Macroeconomics – Page 19 – HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog

Can We Now Rule Out One of the Three Potential Monetary Policy Outcomes?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell (photo from bloomberg.com)

In a blog post from February of this year, we discussed three possible outcomes of the contractionary monetary policy that the Federal Reserve has been pursuing since March 2022, when the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) began raising its target range for the federal funds rate:

A soft landing. The Fed’s preferred outcome; inflation returns to the Fed’s target of 2 percent without the economy falling into recession.
A hard landing. Inflation returns to the Fed’s 2 percent target, but the economy falls into a recession.
No landing. At the beginning of 2023, the unemployment remained very low and inflation, as measured by the percentage change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index from the same month in the previous year, was still above 5 percent. So, some observers, particularly in Wall Street financial firms, began discussing the possibility that low unemployment and high inflation might persist indefinitely, resulting an outcome of no landing.

At the end of 2023, the economy appears to be slowing: Retail sales declined in October; real disposable personal income increased in October, but it has been trending down, as have real personal consumption expenditures; while the increase in third quarter real GDP was recently revised upward from 4.9 percent to 5.2 percent, forecasts of growth in real GDP during the fourth quarter show a marked slowing—for instance, GDPNow, compiled by the Atlanta Fed, estimates fourth quarter growth at 2.1 percent; and while employment continues to expand, average weekly hours have been slowly declining and initial claims for unemployment insurance have been increasing.

The slowing in the growth of output, income, and employment are reflected in a falling inflation rate. The following figure show the percentage change since the same month in the previous year in PCE price index, which is the measure the Fed uses to gauge whether it is hitting its 2 percent inflation target. (We discuss the reasons for the Fed preferring the PCE price index to the consumer price index (CPI) in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5 and Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.5.) The figure also shows core PCE, which excludes the prices of food and energy. Core PCE inflation typically gives a better measure of the underlying inflation rate than does PCE inflation.

PCE inflation declined from 3.4 percent in September to 3.0 percent in October. Core PCE inlation declined from 3.8 percent in September to 3.5 percent in September. Although inflation has been declining from its peak in mid-2022, both of these measures of inflation remain above the Fed’s 2 percent target.

But if we look at the 1-month inflation rate—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year—we see a much sharper decline in inflation, as the following figure shows.

The 1-month inflation rate is naturally more volatile than the 12-month inflation rate. In this case, the 1-month rate shows a sharp decline in PCE inflation from 3.8 percent in September to 0.6 percent in October. Core PCE inflation declined less sharply from 3.9 percent in September to 2.0 percent in October.

The continuing decline in inflation has caused some economists and Wall Street analysts to predict that the FOMC will not implement further increases in its target for the federal funds rate and will likely begin cutting its target by mid-2024.

On December 1 in a speech at Spelman College in Atlanta, Fed Chair Jerome Powell urged caution in assuming that the Fed has succeeded in putting inflation on a course back to its 2 percent target:

“The FOMC is strongly committed to bringing inflation down to 2 percent over time, and to keeping policy restrictive until we are confident that inflation is on a path to that objective. It would be premature to conclude with confidence that we have achieved a sufficiently restrictive stance, or to speculate on when policy might ease. We are prepared to tighten policy further if it becomes appropriate to do so.”

In terms of the three policy outcomes listed at the beginning of this post, the third—no landing, with the unemployment rate remaining very low while the inflation rate remains above the Fed’s 2 percent target—now seems unlikely. The labor market appears to be weakening, which will likely result in increases in the unemployment rate. The next “Employment Report” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which will be released on December 8, will provide additional data on the state of the labor market.

Although we can’t entirely rule out the possibility of a no landing outcome, it seems more likely that the economy will either make a soft landing—if output and employment continue to increase, although at a slower rate, while inflation continues to decline—or a hard landing—if output and employment begin to fall as the economy enters a recession. Although a consensus seems to be building among economists, policymakers, and Wall Street analysts that a soft landing is the likeliest outcome, Powell has provided a reminder that that outcome is far from certain.

Fed Governor Christopher Waller Gives an Optimistic Speech

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller (photo from the Associated Press via the Wall Street Journal)

Fed Governor Christopher Waller has a reputation for being a policy hawk, which means that since the spring of 2022 he has been a forceful advocate of multiple increases in the target for the federal funds rate as the Fed attempts to slow the economy and bring inflation back to the Fed’s 2 percent target. (Waller’s biography on the Fed’s web site can be found here.)

So, it was notable that in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on November 28, he said that “I am increasingly confident that policy is currently well positioned to slow the economy and get inflation back to 2 percent.” Although he also stressed that “there is still significant uncertainty about the pace of future activity, and so I cannot say for sure whether the [Federal Open Market Committee] FOMC has done enough to achieve price stability” his remarks were interpreted as reinforcing the growing view among non-Fed economists and investors that the FOMC is unlikely to increase its target for the federal funds rate further and is likely to reduce the target at some point during 2024. The text of Waller’s speech can be found here.

AEI economist Michael Strain interviewed Waller following his speech. In the interview (which can be found here), Strain made the case for believing that the Fed’s ability to achieve a soft landing—returning inflation to the 2 percent target without pushing the economy into a recession—would be more difficult than Waller seems to believe. Included in the interview are discussions of whether expecting a soft landing is consistent with the historical record, what guidance the Taylor rule can give to monetary policymakers (we discuss the Taylor rule in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.5, Economics, Chapter 25, Section 15.5, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 17, Section 17.5), the significance of rising labor force participation rates among prime-age workers, and the implications large federal budget deficits have for monetary policy.

In Prison, Sam Bankman-Fried Encounters a Barter Economy

Photo from the Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this month, Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud connected with the collapse of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange he founded. (We discuss aspects of cryptocurrencies in earlier blog posts here and here.) Bankman-Fried had a reputation for dressing casually and for having bushy, unkempt hair. In preparing for his trial, Bankman-Fried paid another inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City to cut his hair short. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Bankman-Fried paid the other inmate not with currency but with four packets of mackerels—like the ones shown in the photo above—to cut his hair.

Although using packets of mackerels to buy and sell services may seem strange, in fact, packets of mackerel seem to be widely used in place of currency in the U.S. prison system. We explained the situation in an Apply the Concept in an earlier edition of our principles textbook. We reproduce that feature here. Note that the inmate quoted indicates that the price of a haircut at that time was only two mackerel packets rather than the four that Bankman-Fried paid. (Question to consider: Would we expect that prices of services in terms of mackerel packets would be the same across prisons at a given time or in the same prison over time?)

The Mackerel Economy in the Federal Prison System

Inmates of the federal prison system are not allowed to have money. Funds they earn working in the prison or receive from friends and relatives are placed in an account they can draw on to buy snacks and other items from the prison store. Lacking money, prisoners could barter with each other in exchanging goods and services, but we have seen that barter is inefficient. Since about 2004, in many prisons small plastic packets of mackerel fillets costing about $1 each have been used as money. [According to the Wall Street Journal article linked to earlier, the mackerel packets now sell for $1.30.] The packets are known in prison as “macks.”

Some prisoners have set up small businesses using mackerel packets for money. They sell services such as shoe shines, cell cleaning, or haircuts for macks. According to a prisoner in Lompoc prison in California, “A haircut is two macks.” A former prisoner described a fellow prisoner’s food business: “I knew a guy who would buy ingredients and use the microwaves to cook meals. Then people used mack to buy it from him.” In the Pensacola prison in Florida, the prison commissary was open only one day a week. So, several prisoners would run “prison 7-Elevens” by stocking up on goods and reselling them for macks at a profit. Very few prisoners actually eat the mackerel in the packets. In fact, apart from prison commissaries, the demand for mackerel in the United States is very small.

The mackerel economy is under pressure at some prisons, where rules exist against hoarding goods from the commissary. Prisoners caught dealing in macks can risk no longer being allowed to use the commissary or may be moved to a less desirable cell. In these prisons, the mackerel economy has been pushed underground.

The prison mackerel economy illustrates an important fact about money: Anything can be used as money, as long as people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services—even pouches of fish that no one wants to eat.

Source: Justin Scheck, “Mackerel Economics in Prison,” Wall Street Journal, October 2, 2008.

Wall Street Journal: “Cooling Inflation Likely Ends Fed Rate Hikes”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest report on consumer prices the morning of November 14. The Wall Street Journal’s headline reflects the general reaction to the report: The inflation rate continued to decline, which made it less likely that the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee will raise its target range for the federal funds rate again at its December meeting. The following figure shows inflation measured as the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the same month in the previous year. It also shows the inflation rate measure using “core” CPI, which excludes prices for food and energy.

The inflation rate for the CPI declined from 3.7 percent in September to 3.2 percent in October. Core CPI declined from 4.1 percent in September to 4.0 percent in October. So, measured this way, inflation declined substantially when measured by the CPI including prices of all goods and services but only slightly when measured using core CPI.

The 12-month inflation rate is the one typically reported in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, but it has the drawback that it doesn’t always reflect accurately the current trend in prices. The following figure shows the 1-month inflation rate—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year— for CPI and core CPI. The 1-month inflation rate is naturally more volatile than the 12-month inflation rate. In this case, 1-month rate shows a sharp decline in the inflation rate for the CPI from 4.9 percent in September to 0.5 percent in October. Core inflation declined less sharply from 3.9 percent in September to 2.8 percent in October.

The release of the CPI report was treated as good news on Wall Street, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average increasing by 500 points and the interest rate on the 10-year U.S. Treasury Note declining from 4.6 percent just before the report was released to 4.4 percent immediately after. The increases in stock and bond prices (recall that the prices of bonds and the yields on the bonds move in opposite directions, so bond prices rose following release of the report) reflect the view of financial investors that if the FOMC stops increasing its target for the federal funds rate, the chance that the U.S. economy will fall into a recession is reduced.

A word of caution, however. In a speech on November 9, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the FOMC may need still need to implement additional increases to its federal funds rate target:

“My colleagues and I are gratified by this progress [against inflation] but expect that the process of getting inflation sustainably down to 2 percent has a long way to go…. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is committed to achieving a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time; we are not confident that we have achieved such a stance. We know that ongoing progress toward our 2 percent goal is not assured: Inflation has given us a few head fakes. If it becomes appropriate to tighten policy further, we will not hesitate to do so.”

So, while the latest inflation report is good news, it’s still too early to know whether inflation is on a stable path to return to the Fed’s 2 percent target. (It’s worth noting that the Fed uses inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index rather than as measured by the CPI when evaluating whether it has achieved its 2 percent target.)

Glenn, Harry Holzer, and Michael Strain Analyze the Effect of Changes in Unemployment Benefits during the Pandemic

A job fair in Jackson, Mississippi (photo from the Associated Press)

As part of the Social Security Act of 1935,Congress created the unemployment insurance program to make payments to unemployed workers. The program run jointly by the federal government and the state governments. It’s financed primarily by state and federal taxes on employers. States are allowed to determine which workers are eligible, the dollar amount of the unemployment benefit workers will receive, and for how long workers will receive the benefit.

What’s the purpose of the unemployment insurance program? A document published the U.S. Department of Labor explains that: “Unemployment compensation is a social insurance program. It is designed to provide benefits to most individuals out of work, generally through no fault of their own, for periods between jobs…. [Unemployment compensation] ensures that a significant proportion of the necessities of life can be met on a week-to-week basis while a search for work takes place.”

But the same document also notes that unemployment compensation “maintains [unemployed workers’] purchasing power which also acts as an economic stabilizer in times of economic downturn.” By “economic stabilizer,” the Department of Labor is noting that unemployment compensation is what in Macroeconomics, Chapter 16, Section 16.1 (Economics, Chapter 26, Section 26.1) we call an automatic stabilizer. An automatic stabilizer is a government spending or taxing program that automatically increases or decreases along with the business cycle.

As shown in the following figure, when the economy enters a recession, the total amount of unemployment compensation payments increases without the federal government or the state governments having to take any action because eligibility for the payments is already defined in existing law. So, during a recession, the unemployment insurance program helps to keep aggregate demand higher than it would otherwise be, which can lessen the severity of the recession.

As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.3 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.3), the unemployment insurance program can have an unintended effect. The higher the unemployment insurance payment a worker receives and the longer the worker receives it, the more likely the worker is to delay searching for another job. In other words, by reducing the opportunity cost of being unemployed, unemployment insurance benefits may unintentionally increase the length of unemployment spells—the amount of time the typical worker is unemployed.

During and immediately after the 2020 recession, the federal government increased the dollar amount of the unemployment insurance payments that workers received and extended the number of months workers could continue to receive these payments. Under the American Rescue Plan, a law which President Biden proposed and Congress passed in March 2021, workers receiving unemployment insurance benefits received an additional $300 weekly from March 2021 until September 6, 2021. Also, under the law, people, such as the self-employed and gig workers, would receive unemployment insurance benefits even though they had previously been ineligible to receive them. (Note the resulting spike during this period in the total dollar amount of unemployment insurance benefits as shown in the above figure.)

Some state governments were concerned that the extended benefits might cause some workers to delay taking jobs, thereby slowing the recovery of these states’ economies from the effects of the pandemic. Accordingly, 18 states stopped participating in the programs in June 2021, meaning that at that time unemployed workers would no longer receive the extra $300 per week and workers who prior to March 2021 hadn’t been eligible to receive unemployment benefits would again be ineligible.

Were unemployed workers in the states that ended the expanded unemployment insurance benefits in June more likely to become employed than were unemployed workers in states that continued the expanded benefits into September? On the one hand, ending the expanded benefits would increase the opportunity cost of not having a job. But, on the other hand, because government payments to workers would decline in these states, the result could be a decline in consumer spending that would decrease the demand for labor. Which of these effects was larger would determine whether employment increased or decreased in the states that ended expanded unemployment benefits early.

Glenn, along with Harry Holzer of Georgetown University and Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, carried out an econometric analysis to explore the effects ending expanded unemployment benefits early had on the labor markets in those states. They find that:

Among unemployed workers ages 25 to 54 (“prime-age workers”), ending the expanded unemployment benefit program increased the number of workers in those states who moved from being unemployed to being employed by 14 percentage points.
Among prime-age workers, the employment-to-population ratio in those states increased by about 1 percentage point.
Among prime-age workers, the unemployment rate in those stated decreased by about 0.9 percentage point.

These estimates indicate that the effect of ending the expanded unemployment benefit program raised the opportunity cost of being unemployed more than it decreased the demand for labor by reducing the incomes of some household. But what about the larger question of whether households were made better or worse off as a result of ending the program early? The authors find that ending the program early decreased the share of households that had no difficulty meeting expenses. They, therefore, conclude that the effects on household well-being of ending the program early are ambiguous.

The paper presenting these results can be found here. Warning! The econometric analysis is quite technical.

A Review of Recent Macro Data

Some interesting macro data were released during the past two weeks. On the key issues, the data indicate that inflation continues to run in the range of 3.0 percent to 3.5 percent, although depending on which series you focus on, you could conclude that inflation has dropped to a bit below 3 percent or that it is still in vicinity of 4 percent. On balance, output and employment data seem to be indicating that the economy may be cooling in response to the contractionary monetary policy that the Federal Open Market Committee began implementing in March 2022.

We can summarize the key data releases.

Employment, Unemployment, and Wages

On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its Employment Situation report. (The full report can be found here.) Economists and policymakers—notably including the members of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—typically focus on the change in total nonfarm payroll employment as recorded in the establishment, or payroll, survey. That number gives what is generally considered to be the best indicator of the current state of the labor market.

The previous month’s report included a surprisingly strong net increase of 336,000 jobs during September. Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal last week forecast that the net increase in jobs in October would decline to 170,000. The number came in at 150,000, slightly below that estimate. In addition, the BLS revised down the initial estimates of employment growth in August and September by a 101,000 jobs. The figure below shows the net gain in jobs for each month of 2023.

Although there are substantial fluctuations, employment increases have slowed in the second half of the year. The average increase in employment from January to June was 256,667. From July to October the average increase declined to 212,000. In the household survey, the unemployment rate ticked up from 3.8 percent in September to 3.9 percent in October. The unemployment rate has now increased by 0.5 percentage points from its low of 3.4 percent in April of this year.

Finally, data in the employment report provides some evidence of a slowing in wage growth. The following figure shows wage inflation as measured by the percentage increase in average hourly earnings (AHE) from the same month in the previous year. The increase in October was 4.1 percent, continuing a generally downward trend since March 2022, although still somewhat above wage inflation during the pre-2020 period.

As the following figure shows, September growth in average hourly earnings measured as a compound annual growth rate was 2.5 percent, which—if sustained—would be consistent with a rate of price inflation in the range of the Fed’s 2 percent target. (The figure shows only the months since January 2021 to avoid obscuring the values for recent months by including the very large monthly increases and decreases during 2020.)

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS)

On November 1, the BLS released its Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report for September 2023. (The full report can be found here.) The report indicated that the number of unfilled job openings was 9.5 million, well below the peak of 11.8 million job openings in December 2021 but—as shown in the following figure—well above prepandemic levels.

The following figure shows the ratio of the number of job opening to the number of unemployed people. The figure shows that, after peaking at 2.0 job openings per unemployed person in in March 2022, the ratio has decline to 1.5 job opening per unemployed person in September 2022. While high, that ratio was much closer to the ratio of 1.2 that prevailed during the year before the pandemic. In other words, while the labor market still appears to be strong, it has weakened somewhat in recent months.

Employment Cost Index

As we note in this blog post, the employment cost index (ECI), published quarterly by the BLS, measures the cost to employers per employee hour worked and can be a better measure than AHE of the labor costs employers face. The BLS released its most recent report on October 31. (The report can be found here.) The first figure shows the percentage change in ECI from the same quarter in the previous year. The second figure shows the compound annual growth rate of the ECI. Both measures show a general downward trend in the growth of labor costs, although compound annual rate of change shows an uptick in the third quarter of 2023. (We look at wages and salaries rather than total compensation because non-wage and salary compensation can be subject to fluctuations unrelated to underlying trends in labor costs.)

The Federal Open Market Committee’s October 31-November 1 Meeting

As was widely expected from indications in recent statements by committee members, the Federal Open Market Committee voted at its most recent meeting to hold constant its targe range for the federal funds rate at 5.25 percent to 5.50 percent. (The FOMC’s statement can be found here.)

At a press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell remarks made it seem unlikely that the FOMC would raise its target for the federal funds rate at its December 14-15 meeting—the last meeting of 2023. But Powell also noted that the committee was unlikely to reduce its target for the federal funds rate in the near future (as some economists and financial jounalists had speculated): “The fact is the Committee is not thinking about rate cuts right now at all. We’re not talking about rate cuts, we’re still very focused on the first question, which is: have we achieved a stance of monetary policy that’s sufficiently restrictive to bring inflation down to 2 percent over time, sustainably?” (The transcript of Powell’s press conference can be found here.)

Investors in the bond market reacted to Powell’s press conference by pushing down the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note, as shown in the following figure. (Note that the figure gives daily values with the gaps representing days on which the bond market was closed) The interest rate on the Treasury note reflects investors expectations of future short-term interest rates (as well as other factors). Investors interpreted Powell’s remarks as indicating that short-term rates may be somewhat lower than they had previously expected.

Real GDP and the Atlanta Fed’s Real GDPNow Estimate for the Fourth Quarter

On October 26, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of real GDP for the third quarter of 2023. (The full report can be found here.) We discussed the report in this recent blog post. Although, as we note in that post, the estimated increase in real GDP of 4.9 percent is quite strong, there are indications that real GDP may be growing significantly more slowly during the current (fourth) quarter.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta compiles a forecast of real GDP called GDPNow. The GDPNow forecast uses data that are released monthly on 13 components of GDP. This method allows economists at the Atlanta Fed to issue forecasts of real GDP well in advance of the BEA’s estimates. On November 1, the GDPNow forecast was that real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2023 would increase at a slow rate of 1.2 percent. If this preliminary estimate proves to be accurate, the growth rate of the U.S. economy will have sharply declined from the third to the fourth quarter.

Fed Chair Powell has indicated that economic growth will likely need to slow if the inflation rate is to fall back to the target rate of 2 percent. The hope, of course, is that contractionary monetary policy doesn’t cause aggregate demand growth to slow to the point that the economy slips into a recession.

The Roman Emperor Vespasian Fell Prey to the Lump-of-Labor Fallacy

Bust of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. (Photo from en.wikipedia.org.)

Some people worry that advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the development of chatbots will permanently reduce the number of jobs available in the United States. Technological change is often disruptive, eliminating jobs and sometimes whole industries, but it also creates new industries and new jobs. For example, the development of mass-produced, low-priced automobiles in the early 1900s wiped out many jobs dependent on horse-drawn transportation, including wagon building and blacksmithing. But automobiles created many new jobs not only on automobile assembly lines, but in related industries, including repair shops and gas stations.

Over the long run, total employment in the United States has increased steadily with population growth, indicating that technological change doesn’t decrease the total amount of jobs available. As we discuss in Microeconomics, Chapter 16 (also Economics, Chapter 16), fears that firms will permanently reduce their demand for labor as they increase their use of the capital that embodies technological breakthroughs, date back at least to the late 1700s in England, when textile workers known as Luddites—after their leader Ned Ludd—smashed machinery in an attempt to save their jobs. Since that time, the term Luddite has described people who oppose firms increasing their use of machinery and other capital because they fear the increases will result in permanent job losses.

Economists believe that these fears often stem from the lump-of-labor fallacy, which holds that there is only a fixed amount of work to be performed in the economy. So the more work that machines perform, the less work that will be available for people to perform. As we’ve noted, though, machines are substitutes for labor in some uses—such as when chatbot software replace employees who currently write technical manuals or computer code—they are also complements to labor in other jobs—such as advising firms on how best to use chatbots.

The lump-of-labor fallacy has a long history, probably because it seems like common sense to many people who see the existing jobs that a new technology destroys, without always being aware of the new jobs that the technology creates. There are historical examples of the lump-of-labor fallacy that predate even the original Luddites.

For instance, in his new book Pax: War and Peace in Rome’s Golden Age, the British historian Tom Holland (not to be confused with the actor of the same name, best known for portraying Spider-Man!), discusses an account by the ancient historian Suetonius of an event during the reign of Vespasian who was Roman emperor from 79 A.D. to 89 A.D. (p. 201):

“An engineer, so it was claimed, had invented a device that would enable columns to be transported to the summit of the [Roman] Capitol at minimal cost; but Vespasian, although intrigued by the invention, refused to employ it. His explanation was a telling one. ‘I have a duty to keep the masses fed.’”

Vespasian had fallen prey to the lump-of-labor fallacy by assuming that eliminating some of the jobs hauling construction materials would reduce the total number of jobs available in Rome. As a result, it would be harder for Roman workers to earn the income required to feed themselves.

Note that, as we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapters 10 and 11 (also Economics, Chapter 20 and 21), over the long-run, in any economy technological change is the main source of rising incomes. Technological change increases the productivity of workers and the only way for the average worker to consume more output is for the average worker to produce more output. In other words, most economists agree that the main reason that the wages—and, therefore, the standard of living—of the average worker today are much higher than they were in the past is that workers today are much more productive because they have more and better capital to work with.

Although the Roman Empire controlled most of Southern and Western Europe, the Near East, and North Africa for more than 400 years, the living standard of the average citizen of the Empire was no higher at the end of the Empire than it had been at the beginning. Efforts by emperors such as Vespasian to stifle technological progress may be part of the reason why.

Who Is Wealthier, Iron Man or Batman?

Photo from Paramount Pictures via britannica.com.

Photo from Warner Brothers Pictures via insider.com.

Income and wealth are often confused. Media accounts of the “wealthy” typically switch back and forth between referring to people with high incomes and referring to people with substantial wealth. It’s possible to have a high income, but not much wealth, if you spend most of your income. It’s also possible, although less common, for someone to have substantial wealth while having a relatively low income.

As we discuss in the Don’t Let This Happen to You feature in Macroeconomics, Chapter 14 (also Economics, Chapter 24), Your income is equal to your earnings during the year, while your wealth is equal to the value of the assets you own minus the value of any debts you have. It’s also worth keeping in mind that income is a flow variable that is measured over a period of time—such as a year—while wealth is a stock variable that is measured at a particular point in time—such as the first or last day of the year.

Both income and wealth can be difficult to accurately measure. Although we typically think of a person’s income as being equal to the salary and wages the person earns, income, properly measured, also includes changes in the value of the assets the person owns. For example, suppose that at the start of the year you own shares of Apple stock worth $5,000. If at the end of the year, the price on the stock market of your Apple shares has risen to $5,500, the $500 increase is part of your income for the year. (Note that this capital gain on your stock is included in your taxable income only if you sell the stock. Whether you sell the stock or not, though, the capital gain is part of your income.)

It can be difficult to measure the wealth of someone who owns significant assets that, unlike shares of stock, aren’t regularly bought and sold in a market. For instance, if someone owns a restaurant, determining what the price the restaurant would sell for—and, therefore, how wealthy the person is—can be difficult. Although other restaurants in the area may have sold recently, every restaurant is different, which makes it possible to determine only approximately what the sales price of a particular restaurant would be. As we discuss in the Apply the Concept feature “Should the Federal Government Begin to Tax Wealth?” in Microeconomics, Chapter 17 (also Economics, Chapter 17), the difficulty of valuing some types of wealth is one complication the federal government would face in enacting a tax on wealth.

If measuring the wealth of someone in the real world is difficult, measuring the wealth of a fictional character is even more daunting. Some years ago, undergraduate students, most of whom were economics majors at Lehigh University, estimated the wealth of Bruce Wayne, the alter ego of Batman. To narrow the focus, the students based their estimate on only the information available in the three Batman films directed by Christopher Nolan. On the basis of that information, they estimate that Bruce Wayne’s wealth is $11.6 billion. At the time the films were produced, that would have made Bruce Wayne the seventy-third wealthiest person in the world—if, of course, he had been a real person! You can read the details of their estimate here.

Bruce Wayne is apparently very wealthy, but is he as wealthy as Tony Stark, the alter ego of Iron Man? Apparently not, according to an estimate appearing on the business web site forbes.com. Although he doesn’t seem to give the details of how he arrived at the estimate, the author of the post values Tony Stark’s wealth at $9.3 billion, making him about 20 percent less wealthy than Bruce Wayne. Score one for the Caped Crusader!

Very Strong GDP Report

Photo from Lena Buonanno

This morning the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of GDP for the third quarter of 2023. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP increased by 4.9 percent at an annual rate in the third quarter—July through September. That was more than double the 2.1 percent increase in real GDP in the second quarter, and slightly higher than the 4.7 percent that economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal last week had expected. The following figure shows the rates of GDP growth each quarter beginning in 2021.

Note that the BEA’s most recent estimates of real GDP during the first two quarters of 2022 still show a decline. The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee only switched from a strongly expansionary monetary policy, with a target for the federal funds of effectively zero, to a contractionary monetary policy following its March 16, 2022 meeting. That real GDP was declining even before the Fed had pivoted to a contractionary monetary policy helps explain why, despite strong increases employment during this period, most economists were expecting that the U.S. economy would experience a recession at some point during 2022 or 2023. This expectation was reinforced when inflation soared during the summer of 2022 and it became clear that the FOMC would have to substantially raise its target for the federal funds rate.

Clearly, today’s data on real GDP growth, along with the strong September employment report (which we discuss in this blog post), indicates that the chances of the U.S. economy avoiding a recession in the future have increased and are much better than they seemed at this time last year.

Consumer spending was the largest contributor to third quarter GDP growth. The following figure shows growth rates of real personal consumption expenditures and the subcategories of expenditures on durable goods, nondurable goods, and services. There was strong growth in each component of consumption spending. The 7.6 percent increase in expenditures on durables was particularly strong, particularly given that spending on durables had fallen by 0.3 percent in the second quarter.

Investment spending and its components were a more mixed bag, as shown in the following figure. Overall, gross private domestic investment increased at a very strong rate of 8.4 percent—the highest rate since the fourth quarter of 2021. Residential investment increased 3.9 percent, which was particularly notable following nine consecutive quarters of decline and during a period of soaring mortgage interest rates. But business fixed investment was noticeably weak, falling by 0.1 percent. Spending on structures—such as factories and office buildings—increased by only 1.6 percent, while spending on equipment fell by 3.8 percent.

Today’s real GDP report also contained data on the private consumption expenditure (PCE) price index, which the FOMC uses tp determine whether it is achieving its goal of a 2 percent inflation rate. The following figure shows inflation as measured using the PCE and the core PCE—which excludes food and energy prices—since the beginning of 2015. (Note that these inflation rates are measured using quarterly data and as compound annual rates of change.) Despite the strong growth in real GDP and employment, inflation as measured by PCE increased only from 2.5 percent in the second quarter to 2.9 percent in the third quarter. Core PCE, which may be a better indicator of the likely course of inflation in the future, continued the long decline that began in first quarter of 2022 by failling from 3.7 percent to 2.9 percent.

The combination of strong growth in real GDP and declining inflation indicates that the Fed appears well on its way to a soft landing—achieving a return to its 2 percent inflation target without pushing the economy into a recession. There are reasons to be cautious, however.

GDP, inflation, and employment data are all subject to—possibly substantial—revisions. So growth may have been significantly slower than today’s advance estimate of real GDP indicates. Even if the estimate of real GDP growth of 4.9 percent proves in the long run to have been accurate, there are reasons to doubt whether output growth can be maintained at near that level. Since 2000, annual growth in real GDP has average only 2.1 percent. For GDP to begin increasing at a rate substantially higher than that would require a significant expansion in the labor force and an increase in productivity. While either or both of those changes may occur, they don’t seem likely as of now.

In addition, the largest contributor to GDP growth in the third quarter was from consumption expenditures. As households continue to draw down the savings they built up as a result of the federal government’s response to the Covid recession of 2020, it seems unlikely that the current pace of consumer spending can be maintained. Finally, the lagged effects of monetary policy—particularly the effects of the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury note having risen to nearly 5 percent (which we discuss in our most recent podcast)—may substantially reduce growth in real GDP and employment in future quarters.

But those points shouldn’t distract from the fact that today’s GDP report was good news for the economy.

10/21/23 Podcast – Authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien reflect on the Fed’s efforts to execute the soft-landing.

Join authors Glenn Hubbard & Tony O’Brien as they reflect on the Fed’s efforts to execute the soft landing, ponder if the effect will stick, and wonder if future economies will be tethered to an anchor point above two percent.