Wednesday, 5 January 2011

Inflation for 8 year olds!

I remember the first time I wondered what inflation is. I was about 8 and heard the word on the news. Afterwards I asked my father about it (sufficient to say he is a scientist, not an economics expert). I don't remember exactly what he told me, but what my little child mind understood is that there are some bad men someplace falsifying and creating fake money. I literally used to think that if the inflation rate is, say, 5%, this means that 5% of all the money people use is fake money printed by some thief in his basement. I didn't really give that much thought; inflation is not the most important thing for children. By the time I was 13 I was sure my definition was wrong and economics is so complicated I would never know what inflation is. But now at age 20, after a period of interest in economics (especially the Austrian school), I realize I may have been right. Now, I know inflation is not exactly false money, it is perfectly legal tender. However, there is more than just a grain of truth in my 8 year old assertions. Inflation is indeed a bunch of shady characters creating money. Of course they don't do it in the basement and in secret, they do it in the Central Bank and they do it openly. And that is what makes this whole process very strange. Of course I know liberals (i.e. Keynesians) would say I'm "prejudiced against inflation" because at a young age I received the impression it was bad. But now I'm an adult, I'm thinking about this rationally, and I still think it is wrong for some rich Yale/Harvard blokes to lower the value of my savings while enriching themselves (Bernanke is printing another $600Billion!). In fact it was easier to accept when I used to imagine it being done by some tattooed guys wearing ski masks in a badly-lit basement or garage.
When I was 8 I thought the government would get these guys. Then I realized "these guys" are the government...

I don't quote the great Ludwig von Mises nearly often enough. And he described inflation very well from an economic perspective when he said that "Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money without a corresponding increase in the demand for money, i.e., for cash holdings". This is exactly right. There is no demand for larger cash holdings - this is shown by the cash holdings losing value when its supply increases. The only "demand" in this case is the demand of greedy politicians and their banker cronies.

2 comments:

  1. I have little doubt this comment will probably be rejected and surprised if it wasn't. My reluctance to comment nowadays is that there is a tendency to simplify things into black and white and to simply disregard any comment that comes from an "evil" person who "must be ignored" and presumably die off (i.e the person who disagrees with some insignificant aspect of Libertarian). Evil= Bernanke/inflation/taxes/government/"elite" university students/Keynes (as a human being and as a school)/regulations/Bankers/ unemployment insurance/ "greedy, selfish, naive" evil but well intentioned liberals/ etc. Good= pure Austrian school/Von Mises/ Herbert Spencer/ deflation/anarchy/ inequality (because equality is evil)/ gold standard/ purely anti-statists/ women who commit abortion/ anti-democratic/ etc. Anyone who doesn't fit into those two categories seem to be amoral, immoral, confused, ignorant, or stupid. And if they do not fit into any of those world views, they are anomalies to human nature itself and should just die off anyway. I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but because I don't agree with everything that is said, that makes me a communist, anti free market, anti libertarian, utilitarian empiricist, and an evil, ignorant, or amoral individual? If a person simply divides the world into those who are statist, anti-statist, or apathetic to either, than I guess it does. But that seems like an unforgivably cold world to me, where humans are always guilty not by actions but simply by the existence of their "unnatural" dispositions or beliefs that may go against the deemed (Christian) "natural laws." Oh, but I forgot that those "unnatural" people are the primitives and they are not really human beings anyway...

    Is there a gray area between your definition of good and evil? Or is it that Milton Friedman is more good that Keynes who is more evil? Or is that a bad idea since it is a utilitarian approach (i.e. Von Mises is marginally better than Friedman)? Is it simply Von Mises is purely good (i.e. Luke Skywalker) and Keynes is purely evil (Darth Vader), where the world is simplified between two distinct spheres? If you support a Libertarian statist candidate (ex. Rand Paul), does that mean you are committing evil because you are validating the workings by of an evil system (i.e. voting in a democracy)? Or are you committing more good than otherwise not (libertarianism over American modern liberalism, in which case you are voting based on the principles of marginal utility i.e. more good over more evil)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are correct to some extent. I guess I will have to write a post clarifying my standing on some things. However, let me just point out that indeed in terms of morality there can be no grey area. I usually write about morality, not political reality! Unfortunately utopia has not yet been given to us... Also where can anyone get any idea that I support abortions? I wrote quite a few posts declaring abortions as wrong.

    ReplyDelete