Do interest rate increases fight inflation?

The Federal Reserve fights inflation by raising interest rates. Here is an amalgam of what several sources say”

The Fed’s primary tool it can use to battle inflation is interest rates. It does so by setting the short-term borrowing rate for commercial banks, and then those banks pass it along to consumers and businesses.

That rate influences everything from interest on credit cards to mortgages and car loans, making borrowing more expensive.

Inflation is a general increase in prices. So, how does making borrowing more expensive affect inflation? Shouldn’t an increase in borrowing costs make products and services more expensive rather than less?

The answer is “Yes.” Interest is a cost that manufacturers, farmers, and services must add to prices, so they can make a profit.

The Fed aims to make borrowing more expensive so that consumers and businesses hold off on investing, thereby cooling off demand and bringing prices back in check.

How does reducing investments “cool off demand”? 

Higher interest rates might reduce the demand for large consumer items, like houses and cars. But does reducing investments reduce your demand for food?  Does it reduce your need for oil? For clothing?

Think of everything you buy? Which of those things will you buy less because interest rates went up? Probably, none.

The Fed believes that inflation is caused by (in their words) “an overheated economy.” But what is an overheated economy?  Here is what the Bing Artificial Intelligence (AI) says: 

An overheated economy is when the economy grows too fast. An overheated economy reaches the limits of how much output it can produce to meet the demand from consumers and businesses, as there are minimal unused resources.

In short, inflation is a supply problem. The Fed’s “overheated economy” is one where supply can’t meet demand.

The Fed’s inflation cure is to increase interest rates which reduces business investment and supply.

The Fed hopes that increasing interest rates will reduce demand more than supply, but what do we call reduced demand? Recession.

If the Fed’s approach is correct, we should see two things that we do not see:

  1. We should see that rising interest rates do not cause recessions
  2. We should see that falling interest rates do not cure recessions
  3. We should see that rising interest rates precede (i.e., cause precedes effect) falling inflation.

Look at the graph below, and you will see the opposite. In fact:

  1. Rising interest rates lead to recessions (vertical gray bars).
  2. Falling interest rates help cure recessions
  3. Rising inflation precedes rising interest rates (cause precedes effect).

As for #3, rising inflation precedes interest rate increases because the Fed reacts to inflation increases by raising rates.

Then after inflation begins to come down, the Fed lowers rates.

While the Fed claims that rising interest rates cause inflation to fall, rising inflation leads to higher interest rates.

Imagine the car going faster causes the driver to press the gas pedal down further. Inflation causes the Fed to increase interest.

What is the cause and cure for inflation if interest rate increases are recessionary and don’t cure inflation?

The cause and cure for inflation lie in the supply of oil.

The supply of oil is reflected in its price (black line). The shortages of oil parallel inflation (red line).

As opposed to common knowledge, the Fed’s interest rate increases do nothing to reduce inflation, which parallels oil prices and is determined by oil supply.

To the degree interest rate increases may reduce the oil demand, they cause recessions.

Until renewables become a more significant part of our energy supply, a reduced need for oil will signal recession.

Congress and the President have assigned the Fed the task of controlling inflation. But though the Fed doesn’t have the tools to manage inflation, Congress and the President do.

Short term, there should be federal incentives for drilling and refining oil. Longer term, the efforts to reduce oil usage via renewables should be accelerated with federal subsidies and tax credits.

More significant incentives for electric car purchases and usage, incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear power production would do far more to reduce inflation, without a recession, than interest rate increases.

Congress and the President don’t want the inflation responsibility. The Fed does want the responsibility because it gives them greater power.

Currently, the Fed is like the child sitting in the back seat, furiously spinning his toy steering wheel. He thinks he steers the car, just as the Fed believes it steers the economy, when Congress, the President, and the world’s oil producers steer it.

The Fed’s money tinkering is but a blip on the screen.

Curing shortages, particularly oil shortages, but also renewable energy, food, computer chips, transportation, vital chemicals, and other shortages are needed to control inflation.

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

7 thoughts on “Do interest rate increases fight inflation?

  1. Well-said, Rodger. I’m glad you changed your position on interest rates in recent years. At best, raising interest rates is pushing on a string, and at worst, it is recessionary and counterproductive.

    Like

  2. Indeed, while I used to say that interest rates are a “razor-sharp, double-edged sword”, I now believe they are just as blunt an instrument as taxes are. And while cutting rates is like “pushing on a string”, raising them is like “blunt force trauma” to the economy, that is, they only reduce inflation insofar as they cause a recession. That is, the “therapeutic window” is generally closed for such an intervention.

    Like

    1. I once believed that the logic behind raising interest rates to fight inflation was that higher rates increased the demand for the dollar thereby increasing the value of the dollar. Given the choice between buying (exchanging dollars for) an interest-paying T-security and buying a product, higher rates would influence the buyer to keep his dollars and/or invest in dollar-denominated securities like bonds, notes and bills.

      I have moved from that to the realization that high interest rates actually increase the prices of most products, ranging from houses and cars, all the way down to food and clothing.

      Most importantly, inflation is caused by scarcities, most often scarcities of oil and food, and high interest rates do nothing to mitigate these scarcities. (Is there anyone who doesn’t understand that scarcity causes a price increase?)

      Today’s reduction in inflation, a reduction the Fed claims credit for enabling, has been caused by the reduced scarcity of oil, and not anything the Fed has done.

      The Fed is like the child sitting in the back seat of a car, playing with his toy steering wheel. He thinks he is steering the car, just as the Fed thinks it is steering inflation. All the Fed is doing is reducing economic growth.

      The Fed seems to believe that recession is the opposite of inflation, so that by recessing the economy, they reduce inflation.

      Apparently, they never have heard of stagflation.

      Like

    2. Indeed, the technocrats at the FERAL Reserve got the idea in the 1950s that engineering a recession every few years was necessary to prevent and cure runaway inflation. (And they did.) Nothing can be further from the truth, though. Now they no longer say the quiet part out loud, and disingenuously claim they can use their wizardry to magically engineer a soft landing via interest rates. But their playbook has NOT changed one whit since the 1950s, except very briefly after their embarrassing engineered recession of the 1980s.

      Looks like Gailbraith, along with Ellen Brown and MMT, were largely right all along about interest rates overall.

      Like

Leave a comment