HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » progree » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Minnesota
Member since: Sat Jan 1, 2005, 04:45 AM
Number of posts: 10,135

Journal Archives

"Vegas slot machine ... a tiny 'I told you so.'"

I have no power to affect the markets ... But I have no faith in them at all and consider them as much a gamble as a Vegas slot machine. It's all rigged in the house's favor. Will I cheer if/when the whole house of cards collapses? No, because I know it will be painful for a lot of people. But I may sneak in a tiny "I told you so."

Yes, the market periodically goes down, some times very steeply. To take the 3 steepest pullbacks since WWII: In '73-'74 we had a 48% drop from peak-to-trough, and it took 7.5 years to recover from that and reach a new high. In the Dotcom bust we had a 49% drop and a 7.2 year recovery time. In the Housing Bubble bust it fell 57% and took 5.5 year to recover.

I guarantee plunges of this depth will happen again. Crashes happen and will continue to happen. I too will join you in telling anyone who doesn't think a crash will ever happen again, "I told you so".

I don't think predicting a crash is any more insightful than predicting that some day there will be a solar eclipse. I don't know anyone who thinks a crash will never happen. Everyone knows it will happen. Personally I think stock valuations are way high and we're plenty ripe for one.

But even after a 50% or 60% plunge, I will still have a bigger nest egg as a long-time buy and hold equity investor. Why? Because after 2 or 3 doublings (meaning a 4 fold or 8 fold increase), a 50% plunge still leaves me with a 2 fold or 4 fold increase.

Nothing holds up as well in the face of withdrawals and inflation than does equities, except perhaps real estate. In other words, it's an even bigger gamble to not have a sizable proportion in equities.

Over the past 20 years, it has grown 6.37 fold, an average annual increase of 9.7%/year
(had the market crashed 60% in 2022 -- a worst crash than any of the post WWII crashes -- then it would have still grown 3.11 fold, an increase of 5.8%/year)

Over the past 50 years, it has grown 131 fold, an average annual increase of 10.2%/year
(had the market crashed 60% in 2022, then it would have still grown 64 fold, an increase of 8.7%/year)

and so on. I'd go to Vegas a lot if I could average these kinds of returns.

This is from the below link, which also has similar for bonds, Treasury bills, and gold. These don't come close to matching the increase in equities.

And I'm not just cherry-picking the boom periods. The above is inclusive of all periods, down, up, flat.

And when the market recovers and goes on to set yet more new all time highs, I will say "I told you so" to anyone who thinks it will never recover.

The market periodically sets new all time highs. It has never set an all-time low.

Yes it goes up and down and up and down and ... but the pattern is that new lows are higher than the previous lows and new highs are higher than the previous highs.

What really matters as far as risk is the risk of running out of money in retirement, and that risk is much higher for people who don't have any equities and only rely on "safe" fixed income investments, which don't even keep up with inflation. Innumerable historical simulations in innumerable studies have shown that. IOW its a bigger gamble not to be in the market. I don't wish to take that gamble.

I hate to see my fellow progressives misled by anti-equity JackPineRadicals-style "progressive" malarkey and end up having to live a very financially constrained old age, not to mention having very little or nothing to give to Democratic candidates or progressive causes. And by default having to accept the minuscule interest that the banks usually dole out in savings and CDs and so on.

"and consider them as much a gamble as a Vegas slot machine."

Only a fool gambles with their retirement security -- And it makes DU investors out to be fools because only a fool would wager their retirement security on a Vegas slot machine. We are not fools. In the face of inflation and withdrawals, it's an even bigger gamble to NOT have a sizable proportion in equities.

"Will I cheer if/when the whole house of cards collapses?" No, because I know it will be painful for a lot of people."

Yes, a lot of people. 58% of American adults own stock according to a Gallup Survey, 3/5/23 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/only-15-of-american-families-directly-own-stock-and-that-s-okay/ar-AA188NL7
pointing to the detailed report at https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/

And if the big crash happens on President Biden's watch, it will be super-painful for everyone to the left of Attila The Hun come the next election and the 4 years after.

Edited to add 1205pm ET: I wish someone could tell me which "Indian casino" gives its clients on average a 223% cumulative return over 10 years, a 537% cumulative return over 20 years, a 1,444% cumulative return over 30 years, a 6,759% cumulative return over 40 years, a 13,016% cumulative return over 50 years, a 33,400% cumulative return over 60 years, and a 120,090% cumulative return over 70 years, because I sure would like to "gamble" there. The equity market is AN INVESTMENT.

What drives the market is earnings (not "luck" or the pull of a slot machine handle ). This from Peter Lynch in 2001:
Since World War II, despite nine recessions and many other economic setbacks, corporate earnings are up 63 fold and the stock market is up 71 fold. Corporate profits per share have grown over 9% annually despite the down years. Nine percent may not sound like a lot but consider that it means that profits mathematically double every 8 years, quadruple every 16, are up 16 fold every 32 years, and are up 64 fold every 48 years."

GRAPHS - Core PCE - Rolling 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month averages thru January 2023

It all points to a Core PCE that is a bit more than double the Fed's target. Before January's number, one could argue there's been a very slow downward tilt over the last 6-8 months. With January's number, it's more like a flatlining.

Some may say that January is an anomalous "one off" on the high side. Others may say that December is an anomalous "one off" on the low side that January corrects.

There's a lot of chatter about the "no landing" scenario -- that inflation continues to stay elevated like in the graphs. I think with just a quarter percent rate hike on March 22, and another quarter point increase on May 3, that will likely continue to be the case for a long time.

With the hawkish noises from several FOMC members since the mid-month CPI and PPI reports, and more since yesterday, I think a half percent rate hike in March is a better bet. Note that before the March 22 FOMC meeting, new CPI and PPI reports will be released. (The next PCE report is March 31).

GRAPHS: The "x" axis is the month of the year, where the "1" is January 2022, "12" is December 2022, and "13" is January 2023.

All of the percentage increases are annualized numbers

On the rolling 3 month one can say its been flatlined since April 2022 at around 4.5%, with wiggles

The rolling 6 month - one can say its been flatlined since January 2022 at close to 5%, with wiggles

The rolling 12 month average has basically flatlined since July to about 4.7%.

I've always been a severe critic of 12 month inflation numbers when assessing RECENT or CURRENT inflation, but provide it for comparative purposes.

CORE PCE, which is shown in the above graphs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPILFE

(PCE is at: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI )

Percentages are calculated from the actual index numbers, not on averaging one-significant-digit numbers.

At 4.5% inflation, the value of a dollar drops to 50 cents in just 16 years.

Extra funding does little to increase dental care for Medical Assistance recipients (MN)

MPR, February 24, 2023

. . . “They're going 'My mouth hurts, I can't chew, I can't do this.' And then we expect them to focus and do well in school and their mouth is just on fire,” she said.

But Sundve, who lives in Litchfield, Minn., said getting her foster kids in to see a dentist was hard. It's because they're on Medical Assistance — or Medicaid, as it's more commonly known outside Minnesota — and don’t see a dentist regularly.

You call and call and call and ask people if they have any new patients’ availability. And the answer often is ‘No.’"

. . . In 2021, state legislators tried to fix the problem by nearly doubling the amount of money MA pays dentists for each appointment. They set goals for the number of visits MA enrollees should have annually.

But based on data from the state and from health insurance companies that manage most MA enrollees, the changes haven’t made much of a difference.

For years, low reimbursement rates were to blame for Minnesota’s notably low access to dental care for MA enrollees, Liebling said. Rates were based on decades old dental costs.

“Kind of famously, those rates are really low. Another complaint we would hear is that dentists weren't even told what they would be paid until after they provided the service,” she said.

MORE: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/02/24/extra-funding-does-little-to-increase-dental-care-for-ma-recipients

Reimbursement rates are still way low even after doubling, compared to regular commercial insurance reimbursement rates or prevailing rates

And there is a big shortage of dental assistants and hygienists.

See also:
Low-income Minnesota families struggle to get dental care, MPR 11/28/18

About 655,000 Minnesota children were enrolled in Medicaid, but only 36 percent of them received dental services included in their coverage, according to 2017 statistics. That puts Minnesota noticeably below the national average.

The number of dentists who see children in public programs declined from 2,906 in 2015 to about 2,253 last year, according to the Department of Human Services.

More: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/28/low-income-minnesota-families-struggle-to-get-dental-care

Last 12 months monthly changes. And Graphs! And rolling 3 month averages

From the news release, http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm


From the preceding month, the PCE price index for January increased 0.6 percent (table 9). Prices for goods and services both increased 0.6 percent as well. Food prices increased 0.4 percent and energy prices increased 2.0 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index also increased 0.6 percent. Detailed monthly PCE price indexes can be found on Table 2.4.4U.

From the same month one year ago, the PCE price index for January increased 5.4 percent (table 11). Prices for goods increased 4.7 percent and prices for services increased 5.7 percent. Food prices increased 11.1 percent and energy prices increased 9.6 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 4.7 percent from one year ago.

And they show the last 5 months. I found the latest 12 months (and way beyond) at FRED:

PCE: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI
CORE PCE: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPILFE

PCE Inflation (just came out today, February 24):

PCE, rolling 3 month averages, annualized
7.2% 7.3% 7.4% 6.2% 4.8% 2.1% 4.2% 3.8% 3.2% 4.0%

CORE PCE, rolling 3 month averages, annualized
4.3% 4.3% 5.4% 4.4% 5.1% 4.5% 5.4% 4.0% 3.6% 4.7%

Consumer Price Index (CPI)

CPI - https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0&output_view=pct_1mth
CORE CPI - http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUSR0000SA0L1E&output_view=pct_1mth
(Choose "More Formatting Options" at the upper right of the page for other views such as rolling averages of past 12 months, past 6 months, past 3 months)

Producer Price Index (PPI)

OLD CORE PPI - Producer Price Index, seasonally adjusted - Final demand goods less foods and energy -

CORE PPI - Producer Price Index, seasonally adjusted - Final demand less foods. energy. and trade services - This is the core measure that the BLS features, so I will follow their lead
(Choose "More Formatting Options" at the upper right of the page for other views such as rolling averages of past 12 months, past 6 months, past 3 months)

Why the Fed thinks core is better for forecasting future inflation: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143025190#post10

3 months annualized: Core CPI: 4.58%, Core PPI: 4.63%, Core PCE: 4.75%

I chose 3 months for its recency, but that it's still a longer period than one month, so less likely that one can dismiss it as a "one off", as some are trying to do.

To me, there's no way to look at any of these graphs without getting the impression that while inflation is down from the first half of 2022, the last 6 months are showing, at best, a consolidation at more than double the Fed's 2% target. Slightly less optimistically, inflation has been rewarming in the past 6 months.

The latest one-month numbers -- January numbers as reported mid-February (Feb 24 for PCE) -- aren't good either:
Core CPI: 5.06%, Core PPI: 7.27%, Core PCE: 7.07%
CPI: 6.38%, PPI: 8.18%, PCE: 7.69% annualized rates using the actual index numbers

Stocks, Treasury yields, and more (OMG!) : https://finance.yahoo.com/

Fed minutes: 'Ongoing' rate hikes needed, 2 officials wanted 50-point hike

Yahoo Finance, 2/22/23

This is in regard to the January 31 - February 1 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, whose meeting minutes came out today, Feb 22. These are the people that vote on interest rate hikes

There's no sign of a coming pause at the Federal Reserve.

Instead, officials appeared to remain steadfast in their commitment to raising interest rates to beat inflation, according to minutes from the central bank's latest policy meeting released Wednesday.

Fed officials felt inflation is still “unacceptably high” and that while inflation data received over the past three months showed a welcome drop in the pace of monthly price increases, officials felt that substantially more evidence of progress across a broader range of prices would be required to be confident that inflation was coming down.

The minutes also said that "a few" participants favored raising the federal funds rate by 50 basis points at the Feb. 1 policy meeting, noting that a larger increase would more quickly bring the target range close to the levels they believed would achieve a sufficiently restrictive stance.

Still, several participants noted the possibility that as consumers become more price sensitive, businesses might accept lower profit margins in an effort to maintain market share, which could reduce inflation temporarily. And nearly all members favored slowing the pace of rate hikes to evaluate the impact that existing hikes have had on the economy.

And that was back when inflation looked like it was on a definite cool-down trend (I thought so too back then).

This January 31 - February 1 FOMC meeting (discussed above whose minutes came out today) was before:

* the very hot jobs report that came out February 3 with 517,000 new payroll jobs

* the hot CPI and PPI (wholesale prices) inflation reports below that came out in mid February

* the 3% (in just one month) retail sales sales increase in January (the report came out February 15).

Lately, particulary since the mid-February CPI and PPI and retail sales reports, all I have been reading are bullish (meaning pushing for larger interest rate increases) from various members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that vote on rate hikes,

As for the meme that interest rate rises won't affect the current inflation, because it's is a global phenomenon caused by supply chain disruptions, Ukraine/Russia, etc., that may be true, but I should note that none of the FOMC or other Federal Reserve people talk that way, and neither, FWIW, does anyone in the administration that I've heard of. Paul Volcker would also disagree (however, the price we paid was a double-dip recession). As for globally, other central banks (except Turkey) have been pushing up their interest rates too.

So expect at least a 0.5% rate increase at the next FOMC meeting March 21-22. Don't be fooled by anything "dovish" that you read in the Jan 31 - Feb 1 meeting minutes above.

On the inflation front:

3 months annualized: Core CPI: 4.58%, Core PPI: 4.63%,

I chose 3 months for its recency, but that it's still a longer period than one month, so less likely that one can dismiss it as a "one off". (The latest one-month numbers -- January numbers as reported mid-February -- aren't good either: Core CPI: 5.06%, Core PPI: 7.27%, CPI: 6.38%, PPI: 8.18% annualized rates using the actual index numbers)

I thought they were on their way down before the mid-February reports of January inflation.

More on the graphs of monthly CPI, PPI, Core CPI, PPI, and why the Fed and I think core is better for predicting future inflation

At 4.5% inflation, the purchasing power of the dollar drops by half in just 16 years.

I'm not looking for the stock market to bail me out either - its valuations are way way high on a historic basis. That was justified back when interest rates were trivial (so there was no real competition to stocks - "TINA - There Is No Alternative" ), but not so much anymore.

Fossil Fuel Consumption Subsidies Soared to Record Heights in 2022

per IEA (International Energy Agency) report. More than double the 2021 amount, to more than $1 trillion in 2022.

usonian thread in General Discussion with big excerpt and link to the report -

Vaccines are great but I'd caution that they are not absolute protection

and that each variant that gains dominance is more infectious than the last, both for the unvaxxed and for the vaxxed. I keep that in mind when I do have to go out grocery shopping or whatever -- being fully vaxxed/boosted I'm maybe 3X lower risk of infection than the unvaxxed, but OTOH this thing keeps getting more and more infectious, so I don't really know what my risk of infection is compared to the early (pre-vax) days, but my guess is that it's not much different. Only that the consequences of an infection are much less than in the early days.

As an over-65 year old with at least one additional risk factor, I do worry about the consequences. If I was middle-aged or younger and healthy, I'd probably be a lot less worried.

NY Times U.S. page, as viewed 1/28/23

Scroll to the "Rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated" section with the average daily cases and average daily deaths graph

CASES: latest is Dec 18-24: Unvaxxed has 3X (2.76X if one does the math with the incidence rates that pop up) the risk as fully vaxxed. (For much of 2022 it ranged from 2X to 3X in rounded numbers)

DEATHS: latest is Nov 27-Dec 3, unvaxxed have 5x (5.2X if one does the math) the risk as fully vaxxed

Number in ()'s are the ratios I calculated at the end point from the pop-up that pops up.

About this data -- Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status ). This data was first made available on Oct. 19 2021, and is expected to update monthly. The C.D.C. releases the data as a weekly figure per 100,000 and is presented here as a daily average per 100,000 for consistency with other population-adjusted figures on this page. See the notes on the C.D.C.’s page for more information.

See below for the CDC covid-data-tracker page --


CDC Covid tracker rates by vaccine status - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status - as viewed 1/28/23

Scroll down to the graph. Realize that on the left side are two radio buttons where one can choose "deaths" or "cases"

The incidence rates below (CDC) are WEEKLY rates (i.e. cases per 100,000 per WEEK), in contrast to the NY Times numbers which are average DAILY rates. Whichever is used doesn't affect the relative risk of vaxxed vs. unvaxxed etc., but when looking at the incidence rates per 100k, the CDC numbers look much higher than the NY Times. This is why).

LATEST ON CASES (age 5 and older) is 12/18/22: Incidence per 100,000 population: Unvaxxed 271, Vaxxed w/o updated booster: 98, Vaxxed with updated booster: 82. So relative to vaxxed with updated booster: Unvaxxed: 3.30 X, Vaxxed w/o updated booster: 1.20 X.

LATEST ON DEATHS (age 5 and older) is 11/27/22: Incidence per 100,000 population Unvaxxed 1.79, Vaxxed w/o updated booster: 0.35, Vaxxed with updated booster: 0.16. So relative to vaxxed with updated booster: Unvaxxed: 11.2 X, Vaxxed w/o updated booster: 2.20 X (so get that bivalent booster -progree).

The box below the graph says: In November 2022, people ages 5 and older and vaccinated with an updated (bivalent) booster had:
12.7X lower risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to unvaxxed people and 2.4X lower risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to people vaxxed without the updated (bivalent) booster.

Michigan residents vote to defund public library again over LGBTQ books (from Nov. 11)

The Hill, November 11, 2022

Residents of a Western Michigan town on Tuesday voted for a second time to defund their only public library, putting it in jeopardy of closing permanently and closing out the latest chapter in a months-long battle between the library and community members outraged over books centered around LGBTQ issues and identities.

Nearly 56 percent of voters in Jamestown Township, Mich., rejected a proposal to renew a property tax that accounts for more than 80 percent of the annual operating budget for the Patmos Library, according to county election results.

On Thursday, the library wrote on its Facebook page that its hours of operation would be reduced for a number of days, citing staff shortages. ...

The library, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in online donations since it was first defunded in August, is likely to run out of money by early 2024, according to Walton.

More: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3731380-michigan-residents-vote-to-defund-public-library-again-over-lgbtq-books/

All emphasis mine. I was going through some news notes from August when it first got a no vote on its property tax millage. I wondered what the situation was currently. Unfortunately, this is what I found from a Google search.

PCE inflation indexes from the source. Last 5 month ANNUALIZED: PCE: +2.42%, CORE PCE: +3.71%

Last 12 months ANNUALIZED: PCE: +5.5%, CORE PCE: +4.7%
Last 5 month ANNUALIZED: PCE: +2.42%, CORE PCE: +3.71%
Last 2 months ANNUALIZED: PCE: +2.90%, CORE PCE: +2.61%

I put this in the CPI and PPI and PCE Megapost, 12/23/22

BEA report on incomes, outlays and PCE inflation:

PCE Inflation
-0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 PCE
0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 Core PCE

6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 5.5 PCE
4.7 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.7 CORE PCE

Detailed monthly PCE price indexes can be found on Table 2.3.4U.https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&select_all_years=0&nipa_table_list=2015&series=m&first_year=2020&last_year=2022&scale=-99&categories=underlying&thetable=#eyJhcHBpZCI6MTksInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyLDNdLCJkYXRhIjpbWyJuaXBhX3RhYmxlX2xpc3QiLCIyMDEzIl0sWyJjYXRlZ29yaWVzIiwiU3VydmV5Il1dfQ==

. . . . . . . JAN FEB MAR ... NOV
. . . . . PCE 119.469 120.178 121.321 121.563 122.300 123.512 123.397 123.728 124.154 124.617 124.747
CORE PCE 120.761 121.205 121.651 122.030 122.488 123.258 123.352 124.031 124.607 124.933 125.143

PCE 5 months annualized: (124.747/123.512)^(12/5)-1 = .0242 = 2.42%
CORE PCE 5 months annualized: (125.143/123.258)^(12/5)-1 = .0371 = 3.71%

PCE 2 months annualized: (124.747/124.154)^(12/2)-1 = .0290 = 2.90%
CORE PCE 2 months annualized: (125.143/124.607)^(12/2)-1 = .0261 = 2.61%

Jeremy Siegel: we need to get out of this yoy look at inflation ... 11 months of outdated data

Siegel: "We need to get out of this year-over-year look at inflation. Remember, when we get year-over-year, we're getting 11 months of old, outdated data, and only 1 month of new data, and in fact that 1 month contains data that [Powell] admits, particularly in the housing sector, is extremely lagged,"

Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel says he's disappointed in the Fed's hypocrisy on inflation, and that Jerome Powell will be cutting interest rates next year, Markets Insider, 12/15/22

* Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel is not happy with the Fed's hawkishness that was telegraphed at Wednesday's FOMC meeting.

* Siegel said the Fed is contradicting itself as it focuses on crushing wages that are spiking due to supply side issues.

* Siegel ultimately expects that the Fed will be cutting interest rates in 2023, not raising them.

Specifically, Siegel called out the fact that when inflation was rising after the COVID-19 pandemic due to supply-side issues, Fed chairman Jerome Powell insisted that inflation was transitory and did not act against it via interest rate hikes.

But now Powell is doing the exact opposite when it comes to structural supply-side issues that are plaguing the labor market.

"Now he's saying there's supply-side problems in the labor market that may raise wages, and we have to crush the wages in order to stop inflation. That's just totally inconsistent as a part of monetary policy," Siegel told CNBC on Thursday. "The Fed is not supposed to act on structural shifts on supply-side problems."

"I was very disappointed in Powell in his reasoning and his justifications for this overly tight policy. He acknowledged that the housing data is lagged, that housing prices are actually going down, but we're not going to see it until the middle of next year. So we're going to wait until the middle of next year before we decide whether we need to pause the rate hikes, even though we know it today?" Siegel said.

MORE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/wharton-professor-jeremy-siegel-says-he-s-disappointed-in-the-fed-s-hypocrisy-on-inflation-and-that-jerome-powell-will-be-cutting-interest-rates-next-year/ar-AA15jPTt

I've been yammering in post after post here that it is completely and thoroughly idiotic, stupid, and asinine for the media to report only on the last month's number and the 12 months number (i.e. year-over-year). And to call the 12 month number the inflation rate when so much of it is ancient history. So I'm tickled ecstatic and I am tickled pink that somebody other than some message board rando like me thinks this too.

For example by emphasizing the last 5 months, which are far less dire than the 12 month numbers: "Today's report: Last 5 months, ANNUALIZED: CPI: 2.47%, CORE CPI: 4.72%". (The 12 months numbers are 7.1% and 6.0% respectively).

Edited to add: Last 5 months ANNUALIZED: PPI: 1.05%, CORE PPI: 1.51%
I also put it with My latest CPI megapost that gets into shelter and rentals

Albeit there's been an increasing trend in the PPI in the last 4 months, though not so much in the CORE PPI though the last month came in at 0.3 (roughly 3.6% annualized)

Edited to add: Since the producer price index has come up, here is the same thing for the PPI for convenience of reference

Producer Price Index (PPI), seasonally adjusted
2022 133.538 134.957 137.241 137.954 139.072 140.361 139.796 139.748 140.119 140.558 140.975 (index)
2022 1.2 1.1 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 -0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 (1 month)
2022 2.7 2.8 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.3 1.3 0.5 -0.2 0.5 0.9 (3 month)
2022 10.2 10.5 11.7 11.2 11.0 11.1 9.7 8.7 8.5 8.1 7.4 (12 months)

The last 4 months are preliminary

CORE PPI - Producer Price Index, seasonally adjusted - Final demand goods less foods and energy -
2022 132.218 133.285 134.742 136.238 137.209 137.849 138.022 138.308 138.329 138.280 138.714
2022 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 (1 month)
2022 2.1 2.1 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.3 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.3 (3 months)
2022 9.5 9.8 10.0 10.1 9.8 9.2 8.5 8.1 7.5 6.7 6.2 (12 months)

The last 4 months are preliminary
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »