General Question

Qingu's avatar

Should we try to increase inflation to end the Great Recession?

Asked by Qingu (21185points) August 8th, 2011

This isn’t a normal recession. For one thing, the economic hole is absolutely huge (and was vastly underestimated by the government in 2008/9): we’re at 10% unemployment and even more people are underemployed. That alone makes it the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression.

The nature of the recession is also unique because it was precipated by a global financial crisis and skyrocketing public and private debt. This article, by David Leonhardt, argues that the recession is fundamentally about the bursting of a “consumer bubble.” Ezra Klein cites an economist who argues that we shouldn’t even call this a recession because the combination of the financial crisis and consumer debt makes it more like a “contraction.”

That’s a huge problem. A normal recession is basically a vicious cycle: consumers stop spending money, so industry stops producing as much goods, so industry starts laying off more workers, so unemployed workers stop spending money too, so industry stops producing even more goods—and so on. You can typically fix recessions by stimulating consumer demand (this was the purpose of the stimulus bill, both its tax cuts and its spending measures—to put more money in the hands of consumers).

But consumers aren’t using their tax breaks and spending income to buy goods; they’re using the extra money to pay down debt. On top of that, the government’s debt is huge and limits how much money we can pump towards consumers through tax cuts and stimulus spending anyway.

On the supply-side, corporations have made huge profits. But they’re simply sitting on the cash. They aren’t hiring, and they aren’t investing—because they know that consumers aren’t going to start spending money on their products anytime soon.

How do we get out of this mess? For a while I’ve just been advocating more stimulus. The debt is a problem we absolutely need to deal with—but the hole in our economy and massive unemployment is the more immediate problem. The stimulus act worked to fill that hole—not enough, because the hole was much bigger, but the concept worked. More stimulus would fill it further. Lowering unemployment is a bigger priority than paying down the debt (and we’ll never pay it down int he long term anyway with 10% unemployment).

But now I’m wondering (based on Klein’s post) whether another approach might work better. The problem of consumer debt can be helped by raising inflation. High inflation makes debt less of a problem—the money you owe has less value in the long term. It also forces corporations sitting on massive cash reserves to spend them now, which would stimulate the economy. Central banks can generate high inflation by increasing the money supply.

Obviously, high inflation can be extremely harmful if left unchecked, and it disfavors creditors who are owed money. But screw the creditors—they owe us after we bailed them out with TARP. And right now it’s pretty clear that the recession is a bigger problem than having high inflation, and I’d take the lesser of two evils anyday.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

janbb's avatar

You know, I find it almost impossible to get involved in a theoretical debate when this Congress can’t or won’t do anything constructive.

Qingu's avatar

The Fed can bypass Congress.

Theoretically at least.

swuesquire's avatar

I’d say that the biggest impediment would be inflation hawks. They will kick and scream about anyone even thinking that higher inflation could be a good thing. There are periods where I agree with them. However, you see evidence that higher inflation can be very helpful. For example, Australia targets 4% annual inflation (as opposed to our 2% or lower) and that has given their central bank lots of leeway in dealing with the crash and recession of 2008. On the other hand, we don’t want to run the risk of runaway inflation.

I think the fairest and most useful solution would be level targetting. We are close to being back to the targeted rate of inflation, but the rates were so low (sometimes negative) for so long, that we are a long way off from where we should have been if our rate targets had consistently been hit. I think returning to the appropriate level would not be unfair to savers and creditors, while still going a long way to getting money off the sidelines and helping to make debt more manageable.

swuesquire's avatar

Qingu is right that this is entirely in the realm of the Fed. It won’t be popular, but the entire point of an independant Fed is to do the right thing even if it is politically painful.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Central Banks creating money out of thin air, “inflation,” is the root cause of this problem to begin with. Ron Paul debates Federal Reserve Governor in 1983.
He’s not the only one whos has been talking about exactly what we are going through right now. Alan Greenspan had this to say in 1966:
“When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.”

@janbb Pro is the opposite of con. That means the opposite of Congress, is Progress.

swuesquire's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff I’m less inclined to think leaving the Gold Standard was the disaster you seem to think. I don’t have it handy, but there is a great chart floating around showing a very clear correlation between various countries moving to fiat currencies and beginning to recover from the Depression.

I also wish I had more time to dig into your responses. However, I’m more inclined to trust Milton Friedman who believed that the Fed’s failure to consistently grow the money stock was the single largest contributor to the extension of the Depression than I am to listen to Ron Paul on just about any topic.

wundayatta's avatar

I think this is a great idea. Anything to increase the money supply and stimulate spending. Just because the Fed made a mistake in 1927, doesn’t mean the tool is a bad one. It can mean they wielded it with too much indiscretion. You want to stimulate the economy enough to get sustainable growth, but not enough to get speculative booms.

I have never quite understood why we had to borrow money to increase the money supply. I thought we could just print money. Inflation has been too low and we’ve been dangerously close to deflation. If we were to raise the inflation rate to 6%, and maintain it there until we grew out of this recession, we could not only end the recession, but also pay down the debt.

Remember, we are paying debt at 1 or 2 % (e.g.—I don’t know the actual rates). If people invest in other instruments, such as stocks, and the economy grows, there will be huge new amounts of income taxes income coming into the government. This will allow us to pay down the debt at a much faster rate.

Anyway, I have consistently advocated stimulus for the economy. I have never understood the logic of paying down the debt by contracting the economy. But that’s what the deficit hawks seem to want. Even Reagan knew you had to stimulate growth. Or rather, he figured it out before he destroyed the economy. Perhaps the Tea Farty will figure that out as well in a year or so.

Qingu's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff, leaving aside the feasibility of going back to the gold standard, your comparison seems to be apples and oranges. Was the nature of the contraction in 1927 remotely similar to the one in 2008?

I also frankly get really tired and suspicious of people who prescribe the same medicine no matter what the ailment. Is there any economic problem that you think can’t be cured by low inflation and/or going back to gold? (And if not, how do you explain the series of severe recessions/depressions during the gold standard and the overall greater instability of the American ecnomony during that period?)

Qingu's avatar

@wundayatta, conservatives on Fluther understand the idea of stimulating growth to pay down the deficit. This is exactly why they claim to support tax cuts. Tax cuts, in the conservative imagination, pay for themselves because they stimulate economic growth to cover the lower percentage of revenues.

In some cases they do. Just like in some cases spending can stimulate growth that eventually offsets the increased deficit.

But that’s all off topic. I’d like to stay focused on the efficacy of inflation.

JLeslie's avatar

I have been thinking this for a few years. I don’t want to see it up in the double digits, but I do want to see more inflation. I remember being a little girl and buying the tv today, because in a month it would be more expensive. I also was receiving a decent return on my money in my savings account. If the interest rates move up slowly, maybe people will start buying houses, to get the low rates before they increase. I thimk a little inflation is a reasonable way to stir things up.

CaptainHarley's avatar

Inflation steals income from the working people. Think about it.

Qingu's avatar

I’m thinking about it.

I think that one-sentence, black-and-white statements about extremely complex economic problems are probably worth ignoring.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@Qingu

So you don’t believe that inflation reduces the individual’s ability to buy goods and services?

swuesquire's avatar

@Captain Harley I just thought about it. I get a bigger raise in years when inflation is higher. No harm there. My stock holdings go up commensurate with the combination of inflation and real growth. No harm there. Any bond fund I hold start offering higher yields to offset inflation. No harm there. The value of my home gets inflated as well. No harm there. The value of my debts goes down in real terms. BONUS THERE.

As far as I can tell, the only way I, as a worker, am harmed by inflation is if I have a vast majority of savings in either paper currency or non -TIPS bonds, in which case, I made a bad bet on the growth rate of inflation.

Now, it’s fair to say that inflation effects creditors, who tend to be wealthy, but this group is wealthier, more sophisticated, better able to hedge, and also better positioned to benefit from nominal increases in asset prices. I will not lose any sleep over their plight.

Working people overwhelmingly are debtors, who benefit on net from inflation. Retired working people should still have a diversified portfolio even unto their later years, so this shouldn’t be a massive problem. Also, to compensate for this, Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation, so there will always be income security (unless a certain group manages to cut the program).

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

I may, this one time, agree with @CaptainHarley about politics. The negative impacts inflation would have in our current enviornment would be devastating.

I would, however, be all for controlled inflation were it to be combined with Higher taxes on top earners, aggressive capital gains taxes, and a federal works program that OVERPAID workers as compared to the private sector. The private sector would be motivated to keep necessary employees by raising wages.

An end to H1-b visa programs and taxes on outsourcing jobs would also likely be necessary for me to be in favor.

JLeslie's avatar

@CaptainHarley I do think it reduces an individuals ability to buy goods and services, but it motivates them to buy goods and services now rather than later.

Qingu's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, why do you think the impacts would be devastating? I just detailed why inflation would have a positive impact in our demand-slump, debt-riddled economy. Can you please at least try to explain why I’m wrong, rather than just asserting?

Also, nobody is arguing for long term inflation. Obviously inflation in and of itself is harmful. The question is whether it is the lesser of two evils in this recession.

Nullo's avatar

May not be entirely relevant, but AFAIK Zimbabwe is doing the inflation thing, and it’s not helping any.

Qingu's avatar

@Nullo, yeah that’s not remotely relevant. Did you even read the OP?

I mean, this is why I get so fed up with conservatives. The recession is a hugely complex problem. There are no good solutions. Any proposed solution, including rising inflation, will have risks and drawbacks. We have to evaluate these risks and drawbacks in comparison to the risks and drawbacks of doing nothing and staying in a prolonged recession.

But it doesn’t seem like the conservatives who have posted so far are approaching the question this way. It seems like the conservatives just see the word “inflation,” and immediately post an answer that says nothing more nuanced than “INFLATION IS BAD.”

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@Qingu, let me articulate this clearly, as you do seem to have been thinking about this and I want to make sure I am precise in articulating my concern.

I do not see how high inflation, in the model you are proposing, would lead to wage increase, or a real increase increase in buying power when we are at 16% unemployment. I believe wage increases and lower unemployment are the key to rebuilding the economy.

I understand you believe that corporations would invest the cash they have, and I think that is likely true. I do not think that money would be invested in the US. I believe that money would be invested overseas. I believe corporations would also accelerate outsourcing of jobs.

The individual, out of work or underemployed, would experience debt relief but rising new daily costs. Those working would experience the same but tread water.

Maybe I am overlooking something in your theory.

swuesquire's avatar

@Nullo Zimbabwe is doing controlled slightly above average inflation rates in order to catch up to an agreed upon price level? This is news to me.

JLeslie's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought Inflation causes people to buy now. Buying more goods and services means businesses need to hire more employees to handle the increase in business.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@JLeslie I agree if persons have disposable income, it is an incentive.

I do not agree that a business will hire people in the nation who is experiencing the inflation if they can at all afford not to.

swuesquire's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I know this is for Qingu, but one thing you are overlooking is that wages HAVE to rise in order for inflation to happen. It is more money chasing the same number of goods which makes prices rise. For employed people, inflation is dealt with in cost of living increases (these haven’t been happening lately because inflation has been so low). That plus debt relief would be a net positive for the employed.

The unemployed are a slightly different story, as the downside to not having a wage is that you also don’t get a cost of living increase (!). Prices would rise for them. However, we already know that it sucks to be unemployed! They can’t afford anything as it is! Jobs must take top priority here. The idea would be that debt relief would make up for this difference. There would also be the added benefit of an improved job market as money that is currently on the sidelines become mobilized.

Qingu's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, I agree that lowering unemployment is key to ending the recession. I’m not sure that wage increases are. They’d help, but so would devaluing debt.

But the problem is, I’m not seeing any available policy options for lowering unemployment or increasing wages. More stimulus would work, but that’s probably not possible at this point politically.

I think you raise a very good point about corps spending their cash overseas than here. I do think we need to incentivize local investment and hiring.

JLeslie's avatar

What about the idea that extremely low inflation or deflation really hurts retired people living off their savings. Their money is earning nothing.

Qingu's avatar

Low inflation/Deflation is really bad for other reasons too. It discourages investment, which is a major problem in our current economy.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@swuesquire and @Qingu, I hate to disagree with you and I will be trying to see the flaw in my own argument later. (I hate ever to disagree with @JLeslie)!

I believe we have allowed free trade to succeed to the point where national tools to address employment issues are useless. With the availability of cheap labor at different points on the globe, and the low costs of transportation, any incentive to businesses to invest without a corresponding regulation as to where that money should be invested will force the company to chase that low wage cost.

I believe that is where we are now. Only jobs that require physical presence within the US are still located here. Any attempt to stimulate hiring only rewards off shore labor.

I believe that inflation will stimulate the economy. I do not feel it will add jobs. In fact, it will likely accelerate the movement of certain employment sectors to offshore locales as companies discover economies of scale.

JLeslie's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought You should never hate disagreeing with me. You make some legitimate arguments. I think @Qingu got it right when he said there is no perfect solutions, every answer will have its down side.

Manufacturing might continue to go off shore but retail here will increase I think. Actually as our dollar weakens European countries are coming here to manufacture some products.

How about we switch to a 32 hour work week, and then more people will be necessary to get a job done? Everyone sacrifice to help the many. And, profits be capped per widget so prices come down.

swuesquire's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought This is an interesting post. Let me think about it some more.

My initial questions are as follows:

If we were able to pull off full employment in 2007 at roughly the same level of globalization that we currently have what has changed that would mean we can’t get back to it?

Some of the sectors that have been hardest hit are those that require physical presence in the US. For example construction has somewhere around 20% unemployment last I checked. Now, I understand that we were overbuilt in 07, but now we are far below trend and there is some $1.5 trillion dollars in missing housing stock based on expected household formation. Again, if we can reduce relative debt loads, shouldn’t the housing market find a sustainable bottom and start putting people back to work to meet stifled demand?

Qingu's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, I guess the risk of offshore is something I’m willing to take. Nothing in our arsenal is going to change that meaningfully beyond regulations that reward local investments (which I’d heartily support). But not all sectors can profit from offshoring, and as the dollar weakens (and places like China get better labor laws) more jobs are actually gravitating here naturally.

And again, I don’t see how inflation would, in and of itself, cause an acceleration of offshoring. Maybe I’m missing something. I accept that some companies, if forced to spend money on hiring, will probably try to hire offshore. But they’re going to do that anyway, inflation or no. So might as well try to increase the net hiring even if some of that hiring is offshore, right? (Plus doesn’t a weaker dollar incentivize hiring here anyway?)

Adding jobs is the intractable problem right now, but I don’t see any other option other than stimulating the economy—specifically consumer demand—by any means available to us.

swuesquire's avatar

@JLeslie “How about we switch to a 32 hour work week, and then more people will be necessary to get a job done? Everyone sacrifice to help the many. And, profits be capped per widget so prices come down.”

Yes, please! It’s been working great in Germany as a short term solution to lower demand. In the longer term, I’m still confused as to why there isn’t a bigger push to bank productivity gains as increases in leisure time. I’ve always thought Weds. off would be just the thing to take the edge off and let me work even better the other days of the week.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

Okay Gentlemen, and Lady, I usually need alcohol to think clearly but I will respond prior to hitting the liquor store.

@swuesquire “If we were able to pull off full employment in 2007 at roughly the same level of globalization that we currently have what has changed that would mean we can’t get back to it?”

I believe the second part of your post addresses the first. I believe that we were far overbuilt in housing and several other sectors. I started to get very concerned when I started thinking about the baby boomers retiring as they were due to start in 2007. I am not convinced housing will come back for a generation due to demographic factors. What if, as seniors move in with their children or into assisted living, we have more houses to go around than we might have suspected? Especially with the needs now for multiple generations to live together in order to cut costs.

@Qingu, I think you are right, we have to do something. But what I have been witnessing for thirty years is the drive to cut costs, which means offshore, as well as an invisible negative wage pressure on onshore workers. That negative wage pressure constructs a viscous circle, meaning less disposable income, and lower demand at a particular price point. That in turn, forces more off shoring to even cheaper economies.

@JLeslie as long as we are cool.

Qingu's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought, my problem with what you are saying, re: offshoring, is that you are describing an economic constant.

Companies almost always want to cut costs and find the cheapest labor possible. Globalization increased the capacity for offshoring, but the world economy hasn’t become more globalized since the recession.

So let’s assume that industry will funnel X% of their capital into foreign workers. I don’t see how increasing inflation changes the X%. It will force them to spend more capital—which would imply that X% of that gets sent oversees. But the remainder would still be spent here, and otherwise would not be.

I’m also not sure what you mean by negative wage pressure. Maybe that’s what I’m missing?

swuesquire's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I tend to trust fully trained economists rather then my cut when it comes to forecasting trends. They tend to be much better at accounting for demographic trends than I am. That said, they have been wrong before. I remain bullish that there will come a certain point past which housing demand will return in force. I can definitely see a situation like that which you describe persisting in the short term. However, I just don’t buy that we are in some sort of “new normal”. At least not yet…

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@Qingu thank you. I am really going to the liquor store and will respond after considering your formula to that point.

What I mean by negative wage pressure is the failure to expect increased wages in fields within which your job could be outsourced. I am now deep in speculation realm, but it is an assumption of mine that the ability for a labor union to forcefully ask for large wage increases is directly related to the costs of shipping those jobs to another country.

@swuesquire Hey! Did people welcome you to Fluther yet?
Please consider that gas prices are slowly rising. Factored into my thinking on the housing trends are the need for those working physical jobs will likely cluster more in smaller homes and apartments than the surbrban sprawl of yesteryear. That may be off-sett by telecommuting, but any job that may be performed by a telecommuter can be off-shored.

JLeslie's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I would have thought @Qingu is more scary to disagree with than me. LOL.

Qingu's avatar

I’m only scary to disagree with when you’re not even trying to make a rational argument, which @Imadethisupwithnoforethought clearly is, which I totes respect; plus I’m not even sure I’m right about this, which is why I asked the question.

swuesquire's avatar

A total side note to the discussion. Inflation at the levels indicated in the OP (around 4%) are not historically outlandish in America. Inflation was at this level during “Morning in America” under Reagan. We have been on a long term downward trend as far as what the acceptable target is, but as long as the Fed is very explicit on what they are doing, why, and for how long, I don’t see how a change can be that big a deal.

Qingu's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I don’t really see the connection between that and inflation though. It seems like that would be happening regardless of inflation level.

JLeslie's avatar

@Qingu Don’t get me wrong, I am thrilled when I see you pop up on a Q. I respect your opinions, knowledge, and get a real kick out of your arguing with people sometimes…when you deem the person irrational, ignorant, and obtuse…not that you directly use those words of course.

JLeslie's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I wonder what the statistics are for telecommunting off shore and answering call centers off shore? Apple promises their 800 customer service will be answered by someone in North America, it is a selling point in their mind. Recently I called Sprint for help, and the person also sounded North American. I think there has been an outcry from the public to move this type of help back to our continent. I wonder if there has been a shift regarding this particular job sector.

I also think it is important to keep manufacturing here. What I am waiting for is Americans to give a damn about quality. Moderate clothing and other goods don’t exist anymore, everything is cheap garbage or very expensive designer. I want better made goods, does not have to be the tippy top of the line, made by Americans. I will pay more, because it will last longer and feel and look better. Even if it means I buy fewer things, what I do buy will be worth it. There needs to be some sort of cultural shift.

It seems to me Western Europeans don’t want the garbage, don’t want their houses full of junk goods. Maybe I am wrong, I have not been to Europe in a long time now.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

OK, I have Scotch now. I bought the cheap stuff, as I am watching my investments and may need to get a job.

@swuesquire I hope is proving my point for me. Historical inflation has been at 4%, is lower now. Dipping into the inflation numbers, as I have not done for some time, previously revealed to me that work done in sectors which require onshore workers, Healthcare, Higher Education, is much higher than the reported figures. I remember vaguely that Higher Education was 6% annually? Any industry which requires workers on site can push for higher wages, and results in THE REAL inflation showing for that industry.

Food, software, durable goods, those industries are off-shored, or just as importantly, work is available for off-shoring, enforcing stagnant wages. It is absolutely no surprise to me Americans cannot afford Healthcare of College, and our Mechanics and Plumbers seem outrageously expensive.

As to that formula @Qingu, I tried to get quickly grab outsourcing percentages but that ended in failure.

“So let’s assume that industry will funnel X% of their capital into foreign workers. I don’t see how increasing inflation changes the X%. It will force them to spend more capital—which would imply that X% of that gets sent oversees. But the remainder would still be spent here, and otherwise would not be.”

I believe that X is not a constant. As X increases, the pay of American workers declines in real terms, which forces the need for cheaper durable goods. X will then increase. This does result in wealth generation, but simultaneously explains the wealth concentration we have experienced in recent years.

@JLeslie I do not believe that people can afford nice things anymore. And I am thinking about Ikea.

Qingu's avatar

But my question is, why would inflation cause X to increase? What is the relevance of offshoring and the mechanics of it to inflation?

Also, is inflation tied to specific industries?

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@Qingu I am quoting you:

“It also forces corporations sitting on massive cash reserves to spend them now, which would stimulate the economy. ”

Corporations need invest that money. They will, unless constrained, invest that money at the lowest price per work unit available, both, because it is in the best interest of a corporation, and because the lack of workers willing to work domestically at wages that could support low price points, which are necessary due to currently deflated demand.

That money will go to external workers. And at some point, those workers will be trained and efficient enough that any domestic workers doing the same role look horribly expensive and the entire unit will be outsourced, resulting in fewer employees here.

Those workers will be unemployed and experiencing inflationary costs run ups on limited incomes.

Inflation can be calculated to specific industries. The government rolls them together, however, when reporting out.

JLeslie's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought I disgree. People with jobs, who still have their same salaried jobs of 5 years ago, have the same or more spending power than 5 years ago. The unemployed cannot afford things true, but everyone else still can. I can’t tell you how many people spend their money on tons and tons of crap. I have so many friends who buy a new article of clothing every week. Fall apart in three washes garments.

swuesquire's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought “Corporations need invest that money. They will, unless constrained, invest that money at the lowest price per work unit available, both, because it is in the best interest of a corporation, and because the lack of workers willing to work domestically at wages that could support low price points, which are necessary due to currently deflated demand.”

This would be an argument to extend and expand business tax credits. This shifts the balance in the calculuation between overseas low cost/low capital/low productivity work to higher cost/higher capital/higher productivity work here.

Other issues bear on this. Currency exhange rates are important. Everyone bemoans a “weak” dollar, but this is a blessing for domestic employment vs over seas employment. A true floating exchange rate with China would help.

Improved educational attainment also helps (though not in a short enough term here) as we can move our workers higher up the value chain.

In general, what you are calling “inflation” is really just supply and demand. Their is a great supply of labor and hence lower wages for off shoreable jobs. You are right though that we roll the cost increases for each field together and call it inflation. I think we should probably just bear this in mind so that we don’t get caught up in semantics.

You are also talking here more about the issues of quality of work, and equality of pay, which are important issues, but I think tangential to whether or not the Fed could stimulate demand.

I’m still not convinced that the fundamental have changed significantly over the last three years such that our economy could not reach full employment given adequate demand. In fact, three years of 8% GDP growth in China has probably gone a long way to lower the benefits to outsourcing.

I will be the first to admit that I do not know that much about the dynamics of outsourcing. I’ll do more to think it through and read what I can.

swuesquire's avatar

For fun in light of the news and clueless congress: “Help me Ben Bernanke, you’re my only hope”

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@JLeslie was going to give you this graph in support of my point:

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff90/AvaBrendan/cpivswages.png

But, as I researched it quickly, there seems to be some debate by different sites as to the veracity of my buying power real wages statement, so I will continue to think about it.

BTW I am actually working with a cabal of men secretly working to have women’s clothing disintegrate, so you may just be seeing their work.

Jaxk's avatar

Inflation hits fixed income earners the hardest. There is no way either SS or safe investments will grow faster than inflation unless you are an extremely savvy investor. The inflation will help with debt but a fixed income person doesn’t have much of that to begin with.

I’m not sure that higher inflation would respond with higher wages. We are in a high unemployment period with little wage competition. I would expect wages to rise but significantly less than inflation. The resulting decrease in purchasing power is likely to aggravate our recession rather than improve. That’s not to say the idea has no merit, but it would be very risky. We could easily make our recession worse and most of the burden for this strategy would be born by the retired, unemployed, and fixed income people.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk I agree inflation hits fixed income hard. But, what about owning your house outright, living off social security and the hopes of getting some money off your money every year to live? No inflation or deflations screws the people living off their savings also. I would like to think I can get 4 or 5% off my saved money to help me pay for my expenses in my old age. Right now banks are paying less than 1%, CD’s and other very low risk investments are awful. If I were getting 5% right now I would be thrilled, I would have all sorts of what I consider to be extra cash. I realize also some prices would rise, but I would feel like I could buy more,

swuesquire's avatar

@Jaxk SS benefits are at least adjusted for inflation.

The unemployed would have a rough time at first. The hope would be that increased growth and economic activity would make up for this by providing jobs. Otherwise, given current conditions, I can’t see any reason to think that being long term unemployed isn’t just the worst of all worlds right now.

You are correct though that fixed income earners would have a rough time of it. How bad depends on what specific fixed income vehicles they are invested in. Also, bear in mind that we’re not talking about runaway inflation here. I wouldn’t be comfortable with going to a price level much higher than 2% annually projected out from the 2007 peak. Given this assumption, I can’t see fixed income earners having much right to complain. These were the assumptions they signed up for when they purchased their portfolios.

Can we think of any policy responses to offset some of the damage here? Specifically things the Fed can do? I don’t expect anyone else in government to get anything done in the next two years.

Jaxk's avatar

@swuesquire

I would agree that keeping the inflation rate fairly low (<4%) would mitigate the damage to fixed income, but it would also mitigate the benefit from the rise. Everything is a double edged sword. And an inflation rate <4% is not a cause for concern. I’m just wondering if it is a enough to cause a recovery.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@swuesquire Thank you reading your response now as it was very long and I wanted consider.

I think you make a lot of great points I will think over. But as we seem to share some familiarity with interest rates I will ask you for your opinion:

How would we even spark inflation when interest rates are this low? Say Qinju talks us into it? Negative interest rates on CDs and short term Money Markets? Print money and mail everyone a check? When I think of the mechanics of pumping money in, I think lower rates, but rates are effectively zero.

Jaxk's avatar

@swuesquire

I just checked and as of now inflation rates are already at 3.5%. Doesn’t seem we have much room here.

swuesquire's avatar

Headline or core?

Cleveland Fed shows headline at about 3.8 but core under 2.

The Fed usually bases decisions on core inflation since headline is much more volatile and converges to core over time.

swuesquire's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought That seems to be the real issue. I know Ben Bernanke circa 2003 had a long list of recommendations for the Japanese that he seems to have forgotten five years later.

Off the top of my head we’d need to see (and this will begin to show what I don’t know)
1) A firm commitment with a clearly stated goal of how high a rate, how long/until what conditions it will be maintained, and why we are doing it
2) Negative interest rates on excess bank reserves stored at the Fed (we started paying these in 08 but they are positive. Other countries have had success with negative rates)
3) QE III – until it gets better edition
4) I’d be fine with a helicopter drop. I’d even promise to spend it on something nice.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s what I have for now.

Jaxk's avatar

@swuesquire

Since ‘shelter’ accounts for about 40% of core inflation, It seems a bit skewed at this point. And I think the CPI would be more in line with the intent of this question. I’ll let @Qingu clarify if that’s the case.

swuesquire's avatar

@Jaxk Good point on housing. The real question would be are we seeing temporary spikes in food and energy (in which case they’ll come down soon) or if they are permanently higher and will be pulling core up. This is possible if we have permanently higher demand for commodities from the strong growth in developing countries.

Jaxk's avatar

@swuesquire

God I hope you’re right about the temporary spike in oil. If gas falls back to $2 range we may not have to do any of this. It would represent a huge injection of cash into our economy. Of course if it isn’t temporary, we’d see an 8% CPI inflation number to get a 4% core number.

swuesquire's avatar

…and the gods will laugh that we ever prayed for inflation.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther