"Trump's Great Economic Divide" (headline from the WSJ)

Today's "Ahead of the Tape" column in the WSJ mocks Trump's pessimistic view of the economy by contrasting his pessimism with the positive level of consumer sentiment. The journalist quips that the "gulf between scary headlines and current sentiment is 'yuge.'" Steven Russolillo, the journalist, provides a graph of the Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment to illustrate his point that consumers are confident.

He should have shaded in the recession period and he would have noted that this is more of a coincident rather than a leading indicator. Here is the same graph with the recessions shaded.

(Also note that the journalist omitted the last data point, which turns down, so that his graph give the impression confidence is going up.)

In fact, one notices that sentiments tends to peak one year before a recession. . . But wait! The index peaked about a year ago! Does this mean we are now entering a recession? That we will know only in retrospect. In the meantime, we all should beware lest we let our politics cloud our economic analysis. (Remember Capt. Renaud's line about politics in Casablanca? "I have no conviction, if that's what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy." He would have made a good economist, I think.)

My personal view is that our current economic setup is doomed, but that has little to do with either democrats or republicans.

"Honey, I shrunk the economy!"

As President Obama has rightly stated, "anyone who thinks the US economy isn't doing well is living in a fantasy land." The World Bank, which has just cut its forecast of world growth this year and has cut its US growth forecast particularly sharply, is clearly a denizen of that imaginary place.

The Bank's location was confirmed by this morning's CFA Institute News Brief:

"World Bank shrinks forecasts for economic growth
The World Bank has downgraded its outlook for growth of the global economy this year from 2.9% to 2.4%, which it characterized as insipid. A 0.5-percentage-point cut in its forecast for the wealthiest countries accounts for about half of the reduction. The development lender lowered its US growth forecast from 2.7% to 1.9%.Bloomberg (07 Jun.) "

Prof. Boskin is "living in a fantasy land."

President Obama has rightly remarked that anyone who thinks the economy isn't doing well is "living in a fantasy land."  I agree.  We are living in a fantasy land.

Michael Boskin, the economics professor who changed the inflation calculation for social security so that it would rise less than actual inflation, that during the reign of the male Clinton, writes the following in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:

"Mr. Obama will likely go down as having the worst economic-growth record of any president since the trough of the Great Depression in 1933—over eight decades spanning 13 administrations. Mr. Obama thus far has overseen 1.7% average annual economic growth, and the Blue Chip forecast for the remainder of 2016 is only slightly higher."

Given that capital spending is expected to contract in real terms in 2016, the immediate future does not look much different from the recent past. Nonetheless, I may choose to fantasize about a better outlook. (But I certainly wouldn't put money on it.)

Driving Lessons from Greece: The consequences of central bank policy

Central bank policy has evolved from unorthodox to downright strange as politicians have failed to take control of the post-crisis economy. Sooner rather later they will confront a stark choice signposted Greece or Ireland.

Full article: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3543283/Inside-investment-Driving-lessons-from-Greece.html?printrequest=true&copyrightInfo=true

Stairway to heaven: time for another step up?

There's a lady who's sure
All that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven

-- Led Zeppelin

"All power to the Soviets!" Central bank overreach in Sweden and elsewhere

I remembered Lenin's phrase "All power to the Soviets!" when I read this morning that Stefan Ingves, head of Sweden's central bank, thinks that the bank should have more power over the economy. Specifically, the Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) is standing in the way of the central bank's direct regulation of the housing market. Ingves proposes that the FSA be merged into the central bank. (i.e. eliminated and its authority given to the CB)

Sweden's economy grew 4.5% last year and is expected to grow 3.5% this year. The central bank lending rate is -0.5%. (I believe that Sweden was the first to go negative.) The bank has also done the requisite quantitative easing. The fly in the ointment is that inflation is only 0.4% whilst the target is 2.0%.

Personally, I don't see why stable prices and a booming economy is not considered a good enough result. The Central bank, which seems quite pleased with itself, says, however, that it needs more power so that things will be even better.

It's human nature: everyone thinks he ought to have more power.

Factoid: US economic expectations in 2010

The WSJ today (A2) says that the US Government predicted in 2010 that growth from 2010 to 2015 would be 3.9%/yr and unemployment would drop from 10% to 5.9%. Growth was 2.1%/yr and unemployment dropped to 4.9%. The difference between growth and unemployment is anomalous; perhaps we are mismeasuring one or the other.

Drug-induced optimism? Botox sales up. Consumer confidence down. It just doesn't make sense.

We note in the paper this morning that Allergan has reported good profits, thanks partly to higher sales of Botox (+10%) and Restasis (+18%). I guess the increase in Botox sales means the consumer is doing better; she has money to spend, and is ceasing to behave like the Madwoman of Chaillot, becoming more mindful of her appearance. Consequently, since it is hard to express emotion while under the influence of Botox, said consumer can neither cry nor laugh, pushing up Restasis dry-eye treatment sales.

What does this say about mass psychology following the Great Recession? We are clearly past denial, and maybe mostly through anger, but what about the other stages of grief? My bet is that ever more people are between depression and acceptance.

Should this trend continue, there will be fewer angry people to attend Trump and Sanders rallies as the folks start going about their business in a more normal way; GDP growth is likely to pick up.

At the same time, we learn this morning that consumer confidence has unexpectedly declined. Fed take note: More Botox is needed. (How about the Fed printing Botox certificates that are tradable and redeemable? A certain amount of economic activity would directly result; in addition, the Botox treatments would greatly increase confidence. It's time for the Fed to try something different, something that might work.)

Unfortunately, Allergan is already an expensive stock and its shareholders are smiling only slightly, which is probably the best they can do, under the circumstances.

Martin Feldstein among the faeries, reporting from a dreamworld.

Martin Feldstein says, “The US economy is in good shape.”

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Harvard professor Feldstein said, “The American economy is in good shape, better than critics think and financial investors fear. Incomes are rising, unemployment is falling, and industrial production is up sharply.” (p. A13)

I am glad to hear this because it echoes President Obama’s State of the Union assertions that “America right now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world,” and anyone saying America is in decline “is peddling fiction.”

The market problem is a market problem, according to Feldstein. Fed policy has pushed equities to artificially high levels; even after the recent decline, stocks are still 35% above normal.

He thinks the data showing that household income has stagnated is deceptive because it measures cash income. “The CBO explains that once corporate and government transfers are added to market incomes, and federal taxes are subtracted, the real income after transfers and federal taxes is up 49% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the lowest income quintile (with average total incomes of $31,000 in 2010). Real income is up 40% between 1979 and 2010 for households in the middle three quintiles (with average total incomes of $60,000) in 2010.”

These adjustments are interesting. Until a few years ago, the BLS when reporting on the number of Americans below the poverty line did not take into account government benefits. Today both numbers are available and you can choose between them depending on what point you wish to make. I noticed a couple of years ago, and wrote about it, that the average teacher in the local public schools with a master’s degree and 5-10 years of experience had about same effective income as a family of four on assistance. If the salary were $65,000, then about $20,000 comes off the top for health insurance (here the teacher pays half) and pension contribution (11% of gross income). Then we must subtract state and federal income taxes and NEA dues. On assistance, this teacher and his family could get subsidized housing, free healthcare, food stamps, and cash payments. In effect, he is no better off working, if we go by the numbers.

So why does he want to work? There are a number of reasons. He probably does not want to move his family to subsidized housing where he hears reports of frequent drug busts, shootings, assaults, and other crimes. He also likes being in a work environment where he is active, has interesting and dynamic colleagues, as well as other psychological rewards.

This is the point that Feldstein seems to miss. People don’t feel good about themselves if they are forced to depend on government programs. A good job is not an even trade for monetarily equivalent benefits. If you tell people in the latter group, or those who fear going there, that the economy is in good shape, they won’t believe you.

El-Erian fears doom, but hopes for the good enough

Mohammed El-Erian has just published a book, The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse. He says the world economy is on a road heading for a "T junction," to use a British phrase. We must soon choose between the two roads. One leads to total destruction (depression, social disorder) and the other to some sort of survival. He assigns a 50% likelihood to each outcome. To achieve the latter somewhat better outcome, far-sighted, enlightened and public-spirited actions are required from our leaders. (It is unclear how he gets a 50% likelihood that this will happen. It's rather like Samuel Johnson's definition of a second marriage, "the triumph of hope over experience.")

As for the central banks, we have reached the point where a continuation of extraordinary measures (ZIRP, QE) is counterproductive, and even destructive. He goes so far as to say that apart from the emergency measures during the crisis, the central bank monetary manipulation experiment has not worked.

Yesterday my wife listened to El-Erian's hour-long interview on Tom Ashbrook's show "On Point" in the morning. She insisted I hear the replay in the evening, but I resisted as I was reading a book. I did, however, subsequently download and listen to the podcast. It is well worth hearing. It is anything but the party line.

The link: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/02/16/economic-market-crash-prediction


Yours truly,
Lincoln