💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3911.gmi captured on 2023-12-28 at 19:36:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)

➡️ Next capture (2024-05-10)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Monetarism: Printing Money To Curb Inflation

2012-03-19 12:03:25

July 04 2008 | Filed Under Banking , Economics

Picture yourself as the host of an economists' dinner party where no one is

having any fun (perhaps not a hard thing to imagine). There are two competing

schools of thought on what should be done to fix the party. The Keynesian

economists in the room would tell you to break out the party games and snacks,

and then force people into a rousing game of Twister. Meanwhile, Milton

Friedman and his monetarist pals, have a different solution. Control the booze,

and let the party take care of itself.

Of course, the economy is slightly more complicated than a dinner party gone

bad, but the fundamental question is the same: Is it better to intervene when

things go wrong, or attempt to prevent problems before they start? This article

will explore the rise of the laid-back monetarist approach to controlling

inflation, touching upon its proponents, successes and failures.

The Basics of Monetarism

Monetarism is a macroeconomic theory borne of criticism of Keynesian economics.

It gets its name because of its focus on the role of money in the economy. This

differs significantly from Keynesian economics, which emphasizes the role that

the government plays in the economy through expenditures, rather than on the

role of monetary policy. To monetarists, the best thing for the economy is to

keep an eye on the money supply and let the market take care of itself: in the

end, the theory goes, markets are more efficient at dealing with inflation and

unemployment. (For more on the Keynesian theory, read Formulating Monetary

Policy.)

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist who once backed the Keynesian

approach, was one of the first to break away from commonly accepted principles.

In his work "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" (1971), a

collaborative effort with fellow economist Anna Schwartz, Friedman argued that

the poor monetary policy of the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the

Great Depression in the United States, not problems within the savings and

banking system. He argued that markets naturally move toward a stable center,

and that it was an incorrectly set money supply that caused the market to

behave erratically. With the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early

1970s and the subsequent increase in both unemployment and inflation,

governments turned to monetarism to explain their predicaments. It was then

that this economic school of thought gained more prominence. (To learn more

about Friedman, read Nobel Winners Are Economic Prizes and How Influential

Economists Changed Our History.)

Monetarism has several key tenets:

The control of the money supply is the key to setting business expectations and

to fighting the effects of inflation.

Market expectations about inflation influence forward interest rates.

Inflation always lags behind the effect of changes in production.

Fiscal policy adjustments do not have an immediate effect on the economy.

Market forces are more efficient in making determinations. (For related

reading, see What Is Fiscal Policy?)

A natural rate of unemployment exists; trying to lower the unemployment rate

below that rate causes inflation.

Quantity Theory of Money

The approach of classical economists toward money states that the amount of

money available in the economy is determined by the equation of exchange:

MV=PT

Where:

M = the amount of money currently in circulation over a set time period

V = the "velocity" of money (how often money is spent or turned over during the

time period)

P = the average price level

T = the value of expenditures or the number of transactions

Economists tested the formula and found that the velocity of money, V, often

stayed relatively constant over time. Because of this, an increase in M

resulted in an increase in P. Thus, as the money supply grows, so too will

inflation. Inflation hurts the economy by making goods more expensive, which

limits consumer and business spending. According to Friedman, "inflation is

always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". While economists following the

Keynesian approach did not completely discount the role that the supply of

money has on the gross domestic product (GDP), they did feel that the market

would take more time to react to adjustments. Monetarists felt that markets

would readily adapt to more capital being available. (To learn more, read What

Is The Quantity Theory Of Money?)

Money Supply, Inflation and the K-Percent Rule

To Friedman and other monetarists, the role of a central bank should be to

limit or expand the supply of money in the economy. "Money supply" refers to

the amount of hard cash available in the market, but in Friedman's definition,

"money" was expanded to also include savings accounts and other on-demand

accounts.

If the money supply expands quickly, then the rate of inflation increases. This

makes goods more expensive for businesses and consumers and puts downward

pressure on the economy, resulting in a recession or depression. When the

economy reaches these low points, the central bank can exacerbate the situation

by not providing enough money. If businesses - such as banks and other

financial institutions - are unwilling to provide credit to others, it can

result in a credit crunch. This means there is simply not enough money to go

around for new investment and new jobs. According to monetarism, by plugging

more money into the economy, the central bank could incentivize new investment

and boost confidence within the investor community.

Friedman originally proposed that the central bank set targets for the rate of

inflation. To ensure that the central bank met this goal, the bank would

increase the money supply by a certain percentage each year, regardless of the

economy's point in the business cycle. This is referred to as the k-percent

rule. This had two primary effects: it removed the central bank's ability to

alter the rate at which money was added to the overall supply, and it allowed

businesses to anticipate what the central bank would do. This effectively

limited changes to the velocity of money. The annual increase in money supply

was to correspond to the natural growth rate of GDP.

Expectations

Governments also had their own set of expectations. Economists had frequently

used the Phillips curve to explain the relationship between unemployment and

inflation, and expected that inflation increased (in the form of higher wages)

as the unemployment rate fell. The curve indicated that the government could

control the unemployment rate, which resulted in the use of Keynesian economics

in increasing the inflation rate to lower unemployment. During the early 1970s,

this concept ran into trouble as both high unemployment and high inflation were

present. (For more insight, read Examining The Phillips Curve.)

Friedman and other monetarists examined the role that expectations played in

inflation rates; specifically, that individuals would expect higher wages if

inflation increased. If the government tried to lower the unemployment rate by

increasing demand (through government expenditures) it would lead to higher

inflation and eventually to firms firing workers hired to meet that demand

bump. This would occur any time the government tried to reduce unemployment

below a certain point, commonly known as the natural rate of unemployment.

This realization had an important effect: monetarists knew that in the short

run, changes to the money supply could change demand, but that in the long run,

this change would diminish as people expected inflation to increase. If the

market expects future inflation to be higher, it will keep open market interest

rates high.

Monetarism in Practice

Monetarism rose to prominence in the 1970s, especially in the United States.

During this time, both inflation and unemployment were increasing, and the

economy was not growing. Paul Volcker was appointment as chairman of the

Federal Reserve Board in 1979, and faced the daunting task of curbing the

rampant inflation brought on by high oil prices and the collapse of the Bretton

Woods system. He limited the growth of the money supply (lowering the "M" in

the equation of exchange) after abandoning the previous policy of using

interest rate targets. While the change did help the rate of inflation drop

from double digits, it had the added effect of sending the economy into a

recession as interest rates increased.

Since monetarism's rise in the late 20th century, one key aspect of the

classical approach to monetarism has not evolved: the strict regulation of

banking requirements. Friedman and other monetarists envisioned strict controls

on the reserves held by banks, but this has mostly gone by the wayside as

deregulation of the financial markets took hold and company balance sheets

became ever more complex. As the relationship between inflation and the money

supply became looser, central banks stopped focusing on strict monetary targets

and more on inflation targets. This practice was overseen by Alan Greenspan,

who was a monetarist in his views during most of his near-20-year run as Fed

chairman. (To learn more about this famed Fed chairman, read A Farewell To Alan

Greenspan.)

Criticisms of Monetarism

Economists following the Keynesian approach were some of the most critical

opponents to monetarism, especially after the anti-inflationary policies of the

early 1980s led to a recession. Opponents point out that the Federal Reserve

failed to meet the demand for money, which resulted in a decrease in available

capital.

Economic policies, and the theories behind why they should or shouldn't work,

are constantly in flux. One school of thought may explain a certain time period

very well, then fail on future comparisons. Monetarism has a strong track

record, but it is still a relatively new school of thought, and one that will

likely be refined further over time.

by Brent Radcliffe