Fighting inflation in leading economies: a medium term task

Last week, in an event organised by the IEA, my colleague from the IIMR, Tim Congdon, and myself stressed that annual money growth (broadly defined) must return to under 5% to bring inflation down to 2% a year. According to the latest monetary data available, the US, the Eurozone and the UK do not fulfil this condition. As reported by IIMR in its January 2022 money update (see table below), broad monetary growth in the US has accelerated in recent months, with an annual 9.8% rate of growth of M3, a figure well above that compatible with 2% price stability. In the Eurozone, monetary growth (M3) has also accelerated recently and is also too high (7.3% annual growth). The same applies to the UK (6.9% annual growth in broad money), though in this case the rate of growth of M4x has decelerated in the last few months.

Broad monetary growth world-wide

See IIMR January 2022 money update at https://mv-pt.org/monthly-monetary-update/

Here you will find two videos with our inflation forecasts for the US and the UK. In both cases, we use the quantity theory of money as the theoretical benchmark to make our analysis and projections of inflation for 2022- 2024. As Milton Friedman put it, there are “long and variable” lags between money growth and inflation. This is why, even if money growth fell to under 5% a year in the next few months, these lags mean that 2022, and probably 2023, will see inflation in the 5 per cent – 10 per cent area. This is because of the excess in money balances created in 2020 and 2021. Bringing inflation back to the central bank definition of price stability is a task for the medium term. Of course, ultimately the rate of inflation in the next two or three years will very much depend on the reaction central banks will take in the next few months to the current inflation episode.

We used this same approach in a report written for the IEA in the spring 2020 when Tim Congdon and myself anticipated an inflation boom in the US in 2021-2023. A key element in our analysis and forecasts is that changes in money velocity revert to their mean, as the data shows (see below the reversion to the mean pattern observed in the US in the last century). This means that the surge in the demand for money (and thus in money velocity) in 2021 will gradually cease as it has started to happen and eventually return to its 2019 levels, therefore pushing spending and prices up. More details in the presentation on the US below.

Castañeda, Cendejas, Congdon (2021). Presentation at IIMR 2021 conference. See https://youtu.be/cmhcLljq-Vk

The video presentation on the US inflation forecast comes from our contribution to the IIMR 2021 conference (“The 2020 money supply explosion and ensuing inflation”) and our comments on the UK from a recent interview we had with the IEA Head of Public Policy, Matthew Lesh.

Comments welcome.

Read Full Post »

El problema de la inflación en Estados Unidos y Europa

Este es el título del seminario de la UNIR al que contribuiré como ponente esta semana. Será el viernes 12 de Noviembre a las 12:30, hora de Madrid. El seminario forma parte de un ciclo sobre ‘Inflación y política monetaria’, dirigido por un buen colega y amigo, Francisco Cabrillo (UNIR). Asimismo, contará con la participación y comentarios de Elena Márquez de la Cruz (UCM). Podéis venir a la sede de la UNIR en Madrid en la calle Almansa 101 o seguirlo ‘online’. En cualquier caso, os tenéis que registrar previamente aquí: https://seminarioinflacion.unir.net/ .

Nos os sorprenderá si os anticipo que comentaré el ‘estado de la cuestión’ sobre la inflación creciente en EEUU (y, en menor medida, en la Eurozona y el Reino Unido) utilizando los datos de la evolución reciente de la oferta monetaria ampliamente definida en estas economías (recogidos en el siguiente gráfico). Lo haré adoptando como marco de análisis de la inflación/deflación la Teoría Cuantitativa del Dinero.

Fuente: IIMR October 2021 video. Por Tim Congdon.

Vale la pena recordar que hace más de un año, banqueros centrales y analistas macroeconómicos coincidían casi unánimemente en que la crisis del Covid-19 tendría consecuencias des-inflacionistas a medio plazo. Desde el Institute of International Monetary Research hemos venido defendiendo la posición contraria desde marzo de 2020; lo que reflejamos en nuestros informes mensuales (ver aquí), así como en un informe que mi colega Tim Congdon y yo mismo publicamos para el Institute of Economic Affairs en la primavera de 2020 (‘Inflation, the next threat?’, traducido y editado en español por un verdadero maestro en temas monetarios, José Antonio Aguirre, ‘Es la inflation la próxima amenaza?’). En nuestra opinión, el crecimiento tan extraordinario de la cantidad de dinero (medida de manera amplia) en EEUU y en otras economías avanzadas no podía (ni puede) ser neutral en cuanto a la evolución del ciclo económico y los precios. Por la fuerza de los hechos, ya todos hablan de la elevada inflación de los últimos meses y de la venidera en 2022 como un problema. El debate en la actualidad está en la duración e intensidad de este episodio inflacionista. Desgraciadamente, en este nuevo debate los banqueros centrales siguen cometiendo el error de explicar el aumento de los precios, que estiman transitoria, por factores no monetarios. Con ello, dejan de lado una de las pocas leyes generales de la macroeconomía, aquella que explica la inflación en el medio y largo plazo por un aumento excesivo de la cantidad de dinero (una vieja ley en Economía a la que Jose Antonio Aguirre y yo mismo nos referimos hace años como la ‘ley de la física monetaria’ por la contundencia de sus resultados).

En el seminario hablaré del alcance del episodio inflacionista sobre todo en EEUU, así como de las condiciones monetarias para que la inflación vuelva a valores compatibles con lo que los bancos centrales definen como estabilidad de precios; condiciones que no se cumplen en la actualidad ni en EEUU ni en la Eurozona.

Estaré encantado de responder a vuestros comentarios o preguntas con ocasión de este seminario, ya sea en persona u ‘online’.

Juan E. Castañeda

Read Full Post »

¿Es la inflación la próxima amenaza?

Este es título del libro que acabo de publicar con Unión Editorial, bajo la edición de José Antonio Aguirre, todo un referente en Economía en España en lo que se refiere a la publicación de libros sobre moneda y banca central, tanto los suyos propios como traducciones muy meritorias que incluyen excelentes estudios de los clásicos en este campo. Este libro es una traducción al castellano del original escrito por el economista monetario y colega mío en el Institute of International Monetary Research (IIMR), Tim Congdon, y yo mismo, publicado por el Institute of Economic Affairs de Londres en Junio de 2020.

Lo que hacemos en el libro es detallar cómo se crea el dinero (entendido en un sentido amplio, que incorpora los depósitos bancarios en su definición) en economías modernas; y cómo la financiación por parte de los bancos y del banco central del creciente gasto público en que los gobiernos han incurrido desde Marzo de 2020 tiene efectos muy significativos sobre los precios y el ciclo económico, tanto en el corto como en el medio y largo plazo. 

Si bien el análisis de los procesos por los que se crea el dinero son aplicables a cualquier economía moderna, utilizamos en nuestro estudio únicamente datos referentes a la economía de EEUU. Lo hacemos así por su relevancia en la economía mundial y porque ha sido precisamente en EEUU donde el crecimiento monetario desde Marzo de 2020 ha sido más excepcional, al menos comparado con el de otras economías avanzadas. En la segunda mitad de 2020, el crecimiento del dinero (medido a través del agregado monetario M3) ha superado tasas del 25% interanual, lo que significa una tasa récord de crecimiento del dinero en tiempos de paz en la historia reciente de EEUU.

Crecimiento Monetario en EEUU durante la Crisis Financiera International (2008-09) y la crisis de Covid-19(fuente, ‘IIMR Monthly Note, October 2020‘) 

Es importante la diferenciación que hacemos en nuestro análisis entre distintos tipos de agregados monetarios: Por un lado está la ‘base monetaria’, constituida por el efectivo creado por el banco central o la casa de moneda nacional y las reservas bancarias en el banco central. La base monetaria representa un porcentaje ciertamente pequeño de la cantidad de medios de pago que usamos en nuestras transacciones cotidianas, y menos aún si se trata de transacciones de mayor valor monetario. Este agregado monetario reducido no es más que entre un 10% – 15% de los medios de pago disponibles en la economía. El resto de la oferta monetaria está constituida por los depósitos bancarios que usamos regularmente mediante el empleo de tarjetas de pago y transacciones bancarias.

Lo distintivo del crecimiento monetario registrado desde Marzo de 2020 en EEUU, es que ha crecido la cantidad de dinero en su sentido más amplio, incluyendo depósitos bancarios; esto es, la oferta monetaria. Y es el crecimiento de este último agregado monetario el que explica de mejor manera variaciones en la inflación en bienes y servicios, así como fluctuaciones de la actividad económica a lo largo del ciclo económico (ver el análisis empírico entre variaciones de la cantidad de dinero y la inflación y la renta nominal en el estudio publicado por el IIMR aquí).

Esta vez sí es diferente

En la crisis financiera de 2008-09, lo que creció fue la base monetaria (el balance de los bancos centrales), pero no la oferta monetaria que, de hecho, cayó en 2009 y 2010 y fue acompañada de desinflación y deflación. De ahí que no hubiera inflación de bienes de consumo entonces (aunque sí la hubo de precios de activos), y nuestra previsión que explicamos en el libro es que sí la habrá en esta ocasión, tras la crisis de Covid-19. No será automática ni inmediata. De hecho, el cuándo y cuánto subirán los precios es difícil de decir con precisión, aunque sí nos atrevemos a ofrecer cifras en el libro. Lo que sí que podemos apuntar son tendencias de precios a medio y largo plazo. Una vez que lo peor de la actual crisis sanitaria haya pasado y la economía vuelva a re-abrirse, el exceso de dinero creado en los últimos meses no habrá desaparecido ‘por arte de magia’. Será entonces, muy probablemente en los años 2021-2022, cuando veremos un fuerte aumento de la demanda nominal en la economía, seguida de presiones inflacionistas, que conducirán a tasas de inflación ciertamente por encima de las tasas que hemos visto en los últimos años.

Más detalles y análisis sobre todo ello en el libro. Como siempre, comentarios y críticas muy bienvenidos.

Juan Castañeda

Read Full Post »

Inflation; the next threat?

On the economic effects of the policy responses to Covid-19

Today the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA, London) has just published a report by my colleague Tim Congdon and myself (Institute of International Monetary Research and University of Buckingham) on the debate on the expected inflationary vs. deflationary consequences of the current crisis. Of course there are many unknowns yet and we should not claim or have the illusion that we can forecast exactly inflation rates in the next 2-3 years. But what we can attempt is to do ‘pattern predictions’ (see Hayek’s 1974 Nobel lecture speech). Based on the monetary data available and the theoretical body linking changes in the amount of money to price changes over the medium/long term, we have observed in the last two months an extraordinary increase in the amount of money in most leading economies (certainly in the USA, with a rate of growth of money, M3, of 25% in April 2020). This comes from the implementation of quite significant asset purchases programmes (i.e. Quantitative Easing) and the (partial) monetisation of very much enlarged government deficits; a trend that will most likely continue for the rest of the year. It is both the extraordinary money growth rates seen recently, along with the expected persistence in monetary growth in 2020 what support our forecast of an inflationary cycle in the US (and in other leading economies, though to a lesser extent) in the next 2-3 years. The diagram below from the report says it all (see page 8).

More details in the report (IEA Covid-19 Briefing 7, June 2020) at:

https://iea.org.uk/themencode-pdf-viewer-sc/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Inflation_the-new-threat25787FINAL.pdf. Also, the webinar presentation of the report with my colleagues Geoffrey Wood and Tim Congdon will be available soon at the IEA’s website/YouTube channel.

Juan Castañeda

Summary of the report (in pages 4-5):

• The policy reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic will increase budget deficits massively in all the world’s leading countries. The deficits will to a significant extent be monetised, with heavy state borrowing from both national central banks and commercial banks.

• The monetisation of budget deficits, combined with official support for emergency bank lending to cash-strained corporates, is leading – and will continue to lead for several months – to extremely high growth rates of the quantity of money.

• The crisis has shown again that, under fiat monetary systems, the state can create as much as money as it wants. There is virtually no limit to money creation. The frequently alleged claim that ‘monetary policy is exhausted at low (if not zero) interest rates’ has no theoretical or empirical basis.

• By mid- or late 2021 the pandemic should be under control, and a big bounce-back in financial markets, and in aggregate demand and output, is to be envisaged. The extremely high growth rates of money now being seen – often into the double digits at an annual percentage rate – will instigate an inflationary boom. The scale of the boom will be conditioned by the speed of money growth in the rest of 2020 and in early 2021. Money growth in the USA has reached the highest-ever levels in peacetime, suggesting that consumer inflation may move into double digits at some point in the next two or three years.

• Central banks seem heedless of the inflation risks inherent in monetary financing of the much-enlarged government deficits. Following the so-called ‘New Keynesian Model’ consensus, their economists ignore changes in the quantity of money. Too many of these economists believe that monetary policy is defined exclusively by interest rates, with a narrow focus on the central bank policy rate, long-term interest rates and the yield curve. The quantity theory of money today provides – as it always has done – a theoretical framework which relates trends in money growth to changes in inflation and nominal GDP over the medium and long term. A condition for the return of inflation to current target levels is that the rate of money growth is reduced back towards annual rates of increase of about 6 per cent or less.

Read Full Post »

MONEY TALKS, by IIMR

‘Money talks’ is a series of mini-videos the Institute of International Monetary Research (IIMR) will start to release every week on the 18th of June, Monday.

The name of the series says it all: experts in money and central banking will be covering key concepts to understand better monetary economics in less than two minutes long videos. Tim Congdon (Chairman of the IIMR) and Geoffrey Wood (IIMR Academic Advisory Council) along with myself and many others to come will be addressing the fundamentals in money and banking to be able to understand how our monetary systems work and which are the roles and functions of modern central banks.

The topics address include the following:

Episode 1: What is Money?

Episode 2: What is the Central Bank?

Episode 3: What is the Monetary Base?

Episode 4: What is the Money Multiplier?

Episode 5: What does Monetary Policy consist of?

Episode 6: What is Central Bank Independence?

Episode 7: The Central Bank as the Lender of Last Resort

Episode 8: Bail outs and Bank Failures

Episode 9: Basel Rules

Episode 10: What os ‘Narrow Banking’?

Episode 11: Fiat Money

Episode 12: What is a monetary policy rule?

Episode 13: What is Monetarism?

Episode 14: Monetary Policy Tasks

But of course, these are just the ones we are starting with. The list will be expanded in the next few weeks and the aim is to produce a library of mini-videos that could be a good reference to search for short definitions on money, banking and central banking.

If you are interested in this project, please subscribe to the IIMR YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLudZPVEs3S82iu2zb-QZfcK7pqnrHfPgO) to stay tuned.

As ever, comments and feedback most welcome!

 

Juan Castañeda

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Is the central bank a bank at all? The case for a privately-owned central bank

Last month I had the pleasure to contribute to the IIMR/IEA annual monetary conference (8 November 2017) in London, ‘Has Financial Regulation Gone Too Far? And do banks really need all the extra capital?‘. I gave a short talk in session 3, ‘The role of the central bank in financial regulation‘, chaired by Charles Goodhart (LSE), on the essential nature of central banks as banking institutions. It may sound silly to state the obvious but, as my good friend, mentor and excellent colleague – Pedro Schwartz – always reminds me, we should not take for granted the fundamentals in economics, even less in money and central banking. Let me then start by saying that modern central banks were established to cope with two major tasks: (1) to be the bankers of the State (the Bank of England and other continental European central banks are good examples of this, see here) but also (2) to become the bankers of the banks in monetary systems operated under a fractional reserve (again, the Bank of England is the first modern central bank in this regard); the latter is what we call the lender of last resort function of central banks.

In the early years of the establishment of central banks, with the running of the gold standard, strictly speaking, there was no monetary policy nor the pursue of a macroeconomic target as we understand it now; but a bank of issue with a privilege position in the monetary market, and mainly focused on maintaining the convertibility of its currency at the pre-announced rate. It was only quite recently (historically speaking), after the abandonment of the gold standard in the interwar years, that central banks have explicitly adopted or given other tasks, and indeed macroeconomic tasks, such as keeping price stability or achieving economic growth.

But we should not forget that central banks are at the core of the monetary system and the banking sector, providing financial services to a ‘club’ of commercial banks which create money in the currency issued by the central banks. Which money? ‘Bank money’, that is, bank deposits under a fractional reserve system. This money constitutes the bulk of the money supply in modern economies, and it is vital for the central bank to keep a steady growth of the amount of money in circulation to preserve stable and long term economic growth; thus avoiding too much money during the expansion of the economy or too little in a banking crisis. What I state in my talk is that privately-owned central banks are genuinely interested in maintaining financial stability, and thus will be willing to intervene in a liquidity crisis much more promptly and efficiently than a central bank under the shadow – if not the control – of the State. This is something I have supported in other articles (recently in this article), and my colleague at the IIMR, Tim Congdon, has written on (see chapter 7 in ‘Central Banking in a Free Society‘).

This is the video of the talk:

Comments are very welcome as ever!

 

Juan Castañeda

PS. To the best of my knowledge the characterisation of central banks as the bankers of a ‘club’ was first coined by Charles Goodhart in his seminal 1988 book, ‘The Evolution of Central Banks‘, a book anyone interested in the history and functions of central banks must read. However, unlike Goodhart’s position in his book, I do not see a conflict of interest for a self-interested central bank to become a lender of last resort in times of crisis. Actually, central banks did make a profit when lending in times of crisis, such as the Bank of England in several banking crises in the 19th century.

 

Read Full Post »

Tighter bank regulation won’t stop boom and bust, but it will damage growth and prosperity

This is the title of an article written with my colleague, Tim Congdon (Institute of International Monetary Research and University of Buckingham), published in CityAM on 27/10/2017.

Our main point is that more regulation won’t make banks safer and is counterproductive. It is a sort of an instinctive reaction by politicians, policy-makers and regulators to respond to a crisis with more and tighter regulation, in an effort to tackle the ‘excesses’ in the market economy left of its own will. This is both very naive and irresponsible, as much as empirically and theoretically wrong. The recent announcement and approval of the Basell III tighter bank capital ratios is an example of it: this tougher set of regulations was announced and approved in the midst of a severe financial crisis (2008-2010), and resulted in banks shrinking their balance sheets even more; with the expected dramatic fall in money growth and nominal spending.

It is again a dire example of the running of the law of the unintended consequences of regulation; which would recommend the need to assess in advance the expected consequences of regulation, rather than quickly and desperately calling for more and tougher laws on banks and the rest of the financial system.

As we put it in the article:

‘Far too many people believe that “better” regulation is the answer to financial crises. But further regulation involves an expansion of the power of the state, and a loss of freedom for the financial system. Remember that Britain had no explicit official rules on bank capital until the 1980s, yet no British bank suffered a run on its deposits over the preceding century. Crucial to the success of British banking in the decades before the Northern Rock fiasco was the Bank of England’s willingness to lend to solvent banks if they were having difficulty funding their assets. Good central banking helped Britain’s commercial banks to run their businesses efficiently and profitably, and to the benefit of their customers.’

There was a time, not that far away, when regulation was not that prominent and financial markets flourished; and when a banking institution failed, that occasionally they did, there were solid policies and institutions willing to intervene in an decisively and orderly manner (the Bank of England had been an example of that, at least until the collapse of Norther rock in the recent crisis).‘

You will find the article in full here: http://www.cityam.com/274672/tighter-bank-regulation-wont-stop-boom-and-bust-but-damage.

Comments, even more if critical, most welcome!

Juan Castañeda

PS. We will be discussing these issues with the member of the Bank of England’ s Financial Policy Committee, Martin Taylor, in the IIMR Annual Public Lecture on the 7/10 in London: https://www.mv-pt.org/events/public-lecture-the-committee-of-public-safety-the-work-of-the-financial-policy-committee-by-m

 

 

Read Full Post »

Assessment of the monetary strategy of the ECB: 1999 – 2014

Following up my last post on the eurozone crisis and the monetary policy of the ECB (see IIMR esearch Paper 3: Have Central Banks forgotten about money? by my colleague Tim Congdon and myself), please find below a video with further details on the changes made to the monetary strategy of the ECB since its establishment.

What I claim in the video is that the ECB did give a prominent role to the analysis of the changes in broad money up to 2003, when it reviewed its strategy, and not surprisingly it led to a higher rate of growth of money in the Eurozone in the years running up to the Global Financial Crisis. Just to be clear, I do not support that any central bank should adopt a ‘mechanistic’ monetary growth policy rule, by which the bank adheres to an intermediate M3 (or broad money) rate of growth target come what may. The link between money and prices and nominal income is indeed very strong over the medium and long term, but it is of course affected by other variables/phenomena in the short term that need to be properly considered and taken into account by policy makers. So rather than a mechanistic approach to such a monetary target, changes in money growth should be given a primary role in assessing inflation and nominal income forecasts, and thus in the making of monetary policy decisions; and this is precisely what the ECB did from 1999 to 2003 under its two-pillar strategy. So when money growth continuously exceeds the rate deemed to be compatible with monetary stability, this would signal inflationary pressures and even financial instability the central bank would eventually tackle by tightening its monetary policy. This rationale would show the commitment of the central bank to both monetary and financial stability over the long term, and the use of a broad monetary aggregate would serve as a credible indicator to make monetary policy decisions and as a means to transmit the central bank’s expectations on inflation and output growth.

As ever, comments very welcome.

Juan Castañeda

PS. More videos on the IIMR YouTube channel

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Have Central Banks forgotten about money?

This is the title of a research paper I have written with my colleague and leading monetarist, Professor Tim Congdon, and published by the Institute of International Monetary Research (IIMR). This is a brief summary extracted from the paper, which is fully available at http://www.mv-pt.org/research-papers:

The quantity of money matters in the design of a monetary policy regime, if that regime is to be stable or even viable on a long-term basis. The passage of events in the Eurozone since 1999 has shown, yet again, that excessive money growth leads to both immoderate asset price booms and unsustainably above-trend growth in demand and output, and that big falls in the rate of change in the quantity of money damage asset markets, undermine demand and output, and cause job losses and heavy unemployment. This is nothing new. The ECB did not sustain a consistent strategy towards money growth and banking regulation over its first decade and a half. The abandonment of the broad money reference value in 2003 was followed in short order by three years of unduly high monetary expansion and then, from late 2008, by a plunge in money growth to the lowest rates seen in European countries since the 1930s. The resulting macroeconomic turmoil was of the sort that would be expected by quantity theory- of-money analyses, including such analyses of the USA’s Great Depression as in Friedman and Schwartz’s Monetary History of the United States.

This paper argues, from the experience of the Eurozone after the introduction of the single currency in 1999, that maintaining steady growth of a broadly-defined measure of money is crucial to the achievement of stability in demand and output. The ECB did not sustain a consistent strategy towards money growth and banking regulation over its first decade and a half.

The chart below illustrates our point very well:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As ever, comments very welcome.

Juan Castañeda

 

Read Full Post »

Monetarism revisited: in defense of monetarism

It is a privilege to work so close to Tim Congdon particularly since I was appointed Director of the Institute of International monetary Research (IIMR) in January 2016. Tim is the Chairman of the Institute and indeed a leading reference for those who want to understand monetary economics and central banks’ policy decisions; and in particular the role played by changes in the amount of money in circulation on changes in prices (all prices, CPI and asset prices) and nominal income along the business cycle. Changes in the amount of money do lead to portfolio decisions made by households, financial institutions and non-financial companies. The rationale is quite straightforward: in normal times agents tend to keep a rather stable cash to total assets ratio in their portfolios, so the greater the amount of money in the hands of (say) banks and insurance companies, the greater their willingness to invest it in other assets such as real estate, bonds (either long term or short term maturity bonds, or public or private bonds) or equity looking for a greater remuneration. And, should the creation of more and more money continues, it will eventually lead to an increase in the demand of consumption goods and services. Consequently asset prices (and CPI prices, though to a lesser extent) will change as a result of the greater demand for assets in the market and thus higher prices. The new equilibrium in the economy will be reached when agents have got rid of the excess in cash balances in their portfolios so now they keep again their desired cash to asset ratio. As a result of it all the amount of money in the economy will be greater and so will be the price level. M. Friedman and A. Schwartz explained it as clear as marvellously in the 1960s and it remains valid today as a theoretical framework to assess inflation and changes in nominal income.

This is in a nutshell the core of the explanation of monetarism; of course the process by which a greater amount of money in circulation ends up in higher asset and CPI prices can be more complex and, particularly when applied to a policy scenario, it will require a more detailed explanation. Of course there are lags in the transmission of money changes onto prices, as agents take time to assess the market conditions and make their own portfolio adjustments. In addition, institutions matter so a more regulated (less free) economy will require more time to reflect the new monetary conditions on the price level. On top of that the central bank and other financial regulators may interfere further in markets by making new monetary policy decisions, or even changing regulation regarding banks’ capital and/or liquidity ratios. This will make the picture given above more nuanced but by no means invalid; what we know, and there is plenty of evidence about it, is that a sustained increase in the amount of money over the increase in the supply of goods and services in the economy (say the GDP growth) will over time lead to higher prices.

On the 20th of April at the University of Buckingham I had the privilege to discuss with Tim Congdon on (1) what monetarism means nowadays, (2) which are the common criticisms of monetarism and (3) the relevance of monetarism for investment and monetary policy decisions. In fact, in the last few minutes in the video Tim sets up very clearly what it can well be labelled as an operational monetary policy rule for central banks to make policy decisions.

Many will find monetarism a not very fancy or topical term; call it instead rigorous monetary analysis then. As long as we focus on the impact of changes in the amount of money on prices and nominal income I do not think we should pay too much attention to labels. Unfortunately there is virtually a vacuum in this field in our days, as most central banks (not all) and financial regulators have seemed to forget or even disregard the valuable information provided by the analysis of changes in the amount money (and how it is created) for monetary policy purposes.

Enjoy the video with the interview below; comments, as ever, very much welcome.

Juan Castañeda

PS. You can find further videos on money and central banking at the IIMR Youtube channel

 

 

Read Full Post »