Board-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht- US-Leading Indicators bei 111.70 - unmanipuliert moderates Wachstum:-) (owT) - tas, 20.05.2002, 20:21
- Re: Interessanter Artikel dazu: The Misleading Indicators - JÜKÜ, 20.05.2002, 20:28
- Re: Interessanter Artikel dazu: The Misleading Indicators - tas, 21.05.2002, 00:26
- Re: Interessanter Artikel dazu: The Misleading Indicators - JÜKÜ, 20.05.2002, 20:28
Re: Interessanter Artikel dazu: The Misleading Indicators
<div>
<font face="Verdana" size="1" color="#002864">http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958</font>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Verdana" color="#002864" size="5"><strong>The Misleading Indicators</strong></font>
</div>
<font size="4">by Frank Shostak</font>
<font size="2">[Posted May 20, 2002]</font>
</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Thus, between February 1994 and February 1995,
the Fed raised the federal funds rate target from 3.25 percent to 6 percent, an
increase of 2.75 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">This tightening was followed by an easier stance
that began in July 1995 and ended in January 1996, with the federal funds
falling to 5.25 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Then, in March 1997, the central bank raised the
federal funds target rate by 0.25 percent, to 5.5 percent. This level was kept
until September 1998, when the new cycle of easing was introduced. Between that
time and November 1998, the federal funds rate target was lowered to 4.75
percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Then, on June 1999, a new cycle of tightening was
set in motion, with the federal funds rate rising to 6.50 percent by May 2000.
Finally, as of January 2001, a new cycle of easing was set, with the federal
funds rate target lowered to 1.75 percent.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">During the so-called prosperity phase, the
leading index fell for five consecutive months between January and May 1995.
According to the accepted rule, this had to be regarded as a valid signal of an
upcoming recession, which, according to the NBER, only arrived in March 2001.
Also, the capacity and production data of various goods displayed rather
surprising weakness for the prosperity phase.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Capacity use of fabricated metal products, after
peaking at 85.2 percent in December 1994, fell to 73.5 percent by March 2001.
The capacity use of industrial machinery and equipment, which topped at around
85 percent between 1995 to 1997, fell to 76.2 percent by March 2001 (see charts).</font>
<center>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
</center>
<font face="Arial" size="3">The following charts reveal that the capacity use
of iron and steel and nondurable goods had been in a steep downtrend between
1995 and March 2001. Moreover, the production of both electrical equipment and
iron and steel was stagnant during this period. Also, in 1998, during the
supposed prosperity, corporate profits after tax plunged by 13 percent.</font>
<center>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> </font>
</center>
<font face="Arial" size="3">It would appear that as long as the NBER does not
officially declare the economy has reached a peak, no recession can take place.
On this Murray Rothbard wrote:</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Everyone waits for the National Bureau to speak;
when the oracle finally makes its pronouncement, it is accepted without
question. Thus, in 1966, the economy slowed down and receded to such an extent
that I, for one, concluded that we were in a recession. But no, GNP had not
declined quite long enough to meet the Bureau's definition of a recession, and
that, unfortunately, was that. And since we were not in what the Bureau called
a"recession," we by definition continued to be in a
"boom."<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a></font>
<h1><font face="Arial" size="3">What is the true leading indicator?</font></h1>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Since central bank monetary policies are
responsible for boom-bust cycles, changes in these policies obviously are
leading indicators of things to come. In other words, the data that meet the
criteria of a leading indicator are the instruments of central bank monetary
policy, i.e., the federal funds rate and monetary injections.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">If, on a particular date, the central bank
announced a looser monetary stance by lowering interest rates, the date of the
announcement must be regarded as the proper beginning of an economic boom.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Conversely, when the central bank announces a
tighter stance, this implies that the process of an economic bust was set in
motion. This type of information is very useful, for it tells us that various
false activities that sprang up on the back of the previous loose monetary
policy are likely to be in trouble in the months ahead.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">What, then, is one to make of the peaks and
troughs of economic fluctuations as established by the NBER? How important is
this information? By officially proclaiming that an economy is either in a
recession or in a recovery phase, the NBER adds very little to the obvious. In
fact, the NBER announces its verdicts long after peaks or troughs have been
reached.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Thus, the March 2001 peak was announced on
November 26, 2001. The March 1991 trough was announced on December 22, 1992. The
July 1990 peak was announced on April 25, 1991.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Most economists, however, are of the view that
the information about past boom-bust cycles in terms of their average duration
is very valuable, for it provides a possible clue as to how long an upcoming
cycle might last.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">But on this, most economists contradict
themselves, since by their own admission the causes of cycles are variable. That
implies that cycles are not homogeneous and, therefore, that no meaningful
average can be established. According to Rothbard:</font>
<font face="Arial" size="3"> [H]istory means change, and it is absurd to
assume that the underlying population of all this data remains constant and
unchanging, and therefore can be averaged meaningfully.<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a></font>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Rather than classifying data in terms of leading,
coincident, and lagging the business cycle, it is more useful to classify the
data in terms of their sensitivity to changes in the central bank?s monetary
stance. For instance, a loose monetary stance tends to benefit activities that
are involved in the production of intermediate goods in relation to activities
that are involved in the production of consumer goods. The converse takes place
when the central bank tightens its stance.</font>
<h1><font face="Arial" size="3">Conclusions</font></h1>
<font face="Arial" size="3">Contrary to the accepted way of thinking, the
indicators approach adds very little to our understanding of what business
cycles are all about. Economists' various pronouncements regarding the
state of the economy--pronouncements which are based on the leading indicators
index--are downright arbitrary. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the
NBER?s official pronouncements regarding peaks and troughs of business cycles
are of much help to businessmen and policymakers.</font>
<font face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>
<font size="2">Frank Shostak, Ph.D., is an adjunct scholar of the Mises
Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. Send him <font color="#000080" size="2">MAIL</font> and
see his outstanding Mises.org <font color="#3571ca" size="2">Articles
Archive</font>. Dr. Shostak expresses gratitude to Michael Ryan for helpful
comments during the writing of this article.</font>
<div>
<hr align="left" width="33%" SIZE="1">
</div>
<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><font size="2">[1]</font></a><font size="2"> Quoted
in Allan P. Layton and Anirvan Banerji, "What is a Recession,"
www.businesscycle.com.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><font size="2">[2]</font></a><font size="2"> Murray
N. Rothbard, <em>Making Economic Sense </em>(Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Auburn, Ala.), p. 232.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><font size="2">[3]</font></a><font size="2"> Ibid.,
p. 231.</font>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<a title href="http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=958&FS=The+Misleading+Indicators#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><font size="2">[4]</font></a><font size="2"> Ibid.,
p. 233.
</font>
</div>
</div>
</font>
<center>
<HR>
</center>
Thread gesperrtgesamter Thread:
