Bulletin
Investor Alert

New York Markets Open in:

Project Syndicate Archives | Email alerts

April 13, 2021, 9:23 a.m. EDT

Here’s why fears of surging inflation are off-base

new
Watchlist Relevance
LEARN MORE

Want to see how this story relates to your watchlist?

Just add items to create a watchlist now:

  • X
    WSJ Dollar Index (BUXX)
  • X
    Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index (DWCF)
  • X
    Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA)

or Cancel Already have a watchlist? Log In

By James K. Galbraith

AUSTIN, Texas ( Project Syndicate )— The scale of President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) — $1 trillion in spending for this year, another $900 billion after that, plus a $3 trillion infrastructure and energy program that has been promised—has  spooked  many macroeconomists. Are their fears justified?

The bank and bond-market economists, having cried wolf before, can be disregarded. A year ago, many of them warned that the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act would incite hyperinflation by massively increasing the money supply. It didn’t happen.

Breaking news: Consumer prices surge again in March and push rate of inflation to 2 1/2-year high

The flawed Phillips curve

More notable among the critics are neo-Keynesians such as Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University and his numerous  acolytes . Summers has a different analysis. It was his uncle, Paul Samuelson, who with fellow future-Nobel laureate Robert Solow launched the  Phillips curve  in 1960. This simple model offered some of the most successful empirical predictions in economic history during its first decade, and has been an economic rule of thumb ever since.

Drawing on data from late-19th-century Britain and the postwar United States, the Phillips curve postulated an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment: as one fell, the other would rise.

William Watts: The biggest ‘inflation scare’ in 40 years is coming—what stock-market investors need to know

This is what seems to be bothering Summers today. The various rescue and federal support packages are indeed enormous, with the ARP alone accounting for about  6%  of gross domestic product. The full scale of federal spending is even larger, reaching  13% of GDP  by one estimate. By comparison, the conventionally estimated “ output gap ” (the amount of slack in the economy) comes to only one-quarter of that, perhaps less.

Moreover, the official unemployment rate, at  6% , is not terribly far from the 4% level conventionally thought to represent “full employment.” Those receiving government relief payments are concentrated at the bottom of the income distribution, and thus should, in theory, spend more and save less of the cash disbursement, especially given that many households already have some savings held over from the CARES Act.

By old-fashioned Phillips-curve logic, the new “stimulus” could drive the unemployment rate down to full employment and the inflation rate up from 0.6% in 2020 to at least 2%-3%.

But the Phillips curve has had a rough ride since 1969. For about 25 years after that, the dominant economic thinking held that it was not a downward-sloping curve but a vertical line, at least “in the long run.” The implication was that any attempt to reduce unemployment below a “natural rate” or “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” (NAIRU) would produce hyperinflation.

Summers, I’m fairly sure, has more confidence in American capitalism than this view implies; and yet, he always hewed close to this skittish school of thought.

Sunny Oh: Why the bond market isn’t blinking—so far—at Biden’s plan to spend trillions on infrastructure

Reality, on the other hand, actually obliterated the Phillips curve. From the early 1980s—and unmistakably from the mid-1990s onward—no inflation could be found, and lower unemployment did not tend to bring it on.

The relationship is not vertical or downward-sloping, but flat, which is to say it doesn’t exist—if it ever did. I pointed this out in a 1997 article titled “ Time to Ditch the NAIRU .” Twenty-one years later, the distinguished neo-Keynesian Olivier Blanchard got around to asking essentially the same question in the same journal: “ Should We Reject the Natural Rate Hypothesis?

China did it

What happened? The answer can almost, if not quite, be summed up in a single word: China.

1 2
This Story has 0 Comments
Be the first to comment
More News In
Economy & Politics

Story Conversation

Commenting FAQs »

Partner Center

Link to MarketWatch's Slice.