"No warning can save people determined to grow suddently rich" - Lord Overstone

  • 1 min Market Sentiment Slips Ahead Of Tech Earning Reports
  • 16 hours The Trillion Dollar Space Race
  • 2 days The FANG Stock Investors Should Avoid
  • 3 days Is This The Death Of The iPhone X?
  • 3 days Is London Still The Financial Capital Of The World?
  • 3 days Is Gold Staging A Comeback?
  • 3 days The $200 Million ‘Golden Parachute’ For Rupert Murdoch
  • 3 days Bitcoin’s Breakout Is Not As Bullish As it Seems
  • 3 days Farmers On Edge As Trade War Hits U.S. Grain Shipments
  • 3 days Is Silver Poised For A Massive Break Out?
  • 4 days Meet The Hedge Fund Billionaires Club
  • 4 days The Next Housing Crisis Could Be Right Around The Corner
  • 4 days Cartel's, Pirates And Corruption Cost Mexico $1.6 Billion Per Year
  • 4 days Africa’s Fastest Growing Economy
  • 4 days The Blockchain Boom Hits The Utilities Sector
  • 4 days Why Smart Money Is Selling Off Right Before The Bell
  • 4 days Tech Giants Rally Ahead Of Earnings Reports
  • 5 days Global Debt Hits 225% Of GDP
  • 5 days The World’s First Trillionaire Will Be A Space Miner
  • 5 days How Student Debt Could Cause The Next Real Estate Crisis
Oligarch Risk: The New Red Flag For Investors

Oligarch Risk: The New Red Flag For Investors

Investors are scrambling to diversify…

That Smell in the Fed's Elevator

A new paper that was presented last week at the 2017 U.S. Monetary Policy Forum has garnered, rightly, a lot of attention. The paper, entitled "Deflating Inflation Expectations: The Implications of Inflation's Simple Dynamics," has spawned news articles such as "Research undercuts Fed's two favorite U.S. inflation tools"(Reuters) and "Everything the Market Thinks About Inflation Might Be Wrong,"(Wall Street Journal) the titles of which are a pretty decent summary of the impact of the article. I should note, because the WSJ didn't, that the "five top economists" are Stephen Cecchetti, Michael Feroli, Peter Hooper, Anil Kashyap, and Kermit Schoenholtz, and the authors themselves summarize their work on the FiveThirtyEight blog here.

The main conclusion - but read the FiveThirtyEight summary to get it in their own words - is that the momentum of the inflation process is the most important variable (last year's core inflation is the best predictor of this year's core inflation), which is generally known, but after that they say that the exchange rate, M2 money supply growth, total nonfinancial credit growth, and U.S. financial conditions more broadly all matter more than labor market slack and inflation expectations.

Whoops! Who farted in the Fed's elevator?

The Fed and other central banks have, for many years, relied predominantly on an understanding that inflation was caused by an economy running "too hot," in that capacity utilization was too high and/or the unemployment rate too low. And, at least since the financial crisis, this understanding has been (like Lehman, actually) utterly bankrupt and obviously so. The chart below is a plain refutation of the notion that slack matters - although much less robust than the argument from the top economists. If slack matters, then why didn't the greatest slack in a hundred years cause deflation in core prices? Or even get us at least close to deflation?

Core GDP and Real GDP

I've been talking about this for a long time. If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that! Chapters 7-10 of my book "What's Wrong With Money?: The Biggest Bubble of All" concerns the disconnect between models that work and the models the Fed (and most Wall Street economists) insist on using. In fact, the chart above is from page 91. I have talked about this at conferences and in front of clients until I am blue in the face, and have become accustomed to people in the audience staring at me like I have two heads. But the evidence is, and has long been, incontrovertible: the standard "expectations-augmented-Phillips-Curve" makes crappy predictions.[1] And that means that it is a stupid way to manage monetary policy.

I am not alone in having this view, but until this paper came out there weren't too many reputable people who agreed.

Now, I don't agree with everything in this paper, and the authors acknowledge that since their analysis covers 1984-present, a period of mostly quiescent inflation, it may essentially overstate the persistence of inflation. I think that's very likely; inflation seems to have long tails in that once it starts to rise, it tends to rise for some time. This isn't mysterious if you use a monetary model that incorporates the feedback loop from interest rates to velocity, but the authors of this paper didn't go that far. However, they went far enough. Hopefully, this stink bomb will at last cause some reflection in the halls of the Eccles building - reflection that has been resisted institutionally for a very long time.

 


[1] And that, my friends, is the first time I have ever used "crap" and "fart" in the same article - and hopefully the last. But my blood pressure is up, so cut me some slack.

P.S. Don't forget to buy my book! What's Wrong with Money: The Biggest Bubble of All. Thanks!

You can follow me @inflation_guy!

Enduring Investments is a registered investment adviser that specializes in solving inflation-related problems. Fill out the contact form at http://www.EnduringInvestments.com/contact and we will send you our latest Quarterly Inflation Outlook. And if you make sure to put your physical mailing address in the "comment" section of the contact form, we will also send you a copy of Michael Ashton's book "Maestro, My Ass!"

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment