One commenter on CLB.com writes:

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” – Milton Friedman.

Anyone who has been near a first-year economics course must have heard this famous quip. Many people beyond that as well. Honestly, the continued Austrian sense of exceptionalism on this issue is pretty bewildering to me.

In other words: “why do we harp on about monetary matters and price inflation?  Everyone knows money printing causes price inflation, no great insights here, move on.”

Well, of course, this commenter is more than welcome to stop reading our blog if it is so boring, obvious and unexceptional.

But ask 999 out of 1000 Zimbabweans why they suffered a hyperinflation and they’ll tell you it was because of food shortages!  Food shortages there were (especially after Bob and Co. started price fixing and the farms ceased to produce much), but (most) economists know that, facing a foreign currency crisis due to decimated production, Gideon Gono printed money until confidence in the medium of exchange was shot to pieces and the whole thing blew up.  Instead of trying to buy foreign currency with real production (exports) Zim decided to buy it by printing moola.  Didn’t work out so well, and destructive inflation was the result.  Monetary corruption.  Flagrant debasement.

Our blog is for ordinary people out there, many of whom don’t know why inflation occurs.  That printed money causes inflation IS NOT common knowledge.  Hopefully it will become common knowledge.  Some may find it unexceptional information, but there was a time in their life when they didn’t know it, and there’s lot’s of people who don’t know it and need to know it.  The sooner they know it, the sooner they can start to shield themselves using more intelligent and informed wealth-protection strategies.

So it is worth telling people about since inflation is, after all, theft.  I suggest people should know they are being stolen from by the government and its central banking, fractional banking system.

On monetary theory, Milton Friedman was a late-comer who never fully developed a coherent monetary theory, notwithstanding the fact that he wrote a history of US money and banking.  100 years before Friedman’s now famous quote, the Austrians were breaking ground in monetary theory, illuminating issues previously un-illuminated.

Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit was massively ground-breaking.  It was exceptional.  Friedman of course was mostly, as far as economic theory was concerned, unexceptional.

As far as modern, applied economics is concerned, most economic practitioners ignore money supply issues when discussing inflation, or at least discuss money only as a secondary consideration.  Read most analyst’s reports on CPI inflation and monetary considerations are usually lacking.

I engaged with a central bank official who refused to admit that rising money supply causes rising prices.

Meanwhile, most economists think inflation is a good thing, or at least not harmful.  Some think it is necessary for economic development.  Austrians point out that it is indeed very harmful.  Since money printing causes price inflation, and since price inflation is harmful, the Austrians go to great lengths to inform people of this relationship, so that people will come to know the source of the problem and so that civic institutions and public opinion can be directed towards ending the fractional fiat money system.

A particularly exceptional contribution of the Austrians, and one that almost all modern schools still have not properly grasped, is the non-neutrality of money.  Money does not enter an economy in a uniform way.  It distorts REAL price relationships and hurts those furthest from the printing press (the late receivers).

The derivative exceptional Austrian contribution to money and price theory was Business Cycle Theory, in which money supply injections not only raise general prices but distort relative price relationships (non-neutrality) and set in motion a destructive series of entrepreneurial errors and intertemporal discoordination that leads to booms and busts.

So, the lack of understanding of money supply and inflation amongst the ‘man on the street’, the poor acknowledgement of money’s impact on prices by many professional economists, the persistence of the post-Bretton Woods un-hinged fiat money mess, recurring and painful business cycles, the lack of understanding of the non-neutrality of money and distortive effects that money printing has on relative real price relationships and in exacerbating income inequality, the huge build up of global trade and capital imbalances and the unfair exporting of US inflation to the rest of the world, all make Austrian’s attention to money and inflation theory not only exceptional, but vital knowledge if one wants to navigate a world of legalised, insidious theft.

Tagged with:
 

1 Response » to “Why the Austrian view of money and inflation is more important than ever”

  1. McD says:

    Well, of course, this commenter is more than welcome to stop reading our blog if it is so boring, obvious and unexceptional.

    Come on Russ, we both know that you would miss our debates.

    Actually, I suspect that getting involved in lengthy disputes is a major reason we naturally avoid commenting regularly on each others’ sites. We’ll make it a semi-annual thing then…

    To avoid such endless confrontations, I’ll leave some final general thoughts.

    I used Friedman simply because his comment is so succinct and he provides a nice touchstone given his status in 20th century economics. The (ceteris paribus) relationship between money supply and prices has been understood by economists since at least the days of David Hume and Richard Cantillon. Further refinements (e.g. the role of interest rate) were obviously added by the likes of Wicksell in the 19th century that followed, but the theoretical basis certainly pre-dates Mises, Friedman and anyone else of the last 100 years.

    What I certainly disagree with is that there is a mechanical relationship between money supply and inflation. Many Austrians badly misread this distinction and I would think that the many failed wolf cries of “hyperinflation!” remains a point of introspection for this group. Certainly, I wouldn’t consider inflation a strong point among Austrian claims until this point. As for Zimbabwe, well let’s just say that hyperinflation was the final symptom in economic malaise already triggered by staggering corruption and disastrous ZANU-PF policies. As you say, the foreign currency crisis was paramount.

    I’ll refrain from making comments on Mises’ Theory of Money and Credit simply because I haven’t read it. (Although, I wonder how many of most ardent supporters have? Of course, you could probably say the same for the works of Keynes and many other influential economists…) However, I do know that compelling challenges against the Austrian (i.e. Mengerian) version of the origins of money exist. This obviously seems to have have implications for the legitimacy of Mises’ famed regression theorem, which directly builds on the work of Menger.

    My thoughts on ABCT are that it constitutes, for the most part, a logically cogent theory and potential candidate for explaining parts of conventional business cycles. However, I believe that there are significant challenges to it from an empirical perspective (e.g. it implies some strange results w.r.t. to employment and consumption in the consumer goods and capital investment markets during the boom-bust phase), as well as from competing paradigms. I certainly don’t consider it a general theory and when it comes to explaining longer downturns, such as the Great Depression, I think that it falls well short.[*] That’s not to say that it has nothing useful to contribute, and the emphasis of intertemporal relationships in economic activity is certainly important.

    The Austrian schism w.r.t. to fractional reserves is also very interesting. To quote Steve Horowitz, one of the pre-eminent Austrian scholars doing research today: “The vast majority of Austrian economists producing professional literature in economics reject the Rothbardian view of fractional reserve banking”.

    Cheers mate.
    ___
    [*] If you are wondering, the most compelling diagnosis of the GD in my eyes comes from the Hawtrey-Cassel school of thought, which holds paramount the deflationary effects brought on by the international monetary demand for gold. For open-minded readers, I invite you to read these posts by David Glasner when you get time.

Leave a Reply


Refresh





This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.