Tom Moeller

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090120a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office currently projects that
the government's budget deficit will total $1.2 trillion dollars this
fiscal year before falling to $703 billion in FY 2010. However, many
forecasts from the private sector expect no such improvement.
Behind the CBO projection is a 1.5% advance in 2010 real GDP.
That depends mostly on the current recession ending in 2Q of this year,
with growth rebounding, albeit moderately, thereafter. If GDP growth
fails to turn positive that quickly, then the 7.5% expected advance in
government revenues clearly would be in jeopardy.
At 8.3% of GDP this fiscal year, the budget deficit would well
exceed the deficits of the 1980s. They were close to 5% of GDP and ran
at that level for nearly ten years due to tax cuts and the defense
buildup. Deficits only slightly smaller continued well into the 1990s
but by the end of the decade, surpluses emerged. By then revenue growth
averaged 8% to 10% year-to-year and growth in outlays was quite subdued.
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to
2019 from the Congressional Budget Office is available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf">
here</a>
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts are available
Haver's USECON database.
The Recession in Perspective from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is available <a href="http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm">
here</a>. 


</body></html>

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office currently projects that the government's budget deficit will total $1.2 trillion dollars this fiscal year before falling to $703 billion in FY 2010. However, many forecasts from the private sector [...]

U.S. Budget Deficit Above $1 Trillion This Year

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090120a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The U.S. Congressional Budget Office currently projects that
the government's budget deficit will total $1.2 trillion dollars this
fiscal year before falling to $703 billion in FY 2010. However, many
forecasts from the private sector expect no such improvement.
Behind the CBO projection is a 1.5% advance in 2010 real GDP.
That depends mostly on the current recession ending in 2Q of this year,
with growth rebounding, albeit moderately, thereafter. If GDP growth
fails to turn positive that quickly, then the 7.5% expected advance in
government revenues clearly would be in jeopardy.
At 8.3% of GDP this fiscal year, the budget deficit would well
exceed the deficits of the 1980s. They were close to 5% of GDP and ran
at that level for nearly ten years due to tax cuts and the defense
buildup. Deficits only slightly smaller continued well into the 1990s
but by the end of the decade, surpluses emerged. By then revenue growth
averaged 8% to 10% year-to-year and growth in outlays was quite subdued.
The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to
2019 from the Congressional Budget Office is available <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf">
here</a>
The Congressional Budget Office forecasts are available
Haver's USECON database.
The Recession in Perspective from the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is available <a href="http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/index.cfm">
here</a>. 


 
Germany's Zew Indicators: Expectations Less Pessimistic Current
Conditions Continue To Worsen 
by <a href="/comment/Curley.html">Louise
Curley</a> January 20, 2009



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090120b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Germany's ZEW indicator of expectations of economic
conditions* six months ahead improved for the third month in a row in
January. It is, however, still negative at -31%, and well below its
long term average of a positive 26.5%. The indicator of current
economic conditions** continued to decline and was -77.1%, 12.6
percentage points below December's 64.5%. The first chart shows both
indicators since December 1991, when the series began, to date. The
current conditions indicator has, at times, been even lower than
January reading, but the expectations indicator has rarely been as low
as the recent readings.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090120c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The survey which was conducted between January 5 and January
19 polled 312 analysts and institutional investors. During this period,
in response to increasingly discouraging statistics, the European
central Bank reduced its benchmark rate for the fourth time since
September when it was 4.25% to 2% on January 15. In addition, the
German government agreed to a second stimulus package, amounting to 80
billion euros over the next two years. These fiscal and monetary
measures, have helped, no doubt, to lower the difference between the
pessimists and the optimists regarding the outlook.
They may also account for the improvement in the profit
expectations of three of the industries that are covered in the survey.
(See the second chart). The percent balance in the Construction
industry rose to -52.0% in January from -67.8% in December and in the
Consumption/Trade Industry to -56.7% in January from -59.3% in
December. The improvement in the profit outlook of the Insurance
industry, to -56.5% in January from -56.6% in December is so small that
it might properly be indicative of stability rather than improvement.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY
ZEW INDICATORS (% Balance)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 09</th>
<th scope="col">Dec 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 08</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 08</th>
<th scope="col">July 08</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Current
Conditions&nbsp;</td>
<td>-77.1</td>
<td>-64.5</td>
<td>-50.4</td>
<td>-35.9</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-9.2</td>
<td>17.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Expectation, 6 mo ahead</td>
<td>-31.0</td>
<td>-45.2</td>
<td>-53.5</td>
<td>63.0</td>
<td>-41.1</td>
<td>-55.5</td>
<td>-63.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Profit Expectations, 6
mo ahead</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Construction</td>
<td>-52.0</td>
<td>-67.8</td>
<td>-73.8</td>
<td>-74.4</td>
<td>-42.0</td>
<td>-53.9</td>
<td>-45.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;
Consumption/Trade</td>
<td>-56.7</td>
<td>-59.3</td>
<td>-64.0</td>
<td>-71.0</td>
<td>-40.8</td>
<td>-57.0</td>
<td>-55.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Insurance</td>
<td>-56.5</td>
<td>-56.6</td>
<td>-70.1</td>
<td>-77.9</td>
<td>-34.3</td>
<td>-45.1</td>
<td>-42.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">ECB Interest Rate %)</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.50</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>3.25</td>
<td>4.25</td>
<td>4.25</td>
<td>4.25</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

U.S. Budget Deficit Above $1Trillion This Year

Louise Curley

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 




<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090119a.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The seasonally adjusted index of industrial production in
Japan fell 8.5% in November from October, the largest one-month decline
in the entire history of the index that began in January 1953. (See the
first chart.)
Mining and manufacturing shipments declined a record 8.4% from
October to November. Although the percentage decline in production was
slightly greater than the decline in shipments, inventories rose by
0.8%. The small increase in inventories and the large decline in
shipments resulted in an inventory/sales ratio of 1.27 in November, the
largest on record. (See the second chart.)
The rise in the inventory/sales ratio suggests that the
industrial production is unlikely to recover soon.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090119b.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
On a year-over-year basis, the November unadjusted industrial
production index was 16.62% below November 2007, the second biggest
year-over-year decline since February 1975 when the index was 19.32%
below February 1974. Among the hardest hit industries were Electronic
Parts and Devices, down 25.8%, Transport Equipment, down 24.4% and
Electric Machinery, down 13.8%.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">JAPAN&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Nov 08</th>
<th scope="col">Oct 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Sep 08&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Aug 09</th>
<th scope="col">July 08</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Industrial
Production&nbsp;2005=100 (SA)</td>
<td>93.6</td>
<td>102.3</td>
<td>105.6</td>
<td>104.5&nbsp;</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>107.4</td>
<td>104.5</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Month to Month %
Change (SA)</td>
<td>-8.50</td>
<td>-3.13</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>-3.51</td>
<td>1.31</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Year to Year % Change
Total IP (NSA)</td>
<td>-16.62</td>
<td>-7.05</td>
<td>0.18</td>
<td>-6.90</td>
<td>2.41</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Year to
Year % Change Electric Machinery &nbsp;</td>
<td>-13.77</td>
<td>-1.43</td>
<td>2.51</td>
<td>-6.20</td>
<td>0.38</td>
<td>-1.25</td>
<td>4.67</td>
<td>0.87</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Year to
Year % Change Electronic parts and Devices&nbsp;</td>
<td>-25.85</td>
<td>-12.12</td>
<td>1.44</td>
<td>-6.44</td>
<td>-1.79</td>
<td>11.17</td>
<td>17.82</td>
<td>1.95</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Year to
Year % Change Transport Equipment&nbsp;</td>
<td>-24.41</td>
<td>-9.61</td>
<td>2.04</td>
<td>-10.11</td>
<td>19.05</td>
<td>5.75</td>
<td>5.81</td>
<td>4.79</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">9COLSPAN</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Producers' Shipments
2005=100&nbsp; (SA)</td>
<td>93.5</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>105.3</td>
<td>104.9</td>
<td>108.9</td>
<td>107.8</td>
<td>104.6</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Producers'
Inventories&nbsp; (SA)</td>
<td>110.4</td>
<td>109.5</td>
<td>107.6</td>
<td>105.5</td>
<td>105.8</td>
<td>103.9</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Inventory/Sales Ratio</td>
<td>127.0</td>
<td>112.5</td>
<td>108.3</td>
<td>109.0</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>100.3</td>
<td>100.1</td>
<td>100.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The seasonally adjusted index of industrial production in Japan fell 8.5% in November from October, the largest one-month decline in the entire history of the index that began in January 1953. (See the first chart.) Mining and [...]

Japanese Mining and Manufacturing Producers in a Free Fall in November

Japanese Mining and ManufacturingProducers in a Free Fall in November

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116e.jpg" width="353">
For early January, the University of Michigan reported that consumer sentiment rose slightly for the second month. The 3.0% rise followed an 8.7% increase off the cycle&#39;s low in November. Nevertheless, at 61.9 the latest level was near the lowest for the series back to 1980 and earlier. Moreover, the figure remained down by nearly one quarter from last year after the 25.5% decline during all of 2008. The latest reading beat Consensus expectations for a reading of 59.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 58% correlation between the level of sentiment and the three-month change in real consumer spending.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116f.jpg" width="353">
The expectations component of consumer sentiment rose moderately to the highest level since October. Still, the series was near its lowest since 1990 and close to the low of 1980. Expectations for business conditions during the next year more than recovered the December drop and expectations for conditions during the next five years ticked up as well. The expected change in personal finances rose to the highest level since September.
The current economic conditions index held roughly unchanged from December. A decline in buying conditions for large household goods, presumably due to weak income gains, offset a rise in the view of current personal finances to the highest level since September. The figure did, however, remain off sharply from last year&#39;s average.
The opinion of government policy, which apparently influences economic expectations, fell to the series&#39; low (-35.9% y/y). Only six percent of respondents thought that a good job was being done by government and a record fifty-six percent thought that a poor job was being done.
Inflation expectations ticked slightly higher to 2.5% during the next year but that remained near the series&#39; low. It was as high as 7.0% in May. The expected inflation rate during the next five years rose off the series&#39; low to 3.7%.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The reading is based on telephone interviews with about 500 households at month-end; the mid-month results are based on about 300 interviews. The summary indexes are in Haver&#39;s USECON database, with details in the proprietary UMSCA database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mid-January</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">January y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>61.9</td>
<td>60.1</td>
<td>55.3</td>
<td>-21.0%</td>
<td>63.8</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>87.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>69.2</td>
<td>69.5</td>
<td>57.5</td>
<td>-26.7</td>
<td>73.7</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>105.1</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>57.2</td>
<td>54.0</td>
<td>53.9</td>
<td>-16.0</td>
<td>57.3</td>
<td>75.6</td>
<td>75.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

For early January, the University of Michigan reported that consumer sentiment rose slightly for the second month. The 3.0% rise followed an 8.7% increase off the cycle's low in November. Nevertheless, at 61.9 the latest level was [...]

Michigan Consumer Sentiment Up Again In Early January Yet Still Near The Series' Low

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116g.jpg">
Industrial production during December fell for the ninth month of 2008. The 2.0% drop followed a 1.3% November decline which was revised deeper from the initial report. Last month&#39;s decline was double Consensus expectations for a 1.0% decline. For the year, industrial production declined 7.8% which was the sharpest negative twelve-month change since the deep recession of 1975.<img align="right" border="0" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116h.jpg">
Factory output took the brunt of the recession&#39;s force and declined 9.9% last year. That was led by a 13.9% twelve-month decline in output of construction supplies, again the deepest since 1975. Output of consumer goods fell 5.2% during last year, pulled lower by a 26.7% December-to-December drop in the output of motor vehicles &amp; parts. That came on top of roughly 3% declines during the prior two years. Outside of the auto sector output also was hard it and production of furniture fell 21.9% while apparel output dropped 6.0%. Production of business equipment was late to the recession&#39;s downturn, but for the year production fell 6.7%.
Industrial production in the high-tech sector fell 6.5% last year. That was the worst performance since 2001. Outside of high-tech production declines amounted to 11.0% for the year, the worst decline since 1975.
Less the weakness in autos and high tech, output fell 6.9% last year, the steepest since 1982. Machinery production led that fall with a steep 11.6% drop while output of electrical equipment production also fell, but by 9.5% y/y. Production of chemicals fell 11.6% y/y, also the worst since 1975, but apparel output fell a modest 6.0%.
Capacity utilization fell to 73.6%, the lowest level since 2003. Utilization in the factory sector dropped further, however, to 70.2%, its lowest since 1982. Capacity in the factory sector increased a firm 1.7% y/y).

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (SA, %)</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total Output </td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>-7.8</td>
<td>-1.8</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-2.4</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
<td>-9.9</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Consumer Goods</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>-5.2</td>
<td>-2.1</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>0.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Business Equipment</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>-6.7</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>10.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Construction Supplies</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>-4.6</td>
<td>-13.9</td>
<td>-6.1</td>
<td>-2.5</td>
<td>2.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Utilities</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Capacity Utilization</td>
<td>73.6</td>
<td>75.2</td>
<td>81.0 (Dec.&#39;07)</td>
<td>78.2</td>
<td>81.0</td>
<td>80.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Industrial production during December fell for the ninth month of 2008. The 2.0% drop followed a 1.3% November decline which was revised deeper from the initial report. Last month's decline was double Consensus expectations for a 1.0% [...]

U.S. Factory Output Fell Again in December; 2008 Decline The Largest Since 1975

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The EMU trade deficit widened in November as exports fell by
4.7%. Imports also dropped but by 2.5% causing the deficit to widen.
The table above is replete with negative numbers denoting declining
export and import flows. The global downturn is hitting trade hard on
both the export and the import side. Among exports raw materials and
manufactured goods are both being hit hard. On the import side weakness
is in oil imports but spreads across all groupings. 
 

Over 12-months exports are lower by 5.1% and imports are off
by 0.1%. In contrast a year before exports had risen over 12-months by
6.8% and imports were up by 7.7%. Even in Yr/Yr terms the slowdown is
rapid and that is why the economic dislocations are so severe. 
 

The figures for EMU are of course figures for EMU member trade
outside of the block. The various national figures also include
intra-EMU state trading. EMU countries are very prone to trade. Since
these flows are slowing down it is hitting a lot of EMU economies very
hard. Germany, the largest exporter in the world, is being clobbered by
export weakness. German exports are down by 9% Yr/Yr in November,
nearly twice the EMU pace. The trade picture is a bleak one for EMU
members. 



<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr><th colspan="7" scope="col">Ezone 15-Trade trends for goods</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">m/m%</td>
<td colspan="4">% Saar</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>Nov-08</td>
<td>Oct-08</td>
<td>3M</td>
<td>6M</td>
<td>12M</td>
<td>12M Ago</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance*</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (4,891)</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (2,122)</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (4,154)</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (4,800)</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; 2,124</td>
<td>&#8364;&#8364; (1,483)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All Exp</td>
<td>-4.7%</td>
<td>-2.8%</td>
<td>-22.6%</td>
<td>-10.8%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>-5.2%</td>
<td>-3.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>12.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>-13.0%</td>
<td>-3.2%</td>
<td>-58.8%</td>
<td>-34.9%</td>
<td>-12.2%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Other</td>
<td>-4.6%</td>
<td>-3.0%</td>
<td>-22.6%</td>
<td>-10.6%</td>
<td>-5.7%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-4.0%</td>
<td>-1.6%</td>
<td>-22.8%</td>
<td>-10.8%</td>
<td>-6.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">IMPORTS</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">All IMP</td>
<td>-2.5%</td>
<td>-5.1%</td>
<td>-24.5%</td>
<td>-5.6%</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>7.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Food and Drinks</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>-12.4%</td>
<td>-7.8%</td>
<td>-3.7%</td>
<td>18.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Raw materials</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>-4.5%</td>
<td>-6.7%</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Other</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td>-26.0%</td>
<td>-6.1%</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">MFG</td>
<td>-0.5%</td>
<td>-2.3%</td>
<td>-12.9%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">*Eur mlns; mo or period average</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The EMU trade deficit widened in November as exports fell by 4.7%. Imports also dropped but by 2.5% causing the deficit to widen. The table above is replete with negative numbers denoting declining export and import flows. The global [...]

EMU Trade Deficit Widens: Exports and Imports Collapse

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 




<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116a.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the consumer price index
(CPI-U) fell for the third straight month in December. The 0.7% decline
followed drops of 1.7% and 1.0% during November and October. Indeed.
that, understates the weakness in pricing since there was a
less-than-0.1% decline in September. The latest reading lowered the
three-month rate of change to -12.7% (AR). That pulled
seasonally adjusted prices lower by 0.1% for the last twelve months,
the first such decline since 1955. The recent figure
compared to Consensus expectations for a 0.9% decline.Lower energy
prices led the weakness in last month's CPI with an 8.3% decline, the
fifth consecutive monthly drop.&nbsp; It was paced by a 17.2%
decline in gasoline prices to an average of $1.69 per gallon.&nbsp;
Gas prices have backed up a bit this in January to an average $1.78
last week.&nbsp; December fuel oil prices fell 9.2% (-14.4% y/y)
for their fifth consecutive monthly drop and prices for natural gas
&amp; electricity were roughly unchanged m/m (+7.9%
y/y). Increases in food &amp; beverage prices tapered
off and posted a slight December decline. That followed moderate
increases of 0.3% and 0.2% during the prior two months. However,
monthly increases between 0.6% and 0.9% were common earlier in the
year. Therefore, the year-to-year growth in food prices
during 2008 was the strongest since 1981.<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116b.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Core pricing power
also weakened further in December with the developing recession. The CPI
less food &amp; energy slipped and it was down at a 0.3%
annual rate during the last three months. It reached a peak three-month
rate of increase of 3.5% just this past July and the latest change was
the weakest since 1982.Core goods prices fell for
the fourth consecutive month.&nbsp; The 0.3% decline pulled the
three-month rate of change to a negative 3.4% which was the weakest
since late-2003. The latest decline was led by another fall in prices
of new &amp; used motor vehicles which were off 0.4% (-3.5%
y/y).&nbsp; Apparel prices also fell last month by 0.9% and they
dropped 1.0% last year.&nbsp; Prices for household furnishings
&amp; operations ticked up 0.1% after their 0.2% November
drop.&nbsp; However, the 2.0% year-to-year gain was the firmest
since 2005.&nbsp; Tobacco prices rose 0.5% last month and they were
up 6.3% during the full year. Core services prices again
ticked up by 0.1% and they rose at a 1.0% annual rate during the last
three months. That was the lowest rate of increase since
1982.&nbsp; Medical care services prices rose a moderate 0.2% (3.0%
y/y) but education costs remained strong.&nbsp; They posted a 0.5%
increase (5.6% y/y) during December. <img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/090116c.jpg" align="right" border="0" height="265" width="353">
Shelter prices were unchanged m/m
and the year-to-year gain of 1.9% was the weakest since 2005. As the
housing market remained deeply depressed owners equivalent rent of
primary residence, a measure not equivalent to other house price
measures, rose just 0.1% (2.1% y/y).&nbsp; Public transportation
prices fell for the fourth consecutive month and were up just 1.8%
year-to-year. Recreation prices fell 0.2% and they rose a modest 1.8%
y/y. The chained CPI, which adjusts for shifts in consumption
patterns, fell 1.3%. Less food and energy, chained prices fell 0.3% for
the second month and the year-to-year gain of 1.3% was the lowest since
early 2004. Rethinking the Measurement of Household
Inflation Expectations: Preliminary Findings from the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York is available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr359.pdf">here.</a>
&nbsp;
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80101/@E80101.HTM">Consumer
Price Index</a> (%)</th>
<th scope="col">December</th>
<th scope="col">November</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2008</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Total&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-1.7</td>
<td>-0.1</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>3.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Total less Food &amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Goods less Food
&amp; Energy</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.2</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>-0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Services less Energy</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>2.6</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Energy</td>
<td>-8.3</td>
<td>-17.0</td>
<td>-21.9</td>
<td>13.6</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>11.0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Food &amp;
Beverages</td>
<td>-0.0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>3.9</td>
<td>2.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E801/@E80113/@E80113.HTM">Chained
CPI: Total (NSA)</a>&nbsp;</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>-2.0</td>
<td>-0.5 </td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>2.9 </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Total less Food
&amp; Energy&nbsp;</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>-0.3</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.0</td>
<td>2.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the consumer price index (CPI-U) fell for the third straight month in December. The 0.7% decline followed drops of 1.7% and 1.0% during November and October. Indeed. that, understates the [...]

U.S. CPI Fell A Third Month Due To Lower Energy Prices

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250509A1.jpg

250509C1.jpg

The Industrial Materials Price Index from the Foundation for International Business and Economic Research (FIBER) rose 0.6% (-3.6% y/y) during the four weeks ended May 9, 2025. The improvement followed sharp declines in April.

Miscellaneous group prices increased 2.4% (5.9% y/y) over the last four weeks. Natural rubber price soared 13.9% (11.7% y/y). The price of tallow (used in the soap industry) rose 10.6% (41.3% y/y) in four weeks but the cost of framing lumber declined 5.6%, but rose 7.3% y/y.

Prices in the Metals group edged 0.2% higher (-7.3% y/y) over the most recent four weeks. Variation in pricing was wide. Copper scrap prices rose 7.4% (-3.3% y/y) while lead costs rose 4.0% in four weeks (-11.1% y/y). The cost of aluminum increased 2.3% in four weeks, off 4.4% y/y. Working lower, the cost of steel scrap declined 8.1% (-11.6% y/) in four weeks while tin prices followed with a 4.9% decline (-2.9% y/y). Zinc prices eased 0.7% in four weeks and declined 10.3% y/y.

Crude Oil & Benzene group prices edged 0.1% higher (-19.4% y/y) in four weeks. The cost of West Texas Intermediate crude oil weakened 4.0% to $58.50 per barrel and was 25.6% lower y/y. The cost of the petrol-chemical benzene, used for making plastics & synthetic fibers, strengthened 8.5% (-41.8% y/y) in the last four weeks. Excluding crude oil, the industrial commodity price index rose 0.9% (-2.1% y/y) during the last four weeks.

Textile group prices edged 0.9% lower (-0.5% y/y) during the last four weeks. Burlap costs declined 14.3% (+7.4% y/y) but the cost of cotton rose 4.5% (-7.7% y/y) over four weeks.

The Foundation for International Business and Economic Research (FIBER) develops economic measurement techniques as applied to business cycles and inflation in the U.S. and other market economies. The commodity price data can be found in Haver's **DAILY**, **WEEKLY**, **USECON** and **CMDTY** databases.

250509D1.jpg

250509B1.jpg

- Metals prices are mixed.
- Crude oil prices fall sharply.
- Textile prices ease.

FIBER: Industrial Commodity Price Movement Diverges in Latest Four Weeks

250509L1.jpg

250509M1.jpg

Wholesale trade inventories increased 0.4% (2.2% y/y) during March after rising 0.5% in February, revised from 0.3% after a 0.8% January rise. The increase compared to expectations for a 0.5% rise in the Informa Global Markets Survey and compared to a 0.6% gain in the advance report issued two weeks ago.

Durable goods inventories rose 0.6% in March (1.5% y/y) after rising 0.5% in February. Machinery inventories, the largest sector, increased 0.6% (1.7% y/y) while inventories of motor vehicles & parts, the second largest grouping, rose 1.2% (0.8% y/y). Furniture inventories strengthened 2.7% (6.8% y/y) while electrical equipment inventories declined 1.0% (-3.1% y/y). Inventories of nondurable goods edged 0.1% higher (3.4% y/y). Drug inventories, which make up one-quarter of nondurable inventories, advanced 1.0% (4.6% y/y). Grocery inventories, the second largest category, rose 0.4% (8.3% y/y). Apparel inventories fell 0.8% (-6.5% y/y) and chemical inventories rose 2.1% both m/m and y/y. Petroleum inventories increased 0.7% (0.3% y/y).

Sales at the wholesale level rose 0.6% (6.1% y/y) in March after rising 2.0% in February and falling 0.9% in January. A 0.9% March rise had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey.

Durable goods sales rose 1.0% (8.5% y/y) in March after strengthening 3.2% in February. Sales of electrical equipment & electronic goods, the largest sector, rose 2.5% (20.9% y/y), after a 2.3% rise. Professional and commercial equipment sales, which includes computers, rose 1.2% (11.9% y/y), while vehicle sales declined 1.0% (1.1% y/y). Sales of machinery improved 0.7% (4.2% y/y). Nondurable product sales rose 0.3% (3.9% y/y) in March after gaining 0.9% in February. Drug store sales, the largest category, increased 2.8% (13.4% y/y), while grocery store sales eased 0.2% (+4.3% y/y). Sales of apparel weakened 0.8% (+3.5% y/y) while paper sales declined 1.7% (0.5% y/y). Petroleum product sales fell 4.6% both m/m and y/y.

The inventory-to-sales (I/S) ratio at the wholesale level remained at 1.30 in March and has been moving lower for the last two years.

The wholesale I/S ratio for durable goods eased to 1.69 in March and also has been trending lower. The machinery ratio fell to 2.92 while motor vehicles rose to 1.78. The I/S ratio for nondurable goods slipped to 0.93 and remained down from 1.02 early in 2023. The drug industry ratio eased to 0.94. Apparel's I/S ratio held at 2.06, but remained below its 2.28 level one year earlier, and has been declining since early 2023. The petroleum industry I/S ratio rose to 0.33.

The wholesale trade figures are available in Haver's **USECON** database. The expectations figure for inventories is contained in the **MMSAMER** database. Expectations for sales are from the **AS1REPNA** database.

**Assessing Maximum Employment** from Federal Reserve Governor Adriana D. Kugler is available [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kugler20250509a.htm).

250509N1.jpg

250509O1.jpg

- Inventories trend higher y/y.
- Sales increase broadly.
- Inventory-to-sales ratio steadies.

U.S. Wholesale Inventories & Sales Increase in March

250508N2.jpg

250508O2.jpg

Nonfarm labor productivity fell 0.8% (SAAR) during Q1’25 after increasing 1.7% in Q4’24, revised from 1.5%. A 0.6% decline had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. It was the first productivity decline since Q2’22. The y/y increase during Q1 fell to 1.4% from 2.1% in Q4. It was below a 3.3% high in the first quarter of last year. Productivity fell as real value-added output dropped 0.3% last quarter (+2.2% y/y) after increasing 2.5% in Q4, and hours worked lengthened 0.6% (0.8% y/y) following a 0.8% gain.

Compensation per hour increased 4.8% last quarter following a 3.7% Q4 rise. Despite the strength of these last two increases, y/y growth decelerated to 2.7% from a 6.8% high one year earlier. Nevertheless, the productivity decline raised unit labor costs by 5.7% (1.3% y/y) in Q1 versus expectations for a 5.2% increase. It followed a 2.0% gain during Q4 and was the strongest quarterly increase in a year.

Factory sector productivity surged 4.5% (1.5% y/y) during Q1’25 following three consecutive increases of roughly 0.5%. This strength was accompanied by a 6.2% rise (2.2% y/y) in hourly compensation which came after two consecutive increases of approximately 4.1%. The strength in productivity lowered the rise in unit labor costs to 1.6% from 3.8% in Q4. The y/y gain fell to 0.7% from 2.0% in Q4 and stood below the 6.2% y/y increase in Q1’24.

The productivity and labor cost data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250508P2.jpg

250508Q2.jpg

- Productivity declines with lower output.
- Compensation surge exacerbates labor market stress.
- Factory sector productivity surge lessens cost pressure.

U.S. Productivity Declines in Q1’25; Unit Labor Costs Surge

250508F0.jpg

250508G0.jpg

The National Association of Realtors' Fixed Rate Mortgage Housing Affordability Index (HAI) rose 0.6% (3.2% y/y) in March to 103.2 after rising 0.9% to 102.6 in February and rising 0.8% in January to 101.7. The level of home affordability has risen 14.8% from its low of 89.9 in October 2023. It remains 42.4% below the high of 179.2 in April 2020.

The rise in affordability in March occurred as the median price of an existing single-family home rose 1.8% (2.9% y/y) to $408,000 which was offset by a decline in mortgage rates to 6.73% from 6.92% in February. The price compared to the record $432,900 in June 2024. The decline in mortgage rates compared to a recent low of 6.26% in September of last year and a 7.70% high during October of 2023. It remained well above a December 2020 low of 2.73%. These changes lowered the principal & interest payment by 0.2% (+1.1% y/y) to $2,113 per month. That was well above the most recent low of $984 in February 2020. Monthly mortgage payments averaged a lessened 24.2% of income during March. They remained up from a low of 14.0% of income in April 2020.

The rise in housing costs in March was accompanied by improvement in median family income. It increased 0.4% (4.4% y/y) to a record $104,705 after rising 0.4% in February and 0.7% in January.

Housing affordability improved m/m across the country in March. The index edged 0.1% higher (2.8% y/y) to 134.5 in the Midwest. It remains the most affordable region of the country. In the South, the index 0.9% (5.4% y/y) to 106.6 and the affordability index in the Northeast increased 2.1% (-2.6% y/y) to 95.7. In the West, where homes are the least affordable, the index rose 0.8% (3.3% y/y) to 71.8 in March.

The Housing Affordability Index (HAI) equals 100 when a median-income borrower qualifies for an 80% mortgage on a median-priced existing single-family home. The HAI had exceeded 100 in each month since July 1990 and reached its all-time high of 213.3 in January 2013; since then, it fell below 100 for the first time in June 2022.

Data on Housing Affordability can be found in Haver’s **REALTOR** database. Median home sales prices are also available in **USECON**. Higher frequency interest rate data are found in **SURVEYS**, **WEEKLY**, and **DAILY**.

250508H0.jpg

250508I0.jpg

- Home prices rise but mortgage rates decline.
- Median income improves.
- Affordability increases across the country.

U.S. Housing Affordability Improves Slightly in March

Carol Stone, CBE

250508A5.jpg

250508B5.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance were 228,000 seasonally adjusted in the week ended May 3, down from 241,000 in the previous week, which was unrevised. For the latest week, the Action Economics Forecast Survey had expected a smaller decline to 233,000.

In the week ended April 26, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – was 1.879 million, down from 1.908 million in the April 19 week.

The insured unemployment rate, that is, the number of beneficiaries as a percentage of covered employment, returned to its longstanding rate of 1.2% in the April 26 week; this rate has held that amount since continuously since the week of January 6, 2024, except for the prior week’s 1.3%.

As we do highlight in every week’s discussion, economic conditions vary widely across individual states and territories. In the week ended April 19, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey and Rhode Island (both at 2.48%), California (2.26%), Washington (2.14%) and New York (1.85%). The lowest were in Florida (0.36%), South Dakota (0.37%), Alabama (0.41%), Virginia (0.45%) and Nebraska (0.47%). Rates in other notable states include Illinois (1.78%), Pennsylvania (1.53%) and Texas (1.14%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250508C5.jpg

250508D5.jpg

- Continued claims for unemployment insurance decreased 29, 000 in the week ended April 26.
- Insured unemployment rate returns to longstanding 1.2%.
- Across the states, the insured unemployment rate ranges from 0.36% to 2.48%.

Economy in Brief: January 2009

Jump to: