Hello Stagflation!

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Hello Stagflation!

Post by J »

Looky what I found here with a Google news search for "stagflation". MSNBC has picked it up, but not CNN, at least not yet.

AP linky
Worries Grow for Worse 'Stagflation'

By JEANNINE AVERSA – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a toxic economic mix the nation hasn't seen in three decades: Prices are speeding upward at the fastest pace in a quarter century, even as the economy loses steam.

Economists call the disease "stagflation," and they're worried it might be coming back.

Already, paychecks aren't stretching as far, and jobs are harder to find, threatening to set off a vicious cycle that could make things even worse.

The economy nearly stalled in the final three months of last year and probably is barely growing or even shrinking now. That's the "stagnation" part of the ailment. Typically, that slowdown should slow inflation as well — the second part of the diagnosis — but prices are still marching higher.

The latest worrisome news came Tuesday: a government report showing wholesale prices climbed 7.4 percent in the past year. That was the biggest annual leap since 1981.

"We're in a slowdown," Press Secretary Dana Perino said at the White House, where the economics talk was still upbeat until recently.

Once the twin evils of stagflation take hold, it can be hard to break the grip. People cut back on their spending as they are stung by rising prices and shriveling wages. Businesses, also socked by rising costs and declining demand from customers, clamp down on their hiring and capital investment.

That would be a nightmare scenario for Wall Street investors, businesses, politicians and most everyone else. They're already looking to the Federal Reserve for help, but the Fed's job is complicated by the situation.

The mission of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues is to nurture economic growth and keep inflation under control. To brace the teetering economy, the Fed since September has been ratcheting down its key interest rate. Another cut is expected in March. However, to combat inflation, the Fed would be expected to boost rates instead.

"The Fed has its hands full. It is preoccupied with the economic slowdown at the front door, but inflation looks to be sneaking in the back door," said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. "If that trend continues, the Fed would need to show the economy some tough love, meaning higher interest rates to keep inflation from getting out of hand."

On the other hand, Brian Bethune, economist at Global Insight, said Bernanke can fight only one war at a time, and the more pressing issue right now is to shore up the ailing economy. "That's the war that needs to be fought. The war on inflation will have to come another day," Bethune said.

Maybe things won't be so bad. Stock prices rose for the day, continuing a recent mini-rally. And Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn said in a speech that he doesn't expect the recent elevated inflation readings to persist.

"But the recent information on prices underlines the need to continue to monitor the inflation situation very carefully," he added.

Some numbers underscore the concerns:

_ Prices paid by consumers are up 4.1 percent over the past year, the biggest increase in 17 years. Those higher prices — especially for heating homes and filling up gas tanks — are taking an ever-bigger bite out of paychecks. Workers' weekly earnings are down 1.4 percent from a year ago when adjusted for that inflation.

_ Oil prices galloped past $100 a barrel to close at a record $100.88 on Tuesday. Those lofty energy prices are a double-edged sword: They can spread inflation through the economy by boosting the prices of lots of other goods and services, and they can leave people with less money to spend on other things, thus slowing overall economic activity. There are signs high energy prices are causing some damage on both of those fronts.

People are hunkering down. Earlier this month, nervous shoppers handed the nation's retailers their worst January in almost four decades. High gas and food prices, the toll of the housing bust, the credit crunch and a tougher job market all were to blame. Disappointing sales were widespread, hitting discounters like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and upscale merchants like Nordstrom Inc.

Wary employers eliminated jobs in January, the first nationwide loss of jobs in more than four years.

With the economy on the edge of a recession — if it hasn't toppled over already — the Fed for the near term is much more likely to keep lowering rates. Yet, with its own forecast revised last week to show even slower growth this year as well as higher inflation and higher unemployment than previously anticipated, Bernanke and his colleagues have made clear they'll need to stay nimble.

Can a serious bout of stagflation be avoided? Many economists believe the Fed's aggressive rate cuts along with tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses will lift the economy in the second half of the year.

Until then, analysts warn that it could feel like country is suffering through a mild case of stagflation_ even if technically that is not the case. "It could feel like a bad flu," said Bethune.


In the past stagflation episode in the 1970s and early 1980s, inflation sometimes hit double digits — much higher than the current rate. And unemployment was higher, too. In 1975, for instance, the jobless rate zoomed to 8.5 percent, which at the time was the highest since the early 1940s. Last year, by contrast, the jobless rate averaged 4.6 percent.

"In the real economy, activity looks slow but not disastrous," Alice Rivlin, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, told Congress Tuesday. But she added: "Uncertainty remains great. ... The risks are mainly on the downside and gloomier forecasts are not hard to find."
So we have all the conditions of stagflation, but technically it isn't because umm...ummmm...the stock markets went up, yeah, that's it, the stock markets went up! :roll:
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Let's go back and see what the article is actually talking about, as opposed to J's "summary."
Maybe things won't be so bad. Stock prices rose for the day, continuing a recent mini-rally.
Translation for the illiterate: even if there is stagflation it doesn't seem to be hurting the stock market.
And Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn said in a speech that he doesn't expect the recent elevated inflation readings to persist.
Translation for the illiterate: even if there is stagflation, high-ranking Federal Reserve members don't believe it will last very long.
Can a serious bout of stagflation be avoided? Many economists believe the Fed's aggressive rate cuts along with tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses will lift the economy in the second half of the year.

Until then, analysts warn that it could feel like country is suffering through a mild case of stagflation_ even if technically that is not the case. "It could feel like a bad flu," said Bethune.
Translation for the illiterate: many economists believe that the economy will add jobs in the near future, cutting the unemployment rate.

In short: if this is stagflation, it is about the weakest imaginable stagflation that is unlikely to persist. The article is fairly consistent about saying that there is stagflation but it's mild. And, frankly, the statistics back that up.

The latest BLS numbers are: 4.9% unemployment, CPI up .4%. That's very mild stagflation. In fact, the definition of stagflation requires more than 5% unemployment (unemployment higher than the natural rate, plus inflation).

It's bullshit that "we have all the conditions of stagflation, but technically it isn't because umm...ummmm...the stock markets went up, yeah, that's it, the stock markets went up!" We have the conditions of stagflation only in the sense that there was inflation in the economy when employers cut jobs (the latter being a situation not thought to be likely to persist), but conditions do not meet the definition of stagflation (e.g., >5% unemployment+inflation).
Last edited by Master of Ossus on 2008-02-26 09:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
TheMuffinKing
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2368
Joined: 2005-07-04 03:34am
Location: Ultima ratio regum
Contact:

Post by TheMuffinKing »

I suppose this is good news, I'm going to be in the market for a new job by the middle of the year and if this article is correct I won't have to worry about delving into my stockpiles of MRE's or my woodland hideout. :)
Image
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Things will get better soon? Housing foreclosures are up 8% in January over the December numbers, and 57% over the numbers for last January. Also, it usually takes around six months from the time one stops sending in the cheques until the properties are foreclosed, meaning the homes which were foreclosed in January are the ones where the payments defaulted last July, which was near the beginning of the subprime fiasco. It gets worse, want to take any guesses on when the peak month for ARM resets is? March, which implies that we likely won't see the worst of the mess till the last quarter of the year. BTW, foreclosures have exceeded sales in California, clearly a sign of a healthy economy.

Also, if the economy will recover soon and everything will be fine, explain why the FDIC is preparing for a rash of bank failures. And while you're at it, maybe you can also tell us why the US banks being in the hole for $20 billion is not really a bad thing. Oh, and don't forget about how the entire bonds auction market has seized up, forcing municipalities, hospitals, school boards, and so forth to make drastic budget cutbacks and/or face insolvency.

But look! The markets are up, and high ranking economists say everything will be fine soon, so everything will be good! The market fundamentals are all fucked to hell and somehow everything will be fine by the end of the year? Gimme a break.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Post by Big Phil »

J wrote:snip
Those of us with jobs, families, and homes are well aware of the gloomy economic outlook on the horizon... is there a point you're trying to make with your sarcasm in these energy and economy threads you post these days? I don't see anyone posting on SDN that the economy is in great shape, after all...
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

J wrote:[snip]
But look! The markets are up, and high ranking economists say everything will be fine soon, so everything will be good! The market fundamentals are all fucked to hell and somehow everything will be fine by the end of the year? Gimme a break.
Okay, look, if you post a thread on STAGFLATION then don't whine when someone responds by talking about stagflation. Stagflation refers to a particular series of economic conditions, and I'm sorry that I decided to respond to that topic as opposed to some essentially unrelated economic issues going on. :roll:
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Master of Ossus wrote:Okay, look, if you post a thread on STAGFLATION then don't whine when someone responds by talking about stagflation. Stagflation refers to a particular series of economic conditions, and I'm sorry that I decided to respond to that topic as opposed to some essentially unrelated economic issues going on. :roll:
As of right now, we're looking at the early stages of stagflation, we're barely into it and things will get a lot worse for the reasons I noted. Yet the cockups continue to insist that it'll be very mild and the recovery swift & sure. As for the "unrelated issues", I'd argue that they're relavent to the discussion as they're all contributing factors.
Master of Ossus wrote:Translation for the illiterate: many economists believe that the economy will add jobs in the near future, cutting the unemployment rate.

In short: if this is stagflation, it is about the weakest imaginable stagflation that is unlikely to persist. The article is fairly consistent about saying that there is stagflation but it's mild. And, frankly, the statistics back that up.
So with the all the fundamentals being as FUBAR as they are, how exactly is the economy going to add jobs and pull off a recovery in the near future? Maybe you'd like to explain how this mess is going to resolve itself by the 3rd or 4th quarter without tanking the economy?
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

J wrote:So with the all the fundamentals being as FUBAR as they are, how exactly is the economy going to add jobs and pull off a recovery in the near future? Maybe you'd like to explain how this mess is going to resolve itself by the 3rd or 4th quarter without tanking the economy?
No. The burden of proof is on you. Explain how these screwed up fundamentals will cause unemployment and inflation, concurrently. By all means, contradict the people whose job it is to monitor the issue, and who have been trained for this sort of thing. Especially since a declining housing market will actually REDUCE inflation, by definition, as will bank failures. Your evidence consists primarily of a single article that explicitly contradicts your conclusion at every turn, noting factors that will kick in shortly that will increase employment rates, such as the Federal Reserve rate cut.

Edit: Stagflation is not some random catch-all term used to describe all potential problems with the economy. It is very specifically defined. You cannot just claim that there are a whole bunch of economic issues ahoy and then say that stagflation is the inevitable result of these issues. You actually have to link the issues to BOTH an increase in the unemployment rate (and, traditionally, to something higher than 5%), AND a high rate of inflation. The article that you posted is clearly referring to stagflation by the correct definition, and saying that there are economic problems ahead is not equivalent to saying that there will be stagflation.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

How prominently are housing prices factored into inflation? Because high-flying housing prices didn't seem to be a big factor when inflation was supposedly being kept low.

PS. How was the 5% unemployment rate cut-off for "official" stagflation determined? Does it matter whether these jobs are full-time or part-time? I've never been particularly keen on treating economists' teachings the same way we would treat scientific work; it seems to me that there's often an awful lot of arbitrariness in the way economists define things, compared to the way scientists would.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Master of Ossus wrote:Edit: Stagflation is not some random catch-all term used to describe all potential problems with the economy. It is very specifically defined. You cannot just claim that there are a whole bunch of economic issues ahoy and then say that stagflation is the inevitable result of these issues. You actually have to link the issues to BOTH an increase in the unemployment rate (and, traditionally, to something higher than 5%), AND a high rate of inflation. The article that you posted is clearly referring to stagflation by the correct definition, and saying that there are economic problems ahead is not equivalent to saying that there will be stagflation.
USA Today article

Excerpt:
The forecast, the consensus view of Fed governors and regional bank presidents, predicts unemployment will range from 5.2% to 5.3% in 2008, up from a 4.8% to 4.9% October projection. Inflation is expected to be 2.1% to 2.4%, compared with the previous 1.8% to 2.1% forecast. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, is now put at 2.0% to 2.2%, from the earlier 1.7% to 1.9% range.

Most Fed officials saw a bigger risk that their projections were too optimistic — rather than too pessimistic — given deep problems in housing and credit markets and rising commodity prices.

Fed officials were "especially" worried about a vicious cycle in which "weaker economic activity could lead to a worsening of financial conditions and a reduced availability of credit, which in turn could dampen economic growth."

The forecast includes the impact of business and personal tax cuts recently passed by Congress. Over time, Fed officials said their sharp interest rate cuts — a key interest rate has been whittled to 3% from 5.25% in September — would help stabilize the economy. But the range of projections indicates that there are widely divergent views within the central bank about how much growth will slow, and how fast it will rebound. Inflation could remain higher than some Fed officials prefer for several years.

The Labor Department consumer inflation figures showed prices up 4.3% in the past 12 months, and rising at a 6.8% annual rate in the past three months. Average weekly earnings, after inflation, fell 1.4% in the year ending in January
Unemployment projected to be above 5%, check. Inflation being constantly revised upwards, check. Real wages falling, check. More interest rate cuts by the Feds are almost guaranteed and that's only going to push up inflation even more. The conditions for stagflation are there and they're only worsening.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Big Phil
BANNED
Posts: 4555
Joined: 2004-10-15 02:18pm

Post by Big Phil »

J wrote:Unemployment projected to be above 5%, check. Inflation being constantly revised upwards, check. Real wages falling, check. More interest rate cuts by the Feds are almost guaranteed and that's only going to push up inflation even more. The conditions for stagflation are there and they're only worsening.
Do you realize that the article you originally posted indicates stagflation is likely to be mild, if it even (technically) occurs? Even your new article suggests only 5.3% unemployment and 2.4% inflation - nobody's predicting 9% unemployment, 18% annual inflation. So even your own evidence doesn't support your gloom and doom attitude toward the economy...
Can a serious bout of stagflation be avoided? Many economists believe the Fed's aggressive rate cuts along with tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses will lift the economy in the second half of the year.

Until then, analysts warn that it could feel like country is suffering through a mild case of stagflation_ even if technically that is not the case. "It could feel like a bad flu," said Bethune.


In the past stagflation episode in the 1970s and early 1980s, inflation sometimes hit double digits — much higher than the current rate. And unemployment was higher, too. In 1975, for instance, the jobless rate zoomed to 8.5 percent, which at the time was the highest since the early 1940s. Last year, by contrast, the jobless rate averaged 4.6 percent.

"In the real economy, activity looks slow but not disastrous," Alice Rivlin, former vice chair of the Federal Reserve, told Congress Tuesday. But she added: "Uncertainty remains great. ... The risks are mainly on the downside and gloomier forecasts are not hard to find."
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

Darth Wong wrote:How prominently are housing prices factored into inflation? Because high-flying housing prices didn't seem to be a big factor when inflation was supposedly being kept low.
I'd say home prices themselves dropping isn't going to reduce inflation. However, consider home-equity lines of credit, the liar's loans, the easy credit for people with low scores or no chance to repay.. These things bubbled up from the depths of stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility based on the housing bubble. There was a huge effect on inflation as a result.

Now, banks are yanking the plug on home equity lines. WaPo

Less money flowing into the system, less inflation. So the theory goes.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Darth Wong wrote:How prominently are housing prices factored into inflation? Because high-flying housing prices didn't seem to be a big factor when inflation was supposedly being kept low.
It's proportional to the spending of a typical American consumer on housing. So (hypothetically), if the average American spends 20% of his budget on rent, then it's weighted as 20% of the CPI.
PS. How was the 5% unemployment rate cut-off for "official" stagflation determined? Does it matter whether these jobs are full-time or part-time? I've never been particularly keen on treating economists' teachings the same way we would treat scientific work; it seems to me that there's often an awful lot of arbitrariness in the way economists define things, compared to the way scientists would.
It's a rough estimate that gets revised periodically. Basically from the 1940's to the 1970's, it was found that unemployment below 5% is strongly correlated with increased inflation--to the point where early economists actually believed that high inflation was literally caused by low unemployment rates (see the now defunct Phillips' Curve). It's been argued that 5% is essentially full employment of the economy, since until VERY recently unemployment rates below that level were essentially unheard of even when employers were reporting acute labor shortages in virtually all industries.

The US unemployment rate also doesn't differentiate between full-time and part-time (or otherwise under-employed) workers.
Last edited by Master of Ossus on 2008-02-27 09:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

J wrote:[snip]
Unemployment projected to be above 5%, check. Inflation being constantly revised upwards, check. Real wages falling, check. More interest rate cuts by the Feds are almost guaranteed and that's only going to push up inflation even more. The conditions for stagflation are there and they're only worsening.
This seems very much in line with your original article, except that the original article also correctly pointed out that the magnitude of the stagflation is very slight--certainly nothing like the one that Volcker was confronted with. And how do any of the factors you cited above, which are "only going to get worse," fit with these projections? Explain their effects on producing both inflation and unemployment. You have essentially shown that the article in the OP is reasonably accurate. Now show that your interpretations of that article were correct.

PS. Where did you see that real wages are falling? Moreover, what does that have to do with proving the existence of stagflation? Real wages can fall for many reasons. Stagflation can certainly cause falling real wages, but so can other things.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
J
Kaye Elle Emenopey
Posts: 5837
Joined: 2002-12-14 02:23pm

Post by J »

Master of Ossus wrote:PS. Where did you see that real wages are falling?
Highlighted section in first article.

The rest I'll cover when I have a bit more free time.
This post is a 100% natural organic product.
The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects


I'm not sure why people choose 'To Love is to Bury' as their wedding song...It's about a murder-suicide
- Margo Timmins


When it becomes serious, you have to lie
- Jean-Claude Juncker
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

J wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:PS. Where did you see that real wages are falling?
Highlighted section in first article.

The rest I'll cover when I have a bit more free time.
Ah, I see. Fair enough, then.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Gerald Tarrant
Jedi Knight
Posts: 752
Joined: 2006-10-06 01:21am
Location: socks with sandals

Post by Gerald Tarrant »

Link

From Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- "Stagflation" is back in the headlines -- but the term is being misused. We're told by eminent commentators that stagflation is the messy mixture of both high inflation and high unemployment. It isn't. Stagflation, at least as the concept was initially understood in the 1970s, meant something different. Yes, it signified the simultaneous occurrence of high inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth; but its defining feature was the persistence of this poisonous combination over long periods of time.

Let's see why this is a distinction with a difference. The coexistence of high (or rising) inflation with high (or rising) unemployment is not an abnormal event. But it's usually temporary, because the higher unemployment -- stemming from an economic slowdown or recession -- helps control inflation. Companies can't pass along price increases; they're stingier with wage increases. It's only when this restraining process is not allowed to work that inflationary psychology and practices take root, creating a self-fulfilling wage-price spiral. Higher wages push up prices, which then push up wages. Then we get stagflation: a semipermanent fusion of high joblessness and inflation.

Naturally, no politician acknowledges the self-evident implication: that recessions, though unwanted and hurtful to many, are not just inevitable; sometimes they're also necessary to prevent the larger and longer-lasting harm that would result from resurgent inflation. Interestingly, many academic and business economists who have more freedom to speak their minds suffer the same deficiency. They treat every potential recession as a policy failure when it is often simply part of the business cycle. They thus contribute to a political climate that, focused on avoiding or minimizing any recession, may perversely aggravate inflation and lead to much harsher recessions later. The stagflation that began in the late 1960s and resulted from this attitude was indeed dreadful: from 1969 to 1982, inflation averaged 7.5 percent annually and unemployment 6.4 percent.

What's renewed interest in stagflation is the latest consumer price index (CPI), the government's main inflation indicator. For the year ending in January, all prices were up 4.3 percent. Excluding the temporary surges after Katrina, inflation hasn't been higher since July 1991. Even eliminating food and energy prices (about a quarter of the index), January's year-to-year increase was 2.5 percent.

All these figures exceed the Federal Reserve's informal inflation target of 1 percent to 2 percent a year: a range deemed so low that it constitutes effective price stability. And these aren't the truly disturbing numbers. The more upsetting figures are those for the last three months. In this period, the full CPI rose at a 6.8 percent annual rate. Without food and energy, the increase was still 3.1 percent. Medical services were up 5.1 percent, women's and girls' apparel 7.3 percent (again, at annual rates). Inflation is accelerating.

Price increases of individual items can have many immediate causes: poor harvests for food; OPEC for energy; uncompetitive markets for health care; corporate market power for drugs. But persistent inflation -- the general rise of most prices -- has only one cause: too much money chasing too few goods. It's not a random accident. The Federal Reserve regulates the nation's supply of money and credit. The Fed creates inflation and can control it.

Since August, the Fed has been under enormous pressure to ease money and credit. It has. The overnight Fed funds rate has fallen from 5.25 percent in early September to 3 percent now. Politicians are clamoring for the Fed to prevent a recession. Banks and other financial institutions want cheaper credit to enable them to offset losses on subprime mortgages. There is fear of a wider economic crisis if large losses erode confidence and, by depleting the capital of banks and other financial institutions, undermine their ability and willingness to lend and invest.

Unfortunately, the Fed shows signs of overreacting to these pressures and repeating the great blunder of the 1970s. Underestimating inflation then, the Fed repeatedly shoved out too much money and credit in a vain effort to keep the economy near "full employment." Now, switch to the present. Again, the Fed has underestimated inflation. It expected the economic slowdown to suppress inflation spontaneously. But so far, the lower inflation hasn't materialized in part because, outside of housing, there hasn't been much of an economic slowdown.

It's true that the Fed is treading the proverbial tightrope. No one wants a financial crisis; but no one should want the return of stagflation either. The American economy -- a marvelous but flawed engine of wealth -- periodically goes to speculative or inflationary excesses. If most of those excesses aren't given the time to self-correct, we may be trading modest pain today for much greater pain tomorrow. Trying to prevent a recession at all costs is a fool's errand that could ultimately backfire on us all.
Does anyone know how the Fed's current efforts regarding the recession compare to the efforts during the stagflation? (In terms of scale of cuts, liquidity increases etc.)
The rain it falls on all alike
Upon the just and unjust fella'
But more upon the just one for
The Unjust hath the Just's Umbrella
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Master of Ossus wrote:Translation for the illiterate: many economists believe that the economy will add jobs in the near future, cutting the unemployment rate.
I sure as hell hope so - even better if they pay a living wage. I'm getting fucking tired of spending 8 hours a day filling out applications, submitting resumes, and (occasionally) getting an interview.
The latest BLS numbers are: 4.9% unemployment, CPI up .4%. That's very mild stagflation. In fact, the definition of stagflation requires more than 5% unemployment (unemployment higher than the natural rate, plus inflation).
Are you aware that the "unemployment rate" most commonly used is SOLELY the number of people receiving unemployment benefits - a benefit of definitely limited duration? For example, if I haven't secured a job by the time I my current unemployment benefits end I will officially drop off the unemployment total and no longer be counted even though I am STILL unemployed! This is done in part to keep that official number low. The ACTUAL number of people who are unemployed but looking for work is actually higher than the official number. I don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of the actual number.

In other words, we very well COULD have actual unemployment greater that 5%, perhaps considerably greater. In which case yes, we do have stagflation regardless of what the talking heads say.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Post by Lusankya »

Broomstick wrote: Are you aware that the "unemployment rate" most commonly used is SOLELY the number of people receiving unemployment benefits - a benefit of definitely limited duration? For example, if I haven't secured a job by the time I my current unemployment benefits end I will officially drop off the unemployment total and no longer be counted even though I am STILL unemployed! This is done in part to keep that official number low. The ACTUAL number of people who are unemployed but looking for work is actually higher than the official number. I don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of the actual number.
This is off-topic I know, but what the hell? What kind of money will you live on if you can't find a job before then? You don't have some kind of dole system in which the government gives you a pittiance for going out and looking for work?
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
darthbob88
Jedi Knight
Posts: 884
Joined: 2006-11-14 03:48pm
Location: The Boonies

Post by darthbob88 »

Lusankya wrote:
Broomstick wrote: Are you aware that the "unemployment rate" most commonly used is SOLELY the number of people receiving unemployment benefits - a benefit of definitely limited duration? For example, if I haven't secured a job by the time I my current unemployment benefits end I will officially drop off the unemployment total and no longer be counted even though I am STILL unemployed! This is done in part to keep that official number low. The ACTUAL number of people who are unemployed but looking for work is actually higher than the official number. I don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of the actual number.
This is off-topic I know, but what the hell? What kind of money will you live on if you can't find a job before then? You don't have some kind of dole system in which the government gives you a pittiance for going out and looking for work?
You seem to think the government actually cares about its citizens. I am not certain, by any means, but I rather doubt that to be the case.
This message approved by the sages Anon and Ibid.
Any views expressed herein are my own unless otherwise noted, and very likely wrong.
I shave with Occam's Razor.
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Post by Uraniun235 »

Broomstick wrote:Are you aware that the "unemployment rate" most commonly used is SOLELY the number of people receiving unemployment benefits - a benefit of definitely limited duration? For example, if I haven't secured a job by the time I my current unemployment benefits end I will officially drop off the unemployment total and no longer be counted even though I am STILL unemployed! This is done in part to keep that official number low. The ACTUAL number of people who are unemployed but looking for work is actually higher than the official number. I don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of the actual number.

In other words, we very well COULD have actual unemployment greater that 5%, perhaps considerably greater. In which case yes, we do have stagflation regardless of what the talking heads say.
When was this accounting system implemented? Did they count unemployment in the same way when people were crafting the definition for stagflation back in the late 70s?
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
Master of Ossus
Darkest Knight
Posts: 18213
Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
Location: California

Post by Master of Ossus »

Broomstick wrote:Are you aware that the "unemployment rate" most commonly used is SOLELY the number of people receiving unemployment benefits - a benefit of definitely limited duration?
That is a complete and utter fabrication. You are either lying or you are totally mistaken..
For example, if I haven't secured a job by the time I my current unemployment benefits end I will officially drop off the unemployment total and no longer be counted even though I am STILL unemployed! This is done in part to keep that official number low. The ACTUAL number of people who are unemployed but looking for work is actually higher than the official number. I don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of the actual number.
Total bullshit. The unemployment rate is calculated using the Current Population Survey, which uses a census method. It uses a series of questions to determine each household's employment status.

It's simply not true that this is connected to unemployment benefits--they're not even done by the same agency.

Finally, the unemployment rate counts and only counts people who are "looking for work." Ergo, the BLS number (aka., the same one that you are criticizing for deliberately undercounting the unemployment rate) uses precisely the definition that you insist on, and is precisely the number that you "don't know if anyone is bothering to keep track of."
In other words, we very well COULD have actual unemployment greater that 5%, perhaps considerably greater. In which case yes, we do have stagflation regardless of what the talking heads say.
No, because the definition of stagflation takes as a given the CPS definition of, and methodology of tabulating, the unemployment rate. You can argue with how CPS calculates unemployment rates--I don't think that it's defined the way that it should be, for instance. That being said, it's measured very accurately within its definition, and your criticism of it is completely wrong and displays a profound ignorance of how the statistic is tabulated.

Furthermore, the definition of the unemployment rate is held consistent across government agencies and the Federal Reserve because the CPS is treated as being a definitive measure of the economy within the United States.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
User avatar
Alan Bolte
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2611
Joined: 2002-07-05 12:17am
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by Alan Bolte »

Why would the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates spur job creation? As I understand it, that only directly affects banks' ability to borrow money, and that generally drives down the cost of borrowing for businesses, thus allowing them to add jobs, etc. However, in the present 'credit crunch,' financial institutions are reluctant to lend to anyone because not only are they facing a massive devaluation of their assets, but they no longer trust in their ability to tell a dependable borrower from one that's going to default. Thus, making it cheaper for the banks to borrow money isn't much helping businesses.

I'm not entirely certain this is related, but fears of inflation and the falling dollar seem to be driving a surge in commodities prices (as commodities are generally seen as a hedge against inflation), which makes the cost of doing business increase as well. This is apparently driving a reduction in consumer spending. If (as I've often heard it stated) the American economy is largely driven by consumer spending, and demand for consumer goods and services is decreasing, why would the economy add jobs? Shouldn't you see layoffs because of increased costs and decreased sales?
Any job worth doing with a laser is worth doing with many, many lasers. -Khrima
There's just no arguing with some people once they've made their minds up about something, and I accept that. That's why I kill them. -Othar
Avatar credit
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Master of Ossus wrote:Total bullshit. The unemployment rate is calculated using the Current Population Survey, which uses a census method.
A mere 60,000 households out of a population of 300,000,000 people is truly representative? WTF? How can that possibly work?

And mere assurances from the agency conducting the census that this is representative aren't enough - after all, the CPS people have an interest in maintaining their system is accurate whether or not it actually is, not to mention the government has an interest in keeping the unemployment rate low which, if you can't do it in reality, could be done by tweaking the reporting. Rather like the folks who say the economy is doing well because the stock market is up and ignore everything else.'

Also note the following from your own article:
Yes, there is only one official definition of unemployment and that was discussed above. However, a number of analysts believe this measure to be too restricted, that it does not adequately capture the breadth of labor market problems.
Last edited by Broomstick on 2008-02-28 06:27am, edited 2 times in total.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Lusankya wrote:This is off-topic I know, but what the hell? What kind of money will you live on if you can't find a job before then?
This is one of the ways in which people become homeless.

There are some programs, but they're pretty pathetic.
You don't have some kind of dole system in which the government gives you a pittiance for going out and looking for work?
No.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Post Reply