What is Deflation?

There is, at present, a raging debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere as to whether the economy has entered a period of inflation or deflation. The conflict is not helped by the fact that there are no generally accepted definitions of these two concepts. We will attempt to create a definition that will provide a framework for analysis of various viewpoints.

First of all, the most useful definition of inflation and deflation would explain them as two sides of the same proverbial coin. A naive definition would call inflation, rising prices; and deflation, falling prices. Unfortunately in the real world, the prices for all sorts of things rise and fall continuously for a wide variety of reasons. Many analysts attempt to reduce their definitions to narrow, easily observed phenomena, i.e. official defined money supplies, or indices of consumer prices. Much of the contention arises over what is being observed.

Inflation and deflation could be said to be something that is hard to define but, like pornography, we know it when we see it. In that spirit, we define deflation as pervasive, structural falling of costs as measured by the currency across a broad range of economic activity; and inflation as its inverse.

By pervasive, we mean costs therefore do not just refer to retail prices, but also asset prices, wholesale prices, producer prices, and most critically wages and rents (including profits and interest). By structural, we mean that economic activity is inherently complex. Making money has many costs embedded within it, and what one pays out axiomatically ends up as many multiple others' income. This aggregation of costs, wages, interest, and so forth we call the structure.

Is deflation happening in the 2007 Depression? What costs have fallen so far? Obviously, the cost of many securities, houses, and commodities. Not so obviously, the cost of interest on national debts (with some notable exceptions, such as Iceland), and corporate profits. What about costs that are rising? The U.S. minimum wage went up in 2008 by 12 percent, and in 2009 will be going up a further 11 per cent; U.S. Postal first class stamps; and, as a personal example, our water and sewer utility service.

The picture is once again, conflicting trends. Over time, one of these trends will emerge the 'winner'. In the mean time, falling prices of certain things might be called 'deflationary', but that is very conjectural. For example, if the price of a commodity falls so much that it is unprofitable to produce it, the fall will simply be what is known as a price spike down. The price will then have to rise again, if people want to continue using the item. This is hardly deflationary.

Likewise, incomes will likely soon be shown to be falling, and some may call that evidence of deflation, but it might just be people becoming poorer. If what people want to buy does not also become more affordable, then there is no deflation.

It is our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably not be deflationary. Two significant factors are at work to ensure that outcome. First, it is the stated objective of monetary authorities everywhere to prevent deflation. Second, many costs (such as minimum wages or social security benefits) are fixed by law, and even more costs, contractually over long periods of time.

It is also our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably be, overall, strongly inflationary, if not even hyperinflationary. We believe that the overhang of money, and money-like securities (bonds, CDs, money market funds, etc.) from the bubble years combined with central bank efforts to prevent deflation will create a surplus of currency chasing a quantity of goods and services which is declining due to contracting production. In other words, when more money chases fewer goods, the outcome is inflation, not deflation.