Houston, We Have A Problem. Corporate Profit Growth Has No Limit

https://abc13.com/houston-we-have-a-problem-weve-had-remember-when-history/1869513/

Introduction

US Corporate profits grew from $1.9 Trillion(T) on an annual basis in the second quarter of 2019 before the pandemic to $3.0T in the second quarter of 2022; plus $1.1T (+57%)!!! US nominal gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 17%, from $21.3T to $24.9T, an increase of $3.6T. Real, inflation-adjusted, GDP grew by just 4%, accounting for a $0.8T increase in the real economy. Inflation grew by 13%, causing the other $2.8T of measured GDP. The $1.1T of increased corporate profits represents 39% of the inflation which has occurred in the last 3 years.

Analysis

Let’s look at the growth of US corporate profits from a half-dozen starting points to try to put this into perspective.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP

YearProfitReal ProfitAnnl Incr StageCum Annl Incr
197055142
19802732717%6.7%
19954683071%3.1%
20061,3886288%4.5%
20121,8808193%4.3%
20181,947775-1%3.6%
20223,0121,0237%3.9%
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-

US corporate profits reached $3 Trillion in 2022, up from essentially zero in 1950. I’ve selected 7 peak profit years to outline this growth. Nominal profits increased from $55B in 1970 to $3.0T in 2022. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, profits have grown from $142B to $1,023B, a 7-fold increase in 52 years! Annual profit growth has been erratic, increasing by a high of 8% from 1995 to 2006 and a low of -1% from 2012 to 2018. The cumulative annual real profit growth has stayed near 4% throughout the period. 4% compounded for 52 years is a little more than 7x.

The US population grew from 200.3M to 338.3M during this period, 1.0% per year. So, corporate earnings grew by 3% per year above the rate of population growth for 52 years!!!! This kind of compound growth rate cannot continue for long periods of time without greatly impacting other sectors of the economy.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-06/stock-market-u-s-corporations-hit-record-profits-in-2021-q3-despite-covid?sref=d6fKRvkp&leadSource=uverify%20wall

Corporate profits fluctuated in the 4-6% of GDP range from 1947 through 2000. Profits jumped up to 10% of GDP by 2010 and have largely remained at this two-fold elevated level for a decade. Profits reached a new record of 12% in 2022!

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Pik
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A466RD3Q052SBEA

This measure shows profits growing eight-fold since 1970. (I’m going to ignore the detailed differences between the various measures of profit. They are important, but not necessary to see the major growth in profits, which is broadly consistent across the various measures.)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W273RE1A156NBEA

A tighter measure of corporate profits shows an increase from 4.5% to 7% of GDP, even before the most recent profit growth.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A445RE1A156NBEA

An alternate measure of just “domesticly earned” corporate profits shows a flatter trend.

Another way to consider profits is to view its complement, the share of national income received by labor.

https://www.epi.org/blog/the-fed-shouldnt-give-up-on-restoring-labors-share-of-income-and-measure-it-correctly/

By this measure, labor has lost 10% of its income, while capital has gained 10% since 1980.

https://www.epi.org/blog/the-fed-shouldnt-give-up-on-restoring-labors-share-of-income-and-measure-it-correctly/

6% of GDP was moved from labor to capital.

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states

Consulting firm McKinsey shows an 8% of GDP transfer and provides 5 explanations.

https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/employment-and-social-policy/The-Labour-Share-in-G20-Economies.pdf

Most analyses of the growth in profits and decline in relative wages note that labor productivity has continued to rise by 2% or more annually, but labor has received almost no portion of those gains in the last 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_share

Labor share of total income has dropped by 15% in the long-run by this measure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/estimating-the-us-labor-share.htm

This author calculates a 6-8% decline for labor.

https://taxfoundation.org/labor-share-net-income-within-historical-range/#:~:text=The%20average%20labor%20share%20from,long%20decline%20in%20labor%20share.

A right-leaning think tank adjusts the data and claims that labor’s share remains constant in the long-run. The Tax Foundation does delve into the various measures of income and provides arguments for their preferred measure.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SP500

Stock prices tend to follow profits. The S&P 500 index has grown by 50% in the last 2 years (despite the recent decline), reflecting the amazing growth in corporate profits during a “once in a century” pandemic driven recession.

https://www.yardeni.com/pub/stmktbriefrevearndiv.pdf

S&P 500 company earnings (a subset of total profits earned) continued to grow strongly through and after the pandemic.

https://cdn.pficdn.com/cms/pgim-fixed-income/sites/default/files/2021-04/The%20Evolution%20of%20U.S.%20Corporate%20Profits_2.pdf

This investment advisor says that profits increased by 5% of GDP.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Median REAL, inflation-adjusted, earnings remained flat at $330/week from 1979 through 2014, a period of 35 years! This is during periods where profits were growing at 4% per year in REAL terms. In the last 8 years, REAL wages have increased by 9%, a bit better than 1% per year on average.

The media has published many articles, especially noting the increase of profits, overall, since before the pandemic. This is a popular topic because the result is certainly counterintuitive and because President Biden and the more left-leaning national Democrats have been criticizing corporations for “price gauging” and causing the recent inflation spike.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/31/us-companies-record-profits-2021-price-hikes-inflation/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/corporate-profit-is-at-a-level-well-beyond-what-we-have-ever-seen-and-its-expected-to-keep-growing-11649802739

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate-profits-boom-may-lead-to-higher-wages/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-corporate-profits-stayed-high-through-2021-even-as-inflation-took-hold-160908829.html

A variety of sources provide compelling data and logic to indicate that corporations are “taking advantage of” the post-pandemic inflation caused by supply chain issues and expansive fiscal and monetary policies to boost prices at rates faster than their costs of inputs (suppliers, labor, capital).

https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-are-corporate-profits-at-record-highs-because-companies-are-overcharging/20068026/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/record-corporate-profits-driving-inflation/story?id=87121327

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2022/07/corporate-profits-are-increasing-rapidly-despite-increases-in-production-costs/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/27/inflation-corporate-america-increased-prices-profits

Most economists and analysts point to the increased concentration of firms (fewer) by industry increasing their pricing power and allowing them to raise prices during periods of change.

https://academic.oup.com/rof/article/23/4/697/5477414

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017

This is pretty dense and dry stuff. There is a general consensus among economists who focus on this topic that concentration and pricing power have risen very significantly. This is partly due to the simple aging of industries with fewer players left standing. The winners in a world of global competition are simply “much better” than the losers so they continue to take market share. US anti-trust enforcement in the last 40 years has been very limited, following the theory that “open competition” in the long run (Schumpeter’s creative destruction) eventually undermines leading companies with innovative products, processes and market strategies.

The US Chamber of Commerce argues that industry concentration has not increased, noting that consumer choices in broadly defined industries have increased greatly through time.

https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/industrial-concentration-in-the-united-states-2002-2017

Summary

By a dozen measures, profit has consistently grown as a share of the American economy in the last 40-50 years. This necessarily means that the share of output and income received by labor is much smaller as a percentage of the total pie. The recent surprising ability of American corporations to effectively work through the pandemic supply chain disruptions, lose more than 10% of their labor force, increase nominal wages significantly, encounter severe input price inflation and still engineer price increases to come out much further ahead on profits is a major story for our time.

It is attracting attention to what I believe is an even more important story: the ability of corporations to incrementally capture nearly all of the increased value added by the productive American economy across 40-50 years and share very little with labor. This structural advantage of a very effective corporate sector “doing its job” within the relatively low-tax and low-regulation US political context is now completely proven.

In an ideal world, we would be developing and considering serious policy options that would limit this excess power without “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. Unfortunately, the Republican party remains focused on tax and regulation cuts as the main economic tools and the Democratic party alternates between 1960-70’s era Biden “centrist” policies and much further-left Bernie Sanders style policies.

Trump Presidency Accomplishments

  1. Tax cuts. Corporate rates cut from 35% to 21%, closer to OECD norms. Incentives for returning profits to US. Higher income tax rate cuts.
  2. Regulation cuts. Environment, business, banking, labor.
  3. Lower environmental standards. Withdraw from Paris climate deal. Methane limits. Wetlands. Vehicle milage and emissions standards.
  4. New limits to welfare benefits: Medicare and SNAP.
  5. Antitrust investigations for telecommunications, media, internet, network advantaged firms.
  6. Increased use of Congressional Review Act (1996) to allow Congress to vote down newly implemented regulations.
  7. Economic recovery continued for 3 more years. 2.5% annual growth. 3.5% unemployment. Stock market gains. 6.5M jobs added. Tighter labor market. Increased wages. Minority and lower income gains.
  8. Bipartisan Covid relief spending for individuals and firms.
  9. Home building increased during Trump term and afterwards.
  10. More “Middle Americans” believed that they were heard and represented.
  11. NAFTA agreement renegotiated.
  12. China relations re-evaluated. Higher tariffs on both sides. Technology limits.
  13. Presidential “bully pulpit” used to maintain some US jobs.
  14. Legislation and executive orders used to support US steel, coal and manufacturing businesses and employment.
  15. Legislation passed to improve visibility to tax shelters and tax fraud enforcement.
  16. Agriculture industry subsidies offered to offset trade costs.
  17. Trade deals with South Korea, Japan and EU.
  18. Enhanced trade policy for communications, IT, technology and AI.
  19. Increased military spending.
  20. Revised defense strategy focused on China and Russia.
  21. Flexed US military muscle in limited attacks.
  22. Actions reduced Islamic State threats to low level.
  23. Supported Israel diplomatic relations with 4 Arab states.
  24. US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq.
  25. Opposition to dictators in Cuba, Venezuela, China and Nicaragua.
  26. Reduced support for international organizations such as WHO.
  27. Built 80 miles of new wall and 300 miles of enhanced walls on Mexico border.
  28. Negotiated improved coordination with Mexico and Central American nations regarding immigration.
  29. Reduced legal immigration from all countries.
  30. Reduced opportunities for asylum seekers.
  31. Used “zero tolerance” family separation policies to disincentivize immigrants.
  32. Removed Affordable Care Act individual mandate.
  33. Streamlined FDA approval process and made financial commitments to ensure rapid COVID vaccine development.
  34. Took steps to reduce drug price inflation.
  35. Invested in opioid drug addiction prevention and correction.
  36. Enacted market friendly policies and regulations to expand domestic energy development, furthering American energy independence.
  37. Supported the bipartisan First Step Act which reduces minimum sentences and supports recovery from incarceration.
  38. Invested in historically Black colleges and universities and vocational education (Perkins).
  39. Made small steps to support “school choice”.
  40. Appointed 3 conservative Supreme Court justices and 225 federal justices.

Trump Presidential Results

Economic Policy

  1. Deficit spending is permanently entrenched. 3-5-7% annual budget deficits do not appear to have major economic downsides in investment crowding out or inflation.
  2. Tax cuts do not generate extra growth, investment, productivity or economic resiliency. They transfer dollars to the recipients.
  3. Concentrated supply chains (China) are subject to significant trade, logistics, military and emergency risks which must be managed.

Foreign Policy

  1. U.S. remains the leading superpower and can pursue its own goals with less allied cooperation and attention to “niceties”, at least in the short run. See NATO, Japan, Korea, climate.
  2. China is the number one competitor.
  3. U.S. and Russia relations are no longer based on Cold War issues. The “Hawks versus Doves” dimension competes with domestic political parties.
  4. Negotiating with nuclear states (Iran, North Korea) is very difficult, even for a superpower.
  5. Europe has its own international interests. It will pursue them. It cannot rely upon the U.S. for its defense.

Domestic Policy

  1. Bipartisan immigration policy may be impossible.
  2. Supreme Court and judicial politicization may drive structural changes/reforms.
  3. Racial relations and inequality will be a top political issue for decades.
  4. Wedge issues – abortion, guns, school content/choice, liberty, gay rights – will remain a focus of both parties.
  5. Traditional social security, Medicare and Medicaid are untouchable.
  6. Obamacare is now essentially untouchable. Lower income citizens will have health insurance.

Democracy at Risk

  1. Legitimacy of media, press, free speech threatened.
  2. Government employees, courts, justice system, law enforcement threatened.
  3. Schools, universities and teachers threatened.
  4. Legitimacy of voting processes threatened.
  5. Illiberal democracy, authoritarianism have more support.
  6. Gerrymandering, voting rules, campaign funding rules undercut public confidence.
  7. Voter participation has increased in response.

Communications Policy

  1. Media attention is priceless and can be manipulated by extreme statements and behavior.
  2. Traditional media “fairness” approach (quotes from both sides) can be manipulated to support unsupportable claims.
  3. Every media outlet or actor has some degree of bias. Consumers are more aware, but many choose to only reinforce existing beliefs.
  4. The president has the opportunity to control/influence the attention of the media.
  5. Facts and objectivity are not respected by some media voices. The pattern of communications statements and framing of subjects can be much more important than content.
  6. Political actors are not held accountable for false claims or exaggerated promises. Claims and promises are just tools to motivate the faithful.

Rules of Politics

  1. President has tremendous power. International agreements. Regulations. Executive orders. Bully pulpit. Political party discipline. Using power seems to have little downside.
  2. Only winning matters. Not popularity, broad support, bipartisanship, appearances, fairness, mud, litigation, critics, impeachment, norms, tradition or relations.
  3. Polarization strategy is more effective than building a central coalition. Motivating your team to vote is more important than persuading independent voters.
  4. Candidate character does not matter. Politicians are salesmen and saleswomen. They are lawyers. They are tools, not statesmen.
  5. Party/team winning is most important factor. 400,000 covid deaths were not enough to spark a revolution. Deaths were traded off against economic opportunity without negative political impact.
  6. Harry Truman’s “buck stops here” responsibility position is not required. No one was responsible for Covid results.
  7. Administrative competence is not required to hold office or to run the federal government (so far). Slow appointments, fast cabinet turnover, acting secretaries, department heads that oppose the role of their departments.
  8. President represents his team and interests, not the whole country.

Party Policy

  1. Philosophical conservatives have departed the Republican party and lost influence.
  2. Moderate Republicans (RINO) have mostly departed, have no political candidates and no influence in the national party.
  3. Extremist groups (race, religion, military, nationalist) are not opposed.
  4. Traditional business interests have much less influence (immigration, social issues, antitrust, trade limits, industrial policy, presidential threats, banking, bailouts).
  5. Pragmatic policies and legislation remain largely unimportant. No party platform for 2020. Everyone in the party “knows” basic positions on all issues. No budget policy debates. No health care alternative to Obamacare. No abortion policy. Statements of preference and intent and belief are more important than wonkish details.
  6. Highlighting the threats and follies of the most leftist Democrats is the most effective means to motivate true believers and maintain support of more independent minded voters.
  7. Only a few federal level policies really matter. Tax and regulation cuts. Social wedge issues. Most other topics can be “managed” with small policy victories and messaging.
  8. Party discipline is essential. Republicans are obligated to support the political winners in their party, not to represent all Republicans or all Americans or to “solve problems”.
  9. Managing the voting system (districts, rules, methods) is as important as policies, candidates, fundraising and communications strategies.

Summary

Trump has revolutionized modern American politics. The Reagan revolution consolidated conservative voters, clearly aligning them with the Republican party. The Gingrich revolution further separated the two parties, emphasizing winning and party allegiance. Republican candidates and voters engaged in a reinforcing cycle of “purist” policy aims such as no tax increases, “drill baby drill” environmentalism, banning abortions, and “bomb baby bomb” anti-terrorism. The Great Recession and the tea party further motivated populist leaning voters to demand populist policies and appeals. Trump modified many historical Main Street and Wall Street Republican policies to make the party better embrace the populist mood and “make American great again”.

Trump’s “only results matter” approach has further transformed the party and the nation. His presidency delivered some key political accomplishments. It also produced many “results” that will shape American politics, economics, society and debate for years to come.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/01/29/how-america-changed-during-donald-trumps-presidency/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/20/trump-promised-his-supporters-everything-he-didnt-deliver-most-it/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/18/trump-presidency-administration-biggest-impact-policy-analysis-451479

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/2/20970521/trump-administration-achievements

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-legacy-factbox/factbox-donald-trumps-legacy-six-policy-takeaways-idUSKBN27F1GK

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-government-donald-trump-left-behind

https://www.mcleancountyrepublicans.org/trump_administration_accomplishments

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12#failure-covid-19-pandemic-12

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/20/trump-legacy/

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-donald-trump-farewell-remarks-f911b5ea84a2b69291aa6f52b9ef6318

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/trump-got-it-done-jack-t-adams/1139526046

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/14/trump-foreign-policy-wins-losses-over-four-years-china-middle-east-coronavirus-pandemic/
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/01/on-policy-donald-trump-was-by-far-the-most-effective-consequential-conservative-since-reagan/

https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/donald-j-trump-accomplishments-america-first/2021/06/14/id/1025067/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/even-liberals-have-to-admit-trump-had-real-successes-on-the-economy

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-view-historians/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/29/a-partisan-chasm-in-views-of-trumps-legacy/

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/trump-legacy-and-its-consequences

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/politics/trump-legacy-fake-news/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-legacy-analysis-int/analysis-trumps-legacy-a-more-divided-america-a-more-unsettled-world-idUSKBN29P0EX

https://www.cfr.org/article/donald-trumps-costly-legacy

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/20/trump-legacy-how-history-see-presidents-tumultuous-four-years/4158507001/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-will-trumps-legacy-be-after-leaving-office

https://www.yahoo.com/video/what-is-president-trumps-legacy-203123599.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/531734-trumps-legacy-an-enduring-contempt-for-truth/
https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

Good News: Better Refrigerator Capacity, Energy Efficiency and Real Prices

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/18646906/climate-change-california-energy-efficiency
https://appliance-standards.org/blog/how-your-refrigerator-has-kept-its-cool-over-40-years-efficiency-improvements

Between 1972 and 2014, the size of an average refrigerator grew by about one-fourth, adding 5 cubic feet.

From 1972 to 2010, the real, inflation adjusted, price of a refrigerator was cut in half.

From 1972 to 2010, the average annual energy use was reduced by three-fourths (75%), from 2,000 to just 500 KwH per year.

https://blog.sense.com/how-much-energy-does-your-refrigerator-really-use/

An Energy Star model in 2020 was another 30% more energy efficient than in 2010.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=3030

The US consumes more than 8 million new refrigerator units each year.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=3030

Refrigerators have become more reliable through time, now averaging 12 years old.

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/shopping-appliances

https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2015/overview/

The share of homes with more than one refrigerator doubled between 1997 and 2015, reaching 30%.

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/refrigerator-freezer-manufacturing-united-states/

The US market is roughly $5 billion dollars, growing slowly.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SAH3

The US Dept of Labor does not publish a consumer price index specifically for refrigerators, but the category it belongs in showed essentially zero nominal inflation between 1994 and 2018. The real price decline shown in the first chart probably continued through 2018.

Refrigerators and appliance prices spiked by more than 10% in 2021 as consumer demand for durable goods grew 20% during the pandemic, supported by government transfer payments.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/consumers-slapped-with-home-appliance-price-hikes-as-input-costs-soar

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37813#:~:text=As%20a%20group%2C%20refrigerators%20use,of%20total%20refrigeration%20consumption%20nationwide.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Household-Electricity-Consumption-Source-Adapted-from-EIA-2001-Figure-1_fig1_228665463

Refrigerators now account for just 7% of home electricity consumption, down from 14% in 2001.

Opinion writers differ on who gets credit for the improved price/performance results for refrigerators, but it seems clear that both energy standards and inventive firms share credit.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/31/18646906/climate-change-california-energy-efficiency

https://appliance-standards.org/blog/how-your-refrigerator-has-kept-its-cool-over-40-years-efficiency-improvements

https://fee.org/articles/thanks-capitalism-refrigerators-are-awesome/

Trust in the DOJ and the FBI

Republican Trust in the DOJ Has Improved Significantly Since 2015

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/04/09/public-holds-broadly-favorable-views-of-many-federal-agencies-including-cdc-and-hhs/

Trust in the Department of Justice (DOJ), overall, has been relatively flat. Republican support has increased while Democratic support has dropped.

Historically, Republicans Strongly Supported the FBI

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democrats-and-republicans-did-a-sudden-180-on-the-fbi/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/

Historically, Republicans have been conservative, supporting the police, military, FBI, defense, “law and order”, criminal justice and “black and white” law enforcement. While the DOJ and some other federal agencies have been staffed by left-leaning coastal elites, the FBI has been staffed by more conservative leaning individuals.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-donald-trump-base-230755

Overall Support for the FBI has Remained High, but has Become Polarized

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/07/24/growing-partisan-differences-in-views-of-the-fbi-stark-divide-over-ice/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257489/fbi-positive-job-ratings-steady-among-americans.aspx
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/

Different survey questions produced different results, but the FBI is one of the most respected federal agencies.

Trump’s 2018 Attacks on the FBI Drastically Reduced Republican Support for the FBI (see above and below)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fbi-support-is-eroding-but-most-americans-still-back-bureau-poll-says

The Republican versus Democratic split widened.

https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2018/2/3/16968372/trump-fbi-republican-poll-confidence

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-confidence-in-the-fbi-has-dropped-since-2015_n_5a721bbbe4b09a544b5616a7

https://ssri.psu.edu/news/mccourtney-institute-mood-nation-poll-examines-public-trust-fbi

Republican’s Response to Trump’s Claims Were Severe

https://democracy.psu.edu/poll-report-archive/poll-report-republicans-no-longer-trust-the-fbi/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republican-confidence-in-the-fbi-has-dropped-since-2015_n_5a721bbbe4b09a544b5616a7

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/03/conservatives-fbi-trump-republicans-389076

Republicans Were Much Less Supportive of the FBI in 2019 versus the Democrats

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/01/public-expresses-favorable-views-of-a-number-of-federal-agencies/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/257489/fbi-positive-job-ratings-steady-among-americans.aspx

Context: Americans’ Belief in or Trust of Institutions Has Been Declining for Decades

https://news.gallup.com/poll/192581/americans-confidence-institutions-stays-low.aspx

Huge 10% drop in the middle of George W Bush’s presidency. 5 institutions with 10% or greater drops in support.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/352316/americans-confidence-major-institutions-dips.aspx

Widespread further decline in support of “institutions” during the pandemic.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx

The broad decline continues in 2022. Can it continue?

I’m Very, Very, Very Scared

538 has a similar article but refuses to link directly. Worth your time to query and copy.

“What Happens When Americans Don’t Trust Institutions?”

If only one-quarter of Americans trust in its basic institutions, how can we have democracy and capitalism and “western civilization”? If “everything is broken”, then we need a dictator or a revolution. Really? Really? Really?

I have to blame the 16 year-old me for some of this. In 1972, we were all opposed to “the man”, “the organization man”, “the establishment”, etc. We were children of the hard-won victory of democracy and capitalism against fascism and imperialism and communism. We believed in progress, science, growth and possibilities. We were skeptical about the Vietnam war, the military, McNamara and his whiz kids, General Curtis LeMay, big corporations, compromises, limitations, bureaucracy, bigness (small is beautiful), population growth, technology, etc. Many of us deeply believed in a romantic idealism or utopianism, making stodgy historical institutions so irrelevant.

Fast forward 50 years and I (we) possess a fundamentally conservative view, embracing the need/value of institutions and channeling our inner Edmund Burke to emphasize the value of the accumulated wisdom of society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

So, the overall decline in trust of American institutions is a real challenge. The decline in trust in the FBI is clearly (IMHO) a Trump driven result. This, too, is a real challenge to our democracy. Do we (I) really believe that the leadership and staff of the FBI have abandoned their democratic principles which we have lived and supported for almost 250 years? I don’t think so. But the decline in trust/belief in all institutions combined with the increasingly politically polarized view of individual institutions makes this a reasonable view for many of our fellow citizens. We have much, much work to do in order to preserve our institutions, government and society.

US Recession? Probably Not Yet

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus

I tried to find a “mainstream media” article that objectively and insightfully evaluates the state of the US economy as of the end of the second quarter without success. So, I’ll take a shot at it.

First, I want to highlight that “this time, it’s different”. The US and global economies are recovering from a global pandemic situation last seen more than 100 years ago. The global economy is more integrated than ever. Viruses spread faster than ever. Businesses and governments have more information and ability to change quickly than ever before. The economic contraction was sharp, far more severe than the Great Depression or the Great Recession. The health care experts were unable to immediately evaluate the threat or recommend public policies. Nonetheless, “they persisted” and the medical, travel and economic recovery was far quicker than ANYONE expected in March, 2020 or December, 2020 or September, 2021 or January, 2022.

Second, I apologize for the required details involved to evaluate the simple question, “are we in a recession?”. Unfortunately, there is some judgment involved, as we have to evaluate three factors. Is there a clear downturn versus the trend rate? Is the downturn of significant length? Is this a widespread downturn, effecting most sectors of the economy?

Einstein said “be simple, but not too simple”.

https://wiki.c2.com/?EinsteinPrinciple

Sir Walter Scott noted the “tangled web we weave”.

https://nosweatshakespeare.com/quotes/famous/oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weave/

The Ancient Greeks noted “many a slip twixt cup and lip”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_many_a_slip_%27twixt_the_cup_and_the_lip#:~:text=There%27s%20many%20a%20slip%20%27twixt%20the%20cup%20and%20the%20lips,your%20chickens%20before%20they%20hatch%22.

Cheech and Chong rambled on with ” recession, repression …”

https://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/cheech+chong/santa+clause+and+his+old+lady_20745568.html

Total Economy Level

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

At the aggregate level, we clearly have a peak. Do we have an extended downturn? Not yet, based on the total. The rapid recovery from the second quarter 2020 bottom could not be sustained. A significant slow-down in the growth rate was expected. Typical annual real GDP growth in recent years has been only 2%, so the difference between “extended expansion” and “recession” is thin.

Components

Macroeconomic theory focuses on aggregate demand and aggregate supply. Real, inflation adjusted, gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of the productive output of a nation. The demand side is split into consumption, investment, government and net exports. I’ll go one level deeper, reviewing 9 components of GDP.

The business cycle is influenced by the relative sizes of the components of GDP and their relative variability from quarter to quarter and typical changes as the business cycle moves from expansion to decline to recovery.

From most to least correlated with the business cycle, with their current percentage share of GDP (sums to more than 100 because imports are a negative factor and changes in private investment can be negative), the 9 components are: Change in private inventories (1%), Residential Investment/Housing (5%), Business Investment (14%), Durable Goods Consumption (9%), Imports (16%), Non-durable Goods (food, energy) (15%), Services (45%) !!!!, Exports (8%) and Government (17%).

Overall, I see 4 sectors as “maybe” trending to a recession and 5 sectors currently at “no”. Unfortunately, the two most sensitive, Housing and Business Inventories, are in the “maybe” category, along with non-durable goods consumption and government consumption.

It is critical to look at the longer-term trends and context to evaluate short-term changes. There is significant month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter variability in the final numbers for GDP and especially for the initial estimates, like those we just saw for the second quarter of 2022. Significant revisions are made for 6 months, which is why the NBER committee which officially declares recessions is typically waiting longer to make a final call than everyone desires. Hence, I won’t usually share a long-term graph, a short-term graph, annual percentage changes and quarterly percentage changes annualized for each component. The media tends to focus on the preliminary quarterly percentage change annualized as the “gospel”. This is unwise. Let us begin to review the 9 main components.

Durable Goods (9% of GDP, 4/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEDGC96#0

Durable goods demand spiked by an incredible 20-30% during the pandemic, fueled by government transfers and fewer opportunities to consume services. Demand for durable goods has flattened at this 20% higher level, it has not declined. In my view, this sector is not signaling recession.

Non-durable Goods (15%, 6/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCENDC96

Non-durable goods consumption jumped by a real 12% during the pandemic and has essentially remained at this elevated level. We have two quarters at slightly lower consumption levels, so I rate this as “maybe” moving to a recession. Focus on the “big picture”. Both durable and non-durable goods consumption increased by historic percentages during the pandemic period and have remained at that elevated level 2 years later. It is not surprising that this demand has flattened or fallen off a bit. The surprising feature is the willingness of the American consumer to voluntarily spend much more money on “things” during the pandemic and maintain that level of spending as service opportunities returned, government transfers ended, and savings were drawn down.

Services (45%, 7/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCESC96

The very large (44% of GDP) services sector was slower to recover from the pandemic, but demand for services remains quite strong, even though the percentage growth rate is lower than during the initial recovery period.

Business Investment (14%, 3/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PNFIC1

Business investment was above trend in the two years before the pandemic and has resumed its solid level. No recession indicator here.

Housing (5%, 2/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRFIC1

New housing investment grew by 50% between 2012 and 2016 and then remained at that level for the next 4 years before the pandemic. Long-run supply and demand factors indicate a “need” for more housing construction in the US to make up for the “missing” construction from 2008-2016. New housing construction did not decline with the pandemic, it increased by 15% in real terms! As with durable and nondurable goods consumption/production, this would not have been predicted in March, 2020 by anyone. Residential construction has levelled off 15% above 2019, equal to 2007 before the Great Recession. The increased mortgage interest rates indicate that demand will soften and this sector will decline somewhat in the second half of 2022, so this is a “maybe”. The long-term shortage of housing supply provides a floor for this sector.

Business Inventories (1%, 1/9 Volatility)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CBIC1
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A371RX1Q020SBEA

“Supply chain issues” have restricted the accumulation of business inventories since the pandemic began. The unexpected spike in demand for durable and nondurable goods and residential construction lead to shortages. Worries about supply chain resiliency have led to higher targeted business inventory levels. Retailers have overstocked some product categories as the recovery has slowed and are being forced to discount prices to move these goods. Overall, this is a slight “maybe” recession indicator. I think that businesses would like to have 20% higher inventories overall.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ISRATIO

Exports (12%, 8/9 Volatility)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXPGSC1

US exports continue to solidly recover from the pandemic.

Imports (16%, 5/9 Volatile)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IMPGSC1\

Although imports act as a reduction in the calculation of GDP, they tend to decline when the US economy declines. Import demand remains high, not indicating a recession.

Government (17%, 9/9 Volatile)

A majority of government spending is accounted for as a simple transfer, not part of the annual production of goods and services.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GCEC1

Government production activity grew quite significantly from 2014 to 2020. It has since declined by less than 1%. I rate this as a “maybe” indicator of recession, even though government activity is typically a countercyclical indicator, rising when recession arrives.

Summary

Services (45%), Business Investment (14%), Exports (12%), Imports (16%) and Durable Goods (9%) are NOT in recession. Housing (5%) and Non-durable Goods (15%) point towards recession, while Government (17%) and Business Inventories (1%) show warning signs. If I were a member of the NBER board, I would not designate a recession in the first half of 2022 as of today.

For the second half of 2022, a recession is possible. The Fed raising interest rates is already affecting the housing industry. But businesses continue to report solid to record profits. The stock market has declined by a bear market 20% but may or may not have found a bottom. The global risks from Russia’s attacks on Ukraine and China’s Covid lockdown strategy remain. Consumer confidence is weak, especially in a partisan world. Business confidence is weaker than in recent months, but most measures remain marginally positive. The labor market is at its strongest position in 50 years, supporting consumer demand. Higher than expected inflation has slowed consumer spending, but not to recession levels. Consumer savings and debt levels remain positive. Business debt levels have increased, but most businesses locked in low debt interest rates during 2020-22.

Why So Positive?

  1. Governments operate with expansionary fiscal policy, ensuring that aggregate demand is adequate. There is a risk of too much stimulus and “modern monetary theory” excesses, but so far this is not a risk in the major economies.
  2. Central banks are more effective. They provide credit in downturns, increase interest rates when required, coordinate with each other and pressure banks to hold adequate capital.
  3. Governments and central banks take proactive steps to avoid currency crises,
  4. After the Great Recession, lending in the US housing market is more reasonable.
  5. Businesses have worked through many challenges in the last 15 years and are well positioned to prosper.
  6. The overall economy is increasingly based on services more than manufacturing, mining and agriculture. The operations leverage of manufacturing facilities is a smaller factor in the world economy.
  7. Labor power is lower. Cooperation with management is stronger.
  8. Demand for labor is high. US has record open jobs and voluntary quits. The effective minimum wage has increased from $8-10 per hour to $12-15 per hour without major business disruptions.
  9. Trade is lightly restricted.
  10. Global economy is multipolar, relying on US, EU, Japan, China, India, Middle East, etc.
  11. Technological progress continues. Better goods and services. Better processes, trade, transportation, markets, communication and insights.

Good News: The Increase of Producer Price Inflation Has Peaked

https://4kwallpapers.com/nature/jasper-national-park-alberta-canada-winter-glacier-4561.html
Measure2.5 YearsRecent 1 YrTrend
PPI Minus food, energy, trade11%7%Peaked
Total Final Demand16%11%Peaked
All Commodities37% !!20% !Flat
Energy56% !!!45% !!Flat
Foods23% !13%Down
Other Goods14%8%Peaked
Other Services6%3%Down
Transport and WH24% !20% !Peak?
Whlse and Retail Trade22% !14%Down

For each measure of produce prices, I’ve provided a 5- or 10-year framework of annual inflation AND a 5 year view of prices indexed to Jan, 2020 before the pandemic began. We did have 2% inflation before the pandemic.

This traditional measure of ongoing inflation pressures peaked at 7% annual rate in 4Q, 2021. In total, just 12% in 2+ years.

Grand total PPI reached 10% annual inflation by the end of 2021 and has remained at that level. This provides pressure for CPI to be higher than 7% for a few more months.

Commodities pressure has been strong only recently, so the total PPI is just 3% higher than the measure excluding the volatile components.

Annual commodity inflation rocketed from 0% in Dec, 2021 to 20% by Jun, 2022 as the global economy was recovering from the pandemic and the extraordinary increase in durable goods demand was registered in supply chain purchasing decisions. Commodities are historically most volatile, but this increase in demand and prices was historic. Note this is way before the Ukraine invasion.

Energy prices were below the pre-pandemic level as late as Jan, 2021 (-3%). They increased exponentially to 50% higher by Apr, 2021. Energy prices have continued to increase at 35-40% annual rates as increased demand, mothballed assets and the Ukraine invasion effects combined to change the global markets. This is one measure where continued very high inflation is possible.

Food prices were a little slower to accelerate. Zero increase at Dec, 2020. 4% annual inflation at May, 2021. 13% inflation at Aug, 2021. Again, this is pre-Ukraine. The 13% ish inflation rate has continued, supported by Ukraine issues. Historically, food prices do not remain elevated for long periods.

Another subtotal, excluding 2 more volatile sectors shows 8-9% inflation peaking.

Business services inflation has remained tame, supporting the notion that cost-push inflation due to wage increases is not yet a major threat.

Transport and warehouse prices were also slow to “take off”, remaining below pre-pandemic level through Feb, 2021. Energy prices drive the transportation sector, so these prices also increased. The 20% annual increase seems to have peaked.

Wholesale and retail trade also lagged a bit, still at the historical average 2.5% inflation rate as of Mar, 2021. But, inflation grew to 10% by Aug, 2021 and a peak of 18% in Mar, 2022. The annual rate of inflation has receded to 15%, but that still offers some risks to the CPI for the next 6 months.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm

https://www.bls.gov/ppi/

Summary

Six of the nine measures have peaked or are declining. The other three remain at worrying levels without clear signs of retreat. The “core” PPI inflation measure at 7% is not accelerating, so CPI should be able to decline in the second half of 2022. On the other hand, commodities inflation, mostly driven by energy inflation, remains very high without evidence of a meaningful decline in the near-term. Historically, energy and commodity prices fall back after a sharp increase. The general weakening in the global economy also points to a somewhat softer market for energy and commodities.

There is no evidence yet of labor-based cost-push inflation or accelerating/spiraling/self-reinforcing inflation.

“Price gauging” claims are always in the eye of the beholder/customer/politician. When I see relatively low historical price increases, followed by sharp increases, I imagine that business leaders are taking advantage of the situation to drive price increases that were impossible to propose and make stick during the less dynamic past. These can be spotlighted during a period of high inflation, but appear to be more reasonable across the whole business cycle. The food and energy price changes look similar to historical levels of volatility so are less easily questioned.

Big picture, IMHO, this looks like a global commodities “squeeze” due to the faster than expected recovery from the pandemic, especially the 50% growth in demand for durable goods as in-person services were less attractive and available. Loose fiscal and monetary policy in the US and other nations may have been a significant driver of the faster than expected global recovery, but this does not look like a classic case of excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus.

In hindsight, the slow response of the US Federal Reserve Board to the very rapid change in price levels from Jan, 2021 to Jun, 2021 looks like malpractice. Market prices quickly adapted to the current and expected disconnect between supply and demand.

Producer and consumer price increases are likely to remain in the 7-8% range during the 3rd quarter of 2022, but should begin to drift back to the 5-6% range in the 4th quarter of 2022, and still lower in 2023, especially if the Fed increases interest rates by the expected 3-3.5% and businesses slow their inventory, hiring, project and capital spending decisions accordingly.

Good News: 2022 Federal Budget Deficit is Way Down

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S and forecasts described below

Good News: Early Forecasts: 2022 Deficit Cut in Half

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/no-president-biden-has-not-implemented-historic-deficit-reduction
https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

Better News: In May, CBO Forecasts Closer to $1Trillion, About the Same as 2019

https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-may-2022-budget-and-economic-outlook

Best News: May Data Indicates a Decline to 2017’s $0.7 Trillion Level (3/4ths Reduction)

https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit
https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit/budget-deficit-september-2019
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

The May YTD deficit for fiscal year ending in September, 2022 was $426B, down 79.4% from the $2,064B level of FY 2021. The total FY 2021 deficit was $2,772B, so the same percentage reduction for the whole year estimates a $572B deficit for FY 2022. Visually, the year-to-date pattern most closely matches 2017 which ended with a $666B deficit. In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, the additional deficit for the last 4 months of the year was $245B and $247B, respectively. That gives us a forecast of $672B for FY 2022. DC insider, Wrightson ICAP, recently forecast a deficit of $600-700B.

https://rollcall.com/2022/05/09/tax-revenue-boom-fuels-steep-budget-deficit-decline/

Good News: CBO Forecasts FY 2023 and FY 2024 Deficits at Same Levels as FY 2022

https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-may-2022-budget-and-economic-outlook
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57950#section0

Good News: Public Debt as % of GDP is Forecast to Be Down for 2022-27

https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-may-2022-budget-and-economic-outlook

Good News: FY 2022 Government Deficit % of GDP is Best Since FY 2015

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S

The conservative forecast of $700B deficit for FY 2022 is 2.8% of the CBO estimate of FY 2022 GDP at $24,694B. The CBO forecast Deficit/GDP ratios of 3.8% and 3.9% for the next 2 years, roughly the same as the pre-pandemic 2018 rate.

Good News: Government Fiscal Stimulus is a 3.5% Annual Drag on the Economy

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/hutchins-center-fiscal-impact-measure/

The reduced federal deficit and state/local deficits compared with history provided a very large drag on first quarter GDP, but the economy recovered in the second quarter and is forecast by the CBO to deliver 3% overall real GDP in FY2023 after a very strong 4.4% in FY2022.

https://www.cbo.gov/data/budget-economic-data#4

Context

https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit

Spending reductions are sustainable.

https://www.pgpf.org/the-current-federal-budget-deficit

Revenue increases are not sustainable, coming in as much as 2% of GDP higher than trend or expectations. The 2021 economy was very healthy, resulting in spillover tax receipts in 2022 that will not continue.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-may-2022-budget-and-economic-outlook

Spending at 22-24% of GDP cannot be funded by revenues of 18% in the long-run.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S

Our economy has operated effectively for the last 4 decades with a federal budget deficit averaging 2.5% across the business cycle. Starting with 2.8% in 2022 is an unexpectedly good place. Congress and the president will struggle to maintain this level without significant spending or revenue changes in the next budgets.

https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/cbo-reports-63-billion-deficit-may

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/25/u-s-deficit-congressional-budget-office-00035052

https://rollcall.com/2022/05/09/tax-revenue-boom-fuels-steep-budget-deficit-decline/

Good News: US Taxes Remain Low

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

US taxes as a share of GDP have declined by 3% of GDP since 2000 and are about one-fourth lower than the average of other developed countries.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ffB4

Government taxes (excluding social security) have declined by 1-2% of GDP since 1950’s.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Federal taxes as a percent of GDP have remained flat since the 1950’s.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/04/six-charts-that-show-how-low-corporate-tax-revenues-are-in-the-united-states-right-now

Effective corporate tax rates in the US are very low.

https://taxfoundation.org/short-history-government-taxing-and-spending-united-states/

Federal government tax receipts have been essentially flat as a share of GDP for more than 70 years.

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

A source with more details shows that any growth since the 1950’s has largely taken place at the state level.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/comparing-tax-systems-around-the-world/
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally

US total taxes as a percent of GDP are exceptionally low among developed countries.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf

US income and property taxes are relatively higher than other developed countries, but corporate taxes are half as high, and the US does not use value added taxes (VAT) to quietly collect revenues.

Good News: State Pension Funding is at a 13 Year High!

Background

Most states and local governments have chosen to pay their employees less than market salaries and higher than market fringe benefits since the WW II era. The Republican focus on reducing the size, pay and power of government has increased significantly in the post-Reagan era. Grover Norquist summarized this in 2001: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Hence, Republicans have focused the spotlight on the “underfunded” status of state and local government fringe benefit plans, especially defined benefit pension plans.

Although the rhetoric is sometimes grating to the “left” ear, this spotlight does serve as a disinfectant, requiring political leaders to be more accountable for their decisions, especially in “one party” states where accountability was lacking historically.

On the other hand, pension accounting, funding, goals and policies are inherently complex and difficult to simply summarize or explain. This is true for both government and corporate defined benefit pension plans. It is easy to “cherry pick” pension statistics and overexaggerate the “crisis” in state pensions.

I will focus on the data and commentary from just 2 sources: Reason.org, a right-leaning policy group that cleverly adopted a left-side name and Pew Research, a centrist research group that has chosen to emphasize right-leaning data and commentary on this topic.

Current (2021) Good News

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/09/the-state-pension-funding-gap-plans-have-stabilized-in-wake-of-pandemic
  1. The average state pension plan funding level, the ratio of assets to forecast liabilities, is expected to reach 84% when final 2021 data is summarized. This is a huge improvement from the 70% average of the prior 5 years. It is the highest level since 2008.

2. The system is working. Plan assets were $2.3T versus $2.8T in 2008. Assets grew by $1.5T to $3.8T, while liabilities grew by $1.8T to $4.6T. Since the added $1.5T/$1.8T is 5/6ths or 86%, the overall ratio increased. The “system” of policies, accounting, audits, contributions, investment strategies and actual investment returns, etc. appears to be functional across a quite challenging economic period. The funding ratio was relatively consistent throughout this period, even if it was not at the 100% level highlighted by some as “the goal”.

3. The gap between estimated liabilities and funded assets is less than $1T for the first time since 2014.

4. For the first time in this time period, the minimum expected funding level has been met. This is defined as a year in which contributions exceed benefits plus the “amortized” funding requirements based on past funding shortfalls. In 2014 only 17 states met this standard. In 2019, 35 states complied. Again, this is not perfection, but it is significant progress.

5. Overall contributions have increased by 8% annually. The states with the lowest funding ratios have increased their contributions even faster. The lowest 10 rated states growing by 15% annually and the 4 worst states by 16%.

6. A measure of benefits paid minus funding contributions, as a percentage of plan assets, has improved from 3% more benefits to 2.5% more benefits paid versus new funding contributions.

Historical Commentary

The Trillion Dollar Gap (2010)

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2010/02/10/the-trillion-dollar-gap

The Funding Gap (2016). Funding ratio 66%. Few states reach 90%.

Bond interest rates have fallen faster than pension plan expected returns. Of course, because equity returns are much higher, more volatile, difficult to forecast and a higher share of plan assets.

State pension plan returns trail the S&P 500 returns. Of course, because plans hold significant (30-40-50%) in lower yielding bonds.

A lower “discount rate”, the assumed future interest rate used to calculate the present value of future pension benefits/liabilities, will increase current liabilities and the current net liability. Yes, this is how discounting works. As market interest rates and stock returns have been reduced with lower inflation rates, the discount rate used by financial professionals in all applications has slowly declined for the last 20 years. This “sensitivity analysis” is misleading. The sensitivity of present liabilities is inherent, it cannot be avoided.

Some states have amortization rates, the amount of new contributions required to eventually offset prior funding or investment return shortages, that are quite high compared to their annual payrolls. This is true. 7 are above 5% deficits, but 7 are above 5% surpluses.

Pew highlights what they call the “operating cash flow” ratio as another sign of trouble. Contributions minus benefits paid as a ratio to assets is the definition. The result is negative!!!! And increasing to negative 3%! Contributions should almost always be less than benefits paid in a long-term (20-30-40 year) pension plan because the plan trustees assume that there will be some positive return on plan assets. Given a 2/1 equity to debt mix, with 7% to 3% expected returns, the expected plan return is more than 5%, so a 3% “negative” return is not a concern. The insurance industry operates in the same way with “negative” operating ratios being offset by investment returns.

Reason.org Graphics

This group highlights the extraordinary 100% ratio in 2001 versus the more normal ratios of 82% in 2005, the quite low level of 66% in 2012 and the still below average 74% level in 2019. They provide state by state graphics to highlight the decline since the very high 2001 baseline and to emphasize the count of states that are below 90%, 80% and 60% “funded”.

Their websites do not allow their graphs to be linked/captured.

Reason.org breaks 2 rules. First, they implicitly assume that a 100% funding level is the “obvious” goal. That is untrue. Historically, US corporations and actuaries considered 80% to be a “fully funded” target. More was better. A little less was worth watching (70-75%). Much lower required increased focus and contributions. Due to the inherent uncertainties in investment returns and participant assumptions (lifespan, retirement dates, turnover, average salaries, etc.) short-term movements of 2-3-5% were never considered to be an issue. Long-term or persistent ratios significantly below 80% were considered to be a concern.

Second, they assume that all states will perform at the same level. The “laws” of probability prohibit this “ideal” result. In a normally shaped (bell curve) probability distribution, there will always be underperforming and overperforming states. This is inherent in a multiple probability-based system. Of course, if a state remains at the bottom of the funded percentage list for more than 5 years, it probably does have a challenge to face.

Pew Emphasizes Risks in 2021

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2021/09/the-state-pension-funding-gap-plans-have-stabilized-in-wake-of-pandemic

  1. Greater state pension contributions have “crowded out” other spending and reduced states’ ability to respond to emergencies. Well, you can’t have it “both ways”. States have responded to the shortfalls highlighted since 2000 with greater contributions. This has improved the funding level despite the Great Recession, the slow recovery and the pandemic challenge.
  2. The recent funding level improvement is due to a “one-time” stock market return in 2021. Yes, stock market returns, both gains and losses, are volatile. That is why pension plans use long-term expected returns for stocks and bonds. That is why pension funds use longer time periods (10 years) to amortize the annually calculated gains or losses into the “required” contributions. Yes, a significant part of the increase from 70% to 84% funded is a short-term increase of investment returns, and probably unsustainable.
  3. The stock market is volatile. Recently. Yes, a once in a century pandemic drives increased volatility. Stock market volatility through time and across markets is well understood as a probability function with mean expected real percentage returns and a predictable range of returns volatility. All investors face this volatility and manage portfolios accordingly. As state pension plans have grown in value, they have been able to hire competent investment advisors.

4. Economic growth is slowing. Some assert this. Others disagree.

5. Future stock and bond returns will be lower, per Pew. The long-term decline in inflation does drive investment returns lower. The increased efficiency of financial markets, including global investment flows, also drives returns lower. However, pension plans have reduced their expected annual returns. Recent stock market volatility indicates that equity returns may not decline.

6. Increased funding of underfunded pension plans can be portrayed as “increased spending”, rather than the required adjustments for those plans which had historically lower investment returns, contributions or higher ultimate benefits.

Summary

State and local governments are faced with managing inherently variable pension plan decisions. They have choices to make about plan policies, goals, funding, investment policies, audits, advisors, etc. An 80% funded level goal (not 100%) is supported by 100 years of experience around the globe, in public, private and not for profit sectors. The increased publicity/focus on underperforming states and municipalities has forced these public bodies to make tough choices regarding defined benefit versus defined contribution plans, benefit levels, retirement ages, investment policies and advisors. Following the Great Recession, states struggled to increase their funding, but they did not allow the average funding level to fall below 70% for more than a year at a time. On a cumulative basis, they have increased their contributions, reduced benefits and captured the long-run benefits of equity investments.

The increased scrutiny of funding levels in state and local government defined benefit pension plans has forced elected officials and their professional advisors to address shortfalls in pension funding. This is very good news.

Red and Blue States: Federal Government Net Spending Subsidies

Using Current Senators to Denote 22 Red (Republican), 22 Blue (Democratic) and 6 Mixed states

Republican states (including 1/2 of mixed) contain 43% of population. Democratic states 57% of population.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank

Latest (2017) Analysis Shows Federal Revenues of $3.1T and Expenses of $3.7T (20% extra spending).

https://www.voanews.com/a/which-us-states-get-more-than-they-give/4809228.html

Some States Subsidize; While Others Are Subsidized

https://www.voanews.com/a/which-us-states-get-more-than-they-give/4809228.html

I have mapped this data onto the “Red vs. Blue” states list based on current senators.

Red (Republican) States Benefit Greatly

Democratic states pay 63% of all taxes, 5% more than their population share and 13% more than their senators’ (power) share.

Federal expenditures in Democratic states are 58% of the total, more than 4% less than their share of revenues contributed. Federal expenditures in Republican states are 42% of the total, more than 4% above their share of revenues contributed. Hence the total gap is almost 9% of the total.

The referenced article focused on two measures: net dollar subsidy (expenses > revenues) and net dollar subsidy per person.

I’m going to use a slightly different measure. The large (20%) difference between total expenditures and revenues skews these figures. I’d like to assume that the “equal” situation is one in which each party’s states pays the same ratio of revenues to expenses (or conversely, expenses to revenues). I’ve standardized the figures assuming that the “neutral” state receives 10.6% more expenditures than it pays in taxes, the same level as the Democratic states. Hence, by definition, the Democratic states, in total, are “neutral”. Their $2.155T expenditure is 10.6% higher than their $1.948T revenues.

The Republican states have $1.168T of revenues paid to the federal government but receive $1.555T of local expenditures. This is 33% more expenditures than revenues, a huge extra (22%) budget deficit. If the Republican spending was just 10.6% higher than revenues, it would be $1.292T, with a deficit of “just” $0.123T. This is $0.264T less than the actual deficit of $0.387T.

Subsidized States (>$10B)

6 Democratic states receive subsidies of more than $10 billion, totaling $180B.

Georgia (15), Michigan (16), New Mexico (17), Arizona (26), Maryland (29) and Virginia (78). Most of this is due to the DC employment and contracting bias.

Twice as many Republican states receive major subsidies, totaling $246B; $66B more than the Democratic states.

Indiana (10), Oklahoma (13), Arkansas (13), Louisiana (14), Tennessee (19), Mississippi (19), Missouri (19), South Carolina (21), Florida (26), North Carolina (26), Alabama (29) and Kentucky (38). Ironically, much of this excess spending was started when Democrats controlled southern states through much of the twentieth century.

Subsidizing States

Texas sends $19B more revenues to the federal government than it receives in expenditures, the only large subsidizing Republican state.

Seven Democratic states provide major subsidies to the federal government, totaling $218B, for a net subsidy versus Republican states (Texas) of $199B.

Washington (10), Illinois (19), Connecticut (20), Massachusetts (26), New Jersey (34), California (46) and New York (63). These states have the highest per capita incomes, so with a progressive income tax system, they pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. (The state and local tax limit on deductions for federal taxes is a big issue in these states).

Summary

The Senate’s seats are based on geography, providing a major benefit to states with more rural and less urban/metro populations, benefitting the Republican party today more than in previous decades when Democrats were competitive in some of these states. Southern and rural states (Red, Republican) have lower incomes and receive more federal spending than coastal states (Blue, Democratic). In total, the Democratic states are paying 63% of taxes, while receiving 58% of federal expenditures, yet have just one-half of the senators and political power to determine taxing and spending policies. This discrepancy serves to reinforce the increasingly polarized political environment in the US.