J2TM

US Unemployment Rates - November 2009

2010-01-08T08:46:00.007+08:00

The November US regional and state unemployment figures was recently released. The figures show an overall decrease in the unemployment rates. A total of 37 states had their unemployment rates decrease, while the numbers for 8 states increased; six states had no change. The number of states with double-digit unemployment rates remains at fifteen (not including Puerto Rico). Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) decreased by 0.2%, from 10.2% to 10.0% over October's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased by 2.8% (down 0.4% from last month).
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the decrease was 0.3%, from 17.5% to 17.2%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 3.7% (down 1.2% from last month). The spread between U-3 and U-6 decreased from its historic peak of 7.3% in September to 7.2%.
In terms of a monthly change, the states with the largest decreases were Kentucky and Louisiana, both with a decrease of 0.7%. Connecticut and Nevada followed with decreases of 0.6% each. The state with the largest increase was South Carolina, whose unemployment rate rose 0.3% (as did Puerto Rico's).
On an annual basis, the only state remaining with an increase over 5.0% is Michigan, at 5.1%. Three states are tied for second at 4.3% (Alabama, Florida and Nevada).
A total of fifteen states have double-digit unemployment rates, unchanged from October (not including Puerto Rico, which has an unemployment rate of 15.9%). The state with the highest unemployment rate continues to be Michigan at 14.7%, down 0.4%. Rhode Island comes in second with a rate of 12.7% (down 0.2%), while three states tied for third with a rate of 12.3%: California (down 0.2%), Nevada (down 0.6%), and South Carolina (up 0.3%). The remaining states (in declining order) are: Washington D.C. (11.8%), Florida (11.5%), Oregon (11.1%), Illinois (10.9%), 9%), Oregon (11.3%), North Carolina (10.8%), Kentucky and Ohio (both at 10.6%), Alabama (10.5%), Tennessee (10.3%), and Georgia (10.2%).
The states with the lowest unemployment rates are North Dakota (4.1%, down 0.1%), Nebraska (4.5%, down 0.4%), and South Dakota (5.0%, unchanged).
The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota and Nebraska at 0.9%, Vermont at 1.1%, Minnesota at 1.3%, Louisiana at 1.4%, and Colorado, Kansas and Montana at 1.5%.
In terms of non-farm payroll employment, four states had significant decreases in the number of jobs. Those states are Hawaii (-6,000), Michigan (-14,000), Mississippi (-6,100) and Nevada (-8,800).
For annual changes in nohttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2382372744115061946#n-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-617,600), Florida (-284,800), Texas (-271,700), Illinois (-250,400), Michigan (-240,200), and New York (-210,500). The states with the smallest decreases are South Dakota (-6,800) and Vermont (-7,800).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

US Unemployment Rates - October 2009

2009-11-21T01:11:00.003+08:00

The October US regional and state unemployment figures were released today. The figures continue to show an overall increase in the unemployment rates. A total of 30 states had their unemployment rates increase, while the numbers for 14 states decreased; eight states had no change. The number of states with double-digit unemployment rates remains at fifteen (not including Puerto Rico). Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 9.8% to 10.2% over September's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased by 3.4%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.5%, from 17.0% to 17.5%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.9%. The spread between U-3 and U-6 increased from 7.2% in September to 7.3%. This is the highest level the spread between U-3 and U-6 has been since the U-6 statistics were first published in January 1994.
In terms of a monthly change, the states with the largest increases were Alaska and Wyoming, both with an increase of 0.6%. Arkansas, Washington D.C., Illinois, and Mississippi all tied for the second largest increase, at 0.5%, while Connecticut, Delaware, Ohio, and South Carolina all had a 0.4% increase.
On an annual basis, three states have increases over 5.0%: Michigan at 6.0% (down 0.4%), Nevada at 5.3% (down 0.6%), and Alabama at 5.2% (down 0.1%).
A total of fifteen states have double-digit unemployment rates, unchanged from September (not including Puerto Rico, which has an unemployment rate of 15.6%). The state with the highest unemployment rate continues to be Michigan at 15.1%, down 0.2%. Nevada comes in second with a rate of 13.0% (down 0.3%), and Rhode Island places third with a rate of 12.9% (down 0.1%). The remaining states (in declining order) are: California (12.5%), South Carolina (12.1%), Washington D.C. (11.9%), Oregon (11.3%), Florida and Kentucky (both at 11.2%), Illinois and North Carolina (both at 11.0%), Alabama (10.9%), Ohio and Tennessee (both at 10.5%), and Georgia (10.2%).
The states with the lowest unemployment rates are North Dakota (4.2%, up 0.1%), Nebraska (4.9%, unchanged), and South Dakota (5.0%, up 0.2%).
The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota at 1.0%, Nebraska at 1.3%, Colorado, Montana and Vermont at 1.6%, South Dakota at 1.8%, and Louisiana at 1.9%.
In some good news, six states and the District of Columbia had gains in terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs). Those states are Texas (41,700), Michigan (38,600), California (25,700), Oklahoma (8,800), Washington D.C. (5,400), and Montana (3,200). Only Wyoming had a statistically significant decrease in the number of jobs (-2,600).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-687,700), Florida (-339,600), Texas (-307,200), Illinois (-286,300), Michigan (-262,700), Ohio (-243,200), New York (-242,500) and Georgia (-228,000). The states with the smallest decreases are South Dakota (-7,800) and Vermont (-10,700).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

International Politics Links (15 June 2009)

2009-06-15T23:13:00.001+08:00

Almost all of the significant stories this past week in international politics focused on the Iranian election. Juan Cole wrote a number of blog posts throughout the week about that election, with the more recent posts up top. Moon of Alabama doesn't buy Dr. Cole's ideas about the election results. I hate to use this particular slogan, but "We report, you decide," seems to be appropriate in this instance. ;) There are a couple of other stories on Afghanistan, the recent Lebanon election, and North Korea.

Middle East:
Afghanistan: Northern Supply Lines Under Attack (Moon of Alabama)

Former GITMO Detainee Speaks Out! YES! I WAS TORTURED! (Crooks & Liars)

Biden: 'Real doubt' about Iran's presidential election (Crooks & Liars)

TYT: Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad To Win (Crooks & Liars)

Reza Aslan Takes Chris Matthews to Task for Fear Mongering on Iran's Nuclear Program (Crooks & Liars)

Clashes, Claims of Election Fraud in Iran (Informed Comment)

Terror Free Tomorrow Poll Did not Predict Ahmadinejad Win (Informed Comment)

Post-Election Demonstrations, Violence, Arrests (Informed Comment)

Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy (Informed Comment)

Stealing the Iranian Election (Informed Comment)

Rafsanjani Blasts Ahmadinejad as a Counter-Revolutionary ; Charismatic Rahnevard Attracts Crowds for her Husband Mousavi (Informed Comment)

Ahmadinejad Defends Himself on Iranian Television (Informed Comment)

Tens of Thousands Rally for Mousavi in Tehran (Informed Comment)

Some Dots You May Want To Connect (Moon of Alabama)

More on the Iran Election (Moon of Alabama)

March 14 Faction Wins in Lebanon (Informed Comment)

Asia:
North Korea: We Will Weaponize Nuclear Stockpiles (Crooks & Liars)

As Tensions Between North Korea and U.S. Rise, Clinton Hints At Weapons Interdiction (Crooks & Liars)

Other:
Joe Scarborough Blames Obama's Cairo Speech for Ayatollahs Rigging Iranian Election--But That's a Good Thing ("Joe Scarborough seems to think the ayotollahs rigged the election because Obama's Cairo speech scared them into over reaching and making sure he didn't get credit for the reformers winning in Iran, but if they did, it's a good thing in the long run for the United States. ... If they rigged the election Joe, it's likely for the same reasons the Republicans have rigged elections in the United States...to stay in power. Not because they're worried about American politics.") (Crooks & Liars)

Economics Links (9 June 2009)

2009-06-15T23:08:00.002+08:00

Sorry for not posting this here last week.

Angry Bear:
Untitled post on the Unemployment Report

Current Recession vs the 1980-82 Recession

Econbrowser:
DeGlobalization: Transitory or Persistent?

Not a Robust Recovery

James Pethokoukis: "An Improving Job Market"

Output, Employment and Industrial Production in the "1980-82 Recession"

More on Bank Lending Data

High Anxiety (about Interest and Inflation Rates)

Economist's View:
Too Big to be Restructured (The theme of this essay ties in very well with my post on Mikhail Gorbachev's essay from the other day, "We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours.".)

Contributions to the Change in Nonfarm Payroll Employment

Shiller: Home Prices May Keep Falling

Uneven Unemployment Rates

"VAT Time?"

Bank Mergers

"Reducing Inequality: Put the Brakes on Globalization?"

Financial Times:
The ‘part-timezation’ of America

Reuters:
China influence to grow faster than most expect: Soros

Real Property Alpha:
California Home Prices in Ounces of Gold

True/Slant:
NASCAR helped GM down its path of self-destruction ("Better equipped to compete? How ironic, given NASCAR’s role in helping the auto industry race down its path of self-destruction. Major auto companies used NASCAR for years to push cars and trucks with poor fuel economy numbers. The sport, in some ways, came to symbolize America’s embrace of consumption.")

VoxEU:
Why is Japan so heavily affected by the global economic crisis? An analysis based on the Asian international input-output tables

Does climate change affect economic growth?

Washington Post:
Book Review: The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street

International Politics Links (8 June 2009)

2009-06-09T00:52:00.005+08:00

I'm starting up a new series of links posts here at J2TM, with international politics being covered every Monday and Business/Economics on Tuesdays.

With regard to international politics, I've separated links into geographical areas (continents) for the most part. For example, in today's post, links are for Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with "Miscellaneous" being for other parts of the world or multiple countries discussed in the post. Within each geographical area, I've tried to alphabetize the countries mentioned. So, once more, for example, with respect to the Middle East the countries are Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Syria.

I invite any of my readers who have legitimate suggestions for links to please add them in the comments.

Europe:
Majid: Dangerous Purities (An interesting guest op-ed essay on the 400th anniversary of the expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain. The Moriscos were Spaniards of Muslim descent, either themselves or their parents/grandparents, who had converted from Islam to Christianity. But even their conversion was not enough to satisfy the Catholics, so roughly 300,000 Moriscos, or five percent of the Spanish population, was forced to flee their own country, with most of them dying in the process.)

Biased Election Reporting (On the German results for the European Parliament election.)

Russian Warns Against Relying on Dollar

Middle East:
Obama in the Middle East

Reactions to Obama's Speech

Obama's Speech in Cairo (Juan Cole)

Obama's Speech In Cairo (Moon of Alabama)

Iraqi Prime Minister Warned Obama About Photos: 'Baghdad Will Burn'

It's Only Make-Believe: Bush Policy on Israeli Settlement Freeze Was An 'Understanding'

Obama and Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

OSC: Israeli Press on Obama's Cairo Address

Netanyahu's Problem

UN: Israeli Buffer Zone Eats Up 30 Percent of Gaza's Arable Land

Jewish Settlers Rampage in West Bank

March 14 Faction Wins in Lebanon

OSC: Pakistani Editorialists Respond to Obama

Thousands Flee Mingora in Panic; Army advances toward Kalam; 9 Soldiers Killed, 27 militants

Mysterious 'Chip' is CIA's Latest Weapon Against al-Qaida Targets Hiding in Pakistan's Tribal Belt ("Don't like your neighbor? Drop a chip in his house and the CIA will bomb him.")

Syrian Newspapers on Obama's Arab Tour (OSC)

Asia:
Made in China Means Quality

American Journalists Sentenced In North Korea To 12 Years Labor Camp

Seoul Boosts Forces Against N Korea

Miscellaneous:
Fleischer criticizes Obama’s Cairo speech as being too ‘balanced.’

EU And Lebanon Elections

NYT Finally Runs ‘Editor’s Note’ Correction To Misleading Gitmo Detainee ‘Recidivism’ Story

US Unemployment Rates - April 2009

2009-05-31T23:10:00.002+08:00

The April US regional and state unemployment figures were recently released. The figures, overall, seem to have stabilized somewhat, even though the national unemployment rate increased by nearly one-half of one percent. Almost one-half of the states had their unemployment rates improve, while the number of states with double-digit unemployment rates remained steady, at eight. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 8.5% to 8.9% over March's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased by 3.9%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.2%, from 15.6% to 15.8%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 6.6%. (If there is one bit of good news with respect to U-6, it is that the spread between U-3 and U-6 decreased slightly, from 7.1% in March to 6.9% in April. This is the first time since March 2008 that this particular number has decreased.)
In terms of a monthly change, the state with the largest increase was West Virginia, with an increase of 0.7%. Ohio and Rhode Island tied for the second largest increase, at 0.5%, while Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana and Puerto Rico all had a 0.4% increase.
A total of twenty-one states had their monthly unemployment rates go down in April, with an additional eleven remaining unchanged. The previous month, only two states had their unemployment rates go down with three remaining unchanged.
On an annual basis, four states have increases over 5.0%: Oregon at 6.4% (down 0.2%), South Carolina at 5.3% (down 0.2%), North Carolina at 5.1% (down 0.4%), and Michigan at 5.0% (unchanged).
The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota at 1.0%, Iowa and Nebraska at 1.1%, Alaska at 1.4%, and Arkansas at 1.6%.
A total of eight states have double-digit unemployment rates, unchanged from March (and not counting Puerto Rico, which has an unemployment rate of 15.4%). The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan (once more), at 12.9%, up 0.3%. Oregon comes in second with a rate of 12.0% (up 0.1%), and South Carolina places third with a rate of 11.5% (up 0.1%). In fourth place is Rhode Island with a rate of 11.1% (up 0.5%). In fifth place is California at 11.0% (down 0.2%); in sixth is North Carolina at 10.8% (unchanged), and in seventh is Nevada at 10.6% (up 0.2%). The newest state in the ranks of the double-digit unemployment rates is Ohio, at 10.2%, up 0.5%. Indiana, which had been among the double-digit states last month, dropped down 0.1% to 9.9%.
The states with the lowest unemployment rates are North Dakota (4.0%, down 0.2%), Nebraska (4.4%, down 0.3%), Wyoming (4.5%, unchanged), South Dakota (4.8%, down 0.1%), Iowa (5.1%, down 0.1%) and Utah (5.2%, unchanged).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since March are California (-63,700), Texas (-39,500), and Michigan (-38,400).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-706,700), Florida (-380,300), Michigan (-284,800), Ohio (-262,600) and Illinois (-255,400).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

Is the Recession Over? Flip a Coin.

2009-05-01T18:46:00.006+08:00

James Hamilton at Econbrowser has been looking over initial claims for unemployment insurance the past few weeks. His most recent post suggests a 50% chance that the recession may end by June. Remember that unemployment is a lagging economic indicator so that, if we really are nearing the end of the recession, then this decrease in initial unemployment insurance claims is a very good sign. On the other hand, as Dr. Hamilton points out, there's still a very good chance (50% historically) that unemployment claims could go back up again, something that's readily apparent in the first graph in my post back in February on US unemployment levels.

The Labor Department reported today that initial claims for unemployment insurance fell by 14,000 during the most recent available week. That brings the 4-week average down for the third consecutive week and puts it 3.3% below the peak reached April 9.

Black line: seasonally adjusted new claims for unemployment insurance, weekly since January. Blue line: average of 4 most recent weeks as of each date.

That ongoing drop in the 4-week average is noteworthy because in each of the last 5 recessions, once the new claims number began declining from its peak value reached during the recession, the NBER subsequently dated the recovery from that recession as beginning within 8 weeks.

...

If we leave out the 1970 recession, there are 230 weeks in which the NBER declared the economy to have been in recession during the 5 recessions of 1974, 1980, 1982, 1990, and 2001. In 22 of these weeks, we saw as big a drop as we've seen this month, namely, the 4-week average dropped by more than 3.3% over a 3-week period. Of these 22 favorable readings, 11 turned out to be part of the final move out of recession, while in the other 11, new claims turned back up to reach a subsequent higher peak. Thus, if all you had to go on was the data on new unemployment claims and its behavior in previous recessions, you might conclude that there's a 50% chance that an economic recovery will have started by the beginning of June.

For some other possible signs of "green shoots," check out Bonddad's post on inventory levels in the 1Q09 GDP report.

Singapore Preliminary GDP Estimate for 2009Q1 and Revised Forecast for 2009

2009-04-20T00:01:00.001+08:00

On April 14th, Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry released its preliminary GDP estimate for the first quarter of 2009. It has also revised its economic forecast for 2009. Below are some of the highlights:

On the GDP Estimate for the First Quarter of 2009:

On a seasonally adjusted annualized basis, real GDP contracted by 19.7 per cent compared to the previous quarter, worse than the 16.4 per cent contraction in the fourth quarter of 2008. Compared to the same period last year, real GDP is expected to contract by 11.5 per cent, compared to the 4.2 per cent contraction registered in the last quarter.

The decline in the first quarter of 2009 affected every sector, with the exception of the construction sector. Falling external demand in late 2008 and early 2009 has severely affected domestic manufacturing output. In year-on-year terms, the manufacturing sector is estimated to have contracted by 29.0 per cent in the first quarter, compared to the 10.7 per cent contraction in the last quarter of 2008. The manufacturing decline was led by the electronics and precision engineering segments, but the chemicals cluster and the biomedical manufacturing cluster also saw large declines. With most of Singapore's key trading partners still in recession, the manufacturing sector will continue to remain weak for the rest of the year.

The services producing industries contracted by 5.9 per cent in year-on-year terms. The collapse in global trade in recent months severely affected the wholesale & retail trade sector and the transport & storage sector in the first quarter of 2009. For the rest of 2009, these sectors will continue to be weighed down by the poor prospects for global trade. ... The hotels & restaurants segment also contracted because of lower tourist arrivals. Financial services also continued to contract, but at a more moderate pace compared to the previous quarter.

The construction sector was the only sector that showed signs of robust growth. It is estimated to have grown by 25.6 per cent in the first quarter of 2009, supported by the strong pipeline of committed projects in both housing and infrastructure.

On 2009's GDP Forecast:

While there are tentative signs of some stabilization in the housing, financial and manufacturing sectors in the US, they do not point to a clear turnaround in economic activity. In recent months, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have successively slashed their 2009 growth forecasts for the world, the developed economies, and regional economies.

Taking into account the sharp deterioration in the first quarter of 2009, and the weak global outlook for the rest of the year, MTI is revising the economic growth forecast for 2009 to -9.0 to -6.0 per cent.

A pdf copy of the report can be found here.

US Unemployment Rates - March 2009

2009-04-19T00:34:00.003+08:00

The March US regional and state unemployment figures were released on April 17th. The figures, overall, continue to worsen, although there was some slight signs of improvement in several states. One state, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia had declining unemployment rates, while three states recorded no change in the past month. On the other hand, Indiana has joined the ranks of states with double-digit unemployment rates, which now total eight. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 8.1% to 8.5%, over February's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased by 3.4%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.8%, from 14.8% to 15.6%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 6.5%.
In terms of monthly change, the state with the largest increase was Oregon, with an increase of 1.4%. Washington and West Virginia tied for the second largest increase, at 0.9%, while Wisconsin came in fourth with a 0.7% increase.
On an annual basis, four states have increases over 5.0%: Oregon at 6.6%, South Carolina at 5.5%, North Carolina at 5.5%, and Michigan at 5.0%.
The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota at 1.2%, Iowa at 1.3%, Nebraska at 1.5%, Louisiana and Wyoming at 1.6%, Arkansas at 1.7%, and Utah at 1.9%.
A total of eight states now have double-digit unemployment rates, up from seven in February. The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, at 12.6%, up 0.6%. Oregon comes in second with a rate of 12.1% (up 1.4%), and South Carolina places third with a rate of 11.4% (up 0.5%). In fourth place is California with a rate of 11.2%, up 0.6%. In fifth place is North Carolina at 10.8% (up 0.1%); in sixth is Rhode Island at 10.5% (no change), and in seventh is Nevada at 10.4% (up 0.4%). The newest state in the ranks of the double-digit unemployment rates is Indiana, at 10.0%, up 0.6%.
The state of North Dakota and the District of Columbia both had positive (i.e., negative) changes in their unemployment rates. Both dropped down 0.1% each, from 4.3% to 4.2% for North Dakota, and from 9.9% to 9.8% for Washington D.C.
As mentioned above, Rhode Island (10.5%) had no change in its unemployment rate between February and March; the other two states with no change are Georgia (9.2%) and New York (7.8%).
The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be North Dakota (4.2%, down 0.1%), Wyoming (4.5%, up 0.6%), Nebraska (4.6%, up 0.3%), South Dakota (4.9%, up 0.3%) and Utah (5.2%, up 0.1%).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since February are California (-62,100), Florida (-51,900), and Texas (-47,100).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-637,400), Florida (-424,300), Michigan (-270,500), and Illinois (-232,600).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

The Big Money: China's Stimulus is Working

2009-04-03T17:22:00.001+08:00

A very short but interesting - and I dare say important - article from Slate's The Big Money. Important for two reasons: first, because it reinforces Paul Krugman's argument that the size of the stimulus package matters and that the recently passed economic stimulus bill is most likely too small; secondly, because it refutes the noise coming from the hysterical wing of the Republican party as to why the stimulus bill needed to be passed in the first place.

Many commenters, including TBM's Charles Wallace, have argued that the Chinese stimulus package is superior to America's. Partly that's because it represents a larger proportion of GDP and partly because it is more focused on housing and infrastructure, which can create jobs quickly and thereby circulate money through communities. Those points will continue to be debated.

But there's a case to be made that the Chinese stimulus package is now working, both on a psychological level and an economic level. A Reuters story yesterday pointed out that the mere promise that China will increase its stimulus if it needs to boosts confidence and might therefore paradoxically make more stimulus unnecessary. Now comes today's Wall Street Journal, reporting that both housing sales and construction starts are on a mild upswing in China. This is crucial because the world's metal and oil markets are dependent on Chinese demand; not surprisingly, reports the Financial Times, both experienced a jolt yesterday.

True, the Chinese economy will not grow in 2009 at the dizzying pace of the last decade or so. But it's also not going to shrink, and that will provide a needed cushion for the drops occurring elsewhere. The bottom line, as David Leonhardt wrote in yesterday's New York Times, is: "Yes, stimulus works." Critics can say it's too expensive or doesn't stimulate fast enough or deeply enough. But consider the alternatives.

HT: Economist's View

US Unemployment Rates - February 2009

2009-03-28T01:35:00.000+08:00

The February US regional and state unemployment figures were released on March 27th. The figures, overall, continue to be bad, although some of the over-the-month rate changes between January and February were not as severe as they were the month before. One state, Nebraska, also had a declining unemployment rate. On the other hand, the number of states with double-digit unemployment rates has increased to seven. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.5%, from 7.6% to 8.1%, over January's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 3.3%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.9%, from 13.9% to 14.8%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 5.8%.
In terms of monthly change, the states with the largest increases were North Carolina and Oregon, with changes of 1.0% each. One state, New Jersey, had a 0.9% increase, while four states had 0.8% increases. Those states are Georgia, Hawaii, New York and West Virginia.
On an annual basis, three states have increases over 5.0%: North Carolina at 5.5%, Oregon at 5.4%, and South Carolina at 5.3%. Michigan and Nevada are tied for fourth at 4.6%.
The states with the lowest annual increases are Iowa at 1.0%, Wyoming at 1.1%, Nebraska at 1.2%, and North Dakota at 1.3%.
A total of seven states now have double-digit unemployment rates, up from four in January. The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, at 12.0%, up 0.4%. South Carolina comes in second with a rate of 11.0% (up 0.6%), and Oregon places third with a rate of 10.8% (up 1.0%). In fourth place is North Carolina with a rate of 10.7%, also up 1.0%. Tied for fifth place is California and Rhode Island, both with a rate of 10.5%, up 0.4% for California and 0.2% for Rhode Island. The seventh place state, Nevada, also has double-digit unemployment with a rate of 10.1%, up 0.7%.
The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.9%, up 0.2%), Nebraska (4.2%, down 0.1%), North Dakota (4.3%, up 0.1%), South Dakota (4.6%, up 0.2%) and Iowa (4.9%, up 0.1%).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since January were California (-116,000), Florida (-49,500), and Texas (-46,100).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-605,900), Florida (-399,400), Michigan (-277,000), and Ohio (-222,100).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

US Unemployment Rates - January 2009

2009-03-12T00:18:00.001+08:00

The January US regional and state unemployment figures were released on March 11th. The figures, overall, continue to get worse, although there was one minor bright spot in the District of Columbia. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 7.2% to 7.6%, over December's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 2.7%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.4%, from 13.5% to 13.9%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.9%.
In terms of monthly change, the states with the largest increases were North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina, all with a 1.6% increase; four states had a 1.4% increase, California, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, while three states had a 1.3% increase, Alabama, Maine and Washington.
On an annual basis, two states tied for the largest increase, North Carolina and South Carolina, both at 4.7%. The next three are Oregon (4.6%), Indiana (4.4%), and Michigan (4.3%).
The states with the lowest annual increases are Iowa at 0.9%, Wyoming at 1.0%, and North Dakota and West Virginia at 1.2%.
The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, which increased 1.4% to 11.6%; South Carolina comes in second with a rate of 10.4% (up 1.6%), and Rhode Island places third with a rate of 10.3% (up 0.9%). California also has a double-digit unemployment rate of 10.1%, up 1.4%.
The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.7%, up 0.3%), North Dakota (4.2%, up 0.7%), Nebraska (4.3%, up 0.3%) and South Dakota (4.4%, up 0.5%).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since December were California (-79,300), Michigan (-60,800), Ohio (-59,600) and Texas (-50,600).
The one bright spot in terms of non-farm payroll employment was an increase in the number of jobs in the District of Columbia, up 5,800 (perhaps due to the change in administration and a corresponding ripple effect through the local economy).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-494,000), Florida (-355,700), Michigan (-263,800), and Ohio (-214,600). Wyoming is the only state that continues to have a positive annual change in employment, up 7,000 jobs for the year.

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

US Employment Levels Analysis

2009-02-09T09:13:00.003+08:00

After publishing my previous post yesterday, I decided to take a closer look at the numbers.

My first thought was, while comparing the current recession to the previous two downturns makes sense, I didn't know how this recession compared to the others before 1990-91, such as the big recession in 1981-82 (a vivid memory for myself). Were there any recessions that were worse than either 1981-82 or 2007-09? (For my analysis, I'm using November 2007 as the start of the current recession.)

What I did was to download the US employment levels data, seasonally adjusted, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the period of January 1948 to the present. From this data, I found nine downturns in which employment sank on a significant basis, followed by a recovery period. I then took percentages from the nine downturns in which the highest level of employment prior to the downturn (the peak month) is equal to 100%. Following months, through to the point where the employment level once more reached the level of the peak month, were then compared as a percentage to the peak month.

What I found is that the 2007-09 recession is already the eighth worst downturn of the nine. Through January 2009, the employment level is at 96.89% of the peak month's level, a drop of 3.11%. Only the 1953-54 recession is worse (-3.82%). And, of course, there is no bottom in sight yet for the 2007-09 data; if current trends continue, 1953-54's record will be broken in either February or March at the latest.

Adding to the distress is the fact that 2007-09 is already in its fourteenth month past the peak. Only two other downturns took longer: 1953-54, which lasted sixteen months, and 1981-82, which lasted twenty months.

Eventually, of course, previous recessions reached a bottom and then began a period of economic recovery. Of the eight previous recoveries, the average length of time was 12.38 months from the trough month through to the level where employment reached the previous peak. (It should be noted, though, that the previous two recoveries, 1991-93 and 2002-03, took twenty-one and seventeen months respectively, which were by far the two longest recoveries since 1948.)

If the 1953-54 recession is any guide to what may be in store for this recession, any recovery back to November 2007 employment levels will not occur prior to March 2010 at the earliest, and quite possibly not until August-December 2010.

Let's hope I'm wrong, and that we reach the trough and the recovery months more quickly.

3,600,000 and Counting

2009-02-08T14:41:00.003+08:00

Here's a graph to make you wet your pants a little. As The Gavel points out, the current recession is much, much more serious in terms of job losses to date (3.6 million and counting) than the previous two. And there's no bottom in sight.

This chart compares the job loss so far in this recession to job losses in the 1990-1991 recession and the 2001 recession – showing how dramatic and unprecedented the job loss over the last 13 months has been. Over the last 13 months, our economy has lost a total of 3.6 million jobs – and continuing job losses in the next few months are predicted.

By comparison, we lost a total of 1.6 million jobs in the 1990-1991 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing; and we lost a total of 2.7 million jobs in the 2001 recession, before the economy began turning around and jobs began increasing.

US Unemployment Rates - December 2008

2009-02-06T00:08:00.001+08:00

The December US regional and state unemployment figures were released in late January. The figures, overall, continue to get worse. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.4%, from 6.8% to 7.2%, over November's number. (November's percentage was revised upward by 0.1%.) For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 2.3%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.9%, from 12.6% to 13.5%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.8%.
In terms of monthly change, the states with the largest increases were Indiana and South Carolina, both with a 1.1% increase; six states had a 1.0% increase: Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Oregon.
On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase continues to be Rhode Island with an increase of 4.8%. North Carolina remains in second place with an increase of 4.0%, and Nevada has jumped into third with an increase of 3.9%.
The states with the lowest annual increases are North Dakota at 0.3%, Arkansas at 0.7%, and Iowa and Oklahoma at 0.8% each.
The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, which increased 1.0% to 10.6%; Rhode Island remains in second place, with a rate of 10.0% (up 0.7%). South Carolina comes in third at 9.5% (up 1.1%).
The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.4%, up 0.2%), North Dakota (3.5%, up 0.2%), and South Dakota (3.9%, up 0.5%).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since November were California (-78,200), Michigan (-59,000), and New York (-54,000).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are California (-257,400), Florida (-255,200), and Michigan (-173,000). Texas continues to be the nation's bright spot, with an annual increase of 153,700, down 67,500 from November.

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

Singapore Preliminary GDP Estimate for 2008Q4 and Forecast for 2009

2009-01-21T09:38:00.001+08:00

Singapore's Ministry of Trade and Industry has released its preliminary GDP estimate for the fourth quarter of 2008. It has also released forecasts for both 2009's GDP and consumer price index (CPI) inflation. Below are some of the highlights:

On the GDP Estimate for the Fourth Quarter of 2008:

Preliminary estimates for the Singapore economy show that real gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 3.7 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2008, following the decline of 0.2 per cent in the preceding quarter. On a seasonally adjusted, annualised quarter-on-quarter basis, real GDP fell by 16.9 per cent, compared to a decline of 5.1 per cent in the third quarter of 2008. ... For 2008 as a whole, the economy is estimated to have grown by 1.2 per cent, compared with 7.7 per cent in 2007.

The manufacturing sector is estimated to have contracted by 4.1 per cent, down from an expansion of 5.8 per cent in 2007. Several clusters - electronics, precision engineering, and chemicals - were affected by the rapid decline in demand in Singapore's key export markets, especially in the last quarter of 2008. Industry-specific factors also exerted a negative impact. ... The construction sector grew by 17.9 per cent in 2008, compared to 20.3 per cent in 2007. The healthy level of construction output in 2008 was sustained by robust activity in the residential, industrial and civil engineering building segments. Construction demand was also supported by an upswing in the number of public housing and infrastructural projects committed.

Growth in the services producing industries moderated from the strong growth rates in 2007. Growth in the wholesale & retail trade and the transport & storage sectors moderated to 2.6 per cent and 3.2 per cent respectively in 2008, from 7.3 per cent and 5.1 per cent in 2007. After a robust 16.9 per cent growth in 2007, the financial services sector grew by 7.1 per cent in 2008. As a result of the global financial crisis, there was a significant decline in fund management and stock broking activities in the second half of 2008. ... The business services sector grew by 7.3 per cent, compared to 7.8 per cent in 2007, although segments such as real estate, legal services and accounting services slowed down in the last two quarters of the year.

On 2009's GDP Forecast:

MTI expects the economic downturn to continue in 2009. The weaker outlook for the Singapore economy compared to earlier forecasts reflects two factors: global economic activity has declined faster and deeper, and the spillover effects on key sectors of the economy will be stronger. ... [E]xternal demand conditions have weakened to a greater extent than earlier estimated. ... The electronics purchasing managers' index for Singapore posted a record low in December 2008. The chemicals cluster is expected to weaken with lower oil prices and lower global demand for other manufactured goods. Global trade is expected to contract in 2009, which will affect trade-related sectors such as wholesale & retail trade and transport & storage. The weak economic performance in the fourth quarter of 2008 reflects these spillover effects, and suggests that growth will weaken further in 2009.

Taking into account the above factors, MTI is revising the economic growth forecast for 2009 to -5.0 to -2.0 per cent.

On CPI Inflation:

The forecast for CPI inflation in 2009 has been revised to -1.0 to 0 per cent. This is largely in expectation of a continued downward correction of commodity prices from the peaks in 2008, in line with the weakening global economy. These global developments will ease upward pressures on domestic retail prices. ...

A pdf copy of the report, including further statistics, can be found here.

How to Protect Your Job in a Recession

2009-01-02T22:29:00.001+08:00

The blog Advertising is Good for You linked to a Harvard Business Review article (published September 2008) entitled How to Protect Your Job in a Recession. I thought the article's executive summary had some good advice, so I'm posting it down below. All of the emphases are mine.

As the economy softens, corporate downsizing appears almost inevitable. Don't panic yet, though. While layoff decisions might seem beyond your control, there's plenty you can do to make sure you retain your job. In this article, Banks, a former HR executive at Chase Manhattan and FleetBoston Financial, and Coutu, an HBR senior editor and former affiliate scholar at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, describe how to improve your chances of survival. It's mostly a matter of coolheaded planning, they observe. When cuts loom, the first thing to do is act like a survivor. Be confident and cheerful. Research shows that congeniality trumps competence when push comes to shove. Look to the future by focusing on customers, for without them, no one will have work. Survivors also tend to be versatile; tight budgets demand managers who can wear several hats, so start demonstrating what other capabilities you can offer. If you're, say, a manager who once worked as a teacher, take on a training role. Remember to be a good corporate citizen: Participation matters now more than ever. It isn't the time to behave as if work is beneath you or to argue for a new title. When one executive's department was folded under the management of a less-experienced colleague, she swallowed her pride and wholeheartedly supported the new hierarchy. Her superiors noticed her commitment and eventually rewarded her with a prestigious appointment. It's also important to offer leaders hope and realistic solutions. Energize your colleagues around change, like the VP of learning at a firm undergoing major staff reductions did. He organized a humorous in-house radio show that revived spirits and helped management communicate with employees-and ended up with a promotion.

US Unemployment Rates - November 2008

2009-01-02T17:04:00.001+08:00

The November US unemployment figures were released recently. The figures, overall, are continuing to get worse. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the "official" national unemployment rate (U-3) increased by 0.2%, from 6.5% to 6.7%, over October's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 2.0%.
For the most inclusive unemployment rate measured (U-6), the increase was 0.7%, from 11.8% to 12.5%. For the past twelve months, U-6 has increased by 4.1%.
In terms of monthly change, the state with the largest increase was Oregon (again), with a 0.9% increase; North Carolina had the next largest increase, at 0.8%, and the District of Columbia and Indiana had increases of 0.7% each.
On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase continues to be Rhode Island with an increase of 4.1%. North Carolina has moved into second place, with an increase of 3.2%, and Georgia and Idaho are tied for third with increases of 3.0% each.
The states with the lowest annual increases are Nebraska at 0.4%, Iowa and South Dakota at 0.5%, Wisconsin at 0.8%, and Kansas, New Hampshire and Utah at 0.9%.
The state with the highest unemployment rate is Michigan, which increased 0.3% to 9.6%; Rhode Island, which was tied for the highest rate in October remained at 9.3% to place second. California and South Carolina are tied for third with a rate of 8.4%.
The states with the lowest unemployment rates continue to be Wyoming (3.2%), North Dakota (3.3%), and South Dakota (3.4%). Utah has been joined by Nebraska at 3.7% each.
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), the states with the biggest decreases since October were Florida (-58,600), North Carolina (-46,000), California (-41,700), Michigan (-36,900) and Georgia (-30,000).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, the states with the biggest decreases are Florida (-206,900), California (-136,000), Michigan (-112,700), and Arizona (-82,200). Two states continue to have statistically significant increases over the past year: Texas (221,200; down 9,200 from October) and Wyoming (8,200; down 1,300).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

All Recessions are Not Created Equal

2008-12-04T21:16:00.000+08:00

In an announcement that was of little surprise to most of us, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finally declared that the United States has been in a recession since December 2007. What may not be quite as well known is that not every state is necessarily undergoing an economic recession at any given time. I thought it might be interesting to see which states are doing well despite the recession and which states are suffering the most.

To do my analysis, I downloaded the historical data spreadsheet (Excel file) of the State Coincident Indexes, which is published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. This is a long-running series of indexes that has been published since 1979. What the coincident indexes do is:

...combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).

Based on this index number, individual state economies can be compared against each other and the nation as a whole to see how well the state is doing. The Philadelphia Fed also create month-by-month color-coded maps so that one can see at a glance each state's performance. Below is the most recent map available, from October 2008. (You can find all of the previously published maps since January 2005 here.)

Looking at the data since December 2007, when the recession officially started, what we find is that fourteen states have actually had economic growth as a percentage change over the past eleven months. Thirty-five states have had a contracting economy while one state (Kansas) has had neither a recession nor growth (a 0.0% "change"). (There is no data for the District of Columbia.) The fourteen states, in order of decreasing economic performance, are: Wyoming, Texas, South Dakota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Virginia, New York, West Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and California. What's surprising to me is that California is in this list as they currently have the third highest unemployment rate in the country.

On the other side, the bottom ten states since last December are Delaware (41st), Arizona, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Michigan, Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon (50th). All of these states have had their index drop by at least 2.2% since December and, in the cases of the latter four, by over 4.0%. (Oregon's index has dropped by a whopping 6.1%.)

Of course these index numbers can change significantly from month to month. Both Oregon and Nevada have seen their index numbers drop by double digits within the eleven-month span (and not for the better). However, while things may look gloomy for some individual states, the economy may become better for them within a short period of time while the rest of the country labors under the current recession.

U.S. Unemployment Rates: Where Do We Stand?

2008-11-27T14:02:00.000+08:00

The October US unemployment figures were recently released and, with very few exceptions, the numbers are rather dismal. (Highlights can be found here.) The numbers that were released, however, are only the "official" statistics. Meaning, the official unemployment rate that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics gives out in its monthly press release is only one of six unemployment rates that it actually calculates. The "official" unemployment rate is the not-so-imaginatively named "U-3." There are two smaller unemployment rates (U-1 and U-2), and three larger (U-4 through U-6). What I'm concerned about is U-6.

The official definition of U-6 is:

Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

...where...

Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

Yada yada yada.

In essence, U-6 covers everyone who's either unemployed, whether they receive unemployment benefits or not, or might be working a part-time job but who really want to be working full-time (i.e., they're underemployed).

On to the statistics then. In October, the "official," U-3 unemployment rate was 6.5%. This is the highest unemployment rate we've seen since March 1994. However, the U-6 unemployment rate in October was 11.8%. This is the fourth month in a row that U-6 has been over 10%, with the lowest rate this year having been in February, at 8.9%. The last time U-6 was this high was in January 1994, when it was 11.8%. (Ironically, this is also the very first month U-6 was published.)

As most economists are presuming today, the country is almost certainly in a recession at this time (even though it hasn't been officially announced yet). How do these unemployment rates, then, compare against the last three recessions? U-6, being a rather limited series of data, only covers one time period when unemployment was almost as bad as it is today. In June 2003, U-3 peaked at 6.3%, while U-6 peaked in September, at 10.4%; the largest spread between the two unemployment rates that year was 4.3%.

The next earliest spike in unemployment rates happened in June 1992, when U-3 reached 7.8%. However, there wasn't any U-6 rate at that time, so we can only guess what it might have been. Doing a little spreadsheet analysis, my own guess is that the spread between U-3 and U-6 at the time was about 5.3%; add that to the 7.8% and the hypothetical U-6 unemployment rate may have been about 13.1%. The worst of the three recessions, though, was that of the early 80s. U-3 peaked in November and December 1982 at 10.8%; this is the only time U-3 has ever peaked above 10% since 1948, when the current series of unemployment rate data starts. Assuming that the spread between U-3 and the hypothetical U-6 was still around 5% at that time (and I think it may have actually been larger), total unemployment and underemployment probably would have been around 16% in late 1982.

So. Unemployment is bad now. It's slightly worse than it was six years ago, but it's also not as bad as it was back in the early 90s or the early 80s, which was much, much worse. Consider that your positive thought for the day. ;)

US Unemployment Figures - October 2008

2008-11-23T13:01:00.005+08:00

The October US unemployment figures were released on Friday. Unsurprisingly, the numbers were not good, although there were a few positive surprises. Here are some of the highlights:

Overall, the national unemployment rate increased by 0.4%, from 6.1% to 6.5%, over September's number. For the past twelve months, the national rate has increased 1.7%.
In terms of monthly change, the state with the largest increase is Oregon, with a 0.9% increase; Alaska and South Carolina have the next two largest increases, at 0.7% each.
On an annual basis, the state with the largest increase is Rhode Island, which has nearly doubled in the past twelve months, from 5.1% to 9.3%, an increase of 4.2%. Florida had the second largest increase, at 2.7%, followed closely by the states of Idaho (2.6%), California, Georgia and Nevada (all at 2.5%).
The state with the highest unemployment rate are the states of Rhode Island and Michigan, both of which are at 9.3%. California is in third with a rate of 8.2%, followed by South Carolina with a rate of 8.0%.
States with the lowest unemployment rates are primarily located in the west and upper mid-west: Wyoming and South Dakota (3.3%), North Dakota (3.4%), and Utah (3.5%).
In terms of non-farm payroll employment (i.e., number of jobs), states with the biggest decreases since September were Washington (-29,300), Florida (-27,300), Michigan (-19,600), and Arizona (-17,700).
For annual changes in non-farm payroll employment, states with the biggest decreases are Florida (-156,200), California (-101,300), Michigan (-71,200), and Arizona (-70,400). However, two states had statistically significant increases over the past year: Texas (230,400) and Wyoming (9,500).

The PDF version of the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release can be found here.

China Beating the US in the Global Oil Game

2008-11-11T15:52:00.003+08:00

A very interesting article at Money Morning about how China is beating the United States in the global oil game. (Actually, The Economist tackled the larger issue of China's thirst for natural resources and how they're going about getting them, particularly in Africa, in a noteworthy special report back in March.) Below are some of the article's highlights:

While this deal, on its face, appears to be just another global oil-services contract, it’s actually a very significant development in the hunt for long-term energy supplies. In fact, it actually demonstrates that – when it comes to nailing down those long-term oil supplies – China is an expert, and is playing a very deep game. And the outcome of that game will certainly have substantial long-term implications for consumers and investors both here in the United States, and in markets abroad. Here’s why:

With estimated reserves of 115 billion barrels, Iraq is tied with Iran for the world’s No. 2 position, trailing Saudi Arabia, which has estimated reserves of 264 billion barrels, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
In a country where electricity is in short supply, the oil produced from the Ahdab Oil Field will help fuel a planned power plant that would be one of the largest in Iraq. By helping Iraq with this key initiative, China can expect to gain a solid foothold in one of the most oil-rich nations in the world, analysts say.
At the end of the day, the deal clearly highlights something that most U.S. investors haven’t focused on yet – namely that the eventual winners in this game may not be such well-known giants as Chevron Corp. (CVX), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), or other household names. Deals like this one and the host of others that are undoubtedly close behind suggest that tomorrow’s winners may have names most English-speaking investors can’t pronounce, since they’ll be distinctly Arabic or Chinese in nature.

...

While China won’t participate in the profits from the oil it helps pump, it is shrewd enough to realize there will be long-term benefits. Analysts who see the bigger picture here agree with our view.

“There are some political profits for China,” Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, a former Iraqi oil minister, told The Times. “They need access to Iraq, and when they need oil, at least the Iraqi people will feel that China has done something for them.”

...

By invading Iraq, the United States dealt China’s central planning commission an embarrassing wakeup call when the second Gulf War summarily wiped out China’s oil interests in Iraq.

When that happened, China’s central planners realized two things:

The status quo in the global oil game had changed.
And China’s double-digit economic miracle could not be sustained with only a few oil suppliers.

What China fears most is that there will not be enough oil to go around in the very near future and that a U.S.-dominated supply chain could effectively “strangle” China’s growth.

So, it has done what the United States and other great powers have done at other times in history and gone on a buying spree from Darfur to Peru that’s turned heads and ruffled feathers all across the world.

What’s been especially frustrating for hapless Western leaders who do not understand that their actions caused this in the first place, is that China’s not afraid to do business with rogue nations like Iran, Sudan and Burma. It has even gotten chummy with Venezuela and Russia – much to the consternation of our present administration.

It’s a virtual certainty that China will maintain this policy going forward. My contacts in China and Africa have told me point blank that China’s leaders “don’t care about human rights or nukes or hostile governments. What matters is anyone who provides oil to China no matter what the rest of the world thinks.”

So, in as much as the U.S. media has dismissed this deal as only one in a long string of recent Chinese oil purchases, it’s arguably the most important deal yet. The reason: It suggests that China will go to extraordinary lengths to obtain the oil it wants and needs.

To add to its stable of captive oil suppliers, China will pay far more money, endure limitless criticism for ignoring human-rights issues and endure harsher business conditions than our companies can or will undertake. While U.S. firms must worry about sanctions, bad publicity or simply security, China worries about one thing, and one thing only – getting oil.

HT: Informed Comment

Want a Strong Economy? Vote for a Democrat!

2008-10-07T21:52:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, I highlighted a post over at Angry Bear that showed that every Democratic president since World War II has left office with a lower unemployment rate than the one he inherited from his predecessor, whereas only one Republican president, Ronald Reagan, could make the same claim. The moral of that story: if you want a job, you should vote for a Democrat.

Today, the folks at Angry Bear have ranked the last fourteen presidents (since Herbert Hoover) as to how the American economy did in real terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation) during each administration. Interestingly enough, five of the top seven presidents were Democrats, and only one Democratic president (Truman) was in the bottom seven. Below is the listing of presidents and the last two paragraphs of the essay; you can read the entire post here.

1. FDR
2. LBJ
3. JFK
4. Clinton
5. Reagan
6. Carter
7. Nixon
8. Ike
10. GW (that's 10 so far – don't be surprised if he sinks further into the mire)
11. Ford
12. Bush Sr.
13. Truman
14. Hoover

What the list shows us, is that, the top half of the spots are dominated by Democrats. Two Republicans, Reagan and Nixon, make it in (5th and 7th, respectively). It also shows us that the bottom half of the list is populated almost exclusively with Republicans. The one Democrat in the bottom half of the list, not incidentally, is the Democrat most beloved of Republicans today: Harry Truman. George Bush has compared himself to Truman, and a few weeks, Sarah Palin told us how she too was comparable to Truman. What are the odds that prominent Republicans would compare themselves with FDR or LBJ? (Snarky answer – probably about the same as the odds a Republican administration would produce a growth rate comparable to FDR or LBJ.)

Now, after 70 years of data, after observing what we've observed over all sorts of conditions, it is hard to conclude anything but this: one party advocates policies that produce rapid economic growth, and one part dismisses those policies with epithets like "socialism" and advocates instead policies that produce dismal economic growth. And dismal economic growth has consequences. Poor economic growth makes people worse off, and hits them in their pocketbook. And when people are hurting financially, their health suffers, the rate of divorce goes up, suicides increase, and the abortion rate increases. So those who advocate the policies that bring us lower incomes, poorer health, break up families, increase suicides, and increase the rate of abortions are doing us all a lot of harm. More, in fact, than Osama or Saddam could possibly have done. And yet, the folks who advocates those policies question the patriotism of the rest of us. It's very, very strange.

The Economic Version of "Final Destination 3"

2008-10-06T14:08:00.002+08:00

There is someone, walking behind you
Turn around, look at me
There is someone, watching your footsteps
Turn around, look at me
One more post on economics (for now), this time an unusual look at housing prices. The New York Times produced a graph of Robert Shiller's American housing price index, which shows what prices have been like from 1890 through 2006. For example, if a standard house cost $100,000 in 1890 (in 2006 dollars), a similar home would have sold for $199,000 in 2006. What's interesting, though, is that someone has taken Shiller's data and transformed it into a roller-coaster ride using Atari's RollerCoaster Tycoon (R)3 software. (Be sure to look at the bottom right corner to view the year.)

The problem with this video, though, is that it stops short of what's happened in the past two years. Back in late May, The Economist, which I do read (apparently this is a political joke now), produced a graph that shows this past year's plunge. To give an idea of what the end of the roller-coaster ride should look like, one wit at Angry Bear suggested the following video:

HT: Angry Bear

State Coincident Indices Through August 2008

2008-10-06T12:18:00.008+08:00

The State Coincident Indices, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, have been released through the month of August. The top graph is from the month of May, which I've republished to provide some continuity from the previous set of graphs; the latter three graphs are for June, July and August.

As you can see, there has been some strengthening in the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana (one wonders how the graphs will look after taking into account Hurricanes Gustav and Ike), the western half of the upper Midwest, and West Virginia, which went from deep red to dark blue in a matter of two months. Trouble spots include the Pacific Southwest and the Midwest, although the latter region may be improving; we'll have to wait and see.

From the August 2008 press release [pdf]:

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has released the coincident indexes for all 50 states for August 2008. The indexes increased in 12 states for the month, decreased in 31, and were unchanged in the remaining seven (a one-month diffusion index of -38). For the past three months, the indexes have increased in 12 states, decreased in 35, and were unchanged in the other three (a three-month diffusion index of -46). For comparison purposes, the Philadelphia Fed developed a similar coincident index for the entire United States. The Philadelphia Fed’s U.S. index was flat in August and has remained unchanged over the past three months.

Want a Job? Vote for a Democrat!

2008-10-06T12:12:00.001+08:00

A couple of interesting posts on unemployment today, the first being from Spencer at Angry Bear:

So much for Sarah Palin's claim that Republican tax cuts create jobs. In the post WW II era every Democratic President has left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited from their predecessor while only one Republican president left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited. That was Ronald Reagan, but his first term still holds the record for the highest average unemployment rate of any post - WW II four year Presidential term.

George Bush inherited a 3.9% unemployment rate and the results of all his tax cuts has been a rise in the unemployment rate to 6.1%, so far. By contrast Bill Clinton inherited a 7.4% unemployment rate and with his prudent fiscal policy left Bush a 3.9% unemployment rate.

Leave it to Team Bush to be the only American President to throw a war that failed to stimulate the economy.

Another scary graph comes from Economist's View:

A grim morning: Double plus ungood news on multiple fronts this morning. The credit crunch is getting worse: LIBOR jumped again, the TED spread is at a new record. Bad news on employment: payrolls down 159,000, average work week down, official unemployment rate flat at 6.1 percent but broad measure (U6) up from 10.7 to 11.

We are going over the edge.

The track record: This chart shows U6, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (No data available before 1994.)

State Coincident Indexes

2008-06-25T15:52:00.000+08:00

Every month, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces a "State Coincident Index" that allows economists to see how well each of the individual states are doing economically:

The coincident indexes combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). The trend for each state’s index is set to the trend of its gross domestic product (GDP), so long-term growth in the state’s index matches long-term growth in its GDP.

What the graphs below show is a state-by-state analysis of the economy. The first three maps show the month of January for 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively. (Note that in these maps, a five-point scale is used with dark blue being the best and dark red being the worst.) The last six maps are for the last six months available, December 2007 through May 2008. While the scale has been increased from five points to seven points, the same basic color scheme is still used; i.e., dark blue is the best, dark red is the worst.

As you can see, the American economy has gotten quite bad over the past six months, especially in the Northwest and, to a slightly lesser degree, in the Midwest and South. Some of the states in the Mountain West and Northeast are doing well, with the best state currently being Texas. (I'd be tempted to say that Texas is doing well because of the multiplier effects from higher oil prices, but if that's the case, then why isn't Alaska doing well too?)

HT: Economist's View

Robert Reich: ""No" to Further Offshore Drilling

2008-06-21T16:59:00.001+08:00

The other day, in my update about how much oil the U.S. imports, I wrote:

...[S]hame on you ... if you believe either McCain or Cheney that drilling for oil offshore or up in Alaska will make a significant difference. Two reasons: "drop in the bucket" and "long-term projects," neither of which will lower your gas prices.

On the same day that I wrote the above, Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration and currently a professor at the University of California (and a blogger), had a similar post on why the U.S. should not do further offshore drilling for oil. His first and second reasons are identical to what I wrote above, just further developed:

First, the crude oil market is global. Oil companies sell all over the world. The price of crude is established by global supply and demand. So even if 3 million additional barrels a day could be extruded from lands and seabeds of the United States (that sum is the most optimistic figure, after all exploration is done), that sum is tiny compared to 86 million barrels now produced around the world. In other words, even under the best circumstances, the price to American consumers would hardly budge.

Second, whatever impact such drilling might have would occur far in the future anyway. Oil isn't just waiting there to be pumped out of the earth. Exploration takes time. Erecting drilling equipment takes time. Getting the oil out takes time. Turning crude into various oil products takes time. According the the federal energy agency, if we opening drilling where drilling is now banned, there'd be no significant impact on domestic crude and natural gas production until 2030.

Third, oil companies already hold a significant number of leases on federal lands and offshore seabeds where they are now allowed to drill, and which they have not yet fully explored. Why then would they seek more drilling rights? Because they want more leases now, when the Bushies are still in office. Ownership of these parcels would serve to to pump up their balance sheets even if no oil is pumped.

Last but by no means least, environmental risks are still significant.

HT: Economist's View

Update: How Much Oil Does America Import?

2008-06-19T17:04:00.003+08:00

Currently, my most popular blog post by far is How Much Oil Does America Import?, written back in May 2006, two years ago. I thought it was time to update the figures and see how the U.S. is doing since I first wrote that post.

The U.S. gets its oil from two sources: either it pumps its own oil, called "Field Production" by the Department of Energy, or it imports oil from other countries around the world. In 2000, American commercial field production made up 38.69% of the total supply of crude oil, while imports made up 60.28%. In 2005, when I wrote the last post, those same percentages were 33.67% and 65.84%, respectively. (These numbers are different from what I wrote back in 2006 as adjustments have been made to the official statistics; these types of revisions are normal for economic statistics.) In 2007 (the most recent year), the percentages were 33.72% and 66.19%, respectively. While there has been an extremely slight increase in the amount of oil pumped domestically (0.05%), imports have also increased as well. (The reason why both numbers can increase is because a third number, "supply adjustments," fell.)

In 2007, the U.S. imported a total of 3,656,170 thousand barrels. Of those 3.66 billion barrles, the U.S. imported from a total of 46 different countries. The top 5 importing countries were: Canada (18.61%), Saudi Arabia (14.50%), Mexico (14.07%), Venezuela (11.48%), and Nigeria (10.80%), for a total of 69.47% of all American imports. In contrast, imports from countries six through ten (Angola, Iraq, Algeria, Ecuador, and Kuwait) made up only 17.95% of the total; countries 11 through 46 made up the remaining 12.58%.

Looking at petroleum imports in two other ways...

In 2007, imports from OPEC countries* made up 53.85% of all U.S. imports, compared to the 46.15% from non-OPEC countries. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. Since 1993, when the Energy Information Agency (EIA) started breaking out the statistics, non-OPEC countries have been the dominant exporters ten years out of the past fifteen. The year 2007 was the first time since 2001 that OPEC countries had sold more petroleum to the U.S. than non-OPEC countries.
With respect to the Persian Gulf, those countries** only made up 21.19% of the total imports. This is down slightly, one-half percent, from my 2006 analysis. Note that the U.S. imports no oil from Iran.

Conclusions/Predictions:
Two years ago, I made four points as to how I thought things would go with respect to American oil imports and consumption. We'll look at how good or bad those predictions were:

1. American field production will probably go below 25% of its total annual supply within the next five years.

I think we can write this prediction off; I don't foresee this happening within the next three years (or perhaps even the next ten).

2. In that same time frame, imports will probably be in the high 50s percentage (perhaps 58-59%).

On the other hand, I think this prediction is very much a lock at this time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this number goes back up again, remaining in the 60-65% range.

3. America will continue to seek the majority of its oil from non-OPEC countries, such as Canada and Mexico, if only to avoid being as dependent on OPEC countries as they have been in the past. However, this will probably turn out to be a pipe dream in the long run unless Canadian oil reserve estimates turn out to be near the high end. (Estimates for Canada's proven oil reserves ranges from 4.7 billion barrels (World Oil) to 14.803 billion barrels (BP Statistical Review) to 178.792 billion barrels (Oil & Gas Journal). Obviously, this extremely wide range of guesses shows that no one truly knows how much oil Canada has.)

Since I wrote this, I've gotten a better understanding with respect to Canada's oil reserves. The problem with the Canadian oil sands is that it is made up of a very dense and viscous type of petroleum called bitumen. Bitumen is like molasses at room temperature, and needs heating just to flow. (The tar that we pave roads with is bitumen.) Oil refineries are set up to process certain types of crude oils, and bitumen is normally not one of them. So, while Canada has a lot of proved oil reserves, most of it is not in the form the refineries need to produce products like gasoline. In this respect, the lower reserve amount mentioned above is probably closer to the amount of crude oil Canada actually has. In time, more refineries may convert to take advantage of the Canadian oil sands, but that will probably be a gradual process.

4. Persian Gulf oil, which has ranged between 19.81% and 28.56% of all U.S. imports since 1996, will probably continue to hover in the high teens-low 20s, despite President Bush's goal to cut American consumption of Middle Eastern oil by 75% by 2025, per the latest State of the Union address.

I don't see this forecast changing at all. What President Bush said in 2006 about cutting the amount of Middle Eastern oil America consumes was complete and utter bullshit (and shame on you if you believed him). BTW, shame on you again if you believe either McCain or Cheney that drilling for oil offshore or up in Alaska will make a significant difference. Two reasons: "drop in the bucket" and "long-term projects," neither of which will lower your gas prices. I may post on this in the near future, insha'allah, but in the meantime I recommend that you read John McCain's Oil Scam over at Informed Comment (Juan Cole), and Drilling Our Way to... by Menzie Chinn over at Econbrowser.

References:
US Crude Oil Supply and Disposition (DoE)
US Crude Oil Imports by Country of Origin (DoE)

Notes:
* OPEC countries include Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Venezuela.
** Persian Gulf countries include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran and Qatar export no oil to the U.S.

Cross-posted at Dunner's and Daily Kos.

Why Beef Prices are Heading Higher

2008-05-29T08:12:00.001+08:00

Bonddad recently wrote about a Bloomberg article on rising beef prices. My quibble isn't with his technical analysis, but with one of his comments. He thought that demand was increasing for beef because...

...as the world's standard of loving [sic] increases (think India and China making more and more money) people will want better things like steak.

Now, generally speaking, what he said is true; as people's incomes rise, we do want goods that are better than what we had before. In economics, we call these "normal goods." A normal good is any good for which demand increases when income increases. A car is an example of a normal good. All things being equal, what would you rather do if your income increases, continue taking the bus or train to work or buy a new car? Of course, you'd buy the new car. (Conversely, an "inferior good" is a good that decreases in demand as income rises; an example for the US being ramen noodles.) Anyhoo, Bonddad is suggesting that because incomes are rising in countries like India and China, they want to eat better foods such as American steak. However, the truth is that beef exports to other countries isn't the reason.

In 2006, the US exported a total of 1.145 billion pounds of beef out of a total supply of 29.912 billion pounds, which comes to 3.83%. So a little under 4% of all US beef available in the country was exported. In 2007, the percentage was 4.74%, in 2008 total beef exports is projected to be 5.44%, and for 2009, 6.21%. [All of these numbers and the following data come from the US Department of Agriculture's monthly report, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, for April and May 2008.] So, beef exports are increasing, but very slowly. Rising beef exports out of the total available for sale in the US will cause domestic beef prices to rise, but not by that much. Let's look at the more likely culprit.

American cattle are normally either grass-fed or corn-fed. Per Wikipedia, "In the United States, cattle in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are typically fed corn, soy and other types of feed that can include "by-product feedstuff." As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle." Per a 2003 Colorado State University study, "80% of consumers in the Denver-Colorado area preferred the taste of United States corn-fed beef to Australian grass-fed beef." And so a very significant portion of America's annual corn crop goes to feed cattle, and the price of corn has been rising dramatically, like other agricultural products, such as rice. Just how much corn is being used to feed cattle?

In 2005/6, the US had a total supply of 13.237 billion bushels of corn. Of that amount 6.155 billion bushels (46.50%) were used as "feed and residual," 2.981 billion bushels (22.52%) were used as "food, seed and industrial," and 2.134 billion bushels (16.12%) were exported. The remainder (1.967 billion bushels, 14.86%) was "closing stock" and used in the following year, 2006/7. Now, looking at these individual categories, we see that "feed and residual" was 44.73% in 2006/7 and is estimated to be 42.73% in 2007/8 and 39.19% in 2008/9. Clearly, "feed and residual" isn't a problem. Likewise, exports aren't a significant cause of corn inflation either: 16.98% of all US corn was exported in 2006/7, and 17.37% and 15.53% is expected to be exported in 2007/8 and 2008/9, respectively. Which leads to "food, seed and industrial."

The first two of these should be self-explanatory. It's the industrial that we're concerned with. The industrial use of corn comes primarily in the form of ethanol. You know, the alcohol addititive to your gasoline so that you wouldn't pay as much money (you hoped) to run your car? Turns out that ethanol is bringing up the price of corn. The USDA breaks out the amount of corn that's used in the production of ethanol, which is very helpful for our analysis. In 2005/6, corn used for ethanol made up 1.603 billion bushels out of the 2.981 billion bushels mentioned above (the remainder was presumably used for food and seed). Which means that that 1.603 billion bushels made up 12.11% of the total American corn supply. In 2006/7, that percentage increased to 16.92%, and is expected to increase to 20.84% and 29.58% in 2007/8 and 2008/9, respectively. That's where the corn's going! So, let's connect the dots.

Because Americans prefer corn-fed cattle over grass-fed, cattle producers feed them lots of corn and other grains that, in turn, help them to fatten up quicker before they're slaughtered. Still, it takes feedlot cattle 14-18 months before they are killed, which means they eat a lot of corn. (I don't know exactly how much an average cow eats in its lifetime. No doubt the farmers do.) Because the price of corn has been going up ($2.00 per bushel in 2005/6 to $3.04 per bushel in 2006/7), it costs the cattle producer that much more to feed a cow until it gets to its terminal weight. Which means that cattle producers are actually losing money now for every cow they sell. According to the Bloomberg article, the feedlots were losing $139.56 a head in April, up from a record loss of $169.80 a head in March, and down from a profit of $46.79 a head in April 2007. No doubt there are some other factors that probably have affected the price increases for corn (oil and fertilizers come to mind), but the primary cause of the price increases in beef appears to be due to the increases in the price of corn. Which, no doubt, must be a relief to the Indians and Chinese, who don't tend to eat beef anyway; the former tend to eat mutton and chicken, the latter pork.

James Hamilton: Oil Price Fundamentals

2008-05-21T18:02:00.003+08:00

James Hamilton at Econbrowser looks at the question of what's been driving oil prices higher, market fundamentals or speculation? I've got some additional comments down below.

The developed economies consume a disproportionate share of the world's energy, with North America and Europe accounting for about half of the total oil use in 2006. However, it is the newly industrialized countries and oil producers that account for the recent rapid growth in demand, with Asia and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase in petroleum use between 2003 and 2006. North America and Europe contributed only 1/5 of the growth.

Particularly dramatic in this growth has been China, whose petroleum consumption between 1990 and 2006 increased at a 7.2% annual compound rate. It's always amusing to project these impressive exponential growth rates. If that rate of growth were to continue, China would be using 20 million barrels a day by 2020, about as much as the U.S. is today. By 2030, China would be up to 40 mb/d, twice the current U.S. consumption.

Are such projections plausible from the point of view of potential demand? During 2006, China used about 2 barrels of oil per person. For comparison, Mexico used 6.6-- Chinese oil consumption could triple and they'd still be using less per person than Mexico is today. The U.S. used almost 25 barrels per person. According to the data collected for a new research paper by Max Auffhammer and Richard Carson, there were 3.3 passenger vehicles per 100 Chinese residents in 2006, compared with 77 in the United States. Yes, I would say that these astonishing numbers for potential future Chinese oil demand are not at all inconceivable.

...

I do think there are prospects for a significant boost to world petroleum production this year, thanks to a number of big new projects scheduled to begin production. The Wikipedia database reports 7 mb/d in eventual gross new production capacity eventually expected from projects that are supposed to begin producing during the current calendar year. Before you get too excited about that number, however, several cautions are in order. First, 7 mb/d refers to the eventual peak production, not the amount that can be produced this year. Second, there is inevitably some slippage and delays. For example, the list includes 250,000 b/d from Thunder Horse, BP's Gulf of Mexico project that was initially hoped to start giving us oil in 2005, but is still undergoing repair work. Third, the above tabulation refers to gross new capacity, much of which is needed to replace declining production currently being observed in the world's mature producing fields. At any point in time, some of the world's producing fields are well into decline, some are at plateau production, and others are on the way up. It is not clear what average decline rate is appropriate to apply to aggregate global production, but a plausible ballpark number might be 4%. That would mean that in the absence of new projects, global production would decline by 3.4 mb/d each year. To put it another way, a new producing area equivalent to current annual production from Iran (OPEC's second biggest producer) needs to be brought on line every year just to keep global production from falling. Of the 7mb/d in gross new capacity from the projects tabulated above, projects in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Mexico account for about a third of this gross increase. Data currently available for the first two months of 2008 show actual production in Saudi Arabia down 350,000 b/d from its average 2005 value, though the latest news suggests that Saudi production may be close to returning to 2005 levels. Mexican production is currently down 400,000 b/d from 2005, and Russian production is down 100,000 b/d from its average level in the second half of 2007.

To summarize, I think we will see some net production gains this year, and expect this to bring some relief for oil prices. But I cannot imagine that the projected path for China above will ever become a reality. Oil prices have to rise to whatever value it takes to prevent that from happening.

So yes, I do believe that speculation has played a role in the oil price increases, particularly what we've observed the last few months. But it's a big mistake to conclude that speculation is the most important part of the longer run trend we've been seeing.

I've been studying petroleum consumption for a number of months now, and have done my own forecast for China through the year 2012 (a five-year forecast). Although I haven't had the chance to post the executive summary of my Northeast Asia forecast here, China's petroleum consumption rate on a per-capita basis is very, very small. Hamilton said that China "used about 2 barrels of oil per person" in 2006, but the actual number is 1.0256 barrels per person. Likewise, petroleum consumption on a per capita basis has been very weak as well. The Chinese compound annual growth rate between 1985 and 2006 was 1.86% per year. I'm forecasting a per capita growth rate of 0.61% to 0.88% for the period between 2006 and 2012. Of course, aggregate consumption growth rates should be somewhat higher but, at current consumption growth rates, it will take decades for China to reach Mexico's consumption level, let alone the U.S.'s level. (To be honest, I don't think that China will ever get that far; I suspect most oil worldwide would be gone before China could get up to the U.S.'s level of gluttony.)

Overall, though, I agree with Hamilton's analysis; I think oil prices are primarily driven by market fundamentals. There probably is some speculation at work here (as there is for commodity prices), but I think a relatively stable level of supply and an ever increasing level of demand are the primary factors bringing oil prices higher.

Jeffrey D. Sachs: Surging Food Prices Mean Global Instability

2008-05-20T17:23:00.003+08:00

Quite by coincidence, I came across the following article in Scientific American just a short time after publishing my last post. This article, by Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, focuses primarily on one of the root causes of the current food crisis, the conversion of maize ("corn" to us Americans) into ethanol. One of the good things about this article is that four recommendations are given; the first of which ties in very well with the food sovereignty idea/Malawi case study mentioned in my previous post.

While you're at it, you should also read Angry Bear's The Biofuel-Backlash Backlash and Econbrowser's Reconciling Estimates: Biofuels and Food Prices.

The recent surge in world food prices is already creating havoc in poor countries, and worse is to come. Food riots are spreading across Africa, though many are unreported in the international press. Moreover, the surge in wheat, maize and rice prices seen on commodities markets have not yet fully percolated into the shops and stalls of the poor countries or the budgets of relief organizations. Nor has the budget crunch facing relief organizations such as the World Food Program, which must buy food in world markets, been fully felt. The results could be calamitous unless offsetting policy actions are taken rapidly.

The facts are stark. A metric ton of wheat cost around $375 on the commodity exchanges in early 2006. In March 2008, it stood at over $900. Maize has gone from around $250 to $560 in the same period. Rice prices have also soared. The physical inventories of grain relative to demand are also down sharply in recent years.

Several factors are at play in the skyrocketing prices, reflecting both rising global demand and falling supplies of food grains. World incomes have been rising at around 5 percent annually in recent years, and 4 percent in per capita terms, leading to an increased global demand for food and for meat as a share of the diet. China’s economic growth, of course, has been double the world’s average. The rising demand for meat exacerbates the pressures on grain and oil-seed prices since several kilograms of animal feed are required to produce each kilogram of meat.

Feed grains have risen from around 30 percent of total global grain production to around 40 percent today. Land that would otherwise be planted to the main grains is shifting to soya bean and other oil seeds used for animal feed. It is forecast, for example, that U.S. farmers will cut maize plantings by 8 million acres, while raising soya-bean production by about the same amount. The grain supply side has also been disrupted by climate shocks, such as Australia’s massive droughts.

An even bigger blow has been the U.S. decision to subsidize conversion of maize into ethanol to blend with gasoline. This wrong-headed policy, pushed by an aggressive farm lobby, gives a 51-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline. The 2005 Energy Policy Act mandates a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons of domestic renewable-fuel production, which will overwhelmingly be corn-based ethanol, by 2012. Consequently, up to a third of the U.S. mid-Western maize crop this year will be converted to ethanol, causing a cascade of price increases across the food chain. (Worse, use of ethanol instead of gasoline does little to reduce net carbon emissions once the energy-intensive full cycle of ethanol production-- including the energy-intensive fertilizer and transport needs --is taken into account.)

The food price increases are pummeling poor food-importing regions, with Africa by far the hardest hit. Several countries, such as Egypt, India and Vietnam, have cut off their rice exports in response to soaring prices at home, thereby exacerbating the effects on rice-importing countries. Even small changes in food prices can push the poor into hunger and destitution: as famously expounded by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, some of the greatest famines in history were caused not by massive declines in grain production but rather by losses in the purchasing power of the poor.

At a time when hundreds of billions of dollars each year veer to war rather than peaceful development, and when media attention is riveted on the U.S. financial crises, it is hard to raise even a few billion dollars for desperately hungry people. Still, it is urgent to do so. At least four measures should be taken in response to soaring food prices.

First, the world should heed the call of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to fund a massive increase in Africa’s own food production. The needed technologies are available—high-yield seeds, fertilizer, small-scale irrigation—but the financing is not. The new African Green Revolution would initially subsidize peasant farmers’ access to high-yield technologies and thereby at least double grain yields. The funding would also help farm communities establish long-term micro-finance institutions to ensure continued access to improved agricultural inputs after the temporary subsidies are ended in a few years.

Second, the U.S. should end its misguided corn-to-ethanol subsidies. Farmers hardly need them given world demand for food and feed grains. There is certainly a case for re-doubling the scientific efforts to produce bio-fuels on lands which do not compete with food crops, for example from cellulosic ethanol, but this technology is still not ready for the market.

Third, the world should support longer-term research into higher agricultural production. Shockingly, the Bush administration is proposing to cut sharply the U.S. funding for tropical agriculture research in the Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), just when that research is most urgently needed. This is an example of the Administration’s anti-scientific approach at its worst.

Finally, the world should follow through on the promised Climate Adaptation Fund announced last December in the Bali Climate Change conference, to help poor countries face the growing risks to food production from increasingly adverse climate conditions. Even as the world staunches the immediate crisis, there will be more wrenching dislocations as drought, heat stress, pest infestations and other climate-induced shocks occur increasingly often.

HT: Economist's View

Walden Bello: Manufacturing a Food Crisis

2008-05-20T14:35:00.002+08:00

In reading this important article by Walden Bello in The Nation, one wonders who the people at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) really are: dogmatic eggheads who blindly follow the "free trade" mantra without regard to the human consequences, or useful fools working on behalf of rich northern nations and corporations? Perhaps both. Bello shows that, since the early 80s, the World Bank, IMF, WTO and free trade agreements like NAFTA have caused several nations (Mexico and the Philippines are given as examples) to go from being net exporters of food to net importers, largely as a result of World Bank and IMF policies that helped keep several governments solvent but at the expense of ruining local farmers. The countries were forced to accept highly subsidized food imports from the U.S. and the European Union or, in the case of Malawi, to sell off their food reserves in return for loans. In the meantime, more and more farmers are committing suicide (especially in India) as their livelihoods are ruined, and about 1,500 Malawians died from starvation when a famine struck that country in 2001-02, when little food was available because the country had been forced (earlier) to sell their food reserves. (One wonders whether the IMF and the other NGOs realize how much blood is on their hands.) The case of Malawi is particularly rich with irony considering that the World Bank forced the Malawian government to scrap a subsidy program for its farmers (which had been very successful, bringing in a bumper crop of corn), because "the subsidy distorted trade." And, yet, "[s]ince the late 1990s subsidies have accounted for 40 percent of the value of agricultural production in the European Union and 25 percent in the United States." What hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with international trade; we all benefit by it. But "free" trade often isn't free and can carry an extremely heavy cost. Trade, like anything else, needs to be regulated if it is to work most effectively. Obviously the human costs, in terms of suffering and needless deaths, are factors that need to be considered, but aren't. The suggestion of "food sovereignty," mentioned at the bottom of the article, makes sense. We need to realize that most of these farmers in Mexico, the Philippines, and around the world are among the poorest of the poor who, like everyone else, need to be able to support themselves and their families. Poor national governments need to weigh more carefully the demands of debt servicing by organizations like the IMF and World Bank against the needs of their citizens who are most at risk.

Some excerpts:

However, an intriguing question escaped many observers: how on earth did Mexicans, who live in the land where corn was domesticated, become dependent on US imports in the first place?

The Mexican food crisis cannot be fully understood without taking into account the fact that in the years preceding the tortilla crisis, the homeland of corn had been converted to a corn-importing economy by “free market” policies promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and Washington. The process began with the early 1980s debt crisis. One of the two largest developing-country debtors, Mexico was forced to beg for money from the Bank and IMF to service its debt to international commercial banks. The quid pro quo for a multibillion-dollar bailout was what a member of the World Bank executive board described as “unprecedented thoroughgoing interventionism” designed to eliminate high tariffs, state regulations and government support institutions, which neoliberal doctrine identified as barriers to economic efficiency.

Interest payments rose from 19 percent of total government expenditures in 1982 to 57 percent in 1988, while capital expenditures dropped from an already low 19.3 percent to 4.4 percent. The contraction of government spending translated into the dismantling of state credit, government-subsidized agricultural inputs, price supports, state marketing boards and extension services. Unilateral liberalization of agricultural trade pushed by the IMF and World Bank also contributed to the destabilization of peasant producers.

This blow to peasant agriculture was followed by an even larger one in 1994, when the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect. Although NAFTA had a fifteen-year phaseout of tariff protection for agricultural products, including corn, highly subsidized US corn quickly flooded in, reducing prices by half and plunging the corn sector into chronic crisis. Largely as a result of this agreement, Mexico’s status as a net food importer has now been firmly established.

With the shutting down of the state marketing agency for corn, distribution of US corn imports and Mexican grain has come to be monopolized by a few transnational traders, like US-owned Cargill and partly US-owned Maseca, operating on both sides of the border. This has given them tremendous power to speculate on trade trends, so that movements in biofuel demand can be manipulated and magnified many times over. At the same time, monopoly control of domestic trade has ensured that a rise in international corn prices does not translate into significantly higher prices paid to small producers.

...

The Philippines provides a grim example of how neoliberal economic restructuring transforms a country from a net food exporter to a net food importer. The Philippines is the world’s largest importer of rice. Manila’s desperate effort to secure supplies at any price has become front-page news, and pictures of soldiers providing security for rice distribution in poor communities have become emblematic of the global crisis.

The broad contours of the Philippines story are similar to those of Mexico. Dictator Ferdinand Marcos was guilty of many crimes and misdeeds, including failure to follow through on land reform, but one thing he cannot be accused of is starving the agricultural sector. To head off peasant discontent, the regime provided farmers with subsidized fertilizer and seeds, launched credit plans and built rural infrastructure. When Marcos fled the country in 1986, there were 900,000 metric tons of rice in government warehouses.

Paradoxically, the next few years under the new democratic dispensation saw the gutting of government investment capacity. As in Mexico the World Bank and IMF, working on behalf of international creditors, pressured the Corazon Aquino administration to make repayment of the $26 billion foreign debt a priority. Aquino acquiesced, though she was warned by the country’s top economists that the “search for a recovery program that is consistent with a debt repayment schedule determined by our creditors is a futile one.” Between 1986 and 1993 8 percent to 10 percent of GDP left the Philippines yearly in debt-service payments — roughly the same proportion as in Mexico. Interest payments as a percentage of expenditures rose from 7 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1994; capital expenditures plunged from 26 percent to 16 percent. In short, debt servicing became the national budgetary priority.

Spending on agriculture fell by more than half. The World Bank and its local acolytes were not worried, however, since one purpose of the belt-tightening was to get the private sector to energize the countryside. But agricultural capacity quickly eroded. Irrigation stagnated, and by the end of the 1990s only 17 percent of the Philippines’ road network was paved, compared with 82 percent in Thailand and 75 percent in Malaysia. Crop yields were generally anemic, with the average rice yield way below those in China, Vietnam and Thailand, where governments actively promoted rural production. The post-Marcos agrarian reform program shriveled, deprived of funding for support services, which had been the key to successful reforms in Taiwan and South Korea. As in Mexico Filipino peasants were confronted with full-scale retreat of the state as provider of comprehensive support — a role they had come to depend on.

And the cutback in agricultural programs was followed by trade liberalization, with the Philippines’ 1995 entry into the World Trade Organization having the same effect as Mexico’s joining NAFTA. WTO membership required the Philippines to eliminate quotas on all agricultural imports except rice and allow a certain amount of each commodity to enter at low tariff rates. While the country was allowed to maintain a quota on rice imports, it nevertheless had to admit the equivalent of 1 to 4 percent of domestic consumption over the next ten years. In fact, because of gravely weakened production resulting from lack of state support, the government imported much more than that to make up for shortfalls. The massive imports depressed the price of rice, discouraging farmers and keeping growth in production at a rate far below that of the country’s two top suppliers, Thailand and Vietnam.

The consequences of the Philippines’ joining the WTO barreled through the rest of its agriculture like a super-typhoon. Swamped by cheap corn imports — much of it subsidized US grain — farmers reduced land devoted to corn from 3.1 million hectares in 1993 to 2.5 million in 2000. Massive importation of chicken parts nearly killed that industry, while surges in imports destabilized the poultry, hog and vegetable industries.

During the 1994 campaign to ratify WTO membership, government economists, coached by their World Bank handlers, promised that losses in corn and other traditional crops would be more than compensated for by the new export industry of “high-value-added” crops like cut flowers, asparagus and broccoli. Little of this materialized. Nor did many of the 500,000 agricultural jobs that were supposed to be created yearly by the magic of the market; instead, agricultural employment dropped from 11.2 million in 1994 to 10.8 million in 2001.

The one-two punch of IMF-imposed adjustment and WTO-imposed trade liberalization swiftly transformed a largely self-sufficient agricultural economy into an import-dependent one as it steadily marginalized farmers.

...

A study of fourteen countries by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization found that the levels of food imports in 1995-98 exceeded those in 1990-94. This was not surprising, since one of the main goals of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture was to open up markets in developing countries so they could absorb surplus production in the North. As then-US Agriculture Secretary John Block put it in 1986, “The idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on US agricultural products, which are available in most cases at lower cost.”

What Block did not say was that the lower cost of US products stemmed from subsidies, which became more massive with each passing year despite the fact that the WTO was supposed to phase them out. From $367 billion in 1995, the total amount of agricultural subsidies provided by developed-country governments rose to $388 billion in 2004. Since the late 1990s subsidies have accounted for 40 percent of the value of agricultural production in the European Union and 25 percent in the United States.

...

This is not simply the erosion of national food self-sufficiency or food security but what Africanist Deborah Bryceson of Oxford calls “de-peasantization” — the phasing out of a mode of production to make the countryside a more congenial site for intensive capital accumulation. This transformation is a traumatic one for hundreds of millions of people, since peasant production is not simply an economic activity. It is an ancient way of life, a culture, which is one reason displaced or marginalized peasants in India have taken to committing suicide. In the state of Andhra Pradesh, farmer suicides rose from 233 in 1998 to 2,600 in 2002; in Maharashtra, suicides more than tripled, from 1,083 in 1995 to 3,926 in 2005. One estimate is that some 150,000 Indian farmers have taken their lives. Collapse of prices from trade liberalization and loss of control over seeds to biotech firms is part of a comprehensive problem, says global justice activist Vandana Shiva: “Under globalization, the farmer is losing her/his social, cultural, economic identity as a producer. A farmer is now a ‘consumer’ of costly seeds and costly chemicals sold by powerful global corporations through powerful landlords and money lenders locally.”

...

At the time of decolonization, in the 1960s, Africa was actually a net food exporter. Today the continent imports 25 percent of its food; almost every country is a net importer. Hunger and famine have become recurrent phenomena, with the past three years alone seeing food emergencies break out in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and Southern and Central Africa.

Agriculture in Africa is in deep crisis, and the causes range from wars to bad governance, lack of agricultural technology and the spread of HIV/AIDS. However, as in Mexico and the Philippines, an important part of the explanation is the phasing out of government controls and support mechanisms under the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs imposed as the price for assistance in servicing external debt.

...

The support that African governments were allowed to muster was channeled by the World Bank toward export agriculture to generate foreign exchange, which states needed to service debt. But, as in Ethiopia during the 1980s famine, this led to the dedication of good land to export crops, with food crops forced into less suitable soil, thus exacerbating food insecurity. Moreover, the World Bank’s encouragement of several economies to focus on the same export crops often led to overproduction, triggering price collapses in international markets. For instance, the very success of Ghana’s expansion of cocoa production triggered a 48 percent drop in the international price between 1986 and 1989. In 2002-03 a collapse in coffee prices contributed to another food emergency in Ethiopia.

As in Mexico and the Philippines, structural adjustment in Africa was not simply about underinvestment but state divestment. But there was one major difference. In Africa the World Bank and IMF micromanaged, making decisions on how fast subsidies should be phased out, how many civil servants had to be fired and even, as in the case of Malawi, how much of the country’s grain reserve should be sold and to whom.

Compounding the negative impact of adjustment were unfair EU and US trade practices. Liberalization allowed subsidized EU beef to drive many West African and South African cattle raisers to ruin. With their subsidies legitimized by the WTO, US growers offloaded cotton on world markets at 20 percent to 55 percent of production cost, thereby bankrupting West and Central African farmers.

...

In 1999 the government of Malawi initiated a program to give each smallholder family a starter pack of free fertilizers and seeds. The result was a national surplus of corn. What came after is a story that should be enshrined as a classic case study of one of the greatest blunders of neoliberal economics. The World Bank and other aid donors forced the scaling down and eventual scrapping of the program, arguing that the subsidy distorted trade. Without the free packs, output plummeted. In the meantime, the IMF insisted that the government sell off a large portion of its grain reserves to enable the food reserve agency to settle its commercial debts. The government complied. When the food crisis turned into a famine in 2001-02, there were hardly any reserves left. About 1,500 people perished. The IMF was unrepentant; in fact, it suspended its disbursements on an adjustment program on the grounds that “the parastatal sector will continue to pose risks to the successful implementation of the 2002/03 budget. Government interventions in the food and other agricultural markets… [are] crowding out more productive spending.”

By the time an even worse food crisis developed in 2005, the government had had enough of World Bank/IMF stupidity. A new president reintroduced the fertilizer subsidy, enabling 2 million households to buy it at a third of the retail price and seeds at a discount. The result: bumper harvests for two years, a million-ton maize surplus and the country transformed into a supplier of corn to Southern Africa.

Malawi’s defiance of the World Bank would probably have been an act of heroic but futile resistance a decade ago. The environment is different today, since structural adjustment has been discredited throughout Africa. Even some donor governments and NGOs that used to subscribe to it have distanced themselves from the Bank. Perhaps the motivation is to prevent their influence in the continent from being further eroded by association with a failed approach and unpopular institutions when Chinese aid is emerging as an alternative to World Bank, IMF and Western government aid programs.

...

It is not only defiance from governments like Malawi and dissent from their erstwhile allies that are undermining the IMF and the World Bank. Peasant organizations around the world have become increasingly militant in their resistance to the globalization of industrial agriculture. Indeed, it is because of pressure from farmers’ groups that the governments of the South have refused to grant wider access to their agricultural markets and demanded a massive slashing of US and EU agricultural subsidies, which brought the WTO’s Doha Round of negotiations to a standstill.

Farmers’ groups have networked internationally; one of the most dynamic to emerge is Via Campesina (Peasant’s Path). Via not only seeks to get “WTO out of agriculture” and opposes the paradigm of a globalized capitalist industrial agriculture; it also proposes an alternative — food sovereignty. Food sovereignty means, first of all, the right of a country to determine its production and consumption of food and the exemption of agriculture from global trade regimes like that of the WTO. It also means consolidation of a smallholder-centered agriculture via protection of the domestic market from low-priced imports; remunerative prices for farmers and fisherfolk; abolition of all direct and indirect export subsidies; and the phasing out of domestic subsidies that promote unsustainable agriculture. Via’s platform also calls for an end to the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights regime, or TRIPs, which allows corporations to patent plant seeds; opposes agro-technology based on genetic engineering; and demands land reform. In contrast to an integrated global monoculture, Via offers the vision of an international agricultural economy composed of diverse national agricultural economies trading with one another but focused primarily on domestic production.

Walden Bello is senior analyst at and former executive director of Focus on the Global South, a research and advocacy institute based at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. He is the author or co-author of many books on politics and economic issues in the Philippines and Asia, including, most recently, Deglobalization (Zed), and recipient of the 2003 Right Livelihood Award, also known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.” In March he was named Outstanding Public Scholar for 2008 by the International Studies Association.

HT: Economist's View

Kevin Phillips: Numbers Racket: Why the Economy is Worse Than We Know

2008-05-11T17:28:00.003+08:00

Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy (a book I endorse), has an article in Harper's Magazine about the fudging of economic data by the American government. The problem, according to Phillips, apparently began with the Kennedy administration and has continued on an erratic basis through to the present day, with the guilt being shared by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The first third of the article documents how the Consumer Price Index (CPI), unemployment statistics, and the gross domestic product (GDP) numbers have all been manipulated over the decades, not necessarily out of some grand conspiratorial plot, but out of "accumulating opportunisms."

Sources: John Williams, ShadowStats.com, U.S. Bureau of Labor

The second third of the article looks a little more deeply at the opacity that has developed over the three economic statistics mentioned above:

Of the "big three" statistics, let us start with unemployment. Most of the people tired of looking for work, as mentioned above, are no longer counted in the workforce, though they do still show up in one of the auxiliary unemployment numbers. The BLS has six different regular jobless measurements—U-1, U-2, U-3 (the one routinely cited), U-4, U-5, and U-6. In January 2008, the U-4 to U-6 series produced unemployment numbers ranging from 5.2 percent to 9.0 percent, all above the "official" number. The series nearest to real-world conditions is, not surprisingly, the highest: U-6, which includes part-timers looking for full-time employment as well as other members of the "marginally attached," a new catchall meaning those not looking for a job but who say they want one. Yet this does not even include the Americans who (as Austan Goolsbee puts it) have been "bought off the unemployment rolls" by government programs such as Social Security disability, whose recipients are classified as outside the labor force.

Second is the Gross Domestic Product, which in itself represents something of a fudge: federal economists used the Gross National Product until 1991, when rising U.S. international debt costs made the narrower GDP assessment more palatable. The GDP has been subject to many further fiddles, the most manipulatable of which are the adjustments made for the presumed starting up and ending of businesses (the "birth/death of businesses" equation) and the amounts that the Bureau of Economic Analysis "imputes" to nationwide personal income data (known as phantom income boosters, or imputations; for example, the imputed income from living in one's own home, or the benefit one receives from a free checking account, or the value of employer-paid health-and-life-insurance premiums). During 2007, believe it or not, imputed income accounted for some 15 percent of GDP. John Williams, the economic statistician, is briskly contemptuous of GDP numbers over the past quarter century. "Upward growth biases built into GDP modeling since the early 1980s have rendered this important series nearly worthless," he wrote in 2004. "[T]he recessions of 1990/1991 and 2001 were much longer and deeper than currently reported [and] lesser downturns in 1986 and 1995 were missed completely."

Nothing, however, can match the tortured evolution of the third key number, the somewhat misnamed Consumer Price Index. Government economists themselves admit that the revisions during the Clinton years worked to reduce the current inflation figures by more than a percentage point, but the overall distortion has been considerably more severe. Just the 1983 manipulation, which substituted "owner equivalent rent" for home-ownership costs, served to understate or reduce inflation during the recent housing boom by 3 to 4 percentage points. Moreover, since the 1990s, the CPI has been subjected to three other adjustments, all downward and all dubious: product substitution (if flank steak gets too expensive, people are assumed to shift to hamburger, but nobody is assumed to move up to filet mignon), geometric weighting (goods and services in which costs are rising most rapidly get a lower weighting for a presumed reduction in consumption), and, most bizarrely, hedonic adjustment, an unusual computation by which additional quality is attributed to a product or service.

...

"All in all," Williams points out, "if you were to peel back changes that were made in the CPI going back to the Carter years, you'd see that the CPI would now be 3.5 percent to 4 percent higher"—meaning that, because of lost CPI increases, Social Security checks would be 70 percent greater than they currently are.

Furthermore, when discussing price pressure, government officials invariably bring up "core" inflation, which excludes precisely the two categories—food and energy—now verging on another 1970s-style price surge. This year we have already seen major U.S. food and grocery companies, among them Kellogg and Kraft, report sharp declines in earnings caused by rising grain and dairy prices. Central banks from Europe to Japan worry that the biggest inflation jumps in ten to fifteen years could get in the way of reducing interest rates to cope with weakening economies. Even the U.S. Labor Department acknowledged that in January, the price of imported goods had increased 13.7 percent compared with a year earlier, the biggest surge since record-keeping began in 1982. From Maine to Australia, from Alaska to the Middle East, a hydra-headed inflation is on the loose, unleashed by the many years of rapid growth in the supply of money from the world's central banks (not least the U.S. Federal Reserve), as well as by massive public and private debt creation.

U.S. Unemployment Rates:
Red - Including workers who are part-time for "economic reasons"
Yellow - Including other "marginally attached" workers
Blue - Including "discouraged" workers
Black - The official "unemployment rate"

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics

The last third of the article sums up the numerous economic problems the U.S. is currently facing:

The real numbers, to most economically minded Americans, would be a face full of cold water. Based on the criteria in place a quarter century ago, today's U.S. unemployment rate is somewhere between 9 percent and 12 percent; the inflation rate is as high as 7 or even 10 percent; economic growth since the recession of 2001 has been mediocre, despite a huge surge in the wealth and incomes of the superrich, and we are falling back into recession. If what we have been sold in recent years has been delusional "Pollyanna Creep," what we really need today is a picture of our economy ex-distortion. For what it would reveal is a nation in deep difficulty not just domestically but globally.

Undermeasurement of inflation, in particular, hangs over our heads like a guillotine. To acknowledge it would send interest rates climbing, and thereby would endanger the viability of the massive buildup of public and private debt (from less than $11 trillion in 1987 to $49 trillion last year) that props up the American economy. Moreover, the rising cost of pensions, benefits, borrowing, and interest payments—all indexed or related to inflation—could join with the cost of financial bailouts to overwhelm the federal budget. As inflation and interest rates have been kept artificially suppressed, the United States has been indentured to its volatile financial sector, with its predilection for leverage and risky buccaneering.

Arguably, the unraveling has already begun. As Robert Hardaway, a professor at the University of Denver, pointed out last September, the subprime lending crisis "can be directly traced back to the [1983] BLS decision to exclude the price of housing from the CPI. . .With the illusion of low inflation inducing lenders to offer 6 percent loans, not only has speculation run rampant on the expectations of ever-rising home prices, but home buyers by the millions have been tricked into buying homes even though they only qualified for the teaser rates." Were mainstream interest rates to jump into the 7 to 9 percent range—which could happen if inflation were to spur new concern—both Washington and Wall Street would be walking in quicksand. The make-believe economy of the past two decades, with its asset bubbles, massive borrowing, and rampant data distortion, would be in serious jeopardy. The U.S. dollar, off more than 40 percent against the euro since 2002, could slip down an even rockier slope.

The credit markets are fearful, and the financial markets are nervous. If gloom continues, our humbugged nation may truly regret losing sight of history, risk, and common sense.

HT: Economist's View

Answering George on Low Birth Rates in the West

2008-05-05T17:56:00.001+08:00

George Carty has (once again) asked an interesting question, this time in response to my Straight Talk About Islam post:

About the birth rates thing - do you think that environmentalist propaganda about "overpopulation" has anything to do with low birth rates in the West?

For a number of years, I've argued that declining birth rates more often had to do with increasing standards of living. The higher the standard of living, the lower the birth rate. I had argued that this could be seen as far back as the era of Augustus, with his introduction of laws such as the Lex Papia Poppaea, which penalized the celibate and childless, especially among Rome's patrician class.

Caesar Augustus encouraged marriage and having children. He assessed heavier taxes on unmarried men and women and, by contrast, offered rewards for marriage and child bearing. Since there were more males than females among the nobility, he permitted that anyone who wished (except for senators) to marry freedwomen could do so, and decreed the children of these marriages to be legitimate, (Suetonius). (Source)

And so I did a quick-and-dirty analysis using data from the CIA World Factbook to see just how true this proposal might be. Using GDP per capita on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis as a proxy to measure the standard of living, I compared that statistic against total fertility rates for a total of 221 countries. A graph of the data points can be seen below:

On the X-axis we have the total fertility rates with a minimum of 1.00 (Hong Kong) and a maximum of 7.34 (Mali). On the Y-axis we have GDP per capita. If my idea is correct we should expect to find the numbers running from the top-left to the bottom-right. We do see this somewhat, although with a lot of data points in the lower left corner (low total fertility rates and low GDP per capita). If my original idea was correct, the correlation coefficient, which measures the strength and direction of two sets of related data, would be close to negative 1, which indicates a perfectly negative relationship between the two data sets (in other words, the higher one set of data is, the lower the other data set is). Here, the correlation coefficient is negative 0.4854. So there is a negative relationship, but of middling strength.

I also remembered seeing some statistics before showing that countries with low life expectancies often had high birth rates. (If you know that you're likely to die at a young age, you're not likely to wait around until your thirties or forties before having kids, like in Western cultures.) So I took the total fertility rates and compared it against the life expectancies at birth, also for 221 countries. The graph can be seen below:

Now here is a more negative relationship that's much more clearly defined. The correlation coefficient confirms this, being at negative 0.7678, which is much stronger than the correlation coefficient for GDP. In other words, the longer people live, the less likely they are to have children. This is perhaps more of a reflection of a country's ability to provide better health care to their citizens: the better a country's health care, the lower the country's population growth rate. However, there are exceptions to this rule as well. For example, some of the countries with higher life expectancies and total fertility rates tend to be Muslim countries, like Oman (73.91 years; 5.62 babies/woman) and the Gaza Strip (72.34 years; 5.51 babies/woman). Likewise, there are some countries who have both low birth rates and low life expectancies. But, overall, life expectancy seems to be a better explanation why Western cultures have lower birth rates, at least in comparison to standard of living. (There are a couple of other analyses that could be done as well; e.g., life expectancy of men vs. women, and multiple regression analysis of GDP per capita and life expectancy vs. total fertility rates, but I'll save those for the future, insha'allah.)

And, obviously, to answer George's original question, no, I don't think overpopulation has much to do with Western birth rates, although that could be an analysis for another day.

The Economist: Bernanke's Bind

2008-05-04T13:20:00.001+08:00

An important article in this week's Economist. As I had first pointed out a couple weeks ago on my new blog, part of the reason for the rising inflation in commodity prices, such as oil and rice has been due to the combination of dollar-denominated commodity prices and a weakening U.S. dollar; i.e., as the dollar weakens against other currencies, this causes the prices for commodities to rise in order to maintain value. (For you non-Econogeeks out there, this is what is known as "purchasing power parity." A McDonald's Big Mac here in Singapore is the same as a Big Mac in the U.S., and the exchange rate between the Singapore and U.S. dollars should be such that you would pay the same amount for the same product (the Big Mac) regardless of what currency you're using.)

The other major problem is that, as interest rates keep going down (as they did again last week), the real value of the interest rate goes into negative territory. The real interest rate is (essentially) the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. With this negative real interest rate, commodity producers such as farmers, miners, oilers, etc., have more incentive not to sell their products, even though this hurts them in the short-term by not bringing in revenue. As a a result, the amount of supply is lowered, which, in turn, raises prices.

There is another problem mentioned in the final paragraph below; however, the primary argument remains that the Federal Reserve must take some share of the blame for rising commodity prices, whether it's oil or agricultural products, due to their continued lowering of interest rates. This argument suggests, then, that commodity prices might not begin to drop until the U.S. dollar starts to strengthen.

An excerpt from the article:

But oil—and other commodities—are the crux of the problem. In the past, economic weakness in America has usually pushed the price of oil and other commodities down. That relationship has weakened thanks to demand growth in big commodity-intensive emerging economies. But the recent surprise is that commodity prices have soared even as America’s economy has stalled and forecasts for global growth have been trimmed as well. Supply shocks are clearly part of the problem. But the fact that prices have soared across so many commodities suggests a common cause.

Could the culprit be the Fed? Advocates of this idea point to two channels. First, by slashing real interest rates, the Fed has encouraged speculation in commodities by reducing the cost of holding inventories. Second, by pushing down the dollar, Fed looseness is pushing up the price of dollar-denominated commodities.

Jeff Frankel, a Harvard economist, has long argued that low real interest rates lead to higher commodity prices. When real rates fall, he points out, commodity producers have more incentive to keep their asset—whether crude oil, gold or grain—in the ground or in a silo, than to sell today. Speculators, in turn, have more incentive to shift into commodities. There is no doubt that commodities have become an increasingly popular investment category—in fact they bear many of the hallmarks of a speculative bubble. But inventories for many commodities, particularly grains, are unusually low.

What about the dollar link? Chakib Khelil, president of the Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting Countries, argued this week that oil could reach $200 a barrel largely because the market was being driven by the dollar’s slide. Movements in the euro/dollar exchange rate and the price of oil have become extremely close (see chart). An analysis by Jens Nordvig and Jeffrey Currie of Goldman Sachs shows that the correlation between weekly changes in the oil price and the euro/dollar exchange rate has risen from 1% between 1999 and 2004 to 52% in the past six months.

That link is partly a matter of accounting. If the dollar falls, the dollar price of a commodity must rise for its overall price—in terms of a basket of global currencies—to remain stable. But commodity prices have risen even when priced in non-dollar currencies. And the correlation between changes in the price of oil and the euro/dollar exchange rate has risen even when oil is priced in a basket of currencies, such as the IMF’s special drawing rights.

So is the weaker dollar driving oil prices up or are high oil prices driving the dollar down? The Goldman analysts argue the latter because oil exporters import more from Europe than America and hold less of their oil revenues in dollars. A second factor lies with central banks. Because the Fed focuses on “core” inflation (which excludes food and fuel), whereas the ECB targets overall inflation, America’s central bank runs a looser policy in response to higher oil prices, thus pushing the dollar down.

Another reason to suspect that the Fed is more than a bit player is that American interest-rate decisions have a disproportionate effect on global monetary conditions. Some emerging economies still peg their currencies to the dollar; many others have been reluctant to let their exchange rates rise enough to make up for the dollar’s decline. As a result, monetary conditions in many emerging markets remain too loose. This fuels domestic demand, pushing up pressure on prices, particularly of commodities. All of which suggests that the Fed’s decisions are propagated widely through the dollar.

Originally posted at Dunner's.

Chalmers Johnson: Why the U.S. Has Gone Broke

2008-04-28T20:47:00.004+08:00

An excellent (but long) essay by Chalmers Johnson (originally published in Le Monde diplomatique) on how American military spending has helped to deplete American savings while, simultaneously, eroding away American commercial competitiveness. Some excerpts:

There are three broad aspects to the U.S. debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relation to the national security of the U.S. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures -- "military Keynesianism" (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the U.S. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.

...

They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4bn for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7bn for the "supplemental" budget to fight the global war on terrorism -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4bn to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50bn to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This makes a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5bn.

But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the U.S. military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military, up from a mere $174m in 2003, when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.

...

In order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88bn per year trade surplus with the U.S. and enjoys the world's second highest current account balance (China is number one). The U.S. is number 163 -- last on the list, worse than countries such as Australia and the U.K. that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5bn; second worst was Spain at $106.4bn. This is unsustainable.

It's not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On 7 November 2007, the U.S. Treasury announced that the national debt had breached $9 trillion for the first time. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the "debt ceiling" to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defense expenditures.

...

In an important exegesis on Melman's relevance to the current American economic situation, Thomas Woods writes: "According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation's plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over $7.29 trillion ... The amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock."

The fact that we did not modernize or replace our capital assets is one of the main reasons why, by the turn of the 21st century, our manufacturing base had all but evaporated. Machine tools, an industry on which Melman was an authority, are a particularly important symptom. In November 1968, a five-year inventory disclosed "that 64% of the metalworking machine tools used in U.S. industry were 10 years old or older. The age of this industrial equipment (drills, lathes, etc.) marks the United States' machine tool stock as the oldest among all major industrial nations, and it marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began with the end of the second world war. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system certifies to the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research and development talent has had on American industry."

Nothing has been done since 1968 to reverse these trends and it shows today in our massive imports of equipment -- from medical machines like proton accelerators for radiological therapy (made primarily in Belgium, Germany, and Japan) to cars and trucks.

Our short tenure as the world's lone superpower has come to an end. As Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman has written: "Again and again it has always been the world's leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence and cultural influence. It's no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over the job of being the world's leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world's leading lending country. In fact we are now the world's biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone."

Some of the damage can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that the U.S. urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defense budget all projects that bear no relationship to national security and ceasing to use the defense budget as a Keynesian jobs program.

If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don't, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.

Rice Inflation: When Did It Start?

2008-04-26T22:34:00.002+08:00

The global food crisis has been getting a lot of well deserved press recently, and while several different crops have experienced varying levels of inflation, I thought I'd look at rice in particular. Although rice isn't a staple crop in America the way wheat and corn are, it's very much a staple crop here in Asia. Asian reactions to the price increases for rice have varied dramatically. Singapore, for example, has tried to reassure the public that there is plenty of rice while keeping price controls off and allowing companies to bring in additional supplies above and beyond what's normally imported to hedge against any future supply shocks. On the other hand, some other countries in this region (e.g., Vietnam, India and China) have temporarily banned the export of rice.

For this analysis, I used the price data for milled rice provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. This particular file has price information on a monthly basis since August 2005 for several types of rice in the United States, Thailand (the world's largest exporter of rice), and Vietnam (the second largest rice exporter). For my analysis, I've chosen two American varieties, Southern long-grain milled (LGM) and California medium-grained milled (MGM), and one Thai variety, 100% Grade B. (I've done some analysis on the Vietnamese data; however, the data set is incomplete so I'm not as trusting on that information as I am for the other three sets.)

As you can see on the above chart, rice prices had been relatively stable since August 2005, especially for Thai rice. The current upswings in prices began last summer, in July 2007 for both the Southern and California rices, and in September 2007 for the Thai rice. (For Vietnam, it appears that the upswing began in May 2007; however, there is three months' worth of data missing for October-December 2007, and it's conceivable that prices could have dropped in that time period.) Since that time, prices have risen at a compound monthly growth rate of 7.65% for the Southern LGM, 2.80% for the California MGM, 14.47% for the Thai rice, and 8.32% for the Vietnamese rice. Moreover, as the graph currently shows, there's no indication on the part of any of the varieties that prices are likely to change direction soon.

From my perspective, the inflation for rice is mostly of the cost-push variety, with oil and fertilizer costs as primary culprits. The discussion of the inflation being driven by demand-pull is nonsense, in my opinion. Demographic changes are far too slow to account for such a rapid increase inside of one year's time, and there's not been any sudden desire for people to eat more rice or that rice has become a substitute in place of another grain.

When might we expect to see rice prices declining? Based on current futures prices for rough rice at the Chicago Board of Trade, the May 2008 futures are selling at a price of $23.80 (as of this time). Futures peak with the July 2008 contracts ($24.18), before falling slightly to this year's low of $21.78 (November 2008). For 2009, prices are expected to increase slightly ($22.38 in May 2009), before falling to a low of $18.25 for November's contracts. In other words, prices are expected to drop by almost a quarter, but only in another year and a half's time.

Gold and the U.S. Dollar

2008-04-25T15:21:00.002+08:00

A good article over at Afraid to Trade.com with a long-term analysis (since 2000) of the relationship between gold and the U.S. dollar. Some excerpts:

Notice the shift that occurred at the ‘turn of the century’ where gold prices were at their lowest levels of the last decade and the US Dollar Index (along with the Stock Market) was making new highs. The market shifted in 2001 (as the recession began) and the price of gold (per ounce) has never looked back.

The US Dollar, on the other hand, is another story. The Dollar index peaked at 120 and is now 41% lower than it was at its peak. Gold, on the other hand, rose from $250 (per ounce) to a peak above $1,000 an ounce, rising 400% in the same 8 year period.

This also means that the value of a US dollar is worth much less in terms of gold prices than it was in 2,000. In 2000, if you were offered $1,000 in gold that you stored away, if you cashed in today, you would get back $4,000 (if converted into dollars). Of course, those dollars are worth less today than they were then, so it may be better to keep the investment in gold!

...

If the US Dollar Index reverses trend, then expect gold’s trend to pause or reverse as well. Until that happens, the current trend remains in force.

Check out the whole article!

HT: The Bonddad Blog

Southeast Asian Petroleum Consumption Forecasts, 2007-2012

2008-04-14T22:27:00.007+08:00

The following is an executive summary of a report detailing the forecasted petroleum consumption of Southeast Asian nations for the years 2007-2012. To purchase the full report (US$20), please e-mail me at jjtmdunne@gmail.com.

On a per-capita basis, Southeast Asian consumption of petroleum is expected to rise from the 2006 total of 2.7153 barrels per person to between 3.0979 barrels to 3.1109 barrels per person in the year 2012. In terms of the number of barrels of petroleum for the region, this comes to 1.8656 billion barrels to 1.9132 billion barrels, or 5.097 million barrels to 5.227 million barrels per day (b/d).

Most of the countries examined have tight to very tight correlations between their petroleum consumption and their GDP, meaning, the more petroleum the country consumes, the higher their GDP rises. Of the eight countries where such analyses can be made, five have correlations greater than 0.94 (where 1.0 indicates a perfect, positive correlation). However, Cambodia has shown a long-term negative correlation since 1984, where that country’s GDP has increased while its petroleum consumption has decreased, and the Philippines have shown a negative correlation since 1998.

The Economist: Gender Gulf

2008-04-14T17:50:00.003+08:00

The April 10th edition of The Economist has an article about the problems Muslim women in the Middle East and the banking/financial services industries have in meeting each other. Much of this problem is due to gender segregation, but another problem is that many of these companies haven't thought about the benefits of targeting their marketing toward women and the practical ramifications of being able to market directly to these women; for example, hiring women who are able to meet clients and customers without needing a husband or other male relative to chaperone. I also like how the one company mentioned in the article, Forsa, avoid the "pink-ribboning." Unfortunately, this type of cosmetic change to a company's marketing scheme is all too common and is very superficial. "Oh, look! My credit card has a picture of a rose on it. I'll bank with you." Yeah, right.

But many women still avoid face-to-face meetings with unrelated men. That makes the male-dominated world of banking particularly hard to penetrate.

There are ways of getting round the problem. Saudi retail banks have set up segregated branches that only women can enter. “Ladies' banks” are also cropping up in the UAE. Segregation is a controversial issue, but the facilities at least allow women to manage their finances independently of prying fathers, brothers or husbands. Rising divorce rates give added motivation for women to hide away some money, skeptical of the help they will get from mostly male judges.

Increasingly, wealth managers are also realizing that women in the Gulf region are sitting on fortunes in cash, land and even jewelery. According to Amanda McCrystal of Bramdiva, a London-based wealth-consultation service for women, a few years ago there was a boom in online share-trading by women in the Gulf, since they could do it from the privacy of home. Many were singed by a regional crash in 2006. Some will not return; many of those who do may seek professional advice.

Sandy Shaw, who heads Middle Eastern operations at Coutts, a private bank based in London, says about a quarter of her clients are female, and are keen to keep control of their affairs, especially to ensure that their estates will pass to their children when they die. Aware of this, a small number of Western female bankers now travel regularly to the Gulf to hold meetings with female clients. Again, one of the attractions is privacy; they can visit a Saudi woman at home without her husband present, which a male banker normally could not do. Women may require different products from men, too. In Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, they have more of an appetite for lower-risk, capital-protected investments. But this is likely to change as they become more experienced investors, says Ms Shaw.

In the UAE, Dubai World, a government holding company, has set up Forsa, an investment company run by women for women. Its staff scorn what they call “pink-ribboning”: superficial changes to market products to women, like making a credit card pink. Across the region, more such firms would be helpful. This is not only because women need opportunities to work. The finance industry needs them, too: it is growing so fast that it is struggling to recruit and retain staff.

The message has sunk in in Bahrain, where a third of finance-sector employees are female, and in Kuwait, where, including property, the figure rises to 40%. Some employers there say they find female bankers work harder than men. Yet in Saudi Arabia, official statistics indicate that just 5% of Saudis working in finance and property are female. And across the region, it remains hard for female businesswomen to get loans, especially if they are not from prominent families. Even in Bahrain, where nearly one-third of businesses are registered by women, “sometimes women can only get a business license in their husband's name, especially if they have less capital,” says Aamina Awan, who is researching female entrepreneurship in the region.

The Three

2008-04-14T17:18:00.004+08:00

I'm a fan of The Economist and, although I don't get the chance to buy and read it every week, I do like a lot of its content. If I were to create my own magazine, I'd try to model it somewhat on The Economist. In the meantime, these are the three articles in this week's edition that you should take the time to read.

The Long Hangover - America's economy is in recession. Don't expect a quick recovery.

Tightening Belts - As commodity prices rocket and America's economy sickens, food companies and retailers are racing to adapt.

Spring Postponed - The hopes kindled by the saffron revolution have faded fast.

UN Blames Falling Dollar and Investment Funds for Rising Food Prices

2008-04-11T16:54:00.004+08:00

A story from Reuters on why world food prices have been rising dramatically in recent weeks. The fact that prices have been rising due to the falling dollar is not a surprise as this topic has been discussed with respect to rising oil prices. However, the fact that investment funds have been helping to raise food prices is news to me, although perhaps not as surprising as it should be.

Global investment funds and the weak dollar are largely to blame for high world food prices, a senior official of the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization said on Thursday.

"The crisis is a speculative attack and it will last," said Jose Graziano, the UN food and farm organization's regional representative for Latin America and the Caribbean.

...

Across the globe foods from bread to milk have become more expensive and in some countries helped fuel inflation. High prices for rice, beans and other food staples provoked food riots in Haiti this week.

"The lack of confidence in the (U.S.) dollar has led investment funds to look for higher returns in commodities ... first metals and then foods," Graziano told a news conference in the capital.

Investors have speculated in commodities including wheat, corn and rice because stocks in recent years have been drawn down by rising demand in emerging markets and supply shortages due to adverse climate in key producer nations, Graziano said.

"Speculative attacks become possible when you have low reserves," Graziano said.

Stocks of some food crops have fallen to their lowest levels in three decades, according to Brazilian farm experts.