Deflation occurred on the gold standard, as prices are not that sticky. Besides, a general price increase doesn't occur without an increase in the supply of money relative to the value in the economy. That doesn't happen unless the printing press is run.
> The 1800s were hardly an economic paradise though, the wild inflation/deflation cycles were destructive.
Every one of those was caused by government meddling with the currency.
Why is 9% inflation (what we have today) not destructive? It certainly is destructive to my finances.
It's still entirely possible for the value to vanish rather than the supply of money causing inflation. The disappearance of Russian gas from Western markets, for example. Energy is such a critical input that an energy price increase manifests as a general price increase.
A demand for zero inflation is a demand that $1 now and $1 in a decade should buy you the same amount of gas, which .. will not continue forever.
> A demand for zero inflation is a demand that $1 now and $1 in a decade should buy you the same amount of gas, which .. will not continue forever.
Gas prices do not cause extra money to be printed.
The money can come from a shift in the debt/savings profile, in the reallocation of business investment, or a shift in the demand for speculative assets. It's not really a coincidence that as the fuel price has gone up the gold price has gone down not up: https://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html
There's a big spike around 2020 for inflation fears, but the gold price doesn't track the price level numbers in ways that hard money fans want it to.
Not quite true, they are correlated but not linked 1:1 see 2020 and WW2. Think of economics a bit like the dual nature of light, not one theory can explain it. The 'Austrian'-school types believe this though, so maybe be where you have heard it?
> Why is 9% inflation (what we have today) not destructive? It certainly is destructive to my finances.
No, I didn't say 9% was good. It obviously reduces the value of savings materially, 2-3% y/y doesn't.
Yes, it does, just not as much as 9% does.
Inflation is not hard to understand. It is always a monetary phenomenon. When the money supply increases faster than the value in the economy, you get inflation (because of Law of Supply & Demand, which no government has yet succeeded in repealing).
The rising cost of gas does not cause inflation, because when gas prices go up, you have less money to spend, and hence other prices come down.
I don't mind 3% inflation, when I have low-risk investments that earn >3%.
I do mind 9% inflation, when my low-risk options earn <6%.
(To pull some random demonstrative numbers out of a hat)
And I think it's specifically the broadness of access to the sub- or supra- inflation investment opportunity that matters. If only some, limited-access opportunities exist, then it still hurts.
Which I guess is another way of saying economic-growth-vs-inflation is the important metric, with a dash of central bank policy.
In defense of fiat money... it is a powerful tool in the hands of a responsible macroeconomic manager. Emphasis on powerful & responsible.
How do you reconcile that with the fact that there was uncontrolled inflation before fiat money?
We have approximately 0% inflation today (at least, the monthly—not the headline 12-month trailing, but the actual amount for the month—number for the last two months has been between 0% and 0.1%; 0% to a little over 1% annualized.)
The 12-month trailing is 8.3%, but it takes a while for the 12-month trailing to reflect current conditions, when there is a change, for reasons explained by the name.
Meanwhile, prices on a lot of things I buy doubled.
No, when consumer prices (not inflation) goes up, there is inflation, and when they don’t, as they have not (overall) in the last two months, there isn't. That’s the definition of inflation.
> Meanwhile, prices on a lot of things I buy doubled.
So... assuming that's over a 12-month period, there are some things that you buy that have been affected vastly more by inflation than even the highest overall sector of the CPI (fuel oil, +68.8% over 12 months.)
Not sure what general importance you want assigned to this or why.
Inflation follows the money printing with a lag of around 13 months. The government just printed a trillion dollars to erase student loan debt. Get ready for another round of inflation. Also the "Inflation Reduction Act", another free-spending bill which will add another chunk to inflation.
No, it doesn’t. At least, the present administration hasn't been.
> When inflation is rising rapidly, they push annual inflation figures. When inflation is moderating, they push monthly figures.
The present administration has been fairly consistently focusing on the monthly 12-month trailing figure, which has also been the headline number for, well, ever.
> Inflation follows the money printing with a lag of around 13 months.
Looking at the history of monetary policy changes, QE rounds, and monthly inflation rates, there’s absolutely no support for that at all.
Look at the money supply changes layered over inflation.
If you want to convince us, you're going to have to do more than just say "look at the data" and repeat your previous point. Specifically what data are you looking at, and over what time frame, and how do you think it demonstrates your position?
None of your argument supports that it isn't calculated honestly, just that you don't like the particular choices. And it doesn't help that you misrepresent them.
> For example, Owner’s Equivalent Rent is used, not actual rent that many families are struggling to pay.
Actual rent is used for renters. Owner’s equivalent rent (imputed rent) is used instead of asset purchase costs to assess the consumption cost of housing separate from the cost of acquiring a durable asset for homeowners.
> In addition, the Fed’s core inflation number is ex food and energy prices, which is also misleading.
The headline number is the full CPI, not core CPI. Core CPI is also reported, and may be used for some purposes by certain consumers of CPI data, but it's not the headline figure/main measure, so disagreement with its appropriateness as the main measure is fine, but a beating a strawman.
This is simply false. Firstly CPI includes both rent and owners equivalent rent, weighted in proportion to the people that rent and own houses respectively. Secondly, OER is calculated based on estimates of current rental prices. Plus of course including OER rather than treating rent as something homeowners don't have to worry about tends to increase CPI when rents rise fast...
> In addition, the Fed’s core inflation number is ex food and energy prices, which is also misleading.
"Core inflation" is a separate time series to the CPI, clearly reported as an alternative measure excluding volatile energy and food prices to compare with CPI.
The only "misleading" is people ranting about how a separate dataset created specifically for comparison purposes proves dishonesty on the part of those calculating CPI...
US Gas prices are $3.68 a gallon, down from over $5 a few months ago. That's hardly inflation.
https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/
Picking a random date about 6 months ago it was $4.25
https://web.archive.org/web/20220310032222/https://gasprices...
Lumber prices are down 65% since March, about the same as this time last year, and indeed back in 2018
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/lumber-price...
This is not symptomatic of hyperinflation, it's symptomatic of supply being lower than demand, causing an increase in supply or a decrease in demand, which takes time
If gas prices drive inflation, why are we not seeing deflation from the gas price drop?
Changes in costs also take time to filter through the economy, and indeed in the last 2 months prices have come down (CPI in June was 296.311, in August it was 296.171)
This stubborn hand-wavy argument that prices stay high due to greed smacks of economic illiteracy and White House propaganda.
If I raise the price of a gizmo I'm selling by 20% because my costs went up, why would I reduce the price when my costs go down but demand is still high? I like my increased profits, and so does my competition. The myth of perfect competition is a exactly that: established companies do not engage in races to the bottom, "cartel" behavior is emergent.
How does your perfect competition theory explain why tuition prices have been going up over 5+ decades, vastly exceeding inflation?
Because Apple keeps making the phone better.
> How does your perfect competition theory explain why tuition prices have been going up over 5+ decades, vastly exceeding inflation?
I didn't espouse a "perfect competition" theory. That's your strawman. Anyhow, tuition prices have gone up because the government provides rivers of cash to prospective students. The pool of students thus has gone up drastically, and because of limited supply of colleges, and vast demand by students with fistfuls of cash (and little sense), the tuition went up. A lot.
Gold did perhaps not decay the same way, but if the harvest was bad one year, the price of grain could go up radically, so saving grain directly was safer. Also, grain was harder to steal.
As society became more complicated, one could pay a goldsmith to store the gold in a vault, though there was still a risk that the gold would be lost to fraud or robbery, eventhough the vault was still probably safer than to store gold in private homes (if you did not live in a castle).
Up until this point, the time preference of money would tend to be negative whenever people were saving. Better to eat normal today and be sure to have enough next year, than to eat double today and maybe starve next year.
Some goldsmiths would lend this gold to lenders, at an interest, and the honest ones would pay the depositors an interest in turn, to compensate for the increased risk. Still, it did happen that banks went bankrupt, and deposits would be lost.
Only in the last handful of generations have governments guaranteed the bank deposits, and only for a limited amount.
Meanwhile we had the industrial revolution, and the population and economy was booming more or less for 200-250 years. This, combined with the growing banking system, caused a positive time preference for money, and people started to expect that saving was not only safe, but should also produce profit, not just safety.
Lately, however, both the economy and population have stopped growing, more or less, and the time preference of money is roughly back to neutral, if not slightly negative.
In such an economy, it simply doesn't make sense to have a currency that allows people, without risk, to "teleport" wealth from now into the future. We already tried that in 1929, with deflation causing mass economic destruction. A lot of savings were still lost when banks went bankrupt.
With a moderate interest rate (ideally around 2%), the economy can handle a somewhat negative time preference for money as much the population gets older and less in need of instant consumption. When the interest rate for deposits is lower than cash savings, the difference can be seen as the insurance premium for relatively risk free storage of value. Those who want a profit (or at least lose less), have to accept some more risk, and invest in other, riskier asset classes in such times.
As long as the interest rate is low, the currency still functions as intended as a medium of exchange and measure of value, while still being tolerable as a short term store of value.
Clearly, though, as the inflation goes to 10% and beyond, all features of the currency are hurt.
But next time you're annoyed that your deposit falls in value about 2% in a year, just imagine how it would be if you were saving grain in a silo, and found that the rats had been eating half of it.
> it simply doesn't make sense to have a currency that allows people, without risk, to "teleport" wealth from now into the future.
Your explanation of banking is incorrect, too. Banks pay depositors to deposit money, because the bank makes money on those deposits by loaning the money out (banks often give away things like toasters and even guns to attract depositors). Some of that is in the form of a service ("free checking"). Larger amounts of money, the bank will pay you interest.
Depositing money in a bank is literally loaning it to the bank, and the depositor expects a return for that. Loaning money for interest goes back to the very beginning of money.
What inflation actually is is a tax on money, and that tax revenue is collected by the party that is inflating the money (i.e. the government). It is not good for the economy any more than any other tax is.
You could argue that taxing money is a reasonable way for the government to raise money, and that would make sense.
Adjusted for inflation, I doubt there is a single depositor in the western world that receives a postive interest rate this year.
> Depositing money in a bank is literally loaning it to the bank, and the depositor expects a return for that. Loaning money for interest goes back to the very beginning of money.
Again, adjusted for inflation, even banks receive a negative (real) interest rate these days. The only way for them to create real profits this way, is to make sure the depositors loose more real purchaing power through their deposits and they do through their lending.
> What inflation actually is is a tax on money, and that tax revenue is collected by the party that is inflating the money (i.e. the government).
This is partially true, but oversimplified. Only if ALL the inflation is due to money printing can this be considered a tax, in that it is a transfer of purchasing power from the populace to the government. And even then, negative money (debt) get a negative "tax".
For the part of inflation that is caused by changes in supply or demand, but unrelated to money printing, the government is not benefitting from the inflation, and may even end up losing. And this is the kind of situation where inflation is needed to even out real changes in the economy.
Also, nobody is forced to store their wealth in a currency. And I actually think it is a good thing that people have an incentive to do long term storage of wealth in real assets, whether those are real estate, stocks or even commodities such as gold and silver, if you're longing for the gold standard.
The true fallacy is when people expect more from a currency than is possible. Currency is not real wealth, only some kind of representation of a debt that some anonymous other must pay in the future. A gold bar, house or a company, THAT is real wealth.
Deflation does occur when shortages ease in those sectors (see oil & gas prices), but inflation due to shortages does increase the general price level (including wage prices) and there is a degree of 'price stickiness' in the economy (workers generally don't get pay cuts - layoffs are easier perhaps) so the higher price level remains. You might expect below average inflation in the short term, but inflation expectations probably linger to some degree.