Business Cycle Indicators, Mid-November

With the rebound in industrial production, and upward revisions in nonfarm payroll employment two weeks ago, key indicators look a little better than last post on this subject, a month ago.

Figure 1: Nonfarm payroll employment from August release (dark blue), industrial production (red), personal income excluding transfers in Ch.2012$ (green), manufacturing and trade sales in Ch.2012$ (black), consumption in Ch.2012$ (light blue), and monthly GDP in Ch.2012$ (pink), all log normalized to 2020M02=0. NBER defined recession dates shaded gray. Source: BLS, Federal Reserve, BEA, via FRED, IHS Markit (nee Macroeconomic Advisers) (11/1/2021 release), NBER, and author’s calculations.

There’s been some discussion of the upward revisions in nonfarm payroll employment over the summer (WaPo). This is definitely the case as shown in this post (graph below). However, the October shortfall relative to February 2020 is still 2.8% (in log terms).

Figure 2: Nonfarm payroll employment in October (black), in September (chartreuse), August (red), July (teal), June (pink), May (light green), all in 000’s, s.a.  Source: BLS.

103 thoughts on “Business Cycle Indicators, Mid-November

  1. rsm

    Does pretending revisions themselves have no standard errors comforting to you?

    But aren’t robustness checks in general just a joke?

    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2018/11/14/robustness-checks-joke/

    《Robustness checks involve reporting alternative specifications that test the same hypothesis. Because the problem is with the hypothesis, the problem is not addressed with robustness checks.》

    And even when you do robustness checks by comparing GDP to GNI, don’t you frequently find very significant differences which you promptly ignore?

    Why do you treat GDP as a certainty?

    If a different sample was taken in the employment SURVEY, would you get a different result? Isn’t standard error supposed to capture that variability? Why not report standard error on your surveys?

    Reply
      1. Macroduck

        You misspoke. You meant the data mess Covid caused. The lock down was an intermediate step. The cause was the pandemic.

        Glad I could clear that up for you.

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          Accurate and funny. Something about your humor slays me (in the best meaning of that verb). I’ve been schlagen by good humor. Horrid

          Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      rsm.

      Since you insist on continuing with this obsession of yours, let me ask you a blunt question.

      Do you think that if every single time an economic statistic that actually has a standard error had that announced when the statistic was announced that the probability that your late brother would have lived any longer would have increased by even one tenth of one percent?

      I seriously doubt it.

      Reply
  2. CoRev

    Another it isn’t as bad as we think, feel, sense article????

    This is the economy you wanted using the policies you recommended. Policies attacking energy production and use result in high, higher and dangerously high energy prices: “Energy prices are among the biggest drivers of inflation. Rink is paying almost 50 percent more for gasoline now than she did a year ago, and 28 percent more for the natural gas that she uses to heat her house. …
    Heating oil prices have soared 59 percent in the last year.” https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/11/13/npr-inflation-president-biden-groceries-gas-food-energy-prices

    You’ve gotten the price results without implementing a carbon tax. These higher prices will eventually see a reduction in use. Your policies in action.

    Your policies are driven by a mistaken need to reduce the possibility of a CLIMATE CRISIS. Mistake because of your belief that CO2 is the control button for climate. We’ve just seen huge ~20% monthly decreases in CO2 due to Covid-19 pandemic. I’m sure everyone recognizes the equivalent impact on climate.

    Where are al those articles highlighting the positive impacts on climate from theses reductions in the control button gas? But what do we see: “The globally averaged temperature departure from average over land and ocean surfaces for 2020 was the second highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA scientists….
    In a separate analysis of global temperature data, released today, Copernicus and NASA have 2020 tying with 2016 as the warmest year on record. Analyses from the WMO and the United Kingdom Met Office ranked 2020 among the top-three warmest years on record.” https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202012

    If not a control button for short term effects is CO2 a long term control button? If it is, at what pain?

    Reply
    1. King John's return

      What a crock! CoRev needs to go back to school. First off, who’s policies are you talking about – Menzie’s? Second, and it’s been said thousands of times – energy prices are driven by supply and demand – period. And the US is STILL pumping more oil and gas than it has in any period other than 2018-2019 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=m

      I’m at the pain level where I’d like to request a control button to stop seeing posts by CoRev.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        CoRev is on the border line of getting in trouble with Trump for his rant that this 50% increase in gasoline prices is all Biden’s fault. I linked to some EIA chart that goes back to 1996. Please pay attention to 2008 to 2009.

        From late 2008 to 2009, gasoline prices doubled from $2 to $4 and the Republicans claimed this was from Obama’s policies. But gasoline prices were already $4 in early 2008 before Bush43’s Great Recession crashed the oil market. Obama’s really bad policies I guess was to get the economy back on track.

        Trump’s neglect of the pandemic crashed our economy and the oil markets last year. Oil prices plummeted for much of 2020. Now Biden’s big sin I guess is to turn the economy around which raised the demand for energy – and hence their prices.

        OK a devoted troll like CoRev cannot help himself but I’m sure someone down in Maro Lago has realized that his dishonest spin could backfire!

        Reply
        1. Bruce Hall

          Okay, we all agree that Trump forced the states to shut down their economies because he didn’t stop travel from China and Europe and he didn’t have the Strategic National Stockpile replenished to its maximum after Obama allowed it to become depleted… and he didn’t have vaccines available from Day 1, and he also caused the economies in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the Americas to crash. That’s out of the way.

          The issue now is that field oil production is down 12-14% (depending on source of data) from it’s Jan. 2020 levels. Worse still, natural gas production has fallen more and become prey to the climate alarmist activists who believe that freezing to death is a better alternative to having more plant fertilizer in the air. Old Uncle Joe has bought in fully and sent the message to oil investors: your money should go elsewhere. Shut down Keystone. Stopped new oil/natural gas exploration on all federal lands and offshore. Trying to shut down Enbridge #5. The masses will be huddling to keep warm.

          But wait, Old Uncle Joe will come to the rescue. More money for roads and bridges (as long as it goes to his union buddies). Tons of money for broadband to rural Montana and northern Maine where it will generate massive new commerce (he never heard of satellite internet) https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/fiber-internet-vs-starlink-satellite-internet. No job, no money, here illegally, no problem: tax “credits”. Let’s add $450K if you are a 25-year old minor separated from your parents. The economy will boom again!

          Fortunately, nobody has noticed the effect of current inflation yet and even if supplies are thin, we all feel warm and gooey now that Old Uncle Joe is President and answers all of our questions with such clarity that a three-year old can comprehend what he is saying (but maybe not adults). Let the good times roll!

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Right on cue – the dumbest troll employed by Kelly Anne Conway plays Steno Sue.

            “The issue now is that field oil production is down 12-14% (depending on source of data) from it’s Jan. 2020 levels.”

            Your sources of data must be either StephenMiller’s RacistRus.com. But leave it to Bruce “no relationship to Robert” Hall to forgot to note the role of market prices here. Oh wait – you as usual have no clue what I am saying here. DUH!

          2. pgl

            Supplies are thin from the advocate of Just in Time inventory management. Yes – the stupidity of Bruce Hall has no limits!

      2. CoRev

        King John, ” it’s been said thousands of times – energy prices are driven by supply and demand – period. ” Policy does not impact supply? These are your (all inclusive – Dem and particularly Biden) policies.

        Thank heavens on an econ-blog some one mentioned supply and demand, but only some one brain dead or deliberately obfuscating would ignore the policy impacts on either/both.

        From your own reference production was:
        ” 2020 (Jan, Not Biden) 371,949 397,298 357,344 301,045 312,593 339,651 327,285 326,042 322,816 333,621 343,591 2020 8 Months after Biden Sworn in = 2,733,207
        —2021 342,747 273,646 345,946 336,905 351,346 338,645 351,116 345,369″ 8 months of 2021 = 2,031074

        Or if you prefer an annual review of production: 2019 4,485,653 and 2020 4,129,56. IIRC 2019 was not a Biden policy year while 2020 was. This comment belies your understanding of S&P.

        Or if you want to look at the global production/demand side:
        2019 -2021 Total World Production 100.65 94.19 95.97
        2019-2021 Total World Consumption 101.07 92.42 97.53 From here: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

        From here it looks like the US reduced production in 2020 while global demand rose. I repeat: This is the (energy) economy you wanted using the policies you recommended.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “From here it looks like the US reduced production in 2020 while global demand rose.”

          Prices were low in 2020. So I guess in CoRev’s magical Economics for Dummies, suppliers increase production when market prices fall. After all – you have demonstrated the greatest capacity for sheer idiocy in the history of mankind.

          Reply
        2. pgl

          “2019-2021 Total World Consumption 101.07 92.42 97.53”

          If 2020 is your 92.42 then how can even a moron like you write global demand rose? Oh wait – your Arithmetic for Dummies has 92.42 being greater than 101.07. Wow – CoRev! You are a genius!

          Reply
        3. pgl

          That 7th graph is an interesting one that confirms what I have been saying and undermines your stupid spin. Please take a look at it and then THINK. Oh – I’m sorry. Your job working for Kelly Anne precludes you from thinking. Never mind!

          Reply
        4. Barkley Rosser

          CoRev,

          I am astounded nobody has caught how totally off you are with this latest post. And Econned thinks you are some smart guy who does not lie?

          You declare that the decline in oil production in the US is the fault of Biden. But Trump was president during the entirety of 2020. Biden became president on Jan. 20, 2021.747, so the decline that happened in 2020 was entirely on Trump’s watch, not Biden’s..

          As it is, production in Jan. 2021 was 342,747 while the most recent figure is 345,369. Looks like oil production in the US has risen since Biden became president. Are you consciously lying again, CoRev, or just massively stupid?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            He presents data from EIA that he completely misrepresents. Unless 92 is greater than 101 in Trumpian arithmetic.

          2. Econned

            Barkley Rosser,
            You are lying here. Full stop. I never have said anything about CoRev being “some smart guy who does not lie”.
            You are lying.
            Again.
            Dementia is a terrible disease.

          3. Barkley Rosser

            Econned,

            Oh, but you said he lies less than I do, and I do not lie. Do you really think he got a BA in Womens’s Studies, which did not exist as an academic field when the Apollo program was functioning, but he “measured waves” for that program? Maybe he tried to do so with a yarkstick?

            Want to tell me again how if I get out of my lane a house will fall on me? You have done so now at least twice, “Econned.”

          4. Barkley Rosser

            “Econned,”

            I checked. You may have been smart enough not to say that CoRev is smarter than I am, but you did say “the record stand in favor of CoRev” [sic] with respect to who lies more.

            Oh, and CoRev’s latest version is that he “tracked manned space flight” including Apollo when young, although he has other versions of what he did, not to mention how many honors and medallions he received, all of this achieved with his alleged degree in Womens’ Studies from somewhere or other.

            BTW, what is your educational background, “Econned”? Or would revealing that lead to a national security breakdown due to your all-important secret identity being revealed to the Enemies Of America? I don’t believe there would be any bad fallout from that as all those people would know for sure that if they get out of their lanes to mess with you, houses will drop on their heads, right?

          5. Econned

            Barkley,
            You are wrong again.
            I never said ““the record stand in favor of CoRev” [sic] with respect to who lies more.”
            You’re either lying, misrepresenting my comment, or incapable of contextual reading.
            I said ”A liar may very well be in the best “position to charge someone with lying”. If they aren’t lying. In this case, however, the record stand in favor of CoRev.” The record that was in favor of CoRev was him not lying about you being a liar (this was after Menzie questioned CoRev’s standing on calling others liars due to Menzie suggesting a pot shouldn’t call the kettle black). I never once compared who lies more/less nor was my comment on reply to such comparison.
            Barkley, the record is clear that you’re either lying and/or illiterate and/or demented.

          6. Barkley Rosser

            “Econned,”

            Oh wow. You declare that I am lying, “full stop.” Then when I point out a statement of yours that pretty clearly has you favoring CoRev over me in the truthfulness department, you in fact confirm you said it by repeating it, but then attempt to claim that the context somehow led it not to mean that. I think anybody looking at this closely will find your explanation to be a joke, although I think most now do not care aside from maybe CoRev himself and probably Menzie.

            On the issue of smartness, well, you did not make a direct comparison, but you have never said CoRev was not smart, and near as I can tell have not disagreed with him on any substantive point, despite him being ridiculed by nearly everybody here repeatedly over how many of them are either just plain false, contradict things he has said earlier, or make no sense and are stupid.

            However for me, you have called me “senile” numerous times, declared me to be a “scum,” repeatedly said I am suffering from dementia, and even said that my “handlers” should keep me from having contact with outsiders. Oh, and then there is this stuff about falling houses that seems to simply come out of the sky, except when it was tied to me stepping “our of your lane,” yet another of your efforts to police what others can talk about here, a matter you have also repeatedly lied about.

            Yes, I get it. You were really annoyed when I noted that it is well known that greater independence of central banks is correlated with lower inflation rates, but then noted that numerous variables, some of them continuous, go into measuring that, making your posing of central banks being independent or not without further explanation simply a stupid “duh” question. I was right and nailed your behind on this, so you had to respond with your ranting about my supposed senility, a term Menzie at one time banned people from using about each other here. And then when I noted I have published cited work on German economic history and its hyperinflation, you declared that this was not a good way to debate, presumably because it highlighted how you do not know what you are talking about on the subject.

            So, I am senile and demented and need to be kept from communicating from others while a house falls on my head, but nothing CoRev says calls forth any criticism or rebuke from you. He is a genius with his Womens’ Studies degree from Mystery University that allows him to correct physicists and climatologists on how atmospheric chemistry operates, a recent bizarre whine of his.

            Tell you what, “Econned.” When I introduce Nobelist Vernon Smith at our seminar at 4 PM next March 23, I will make the Zoom link available to you, although I know you will not take this as it might reveal your importantly secret identity, and you can jump in when I am introducing him to tell everybody how they should ignore anything I say as I am not only a major lying scumbag but that I am senile many times over as well as demented many times over and should not be allowed to have any communication with outsiders, not to mention I should have been killed by a falling house some time before for daring to step out of a lane described by you. Want to take me up on that offer, “Econned”?

          7. Econned

            Barkley,
            You’re lying. Again. Go check yourself into a facility that will monitor your well-being. Please.

            You claim “Then when I point out a statement of yours that pretty clearly has you favoring CoRev over me in the truthfulness department, you in fact confirm you said it by repeating it, but then attempt to claim that the context somehow led it not to mean that.” This is flat out false. Your misrepresentation of other’s words is pathetic.

            You claim “On the issue of smartness, well, you did not make a direct comparison, but you have never said CoRev was not smart, and near as I can tell have not disagreed with him on any substantive point, despite him being ridiculed by nearly everybody here repeatedly over how many of them are either just plain false, contradict things he has said earlier, or make no sense and are stupid.” What difference does this make? I’m not sure I’ve ever “agreed” with CoRev on anything other than his claim that you are a liar.

            You state “yet another of your efforts to police what others can talk about here, a matter you have also repeatedly lied about.” This is yet another lie/misrepresentation that you repeat.

            You’re so idiotic and your hubris so big, you ignore that I noted “that it is well known that greater independence of central banks is correlated with lower inflation rates” before you did. That was the point of my question. There’s no way that you can be that idiotic to not see this.

            You state “presumably because it highlighted how you do not know what you are talking about on the subject.” Wrong. Again, I asked if there are examples of hyperinflation with an independent c.b. and then responded to other’s (wrong) examples. So you’ve done no such thing. You’re wrong/lying. Again.

            I would never “tell everybody how they should ignore anything [you] say as [you] [are] not only a major lying scumbag but that I am senile many times over as well as demented many times over and should not be allowed to have any communication with outsiders, not to mention I should have been killed by a falling house some time before for daring to step out of a lane described by you.” Rather that you have made claims on this blog that are fallacious. Just because you’re a piece of scum (and I only called you that AFTER you placed the same label on me – so go check yourself) on this blog and act senile doesn’t mean you aren’t able to “contribute” by introducing someone on a zoom seminar that’ll likely have zero actual impact on the world. Get a grip and stop lying so much. And watch out for falling houses.

          8. Barkley Rosser

            “Econned,”

            Holy effing cow. As you get caught more and more clearly as seriously misrepresenting things here with all sorts of embarrassing stupidities, you double down and more outrageously and openly and blatantly lie. You said absolutely everything I said you said about me on the thread on “Hyperinflation Illustrated,” and most of it repeatedly, as I said. I am not going to specifically quote it. There is too much and it goes on and on, although it looks like maybe you have figured out that some of that stuff you were saying is indeed really embarrassing and have stopped. That would be this totally bizarre matter of you going on about me having to watch out about houses falling on my head, which somehow suggested I was the Wicked Witch of the East if I got out of line, I mean out of lane. Sheesh.

            But this level of sheer and in-your-face outright lying is certainly up there with CoRev, your pal, and classic “moving the goalposts” nonsense, although in this case you have simply moved them into an end zone where your lies are just increasingly flagrant. Do I need to actually quote all the times you called me senile and so on?? heck, here you are again, now saying I need to go into a facility, even as you effectively recognize that I will be hosting a Nobel Prize winner. Get it loser, people who do that are not any of the things you have repeatedly accused me of, and are doing so again in your most recent comment.

            Oh, and somehow you managed to add yet another lie as well in this latest comment. What is the matter with you, “Econned”? YOu are truly losing it. That is the one on how you had somehow noted before I did in that discussion that there was a widely known correlation between degree of independence of central banks and low inflation. Well, no you did not. I brought that up first. Why are you lying about something so simple to check on? You really need to just STFU now. Your lying has become completely out of control.

            Actually, Menzie should ban you., especially given you harassing him, a Chinese-American from non-college-educated parents who worked his way up to reach a highly respected position in the economics profession about a study of how economists have more college-educated parents than other professions. Why were you doing such a totally abusive and insulting thing? You are truly disgusting, “Econned,” probably the worst troll here.

          9. Econned

            Barkley,
            You’re still lying.

            “That is the one on how you had somehow noted before I did in that discussion that there was a widely known correlation between degree of independence of central banks and low inflation. Well, no you did not. I brought that up first. Why are you lying about something so simple to check on? You really need to just STFU now. Your lying has become completely out of control.”
            So why do you think I asked “ Has there been an example of hyperinflation where a nation has an independent central bank?” That is clearly me knowing that hyperinflation with an independent c.b. is rare. I’m asking for examples. How are you that stupid to not see this??? Again, you’re either a liar, illiterate, or senile. Or some combo.

            You say “Actually, Menzie should ban you., especially given you harassing him, a Chinese-American from non-college-educated parents who worked his way up to reach a highly respected position in the economics profession about a study of how economists have more college-educated parents than other professions. Why were you doing such a totally abusive and insulting thing? You are truly disgusting, “Econned,” probably the worst troll here.”
            You can’t point to a single example of me harassing Menzie about this subject. Not one. I brought up a totally valid study to counter Menzie’s claim and followed up on a new thread simply asking if he did watch a talk on said working paper. And for you to pull the race card is typical of a P.O.S. like you. You’re a truly disgraceful person. I’m embarrassed for anyone who knows you. True scum.

          10. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Econned: Actually, I did feel harassed by you – you kept on asking if I’d seen a presentation (not a paper, by the way, not that I can find on the respective websites). I will also say that the discussants focused on educational attainment of parents, gender, race, but for me (excuse me for my focus on my working class background) it was the *economics* of the socioeconomic aspects that mattered, and what I was talking about. To my knowledge, the extant studies don’t address this aspect.

          11. Econned

            Menzie,
            Apologies if you felt “harassed” by a single question. I don’t believe I asked you but once if you had seen the presentation (i referenced the research only once in original thread where I typed “Go see for yourself. Or get a GA to do it for you.” And then i inquired if you had looked into the research only a single time which was in a separate blogpost where I inquired “have you been able to watch the video from the Fed D&I conference showing research suggesting US PhD economists are the least socioeconomically diverse academics?”. So I’m not sure how I “kept on asking” as you assert. Just imagine (if you care at all about being objective and rational) how “harassed” your various guests feel when you repeatedly ask them to respond to your prior inquiries. If asking you a single follow-up is considered being “harassed”, then you repeatedly asking guests is another level. But, if those are you feelings, I do apologize for upsetting you.

            From what I’ve seen, I feel the research was respectable and addressed, in a novel way, the socioeconomics of the target group.

          12. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Econned: I didn’t say that the panelists were not respectable; I’m sure they have added lots to our understanding of what’s going on. And I’m willing to learn.

            In response to your questions, I didn’t have time to watch the entire presentation, and certainly not the entire conference. I did have time to note some of the stats on some social/demographic indicators. I’ll stand by impression that the median household income of the parents of a typical economist born in America is below that of say an art historian for instance (the aggregate categories in the studies I saw were e.g., humanities, or STEM). It is true that this is based merely upon my observation, but observations that I have made over many years in different locales, but you are free to dismiss observation as mere anecdote.

          13. Barkley Rosser

            “Econned,”

            You really do not like to let go, even after you have your behind totally nailed.,

            I was not lying. You were, yet again. You did quote how you started, and indeed that is not inconsistent with there being the correlation I pointed out. But it does not absolutely imply it. So your claim that it was clear you knew this is in fact false. My point was completely correct that if one knows what I stated AND YOU DID NOT, YOU WORTHLESS EFFING LIAR, then your opening point would indeed hold, except that, of course, as I also pointed out and you have sort of dismissed is that what you did say implied that there is some clear boundary between two states, “independent” and “not independent.” But you did not clarify what you meant by that, just setting any sucker up who was foolish enough to follow up on what you did say for you to make snarky creepy remarks, which you like to do.

            So, I took you to task for it, and you have not been able to be honest about this since,, making up one lie after another about it. It was just so typical of you here.

            As for this business of harassing Menzie, which has now nailed you for, you did bring this up in two separate threads. You brought it up near the end of one thread and went on about it a bunch, with nobody responding. Then you brought it up again in another thread as a “PS”. It was there, disgusted by what you were doing, that I accurately pointed out that all that they showed was the educational background of parents, not their incomes, and you even noted you had brought it up earlier. Now you you are claiming otherwise, lying yet again about what you have said here, while claiming that somehow it showed more than it did. This really has been a classic of you imitating CoRev at his worst, just constantly throwing some new piece of lying garbage out the minute an earlier one is pointed out to be just that. And this entire comment of yours has just been more of it, with you not even able to apologize without an “if” and a bunch of more misleading garbage. Vomit all over you.

            I am going to leave this by dragging you back to my challenge. I am serious that anybody here is open to participating in the seminar Nobelist Vernon Smith will give at JMU at 4 PM on upcoming March 23. You can show up. You can denounce me with all this pile of junk you have said about me in this thread, some of which you have denied saying later in the thread. If in fact you have a leg to stand on, that you are not just lying scum, well, Vernon and the audience will thank you for informing them of my awful conduct here and how I should be put in a facility, blah blah blah. Why Vernon might even withdraw from speaking after you make him and the audience aware of my general no good rottenness, with them grateful to you for revealing all this

            However, it is far more likely that you will be laughed out of there so hard you will not know what hit you, although you might indeed have a very large house come down on your head as you leave. Vernon might even drop something he has publicly said elsewhere on more than one occasion: that he considers me to be one of the three best journal editors he has ever dealt with.

            So, that is the challenge. if you are not willing to do that, then STFU on this stuff. And now I am really going to be outtahere, even if you pop back up again with some fresh false claim that somehow I have lied while you have not. Pretty clearly Menzie is on your case now.

          14. Econned

            Barkley,
            You’re a joke if you can’t acknowledge my initial question was acknowledgment that I’m aware of the correlation.

            You’re lying that i “have not been able to be honest about this since,, making up one lie after another about it.” You’re only able to say I’m lying but can’t point to lies. This is what people like you do who are unable to have real conversation online.

            Also, I apologized to Menzie that he felt harassed. I don’t think it is harassing to ask a question. Menzie did. I apologized to Menzie. So why are you unable to stfu and stay in your lane???

            Barkley lying again: “Now you you are claiming otherwise, lying yet again about what you have said here, while claiming that somehow it showed more than it did.” You cannot show this because it didn’t not happen.

            Also, no one cares about your seminar. As I stated, I never said you shouldn’t introduce someone at a seminar. I said on this blog that you’re a senile liar. I pointed to your lies directly. You’re unable to do the same to support your claims about me.

            You lie here “some of which you have denied saying later in the thread.”

            Please stop with your empty e self-aggrandizing because we all know you’re senile.

            Here’s my challenge to you
            1) actually back up your baseless claims for once
            2) please go get the help that you clearly need

          15. baffling

            econned, people continue to get into arguments with you on this blog because you lack integrity. you intentionally provoke, and then cry foul when there is a response. you seem to have an inferiority complex when it comes to professors chinn and rosser. probably from a failed bid in academia, where it was somebody else’s fault you failed to receive tenure. you seem to hold a grudge against those who have succeeded in the academy. and you try to drag them down to your level.

          16. Econned

            baffling,
            That’s EXACTLY it!!! Every word!! I appreciate the couch-session. While you’re at it, can you explain why Barkley and Menzie continue to allow themselves to get drug down to my level? And yourself? Inquiring minds would love to know. And please bill me at your convenience! Thanks in advance!

          17. baffling

            well econned, with your self admission, it would appear prof chinn would be on firm ground to ban you from further commentary. i certainly would not permit somebody on my blog who admitted their purpose was to simply bring down the quality and integrity of the blog. but your admission is appreciated. and my characterization of you still stands.

          18. baffling

            econned, you dont get to use the sarcasm card. you complain if people do not follow your precisely worded responses, so you give up the luxury of using sarcasm as an excuse to cover your brief bouts of honesty. you can’t have it both ways. its just childish.

        5. King John's return

          CoRev, you ignorant [edited MDC] (apologies to Jane Curtin). Biden was not sworn in until 2021. Even if he had tried to implement some policy that limits oil and gas production (which he didn’t), it wouldn’t have been implemented by industry until the end of the year at earliest and most likely 2022.
          I’ll even give Trump a pass here as the decline in production in 2020 might have had something to do with the tremendous drop in demand due to the pandemic and people working from home for most of the year (duh).
          And “global demand rose” in 2020?? Please, show me where on this chart: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/images/Fig8.png
          Global consumption won’t reach pre-pandemic levels until sometime in mid-late 2022.

          Reply
      3. pgl

        “CoRev needs to go back to school.”

        Why should we bother our overworked teachers with a pupil like CoRev? This lying fool cannot even read those EIA graphs he links to.

        Reply
      4. paddy kivlin

        we all hope (is not strategy) for a mild winter!

        eia 12 Nov 2021 report https://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf

        total stocks: -9.7 year on year (excluding strat petrol reserve) -131mbbl all grades and crude stock in petrol is balance in storage/tanks.

        stock of distillate fuel oil -14.2% yoy, -20.4 Mbbl

        gasoline -7% or 16Mbbl less than last year

        production in eia terms is called supply as in product supplied.

        domestic crude -4.8% or 550Kbbl/day (7 day cum avg}

        net uimport crude +14.3% or +400kbbl/day (7 day cum avg}

        the good news culpabl per press for wti breaking below $80:

        3.2 Mbbl released from strat petrol reserve last week from a 600+Mbbl spr stock!

        with winter coming and a better economy i would say we should not be minus on stocks…..

        i think opec and a few others are anticipating a covid impact….

        Reply
    2. pgl

      “Your policies are driven by a mistaken need to reduce the possibility of a CLIMATE CRISIS.”

      WTF? We have not yet pass a carbon tax and you claim it is the Biden socialist agenda that has increased energy prices? Even a dishonest troll like you knows energy prices were very low in real terms last year. Assuming of course you have read the prior posts on this topic and assuming you have the basic intelligence to understand what they said. Oh wait – I just made two very dubious assumptions. Silly me!

      Reply
        1. Barkley Rosser

          T. Shaw,

          Excuxe me, but who here said that “inflation is fictional”? I do not see such a statement.

          Is this some new meme popping around on Fox News or some other right wing “news” site? I just saw somebody make the same claim elsewhere on the internet, that supposedly “lhe left” has been claiming that “inflation is fictionsl,” same sillyi wording. But I have yet to see a single person make such a claim, not one.

          Want to provide a link where somebody, anybody, said such a thing, T. Shaw?

          Reply
          1. T. Shaw

            Above pgl, “Even a dishonest troll like you knows energy prices were very low in real terms last year.”

            Anyhow, I don’t watch Fox News. They’re too liberal.

          2. pgl

            “T. Shaw
            November 19, 2021 at 5:18 am”

            He takes my comment about the relative price of oil and thinks I said something about inflation. T. Shaw is very, very dumb!

    3. Macroduck

      Pardon me, but what is a “mistaken need”?

      On the assumption you mean “mistaken belief”, you are mistaken. There is a great need to reduce fossil fuel burning. Your refusal to admit that need amounts to further evidence, given your record of speaking from ignorance pretty much al the time. Higher prices are a useful tool in reducing consumption, so hurray for higher fossil fuel prices.

      And that’s without policies aimed at raising fuel prices – see, you were wrong again. Imagine what could be accomplished with policy aimed at raising the cost of greenhouse gas emissions.

      Reply
      1. GREGORY BOTT

        Not quite. Fossil fuel burning with carbon capture is pretty solid science. Corev ignores this and destroys his argument. We need Fossil fuels/Nuclear to power electric vehicles. When we have both, US carbon emissions will be back to 1929 levels.

        Reply
        1. Macroduck

          There is solid science behind carbon capture. It is expensive in monetary cost and in energy cost, to the point that some of the few existing capture projects in the U.S. have been abandoned and others are in trouble.

          The are some billions of dollars in legislation for new carbon capture efforts- fine and dandy as log as these projects aren’t simply meant as cover for continued fossil fuel burning.

          Forests and oceans are the most effective carbon capture technologies. Let’s get busy.

          Reply
      2. CoRev

        Macroduck, you confirmed my contention: “This is the economy you wanted using the policies you recommended. Policies attacking energy production and use result in high, higher and dangerously high energy prices:” with your: ” Higher prices are a useful tool in reducing consumption, so hurray for higher fossil fuel prices.”

        Is CO2 the control button/switch/driver of climate? If you believe it is explain why climate did not respond to this control in 2020.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “If you believe it is explain why climate did not respond to this control in 2020.”

          This pathetically statement sentence has been rebutted by several of us. CoRev the coward ducks however. You are such a chicken POS.

          Reply
      3. pgl

        “And that’s without policies aimed at raising fuel prices – see, you were wrong again.”

        CoRev has a perfect record. He is ALWAYS wrong about everything he ever comments on. Quite the achievement!

        Reply
    4. pgl

      What is it with these clowns at MPR and poor old Bernice Rink? This is kind of BS put forward by Faux News on a routine basis that Kevin Drum has to put in proper perspective. And far as gasoline prices, even a troll like CoRev knows they were low a year ago. Of course CoRev is too dishonest to provide a series that goes back several years so permit me:

      https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0U_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

      Gasoline prices are volatile which permit liars like MPR and CoRev to write such utter intellectual garbage.

      Reply
    5. pgl

      “Your policies are driven by a mistaken need to reduce the possibility of a CLIMATE CRISIS. Mistake because of your belief that CO2 is the control button for climate. We’ve just seen huge ~20% monthly decreases in CO2 due to Covid-19 pandemic. I’m sure everyone recognizes the equivalent impact on climate.”

      Wow – CoRev is advocating a global pandemic as his policy for reducing CO2 emissions. What a guy.

      Yea I get that this lying fool is trying to use the warmer weather that coincides with recent one-time reduction in CO2 for a brief period of time is strong evidence that the climate change issue (which this troll has to put in CAPs for some childish reason) is a hoax. Of course anyone with an IQ above the teens would tell this lying fool that global warming is a long-term issue.

      Reply
    6. joseph

      CoRev: “In 2020 CO2 production went down but temperatures went up! How is this possible?”

      Recall that CoRev also stated that CO2 couldn’t possibly cause a long term greenhouse effect because photon absorption by CO2 molecules lasts only nanoseconds.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Joseph, do you question the physics? No, my question was not: “Recall that CoRev also stated that CO2 couldn’t possibly cause a long term greenhouse ”

        My question was how does CO2 TRAP CO2 for the long term, when the capture/release cycle of a long wave photon is in nano-micoseconds? (TRAP Capitalized just for PGL). So the question then and today is how does CO2 trap long wave radiation (photons) for the long term) while they are moving through an atmosphere made up of 0.04% of CO2.

        So my question is related to the misinformation of the physics regarding long term trapping and not that the photons are captured and released by GHGs. Too many here are too ignorant of the physics to understand a question regarding their own understanding.

        Do you believe that CO2 is the control/switch/driver for climate and long term traps the photons?

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          Does anyone know how this 4 year old got on the casino game floor, and why he keeps trying to get Pokémon trading cards at the Blackjack table?? And find out who his parents are, that MAGA hat is child abuse.

          Reply
      2. joseph

        CoRev: “My question was how does CO2 TRAP CO2 for the long term, when the capture/release cycle of a long wave photon is in nano-micoseconds?”

        Just a waste of time but here goes.

        The CO2 molecule doesn’t capture a photon. It changes it’s direction.

        Photons radiated from the warm surface of the earth are on their way to outer space. But some of them strike a CO2 molecule and are briefly absorbed as molecular vibrations — nanoseconds as you say. But because of the molecule’s vibration, they re-radiate the absorbed photon in a random direction. This means that, on average, of the photons absorbed by a CO2 molecule on the way to outer space, half continue to outer space, but half are reflected back to the earth. The more CO2 molecules, the more photons reflected back to earth. To maintain equilibrium of incoming and outgoing photon energy, the temperature of the surface of the earth must increase to radiate more photons to outer space to overcome the ones reflected back.

        So your nonsense about nanoseconds of capture is irrelevant. What is relevant is that CO2 molecules change the direction of photons.

        Reply
        1. CoRev

          Joseph says: “So your nonsense about nanoseconds of capture is irrelevant. What is relevant is that CO2 molecules change the direction of photons.” But I never claimed a photon was TRAPPED LONG TERM by a CO2 molecule. Nor do you. But, you do confuse warming temperatures as climate, instead of just one factor of climate.

          So, if a CO2 molecule changes direction as well slightly delays of the photon, what does a nitrogen or oxygen molecule do? Is the CO2 molecule the climate control switch?

          But this discussion was about Climate Warrior policies, which Biden has embraced, and raised fuel prices. Fuel prices drive inflation on most products, but we continue to see article after article here and elsewhere indicting that it isn’t as bad as the electorate feel. Really!?

          At least King John was willing to admit that the price increases were the goal. Are you? Are you willing to accept the down stream effects?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            “At least King John was willing to admit that the price increases were the goal. Are you?”

            Oh Lord – you are STUPID. The goal was getting the economy back near full employment. Which had the effect of shifting the demand curve for oil upwards which led to prices increases along the supply curve.

            Your incessant insanity keeps pretending Biden waves some magic wand and shifted the supply curve inwards increasing prices along the demand curve. But that would mean less oil consumption and your own data shows consumption rose.

            Now we get you do not understand the difference between shifts of curves v. movements along curve – even if these basic concepts are fundamental to understanding demand and supply models.

            Yes CoRev was taught – what ever Trump demands, CoRev supplies. As in his incessantly insane and stupid lies.

    7. Barkley Rosser

      CoRev,

      Looks like you have not been paying attention. Crude oil prices have been sliding for the last several weeks and it looks like retail gasoline prices have stopped rising and may have even started to decline in some locales recently. This point has been repeatedly made by me here with several others backing it up. You are unaware of this?

      WTI currently at $78.30. You are not up on this atl.

      Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        CoRev,

        Brent crude is now under $80 barrel as well as WTI. And I am seeing some scattered media beginning to notice. Gasoline prices are now falling.

        But, hey, somebody with a degree in Womens’ Studies from Mystery University who is also an expert on the behavior of photons should know that.

        Reply
  3. ltr

    https://cepr.net/nyt-gives-steven-rattner-a-victory-lap-on-inflation-prediction/

    November 17, 2021

    New York Times Gives Steven Rattner a Victory Lap on Inflation Prediction
    By DEAN BAKER

    We’re getting a lot of “I told you so’s” on inflation in recent days. Yesterday, it was Larry Summers in the Washington Post, * today we get Steven Rattner in a New York Times column. ** Their story is that the 6.4 percent year over year inflation shown in the October CPI proves that their warnings about Biden’s recovery package being too large were correct.

    Before analyzing this claim and Rattner’s takeaways going forward, let me clearly say that I did not anticipate this sort of price jump. While some increase in inflation was inevitable, and even desirable, the rise was considerably more than I expected. I attribute this to supply chain issues, which are almost certain to be temporary (more on this later). But I am happy to acknowledge that this burst of inflation did catch me by surprise.

    So, let’s get to Rattner’s story. He and Summers argued that the American Recovery Package (ARP) that Congress passed in February overstimulated the economy, leading to a serious problem with inflation. They want the Federal Reserve to raise rates to slow the economy, saying that its wait and see attitude is irresponsible and will lead to more inflation. Rattner also wants the Democrats to cut back their Build Back Better plan to make sure that it does not increase the deficit….

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “Rattner also wants the Democrats to cut back their Build Back Better plan”

      Summers joined Rattner on the criticism of ARP. But let’s note Summers supports BBB. Rattner is alone on that island.

      Reply
    2. GREGORY BOTT

      Inflation exists because of fast growth and timelags in production reboosting. Nothing new under the sun. Inflate in 2021. Deflate in 2022. Nobody wants this fast growth after winter 2022.

      Reply
  4. Macroduck

    Covid has made data much more volatile and data collection less reliable. Conclusions drawn from recent data should be viewed with caution. The whole “balance of risks” thing becomes more important when the state of the economy is less clear.

    I’ve seen commentary suggesting Biden and Democrats were screwed by bad data. I’m not sure most voters rely heavily on data reports to assess the state of the economy. Personal experience, anecdotal reports, press coverage and party affiliation seem to matter more. Heck, just read the comments on thos blog.

    Reply
    1. GREGORY BOTT

      Off year elections are about locality. If the global media would stop nationalizing every contest, maybe they would realize that.

      Reply
  5. Paul Mathis

    Inflation is being driven primarily by gasoline prices, but the price of regular now is the same as a decade ago. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GASREGW

    During the pandemic lockdown in the spring of 2020, prices hit the lowest level since the nadir of the Great Recession in 2009, but as Keynes said, nobody has a right to buy at low prices because the economy is depressed. As economic growth increases, prices will naturally increase too because of higher demand. Summers and Rattner should acknowledge this.

    Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      And, Paul, in case you have not been paying attention here, gasoline prices appear to have stopped rising in the last few weeks, and crude prices have been declining. Of course, Rattner has not noticed any of that, much less Summers.

      Reply
  6. ltr

    https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/baltic

    The Baltic Dry Index is reported daily by the Baltic Exchange in London. The index provides a benchmark for the price of moving the major raw materials by sea. The index is a composite of three sub-indices that measure different sizes of dry bulk carriers: Capesize, which typically transport iron ore or coal cargoes of about 150,000 tonnes; Panamax, which usually carry coal or grain cargoes of about 60,000 to 70,000 tonnes; and Supramax, with a carrying capacity between 48,000 and 60,000 tonnes. The Baltic Dry Index takes into account 23 different shipping routes carrying coal, iron ore, grains and many other commodities.

    [ Notice the steady decline. ]

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Now come on. Hit the All button for this series from 1985 to now. This index covers transportation for commodities and not the goods we are hoping Santa brings to the kids and it is highly volatile. The current price is sort of the normal price in a sea of volatility.

      Note it spiked around 2008 at the height of the commodity boom only to crash during the Great Recession. It was really low for many years but recently spiked again as the recovery from the pandemic increased the demand for commodities. Yea it has come back down from those incredible heights but shipping costs are not exactly low.

      Reply
    2. ltr

      Correcting my careless use of Baltic Dry Index:

      Though shipping costs have very recently been falling sharply, costs are significantly higher than 1 or 5 years ago or than on December 30, 2019.

      Reply
  7. pgl

    Remember when failed consultant and Finance 101 dropout Princeton Steve tried to tell us that Zillow was dropping its home flipping business as they were genius who foresaw his impending housing crash? Now a lot of us scoffed at this intellectual garbage pointing out the real reasons for this exit from what has been an unprofitable line of business for them since the 2018 of its home flipping line of business. It seems that the WSJ ran an interesting story:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/zillow-offers-real-estate-algorithm-homes-ibuyer-11637159261?mod=hp_lead_pos5

    A quick summary of the story’s points:

    (1) Its vaunted algorithm has sucked for years which is why Zillow has lost money on this line of business since 2018;

    (2) Their genius CEO tinkered with the algorithm making it worse;

    (3) Zillow had a hard time getting material and construction workers to fix their inventory of homes.

    Precisely what we said contradicting the sheer stupidity of Princeton Steve. But yea – like you guys have been saying. This is all old news which every sane person already knew.

    Reply
  8. pgl

    I did not watch it but it seems this south Georgia prosecutor just ripped Travis McMichaels on cross. I guess he is not as good at lying as Rittenhouse.

    Reply
  9. pgl

    The governor of Oklahoma decided Julius Jones should not be executed but should stay in jail. It is good that he will not be put to death for a crime he did not commit but I hope someone is working on providing he should be released from jail.

    BTW the NY prosecutors who convicted two men that had nothing to do with the death of Malcolm X knew at the time that these prosecutions were unwarranted. The Innocence Project is a gift from God that deserves your support.

    Reply
  10. ltr

    As for formal logistics or transportation and warehousing employment, FedEx, UPS, DHL and USPS account for about 84% of the industry. Post Office employment has however been declining for years. Employment then is dominated by 3 carriers, which may be significant in terms of limited earnings of ordinary employees and relatively limited employment.

    Reply
  11. pgl

    Forbes runs what I guess is a “fair and balanced” (TM: Faux News) discussion of the future of housing prices:

    https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/housing-bubble-experts/

    Down in the story are a few crack pots that are crying bubble but the beginning of this discussion notes how residential economists note that the fundamentals are strong so housing prices should stay high for a while.

    Of course to failed consultant Princeton Steve economic fundamentals are heresy and Communism so I’m sure he will continue with the Sky is Falling hysteria.

    Reply
  12. 2slugbaits

    Ah yes…more nonsense from CoRev. It’s not exactly clear which of Biden’s policies supposedly resulted in higher gas prices, but when you’re addicted to Fox Noise rational coherence is not required. As it happens, I only wish that Biden had enacted policies that would increase gas and oil prices, but alas the infrastructure bill is unlikely to do that and will in fact make auto and truck traffic more attractive relative to other, greener modes of transportation. And apparently CoRev doesn’t understand that a standalone carbon tax would be fiscally contractionary and would drive down overall inflation. But we should be used to his nonsense by now. After all, this is the same CoRev who twice voted for Nixon, twice voted for Trump, was convinced that Saddam had WMD (and for all I know CoRev still believes that!), and he was certain that “the Surge” would be a smashing success in Afghanistan. And of course for years he’s been assuring us that global warming will soon become global cooling any day now. With a track record like that why would anyone doubt his intellectual acumen?

    Reply
    1. pgl

      All excellent points save this:

      “It’s not exactly clear which of Biden’s policies supposedly resulted in higher gas prices”

      Actually it should be clear is this a redux of 2009 – recovering from the previous President’s massive recession turned the previous down turn in prices into a return to the previously high prices. But shhh – if we say this out loud, CoRev will be in Trump’s dog house!

      Reply
    2. CoRev

      Welcome to the discussion 2slugs. did you really mean: ” It’s not exactly clear which of Biden’s policies supposedly resulted in higher gas prices,…” or did you actually mean that we can not as Democrats admit that our price increase policies were exactly what was desired: “I only wish that Biden had enacted policies that would increase gas and oil prices…”?

      That is the ?deliberately? confused narrative that we have been seeing.

      We warned what the effects would be of the preferred Democrat policies. Now that the electorate see them in their daily lives, denial that these policy results were intended is rampant. These policies are not transitory. They are planned, desired and results of your policies.

      2022 is coming.

      Reply
      1. 2slugbaits

        CoRev I noticed that in your reply you were unable to cite which of Biden’s supposed policies have led to higher gasoline prices. Gas prices are higher than they were a year ago, but that’s because of this thing called a market. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Oh wait, I forgot that you’re utterly clueless. Clueless about military strategies. Clueless about politics. Clueless about physics. Clueless about farming. Clueless about economics. Is there anything about which you are not clueless?

        Reply
        1. Barkley Rosser

          2slugbaits,

          How dare you call CoRev clueless!? He has a degree in Womens’ Studies from Mystery University! And Econned is prepared to vouch for his brilliance and truthfulness, and everybody here knows that Econned is smarter than any Sveriges Riksbank Prize winner in Economic Science!!!!!

          Reply
          1. Barkley Rosser

            CoRev,

            Brent crude is now also below $80 per barrel. When are you going to start noticing that the Biden-causing-rising-gasoline-prices story is over, at least for now?

        2. CoRev

          2slugs, I deliberately did not cite policies, because he is following your/Dem War on Fossil Fuel policies. That’s plural. His efforts are primarily jawboning but specific policies do include include cancelling pipe line(s), closing Federal lands to oil exploration, re-entering the anti-fossil fuel Paris Climate Agreement, Drilling Bans, added taxes/fees for drilling/producers, and extended incentives for renewable energy implementations, etc.

          As to physics, I have tried to explain the incorrect interpretation of long term capture of IR photon by CO2 as the climate control mechanism. Atmospheric physics is complex, and a well weakness of the physics represented in the current models is their handling and understanding of clouds.

          If long term capture of IR photons is questioned, clouds are mishandled and radiant heat transfer is over emphasized over the remaining convective and conductive heat transfer mechanisms, then the overall GHG theory is probably very incorrectly implemented in the models.

          The model estimates consistently run too hot when compared to reality; therefore the GHG theory implementation in them is questionable/problematic.

          Only ideologues accept the error prone model outputs without questioning them. Ideology is not science.

          Reply
          1. 2slugbaits

            CoRev extended incentives for renewable energy implementations,

            So now you’re saying that renewable energies (which lower demand for fossil fuels!!!) are responsible for higher gasoline prices? Really? In other words, you’re saying that a leftward shift in the demand curve raises prices? Do you ever take the time to think things through before punishing your keyboard? Where did you learn economics? From Fox U? And all those other things you mentioned haven’t actually happened. Re-entering the Paris Climate Agreement does not raise demand and it hasn’t shut down a single refinery or oil rig. It might ten years from now, but not now. Same story with cancelling pipelines that were never going to be built anyway because the economics simply didn’t work. Geez, how dumb are you?

            Your understanding of physics is pathetic. I don’t pretend to know a lot about physics. My dad was an experimental physicist (fluid dynamics) and I learned long ago that it wasn’t a career choice for me. Yes, it’s complicated. Way too complicated for someone with your weak math background. Even I know that you’re full of it when it comes to discussing the physics of climate change. Hell…you can’t even do basic statistics and once made a fool of yourself in a discussion about logarithms.

          2. CoRev

            so typical for a liberal and in particular 2slugs to cite only one factor when several were presented that can dramatically impact SUPPLY (caps for PGL). BTW, focusing on only one price, ” higher gasoline prices” versus fossil fuels just shows your ideological blinders. Do you really think before you start typing.

            Incidentally, in the real world emphasizing renewable sources does raise the price of those non-fossil fueled energy sources. For gasoline adding renewable higher priced ethanol, for electricity generation paying for government incentives via fees from the fossil fuel suppliers, and the costs to maintain idle fossil fueled back ups for the lumpy renewable suppliers are just three large price increase factors seldom if ever considered in the price comparison models and competitive markets, but is felt by the end user.

            Think, please. Do a modicum of due diligence research. If you don’t understand the physics then don’t make foolish unsupported comments. You can do better.

  13. rjs

    a couple months or more ago i miscommunicated on a thread here, and it didn’t become evident that i had until the until the Business Cycle Indicators, Mid-October post of a month ago….even then, i didn’t know what i had said that led to the misunderstanding, but now i think i’ve figured it out….my objection was to the use of “real retail sales” as posted by FRED, which they had once attributed to the NBER, wherein retail sales are deflated with the CPI….simply stated, i said it made no sense to deflate sales of clothing and TVs with an index that is two-thirds services, including 30% rent…i imagine that i suggested the “commodities less food and energy commodities” index would be a better index, and that was interpreted to mean that i had suggested a deflation of retail sales with a producer price index…while the producer price index is used to deflate retail inventories, all retail sales must be deflated with components of the CPI….

    for what we usually call core CPI, BLS uses the clumsy “All items less food and energy”  that core CPI index has two subsets: “Commodities less food and energy commodities” and “Services less energy services”….it is the former that i use to deflate retail sales…FRED carries that index as https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SACL1E

    using the current October retail sales report as an example, i strip out gasoline and food sales from the retail report and find core retail sales were up more than 1.8% for the month…however, “CPI Commodities less food and energy commodities” was up more than 1.0%, so real core retail sales rose ~0.8%…then i adjust food and energy retail sales for their price changes separately, just as the BEA does…grocery sales were up 0.9%, but food at home prices were up 1.2%, so real food sales were down 0.3%; likewise, a 3.9% increase in gasoline sales, once adjusted for 6.1% higher gasoline prices, means real gasoline sales were down 2.1%…i then reweigh & rejoin those components to estimate that real personal consumption of goods rose by around 0.4% for October, after rising by a revised 0.4% in September, and by a revised 1.2% in August…at the same time, the 0.8% decrease in real sales at bars and restaurants will have a negative impact of about half of 0.1% on October’s real personal consumption of services..

    Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      But rsm, why are you even bothering with anything reported by FRED? They do not report the standard errors on any of their data! They are murderers, just like all the other economists in the world!!!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.