06/11  Closing Prices / revised 06/12/2024 07:53 GMT 06/11 OPEC Basket  $82.36   +$1.43 cents 06/11 Mexico Basket (MME) $72.63  +$0.43  cents  | 04/30 Venezuela Basket (Merey)   $74.91   +$3.93 cents | 06/11 NYMEX WTI Texas Intermediate July CLN24 $77.90  +$0.16 cents  | 06/11 ICE Brent August  BRNQ24    $81.92  +$0.29 cents  | 06/11 NYMEX Gasoline June RBN24  $2.40  +0.1%  |  06/11 NYMEX  Heating Oil July  RBN 24    $2.42  +0.3% | 06/11 Natural Gas July NGN24  $3.12   +7.7%  | 06/07 Active U.S. Rig Count (Oil & Gas)   594  -6  | 06/12 USD/MXN Mexican Peso   18.6503  (data live)  | 06/12 EUR/USD     1.0745 (data live)  | 06/12 US/Bs. (Bolivar)   $36.43850000 ( data BCV)

Should We Be Seeing Red Over the Red Sea? – Paul Krugman/NYTimes

Illustration by The New York Times; images by Thom Lang and GBlakeley/Getty Images
Illustration by The New York Times; images by Thom Lang and GBlakeley/Getty

By Paul Krugman

There are many reasons to be horrified about recent events in the Middle East, and the prospect that attacks on shipping might undermine progress against inflation is way, way down the list. Nonetheless, if you are trying to forecast inflation, disruption of a major choke point for global commerce — the Red Sea is how ships get to and from the Suez Canal — isn’t what you want to see. But how big a deal is it?

Well, it’s not trivial. But while supply problems in general were a major factor in the 2021-22 surge in inflation, and the resolution of those issues is the main story behind recent disinflation, it’s important not to get too physical. The pileup of ships waiting outside the ports of Los Angeles in early 2022 was a conspicuous and highly visible cause of inflation, but it was less important than more diffuse, relatively intangible factors like the way the pandemic and its aftermath disrupted labor markets. Since there’s no reason to expect these more diffuse problems to return, the inflation impact of the conflict with the Houthis and its effect on Red Sea shipping will be limited.

But before I get there, a word about where inflation stands now. Since last week’s report on the Consumer Price Index, I’ve had several conversations with friends who believe, probably based on what they’ve heard from talking heads on cable TV, that inflation is stuck at a relatively high level. Indeed, the core C.P.I., which excludes food and energy, is up 3.9 percent over the past year.

But anyone citing that number as evidence of stubborn inflation is deeply misinformed. Indeed, if he or she is in the business of giving financial advice, harping on 3.9 percent amounts to professional malpractice.

To see why, let me give you a few more numbers:

  • Core C.P.I., past 12 months: 3.9 percent
  • Core C.P.I., past six months (annualized): 3.2 percent
  • Core H.I.C.P., past 12 months: 1.9 percent
  • Market expectations for 2024 inflation: 2.2 percent

So, when people talk about 3.9 percent inflation over the past year, they’re averaging 4.6 percent inflation in the first half and 3.2 in the second half — that is, they’re very far behind the curve. Furthermore, a lot of that inflation reflects official estimates of shelter costs, especially an estimate of what homeowners would be paying if they were renters, which lag far behind market rents.

The Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, which doesn’t include this imputed number — and is the way Europe measures inflation — has already declined to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2 percent, showing that misleading estimates of shelter costs are the source of any perception of stubborn inflation. And markets know that: Recent market behavior implies a belief in what the data really shows us, which is that inflation is already under control.

Which finally brings me back to the original question: Maybe it looks right now as if we’ve won the war on inflation, but will shipping disruptions in the Red Sea bring it back? This goes back to the question of how inflation got so high for a while, and why it came down so easily.

When inflation took off in 2021, it was initially concentrated in sectors facing supply bottlenecks because of delayed effects of the pandemic, and many economists, myself included, thought that inflation would soon subside once those bottlenecks were cleared. Those of us who believed that were dubbed Team Transitory — and we were wrong. Inflation broadened to include most of the economy.

There are various ways to show this broadening. One way is to compare the rate of inflation as measured by the personal consumption expenditure deflator — which the Fed prefers to the C.P.I. — to the “trimmed mean” estimate produced by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which excludes extreme price movements:

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Until around September 2021, despite a sharp rise in total inflation, the trimmed measure hadn’t accelerated by much, suggesting that bottlenecks in a few sectors were the main story. But then the trimmed mean shot up, too; so it wasn’t just bottlenecks after all.

In that case, however, what was driving inflation? Many economists, most famously Larry Summers, insisted that the problem was excessive spending — and that controlling inflation would mean both large reductions in spending and a large rise in unemployment.

Yet that wasn’t what happened. By almost any measure (except that deeply misleading 3.9 percent people keep throwing around), inflation fell rapidly in 2023, without any surge in unemployment.

How do we make sense of this story? The best going story is that Team Transitory was basically right, but thinking too narrowly. The pandemic did cause large disruptions, which were a large part of the inflation story, but those disruptions extended far behind physical bottlenecks like clogged ports and took much longer to resolve.

Put it this way: In the face of the pandemic, Americans rearranged their lives, how they worked and how they spent their money; then, as fears of infection declined, we rearranged our lives again, going back to the old habits in some ways but not others. We stopped going out to eat, then started again; we started working from home, and in many cases continued to do so, which meant big changes in the economy’s geography — that is, where stuff happened.

All this created a lot of what you might call churn, as businesses and people switched up their games.

One readily available measure of churn is the rate at which workers voluntarily quit their jobs. Normally, the quits rate is negatively correlated with the unemployment rate: Workers are more willing to quit when they’re confident about finding new jobs. For a while, however, quits bucked that trend and were really high (as were unfilled job vacancies), before coming down as the economy adapted to the postpandemic changes:

Credit : Bureau of Labor Statistics
Credit : Bureau of Labor Statistics

This churn meant that there were widespread temporary shortages of workers and the things workers produced, which drove inflation up; inflation then plunged as the economy settled down. Inflation was transitory after all, but “transitory” was bigger and longer than we realized.

Which brings me back to the Red Sea (no, I didn’t forget about it). One way to think about the effects of Houthi attacks on shipping is that they may recreate a situation comparable to the supply bottlenecks of the first half of 2021, although on a more limited scale. But as I’ve just argued, those bottlenecks ended up being only a relatively small part of the overall inflation story. And nothing happening in the Middle East will cause the kind of broader disruption that led inflation to become so high and widespread.

So the economics of the events in the Red Sea, while not great, aren’t a reason to be greatly concerned. Now ask me about what happens if China attacks Taiwan.

Quick Hits

My current favorite measure of underlying inflation.

Many ships are still taking their chances and sailing the Red Sea.

But global shipping costs are up sharply (although nowhere near their 2022 peak).

China has a different problem: deflation.


Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman. Energiesnet.com does not necessarily share these views.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by The New York Times-NYT on January 16, 2024. A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 8, 2023, Section A, Page 21 of the New York edition with the headline: Climate Is Now a Culture War Issue. EnergiesNet.com reproduces this article in the interest of our readers. All comments posted and published on EnergiesNet.com, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of EnergiesNet.com or Petroleumworld.

Original article

Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of socially, environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

EnergiesNet.com 01 22 2024

Share this news

Support EnergiesNet.com

By Elio Ohep · Launched in 1999 under Petroleumworld.com

Information & News on Latin America’s Energy, Oil, Gas, Renewables, Climate, Technology, Politics and Social issues

Contact : editor@petroleuworld.com

CopyRight©1999-2021, EnergiesNet.com™  / Elio Ohep – All rights reserved

This site is a public free site and it contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of business, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have chosen to view the included information for research, information, and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission fromPetroleumworld or the copyright owner of the material.

Scroll to Top