Another Keynesian Meme Dragged Up
A recent Fed paper reports that the Fed's wild money printing orgy has failed to produce much CPI inflation because “consumers are hoarding money”. It is said that this explains why so-called “money velocity” is low.
The whole argument revolves around the Fisherian “equation of exchange”, as you can see here. Now, it may be true that the society-wide demand for money (i.e., for holding cash balances) has increased. Rising demand for money can indeed cancel some of the effects of an increasing money supply. However, it should be obvious that there is 1. no way of “measuring” the demand for money and 2. the “equation of exchange” is a useless tautology.
Consider for instance this part of the argument:
“Though American consumers might dispute the notion that inflation has been low, the indicators the Fed follows show it to be running well below the target rate of 2 percent that would have to come before interest rates would get pushed higher.
That has happened despite nearly six years of a zero interest rate policy and as the Fed has pushed its balance sheet to nearly $4.5 trillion.
Much of that liquidity, however, has sat fallow. Banks have put away close to $2.8 trillion in reserves, and households are sitting on $2.15 trillion in savings-about a 50 percent increase over the past five years.”
First of all, banks have not “put away” $2.8 trillion in reserves; in reality, they have no control whatsoever over the level of excess reserves. They are solely a function of quantitative easing: when the Fed buys securities with money from thin air, bank reserves are invariably created as a side effect. Credit can be pyramided atop them, or for they can be used for interbank lending of reserves, or they can be paid out as cash currency when customers withdraw money from their accounts. That's basically it.
Now imagine that a consumer who holds $1,000 in a savings account spends this money. Would it disappear? No, it would most likely simply end up in someone else's account. So the aggregate amount of money held in accounts is per se definitely not indicative of the demand for money either – it wouldn't change even if people were spending like crazy. Someone would always end up holding the money. Money, in short, is not really “circulating” – it is always held by someone.
This also shows why so-called velocity is not really telling us anything: all we see when looking at a chart of money velocity is that the rate of money printing has exceeded the rate of GDP growth (given that money printing harms the economy, this should not be overly surprising).
In Fisher's “equation of exchange”, V is simply a fudge factor. As Rothbard noted with regard to the equation, it suffers from a significant flaw:
“Things, whether pieces of money or pieces of sugar or pieces of anything else, can never act; they cannot set prices or supply and demand schedules. All this can be done only by human action: only individual actors can decide whether or not to buy; only their value scales determine prices.
It is this profound mistake that lies at the root of the fallacies of the Fisher equation of exchange: human action is abstracted out of the picture, and things are assumed to be in control of economic life. Thus, either the equation of exchange is a trivial truism— in which case, it is no better than a million other such truistic equations, and has no place in science, which rests on simplicity and economy of methods—or else it is supposed to convey some important truths about economics and the determination of prices.
In that case, it makes the profound error of substituting for correct logical analysis of causes based on human action, misleading assumptions based on action by things. At best, the Fisher equation is superfluous and trivial; at worst, it is wrong and misleading, although Fisher himself believed that it conveyed important causal truths.”
(italics in original)
It is of course true that prices in the economy adjust to the supply of and the demand for money. However, low consumer price inflation by itself does also not really mean that one can infer that the demand for money must be exceptionally high.
What if e.g. the supply of goods increases at a strong rate? Then we would ceteris paribus have to expect the prices of goods to decline – if they instead remain “stable”, it is actually indicative of inflationary effects making themselves felt.
Moreover, prices never rise or fall at uniform rates. In today's economy, some prices rise at astonishing rates of change, such as for instance securities prices. These are not part of the consumer price index, but they are nevertheless prices. Their huge rise in recent years is an effect of monetary inflation – and if we were to attempt to infer the demand for money solely from their rates of change, we would have to say that the demand for money cannot have increased a whole lot. So you can see that things are evidently not as simple as “MV=PT” would have it.
In fact, the most pernicious effect of monetary inflation is precisely that relative prices in the economy shift and in the process paint a distorted picture that falsifies economic calculation and leads to capital malinvestment. Money always enters the economy at discrete points, and therefore changes in prices are like the ripples in a pond after a stone has been thrown in. First the goods demanded by the earliest recipients of newly created money rise…then the prices of goods demanded by the receivers who are second in line, and so forth. The earlier in the chain of exchanges one resides, the more likely one is going to be a winner of the process, the later, the more likely one is going to lose out (as more and more prices rise before the late receivers get their hands on the new money). Needless to say, the number of losers tends to be much greater than the number of winners.
Lastly, a sharper rise consumer price inflation may yet strike with a large time lag. There is no way of knowing for certain, but it wouldn't be the first time it has happened.
Why Hoarding Isn't “Bad”
Such reports is however do as a rule not merely attempt to explain why consumer price inflation is apparently low in the face of huge money supply growth (let us leave aside here that the “general price level” is in any event a fiction and cannot be measured. Let us also leave aside that the calculation of CPI such as it is seems highly questionable on other grounds as well). We may for the sake of argument concede that the demand for money (i.e., for holding cash balances) has risen on a society-wide basis after the 2008 crisis. Indeed, it seems quite a reasonable supposition.
The underlying theme of such studies is however invariably that this alleged hoarding somehow harms the economy, because economic growth is assumed to be the result of spending and consumption. This is a bit like arguing that the best way to stay warm is by burning one's furniture. In fact, this is a very good analogy, as burning the furniture will keep one warm for a while, just as people wasting their savings on consumption will for a while make aggregate economic statistics look better. That there might be a problem only becomes evident once all the furniture has been burned. Then it is cold, and there is nothing left to sit on.
Obviously, the argument that consumption drives economic growth is putting the cart before the horse: one can only consume what has been produced after all, so production must come first. If production must come before consumption, then investment must come before production and saving must come before investment. When people save money, nothing is miraculously “lost” to the economy. By saving more, people are merely indicating that their time preferences are lower – that they prefer consuming more later to consuming less in the present. Their savings can be employed to increase production, so as to enable this later, larger rate of consumption they desire. All that changes is the pattern of spending in the economy – more will tend to be spent on producer's goods and wages instead of on consumer goods.
What about genuine “hoarding” though? What if money is not kept in savings accounts, but instead stuffed under a mattress where nobody has access to it? Isn't that harming the economy?
The answer is actually no.
Let us assume a lone miser takes all the money he earns and stuffs it under his mattress. Given that this money is held in his cash balance and not being spent, prices in the economy must ceteris paribus adjust downward (assuming that no-one else's demand for money changes and that its supply remains fixed). However, all of this continues to fully agree with an expansion in production.
After all, our miser must have earned his money somehow, and he can only have earned it by producing a good or a service. The contribution he has made to the economy's pool of real funding remains “out there”. The fact that he subsequently hoards his money does not alter this fact. He could use his money to exercise a claim on other goods or services, and so consume the portion of the economy's pool of real funding he is entitled to on account of his preceding production. If he doesn't, then whatever he has contributed can be employed to expand production. The point here is: money is merely a medium of exchange. It is a sine qua non for the modern complex economy as there can be no economic calculation without money and money prices, but money is not what ultimately funds economic activity.
Just think about it: if one is stranded on an island without any real capital – i.e., without concrete capital goods – one can have suitcases full of money and will still be unable to fund even the tiniest bit of production with it.
In short, “hoarding” cannot possibly harm the economy. The same, alas and alack, cannot be said of money printing.
Nope, he doesn't harm the economy …
Charts by: Saint Louis Federal Reserve Research
You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.
Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke
2 Responses to “Are US Consumers Evil Hoarders?”
Most read in the last 20 days:
- US Financial Markets – Alarm Bells are Ringing
A Shift in Expectations When discussing the outlook for so-called “risk assets”, i.e., mainly stocks and corporate bonds (particularly low-grade bonds) and their counterparts on the “safe haven” end of the spectrum (such as gold and government bonds with strong ratings), one has to consider different time frames and the indicators applicable to these time frames. Since Donald Trump's election victory, there have been sizable moves in stocks, gold and treasury bonds, as the election...
- The Great El Monte Public Pension Swindle
Nowhere City California There are places in Southern California where, although the sun always shines, they haven’t seen a ray of light for over 50-years. There’s a no man’s land of urban blight along Interstate 10, from East Los Angeles through the San Gabriel Valley, where cities you’ve never heard of and would never go to, are jumbled together like shipping containers on Terminal Island. El Monte, California, is one of those places. Advice dispensed on Interstate...
- A Trade Deal Trump Cannot Improve
Worst in Class BALTIMORE – People can believe whatever they want. But sooner or later, real life intervenes. We just like to see the looks on their faces when it does. By that measure, 2017 may be our best year ever. Rarely have so many people believed so many impossible things. Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for...
- Where’s the Outrage?
Blind to Crony Socialism Whenever a failed CEO is fired with a cushy payoff, the outrage is swift and voluminous. The liberal press usually misrepresents this as a hypocritical “jobs for the boys” program within the capitalist class. In reality, the payoffs are almost always contractual obligations, often for deferred compensation, that the companies vigorously try to avoid. Believe me. I’ve been on both sides of this kind of dispute (except, of course, for the “failed”...
- Trump’s Trade Catastrophe?
“Trade Cheaters” It is worse than “voodoo economics,” says former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. It is the “economic equivalent of creationism.” Wait a minute - Larry Summers is wrong about almost everything. Could he be right about this? Larry Summers, the man who is usually wrong about almost everything. As we have always argued, the economy is much safer when he sleeps, so his tendency to fall asleep on all sorts of occasions should definitely be welcomed....
- Pope Francis Now International Monetary Guru
Neo-Marxist Pope Francis Argues for Global Central Bank As the new year dawns, it seems the current occupant of St. Peter’s Chair will take on a new function which is outside the purview of the office that the Divine Founder of his institution had clearly mandated. Neo-Papist transmogrification. We highly recommend the economic thought of one of Francis' storied predecessors, John Paul II, which we have written about on previous occasions. In “A Tale of Two Popes” and...
- Side Notes, January 14 - Red Flags Over Goldman Sachs
Red Flags Over Goldman Sachs Just to prove that I am an even-handed insulter, here is a rant about my former employer, Goldman Sachs. The scandal at 1MDB, the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund from which it appears that billions were stolen by politicians all the way up to the Prime Minister, continues to unfold. The main players in the 1MDB scandal. Irony alert: apparently money siphoned off from 1MDB was used to inter alia finance Martin Scorcese's movie “The Wolf of...
- Trump’s Plan to Close the Trade Deficit with China
Rags to Riches Jack Ma is an amiable fellow. Back in 1994, while visiting the United States he decided to give that newfangled internet thing a whirl. At a moment of peak inspiration, he executed his first search engine request by typing in the word beer. Jack Ma, founder and CEO of Alibaba, China's largest e-commerce firm. Once he was a school teacher, but it turned out that he had enormous entrepreneurial talent and that the world of wheelers, dealers, movers and...
- Money Creation and the Boom-Bust Cycle
A Difference of Opinions In his various writings, Murray Rothbard argued that in a free market economy that operates on a gold standard, the creation of credit that is not fully backed up by gold (fractional-reserve banking) sets in motion the menace of the boom-bust cycle. In his The Case for 100 Percent Gold Dollar Rothbard wrote: I therefore advocate as the soundest monetary system and the only one fully compatible with the free market and with the absence of force or fraud...
- Silver’s Got Fundamentals - Precious Metals Supply-Demand Report
Supply-Demand Fundamentals Improve Noticeably Last week was another short week, due to the New Year holiday. We look forward to getting back to our regularly scheduled market action. Photo via thedailycoin.org The prices of both metals moved up again this week. Something very noticeable is occurring in the supply and demand fundamentals. We will give an update on that, but first, here’s the graph of the metals’ prices. Prices of gold and silver...
- Regime Change: The Effect of Trump's Victory on Stock Prices
A Soaring Market On January 20 2017 Donald Trump will be sworn in as the new president of the United States. On the stock market his victory has triggered a lot of advance cheer already: the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by a sizable 7.80 percent between the election and the turn of the year. Two big winners: the DJIA and Donald Trump - click to enlarge. Many investors are now wondering what effect the change in government will have on stock prices in the new...
- Donald and the Dollar
No Country Can be Made Great by Devaluation John Connally, President Nixon’s Secretary of the Treasury, once remarked to the consternation of Europe’s financial elites over America’s inflationary monetary policy, that the dollar “is our currency, but your problem.” Times have certainly changed and it now appears that the dollar has become an American problem. Richard Nixon and his treasury secretary John Connally. The latter is today mainly remembered for his...