According to some analysts, a sharp decline in major commodity-price
indexes has raised the specter of deflation. The Journal of Commerce's index
(JCOM) fell by 8.5% in May from April while the Commodity Research Bureau's
index (CRB) fell by 8.2% during that period. Also the growth momentum of
these indexes plunged in May. The yearly rate of growth of the JCOM index
fell to 47.9% from 77% in April, while the yearly rate of growth of the CRB
index plunged to 0.7% from 24.9%.
Now if some other price indexes were to come under pressure, would that
imply that the economy has fallen into deflationary territory? To provide an
answer to this question we need to define what deflation is all about.
Contrary to popular thinking, deflation is not about a general decline in
prices as such but about a decline in the money supply. Note that this is
based on the same principle that inflation is not about a general increase in
prices but rather about increases in money supply.
Since the price of a good is the amount of money paid per unit of the
good, obviously, all other things being equal, the prices of goods in general
will go up over time with increases in money supply and fall with decreases
in money supply. To establish whether we are in deflation we need to find out
what the money supply is doing. The latest data for our monetary measure,
AMS,[1] shows that the yearly rate of
growth stood at 4.7% in May against 1% in January. A positive figure for the
rate of growth in money supply implies that, at the moment, inflation is
still in force.
Note though that during October to December last year we actually had
deflation. The yearly rate of growth of AMS stood at −6% in October, −10% in
November and −7.1% in December.
Normally the main driving force in the expansion of the money supply is
the central bank's loose monetary policy. By means of monetary pumping, the
central bank injects money into the banking system. This money in turn is
amplified by commercial banks lending through fractional-reserve banking.
Currently however, there seems to be a breakdown between the Fed's pumping
and commercial banks' lending activity.
Despite all the massive monetary injections by the Fed, commercial banks
have chosen to sit on the pile of pumped cash rather than lend it out. The
level of excess reserves held by commercial banks has climbed to $1.05
trillion in early June from $1.4 billion in January 2008 while lending
remains in free fall. The yearly rate of growth of lending fell to −11.4% in
this May from −0.5% in May last year.
What matters for money supply, however, is not lending as such but
inflationary lending, i.e., lending that was generated through
fractional-reserve banking. The yearly rate of growth of our
inflationary-credit proxy stood at −5.6% in May against +3% in May last year.
(Note however that the growth momentum of the inflationary credit proxy shows
at present a visible bounce [see the right-hand figure below].)
Now a fall in inflationary credit, if not offset by the Fed's pumping,
results in a decline of the money stock and hence in deflation. As we have
seen so far, the money stock is still rising, which we suggest means that for
the time being the Fed's monetary pumping via buying of assets is offsetting
the decline in inflationary credit. Observe that currently the Fed is pumping
at the yearly rate of 14% against the pace of contraction in inflationary
credit of around 6%. Remember that whenever the Fed buys assets from nonbanks
it boosts the demand deposits of the sellers of assets to the central bank. An
increase in demand deposits implies an increase in money supply.
So it seems that irrespective of the decline in inflationary credit the
Fed can always offset this fall through monetary pumping. (Again, the Fed
could offset this fall by an aggressive buying of assets from nonbanks.) So
in this sense one could argue that, given the Fed's readiness to pump money
on a massive scale, the likelihood of deflation is not very high.
Now, we have to consider the fact that the Fed doesn't pay much attention
to the money-supply data. For Fed policy makers, inflation or deflation is
associated with movements in the consumer price index (CPI). After falling to
−2.1% in July last year, the yearly rate of growth of the CPI climbed to
+2.2% in April.
We suggest that, on account of a long time lag from changes in money
supply to changes in the CPI, the past strong increases in money supply could
lead to a further strengthening in the growth momentum of the CPI in the
months to come. In response to this strengthening, the Fed is likely to
tighten its monetary stance. This in turn could significantly slow down the
rate of increase of the Fed's balance sheet. Hence, given the decline in
banks' inflationary lending, this will result in a decline in the money
supply — and hence deflation. (Even if the Fed were to decide to do nothing,
the fall in inflationary credit would lead to a fall in the money supply.)
There is, however, another factor to consider: the fall in the growth
momentum of money supply during November 2008 to November 2009 (the yearly
rate of growth fell from +28% to −10%). The lagged effect from this fall is
likely to produce a pronounced decline in economic activity, i.e., it will
severely undermine various bubble activities. We suspect that a sharp fall in
economic activity could cause the Fed to ignore the increase in prices and
embark on aggressive pumping.
The increase in the money supply as a result of the Fed's money pumping is
likely to result in a further weakening in the process of real-wealth
generation, i.e., a weakening in the pool of real savings. A fall in the pool
of real savings in turn leads to a fall in economic activity — we cannot fund
the production of as many goods as before.
Hence, over time a strong money-supply rate of growth and the production
of fewer goods implies a general increase in money per good, i.e., a general
increase in prices. (Observe that what we have here is a general increase in
prices and a fall in economic activity, which is what stagflation is all
about.) Such a scenario is likely to be supportive of the price of gold.
Conclusion
A sharp fall in commodity prices has raised the specter of deflation in
the United States. We suggest that what matters for deflation is the state of
the money supply. As long as the money- supply rate of growth remains a
positive figure, there can be no deflation.
Despite a decline in commercial banks' inflationary credit, the offsetting
monetary pumping by the Fed has kept the money-supply rate of growth in
positive territory. There is, however, always the possibility that the Fed
could tighten its stance in response to a strengthening in the growth
momentum of the CPI. This, coupled with a fall in inflationary credit, could
result in a fall in money supply and thus the emergence of deflation.
However, we are of the view that, on account of the fall in the growth
momentum of money supply between November 2008 and November 2009, US economic
activity could come under pressure in a few months time. As a result, the Fed
may embark on strong monetary pumping. We suggest this could lead to severe
stagflation.