Welcome to Finance and Fury
Inflation is all the rage at the moment – and policy makers are increasing interest rates in am aim to reduce this – but are there any other ways to solve this problem beyond rate hikes? This episode is mostly theoretical – as I don’t believe the discussion points will ever be implemented – but it is all about focusing on helping to increase supply to meet demand – rather than trying to reduce demand in an effort to reduce prices – bit of a longer episode as there is a lot to unpack
There is no doubt that the money supply increase has impacted inflation rate – but I think this has had a smaller impact than the supply chain when it comes to inflation – so why I think increasing interest rates won’t help inflation –
- The price for anything in a free market is the point where demand and supply meet – we won’t go too deeply in the theory here –
- But when it comes to demand there is a thing called elasticity – something can be elastic or inelastic – if it is inelastic – small price changes won’t have much of an impact in on the quantity of a good that is demanded – if it is elastic then a small price change will really affect demand –
- Think about a bag of chips versus a Ferrari – chips are very elastic – if the price of a bag of chips were to increase by $3 – this may essentially double their prices and demand would suffer massively – if the price of a Ferrari goes up by $3, it isn’t going to matter at all and the same demand would continue – that is because of alternatives – you can buy potatoes and cook these instead – but it is hard to buy another car as an alternative to a Ferrari if you are after the badge and prestige that comes along with this
- The issue is that inflation affects demand massively in elastic goods – as smaller price increases impact the demand for that good –
- When what most people purchase in life are elastic goods – such as consumer staples – like food, petrol, housing, etc – high levels of inflation can really impact demand for these goods – people may drive less, buy different goods, or reduce their spending on consumer discretionary goods – like eating out or entertainment – but if inflation is occurring in elastic goods across the board, where the alternatives are also more expensive – then this really impacts consumption
- Two quick examples of extreme price increases in goods – lettuce and bananas –
- At the moment – there is a shortage of spinach and lettuce – haven’t seen it personally but heard lettuce is $10 – but I do remember around a decade ago when bananas were also $12 a kg – why was this? Was it the money supply growth? It was a severe shortage in goods leading to an increase in price
- The issue with increasing interest rates – if increases in prices on consumer staples comes from a lack of supply of these goods – then increasing interest rates will have little effect in bringing the prices down sustainably
- In a truly competitive market – companies won’t charge you more if you have more money in your pocket – they will each be aiming to get the best good to you at the price that still allows them to make a profit – this is a little flawed as there are monopoly businesses that exist, which can just increase prices due to a lack of competition – but this point aside – lets hypothesise about how the money supply increase has contributed to inflation under demand side theory – as this states that the more the money supply increases, the more people will spend leading to increases in inflation – so simply looking at the money supply levels –
- When measured by M1 – in the past 2 years this has gone from $900bn in Australia to $1.77tn – almost doubled – M3 has gone from $2.1tn to 2.7tn – In both cases, this is an increase of 97% and 29% respectively in two years – this is a massive jump – but did it lead to out inflation?
- Going back to the point of the money base growing impacting inflation due to people having more money to spend – has your net income increased by the in between of 50%% in the past 2 years? Have you seen any of this growth in money supply? Has your annual spending gone from $50,000 to $100k?
- You might have received some of this money growth through borrowing – but this is going to cost your cashflow – where if interest rates increase, your capacity to spend will decline – meaning that with increases in prices, less will be able to be demanded – this can impact the amount being spent and business revenues – which means they may need to lay people off – which reduces the total amount that is available to be spent
- Inflation certainly exists – property prices are a great example – $1 is not worth on average $0.8 when purchasing a property when compared to 18 months ago – this is inflation – but not how the government measures it –
- So how does the increases in interest rate help to reduce inflations? People might be spending less – and central banks can create a recession – but if the stemming problem comes from supply issues with elastic goods – then interest rates may have little to do with this – which is why I think the solution to the problem long term lies outside of monetary policy, but in fiscal policy – where it is the government’s responsibility to get out of the way and in an ideal world – try to stimulate supply growth by incentivising private enterprise
- In a truly competitive market – companies won’t charge you more if you have more money in your pocket – they will each be aiming to get the best good to you at the price that still allows them to make a profit – this is a little flawed as there are monopoly businesses that exist, which can just increase prices due to a lack of competition – but this point aside – lets hypothesise about how the money supply increase has contributed to inflation under demand side theory – as this states that the more the money supply increases, the more people will spend leading to increases in inflation – so simply looking at the money supply levels –
Where I think the long-term solution lies – in Supply Side economics – this isn’t an overnight solution – It is something markets need to work out in the long term and it comes back to governments helping to facilitate supply rather than trying to dampen demand through interest rate increases – and this is why I think it will never be fully implemented – as it requires governments to take a step back and give up some control
- Supply side states that the more supply is increased – the more this helps to meet demand – which helps to reduce the prices/CPI – which allows more to be demanded at the same nominal dollar value – in other words – you can not buy two bags of chips for $4 rather than one for $4
- demand and ability to demand are two different things – as humans, we all have the capacity to have unlimited wants (demand) – when compared to our ability to meet these demands
- This is the Economic problem – how to solve our unlimited wants with finite resources
- Finite resources – being income, wealth, as well as goods/services available for us to purchase – But one major step in solving this problem is to have what we demand cost less – i.e. If our wants cost less we can demand more
- But wait – Doesn’t demand create supply? Companies wouldn’t exist if people didn’t pay them money for a good or service – But How can you demand anything if there is no supply?
- This is where demand side economics comes in – this is the prevailing school of thought amongst policy makers – but supply vs demand is like the Chicken and the egg situation – what comes first – demand or supply – What should be the focus – Giving people more money to spend – or producing more in an economy to meet demand and lower prices?
- Both sort of right – have the same desired goal – Increase GDP – Mainly consumption – which is demand – but there can be no demand without the supply as we are seeing now
- if the increased spending comes at the cost of increasing inflation, it is not a long term solution – plus, there is no free lunch – for government to try and increase individual spending – this money either comes in the form of taxes or debt – which means there is a cost to this
- Demand side thinking is that the best way to stimulate an economy is by increasing the demand potential – but what is forgotten or ignored in this theory is that this relies on boosting supply first to help meet demand – otherwise inflation would materialize
- If the government tries to stimulate demand through something like UBI – then there may be less people working – so the demand for employees goes up, increasing wages – this then means that these costs get passed on and goods cost more – so what people can purchase in terms of their purchasing power parity has declined
- It is no good to increase your income by $10k per year if your cost of living increases by $10k per year – all this has achieved is giving governments more control
- Also demand side ignores how wealth is created – rather, it focuses on redistribution to try and max short term demand
- If wealth creation is really demand driven – i.e. through redistribution of income – well there can be no real wealth created – simply passed back and forward (minus gov cut)
- Demand side is favoured by policy makers because it increases their control over the economy – supply side requires that the relinquish control – which they really don’t want to do
- Supply side states that it is better to grow the pie than to increase everyone’s share of consumption as a %
- i.e. better to have 10% of $1,000 than 50% of $100 ($100 vs $50)
- What has caused the greatest improvement in our living conditions over time? An increase in supply, reducing prices
- Looking back over the last 200 years shows the constant improvement in standards of living by supply – taking the majority of the worlds population out of poverty – plus making our lives easier through innovation and production of goods given to the masses
- Did people in 1800’s demand the newest car, demand faster PCs in 1920s, or demand better smart phones in the 1980s?
- No! Because they weren’t around – people only getting used to brick cell phones in 80s – people didn’t know what to demand because these products were not available – it was the free market with individuals like Henry Ford, or Steve Jobs who introduced products to the market – this is the fallacy of the demand side – innovators (being the supply side) create products to meet demand
- Supply side states that it is better to grow the pie than to increase everyone’s share of consumption as a %
- demand and ability to demand are two different things – as humans, we all have the capacity to have unlimited wants (demand) – when compared to our ability to meet these demands
Benefits of Supply side – aims and outcomes of the policies through less regulation, and lower taxation
- Improves our lives – Increase supply – Not just more of the same stuff – but new stuff – innovation – also grows the economy and helps to reduce the price of goods
- Doesn’t aim to just fuel existing supply – but increase new options for supply to be demanded – goes back to elasticity of goods – through providing substitutes to demand
- Today we have running water, aircon, talking to you through 1’s and 0’s – Never been easier or better to live
- Improvements in healthcare/medicine, transport, communication – quality of life goes up
- All from inventions – innovators make our lives much better – gone a long way since the invention of the wheel –
- Provides Economic Growth – Helps to stimulate more employment & economic activity which further fuels supply by increased demand – one of the major drivers of economic growth
- how else does it help the economy grow and reduce inflation?
- Theory – As the supply of goods and services increases – The economy grows – people have higher levels of income and prices decline as more goods are people produced – Question: who employs you?
- The more things that are being produced – the more the economy does well – the more income we have – the more we can spend – the more companies are able to provide that service – the lower the price of goods become – consumer technology when adjusted for inflation was cheaper 2 years ago than it was 50 years ago – think about TVs
- Other side – As technology gets better, wont AI replace humans – maybe – if we stop innovating
- That is where supply comes in – even in the quest to create the best AI technology – how many jobs and products have been created? What about whole industries?
- Look at the 10s of thousand jobs the iphone directly and indirectly has created – that replaced a lot of people being employed – camera shops, landline companies, music players – mp3
- There is always creative destruction – and it takes time – Only under demand theory does this come true – Increase regulations, licensing/Bus rego costs, taxes and the number of new industries and innovations are hamstrung by an increase barrier to entry – established companies can survive
- the pie can’t grow to feed the now unemployed due to no innovation or increased production in the economy
- Fallacy of Demand Side Economics –predominant theory of macro-econ that Governments currently use
- About providing more to those with limited demand potentials (incomes) – helping to boost GDP through demand
- hopes that the economy improves through increased consumption – but to redistribute more tax is needed or lower costs in interest rates
- The issue comes in when supply shrinks – prices go up
- About providing more to those with limited demand potentials (incomes) – helping to boost GDP through demand
In summary – Supply side four core desired outcomes – what true supply side policies aim to achieve
- Generation of wealth – Cut taxes to allow people to spend more of their own money
- Increases economic activity through more products and services
- Lower costs and regulations = higher productivity >higher revenues, more employment capacity
- Over time companies push Wage growth – supply and demand
- Limited number of companies – large number of potential employees = low wage growth – as they don’t have to pay much to retain them – who is currently doing a lot of lobbing for kids to learn to code?
- Tech companies – more employment pool in the future
- Heaps of companies competing for employees = Wage growth – have to pay more to keep people – creates competition amongst employers – but have to be a lot of them
- Limited number of companies – large number of potential employees = low wage growth – as they don’t have to pay much to retain them – who is currently doing a lot of lobbing for kids to learn to code?
- Economic growth – GDP – Have to hire people for more supply
- You need people with large amounts of money – How do you start a business? Borrow money in a lot of cases
- Increase rate of supply – Completed through lowering taxes and regulations
- Without increase of supply – standards of living drops decline over time – Countries with lowest levels of supply also have lowest standards of living
- This helps to reduce the inflation in the economy – the inflation we are experiencing at the moment has come from government policy – in the US shutting down gas and fuel production which the markets internationally have priced in –
- Increases economic activity through more products and services
Summary – Better to make the pie bigger – not to split it up
We have cheaper stuff and increased living standards through supply – these are wins for us