Tag Archives: inflation

measuring inflation is hard

Measuring inflation is hard for a variety of reasons, and it gets even harder when you try to compare across countries and regions. Some of the reasons include methodological choices in averaging, weighting, how housing and transportation are accounted for, how urban and rural consumers are included, and many others. There is a measure called the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) that is used to try to compare across countries and regions. This differs from the U.S. CPI in a variety of ways.

mathy inflation hand waving headlines

Breitbart headline: Wholesale Inventories Rose More Than Expected, Pointing to Even More Inflation Ahead

Okay Breitbart, but couldn’t an increase in inventories indicate that supply is starting to catch up with demand, which would put downward pressure on inflation? Or it could indicate a sudden drop in demand, which would also hopefully put downward pressure on inflation, although maybe not right away, which could lead to the dreaded “stagflation”. Either way, this headline is either stupid or intentionally misleading. Either the logical relationship is the opposite of what they are suggesting, or there is no relationship at all.

In the actual article,

Economists had expected many businesses to go into liquidation mode to rid themselves of unwanted inventories in the first quarter of this year. Indeed, declining or decelerating inventories were widely expected to be a drag on GDP as well as a moderating factor on inflation. Instead, inventories have been building faster than expected, which will likely force GDP expectations and inflation to rise.

Wholesalers act as middlemen between producers of goods and retailers. The business requires speculation about future demand. A rising wholesale inventory generally indicates expectations for robust demand from consumers for goods. It can go awry, however, if consumer spending is weaker than expected and wholesalers are left with unwanted stockpiles of goods. For this reason, economists watch the inventory to sales ratio, which remains at a historically low level that indicates wholesalers have not built up big piles of goods in compared to consumer activity.

Breitbart

Let’s try to follow this convoluted logic. I don’t see why declining inventories would put downward pressure on inflation, unless businesses are expecting a big slowdown in demand in the near future so they preemptively stop ordering goods. We hear speculation that inflation and interest rate hikes could trigger a recession, but businesses tend to react to economic fluctuations rather than gamble on what they think might happen. At the moment, both supply and demand are picking up, but demand is picking up faster and causing inflation.

Inventory to sales ratio is at a historic low – this again would suggest demand is picking up and supply is still struggling, triggering inflation. This is logical – and the exact opposite of the headline, which is completely illogical! People who read only the headline or only skim the text (probably most people) are going to get the exact opposite of the right idea. I am going to stamp this as naked propaganda and shame on Breitbart.

“giant leap” for food prices

The “giant leap” headline is from the FAO, which is not usually prone to hyperbole. But their global food price index rose over 12% in March, and the grain portion of the index rose 17% while the vegetable oil portion rose 23%. These are not the annual rates of increase in March, which would be high. They are increases during the month of March, on top of steady increases since about summer 2020. Looking back at the index historically, there were shocks of similar intensity in the 2005-2010 period. This one is already bigger and longer, and those earlier periods resulted in a lot of unrest and mass migration pressure.

A rational response would be to increase food and development aid to countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. An irrational response would be to do nothing and wait for the rise of racist and nationalist movements that love to capitalize on a mass migration crisis.

supply, demand, and prices do not really exist

This statement by James Galbraith makes my head spin a bit.

Just as Einstein had erased Euclid’s axiom of parallels, Keynes’s General Theory had long since obliterated the supply curves for labor and saving, thereby eliminating the supposed markets for labor and capital.

It followed that the prices of production were set by costs (mostly labor costs and interest rates), while quantities were determined by effective demand. Markets were not treated as if they were magical. It was obvious that most resources and components did not move under the influence of an invisible hand. Rather, they moved according to contracts between companies on terms set by negotiation, as had been the case for more than a hundred years. Technology was managed by organizations – mostly by large corporations – in what was sometimes called “the new industrial state.”

Project Syndicate

This is in a review of a book arguing that prices are really important. It’s a bit disturbing to me to think that there might not be a consensus among economists about how the economy actually works. We ordinary people can grasp theories like prices equilibrating supply and demand, and even how interest rates are related to the money supply and inflation, if we try really hard. But we assume the experts understand this stuff on a much deeper level, and that it is fundamentally science. If our understanding of civilization turns out to be based on pseudoscience, we might be in trouble.

the midterm curse

2022 will be a midterm election year in the U.S. The incumbent political party usually loses seats in the midterm election, and since the Democrats have a majority of 1 in the Senate, losing any seats will mean losing what little control they have. Here are the historical facts according to Alternet:

  • The party that controls the White House has lost seats in 19 of the 22 midterm elections since 1932.
  • The first exception was 1934, when FDR was in office. His New Deal was popular and seemed to offer hope during the pain of the Great Depression.
  • The second exception was 1998, when Bill Clinton was in office. The economy was growing quickly and the Clinton impeachment had just happened.
  • The third exception was 2002, when George W. Bush was in office. 9/11 had happened about a year earlier, and the response to 9/11 including the Afghanistan invasion was popular.

So what will probably happen is the Democrats will lose seats in 2022, because that happens 86% of the time. The Republicans will say the Democrats did everything wrong and that explains the result. The Democrats will say they did everything right and it still just happens 86% of the time. The media will more or less side with the Republicans because they like to give explanations, like when they give an “explanation” every day for why the stock market went up or down when it is clearly much more than 86% random.

To have a shot at bucking the trend, the Democrats would need (1) a big, popular, perceived to be successful policy agenda, (2) a war or other major acute crisis perceived to be handled well, and/or (3) fast economic growth.

On (1), I just don’t buy the idea that policy success is going to get Biden very far. He has done objectively well on pandemic rescue and direct payments to taxpayers, and he seems to be getting little or no credit for it. I don’t think people are even aware of these successes. The pandemic is grinding on and people are in a generally sour mood. They do not judge politicians on how much worse things could be if actions hadn’t been taken, or how much less sour the mood could be. It is just the sour mood that counts. I do think there was one mis-step, which was giving people enormous amounts of money without making sure they appreciated it. Doing this as electronic tax refunds, even on a monthly basis, does not seem to have worked well politically. I saw one poll where many people said they had not received the payments, even though most of them demonstrably, factually had! This is the flip side of the phenomenon companies are well aware of, where charges that show up in our bank accounts or credit card statements after the fact and with minimal fanfare “feel” less painful than when we open our wallets and fork over cash or write a check. Payroll deductions also take advantage of this psychology. So I think the optimal political strategy would have been for the Democrats to mail people paper checks, even if that would have been less efficient economically than the way it was done. Some sort of debit card, as is typically done for food stamps, could also have worked. Imagine if it had Biden’s face on it, like a Roman emperor stamping their face on a gold coin. And the big infrastructure and social “spending bills”, even if they pass, do not seem to be scoring the Democrats any points. People don’t understand the long-term benefits of these critical investments and the Republicans are just winning the narrative by screaming incoherently about debt and inflation and socialism. It’s a meme, not a rational argument, and it’s resonating with where our heads are as a society right now.

On (2), it seems like Covid has become too much of a long-term, grinding, slow-burn crisis for Biden to get much credit for managing it reasonably well. Like I said, things are going moderately badly, and there is no credit given because things could be going much more badly. That said, it seems entirely plausible that Covid could largely burn itself out in 2022, as almost every (surviving) human on Earth will have some immunity from vaccination, infection, or both. This is in the absence of a major new killer variant, of course. Things could also improve to near-normal over the summer, and then a new fall wave could hit just at the wrong time (politically speaking, for the party in power.) A major terrorist attack or a war over Taiwan, Ukraine, or Iran could be good timing for the mid-term elections, and disastrous for life on Earth. I’m not sure anyone knows what a major meltdown of the communication, financial, and/or electrical systems would mean politically. Please no on all of these.

On (3) it seems entirely plausible that the economy could pick up and inflation could moderate throughout 2022. Things are definitely getting off to a rocky start, and if they steadily improve and seem to be going really well in the late summer and fall, the public will give the party in power credit for that whether they deserve it or not. If inflation seems to be spiraling out of control, it will be the political kiss of death and could lead to a landslide against the party in power.

I’ll go out on a limb and give a prediction of what I think is most likely: Economic growth will pick up, inflation will moderate, and Covid will recede into the background by late summer into fall. The world will avoid major geopolitical turmoil and nuclear war. The public will be in a pretty good mood and the President’s approval ratings will be relatively high. The Democrats will still lose a handful of seats in the Congress because that just happens 86% of the time. This will be the end of Biden’s big, bold legislative policy agenda. In the second half of his term, he will focus on unglamorous administrative policy and foreign policy because those will be the options left to him. The Republicans will say their gaining a handful of seats spells certain doom for Biden in 2024, and they will be wrong, because Presidential elections seem to be tossups lately no matter what else is happening.

James Galbraith on inflation

Here is what James Galbraith (an economist at the University of Texas, whose name is always given with the middle initial of K, but I find that a bit pompous) says is causing inflation:

  • high oil prices (“oil” being shorthand for gasoline, fuel oil, and natural gas) driven by pandemic recovery and cut-backs in shale oil/gas production. A short-term solution is to sell from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to stabilize prices. He says shale production will pick up driven by market forces now that prices are high.
  • commodity speculation. Solution is regulation.
  • military spending. This is a good point – he says we are spending $700 billion per year on “weapons and defense”, and I suspect this number would be over a trillion per year if you consider all defense, intelligence, security and nuclear weapons spending as a whole, which is scatter across the government beyond the Department of Defense. Something that irritates me – why do we talk about the infrastructure investment and social spending bills Congress is considering as totals over a decade or more, which leads to a sticker shock effect, but defense spending on an annual basis, if we talk about it all? I AM GOING TO SPEND OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ON MY HOUSE OVER THE NEXT DECADE!!! But my monthly payment is something I can (just barely, not particularly comfortably) afford on my income, and that is how I think and plan my life and family finances. Democrats seem to think the big numbers have a kind of positive shock value showing that they are doing big, bold things. But Republicans just incoherently scream SPENDING!!! and INFLATION!!! and that communication strategy seems to be winning. (My 30-year fixed rate monthly mortgage payment is going to seem less spectacular, by the way, in a world where a bag of groceries costs $100 or more, which seems to be where we are headed. My wife and I are relying on a lot of prepared food and takeout these days, because I am working full time to maintain our private health insurance and other benefits, and we are raising small children in the richest country in the world without a childcare program. Also, our dishwasher is broken and due to the supposed labor shortage, the repair has been postponed several times even though the part is available. We are grateful that we are healthy and well-nourished and have a roof over our heads and realize many people are in much worse situations…)
  • supply chain bottlenecks, including clogged ports. These will work themselves out, although it seems to be a painfully slow process.

He says raising interest rates alone would not be a good solution to any of these problems. He says it is important for wage increases to go to low-paid workers. That certainly seems fair and just, although I am not sure how that is a solution to the problems above.

inflation

The Economist says inflation could be on the verge of a comeback.

Some economists reckon a sustained rise in inflation is overdue. Most of the rich world is out of recession, emerging markets seem to have put the worst of their commodity bust behind them, and in a few places, like America, low unemployment has at last given way to accelerating wage growth. It is possible, some suppose, that the weak growth and sustained disinflation of the past half-decade has blinded markets and policy-makers to the potential for a sharp swing in the other direction, toward uncomfortably high inflation.

The rest of the article goes on to poo-poo the idea that inflation may be on the verge of a comeback. But we’ll see.