Behind the Fall of Russia's Ruble: Inflation, Oil Prices, Sanctions, and More

Russia’s economy is in trouble. Growth has come to a halt. A recession looms in 2015. Inflation, interest rates,

and capital flight are up. The government’s budget is under strain. More than any of these, what makes the headlines is the plunge of the ruble, which, at one point in mid-December, had lost half of its value against the dollar in less than a year. What lies behind the weakness of the ruble? Is it harmful in itself, or is it better understood as a symptom of other problems? What options are open to Russian policymakers as they struggle to manage their currency’s descent?

Accounting for inflation

As in many discussions of macroeconomics, we first need to deal with the effects of inflation. Economists use the term nominal to refer to quantities stated in the ordinary way  and  real to quantities that are adjusted to for inflation. Real wages are the most familiar example: We all understand that if our boss raises our nominal wage from $10 per hour to $12 per hour, but at the same time inflation adds 20 percent to the price of everything we buy, our true purchasing power has not changed.

A similar principle applies to exchange rates. Other things being equal, a change in the nominal exchange rate of the ruble would mean change in the competitiveness of goods the country produces for export and those it produces for sale at home in competition with imports. However, inflation also has an impact on competitiveness—one that can either amplify or offset changes in the nominal exchange rate. >>>Read more

Follow this link to view or download a slideshow tutorial with more information on real and nominal exchange rates

US GDP Grows at 5 Percent in Q3 2014, Best of the Recovery

The US economy grew at a 5 percent annual rate in Q3 2014, the fastest rate of the recovery, according to the third estimate released yesterday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That is an upward revision from the 3.9 percent of the second estimate. It comes on the heels of a 4.6 percent growth rate in Q2, making it the fastest six-month growth spurt since the 1990s.

Consumer spending led the way, contributing 2.21 percentage points to the quarterly growth. Investment spending contributed 1.18 percentage points to GDP growth. Business fixed investment accounted for most of that. Residential investment was below average in the quarter, and inventories were essentially unchanged. Exports continued to expand and imports fell slightly. A spurt of defense spending raised the contribution of the government sector.

Inflation, as measured by the national accounts, remained moderate. The broadest measure of inflation, the GDP deflator, rose at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the quarter. The deflator for personal consumption expenditure rose at a 1.2 percent rate. The PCE deflator is especially important because it is the preferred inflation indicator for the Federal Reserve. PCE inflation remains well below the Fed's 2 percent target.

The BEA will release its advance estimate for Q4 GDP at the end of January. Employment indicators for the final quarter have been strong, so it is likely that growth will continue through the end of the year, although most forecasters expect a slightly slower pace than in Q3.

Follow this link to view or download a brief slideshow with detailed charts of the latest GDP numbers.

As Jobs Surge, Term Structure of US Unemployment Remains Distorted

The US economy added 321,000 payroll jobs in November, the best in almost three years. Strong upward revisions to September and October numbers boosted the 12-month gain to 2,756,000, a new high for the recovery.

The official unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.8 percent. The broad unemployment rate, U-6, which takes into account discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to a new low of 11.4 percent.

Although these data indicate a return to normal in many respects, distortions remain. One of the most conspicuous is an elevated rate of long-term unemployment. As the chart shows, the term structure of unemployment remains substantially different from the prerecession pattern:

On the one hand, we see that the short-term unemployment rate, made up of people who are out of work for four weeks or less, has not only returned to its pre-recession level, but has actually dropped below it. In 2007, short-term unemployment averaged 1.66 percent of the labor force; now it is 1.61 percent. Most unemployment in this category is voluntary, representing a minimum time needed for job search, interviews, moving, and perhaps a quick vacation between jobs. It includes people who find work soon after entering or reentering the labor force or find a new job quickly after leaving a former one. >>>Read more

Follow this link to view or download a brief slideshow with charts of the latest US employment situation

Universal Basic Income vs. Unemployment Insurance: Which is the Better Safety Net?

A universal basic income (UBI) and unemployment insurance (UI) are two possible forms of social insurance for an economy in which job loss is a significant risk. Which works better? How generous should either program be? Would a combination of the two be best of all? These are the questions that Alice Fabre, Stéphane Pallage, and Christian Zimmermann (FPZ) address in a recent working paper from the Research Division of the St. Louis Fed.

The answers that the authors give to these questions will disappoint UBI supporters:

• When compared head-to-head, UI is a better social safety net than a UBI.
• In an economy with no unemployment insurance, a UBI would be better than nothing, but the optimal level would be quite low, about $2,000 per person per year for the United States.
• No combination of UI and a UBI is superior to UI alone.

Skeptics are likely to seize on these findings, but in my view, they do not support a blanket rejection of a UBI. Instead, as I will explain, they highlight how important it is for UBI proponents to pay attention to details of financing and program design. >>>Read more

The Economics and Politics of a Variable, Price-Smoothing Energy Tax

Oil is down again. The price of Brent crude, which moves US gasoline prices, is below $100 a barrel
for the first time (save a single month) in five years.

Why am I not celebrating? No, I don’t own a portfolio of oil stocks. Instead, I am afraid that the recent fall in world oil prices may mean that we have missed our best chance for a better energy policy.

What would a better energy policy look like?

A better energy policy, as I have explained many times before, would be one that required people to pay the full costs of the energy they use. That would include not only costs of production, but also the external costs arising from harmful spillover effects. By and large, energy users in the United States now pay only costs of extraction, processing of fossil fuels, and generating of electricity. The result is that they use energy wastefully, pushing their consumption beyond the point where the benefits from using an additional unit fall below its full costs. (For details, see the links at the end of this post.)

And no, the full-cost argument is not just about climate change. Personally, I think there is a strong argument for counting climate change among the spillover effects of fossil fuel use, but if you are a skeptic, there are plenty of other, very tangible external costs to consider. >>Read more

Follow this link to view or download a slideshow on the economics of a price-smoothing oil tax

US Job Growth Running at Highest Level in Six Years, Unemployment Falls to New Low of 5.8 Percent

The first major report on the health of the US economy for the fourth quarter of 2014 showed
continued gains in the job market. Payroll jobs were up by more than 200,000 for the ninth month in a row. With upward revisions to August and September data, the twelve-month jobs gain was 2,646,000. Annual job gains are now running at their strongest level since the peak of the pre-recession boom. The gains were broadly based, with construction, manufacturing, services and government all adding workers.

A separate survey of households also showed strong gains, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.8 percent. A broader measure of unemployment, U-6, which takes into account involuntary part-time workers and discouraged workers, fell to 11.5 percent. Both figures were new lows for the recovery. The civilian labor force grew by 416,000.>>>Read more

Follow this link to view or download a slideshow with additional charts from the latest jobs report

Why Quantitative Easing Did Not Work According to the Textbook Model

The Fed has declared an official end to quantitative easing. It is a logical time to ask, did QE work? gives the honest answer in a recent post on Vox: “It’s very, very hard to know.”
Danielle Kurtzleben
Still, we do know three things that QE did not do. These are worth pointing out, especially since back when QE was just getting under way, there were people who expected that QE 2 would do all of them.

1. QE did not work according to the textbook model
One thing was never in doubt.  As the Fed added massively to its assets, QE would cause an equally massive increase in the monetary base—the sum of bank reserves and currency that accounts for the bulk of its liabilities.

Some economists used to refer to the base as high powered money. It got that name from a familiar textbook model, according to which two simple ratios link the monetary base to the rest of the economy. One is the money multiplier, which is the ratio of ordinary money (M2) to the monetary base. The other is the ratio of nominal GDP to the M2 money stock, known as the velocity of circulation of money, or just velocity, for short.

If the money multiplier and velocity were constants, then the monetary base would be high-powered indeed. Any increase in the base (which the Fed can manipulate at will) would cause a proportional increase in nominal GDP. The only thing left to determine would be how much of the change in nominal GDP would express itself as an increase in real output and how much as inflation.>>>Read more

Follow this link to view or download the slideshow "Quantitative Easing and the Fed 2008-2014: A Tutorial"