Inflation Returns!

Free market economists debate the prospects, fears, and even hopes for rising prices in post-crises America

(Page 4 of 4)

Inflation involves a tradeoff for long-term creditors in mortgage and corporate bond markets. The values of earlier loans or bond issues depreciate, but delinquencies and foreclosures fall as asset values and consumer spending recover. The real value of U.S. Treasury debt also declines with inflation, but other assets will appreciate as consumer spending recovers. Most debt holders should benefit from  moderate inflation, except those whose only investments are U.S.Treasury debt.

Although inflation may be the best way out of a deflationary spiral, the Japanese experience suggests we may not be so fortunate. In 2005, after 15 years of a debt-deflation spiral in Japan, private firms finally became net borrowers (and hence investors) again. Throughout this terribly long and arduous recovery, Japan relied on public spending and an export-driven industrial sector to maintain production and employment and to work off the stultifying debt loads of households and firms from prior asset bubbles. Political consensus for public sector spending over a 15-year period will be difficult to maintain in the United States. Strong exports that helped sustain Japan through the "lost decade" depended on the rapid growth of worldwide demand.Long-standing American trade deficits and the slowing worldwide economy make export-driven growth an unlikely way out of the U.S. downturn.

Declining demand for private credit reduces the money supply, which in turn reinforces the deflationary spiral. Even the large increase in the Federal Reserve balance sheet in September 2008 may not presage inflation. In usual circumstances, the Fed's asset purchases increase bank reserves and lead to more lending, but its recent purchases have not had the usual effects. Banks are reluctant to lend to any but the best credit risks, while many households and firms are reluctant to buy assets in a declining market.Japan has faced this dilemma for almost 20 years now.

If inflation does arise, the excess reserves of banks provide a simple means to contain it.The enormous increase in the Fed balance sheet from about $800 billion to $1,800 billion creates an unprecedented surge in the monetary base, but the Fed could limit the impact of this increase by placing a lower limit on excess reserves and thereby control credit creation by banks. Consequently, it appears now that deflation could pose a more serious risk than inflation.

Steven Gjerstad (gjerstad@chapman.edu) is a research associate at Chapman University. Vernon L. Smith (vsmith@chapman.edu) is a professor of economics at Chapman University and the 2002 Nobel laureate in economics.


The Fed Fears Unemployment More Than Rising Prices
Donald L. Luskin

Inflation is inevitable in the intermediate and long term. Short-term inflation, however, is unlikely, because the recent financial crisis had the deflationary effect of creating enormous global demand for money balances.

The Federal Reserve responded to that demand with an enormous increase in the money supply. Politics and economics conspire to make it unlikely that the Fed will contract that supply rapidly enough to prevent inflation as the crisis ebbs and recovery ensues.

First, the economics. The Fed makes its policy decisions under extreme uncertainty and therefore must err on the side of avoiding unacceptable risks even if that means deliberately taking on acceptable risks. To the Fed, deflation is an unacceptable risk. Most economic historians, including Ben Bernanke, believe that deflation was the greatest single cause of the Great Depression; averting a repetition of that was uppermost in Bernanke's mind as he expanded the money supply so copiously during the last three quarters.

Inflation, on the other hand, is an acceptable risk. While it leads to the diminution of the real value of savings and induces all manner of economic distortions, the Fed feels confident that it is not catastrophic. Thus the Fed will surely keep the money supply extremely generous even as the economy recovers, preferring to accept the near certainty of inflation rather than any risk at all of deflation.

Second, the politics. The Fed is tasked by statute not only with ensuring "price stability"-that is, no inflation -but also with achieving "full employment." As the economy slowly recovers from an unprecedented global recession, the Fed's employment mission may have to take priority over its inflation mission. Unless inflation becomes extreme, employment is a much more potent political concern.

The Fed is likely at some point to judge that the risk of deflation has passed; yet it will not dare to take the restrictive policy actions required to quell inflation for fear of disrupting recovery in the labor market. If Ben Bernanke signals to the Obama White House that he will not support the labor market at the price of inflation, I have no doubt he will be replaced by someone else who will.

Donald L. Luskin (don@trendmacro.com) is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Flat Tax - bring it!

    "The effects of collectivism are inevitably and undeniably destructive."
    F.A. Hayek

  • ||

    Inflation is one of the stealthiest taxes. A more libertarian government would have the currency pegged to something real it can be redeemed for, or at least have laws limiting the average inflation rate to 0%.

  • ||

    Amen, Profeed! Ban the Fed and the IRS! Re-establish the gold standard! Initiate the flat tax! Invest in gold!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I favor a return to the gold standard.

  • Just Passing Through||

    Flat tax?! How about no tax at all.

  • ||

    What the hell is with that guy's hair. Use some conditioner for the love of God.

  • ||

    A government gold standard ain't much better than a government fiat system. A gold standard isn't proof against inflation, unless you went to 100% reserves. But we don't have enough gold in the world to cover the monetary supply, so you can't do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    Free banking is the answer. Get the government OUT of banking, and let a system emerge and evolve from the monetary choices of individuals. Let the market decide, not some anti-social Rothbardian sitting in his mother's basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.

  • Sam Grove||

    How about just freeing us from politically induced standards?

    Such standards are illusory referents, as their value is as subject to market forces as any commodity.

  • josey||

    "A more libertarian government would have the currency pegged to something real..."

    And a real libertarian government would not presume the right to enforce an absolute monopoly on currency. I don't trust the government to dictate the price of my bread, so why should I trust it to dictate the value of my money?

  • ||

    Of course a flat tax.
    With a round number.
    ZERO

  • ||

    Anybody who doesn't think we've already baked hyper-inflation into our currency is economically clueless.

  • Chinese Trade Minister||

    A flat tax too?! Can't you Americans get by just with tire tarriffs?

  • Chinese Trade Minister||

    Never mind. My deputy just explained it to me: "inflation" and "flat". Very funny.

  • Kevin||

    I think Sting sang it best:

    "History... will teach us nothing."

    Or maybe it was Ambrose Bierce who said something about children trying to spell "GOD" with all the wrong blocks.

    Anywhoo... no one has a freaking clue. Someone will be right, and it will be of no more value than praising a broken watch for being right twice a day.

    Which is all the more reason to get the government out of trying to regulate the economy.

  • ||

    John Maudlin has done a very excellent series on articles on the inflation/deflation debate

    http://www.2000wave.com/gateway.asp

    Short answer, you'd better hope they can cause inflation, because deflation would have been worse.

    Longer term though, things will have to change. Debts will have to shrink, and savings will have to go up.

    It's going to be a very tough transition.

  • ||

    Inflation?

    LMFAO at retards like Peter Schit.

    We'll be lucky if we don't see 20% more DEFLATION.

    Milk, dairy, natural gas and other consumable commodities are at 10-yr lows.

    The "inflation" town criers are basically opportunistic goldbugs.

  • Abby Martin||

    We just created an organization to discuss just this! Please visit us at

    http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org

  • </||

    Following Luskin and Schiff's investment advice is a pretty fast way to go broke.

  • </||

    Especially Luskin

  • ||

    Milk, dairy, natural gas and other consumable commodities are at 10-yr lows.

    Yet, oddly, with very few exceptions, the rest of the commodities complex are heading up, with some metals (particularly the "bellwether" copper) up pretty sharply.

    There's a reason why anyone with big dollar reserves is trading them for commodities, especially fuel and metals, as fast as they can. Long-term, the dollar is wrecked.

  • Rice Bingham||

    How long is 'long term'?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Shrike... I would say that I hope you put your money where your mouth is, and prepare for severe deflation like Krugman is telling you to....... But even idiots deserve some mercy, I suppose.

    In other news silver is up nearly $4 an oz since I bought in... Hooray for that.

  • squarooticus||

    Brandybuck:

    so you can't do it without extreme hyper-deflation.


    You mean hyper-*in*flation, right? Because each $ would suddenly be worth a lot fewer grams of gold than it is now.

    not some anti-social Rothbardian sitting in his mother's basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.


    Interesting you should put it this way since Rothbard was a proponent of free banking, not of a gold standard.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "Brandybuck:

    so you can't do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    You mean hyper-*in*flation, right? Because each $ would suddenly be worth a lot fewer grams of gold than it is now."



    No, he had it right... Right now gold is "pegged" at $1000 an oz, let's say. But if we returned to a gold standard now, and divided the supply of money by the US' supply of gold, there would be many times more of the amount of dollars per oz. of gold available - much much greater than $1000 per oz.

    A quick googling says the US reserve is 282,191,696 ounces of gold (8,000 tonnes). So if we set a gold standard again, based on the current M2 money supply - $8.2977 Trillion - that would be about $29,404.47 per Ounce of Gold.

    I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but we're talking about a massive "inflation" of the price in gold.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    oh... oi vey... sorry Brandybuck, I think I misread what you'd said. Anyway... There's some fun math just the same.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    The thing that actually really concerns me is that there's probably no way out of the current financial mess the US is in. Scott Summer takes this Friedman/Schwartz view, which was - as far as I can tell - pretty wrong on the Great Depression in terms of discovering the ultimate causes, and is basically towing the Bernanke line....... It's shit like that that makes me disillusioned with the Chicago School.

    Anyway, I've been thinking about it all a lot lately, and like Peter Schiff, I just don't see how we're going to escape significant inflation but worse I don't see how it's going to be politically viable to do anything about the debt of the unfunded liabilities.

    To some extent, the only thing I can think to do is just bail and go move somewhere else, renounce or evade future US taxes and try to raise a family someplace that doesn't think my life belongs to the overlords. There aren't many really appealing options on the table right now.

  • Brian Defferding||

    "Following Luskin and Schiff's investment advice is a pretty fast way to go broke."

    Gold and other precious metals are at an all-time high right now. Mining stocks are profiting well. Anyone who took Schiff's advice is probably doing great. He is a goldbug, but he's not a goldbug for no reason whatsoever; I'm pretty sure the deficit spending and quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve might have a lot to do with it.

  • mark||

    To some extent, the only thing I can think to do is just bail and go move somewhere else, renounce or evade future US taxes and try to raise a family someplace that doesn't think my life belongs to the overlords. There aren't many really appealing options on the table right now.

    I'm going to reiterate this after they pass ObamaCare, but basically This Is America and it's the Socialists who will have to leave, not me. They can leech off me all they want and I will keep working harder. I will not shug, I will fight to keep this country as free as it can be. There are so many more battles to be fought. Debating is infinitely preferable to despairing. Hold onto your wealth as best you can, but take comfort in the knowledge that wealth is not everything, and in fact you can't take it with you. The journey is just as important as the destination.

    How's that for cliche-based wisdom? Hope it helps, nonetheless.

  • Frank||

    1) How can an economist who supports a central planning authority to set the price of money be considered a "free-market" economist? Or is Reason using Bush's definition?

    2) Why is Schiff the only one that makes a distinction between inflation and price inflation?

    3) I don't know all of the details of Schiff's investments but I know from reading one of his books that his strategy is very similar to mine and I have been doing very well. I think I may take advantage of volatility more than he does (I don't know for sure), selling into strength and buying the dips but it would be hard for me to believe Schiff's clients have lost money if they didn't liquidate their positions late last year.

    ...Rothbardian sitting in his mother's basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.



    Huh?

  • Obama||

    They can leech off me all they want and I will keep working harder.

    Mark, stop by for a beer anytime.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I appreciate the sentiment Mark, and I share it to a large degree, but I don't see how it's smart or moral to accept being leeched from. It's not about money, but about the quality of life I want to provide for myself and my potential family.

    I'm still early in this metaphorical game... I'm 26. I have a lot of life, a lot of social security & FICA, a lot of income tax, a lot of lowered productivity years ahead of me if I stick around and watch this country implode. But worse, I think it's actually going to be a lot more painful than anyone's prepared to acknowledge.

    I'm not sure how to solve that problem...

  • mark||

    I'm 27, so apparently both of us have a lot left to learn. After this whole health care battle is over, I plan on studying philosophy and history. They assigned me Thucydides in college but I never read it; instead I read Ayn Rand. It had some kind of value for me then, but really I would have rather read something more meaningful, and more useful, like the Tao Te Ching.

    I hope to be ready for any possible implosion, but like I said before, This Is America, and I just don't see this country going down the proverbial tubes. Things are going to get worse before they get better, but history shows that they always get better.

    Frankly I would not be so invested in debating politics if I wasn't paying FICA. Now I can, with a straight face, complain that my money is going to GM to buy state-sponsored propaganda during Monday Night Football. And I can find plenty of other people who can appreciate the sentiment. Taxes keep the government accountable, ultimately (which is why I hate inflation, it's so goddamn sneaky).

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Empires rise and Empires fall... Worth checking out and reading upon antiquities historian, John Lewis.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Anyway, I've been thinking about it all a lot lately, and like Peter Schiff, I just don't see how we're going to escape significant inflation

    In the long run we can't. In spite of what anyone in the interviews may have said, sooner or later the cat has to get out of the bag. Unless the whole system manages to collapse first, in which case kitty-kitty is muosh.

    but worse I don't see how it's going to be politically viable to do anything about the debt of the unfunded liabilities.

    The only thing that will be politically viable is adding to the unfunded liabilities. You remember how California got away with that one.


    There is nowhere else to go. I've got (ahem) a few years on you and have been looking for the escape hatch longer than you have. Give it up, you're here and this is it. When it's all said and done, people from third world countries would still rather be here, given the chance. Meanwhile, Europe has decided that its own success just isn't worth anything after all and they wish they could just go back to being a third world rat hole. Which Europe is in the process of doing, and the US seems intent on following a few steps behind.


    My reading of history: the US has survived in the long run only because, every time the government comes up with a way to slam the economy, the economy has managed to grow even faster.

    It's always been the actual way out, and this time is no different. Maybe we'll invent nano-fortified, nuclear powered computer-brained cyborg worker beasts that you can grow bazillions of overnight in test tubes, and they'll just take care of us because that's what they were grown for and besides their heads are full of software.

    Or maybe we'll come up with something even better than that.

  • ||

    Donald Luskin? Do you guys have no self respect at all? Why not just grab a random crack whore and see what she thinks? Luskin is a complete moron.

  • mark||

    That Ayn Rand comment I made was a bit of a cheap shot. Harry Browne said her books were important to him, so I can't just dismiss her out of hand. But it's important to realize that she did not have the Answer to life, only one of many ways to look at it.

  • ||

    Federal Reserve Notes will keep their value as long as the government accepts them as payment for taxes. If it stopped accepting them, and we had to pay our taxes in beaver pelts or other commodities, then the argument our currency's lack of "backing" would start to make some sense.

  • ||

    @ Scrooge

    The politically viable thing might be to issue more debt, but the bond market won't/can't take that much. There's jut no way the rest of the world is going to finance trillion dollar deficits each year for the next 50 years.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But we don't have enough gold in the world to cover the monetary supply, so you can't do it without extreme hyper-deflation.


    What is the downside of hyperdeflation?

  • Frank||

    "Dr. Deflation" (Martin Weiss) Changes His Mind After 27+ Years

    Dr. Martin Weiss has reversed course. He now thinks price inflation lies ahead.

    This is the equivalent of Steve Jobs announcing: "The future of computing over the next decade is with Microsoft Windows 7."

    I have waited for this for 27 years. Better late than never.



    Source

  • ||

    What I got out of this article is that even well respected economists don't have a fucking clue what's going to happen. These guys were all across the map with their predictions, and had varying explanations for their predictions. What bothers my libertarian sensibilities is that the more Keyensian/Krugman-minded economists seem to have much more detailed explanations for their analyses than the free-market-minded ones do. And everyone one knows the world economy is complicated as hell. I would like my beloved free-market economists to show more details than the obligatory "spending=inflation, Fed" rhetoric. I'm free market to the bone, and it's discouraging to see our ideas get hammered.

  • Rodger Malcolm Mitchell||

    Peter Schiff says: "Almost every dictionary defines inflation as an expansion of the money supply, not rising prices." Untrue. Inflation is the loss of money's value compared with the value of goods and services."

    The value of money is based on supply and demand. Increasing the supply does not cause inflation if the demand (interest rates) increases proportionately.

    Peter Schiff says, "Although more money may not immediately translate into rising prices, over time the correlation is extremely reliable." Untrue. Look at a graph of inflation vs. M3 growth and you will see there is no historical relationship between M3 growth and inflation. The reason: Money supply is only half the supply/demand story.

    When the Fed gets a whiff of inflation it raises interest rates, which by increasing the demand for money, increases the value of money (i.e. prevent/cure inflation).

    You can read more about this at: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/46/ and http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/is-inflation-too-much-money-chasing-too-few-goods/

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • ||

    As I read all the bloviating in these essays, my eyes crossed in boredom. I did read all of them, but could have missed what I was primarily looking for (I could not bear to read them a second time).

    While realizing that these writers were trying to be factual, I was hoping to find some reference to the moral issue of the Federal Reserve manipulating what I consider my private property: my money. Why does the libertarian press not discuss the morality of money more often? Would this not put more pressure on politicians and their pet economists to discuss moral issues? I don't expect this kind of discussion from Fox or MSNBC but I wish they would. I wish everyone would, including Reason.

  • battery||

    good,very good post,thanks,it is very useful for me

  • abercrombie milano||

    Federal Reserve Notes will keep their value as long as the government accepts them as payment for taxes. If it stopped accepting them, and we had to pay our taxes in beaver pelts or other commodities, then the argument our currency's lack of "backing" would start to make some sense.
    reply to this

  • batteries||

    very nice,is it not?

  • nfl jerseys||

    tdrgs

  • دردشة||

    Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.a6rbna.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.m-arabi.com

  • دردشة عراقنا ||

    thnx u man

  • حجز فنادق مكة||

    thanks alot

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • منتديات العراق||

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement