Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US is not in danger of deflation
Financial Times ^ | October 9 2002 | Glenn Hubbard

Posted on 10/10/2002 1:58:44 PM PDT by sourcery

For most of the postwar era, deflation has been off on the radar screen of economic policymakers in the industrialised world. The United States has not experienced a sustained fall in prices since the Great Depression. Fighting inflation, not deflation, has been the main goal of most central banks. Yet today's newspapers are filled with claims that a ruinous 1930s-style deflation lies just ahead.

The story goes something like this: the end of a stock market bubble causes consumer spending and business investment to collapse. The subsequent fall in aggregate demand puts downward pressure on prices. Once deflation begins, the real burden of debt increases, so borrowers must cut their spending to pay off the real value of their debts and the cycle continues.

The new twist in the modern retelling of this story is the link between the fall in the stock market and the rise in housing values since 1997. Some have argued that the inevitable decline in consumption has been delayed by consumers refinancing their mortgages, extracting equity so that consumption levels are maintained, for a time. But the day of reckoning will eventually arrive, consumption will fall and the deflationary spiral will begin.

This modern deflation scenario seems to make a lot of sense - until you get out your calculator. When you do, the basic features of the US economy look quite good and deflation appears unlikely. To start with, analysis of the productivity data over the past six quarters confirms some of the best news that economists have delivered in a generation - the acceleration in productivity growth that began in 1995 continues unabated. Thanks to this, today's consumers can look forward to real incomes that grow much more quickly than they have during the past 30 years - a good omen for current consumption.

But even if the future looks good, what about the present? Won't the decline in the stock market - and the consequent loss in current wealth - reduce consumption today? It is true that the decline in equity markets have removed wealth from the economy, which tends to depress consumption. Research suggests that a loss of one dollar in stock market wealth reduces consumption by about three to five cents over the following three years, holding other factors constant. But other factors have not been constant. Disposable personal income - the amount of current income that consumers can spend - has held up much better over the current business cycle than in previous recessions.

Of course, one can point to the strength of the housing market as a factor keeping consumption strong. House values have risen and low mortgage rates have encouraged homeowners to take out some of the equity in their homes through refinancing. But while this process has been a part of healthy consumption growth, it has been only a part. A study by the Federal Reserve of the home refinancing wave of 1998-99 found that it added only about $10bn to consumption expenditure, which totalled $6,200bn in 1989. Home refinancing has also been high in the past two years but the same lesson seems to apply.

The question of why house prices have risen so much in the past few years is interesting. The surge in immigration during the 1990s and the lack of land suitable for new housing in some cities with tight zoning restrictions are probably part of the answer. But fears that the US housing market is in the midst of a bubble are unwarranted. Behind any bubble is the hope that an investor can purchase an asset for one price and sell it quickly for a higher price. This is hard to achieve with houses, because of the high transaction costs in housing markets. And without a rapid and nationwide decline in housing wealth, it is hard to see how deflation can occur.

Last, one cannot discuss deflation without an examination of the price data themselves. First, falling prices are not always bad - indeed, in most cases they are a crucial stabilising feature of modern economies. For evidence, just ask your local car salesperson. The surge in car sales brought about by zero per cent financing offers should add from ? to 1 full percentage point to gross domestic product growth in the third quarter.

Second, a sustained decline in prices that magnifies the real burden of debtors is not likely. In fact, the inflation rate for consumer commodities, which turned negative in 2001, has turned round and is now headed for positive territory. Moreover, the inflation rate for consumer services has stabilised at little more than 3 per cent a year. Private forecasters expect the overall rate of consumer inflation to rise to about 2.4 per cent in 2003 as the recovery takes hold.

In short, the stock market decline will not cause consumption expenditure to collapse. House price inflation may well moderate in the next few years but there is no housing bubble about to be pricked. Refinancing has helped maintain consumption growth but has not propped it up. And the economic fundamentals are sound.

While in the long run deflation - like inflation - is a monetary phenomenon, low aggregate demand is not likely to push the US toward deflation any time soon. It is a pretty boring story, compared with those told by the deflationists. But it does pretty well when confronted with the facts.

The writer is chairman of the US president's council of economic advisers


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/10/2002 1:58:44 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; A tall man in a cowboy hat; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA
Spot gold:


2 posted on 10/10/2002 2:01:06 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rohry; arete
FYI
3 posted on 10/10/2002 2:02:05 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
bump
4 posted on 10/10/2002 2:04:48 PM PDT by Sam Cree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


5 posted on 10/10/2002 2:05:14 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The writer is chairman of the US president's council of economic advisers

Which is why we should all be very scared.

6 posted on 10/10/2002 2:09:41 PM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Hmmm... I missed the part about Fannie and Freddie being so deep in derivatives that virtually any rumbling could cause major declines in the entire (real estate) sector. Even the K street kids are running quiet on this.
7 posted on 10/10/2002 2:11:24 PM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Interesting thanks for all of the pings.
8 posted on 10/10/2002 2:12:45 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment
"I missed the part about Fannie and Freddie being so deep in derivatives that virtually any rumbling could cause major declines in the entire (real estate) sector. "

Forget it, I'm not reducing the rent amount.

9 posted on 10/10/2002 2:14:01 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blam
Don't look at it as a reduction, think of it as a negative interest rate. ;)
10 posted on 10/10/2002 2:32:52 PM PDT by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The counter argument: 2002 Kondratieff Wave Cycles
11 posted on 10/10/2002 2:46:15 PM PDT by sourcery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Thanks for the ping...

Unfortunately this article is so full of innacurate and misleading assumptions and data that it's not worth wasting any of my time responding to it.

The fact that the writer is an advisor to the President is, indeed, very frightening...
12 posted on 10/10/2002 2:50:23 PM PDT by rohry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The question of why house prices have risen so much in the past few years is interesting.

The answer to this question is two-fold: 1) People generally don't consider the "real" price of a home -- they base it on their projected monthly cost, which means that as interest rates fall they can afford a larger mortgage; and 2) home ownership in most major U.S. markets is heavily subsidized, through the income tax deductions allowed on mortgage interest and property taxes.

More and more people getting pushed into higher tax brackets due to "bracket creep," so there has been a growing movement toward tax shelters in the last few years. The two major tax shelters available to ordinary income earners are retirement plans and homes. The 401(k) bubble has already collapsed -- will the housing market follow?

13 posted on 10/10/2002 3:11:36 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
What?

We "Americans" NEED to build many MORE "Domestic=National" Oil/Gas REFINERIES as soon as possible!

A National Emergercy!

Build NOW!!!!

(Save the "average" U.S. citizen's "earned" lifestyle!!)

We are NOT a British Colony!

Are we?

14 posted on 10/10/2002 3:20:57 PM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Hubbard's assumption that the (un-named) deflation proponents believe deflation is caused by a drop in "aggregate demand" is false in many cases. It is a monetary error in the short and long cycle. I think for now the deflation threat is less (much less than 2001). The newspapers he reads caught onto the deflation as it was ending; now he is fighting last years war to respond.

Further, the consumer-side plays a very prominent role in Dr. Hubbard's analysis. I would be very hesitant to place money on such an analytical model. Perhaps he doesn't want to offend the Federal Reserve, or worse, he is a Keynsian. With the economic advisors GWB employs, I don't know which it is.
15 posted on 10/10/2002 4:03:33 PM PDT by Lee_Atwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lee_Atwater
Your#15)................................BTTT

Further, the consumer-side plays a very prominent role in Dr. Hubbard's analysis.

:-(

16 posted on 10/10/2002 6:29:42 PM PDT by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rohry
This article is designed only to keep the sheep quiet until all the shearing is done.
17 posted on 10/10/2002 6:49:23 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lee_Atwater
Further, the consumer-side plays a very prominent role in Dr. Hubbard's analysis. I would be very hesitant to place money on such an analytical model. Perhaps he doesn't want to offend the Federal Reserve, or worse, he is a Keynsian. With the economic advisors GWB employs, I don't know which it is.

Nice post. Hubbard is another Harvard guy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is a Keynsian. It looks to me like the consumer is getting worn out, and they need some more stimulus paid for with government debt. Heaven forbid anyone on the Bush team should promote investment. . It looks like the whole Bush team is talking up the economy.

So when these predictions turn out to be wrong, I wonder if these guys will have to do the perp walk, as is being demanded of corporate officers in the private sector

18 posted on 10/11/2002 5:27:46 PM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Experts are a dime a dozen. There are still some of them around that espouse the flat earth theory.

The stock market has a life of it's own. As the market goes, so does the country.

19 posted on 10/11/2002 5:34:53 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson