Feds worried US slowdown is PERMANENT

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Fed Splits With Staff Over U.S. Economy's Speed Limit (Update1)

By Scott Lanman
Bloomberg


June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve policy makers disagree with their own staff economists, and a growing chorus on Wall Street, who say the U.S. economy can't expand as fast as it used to without pushing up prices.

The split, signaled in the minutes of May's Federal Open Market Committee meeting, may reflect debate over whether a slowdown in U.S. productivity is permanent. ``Many'' FOMC members were ``somewhat more optimistic'' than lower-ranking officials about the economy's speed limit, the records showed.


Policy makers, who meet today and tomorrow, are probably more confident that productivity -- a gauge of employee efficiency -- will rebound as economic growth picks up. A lower potential pace of expansion might force the central bank to keep interest rates higher than would otherwise be the case.

``The basic difference is that the FOMC is somewhat more skeptical'' that the trend has changed, said Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, who formerly worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. ``It's ultimately going to mean a bigger monetary policy response down the road if they do make a mistake.''

A year ago, most economists said the potential economic growth rate was about 3 percent. It may now be 2.5 percent, according to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and JPMorgan.

Recent papers by Fed economists imply that the central bank staff sees potential growth of about 2.5 percent a year, said Kasman's colleague Michael Feroli. Feroli worked at the Fed from 2003 to 2005.

Reluctant to Estimate

While some policy makers won't give public estimates, Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig stuck to the 3 percent figure in a June 6 speech in Cody, Wyoming. Michael Moskow, head of the Chicago Fed, said in April that his bank estimates the speed limit is ``just a bit under 3 percent.''

The debate may resurface today when Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his colleagues gather in Washington to discuss monetary policy, the economy and the Fed's strategy for communicating with the public.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News unanimously forecast that the Fed will leave its benchmark lending rate at 5.25 percent when the meeting concludes tomorrow. The rate has been unchanged since June, the Fed's longest period of rate inactivity since 1997-98.

The Fed will release its statement on interest rates and the economy tomorrow at about 2:15 p.m. New York time.

The questioning of growth estimates is a reversal of the 1990s, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan bucked his Ph.D.- laden staff to declare that technological advances were speeding up productivity gains.

Greenspan's Pride

``The Fed and actually Alan Greenspan himself took tremendous pride in spotting this increased trend in productivity,'' said Ethan Harris, the chief U.S. economist at Lehman, who worked at the New York Fed from 1990 to 1996. ``There's a reluctance to make the call that the boom's over. You really don't know for sure until you've had years of data.''

Last year, staff economists led by David Stockton, director of the Research and Statistics division, cut their potential- growth estimate at successive meetings in August and September.

At the last meeting on May 9, after the staff presented a ``slightly'' lower estimate of future productivity, ``many participants commented that their view of potential output growth was somewhat more optimistic than that of the staff,'' according to minutes of the session.

Less Than Half

Growth in workers' output per hour has averaged a 1.5 percent annual rate since the start of last year, less than half the 3.1 percent pace of the five years through 2005.

Fed economists' reduced estimates of potential growth also stem from an anticipated decline in the portion of the population that is either working or looking for jobs.

The so-called labor-force participation rate fell to an average of 66.2 percent the past five years, from 67 percent in the previous five. The rate may fall further as the baby-boom generation retires in coming years.

Some estimates are bleak. At a Boston Fed conference last week, Harvard University economist Dale Jorgenson, who taught Bernanke and advised on his senior thesis, presented findings that the economy's annual growth through 2030 will be 1.6 percent, half the pace of the past four decades.

The outlook for productivity and economic growth ``becomes much less sanguine'' after the coming decade, Jorgenson said in an interview.

Jorgenson said he discussed economic trends such as productivity over dinner with Bernanke in Washington in October. ``He thinks about these issues a lot,'' Jorgenson said.

Heh, so the 'policy makers' are somewhat more optimistic than the lower ranking number crunchers who see the real data as it emerges.

The 'productivity boom' is Fed speak for squeezing domestic workers (see illegals and H1 workers used to cut wage costs) and outsourcing. But even that seems to have limits. And it looks like the bill is about to hit the table.

So the future is stagflation. Low growth with high inflation.

And don't you just love the "Feds policy for communicating with the public" part? It's called lying through their teeth.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: GrGr
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>

Fed Splits With Staff Over U.S. Economy's Speed Limit (Update1)

By Scott Lanman
Bloomberg


June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve policy makers disagree with their own staff economists, and a growing chorus on Wall Street, who say the U.S. economy can't expand as fast as it used to without pushing up prices.

The split, signaled in the minutes of May's Federal Open Market Committee meeting, may reflect debate over whether a slowdown in U.S. productivity is permanent. ``Many'' FOMC members were ``somewhat more optimistic'' than lower-ranking officials about the economy's speed limit, the records showed.


Policy makers, who meet today and tomorrow, are probably more confident that productivity -- a gauge of employee efficiency -- will rebound as economic growth picks up. A lower potential pace of expansion might force the central bank to keep interest rates higher than would otherwise be the case.

``The basic difference is that the FOMC is somewhat more skeptical'' that the trend has changed, said Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, who formerly worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. ``It's ultimately going to mean a bigger monetary policy response down the road if they do make a mistake.''

A year ago, most economists said the potential economic growth rate was about 3 percent. It may now be 2.5 percent, according to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and JPMorgan.

Recent papers by Fed economists imply that the central bank staff sees potential growth of about 2.5 percent a year, said Kasman's colleague Michael Feroli. Feroli worked at the Fed from 2003 to 2005.

Reluctant to Estimate

While some policy makers won't give public estimates, Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig stuck to the 3 percent figure in a June 6 speech in Cody, Wyoming. Michael Moskow, head of the Chicago Fed, said in April that his bank estimates the speed limit is ``just a bit under 3 percent.''

The debate may resurface today when Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his colleagues gather in Washington to discuss monetary policy, the economy and the Fed's strategy for communicating with the public.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News unanimously forecast that the Fed will leave its benchmark lending rate at 5.25 percent when the meeting concludes tomorrow. The rate has been unchanged since June, the Fed's longest period of rate inactivity since 1997-98.

The Fed will release its statement on interest rates and the economy tomorrow at about 2:15 p.m. New York time.

The questioning of growth estimates is a reversal of the 1990s, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan bucked his Ph.D.- laden staff to declare that technological advances were speeding up productivity gains.

Greenspan's Pride

``The Fed and actually Alan Greenspan himself took tremendous pride in spotting this increased trend in productivity,'' said Ethan Harris, the chief U.S. economist at Lehman, who worked at the New York Fed from 1990 to 1996. ``There's a reluctance to make the call that the boom's over. You really don't know for sure until you've had years of data.''

Last year, staff economists led by David Stockton, director of the Research and Statistics division, cut their potential- growth estimate at successive meetings in August and September.

At the last meeting on May 9, after the staff presented a ``slightly'' lower estimate of future productivity, ``many participants commented that their view of potential output growth was somewhat more optimistic than that of the staff,'' according to minutes of the session.

Less Than Half

Growth in workers' output per hour has averaged a 1.5 percent annual rate since the start of last year, less than half the 3.1 percent pace of the five years through 2005.

Fed economists' reduced estimates of potential growth also stem from an anticipated decline in the portion of the population that is either working or looking for jobs.

The so-called labor-force participation rate fell to an average of 66.2 percent the past five years, from 67 percent in the previous five. The rate may fall further as the baby-boom generation retires in coming years.

Some estimates are bleak. At a Boston Fed conference last week, Harvard University economist Dale Jorgenson, who taught Bernanke and advised on his senior thesis, presented findings that the economy's annual growth through 2030 will be 1.6 percent, half the pace of the past four decades.

The outlook for productivity and economic growth ``becomes much less sanguine'' after the coming decade, Jorgenson said in an interview.

Jorgenson said he discussed economic trends such as productivity over dinner with Bernanke in Washington in October. ``He thinks about these issues a lot,'' Jorgenson said.

</end quote></div>

Heh, so the 'policy makers' are somewhat more optimistic than the lower ranking number crunchers who see the real data as it emerges.

The 'productivity boom' is Fed speak for squeezing domestic workers (see illegals and H1 workers used to cut wage costs) and outsourcing. But even that seems to have limits. And it looks like the bill is about to hit the table.

So the future is stagflation. Low growth with high inflation.

And don't you just love the "Feds policy for communicating with the public" part? It's called lying through their teeth.

Look, when it comes down to it, nobody knows what economic growth will be in 23 years. Heck, do you think in 1984 they would think our economic growth would be as good as it is? Not nearly so.

Trying to forecast growth is akin to forecasting the future of a company. You take a short, middle, and long term "guess" based upon current plans and environment. Your long-term guess is a terminal value, which can be manipulated up, or down, significantly be the changing of a few difference metrics (mainly discount rate or growth). This factor ends up being the largest and most significant and also the one that is most prone to mis-judgement.

That means that the number crunchers may or may not be utilizing correct modeling techniques, or may be depending on their own judge of what the data shows, but have little or no color or context on actual economic "gut feeling" about where the business will go. This is where experience and book knowledge comes into play. Models are great and they give you a good base of knowledge, but relying on them solely is a bad idea. Especially in the context of GIGO.

Would I put it past the Fed execs to fudge the numbers and be more optimistic? Heck no, they are trying to save their own skins too. however, I wouldn't get too hung up on the idea of models predicting the future very well.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
I'm not too worried, something we excel at is inventing or capitalizing new industries, this is where our growth has come from in the last 20 years or so.

Something big will be coming along soon, I'm hoping we can get some clean renewable energy going and retire the oil industry dinosaur.

This or major breakthroughs in biotech/nanotech. We are on the cusp of some great discoveries.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: ayabe
I'm not too worried, something we excel at is inventing or capitalizing new industries, this is where our growth has come from in the last 20 years or so.

The fact that most Americans' incomes (>80%) are down from normal increases, at levels that are on average flat or worse after inflation, for the last 25 years has had a role, too.

This pie is growing after inflation, and basically none is going to most Americans; nearly all the gains are going to the top 5%, and most of that is going to less than the top 1%.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
The US "growth" in recent years has come from funny math with debt figures. The US isn't growing it is shrinking, simply because the US deficits are growing faster than the US economy.

The US pretends it is growing by chopping up and moving/selling it's companies overseas. The US prints dollars it sells to the oil countries and Japan and China who then sit on large dollar mountains (currency account surpluses). Part of these dollars are then returned to the US to buy stocks and US treasuries. This makes the stock market look good and allows the debt driven US economy to spin along. This is then called "growth".

To hope something "major" will come along is magical thinking. It may, then all is golden, or it won't, then what?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Feds worried US slowdown is PERMANENT

I think your thread mis-characterizes the content of the article/report.

I also believe many have mis-understood it.

I believe it simply reports on a rather recently developing debate (post- Greenspan) about what the "proper" sustainable growth rate is.

Per the article, Greenspan & Co. felt it was 3%, the new people feel it may be closer to 2.5%.

The significance of this IMO is:

WAS: When growth rate approaches or exceeds 3% the Fed will bost interest rates.

WILL BE (if 2.5% becomes th eaccepted "max" number); When growth approaches or exceeds (just) 2.5% the Fed will boost interest rates.

It's merely about what growth number the Fed believes is the maximum before (gasp!) inflation begins.

Otherwise, IMO, they really don't have a clue about what woker productivity developments will occur in the future. They aren't sure what is the correct number now, either.

It's a rather arcane bit of data, but is important because it will possibly (if lower number is accepted) affect Fed policy on when to raise interest rates in their mighty quest to quash inflation.

WHAT IT IS NOT: A prediction on the growth of the US economy.

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
The OP grossly misunderstood the article, presumably due to strong helpings of economic ignorance and political blindness.

What the article does say is that the Fed is split over what growth rate % they should consider cutting rates at. That's it. I predict that they will begin cutting by the end of the year.
Is it a shocker that the Fed is considering allowing more inflation into the economy in order to alleviate certain price bubbles? No. I've been predicting it for years, see the Housing threads.

This article is not a long-term prediction of the economy, and anyone arguing that American incomes are down after more than a decade of strong economic prosperity is not just an ideological tool, he's an idiot moron.
Will the economy cool after all the growth and prosperity we've seen? Most certainly. Will this be the start of the next Great Depression? Only if the nihilism of your political agenda requires that millions of people suffer just so you can force your selfish ideology on them.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
1
76
Originally posted by: Vic
The OP grossly misunderstood the article, presumably due to strong helpings of economic ignorance and political blindness.

What the article does say is that the Fed is split over what growth rate % they should consider cutting rates at. That's it. I predict that they will begin cutting by the end of the year.
Is it a shocker that the Fed is considering allowing more inflation into the economy in order to alleviate certain price bubbles? No. I've been predicting it for years, see the Housing threads.

This article is not a long-term prediction of the economy, and anyone arguing that American incomes are down after more than a decade of strong economic prosperity is not just an ideological tool, he's an idiot moron.
Will the economy cool after all the growth and prosperity we've seen? Most certainly. Will this be the start of the next Great Depression? Only if the nihilism of your political agenda requires that millions of people suffer just so you can force your selfish ideology on them.

I'm confused. What nihilistic selfish ideology are you talking about?

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
The OP grossly misunderstood the article, presumably due to strong helpings of economic ignorance and political blindness.

What the article does say is that the Fed is split over what growth rate % they should consider cutting rates at. That's it. I predict that they will begin cutting by the end of the year.
Is it a shocker that the Fed is considering allowing more inflation into the economy in order to alleviate certain price bubbles? No. I've been predicting it for years, see the Housing threads.

This article is not a long-term prediction of the economy, and anyone arguing that American incomes are down after more than a decade of strong economic prosperity is not just an ideological tool, he's an idiot moron.
Will the economy cool after all the growth and prosperity we've seen? Most certainly. Will this be the start of the next Great Depression? Only if the nihilism of your political agenda requires that millions of people suffer just so you can force your selfish ideology on them.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The pioneers of this country did perfectly fine with no electricty and horse and buggy.

If that is what it takes to save the country from Corporate Thugism then so be it.

Translation - Vic is scared to death what I see happening soon will in fact happen.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Translation - Vic is scared to death what I see happening soon will in fact happen.
Translation-dmcowen674's idea of utopia is to have everyone wallow in self pity, and blame their hardships on somebody else.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Translation - Vic is scared to death what I see happening soon will in fact happen.

Not scared, Dave. Just utterly disgusted that it is what you desperately want to see happen.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Craig234

The fact that most Americans' incomes (>80%) are down from normal increases, at levels that are on average flat or worse after inflation, for the last 25 years has had a role, too.

This pie is growing after inflation, and basically none is going to most Americans; nearly all the gains are going to the top 5%, and most of that is going to less than the top 1%.

As I've been saying in other threads, it's just the workings of basic economic principles and this is what one would expect from global labor arbitrage. As the supply of labor increases dramatically via mass immigration (legal and illegal), the importation of foreigners on work visas (H-1B, L-1), and foreign outsourcing, the result will be an increased supply of labor relative to capital which means that the price point (wages) must decrease.

Thus, it shouldn't come as any surprise if the wealthy, the owners of the capital, are able to retain a higher percentage of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of production as profit while paying workers a smaller percentage than they did before.

It's just one step towards the decimation of the middle class and third world nationhood.

 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,590
86
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
...
Translation - Vic is scared to death what I see happening soon will in fact happen.
What do you consider soon? Dave your doomsday prophecies in ATPN go back over half a decade.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Train
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
...
Translation - Vic is scared to death what I see happening soon will in fact happen.</end quote></div>What do you consider soon? Dave your doomsday prophecies in ATPN go back over half a decade.

and many of them have happened and are here.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,146
26
91
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Craig234

The fact that most Americans' incomes (>80%) are down from normal increases, at levels that are on average flat or worse after inflation, for the last 25 years has had a role, too.

This pie is growing after inflation, and basically none is going to most Americans; nearly all the gains are going to the top 5%, and most of that is going to less than the top 1%.</end quote></div>

As I've been saying in other threads, it's just the workings of basic economic principles and this is what one would expect from global labor arbitrage. As the supply of labor increases dramatically via mass immigration (legal and illegal), the importation of foreigners on work visas (H-1B, L-1), and foreign outsourcing, the result will be an increased supply of labor relative to capital which means that the price point (wages) must decrease.

Thus, it shouldn't come as any surprise if the wealthy, the owners of the capital, are able to retain a higher percentage of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of production as profit while paying workers a smaller percentage than they did before.

It's just one step towards the decimation of the middle class and third world nationhood.


I get a head spin over some of the complicated statements by intelligent people using overly verbose postings that by the time I get to the end, I can't remember what the point is. This study, and that %, etc. Your post is right on. There is a reason they call a labor market a market. Globalization is the great leveler---to a lower level that is.