Deflation is the ruinous hell where prices of goods and
services fall while money retains or increases its purchasing power. “We
need to do our best to determine why inflation is below target, but no
matter how hard we try, there will be uncertainty about our diagnosis,”
Macklem said. Perhaps he’s uncertain because of some of unknown
inflation-uncertainty principle. The Bank of Canada is, after all, an
institution that examines economics as if it were an empirical science.
Macklem reminisced about the inflation of 1970s, citing it as a learning
lesson for central banks to keep inflation “low, stable and
predictable.” He warned of “sustained negative inflation – or deflation”
which is “even more pernicious.” Macklem didn’t elaborate, as no
central banker likes to do, as to why deflation is so “pernicious.” I’ve
sent several e-mails to the Bank of Canada regarding this irrational
fear, but have received no response save for the typical condescending
thank-you-for-your-inquiry jargon.
Deflation has two causes. The first one is simple: an
increase of the supply of goods. If the Bank of Canada were to improve
its monetary policy (i.e. not destroy savings) or if new technologies
come onto the market that allow us to produce more for less, then prices
have a tendency to fall. So in other words, the “pernicious” hell of
deflation is really just the purchasing power of your money increasing
in value. It’s having your paycheck take home more every year. I don’t
know why anyone would openly rob people of this luxury and announce it
as beneficial.
Tiff Macklem may cite the second cause of deflation as
basis for his “pernicious” statement. As the Bank of Canada keeps
inflation “low, stable and predictable” what they are actually doing is
steadily increasing the money supply. So the Bank of Canada is
perpetuating an increased demand for money as purchasing power
decreases. If the Bank of Canada stops inflating (i.e. stops adding to
the money supply) any money created by the BoC or the Chartered Banks
above its reserve quantity would be liquidated. In other words, there’s
real wealth out there represented by “real” money. Bankers have a
tendency to pyramid counterfeit money on top of that real money. The
pyramid scheme only lasts as long as the bankers keep pumping more money
into the system. If they were to stop, the gig would be up. The “fake”
wealth created by the counterfeit money would disappear (along with the
counterfeit money) leaving decrepit investments and half-finished
projects. This has to happen eventually (counterfeit money can’t create
more resources where none exist), so Macklem’s replacement would be wise
to exert some self-control.
Falling prices caused by increased production do not reduce profits or make debts unpayable. This is evident in electronics. In 1981 a gigabyte of storage cost $300,000; in 2010 it cost 10 cents. How
did this happen? Sales have risen and companies have gotten better
through market competition. Even with continual price declines, the
electronic industry is booming. Now if falling prices are a result of a
monetary contraction, the decline of money makes debt repayment more
difficult which usually lead to bankruptcies. However, far from being
“pernicious,” this decline is a necessary readjustment from an economy
based off of unbacked credit from the central bank.
To maintain a functioning economy one does not need to
secure “low, stable and predictable” inflation. One needs to allow
prices to work. Free market prices allow entrepreneurs to coordinate the
various factors of production that ultimately serve consumer ends. An
honest savings rate facilitates the coordination of resources over a
period of time. The Bank of Canada and the Chartered Banks are wilfully
altering these rates to serve their interests. These interests
ultimately harm consumers by robbing them of their purchasing power.
From a natural rights standpoint, bankers engaging in fractional reserve
banking are no better than common thieves. A central banker claiming
moral authority is even more repulsive.
But Macklem doesn’t stop there. Remember that the outgoing
deputy governor thinks inflation is on the decline. So his confusion
over “declining inflation” must mean that the prices of goods and
services – not the money supply – are declining. As Macklem tells 100
students at Montreal’s Concordia University, “Much of the recent decline
in global total inflation can be explained by the recent fall in world
energy and food prices.” So why the fear of deflation? There is no
inherent economic principle that says consumers won’t buy stuff if
prices are falling. That is, essentially, the argument for inflation: a
market where prices fall leads to a situation where consumers won’t buy
stuff because of anticipation of lower prices in the future. As the
concept of time preference can be deduced from the action axiom, I see
no reason why anyone (let alone an economist) should still be
propagating this myth. At one point consumers will break down and buy
stuff. If my daily cup of coffee is going to be $1.90 tomorrow, I won’t
wait till then. I’ll pay two dollars now. I obviously value my coffee
now more than my 10 cents. Of course, if Tiff Macklem understood time
preference, he’d understand why centrally planning interest rates is so
destructive and why his outgoing speech should have been more
thought-provoking then a discussion on inflation targeting.
Also available at Mises Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment