Saturday 6 October 2012

On hyperinflation

1. Prompted by an article about the Iranian currency collapse posted at HPC, my working theory on hyperinflation is that you only get it if there are currency controls, whether that's a peg (whether upwards or downwards), restrictions on movements in or out, split or official and grey-market exchange rates, artificially high or low interest rates etc.

2. The precise transmission mechanism is a bit of a mystery to me, as it does not seem to make much difference in which direction the government interferes, it always leads to inflation. With Iran of course, it is not the Iranian government which is imposing the restrictions, it is the US government still pursuing some petty vendetta after thirty years, but the effect is the same.

3. The Market Oracle have published a handy table, and the conclusion is that "Hyperinflation is an economic malady that arises under extreme conditions: war, political mismanagement, the transition from a command to market-based economy", which from scanning their table seems like a fair summary.

4. The conspiracy nutters will always mumble about "fiat currencies" but these are usually the same people muttering about "printing money" and "the burden of taxation" in the same breath. Any MMTer can tell you that governments print money by spending it and un-print money by taxing it away again; ultimately, the point of taxation is to prevent inflation rather than to fund the spending side.

5. In a UK context, there is another factor, the aftershock of house price bubbles, the government desperately creates credit in order to either prop up house prices or to stoke inflation with the sole purpose of masking real house price falls (Home-Owner-Ism is not a hedge against inflation; it is the reason for inflation; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy)

6. So in which periods did the UK have the highest inflation? Chart from here
7. Yup, in the 1970s when they had to mask fifty per cent real house price falls and when we still had quite strict currency controls; then there was another bout around 1990 when we tried to peg GBP to other European currencies (i.e. basically the Deutschmark).

8. As we learn from Japan, the amount of deficit a government is running or the amount of credit it is creating, doesn't really cause inflation as long as there are no currency controls.

9. Which is why I am quite sanguine about the possibility of the UK government trying the same trick as they did in the 1970s and masking the twenty or thirty per cent real house price falls yet to come with very high inflation - they can't do it unless they re-introduce currency controls, and I don't think the banks will like that very much, so I don't think it will happen. And if it does, we are all doomed anyway. The highest inflation rate they can achieve nowadays is about five per cent inflation a year, as the chart shows, which has come down slightly since.

13 comments:

john b said...

Absolutely this (also, with external debt denominated in sterling, falling GBP value has the same effect on the debt burden, making any attempt at reintroducing currency controls doubly pointless).

Mark Wadsworth said...

JB, ta, but can you explain the bit in the parentheses a bit more slowly?

Sackerson said...

Correlate inflation with M4.

Mad Numismatist said...

I think the hyperinflationistas are causing greater problems; because it is not raging at 200% per month, people are "sanguine" about inflation being “just” 4%. Such a small number does not have the same ring of panic within it.

James Higham said...

The Market Oracle have published a handy table

Now that actually gives an indication of your economics, Mark. Just as people like me who quote from Zero Hedge and Max .;-)

James James said...

Oh Mark, you're an MMTer?! You've suddenly gone down in my estimation.

http://mises.org/daily/5260/The-UpsideDown-World-of-MMT

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, most of these M1 M2 M3 M4 figures are nigh meaningless.

MN, I sincerely wish, for narrow selfish reasons if nothing else, that interest rates were higher and inflation was lower, but the government wishes otherwise and that is the end of that. 1% or 2% negative interest rates won't kill me.

JH, I've no opinion on Market Oracle one way or another, but the table seems to be carefully compiled and quite informative.

JJ, no I am not "an MMTer" because they don't really have any solutions. However, their way of looking at and describing how all this monetary and fiscal policy interacts is very useful, it debunks a lot of myths, and so it is a useful starting point.

Sackerson said...

Do have a look at the pattern, e.g. the way the money supply soared BEFORE the Saudis protected the value of their oil; and the way the Tories pumped the conomy before Labour took their turn.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S, the problem is that beyond a certain level, "money supply" becomes a meaningless quantity.

Japan has been doing QE for ten or twenty years, as a result of this, the government owes quadzillions to the Japanese banks, and the Japanese have invested quadzillions in Japanese government bonds. It's ultimately just numbers on bits of paper and those numbers are not in circulation.

See also Sarkonomics.

See also Meaningless statistics: The velocity of money.

Sackerson said...

QE is not M4, and the BoE (as far as I can understand their codes and stats)is careful to leave the former out of its M4 figs.

Mark Wadsworth said...

S: "QE is not M4"

Corret. QE is the process of replacing long term government debt with short term government debt.

M4 is a measure of certain types of 'money'.

It is the case that long term government debt is excluded from some money supply measures but not others, so QE does not affect the larger M's but does affect the lower ones.

It's still all stuff and nonsense though.

Derek said...

I wrote a big comment on this while I was in Rome last week but the Internet ate it and I don't have the heart to type it all out again. So now that I've got a bit more time I thought I'd have another go at sharing my thoughts.

I like to think about this using scenarios, so let's take a look at a few.

1) Two countries P and Q with different currencies. Neither one allows non-citizens to own land. Each is totally self sufficient. Neither one imports or exports goods and services. Neither one allows visitors from the other.

2) Two countries P and Q with different currencies. Neither one allows non-citizens to own land but each allows citizens of the other to visit. Each is totally self sufficient. Neither imports or exports goods and services.

3) Two countries P and Q with different currencies. Neither allows non-citizens to own land but they each allow citizens of the other to visit. Both allow the import or export of goods and services. P is totally self sufficient but Q does not have enough food to feed its population and needs to import P's surplus food.

4) Two countries P and Q with different currencies. Neither allows non-citizens to own land but they each allow citizens of the other to visit. Both allow the import or export of goods and services. P does not have enough oil to satisfy its energy needs and needs to import Q's surplus oil. Q does not have enough food to feed its population and needs to import P's surplus food.

That's enough for just now. I think that you can get hyperinflation in Q under scenario 3 but not in scenarios 1, 2 and 4.

Mark Wadsworth said...

D, yes, Scenario 3 is what we are looking at, or more importantly, a rapid shift from 4 to 3.