Some Comments on the Quantity Theory of Money

As I mentioned in my previous post - Inflation - Why the official numbers are wrong! - I pointed out that the general theory for which inflation is based upon implies that the "price level" is a vector but measures of inflation represent this as a scalar. Today I want to explore how that complicates the picture for the Quantity Theory of Money.

Inflation - Why the official numbers are wrong!

I'm certainly not the first to claim this and I won't be the last. But I think I'll say this differently than most who happen to say it.

For starters, when I refer to inflation, I'm preferring to price inflation.  Some (particularly Austrians), by inflation, mean monetary inflation so I think it's important to be clear on what's being discussed.

Many feel that the current inflation figures (whether we're talking CPI or CPI minus food and energy) understate the actual rate of inflation. Other methods are sometimes used which in many cases are not any better than the official numbers (and in many ways worse.)

Howerever, what I'd like to suggest is that Any method of coming up with an inflation number is flawed. To understand this we'll have to take a brief detour.

Minimum Wage and Inequality

One topic that is an interest of mine is the topic of growing income inequality. Over the last 30 years or so, a small fraction of the population in the US has increased its share of income (and even more wealth) while the middle class has been gradually gutted and those on the bottom have been stepped on. Ultimately I don't think it's a sustainable situation and something needs to be done to address those issues.

Today I want to look at a hot topic in politics: the minimum wage. President Barrack Obama has been pushing an increase of the Federal minimum wage to $10.10. And there's plenty of resistance to that but I don't want to focus on that too much. We can really consider two issues:

(1) Is raising the Federal minimum wage a good way to alleviate income inequality?
(2) Assuming (1), where should the Federal minimum wage be?

It's the latter question I'd like to take a look at today.

McDonald's and Wages

There's a considerable amount of debate revolving around the minimum wage and the vast number of workers in the US that earn a very low wage. I'm personally of the view that the growing inequality in the US in which the top 1% (and 0.1% which looks even worse) have been taking a larger share of the income.

A good portion of the talk has concerned fast food workers of which McDonald's is the largest and most focused on.  Today I want to take a practical look at McDonald's and wages.

My Failed Inflation Prediction

In August 2009 I made some tongue-in-cheek type predictions. To be clear, I roughly believed them but at the same time I knew they were some gut feelings based on some rough models I had in my head.

My inflation prediction was that that CPI would hit 250 by Fall 2011. It was about 215 at the time which put inflation to be close 8% a year. Apparently we're still not there.

What about the Fed's Balance Sheet?

So I often see a lot of discussion regarding the Fed's Balance Sheet related both to its size and to its liabilities. A recent example of a question by John Hussman:

Should Fed be subject to capital requirements? A $3.7 trillion balance sheet and $55bn of capital is 67-to-1 leverage http://t.co/OuX3KFLpng
— John P. Hussman (@hussmanjp) August 16, 2013

The main question I think to ask is: Why does the Fed's balance sheet matter?

The corollary question is this: In what sense is the Fed's balance sheet like that of a balance sheet of a private bank or nonfinancial company?

Adam Smith on Equilibrium

The neoclassical conception of "equilibrium" is actually somewhat different than Adam Smith's characterization. In spite of that, neoclassical reasoning often (implicitly) assumes that their equilibrium  has the same implications as Adam Smith's. I would like to briefly describe Adam Smith's notion of equilibrium and would suggest that his notion is far more useful than the neoclassical market clearing equilibrium.

In  An Inquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations (or simply Wealth of Nations),  Smith described two kinds of prices for commodities. This is all laid out in Chapter VII of Book I. Smith described the Natural Price and the Market Price of commodities. I will begin by looking at the latter as it's the closest concept to the current neoclassical understanding of equilibrium.

The Dollar is an Excellent Store of Value

To start off, I don't believe the title of this blog, at least not in the usual sense of how the dollar is defined. I would like to suggest, however, that the dollar has been, historically speaking, a good store of value. Whether or not it will do be so in the future is anyone's guess.

If you've ever had the "privilege"  of reading an economics textbook, it will give you a functional definition of money - money is defined in terms its functions. For example, according to the wikipedia article on money, money serves the following four functions:

1. Medium of Exchange
2. Unit of Account
3. Store of Value
4. Standard of Deferred Payment

The article notes that many economics texts do not list "standard of deferred payment", instead, treating it as parts of the other functions.

As far as the dollar is concerned, it's frequently acknowledged to satisfy 1, 2 an 4 but not 3.  I can use dollars to make all sorts of purchases (medium of exchange), all of the goods and services and debts are denominated in dollars (unit of account) and all of my debts can be dispelled by the use of dollars as a result of legal tender laws (standard of deferred payment).

But regarding store of value, the dollar has not served so well. As I illustrated in Figure 2 from my blog on Currency and Price Stability (reproduced here), the dollar has lost a significant amount of purchasing power over the years.

Who are the 1%?

In Income Inequality in the US, I noted that the top 1% (and especially the top 0.1%) have been taking a greater share of productivity gains over the last 50 years (especially since the 1980's).

But that raises the question who are these 1%-ers and why have they been able to take a larger share of productivity gains?

We'll start by looking at some data found in this study which gives a breakdown of the top 1% and top 0.1% for years between 1979 and 2005. Here's a summary of the 2005 data:

Income Inequality in the US

Here's income inequality in one simple chart.

Currency and Price Stability

There are two related claims made by gold standard advocates. These claims are:


1) Under a gold standard, prices are stable.
2) Prices ought to remain stable.

I) We'll start by looking at the first claim. What does it mean to say that prices are stable?