barro12_STEFANI REYNOLDSAFP via Getty Images_inflation

Economics

فهم التضخم الأخير في الولايات المتحدة

Aug 30, 2022 Robert J. Barro

كمبريدج - عند النظر في الأسباب التي أدت إلى الزيادة الحادة في معدلات التضخم في الولايات المتحدة من أواخر عام 2020 إلى يومنا هذا، كانت غريزتي الأولية تميل نحو التركيز على السياسة النقدية الهجومية، وذلك استنادًا إلى مقولة ميلتون فريدمان الشهيرة: "يُشكل التضخم دائمًا وفي كل مكان ظاهرة نقدية". ولكن على الرغم من أهمية السياسة النقدية، فقد تكون السياسة المالية الهجومية أكثر أهمية هذه المرة.

ففي الفترة من مارس/آذار 2020 إلى مارس/آذار 2022، أبقى الاحتياطي الفيدرالي الأمريكي أسعار الفائدة الاسمية قصيرة الأجل عند مستوى الصفر مع استخدام التيسير الكمي لتوسيع ميزانيته العمومية من 4 تريليون دولار إلى 9 تريليون دولار في نهاية المطاف. يوجد إجماع عام على أن بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي كان متأخرًا كثيرًا بعد نهاية عام 2020، إن لم يكن قبل ذلك. ولأنه لم يرفع معدل فائدته بموجب سياسته النقدية حتى ربيع عام 2022، فقد فشل في الحفاظ على أسعار الفائدة الاسمية قبل التضخم، وبالتالي فقد السيطرة.

تتمثل المشكلة في الاعتقاد بأن السياسة النقدية كانت المصدر الوحيد للتضخم الأخير في أن بنك الاحتياطي الفيدرالي كان هجوميا بالمثل خلال فترة الركود العظيم وما أعقبها، من عام 2008 فطالعا. تم تحديد أسعار الفائدة الاسمية قصيرة الأجل عند مستوى الصفر لفترة تحولت إلى سبع سنوات (من أوائل عام 2009 إلى أواخر عام 2015). وقد نمت الميزانية العمومية لمجلس الاحتياطي الفيدرالي من 900 مليار دولار في أغسطس/آب 2008 إلى أكثر من 4 تريليون دولار - وهو رقم بدا كبيرًا في ذلك الوقت. ومع ذلك، ظلت معدلات التضخم مُنخفضة - حيث بلغ متوسطها حوالي 2٪ سنويًا من 2009 إلى 2019 - وظلت توقعات التضخم ثابتة عند نفس القيمة تقريبًا.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 Comments on this article

Claudio Migliore Sep 4, 2022

Professor Barro makes some interesting points and, on some level, I believe his numbers are solid and they adhere to fact. Nevertheless, on a higher narrative level, it perpetuates a conception that I think is conducive to specious and misleading diatribes.

Mr. Friedman’s famous dictum that inflation is a pure monetary phenomenon falls in the same category. Of course, widespread higher prices for goods or, conversely lower value of money as a result of the latter’s abundance, are just a matter of basic algebra. However, if interpreted as an economic mantra, it somehow implies that overspending does not contribute to inflation, which is folly.

In the real world however, overspending and monetary expansion are intimately linked. Albeit with exceptions (see below), the printing press is operated not by Mr. Powell pushing a button directly, but rather by inducing agents to issue debt that it purchases with newly minted money. The inducement is the lower rates it demands and the printing is, oops, a side effect.

Very prominent among the debtors is the state, of course. Since new debt does not go into some basement, but is rather spent, the machine goes: low rates = more debt = more deficit = more spending = more demand for goods = generalized price increases. This is of course partly or initially moderated by some increase in resource utilization, more productivity, technological progress, but the majority just goes to water down the soup for everyone.

Going back to my caveat above, the Fed can indeed spray money out into the economy without directly supporting government overspending (the so-called helicopter money). It is hard to argue that this is not government spending in disguise. After all, a quasi-governmental institution, the Fed, gives money to some for them to spend and crowd out the spending of those who actually earned their money: that’s government spending in my book.

There are of course second level effects, such as time lags and expectations (which Prof. Barro has studied). So even after the newly minted and spent money has reverberated through the economy, the inflationary pressures can continue as agents play defense.

Hence my surprise at Mr. Barro’s assertion that inflation will certainly come down. That is by no means a given, since whoever is left without a chair in each musical round will scream for relief, i.e. more spending and more printing, in the hope of coming ahead in the following round.

And if the Professor is implying that no tightening is needed since “it’s not monetary”, I believe he is making a very dangerous non-sequitur. Among other things because any so-called tightening is really just a lesser loosening, at least until no more deficit is financed.

In summary, only blindness or willfulness (or both) allow to maintain that government spending or monetary multiplication are harmless.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dawood Mamoon Aug 30, 2022

Professor Barro such a pleasure to read your article for PS. In my PhD I have used your well known years of schooling data set so I am familiar with your work. It seems to be that expansionary fiscal policy could cause surge in inflation in US economy and that the momentum for this was built during Trump presidency. However Biden government is bringing up a taxation plan that seems to support the expansionary fiscal policy because it is more progressive then any of the recent tax regime in US. I understand that progressive taxation with redistribution in mind may actually bring diequilibria in commodity markets and that seems to be happening because of the inherent nature of US economy that is more capitalist than any other country in the world. There are few articles at PS that suggest that surge in inflation is partly due to rise on prices in commodity and goods market by the businesses and the only rational is that they are forecasting that Fed would raise interest rates and thus to maintain their profit margins, prices are being raised across markets.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/8bPq8pTar

فهم التضخم الأخير في الولايات المتحدة

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

فهم التضخم الأخير في الولايات المتحدة

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification