For better or worse.12:00 AM, Jul 12, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
All good things must come to an end. And bad things, too, if you believe that the Federal Reserve Board’s bond buying program was a mistake. The minutes of its June 17-18 monetary policy committee meeting, published a few days ago, reveal that these purchases, largely credited with keeping long-term interest rates lower than they would otherwise have been, will come to an end in October. Fans of the protracted period of low interest rates say those rates helped bring the recession to an end by forcing up the prices of assets such as homes and shares, creating a “wealth effect” that encouraged consumers to spend. Better still, the low interest rates made it more attractive (cheaper) for businesses to invest in plant, software, and other assets, creating jobs not only for the workers directly involved, but for the butchers, bakers, and candle-stick makers whom they patronize. So say the Fed fans.
Wrong, say the Fed’s critics. If you could print your way to prosperity there would never by a recession. All the Fed’s $1 trillion bond-buying program has done is to store up future inflation as too much money chases too few goods, while creating “asset bubbles” as investors and savers, faced with zero interest rates on safe investments, hunt for yield by buying riskier assets that at least return something to savers and investors.
We might never find out whether the Fed or its critics have the best of the argument because the change in monetary policy will not happen in a vacuum, so that we can say it caused this, that, or the other thing. As the policy change plays out:
· Iraq is coming unhinged and a new Israeli vs. Hamas war is in the offing in a key oil-producing region;
· Opposition to new trade agreements is slowing world trade;
· A congressional election with all of its implication for fiscal policy is around the corner here in America;
· The Chinese economy is or is not slowing (that nation’s statistics are not famous for their reliability); and
· Participation in the U.S. labor market will or will not increase if wages rise, which they may or may not do, a set of unknowns sowing disagreement among the Fed’s monetary policy gurus.
The point of this list, which the reader can extend at will, is that economists need to qualify what they say by adding, “other things being equal.” Of course, they never are, making it difficult to trace cause and effect in a rapidly changing economic environment. Which is one reason economic forecasting is not even a respectable art, much less science. Financial Times journalist/economist Tim Hanford points out that in 2009 49 economies were in recession and economists had not called a single one of these downturns by April of the previous year.
Which brings us to the Fed, which is basing its decision to end it stimulus in October on its reading of the economic tea leaves, a reading that Fed economists and the policy committee believe signals an accelerated upturn. But, as former Fed governor Larry Lindsey points out, the Fed has been “consistently wrong, and in the same direction.” Its forecast for first-half growth was overly optimistic “by about two full percentage points! ...There is no consideration [in the minutes] of why they were wrong.”
Two important aspects of the failure of Fed economists to get their forecasts right are important as we ponder the wisdom of the decision to end the bond-buying program. The first is the most obvious: the decision is based on forecasts by officials who consistently get it wrong. Second, and more important: as Lindsey notes, they always err in the same direction—their growth forecasts are too high. So we have a policy change based on cheery forecasts by officials who are always wrong, and come in on the high side. Nevertheless, the Fed now says that based on its forecasts of more rapid growth, an improving labor market, an increase in the rate of inflation towards its 2 percent annual target, and financial conditions “supportive of growth in economic activity and employment,” it will end its asset purchases in October, with $1.5 trillion in bonds at that end date.
12:00 AM, Jul 5, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
After celebrating our Declaration of Independence from the British oppressor, we will return to work Monday having consumed 155 million hot dogs and, for some 41 million of us, bucked traffic jams, long security lines at airports, or storm-induced flight delays in order to visit family or whatever place attracts us in this huge country of ours.
3:28 PM, Jul 2, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
Rather than legislatively ratcheting up the legal minimum wage, with the attendant political grandstanding, hand wring, and finger pointing (we leave anything out?), how about this? Let’s kick the economy into high gear so that it expands so robustly that employers are pushed into competing for workers through the radical, unheard of mechanism of offering them higher wages?
4:16 PM, Jun 27, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
There has been a long stagnation following the “Great Recession.” No good news there. Lots of unemployment, hence no competition for labor and, thus, no increase in incomes. But … at least there is no inflation. That, anyway, is what we are told by the engineers with their handles on the economy’s throttles. The Federal Reserve, in fact, would like to see some more inflation.
12:46 PM, Jun 26, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
In the first quarter of 2014, GDP in the U.S. plunged at a 2.9% annual rate, and productivity—the inflation-adjusted business output per hour worked—declined at a 3.5% annual rate. This is the worst productivity statistic since 1990. And productivity since 2005 has declined by more than 8% relative to its long-run trend. This means that business output is nearly $1 trillion less today than what it would be had productivity continued to grow at its average rate of about 2.5% per year.
9:01 AM, Jun 26, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
Reports from the economic front, this week, have been discouraging. Especially yesterday's revise in first quarter GDP to almost three percent negative growth. A contraction, in other words. Another one of those, on the back of that one, and we are officially in a recession.
12:00 AM, Jun 21, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
And we thought the bad old days of oil shocks were over. Embargoes, price spikes, gasoline lines in America, a sweater-bedecked president ordering the end of hot water in many facilities, collapsing retail sales as high gasoline and energy prices hit stores as much as a big tax increase would, economic stagflation, or worse. Well, it just might be that we were wrong to believe that danger to our continued prosperity has been removed with the death of theories about “Peak oil.”
12:00 AM, Jun 14, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
Until Eve’s encounter with the serpent, Adam did not spend a lot of time looking for work. Didn’t have to. Expelled from Eden and cursed with the necessity of earning his bread “in the sweat of his face,” he found work. Had to. Therein lies a partial, but only partial, explanation for one of the strange developments in America’s labor markets.
9:13 AM, Jun 12, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
Initial claims came in, this morning, slightly higher (317,000) than expected (310,000). While retail sales were, on the other hand, slightly lower. Expectations (i.e. hopes) were for an increase of 0.6 percent. Seems we’ll have to settle for half that. Which would lead one to conclude that the economic bounce off the floor of a 1st quarter during which the economy shrunk may not be all that forecasters – and just about everyone else – had hoped. Now, in fact, we hear talk of an era of slow growth.
12:00 AM, Jun 7, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
It is mandatory for economists to point out that one data point does not make a trend. We then all-too-often fill space with, er, a discussion of one data point, most usually the monthly report on job creation. Not being one to defy convention, I will report that Friday’s jobs report was a yawner. The 217,000 new jobs created in May finally pushed total jobs above pre-recession levels, but the unemployment and labor force participation rates remained unchanged at 6.3 percent and 62.8 percent, respectively. No post-winter jobs growth spurt, at least not yet, but no reversal of recent growth either.