Tag Archives: causes of inflation

Why Do Prices Rise Over Time?

Since 1950, prices in the United States have risen roughly tenfold. Given this history, it would be easy for one to believe that inflation is just a natural part of economic life. But there have been many extended periods in human history where prices were either stable or even declined.

For example, prices in the United States fell at a rate of 1 per cent a year from 1879 to 1897 and then rose at a rate of little more than 2 per cent a year from 1897 to 1914 (Friedman & Schwartz, “A Monetary History of the United States”, page 91).

This begs some obvious questions. Why do prices rise over some extended periods of time and not others? More specifically, why did prices remain relatively stable while the United States adhered to a strict gold standard pre-WWI? In contrast, why did prices rise dramatically in the later half of the 20^th century as the United States abandoned the gold standard?

Milton Friedman famously remarked, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

The long-term economic data clearly supports Friedman’s contention. But, Friedman never adequately explained why this is the case. Why should growth in the monetary base that is in excess of growth in real output lead to rising prices over extended periods of time?

The view of The Money Enigma is that the primary reason that prices rise over time is because growth in the monetary base that is greater than growth in real output acts to reduce the value of money.

The value of money acts as the denominator of the price level: as the value of money falls, prices as measured in money terms rise. If the value of money is relatively stable over time, as it generally was under a strict gold standard, then the price level is relatively stable. However, if the value of money declines significantly over time, as it has tended to do under fiat regimes, then the price will rise significantly.

Why does fiat money tend to lose value over extended periods of time? The simple answer to this question is that maintaining the value of fiat money relies on restricting the growth in the fiat monetary base and, under fiat regimes, the temptation to expand the monetary base is simply too great.

In more technical terms, fiat money is a long-duration, special-form equity instrument and represents a proportional claim on the future output of society. Measured over long periods of time, growth in the monetary base that is in excess of growth in real output will reduce the value of a proportional claim on future output, i.e. it will lead to a decline in the value of money. It is this sustained decline in the value of money that is the primary driver of inflation over long periods of time.

Every Price is a Relative Measurement of Market Value

In most of our daily life, we measure things using “standard units” of measurement. For example, we measure height in inches and weight in pounds. Inches and pounds are useful tools for measurement because they are invariable in the property that they are trying to measure. One inch is exactly the same length as it was yesterday and as it will be one year from now.

In this sense, most of the measurements that we make in our daily can be considered to be “absolute” measurements: they are made using a standard unit of measurement that is invariable in the property being measured.

However, in our economic interactions, the way we measure things is quite different.

The price of a good in money terms is a measure of the market value of that good. For example, if we know that an apple costs one dollar, then that tells us something about the value of apples.

However, while the price of a good is a measure of the market value of that good, it is not an absolute measure of the market value of that good. Why? Price is not an absolute measure of market value because our unit of measurement, “money”, is not invariable in the property that is being measured.

Unlike inches and pounds, which are both invariable in the property they are measuring, money is not invariable in the property of market value.

Therefore, the price of a good is always a relative, as opposed to an absolute, measure of market value.

What does this mean in practice?

If the price of apples in money terms is a relative measure of market value, then this means that the price of apples can rise for one of two reasons. Either (a) the market value of apples rises (each apple becomes “more valuable”), or (b) the market value of money falls (each dollar becomes “less valuable”).

The way that economics is taught today creates the temptation to ignore the second element outlined above. Traditional supply and demand theory focuses on how changes in the supply and demand for a good impact the market value of that good and, therefore, the price of that good.

What is often overlooked in this analysis is that the price of a good in money terms depends just as much on the market value of money as it does on the market value of the good itself. While it may be useful for classroom demonstrations to assume that the value of money is constant, this is not the way the world actually works.

This is particularly the case when we consider what drives prices over extended periods of time. For example, in 1950 apples in Florida cost roughly 20 cents per pound. Today, apples sell for approximately $1.50-2 per pound.

Why did apple prices increase roughly tenfold over the last sixty years? Was there “too much demand” for apples or “too little supply?” Or did something else happen? Maybe the market value of apples, as measured in absolute terms, hasn’t changed that much over that period of time. Maybe, the price of apples has risen tenfold because the value of money (the value of one US Dollar) has fallen by roughly 90% over that same period!

Arguably, the price of apples in money terms has risen tenfold over the past sixty years not because of any significant change in the value of apples per se, but because a dramatic fall in the value of our unit of measurement, i.e. a dramatic fall in the value of money.

Ratio Theory: The Price Level is a Relative Measure of Market Value

So far, we have focused only on the price of one good, the price of apples. The price of apples in money terms measures the market value of apples in terms of the market value of money. Therefore, the price of apples can rise either because (a) apples become more valuable, or (b) money becomes less valuable.

In this sense, the market value of money acts as the denominator of the price of apples. All else remaining equal, if the market value of money falls, the price of apples, as measured in money terms, will rise.

If this observation is true for the price of apples, then it is also true the price of every other good in the economy, i.e. the market value of money is the denominator of every money price in the economy.

The price of apples, the price of bananas, the price of milk… all of these prices, as expressed in money terms, are determined by both the market value of the good itself (apples/bananas/milk) and the market value of money. All else remaining equal, if the market value of money falls, then the price of all these goods, as measured in money terms, will rise.

Now, let’s think about what determines the price of a typical basket of goods, or what is often known as “the price level”.

Clearly, if the value of money is the denominator of the every money price in the economy, then the value of money is also the denominator of the price level. All else remaining equal, as the value of money falls, the price of the basket of goods will rise.

The price level is a relative measure of market value. The price level measures the market value of the basket of goods in terms of the market value of money. In this sense, we can think of the price level as a ratio of two values. The price level is determined by the ratio of the market value of the basket of goods (the numerator) divided by the market value of money (the denominator).

The key to “Ratio Theory”, as illustrated in the slide above, is isolating the market value of goods from the market value of money by measuring both in terms of a “standard unit” for the measurement of market value. Just as we measure height and weight in terms of a standard unit, so we can, at least theoretically, measure the property of market value in terms of standard unit, i.e. a unit that is invariable in the property of market value. For more on this topic please read “The Measurement of Market Value: Absolute, Relative and Real”.

In simple terms, the Ratio Theory of the Price Level implies that the price level can rise for one of two basic reasons. Either (a) the basket of good and services becomes more valuable, or (b) money becomes less valuable.

Now let’s return to original question. Why do prices rise over some periods of time and not others? More specifically, why were prices relatively stable under a gold standard and why did prices rise dramatically once the gold standard was abandoned?

The Gold Standard and Price Stability

Speaking in general terms, history indicates that prices tend to more stable, when measured over long periods of time, under a gold standard than they are under fiat monetary regimes. This is not to say that prices don’t fluctuate under a gold standard nor that there is no inflation under a gold standard, but it is true, as a general rule, that inflation has been systematically lower under true gold standard regimes than it has been under fiat money regimes.

So, why do prices tend be stable over long periods of time under a gold standard?

The view of The Money Enigma is that the main difference between a fiat money regime and a gold standard system is that, under the gold standard, the value of money is relatively constant as its value is tied to gold. Therefore, the denominator in our price level equation tends to be stable over long periods of time and the price level itself is relatively stable.

In contrast, under a fiat money system, the value of money tends to decline over time for reasons that we shall discuss shortly. As the denominator in our price level equation declines, sometimes precipitously, the price level rises.

The key principle of a gold standard is that each dollar is exchangeable for some fixed amount of gold. Under a gold standard, paper money has value because the issuing authority has made an explicit promise that paper notes are convertible into a fixed amount of gold on request.

Therefore, the value of each note is tied directly to the value of the gold. As the value of gold rises, the value of money rises. As the value of gold falls, the value of money falls.

Measured over long periods of time, the value of gold tends to be relatively stable. There are good reasons for this, as discussed in a recent post titled “What Determines the Price of Gold?”

In simple terms, gold acts a constant in sea of economic variables. More specifically, the stock of gold is relatively constant over time and, perhaps more importantly, its growth is very predictable. While the value of gold does fluctuate, gold is still the closest thing that we can find to an economic constant, especially when considered over long periods of time.

The value of gold is susceptible to sudden increases in supply, i.e. new discoveries. For example, when the New World was discovered, a large influx of gold and silver into Europe led to the “Price Revolution”. The new supply of gold and silver led to a gradual fall in the value of gold and prices, as measured in gold terms, rose roughly six-fold over a 150 year period. Nevertheless, that rate of inflation only amounted to 1-1.5% per year!

The point is that prices tend to be stable under a gold standard because the value of gold tends to be stable and, therefore, the value of money tends to be stable. If the value of money, the denominator in our price level equation, is relatively stable over time, then the price level itself is relatively stable. Economic cycles of excess demand and excess supply may lead to variations in the value of the basket of goods, the numerator in our equation, but it is the value of money, the denominator in our equation, that is the key determinant of inflation when measured over long periods of time.

Fiat Money Regimes and Inflation

If prices are relatively stable under a gold standard, then why do prices tend to rise under fiat money regimes?

Almost universally, fiat money regimes have experienced levels of inflation that are far above long-term historical averages. For example, prices in the United States pre-WWI were relatively stable, but then exploded higher in the second half of the 20^th century.

But why is this the case?

Once again, I would encourage readers to look at the price level equation below and think about what is likely to be the key difference between a gold standard system and a fiat money system.

Does seem reasonable to believe that the key difference between periods of low inflation and high inflation is the numerator in our equation? Was the value of the basket of goods relatively stable pre-WWI, but then, for some reason, broke with history and exploded higher in the second half of the 20^th century?

Or is it more plausible to believe that the difference between the two periods was the denominator in our equation, the value of money?

The view of The Money Enigma is that it is the denominator, not the numerator, which is the key driver of the price level as measured over long periods of time. More specifically, it was the collapse in the value of fiat money in the second half of the 20^th century that led to inflation well above historical averages.

Under a strict gold standard, the value of money is tied to the value of a gold and, consequently, its value tends to be relatively stable. In contrast, the value of fiat money is not pegged to the value of any real asset. Indeed, fiat money is, at least superficially, just a piece of paper.

So why does fiat money have any value and why does that value tend to decline over time?

The first part of that question is an issue that we have addressed in detail on several occasions. I would encourage people who are genuinely interested in this topic to read two recent posts, “Why Does Money Exist? Why Does Money Have Value?” and “The Evolution of Money: Why Does Fiat Money Have Value?”

In simple terms, under a gold standard, paper money represented an explicit contract that promised that it could be exchanged for gold. When the gold standard was abandoned, the explicit contract that governed paper money was rendered null and void.

So, why did paper money retain any value? It retained value because the explicit contract was replaced by an implied-in-fact contract, or “social contract”, between the holders of money and the issuer of money.

What is the nature of the implied contract that governs fiat money?

Again, this is a lengthy subject that is discussed in the “Theory of Money” section of this website. But, in simple terms, fiat money is a financial instrument: it has value as an asset to one party because it represents a liability to another party. More specifically, fiat money is a liability of society and a proportional claim on the future output of society.

This is a complicated idea, but there is a simple analogy that we can use to help us think about what determines the value of fiat money.

In many ways, fiat money is like shares of common stock. A share of common stock represents a proportional claim on the future residual cash flows of a company. In contrast, one of fiat money represents a proportional claim on the future output of society.

Over an extended period of time, if a company grows its earnings faster than it grows shares outstanding, then the value of the stock will rise. Conversely, if over a lengthy period, a company grows it shares outstanding faster than it grows its earnings, then the value of its shares will fall. Why? Each share is a claim on earnings and, ultimately, the value of each share depends on the earnings per share.

Similarly, if over an extended period of time, a society grows its real output faster than it grows its monetary base, then the value of each unit of the monetary base will rise, i.e. the value of money will rise and, all else equal, the price level will fall.

This doesn’t happen very often, especially under fiat money regimes. Rather, most of us are more familiar with the alternative scenario.

If over a long period of time, a society grows its monetary base faster than real output, then the value of money will fall. Why? The value of money falls because money, the monetary base, derives its value from an implied-in-fact contract. More specifically, money represents a proportional claim on future output. In general terms, as real output per unit of money falls, the value of money falls and, all else remaining equal, the price level rises.

In summary, the primary reason that prices tend to rise under fiat money regimes is that, over long periods of time, fiat money regimes tend to grow the monetary base at a rate that is faster than the growth in real output. Fiat money is a financial instrument and represents a proportional claim on future output. All else remaining equal, as the “real output/base money” ratio declines over time, the value of fiat money declines.

The key difference between a gold standard regime and a fiat money system is the behavior of the value of money over long periods of time.

Under a gold standard, the value of money is relatively stable because it is tied to the value of gold. In a fiat money system, the value of money is heavily influenced by political process and the “needs/wants” of our society. Inevitably, as central bankers acquiesce to the needs of the people, the monetary base grows at much faster rates than real output, leading to a decline in the value of money and a rise in the general price level.

Author: Gervaise Heddle

Does “Too Much Money” Cause Inflation?

Does money have any role in the determination of inflation? Does printing too much money cause inflation? And what does it mean to say “too much money”? “Too much” relative to what?

Milton Friedman once famously observed, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Less well known is his qualification to this statement. Friedman’s full observation was “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” (Friedman, “Money Mischief”, page 49)

Friedman’s qualification helps us narrow down our original question to the following, “Does too much money, relative to output, cause inflation?” Alternatively, we could ask, “Does growth in the monetary base that is significantly in excess of growth in real output cause inflation?”

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that, when measured over long periods of time, growth in the monetary base that is significantly in excess of growth in real output does lead to a concomitant rise in the price level. In this sense, Friedman’s observation appears to be correct.

However, over short periods of time, this relationship does not appear to hold. For example, over the past six or seven years, the monetary base of the United States has quadrupled, while real output has grown only modestly: yet the price level has barely moved higher.

So, why is this the case? Why does the quantity theory of money work over long periods of time, but not over short periods of time?

The view of The Money Enigma is that, over short periods of time, the primary driver of inflation is not the change in the current ratio of “base money/real output”, but the change in the expected 20-30 year future ratio of “base money/real output”. In other words, it is not the current level of growth in money relative to output that matters, but rather the expected long-term future growth of money relative to output that matters.

In this sense, it is not “too much money” that causes inflation, but the expectation of “too much money” being created over the next 20 years that matters.

Why might market participants suddenly expect a society to create too much money (relative to output) in the future? There are many possible reasons, but obvious reasons might include war, a secular decline in productivity, economic mismanagement, or just the sudden realization that a country has been living way beyond it means.

Inflation and the value of money

In the academic world, fashions come and go. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was much discussion about the role of money in the determination of inflation, a discussion that was led by the great minds of that time including Milton Friedman, Anna Schwartz and Philip Cagan.

Fast forward nearly fifty years, and it is not fashionable to discuss the role of money in the determination of the price level. Indeed, there is a view among many economists (notably, New Keynesian economists) that money is almost irrelevant to the discussion and that the size of the monetary base is only important in so far as it influences interest rates.

This is despite the fact that one of the strongest empirical relationships in economics remains the long-term correlation between the price level and the ratio of base money to real output. As Friedman once put it, inflation “…is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” This sentiment is clearly supported by the long-term data.

So, why is there such a disconnect? Why do academic economists largely dismiss the important role that the money/output ratio has in the determination of inflation?

First, the correlation between the price level and the money/output ratio breaks down in the short term. Although the quantity theory of money is valid over very long periods of time, it doesn’t work over short periods of time. Therefore, most economists feel comfortable ignoring quantity theory in their short-term forecasting of inflation.

Second, mainstream economics does not recognize the important role that the value of money plays in the determination of the price level. According to the orthodox view, the “value of money” has nothing to do with price determination!

Indeed, mainstream economics does not officially recognise the “market value of money” as a variable in any of its equations. Mainstream economics does not recognise the “market value of money” as a relevant economic variable because the view of mainstream (Keynesian) economics is that supply and demand for money determines the interest rate.

The view of The Money Enigma is that supply and demand for money (the monetary base) determines the market value of money (not the interest rate). In turn, the market value of money is the denominator of every money price in the economy and, therefore, is the denominator of the price level.

This general issue was discussed in a recent post titled “The Interest Rate is Not the Price of Money“. But rather than dwell on Keynesian theory, let’s briefly discuss how prices are determined at both a micro and macro level and then use this to continue with our discussion of the relationship between money and inflation.

What is a “price” and how is a price determined?

Price determination is a subject that we have discussed extensively over the past few months, so I don’t want to dwell on it in this post. We will discuss the basic principles today, but if you want more detail you should read the following posts:

“Every Price is a Function of Two Sets of Supply and Demand” (01/20/15)

“The Measurement of Market Value: Absolute, Relative and Real” (04/21/15)

“A New Economic Theory of Price Determination” (04/28/15)

In simple terms, the view of The Money Enigma is that every price is a relative expression of the market value of two goods.

Consider a simple exchange of two goods. Both goods must possess the property of market value in order for them to be exchanged. The price of the exchange simply measures the market value of one good in terms of another: the market value of a “primary good” in terms of the market value of a “measurement good”.

In our modern money-based economy, the measurement good most commonly used is money. The price of a good, in money terms, simply reflects the market value of the good relative to the market value of money. For example, if the price of a banana is $2, then we can say that the market value of one banana is twice the market value of one dollar.

The key point is that the price of a banana, in money terms, is a relative measure of value: it is determined not just by the market value of the banana (which can rise and fall) but also the market value of money (which can also rise and fall). If the market value of money falls, then, all else remaining equal, the price of the banana in money terms will rise.

In this sense, the market value of money is the denominator of every “money price” in the economy. In mathematical terms, the price of a good, in money terms, is a ratio of the market value of the good divided by the market value of money.

The trick to expressing this in terms of mathematical formula is recognizing that market value can be measured in the absolute. Just as we can measure any physical property in the absolute by using a “standard unit” of measurement for that property, so market value can be measured in the absolute by using a “standard unit” of measurement for market value.

The height of a tree can be measured using a standard unit for the measurement of height, namely “inches”. An “inch” is an invariable measure of the property of height. In economics, we can create an invariable measure of market value: a standard unit” for the measurement of market value that possesses the property of market value and is invariable in this property. Since no good exists that is invariable in market value, we need to create a theoretical measure, called “units of economic value”.

Once we have a standard unit for the measurement of market value, we can measure the market value of both goods being exchanged in terms of this standard unit. In other words, we can measure the market value of both goods in absolute terms.

This raises an obvious question: how is the market value of a good determined? In this respect, we can adapt an old paradigm: the market value of a good is determined by supply and demand for that good. If we plot supply and demand for each good in terms of our standard unit of market value, then we can see that the price of the primary good (good A) in terms of the measurement good (good B) is a function of two sets of supply and demand.

Supply and demand for the primary good (good A) determines the market value of the primary good. Supply and demand for the measurement good (good B) determines the market value of the measurement good. The price of the primary good in terms of the measurement good (the price of A in B terms) is the ratio of the market value of the primary good divided by the market value of the measurement good. This is a universal theory of price determination that we can apply to the determination of barter prices (good/good prices), money prices (good/money prices) and foreign exchange rates (money/money prices).

In a money-based economy, the price of a good, in money terms, is determined by the ratio of the market value of the good divided by the market value of money.

We can extend this microeconomic principle to a macroeconomic description of price level determination. If the market value of money is the denominator of every “money price” in our economy, then the market value of money is the denominator of the price level. (Remember, the price level is nothing more than a hypothetical measure of overall money prices for the set of goods and services that comprise the “basket of goods”.)

Once again, if we measure the overall market value of goods and services in terms of a standard unit of market value and denote this as V_G, and we measure the market value of money in terms of the same standard unit and denote this as V_M, then the price level is simply a ratio of V_G and V_M.

Ratio Theory of the Price Level simply states that the price level depends upon both the overall market value of the basket of goods and services and the market value of money. If the market value of the basket of goods and services is relatively stable over time, then the price level will be primarily determined by the direction of the market value of money. If the market value of money falls significantly over time, then the price level will rise significantly over that same period of time.

The determination of the market value of money

The view of The Money Enigma is that the market value of money is the denominator of every “money price” in the economy: the price of a good, in money terms, depends upon both the market value of the good and the market value of money.

If this theory is correct, then the market value of money plays a critical role in the determination of the price level and inflation. So, what determines the market value of money?

We have already hinted at part of the answer: supply and demand.

If every price is a function of two sets of supply and demand, then every money price must be a function of two sets of supply and demand. More specifically, the price of good A, in money terms, depends upon both supply and demand for good A and supply and demand for money (the monetary base).

As discussed in the introduction, the view of The Money Enigma is that supply and demand for money (the monetary base) determines the market value of money, not the interest rate. (The interest rate is determined by supply and demand for loanable funds).

While this might be an interesting first step, it really doesn’t tell us much about the factors that influence the value of money. In order to understand the specific factors that determine the market value of money, we need to develop a deeper understanding of what money is.

Over the past two weeks, we have discussed the nature of fiat money at length. In the first post, “The Evolution of Money: Why Does Fiat Money Have Value?” we traced the evolution of money from “commodity money” to “representative money” and finally to “fiat money”.

In that post, it was argued that representative money derives its value from an explicit contract: representative money is just a piece of paper that promises the holder of that piece of paper a real asset (normally, gold or silver) when that piece of paper is presented to its issuer.

When the gold/silver convertibility feature was removed, i.e. when the explicit contract was rendered null and void and the representative money became fiat money, the explicit contract was replaced by an implied-in-fact contract. In this way, fiat money derives its value contractually. Every asset derives its value from its physical properties (it is a real asset) or from its contractual properties (it is a financial instrument). Fiat money is not a real asset. Therefore, fiat money must be a financial instrument that derives its value from its contractual features.

The nature of the implied contract that governs fiat money was explored in a second post, “What Factors Influence the Value of Fiat Money?” While it is difficult to speculate on the exact nature of the implied contract, we can leverage finance theory to guide us in the right direction.

The view of The Money Enigma is that fiat money is a special-form, long-duration equity instrument issued by society. More specifically, fiat money represents a proportional claim on the future output of society.

And this brings us to the crux of the issue: what determines the value of fiat money and, consequently, the level of money prices in the economy?

If money is a proportional claim on the future output of society, then its value depends, at least primarily, upon future expectations of (1) real output, and (2) the size of the monetary base. Moreover, if money is a long-duration asset, then its value depends upon expectations regarding the long-term (20-30 year) path of these two important variables (real output and base money).

If the market suddenly decides that long-term (20 year) real output growth will be higher than previously anticipated, then the value of a proportional claim on that future output should rise (the market value of money should rise). All else remaining equal, the value of money will rise and the price level will fall.

In this example, there has been no change in current levels of real output or the monetary base, yet the price level has fallen. Why? The price level falls because it depends on the market value of money (the market value of money is the denominator of the price as per “Ratio Theory”). In turn, the market value of money depends upon long-term expectations. Current conditions really only matter to the market value of money to the degree that they impact expectations of long-term conditions. This is true of the value of any long-duration asset: current conditions are only important to the value of a long-duration asset in so far as they impact long-term expectations.

Now, let’s consider what happens if the market suddenly decides that the long-term growth rate of the monetary base will be much higher than previously anticipated. If money is a proportional claim on output, then more claims at some future point will mean that every claim is entitled to a smaller proportionate share of output at that future point. If the market decides that the future value of money will be lower, then this will have an immediate negative impact on the current value of money. Why? In simple terms, the market value of money depends upon a chain of future expectations regarding the future value of money.

Admittedly, this is a complicated concept and one that is explored in much greater detail in The Velocity Enigma, the third and final paper of The Enigma Series.

The key point that I wish to highlight is that, if proportional claim theory is correct, then the current market value of money depends upon the expected long-term path of both real output and the monetary base. Furthermore, since the market value of money is the denominator of the price level, the price level itself also depends upon the expected long-term path of both real output and the monetary base.

Bearing this in my mind, let’s return to our original question.

Does “too much money” cause inflation?

There can be little doubt that, over long periods of time (30 years+), growth in the monetary base that is greatly in excess of growth in real output will lead to a rise in the price level. There is strong empirical support for this observation.

This observation sits neatly with the theory that money is a proportional claim on the output of society. Over long periods of time, if the number of claims on output grows at a substantially faster rate than output, then the value of each claim should fall. In other words, if the monetary base grows at a substantially faster rate than output, then the market value of money should fall and the price level should rise (the market value of money is the denominator of the price level).

On the other hand, there is also compelling evidence to indicate that, over short periods of time, a dramatic increase in the monetary base can have little to no impact on the market value of money, even if the increase in the monetary base dwarfs any increase in real output during that same period of time.

This phenomenon has always been harder for economists to explain, but it can be explained by the theory that money is a special-form equity instrument and a long-duration, proportional claim on the future output of society.

If money is a long-duration, proportional claim on output, then the value of money will only be sensitive to changes in current levels of real output and the monetary base to the degree that changes in current levels impact expectations regarding the long-term path of both real output and the monetary base.

We can use a simple analogy from finance: the value of shares. The value of a share of common stock depends on the expected future cash flows that will accrue to the holder of that share. More specifically, a company’s stock price depends little on current earnings or current shares outstanding. Rather, the stock price is determined by expected long-term earnings per share. Therefore, it is the long-term path of both net earnings and shares outstanding that matter to the current value of a share of common stock.

Similarly, money is a long-duration asset and its value is primarily driven by expectations of the long-term real output/base money ratio, not by the current real output/base money ratio.

This has one important implication regarding market perception of monetary policy and its impact on inflation. If the market believes that a sudden rise in the monetary base is only “temporary” (it will be reversed in the next few years), then such an increase in the monetary base should have little to no impact on the value of money and, therefore, little to no impact on the price level.

However, if the market believes that a sudden rise in the monetary base is more “permanent” in nature, then that increase in the monetary base should lead to a fall in the value of money and a rise in the price level.

The view of The Money Enigma is that the dramatic increase in the monetary base in the United States has had little impact on the market value of the US Dollar (and little impact on the price level) because market participants believe that the increase is “temporary” in nature.

In slightly more sophisticated terms, the extraordinary actions of the Fed have not changed the market’s view regarding the long-term (20-30 year) path of the real output/base money ratio. Most market participants remain optimistic that real output will grow at solid rates for he next 30 years, even while the monetary base is reduced or at least capped at current levels. This has put a floor under the value of the US Dollar and a lid on the price level.

However, what happens if market expectations change? What will happen if the market becomes more pessimistic regarding the long-term economic prospects of the United States?

If market participants begin to believe that the Fed is unwilling or unable to reduce the monetary base, then this shift in expectations will begin to put downward pressure on the value of money and upward pressure on the price level. This fall in the value of money will be compounded if the market becomes more pessimistic about the long-term rate of real output growth in the United States. If this were to occur, then a return to double-digit levels of inflation is quite possible.

Price Determination in a Barter Economy

How are prices determined in an economy with no money? Let’s put that question another way. How are prices determined in a genuine barter economy where there is no commonly accepted medium of exchange?

You might think that this would be one of the first issues discussed in a standard microeconomics textbook. After all, once we can understand how prices are determined in an economy with no money, then surely we can extend this paradigm to price determination in a modern economy that does use money.

You would be wrong.

Microeconomics textbooks avoid this problem like the plague, and with good reason: mainstream economics today does not offer a sensible model of price determination in a barter economy. It is this failing to understand price determination at its most basic level (at the level of a barter economy) that has led to the one-sided perspective of price determination that is taught today.

The view of The Money Enigma is that every price is a relative expression of two market values. Moreover, every price is a function of two sets of supply and demand: supply and demand for the “primary good”, and supply and demand for the “measurement good”.

Nowhere can this theory be more clearly illustrated than in a barter economy.

In our modern society, we take it for granted that prices are expressed in money terms. A bunch of bananas might cost $3, while a can of beans might cost $1.50. But it wasn’t always so.

Before the introduction of fiat currencies, and before the widespread use of gold and silver as a medium of exchange, prices weren’t expressed in terms of “x dollars” or “y coins of silver”. In a genuine barter economy, with no commonly accepted medium of exchange, every good would have hundreds, if not thousands, of different prices.

For example, in a genuine barter economy, the price of one apple might be measured in terms of cups of rice, handfuls of beans or a certain number of bananas. It is impossible to say what “the price of apples” is without making an explicit reference to the other good that is being traded. We can’t say the price of apples is “three”. The price of apples may be “three bananas”, but it may only be “one cup of rice”. In a barter economy, every good has a whole set of different prices reflecting the fact that its price can be measured in terms of a whole range of other goods.

So, how are all these different prices determined in a barter economy? For example, what determines the price of apples in a barter economy? A modern-day student of economics would probably answer “supply and demand for apples”. But this misses a critical point: there are many different prices for apples. For example, does supply and demand for apples determine the price of apples in banana terms or the price of apples in rice terms?

Clearly, the answer is more complicated than just “supply and demand for apples”. The correct answer is that every price is determined by two sets of supply and demand: supply and demand for the “primary good” (in this case, apples) and supply and demand for the “measurement good” (in this case, that might be bananas or rice or some other good).

The price of apples (the “primary good”) in banana terms (the “measurement good”) depends upon the market value of apples and the market value of bananas. The reason for this simple: price is a relative expression of the market value of two goods. The market value of apples is determined by supply and demand for apples. The market value of bananas is determined by supply and demand for bananas. The price of apples in banana terms is a relative expression of these two market values. Hence, the price of apples in banana terms is determined by two sets of supply and demand. This is illustrated in the diagram below.

The trick to illustrating this concept is recognizing that market value can be measured in both absolute and relative terms. In the diagram above, the market value of both goods is measured in absolute terms. In other words, the y-axis in both diagrams above uses an invariable measure of market value to measure the market value of apples on the one hand and bananas on the other hand.

Unfortunately, the measurement of market value in absolute terms is a difficult concept for most people to understand (it is a concept explored at length in The Inflation Enigma). So let’s think about price determination in a barter economy in more simple terms by answering the following two-part question. In a barter economy with no commonly accepted medium of exchange:

How is the price of apples in banana terms determined?
How is the price of bananas in apple terms determined?

These are both perfectly valid questions that microeconomics should be able to answer. In a barter economy, the price of every good can be expressed in terms of every other good (every good other than itself). Apples will have many prices, one of which is the price of apples in banana terms. Similarly, bananas will have many prices, one of which is the price of bananas in apple terms.

The simplistic and incomplete answers to the questions above would be:

The price of apples is determined by supply and demand for apples.
The price of bananas is determined by supply and demand for bananas.

Can you see what is wrong with these two answers?

The problem is that they are, in effect, different answers to the same question.

The price of apples in banana terms is merely the reciprocal of the price of bananas in apple terms. For example, if the cost of one apple is three bananas, then the cost of one banana is one third of an apple.

The answers given above suggest that one set of market forces (supply and demand for apples) determines the first price and another entirely different set of market forces (supply and demand for bananas) determines the second price. But this simply can’t be the case. Both prices must be determined by the same set of market forces because the two prices are merely different ways of saying the same thing.

So, let’s try again. What determines the price of apples in banana terms? Is it supply and demand for apples, or is it supply and demand for bananas? The answer is both. The price of apples in banana terms is determined by both supply and demand for apples, and supply and demand for bananas.

Conversely, the price of bananas in apple terms is determined by both supply and demand for bananas and supply and demand for apples. It must be because this price is merely the reciprocal of the “apples in banana terms” price. In terms of the diagram above, the price of bananas in apple terms would be denoted P(B_A) which is equal to V(B) divided by V(A).

What makes this theory really interesting is that we can extend this model of price determination to a money-based economy.

Imagine that over time, bananas become accepted as the medium of exchange in our barter economy. Suddenly, we can speak of the value of all things in “banana terms”. Does the adoption of a medium of exchange change the way that prices are determined? No. The price of apples, in banana terms, is still determined by supply and demand for apples, and supply and demand for bananas. All that has happened is that bananas are now “money” (at least in one sense of that term).

The implication of this is that supply and demand for money determines the market value of money, the denominator of every “money price” in the economy. This is true whether money is bananas, gold or the fiat currency that we use today.

As a consequence, we can say that the price of apples, in money terms, is determined by both supply and demand for apples and supply and demand for money. This is illustrated in the diagram below.

Price determination in a barter economy is an important subject. If the great minds of economics had spent more time thinking about price determination in a barter economy (rather than buying into the myth that is Keynes’ liquidity preference theory), then I believe that we would have a far better understanding of price determination and inflation than we do today.

Inflation or Deflation: A Microeconomic Perspective

In this week’s post we shall consider a basic question: “why does the price level rise and fall?” This might seem like a simple question, but a roomful of economists probably couldn’t agree on a succinct answer to that question.

Rather than entering into an extended macroeconomic debate about the causes of inflation, we shall attempt the answer the question “why does the price level rise and fall?” by considering the issue from a microeconomic perspective.

More specifically, we shall consider a couple of the key microeconomic ideas developed in The Enigma Series, namely:

“Price” and “market value” are not the same thing; and
Price is a relative expression of two market values.

The key to understanding inflation (a macroeconomic phenomenon) is a comprehensive theory of price determination (a microeconomic phenomenon). After all, if we understand how one price is determined, then surely we should be able to understand how many prices are determined?

While many inflation commentators prefer to jump straight into a discussion of macroeconomic variables (i.e., the output gap and oil prices), very few begin by answering a couple of the most basic questions in economics, namely “what is a price?” and “how is a price determined?”

If you ask most economists “what determines the price of a good?” the standard answer you will receive is “supply and demand for that good”. However, this represents a very one-sided view of the price determination process.

In contrast, the view of The Enigma Series is that every price is determined by two sets of supply and demand: supply and demand for the ‘primary good’, and supply and demand for the ‘measurement good’. More specifically, every “money price” is determined by two sets of supply and demand: supply and demand for the good itself and supply and demand for money.

Before you say, “that’s impossible” or “that’s not what I was taught at college”, let’s step back and answer the first question.

What is a price?

Every price is a ratio of two quantities exchanged. For example, x dollars for y bananas, is the price of bananas in dollar terms. This is a “good/money” price. But the same principle extends to barter prices, or “good/good” prices, and foreign exchange rates, or “money/money” prices.

For example, in a barter economy (an economy with no money), the price of bananas in apple terms could be three bananas per apple. Again, it is just a ratio of two quantities exchanged (a quantity of bananas for a quantity of apples).

Similarly, a foreign exchange rate (i.e., the EUR/USD cross rate) simply represents the quantity of one currency exchanged for a certain quantity of another currency exchanged.

The point is that every economic transaction involves, at minimum, an exchange of two items (bananas for money, bananas for apples, Euros for US Dollars) and the “price” of the transaction is the ratio of the quantities of the two items exchanged.

Now, let’s move on to the more complicated second issue. How is this “ratio of quantities exchanged”, or “price”, determined?

In order to answer this question, it helps to think about what property a good must possess in order for it to “have a price”. For example, why does coffee have a price but sunshine does not? Most people would simply say that sunshine is “free”. But at a more fundamental level, the reason there is a price for coffee and not a price for sunshine is that coffee possesses the property of “market value”, whereas sunshine does not possess the property of “market value”.

For a good to have a price, it must possess the property of “market value”.

Frankly, this proposition should be rather obvious. What may not be as obvious is that for prices to be measured in terms of a particular good (the “measurement good”), that good (the “measurement good”) must possess the property of market value.

In other words, for any good (“good A”) to measure the market value of another good (“good B”), the first good (“good A”) must possess the property of “market value”. It is impossible to determine the price of B in A terms unless A possesses the property of market value.

Let’s consider our coffee versus sunshine example to illustrate the point.

If we chose to, we could measure the market value of all things in terms of coffee beans. For example, the price of bananas might be tens coffee beans, and the price of an apple might be six coffee beans. Coffee beans possess the property of market value and we can measure the market value of other items in the economy in “coffee bean terms”.

Now, could we express all prices in the economy in “sunshine terms”?

The short answer is “no”, but why?

Why is it impossible to express the price of apples or bananas or any other economic good in terms of units of sunshine? The reason that we can’t express prices in “sunshine terms” is because sunshine does not possess the property of market value.

And this brings us to our key point: price is a relative expression of market value.

In any simple two-good exchange, the price of the transaction depends upon the market value of the “primary good” and the market value of the “measurement good”.

If one unit of the “primary good” (for example, one banana) is three times as valuable as one unit of the “measurement good” (for example, one dollar), then the price of the primary good, in measurement good terms, is three units of the measurement good per one unit of the primary good (or, in the case of our example, three dollars per banana).

If the “measurement good” does not possess the property of market value, then we can’t express prices in terms of that good. We can only use money as a “measurement good” for our prices because it possesses the property of market value. Clearly, we can’t use sunshine as our measurement good (we can’t express prices in sunshine terms), because sunshine doesn’t possess market value.

So, let’s return to the main issue. What determines the price of one good, the “primary good”, in terms of another good, the “measurement good”? Is the price determined by the market value of the primary good, or is the price determined by the market value of the measurement good? The answer is “both”.

In a barter economy, the price of bananas, in apple terms, depends upon both the market value of bananas and the market value of apples. The price of bananas, in apple terms will rise if the market value of bananas rises. More importantly, the price of bananas, in apple terms, will rise if the market value of apples falls.

Similarly, the price of bananas, in money terms, will rise if the market value of bananas rises or if the market value of money falls. If the market value of money falls, then bananas are relatively more valuable, even if they are not absolutely more valuable. Price is a relative expression of two market values. Hence, the price of bananas, in money terms, will rise if the market value of money falls (all else remaining equal).

We can extend this microeconomic concept of price determination to a macroeconomic discussion of inflation.

In simple terms, rising prices across the economy can be caused either by (1) an increase in the market value of goods and services, or (2) a decrease in the market value of money.

Economic weakness and a fall in oil prices may contribute to a decline in the market value of goods. These are both deflationary pressures that act to lower “money prices” across the economy. However, both of these pressures could be more than offset by a decline in the value of money.

The problem with most “inflation or deflation” debates is that the participants don’t recognize the simple notion that price is a relative expression of market value. Any meaningful discussion must consider not only the forces acting upon the market value of goods (oil price, output gap, etc.), but also the forces acting upon the market value of money (expectations regarding future output growth and base money growth).

Inflation or Deflation: Which is the Greater Risk in 2015?

Could 2015 be the year the markets experience both a “deflation scare” and an “inflation scare”?

The recent collapse of crude oil prices below $60 per barrel, combined with additional signs of global economic weakness, have renewed fears about an outbreak of deflation in the United States. Six years have passed since the US Federal Reserve first embarked on its current path of quantitative easing. The US Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has increased five-fold and other global central banks have followed in their footsteps. Despite this remarkable growth in the global monetary base, inflation has remained subdued.

The view of many in financial markets is that global deflationary forces are just too strong and that global central banks are increasingly impotent in their battle against deflation. This also seems to the view of at least one dissenter at the US Federal Reserve, Fed “dove” and Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President, Narayana Kocherlatkota, who argued that the Fed should be willing to further expand the monetary base if inflation continues running below the Fed’s 2% target.

While it may not be explicitly acknowledged by those who hold these deflationary expectations, this represents a quintessentially “Old Keynesian” perspective regarding the way the world operates. In essence, it is the view that if aggregate demand is weak, then prices must fall. Moreover, if global competition is pushing the aggregate supply curve to the right, then this only compounds the deflationary pressures.

The problem with this view is that it represents a very “one-sided” perspective on how “money prices” are determined in our economy. While it is true that well-entrenched deflationary forces (i.e., falling oil prices, global economic stagnation, and increasing global competition) have, and will probably continue to, put downward pressure on the value of global goods and services, there is a key element that is missing from our analysis: the future path of the value of money.

The value of money is the denominator of every “money price” in the economy. Every money-based transaction involves an exchange of two items of value. When you buy your morning cup of coffee, you receive one good of value and, in exchange, offer another good of value in return. This is the simple principle of all economic transactions dating all the way back to the barter economy of our ancestors. In our modern money-based society, the good of value that you offer in exchange for your morning cup of coffee is money.

The price of your morning coffee can rise for one of two basic reasons: the value of a cup of coffee can rise, or the value of money can fall. If the value of money falls, then, all else remaining equal, your local coffee shop will require you to give them more dollars for that morning cup of coffee.

We can extend this simple concept to the price level and changes in the price level (inflation). The value of money is the denominator of every “money price” in the economy and therefore the denominator of the price level. As the value of money falls, the price level rises.

In simple terms, this is the “Ratio Theory of the Price Level”, an economic theory of price level determination developed in The Enigma Series. Ratio Theory suggests that any “inflation versus deflation” debate needs to begin with a simple equation. Mathematically, the price level “p” can be described as a function of the value of goods and services “V_G” and the value of money “V_M” (see image below).

Inflation can be thought of as a game of “tug-of-war” between these two opponents. Currently, the world is experiencing strong deflationary forces that are placing downward pressure on the numerator in our equation, the value of goods and services. The current fall in oil prices should only accentuate these forces.

The bigger question relates to the future path of the value of money? The value of money has been relatively stable over the past few years, despite the massive expansion in the monetary base. However, is it reasonable to expect this stability to continue? And if the value of money does fall, then will it overwhelm the steady decline in the value of goods and services? In other words, will the denominator in our equation fall by more than our numerator?

You may ask why economics doesn’t present the “inflation/deflation” debate in these simple terms. Mainstream economics struggles with the concept outlined above because it does not recognize “the value of money” as a variable in its equations. In technical terms, economists struggle with the notion that price is a relative expression of two market values (the market value of a primary good as expressed in terms of the market value of a measurement good). Moreover, economics has largely failed to recognize that the property of “market value” can be thought of in both “absolute” and “relative” terms.

But before we get carried away with economic theory, let’s return to the topic at hand. What is the inflation outlook for 2015?

It seems reasonable to believe that the current weakness in the oil price, should it be sustained, will have some flow through effects over the course of the first few months of 2015. Energy costs represent a significant input cost for many industries and lower oil prices should contain any inflation over the next few months.

However, it seems unlikely that deflation represents the greatest risk to investors in the second half of 2015. Rather, the greatest risk to long-term investors remains a sudden collapse in the value of money and a significant jump in the rate of inflation. Indeed, 2015 may be remembered as a “flip-flop” year: fears of deflation in the first-half of the year rapidly switch to fears of inflation in the second-half of the year.

So, what is the risk of a sudden collapse in the value of money in 2015?

After six years of experimentation with the monetary base, many investors have been lulled into a false sense of security regarding this issue. The view of some investors is that if QE was going to negatively impact the value of the US Dollar, then it would have already happened by now. However, this is a naïve and simplistic view.

Ultimately, the value of a fiat currency is a function of the confidence that markets have in the long-term economic prospects of the society that issued it. More specifically, the value of money reflects expectations regarding the long-term path of the “output/money” ratio.

Over the past few years, markets have become more optimistic regarding the long-term prospects for the US economy. The view is that the US economy will continue to grow strongly over the next 10-20 years, even as the monetary base is “normalized” from its current extended levels.

However, if confidence in this view is shaken, then the value of the US Dollar will come under pressure. For example, if the Fed does reduce the monetary base, even modestly, and this results in a recession in the US, then investors’ long-term confidence in the path of the “output/money” ratio could be quickly shaken. The question for all investors is whether 2015 is the year that confidence turns.

Clearly, the role of expectations in the determination of the value of money and the price level is a complicated matter and future articles will be dedicated to exploring this issue further.

So, is deflation or inflation a greater risk in 2015? Near term, the risks may be on the side of deflation. But longer term, the risks are squarely in the inflation camp.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: