Last year's infatuation with globally synchronized growth was at least understandable. From a certain, narrow point of view, Europe's economy had accelerated. So, too, it seemed later in the year for the US economy. The Bank of Japan was actually talking about ending QQE with inflation in sight, and the PBOC was purportedly tightening as China's economy appeared to many ready for its rebound.

Operating under these assumptions, no wonder all the world is stuck with a labor shortage. We've heard enough about it here in the United States, but the term was applied more universally than that. From last November:

Julian Evans-Pritchard, China economist at Capital Economics, said price pressures in China appeared strong on the back of still-rapid economic growth, a tight labour market, capacity cuts and temporary disruptions to industrial production.

“Price pressures may remain strong for a while longer as the anti-pollution campaign keeps commodity prices elevated and this feeds through into core inflation,” he said.

Still-rapid economic growth? That's where it all falls apart, the mainstream tendency to view relative changes as greater than they ever are. The global economy and China with it wasn't as bad in 2017 as it had been in 2016 or 2015. That should mean something substantial, but in this lost decade plus it really doesn't.

In terms of consumers prices and consumer price indices, it was China's PPI that this kind of commentary leaned on the most. Inflation hysteria was as much Chinese producers as US drug addicts.

But this, too, was a mistaken interpretation. As noted earlier this week, China's upswing isn't near forceful enough to produce the sustained cyclical forces required for the result equivalent to what people are talking about when they invoke globally synchronized growth. Commodity prices are up, but they aren't really up; they are more aptly described as not being down as much.