|
We occasionally read that deflation is inevitable because the total amount
of debt in the system is so huge. The point will eventually be reached, according
to those who are forecasting a deflationary outcome, when the amount of debt
carried by the average person and the interest burden associated with the debt
is so large relative to his/her income that he/she will be unwilling or unable
to take-on additional debt; and at that time the total amount of money and
credit in the system will begin to contract. That is, deflation* will occur.
No one can predict the future with certainty, but we would be extremely surprised
if the uninterrupted inflation of the past 70 years were followed by a period
of genuine deflation (a prolonged decline in the total supply of money and
credit). One of the reasons this would surprise us is that there IS so much
debt in the system. The high debt levels actually make deflation LESS likely,
not more likely, because the current monetary system -- the world's greatest-ever
Ponzi scheme -- could not survive a bout of genuine deflation. That is, deflation
will never be a viable policy option regardless of how bad things get. Instead,
the central banks of the world will likely risk destroying their currencies
and obliterating the values of their bonds before they will permit deflation
to occur.
The question then becomes: central banks may well WANT to avoid deflation
at all cost, but will they be ABLE to avoid it? Will they be able to implement
policies that cause the currency to lose its purchasing power in an environment
where almost all potential borrowers are 'tapped out'?
We don't really understand why this is even a question because it's such
a basic economic truth that someone with the ability to increase the supply
of some 'thing' by an unlimited amount also has the ability to push the price
of the thing down by as much as they desire. This is true regardless of whether
the thing in question is a dollar or an apple or communications bandwidth.
Central banks have the ability to create currency in unlimited amounts so they
have the power to reduce the purchasing power of currency under any and all
circumstances should they choose to do so.
But assuming the central banks don't just print currency and then drop it
out of helicopters, how would new currency be brought into circulation at a
time when most individuals and corporations were cutting back on their borrowing/spending?
One option would be for the government -- an entity that will always be able
to borrow more currency into existence regardless of its current level of indebtedness
-- to shoulder the entire burden of keeping the supply of money in an upward
trend and the purchasing power of money in a downward trend. But even if the
government decided not to go down this path the central bank would have other
options. It could, for instance, start monetising the mortgage debt held by
private banks.
There is a chance that monetising debt (buying debt with newly printed currency)
would not be effective because it would simply shift debt from the balance
sheets of commercial banks to the balance sheet of the central bank. The debt
would continue to exist and the borrowers -- the people who mortgaged their
houses -- would be in the same financial situation; it's just that they would
owe money to the central bank instead of owing it to private banks.
There is, however, a surer way to get more money into circulation and reduce
the purchasing power of the money. Taking the example of the US, instead of
monetising debt the Fed could monetise assets. That is, rather than buying
mortgages from commercial banks the Fed could buy houses. Furthermore, to achieve
the desired purpose -- a reduction in the dollar's purchasing power -- the
number of houses that would actually have to be bought might not be that great.
The reason is that if the Fed came out and said something along the lines of "for
the next 90 days we will use newly printed dollars to purchase anyone's house
at a price equal to today's market value or the amount owing on the mortgage,
whichever is the higher" there's a good chance that there would immediately
be a substantial devaluation of the dollar relative to houses (and every other
tangible asset).
The time when the Fed needs to resort to such drastic measures in order to
keep the inflation going is probably many years away. The point is, the Fed
does have the power to keep the inflation going and the fact that debt levels
have become so high means it has no alternative other than to keep the inflation
going. Our view, therefore, is that the inflation will continue until the dollar
and all other fiat currencies become so devalued and discredited that they
cease to function as mediums of exchange, or, at least, until inflation fears
become great enough that the current monetary system is abandoned in favour
of something else.
As we've said many times in the past, keeping the inflation going is not
the real challenge for the Fed; rather, the real challenge for the Fed is to
keep inflation EXPECTATIONS in check. In our opinion, the next time inflation
expectations spiral out of control will be the last time because doing what
Paul Volcker did at the end of the 1970s (pushing interest rates to astronomical
heights) is no longer a viable policy option. This is why the Fed's biggest
fear is an uncontrolled rise in inflation expectations.
*Prices go up and down for many reasons, but a price
decline is only associated with deflation if it is CAUSED by a contraction
in the total supply of money and credit. In other words, a price decline
that has not been caused by a contraction in the total supply of money and
credit is not related to deflation in any way.
|