The decline in retail sales might actually be a positive sign of a healthy normalization.
The economy has struggled to produce enough goods to match the voracious consumer appetite for them. If goods spending continues to normalize that would be, well, good.
To be clear, the chart in the previous tweet was real retail sales. Nominal retail spending remains very high but in it is no longer buying massive amounts more stuff than it used to be.
(Retail sales is mostly goods but does include services like restaurants and bars.)
The biggest piece of retail sales is spending at motor vehicle and parts dealers (~20 percent of the total). It is up a lot in nominal terms but down in real terms.
Sales at stores selling sporting goods, hobby, musical instruments and books are not nearly as important to the economy (~2% of the total) but they're much more fun and they're WAY up.
People are basically spending a roughly normal amount at restaurants, give or take. But with prices up they're getting less for it in real terms. With this service part of retail sales lagging it suggests the goods part is a bit more above trend than I've shown.
The December numbers plus downward revisions for November have led the bean counters to lower their forecasts for Q4 GDP growth to more like 6% instead of 7%. But that's still very strong. And if that growth is also happening in a more balanced, sustainable way that's good.
P.S. Omicron was just starting to wreak its havoc in December and people were slowly adjusting. I expect a lot more disruption to the January data. But also think that most analysts should mostly look through the January data which will (hopefully, fingers crossed) be anomalous.
P.P.S. Takeout counts as a purchase from "food service & drinking places." So these data don't tell us what happened to face-to-face behavior. But people weren't making a major shift from restaurant-prepared meals to home-prepared meals (w/ grocery store sales down in December).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I will be enthusiastically supporting faculty legislation to cap the number of A's at Harvard at 20% (plus a bit). The collective action problem that has driven grades higher & higher over time is increasingly problematic. I hope other institutions consider similar steps.
I've talked to numerous colleagues & students about grade inflation. Almost all of them see it as a a problem. I've also heard about as many different ideas for solutions as I've had conversations. I would tweak this proposal in various ways. But would support it over nothing.
One place the current system fails--and it's not the only place--is honors. I'm on the Committee to recommend honors in the economics department. It's increasingly hard to distinguish excellence with so many A's. I believe that now even two A-'s makes you ineligible for Summa.
Depending on how you look at it growth in Q3 was very very strong or very strong or just possibly merely strong. Annual rates:
GDP: 4.3%
Real final sales to domestic purchasers: 2.9%
Average of GDP & GDI: 3.4%
GDI: 2.4%
A big part of the story was consumer spending up at a 3.5% annual rate. Started the year looking weak but new data and revisions have made consumers very strong.
Business fixed investment a bit weaker but also very heterogenous. Equipment investment and IPP up but non-residential structures down for the seventh straight quarter.
Several thoughts on that piece by @nealemahoney & @BharatRamamurti in @nytopinion.
1. They claim price controls are good politically. I'm very open to this being true, I'm under no illusion that what I think is good policy is particularly well correlated with good politics. But I am genuinely interested in more evidence beyond the brief observations they make.
2. They claim that even if you think price controls are a bad idea they can help you pass supply-increasing legislation that is on balance good. Once again, I'm open to this. And in government I've often done 3rd, 7th or 12th best policies because of constraints.