I posted #3 a while back, but wanted to pick up the series again. I'm posting #4 for the sake of completeness, but I would
be lying if I told you I really understand this one. Focus on the last, italicized (mine), part.
Fallacy 4
Inflation is called the "cruelest tax." The perception seems to
be that if only prices would stop rising, one's income would go further,
disregarding the consequences for income.
Current reality: The tax element in anticipated inflation in
terms of gain to the government and loss to the holders of currency and
government securities, is limited to the reduction in the value in real
terms of non-interest-bearing currency, (equivalent to the increase in
the interest rate saving on the no-interest loan, as compared to what it
would have been with no inflation), plus the gain from the increment of
inflation over what was anticipated at the time the interest rate on
the outstanding debt was established. On the other hand, a reduction in
the rate of inflation below that previously anticipated would result in a
windfall subsidy to holders of long-term government debt and a
corresponding increase in the real impact of the debt on the fisc.
In previous regimes where regulations forbade the crediting of
interest on demand deposits, the seigniorage profit on these balances,
reflecting the loss to depositors in purchasing power, that would be
enhanced by inflation would accrue to banks, with competition inducing
some pass-through to customers in terms of uncharged-for services. In an
economy where most transactions are in terms of credit card and bank
accounts with respect to which interest may be charged or credited, the
burden will be trivial for most individuals, limited to loss of interest
on currency outstanding. Most of the gain to the government will be
derived from those using large quantities of currency for tax evasion or
the carrying on of illicit activity. plus burdens on those few who keep
cash under the mattress of in cookie jars.
The main difficulty with inflation, indeed, is not with the
effects of inflation itself, but the unemployment produced by
inappropriate attempts to control the inflation. Actually, unanticipated
acceleration of inflation can reduce the real deficit relative to the
nominal deficit by reducing the real value of the outstanding long-term
debt. If a policy of limiting the nominal budget deficit is persisted
in, this is likely to result in continued excessive unemployment due to
reduction in effective demand. The answer is not to decrease the nominal
deficit to check inflation by increased unemployment, but rather to
increase the nominal deficit to maintain the real deficit, controlling
inflation, if necessary, by direct means that do not involve increased
unemployment.
No comments:
Post a Comment