Paul Krugman has been on a tear recently pointing out how so many, got it so wrong on inflation. He points out that Keynesian models of all stripes got it right, from the “vulgar Keynesianism” of Y = I + G + C + NX to more sophisticated New Keynesian balance-sheet models.
This is all true.
However, I don’t think its even that deep. I think the bigger lesson here is to not be trapped in intellectual shortcuts and to think carefully about what it is that you are saying. Even die hard Austrians should have been suspect about the possibility for more inflation.
Why?
Well, because at root the Price Level is a construct. We can debate whether it is real or ephemeral but mechanically there is no question that we are adding up prices in various markets and then performing a series of calculations on them.
And, absolutely none of us dispute that the prices in each market are determined by supply and demand.
If the price level is to rise, then that means that the prices of actual goods in actual markets must rise as well. That in turn means that supply must fall or demand must rise in actual individual markets.
In what markets did we think this was going to be the case?
We could make some arguments about a decreasing supply of commodities as global demand pulled them away from the US or as a falling US dollar made US demand weaker in comparison to other countries.
However, if we walk market through market in the United States what story are well telling in which we get a sustained increase in the rate at which prices increases.
Think of cars, a major expense for many American families. What is going to cause car prices to rise? Steel is less than 5% of the cost of car. Iron ore significantly less than that. And, America has coal, iron workers and foundries a plenty.
If the price of iron ore shot through the roof what would that really mean for the price of cars.
Clothing takes cotton to be sure. But, more than that it takes seamstresses. Many of those seamstresses work in China, a country whose currency is pegged to our own.
Housing is the major expense for almost all families. We can argue over how to properly measure its price, but with millions of idle construction workers and thousands of idle bulldozers its hard to see where double digit price increases come from.
Food, is trickier. Its shipped around the world. Grain prices in particular are sensitive to international demand. Yet, grain makes up a very small portion of America expenditure on food. Even in the grocery store the processing of most foods is a bigger part of the cost than raw goods.
Fruits and vegetables have an alternate supply chain. Though even here shipping and storage are where the costs really bite. As localvores will tell you, nearby apples in season are practically given away.
Meat really is different. This is one of the few products where you are paying most of the cost for is essentially a product of the earth. Meat prices can and do move big on global fundamentals and for many families this will sting. Still its just one source of spending.
Add to that the fact that Americans spend as much on eating out as they do on eating in. Here the restaurant, the cooks and the servers add even more to cost of a meal.
In short, the cost of most things that American buy comes from the cost of American facilities and American labor. Which means that for the price to go up either the supply of those things has to shrink of the demand has to expand.
There is no reason to think the supply is going anywhere, which means we must be saying the demand is going up.
That then means that we should see individual businesses posting huge increases in sales. That means that we should see a rapid decline in “sales as the biggest problem facing my business.”
We may argue over whether or not such a situation would be ultimately better or worse than the economic slump we are in, but it should be clear that it is not compatible with slump that we are in.
We don’t need IS-LM to see that. We just need to think about what people actually buy and what those markets actually look like. Then we would see that of all the problems we might be facing, double-digit inflation is not one of them.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Curt Doolittle
Karl, that isn’t why we said there would be inflation.
In Austrian terminology, inflation is an increase in the supply of money, not an increase in aggregate prices. Now, an increase in the supply of money will eventually end up as an increase in prices, with the ‘government’ benefiting from the inter temporal discount in prices between the near term price of goods and the long term price of goods. The reason “WE” predicted inflation was because we saw no way out of the fiscal crisis other than “printing money” – as crass and technically inaccurate as that term may be. And people like me (and lefties like Galbriath before he died) recommended we bypass the need for “Recalculation” (Kling’s PSST) by directly paying down mortgages as a means of putting money to work in the economy without requiring an enormous world wide recalculation of the global price structure and it’s infinity of relationships.
Of your and Paul’s own admission,
Now, your recommendations have been smart. (Borrowing is really cheap right now.) I’ve been saying that they’ve been smart – right here on your blog and elsewhere, including mine. (That’s why I promote you – ’cause you’re right.) I’ve also been saying that the population of a heterogeneous empire won’t tolerate those actions. Which has been has proven to be demonstrably TRUE. Because in a homogenous population redistribution is tolerable due to the homogeneity of costs of forgone opportunity, signaling and access to power, and in a heterogeneous population with disparate costs of forgone opportunity, disparate interests and disparate signals, the population won’t tolerate it. Politics is inseparable from economics. Economies are neutral – the market is volitional and anonymous. Political organizations exist specifically because political action is NOT neutral – it’s involuntary, and transfers are intentional and visible.
Why it should be a mystery that there is little difference between the diverse american demographics and the Germanics versus the PIIGS is simply irrational – it’s just not something that is too difficult to understand. There isn’t any difference.
So that is why you’re ‘wrong’ so to speak. You’re right for a small homogenous country, and wrong for a heterogeneous empire. That is, you’re wrong unless you’re a totalitarian. And you can’t be right unless you’re a totalitarian. Thats just it. Isn’t it?
Love you anyway. lol.
Curt
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Wonks Anonymous
Hasn’t the U.S tolerated significantly higher price inflation in the reasonably recent past? I know there have been some demographic changes, but the U.S was already quite diverse and I don’t think the shift is significant enough to put us in a different “regime type”.
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Tim Thomas
I think you miss the point of the inflationista argument. You ask in which markets will supply and demand be affected and conclude basically none. The answer actually is the market for money. Supply has changed dramatically in the past few years in this market. The argument goes that if the supply of money goes up, then the price of money (as measured in goods and services) goes down, i.e. inflation. Example: if at baseline $1 buys one hamburger this is the same as saying one hamburger can buy $1, Imagine the supply of hamburgers goes up, then (eventually) $1 buys two hamburgers or it takes 2 hamburgers to buy that same $1. Similarly if the supply of money goes up then (eventually) one hamburger can buy $2, voila, inflation. Of course, it doesnt always work that way, because of course demand for money as compared to demand for goods and services has changed substantially too. This is where more sophisticated economic models diverge.
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
dieswaytoofastMahesh Paolini-Subramanya
I think the point (kinda made by Curt) is that the inflation expectation was based on money supply. Krugman/Svenssen pointed out that at the zero lower bound, people will hoard *any* amount of additional money (hence no inflation). I *think* the “anti” argument is that Krugman Is Wrong. Mind you, I’m not too sure if that is
– Krugman is wrong because he is Krugman
– Krugman is wrong because his theory is wrong.
Its really kinda difficult to tell the difference many times…
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Wonks Anonymous
There’s the matter of “people” holding money, and then there’s the matter of banks holding excess reserves because they are paid to do so by the Fed and don’t think they’ll get a better return from lending it out.
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Lord
Shedlock at least disagreed there would be inflation so there were differing opinions even among Austrians. That eventually there will be inflation is like eventually there will be rain, true but in no way casual. .
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Bob Murphy
Karl, did you just “prove” that stagflation can’t ever happen in general, or in the US in particular?
What would the Karl Smith of 1978 have said?
Monday ~ December 19th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Jon
Karl, your post reads like a layman under the spell of money illusion.
You’ve entirely confused real prices and nominal prices in your argument. You think your examples are about why nominal prices won’t change, but you’re actually giving reasons why real prices won’t change.
Inflation, as you know, is about nominal prices, and nominal prices can change in a goods market without a shift in supply or demand.
Tuesday ~ December 20th, 2011 at 4:31 am
Tel
Inflation is one of those fun things were everyone can be right. There has indeed been double digit inflation in the Producer Price Index, and mostly this was caused by rising commodity prices. This is a fact, it has happened, it is history now.
Krugman of course, prefers to look at “core” inflation because it best confirms his theories and with the “core” inflation measurement the inflation has still been there, but considerably smaller.
Besides, the fat lady hasn’t started singing yet, this business ain’t over. The Civilian labor force participation rate has been falling steadily for three years running, and with rising commodity prices on top of that, it stands to reason that the inputs to production are down. Well, it is hard to believe that you can get more out of an economy by putting less in.
Tuesday ~ December 20th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Lord
Austrians would do better to recognize the run up in asset values and debt as inflation and the increase in money supply as not even covering up their subsequent deflation. Inflation will be what it is when we act or fail to act when it occurs.
Tuesday ~ December 20th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Th
The lesson of the ’70′s stagflation is that commodity prices can generate inflation completely separately from monetary or fiscal policy. Because the commodity was oil and the biggest user was the US, we had some control over how that inflation played out. As long as the Fed was expanding the money supply and wages were rising, we were able to pay the higher prices with some cutting back in other areas, thus “stagflation”. Purchasing power was mostly keeping pace because we had a high percentage of people with inflation adjusted income. From Social Security benefits to government workers to union members to even many non-union shops, automatic cost of living raises were much more the norm than today. When we decided to scale back the monetary expansion (and drive slower and insulate our homes), we had severe recessions, the demand for oil collapsed and the price of oil collapsed. Bye-bye inflation as our oil imports dropped by more than half from the late ’70′s to the mid-’80′s.
We were able to influence the price of oil because we were the main driver of demand and we brought the price down by lowering demand. What Karl wrote is completely consistent with the ’70′s experience and why I think we are a long way from any inflationary pressures until our economy improves substantially. We may get small spurts but they will not last without improved purchasing power. Unless the Persian Gulf blows up again like in the ’70′s.