The charts that follow are updates to the CPI and GDP using data that were released in recent weeks.
Chart #4 shows the growth of real GDP over time, plotted on a log scale axis to better illustrate trend rates of growth. The green line is an extension of the trend that prevailed from the 1960s through 2007 (3.1%). The red line is the trend that has prevailed since mid-2009 (2.3%). Actual GDP tends to wobble a bit from its prevailing trend, but not by much. We're still in a 2% growth world, which is unremarkable. I doubt we'll see any significant improvement for awhile, given all the uncertainties surround Trump's tariffs and deportation policies. Eventually we should see some remarkable improvement, as Trump's attacks on taxes and regulatory burdens begin to reap benefits.
Chart #1
Chart #2
Chart #1 shows the 6-mo. annualized rate of change in the CPI and the ex-shelter version of the CPI, while Chart #2 shows the year over year change of these two variables. Over the past six months, both measures of the CPI were at or below the Fed's target. I doubt you heard this news in the media, which is anxious to see inflation popping up everywhere thanks to Trump's tariffs. Over the past year, both measures were a tiny bit above the Fed's target. Is that a cause for concern? Hardly. As you can see from both charts, it is the nature of the beast for inflation to wobble above and below 2% on a month-to-month basis.
Chart #3
The thing to remember is that the source of the past several years' inflation is the enormous growth in the M2 money supply. This "extra" money has by now been largely absorbed, thanks to rising prices and tight monetary policy. This is illustrated in Chart #3. With little or no excess money in the economy, there is no reason for inflation to rise on a sustained basis.
Chart #4
Chart #4 shows the 1- and 3-mo. annualized rate of change of Owner's Equivalent Rent. This makes up about one-third of the CPI, and it has for the past two years been the sole reason that the CPI has been above target for the past two years. As I've explained many times, the way the BLS calculates the shelter component of inflation is highly questionable, and almost certainly based on data that is one and two years old—so that it is a very lagging indicator of the true cost of living. In any event, this measure of inflation has been trending down for almost 3 years, and is currently running at a 3.4% annualized rate. It's almost certain to fall further, given that we know that nationwide housing prices—and rents—have been flat to down for the past year and show no signs whatsoever of rising. As OER declines it will become clear to the unenlightened that inflation is behaving as it should.
Chart #4
We must never lose sight of the enormous gap between where the economy is today and where it might have been if pre-2007 conditions had prevailed. I estimate the gap between the red and blue lines to be roughly $6.4 trillion. In other words, the economy—and incomes—might have been 27% bigger today if policies had been more sensible and less burdensome. Trump has made it clear he wants the economy to return to a 3% growth path, and for the most part his policies support that goal.
UPDATE (8/20/25): For an extended discussion on possible reasons GDP growth downshifted in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart #4), see this collection of my posts on the subject.
15 comments:
Not only is that 2.3% recent GDP trend not going to revert to the old 3.1% trend, it is almost certain to start trending even lower. And there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Satta Matka - indian matka 420 | satta king | dpboss Matka |
______________________________
Matka boss - matka 420 | dpboss matka | satta matka |
Savings dissipated in financial investment, or impounded in idle savings, or as leakages in transfer payments, are stoppages in the flow of funds derived from the main income stream, and have a direct and immediate dampening impact on the economy
Link: “Changes in Wealth and the Velocity of Money”
The U.S. Golden Era in Capitalism was financed in 2/3 by velocity, by putting savings back to work. And the nonbanks were gov't insured. R-gDp averaged 5.4 percent.
Both stagflation and secular stagnation were predicted in 1961.
See: “Should Commercial Banks Accept Savings Deposits?” Conference on Savings and Residential Financing 1961 Proceedings, United States Savings and loan league, Chicago, 1961, 42, 43.
“Profit or Loss from Time Deposit Banking”, Banking and Monetary Studies, Comptroller of the Currency, United States Treasury Department, Irwin, 1963, pp. 369-386
You see the economy is being run in reverse, the savings->investment process is backwards.
Powell's a Keynesian economist: “When times are good in the economy, banks and other lenders tend to have a lot of money to LEND. And in case you didn’t realize, banks are in the business of making money off of loans. So if they can LEND to more people who they believe will pay them back on time, they’ll make more money.
But right now it’s costing banks more to get the funds they need to make loans. Part of that goes back to the Fed’s interest rate hikes. But the other part comes from the recent bank failures. Since many depositors withdrew money from mid-size and regional banks, these banks have less money to LEND.”
Dr. Philip George rediscovered this truth, a truth that Dr. Leland Pritchard similarly advocated 35 years ago.
http://www.philipji.com/riddle-of-money/
Savings products tend to produce a sustainable income stream (a payback), while money products are largely confined to a transfer of title to goods, properties or claims thereto. As Martin Wolf says DFI credit is chiefly used: “to buy existing assets, not new ones”.
Scott, Thank you for your post. This time the market is very nervous for the investment, especially options, and your posts make it easier. Can you explain the sudden change in the GDP trend from ~3% to ~2%, which is going from 2008 despite different goverments and policy? Are there any fundamental changes after the crisis?
Re "can you explain the sudden change in the GDP trend..." I've posted numerous times over the years on this subject, and a nice collection of those posts can be found using this link: https://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/search?q=transfer+payments
Thank you for the very detail explanation
Thank you Scott. Have you heard of that whole "What happened in 1971?" discussion? Would love to get your insights on this. Here's a summary with some interesting charts: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
"The U.S. Golden Era in Capitalism was financed in 2/3 by velocity, by putting savings back to work..."
I am not an economist, but have taken several college courses, and read a lot about the subject.
Velocity is an integral part of the theories of the economy, but gets very little discussion. Velocity seems to vary quite a lot and there seems to be little done by the monetary authorities to understand it, let alone control it.
As I've said before, I'm not sure what the economics profession is trying to accomplish recently. In addition, the central bankers recently seem to have ethics issues, with insider trading and alleged mortgage fraud from the staff. Too bad for the US and world, for that matter.
Vi, income velocity, is almost meaningless. Vi can move in the exact opposite of the transaction's velocity of funds, like in 1978. The G.6 Debit and Deposit turnover release was discontinued because it was hard to compile.
Lending by the banks is inflationary (increases the volume and turnover of new money). Lending by the nonbanks is noninflationary (results in the turnover of existing money, a velocity relationship).
Post a Comment