U.S. Economy: Consumer Prices Fall, Raising Deflation Danger

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...9qvRz4kZN18&refer=home


By Bob Willis and Timothy R. Homan

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of living in the U.S. fell by the most on record and construction began on the fewest homes ever last month, evidence the economy is in the worst recession in at least a quarter century.

The consumer price index plunged 1 percent last month, the most since records began in 1947, the Labor Department said in Washington. Commerce Department figures showed housing starts tumbled to an annual rate of 791,000, indicating the industry?s contraction may extend into a fourth year.

Today?s CPI report signals deflation, or a prolonged price slide, may become another hazard facing Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and President-elect Barack Obama. Deflation could worsen the economic downturn by making debts harder to pay off and countering the impact of Fed interest-rate cuts.

?The economy?s really just in horrific shape,? said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York. Fed officials will ?take rates as low as they have to? to avoid ?a deflation-type scenario, which now all of a sudden is very possible.?

LaVorgna predicts the Fed will cut its main rate to 0.5 percent from its current 1 percent when it meets on Dec. 16.

Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said today that while the risk of deflation is ?still small,? policy makers must be ?aggressive? in fighting the danger. The economy ?is declining right now? and will record a couple of quarters of contraction, he said in answering questions after a speech in Washington.

Treasuries, Stocks

Treasuries advanced, and stocks fell. Yields on benchmark 10-year notes fell to 3.44 percent at 11:06 a.m. in New York, from 3.52 percent late yesterday. The Standard & Poor?s 500 Stock Index was down 2 percent at 841.64.

Prices dropped last month as fuel costs plummeted and retailers used discounts for cars and clothing to entice consumers hobbled by job losses and sinking home values.

Target Corp. is among retailers cutting prices in an effort to lure away cash-strapped holiday shoppers from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the discount retailer that last week reported a gain in third-quarter profit.

Excluding food and energy, so-called core prices unexpectedly fell for the first time since 1982.

?We are moving into an environment where prices are falling across the board,? David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. ?That is going to continue. Deflation is spreading across the economy.?

More Than Forecast

Consumer prices were projected to fall 0.8 percent, according to the median forecast of 77 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from a decline of 1.2 percent to a gain of 0.4 percent. Costs excluding food and energy were forecast to rise 0.1 percent, the survey showed.

Prices increased 3.7 percent in the 12 months to October, the smallest year-over-year gain since October 2007. They were forecast to climb 4 percent from a year earlier, according to the survey median.

The core rate increased 2.2 percent from October 2007, after a 2.5 percent year-over-year increase the prior month.

A slump in building permits signaling residential construction is likely to keep falling in the next couple of months. Permits dropped 12 percent to a 708,000 pace, the lowest since at least 1960, the report from Commerce showed.

Builders, already mired in a three-year housing slump, are finding it hard to attract buyers as property values drop and banks tighten lending standards.

Construction Estimates

Starts were projected to fall to a 780,000 annual pace from a previously estimated 817,000 in September, according to the median forecast of 75 economists polled by Bloomberg News. Estimates ranged from 700,000 to 870,000.

Compared with October 2007, work began on 38 percent fewer homes.

The drop in core consumer prices reflected declines in the cost of clothing, automobiles, air fares and hotel rates. New- vehicle prices fell 0.5 percent and clothing costs dropped 1 percent. The price of airfares plunged 4.8 percent, the most since June 1999.

One benefit of falling prices can be seen in its effect on incomes. Today?s figures also showed wages increased 1.4 percent after adjusting for inflation, following no change in September. They were still down 0.9 percent over the last 12 months. The decline in purchasing power is contributing to the slowdown in consumer spending.

Retail sales fell 2.8 percent last month, the most on record, Commerce Department figures showed last week. Mounting job losses and record foreclosures are causing American consumers, who account for more than two-thirds of the economy, to retrench.

Wal-Mart Discounts

Wal-Mart, the world?s largest retailer, said yesterday it planned to reduce U.S. prices on Thanksgiving food and Christmas merchandise to lure customers during the holidays.

Target, the second-largest U.S. discounter, said this week it plans to add grocery items and offer ?sharper? discounts to draw shoppers who are shunning jewelry, clothing and home goods, which account for more than 40 percent of its revenue.

?Right now, the consumer is very hesitant,? Chief Executive Officer Gregg Steinhafel said during the company?s Nov. 17 earnings call. ?They?re very stressed.?

Obama and House Democrats are planning to spend as much as half a trillion dollars to stimulate the world?s biggest economy and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown pressed other leaders of the Group of 20 nations to follow that effort last weekend.

According to the article, deflation is terrible. I guess I loosely understand it, but can anyone explain the full ramifications of experiencing deflation? Does it just lead to a decline to the overall GDP against the world's GDP?
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This should get you started. They do a good job summing it up.

Deflation

Great Depression

So the main fear is of a complete downward spiral of deflation, in a cycle of people afraid to spend and waiting for lower prices?

That, and obviously you end up paying "more" on your loans.

 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Pretty much a done deal Fed Funds will be cut to 0.5% from 1% currently come the next FOMC meeting in December, and possibly sooner. Not sure it's going to do much good though. And we'll be well on our way to a Japan-style decade of deflation and real estate price correction.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This should get you started. They do a good job summing it up.

Deflation

Great Depression

So the main fear is of a complete downward spiral of deflation, in a cycle of people afraid to spend and waiting for lower prices?

That, and obviously you end up paying "more" on your loans.

Yes, that is part of it. The other part is how our economy ties in so heavily on credit in general and it's lack of availability. The people do need to be willing to buy, but they also need to be able to buy.

Very generally speaking, neither inflation or deflation are pure evil. They just need to be controlled in moderation within both the national and global economy.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This should get you started. They do a good job summing it up.

Deflation

Great Depression

So the main fear is of a complete downward spiral of deflation, in a cycle of people afraid to spend and waiting for lower prices?

That, and obviously you end up paying "more" on your loans.

Yes, that is part of it. The other part is how our economy ties in so heavily on credit in general and it's lack of availability. The people do need to be willing to buy, but they also need to be able to buy.

Very generally speaking, neither inflation or deflation are pure evil. They just need to be controlled in moderation within both the national and global economy.

Very correct. This is why inflation is managed. It avoids volatility that can destroy future growth...if you are uncertain about prices (both revenue and cost) in the future, why are you going to be more willing to spend? As long as there is moderate inflation wages can grow at a steady pace, services can be bought at relatively known prices, and investment can occur at known cost or revenues.

However, if deflation happens, then credit is shut off, if only because creditors realize that their investment is being destroyed. Inflation is priced into the cost of the investment through the interest rate, deflation cannot be priced into the cost easily.

If anything, even moderate deflation is far more destructive to an economy than moderate inflation.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
DEFLATION = THE BAD
It is incredibly difficult to restart consumer spending if the general sentiment is that stuff I could buy now for $1 will be $.80 in the future. Ask japan how they were doing in the 90s

Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This should get you started. They do a good job summing it up.

Deflation

Great Depression

So the main fear is of a complete downward spiral of deflation, in a cycle of people afraid to spend and waiting for lower prices?

That, and obviously you end up paying "more" on your loans.

Not so much that people are afraid to buy, but more a case of the lower prices creating an environment where it's no longer profitable for some companies to produce, which both lowers production and results in greater unemployment. The greater unemployment reduces demand, which reduces price again, which causes more companies to stop producing, which increases unemployment again and so forth.

Basically you get a cycle where low demand causes low prices, low prices cause low production, low production causes lower employment, and lower employment causes even lower demand. The cycle feeds on itself and unemployment grows steadily.

ZV
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: Xavier434
This should get you started. They do a good job summing it up.

Deflation

Great Depression

So the main fear is of a complete downward spiral of deflation, in a cycle of people afraid to spend and waiting for lower prices?

That, and obviously you end up paying "more" on your loans.

Yes, that is part of it. The other part is how our economy ties in so heavily on credit in general and it's lack of availability. The people do need to be willing to buy, but they also need to be able to buy.

Very generally speaking, neither inflation or deflation are pure evil. They just need to be controlled in moderation within both the national and global economy.

Very correct. This is why inflation is managed. It avoids volatility that can destroy future growth...if you are uncertain about prices (both revenue and cost) in the future, why are you going to be more willing to spend? As long as there is moderate inflation wages can grow at a steady pace, services can be bought at relatively known prices, and investment can occur at known cost or revenues.

However, if deflation happens, then credit is shut off, if only because creditors realize that their investment is being destroyed. Inflation is priced into the cost of the investment through the interest rate, deflation cannot be priced into the cost easily.

If anything, even moderate deflation is far more destructive to an economy than moderate inflation.

Inflation is universally bad thing and pure evil. The banking system and corporate investment goes down the tubes. Also all investment project valuation is out of whack, since your opportunity cost goes up (mattress full of money will have a positive return)
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: halik
Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.

Not all of us thought hyperinflation was coming. :p The Austrian School isn't quite as insane as it seems you know.

ZV
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
The easiest way to demonstrate inflation/deflation is through your mortgage.

If inlation goes up and wages are adjusted and you have a 30 year fixed mortgage, you are a winner.

If deflation increases and you have a 30 year fixed mortage you are a loser. Your wages may contract but the loan that you have to pay is the same as it was on the day you got it.

You have to stay within a tolerable range.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.

Not all of us thought hyperinflation was coming. :p The Austrian School isn't quite as insane as it seems you know.

ZV

Well it's been discredited both academically and empirically and one of the predictions that it makes is that lowering the cost of borrowing during our current credit crisis will exacerbate the situation. That it simply wrong.

I find it amusing that people with no background in economics are so quick to subscribe to this very obscure and discredited school of thought.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,732
561
126
This is probably a stupid queston...but why couldn't you break the back of deflation by just printing a lot of money?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,445
7,506
136
So this is why we?re printing (and should print more) money?

It?s certainly an interesting lesson in economics.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.

Not all of us thought hyperinflation was coming. :p The Austrian School isn't quite as insane as it seems you know.

ZV

Well it's been discredited both academically and empirically and one of the predictions that it makes is that lowering the cost of borrowing during our current credit crisis will exacerbate the situation. That it simply wrong.

I find it amusing that people with no background in economics are so quick to subscribe to this very obscure and discredited school of thought.

Yeah, I only have a degree in Finance. No background in it at all. :p

In practice I sit somewhere between the Austrian School and the Chicago School, but I do tend to identify more with the Austrian School.

That said, I have to take issue with your position that lowering the cost of borrowing will necessarily make things better when the situation we're in has been caused by excessive extension of credit. To be sure, lowering interest rates while tightening qualification requirements will help, but merely increasing money supply across the board will only exacerbate the problem of lending money to people who shouldn't be able to get loans in the first place. What needs to happen is a simultaneous reduction of credit availability (that is, more stringent requirements for borrowing) and a lowering of interest rates for borrowers who pass the new qualifications.

ZV
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
It's hard to believe that credit could be cut-off anymore than it already is, or that lending standards could be increased any more than they already are, but I suppose anything is possible.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,069
3,417
126
That article leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, the economy is bad (the economy in my snapshot graphs) but it isn't yet as bad as the article makes it sound.

First, CPI records go back further than 1947. They go to 1913. Note, that webpage will update later today with this latest data.
[*]CPI regularly fell 1% in the 1910s (matched by equally large or larger gains).
[*]CPI fell 2%-3% in some months in the early 1920s, six to eight years BEFORE the great depression really kicked in.
[*]CPI fell routinely by 0.5%-2% most months from 1928-1933. The difference is that this time, decreases were not matched by rises.

Also, the magnitude wasn't as bad as it appears by "record" decreases. Yes, price falls are not common, but the magnitude wasn't too extreme.
[*]A 3.16% fall occured in Feb 1921.
[*]The 1.01% fall this month wasn't THAT much higher than other falls. For example, it fell 0.80% in Nov 2005.
[*]This fall comes shortly after it went up 0.87% in Mar 2008, 0.84% in May 2008, and 1.01% in Jun 2008. In July 2008 we were 5.6% higher than July 2007. Yes, we fell, but we fell from a new higher level that we just reached.
[*]Year end falls are common. For example, CPI fell in 11 of the last 16 December months (it was flat in 4 of them and rose a measly 0.15% in 1 year). November and October falls are also common. Why? Oil demand drops - leading to lower prices; food is just harvested and plentiful - leading to lower prices; and Christmas leads to holiday discounts. Year end price drops happen.

The net effect is that the massive rise earlier this year is only partly offset by the fall this month. Inflation is still at 3.66% from this time last year.

The key is that we should watch the CPI closely. If there are many decreases in a row (like in the 1930s), then we have a problem. If the decreases are offset by increases (like in the early 2000s), then it really isn't that bad.

What is the P&N view about just running the printing presses and giving the money to the government if deflation does start to appear? The government's debt gets reduced and deflation is ended. What are the drawbacks?
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
96
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's hard to believe that credit could be cut-off anymore than it already is, or that lending standards could be increased any more than they already are, but I suppose anything is possible.


Credit is easily available to those who can afford it, it just seems stringent because everyone and their dog was getting million dollar mortgages a couple years ago. Just think, if the banks never offered no down payment mortgages, this whole mess never would have happened.

That said, as someone who is flush with cash savings and has minimal debts, i heartily welcome our deflation overlords.

 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,592
3,425
136
Originally posted by: PingSpike
This is probably a stupid queston...but why couldn't you break the back of deflation by just printing a lot of money?

It worked for Zimbabwe. I saw somewhere that a laptop over there costs around 1.2 quadrillion dollars.

Edit: 1.3

Edit: 1.4
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
That said, I have to take issue with your position that lowering the cost of borrowing will necessarily make things better when the situation we're in has been caused by excessive extension of credit. To be sure, lowering interest rates while tightening qualification requirements will help, but merely increasing money supply across the board will only exacerbate the problem of lending money to people who shouldn't be able to get loans in the first place. What needs to happen is a simultaneous reduction of credit availability (that is, more stringent requirements for borrowing) and a lowering of interest rates for borrowers who pass the new qualifications.

ZV

I agree, but we shouldn't lower credit availability too much like it is now. It is practically frozen. We should make it available, but just not as available as it used to be. There also needs to be some flexibility when it comes to down payments depending on the loan. There are many ways to do that and some programs currently exist but I think it is worth a solid review. Give that some time to flourish a bit then adjust it as we see fit.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.

Not all of us thought hyperinflation was coming. :p The Austrian School isn't quite as insane as it seems you know.

ZV

Well it's been discredited both academically and empirically and one of the predictions that it makes is that lowering the cost of borrowing during our current credit crisis will exacerbate the situation. That it simply wrong.

I find it amusing that people with no background in economics are so quick to subscribe to this very obscure and discredited school of thought.

Yeah, I only have a degree in Finance. No background in it at all. :p

In practice I sit somewhere between the Austrian School and the Chicago School, but I do tend to identify more with the Austrian School.

That said, I have to take issue with your position that lowering the cost of borrowing will necessarily make things better when the situation we're in has been caused by excessive extension of credit. To be sure, lowering interest rates while tightening qualification requirements will help, but merely increasing money supply across the board will only exacerbate the problem of lending money to people who shouldn't be able to get loans in the first place. What needs to happen is a simultaneous reduction of credit availability (that is, more stringent requirements for borrowing) and a lowering of interest rates for borrowers who pass the new qualifications.

ZV

I've got a BS in Economics and I'm about to finish my finance master's (and be unemployed... :cry; )

No doubt that a blank check will only make the bad things go on longer, but that being said austrian school advocates no interventions what so ever, which would definitely put us in a depression. The credit markets came to a near complete halt couple months ago and the credit injections got them going again (that is for otherwise healthy companies)

Also I don't see how you, as someone that subscribes to the Chicago school of thought, can accept the notion that investors are systematically irrational in investing during the low rate periods. That goes against a whole lot of efficient market ideas...

Shocks to the economy are universally bad, which is why central banks exist to begin with :)
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: halik
Also this should put the nail in the coffin of all the Ron Paulesque idiots..ZOMG teh hyperinflation isn't coming.

Not all of us thought hyperinflation was coming. :p The Austrian School isn't quite as insane as it seems you know.

ZV

Well it's been discredited both academically and empirically and one of the predictions that it makes is that lowering the cost of borrowing during our current credit crisis will exacerbate the situation. That it simply wrong.

I find it amusing that people with no background in economics are so quick to subscribe to this very obscure and discredited school of thought.

Yeah, I only have a degree in Finance. No background in it at all. :p

In practice I sit somewhere between the Austrian School and the Chicago School, but I do tend to identify more with the Austrian School.

That said, I have to take issue with your position that lowering the cost of borrowing will necessarily make things better when the situation we're in has been caused by excessive extension of credit. To be sure, lowering interest rates while tightening qualification requirements will help, but merely increasing money supply across the board will only exacerbate the problem of lending money to people who shouldn't be able to get loans in the first place. What needs to happen is a simultaneous reduction of credit availability (that is, more stringent requirements for borrowing) and a lowering of interest rates for borrowers who pass the new qualifications.

ZV

I've got a BS in Economics and I'm about to finish my finance master's (and be unemployed... :cry; )

No doubt that a blank check will only make the bad things go on longer, but that being said austrian school advocates no interventions what so ever, which would definitely put us in a depression. The credit markets came to a near complete halt couple months ago and the credit injections got them going again (that is for otherwise healthy companies)

Also I don't see how you, as someone that subscribes to the Chicago school of thought, can accept the notion that investors are systematically irrational in investing during the low rate periods. That goes against a whole lot of efficient market ideas...

Shocks to the economy are universally bad, which is why central banks exist to begin with :)

I can believe in irrational investors after working for an large "Manager of Managers" financial firm. Every experience I have with investors has reinforced the idea that they are irrational.

There are, fundamentally, two things that drive the market. Greed, and fear. All of the equations, all of the methodologies, everything is in some way derived from those two key drivers. This is one reason why I don't fully subscribe to the Chicago school and why I retain a sympathetic feeling towards the Austrian School. My experience has been that I cannot trust any model that expects investors to behave rationally. The Austrian School has its flaws to be sure, but it has, historically, been accurate in predicting major downturns.

Of course, there's the counter-argument that would point out that the Austrian School is almost always predicting a downturn so it has to get it right sometime, and there is some truth to that.

The key thing that I think the Austrian School does right (and it does a lot of things wrong, I'll admit) is that it relies more on qualitative judgments than on mathematical theories. Ultimately, people do not operate with mathematical precision and I have a deep distrust of any model that attempts to define personal interactions on a purely mathematical level. At the core, economic transactions are personal interactions with all the accompanying irrationality. To an extent, we can develop predictive mathematical theories based upon normalized probability distributions and come out with general trends, etc, but to me trying to define the market through mathematics is like basing investment decisions entirely on technical stock indicators while ignoring a company's fundamentals.

I would challenge the idea that shocks are "universally" bad. They are almost always bad in the short term, but may occasionally have a long-term necessity. For example, the current shock will have some positive long-term effects such as better diligence in determining loan eligibility. It would best have been avoided altogether (obviously), but that genie was already out of the bottle, leaving the current shock as a requirement for correcting the "error" of excessive credit availability.

ZV
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Originally posted by: halik


snip

Shocks to the economy are universally bad, which is why central banks exist to begin with :)


and they have done such a wonderful job...

to average joe, a little inflation is much better than defaltion... his chances of having a job are better with mild inflation than otherwise... and he get's a better chance to be a millionaire!!!
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
The key thing that I think the Austrian School does right (and it does a lot of things wrong, I'll admit) is that it relies more on qualitative judgments than on mathematical theories. Ultimately, people do not operate with mathematical precision and I have a deep distrust of any model that attempts to define personal interactions on a purely mathematical level. At the core, economic transactions are personal interactions with all the accompanying irrationality. To an extent, we can develop predictive mathematical theories based upon normalized probability distributions and come out with general trends, etc, but to me trying to define the market through mathematics is like basing investment decisions entirely on technical stock indicators while ignoring a company's fundamentals.

I would challenge the idea that shocks are "universally" bad. They are almost always bad in the short term, but may occasionally have a long-term necessity. For example, the current shock will have some positive long-term effects such as better diligence in determining loan eligibility. It would best have been avoided altogether (obviously), but that genie was already out of the bottle, leaving the current shock as a requirement for correcting the "error" of excessive credit availability.

ZV

There are many, many people that will agree on the behavior aspect of the market as well as reliance on natural distribution for unnatural stochastic processes (Shiller, Nassim off the top of my head and respectively and more generally George Soros). That being said, those two notions in no way leave you the only way to to Austrian economics.

Investors can be systematically irrational at certain times and seemingly naturally distributed returns do suffer from kurtosis, but that in no way validates the Austrian business cycle theory. Plus what happened during the Great Depression should serve as an example to what happens when you don't lower discount rates during credit crunches - was Great Depression a good thing? It certainly was a shock...
 

Dufusyte

Senior member
Jul 7, 2000
659
0
0
Deflation is bad if you are in debt, because it becomes harder to pay back your debt (because your wages also fall).

But if you are a Saver, with money in the bank instead of debts, then deflation is relatively good, since your money goes farther to buy things.

Nowadays, most people are in debt, and there are few savers. Thus deflation will send most people into debtors' prison when their decreasing wages are no longer able to pay back their debts. Meanwhile the well off will be able to pick up the pieces and buy everything in sight at a discount.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.