Thoughts from the Frontline

First Deflation, Then Inflation. But the Timing…?

June 2, 2012

Choose your language

One of the more frequent questions I am asked in meetings or after a speech is whether I think we will have inflation or deflation. My ready answer is, "Yes." Then I stop, which I must admit is rather fun, as the person who asked tries to digest the answer. And while my answer is flippant, it's also the truth, as I do expect both outcomes. So the follow-up question (after the obligatory chuckle from the rest of the group) is for a few more specifics. And the answer is that I expect we will first see deflation and then inflation, but the key is the timing. Today we will examine that question in more detail, as we look at how interest rates could actually be negative (!!!) this week in German and Swiss bonds and why the US ten-year has dipped below 1.5%. The very poor May employment number needs some analysis, too, and we'll check the prospects of a synchronized global slowdown. Rarely have I come to a Friday with so much data that simply begs for a more thorough look, but we will try to hit at least the most important topics.

US Unemployment Turns Back South

The US unemployment numbers for May were released this morning, and they were rather dismal. Mainstream economists were expecting something on the order of 150,000 new jobs, but they came in sharply lower at 69,000. March and April estimates were revised down 50,000. As long-time readers know, I pay as much or more attention to the direction of the revisions than to the actual monthly numbers, as the…

Discuss This

4 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Ron Meijer

June 4, 2012, 6:44 a.m.

Free call?? I am not so sure about the free call by buying german bonds. whose is telling you are payed in german marks by a break up of the euro. why isn’t it possible to get payed in ratio’s of the currency of the euro. so, 35% in german marks, 30% in french francs, 15% in lira’s 15% peseta’s etc. I still have my doubts about this issue. Thx Ronald

fernando jose perez mata

June 2, 2012, 7:27 p.m.

I forget the wine, aka the heart healer, you can taste the best wines of Ribera del Duero , Rioja and Bierzo, nice place where the history can be breath

fernando jose perez mata

June 2, 2012, 7:21 p.m.

I hope i could be your host in Madrid, i think a marvellous place for a late lunch is ” casa botín ” the most antique restaurant of the world, excellent to eat ,and you will be in a place from de XVIII century, a time when spain had also several problems, trade wars, inflation… but here we are.
I supose you have your agenda cosed but i wish i could hear one or two of this secrets, i know they worth moré than 25000� ( my iPad thinks in euros)

Joseph Moffa

June 2, 2012, 5 p.m.

John, can we put aside the “velocity of Money” as pushed by mainstream economics.
Velocity Does Not Have an Independent Existence
Contrary to mainstream economics, velocity does not have a “life of its own.” It is not an independent entity—it is always value of transactions P(T) divided into money M, i.e., P(T/M). On this Rothbard wrote: “But it is absurd to dignify any quantity with a place in an equation unless it can be defined independently of the other terms in the equation.” (Man, Economy, and State, p. 735)

Since V is P(T/M), it follows that the equation of exchange is reduced to M(PxT)/M = P(T), which is reduced to P(T) = P(T), and this is not a very interesting truism. It is like stating that $10=$10, and this tautology conveys no new knowledge of economic facts.

Should we then be alarmed with growing money supply despite the fact that the so-called velocity of money is falling? Does the fall in the velocity of money imply that no damage to the economy will occur?
1.Velocity of circulation is a result, not a cause. It is commonly a passive resultant of changes in people’s relative valuations of money and goods.
2.Velocity of circulation cannot fluctuate for long beyond a comparatively narrow range, because it is closely tied (except for speculation) to the rate of consumption and production.
3.V does vary with the volume of speculation, but an increased volume of speculation may accompany either rising or falling prices.
4.V is never an independent factor on the side of money, because the transfer of goods must speed up, other things being equal, to an equal amount. It is just as valid to think of the velocity of circulation of money being caused by what happens on the side of goods as by what happens on the side of money.
5.Actually it is psychological factors â?? desire to buy and sell, produce and consume â?? that determine V.
6.Monetary theory would gain immensely if the concept of an independent or causal velocity of circulation were completely abandoned. The valuation approach, and the cash holdings approach, are sufficient to explain the problems involved.