Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
| Preposterous Falsehoods From Gary North Regarding the Inflation/Deflation Debate Posted: 03 Aug 2012 01:19 PM PDT When it comes to the inflation deflation debate it really would help if people would stop presenting complete falsehoods as facts. Here is a case in point: Gary North writes Why the Deflationists' Argument Is Wrong in Both Theory and Historical Fact Aug. 3, 2012Obvious Falsehoods Gary North does not speak for any deflationist, nor does he speak for all the inflationists. He acts as if he does. Sustained price deflation is certainly not inevitable, nor is price deflation inevitable in the short-term either. Since I am a staunch deflationist, and since Gary North is aware of my writing, it appears he is purposely making preposterous straw-man arguments just to be able to shoot them down. Discussion of Definitions As I have pointed out many times, before there can be a debate at all, one has to agree to definitions. My definition of inflation is an increase in money supply and credit with credit marked to market. Deflation is the opposite. Prices are clearly not part of my definition, and prices can indeed rise in a credit-deflationary period. I cannot demand that people accept my definitions, but without an agreement of definitions, the likely result is people talking past each other. Misguided Focus on Money Supply I have given many reasons why a focus on money supply alone is complete silliness, but the condensed version is the total credit market is $54 trillion and base money supply is about $2.7 trillion. If people think that $54 trillion can and will be paid back, or if they think that money supply is more important than credit, they will be wrong, but they are entitled to their opinions. Money Supply vs. Credit Gary North's definition of inflation obviously involves money supply. Not every inflationist would accept his definition. Some would consider credit and some would include government manipulations irrespective of money supply. So that is a third thing North is wrong about. Ignoring Time Preferences North says "An inflationist is someone who believes that price inflation is the result of two things: (1) monetary inflation and (2) central bank policy." With that, Gary North is wrong for the fourth time. Non-monetary government interference in the markets can certainly affect prices. More importantly, prices can rise or fall by changing time-preference for money even if money supply is constant. For example, social trends and changing demographics can affect the demand for money, and thus prices. So even if there was no Fed and no Fractional Reserve Lending it is a mistake to believe there could not be general price increases for reasonably lengthy periods of time. Likewise, because of continual advances in productivity, there is a general downward pressure on prices over time. Thus productivity can affect prices. North misses all of those things in his blanket statements. Credibility Issues People really get into serious trouble using phrases like "no inflationist" and "every deflationist" when they clearly do not speak for everyone, especially when they also need a lecture about changing attitudes and time-preference as well. Finally, it's easy to setup a straw-man debate that you can win. It's also easy to lose credibility doing just that. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific. 
|
| Headline Jobs +163,000, But Household Survey Shows -195,000 Jobs; Unemployment +.1 to 8.3% Posted: 03 Aug 2012 08:23 AM PDT ADP got the headline job number correct, I certainly didn't. However, one look beneath the surface shows this was actually an anemic jobs report. Unemployment was up, and the household survey shows a loss of 195,000 jobs. The household numbers are even worse because part-time employment went up. Jobs Report at a Glance Here is an overview of today's release.
Recall that the unemployment rate varies in accordance with the Household Survey not the reported headline jobs number, and not in accordance with the weekly claims data. Quick Notes About the Unemployment Rate
Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness. June 2012 Jobs Report Please consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) July 2012 Employment Report. Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment rose in professional and business services, food services and drinking places, and manufacturing.. Click on Any Chart in this Report to See a Sharper Image Unemployment Rate - Seasonally Adjusted  Nonfarm Employment - Payroll Survey - Annual Look - Seasonally Adjusted  Employment is above the total just prior to the 2001 recession, and about where it was in 2005. Nonfarm Employment - Payroll Survey January 2008 through July 2012 - Seasonally Adjusted  click on any chart for sharper image Between January 2008 and February 2010, the U.S. economy lost 8.8 million jobs. Since the employment low in February 2010, nonfarm payrolls have expanded by about 4.3 million jobs. Of the 8.8 million jobs lost between January 2008 and February 2010, approximately 48.8% percent have been recovered (not accounting for normal demographics growth) Statistically, 125,000+- jobs a month is enough to keep the unemployment rate flat. For a discussion, please see Question on Jobs: How Many Does It Take to Keep Up With Demographics? Thus far in 2012, job growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the monthly average for 2011 (+153,000). The average employment gain over the last 29 months has been 138,000, barely enough (statistically speaking) to make a dent in the unemployment rate. Yet, the civilian unemployment rate has fallen from 9.8% to 8.3%. Current Report Jobs  Average Weekly Hours  Average Hourly Earnings vs. CPI  BLS Birth-Death Model Black Box The BLS Birth/Death Model is an estimation by the BLS as to how many jobs the economy created that were not picked up in the payroll survey. The Birth-Death numbers are not seasonally adjusted, while the reported headline number is. In the black box the BLS combines the two, coming up with a total. The Birth Death number influences the overall totals, but the math is not as simple as it appears. Moreover, the effect is nowhere near as big as it might logically appear at first glance. Do not add or subtract the Birth-Death numbers from the reported headline totals. It does not work that way. Birth/Death assumptions are supposedly made according to estimates of where the BLS thinks we are in the economic cycle. Theory is one thing. Practice is clearly another as noted by numerous recent revisions. Birth Death Model Adjustments For 2011  Birth Death Model Adjustments For 2012  Birth-Death Note Once again: Do NOT subtract the Birth-Death number from the reported headline number. That approach is statistically invalid. Household Survey Data  click on chart for sharper image In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,683,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,655,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,027,000 to yet another record high 88,340,000. That is an amazing "achievement" to say the least, and as noted above most of this is due to economic weakness not census changes. Decline in Labor Force Factors
Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%. Part Time Status  click on chart for sharper image There are 8,246,000 workers who are working part-time but want full-time work. BLS Alternate Measures of Unemployment  click on chart for sharper image Table A-15 is where one can find a better approximation of what the unemployment rate really is. Notice I said "better" approximation not to be confused with "good" approximation. The official unemployment rate is 8.3%. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is in the last row labeled U-6. U-6 is much higher at 15.0%. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years. Duration of Unemployment  Long-term unemployment remains in a disaster zone. Grossly Distorted Statistics Given the complete distortions of reality with respect to not counting people who allegedly dropped out of the work force, it is easy to misrepresent the headline numbers. Digging under the surface, the drop in the unemployment rate over the past two years is nothing but a statistical mirage. Things are much worse than the reported numbers indicate. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific. 
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment