Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Bank of Canada missteps helped fuel today’s inflation

Published

7 months ago

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Herbert Grubel and John Greenwood

The correlation between the quantity of money and inflation shown is not perfect but strong enough to justify the conclusion that Canada would have avoided the inflation starting in early 2021 had the Bank not increased the money supply so dramatically during the first year of the pandemic.

According to Statistics Canada’s latest consumer price index report, in February the annual inflation rate fell to 2.8 per cent, raising the prospect of interest rate cuts by the Bank of Canada sometime this year. “Inflation is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods” used to be the traditional diagnosis of the cause of inflation, prompting central banks to fight it by slowing the growth of the money supply. This approach is based on what is known as the “monetarist” theory of inflation, which suggests that supply shocks such as those associated with the COVID pandemic do not cause inflation but only a temporary increase in the price level, which is reversed once the cause of the shock ends—unless the money supply has increased.

In recent decades, central banks have fought inflation using interest rates instead of monetary growth. This switch followed the postwar success of Keynesian theory, which blames inflation on excess aggregate demand, which higher interest rates are supposed to curtail.

Targeting interest rates can work if central banks simultaneously pay attention to money growth, but too often they’ve failed to do so. Equally, targeting the money supply can create inflation-fighting interest rates. However, interest rate targeting in practice has a serious shortcoming. Aggregate spending is influenced by real interest rates while central banks can set only nominal rates and real rates are beyond their control because they cannot change inflation by any direct policy.

This important problem arises because, for example, a nominal interest rate of 6 per cent turns into a real rate of minus 2 per cent if the expected inflation is 8 per cent. At that rate, investors can borrow $1 million at 6 per cent, use the money to buy real estate, sell it a year later after it has appreciated at the expected 8 per cent, repay the $1 million and take home a capital gain of $20,000. In other words, the high expected inflation rate incentivizes consumers and businesses to borrow more, which results in faster money growth and risks even higher inflation.

The expected rate of inflation exists only in peoples’ minds and is determined by many factors. The Bank of Canada collects as much information as it can, drawing on the results of public surveys, the information contained in the prices of so-called Real Return Yields, and sophisticated economic models produced by the Bank’s economists. But these efforts do not result in reliable information, as evidenced by the uncertain and speculative nature of economic forecasts found in its economic updates.

The problems associated with not knowing the real rate of interest have persuaded some economists, called “monetarists,” to urge central banks to target the money supply including famed economist Milton Friedman whose monumental study of the history of U.S. money supply and inflation inspired many including David Laidler, emeritus professor at the University of Western Ontario, and Britain’s John Greenwood who maintains a large database he used to create the accompanying graph.

Chart

This graph shows Canada’s annual rate of inflation (measured on the left axis) and the annual rate of growth of the money supply (M3) (measured on the right axis) for the years 2014 to 2024 using data published by the Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada, which require little manipulation. The annual percentage change in the money supply is averaged over 12-months, as is done widely to smooth data that fluctuate much over short periods; and the resultant time series is shifted forward 18 months, to achieve the best fit between changes in money growth and changes in inflation in the monetarist tradition, which has found the lag to have been variable historically between 12 and 18 months. (Thus, the peak smoothed money supply growth rate of more than 13 per cent occurred in February/March 2021, but is shown as occurring in August/September 2022, some 18 months later and close to the peak of inflation in June 2022.)

The correlation between the quantity of money and inflation shown is not perfect but strong enough to justify the conclusion that Canada would have avoided the inflation starting in early 2021 had the Bank not increased the money supply so dramatically during the first year of the pandemic.

In 1994, John Crow, then-governor of the Bank of Canada, presented to a parliamentary finance committee a report on the economic outlook. One of the authors of this op-ed (Grubel) was at this meeting. In response to his question, Crow said that the Bank’s econometric forecasting model did not include data on the money supply but that he always looked over his shoulders to ensure it does not get out of line. If his successors had followed his practice, perhaps Canada’s present inflation would have been avoided.

But then it would not be possible to test the usefulness of the model, which draws on money supply growth data over the last 18 months to predict that inflation should fall to 2 per cent near year-end 2024 or early 2025.

If the prediction is realized, however, Canadians should not expect the lower inflation rate to result in lower costs of living. That would happen only if the Bank made the money growth rate negative, something history suggests is unlikely because it usually resulted in recessions. How much better it would have been if the inflation genie had never been allowed out of the lamp.

Authors:

Herbert Grubel
John Greenwood
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 1 hour ago

Alberta introduces bill banning sex reassignment surgery on minors

Alberta / 15 hours ago

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 18 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Business

Premiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs

Published on November 1, 2024

By

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg 

Thirty-nine hundred dollars – that’s how much the typical two-car Ontario family is spending on gas taxes at the pump this year.

You read that right. That’s not the overall fuel bill. That’s just taxes.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau keeps increasing your gas bill, while Premier Doug Ford is lowering it.

Ford’s latest gas tax cut extension is music to taxpayers’ ears. Ford’s 6.4 cent per litre gas tax cut, temporarily introduced in July 2022, is here to stay until at least next June.

Because of the cut, a two-car family has saved more than $1,000 so far. And that’s welcome news for Ontario taxpayers, because Trudeau is planning yet another carbon tax hike next April.

Trudeau has raised the overall tax burden at the pumps every April for the past five years. Next spring, he plans to raise gas taxes by another three cents per litre, bringing the overall gas tax burden for Ontarians to almost 60 cents per litre.

While Trudeau keeps hiking costs for taxpayers at the pumps, premiers of all stripes have been stepping up to the plate to blunt the impact of his punitive carbon tax.

Obviously, Ford has stepped up to the plate and has lowered gas taxes. But he’s not alone.

In Manitoba, NDP Premier Wab Kinew fully suspended the province’s 14 cent per litre gas tax for a year. And in Newfoundland, Liberal Premier Andrew Furey cut the gas tax by 8.05 cents per litre for nearly two-and-a-half years.

It’s a tale of two approaches: the Trudeau government keeps making life more expensive at the pumps, while premiers of all stripes are fighting to get costs down.

Families still have to get to work, get the kids to school and make it to hockey practice. And they can’t afford increasingly high gas taxes. Common sense premiers seem to get it, while Ottawa has its head in the clouds.

When Ford announced his gas tax cut extension, he took aim at the Liberal carbon tax mandated by the Trudeau government in Ottawa.

Ford noted the carbon tax is set to rise to 20.9 cents per litre next April, “bumping up the cost of everything once again and it’s absolutely ridiculous.”

“Our government will always fight against it,” Ford said.

But there’s some good news for taxpayers: reprieve may be on the horizon.

Federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s promises to axe the carbon tax as soon as he takes office.

With a federal election scheduled for next fall, the federal carbon tax’s days may very well be numbered.

Scrapping the carbon tax would make a huge difference in the lives of everyday Canadians.

Right now, the carbon tax costs 17.6 cents per litre. For a family filling up two cars once a week, that’s nearly $24 a week in carbon taxes at the pump.

Scrapping the carbon tax could save families more than $1,200 a year at the pumps. Plus, there would be savings on the cost of home heating, food, and virtually everything else.

While the Trudeau government likes to argue that the carbon tax rebates make up for all these additional costs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it’s not so.

The PBO has shown that the typical Ontario family will lose nearly $400 this year due to the carbon tax, even after the rebates.

That’s why premiers like Ford, Kinew and Furey have stepped up to the plate.

Canadians pay far too much at the pumps in taxes. While Trudeau hikes the carbon tax year after year, provincial leaders like Ford are keeping costs down and delivering meaningful relief for struggling families.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Sweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production

Published on November 1, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-293, ‘An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,’ gives sweeping powers to the federal government in the event of a crisis, including the ability to regulate meat production.

The Trudeau Liberals’ “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that the sweeping powers it gives government, particularly over agriculture, have many concerned.

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is soon to pass its second reading in the Senate, which all but guarantees it will become law. Last Tuesday in the Senate, Conservative senators’ calls for caution on the bill seemed to fall on deaf ears. 

“Being from Saskatchewan I have heard from many farmers who are very concerned about this bill. Now we hear quite a short second reading speech that doesn’t really address some of those major concerns they have about the promotion of alternative proteins and about the phase-out, as Senator Plett was saying, of some of their very livelihoods,” said Conservative Senator Denise Batters during debate of the bill. 

Batters asked one of the bill’s proponents, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, how they will “alleviate those concerns for them other than telling them that they can come to committee, perhaps — if the committee invites them — and have their say there so that they don’t have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened?” 

In response, Mégie replied, “We have to invite the right witnesses and those who will speak about their industry, what they are doing and their concerns. Then we can find solutions with them, and we will do a thorough analysis of the issue. This was done intentionally, and I can provide all these details later. If I shared these details now, I would have to propose solutions myself and I do not have those solutions. I purposely did not present them.” 

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.   

Bill C-293 would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.”  

It would also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.”  

The bill has been blasted by the Alberta government, who warned that it could “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” as well as allow the “the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.” 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The World Economic Forum, a globalist group with links to the Trudeau government, has as part of its Great Reset agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints.  

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X