MONEY CULTURE
Daniel Gross
Stagflation Redux
It may not seem as bad as in the 1970s. But that doesn't mean it won't be painful.
It's like a bad '70s flashback. Oil at $100 per barrel, and now stagflation. The unhappy coincidence of sluggish growth and rising inflation, stagflation is economic poison. (Read my colleague Robert Samuelson's excellent primer on it) It is the opposite of the economic idyll of the last quarter century, an era of relatively low inflation and relatively rapid growth.
The stag? Gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of only 0.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007, and likely isn't doing much better today. The flation? The Consumer Price Index rose 4.3 percent between January 2007 to January 2008.
The numbers seem positively buoyant compared to our last serious bout of stagflation in the late 1970s, when inflation rates spiked to double-digit levels and mortgage rates were in the high teens. Compared to the mountain of economic woe in the late Carter years, the economic woes of the late Bush years are a mole hill. But that doesn't mean those fretting about stagflation are crying wolf. Here's why.
In his smart new entry in the behavioral economics genre, Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely writes about the importance of context: People routinely make business decisions and judgments by comparing them to recent events rather than the distant past. Your relative happiness with your salary and bonus doesn't rest on comparing it with what you made 10 years ago; it rests on comparing it with what you made last year, and with what the people sitting next to you are making this year. Yes, consumers today aren't being ravaged by inflation, high interest rates, and slow growth as they were in the late 1970s. But that's of little solace. Consumers compare their purchasing power and job prospects today with their purchasing power and job prospects of a year ago, or a few months ago. And that's why the sudden decline in growth late last year and the persistent rise in prices are a slap in the face. This case of stagflation may be mild by historical standards. But since we haven't experienced it in decades, our coping mechanisms are weak. That's why consumer confidence has fallen of a cliff in the last several months.
There's another aspect of this context argument. Inflation is generally on the rise throughout the world, and the rate of inflation is higher in many parts of the world than it is in the U.S. But Americans may feel they're getting hurt more by the current outbreak of inflation than many of our trading partners. Inflation is being driven by rising energy and food prices. Commodities-wheat, gold, oil, you name it-are getting more expensive. Another way of thinking about it, however, is that the dollar is losing ground against wheat, gold, oil, and other commodities. As the U.S. has pursued fiscal and monetary policies that debase the currency, the dollar has weakened significantly against many of the world's currencies. Consequently, when a commodity that is priced on a global basis in dollars, like oil, goes ballistic, the chumps who have all their assets in dollars will get hurt disproportionately. Americans today pay about $100 for a barrel of oil. But if you're French, and you're buying oil with the Euro, which has increased by about 16 percent against the dollar in the past year, the blow has been substantially cushioned. What's more, many of the countries that have pegged their own currencies to the dollar, including China and the Persian Gulf states, either subsidize gas or use price controls. American consumers and businesses are, in some ways, uniquely exposed to the twin ravages of a weak dollar and expensive oil.
We also import much more oil today than we did in the 1970s. According to the Department of Energy, U.S. net daily imports have risen from 6.4 million in 1980 to 12.4 million in 2006. Meanwhile, annual U.S. production has fallen from 3.2 billion barrels in 1980 to 1.9 billion barrels in 2006. When the U.S. largely fed its own addiction, the high prices Americans paid at the pump were generally recycled into the domestic economy. Today, the payments are more likely to wind up in government coffers in Venezuela, the Persian Gulf, and Russia.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: tc125231 @ 04/04/2008 6:59:52 PM
Comment: This post assumes a level of knowledge on the part of the poser not justified by his comments.
The last case of stagflation --like this one --followed a war financed with IOUs.
zBy the way, I have had way more economics than Reagan. So has Krugman.
Posted By: tc125231 @ 04/04/2008 6:57:57 PM
Comment: Absolutely correct analysis. The last case of stagflationfollowed the Vietnam War, also unpopular, also paid for with defecits --e.g. IOUs.
Notice that Mr. Samuelson --whose "primer" is referred to in this article --insisted in repeated colums --never recanted --that paying for this war was "no problem".
Pathetic.
Posted By: Jeff_F_F @ 03/07/2008 9:07:30 PM
Comment: I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately everyone sleeps through economics, so it is easy to miss this. Here is a review.
Raising intrest rates is an extremely effective way to correct normal inflation. It reduces the amount of money available to purchase goods and services, thereby reducing demand, in turn lower price. However the reduced demand slows the economy. Normally this is fine because high inflation normally coincides with too fast of economic growth. Since demand can increase as fast as people want to buy while supply increases only as fast as new service businesses can be started, new production lines can go into operation, etc demand outstrips supply and inflation results.
That is why stagflation is called stagflation, because it is different. Stagflation presents a catch 22. The normal demand side economic measures don't work. Increasing intrest rates will make the inflation part better, but it will make the stagnation part worse. Reducing intrest rates will make the stagnation part better but make the inflation part worse, and tax rebates will have the exact same effect.
People forget that Reagan was the only president in history to have a degree in economics. That's why he implemented the only fix that will actually work on stagflation. When the economy is being slowed by increasing prices of goods and services rather than too much demand, the only way to fix it is to bring down the cost of producing goods and services.
It is the economic policy most reviled by both the left and the right, but it is the only way. Corporate welfare!