Why 2 Percent Inflation? Why Not Zero? — King Banaian

 

As Jim notes, inflation figures have come out and, depending on which data you use, you might say inflation was 1.5%, 1.7% or something in between. We are told that this is below the Fed’s target of 2%.

Question: Why is a central bank that is told to maintain price stability choosing 2% as its goal? Why wouldn’t price stability mean stable prices, or zero inflation?

In Europe, the central bank uses a devices called the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, and aims for its rate of growth (or inflation rate) to be “below, but close to, 2% over the medium term.” In explaining its position, the European Central Bank cites three reasons for 2 over zero:

1. The risk of deflation. Monetary policy relies on interest rates to stimulate demand, but in a deflationary environment interest rates tend to move towards zero, making monetary policy ineffective. This is an odd concern for the ECB, as it has no responsibility for output growth, only for price stability. In the US case, there is more a need for protection from the zero bound: It is what lead to quantitative easing. Without QE, the Fed would have invited further expansion from fiscal policy, and perhaps more fundamental changes in the Fed’s charter — something we might want to avoid, given what we saw Congress do with Dodd-Frank.

2. No matter which measurement of inflation is used (HICP in Europe, core PCE deflator in the US), there is the risk that your measurement has errors. If you believe the cost of low inflation is less than the cost of low deflation, you might want to lean on the scale a bit to move the target inflation rate above zero.

3. Inflation isn’t the same in every part of a country or zone of countries. CPI in my part of the country — the Minneapolis-St. Paul area — was 1.9% in 2013. In Phoenix it was 1.3% for 2013, and 0.2% for the last six months. Yet we all have to work with one Federal Reserve. In Europe, the inflation rate in Greece differs from that in France, but they decided to stick themselves with one ECB. So you might want a few areas with a little more than 2%, others with a little less, but nobody (hopefully) with less than zero.

Notice that in each point above  I included the words “might want.” There is disagreement among policy professionals about how much you “might want” — a debate that continues, sometimes even here at Ricochet. And it’s reasonable for people to disagree. You might argue that a small amount of deflation isn’t costly; others will disagree. Most economists believe that some rate slightly above zero is desired.

In my own view, the ECB’s phrasing of “below, but close to” is better than thinking you haven’t done enough if you get to 1.7% or 1.8%, because of the measurement issues, which I think are substantial. But it’s worth listening carefully to hear why an economist thinks inflation needs to be higher, or why it may already be too high.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 68 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Japan’s near-current and past attempts at breaking out of their deflation/stagnation haven’t worked; although the most recent moves may be having an effect.

    Abenomics–Keynesian fiscal stimulus and easy money, coupled with moves to push growth on the heels of the rising prices the first two moves generated–has produced inflation.  But.

    Inflation this year is running too high, and contradictorily, lately their stock market (a harbinger of future economic performance, but with little predictive value in terms of timing and with a need for sustained market rise or fall to indicate an economy’s future) has been falling.

    Eric Hines

    • #61
  2. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    I’m with Ed G.  mild deflation is not the big bugaboo that everyone is making out.  Japan’s deflationary problems are a sign of their demographic and economic sclerosis not the other way around.

    • #62
  3. Big Green Inactive
    Big Green
    @BigGreen

    King Banaian:

    Big Green:

    I was not opining on the political expediency of a policy of inflation, I simply provided an example where there was significant deflation and prosperity ensued. Further, there does NOT have to be nominal wage cuts for deflation. Wages can remain steady or even increase but due to increases in productivity, the prices of goods fall. This has happened many times.

    I’d have to ask you for examples. Are these US examples pre-WWI?

     These examples are indeed pre-WWI….In fact most of the 1870s to about 1915.

    • #63
  4. Cantankerous Homebody Inactive
    Cantankerous Homebody
    @CantankerousHomebody

    Thanks Eric

    • #64
  5. Big Green Inactive
    Big Green
    @BigGreen

    Eric Hines:

    Big Green:

    The purpose of low interest rates is not necessarily to stimulate consumption. Low interest rates are intended to reduce the cost of capital, not to induce consumption.

    Part, though not all, of the point of reducing the cost of capital is to stimulate consumption. But a significant part is to directly stimulate consumption.

    Eric Hines

     You are partially correct but are not articulating the mechanisms clearly.  Lowering interest rates reduces the cost of capital and is intended to stimulate production and investment.  The manner in which it stimulates consumption is through inflation (as you have noted elsewhere). 

    • #65
  6. user_48342 Member
    user_48342
    @JosephEagar

    Ed G.:

    Eric Hines:

    …..

    Agreed, except that I don’t see any reason not to widen the band just a bit to accommodate truly deflationary environments from time to time. Fixing things so that the economy always inflates seems an unnecessary fetter to a freer market. again, I’m not talking extreme deflation just as I understand you’re not talking about extreme inflation. We’re talking about a reasonable band.

    Well.  The whole point of having constant inflation is to make the economy freer, in the presence of a political system that (we all think) cannot tolerate nominal wage cuts.

    • #66
  7. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    The whole point of having constant inflation is to make the economy freer….

    Let me suggest a slight rephrasing:  The whole point of constantly having inflation….

    Eric Hines

    • #67
  8. user_961 Member
    user_961
    @DuaneOyen

    Roberto:

    King Banaian:

    1. The risk of deflation.

    The true bugbear indeed, notice how deflation has absolutely decimated the computer industry. Each and every year more powerful integrated circuits, more memory etc. all for lower prices which no one ever purchases. Look at the shattered wrecks of industry that remain: Intel, IBM, AMD etc. veritable zombies which are barely hanging on.

    It is a lucky thing other portions of the US Economy are spared this grim fate.

     This is not deflation that has hit the computer industry, it is normal functioning of the economy and “creative destruction”.  Just like the replacement of the horse and buggy and flat screen TVs that run forever at low power replacing 1960’s round tube CRT, hand-wired color TVs that would cost $4,000 each today.

    • #68
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.