IS INFLATION COMING OR GOING?

 To inflate or not to inflate? That is the question. ~ Jerome H. (Hamlet) Powell   

The principal issue in the eccentric world of macroeconomic policy-making focuses on inflation, as my currently-germane alteration of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy states above. Is it rising and staying for a while or is it merely a temporary drive-by event?

Even though a great deal depends on it, no one knows the answer. That’s despite economists’ reviewing decades of data and using their forecasting models day and night. That hasn’t stopped specialists from offering many differing opinions; following the adage, “often wrong, but never in doubt.” Perhaps macroeconomists should add trendspotting algorithms that have become popular in the fashion industry into their models.

For economists, inflation refers to an increase in the overall level of a nation’s prices. More technically, inflation occurs when aggregate prices of consumer goods and services rise due to “excessive” demand or insufficient supply. As prices rise, the purchasing value of money consequently falls.

Aggregate prices is a nebulous macroeconomic concept referring to a measure of prices for all of our nation’s final goods and services– from soap to syringes, and everything in-between, like Buicks, donuts and urologist visits. Our most-often used measure of inflation is the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that is calculated monthly by the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The CPI offers quite a few different “flavors” of prices, like prices for urban consumers, for urban wage earners and for the elderly. The BLS gathers data on consumer prices for each of 211 different categories of consumer items (the “market basket” of goods and services) in 38 different geographical areas throughout the US.

When the BLS released the May CPI information on June 10, the media and others took serious note. During the last 12 months, the CPI increased 5.0%, the largest 12-month increase since August 2008. This annualized increase is over two times as large as the 2% inflation rate that Mr. Powell, Chair of Federal Reserve Bank, hopes to see.

At the Fed’s summer meetings last week, officials stated they would keep interest rates near zero, but explicitly stated they would consider increasing rates, perhaps twice by the end of 2023 if inflation persists. This statement is a direct reaction to the May CPI announcement. 2023 is a year sooner than the Fed has previously stated for considering interest rate changes. The Fed thus has increased inflationary expectations. Unsurprisingly, stock markets took that news poorly, dropping almost one percent and bond yields increased.

The Fed steadfastly maintains that current inflation is “transitory,” never defining what that term means. The last two months have presented higher-than-expected annualized inflation, 4.2% in April, 5.0% in May. If June’s CPI number is 4% or greater. it will be much harder for the Fed to proclaim again it is transitory. We’ll know on July 13.

The Fed’s transitory belief rests on two premises. First, aggregate production will continue to increase steadily as recent parts shortages and supply-chain lags ameliorate, like chip-sets for autos and trucks and lumber for construction. Second, consumers’ demand for goods and services now reflects surging needs that were restricted during the extended covid period; these will taper. Thus, after this temporary phase, markets will get back to “more normal” behavior with more goods and services available and less pent-up demand.

Most importantly, policy-makers need to adopt a more farsighted view of our economic activities, which is vital for producing well-founded economic programs. Monthly CPI data are interesting and instructive, just as weekly unemployment claims requests are. But these very short-term data are inherently quite variable. Their use should not be overemphasized, as they seemed to have become. Most economists are far better at drilling down for detailed information than we are at looking up. Adopting a broader, longer-term perspective will produce stronger, fairer policies.

The media have filled screens, airwaves and newsprint with stories about how May’s unexpectedly large CPI reflected price increases in specific slices of the economy. A Washington Post story mentioned consumers are paying more for an array of products, including bacon and used Buicks, as the economy rebounds strongly from the brief covid-led recession.

Several items whose prices have notably risen include used cars (Buicks and beyond), furniture, gasoline, washing machines and dryers, bicycles, lumber and airfare. Beef and non-Congressional pork prices have also risen.

But not to worry spending-fans. In January, House Dems after a decade-long ban, resurrected personal earmarked projects. These “pork” projects can be specifically-funded by a single Congressperson that circumvent the standard merit-based and competitive allocation process. How can you be upset at this change? There’s a $1.4 trillion per year limit for such projects. The Dems insist these pork-rind earmarks will provide lawmakers new tools to better serve their communities, and bring home the higher-priced bacon. Praise be? Not.

Back to Buicks. The mention of old Buicks immediately recalled my grandfather’s, which looked much like the one shown below. When we visited, he drove us in his sweet midnight-black, side-portholed Buick on fine Sunday rides through Western Massachusetts countryside. They don’t build them like that anymore.

 

 1951 Buick Special sedan

A 1951 Buick Special cost $1,800, which in today’s dollars is $18,637. The 2021 Buick Encore, the lowest-priced model like the Special, costs $26,260. That’s fair amount of auto inflation, to the tune of $7,623 more than the CPI-adjusted Special price. This 41% premium accounts in part for the vast increases in Buicks’ automotive quality and technical improvements gained by GM over the past 70 years.

Our inflation rates have steadily fallen during the last 50 years, as shown in this table. The average

Decade	Average Yearly Inflation Rate
1971-80	7.86%
1981-90	4.74%
1991-2000	2.81%
2001-10	2.38%
2011-20	1.73%
Source: DOL/BLS

 yearly inflation rate during the 1970s was 7.86%. Two international oil crises and subsequent stagflation in the late 1970s – early 1980s caused its loftiness. Stagflation is a truly nasty, worst-of-both-worlds combination of high inflation juxtaposed with elevated unemployment. In January 1981, the interest rate set by the Fed, the Federal Funds Rate (FFR), as a basis for monetary policy was 19.08%, together with 7.5% unemployment and 10.3% inflation. Terrible times for everyone.

After 1982, US annual inflation has never been greater than 5.4%. Thus, any American younger than 40 years old would think high inflation was more than 5%, at worst. Long gone are the nasty macroeconomic mid-1970s and early 1980s, when inflation never got below 5.7%.

The most recent decade’s average inflation rate was 1.73%, thankfully less than one-quarter the 1970s level. The FFR currently remains a rock-bottom 0.06%, unemployment has been steadily dropping since April 2020, now is 5.8%.

Although people remain concerned about inflation, US price increases are far smaller than a several other countries. Venezuela’s citizens have faced the world’s worst inflation for years due to massive government malfeasance. Last years’ inflation in Venezuela was a gigantic 9,568%, down from a stratospheric 1,698,488% in 2018. Venezuela’s cumulative inflation from 2016 to early 2019 was estimated at 53,798,500%. This unfathomable inflation is the reason Venezuela’s official minimum monthly wage is currently worth only $3.20. Zimbabwe, always high in international rankings, has the second-topmost inflation at 767%. Such giant hyperinflation rates are usually caused by the government’s oversized increase in the money supply that cannot be warranted by (absent) economic growth.

Meanwhile back in Washington, Dems in Congress continue wrestling with how to fund the administration’s expansive infrastructure programs. Fearing that their more moderate colleagues’ nascent, bipartisan $1 trillion (T) effort will ignore many of their priorities, progressive Dems’ latest idea is to combine all their sprawling hopes into one single, giant effort, perhaps as large as $6T – a wish-list including most Prog favorites. The combined $7T possible infrastructure spending would represent 33% of our current GDP. No matter how worthy such outlays might be, they would likely unleash intimidating inflationary pressures.

Each of these bills face formidable odds of passing in no small part because they will require every Senate Dem to vote for them. Approving a single, $6T bill for widely-demarcated infrastructure will push way beyond Senate prospects. One other hindrance is Congress’ feeble work schedule. House members plan to toil in Washington only 9 days between now and Labor Day; Senators just 16 days. The House will not be in session at any time in August. Legislative life on Capitol Hill is indeed very different from other workplaces. Does such a schedule justify why we taxpayers provide these “legislators” with a perhaps-inflated $174,000 salary?

 

TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSFORMATION

Education is all a matter of building bridges. ~ Ralph Ellison 

President Joe Biden and his administration have been discussing their vast infrastructure plan with many people for nearly two months. His $2.3 trillion (T) American Jobs Plan (Plan) will influence and change countless aspects of Americans’ lives during the eight years of planned expenditures. It’s all infrastructure; whether we’re talking about roads, lead pipes, child care, community college or high-speed internet, right? Nope, my infrastructure isn’t necessarily yours. Unsurprisingly, the Repubs and Dems have quite different definitions of “infrastructure.” 

I focus here on two key, oddly-related facets of infrastructure, US roadways and higher education – transportation and transformation. For a long time, attending post-high school educational institutions, and importantly graduating with a degree-in-hand, has been considered the central roadway for transformed career success. These two areas are important parts of the Plan. 

The bipartisan discussions about his Plan paused last week with the Repubs going low, offering a $928 billion (B) package that the Dems argue only represents a slender $32B more than their last suggestion – an unworthy pittance in their budgetary judgment. Progressive Dems, going super-lofty, want the Plan to be more than 4x bigger than it already is. Neither will happen. 

The dispute focuses on what infrastructure is and isn’t. The Dems’ vision of infrastructure is much broader and bigger than the Repubs’. For the Dems, a BA or AA degree, or a pre-school class, is another kind of bridge; like Ralph Ellison states above. Not so, say the Repubs; stick to concrete and asphalt. 

Evermore Dems now want Captain Biden to abandon the sinking bipartisanship effort and push his Plan through the Senate via the convoluted, but hopeful one yes-vote margin reconciliation process. No matter what strategy President Biden ultimately decides on, his Plan’s ideas for transportation and transformation merit consideration. 

Transportation.  The President’s Plan would spend $621B on transportation infrastructure. This includes improving at least 20,000 miles of roads and 10,000+ bridges, plus a great deal more. 

The federal government first got involved in large-scale highway transportation when President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Act) which created the Interstate system. We will celebrate its 65th anniversary on June 26. 

Interstate highways now cover 46,876 miles throughout our nation. The official title of the “controlled-access expressways” built via this Act is the Interstate and Defense Highways. Defense was one justification for federal funding. Thank goodness eight-wheeled, 20-ton Stryker ICVs (Infantry Carrier Vehicles) have the authority to motor on the I-15 as they head towards Area 51. 

California has the most Interstate miles, 4,257. Washington, D.C. the least, 12 miles. The state with the smallest Interstate mileage is Delaware, where our gear-head, car-guy president could drive his sweet 1967 Stingray ‘Vette over each of Delaware’s 41 Interstate miles in far less than an hour.  Go Joe. 

The 1956 Act specified the expressways would all be built in 10 years; it took a bit longer, 62 years. Now these highways, as well as many state and local roads are in need of considerable maintenance and refurbishment, as shown below. 

    Fractured Freeway 

There are many more types of transportation infrastructure than roads and highways. The Department of Transportation (DOT) provides funding for virtually all of them. 

But not interstellar travel via UAPs – Unidentified Arial Phenomenon – which is governmentese for what the rest of us know as UFOs. Fortunately, President Biden’s national intelligence director will soon release a report to Congress describing what our government allegedly understands about UAPs. Get ready Mulder and Scully, here we come, again. 

But back to Earth-based transportation. The DOT has allocated about 66% of its budget for highways, 20% transit and rail and 13% for aviation. The Biden Infrastructure Plan would invest $115B to refurbish “most-in-need” roads and bridges and $20B to improve road safety. The Plan also proposes spending $174B on electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, including erecting a nation-wide network of 500,000 EV charging stations as well as replacing the government’s diesel transit vehicles with EVs and continuing EV tax incentives and rebates. Airports would be improved with $25B worth of funding, as would ports and waterways with $17B. 

The Plan likely emphasizes public transit, which makes particular sense in densely-populated areas. Unfortunately, transit historically is what economists label an “inferior good,” meaning as a person’s income rises, she/he uses less of it. “Normal goods’” demand increases as income rises, not transit. How the administration can surmount this long-established challenge for transit is left unresolved. The administration can increase its funding of transit, but convincing more real people to ride it is another matter. This issue echoes Sen. Daniel Moynihan’s insight: government programs are far more successful in creating jobs than in changing the way people behave. 

When it’s enacted, the president’s infrastructure plans will have a colossal impact on the nation and the DOT. I’m concerned how the DOT will rapidly increase its staff capabilities to properly implement and manage all the additional spending. The administration’s proposed 2021-22 budget for the DOT– $88B – is $1B less than it was for the current fiscal year. Huh? My concern equally applies to every other federal, state and local agency that will be responsible for large-scale, federal infrastructure funds; like the Department of Education (ED), discussed below. 

There will likely be a (sizeable) supplemental budget request. In the absence of the agencies buying hundreds of trained Adminbots, my bet is consulting firms that are prominent players as “DC Beltway Bandits” will assume a decent share of these vital, extra tasks. I’m not holding my breath, but hope the Bandits scrupulously attend to the public’s interests in their efforts. 

Education.  The president’s program will include substantial education funding, from pre-school through college. I focus here on the administration’s proposed higher education efforts. 

Higher education has been a principal thoroughfare for personal as well as national growth during the past 50+ years. College enrollment dramatically increased as my Boomer generation started attending and graduating from college in the 1960s. Undergraduate college enrollment rose every year for over 60 years and peaked in 2010; it has risen 26.9% since 2000. 

The president’s infrastructure program includes nearly $300B for college-related actions. Last fall about 16.7M undergraduate students were enrolled in the nation’s four-thousand “degree-granting postsecondary institutions” (aka, colleges and universities). During the current spring semester, enrollment dropped 5.9% compared to last year, due to the pandemic. This decline has upended students’ as well as college faculty’s and administrators’ lives. 

Nevertheless in 2020, 37.5% of US adults (25-64 years old) had received at least a BA degree, an all-time high during the last 50 years, shown in the chart below. This is a stunning set of individual achievements, which has transported the nation onwards. 

Percent of US adults with a BA or higher degree, 1970-2020 

Source: NCES 

President Biden’s educational infrastructure program aims to make all 853 public two-year colleges tuition-free with $109B of funding; 17 states already have zero-tuition community colleges. Another $80B will augment that provided for Pell Grants, and $62B for “retention and completion” (aka, remedial) programs. Separately, $39B will be offered to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) to cover two years of tuition. 

Two-year community colleges enroll 28.5% of all people attending college; HBCUs enroll 1.1% and TCUs 0.1%. These funds will certainly assist these schools’ current and anticipated students. 

The Pell Grant program was initiated in the 1973-74 school year and named after Sen. Claiborne Pell, who was the chief sponsor. They are grants not loans, thus do not need to be paid back. The president’s proposed addition to the program, which provides needs-based financial support to students (currently capped at $6,195) from lower-income households, represents an enormous 164% increase in Pell Grant funding from 2020. 

This is but one facet of the ED’s proposed, vastly-expanded scope; a giant 41% increase compared to the department’s pre-pandemic budget. 

How the ED and schools will be able to accommodate the expected post-pandemic increased demand in college enrollment unfortunately has not been addressed. It needs to be before these programs are funded, or else there will be large numbers of unhappy students. Why? Because more classes will be unavailable due to excess demand, unless the schools’ available faculty/staff and physical capacity also expand. 

The prospects for transformative benefits coming from more educated men and women are great, if the expanded funds are well overseen. Onward into a smoother-surfaced, better-skilled world where we can all benefit.