|
Below is an extract from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on
15th February 2007.
Few commentators on the financial markets have a better understanding of inflation/deflation
than Paul van Eeden. We do, however, take issue with the following extract
from Mr van Eeden's 28th January commentary (http://www.paulvaneeden.com/pebble.asp?relid=641):
"In a hypothetical situation of monetary inflation with no change in the
production of goods and services, prices would increase in direct proportion
to the inflation rate: a 10% increase in the supply of money would cause
a 10% increase in prices for all goods and services."
If inflation actually did operate in the way described above then it would
be much less problematic than it is in the real world. To be specific, if inflation
(growth in the supply of money) resulted in a uniform increase in prices throughout
the economy in proportion to the rate of money-supply growth then anyone with
basic math skills could easily anticipate its effects and plan/act accordingly.
For example, lenders and savers could ensure that they weren't being disadvantaged
by inflation by demanding that interest rates be adjusted in proportion to
the rate of change in the money supply; and salaried workers would know exactly
how much their salaries would have to be increased each year to ensure that
they weren't going backwards in real terms. Also (and perhaps most importantly),
it would be relatively easy to determine which price increases were due to
inflation and which were due to other factors, meaning that price -- the mechanism
via which information on what to produce and how much to produce gets transmitted
through the economy -- would still provide reliable guidance to the producers
of goods and services.
In the real world, however, inflation almost always operates in a non-uniform
manner in that some prices don't rise at all in response to the inflation whereas
other prices experience disproportionately-large increases. Furthermore, the
non-uniformity itself is non-uniform in that the prices that are first to move
and that move the most in response to inflation during one cycle will often
be amongst the latest/slowest movers during the next cycle. At least, this
is the way inflation tends to operate prior to the point where confidence in
the official currency breaks down completely.
An effect of the above-described non-uniformity is that price signals become
confused, leading to the misdirection of investment and, eventually, to a general
fall in productivity (businesses respond to price signals as they always do,
but they have no way of knowing whether prices are rising due to inflation
or due to a real need for greater supply). Another effect is that the link
between cause (money supply growth) and effect (a fall in the purchasing power
of the money) becomes obscured, resulting in attention being diverted away
from the true source of the problem.
The difficulty of seeing the link between cause and effect made possible by
the non-uniform way in which the effects of inflation spread through the economy
is what makes inflation both sustainable over long periods and desirable --
desirable, that is, from the point of view of those who want the ability to
gain votes by making promises that can only be financed via inflation and those
who are in a position to financially benefit from the inflation.
As mentioned by Mr van Eeden in the above-linked commentary, the large and
growing wealth gap is a consequence of inflation. This is because the people
who will generally be in a position to benefit from the inflation -- at least,
up until the point where monetary confidence begins to decline at an accelerated
pace -- are the ones who are already well-off, whereas those at the lower rungs
of the economic ladder will be hit the hardest by the associated declines in
productivity and real wages. There's some irony here in that a large chunk
of the inflation stems from financing the Welfare State, and yet the very people
that the Welfare State purports to help are the ones who tend to be most disadvantaged
by inflation. But, of course, there is nothing unusual about the actual effects
of a government program being the opposite of the intended effects.
Like many of the problems sharing the same cause, barely one in one-thousand
people will correctly view the growing wealth gap as a consequence of the inflationary
policies implemented by the central bank and the government. Therefore, to
the extent that the wealth gap becomes a political football we should expect
that the proposed 'solutions' will involve government programs designed to
improve the lots of the groups perceived to be amongst the most disadvantaged;
that is, we should expect the proposed solutions to involve more inflation-financed
government spending.
Which brings us to our final point: inflation sets in motion a positive feedback
loop in that it causes problems and these problems are used to justify more
inflation, which leads to bigger problems, and so on. But this loop could not
exist if the link between inflation and the pernicious effects of inflation
were readily apparent to most people. That the link is not readily apparent
is, in turn, a consequence of the non-uniform way in which inflationary effects
ripple through the economy.
|