Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Bank of Canada missteps helped fuel today’s inflation

Published

9 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
Daily Caller / 21 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 21 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 21 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

Business

Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis

Published on December 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Grady Munro, Milagros Palacios and Jason Clemens

The sudden resignation of federal finance minister (and deputy prime minister) Chrystia Freeland, hours before the government was scheduled to release its fall economic update has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter of resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for “costly political gimmicks” and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.

But while Freeland’s criticism of recent poorly-designed federal policies is valid, her resignation, in some ways, tries to reshape her history into that of a more responsible finance minister. That is, however, ultimately an empirical question. If we contrast the performance of the last four long-serving (more than three years) federal finance ministers—Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)—it’s clear that neither Freeland nor her predecessor (Morneau) were successful finance ministers in terms of imposing fiscal discipline or overseeing a strong Canadian economy.

Let’s first consider the most basic measure of economic performance, growth in per-person gross domestic product (GDP), adjusted for inflation. This is a broad measure of living standards that gauges the value of all goods and services produced in the economy adjusted for the population and inflation. The chart below shows the average annual growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP over the course of each finance minister’s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each minister’s tenure to make it easier to compare the performances of each finance minister.)

Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0222-01; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

By far Paul Martin oversaw the strongest growth in per-person GDP, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent. Over his entire tenure spanning a decade, living standards rose more than 25 per cent.

The average annual increase in per-person GDP under Flaherty was 0.6 per cent, although that includes the financial recession of 2008-09. If we adjust the data for the recession, average annual growth in per-person GDP was 1.4 per cent, still below Martin but more than double the rate if the effects of the recession are included.

During Bill Morneau’s term, average annual growth in per-person GDP was -0.5 per cent, although this includes the effects of the COVID recession. If we adjust to exclude 2020, Morneau averaged a 0.7 per cent annual increase—half the adjusted average annual growth rate under Flaherty.

Finally, Chrystia Freeland averaged annual growth in per-person GDP of -0.3 per cent during her tenure. And while the first 18 or so months of her time as finance minister, from the summer of 2020 through 2021, were affected by the COVID recession and the subsequent rebound, the average annual rate of per-person GDP growth was -0.2 per cent during her final three years. Consequently, at the time of her resignation from cabinet in 2024, Canadian living standards are projected to be 1.8 per cent lower than they were in 2019.

Let’s now consider some basic fiscal measures.

Martin is by far the strongest performing finance minister across almost every metric. Faced with a looming fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reduced spending both in nominal terms and as a share of the economy. For example, after adjusting for inflation, per-person spending on federal programs dropped by 5.9 per cent during his tenure as finance minister (see chart below). As a result, the federal government balanced the budget and lowered the national debt, ultimately freeing up resources via lower interest costs for personal and business tax relief that made the country more competitive and improved incentives for entrepreneurs, businessowners, investors and workers.

*Note: Freeland’s term began in 2020, but given the influence of COVID, 2019 is utilized as the baseline for the overall change in spending. Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0130-01; Fiscal Reference Tables 2024; 2024 Fall Economic Statement

Flaherty’s record as finance minister is mixed, in part due to the recession of 2008-09. Per-person program spending (inflation adjusted) increased by 11.6 per cent, and there was a slight (0.6 percentage point) increase in spending as a share of the economy. Debt also increased as a share of the economy, although again, much of the borrowing during Flaherty’s tenure was linked with the 2008-09 recession. Flaherty did implement tax relief, including extending the business income tax cuts started under Martin, which made Canada more competitive in attracting investment and fostering entrepreneurship.

Both Morneau and Freeland recorded much worse financial performances than Flaherty and Martin. Morneau increased per-person spending on programs (inflation adjusted) by 37.1 per cent after removing 2020 COVID-related expenditures. Even if a more generous assessment is used, specifically comparing spending in 2019 (prior to the effects of the pandemic and recession) per-person spending still increased by 18.1 per cent compared to the beginning of his tenure.

In his five years, Morneau oversaw an increase in total federal debt of more than $575 billion, some of which was linked with COVID spending in 2020. However, as multiple analyses have concluded, the Trudeau government spent more and accumulated more debt during COVID than most comparable industrialized countries, with little or nothing to show for it in terms of economic growth or better health performance. Simply put, had Morneau exercised more restraint, Canada would have accumulated less debt and likely performed better economically.

Freeland’s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. It’s nonetheless equally as unimpressive as that of her Trudeau government predecessor (Morneau). If we use baseline spending from 2019 to adjust for the spike in spending in 2020 when she was appointed finance minister, per-person spending on programs by the federal government (inflation adjusted) during Freeland’s term increased by 4.1 per cent. Total federal debt is expected to increase from $1.68 trillion when Freeland took over to an estimated $2.2 trillion this year, despite the absence of a recession or any other event that would impair federal finances since the end of COVID in 2021. For some perspective, the $470.8 billion in debt accumulated under Freeland is more than double the $220.3 billion accumulated under Morneau prior to COVID. And there’s an immediate cost to that debt in the form of $53.7 billion in expected federal debt interest costs this year. These are taxpayer resources unavailable for actual services such as health care.

Freeland’s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau government’s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministries—meaning Freeland must be held accountable for her previous budgets and the fiscal and economic performance of the government during her tenure. Compared to previous long-serving finances ministers, it’s clear that Chrystia Freeland, and her Trudeau predecessor Bill Morneau, failed to shepherd a strong economy or maintain responsible and prudent finances.

Continue Reading

Business

DOGE already on the job: How Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy caused the looming government shutdown

Published on December 20, 2024

By

Legislators had 24 hours to read through 1,547 pages. Ramaswamy read them. Musk presented an alternative. The process collapsed.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are flexing their muscles even before President Elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, spiking a bipartisan spending bill.  The bill was introduced on Tuesday with voting scheduled for Wednesday.  Legislators were under massive pressure to approve of the spending bill or risk a government shut down.  Problem is, the bill was over 1,500 pages long!

Chances are, the bill would have passed and in the ensuing weeks as details became known the public would have been outraged by all the extra plans to spend / waste taxpayer dollars.  Legislators would have apologized by saying they simply had no time to read everything and they were desperate to avoid a shut down.

That’s where the new DOGE comes in.  First Ramaswamy somehow read the bill and posted a video to TikTok and X to inform voters what they were going to be paying for in this new bill.

@vivekramaswamy

Congress wants to waste your money without telling you, make sure that doesn’t happen

♬ original sound – Vivek Ramaswamy

From MXMNews

The newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, successfully campaigned to halt the bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) in Congress. Musk and Ramaswamy took to X, rallying conservatives against the 1,547-page stopgap funding measure they argue is riddled with wasteful spending and unnecessary policy provisions.

Musk, a billionaire entrepreneur and vocal advocate for government reform, characterized the bill as a “pork-barrel” monstrosity. “Unless @DOGE ends the careers of deceitful, pork-barrel politicians, the waste and corruption will never stop,” Musk posted on X, adding that lawmakers who support the bill should be “voted out in two years.”

Meanwhile, Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate and DOGE co-chair, proposed an alternative to the bulky spending bill. Sharing a draft of his one-page resolution, he described it as a minimalist approach that avoids exacerbating historical spending excesses. “This is what a clean CR looks like,” he wrote, emphasizing the need for fiscal restraint.

Musk and Ramaswamy posted this to X.

Shorter = better. This bill is only 116 pages, instead of 1,500+ pages. Took a LOT less time to read. Glad to see the following garbage from yesterday’s bill removed in the current version: – Congressional pay raise/health benefits – 17 miscellaneous commerce bills – Random new pandemic policies, like funding for “biocontainment research laboratories” – Renewal of the “Global Engagement Center,” a key player in the federal censorship state

Elon Musk
Yesterday’s bill vs today’s bill

In record time, the public was informed, politicians were influenced by outraged taxpayers, and politicians blamed each other for a faulty bill and were forced to go back to the drawing board.

It’s all explained very well in this video presentation from Kaizen Asiedu, a Harvard graduate in philosophy who makes videos informing Americans about complicated political matters.

Friday’s deadline to avoid a government shutdown looms. Musk posted on X that a shutdown would be “infinitely better than passing a horrible bill.” His DOGE partner Vivek Ramaswamy urged Americans to contact their representatives to “stop the steal of your tax dollars.”

And President-elect Donald Trump posted this: “If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF,”.

Should the spending bill fail, it will mark a significant victory for DOGE and a potential turning point in efforts to reform Washington’s spending habits.

Continue Reading

Trending

X