by Calculated Risk on 11/16/2009 10:00:00 AM

The Manufacturing and Trade Inventories and Sales report from the Census Bureau today showed inventories are still declining.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

The Census Bureau reported:

Manufacturers’ and trade inventories, adjusted for seasonal variations but not for price changes, were estimated at an end-of-month level of $1,303.4 billion, down 0.4 percent (±0.1%) from August 2009 and down 13.4 percent (±0.3%) from September 2008.

The total business inventories/sales ratio based on seasonally adjusted data at the end of September was 1.32. The September 2008 ratio was 1.32.

Inventory levels are still a little high compared to lower sales levels, and further inventory reductions are probably coming. Although changes in private inventories made a positive contribution to Q3 GDP in the preliminary report, the usual inventory restocking cycle at the beginning of a recovery will probably be muted without a pickup in final demand.

by Calculated Risk on 11/16/2009 08:30:00 AM

On a monthly basis, retail sales increased 1.4% from September to October (seasonally adjusted), and sales are off 1.7% from October 2008. Excluding auto sales and parts, retail sales rose 0.2% in October.

The increase in October was mostly a rebound from the decline in September.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

This graph shows retail sales since 1992. This is monthly retail sales, seasonally adjusted (total and ex-gasoline).

This shows that retail sales fell off a cliff in late 2008, and appear to have bottomed, but at a much lower level.

The red line shows retail sales ex-gasoline and shows there has been little increase in final demand.

The second graph shows the year-over-year change in retail sales since 1993.

Real retail sales declined by 1.7% on a YoY basis. The year-over-year comparisons are much easier now since retail sales collapsed in October 2008. Retail sales bottomed in December 2008.

Here is the Census Bureau report:

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that advance estimates of U.S. retail and food services sales for October, adjusted for seasonal variation and holiday and trading-day differences, but not for price changes, were $347.5 billion, an increase of 1.4 percent (±0.5%) from the previous month, but 1.7 percent (±0.5%) below October 2008. Total sales for the August through October 2009 period were up 1.5 percent (±0.3%) from the same period a year ago. The August to September 2009 percent change was revised from -1.5 percent (±0.5%) to -2.3 percent (±0.3%).

It appears retail sales have bottomed, but there has been little pickup in final demand.

by Calculated Risk on 11/16/2009 12:13:00 AM

From Reuters: Stronger Yuan Needed for Global Rebalancing: IMF Chief

IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said ... [China needs to increase emphasis on domestic demand], especially private consumption ...

"A stronger currency is part of the package of necessary reforms," he said. "Allowing the renminbi (yuan) and other Asian currencies to rise would help increase the purchasing power of households, raise the labour share of income, and provide the right incentives to reorient investment."

And from Paul Krugman: World Out of Balance

... Looking forward, we can expect to see both China’s trade surplus and America’s trade deficit surge.

That, at any rate, is the argument made in a new paper by Richard Baldwin and Daria Taglioni of the Graduate Institute, Geneva. As they note, trade imbalances, both China’s surplus and America’s deficit, have recently been much smaller than they were a few years ago. But, they argue, “these global imbalance improvements are mostly illusory — the transitory side effect of the greatest trade collapse the world has ever seen.”
...
But with the financial crisis abating, this process is going into reverse. Last week’s U.S. trade report showed a sharp increase in the trade deficit between August and September. And there will be many more reports along those lines.

So picture this: month after month of headlines juxtaposing soaring U.S. trade deficits and Chinese trade surpluses with the suffering of unemployed American workers. If I were the Chinese government, I’d be really worried about that prospect.

This is something I need to think about. The U.S. trade deficit has been closely correlated to Mortgage Equity Withdrawal (MEW, aka "Home ATM"), and I doubt MEW is coming back soon, so I'm not sure we will see a huge increase in the deficit this time (excluding China and oil exporting companies). So this might impact other countries (like Europe) more than the U.S.

by Calculated Risk on 11/15/2009 07:31:00 PM

On Friday I posted a graph showing the historical relationship between housing starts and the unemployment rate (repeated as the 2nd graph below). The graph shows that housing leads the economy both into and out of recessions, and the unemployment rate lags housing by about 12 to 18 months.

It appears that housing starts bottomed earlier this year, however I don't think we will see a sharp recovery in housing this time - and I also think unemployment will remain high throughout 2010. As I noted in the earlier post, there is still a large overhang of vacant housing in the United States, and a sharp bounce back in housing starts is unlikely.

The following graph shows total housing starts and the percent vacant housing units (owner and rental) in the U.S. Note: this is a combined vacancy rate based on the Census Bureau vacancy rates for owner occupied and rental housing.

Click on graph for larger image in new window.

It is very unlikely that there will be a strong rebound in housing starts with a record number of vacant housing units.

The vacancy rate has continued to climb even after housing starts fell off a cliff. Initially this was because of a significant number of completions. Also some hidden inventory (like some 2nd homes) have become available for sale or for rent, and lately some households have probably doubled up because of tough economic times.

Note: the increase in the vacancy rate in the '80s was due to several factors including demographics (baby boomers moving from renting to owning), and overbuilding of apartment units (part of S&L crisis).

Here is a repeat of the earlier graph:

This graph shows single family housing starts and unemployment (inverted). (The first graph shows total housing starts)

You can see both the correlation and the lag. The lag is usually about 12 to 18 months, with peak correlation at a lag of 16 months for single unit starts. The 2001 recession was a business investment led recession, and the pattern didn't hold.

This suggests unemployment might peak in Spring or Summer 2010. However, since I expect the housing recovery to be sluggish, I also expect unemployment to remain high throughout 2010.

by Calculated Risk on 11/15/2009 03:32:00 PM

"There’s no hard and fast number, but ... I have in mind something like $300 Billion, you could do quite a lot that’s actually targeted on jobs."
Professor Paul Krugman, Nov 12, 2009

In the following interview, with Alison van Diggelen of Fresh Dialogues, Paul Krugman offers some suggestions for addressing the high unemployment rate (transcript here):



And two pieces - the first from the NY Times, and the second from Krugman's blog.

From Krugman in the NY Times: Free to Lose

[T]hese aren’t normal times. Right now, workers who lose their jobs aren’t moving to the jobs of the future; they’re entering the ranks of the unemployed and staying there. Long-term unemployment is already at its highest levels since the 1930s, and it’s still on the rise.

And long-term unemployment inflicts long-term damage. Workers who have been out of a job for too long often find it hard to get back into the labor market even when conditions improve. And there are hidden costs, too — not least for children, who suffer physically and emotionally when their parents spend months or years unemployed.

So it’s time to try something different.

Just to be clear, I believe that a large enough conventional stimulus would do the trick. But since that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, we need to talk about cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly. Should we introduce an employment tax credit, like the one proposed by the Economic Policy Institute? Should we introduce the German-style job-sharing subsidy proposed by the Center for Economic Policy Research? Both are worthy of consideration.

The point is that we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we’re already doing.

And from his blog: It’s the stupidity economy

[S]ome readers have asked why I’m not making the same arguments for America now that I was making for Japan a decade ago. The answer is that I don’t think I’ll get anywhere, at least not until or unless the slump goes on for a long time.

OK, so what’s next? The second-best answer would be a really big fiscal expansion, sufficient to mostly close the output gap. The economic case for doing that is really clear. But Washington is caught up in deficit phobia, and there doesn’t seem to be any chance of getting a big enough push.

That’s why, at this point, I’m turning to what I understand perfectly well to be a third-best solution: subsidizing jobs and promoting work-sharing.