For most commentators, a “stable price level” is the key for economic stability. For instance, let us say that there is a relative increase in consumer demand for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative increase is depicted, all things being equal, by the relative increase in the price of potatoes. To be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumer demand. Failing to do so is likely to lead to losses. Hence, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, producers are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.
According to many economists, if the “price level” is not “stable,” then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and, consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.
This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Thinking this way, unstable changes in the price level obscure a business person’s ability to ascertain changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Thus, businesses find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.
Given such presuppositions, it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will allegedly bring “price stability” (i.e., a stable price level). By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that policymakers should aim at keeping the yearly growth rate of prices of goods and services at two percent. Any significant deviation from this figure supposedly constitutes deviation from stable growth.
The Assumption of Money Neutrality & “Price Stability”
At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral, that is, changes in the money supply only have an effect on the price level while having no effect on the relative prices. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar, then the price of a potato is $0.50. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which, in turn, will enable him to purchase two potatoes.
Let us assume that the stock of money has doubled and, as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for two dollars while one potato for one dollar. Despite the doubling in prices, a seller of an apple with the obtained two dollars can still purchase two potatoes. Assuming money neutrality, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate increase in prices. Conversely, a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate decline in the prices. Why is this way of thinking problematic?
Money is Not Neutral
When new money is injected, there are always first recipients of the newly-injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients, with more money at their disposal, can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move through the economy, the prices of goods begin to rise, unevenly and disproportionately. Consequently, late receivers of the inflated money realize costs from the monetary injections and may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.
Artificial increases in money supply generate a redistribution of wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money, to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and, in turn, further alters the relative prices of goods and services. Inflationary increases in money supply set in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and services and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, increases in money supply cannot be neutral.
Again, a change in relative demands here is on account of wealth diversion from the latest recipients of money to the earlier recipients. This change in relative demands cannot be sustained without ongoing increases in the money supply. Once the growth rate of the money supply slows down or ceases altogether, various activities that emerged on the back of this inflationary increase in the money supply come under pressure. It follows, then, that an artificial increase in the money supply gives rise to changes in relative prices, which sets in motion an unsustainable structure of production.
Hence, the Fed’s monetary policy—which aims at stabilizing the price level—necessarily involves growth in the money supply. Since inflationary changes in the money supply are not neutral, this means that the central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.
While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this is not always the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors. In such a case, a visible change in prices may not take place. While money growth is buoyant, prices might display moderate increases. If we were to pay attention to changes in the price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote,
The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.
There is No “Price Level”
The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and, therefore, the “price level” cannot even be established conceptually. When one dollar is exchanged for the one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of the one dollar is the one loaf of bread. If one dollar is exchanged for two tomatoes, then this also means that the purchasing power of the one dollar is two tomatoes. Such information regarding the specific purchasing power of money at that moment in time does not, however, allow the establishment of the general, total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot meaningfully add up two tomatoes to the one loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place. According to Rothbard,
Since the general exchange-value, or PPM (purchasing power of money), of money cannot be quantitatively defined and isolated in any historical situation, and its changes cannot be defined or measured, it is obvious that it cannot be kept stable. If we do not know what something is, we cannot very well act to keep it constant.
Conclusion
For most commentators, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is “price stability.” A “stable price level,” it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will supposedly generate price stability. Through monetary policies (inflation) that aim at stabilizing the price level, the Fed actually undermines economic fundamentals. An ever-growing interference of the central bank with the working of markets moves the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards.
On the contrary, what is required is not a policy of dubious “price stability,” but rather allowing free price fluctuations and maintaining sound money. Only in an environment free of central bank tampering can free and voluntary fluctuations in relative prices can take place. This, in turn, permits businesses to abide by consumer instructions.
