What If There’s No Landing at all, But Flight at Higher Speed and Altitude than Normal, with Higher and Rising Inflation?

That scenario is re-emerging as a real possibility in recent economic data.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

When the Fed cut its policy rates on September 18, it looked at labor market data showing a sudden slowdown of job creation to weak levels, and it looked at decent consumer spending data, so-so income growth, and a very thin and plunging savings rate. And the trends looked lousy.

But starting 11 days after the Fed’s decision, the revisions and new data arrived. And the whole scenario changed.

So at a summary level, economic growth in three of the past four quarters, as revised, was substantially above the 10-year average of about 2.0% GDP growth adjusted for inflation:

  • Q3 2023: +4.4%
  • Q4 2023: +3.2%
  • Q1 2024: +1.6%
  • Q2 2024: +3.0%

The third quarter looks pretty good too: The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow estimate for Q3 real GDP growth is currently 3.2%, of which consumer spending contributes 2.2 percentage points, and nonresidential fixed investment contributes 0.9 percentage points.

In terms of the hurricanes and tornados that have caused a lot of destruction and horror: Because worksites were closed temporarily, and people had trouble getting to work, there will be a temporary spike in weekly unemployment claims and an uptick in unemployment in the affected regions. But the US has been through the horrors of hurricanes and tornadoes many times. What follows quickly thereafter is the spending and investment boom from clean-up, replacement, and rebuilding, which are all contributors to employment and economic activity.

A bunch of massive up-revisions after the Fed meeting.

Consumer income, the savings rate, spending, GNI, and GDP were revised up on September 27, so 11 days after the Fed’s rate-cut meeting.

The annual revisions of consumer income and the savings rate were huge this time, going back through 2022, and consumer spending was also revised up, but not as much.

These massive up-revisions of income and the savings rate resolved a mystery: Why consumers have held up so well. And they brought growth of GDP and GNI (Gross National Income) back in line by revising GDP growth up some and GNI growth up a lot.

The magnitude of the revisions was astonishing, and we speculated here the large-scale influx of legal and illegal migrants – estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at around 6 million total in 2022 and 2023, plus more in 2024 – was finally getting picked up in some of the data. A big part of them have joined the labor force, and many of them are working and making money, and spending money, thereby increasing the income and spending data.

Between July 2022 and July 2024, over these two years, personal income without transfer receipts (so without payments from the government to individuals, such as Social Security, VA benefits, unemployment insurance compensation, welfare, etc.) adjusted for inflation:

The revisions to the savings rate are important because they showed that consumers spent substantially less than they made going back through 2022, and saved the rest, which bodes well for future consumption.

Income was revised up massively, and spending was revised up but less, and so the savings rate – the percentage of the disposable income that consumers didn’t spend – was revised up in a stunning manner: The revised savings rate for July was 4.9%. The old version of the savings rate for July was just 2.9%.

We have seen in the ballooning cash accounts, such as CDs, money market funds, and T-bills, that households are not only flush with cash but kept adding to their cash holdings, and we used this continued ballooning of cash holdings as a better signal of the health of consumers than the anemic savings rate. Now the massive revisions of the savings rate going back two years confirmed this.

The nonfarm payroll data was revised up on October 4, so 16 days after the Fed meeting.

The primary reason cited by the Fed for the 50-basis-point cut was the sudden deterioration of the nonfarm payroll data: The three-month average of payroll jobs created had slowed dramatically in July and August in part due to downward revisions of prior data, and we pointed that out at the time, it was a disconcerting sight.

But with the strong September jobs report came the up-revisions of prior data that prompted this headline here: OK, Forget it, False Alarm, Labor Market Is Fine, Bad Stuff Last Month Was Revised Away, Wages Jumped. No More Rate Cuts Needed?

“Pandemic distortions and millions of migrants suddenly entering the labor market, who are hard to track, have wreaked havoc on data accuracy,” we said in the subtitle. There is nothing like data whiplash.



It also solved another mystery: The weak payrolls data for July and August didn’t match other employment data, which had been fairly good.

The increases in hourly earnings were also revised higher, with the revised three-month average income growth rising to 4.3% annualized.

The year-over-year increase rose to 4.0% for September, the second month in a row of year-over-year increases. Those two months combined increased the most for any two-month period since March 2022, and are well above the peaks of the 2017-2019 period.

“So in terms of inflation – and what the Fed has been worrying about – this accelerating wage growth is not going in the right direction anymore,” we said at the time.

And so inflation is no longer going in the right direction.

Energy prices have plunged, and that has papered over the problems beyond energy.

Core CPI, which excludes energy products and services and also food, accelerated for the third month in a row in September to +3.8% annualized (blue line), which caused the 12-month rate to accelerate to 3.3% (red line).

Inflation in services has turned out to be sticky. And then there are motor vehicles, where prices had been falling – plunging for used vehicles – which had been a big factor in pushing down core CPI since mid-2022. But they U-turned in September and headed higher (for details, see our “Beneath the Skin of CPI Inflation”).

This is not red-hot inflation like it was two years ago, it’s a lot lower than that, and the Fed has succeeded in bringing inflation down, but it’s re-accelerating inflation that’s still too high to begin with.

Inflation at the producer level – beyond the plunge in energy prices – has been going in the wrong direction all year, driven by accelerating inflation in services, after benign readings last year.

And on Friday, the core Producer Price Index was made a lot worse by big up-revisions of prior months, which caused the six-month average (red) to accelerate to +3.4% annualized for September. Last year, it had hovered nicely around the 2% line.

The Fed’s policy rates are still well above inflation rates.

The Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR), which is targeted by the Fed’s policy rates, dropped to 4.83% after the rate cut, so that’s about 1.5 percentage points above the 12-month core CPI inflation rate. EFFR minus core CPI represents the “real” EFFR, adjusted to core CPI inflation.

The zero-line marks the point where the EFFR would equal core CPI. During the ZIRP era following the Financial Crisis, the real EFFR spent most of the time in negative territory. In 2021, as inflation exploded and the Fed was still at near 0% with its rates and doing $120 billion a month in QE, the real EFFR plunged historically deep into the negative. The Fed called this phenomenon “transitory,” and we called the Fed “the most reckless Fed ever” (google it, just for fun):

The assumption by the Fed is that policy rates that are substantially above inflation rates are above some theoretical “neutral” rate, and therefore are “restrictive.”

Fed governors have diverging opinions of where the neutral rate might be, since no one knows since it’s just a conceptual rate, and therefore diverging opinions on just how restrictive the current policy rates are – but they agree that they are restrictive, at least to some extent.

But what we’re seeing in the economic data is that policy rates may not be restrictive after all, that the “neutral” rate may be higher.

Yet the signals diverge.

Some sectors have gotten hit really hard by those higher rates, especially commercial real estate, which has been in a depression for two years. For CRE, which had entered into a frenzy during ZIRP, financial conditions are strangulation-restrictive now. But that may be helpful in wringing out some of the excesses and in repricing properties to where they make economic sense.

Manufacturing, after the boom in manufactured goods during the pandemic, has been about flatlining at a high level.

But other sectors are flying high and are ascending further, including consumers.

At the extreme end of the highflyers, the spectacular bubble in AI triggered a vast investment boom – from construction of powerplants and data-centers – fueled apparently insatiable demand for specialized semiconductors, stimulated hiring and even office leasing, stimulated waves of corporate spending and investment, and waves of investments by venture capital in startups with AI in their descriptions. For anything related to the AI bubble, interest rates appear to be hugely stimulative.

Given where inflation is currently – 12-month core CPI at 3.3% – and where the Fed’s policy rates were before the rate cut – at 5.25% to 5.5% – it made sense to cut rates to bring them closer to the inflation rates, but keeping them well above the inflation rates.

The media has declared victory over inflation, not the Fed.

The problem arises if inflation gets on a consistent path of acceleration. Powell and Fed governors have pointed at this risk many times. They’re fully aware of this risk. They’re leery of inflation going the wrong way again in a sustained manner. Inflation has been going the wrong way in recent months, but for a sustained acceleration, we’d need to see a lot more bad data, given how volatile the data is, to establish a solid trend. And they’re leery of that. They have not declared victory and have said so. But the media has declared victory over inflation, no matter what the Fed or the data say.

If there is an acceleration of inflation, the Fed can pause rate cuts for more wait-and-see. And if incoming data before the November meeting go in that direction, wait-and-see would be a prudent thing to do.

And if wait-and-see doesn’t work in halting the acceleration of inflation, if rates are not restrictive enough to hold inflation down – this likelihood rises with each rate cut – the Fed can hike again. Rate cuts are not permanent. Those scenarios are starting to show up on the horizon again.

The current situation also suggests that higher rates may actually be good for the overall economy, especially over the longer term, including for the reason that a considerable cost of capital fosters better and more disciplined and more productive decision making.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.



  16 comments for “What If There’s No Landing at all, But Flight at Higher Speed and Altitude than Normal, with Higher and Rising Inflation?

  1. HugoNotBoss says:

    So this means the government will have to refinance debt at much higher rates than they enjoyed in the recent past, real estate will not enjoy 3% mortgages any time soon, and wall street will not be getting any QE to support the third stock bubble of the past 24 years. I like it!

  2. DM says:

    They want inflation. Just not too much that it riles up the masses.

    It’s the only way to lower debt to GDP over time.

    We know they can’t cut spending or raise taxes.

  3. Rush Beau says:

    May we consider that reality, by it’s nature, has limits. However, absurdity goes “to infinity and beyond.”

  4. Jason says:

    I hope the feds realize that inflation isn’t under control and raise rates by 1/4 point early November!

  5. Dirty Work says:

    Sure would have been nice if the Fed had the same patience with a cut as they did when raising rates. One bad preliminary labor report and BAM, 50 bps cut. On the way up, they would have waited for 2 or 3 sequential reports before making a change in the rate. Nevertheless, we’re all monday-morning quarterbacking on their behalf, and it’s a tough job they have.

    However, The mainstream media is the enemy of the people in this country.

    • Pea Sea says:

      “Nevertheless, we’re all monday-morning quarterbacking on their behalf, and it’s a tough job they have.”

      Perhaps so, but when somebody consistently and for a long time does their job badly, we give them a label. That label is “incompetent.”

      Regardless of how tough a job is, there’s always somebody out there, somewhere, competent to do it. Whoever and wherever those people are, they’re not working at the Federal Reserve..

  6. Foul Old Ron says:

    Seems to me we are in a “Tinkerbell” economy. Housing, stocks, crypto, and other assets will stay overvalued if enough of us just keep clapping.

  7. Biker says:

    I see the article as a fair description of the reality. Thanks Wolf.
    Not an easy job to be FED. They are really trying to act on actual data, rather than some hidden agenda.
    Some complaining that FEDs are not detailing what are their future steps (aka not transparent). It would be alarming if they have some set, pre-prepared path. They are transparent to me ie act on data.

    • ChS says:

      “They are really trying to act on actual data, rather than some hidden agenda.”

      In my opinion, it was easier to make that argument prior to the 50 basis point cut.

      • Biker says:

        Yeah, looking back, they overshoot. 0.25 would be better, knowing what we know today.

        • ChS says:

          Knowing what we know today should have been no cut.

          I otherwise agree the 25 point cut should have been the data driven decision at the time.

    • Pea Sea says:

      You have it exactly backwards. The doctrine of “forward guidance” currently followed by the Fed, under which policy moves are telegraphed well ahead of time and surprises are avoided lest anybody spook the markets, has been a fantastically stupid and destructive one these past few years. They are all too willing to detail what their future steps will be, and this takes away their ability to be agile and avoid locking themselves into the wrong stance.

      Locking themselves into the wrong stance is exactly what happened during the pandemic. If they had actually allowed themselves to “act on data,” they wouldn’t have felt compelled to keep shoveling hundreds of billions of printed dollars per month into a clearly white hot economy in 2021 and 2022 while holding interest rates at zero.

      “Acting on data” would have meant updating their priors in real time as data came in showing as early as late 2020 that the predicted pandemic economic holocaust had not come to pass, and that consumers and businesses and investors had more money than they knew what to do with–and pivoting appropriately *at that time*, not a year and a half later.

  8. northernlights says:

    The fact that the real Fed rate was negative for 17 out of the last 24 years is interesting considering how long we made it without things going to heck.

    I think the Fed et al have been underestimating productivity increases for a long time, so maybe the Covid shutdowns and the shuttering of much of the productive economy killed the gains we have been living on.

    I know everyone who generated paperwork during the lockdowns felt productive, but it’s not the same thing as making spoons :D

    Fed Open Market Committee meeting transcript from July 2 & 3, 1996, page 46, for a little chat between Janet and the Maestro, no tin foil hats required.

    MS. YELLEN. I would agree with your conclusion that we need
    higher productivity growth, but I have not seen any evidence that
    convinces me that we would get it. But certainly if we did get it, or
    if productivity growth were higher, it would be easier by an order of
    magnitude to live with price stability.

    CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. We do see significant acceleration in
    productivity in the anecdotal evidence and in the manufacturing area
    where our ability to measure is relatively good. We can see that
    acceleration if we look at individual manufacturing industries. It is
    our macro data that are giving us the 1 percent productivity growth
    for the combination of gross industrial product and gross
    nonindustrial product, which do not show this phenomenon.

    MS. YELLEN. One could argue that we have roughly a 1 percent
    bias in the CPI so that right now we have, say, 2 percent productivity
    growth and 2 percent core inflation.

    CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. We have not had such productivity growth
    for long.

    MS. YELLEN. Such productivity growth would mean that we are
    living successfully with 2 percent inflation.

    CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. That is exactly the point. That is
    another way of looking at it.

    MS. YELLEN. Because productivity growth is really higher
    than we have measured it.

    CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN. In fact there is obviously an exact,
    one-to-one tradeoff. That is, we can reach price stability either by
    driving down the inflation rate and getting productivity to bounce up
    or by revising down the inflation figures and producing higher
    productivity! [Laughter]

    MS. YELLEN. I am perfectly happy with the last view.

  9. Vlad the Impaler says:

    “a considerable cost of capital fosters better and more disciplined and more productive decision making.” – this is so true! ZIRP enabled moral hazard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *