Fixation on the Consumer Price Index

For most economists the key factor that sets the foundation for healthy economic fundamentals is a stable price level as depicted by the consumer price index.

According to this way of thinking, a stable price level doesn’t obscure the visibility of the relative changes in the prices of goods and services, and enables businesses to see clearly market signals that are conveyed by the relative changes in the prices of goods and services.


Central planners at work. It looks stable, doesn’t it?


Consequently, it is held, this leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals.


The Rationale for Price-Stabilization Policies

For instance, let us say that demand increases for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative strengthening, it is held, is going to be depicted by a greater increase in the price of potatoes than for tomatoes.

Now in an unhampered market, businesses pay attention to consumer wishes as manifested by changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Failing to abide by consumer wishes will result in the wrong production mix of goods and services and therefore lead to losses. Hence in our example, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, businesses are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

According to the stabilizers’ way of thinking, if the price level is not stable, then the visibility of relative price changes becomes blurred and consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.

Thus, it is feared that unstable prices will lead to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Unstable changes in the price level obscure changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Consequently, businesses will find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Based on this way of thinking it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will bring price stability, i.e., a stable price level.


The history of central bank-managed “price stability” in actual practice – click to enlarge.


By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that at present, policymakers must aim at keeping price inflation at 2 percent. Any significant deviation from this figure constitutes deviation from the growth path of price stability.

Note that in this way of thinking changes in the price level are not related to changes in relative prices. Unstable changes in the price level only obscure, but do not affect the relative changes in the prices of goods and services. So if somehow one could prevent the price level from obscuring market signals obviously this will set the foundation for economic prosperity.

At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral. Changes in money only have an effect on the price level while having no effect whatsoever on the real economy. In this way of thinking changes in the relative prices of goods and services are established without the aid of money.


There Is a Problem – Newly Created Money Is Not Neutral

When new money is injected there are always first recipients of the newly injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients with more money at their disposal can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged.

As money starts to move around the prices of goods begin to rise. Consequently, later receivers benefit to a lesser extent from monetary injections or may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Increases in money supply lead to a redistribution of real wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money, to the earlier recipients. Obviously this shift in real wealth alters individuals demands for goods and services and in turn alters the relative prices of goods and services.


The ECB proclaims its ignorance on the topic in several places on its own web site, where it is inter alia asserted in a speech by a member of the council that “Money is neutral and super-neutral in the longer run”. The speech is quite interesting in its emphasis on various models and empirical evidence (and its frequent admissions that the planners are actually groping in the dark). All the models mentioned – and that holds even more for the interpretation of the statistics of economic history (“empirical evidence”) – are deeply flawed in that they assume that there are actually quantities that can be sensibly measured. What is the constant underlying such measurements? It does not exist. It has been known that money is not neutral since at least the early 18th century, when Richard Cantillon first described the effect named after him. A concerted effort to banish the monetary theory of the trade cycle from economic debate has been in train for nearly 150 years, mainly because accepting the theory would make it rather awkward for  inflationist and “stabilizers” alike to justify their claims (and policies). And yet, if one is in possession of even a shred of common sense, one should be able to debunk all competing theories with one hand tied behind one’s back (beginning with Jevons’ idea that  “sunspots” are responsible for the business cycle). It is utterly baffling to us that there really appear to be people who believe in the illogical notion of the neutrality of money.


Changes in money supply sets in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, changes in money supply cannot be neutral as far as the relative prices of goods are concerned.

Now, the Fed’s monetary policy that aims at stabilizing the price level by implication affects the rate of growth of money supply.

Since changes in money supply are not neutral, this means that a central bank policy amounts to the tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.

Furthermore, while increases in the money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this need not always be the case. Prices are determined by both real and monetary factors.

Consequently, it can occur that if real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors, no visible change in prices might take place. In other words, while money growth is buoyant, prices might display low increases.


Conclusion: The “General Price Level” May Mislead Rather than Illuminate Economic Observers

Clearly, if we were to pay attention to the so-called price level, and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote:


The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.


In his book America’s Great Depression Murray Rothbard describes how economists were misled by Irving Fisher’s misguided ideas on price stability. Long after the depression Hayek once asked rhetorically: “Haven’t the stabilizers done enough damage yet?”. Evidently not, since they are still at it.

Photo via


From 1926 to 1929, the alleged stability of the price level caused most economic experts, including the famous American economist Irving Fisher, to conclude that US economic fundamentals were doing fine and that there was no threat of an economic bust.


Chart by: St. Louis Fed


Chart and image captions by PT


Addendum: Additional Reading Matter

Long time readers are probably aware that we have repeatedly harped on the dangers of the price stability policy discussed by Dr. Shostak above. It cannot be said often enough though – awareness of the problems concerned still needs to be raised. In this context, readers may also want to review an in-depth discussion of the topic we posted some time ago, which goes into quite a bit of detail: “The Errors and Dangers of the Price Stability Policy”.


Dr. Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics (AASE), provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, master’s degree from Witwatersrand University and PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University, and has taught at the University of Pretoria and the Graduate Business School at Witwatersrand University.




Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear Readers!

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: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


One Response to “Central Banks’ Obsession with Price Stability Leads to Economic Instability”

  • Kafka:

    Money can flow anywhere you want it to. The “first recipients” can’t eat anymore that they already do, so it flowed mainly into paper assets- Shares and Bonds. And a very little bit of the conjured money/credit leaked into the real economy. Therein is the problem. Without monetary policy working hand-in-glove with the real economy, with an incentive based objective of getting real people working at real jobs, then Central Banks are just inflating assets (stocks up 300% since 2009) and enriching their pals. Well, at least enriching their paper.

    Incidentally, I am laughing at the hot money that goes into businesses where Hedge Fund managers are clueless of the core business. A friend of mine who sold his ranch to a hedge fund that was gathering up ranchland, was told to do something stupid. His reply?. “Listen Mr. 3 piece suit, there are 10,000 head that need to be fed in the morning. Get on a plane and buy a pair of gumboots because I’m outta here.”

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • US Stock Market: Conspicuous Similarities with 1929, 1987 and Japan in 1990
      Stretched to the Limit There are good reasons to suspect that the bull market in US equities has been stretched to the limit. These include inter alia: high fundamental valuation levels, as e.g. illustrated by the Shiller P/E ratio (a.k.a. “CAPE”/ cyclically adjusted P/E); rising interest rates; and the maturity of the advance.   The end of an era - a little review of the mother of modern crash patterns, the 1929 debacle. In hindsight it is both a bit scary and sad, in...
  • A Giant Ouija Board - Precious Metals Supply and Demand Report
      Object of Speculation The prices of the metals fell last week, $22 and $0.24 respectively. It’s an odd thing, isn’t it? Each group of traders knows how gold “should” react to a particular type of news. But they all want the same thing — they want gold to go up. And when it doesn’t, many hesitate to buy. Or even sell. This is why speculation cannot set a stable price (I’m talking to you, bitcoiners).   Everybody wants gold to grow wings. Unfortunately it's rather...
  • How to Blow $12.2 Billion in No Time Flat
      Fake Responses  One month ago we asked: What kind of stock market purge is this?  Over the last 30 days the stock market’s offered plenty of fake responses.  Yet we’re still waiting for a clear answer.   As the party continues, the dance moves of the revelers are becoming ever more ominous. Are they still right in the head? Perhaps a little trepanation is called for to relieve those brain tensions a bit?  [PT]   The stock market, like the President,...
  • Purchasing Power Parity or Nominal Exchange Rates?
      Extracting Meaning from PPP   “An alternative exchange rate - the purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion factor - is preferred because it reflects differences in price levels for both tradable and non-tradable goods and services and therefore provides a more meaningful comparison of real output.” – the World Bank   Headquarters of the World Bank in Washington. We have it on good authority that the business of ending poverty is quite lucrative for its practitioners...
  • Broken Promises
      Demanding More Debt Consumer debt, corporate debt, and government debt are all going up.  But that’s not all.  Margin debt – debt that investors borrow against their portfolio to buy more stocks – has hit a record of $642.8 billion.  What in the world are people thinking?   A blow-off in margin debt mirroring the blow-off in stock prices. Since February of 2016 alone it has soared by ~$170 billion - this is an entirely new level insanity. The current total of 643...
  • Stock and Bond Markets - The Augustine of Hippo Plea
      Lord, Grant us Chastity and Temperance... Just Not Yet! Most fund managers are in an unenviable situation nowadays (particularly if they have a long only mandate). On the one hand, they would love to get an opportunity to buy assets at reasonable prices. On the other hand, should asset prices actually return to levels that could be remotely termed “reasonable”, they would be saddled with staggering losses from their existing exposure. Or more precisely: their investors would be saddled...
  • Despondency in Silver-Land
      Speculators Throw the Towel Over the past several years we have seen a few amazing moves in futures positioning in a number of commodities, such as e.g. in crude oil, where the by far largest speculative long positions in history have been amassed. Over the past year it was silver's turn. In April 2017, large speculators had built up a record net long position of more than 103,000 contracts in silver futures with the metal trading at $18.30. At the end of February of this year, they held...
  • From Bling to Plonk – An Update on the Debt Mountain
      Serenely Grows the Debtberg We mentioned in a recent post that we would soon return to the topic of credit spreads and exotic structured products. One reason for doing so are the many surprises investors faced in the 2008 crisis. Readers may e.g. remember auction rate securities. These bonds were often listed as “cash equivalents” on the balance sheets of assorted companies investing in them, but it turned out they were anything but. Shareholders of many small and mid-sized companies...
  • US Equities – Mixed Signals Battling it Out
      A Warning Signal from Market Internals Readers may recall that we looked at various market internals after the sudden sell-offs in August 2015 and January 2016 in order to find out if any of them had provided clear  advance warning. One that did so was the SPX new highs/new lows percent index (HLP). Below is the latest update of this indicator.   HLP (uppermost panel) provided advance warning prior to the sell-offs of August 2015 and January 2016 by dipping noticeably below the...
  • Return of the Market Criers - Precious Metals Supply and Demand
      Ballistically Yours One nearly-famous gold salesman blasted subscribers this week with, “Gold Is Going to Go Ballistic!” A numerologist shouted out the number $10,000. At the county fair this weekend, we ran out of pocket change, so we did not have a chance to see the Tarot Card reader to get a confirmation. The market criers are back in gold town [PT]   Even if you think that the price of gold is going to go a lot higher (which we do, by the way—but to lean on...
  • Good Riddance Lloyd Blankfein!
      One and the Same   “God gave me my money.” – John D. Rockefeller   Today we step away from the economy and markets and endeavor down the path less traveled.  For fun and for free, we wade out into a smelly peat bog.  There we scratch away the surface muck in search of what lies below.   One should actually be careful about quotes like the one attributed to Rockefeller above, even if it of course sounds good and is very suitable for the topic at...

Support Acting Man

Item Guides


Austrian Theory and Investment



THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


Buy Silver Now!
Buy Gold Now!

Diary of a Rogue Economist