HOME / moneybox: Commentary about business and finance.

Inflation EverywhereGlobalization used to drive down prices. Not anymore.

The conventional wisdom on inflation can turn on a nickel—and on copper, zinc, and gold. Trading data from the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Markets section of the Financial Times chronicle the relentless rise in commodity prices. Copper (more than $7,000 a ton), nickel ($20,000 a ton), and zinc ($3,385 a ton) have all recently hit record prices. Gold is above $600, while oil trades hands for $72 a barrel. Rates on the 10-year U.S. government bond have spiked above 5.10 percent, hitting levels not seen since 2002, largely because of fears that inflation is picking up. And it is. The consumer price index rose at a 4.3 percent annual rate in the first quarter of 2006, compared with 3.4 percent for all of 2005.

Ironically, one of the chief culprits of today's inflation—and today's fear of inflation—is the same source that has kept inflation low for much of the last two decades: globalization.

It's long been an article of faith among economists that the increasing integration of national economies contributed heavily to the global decline in inflation. As then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted in this May 2004 speech, globalization affords Americans access to goods and services that are produced more cheaply abroad in places where large labor forces work for less money (e.g., China and India). Charles Fishman reported in Fast Company that Wal-Mart—one of the biggest single contributors to American productivity growth in the 1990s—in 2002 accounted for "nearly 10% of all Chinese exports to the United States." Globalization also allows domestic companies to hold down labor costs—via outsourcing, or via the threat of outsourcing.

In addition, globalization forced the world's central bankers to raise their game to ensure that their countries can attract capital and investment. In a recent study ($ required), economists Richard Fisher and W. Michael Cox of the Dallas Federal Reserve found that "the more globalized nations tend to pursue policies that achieve faster economic growth, lower inflation, higher incomes and greater economic freedom."

But now globalization's deflationary run may be flagging. In its "World Economic Outlook," released earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund displays charts (on Page 98) that unambiguously show how inflation has generally declined around the globe in the last two decades—although the charts conveniently end in 2004, when inflation began to rise again. But as in investing, the past is not necessarily a guide to future performance when it comes to macroeconomics. The migration of U.S. manufacturing to China in the 1990s surely played a gigantic role in moderating inflation. But that can't be repeated. Once a factory is in China, its managers will have difficultly finding a place where labor costs one-fifth as much. And, indeed, there are signs that wages for skilled factory workers in China are on the rise. Meanwhile, the service sector, which dominates the U.S. economy, will likely have difficulty realizing the same type of productivity gains as manufacturing has thanks to globalization.

Then there's the matter of timing. In the early part of this decade, the global economy was in a deflationary post-bubble environment, characterized by excess capacity. Since then, however, we've had four straight years of global synchronous growth. (Quick: Name a significant economy that's in recession.) So, there are no weak markets to keep import prices down.

There's another risk to inflation: the recent commodity boom, propelled by the rise of emerging economies. Globalization doesn't just mean that American companies gain access to cheap labor in the developing world, or that the cheap labor in those markets gains access to our rich markets. It means that people living in those places gain access to the infrastructure and products and services that we take for granted—like McDonald's or Chevrolets. China is one of the few bright spots for General Motors—last week the beleaguered company reported that vehicle sales in China were up 76 percent in the most recent quarter. In the coming years, car sales in China and India are likely to continue to grow rapidly.

Such growth is boosting demand (and prices) for steel, as well for rubber and other car components. But it's also boosting demand for gas—and raising concerns about the world's oil supplies. As Shai Oster noted in the Wall Street Journal, China is already the "second-biggest oil consumer after the U.S.," gulping about 7 million barrels per day. (The United States uses about 21 million barrels per day.) This forecast from the Energy Information Administration suggests that Chinese oil consumption will double in a dozen years.

In other words, the rise of a massive consuming class in China and, to a lesser degree, India, is making gas more expensive for everyone. A look at the most recent CPI report reveals that inflation is concentrated in energy. But when energy costs remain elevated for long periods of time, the higher costs start to spill over into other sectors. The cost of transportation has risen 5.1 percent in the last 12 months. And if the fuel surcharges tacked on in recent weeks by my garbage collection and lawn-care companies are any guide, the high cost of oil is being passed on.

Globalization means people all over the globe have a greater ability to share common experiences, whether it's watching the World Cup, buying lattes at Starbucks, or wearing clothes made in China. It may soon mean that we all have the ability to share the common experience of inflation.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek. You can e-mail him at . His latest book, Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation, has just been published in paperback.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. It has only the shortest-run relationship to demand for goods or robust growth. Markets are extremely good at watching monetary policy to figure out what's really happening. In a stable monetary environment, rising prices here cause falling prices there.

If inflation is really rising, it's in anticipation of bad (loose money) behvior by the world's Feds. The only sense in which globalization impinges is that with more significant players, it's global monetary policy that tells the tale rather than any single country. The $ is the global currency so it is the key lever, but others have become more significant. And given the large amounts of foreign currency reserves, the actions of reserve holders can affect supply and velocity independently and in either direction. Time to get busy, Ben.

--Larry

(To reply,
click here.)

[I]t is not an article of faith among economists that globalization has held down inflation. […] [T]he IMF report he cites says clearly that inflation is ultimately determined by monetary policy, not globalization. This latter is, in fact, the article of faith. As that great economist Milton Friedman put it: inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.

And that is why inflation is picking up, not because the magic of globalization is somehow wearing off. The world is awash in money because the three major central banks (the Fed, the ECB, and the BoJ) have been running very loose monetary policy (except recently the Fed has tightened up).

--lloyd667

(To reply,
click here.)

Well I guess you have to find something shitty about every country in the world experiencing economic prosperity. If we actually reveled in the economic success and freedom of our era then it would be harder think about how much our lives suck. We wouldn't want that, then people might be happy.

--niceguy

(To reply,
click here.)

Daniel Gross' statement, [] seems to indicate that only this recent post-bubble period has been characterized by excess capacity. The truth is, that capitalist economies have been burdened with this kind of overcapacity for quite some time, and continues to be, even within what appears to be a recovery (and don't be fooled by that, either). This excess capacity is what has led the speculation boom in financial instruments, the creation of which meant somewhere to put all that excess capital. As financial speculation gets more and more complicated, wouldn't it be fair to infer that there is more and more excess capacity requiring the invention of new places to put it all?

I don't feel that cost-push inflation is really the culprit here. I feel as though it's more related to the reluctance of business interests to accept a level of profit that ignores projections and reflects accurately the demand for goods. When a market becomes mature, the opportunity for profit levels off, and the drive for more must be accompanied by significant innovation. I just don't see where that significant innovation has been created.

--Borntoride

(To reply,
click here.)

(4/28)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Opposites attract.75/090706_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on race.93/090706_TC.jpg
The apple and the orange.70/090706_TD.jpg