Look: I am eager to learn stuff I don't know--which requires actively courting and posting smart disagreement.

But as you will understand, I don't like to post things that mischaracterize and are aimed to mislead.

-- Brad Delong

Copyright Notice

Everything that appears on this blog is the copyrighted property of somebody. Often, but not always, that somebody is me. For things that are not mine, I either have obtained permission, or claim fair use. Feel free to quote me, but attribute, please. My photos and poetry are dear to my heart, and may not be used without permission. Ditto, my other intellectual property, such as charts and graphs. I'm probably willing to share. Let's talk. Violators will be damned for all eternity to the circle of hell populated by Rosanne Barr, Mrs Miller [look her up], and trombonists who are unable play in tune. You cannot possibly imagine the agony. If you have a question, email me: jazzbumpa@gmail.com. I'll answer when I feel like it. Cheers!

Friday, April 27, 2012

A Different Look at GDP and Inflation

At Illusion of Prosperity, Stagflationary Mark posted this scatter-graph of quarterly GDP YoY growth and CPI data from Q1, 1948 through Q4, 2011.  Each point represents the differences from the medians of each data set for each of the variables, respectively.  This gives you a picture of time spent above and below what might be considered normal performance.

I wondered how this would look if each point were identified by presidential administration, and if this would suggest any particular narrative.  So I redid the graph, data from FRED, using mean instead of median as the determinant.  It is presented here as Graph 1, with each data point (256 total) color-coded by presidential party; red for Republicans, blue for Democrats.  The calendar quarter of each president's inauguration is allotted to the previous administration.

I've labeled the quadrants as follows, and indicated the frequency of data points populating each quadrant.


Here are the Mean and Standard Deviation values.

 



Graph 1  CPI and GDP, data from FRED

The GDP data has something close to a normal distribution, with approximate symmetry around the mean.  The CPI data does not.  For CPI, the highest frequency is 2 percentage points below the mean, and there is a long tail on the high side, so the distribution looks more like a Poisson type.

I've broken out presidential administrations, 3 or 4 to a graph, to avoid excessive clutter.  Graph 2 shows the administrations of Truman (light blue), Eisenhower (red), and Kennedy-Johnson (dark blue.)


Graph 2  CPI and GDP, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy-Johnson

Results during the Truman administration were erratic, with both inflation and deflation occurring, and GDP growth widely variable as the nation made post WW II adjustments, and several million G.I.'s reentered the work force.  Ike was an inflation hawk, and one of only two presidents to achieve below average inflation in every quarter of his administration.  (Take your guess now as to who the other might be.  All will be revealed in due time.)  Still, the road was bumpy, with GDP growth highly variable, and two rather severe recessions during his term.  The Kennedy-Johnson administration enjoyed superior economic performance and relatively low inflation, with only 6 quarters of below average GDP growth, and only five quarters of above average inflation during the entire 8 years.  This was one of only two administrations to avoid recession for an entire 8-year term.

Graph 3 shows the Nixon-Ford (orange), Carter (blue), and Reagan (red) administrations.


Graph 3  CPI and GDP, Nixon-Ford, Carter, Reagan

Here we find three increasingly extreme excursions into stagflationary territory, two under Nixon-Ford (remember Whip Inflation Now buttons?) and one under Carter. The first and mildest was in 1970, the second in 1974-5, and the last, in 1979-80 probably played a part in holding Carter to a single term.  Inflation far above average plagued both of those administrations.  Each spent time above and below average in GDP growth with term averages very close to the grand average.  However, Carter's last two years were consistently below average, and coupled with high inflation, earning him his moribund reputation.  Early in Reagan's first term, Volker finished slaying the inflation dragon.  But the cost was high in terms of depressed GDP growth, and during that time Reagan was extremely unpopular.  But, as the economy recovered, so did his reputation, and he is now remembered, for good or for ill, as one of America's most beloved presidents.  The remainder of his presidency resided along at least one of the two average lines, including four consecutive quarters of exceptional GDP growth coupled with only slightly above average inflation, spanning 1983-4.

Graph 4 shows the Bush Sr. (orange), Clinton (light blue), Bush Jr.(red), and Obama (dark blue) administrations.

Graph 4  CPI and GDP, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama

During the Bush Sr. administration, 11 of 16 quarters had below average GDP growth, 10 quarters had above average inflation, 8 of these quarters had both.  Clinton's term began and ended with below average GDP growth, but during his 8 years here were only 9 below average quarters.  Four of them occurred in sequence from Q2, 1995 to Q1, 1996, but the remainder of 1996 was quite strong, and Clinton was granted a second term. Clinton was both the other president who avoided having even a single quarter of above average inflation, and the other president who avoided having a recession during an entire 8-year term.  During the 8-year term of Bush Jr. there were only 4 quarters of only slightly above average GDP growth, occurring from 2003 to 2005.  There were 7 quarters of above average inflation, 3 of them just barely so in 2005-6, and the other 4 in 2007-8, just prior to the economic collapse.  The remainder of his term was in the mild doldrums region.  The collapse ushered in the Obama administration.  Within his first year, the economy was back into the mild doldrums area that has so far been typical of the current century. 

Here is one more graph, showing how each administration performed, as an average over its entire term.  Starting with Truman, the yellow line leads us to each successive administration, up to Obama.



Obama's position suffers from the recession he inherited.  Whether he gets reelected or not, his average will move up each remaining quarter of his presidency.  If he gets a second term, we can expect more of the doldrums we have experienced over the last two years.

This clearly belies the Romney claim that Obama's economic policies have failed.  His policies have moved us from near-depression to mere mediocrity.  That counts as some sort of success.

So, here is my narrative.  First off, one can argue that the president does not directly determine the economic fate of the country, and that is partly true.  The other part is that the president sets the policy and the tone, and that both of these things matter.

-  The only presidents to have achieved term averages in the prosperity quadrant were Democrats.
-  The only Republican to achieve above average real GDP growth was Reagan, and that was only by an increment.
-  The only president since Reagan to achieve higher GDP growth than his predecessor was Clinton, other than that, it's been a downward spiral.
-   Carter had below average GDP growth by a slight margin, but he beat every Republican other than Reagan, and he didn't trail him by much.
- The last 44 years have been characterized by secular decreases in both CPI inflation and GDP growth.
- They have also been characterized by Republican presidencies 64% of the time, decreasing regulation, lowered tax rates, safety net erosion, loss of labor union strength and participation, and the systematic undoing of of New Deal policies.

What I conclude is that New Deal (dare I say Keynesian?) policies were successful in generating real prosperity, and free market policies have been far less successful.  Over time, Reaganomic trickle-down, free market policies have given us first, the Great Stagnation, and ultimately the worst economic crisis in 80 years.  These policies were, by no coincidence at all, quite similar to those in effect when the Great Depression of the 30's happened - and also all the other earlier depressions that are no longer very prominent in people's memories.

As I said, policy matters - and it matters profoundly.

With that in mind, here is my question to the Fed:  Since the average of CPI inflation since WW II is 3.7%, and there is ample evidence that we can have very reasonable economic performance with inflation in that range, why have you set an inflation target that is effectively half of that level, while ignoring high unemployment -  the other half of your alleged dual mandate?

Of course, I'm being rhetorical.  It's because they are bankers, and inflation favors creditors, not lenders.  The fact is they don't care one whit about unemployment.

Policy.

It matters.

Update: Cross-posted at Angry Bear.

7 comments:

Stagflationary Mark said...

Here's my opinion, for what it is worth.

The only president since Reagan to achieve higher GDP growth than his predecessor was Clinton, other than that, it's been a downward spiral.

Spot on. I really don't think inflation or lack thereof is the problem though. I see these as reasons we're spiraling.

1. Demographics
2. Massive Trade Deficit

Women are no longer entering the workforce like they once did. They've arrived. We can't squeeze more growth out of it.

The free market policies of sending our jobs overseas is having massive intended and/or unintended consequences.

They are intended since they added to the coffers of the rich (increased income inequality in America).

They are unintended since the economy can no longer take the strain (which even the rich can't be all that happy about).

Stagflationary Mark said...

Note that the Gini coefficient was stable from 1950 to 1980. Then things changed.

Trickle down economics is for the birds.

Trickle Up Economics

If the typical American has money to spend, then surely businesses would form to sell them stuff.

Trickle Down Economics

Funnel money to the rich in the hopes that some of it trickles down and is not simply hoarded.

And why would the rich hoard it? Every video gamer knows the goal is to maximize one's high score. When you've got $10+ billion in net worth and an ego, what more is there?

I guess the good news is that the price of canned goods can't rise too much in that environment though. A billionaire can only eat so many cans.

Sigh.

Jazzbumpa said...

Mark -

Good comments. Much appreciated.

I pretty much agree with you, though I'll have to give the demographics aspect more thought.

I can tell you that as a retiree, my spending is just about equal to my income, so I do feel I'm doing what little I can to spur the economy.

Cheers!
JzB

Stagflationary Mark said...

Jazzbumpa,

August 15, 2011
Missing Jobs by Gender

Very scary.

Stagflationary Mark said...

Here's another chart to consider.

In my opinion, inflation can't fix our problems.

If nondurable prices rise quicker than inflation overall (think gasoline and food), then that leaves *less* money to buy durable things.

One such durable thing is a new home.

And why would nondurable prices rise quicker than inflation overall? Bernanke can't determine where the inflation appears. He wants wage inflation. He gets commodity inflation. There are NO wage speculators.

In 2004, I was a commodity speculator. I had money. I bought gold and silver (sold in 2006). I had no ability nor desire to speculate on wage inflation (I didn't think wages would rise much, if any).

September 7, 2010
The Failed Keynesian Phillips Curve

If the Fed's actions cannot permanently lower unemployment, then that would mean that the Fed is powerless to fulfill one-half of its dual mandate.

I believed that then. I still believe it.

Sigh.

Jazzbumpa said...

Mark -

I'm not disagreeing with you.

Although inflation has averaged 2.5% this century - more than a full % point below average - people are still getting hurt by it, perhaps even more so than in the 70's when inflation was high, but we all got COLA's. That's because i recent years wages have been stagnant or in decline.

That 2.5% inflation amounts to about a 28% price increase in a decade, while wealth (home value) has gone down a lot, and wages are level, at best. That is one hell of a hit.

We desperately need income increases.

JzB

Stagflationary Mark said...

We desperately need income increases.

Would you settle for $100 oil and a sharp stick in the eye?

Sorry. Gallows humor.