-Is inflation too much money chasing too few goods?


An alternative to popular faith

In the post “Do deficits cure inflation?” we saw that contrary to popular faith, deficit spending (i.e., too much money) has not caused inflation. We also saw that inflation can be cured by increasing the reward for owning money, i.e. by increasing interest rates.

Now we question another piece of popular faith: Is inflation caused by too much money chasing too few goods?

Begin with the notion of “too much money.” We already have seen that federal deficits are not related to inflation. What about another definition of money: M3? Please look at the following graph:

Clearly there is no immediate relationship between money supply and inflation. What about a subsequent relationship. Could “too much money” today, cause inflation later?

The graph indicates no such cause/effect relationship, with M3 peaks preceding inflation peaks by anywhere from 2 years to 10 years. It is difficult to imagine a graph revealing less relationship.

What about “too few goods”? If too few goods caused inflation, this would manifest itself with GDP moving opposite to CPI. Again, that does not seem to happen:

There seems to be no regular pattern, with GDP and CPI sometimes rising together and sometimes separately. In today’s international economy, it is difficult to substantiate the idea of a wide-spectrum commodity shortage when sufficient purchasing power exists.

Individual nations can experience shortages of individual commodities. Individual poor nations can experience shortages of a broad basket of commodities. But can a wealthy nation, with plenty of money to spend, suffer a shortage of a broad basket of commodities, thereby causing inflation? Has it recently happened?

Seems unlikely these days as products are made in multiple nations and shipped to multiple nations, with easy international shipping and instantaneous money convertibility. Your cotton shirt may have been grown in Egypt, woven in India, assembled in China, labeled in Italy and sold in the U.S. Clearly, a cotton shirt shortage would be rare, as any of these steps could occur in various countries, and that’s just one product. A nationwide “too-few-goods” situation, coincident with “too much money,” seems impossible.

There is however, one exception: Oil.

The graph below compares overall inflation with changes in energy prices, which are dominated by oil prices.

Oil is the one commodity that has worldwide usage, affects prices of most products and services, and can be in worldwide shortage. That is why, when oil prices rise or fall steeply, inflation rises and falls in concert.

The large oil price moves “pull” inflation in the same direction. When oil prices increased or decreased the most, inflation came along for the ride.

In summary, inflation is not caused by deficit spending or by “too much money chasing too few goods.” Inflation is caused by a combination of high oil prices and interest rates too low to counter-balance the oil prices.

The high oil prices can be caused by real shortages and/or by price manipulation.

Hyperinflation is a different beast, altogether. Every hyperinflation has been caused by shortages, most often shortages of food.

Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, and Argentina had food shortages that created hyperinflations.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Open Letter to Maya MacGuineas, President of CRFB

An alternative to popular faith

        On September 23, 2009, Ms. Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, wrote an article titled, “Can Deficits Fix the Economy” (http://crfb.org/blogs/can-deficits-fix-economy). In the article, she agrees on the need for deficit “ . . . spending on public investments . . .” but she expresses concern about the government’s ability to borrow more money. I wrote her the following note:

Ms. MacGuineas,
         In your article, “Can Deficits Fix the Economy,” I’m pleased to see you understand the necessity of federal deficit spending for economic growth. This puts you well ahead of debt hawks like the Concord Coalition, who actually have called for surpluses large enough to eliminate federal debt, demonstrating their misunderstanding of money and its sources.
        Nevertheless, you said, “. . . given how much we have borrowed in the past, there is little room for deficit financing new investments, and I would instead shift our budget by cutting spending on consumption and directing it toward higher levels of public investment. If we had listened to budget scolds in the past, we would have more room on our balance sheet now for government borrowing – unfortunately, we did not.”
         Exactly the same concerns were expressed by many back in 1979, when the debt was less than $800 billion. In the past 30 years, the debt has grown 1,400% and not only does there remain plenty of room on our balance sheets, but the federal government does not need to borrow at all. See the post:
“How to Eliminate All Federal Debt, Deficits and Interest Payments”

        The government borrows by creating T-securities out of thin air, then selling them. The government far more easily could create money out of thin air, and eliminate the borrowing stage. This also would eliminate misguided concerns about our debt and our ability to borrow.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Another reason deficits are necessary

An alternative to popular faith

Here is one of the many reasons federal deficit spending is absolutely necessary — even more so, now — and why trying to reduce the deficit is dangerous and imprudent.

Note how debt growth declines before recessions and increases to cure recessions

Source: Joe Weisenthal and Kamelia Angelova, Clusterstock – Business Insider, September 9, 2009

Economic growth requires spending by consumers, businesses, local governments and the federal government. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses also spend less. The federal government must spend even more to take up the slack.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-An idea for health care insurance

An alternative to popular faith
        A goal is to eliminate the preexisting-medical-conditions penalty from health insurance. But if people wait until they are sick, before buying health insurance, the premiums for everyone will go up markedly. Congress’s solution is to tax anyone who doesn’t buy health insurance, a silly and probably unconstitutional action. If people cannot afford health insurance, it’s hard to see how threatening them with a tax will improve their ability to buy it, and the Supreme Court probably would reject any tax having the sole purpose of advancing a federal law.
        Here’s a thought for discussion: Rather than taxing people who don’t buy health insurance, why not reward people who do? What if the federal government gave every 18 year-old, who buys health insurance, an award of say $5,000. Nineteen year olds would receive say, $4,900. Each year the number would go down by some amount until a person turned 65, in which case he would receive Medicare.
        Anyone who waited until he/she was sick, before buying health insurance, would forgo the years of federal payments, a strong incentive to buy insurance early.
        Health insurance companies would consider only age, when selling policies. Since policies for young people are less costly than those for older people, young people would wind up paying very little, or even making a profit on their policy premiums.
        Yes, this wouldn’t be revenue-neutral, but who else will pay to insure the estimated 40 million uninsured and those with pre-conditions?
        O.K. those are the broad brush strokes. Can you see any way to build on this? What are your thoughts?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http:/www.rodgermitchell.com