Inflation: Bring It On

Ezra refers to a good post by James Hamilton on how recent Fed actions — specifically, growing its balance sheet and changing its composition in historically unusual ways — could compromise its ability to fight inflation. He writes:

If you feel like scaring yourself a bit this afternoon, read James Hamilton’s post arguing that the conditions are increasingly appropriate for hyperinflation. “To my knowledge,” Hamilton writes, “every hyperinflation in history has had two key ingredients: (1) budget deficits that could not be resolved politically, and (2) a central bank that assumed the obligations that the fiscal authority could not.”

Hyperinflation may, as some of Hamilton’s commenters argue, be a bit of an exaggeration, but inflation isn’t.

We need not worry about hyperinflation. Or rather, in a world where hyperinflation is a real possibility, hyperinflation is the last thing we’d be worrying about. There are certainly circumstances under which America could face uncomfortably high inflation down the road, the result of which would most likely be Fed tightening and a painful double-dip recession. But there are two key points to be made about this.

One is that “uncomfortably high” given present conditions is pretty darn high. In the midst of deep recession, inflation isn’t nearly as nasty as it might otherwise be. For one thing, when dollars are getting weaker people don’t want to hold dollars, and so they spend them, which is a good way to make a dent in the shortfall in demand. For another, inflation will help housing markets clear. And for another, a weaker dollar should goose American exports.

The second, and related, point is that inflation is one of many concerns that we face at the moment. Fed independence is a big issue, and 20% annual inflation is something we’d prefer to avoid, but so is, say, a 6% contraction in output. I’d love for Congress to allocate all the necessary funds and then turn around and take the necessary steps to rein in the deficit, but given actual political constraints I’m extremely glad the Fed has done what it’s done — I prefer to see some action appropriate to the scale of the downturn taken and roll the dice with inflation. As Yglesias wrote earlier today:

Talking about a different issue last week, I heard Tyler Cowen forcefully make the point that you have to think of the political constraints as a real policy consideration.

Another way to think about this is that maybe all the folks worried about inflation should instead focus their ire on the supermajoritarian rules constraining Senate action.

Comments

  1. Justin says:

    My limited understanding is that it’s the exchange rates that govern the sale of exports. But I think that inflation and exchange rates can move separately–back when exchange rates were rapidly weakening the dollar in the early part of the decade, it didn’t seem to have a huge effect on inflation. Am I wrong in thinking that?

  2. Bob Roddis says:

    People should remember what Keynes told Hayek about this. Keynes told Hayek that “The General Theory” was written, in essence, to trick British workers in the 1930s into accepting lower wages without them realizing it in order to cure unemployment. See:

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2008/12/hayek-tells-bill-buckley-that-even.html

    You are saying the same thing as Keynes: Inflation (money dilution) is good because it will lower the real price of houses so that people will buy them.* That ruse, and the fact that central bank money dilution allows people to get new money and, in essence, steal and spend other people’s purchasing power IS THE STIMULUS. The entire Keynesian paradigm is an insidious system of fraud and theft.

    *Of course, simply allowing liquidation would accomplish the same thing.