Weekly global economic update

Week of October 17, 2022

• Global inflation and recession risk
• US inflation and Fed sentiment
• Russian war goals and the potential for disruption

Global inflation and recession risk

• Many economists and central bankers believe that the primary reasons for recent surge in inflation included a shift in global consumer demand toward durable goods, disruption of supply chains due to the pandemic, and the surge in commodity prices following the start of the war in Ukraine. Monetary and fiscal expansion played a role as well. In response to inflation, central banks around the world have been tightening monetary policy, creating the risk of recession.

Yet now, the fundamental causes of inflation have started to reverse, thereby auguring a deceleration in inflation. This raises the question as to whether central banks are going too far in raising interest rates. This question is especially pertinent when it comes to the United States given the global impact of Federal Reserve policy. The sharp rise in US interest rates has generated capital outflows from emerging markets, compelling many emerging-market central banks to raise their policy rates, thereby stifling economic activity and boosting the risk of recession. The relative rise in US rates has boosted the value of the US dollar, creating concerns in other developed nations. They face depreciating currencies, which can be inflationary.

Meanwhile, there are things taking place that can lead to lower inflation. In the United States and Europe, consumers have shifted spending back toward services, thereby alleviating the massive inflationary pressure in the market for goods. In addition, measures of supply chain disruption have eased, with fewer shortages and delays and a considerable decline in the cost of shipping containers and commodities. In part, this easing reflects weakening global demand. Although the war in Ukraine continues, prices of many key commodities have fallen, including oil, food, and key metals—although all remain relatively elevated. In the United States, fiscal policy has become contractionary. All these factors are reducing inflationary pressure. Indeed, the United States has seen a notable deceleration in inflation, although the number remains very high. 

Fearful that an inflationary psychology could become entrenched in the market economy, central banks have sought to fight inflation by raising interest rates to not only directly lessen inflationary pressure, but also to anchor expectations of future inflation. The latter has been a success as indicated by very low inflationary expectations on the part of investors. The question, then, is how far central banks must go to fight inflation if other factors are already causing an easing of inflation. And is there a risk that central banks will overshoot (as they often do), thereby leading to recessions that might otherwise have been avoided. 

On the other hand, central banks recognize that, if they fail to stifle inflation before it becomes entrenched, then it will become more difficult and costly to suppress. Moreover, if investors lose faith in central banks’ determination to fight inflation, then borrowing costs are likely to rise sharply in line with expectations. Thus, central banks are in a difficult position. For now, it appears that the major central banks (other than those of Japan and China) are attempting to err on the side of fighting inflation. Recession risk remains. 

Of course, the inflation/recession risk dynamics differ by region. In the United States, the economy evidently continues to grow, with monetary policy mainly affecting the housing market. Recession might or might not be avoided. If it comes, it will likely be modest and short-lived. In Europe, on the other hand, the war-driven energy crisis means a high probability of recession due to energy shortages and tightening monetary policy. In China and Japan, inflation remains muted as does economic growth. Thus, the central banks of these countries continue to maintain an easy monetary policy, thereby putting downward pressure on currency values. Finally, emerging markets are caught in the middle, struggling to balance avoidance of currency depreciation with concerns about recession.

US inflation and Fed sentiment

• In the United States, inflation is easing, but far more slowly than anticipated or hoped for, according to today’s report on the consumer price index. Moreover, while headline inflation is easing due to a decline in energy prices, core inflation is accelerating. The problem is that the economy remains stronger than expected, despite repeated interest-rate increases on the part of the Federal Reserve. And although the housing market is already in a recession, other parts of the economy continue to perform well, evidently not sufficiently influenced by higher borrowing costs. This suggests that the Fed will have to tighten a good deal more to suppress inflation more forcefully. The expectation of this led to a sharp drop in equities and a rise in bond yields. 

The irony, however, is that popular perceptions of the economy sometimes differ from reality. Although some business leaders talk about recession, the evidence suggests that most are more concerned about inflation than recession risk. Deloitte’s latest survey of CFOs found that 73% of respondents are more concerned about inflation while only 27% are more concerned about recession. On the other hand, 46% of respondents expect the US economy to be in recession in 2023. 

In any event, here is what the inflation data revealed. In September, consumer prices were up 8.2% from a year earlier, down from 8.3% in August and 8.5% in July. Prices were up 0.4% from the previous month, up from 0.1% in August. The rate of deceleration in annual inflation is much lower than had been expected. It reflects the fact that, even as energy prices have dropped, underlying inflation has accelerated. When volatile food and energy prices are excluded, core prices were up 6.6% from a year earlier, higher than in August. Moreover, core prices were up 0.6% from the previous month. 

Part of the problem in September was a sharp acceleration in the price index for shelter. This reflects the impact of rising house prices and rents. Yet the index for shelter rises gradually and tends to lag actual prices of homes. This means that, even as house prices now start to decline, the price index for shelter will likely continue accelerating in the coming months before reversing. This implies that inflation will be exacerbated for a while, especially given that shelter accounts for 32.5% of the overall price index. If shelter as well as food and energy are excluded, prices were up 6.7% from a year earlier and up 0.5% from the previous month. 

Meanwhile, many other price categories are rising rapidly. For example, airline fares were up 42.9% from a year earlier, food prices were up 11.2%, and new car prices were up 10.5%. On the other hand, appliances were up a modest 1.7% while apparel prices were up 5.5%. Going forward, it remains likely that inflation will decelerate. Yet if this happens slowly, the Federal Reserve will feel compelled to speed up the pace of monetary tightening. 

• The Federal Reserve released the minutes of its policy meeting from late September. The minutes indicate that Fed officials are worried about the persistence of inflation and the possibility that, so far, they are not doing enough. Meanwhile, the rest of the world worries that the Fed might do too much and thereby drive the global economy into recession.

The minutes indicate that Fed policymakers see the war in Ukraine and the resulting disruption of supply chains in multiple industries as contributing to higher inflation than otherwise. In addition, they note that the US economy shows greater resilience than many people have expected. For example, consumer spending and business investment continue to grow. Consumer spending has been boosted by strong job growth and access to a large pool of savings that was accumulated during the pandemic. As for business investment, although it continues to grow, it has slowed, and in some cases, companies are constrained by higher borrowing costs.

In addition, the job market remains tight while businesses continue to hire. Fed policymakers believe that the labor market needs to loosen for inflationary pressure to abate. Yet if this is not happening, it may be necessary to tighten monetary policy further. It has been suggested that many companies are hoarding labor. That is, in anticipation of the next economic rebound, and given the unusual shortage of labor, companies are keen on obtaining and retaining the labor they will need during the recovery. This might mean fewer job dismissals than would normally take place during a downturn. This explains why the Fed now expects to require more severe tightening in the months ahead than previously expected. Indeed, the minutes state that policymakers see doing too little as more costly than doing too much.

Russian war goals and the potential for disruption

• British intelligence says Russia is running out of sophisticated weapons. Russia is also running out of manpower. The head of British cyber intelligence said that “we know—and Russian commanders on the ground know—that their supplies and munitions are running out. Russia’s forces are exhausted. The use of prisoners to reinforce, and now the mobilization of tens of thousands of inexperienced conscripts, speaks of a desperate situation.” Hence, Russia’s recent activation of reservists, which led to protests and a surge in emigration of young men. In fact, Russia has now said that it will reverse course and end the draft. With the war going badly for Russia, with Ukraine making progress against Russian forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine, Russia has responded with missile attacks on civilian targets in Kyiv and elsewhere. 

In addition, President Putin hinted at the use of nuclear weapons to protect Russia’s existence. He said that “I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all means at our disposal. This is not a bluff.”

Traditionally, the nuclear doctrine of the Russian military was that nuclear weapons would be considered if the country’s existence is threatened. Although Russia’s existence is not currently threatened, discussing it in these terms is seen as providing an excuse for the use or threat of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. US President Biden has publicly stated that Putin is not “joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons” and that the danger of a nuclear holocaust is now greater than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. 

Meanwhile, the United States and its allies are said to be in talks about how to deter Russia or how to respond should Russia take radical action. The United States is sending more weapons to Ukraine and is seeking to hold the coalition together. The goal is to make the cost of Russian use of nuclear weapons intolerable. The G7 issued a statement saying that “we are undeterred and steadfast in our commitment to providing the support Ukraine needs to uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, diplomatic and legal support and will stand firmly with Ukraine for as long as it takes.” Also, Russia might be hoping that Republican success in the upcoming US midterm elections will undermine US support for Ukraine, given that many Republican members of Congress have expressed aversion to spending more money on support for Ukraine. 

Finally, what is Russia’s end game? I suspect that the main goal is to avoid regime change. If Russia were to end its invasion of Ukraine without having gained anything, the position of the current regime might be at risk.

While supporters of Ukraine can cheer the evident success of Ukraine’s military operations, the more Russia is forced to retreat, the greater the risk that Russia will create new problems for the West. Investors are well aware of this. Recent market volatility is likely at least partially related to fears about what Russia might do next.

Week of October 10, 2022

• Of OPEC, Russia, and Europe
• Understanding why Britain had a financial crisis
• Mixed picture from US job market
• Planning for the US recovery

Of OPEC, Russia, and Europe

• After peaking in early June of this year, oil prices have been steadily declining as the global economy weakened. Prices fell roughly 26% from early June to late September. This helped to ease inflationary pressures as well as boosting the purchasing power of consumers. It offered hope that the global economy might have a soft landing in which inflation eases and a deep recession is avoided. However, last week, OPEC+ (which is a combination of OPEC members and Russia) announced it has agreed to cut production by two million barrels per day, or about 2% of global output. This led to a sharp rise in prices. This was a surprise and indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil exporters are effectively siding with Russia in its dispute with Western oil-consuming nations.

This comes at the same time that the G7 industrial nations are attempting to place a cap on the price that they pay for Russian oil. This would entail creating a monopsony, in which the buyers, by colluding, have leverage over the supplier and can set the price below what the market would bear. Of course, many non-G7 nations such as India and China are unlikely to participate in this cap. Still, a cap would lead to a loss of revenue for Russia, which would not likely be offset by increased sales to other nations at higher prices. 

Meanwhile, the OPEC+ action comes at a time when the global market for oil is already tight, when global inflation has surged, and when many key nations are facing significant recession risk. This action is likely to exacerbate both inflation and recession risk. Moreover, it comes despite heavy lobbying of Saudi Arabia by the US government. This suggests that the Saudi-US relationship has been damaged. US criticism of Saudi responsibility for the death of a US journalist has evidently not sat well with Saudi authorities. For its part, Saudi Arabia defended the production cut by pointing to the need for more investment in oil production. Higher prices are likely to stimulate more risk-taking by energy producers, not just in OPEC countries but in the United States as well. 

What makes last week’s action so surprising is that it is hard to see how it is in Saudi Arabia’s interest. The Kingdom would surely suffer from a global recession. Plus, the Saudis might be calculating that Iran is not as much of a threat as previously believed. Otherwise, it would not take action that enriches Iran and weakens its alliance with the United States, which effectively protects Saudi Arabia from potential Iranian aggression. In any event, Russia’s leaders are likely hoping that the G7 will fail to implement a price cap and that, consequently, Russia will benefit from higher oil prices—as has already been the case. 

• Meanwhile, with the energy crisis in Europe having exacerbated inflation and reduced real consumer incomes, governments in the region have been acting to varying degrees to limit the inflationary impact and to limit the impact on consumer and business purchasing power. The most impactful government intervention so far has come from the United Kingdom, which has allocated 150 billion pounds, or 6.5% of GDP, to energy subsidies. 

The largest expenditures within the Eurozone are coming from Germany, France, and Italy, the three largest economies in the region. As discussed below, Germany intends to vastly increase its subsidies. However, the largest share of GDP so far has been allocated by Croatia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, and Spain in that order. The smallest share is being allocated by Ireland, Finland, Sweden, and Estonia.

European governments are using a variety of policy tools to deal with the energy crisis. The most common are reductions in value-added tax (VAT) and direct transfers to households. Other interventions include direct government controls on the retail price of energy, taxes on windfall profits, direct subsidies to business, and credit loans or bailouts for utility companies. As for the latter, the countries that have done the most such lending as a share of GDP are Sweden, Finland, and Germany.

Energy subsidies as well as price controls are likely to temporarily suppress inflation. On the other hand, additional expenditures at a time of high inflation and tight labor markets will stimulate economies, thereby adding to longer-term inflationary pressure. Central banks might be compelled to accelerate the tightening of monetary policy in response. This is certainly likely in the United Kingdom. Thus, energy subsidies are a double-edged sword. Still, it is hard to see how governments can avoid them given the huge shock to consumer purchasing power that has been unleashed by the war in Ukraine. 

• In any event, subsidies are causing conflict within Europe, particularly due to Germany’s latest policy initiative. In order to offset the inflationary and recessionary impact of the sharp rise in energy prices, the German government intends to offer a 200-billion-euro plan of subsidies for German consumers and businesses. This two-year plan comes on top of a previous allocation of 100 billion euros for subsidies. Thus, Germany is set to spend more than twice the combined spending by France and Italy. In fact, Germany is now set to spend far more than any European government, either in absolute terms or as a share of GDP, on energy-related subsidies. 

The German plan has been sharply criticized by other European governments who prefer that European countries take a united approach to dealing with subsidies. Moreover, some European leaders have said the German plan violates EU rules on support for business. These rules are meant to create a level playing field for companies within Europe. Germany defends its decision by pointing to the large size of its economy, the especially large size of its manufacturing sector, which depends on natural gas, and its disproportionate vulnerability to Russian action. 

Germany’s unfunded subsidies will mean more government borrowing. Yet due to the expectation that German inflation will decline because of subsidies, borrowing costs have declined. This partly reflects investor confidence in Germany’s fiscal probity. Meanwhile, other countries in Europe, forced to also offer subsidies, will likely face higher borrowing costs due to greater investor concern about their fiscal probity. This could exacerbate interest-rate differentials, leading to difficult choices for the European Central Bank (ECB). In addition, eastern European governments that offer subsidies could face fiscal problems. The disagreement about subsidies between Germany and others is clearly the kind of discord that Russia has hoped to create by weaponizing energy. It is likely that Russia hopes to undermine European resolve and unity on sanctions, especially potential new sanctions.  

Understanding why Britain had a financial crisis

Ian Stewart, chief economist of Deloitte UK, discusses the reasons for the recent action by the Bank of England (BOE) and what it says about financial crises in general.

• Last week’s action by the BOE to support UK government bonds, or gilts, was its biggest intervention in financial markets since the pandemic. Action was needed to prevent a sell-off in gilts developing into a wave of contract defaults across UK pension funds.

An arcane part of the financial plumbing of the UK economy, liability-driven investment (LDI), was at the heart of the crisis. LDI uses derivatives to match the cost of future pension pay-outs with the value of the pension fund’s assets. The linkages are complex, but the sell-off in 30-year UK gilts forced pension funds to sell down their own holdings of gilts to cover costs associated with LDI strategies. That reinforced the gilt sell-off, threatening a downward spiral of plummeting gilt prices.

Without the BOE’s pledge last Wednesday to buy gilts on “whatever scale is necessary” the sell-off could have turned into a financial crisis. The episode illustrates how financial systems, subject to rapid falls in asset prices and soaring volatility, can buckle, risking a cascade of effects across the real economy. In a crisis, the network of connections that enables financial systems to operate can spread and amplify damage far beyond the site of the crisis.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 was just such a systemwide failure. It spread panic across the financial markets, triggering sharp declines in asset prices and causing liquidity to dry up. The scale and breadth of the fallout took policymakers by surprise and turned a downturn into America’s deepest US recession since the 1930s. Four years later, in the euro crisis, sharp falls in the bond prices of indebted governments threatened the solvency of banks that held the bonds. Fears about excessive government debt threatened to morph into a banking crisis. Only the ECB’s commitment to buy the government bonds of at-risk countries without limit saved the day.

Growing concern about the UK public finances and expectations that interest rates would need to rise sharply were at the heart of last week’s gilt sell-off. Central banks work hard to identify and monitor risk across economies. Most major central banks publish regular financial stability reports. The BOE’s Financial Policy Committee is tasked with monitoring and taking “action to remove or reduce systemic risks to the UK’s financial system.”

But economies are complex, evolving systems. Threats are often idiosyncratic and obscure. Averages can conceal extremes. Before the 2008–09 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve did not see the US housing market posing a particular risk to stability. That generalization missed the accumulation of debt and risk in the subprime mortgage sector, which was a precipitating factor in the financial meltdown. The persistence of financial crises over time, and the unexpected nature of most shocks, testify to the difficulties policymakers face.

A recessionary, higher interest rate environment will create new pressures across the economy and in financial markets. Last week’s gilt market turmoil is a timely reminder of the risks—and of the likelihood of stresses and surprises ahead.

Mixed picture from US job market

• The latest jobs report from the US government indicates that, in September, job growth decelerated to the lowest level since April. However, growth remained relatively strong while the unemployment rate declined. Consequently, financial markets interpreted this data to mean that the economy is stronger than previously believed. Investors pushed down equity prices and pushed up bond yields on expectations that the Federal Reserve will be compelled to reinforce the tight direction of monetary policy.

The US government publishes two reports on the job market: one report based on a survey of establishments; the other based on a survey of households. The establishment survey found that 264,000 new jobs were created in September, a sharp deceleration from recent months but a number that, historically, was considered quite strong. 

The industries that saw relatively strong job growth included construction, manufacturing, professional and business services, health care, and restaurants. The industries that experienced a decline in employment included retailing, transportation and warehousing, financial services, and state and local government. 

The separate survey of households found that the labor force contracted slightly in September as participation in the labor force fell modestly. Meanwhile, employment grew. The result was that the unemployment rate fell from 3.7% in August to 3.5% in September. 

In addition, the government also reported that average hourly earnings of workers in the United States were up 5% from a year earlier, the slowest rate of increase since December of 2021. Earnings were up 0.3% from the previous month, the same as in August. This means that workers continue to lose ground as wages fail to keep pace with inflation. It also means that, with wages relatively tame, the United States is not yet seeing the kind of wage-price spiral that could prolong and exacerbate inflation. It remains a surprise that, in a tight labor market, wages are so restrained.

• Meanwhile, another report from the US government offered evidence of a weakening of the job market. Specifically, the number of job vacancies fell sharply in August, hitting the lowest level since June 2021. There were 10.1 million vacancies in August, down from a record level of 11.9 million in March. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the number of vacancies remains vastly greater than the prepandemic level, which was close to 7 million. Moreover, the number of vacancies remains almost double the number of unemployed. Thus, the job market remains relatively healthy.

This data comes from the US government’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), which assesses the tightness of the job market. The survey found that the overall job openings rate (the share of available jobs unfilled) fell from 6.8% in July to 6.2% in August. The industries that saw big declines included nondurable manufacturing, transportation, financial services, and health care. On the other hand, some industries saw an increase in the vacancy rate, including construction, wholesale trade, and real estate. The industries with the highest vacancy rate were leisure and hospitality (10.6%) as well as professional and business services. The latter, which includes Deloitte, was 7.7% in August. There were low vacancy rates in retailing and education. 

Last week’s report signals a possible weakening of the job market. Still, this is one data point that hardly makes a trend. Thus, the overall trajectory of the US job market remains uncertain.

Planning for the US recovery

• When clients in the United States ask me about how to prepare for a potential recession, I often tell them that they ought to prepare for the recovery that will follow a recession or downturn. There are two important reasons for this. First, any recession is likely to be short-lived and moderate. The recovery will come sooner than companies realize. Second, many companies have strong balance sheets with plenty of cash. And many are in industries that are not especially vulnerable to economic cycles. As such, a recession won’t necessarily hurt such companies grievously. 

When the recovery comes, as it always does, the economy will grow, but not necessarily at a rapid pace. After all, unemployment is currently very low and is likely to rise only modestly in a recession. Thus, a recovery will likely be characterized by modest growth in employment and a continued tight labor market with a shortage of labor. Companies would do well to avoid substantial job dismissals during recession if only to avoid facing a shortage of labor when the rebound comes. In addition, given a likely labor shortage, now might be a good time to invest in technologies that boost the productivity of existing workers. 

Meanwhile, companies that want to achieve a postrecession competitive edge might consider acquiring relatively cheap assets now or during the recession. They might also consider disposing of noncritical assets in order to be focused and lean in the aftermath of recession. 

Finally, when the recession/downturn ends, companies will face a new postpandemic world. Now is a good time to prepare for that world. It will likely entail continued shortages of labor; a strong desire by workers to avoid prepandemic work patterns such as daily trips to the office; a more fraught relationship between China and the West, involving more restrictions on cross-border trade and capital flows and more geopolitical uncertainty; greater economic impact from climate change and from government policies aimed at mitigating climate change; and less fiscal space for highly indebted governments to engage in flexible policy.

Plus, there remains uncertainty as to whether or not we will face a world of higher inflation, although my view is that inflation will come down quickly toward a less onerous level. All these issues require that companies make strategic investments and choices. Moreover, such decisions should not wait for the recovery. They should be made now, especially when assets are relatively cheap.

Week of October 3, 2022

• Bank of England intervenes to restore financial stability
• The latest on the US economy
• Inflation continues to accelerate in Europe

Bank of England intervenes to restore financial stability

• The British government’s shift toward fiscal stimulus recently upended British financial markets. The combination of massive energy subsidies and tax cuts alarmed investors who worried that the British budget deficit would become unsustainable. The result was a very sharp rise in bond yields, a decline in equity prices, and an historic drop in the value of the pound.  

In recent months, the Bank of England (BOE) has been engaged in monetary tightening, involving raising short-term interest rates as well as selling government bonds (the latter being a reversal of quantitative easing). The sale of government bonds was meant to withdraw liquidity from the economy. Selling bonds means that bond yields are likely to go up—which is what has happened. Yet the recent fiscal announcement by the government caused a dramatic surge in bond yields that alarmed the BOE. Consequently, last week it completely reversed course, saying that it will purchase bonds and that it will do so at “whatever scale is necessary.” Indeed, it said that, initially, it will purchase 65 billion pounds worth of bonds. It justified its action by saying that the current situation creates a “material risk to UK financial stability.” 

The BOE action was met with relief by investors. Bond yields plummeted, not only in the United Kingdom but in the United States as well. The yield on the British 10-year bond fell by almost 50 basis points (bps) in one day while the yield on the US bond fell by 22 bps. In addition, equity prices increased sharply, the price of oil increased, and the value of the US dollar fell against the pound, the euro, and other currencies. 

Although investors were pleased that the BOE stepped in to repair the perceived damage done by the government, this is hardly a long-term solution. After all, the new BOE approach is effectively an expansionary monetary policy at a time when Britain continues to face high inflation and requires monetary tightening. It is possible that the government could find a way to reverse course. Perhaps it can indefinitely postpone tax cuts, at least until inflation has been brought under control. 

Meanwhile, despite the BOE intervention in the bond market, the BOE’s chief economist said that there might be big interest-rate hikes at the next policy meeting in November. In other words, the BOE has not completely reversed monetary policy. Instead, it is attempting to stop the mass sell-off of bonds. That sell-off threatened to dramatically increase the cost of servicing government debt. It also threatened to boost capital costs to an unsustainable level. 

As for government’s fiscal policy, the fiscal expansion could disrupt the BOE’s ability to address inflation. Cutting taxes stimulates the economy and likely adds to inflationary pressure, thereby requiring a greater degree of monetary tightening. On the other hand, the energy subsidies will likely stifle inflation temporarily by halting the rise in prices paid by consumers.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) urged the British government to “re-evaluate” its fiscal program and suggested that the new policy could intensify inflation. The IMF also said that “given elevated inflation pressures in many countries, including the UK, we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture. It is important that fiscal policy does not work at cross purposes to monetary policy.”

Aside from the IMF, there were direct or veiled criticisms of British fiscal policy from the US government, credit rating agencies, and private sector economists. Outside of the British government itself, it is difficult to find support for the current policy. The bigger issue, however, is what happens next. If the government reverses or eases its policy stance, then markets will likely calm down. If not, then the crisis could continue, with further downward pressure on the pound. 

Is there any precedent for a British government roiling financial markets soon after taking office? Yes. In 1955, Anthony Eden, long-serving foreign minister under Winston Churchill, finally became prime minister and was seen as a steady hand who was likely to serve for many years. In 1956, however, his decision to participate in an invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, with the goal of restoring British control of the Suez Canal, led to a run on the pound. The US government only offered to help stabilize the pound if Britain would reverse course. It did, and by the end of 1956, Eden was ousted by his own party. 

In the current crisis, an economic policy shift has led to a sell-off of government bonds and the pound, leading the BOE to step in. Yet unlike during the Suez Crisis, the intervention is not conditional. The United States only helped stabilize the pound after Britain agreed to remove troops from the Suez Canal. In this case, the BOE did not require the government to reverse course on its fiscal policy before it chose to purchase bonds. The risk, then, is that the government might feel that it can continue with an expansive fiscal policy because the BOE will effectively fund its largesse. Yet if the bank had failed to act, the crisis would likely have gotten worse. 

So far, the government has been publicly unrepentant. As for the BOE, if investors start to believe that it will fund future government deficits, then the decision to purchase bonds could ultimately backfire, leading to renewed crisis. Thus, it is likely that the bank could only do this one time. 

Investors evidently fear that a permanent increase in the budget deficit will likely crowd out private investment, reduce future fiscal flexibility, and undermine Britain’s competitiveness. Even those supportive of the notion that lower marginal tax rates are good for competitiveness suggest that tax cuts ought to be offset by other revenue enhancers or spending cuts, especially at a time of ruinously high inflation. Going forward, stability in British financial markets will depend on perceptions about the government’s commitment to fiscal probity.

The latest on the US economy

• The National Bureau of Economic Analysis (NBER) is tasked with determining when a recession in the United States has begun. To do so, it examines a variety of monthly economic data including consumer spending. Last week the US government reported that real (inflation-adjusted) consumer spending increased modestly in August, suggesting that a recession has not yet begun. The report offered some interesting bits of information. First, real disposable household income increased from July to August, despite a decline in real wages. This means that employment growth more than offset the loss of purchasing power from declining wages. Second, consumer savings remained muted but stable in August. Third, real consumer spending on goods declined, but this was more than offset by an increase in spending on services. Evidently, US consumers continue to return to prepandemic spending patterns. Moreover, although real disposable income declined from a year earlier, real consumer spending increased from a year earlier, largely due to consumers dipping into their vast pool of accumulated savings.

Finally, the report found that the Federal Reserve’s favorite measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditure deflator (PCE-deflator), remained high in August and that core inflation (which excludes the impact of volatile food and energy prices) actually accelerated in August. From the Fed’s perspective, this signals that inflation remains a serious problem and aligns with its evident determination to continue tightening monetary policy.

• One indication of the slowing of the US economy came last week from a new report on orders for durable goods. The report showed that, in August, new orders for durable goods fell modestly from the previous month. However, when defense equipment is excluded, new orders were down sharply in August after having grown strongly in the two previous months. This suggests a decline in business activity. Meanwhile, new orders for nondefense, nonaerospace capital goods increased strongly in August after having grown strongly in the two previous months. This bodes well for increased business investment. The conflicting nature of this report suggests that there is not yet unambiguous evidence that a recession is imminent, but there is evidence that the economy is slowing.
• Another indicator of economic health (or otherwise) concerns housing. The US government reported that, in August, sales of new homes surged from the previous month and were roughly unchanged from a year earlier. This is interesting because, in recent months, sales of new homes had been weak as have other housing indicators. This was one of the negative consequences of a tightening of monetary policy. Why sales suddenly rebounded is hard to say. Moreover, one month does not make a trend. Still, this was an especially interesting data point and one that is inconsistent with the notion that housing will soon contribute to a recession.

Meanwhile, home prices in the United States fell from June to July, according to the latest S&P Case Shiller report on home prices in 20 large US cities. Prices were down 0.8% from the previous month while still up 16.1% from a year earlier. The monthly decline was the first since 2019 and the biggest decline since 2012. This comes alongside other data indicating weakness in the US housing market, mainly due to a surge in mortgage interest rates. It also comes after a two-year period of stunning increases in US home prices.

• Recently, as expected, the US Federal Reserve significantly boosted interest rates again, increasing the Federal Funds rate by another 75 bps. Unlike previously, markets reacted violently—not so much to the Fed’s action as to the words of its leaders. Fed Chair Powell offered a prediction as to the likely path of the Federal Funds rate and it was steeper than investors had expected. Powell expects the Fed Funds rate to hit 4.6% in 2023 before declining. Powell said that “we have got to get inflation behind us. I wish there was a painless way to do that. There is not.”

Since Powell spoke, bond yields have gone way up, equities way down, and oil prices fell to the lowest since January. Evidently, investors have reassessed the risk of recession due to Powell’s words. Indeed, Powell no longer speaks about a soft landing for the US economy. Rather, he acknowledged that ending inflation might entail significant pain, including a significant rise in unemployment. Powell’s words were the first major statement since the last inflation report. That report had disappointed investors as it signaled more persistent inflation than had been expected.

Also, although bond yields are up sharply, breakeven rates (which measure bond investor expectations of inflation) have remained steady or are declining. This suggests that investors believe that the Fed will be successful in stifling inflation. Interestingly, the 10-year breakeven rate is now roughly the same as the five-year breakeven rate for first time since January 2021. This signals that investors now expect inflation to come down quite quickly and stay down, a measure of confidence in the Fed.

The belief that the likelihood of a US recession is higher than previously believed not only led to lower equity prices. It also led to a sharp decline in oil and other commodity prices. This will be helpful in suppressing global inflationary pressure. In addition, the rise in the interest rate gap between the United States and other countries led to a further sharp rise in the value of the dollar.

Inflation continues to accelerate in Europe

• Inflation in the 19-member Eurozone continues to accelerate, largely due to the energy crisis. In September, consumer prices were up 10% from a year earlier (the first double-digit increase ever) and were up 1.2% from the previous month. Energy, and to a lesser extent food, played the dominant role in driving inflation. Energy prices were up 40.8% from a year earlier and up 3% from the previous month. Food prices were up 11.8% from a year earlier and up 1% from the previous month. When volatile food and energy prices are excluded, core prices were up 4.8% from a year earlier and up 1% from the previous month. This is historically high, but still relatively low compared to other countries. 

By country, consumer prices were up from a year earlier by 10.9% in Germany, 6.2% in France, 9.5% in Italy, 9.3% in Spain, 17.1% in the Netherlands, and 12% in Belgium. The highest inflation rate in the Eurozone was in Estonia at 24.2%. All three Baltic states had inflation in excess of 20%. The lowest inflation rate in the Eurozone was in France. 

The ECB continues to tighten monetary policy. Its main policy tools are the short-term interest rate and the sale of bonds (which raises long-term bond yields). Both tools are meant to stifle credit market activity, thereby slowing the economy and removing inflationary pressure. Moreover, the goal is to anchor expectations of inflation to prevent a wage-price spiral. The inflation is mostly being driven by the political tug of war between Russia and the EU regarding the flow of natural gas. As such, the ECB lacks adequate tools to deal with the underlying cause of inflation. Thus, the possibility remains that the ECB will simply succeed in slowing an already at-risk economy while not necessarily having a big impact on inflation.

On the other hand, if natural gas prices peak and stabilize, or even fall, then the inflationary impetus from the energy crisis will abate and inflation should come down, especially if the economy weakens due to monetary policy. Regardless of the causes, ECB president Lagarde said that “we will do what we have to do, which is to continue hiking interest rates in the next several meetings.” Investors now expect a 75-bps increase in December.

Meanwhile, the natural gas crisis is getting more complicated. The Nord Stream pipeline was damaged in what NATO leaders are calling sabotage by Russia, although Russia denies complicity. For Europe, there is already substantial angst regarding the likely shortage of gas during the upcoming cold winter months. Russia likely wants to undermine European unity. This is starting to happen. Slovakia warned that the surge in gas prices could wreak havoc with its economy and called for help from the EU. How to fund such support, in turn, could become a controversial issue within the EU. The chief economist of the ECB suggested that member states boost taxes on the rich to fund energy subsidies for everyone else. He said that this would be a fair way to deal with the problem of high energy prices without causing a sharp increase in government debt.