Conventional economic wisdom, as illustrated by the cover of last week’s The Economist, says deflation is a major threat. However, this blogger, ever the contrarian, figures inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is a more likely threat.
The idea that deflation is a threat appears to be based on the concept of inflationary expectations and the desire by those who make decisions on behalf of he government to maintain mild inflation to help deal with government debt.
That high inflation is a threat is based on the formula MV=PQ, known as the quantity theory of money although I prefer to call it the connectivity formula as it connects the financial and real sides of the economy.
The case for deflation is made in the November 9, 2013 issue of The Economist. (http://www.economist.com/printedition/2013-11-09)
The above formula tells us that the money supply times the velocity at which it changes hands is equal to prices, or a price index, times the quantity of goods and services produced. It is not clear everybody accepts this formula but I think it contains a lot of truth. If one of the four variables changes then to maintain the equality one or more of the others also has to change. For example if the quantity of goods and services goes up then the money supply also needs to go up. If the increase in money supply exceeds the increase goods and services, then velocity must go down or prices must go up. Through recent decades prices have gone up and we have had inflation.
The current economic crisis is probably mostly a crisis in Q. While there are still a lot of mineral and energy resources in the earth’s crust we have extracted the most easily accessible. What is left is difficult to extract and requires a lot of energy. In the past economic growth has covered a multitude of economic sins. It is not clear that the economy will be able to return to the type of growth we have experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.
During the depression of the 1930s the monetary authorities deliberately restricted the money supply (a reduction in M) and this led to a reduction in Q, a recession and a number of financial institutions failed. This time they are not going to make the same mistake and have been trying to increase the money supply calling it quantitative easing. Large amounts of money have been pumped into the economy. Consumer prices have not increased and it is tempting to say the formula is not valid. It could be that velocity has fallen (there are complaints that corporations are sitting on piles of cash) and that price increases have been in paper financial instruments.
We should note that Wikipedia gives four major examples of deflation in American history and all of them involve contractions in the money supply. Maybe the formula holds.
If the formula is correct and with all the excess money floating around the economy, then there is quite a bit of potential for something unpleasant to happen. If not high inflation, then a financial crisis in which the money supply is reduced. In either case the paper used for those financial instruments might have been more useful as firewood.
Inflation is complicated by the fractional reserve creation of money. As can be seen from the formula the money supply needs to flexible up or down according to variations in the quantity of goods and services produced. But our money supply is created when banks make loans upon which interest is charged. Rather than flexibility there is pressure for the money supply to increase continuously. The result is a Ponzi scheme which collapses from time to time. Oops, here comes another financial crisis.
The goal should be price stability or a zero inflation rate. As loans are in nominal terms when prices go up people who have borrowed benefit at the expense of those who have loaned the money. If you are a lender, the higher the inflation rate, the more purchasing power you lose. Deflation works the opposite way, in that a borrower has to repay more purchasing power. As governments are major borrowers it is hardly surprising that those who set economic policy are anxious for moderate inflation. Inflation is a tax if not theft.
Those charged with setting government economic policy fear that low inflation could easily slip into deflation. That would make repaying government debt more difficult and in the past deflation has been associated severe recession. The difference this time is that there is lots of money available to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Hyperinflation would wipe out a lot of savings, fortunes and pensions.
Whatever happens it looks as if there is a lot of potential for increasing economic chaos.
Filed under: Economics | Tagged: connectivity formula, deflation, depression, economic policy, Economics, government debt, inflatinary expectations, inflation, mineral and energy resources, money supply, price index, quantitative easing, quantity theory of money, The Economist | Leave a comment »