The FED says that 2% is good. 2% is not good. Their target of 2% per year means we have 2% compounding annually devaluation of our currency.
The FED says that 2% is good. 2% is not good. Their target of 2% per year means we have 2% compounding annually devaluation of our currency.
It's fine as long as t-bill rates match or exceed inflation. Then you can avoid losing purchasing power by just putting your money in the world's safest investment. Over the past century, t-bill returns have slightly exceeded inflation on average, though there have been periods when they didn't.
Stash paper cash in your safe and sure, you lose purchasing power. Use fiat money the way it's designed to be used, instead of using it like gold coins, and it works better.
Us debt as a fraction of GDP has doubled this century and roughly quadrupled in my lifetime. It would seem to me that eventually t-bills will not be safe.
That's by design.
If currency doesn't devalue then stuffing it under a mattress looks like a reasonable alternative to investing. If we hit deflation you can receive gains for "free" and borrowed money becomes more expensive over time. Neither of which our economic system is setup to handle.
We punish people who hoard cash by devaluing it thus encouraging them to put the money to work.
One side says this design is necessary to sustain growth. The other says it's unfair because the gains from the growth are unevenly distributed. Neither is wrong.
Why is that not good? When inflation is close to 0 real interest rates increase which causes the economy to slow down. It seems clear to me that the optimal rate of inflation is always above 0.
The real problem imo is that below 0% is really bad, and has the potential to spiral. So the fed does not target anything close to 0%, but instead targets some buffer above it.
So it's not that "2% is good", but more that "2% is the best buffer we've decided above the <0% super scary threshold"
Yes of course below 0% is especially bad, but I dont think thats the whole story. If central banks were able to set inflation with 100% certainty I still think targeting a number close to 0% is a bad idea. Nominal interest rates have a floor due to defaults, servicing costs. As inflation approaches 0 that floor is hit and monetary policy loses its ability to control real interest rates. Keeping nominal rates above their floor is key to ensuring small business can obtain liquidity, as the floor is approached it makes less sense for lenders to write small loans.
There are many other reasons a positive inflation rate is better than substantially near 0. One common complaint about inflation is that erodes real wages because nominal wages are sticky, but this is actually a good thing. It gives businesses room to breathe during downturns without cutting nominal wages or having to cut staff. Positive inflation also forces cash into productive uses which helps monetary policy because it keeps the actaul money supply more stable.
The Fed did a study some time back estimating CPI levels since 1800. [1] They found that from 1800 to 1950 the CPI never shifted more than 25 points from the starting base of 51, so it always stayed within +/- ~50% of that baseline. That's through the Civil War, both World Wars, Spanish Flu, and much more. And obviously the US economy increased in sized quite exponentially from 1800 to 1950, with no persistent inflation whatsoever.
It's even more interesting to contrast this from 1971 onward. 1971 is when Bretton Woods ended and the government was given a free hand to start 'printing money' so to speak, and inflation became the new policy. Since then the CPI has increased by more than 800 points, 1600% more than our baseline. And it's only increasing faster now - to the point that these numbers I'm giving are already rather outdated.
[1] - https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/infl...