[Skip to the end]

(an interoffice email)

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Karim wrote:
>   
>   
>   

Global Economic Integration and Decoupling

Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn
At the International Research Forum on Monetary Policy, Frankfurt, Germany
June 26, 2008

For the moment, higher headline rates of inflation have shown only a few tentative signs of embedding themselves in core inflation or in longer-term inflation expectations.

>   -talking about u.s. here
>   
>   
>   

However, policymakers around the world must monitor the situation carefully for signs that the increases in relative prices globally do not generate persistently higher inflation. Additionally, in those countries where strong commodity demands are associated with rapid growth in aggregate demand that outstrips potential supply, actions to contain inflation by restraining aggregate demand would contribute to global price stability.

>   -not describing/talking about u.s. here;
>   focusing on EM primarily.
>   
>   

right, gets back to bernankes testimony a while back that the falling dollar has been a good thing as it works to lower the trade gap via increasing US exports that sustain US demand. the old ‘beggar they neighbor’ policy from the 30’s.

unfortunately for us it’s actually a ‘beggar thyself’ policy on closer examination as most mainstream economists will attest. they all say you don’t ‘inflate your way to prosperity’ by weakening your currency. otherwise latin america and africa for example would be the most prosperous places in the world

seems they are still in the mercantalist mode where exports are good and imports bad, and this policy is making us look like a bananna republic at an increasing rate.

recall from previous emails the dollar decline has been triggered by paulson succeeding in keeping cb’s from buying $US, Bush keeping oil producing monetary authorities from accumulating $US, and Bernanke discouraging foreign portfolio managers from accumulating same.

(more later on how it’s actually not happening due to fed rate policy, but they think it is)

as suspected, the $US is most likely to take another major leg down as it adjusts to a level where the trade gap is in line with foreign desire to accumulate $US financial assets which is probably a lot lower than the current 55-60 billion per month.

the ‘cost push inflation’ is pouring in through the trade channel, and the fed is increasingly taking the heat from the mainstream (not me- i’m the only one who thinks inflation isn’t a function of rates the way they do) for its apparent weak $US/inflate your way out of debt approach.

furthermore, the mainstream (and the stock market) sees the low interest rate/weak dollar policy as taking away US domestic demand as higher price for food/fuel leave less domestic income for everything else, including debt service.

that is, they see the falling dollar hurting us domestic demand more than the low interest rates are helping it.

the reality is there’s foreign monopolist- the saudis (and maybe russians)- that’s milking us for all they can with price hikes, and keeping us alive buying our goods and service and thereby keeping US gdp muddling through.

the real standard of living for most working americans has dropped by perhaps 10% as they work, get paid enough to eat and drive to work, and the rest of their real output is exported.

and our policy makers, including bernanke and paulson who’ve ‘engineered it’ think this is all a good thing- they think imports are bad and exports good and we are paying the price in declining real terms of trade.

while in my book interest rates are not a factor, the mainstream thinks they are, and the response when the inflation gets bad enough will be higher interest rates. The ‘correct’ anti-inflation rate last August was 5.25 when the fed didn’t cut.

by Jan 08 it was probably at least 7% with headline moving through 3% to get a sufficient ‘real rate.’

today it’s probably moved up to 8%+ as cpi is forecast to go through 5% over the next few months and gdp muddles through around 1%.

the mainstream (not me) will say that by having a real rate that’s too low now the fed will need a rate that much higher down the road as inflation accelerates due to over accommodative fed policy.

by the time the cost push inflation works its way to core- probably over the two quarters- the fed will ’suddenly’ feel itself way behind the inflation curve and recognize they made a horrible mistake and now the cost of bringing down inflation is far higher than it would have been early on- just like they’ve always said.

the mainstream knows this, and now sees a fed with its head in the sand regarding inflation. they also see this weak dollar policy as subversive as it undermines the currency and inflation accelerates.

i expect there will be a groundswell of mainstream economists calling for the replacement of bernanke, kohn and the entire fomc very soon.

ironically, in my book low rates have helped moderate inflation via cost channels and have helped moderate domestic demand via interest income channels.

rate hike will add to domestic demand as net interest income of the private sectors from higher government interest payments add to personal income and demand.

and rate hikes will add to the cost push inflation via higher interest costs for firms.

it’ all going down hill fast, with policy makers both going the wrong way on key issues as they have the fundamentals backwards.

the only near term ’solutions’ are near term crude oil supply responses like 30 mph speed limits which isn’t even under consideration in any form, nor are any other crude supply responses. most other alternative energy sources don’t replace crude.

medium term supply responses include pluggable hybrids that only start being produced in late 2010.

longer term supply responses include nuclear which might come on line 15 years down the road.

a collapse in world demand is possible if china/india let up on their deficit spending and growth, but so far that doesn’t seem in the cards. all their ‘tightebning’ seems to be on the ‘monetary’ side which does nothing of consequence apart from further increase inflation.

so with no supply responses on the horizon expect the saudis to keep hiking prices, and keep spending the new revenues to keep world gdp muddling through, cb’s hiking interest rates that will bring results that will cause them to hike further, and continuously declining real terms of trade for oil importers.

what to do?

cds on germany- it’s one go all go over there, and germany is the least expensive insurance.

forward muni bmas over 80 with no interest rate hedge as markets should discount the obama lead and long move up with inflation.

[top]

[Skip to the end]

This still reads hawkish to me:

The results of such exercises imply that, over recent history, a sharp jump in oil prices appears to have had only modest effects on the future rate of inflation. This result likely reflects two factors. First, commodities like oil represent only a small share of the overall costs of production, implying that the magnitude of the direct pass-through from changes in such prices to other prices should be modest, all else equal. Second, inflation expectations have been well anchored in recent years, contributing to a muted response of inflation to oil price shocks. But the anchoring of expectations cannot be taken as given; indeed, the type of empirical exercises I have outlined reveal a larger effect of the price of oil on inflation prior to the last two decades, a period in which inflation expectations were not as well anchored as they are today.

Nonetheless, repeated increases in energy prices and their effect on overall inflation have contributed to a rise in the year-ahead inflation expectations of households, especially this year. Of greater concern is that some measures of longer-term inflation expectations appear to have edged up since last year. Any tendency for these longer-term inflation expectations to drift higher or even to fail to reverse over time would have troublesome implications for the outlook for inflation.

The central role of inflation expectations implies that policymakers must look beyond this type of reduced-form exercise for guidance. After all, the lags of inflation in reduced-form regressions are a very imperfect proxy for inflation expectations. As emphasized in Robert Lucas’s critique of reduced-form Phillips curves more than 30 years ago, structural models are needed to have confidence in the effect of any shock on the outlook for inflation and economic activity.

This was considered the dovish part:

In particular, an appropriate monetary policy following a jump in the price of oil will allow, on a temporary basis, both some increase in unemployment and some increase in price inflation. By pursuing actions that balance the deleterious effects of oil prices on both employment and inflation over the near term, policymakers are, in essence, attempting to find their preferred point on the activity/inflation variance-tradeoff curve introduced by John Taylor 30 years ago.

So the question is whether that point was realized by a 2% Fed funds rate currently?

Such policy actions promote the efficient adjustment of relative prices: Since real wages need to fall and both prices and wages adjust slowly, the efficient adjustment of relative prices will tend to include a bit of additional price inflation and a bit of additional unemployment for a time, leading to increases in real wages that are temporarily below the trend established by productivity gains.

But it was then qualified by this return to hawkishness regarding the inflation expectations that he previously said showed signs of elevating:

I should emphasize that the course of policy I have just described has taken inflation expectations as given. In practice, it is very important to ensure that policy actions anchor inflation expectations. This anchoring is critical: As demonstrated by historical experiences around the world and in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, efforts to bring inflation and inflation expectations back to desirable levels after they have risen appreciably involve costly and undesirable changes in resource utilization.11 As a result, the degree to which any deviations of inflation from long-run objectives are tolerated to allow the efficient relative price adjustments that I have described needs to be tempered so as to ensure that longer-term inflation expectations are not affected to a significant extent.

And the FOMC all agree that long term inflation expectations have been affected to some extent already.

Summary
To reiterate, the Phillips curve framework is one important input to my outlook for inflation and provides a framework in which I can analyze the nature of efficient policy choices. In the case of a shock to the relative price of oil or other commodities, this framework suggests that policymakers should ensure that their actions balance the deleterious economic effects of such a shock in the short run on both unemployment and inflation.

Of course, the framework helps to define the short-run goals for policy, but it doesn’t tell you what path for interest rates will accomplish these objectives. That’s what we wrestle with at the FOMC and is perhaps a subject for a future Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conference.

This all could mean a Fed funds rate that causes unemployment to grow and dampen inflation expectations down, but not grow so much as to bring inflation down quickly is in order.

The question then is whether the appropriate Fed funds rate for this ‘balance’ between growth, employment, and inflation expectations is 2% or something higher than that.

[top]

Although economic growth slowed in the fourth quarter of last year from the third quarter’s rapid clip, it seems nonetheless, as best we can tell, to have continued at a moderate pace.

Q4 GDP seen as ‘moderate’ - that is substantially better than initial expectations of several weeks ago.

Recently, however, incoming information has suggested that the baseline outlook for real activity in 2008 has worsened and the downside risks to growth have become more pronounced.

They initially said this for Q3 and for Q4.

Notably, the demand for housing seems to have weakened further, in part reflecting the ongoing problems in mortgage markets.

Maybe, but even if so, housing is now a much smaller influence on GDP.

In addition, a number of factors, including higher oil prices,

Yes, this slows consumer spending on other items, but oil producers have that extra income to spend, and if they continue to do so, GDP will hold up and exports will remain strong.

lower equity prices, and softening home values, seem likely to weigh on consumer spending as we move into 2008.

The fed has little if any evidence those last two things alter consumer spending.

Financial conditions continue to pose a downside risk to the outlook for growth.

Market participants still express considerable uncertainty about the appropriate valuation of complex financial assets and about the extent of additional losses that may be disclosed in the future. On the whole, despite improvements in some areas, the financial situation remains fragile, and many funding markets remain impaired. Adverse economic or financial news has the potential to increase financial strains and to lead to further constraints on the supply of credit to households and businesses.

Yes, his main concern is on the supply side of credit. With a floating fx/non convertible currency, there is a very low probability. Even Japan with all its financial sector problems was never credit constrained.

Debilitating credit supply constraints are byproducts of convertible currency/fixed fx regimes gone bad, like in the US in the 1930s, Mexico in 1994, Russia in 1998, and Argentina in 2001.

I expect that financial-market participants–and, of course, the Committee–will be paying particular attention to developments in the housing market, in part because of the potential for spillovers from housing to other sectors of the economy.

A second consequential risk to the growth outlook concerns the performance of the labor market. Last week’s report on labor-market conditions in December was disappointing, as it showed an increase of 0.3 percentage point in the unemployment rate and a decline in private payroll employment. Heretofore, the labor market has been a source of stability in the macroeconomic situation, with relatively steady gains in wage and salary income providing households the wherewithal to support moderate growth in real consumption spending. It would be a mistake to read too much into any one report.

Right, best to wait for the revisions. November was revised to a decent up number, and October was OK as well. And today’s claims numbers indicate not much changed in December.

However, should the labor market deteriorate, the risks to consumer spending would rise.

Yes, if..

Even as the outlook for real activity has weakened,

Yes, the outlook has always been weakening over the last six months, while the actual numbers subsequently come in better than expected. Seems outlooks are not proving reliable.

there have been some important developments on the inflation front. Most notably, the same increase in oil prices that may be a negative influence on growth is also lifting overall consumer prices and probably putting some upward pressure on core inflation measures as well.

Interesting that he mentions upward pressure on core - must be in their forecast. It took them a long time to get core to moderate, and even in August they did not cut as upward risks remained.

Last year, food prices also increased exceptionally rapidly by recent standards, further boosting overall consumer price inflation. Thus far, inflation expectations appear to have remained reasonably well anchored,

They have very little information on this. They only know when they become unglued, and then it is too late.

and pressures on resource utilization have diminished a bit. However, any tendency of inflation expectations to become unmoored or for the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility to be eroded could greatly complicate the task of sustaining price stability and reduce the central bank’s policy flexibility to counter shortfalls in growth in the future.

Meaning once they go, it is too late.

Accordingly, in the months ahead we will be closely monitoring the inflation situation, particularly as regards inflation expectations.

The fed has no credibility here. Markets ignore this, and the financial press does not even report it.

Monetary policy has responded proactively to evolving conditions. As you know, the Committee cut its target for the federal funds rate by 50 basis points at its September meeting and by 25 basis points each at the October and December meetings. In total, therefore, we have brought the funds rate down by a percentage point from its level just before financial strains emerged. The Federal Reserve took these actions to help offset the restraint imposed by the tightening of credit conditions and the weakening of the housing market. However, in light of recent changes in the outlook for and the risks to growth, additional policy easing may well be necessary.

Reads a bit defensive to me.

The Committee will, of course, be carefully evaluating incoming information bearing on the economic outlook. Based on that evaluation, and consistent with our dual mandate, we stand ready to take substantive additional action as needed to support growth and to provide adequate insurance against downside risks.

Financial and economic conditions can change quickly. Consequently, the Committee must remain exceptionally alert and flexible, prepared to act in a decisive and timely manner and, in particular, to counter any adverse dynamics that might threaten economic or financial stability.

This was to come out at 1PM, instead it was released at noon.

This seems they meant to send a signal that they are ready to go 50.

It may take another 0.3% core CPI number, low claims numbers, and further tightening of the FF/LIBOR spread to get them to think twice about not cutting.

Their fixed fx paradigm supply side fears elevates their perception of the downside risks.