Main Menu

One of my arguments is that if there is supposed to be a hyperinflation, where is it?  The Fed has been pumping for years - the hyperinflation should be here by now, and it isn't.  It does not take a really long time for a hyperinflation to get going if hyperinflationary conditions are in place. 

The law against recessions - which I call a law against recessions for short because it was passed in the wake of the recession of the earlier 1970's (a time which I remember well) - is actually, more specifically, a law calling for full employment at low inflation and tasks the Fed with making that happen.  Full employment at low inflation is the Fed's so-called dual mandate. 

This dual mandate is key - and, in fact, every other central bank in the first world also has a mandate for low inflation, but they do not have an official mandate for full employment (which is why Draghi of the ECB says the European governments have to do their thing first - to the disappointment of the markets). 

Note that one of the mandates of the Fed is low inflation - in part because Americans were scared by the high inflation of the late 1970's, which many of them called a hyperinflation at the time (I remember that) because they didn't, and don't, know what a true hyperinflation is (50-100% a year across-the-board, usually going up rapidly from that into the millions of percent a year).  We had high inflation, but not hyperinflation.  I know about hyperinflations because I have studied ones that have happened, including the one in Germany in the 1920's, which my mother lived through as a young child (and remembers all too well - it left quite an impression).  We are German, my parents left in the 1950's, first to Canada, where I was born (but I am fluent in German, I have no difficulty talking to the natives). 

The Fed keeps talking about how serious it is about both parts of its mandate - and I am quite sure that considering how much the Americans freaked out about the high inflation of the 1970's (it peaked out at about 25% in real-time, but the top rate year-to-year was somewhat less than 20%, about 17% as I recall), I think that if we were to have a true hyperinflation, the American people would utterly, totally, and completely freak out. 

And I think the Fed knows this.  That is why it passes new money through the banks, to be lent out.  Borrowed money is not hyperinflationary, it has to be paid back, it does not stay in the system, which money has to do to be hyperinflationary (there can be a temporary inflation effect when it first comes into the system, and we have been experiencing that, that is part of the inflation we have been having, but see my link about two different kinds of inflation elsewhere on this website).  In reality, for money to be inherently hyperinflationary, it has to come off a printing press as physical cash that is then given away (usually in the form of higher wages, paid in cash, when that happens).  Yes, coins are debased, too, and that used to be the only way before there was a printing press - but that was a slower process, it is much faster to print bills in any denomination you want - and that is, for example, what Germany did in the early 1920's (and is why the Germans are scared stiff of hyperinflation to this day and would only accept the euro if the ECB was headquartered in Frankfurt, the home of the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank before the ECB, and modeled after Germany's central bank, with its heavy emphasis on avoiding hyperinflation, which is why Draghi's hands are tied).  It is also possible to hyperinflate electronically, but the Fed is not doing it directly, the money is being lent out, and the only case that I know of where it did happen directly was in South America in recent times.  South America is not exactly a paragon of avoiding hyperinflations in recent decades - they have had several, mostly in the 1970's, mostly using printing presses - but in at least one case in recent years it was done electronically (in Argentina), by putting zeros behind the numbers in people's bank accounts so they suddenly had a lot more money there (multiplied by 10, 100, or even 1000) and they spent it.  That would, of course, lead to a hyperinflation. 

I don't think the Fed would be so stupid, and they already have a track record in that regard, documented on this website.  But the inflationists keep talking about the Fed "printing money" and how that will lead to hyperinflation.  In fact, most of our modern money is not printed, it is electronic, and it is lent out to get it into the system, not given away.  That is why the analogy used by most inflationists these days is out-of-date.