Tag: too much money chasing too few goods

–David Malpass: Less money = more money

An alternative to popular faith

On May 26, 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article by David Malpass*, which began : ”When Ronald Reagan became president, the world had too much inflation, i.e. too much money chasing too few goods. Economists argued for higher taxes to sop up extra demand. Instead Reagan chose to cut tax rates to encourage more output and pursued an strong dollar policy. The result was more goods and better balance between the supply and demand for the dollar. The malaise ended 18 months into his administration, with inflation declining gradually for nearly 20 years. We now face a different, equally severe problem – too much government spending and debt.”

See anything wrong with this? Forget, for a moment, the inaccurate definition of inflation (“Too much . . . too little . . .” See: INFLATION ) and think about the overall substance of the paragraph. He begins at the right place (Cutting tax rates) and ends at the right place (encourages more output), but wanders aimlessly and illogically in between.

First, there is no way cutting tax rates can end inflation, simply because cutting tax rates increases the supply of money, and increasing the money supply never has been considered disinflationary by any economist. However, because cutting tax rates increased the money supply, this did encourage output. So, all right, Malpass may have been a bit confused, but at least he arrived at the right conclusion. More money = more production.

But then, in the article, he wanders off again, claiming: “[…] too much government spending and debt.” Huh? After WWII, the Reagan administration began the greatest debt growth in U.S. history, and it was this debt growth that created the mighty engine of economic growth in the 1980’s.

Malpass spends the rest of his article decrying the federal deficit and debt he helped create (“nosebleed levels,” “debt the size of the Grand Canyon”), and even throws in a couple of non sequiturs about bill length (“health care reform . . . a whopping 2,700 pages,” “financial reform . . . 2,000 pages”), while as usual with debt hawks, not providing any evidence whatsoever that federal debt and deficits have an adverse effect on our economy.

He claims the debt and deficit are “starving small business of capital” without telling how an increase in federal money creation could starve anyone of money, and he finishes with this telling statement: “[…] true leadership requires . . . reducing government spending substantially enough to convince the private sector to invest again.”

So, he wishes us to believe that if the government pays less money to soldiers, military equipment manufacturers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, road and bridge and dam builders, farmers, poor people, teachers, home builders, railroad personnel, security-related firms and to all the other businesses selling to the government, the private sector somehow will have more money for investment.

And once again, this is the way our leaders have managed to guide us into an average of one recession every five years.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
*David Malpass was deputy assistant treasury secretary in the Reagan administration, and is president of Encima global LLC, and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in New York.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Another attempt to explain the positive effect of deficits

An alternative to popular faith

I’m searching for a way to explain that contrary to intuition and to what the media and politicians say, large federal deficits are good, not bad. Please read this and tell me whether you believe its clear enough for non economists.

The federal government is unique, far different from you, me, businesses and local governments. Its finances, particularly its deficits may seem counter-intuitive. You may have three fundamental questions about federal deficits:

1. Are large deficits unsustainable? Is there a time when the government will not be able to service its debts?

2. Do large deficits have an adverse effect on the economy?

3. Are large deficits beneficial?

Unsustainable: Visualize a scenario where there are zero federal taxes. The federal government has no income, yet sends you, “Mr. Lucky,” a check for $10 trillion dollars. You will deposit the check in your bank.

Will the check bounce? No. Your bank will credit your account for $10 trillion, then send the check to the Treasury, which will credit your bank and debit its own balance sheets for $10 trillion. You now have $10 trillion in your account, allowing you to buy a few thousand Rolls Royces or the State of Montana, whichever you prefer.

The government can debit its balance sheet and credit your bank, endlessly. The balance sheet is just a score sheet with a number. Whether that number is $10 trillion or $100 trillion makes no difference to the score sheet. The only limit is the artificial “debt limit,” on which Congress votes periodically. There is no functional limit on what any balance sheet can read. The government can write a check of any size, despite zero taxes.

Taxes may be levied for several reasons, but supplying the government with spending money is not one of them. The government creates money by spending. It does not use tax money. Therefore, all federal debt is sustainable.

Adverse effect: One possible adverse effect often mentioned is taxes. (“My children and grandchildren will have to pay for today’s deficits.”) But, we just saw that taxes do not pay for deficit spending. We are the children and grandchildren of the Roosevelt and Reagan eras. We never have paid for those monster deficits. The mantra about children and grandchildren is a myth.

A second possible adverse effect is inflation. Contrary to popular faith, inflation is not “too much money chasing too few goods.” That is an obsolete slogan. Today, we live in a world economy. Given sufficient money, there never can be too few goods in the world to sell. Instead, inflation is loss of perceived money value compared to the perceived value of goods and services.

The phrase, “too much money chasing too few goods,” addresses only supply. Inflation however refers to supply and demand, for money and for goods and services. The demand for money can change without a change is supply, and is related to interest rates. The demand for goods and services can change similarly, but generally increases when money supply increases.

Since we went off the gold standard, in 1971, there has been no relationship between deficits and inflation. In fact, the largest deficits have corresponded with the lowest inflation. See the graph, below:

Instead, inflation has corresponded with oil prices. See how inflation and oil prices move in concert, but oil moves much more, indicating oil prices are “pulling” inflation. (See the chart, below) Oil is the one “good” that can be in short supply and affect the prices of all other goods and services.

Oil prices and inflation

Despite the fact that large deficits have not caused inflation, I suspect there may be a point at which truly gigantic money supply growth could lead to inflation. We’re just nowhere near that point, as witness the current deflationary concerns.

At any rate, if inflation ever did crop up, the government would increase interest rates to increase the demand for money.

Beneficial: New York, a large economy, needs more money than does Peoria, a smaller economy. In fact, by definition, large economies need more money than do smaller economies. So for an economy to go from smaller to larger, its money supply must grow.

If you feel economic growth is beneficial, you also must feel money growth is beneficial. Federal deficit spending is the way the government adds money to the economy to make it grow. Federal deficits are beneficial.

–//–

Does this seem like it would be clear to the average person? What are your suggestions?

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

-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