Inflation Gone Wild

With an annual inflation rate of 1,600%, Zimbabwe currently holds the world title for fastest-increasing prices. As the late Milton Friedman put it, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. To control inflation, you need to control the money supply.” The inflation cure seems simple to understand from a textbook perspective: drastically cut back the money supply in order to lower the expected inflation rate.

Unfortunately, the cure might be worse than the disease. With the current unemployment rate at 80%, drastic cuts in the money supply could increase unemployment and cause a coup d'état before the expected inflation rate falls. The monetary contraction is inevitable if Zimbabwe wishes to tame the inflation monster, and the International Monetary Fund has urged the government to liberalize its exchange rate regime as a means to cushion the unemployment effects.

In order to understand the IMF’s position on Zimbabwe’s exchange rate, we must examine how maintaining an overvalued currency might contribute to soaring inflation, and how floating the currency might provide relief to both inflation and unemployment.

The graph on the left shows the market for Zimbabwean dollars. Assume that the government fixes the exchange rate at E1. A fixed exchange rate is the official value of the currency despite fluctuations in supply and demand. Initially, the official value equals the market value where D1 intersects S1 (point A). Then, due to unsustainable fiscal deficits and government land reforms that usurp private property, foreign investors flee Zimbabwe. Consequently, the demand for Zimbabwean dollars decreases from D1 to D2.

If Zimbabwe were under a floating exchange rate regime, the fall in demand for Zimbabwean dollars would result in the depreciation of the currency from E1 to E2 (point B). But because Zimbabwe’s government insists on a fixed exchange rate regime, the fall in demand for Zimbabwean dollars will cause a surplus of Zimbabwean dollars (Q1 - Q2). At point C, the currency is considered overvalued because the official value is greater than the market value. In order to eliminate downward pressures on the currency, Zimbabwe will instruct its central bank to buy the surplus of Zimbabwean dollars (and sell U.S. dollars), which will return the market to point A. Zimbabwe's central bank will eventually deplete its U.S. dollar reserves as the economy deteriorates from questionable domestic policies, and will borrow U.S. dollars in order to maintain the fixed exchange rate.

Since the loans are denominated in U.S. dollars, Zimbabwe must make periodic payments in U.S. dollars or face getting cut off from all sources of international capital. Due to disastrous domestic policies, the government has little tax revenue to make those periodic payments, and the only way to service their international debts is to print more money, just as Germany did after World War I. As the central bank expands the money supply to pay international debts, inflation increases, which places additional downward pressure on the Zimbabwean dollar: as foreigners demand less and less of the failing currency, Zimbabwe has to print more and more money, and sooner or later, everything will spin out of control.

One solution is to eliminate the fixed exchange rate regime altogether and allow the Zimbabwean dollar to float freely. If the currency were allowed to float today, its value would fall tremendously, which would stimulate exports and reduce imports. The graph on the right shows that as the exchange rate falls from E1 to E2, net exports increase from NX1 to NX2. A floating exchange rate would boost job creation as the central bank institutes the tough medicine of curing inflation by drastically reducing the money supply.

Discussion Questions

1. If the fixed exchange rate regime were eliminated, what would happen to the size of Zimbabwe's international debts in terms of Zimbabwean dollars? Would it increase or decrease?

2. The central bank has recently declared inflation illegal. How do price controls affect domestic markets like those for corn, wheat, electricity, and labor?

3. This analysis assumes that Zimbabwe's reduction in real GDP is due to domestic policies such as unsustainable fiscal deficits and poor private property rights. How might hyperinflation directly contribute to higher unemployment?

A Tale of Two Dragons: China's Trade Surplus and Inflation

In Chinese mythology, dragons can bring prosperity or destruction to villages and empires. China currently faces two dragons: the trade surplus that brings prosperity to Chinese manufacturers and urban workers, and inflation, which threatens China's price stability. Bloomberg reports that China's trade surplus might be fueling China's inflation problems.

One possible explanation is that the increase in the trade surplus outpaces the increase in potential output. Net exports are one component of aggregate demand in China. An increase in net exports pushes the aggregate demand curve to the right. Potential output increases as China utilizes more of its work-force (labor-intensive growth) and increases its capital stock (capital-intensive growth). The graph below shows that the increase in potential output (LRAS1 to LRAS2) is less than the increase in aggregate demand (AD1 to AD2). Whenever the increase in aggregate demand exceeds the increase in potential output, inflation is sure to follow (for example, from SRAS1 to SRAS2).
1. China maintains a relatively fixed nominal exchange rate between the yuan and the U.S. dollar (nominal exchange rate = 8 yuan per U.S. dollar). The real exchange rate is the nominal exchange rate times the ratio between the U.S. price level and the Chinese price level. The real exchange rate also represents the cost of U.S. goods and services relative to Chinese goods and services. How does an increase in China's inflation rate affect the real exchange rate?

2. How does an increase in China's inflation rate affect the trade balance between the United States and China?

3. The People's Bank of China often keeps its nominal interest rate equal to the United States' nominal interest rate in order to maintain the fixed nominal exchange rate (interest rate parity). Can the Bank of China choose to fight inflation and keep the nominal exchange rate fixed?

Saving America

The U.S. trade deficit increased 2.4% between March and April 2006, which should be no surprise to our blog readers (archived entry: trade deficit and the negative saving rate). Some people point to China's fixed exchange rate or to the high oil prices for America's trade woes, but many macroeconomists contend that it is the lack of national saving that drives the trade deficit in the long run.

There are two markets that we have to consider when we examine the impact of saving on the trade deficit. First, consider the market for loanable funds, which determines the long-run real interest rate. Second, consider the relationship between the real interest rate and net exports. For simplicity, we're going to deal with absolute amounts (dollars) rather than relative amounts (percentages).

The market for loanable funds is where savers and lenders interact. Like any market, there's a supply and a demand. The demand for loanable funds consists of U.S. firms that want to borrow. The supply of loanable funds consists of U.S. firms, households, foreigners, and governments that want to lend. The price of loanable funds is the real interest rate, which is considered the "cost of borrowing" to borrowers and the "rate of return" to savers. The equilibrium real interest rate is where supply intersects demand, r*.

So what happens when the federal government increases its budget deficit and households decide to spend a larger share of their disposable income? An increase in the government budget deficit reduces public saving, and the increase in consumption reduces private saving. Put those two effects together, and we have a net decline in the supply of saving, which causes the equilibrium real interest rate to rise from r* to r2. (See Fig. 1.)A decrease in total saving in the United States pushes up the real interest rate. The real interest rate represents the rate of return for holding U.S. assets. If the real interest rate rises, then foreigners will want to buy more U.S. assets than they did before the rise. In order for foreigners to purchase U.S. assets, they must purchase U.S. dollars. Consequently, the demand for dollars increases, which increases the price of U.S. dollars. An appreciation of the U.S. currency, in real terms, will make U.S. exports less competitive and imports from foreign countries more attractive. An increase in the real interest rate causes a decrease in net exports and worsens the U.S. trade deficit. (See Fig. 2.)

Discussion Questions

1. According to our analysis, a fall in total saving actually increased the U.S. consumer's purchasing power of foreign goods and services (more U.S. imports) while it decreased the foreign consumer's purchasing power of U.S. goods and services (fewer U.S. exports). Is this an economic disaster or a sign that Americans are relatively wealthier than most people in the world?

2. A decrease in total saving increases the real interest rate, and a higher real interest rate increases foreign demand for U.S. assets, causing the price of the dollar--the real exchange rate--to rise. China purchases many U.S. assets in order to keep the value of its currency, the renminbi, relatively cheap compared to the dollar. In doing so, China intends to sustain American demand for Chinese-made goods. How does China's fixed nominal exchange rate policy affect the U.S. trade deficit in the long run?

3. If permanently higher oil prices reduce U.S. potential output, how does this affect national saving in the long run? How does this affect the trade deficit in the long run?

Negative Saving Rate

In 2005, the U.S. personal saving rate fell to -0.5%--the lowest personal saving rate since the Great Depression! Some facts about the negative personal saving rate are presented in this Associated Press article. What does a negative personal saving rate mean and what does it imply for the U.S. trade deficit?

The personal saving rate is the percentage of real GDP saved by households within a given year. A negative personal saving rate implies that households consumed more than they earned by using their current stock of savings or borrowing money.

Saving becomes loans to U.S. businesses that use the funds for investment spending--the purchase of new capital.

So does a decrease in the personal saving rate mean that the investment rate, too, must shrink? Not necessarily. In a closed economy, the investment rate is equal to the national saving rate. However, in an open economy, this need not be true, because American firms can borrow funds from overseas. A negative personal saving rate means that not only are American firms borrowing from overseas to finance investment--American consumers are also borrowing from foreigners to finance consumption of foreign goods and services. In effect, one of the U.S.'s biggest imports is foreign saving.

This importing of foreign saving has an important implication for the U.S. trade deficit. Think about what happens when Chinese financial investors buy U.S. treasury bonds--in effect, lending money to the U.S. government. In order to do so, they must have U.S. denominated assets (dollars). In order to get those dollars, China must export more than it imports--that is, the Chinese must sell more of their goods and services to the United States than they buy from the United States. The leftover dollars can then be lent to the U.S. government or American firms.

The graph above shows that a decrease in the national saving rate causes the trade deficit as a share of real GDP to increase if the investment rate stays at (I/Y)*.

Discussion Questions

1. Why are foreign financial investors willing to lend to the United States?

2. If foreign financial investors refuse to continue lending funds to the United States, how would this affect the U.S. investment rate?

3. In the 1930's, the saving rate was negative because incomes were so low that people had to dip into prior savings in order to survive. But the United States is prosperous now. Why, then, do you think the U.S. saving rate is so low?