Overreaction kills every theor_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

Dennison
2021-07-23

Overreaction kills every theories!

Albert Edwards Notices "Something Shocking" In The "Transitory vs Persistent Inflation" Debate<blockquote>艾伯特·爱德华兹注意到“暂时与持续通胀”辩论中的“一些令人震惊的事情”</blockquote>

Earlier this week, following the news from NBER that the covid recession lasted all of two months ma

Albert Edwards Notices "Something Shocking" In The "Transitory vs Persistent Inflation" Debate<blockquote>艾伯特·爱德华兹注意到“暂时与持续通胀”辩论中的“一些令人震惊的事情”</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":175535588,"tweetId":"175535588","gmtCreate":1627040736544,"gmtModify":1633768555890,"author":{"id":3571895984714075,"idStr":"3571895984714075","authorId":3571895984714075,"authorIdStr":"3571895984714075","name":"Dennison","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b9a99ddf7afd6c32728f238561b0ee5e","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":2,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Overreaction kills every theories!</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Overreaction kills every theories!</body></html>","text":"Overreaction kills every theories!","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/175535588","repostId":1159742715,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1159742715","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1627023888,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1159742715?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-07-23 15:04","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Albert Edwards Notices \"Something Shocking\" In The \"Transitory vs Persistent Inflation\" Debate<blockquote>艾伯特·爱德华兹注意到“暂时与持续通胀”辩论中的“一些令人震惊的事情”</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1159742715","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Earlier this week, following the news from NBER that the covid recession lasted all of two months ma","content":"Earlier this week, following the news from NBER that the covid recession lasted all of two months making it the shortest recession in history, we showed that opinions on wall street diverged as to whether the economy was inearly cycle(as JPMorgan claims),mid cycle (which has been Morgan Stanley's view) orlate cycle,as Deutsche Bank suggested. Picking up on this debate, in his latest note the ever skeptical Albert Edwards writes that one question that bothers him \"is whether this recovery should really be considered a new economic cycle or merely a continuation of the old one, briefly interrupted by the pandemic\" a view which we wholeheartedly agree with.<blockquote>本周早些时候，在NBER传出新冠疫情衰退持续了整整两个月，成为历史上最短的衰退后，我们表明华尔街对于经济是否处于早期周期（如摩根大通所声称的）、中期周期（摩根士丹利的观点）或德意志银行所建议的后期周期存在分歧。针对这场辩论，一直持怀疑态度的艾伯特·爱德华兹在他的最新笔记中写道，困扰他的一个问题“是，这种复苏是否真的应该被视为一个新的经济周期，还是仅仅是被疫情短暂打断的旧经济周期的延续”，我们完全同意这一观点。</blockquote> As Edwards explains, normally in a recession, especially at the end of a record long 130-month cycle like the one we saw up to February last year, excesses like too much leverage are purged and there is a sort of reset. Of course, this time that did not happen and instead the system doubled down on leverage. So \"to the extent that did not happen due to super-sized monetary and fiscal largesse, are those vulnerabilities still lurking with the potential to trigger another recession much earlier than anyone suspects\" Edwards cautions adding that \"would definitely be a major market shock.\" There is more on this in the full note whichpro subscan find in the usual place.<blockquote>正如爱德华兹解释的那样，通常在经济衰退中，特别是在像我们去年2月看到的那样创纪录的130个月长周期结束时，过度杠杆等过度行为会被清除，并出现某种重置。当然，这一次这种情况没有发生，相反，系统加倍了杠杆。因此，爱德华兹警告说，“在某种程度上，由于超大规模的货币和财政慷慨而没有发生这种情况，这些漏洞是否仍然潜伏着，有可能比任何人想象的更早引发另一场衰退”，并补充说，“这肯定会是一次重大的市场冲击。”Pro Subscan在通常的地方可以找到完整的注释中有更多关于这方面的内容。</blockquote> But while we doubt this debate will be resolved any time soon, what caught our attention was another observation made by Edwards relating to the other key debate raging right now - whether inflation is transitory or persistent.<blockquote>不过，尽管我们怀疑这场辩论能否很快得到解决，但引起我们注意的是爱德华兹的另一个观察，该观察与目前正在激烈进行的另一场关键辩论有关——通货膨胀是暂时的还是持续的。</blockquote> Edwards writes that while discussing his business cycle observations with his colleague Jitesh Kumar, he noticed \"something shocking\"- in its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) have massively revised their calculations for the US output gap which as Edwards explains, \"suggests US inflationary pressures are far hotter than previously thought.\"<blockquote>爱德华兹写道，在与同事吉特什·库马尔讨论他的商业周期观察时，他注意到“令人震惊的事情“——在最新的预测中，国会预算办公室（CBO）大幅修改了对美国产出缺口的计算，正如爱德华兹解释的那样，“表明美国通胀压力远比之前想象的要大。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/484b655e61fd05745ba9594bf9616404\" tg-width=\"689\" tg-height=\"360\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> For those unfamiliar, the 'Output Gap' is important because many economists, especially Keynesian economists,tend to believe inflation only shows up when the economy is growing beyond potential capacity constraints.Normally in a recession as demand collapses it takes many years for the output gap to return from disinflation/deflation-inducing negative territory back to zero, and then beyond that into positive (inflationary) territory. Not this time though. Indeed, this is an observation also made by Morgan Stanley over the weekend, when the bank's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheet noted that this has been a remarkable cycle in that we went from Downturn to Repair and then directly to Expansion without spending the requisite 35 or so months in the Recovery phase.<blockquote>对于那些不熟悉的人来说，“产出缺口”很重要，因为许多经济学家，尤其是凯恩斯主义经济学家，倾向于认为，只有当经济增长超出潜在产能限制时，通胀才会出现。通常情况下，在需求崩溃的衰退中，产出缺口需要很多年才能从导致通货紧缩/通货紧缩的负区域恢复到零，然后超过该区域进入正（通胀）区域。但这次不会了。事实上，摩根士丹利周末也提出了这一观察，当时该银行首席跨资产策略师安德鲁·希特(Andrew Sheet)指出，这是一个非凡的周期，因为我们从低迷走向修复，然后直接走向扩张，而没有花费必要的35个月左右的恢复阶段。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/41879c4f66b33597ee236bdd52841004\" tg-width=\"904\" tg-height=\"490\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">So going back to the Edwards note, he points out that similarly,\"the CBO have had a total rethink and believe the economy will be operating 2% beyond full capacity as early as Q1 next year!\"Edwards explains that \"if unemployment follows its traditional close correlation with the CBO output gap, we could reach record low levels of unemployment far sooner than anyone expects.\"<blockquote>所以回到爱德华兹的笔记，他指出，同样，“国会预算办公室已经进行了彻底的重新思考，并相信经济最早将在明年第一季度超出满负荷运行2%！”爱德华兹解释说，“如果失业率遵循传统上与CBO产出缺口的密切相关性，我们可能会比任何人预期的更早达到创纪录的低失业率。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eb9984a25cc62c40138c28218f5a5534\" tg-width=\"726\" tg-height=\"359\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">There's more: Jitesh also flagged a recent articlefrom the San Francisco Fed which splits core PCE inflation into a cyclical component and an acyclical (uncorrelated to the domestic output gap) inflation time series (link). As Jitesh writes, \"to get directly to the point – the following chart shows the cumulative change in cyclical core PCE inflation over the three years following a recession in the US. It has “This time is&nbsp; different” writ large –a combination of timely monetary/fiscal support has managed to interrupt the “cycle” in the US.Normally 15 months after the beginning of the previous three recessions in the US, cyclical core PCE was down between 0.5% to 1.5% (see chart&nbsp; below), whereas it is above pre-recession levels this time around.”<blockquote>还有更多：Jitesh还标记了旧金山联储最近的一篇文章，该文章将核心PCE通胀分为周期性成分和非周期性（与国内产出缺口无关）通胀时间序列（链接）。正如Jitesh所写，“开门见山——下图显示了美国经济衰退后三年周期性核心PCE通胀的累积变化。它大写了“这一次不同”——及时的货币/财政支持组合成功打断了美国的“循环”。通常情况下，美国前三次衰退开始后15个月，周期性核心PCE下降0.5%至1.5%（见下图），而这次则高于衰退前的水平。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a6663747e05e9758af540e8f4c3b8ae2\" tg-width=\"738\" tg-height=\"337\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">As Edwards concludes, this is \"food for thought indeed to challenge the prevailing ‘high inflation is transitory’ viewpoint.\"<blockquote>正如爱德华兹总结的那样，这“确实值得思考，可以挑战流行的‘高通胀是暂时的’观点。”</blockquote> To this, all we can add is that asexplained previously, the Fed has bet its remaining credibility on the absolutely critical assumption thatinflation is transitory, and not, say, permanent, even thoughreal-time inflation measuresfrom Bank of America show just that.<blockquote>对此，我们可以补充的是，如前所述，美联储将其剩余的信誉押注于绝对关键的假设：通货膨胀是暂时的，而且不是永久性的，尽管美国银行的实时通胀指标显示了这一点。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cc907b44c17cb542b759a78f8c15f76d\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"438\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">But if the above observations are accurate and ifinflation proves to be \"non-transitory\"as soon as Q1 of 2022 when the output gap is filled then the last two years of the Biden admin (with Powell long gone and replaced by some uber dove) will be very, very messy.<blockquote>但是如果上述观察是准确的并且如果通货膨胀被证明是“非暂时性的”一旦2022年第一季度的产出缺口被填补，拜登政府的最后两年（鲍威尔早已下台，取而代之的是一些超级鸽派）将会非常非常混乱。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Albert Edwards Notices \"Something Shocking\" In The \"Transitory vs Persistent Inflation\" Debate<blockquote>艾伯特·爱德华兹注意到“暂时与持续通胀”辩论中的“一些令人震惊的事情”</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAlbert Edwards Notices \"Something Shocking\" In The \"Transitory vs Persistent Inflation\" Debate<blockquote>艾伯特·爱德华兹注意到“暂时与持续通胀”辩论中的“一些令人震惊的事情”</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-07-23 15:04\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nEarlier this week, following the news from NBER that the covid recession lasted all of two months making it the shortest recession in history, we showed that opinions on wall street diverged as to whether the economy was inearly cycle(as JPMorgan claims),mid cycle (which has been Morgan Stanley's view) orlate cycle,as Deutsche Bank suggested. Picking up on this debate, in his latest note the ever skeptical Albert Edwards writes that one question that bothers him \"is whether this recovery should really be considered a new economic cycle or merely a continuation of the old one, briefly interrupted by the pandemic\" a view which we wholeheartedly agree with.<blockquote>本周早些时候，在NBER传出新冠疫情衰退持续了整整两个月，成为历史上最短的衰退后，我们表明华尔街对于经济是否处于早期周期（如摩根大通所声称的）、中期周期（摩根士丹利的观点）或德意志银行所建议的后期周期存在分歧。针对这场辩论，一直持怀疑态度的艾伯特·爱德华兹在他的最新笔记中写道，困扰他的一个问题“是，这种复苏是否真的应该被视为一个新的经济周期，还是仅仅是被疫情短暂打断的旧经济周期的延续”，我们完全同意这一观点。</blockquote> As Edwards explains, normally in a recession, especially at the end of a record long 130-month cycle like the one we saw up to February last year, excesses like too much leverage are purged and there is a sort of reset. Of course, this time that did not happen and instead the system doubled down on leverage. So \"to the extent that did not happen due to super-sized monetary and fiscal largesse, are those vulnerabilities still lurking with the potential to trigger another recession much earlier than anyone suspects\" Edwards cautions adding that \"would definitely be a major market shock.\" There is more on this in the full note whichpro subscan find in the usual place.<blockquote>正如爱德华兹解释的那样，通常在经济衰退中，特别是在像我们去年2月看到的那样创纪录的130个月长周期结束时，过度杠杆等过度行为会被清除，并出现某种重置。当然，这一次这种情况没有发生，相反，系统加倍了杠杆。因此，爱德华兹警告说，“在某种程度上，由于超大规模的货币和财政慷慨而没有发生这种情况，这些漏洞是否仍然潜伏着，有可能比任何人想象的更早引发另一场衰退”，并补充说，“这肯定会是一次重大的市场冲击。”Pro Subscan在通常的地方可以找到完整的注释中有更多关于这方面的内容。</blockquote> But while we doubt this debate will be resolved any time soon, what caught our attention was another observation made by Edwards relating to the other key debate raging right now - whether inflation is transitory or persistent.<blockquote>不过，尽管我们怀疑这场辩论能否很快得到解决，但引起我们注意的是爱德华兹的另一个观察，该观察与目前正在激烈进行的另一场关键辩论有关——通货膨胀是暂时的还是持续的。</blockquote> Edwards writes that while discussing his business cycle observations with his colleague Jitesh Kumar, he noticed \"something shocking\"- in its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) have massively revised their calculations for the US output gap which as Edwards explains, \"suggests US inflationary pressures are far hotter than previously thought.\"<blockquote>爱德华兹写道，在与同事吉特什·库马尔讨论他的商业周期观察时，他注意到“令人震惊的事情“——在最新的预测中，国会预算办公室（CBO）大幅修改了对美国产出缺口的计算，正如爱德华兹解释的那样，“表明美国通胀压力远比之前想象的要大。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/484b655e61fd05745ba9594bf9616404\" tg-width=\"689\" tg-height=\"360\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> For those unfamiliar, the 'Output Gap' is important because many economists, especially Keynesian economists,tend to believe inflation only shows up when the economy is growing beyond potential capacity constraints.Normally in a recession as demand collapses it takes many years for the output gap to return from disinflation/deflation-inducing negative territory back to zero, and then beyond that into positive (inflationary) territory. Not this time though. Indeed, this is an observation also made by Morgan Stanley over the weekend, when the bank's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheet noted that this has been a remarkable cycle in that we went from Downturn to Repair and then directly to Expansion without spending the requisite 35 or so months in the Recovery phase.<blockquote>对于那些不熟悉的人来说，“产出缺口”很重要，因为许多经济学家，尤其是凯恩斯主义经济学家，倾向于认为，只有当经济增长超出潜在产能限制时，通胀才会出现。通常情况下，在需求崩溃的衰退中，产出缺口需要很多年才能从导致通货紧缩/通货紧缩的负区域恢复到零，然后超过该区域进入正（通胀）区域。但这次不会了。事实上，摩根士丹利周末也提出了这一观察，当时该银行首席跨资产策略师安德鲁·希特(Andrew Sheet)指出，这是一个非凡的周期，因为我们从低迷走向修复，然后直接走向扩张，而没有花费必要的35个月左右的恢复阶段。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/41879c4f66b33597ee236bdd52841004\" tg-width=\"904\" tg-height=\"490\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">So going back to the Edwards note, he points out that similarly,\"the CBO have had a total rethink and believe the economy will be operating 2% beyond full capacity as early as Q1 next year!\"Edwards explains that \"if unemployment follows its traditional close correlation with the CBO output gap, we could reach record low levels of unemployment far sooner than anyone expects.\"<blockquote>所以回到爱德华兹的笔记，他指出，同样，“国会预算办公室已经进行了彻底的重新思考，并相信经济最早将在明年第一季度超出满负荷运行2%！”爱德华兹解释说，“如果失业率遵循传统上与CBO产出缺口的密切相关性，我们可能会比任何人预期的更早达到创纪录的低失业率。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/eb9984a25cc62c40138c28218f5a5534\" tg-width=\"726\" tg-height=\"359\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">There's more: Jitesh also flagged a recent articlefrom the San Francisco Fed which splits core PCE inflation into a cyclical component and an acyclical (uncorrelated to the domestic output gap) inflation time series (link). As Jitesh writes, \"to get directly to the point – the following chart shows the cumulative change in cyclical core PCE inflation over the three years following a recession in the US. It has “This time is&nbsp; different” writ large –a combination of timely monetary/fiscal support has managed to interrupt the “cycle” in the US.Normally 15 months after the beginning of the previous three recessions in the US, cyclical core PCE was down between 0.5% to 1.5% (see chart&nbsp; below), whereas it is above pre-recession levels this time around.”<blockquote>还有更多：Jitesh还标记了旧金山联储最近的一篇文章，该文章将核心PCE通胀分为周期性成分和非周期性（与国内产出缺口无关）通胀时间序列（链接）。正如Jitesh所写，“开门见山——下图显示了美国经济衰退后三年周期性核心PCE通胀的累积变化。它大写了“这一次不同”——及时的货币/财政支持组合成功打断了美国的“循环”。通常情况下，美国前三次衰退开始后15个月，周期性核心PCE下降0.5%至1.5%（见下图），而这次则高于衰退前的水平。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a6663747e05e9758af540e8f4c3b8ae2\" tg-width=\"738\" tg-height=\"337\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">As Edwards concludes, this is \"food for thought indeed to challenge the prevailing ‘high inflation is transitory’ viewpoint.\"<blockquote>正如爱德华兹总结的那样，这“确实值得思考，可以挑战流行的‘高通胀是暂时的’观点。”</blockquote> To this, all we can add is that asexplained previously, the Fed has bet its remaining credibility on the absolutely critical assumption thatinflation is transitory, and not, say, permanent, even thoughreal-time inflation measuresfrom Bank of America show just that.<blockquote>对此，我们可以补充的是，如前所述，美联储将其剩余的信誉押注于绝对关键的假设：通货膨胀是暂时的，而且不是永久性的，尽管美国银行的实时通胀指标显示了这一点。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cc907b44c17cb542b759a78f8c15f76d\" tg-width=\"713\" tg-height=\"438\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\">But if the above observations are accurate and ifinflation proves to be \"non-transitory\"as soon as Q1 of 2022 when the output gap is filled then the last two years of the Biden admin (with Powell long gone and replaced by some uber dove) will be very, very messy.<blockquote>但是如果上述观察是准确的并且如果通货膨胀被证明是“非暂时性的”一旦2022年第一季度的产出缺口被填补，拜登政府的最后两年（鲍威尔早已下台，取而代之的是一些超级鸽派）将会非常非常混乱。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/albert-edwards-notices-something-shocking-transitory-vs-persistent-inflation-debate\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/albert-edwards-notices-something-shocking-transitory-vs-persistent-inflation-debate","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1159742715","content_text":"Earlier this week, following the news from NBER that the covid recession lasted all of two months making it the shortest recession in history, we showed that opinions on wall street diverged as to whether the economy was inearly cycle(as JPMorgan claims),mid cycle (which has been Morgan Stanley's view) orlate cycle,as Deutsche Bank suggested. Picking up on this debate, in his latest note the ever skeptical Albert Edwards writes that one question that bothers him \"is whether this recovery should really be considered a new economic cycle or merely a continuation of the old one, briefly interrupted by the pandemic\" a view which we wholeheartedly agree with.\nAs Edwards explains, normally in a recession, especially at the end of a record long 130-month cycle like the one we saw up to February last year, excesses like too much leverage are purged and there is a sort of reset. Of course, this time that did not happen and instead the system doubled down on leverage. So \"to the extent that did not happen due to super-sized monetary and fiscal largesse, are those vulnerabilities still lurking with the potential to trigger another recession much earlier than anyone suspects\" Edwards cautions adding that \"would definitely be a major market shock.\" There is more on this in the full note whichpro subscan find in the usual place.\nBut while we doubt this debate will be resolved any time soon, what caught our attention was another observation made by Edwards relating to the other key debate raging right now - whether inflation is transitory or persistent.\nEdwards writes that while discussing his business cycle observations with his colleague Jitesh Kumar, he noticed \"something shocking\"- in its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) have massively revised their calculations for the US output gap which as Edwards explains, \"suggests US inflationary pressures are far hotter than previously thought.\"\n\nFor those unfamiliar, the 'Output Gap' is important because many economists, especially Keynesian economists,tend to believe inflation only shows up when the economy is growing beyond potential capacity constraints.Normally in a recession as demand collapses it takes many years for the output gap to return from disinflation/deflation-inducing negative territory back to zero, and then beyond that into positive (inflationary) territory. Not this time though. Indeed, this is an observation also made by Morgan Stanley over the weekend, when the bank's Chief Cross-Asset Strategist Andrew Sheet noted that this has been a remarkable cycle in that we went from Downturn to Repair and then directly to Expansion without spending the requisite 35 or so months in the Recovery phase.\nSo going back to the Edwards note, he points out that similarly,\"the CBO have had a total rethink and believe the economy will be operating 2% beyond full capacity as early as Q1 next year!\"Edwards explains that \"if unemployment follows its traditional close correlation with the CBO output gap, we could reach record low levels of unemployment far sooner than anyone expects.\"\nThere's more: Jitesh also flagged a recent articlefrom the San Francisco Fed which splits core PCE inflation into a cyclical component and an acyclical (uncorrelated to the domestic output gap) inflation time series (link). As Jitesh writes, \"to get directly to the point – the following chart shows the cumulative change in cyclical core PCE inflation over the three years following a recession in the US. It has “This time is  different” writ large –a combination of timely monetary/fiscal support has managed to interrupt the “cycle” in the US.Normally 15 months after the beginning of the previous three recessions in the US, cyclical core PCE was down between 0.5% to 1.5% (see chart  below), whereas it is above pre-recession levels this time around.”\nAs Edwards concludes, this is \"food for thought indeed to challenge the prevailing ‘high inflation is transitory’ viewpoint.\"\nTo this, all we can add is that asexplained previously, the Fed has bet its remaining credibility on the absolutely critical assumption thatinflation is transitory, and not, say, permanent, even thoughreal-time inflation measuresfrom Bank of America show just that.\nBut if the above observations are accurate and ifinflation proves to be \"non-transitory\"as soon as Q1 of 2022 when the output gap is filled then the last two years of the Biden admin (with Powell long gone and replaced by some uber dove) will be very, very messy.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2371,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":31,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}