Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
US economy: jobs, growth and inflation
Gerard Jackson
In early March Mark Whitehouse and Kemba Dunham of the Wall Street Journal complained that too much job growth generated inflation. In their view good job numbers would probably “fuel fears of higher inflation and cause bond prices to fall and interest rates to rise”.
What Whitehouse and Dunham are preaching is a complete fallacy. What is really worrying about this fallacy is that Alan Greenspan may have fallen pray to it. In a 1999 speech he claimed that if GDP continued to expand “in excess of trends of potential, the economy could be expected to eventually overheat, with inflation and interest rates moving up”.
But even as he was speaking GDP had growth was in decline. Furthermore, he must have known that manufacturing was shedding jobs. Yet Greenspan still argued that the demand for labour would have to slow “if inflationary forces are to continue to be contained”.
Some will argue that what mattered at the time was aggregate employment and not employment by sectors. This is a Keynesian argument and a very dangerous one at that. (See US unemployment and the tyranny of aggregates).
Putting it somewhat simply, forcing the rate of interest below the market rate stimulated manufacturing. However, as nominal incomes rose and moved down the production structure the old time-preference ratio reasserted itself and demand at the consumption stages of production started shifted resources downwards while exerting pressure on producer prices.
The result was that manufacturing started to shed labour. But because of rising monetary demand at the lower stages of production the resulting increase in the demand for labour offset for a time the fall in manufacturing jobs. (I believe the situation was also aggravated by the amount of credit that went directly into consumption).
This process is caused by credit expansion and always results in a recession. It’s important to bear this in mind because some of those who have taken Greenspan to task on this matter have fallen pray to another dangerous fallacy — that inflation means too much money chasing too few goods.
When we say that inflation is a monetary phenomenon we should mean that it is caused by monetary expansion. Nineteenth century Britain experienced two huge declines in prices. The first one was from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the gold discoveries of 1848. The second was from about 1873 to 1896.
These periods have been inexcusably described as deflationary. They were nothing of the kind. Deflation means an absolute fall in the quantity of money. As Britain was on the gold standard a deflation would obviously mean a fall in the quantity of gold. No one to my knowledge was ever foolish enough to suggest that this was the case.
The price declines were due to increasing productivity. As unit costs fell more goods exchanged against the same amount of gold leading to a general fall in prices. This process ensured that the benefits of growth were dispersed in away that accord with the theory of marginal productivity.
So-called orthodox economic theory completely misconstrues this process, arguing that the quantity of money should be increased at the same rate as economic growth so that prices can be stabilised and price margins (differences between costs and selling prices) maintained.
This is an economic absurdity. It is not the quantity of money that maintains price margins but the market process. Costs are determined by consumer preferences and discounted by the social rate of time preference. Therefore in a situation of general equilibrium price margins would not only equal the rate of interest they would be the rate of interest.
In the real world entrepreneurship married to ingenuity constantly reduces the costs of production by investing in capital goods that embody new technology. The result is a constant downward pressure on prices. One can see this with the remarkable decline that has occurred with all electronic devices, particularly computers, during the last 20 years.
And this is what happened during the nineteenth century. Hence the view that business can only be kept solvent by manipulating the money supply has been thoroughly discredited by economic history.
Money is not neutral. What this means is that attempts by central banks to stabilise prices distort the pattern of production and trigger off the so-called boom-bust cycle. From this we can deduce that even when the CPI is apparently stable inflation can still be rampant beneath the monetary surface. Those who think otherwise have not learnt the fundamental lesson of the 1920s.
The above is why I believe the Fed has laid down the foundations for another recession.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes’ economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 28 March 2005