5 Comments

User's avatar
Matthew's avatar

I can reveal that my household has now taken the sensible step on using sunflower oil for frying instead of the extra virgin olive oil which has shot up in price.

I'm sure putting up interest rates would make the problem go away.

Expand full comment
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

The problem is that the concept of inflation isn't well defined to begin with. I honestly think we should just stop measuring it.

Firstly, please don't try to understand economics by watching the BBC! News stories say climate change is hurting crops therefore food inflation is caused by climate change? The media claim everything is caused by climate change. Other things they've blamed on it include: dogs having fleas, the Syrian civil war, childhood obesity (it both makes food more expensive and makes people fatter!), strengthening the Taliban, forest fires started deliberately by the US Forestry Service, delayed trains, hate speech, mass migration, mountain goats getting smaller and, obviously, COVID-19. The media love this because when people feel the world is dangerous they consume more news. It doesn't help that large swathes of the media are now being quietly funded by foundation grants tied to salaries for climate journalists, i.e. a big part of what you read about climate is "news" written by people who literally can't report anything else, on Gates Foundation payrolls:

https://apnews.com/article/science-business-arts-and-entertainment-journalism-united-states-087d1d5dd7189c529fe5d7a21a1ffb5f

Check the actual data (or the IPCC reports) and you'll find there's no evidence climate change is causing extreme weather or hurting crop yields, and some evidence it helps (more CO2 causes plants to grow better). The war in Ukraine has harmed food supplies and raised prices a bit but, burning fossil fuels hasn't.

Anyway, the reason the topic is so confusing is that inflation is only a well defined concept under a static market assumption, which is obviously invalid.

The "basket of goods" method struggles to handle things entering and leaving the market. Attempts to patch it up are the source of complex and hotly debated mechanisms like hedonic regression. If you have a single luxury hotel in your toy economy and it goes bankrupt because there's a drought and everyone is spending their money on newly expensive wine instead, how does that affect your equations? The "obvious" answer is that the price of that hotel just went to infinity - you can't stay there anymore no matter how much you pay - but that breaks all the calculations, so instead the hotel gets excluded from the basket. It looks like the price of wine has gone up without any other prices going down .... inflation! It doesn't make much sense though to compare today's prices with yesterday's, because the market got smaller, so you aren't comparing like with like.

Now, we can handwave that away and pretend the market is static. You say:

> If that were the sole cause, inflation would be a trivial problem to solve—simply raise interest rates.

Inflation _in a static market_ is indeed a trivial problem to solve, and governments have done exactly that many times in the past. This is why they say "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". But changing interest rates doesn't help in the case that the government is directly creating new money! The assumption that interest rates and inflation are tied is very heavily dependent on money being issued into circulation in the convoluted ways modern governments use, like central banks buying government bonds off retail banks, or more complex still. But the most natural way for governments to create money is to just do it, then interest rates don't matter at all! This is especially common in less developed cash economies, which is why we still talk in the west about "printing money" even though the central banks don't significantly change the money supply by printing banknotes anymore.

But again, the market isn't really static. In a dynamic i.e. real market inflation occurs in another situation even if you crack down on money printing: you're genuinely getting poorer. Then optional products exit the market and spending gets reallocated to the essentials. As above, that means they are excluded from the averaging calculations and the remaining prices rise. Inflation in this context is "real", in that it represents that you have to work harder to get less stuff. However it's pretty rare for economies in the modern era to just spontaneously get poorer outside of wars. Almost always countries getting poorer is due to governments adopting socialist policies, and those tend to be financed by money printing. Hence we can take the shortcut and say governments cause inflation - both by money printing, and by poor management of society.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts