New era of supply shocks & inflation

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-age-of-scarce-supply-risks-…

**Russian Gas Cutoff Symbolizes New Era of Supply Shocks and Inflation**
**War, sanctions, export controls and natural disasters all threaten commodity supply chains, challenging central banks’ inflation goals**
**By Greg Ip, The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2022**

**Inflation is the result of demand growing faster than supply. Central banks can deal with the demand part. The problem is that the world they confront in coming years might be one of recurrent supply shocks....**

**Demand is robust, especially in the U.S., where fiscal and monetary support have been especially generous. Advanced economies report shortages of labor, and Covid-19 continues to snarl supply chains, most recently in China. Meanwhile, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered widespread shortages of commodities, in particular for food and energy....**

**Inflation surged in the 1970s because central banks failed to curb excess demand and allowed prices and wages to feed on themselves. But their job was made harder by repeated supply shocks that pushed up costs....** [end quote]

“Curb excess demand” is jargon meaning “consumers have less money to spend.” The Fed can do that by raising interest rates in order to slow the economy – hopefully without causing a recession that would cause people to be fired from their jobs.

Central banks can create fiat money out of thin air to suppress interest rates whenever they want to. But nobody has the power to snap their fingers and create oil, natgas or wheat in the amounts and places and for the price they are needed.

Reality bites. Eventually, the economy will work out substitutes for some of the supply shock commodities. As long as prices stay high, entrepreneurs will find ways to increase production or make processes more efficient.

Governments are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Consumers become upset when prices are high. (Revolutions have been caused by high bread prices.) But when governments suppress commodity prices with subsidies, entrepreneurs don’t have the incentive to increase supply. And many governments have been burdened by subsidies – when they try to stop them, angry crowds can demonstrate in the streets.

The article mentions that solving supply shortages by increasing production takes time, maybe years. But causing supply shortages with boycotts, sanctions and tariffs can happen quickly. Russia cutting off oil to Poland happened overnight.

Supply shortages cause inflation as demand outstrips supply. The Fed will try to quell inflation by raising interest rates. That will hit the price of all assets – stocks, bonds and real estate.

A new era of supply shocks would mean a new era of high interest rates and stock market volatility.

Commodity prices rise in supply shocks so the producers benefit. Commodity pricing is historically very volatile. (That’s why the Fed looks at inflation without energy and food pricing.) Investing in commodity producing companies is riskier than consumer staples but an era of supply shocks may be a good time to do this.

Wendy

6 Likes

Rising interest rates will continue to see the USD appreciate. This puts a great deal of pressure on commodities. The more valuable dollar will help with western factory building. We are going to see continued economic growth longer term. The collective decision is to take industrial supply outcomes out of China’s and Russia’s hands. We wont be back.

1 Like

Leap1
The collective decision is to take industrial supply outcomes out of China’s and Russia’s hands. We won’t be back.

The delicate balance that we must now do is to migrate supply, starting with the most critical, and getting those elements back where we need them. Without “upsetting the apple cart”.

A peripheral question: How in God’s name did we sit idly by and let so much of our critical aspects of our economy’s basic needs slip thru our fingers? Talk about being asleep at the switch.

From medicines to industrial materials to you-name-it.

Prediction: Some unavoidable white knuckles turmoil lies ahead.

1 Like

<How in God’s name did we sit idly by and let so much of our critical aspects of our economy’s basic needs slip thru our fingers? >

You are asking a question that is more appropriate to a communist country, where the means of production is controlled by the government.

As a capitalist free-market economy, goods and services in the U.S. are created and sold by profit-seeking companies. Globalization provided high quality at low cost, since offshore producers have MUCH lower labor costs and often little or no environmental controls.

My career wass in the chemical industry. Up until the 1980s, northern New Jersey had a tremendous concentration of chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I knew them literally from the inside out. I worked for Calgon Industrial Water Treatment. Several of them were my customers. I treated and personally inspected the insides of their boilers and cooling equipment.

After the 1980-82 recession, many of these plants closed down forever. The cost of operating the waste treatment plants was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Much of the manufacturing moved to China and India, where terrible pollution and industrial accidents occur to this day. The quality of many pharmaceuticals depends upon plants in India which the FDA inspects rarely, if at all.

Products that are critical to U.S. national security may be bought by the government, such as Covid-19 vaccines. The Senate has passed a bilateral bill providing $52 billion for the U.S.-based semiconductor industry but it hasn’t been passed by the House of Representatives yet.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-names-lawmakers-ha…

But the many, many other products, such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, are not given national security status…yet.

Is globalization good for the U.S.?
Yes, if we want low inflation and a clean environment here.

No, if we want control over critical products such as the ones you mentioned.

Wendy

7 Likes

Central banks can create fiat money out of thin air to suppress interest rates whenever they want to. But nobody has the power to snap their fingers and create oil, natgas or wheat in the amounts and places and for the price they are needed.

==========================================================================

But people do have the power to destroy demand for gasoline an natgas. With high prices for these commodities people will use less without much trouble. And if people believe that gasoline and natgas prices will stay high for the long term, then they will buy more fuel efficient cars and they will buy more fuel efficient home heating systems and even solar panels/batteries. The cost benefit analysis will favor these durables changes to more efficient cars and homes.

Jaak

How in God’s name did we sit idly by and let so much of our critical aspects of our economy’s basic needs slip thru our fingers? Talk about being asleep at the switch.

Asleep? NO! It was deliberate. Chasing low-cost no matter the potential damage to the future. Pure and simple.

6 Likes

But people do have the power to destroy demand for gasoline an natgas. With high prices for these commodities people will use less without much trouble. And if people believe that gasoline and natgas prices will stay high for the long term, then they will buy more fuel efficient cars and they will buy more fuel efficient home heating systems and even solar panels/batteries. The cost benefit analysis will favor these durables changes to more efficient cars and homes.

The median household lacks the financial means by which to easily make substitutions for their ICE transportation, much less the discretionary means to invest in solar panels.

When you add inflation and scarcity on top of those items (EVs and used cars particular), then the cost of such can quickly become prohibitive for that $80k median household and below.

Hawkwin
Who notes that the Kelly Blue Book on his used car is higher today than what he paid for it 2 years ago.

7 Likes

The median household lacks the financial means by which to easily make substitutions for their ICE transportation, much less the discretionary means to invest in solar panels.

When you add inflation and scarcity on top of those items (EVs and used cars particular), then the cost of such can quickly become prohibitive for that $80k median household and below.

============================================================

So you are saying that people in the median households will not be buying any cars for the next 2 years? That flies in the face of what economists are saying about pent-up demand with high savings accounts by the upper 40% of households.

Also the upper 40% of households have savings that can be used for reduce dependence on natgas and grid problems. They will be buying solar panels and batteries in the next 2 years.

Jaak

Is globalization good for the U.S.?
Yes, if we want low inflation and a clean environment here.
No, if we want control over critical products such as the ones you mentioned.

==============================================================================

Seems to me that the EU has done a good job of having control over EU manufactured products and imported products. Yes they do cost more, but they reap the benefits and a clean environment.

Jaak

So you are saying that people in the median households will not be buying any cars for the next 2 years?

No, I am implying that those that purchased low mileage cars and trucks last year when gas was $1.25 are not very likely to go and buy a replacement in the next two years.

by the upper 40% of households.

Ya? Good thing I specifically mentioned median and below. Fairly excludes the top 40% doesn’t it?

Good try at those logical fallacies, though.

1 Like

You are asking a question that is more appropriate to a communist country, where the means of production is controlled by the government.

Wendy,

Where did you get that from?

Semiconductors are controlled for military purposes. Military gear one of our largest industries is controlled. All sorts of things have government regulation. Lazy people complain about government regs on pollution etc…I should say selfish lazy people. But it is not communism.

The median household lacks the financial means by which to easily make substitutions for their ICE transportation, much less the discretionary means to invest in solar panels.

Yep that is why would need much faster GDP growth with demand side econ. Supply side econ fails to grow our economy. But supply side econ was good at growing the Chinese economy.

1 Like

Reasoning our way from an investor’s perspective to what are the most likely outcomes of today’s news is an important, even urgent, METAR topic.

Regarding War and Peace and Supply and Demand, where have we been and where are we going?

!!!

During the Cold War western allies fuelled each other’s prosperity, and we restricted flows of trade, investment and technology to the USSR.

In the 1990s these constraints were removed but it didn’t lead to the expected gains in economic openness and democracy. We took progress for granted instead of applying the necessary carrots and sticks.

And leaders like Putin spurned the opportunity to change because they feared losing control. Instead they took the money from oil and gas and used it to consolidate power and gain leverage abroad.

“Wandel durch handel” – the assumption that economic integration drives political change – didn’t work. We now need a new approach, one that melds hard security and economic security,

!!!

Here is a link to the interesting and surprisingly (Boris Johnson is the PM and her boss!) intelligent and well considered speech by the UK Foreign Minister Liz Truss from which I excerpted the short bits above and below***:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-ma…

She makes some strong proposals:

???

We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine.
And this has to be a catalyst for wider change. We must also apply this tough stance to the threats that are emerging beyond Ukraine.

Our new approach is based on three areas: military strength, economic security and deeper global alliances…

…NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats. We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with our allies like Japan and Australia to ensure the Pacific is protected. And we must ensure that democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves.

All of this will require resources. We are correcting a generation of underinvestment…

…We have sanctioned more individuals and organisations than any other nation, hitting Russia’s banks, oligarchs, defence companies, Central Bank reserves, and oil and gas supplies. We’re cutting off the funding for Putin’s war effort. We are also cutting investment ties with Russia – banning all new outward investment and ending the investor visa.

At the same time, we are removing all import tariffs for Ukraine, and we’re supporting the Ukrainian economy with loan guarantees, fiscal support and investment. We are showing that economic access is no longer a given. It has to be earned. Countries must play by the rules. And that includes China.

???

I think this speech is deserving of intense METAR attention.

David fb

***The excerpted quote is NOT copyrighted material but rather the opposite. The UK government WANTS this speech quoted and discussed. If you have this yanked all will know that you are, ahem, an ignorant, delusional, errant knave.

15 Likes

WendyBG explains,

<<<How in God’s name did we sit idly by and let so much of our critical aspects of our economy’s basic needs slip thru our fingers? >>>

You are asking a question that is more appropriate to a communist country, where the means of production is controlled by the government.

As a capitalist free-market economy, goods and services in the U.S. are created and sold by profit-seeking companies. Globalization provided high quality at low cost, since offshore producers have MUCH lower labor costs and often little or no environmental controls.

Exactly!

That’s why most first world countries try to do at better job at regulating capitalism and tamp down the corruption. US capitalism is focused on steadily increasing Executive compensation, not the safety of Boeing aircraft, the health of an insurer’s customers, or the security risk of outsourcing your supply chain to military adversaries.

I believe Lenin said some form of “the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them.”

intercst

5 Likes

So you are saying that people in the median households will not be buying any cars for the next 2 years?

No, I am implying that those that purchased low mileage cars and trucks last year when gas was $1.25 are not very likely to go and buy a replacement in the next two years.

===============================================================================

LOL! You have the logical fallacies! Gasoline and diesel was not $1.25 last year. If some people bought low mileage cars or EVs that is fine. But some people last year bought inefficient pickups trucks and large SUVs. However, most people did not buy a new car or truck last year.

You still have not explained why you assume people can not afford to buy new cars in the next 2 years since they have a glut of money in their savings accounts according to economists.

Most people today drive 5-10 year old cars. These are the people that may need to buy new efficient car because of damage, excessive maintenance cost, excessive fuel costs, or because they believe that toxic emissions and climate change are important.

Jaak

In the 1990s these [economic] constraints were removed but it didn’t lead to the expected gains in economic openness and democracy. We took progress for granted instead of applying the necessary carrots and sticks.
And leaders like Putin spurned the opportunity to change because they feared losing control. Instead they took the money from oil and gas and used it to consolidate power and gain leverage abroad.
“Wandel durch handel” – the assumption that economic integration drives political change – didn’t work. We now need a new approach, one that melds hard security and economic security,

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-ma…

Flyerboys,

I agree with you. The above-linked speech by The Right Honourable Liz Truss, MP, does deserve intense METAR attention.

It only takes about 5 minutes to read the entire text of the linked speech, but it will take much longer to puzzle through its implications if it presages or accurately reflects attitudes among other G7 and G20 nations toward Russian and Chinese dictatorial governments and their territorial ambitions. There is no doubt that Russia and China have stubbornly resisted the adoption of liberal western attitudes toward human rights and individual freedom.

Ms. Truss has thrown down a gauntlet of sorts. In her bellicose language, she appears to be projecting broader unity and resolve than what really exists among the countries condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine. India, for instance, is unlikely to follow Britain or the US if doing so would threaten the cheap Russian energy and military equipment they have relied upon.

India is ever aware that the US has been propping up and providing arms to the Pakistani government for decades. Brazil and a number of African countries (and even the US) have such deep trade and economic relationships with China that Ms. Truss is a bit “over her skis” with some of her more sweeping pronouncements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-ma…

Pandemic-related shutdowns and monetary policy divergence have undermined decades of Davos-style globalism built upon models of efficiency, outsourcing, and labor arbitrage (locating manufacturing wherever the cost of labor is cheapest). Simultaneously, nationalism and recent supply chain fragility are driving efforts toward more localized manufacturing.

Following the backlash engendered by Klaus Schwab’s earlier published book “The Great Reset,” he has since produced a sequel of sorts, entitled “The Great Narrative.”

https://www.weforum.org/press/2022/01/klaus-schwab-releases-…

I recall that not so long ago everyone in the G7, and the G20 were all getting along - democracies, plutocracies, and autocracies - with combative impulses mollified by friendly attitudes toward international trade.

Our present situation, described in the linked speech by the Right Honorable Ms. Truss, is quite far removed from the situation half a decade ago, when the only “rogue states” of real concern were North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-ma…

Reviewing her CV at Wikipedia, one can get a little better idea of the ambitions and accomplishments of Ms. Truss. I would not be surprised to see her name show up on lists of potential Prime Ministers of Great Britain.

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

I personally think we might see more war than peace in the next 20 years of this century.

2 Likes

You have the logical fallacies! Gasoline and diesel was not $1.25 last year.

Oops! You got me. It was 2020, not 2021, and it was less than $1, not $1.25.

https://abc7news.com/gas-prices-lowest-in-a-decade-13-states…

Customers in at least a dozen states are seeing gas prices for under a $1 as the demand has dropped during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Prices are at their lowest level in over a decade, with the average price across the country sitting at $1.82 a gallon. The average is a dollar less than this time last year.

they have a glut of money in their savings accounts according to economists.

Again, those in the top 40% have that glut of money. Those median and below do not.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/most-of-americas-extra-pande…

The excess savings — or savings above and beyond the normal pre-pandemic growth levels — were even more skewed to the top. Of the $2.6 trillion in excess liquid savings, 80% went to the top 20%, and 42% went to the top 1%.


Pandemic savings boom may be ending, and many feel short of cash
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/business/economy/economy-…

In a survey conducted this month for The New York Times by the online research firm Momentive, however, only 16 percent of respondents said they had more in savings than before the pandemic, and 50 percent said they had less. Among lower-income households, just 9 percent said they had more in savings, and 64 percent said they had less.


Again, the lower middle class and lower lack the financial means to easily go out and replace a vehicle simply to save a little on their mileage - especially now that many used vehicles (what the lower middle class would usually purchase) are now 40% more expensive than they were last year and especially with the cost to borrow going up as well.

1 Like

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to Kelley Blue Book.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Q1-202…

Overall sales of new cars and trucks were down 15.7 percent for the quarter as automakers dealt with shortages of computer chips and other vital supplies, leading to slowdowns in production.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Q1-202…


Again there is huge pent-up demand for new cars being held back by supply chain issues. With the high prices of gasoline and diesel, I think we will see EVs do even better for the rest of 2022 and 2023. Thus destroying gasoline demand.

Jaak

1 Like

How are EVs also not affected by the shortage of computer chips?

PSU

How are EVs also not affected by the shortage of computer chips?

PSU

I can possibly frame this but not answer it. It depends on how advanced the chips are and if companies like Tesla have contracted more advanced chips from TSM. The foundries and fabs making larger nm chips are behind in production as well. Those chips are definitely going into ICE cars.

There are other parts shortages for ICE cars. There are many fewer parts in an EV so parts shortages there are less prominent.