Category: Precious Metals

12/02/2024•Mises Wire•Frank Shostak

Print this page

For most commentators, a “stable price level” is the key for economic stability. For instance, let us say that there is a relative increase in consumer demand for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative increase is depicted, all things being equal, by the relative increase in the price of potatoes. To be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumer demand. Failing to do so is likely to lead to losses. Hence, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, producers are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

According to many economists, if the “price level” is not “stable,” then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and, consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions. This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Thinking this way, unstable changes in the price level obscure a business person’s ability to ascertain changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Thus, businesses find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Given such presuppositions, it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will allegedly bring “price stability” (i.e., a stable price level). By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that policymakers should aim at keeping the yearly growth rate of prices of goods and services at two percent. Any significant deviation from this figure supposedly constitutes deviation from stable growth.

The Assumption of Money Neutrality & “Price Stability”

At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral, that is, changes in the money supply only have an effect on the price level while having no effect on the relative prices. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar, then the price of a potato is $0.50. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which, in turn, will enable him to purchase two potatoes.

Let us assume that the stock of money has doubled and, as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for two dollars while one potato for one dollar. Despite the doubling in prices, a seller of an apple with the obtained two dollars can still purchase two potatoes. Assuming money neutrality, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate increase in prices. Conversely, a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate decline in the prices. Why is this way of thinking problematic?

Money is Not Neutral

When new money is injected, there are always first recipients of the newly-injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients, with more money at their disposal, can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move through the economy, the prices of goods begin to rise, unevenly and disproportionately. Consequently, late receivers of the inflated money realize costs from the monetary injections and may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Artificial increases in money supply generate a redistribution of wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money, to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and, in turn, further alters the relative prices of goods and services. Inflationary increases in money supply set in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and services and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, increases in money supply cannot be neutral.

Again, a change in relative demands here is on account of wealth diversion from the latest recipients of money to the earlier recipients. This change in relative demands cannot be sustained without ongoing increases in the money supply. Once the growth rate of the money supply slows down or ceases altogether, various activities that emerged on the back of this inflationary increase in the money supply come under pressure. It follows, then, that an artificial increase in the money supply gives rise to changes in relative prices, which sets in motion an unsustainable structure of production.

Hence, the Fed’s monetary policy—which aims at stabilizing the price level—necessarily involves growth in the money supply. Since inflationary changes in the money supply are not neutral, this means that the central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.

While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this is not always the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors. In such a case, a visible change in prices may not take place. While money growth is buoyant, prices might display moderate increases. If we were to pay attention to changes in the price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote,

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.

There is No “Price Level”

The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and, therefore, the “price level” cannot even be established conceptually. When one dollar is exchanged for the one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of the one dollar is the one loaf of bread. If one dollar is exchanged for two tomatoes, then this also means that the purchasing power of the one dollar is two tomatoes. Such information regarding the specific purchasing power of money at that moment in time does not, however, allow the establishment of the general, total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot meaningfully add up two tomatoes to the one loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place. According to Rothbard,

Since the general exchange-value, or PPM (purchasing power of money), of money cannot be quantitatively defined and isolated in any historical situation, and its changes cannot be defined or measured, it is obvious that it cannot be kept stable. If we do not know what something is, we cannot very well act to keep it constant.

Conclusion

For most commentators, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is “price stability.” A “stable price level,” it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will supposedly generate price stability. Through monetary policies (inflation) that aim at stabilizing the price level, the Fed actually undermines economic fundamentals. An ever-growing interference of the central bank with the working of markets moves the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards.

On the contrary, what is required is not a policy of dubious “price stability,” but rather allowing free price fluctuations and maintaining sound money. Only in an environment free of central bank tampering can free and voluntary fluctuations in relative prices can take place. This, in turn, permits businesses to abide by consumer instructions.

Source: https://mises.org/mises-wire/price-stability-myth-undermines-our-economy-and-well-being

11/30/2024•Mises Wire•Allen Gindler

Print this page

Tariffs have been a key instrument in government trade policies for centuries. For instance, one of the wealthiest ancient countries, Khazaria (7th-10th centuries CE), did not tax its citizens directly but instead imposed tariffs on all passing caravans due to its strategic location along major trade routes. In the United States, before introducing the federal income tax (1913), the government generated revenue primarily through tariffs. The role of tariffs is widely debated today, especially during election periods.

What Are Tariffs?

A tariff is, in essence, a tax imposed by a government on goods and services imported from other countries. The main purpose of tariffs is to make imported goods more expensive, thereby protecting domestic industries from foreign competition, to raise government revenue, and/or to influence trade policies. Tariffs can be broken down into two main types:

Specific tariffs: a fixed fee imposed per unit of imported goods (e.g., $100 per ton of imported steel)

Ad valorem tariffs: a percentage of the value of the imported goods (e.g., 10 percent on imported electronics).

Historically, tariffs were one of the primary sources of revenue for governments. Today, although their revenue-generating role has diminished, they are still used to protect domestic industries, control trade balances, and as leverage in international negotiations.

How Tariffs Work

When a company imports goods subject to tariffs, it must pay the tariff at the border, typically to customs authorities, before the goods are cleared. This means companies often pay the tariff upfront before selling the goods in the domestic market. When a tariff is imposed, it raises the cost of imported goods at the point of entry, which has several effects on the economy:

Raising Prices for Consumers

The most direct effect of tariffs is that they often make imported goods more expensive. Importers—facing higher costs because of tariffs—typically attempt to pass these costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. For instance, if a 10 percent tariff is placed on imported cars, the price of those cars may rise by a similar amount. However, this increase is not always guaranteed, as market dynamics often prevent the transfer of the additional costs to consumers.

Protecting Domestic Producers

By making foreign goods and factors more expensive, tariffs create a protective barrier for domestic industries. Domestic producers can try to increase their prices, as the cost of imported alternatives rises. For instance, if tariffs are imposed on imported steel, domestic steel manufacturers benefit because the higher price of imported steel makes their products more attractive, even if they are more expensive than they would be in a fully open market.

Retaliatory Tariffs and Trade Wars

Tariffs can also spark retaliatory measures from trading partners, leading to trade wars. When one country imposes tariffs, affected nations may respond by placing tariffs on goods exported by the initial country, which escalates the situation. Trade wars can disrupt international supply chains, raise costs for businesses and consumers, and reduce economic growth.

Market Dynamics and Tariffs: Passing on Costs

Often, however, the costs of tariffs cannot be truly passed on to consumers. The extent to which the burden of tariffs is transferred depends on market dynamics, such as competition and consumer demand. In highly-competitive industries, companies may absorb the costs of tariffs to maintain their market share, sacrificing profit margins rather than risking losing customers to competitors. This pushes up production costs, hampers market dynamics, and may even push firms out of business.

The Austrian Approach to Tariffs and Comparative Advantage

The Austrian School of economics advocates for minimal government intervention in markets, promotes free trade, and supports individual liberty. Austrian economists view tariffs as detrimental to the natural efficiency of the market, because they distort price signals and lead to the misallocation of resources. Murray Rothbard explained that “Tariffs injure the consumer with the ‘protected’ area, who are prevented from purchasing from more efficient competitors at a lower price.”

The Austrian critique of tariffs is heavily rooted in the concept of comparative advantage, which argues that countries should specialize in producing goods where they are relatively more efficient. Even if a country is more efficient at producing all goods than another country, both can still benefit from trade if each specializes in goods for which it has a comparative advantage. This principle—originally developed by David Ricardo—emphasizes that trade allows for a more efficient allocation of global resources, lowering production costs and increasing prosperity for all participants.

In the context of comparative advantage, consider two countries—Country A and Country B—both of which produce electronics and textiles. Suppose Country A requires 8 hours to produce 1 unit of electronics and 4 hours for 1 unit of textiles. Country B, however, requires 10 hours to produce 1 unit of electronics and 8 hours for 1 unit of textiles.

Even though Country A is more efficient in producing both electronics and textiles, the principle of comparative advantage suggests that each country should specialize based on where they have a relative advantage. For Country A, the opportunity cost of producing 1 unit of electronics is 2 units of textiles (8/4). For Country B, the opportunity cost of producing 1 unit of electronics is 1.25 units of textiles (10/8). Thus, even though Country A is absolutely better at producing both goods, it is relatively better at producing textiles, while Country B is relatively better at producing electronics. If both countries specialize accordingly—Country A in textiles and Country B in electronics—and then trade, they can both enjoy more of each good than if they tried to produce both themselves.

However, if Country A imposes a 20 percent tariff on imported electronics from Country B, the cost of those imported electronics increases, making them less competitive in Country A’s market. This could cause Country A to shift resources inefficiently back into electronics production, even though it is less cost-effective than focusing on textiles. This illustrates how tariffs can disrupt the natural efficiency of trade and specialization, leading to suboptimal outcomes for both countries.

In general, from an Austrian perspective, tariffs distort price signals, which are essential for the efficient allocation of resources in a market economy. Prices in a free market reflect the underlying scarcity of goods, consumer preferences, and production costs. Tariffs, by artificially inflating the price of imported goods, disrupt these signals and lead consumers and producers to make inefficient choices.

Imposing tariffs for the sake of addressing a trade imbalance will not resolve the underlying cause, which is typically a loss of competitiveness in the entire industry or in specific goods. Tariffs make these industries even less competitive than they were before tariff imposition. Moreover, creating a “protective area” will force other companies to flock into protected industries, essentially depriving established firms of their initial monopolist benefits while leaving the overall misallocation of production and harm to consumers intact. Rothbard explained, “In the long run, therefore, a tariff per se does not establish a lasting benefit even for the immediate beneficiaries.”

Austrian Approach and National Security Concerns

While Austrian economists emphasize the efficiency of free markets and the advantages of comparative advantage, the case for free trade becomes more nuanced when national security concerns arise. Unfortunately, when national security is supposedly at stake, economic priorities often yield to political and strategic imperatives. Throughout history, political instability and conflicts have led governments to emphasize self-sufficiency over market efficiency, particularly in industries claimed to be vital to defense. During such times, the state uses “national defense” as a pretext for profound and widespread interference in the economy.

With modern states, war spending is determined by central planning and is not determined by consumer demand or guided by private markets. Thus, any approach to “national defense” will inevitably diverge from the Austrian preference for minimal intervention. However, it is hard to imagine that war preparation would go unnoticed, and if a nation depends completely on a particular resource from an unfriendly country, the market price of that product would skyrocket. This, in turn, would signal entrepreneurs to either stockpile large quantities of the resource at current prices, seek alternative suppliers that were previously ignored because of prohibitive costs, or seize the opportunity to revive domestic production.

The reliance on administrative measures often stems from a belief that market forces cannot respond quickly or effectively to crises, leading to policies that distort incentives and stifle innovation. By undermining price signals, governments often create monopolies or grant undue privileges to certain industries, consolidating power in ways that harm overall economic efficiency. This skepticism of market mechanisms reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of their adaptability and the profound role they play in dynamically coordinating resources, even under the pressures of wartime.

Source: https://mises.org/mises-wire/austrian-perspective-tariffs