Oil price and deflation

The current turbulence in financial markets and the expectation of a poor economic performance (i.e. recession) in the biggest economies has been accompanied by a dramatic fall in oil price. We have predicted this drop several months ago and expect the price to fall to the level of $70 per barrel by the end of 2011.  We will address this prediction when the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes the PPI and CPI estimates for July 2011. Here we would like to highlight the influence of oil price on the PPI and headline CPI.

            The price index of energy comprises approximately 10% of the headline CPI is highly correlated with oil price. The surge in oil price observed since the beginning of 2011 (Figure 1) has been the most important driver of the elevated consumer price inflation. Accordingly, many economic and financial experts expect a period of hyperinflation in the near future. However, oil price has been falling. This fall resulted in a negative rate of monthly inflation in June 2011. In July, the monthly rate of inflation is likely to be positive because the price index of energy (oil) did not fall much relative to June.  

            The monthly rate of inflation is an important but only a transient indicator of the overall price change. Therefore, we have calculated the annual rate from the curves in Figure 1, where red line is the original price index (black line) shifted by one year ahead. The ratio of black and red line is the rate of oil price inflation, as shown in Figure 2.  The rate of inflation is characterized by two peaks in 2008 and 2010. Obviously, the rate of inflation is defined by two factors: the current level of oil price and that one year ago. The difference between black and red line can be considered as a crude estimate of the inflation rate. When red line is above black line, the rate of inflation is negative. Otherwise, the rate is positive. What can we expect in 2012 with the price index of oil falling through the third and fourth quarters of 2011?  Almost inevitably, the rate of (oil price) inflation will be negative through 2012. Since other components of the headline CPI also demonstrate the tendency to fall one can expect a period of deflation in 2012.

Figure 3 presents our estimate of the oil price evolution in 2011. We expect the price to fall by $6 per month to the level of $70 in December 2011. We also expect the price to fall through 2016 and put the uncertainty bounds for the long-term trend in oil price. The level of oil price in 2016 is between $30 and $60 per barrel.

Figure 1. The (producer) price index of oil (domestic crude petroleum). Red line is the original price index shifted one year ahead. The ratio of black and red line is the rate of oil price inflation shown in Figure 2.    

 Figure 2. The annual rate of oil price growth.  

Figure 3. Oil price prediction in 2011. The price is expected to fall by $6 per month between June and December 2011. The price level is $70 in December 2011. We also show the range of expected price evolution by 2016.

Employment in Japan

We continue modeling the evolution of the employment rate in developed countries with Japan. In this study we use the trade-off between the change in unemployment and employment and Okun’s law. Figure 1 compares the change in the rate of employment (the employment/population ratio), de, and the rate of unemployment, du, in Japan. The change in the rate of unemployment is as volatile as that of unemployment and they differ drastically compared to the synchronized evolution of these variables in the U.S. That’s why we have failed to obtain a reasonable Okun’s law for Japan. As before, all data sets on unemployment and employment have been retrieved from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The estimates of real GDP per capita have been retrieved from the database provided by the Conference Board.

Figure 1. The (negative) change in the rate of unemployment compared to the change in the rate of employment in Japan.

In this blog, we have already presented several empirical relationships predicting the employment/population ratio from the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This was a natural extension of Okun’s law for unemployment.

Here we estimate an employment/GDP model for Japan similar to Okun’s law. For Japan, the best-fit model has been obtained by the least-squares (applied to the cumulative sums):

det = 0.02dlnGt – 0.53, t<1978

det = 0.14dlnGt – 0.42, t>1977 (1)

 

where dlnGt is the change rate of real GDP per capita at time t. Figure 2 shows the cumulative curves for the time series in (1). There is a structural break near 1978 which is expressed by a dramatic shift in slope and a slight break in intercept. The employment/population ratio varies between from 64%% in 1970 and 56% in 2010. The agreement is excellent. Figure 3 present results of a linear regression with R2=0.95 for the period between 1971 and 2010. We consider both variables as stationary ones over the long run despite the obviously negative trend since 1970.

Figure 2. The cumulative curves for the observed and predicted change in the employment/population ratio, de.

Figure 3. Linear regression of the measured and predicted curves in Figure 2.

Employment in Australia

There is a trade-off between the change in unemployment and employment. Figure 1 compares the change in the rate of employment (the employment/population ratio), de, and the rate of unemployment, du, in Australia. As expected, the change in the rate of unemployment is more volatile. All data sets on unemployment and employment have been retrieved from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1. The (negative) change in the rate of unemployment compared to the change in the rate of employment in Australia.

In this blog, we have already presented several empirical relationships predicting the employment/population ratio from the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This was a natural extension of Okun’s law for unemployment.

Here we estimate an employment/GDP model for Australia similar to Okun’s law. For Australia, the best-fit model has been obtained by the least-squares (applied to the cumulative sums):

det = 0.50dlnGt – 0.92, t<1983

det = 0.41dlnGt – 1.08, t>1982 (1)

where dlnGt is the change rate of real GDP per capita at time t. Figure 2 shows the cumulative curves for the time series in (1). There is a structural break near 1994 which is expressed by significant shifts in slope and intercept. The employment/population ratio varies between from 55%% in 1983 and 64% in 2008. The agreement is very good. Figure 3 present results of a linear regression with R2=0.84 for the period between 1971 and 2010.

Figure 2. The cumulative curves for the observed and predicted change in the employment/population ratio, de.

Figure 3. Linear regression of the measured and predicted curves in Figure 2.

Employment in France

There is a trade-off between the change in unemployment and employment. Figure 1 compares the change in the rate of employment (the employment/population ratio), de, and the rate of unemployment, du, in France. As expected, the change in the rate of unemployment is more volatile except the shift in the employment rate near 1982. This is a completely artificial break from 53.2% in 1981 to 55.3% in 1982, and we do not need to model it. All data sets on unemployment and employment have been retrieved from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1. The (negative) change in the rate of unemployment compared to the change in the rate of employment in France.

In this blog, we have already presented several empirical relationships predicting the employment/population ratio from the growth rate of real GDP per capita. This was a natural extension of Okun’s law for unemployment.

Here we estimate an employment/GDP model for France similar to Okun’s law. For France, the best-fit model has been obtained by the least-squares (applied to the cumulative sums):

de = 0.155dlnG– 0.65, t<1994

de= 0.25dlnG – 0.30, t>1993 (1)

where dlnG is the change rate of real GDP per capita at time t. Figure 2 shows the cumulative curves for the time series in (1). There is a structural break near 1994 which is expressed by significant shifts in slope and intercept. The employment/population ratio varies between from ~56%% in 1970 and 50.4% in 1992. The agreement is very good. Figure 3 present results of a linear regression with R2=0.91 for the period between 1971 and 2010.

Figure 2. The cumulative curves for the observed and predicted change in the employment/population ratio, de.

Figure 3. Linear regression of the measured and predicted curves in Figure 2.

Employment in Canada

There is a trade-off between the change in unemployment and employment. Figure 1 compares the change in the rate of employment (the employment/population ratio), de, and the rate of unemployment, du, in Canada. As expected, the change in the rate of unemployment is more volatile. We have retrieved all data on unemployment and employment from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1. The (negative) change in the rate of employment compared to the change in the rate of unemployment in Canada.  

In one our previous posts we have estimated Okun’s law for Canada. It is instructive to estimate a model similar to Okun’s law for the employment/population ratio, e. For Canada, the best-fit model has been obtained by the least-squares (applied to the cumulative sums):  

de_t = 0.40dlnG_t – 0.70, t<1984

de_t = 0.56dlnG_t – 0.76, t>1983    (1)  

where dlnG_t is the change rate of real GDP per capita at time t. Figure 2 shows the cumulative curves for the time series in (1). There is a structural break near 1984 which is expressed by a significant shift in slope and a minor change in intercept.  The employment/population ratio varies between from ~54.5% in 1971 and ~64.1% (!) in 2008. The agreement is very good. Figure 3 present results of a linear regression with R²=0.84 for the period between 1971 and 2010.

Figure 2. The cumulative curves for the observed and predicted change in the employment/population ratio, de. 

Figure 3. Linear regression of the measured and predicted curves in Figure 2.

Employment in the United Kingdom

There is a trade-off between the change in unemployment and employment. Figure 1 compares the change in the rate of employment (the employment/population ratio), de, and the rate of unemployment, du, in the United Kingdom. As expected, the change in the rate of unemployment is more volatile. We have retrieved all data on unemployment and employment from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1. The (negative) change in the rate of employment compared to the change in the rate of unemployment in the UK.

 In our previous post we have estimated Okun’s law for the UK. It is instructive to estimate a model similar to Okun’s law for the employment/population ratio, e. For the UK, the best-fit model has been obtained by the least-squares (applied to the cumulative sums):

de_t = 0.41dlnG_t-1 – 1.11, t<1983

de_t = 0.41dlnG_t-1 – 0.81, t>1982     (1)  

where dlnG_t-1 is the change rate of real GDP per capita one year before, i.e. the predicted curve leads by one year. Figure 2 shows the cumulative curves for the time series in (1). There is a structural break near 1982 which is expressed by a significant shift in intercept without any change in slope.  The employment/population ratio varies around 58% between from ~54.3% in 1982 and ~61% in 1972. There is a dramatic deviation from the measured employment/population ratio after 2008.  This deviation is consistent with the difference for the same years in 2009. Figure 3 present results of linear regression with R²=0.89 for the period between 1972 and 2009.

Figure 2. The cumulative curves for the observed and predicted change in the employment/population ratio, de.

Figure 3. Linear regression of the measured and predicted curves in Figure 2.

Unemployment in Italy

In this blog, we have reported empirical relationships approximating Okun’s law for many developed countries: the USA, France, Spain, Canada, Australia, the UK and Germany. Instead of the original form of Okun’s law we have applied a LSQ technique to its integral version:

u(t) = u(t0) + bln[G/G0] + a(t-t0) (1)

where u(t) is the predicted rate of unemployment at time t, G is the level of real GDP per capita, a and b are empirical coefficients.

For Italy, we have estimated a similar model with a possibility of a structural break somewhere between 1980 and 1990. The best-fit (dynamic) model minimizing the RMS error of the cumulative model (1) is as follows:

du = -0.13dlnG + 0.71, t<1990

du = -0.25dlnG + 0.00, t≥1990 (2)

This model suggests a significant increase in slope and a big fall in intercept around 1985.

Figure 1 depicts the observed and predicted curves of the unemployment rate, the latter is predicted by (1) with coefficients from (2). The agreement is not good, especially between 1985 and 2000. Figure 2 shows that when the observed time series is regressed against the predicted one, R2=0.84. Here we do not test both time series for stationarity but presume that the rate of unemployment has to be a stationary time series in the long run.

The integral form of the dynamic Okun’s law (1) is characterized by a standard error of 0.82% for the period between 1971 and 2009. The average rate of unemployment for the same period is 9.0% with a standard deviation of the annual increment of 0.63%.

Previously, we reported on the model linking the rate of unemployment in Italy to the change in labor force. It was shown that the change in labor force leads by 11 years and allows a prediction of the rate of unemployment with an accuracy of 1.5% for approximately the same period. Figure 3 depicts this model.

Figure 1. The observed and predicted rate of unemployment in the Italy between 1971 and 2009.

Figure 2. The measured time series is regressed against the predicted one. R2=0.84 with both time series likely to be stationary.

Figure 3. The rate of unemployment in Italy predicted from the change in labor force.