A couple weeks ago I noted that all the cool kids were writing about inflation. At that time, pretty much everyone agreed that inflation was bad; the only disagreement was over exactly how bad it was. Now that Paul Krugman has weighed in on inflation -- taking the "don't worry, be happy" approach -- inflation is the hot topic again.
Krugman argues that we shouldn't worry about inflation unless it leads to a wage-price spiral, à la the 1970s. Because there's no evidence of a wage-price spiral right now, Krugman believes the Fed should continue to focus on avoiding a financial meltdown.
It's true that once inflation becomes embedded via a wage-price spiral, it will be difficult to contain without inducing a deep recession. It's also true that embedded inflation is the most severe threat inflation poses. But does that mean we should ignore inflation up until the point where we see evidence of an actual wage-price spiral? I have to believe the answer is "no." Surely there are indicators that we can look at to determine whether inflation is in danger of becoming embedded. Surely a wage-price spiral doesn't come out of nowhere.
It seems to me that one of the most important indicators is consumer expectations of inflation. Consumers have to expect a certain level of inflation to start demanding significantly higher wages to compensate for inflation. And, as Tum Duy notes on Mark Thoma's site, major price increases by big companies such as Dow Chemical should also signal that the conditions necessary for a wage-price spiral are taking shape.
On the other hand, Krugman rightly notes that whereas unions played a major role in the wage-price spiral of the '70s, there are comparatively few unions today. Can a wage-price spiral take hold in the U.S. with so few unions to demand huge wage increases? We don't know.
Ultimately, I'm probably leaning more towards Krugman's position. Embedded inflation and a financial meltdown are among the most severe threats to an economy. We know how to deal with embedded inflation, because we did it in the '70s. We don't know how to deal with a full-scale financial meltdown. The last time we saw a financial meltdown (in 1929), the economy looked absolutely nothing like our current economy. That means we have virtually no precedent in dealing with a financial meltdown. For that reason, I'd rather risk embedded inflation than a financial meltdown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
The state of Minnesota failed to process submitted license renewals for Miller and Coors beer products before the government shutdown. As a ...
-
Spain's economy is now most evidently, and totally and completely officially, in its first recession since 1993. The final confirmation ... -
The U.S. has imprisoned 2,500 children since 9/11 as "enemy combatants", in violation of the Geneva Convention against classifyi...
-
Once again I am in a musical mood. It's time for a remake of a classic Jerry Lee Lewis song. I said come on over baby A-whole lotta hop...
-
The looming problem of what will happen as and when some of the other Eurozone economies eventually start to recover while the Spanish one l... -
There are two ways builders can pass home inspections. Build quality homes to code Hire their own inspectors Following is an email fr...
-
In his column today, Paul Krugman reminds us of the press event in 2003 where "officials from multiple agencies used pruning shears an... -
German exports and investment spending plunged in the first quarter, dragging Europe’s largest economy into its deepest economic slump on re... -
As Europe’s leaders struggle to convince markets that their Greek debt problem-resolution-proposals are actually viable, and will really do ... -
The stunner of the day is not only an anemic 2nd quarter GDP of 1.3 percent annualized, but of huge revisions all the way back to to 2007. P...
Posts
Nice post
The ways to avoid inflation and new economic policy can be found at Dollar Multiples