728x90 AdSpace

Latest News
August 20, 2011

Cost-Push Inflation Maybe A Near-term Risk For The U.S. Economy (Guest Post)

By Doug Short

The two charts below offer clues for evaluating the risk of profit margin squeeze in the current economy. One is the ratio of crude to finished goods in the Producer Price Index. The other is an indicator constructed from two data series in the Philadelphia Fed's Business Outlook Survey through today's release. It is the spread between the Philly Fed's prices paid (input costs) and received (prices charged) data.

A major risk factor for margin squeeze is the increase in commodity prices over the past several months with the price of oil and gasoline as the dominant factor.

So let's take a broader view of these two indicators by viewing them within the context of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. As the first chart clearly shows, the all-time high in the PPI crude-to-finished-goods ratio was in July 2008, the same month that crude oil and gasoline prices in the U.S. hit their all-time highs. The previous ratio high was in the summer of 1973, a few months before the outbreak of the October Arab-Israeli War and the Oil Embargo. Inflation had already been rising in a series of waves since the mid-1960s. But Middle-East events of 1973 were the primary trigger for the nearly ten years of stagflation that followed.

The July 2011 ratio is at the 97th percentile of the 773 data points in this series, down slightly from the 99th percentile in April, but clearly in the danger zone.

The Philly Fed Prices Paid Minus Prices Received Index is an extremely volatile series, which I've illustrated by using dots for the monthly data points. To highlight the underlying pattern, I've included a 12-month moving average (MA). The date callouts show that the comparable levels in the past were associated with inflationary peaks. The July ratio has dropped to the 64th percentile of the 520 monthly data points in this series. However, the 12-month MA is only 1.5% below the all-time high set in March.

By official government metrics, the CPI and PCE, inflation is not a near-term threat. In fact, the Federal Reserve has been working hard to raise the level of core inflation.

Of course, there are many differences between the inflationary decade of the 1970s and the present, not least of which is the rate of unemployment. In August 1973 (first chart above), unemployment was at 4.8%. The latest Gallup Poll unemployment survey puts the mid-August rate at 9.0%, slightly below the 9.1% July number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Also, U.S. demographics today are quite different. The oldest Boomers were turning 27 in 1973. They were at the beginning of their careers with decades of wage increases in their expectations. This year they are turning 65, and many are already on Social Security as their main source of income.

At present, in light of the unemployment rate and the ongoing demographic shift, the rise in commodity prices probably poses more risk of continuing margin squeeze than run-away inflation. Some degree of cost-push inflation may be a near-term risk, but the demand-pull inflation we saw in the 1970s is difficult to envision in the U.S. economy of this decade.

On the other hand, the volatility of many commodity prices, especially oil, keeps the topic of profit margin squeeze on the table.

The next Philly Fed Business Outlook Survey will be released on September 15, 2011.

About The Author - Doug Short is the Vice President of Research for Advisor Perspectives.  He holds a Ph.D. in English from Duke, and maintains a blog at dshort.com.  Doug's last name is not representative of his investment style.  (EconMatters author archive here)

The views and opinions expressed herein are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of EconMatters.

©EconMatters 2011 All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle
  • Blogger Comments
  • Facebook Comments
Item Reviewed: Cost-Push Inflation Maybe A Near-term Risk For The U.S. Economy (Guest Post) Rating: 5 Reviewed By: Econ Matters