504 | 29,753 | 71.1 | 2,542 | 7.9 |
Jul-Sep 2013 | 40,558 | 30,098 | 71.6 | 2,488 | 7.6 |
Oct-Dec 2013 | 40,578 | 30,288 | 72.0 | 2,348 | 7.2 |
Jan-Mar 2014 | 40,598 | 30,534 | 72.5 | 2,212 | 6.8 |
Apr-Jun 2014 | 40,618 | 30,680 | 72.8 | 2,074 | 6.3 |
Jul-Sep 2014 | 40,641 | 30,793 | 73.0 | 1,959 | 6.0 |
Notes: LFHP: Labor Force Household Population Ages 16 to 64 in thousands; EMP: Employed Ages 16 and over in thousands; PART: Employment as % of Population Ages 16 to 64; UNE: Unemployed Ages 16 and over in thousands; Rate: Number Unemployed Ages 16 and over as % of Employed plus Unemployed
Source: UK Office for National Statistics
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/november-2014/index.html
VIII Interest Rates. It is quite difficult to measure inflationary expectations because they tend to break abruptly from past inflation. There could still be an influence of past and current inflation in the calculation of future inflation by economic agents. Table VIII-1 provides inflation of the CPI. In the three months from Jul 2014 to Sep 2014, CPI inflation for all items seasonally adjusted was 0.0 percent in annual equivalent, obtained by calculating accumulated inflation from Jul 2014 to Sep 2014 and compounding for a full year. In the 12 months ending in Sep 2014, CPI inflation of all items not seasonally adjusted was 1.7 percent. Inflation in Sep 2014 seasonally adjusted was 0.1 percent relative to Aug 2014, or 1.2 percent annual equivalent (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). The second row provides the same measurements for the CPI of all items excluding food and energy: 1.7 percent in 12 months and 0.8 percent in annual equivalent Jul 2014-Sep 2014. The Wall Street Journal provides the yield curve of US Treasury securities (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/mdc_bonds.html?mod=mdc_topnav_2_3000). The shortest term is 0.046 percent for one month, 0.015 percent for three months, 0.071 percent for six months, 0.152 percent for one year, 0.516 percent for two years, 0.957 percent for three years, 1.607 percent for five years, 2.018 percent for seven years, 2.320 percent for ten years and 3.051 percent for 30 years. The Irving Fisher (1930) definition of real interest rates is approximately the difference between nominal interest rates, which are those estimated by the Wall Street Journal, and the rate of inflation expected in the term of the security, which could behave as in Table VIII-1. Inflation in Sep 2014 is low in 12 months because of the unwinding of carry trades from zero interest rates to commodity futures prices but could ignite again with subdued risk aversion. Real interest rates in the US have been negative during substantial periods in the past decade while monetary policy pursues a policy of attaining its “dual mandate” of (http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm):
“Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates”
Negative real rates of interest distort calculations of risk and returns from capital budgeting by firms, through lending by financial intermediaries to decisions on savings, housing and purchases of households. Inflation on near zero interest rates misallocates resources away from their most productive uses and creates uncertainty of the future path of adjustment to higher interest rates that inhibit sound decisions.
Table VIII-1, US, Consumer Price Index Percentage Change 12 Months NSA and Annual Equivalent
∆% 12 Months Sep 2014/Sep | ∆% Annual Equivalent Jul 2014 to Sep 2014 SA | |
CPI All Items | 1.7 | 0.0 |
CPI ex Food and Energy | 1.7 | 0.8 |
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Professionals use a variety of techniques in measuring interest rate risk (Fabozzi, Buestow and Johnson, 2006, Chapter Nine, 183-226):
- Full valuation approach in which securities and portfolios are shocked by 50, 100, 200 and 300 basis points to measure their impact on asset values
- Stress tests requiring more complex analysis and translation of possible events with high impact even if with low probability of occurrence into effects on actual positions and capital
- Value at Risk (VaR) analysis of maximum losses that are likely in a time horizon
- Duration and convexity that are short-hand convenient measurement of changes in prices resulting from changes in yield captured by duration and convexity
- Yield volatility
Analysis of these methods is in Pelaez and Pelaez (International Financial Architecture (2005), 101-162) and Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. (I) (2008a), 78-100). Frederick R. Macaulay (1938) introduced the concept of duration in contrast with maturity for analyzing bonds. Duration is the sensitivity of bond prices to changes in yields. In economic jargon, duration is the yield elasticity of bond price to changes in yield, or the percentage change in price after a percentage change in yield, typically expressed as the change in price resulting from change of 100 basis points in yield. The mathematical formula is the negative of the yield elasticity of the bond price or –[dB/d(1+y)]((1+y)/B), where d is the derivative operator of calculus, B the bond price, y the yield and the elasticity does not have dimension (Hallerbach 2001). The duration trap of unconventional monetary policy is that duration is higher the lower the coupon and higher the lower the yield, other things being constant. Coupons and yields are historically low because of unconventional monetary policy. Duration dumping during a rate increase may trigger the same crossfire selling of high duration positions that magnified the credit crisis. Traders reduced positions because capital losses in one segment, such as mortgage-backed securities, triggered haircuts and margin increases that reduced capital available for positioning in all segments, causing fire sales in multiple segments (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009; see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 217-24). Financial markets are currently experiencing fear of duration and riskier asset classes resulting from the debate within and outside the Fed on tapering quantitative easing. Table VIII-2 provides the yield curve of Treasury securities on Nov 14, 2014, Dec 31, 2013, May 1, 2013, Nov 14, 2013 and Nov 14, 2006. There is oscillating steepening of the yield curve for longer maturities, which are also the ones with highest duration. The 10-year yield increased from 1.45 percent on Jul 26, 2012 to 3.04 percent on Dec 31, 2013 and 2.32 percent on Nov 14, 2014, as measured by the United States Treasury. Assume that a bond with maturity in 10 years were issued on Dec 31, 2013, at par or price of 100 with coupon of 1.45 percent. The price of that bond would be 86.3778 with instantaneous increase of the yield to 3.04 percent for loss of 13.6 percent and far more with leverage. Assume that the yield of a bond with exactly ten years to maturity and coupon of 2.32 percent would jump instantaneously from yield of 2.32 percent on Nov 14, 2014 to 4.47 percent as occurred on Nov 14, 2006 when the economy was closer to full employment. The price of the hypothetical bond issued with coupon of 2.32 percent would drop from 100 to 82.1007 after an instantaneous increase of the yield to 4.57 percent. The price loss would be 17.9 percent. Losses absorb capital available for positioning, triggering crossfire sales in multiple asset classes (Brunnermeier and Pedersen 2009). What is the path of adjustment of zero interest rates on fed funds and artificially low bond yields? There is no painless exit from unconventional monetary policy. Chris Dieterich, writing on “Bond investors turn to cash,” on Jul 25, 2013, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323971204578625900935618178.html), uses data of the Investment Company Institute (http://www.ici.org/) in showing withdrawals of $43 billion in taxable mutual funds in Jun, which is the largest in history, with flows into cash investments such as $8.5 billion in the week of Jul 17 into money-market funds.
Table VIII-2, United States, Treasury Yields
11/14/14 | 12/31/13 | 5/01/13 | 11/14/13 | 11/14/06 | |
1 M | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 5.24 |
3 M | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 5.09 |
6 M | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 5.15 |
1 Y | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 5.01 |
2 Y | 0.54 | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 4.74 |
3 Y | 0.96 | 0.78 | 0.30 | 0.56 | 4.63 |
5 Y | 1.62 | 1.75 | 0.65 | 1.34 | 4.57 |
7 Y | 2.02 | 2.45 | 1.07 | 2.04 | 4.57 |
10 Y | 2.32 | 3.04 | 1.66 | 2.69 | 4.57 |
20 Y | 2.77 | 3.72 | 2.44 | 3.49 | 4.76 |
30 Y | 3.04 | 3.96 | 2.83 | 3.79 | 4.66 |
M: Months; Y: Years
Source: United States Treasury
Chart VIII-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the rate on the overnight fed funds rate and the yields of the 10-year constant maturity Treasury and the Baa seasoned corporate bond. Table VIII-3 provides the data for selected points in Chart VIII-1. There are two important economic and financial events, illustrating the ease of inducing carry trade with extremely low interest rates and the resulting financial crash and recession of abandoning extremely low interest rates.
- The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) lowered the target of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85). Central bank commitment to maintain the fed funds rate at 1.00 percent induced adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMS) linked to the fed funds rate. Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment. The exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at interest rates close to zero, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV). The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper with the objective of purchasing default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever-increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity by the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions. The put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4). The FOMC implemented increments of 25 basis points of the fed funds target from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006, as shown in Chart VIII-1. The gradual exit from the first round of unconventional monetary policy from 1.00 percent in Jun 2004 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/monetary/2004/20040630/default.htm) to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20060629a.htm) caused the financial crisis and global recession.
- On Dec 16, 2008, the policy determining committee of the Fed decided (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm): “The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to establish a target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent.” Policymakers emphasize frequently that there are tools to exit unconventional monetary policy at the right time. At the confirmation hearing on nomination for Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Vice Chair Yellen (2013Nov14 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20131114a.htm), states that: “The Federal Reserve is using its monetary policy tools to promote a more robust recovery. A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases. I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.” Perception of withdrawal of $2671 billion, or $2.7 trillion, of bank reserves (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1), would cause Himalayan increase in interest rates that would provoke another recession. There is no painless gradual or sudden exit from zero interest rates because reversal of exposures created on the commitment of zero interest rates forever.
In his classic restatement of the Keynesian demand function in terms of “liquidity preference as behavior toward risk,” James Tobin (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1981/tobin-bio.html) identifies the risks of low interest rates in terms of portfolio allocation (Tobin 1958, 86):
“The assumption that investors expect on balance no change in the rate of interest has been adopted for the theoretical reasons explained in section 2.6 rather than for reasons of realism. Clearly investors do form expectations of changes in interest rates and differ from each other in their expectations. For the purposes of dynamic theory and of analysis of specific market situations, the theories of sections 2 and 3 are complementary rather than competitive. The formal apparatus of section 3 will serve just as well for a non-zero expected capital gain or loss as for a zero expected value of g. Stickiness of interest rate expectations would mean that the expected value of g is a function of the rate of interest r, going down when r goes down and rising when r goes up. In addition to the rotation of the opportunity locus due to a change in r itself, there would be a further rotation in the same direction due to the accompanying change in the expected capital gain or loss. At low interest rates expectation of capital loss may push the opportunity locus into the negative quadrant, so that the optimal position is clearly no consols, all cash. At the other extreme, expectation of capital gain at high interest rates would increase sharply the slope of the opportunity locus and the frequency of no cash, all consols positions, like that of Figure 3.3. The stickier the investor's expectations, the more sensitive his demand for cash will be to changes in the rate of interest (emphasis added).”
Tobin (1969) provides more elegant, complete analysis of portfolio allocation in a general equilibrium model. The major point is equally clear in a portfolio consisting of only cash balances and a perpetuity or consol. Let g be the capital gain, r the rate of interest on the consol and re the expected rate of interest. The rates are expressed as proportions. The price of the consol is the inverse of the interest rate, (1+re). Thus, g = [(r/re) – 1]. The critical analysis of Tobin is that at extremely low interest rates there is only expectation of interest rate increases, that is, dre>0, such that there is expectation of capital losses on the consol, dg<0. Investors move into positions combining only cash and no consols. Valuations of risk financial assets would collapse in reversal of long positions in carry trades with short exposures in a flight to cash. There is no exit from a central bank created liquidity trap without risks of financial crash and another global recession. The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Friedman 1957). According to a subsequent statement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:
W = Y/r (1)
Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r→0, W grows without bound, W→∞. Unconventional monetary policy lowers interest rates to increase the present value of cash flows derived from projects of firms, creating the impression of long-term increase in net worth. An attempt to reverse unconventional monetary policy necessarily causes increases in interest rates, creating the opposite perception of declining net worth. As r→∞, W = Y/r →0. There is no exit from unconventional monetary policy without increasing interest rates with resulting pain of financial crisis and adverse effects on production, investment and employment.
Chart VIII-1, Fed Funds Rate and Yields of Ten-year Treasury Constant Maturity and Baa Seasoned Corporate Bond, Jan 2, 2001 to Nov 13, 2014
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/
Table VIII-3, Selected Data Points in Chart VIII-1, % per Year
Fed Funds Overnight Rate | 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity | Seasoned Baa Corporate Bond | |
1/2/2001 | 6.67 | 4.92 | 7.91 |
10/1/2002 | 1.85 | 3.72 | 7.46 |
7/3/2003 | 0.96 | 3.67 | 6.39 |
6/22/2004 | 1.00 | 4.72 | 6.77 |
6/28/2006 | 5.06 | 5.25 | 6.94 |
9/17/2008 | 2.80 | 3.41 | 7.25 |
10/26/2008 | 0.09 | 2.16 | 8.00 |
10/31/2008 | 0.22 | 4.01 | 9.54 |
4/6/2009 | 0.14 | 2.95 | 8.63 |
4/5/2010 | 0.20 | 4.01 | 6.44 |
2/4/2011 | 0.17 | 3.68 | 6.25 |
7/25/2012 | 0.15 | 1.43 | 4.73 |
5/1/13 | 0.14 | 1.66 | 4.48 |
9/5/13 | 0.08 | 2.98 | 5.53 |
11/21/2013 | 0.09 | 2.79 | 5.44 |
11/26/13 | 0.09 | 2.74 | 5.34 (11/26/13) |
12/5/13 | 0.09 | 2.88 | 5.47 |
12/11/13 | 0.09 | 2.89 | 5.42 |
12/18/13 | 0.09 | 2.94 | 5.36 |
12/26/13 | 0.08 | 3.00 | 5.37 |
1/1/2014 | 0.08 | 3.00 | 5.34 |
1/8/2014 | 0.07 | 2.97 | 5.28 |
1/15/2014 | 0.07 | 2.86 | 5.18 |
1/22/2014 | 0.07 | 2.79 | 5.11 |
1/30/2014 | 0.07 | 2.72 | 5.08 |
2/6/2014 | 0.07 | 2.73 | 5.13 |
2/13/2014 | 0.06 | 2.73 | 5.12 |
2/20/14 | 0.07 | 2.76 | 5.15 |
2/27/14 | 0.07 | 2.65 | 5.01 |
3/6/14 | 0.08 | 2.74 | 5.11 |
3/13/14 | 0.08 | 2.66 | 5.05 |
3/20/14 | 0.08 | 2.79 | 5.13 |
3/27/14 | 0.08 | 2.69 | 4.95 |
4/3/14 | 0.08 | 2.80 | 5.04 |
4/10/14 | 0.08 | 2.65 | 4.89 |
4/17/14 | 0.09 | 2.73 | 4.89 |
4/24/14 | 0.10 | 2.70 | 4.84 |
5/1/14 | 0.09 | 2.63 | 4.77 |
5/8/14 | 0.08 | 2.61 | 4.79 |
5/15/14 | 0.09 | 2.50 | 4.72 |
5/22/14 | 0.09 | 2.56 | 4.81 |
5/29/14 | 0.09 | 2.45 | 4.69 |
6/05/14 | 0.09 | 2.59 | 4.83 |
6/12/14 | 0.09 | 2.58 | 4.79 |
6/19/14 | 0.10 | 2.64 | 4.83 |
6/26/14 | 0.10 | 2.53 | 4.71 |
7/2/14 | 0.10 | 2.64 | 4.84 |
7/10/14 | 0.09 | 2.55 | 4.75 |
7/17/14 | 0.09 | 2.47 | 4.69 |
7/24/14 | 0.09 | 2.52 | 4.72 |
7/31/14 | 0.08 | 2.58 | 4.75 |
8/7/14 | 0.09 | 2.43 | 4.71 |
8/14/14 | 0.09 | 2.40 | 4.69 |
8/21/14 | 0.09 | 2.41 | 4.69 |
8/28/14 | 0.09 | 2.34 | 4.57 |
9/04/14 | 0.09 | 2.45 | 4.70 |
9/11/14 | 0.09 | 2.54 | 4.79 |
9/18/14 | 0.09 | 2.63 | 4.91 |
9/25/14 | 0.09 | 2.52 | 4.79 |
10/02/14 | 0.09 | 2.44 | 4.76 |
10/09/14 | 0.08 | 2.34 | 4.68 |
10/16/14 | 0.09 | 2.17 | 4.64 |
10/23/14 | 0.09 | 2.29 | 4.71 |
11/13/14 | 0.09 | 2.35 | 4.82 |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/
© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment