I went out for pizza the other night, but had to eat it in my car.
That’s because the Frank Pepe’s in Manchester, Connecticut had this sign on its door.
“Attention: Dining Room closed after 4 p.m. today due to staffing shortages.”
So I ate in my SUV, no problem, (the pizza was fantastic), but it made me think 1) this can’t be good for Frank Pepe’s, and 2) the note on the door is literally a sign of the times.
A sign we’re living in a world where supply shortages — employees, oil, semiconductors — are commonplace and impacting the economy to a degree we haven’t seen for decades. The implications on inflation, Fed policy, a possible recession and our global well-being are immeasurable.
Supply constraints are everywhere these days, some Captain Obvious, others more opaque. In some instances economic downturns are caused by drops in demand. That might be the result of a stock market crash like after 1987 or 2000, as consumers have less money to spend. Or it could be an event like the February to April 2020 COVID recession, when people didn’t venture out to buy things.
Supply shocks can cause downturns or recessions, too. “In the 1970s, there were two mega supply shocks,” economist Nouriel Roubini told me during the recent Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit. “One was the war between Israel and the Arab states which led to a spike in oil prices in ’73 and the second one was the [1979 Iranian revolution] which also caused a spike of oil prices. This time around, the spike is not just in an oil crisis, it is natural gas, food, fertilizer, industrial products, and semiconductors.”
Since the onset of COVID, the global economy has been battered by both supply and demand shocks, which have vexed leaders around the globe. The roughly $5 trillion of stimulus our government put into the economy jacked up demand for cars, homes and meme stocks, etc. Given those aforementioned supply constraints, it’s hard to recall a time with such pronounced supply-demand mismatches.
One effect has been inflation, currently running at 8.2% — still hovering near the 40-year high of 9.1% we saw in June. Can we discern how much of that comes from the demand side, how much from supply? Phil Levy, chief economist at Flexport, says that while Europe’s energy problems suggest a supply shock, too much demand is the bigger problem.
“The largest part of what we’re seeing with [higher] prices is coming from demand, which has increased — and supply can’t quite keep up with the pace,” Levy says.
The causes of supply deficiencies
Let’s drill down into those supply deficiencies, the causes of which include the pandemic, the great resignation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, de-globalization and climate change — or some combination of these factors.
This is a global supply problem. How about this recent headline from the Wall Street Journal: “New England Risks Winter Blackouts as Gas Supplies Tighten Grid officials warn of strain as the region competes with European countries for shipments of liquefied natural gas.”
The chip shortage has also been hitting industries across the globe — including the auto business, as GM CEO Mary Barra recently told me. But it’s not just the huge corporations being hit by low chip supplies. My alma mater, Bowdoin College, recently ran into supply-chain snags while trying to complete some buildings.
“Due to chip shortages, the companies that manufacture the controls for our AV systems have announced 12-24 month shipping delays, and we are being warned that networking equipment will be similarly challenged,” Michael Cato, Chief Information Officer. “This complicates our planning in multiple ways including timing for financial budgets and navigating the multi-year timeline of construction projects.”
There might also be a shortage of workers to complete those projects. The great resignation has hit many businesses, but it’s also affecting the government. John McQuillan, CEO of Triumvirate Environmental, which disposes commercial and hazardous waste, has a business that requires government permitting — a process he says has slowed.
“We want to increase our processing capacity, but you have a bunch of regulators who have resigned. The more experienced people tend to be older. I have four or five things pending in the United States, Canada and Mexico right now. And in all of the instances I hear is, ‘We have staffing shortages, the key person has retired, or we’re waiting to hire somebody for that position.’”
What do we have in our anti-inflation toolkit?
What can be done about supply issues? Remembering, they are a significant cause of inflation and possibly a recession. Ideally, the Federal Reserve can moderate inflation by raising interest rates. Unfortunately, the Fed’s traditional tools, raising interest rates and shrinking its balance sheet, are about curbing demand, not increasing supply. That doesn’t mean that policymakers and the private sector are helpless.
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics and professor emeritus at Stanford, writes in Project Syndicate that higher rates and withdrawing liquidity “threaten to push global growth below potential.” “There is another way,” he says, “supply-side measures.” Like what? Spence argues that “creeping protectionism must be reversed,” and urges a removal of tariffs. He also says that efforts must be made to improve productivity. “Many sectors — including the public sector — are lagging, and concerns about the effects of automation on employment persist.”
In a recent report by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, chief economist Marc Jarsulic argues for expanding the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines to reduce labor and manufacturing supply shocks, providing additional support for child and home care to raise labor force participation and reducing limits on working-age immigration to increase labor supply.
“Actions such as these are not part of the standard anti-inflation toolkit, but given the changing economic environment, they ought to be,” Jarsulic says.
In fact all these supply issues may produce a silver lining, argues Financial Times columnist Rana Foroohar in her new book “Homecoming, The Path to Prosperity in a Post-Global World,” who notes: “The supply chain disruptions of the last few years have now lasted longer than the 1973–74 and 1979 oil embargoes combined. This isn’t a blip but rather the new normal.”
The book argues that “a new age of economic localization will reunite place and prosperity. Place-based economics and a wave of technological innovations now make it possible to keep operations, investment, and wealth closer to home, wherever that may be.”
Here’s hoping Foroohar has written the silver lining playbook.
This article was featured in a Saturday edition of the Morning Brief on Oct. 22. Get the Morning Brief sent directly to your inbox every Monday to Friday by 6:30 a.m. ET. Subscribe
Follow Andy Serwer, editor-in-chief of Yahoo Finance, on Twitter: @serwer
The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.
The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.
CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.
This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.
While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.
Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.
The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.
Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.
A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.
More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.
Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.
“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.
“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”
American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.
It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.
“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.
“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”
A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.
Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.
“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.
Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.
With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”
“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.
“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
OTTAWA – Statistics Canada says the country’s merchandise trade deficit narrowed to $1.3 billion in September as imports fell more than exports.
The result compared with a revised deficit of $1.5 billion for August. The initial estimate for August released last month had shown a deficit of $1.1 billion.
Statistics Canada says the results for September came as total exports edged down 0.1 per cent to $63.9 billion.
Exports of metal and non-metallic mineral products fell 5.4 per cent as exports of unwrought gold, silver, and platinum group metals, and their alloys, decreased 15.4 per cent. Exports of energy products dropped 2.6 per cent as lower prices weighed on crude oil exports.
Meanwhile, imports for September fell 0.4 per cent to $65.1 billion as imports of metal and non-metallic mineral products dropped 12.7 per cent.
In volume terms, total exports rose 1.4 per cent in September while total imports were essentially unchanged in September.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 5, 2024.