When did inflation first start?
The US economy grew in fits and starts before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 established the Federal Reserve. Following periods of fast inflation and asset price increase, severe shocks and panics occurred. The United States underwent four episodes of double-digit inflation between 1775 and 1913.
When was the last time inflation occurred?
SNELL: So, Scott, the last time inflation was this high, Ronald Reagan was in the White House, Olivia Newton-John was everywhere on the radio, and the cool new computer was the Commodore 64, which was named after its 64 kilobytes of capacity. Oh, and a new soft drink was set to hit the market.
(Singing) Introducing Diet Coke, UNIDENTIFIED PERSON. You’ll drink it only for the sake of tasting it.
SNELL: Before Diet Coke, there was a period. And, while it feels like a long time ago, Scott, how close are we to having to go through it all again?
HORSLEY: Kelsey, you have to keep in mind that inflation was really decreasing in 1982. It had been significantly higher, nearly twice as high as it was in 1980, when annual inflation reached 14.6 percent…
HORSLEY:…Nearly twice as much as it is now. And inflation had been high for the greater part of a decade at the time. High inflation plagued Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. And by the time Reagan took office, Americans had grown accustomed to price increases that seemed to go on forever.
REAGAN, RONALD: Now we’ve had two years of double-digit inflation in a row: 13.3% in 1979 and 12.4 percent last year. This happened only once before, during World War I.
HORSLEY: So, in comparison to the inflation rates of the 1970s and early 1980s, today’s inflation rate doesn’t appear to be all that severe.
SO IT WAS COMING DOWN. SNELL: How did policymakers keep inflation under control back then?
HORSLEY: Well, the Federal Reserve provided some fairly unpleasant medication. Paul Volcker, then-Federal Reserve Chairman, was determined to break the back of inflation, and he was willing to raise interest rates to absurdly high levels to do it. To give you an example, mortgage rates reached 18 percent in 1981. As you may expect, that did not go down well. On the backs of wooden planks, enraged homebuilders wrote protest notes to Volcker. The Fed chairman, on the other hand, stuck to his guns. Volcker was interviewed on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.”
PAUL VOLCKER: This dam is going to burst at some point, and the mentality is going to shift.
HORSLEY: Now, some people may believe we’re in for a rerun when they hear the Fed is prepared to hike interest rates once more to keep inflation in check.
HORSLEY: The rate rises we’re talking about now, though, are nothing like Volcker’s severe actions. Keep in mind that interest rates were near zero throughout the pandemic. Even if the Fed raised rates seven times this year, to 2% or something, as some experts currently predict, credit would still be extremely inexpensive by historical standards. The Fed isn’t talking about taking away the punchbowl, just substituting some of the extremely sugary punch with something closer to Diet Coke. The cheap money party has been going on for a long time, and the Fed isn’t talking about stopping it.
SNELL: (laughter) OK, so there are certainly some significant distinctions between today’s inflation and the inflation experienced by the United States in 1982. Is there, however, anything we can learn from that era?
HORSLEY: One thing to remember is that inflation is still a terrible experience. Rising prices have a significant impact on people’s perceptions of the economy, and politicians ignore this at their peril. The growing cost of rent, energy, and groceries – you know, the stuff that most of us can’t live without – were some of the major drivers of inflation last month. Abdul Ture, who works at a store outside of Washington, says his money doesn’t stretch as far as it used to, so he has to shop in smaller, more frequent increments.
ABDUL TURE: Oh no, the costs have increased. Everything has gone to hell on the inside. I now just buy a couple of items that I can utilize for two or three days. I used to be able to buy for a week. But no longer.
HORSLEY: This has an impact on people’s attitudes. Price gains are expected to ease throughout the course of the year, but inflation has already shown to be larger and more persistent than many analysts anticipated.
SNELL: However, a great deal has changed in the last 40 years. Take, for example, my cell phone. It has 100,000 times the memory of the Commodore computer we discussed earlier. Is this to say that inflation isn’t as dangerous as it once was?
HORSLEY: For the most part, it appeared as if the inflation dragon had been slain for the last few decades. Workers, for example, were assumed to have less negotiating leverage in a global economy, limiting their ability to demand greater compensation. Because the economy is no longer as reliant on oil as it was in the 1970s, oil shocks do not have the same impact. However, additional types of supply shocks occurred throughout the pandemic. And when you combine shortages of computer chips, truck drivers, and other personnel with extremely high demand, you’ve got a recipe for price increases.
SNELL: You should know that both Congress and the Federal Reserve injected trillions of dollars into the economy during the pandemic. It was an attempt to defuse the situation. So, how much of that contributed to the current level of inflation?
HORSLEY: That’s something economists will be debating for a long time. Those trillions of dollars did contribute to a fairly quick recovery. Unemployment has dropped from over 15% at the start of the pandemic to 4% presently. Could we have had a faster recovery without the huge inflationary consequences? Jason Furman, a former Obama administration economic adviser, believes that the $1.9 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress this spring went too far, even if it helped to speed up the recovery and put more people back to work.
FURMAN, JASON: I’d rather have high unemployment and low inflation than the other way around. I believe there were probably better options than either of those. I believe that if the stimulus package had been half as large, we would today have nearly the same amount of jobs and much lower inflation. Who knows, though.
HORSLEY: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was also questioned about whether the Fed went too far. He claims that historians will have to decide on the wisdom of the central bank’s policies in years to come. In retrospect, his cigar-chomping predecessor, Paul Volcker, looks a lot better. Look out if Powell shows up to his next press appearance with a cigar in his mouth.
OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN: Let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’ I’d like to engage in some physical activity. Let’s get down to business. Allow me to hear your body language, body language.
What caused inflation in the 1970s?
- Rapid inflation occurs when the prices of goods and services in an economy grow rapidly, reducing savings’ buying power.
- In the 1970s, the United States had some of the highest rates of inflation in recent history, with interest rates increasing to nearly 20%.
- This decade of high inflation was fueled by central bank policy, the removal of the gold window, Keynesian economic policies, and market psychology.
RELATED: Inflation: Gas prices will get even higher
Inflation is defined as a rise in the price of goods and services in an economy over time. When there is too much money chasing too few products, inflation occurs. After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low to try to boost the economy. More people borrowed money and spent it on products and services as a result of this. Prices will rise when there is a greater demand for goods and services than what is available, as businesses try to earn a profit. Increases in the cost of manufacturing, such as rising fuel prices or labor, can also produce inflation.
There are various reasons why inflation may occur in 2022. The first reason is that since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, oil prices have risen dramatically. As a result, petrol and other transportation costs have increased. Furthermore, in order to stimulate the economy, the Fed has kept interest rates low. As a result, more people are borrowing and spending money, contributing to inflation. Finally, wages have been increasing in recent years, putting upward pressure on pricing.
Who had the highest rate of inflation?
Jimmy Carter was president for four years, from 1977 to 1981, and when you look at the numbers, his presidency was uncommon. He achieved by far the highest GDP growth during his presidency, more than 1% higher than President Joe Biden. He did, however, have the highest inflation rate and the third-highest unemployment rate in the world. In terms of poverty rates, he is in the center of the pack.
Find: The Economic Impact of Stimulus and Increased Unemployment Payments in 2022
In 1982, what created inflation?
The 1981-82 recession was the greatest economic slump in the United States since the Great Depression, prior to the 2007-09 recession. Indeed, the over 11% unemployment rate attained in late 1982 remains the postwar era’s pinnacle (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). During the 1981-82 recession, unemployment was widespread, but manufacturing, construction, and the auto industries were especially hard hit. Despite the fact that goods manufacturers accounted for only 30% of overall employment at the time, they lost 90% of their jobs in 1982. Manufacturing accounted for three-quarters of all job losses in the goods-producing sector, with unemployment rates of 22% and 24%, respectively, in the home building and auto manufacturing industries (Urquhart and Hewson 1983, 4-7).
The economy was already in poor health prior to the slump, with unemployment hovering at 7.5 percent following a recession in 1980. Tight monetary policy in an attempt to combat rising inflation sparked both the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions. During the 1960s and 1970s, economists and politicians thought that raising inflation would reduce unemployment, a tradeoff known as the Phillips Curve. In the 1970s, the Fed used a “stop-go” monetary strategy, in which it alternated between combating high unemployment and high inflation. The Fed cut interest rates during the “go” periods in order to loosen the money supply and reduce unemployment. When inflation rose during the “stop” periods, the Fed raised interest rates to lessen inflationary pressure. However, as inflation and unemployment rose concurrently in the mid-1970s, the Phillips Curve tradeoff proved unstable in the long run. While unemployment was on the decline towards the end of the decade, inflation remained high, hitting 11% in June 1979. (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis).
Because of his anti-inflation ideas, Paul Volcker was chosen chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979. He had previously served as president of the New York Fed, where he had expressed his displeasure with Fed actions that he believed contributed to rising inflation expectations. In terms of future economic stability, he believes that rising inflation should be the Fed’s top concern: “It is what is going to give us the most troubles and cause the biggest recession” (FOMC transcript 1979, 16). He also thought the Fed had a credibility problem when it comes to controlling inflation. The Fed had proved in the preceding decade that it did not place a high priority on maintaining low inflation, and the public’s belief that this conduct would continue would make it increasingly difficult for the Fed to drive inflation down. “Failure to continue the fight against inflation now would simply make any subsequent effort more difficult,” he said (Volcker 1981b).
Instead of focusing on interest rates, Volcker altered the Fed’s policy to aggressively target the money supply. He chose this strategy for two reasons. To begin with, rising inflation made it difficult to determine which interest rate targets were suitable. Due to the expectation of inflation, the nominal interest rates the Fed targeted could be relatively high, but the real interest rates (that is, the effective interest rates after adjusting for inflation) could still be quite low. Second, the new policy was intended to show the public that the Federal Reserve was serious about keeping inflation low. The anticipation of low inflation was significant, as present inflation is influenced in part by future inflation forecasts.
Volcker’s initial efforts to reduce inflation and inflationary expectations were ineffective. The Carter administration’s credit-control scheme, which began in March 1980, triggered a severe recession (Schreft 1990). As unemployment rose, the Fed relented, reverting to the “stop-go” practices that the public had grown accustomed to. The Fed tightened the money supply further in late 1980 and early 1981, causing the federal funds rate to approach 20%. Long-term interest rates, despite this, have continued to grow. The ten-year Treasury bond rate surged from around 11% in October 1980 to more than 15% a year later, probably due to market expectations that the Fed would soften its restrictive monetary policy if unemployment soared (Goodfriend and King 2005). Volcker, on the other hand, was insistent that the Fed not back down this time: “We have set our course to control money and credit growth.” We intend to stay the course” (Volcker 1981a).
High interest rates put pressure on sectors of the economy that rely on borrowing, such as manufacturing and construction, and the economy officially entered a recession in the third quarter of 1981. Unemployment increased from 7.4% at the beginning of the recession to nearly 10% a year later. Volcker faced repeated calls from Congress to loosen monetary policy as the recession worsened, but he insisted that failing to lower long-run inflation expectations now would result in “more catastrophic economic situations over a much longer period of time” (Monetary Policy Report 1982, 67).
This perseverance paid off in the end. Inflation had dropped to 5% by October 1982, and long-term interest rates had begun to fall. The Fed permitted the federal funds rate to drop to 9%, and unemployment fell fast from over 11% at the end of 1982 to 8% a year later (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Goodfriend and King 2005). Inflation was still a threat, and the Fed would have to deal with several “inflation scares” during the 1980s. However, Volcker’s and his successors’ dedication to actively pursue price stability helped ensure that the 1970s’ double-digit inflation did not reappear.
How much has the value of the dollar risen since 1970?
$1’s value from 1970 through 2022 $1 in 1970 has the purchasing power of nearly $7.31 today, a $6.31 rise in 52 years. Between 1970 to present, the dollar experienced an average annual inflation rate of 3.90 percent, resulting in a cumulative price increase of 631.23 percent.
Why was there such a surge in interest in the 1980s?
When discussing the current inflationary economy, it’s simple to draw parallels with recent past. The Federal Reserve of the United States tightened monetary policy in 1979 to combat inflation that had been raging since the late 1960s. The inflation rate had risen to 7.7% year over year in 1979, which is close to the figures we are seeing now. It was the Fed’s second attempt that decade to control inflation by hiking interest rates. When unemployment rates soared in 1973, the board decided to abandon its attempts to limit the money supply.
Find: Despite January’s Inflation Report, the Fed Isn’t Ready to Raise Interest Rates Right Away
However, in 1981 and 1982, Paul Volcker, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, took dramatic measures to combat inflation, which had reached 11.6 percent, by raising interest rates to as high as 19 percent. While the program served to reduce inflation, it also resulted in a recession.
When economists say “This isn’t 1980,” they’re referring to the fact that current US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is more likely to take gradual actions to reduce inflation.
In 1974, why was inflation so high?
This is how the tale goes: The Vietnam War cost President Lyndon B. Johnson a lot of money. The economy was saturated with money as a result of wartime spending, and prices began to rise. The entire economy lost faith in the assumption that prices would remain stable as a result of LBJ’s extravagant spending and the Federal Reserve’s willingness to tolerate it. Once everyone expected inflation, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy: workers demanded higher salaries because they expected prices to rise; businesses raised their prices because they expected wages to rise; and so on, in an ever-escalating “wage-price spiral.”
The inflation rate was nearing double digits, or possibly higher, towards the end of the 1970s, depending on the measure.
The Federal Reserve’s new, bold strategy brought the experience to a close. Now, here’s a quick rundown of how the Federal Reserve influences the economy: The Federal Reserve, in general, is in charge of determining how much money is flowing in the economy at any particular time. Inflation can occur when there is too much money; too little money can result in low inflation, but it can also cause firms and families to have difficulty borrowing money, bringing the economy to a halt.
The Fed chose to grind the economy to a halt in 1979 in order to control inflation. When Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed chair that year, he raised interest rates, effectively shutting off the Fed’s money supply and warning to markets that additional rate hikes would follow until the situation was resolved.
Inflation began to fall gradually, but two harsh recessions in the early 1980s pushed the jobless rate to its highest level since the Great Depression. The method worked because the Fed demonstrated its willingness to “shed blood, lots of blood, other people’s blood” to bring inflation under control, according to Reagan aide Michael Mussa.
Today, that story lingers over the economy. Inflation-watchers see the high-spending Biden administration and its extremely cooperative economic policy partner, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as a replay of the 1970s inflation story.
Biden signed a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill less than two months after taking office, with the majority of the money going toward $1,400 payments to most Americans. Powell is accommodating this strategy by keeping interest rates around zero and buying Treasury bonds, effectively supporting the stimulus with printed money; moreover, during the debate over Biden’s bill, he urged Congress to pursue stimulus, dismissing fears that this would generate inflation.
Worries of a 1970s flashback appear to be justified, with inflation reaching 3.4 percent in May, the highest level in 30 years. But there’s reason to believe that the threat of a rerun is exaggerated. New economic study reveals that the picture of the Great Inflation of the 1970s told by orthodox economics may not be totally accurate.
Other policies and conditions that may have contributed to the tragedy of the 1970s are examined in this new account, which had traditionally been overlooked in historical narratives. This narrative focuses on specific difficulties that drove inflation in the 1970s that are no longer relevant now, such as an energy crisis and upheaval in global food markets.
To put it another way, this time could be different. Understanding this should assist policymakers steer policymakers away from pouring “other people’s blood” unnecessarily.
The standard story of the Great Inflation of the 1960s and ’70s
We can observe that prices began to climb more rapidly year over year during the mid-1960s, using the Fed’s favored measure of inflation.
They varied a little after a brief recession in 1970, but then soared to new heights in 1974-75 and again at the close of the decade. Inflation rose after Volcker’s inauguration in 1979, but quickly fell. It has never again exceeded 4% on an annual basis.
According to popular belief, the Great Inflation was the outcome of a series of policy decisions beginning with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s fiscal policies, particularly the Vietnam War.
While Johnson raised taxes to pay for some of his domestic initiatives, such as Medicare, he and Congress were hesitant to boost taxes to pay for the war. That meant the conflict or more especially, the money spent on the war was boosting the economy at a time when it was already booming, with no taxes to slow things down. The government was just injecting more money into a private economy that didn’t have much spare capacity, implying that the money would only be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
The traditional narrative, on the other hand, focuses solely on Vietnam as the primary reason. The underlying cause has to do with a trade-off known as the “Phillips curve” by economists (named after economist A.W. Phillips).
The Phillips curve is a plot of the unemployment rate against the inflation rate in its most basic form, and it is usually downward sloping: the greater the inflation rate, the lower the unemployment rate. From the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, here’s an example of a Phillips curve graph:
In essence, policymakers in the 1960s believed they could simply move left on the Phillips curve, to a point with higher inflation and lower unemployment, without any suffering, as Brad DeLong argues in his outstanding history of the Great Inflation.
They were, however, mistaken. According to the report, lowering unemployment too low threatens not only higher inflation (as the Phillips curve predicts), but also accelerating inflation, or inflation that continues to rise without halting.
This occurs as a result of expectations: once it is evident that the Federal Reserve is unconcerned about inflation and will do little to curb it, firms and consumers begin to anticipate and plan for it. Workers may demand more pay since they know that $1,000 now will be worth much more in a year or even a month. For the same reasons, businesses will hike prices.
These dynamics produce inflation in the form of increasing salaries and prices, which strengthens people’s expectations of future inflation, resulting in a poisonous loop.
According to economists Richard Clarida (now the Fed’s vice chair), Jordi Gal, and Mark Gertler, inflation was considered at risk of spiraling out of control under Fed policy at the time “because individuals (correctly) anticipate that the Federal Reserve will accommodate a rise in expected inflation.”
With Volcker’s appointment, the tale took a new direction. Volcker slashed interest rates drastically, ostensibly to show that the Fed was serious about suffocating inflation. It would do whatever it takes to enforce the law, including boosting interest rates to levels that caused two recessions in 1980 and 1981-82.
According to Clarida, Gal, and Gertler, Volcker and his successor Alan Greenspan’s policies eliminated the prospect of self-fulfilling inflationary cycles. “The Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates sufficiently to moderate any changes in projected inflation,” the Volcker policy stated.
The (assumed) trade-off between unemployment and inflation
Economists today dispute Johnson’s and his aides’ belief that you can just raise inflation without fear of triggering a spiral and receive lower unemployment as a result.
The NAIRU, a concept that has come to dominate Fed theory in recent decades, lies at the heart of their thinking. That’s the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or the level of unemployment below which experts predict inflation similar to that of the 1960s and 1970s.
What is the mechanism behind this? The NAIRU is currently estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be 4.5 percent in the third quarter of 2021. The Fed should not let unemployment, which is currently at 5.9%, fall below 4.5 percent under NAIRU-driven policy, lest it tempt the inflation gods. And, like Volcker did, the way to achieve that is to raise interest rates.
One reason for concern among inflation watchers is that the Fed no longer has an NAIRU-driven policy references to NAIRU have been eliminated from the Fed’s statement of strategy under Powell.
Worriers like Blanchard and Summers are also concerned that Biden is doing what Johnson did with economic stimulus and other domestic spending instead of the Vietnam War; that he is juicing the economy so much that unemployment will quickly fall below the NAIRU, triggering an inflationary spiral that can only be stopped by a painful economic contraction down the road.
The mainstream story comes with two key caveats. One is that you may believe its basic assumption while still believing that the actual NAIRU is very, very low, lower than the CBO estimate of 4.5 percent and even lower than the 3% rate that supposedly caused difficulties in the 1970s. That is, the economy may continue to grow rapidly for a long time while lowering unemployment to historic lows without causing inflation difficulties.
Jn Steinsson, a UC Berkeley professor who, together with his co-author Emi Nakamura, has contributed to making macroeconomics considerably more empirically grounded, believes this is the case. He informed me that he is still convinced that inflation expectations and the credibility of the Federal Reserve are important. However, his study leads him to conclude that NAIRU could be extremely low, and that we could aspire for extremely low unemployment rates without fear of inflationary forces.
“The unemployment rate, if you just track it, it just keeps lowering,” Steinsson told me over the phone, “whether you look at the 1980s expansion, the 1990s expansion, or the 2010s expansion.” It just keeps falling and falling and falling, with no end in sight. Maybe it will at some time, but one point of view is that we’ve never gotten to the point of actual full employment.” Indeed, the US had unemployment at or below 4% for two years prior to Covid-19, with no inflationary issues.
Another caveat to the common scenario is that some economists believe the increase in aggregate demand that led to the Great Inflation in the 1960s and 1970s was partly due to an obscure rule known as Regulation Q, which capped interest rates on checking and savings accounts, rather than Vietnam.
For the first time in 1965, Q’s cap (then 4%) went below the Federal Reserve’s interest rate. This meant that everyone having money in a checking or savings account was earning less than the market rate – they were losing money.
This, according to economists Itamar Drechsler, Alexi Savov, and Philipp Schnabl, resulted in a significant outflow of deposits from the banking sector. This increased aggregate demand by encouraging consumers to spend rather than conserve their money while also contracting the economy since banks had less money to lend out to firms as a result of fewer deposits. With the introduction of Money Market Certificates and Small Saver Certificates, which offered market-rate interest with no caps in 1978 and 1979, Regulation Q was effectively repealed, and the Great Inflation began to fade shortly after.
There are reasons to doubt this story (for example, the Great Inflation happened in a bunch of other countries that didn’t have Regulation Q), but it matches the timing of the rise and fall in inflation eerily well, suggesting that a repeat of that exact situation is unlikely Joe Biden isn’t proposing bringing Regulation Q back.
What if inflation is not about the price of everything, but the prices of a few specific things?
However, there is another big flaw in the popular tale of inflation in the 1970s: it ignores certain extremely significant geopolitical events at the time. When these factors are considered, current fears of a return to 1970s-style inflation begin to fade.
The 1973 oil embargo, which saw Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies stop oil deliveries to the United States and some of its allies in retribution for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, is a minor footnote in the inflation expectations saga. Some, like former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke in his previous academic work with Gertler and Mark Watson, contend that the embargo was largely irrelevant because of the Fed’s reaction, which was to hike interest rates considerably (though not as much as Volcker would later on).
However, that argument appears to be unrealistically dismissive of the consequences of a simple fact: petrol prices nearly doubled between October 1973 and January 1974.
While the oil shock was the most well-known of the period’s supply shocks, it was far from the only one. Prices for commodities of all kinds soared in the 1970s, from oil to minerals to agricultural products like grain. And, in many cases, these booms were obviously linked to supply-side difficulties, rather than price inflation induced by consumers with too much money. The price of grain, for example, soared in part as a result of a major drought in the Soviet Union in 1972, which drastically limited the country’s food production, prompted it to buy the United States’ entire wheat reserves, and pushed up global food prices.
Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the macroeconomic policy organization Employ America, explains that during the 1960s and 1970s, the baby boom in the United States and Europe, as well as the resulting higher population, increased demand for these commodities and goods, and supply struggled to keep up in the absence of more capacity expansion investment.
“A fast speed of investment in everything from houses to oil wells was the response to these demographic-induced shortages,” Amarnath told me. “It takes years of exploration and development in the oil industry to convert initial investment into increased production capability.” That investment would eventually pay off and aid in the alleviation of shortages, but while those shortages raged, the effect may be inflation.
The introduction and removal of President Richard Nixon’s wage and price regulations were another supply-side impact. Nixon terminated the dollar’s convertibility to gold in 1971, removing a crucial component of the system that had been stabilizing exchange rates between the United States and the rest of the world since World War II. Nixon established obligatory wage and price limitations from 1971 to 1974 in an attempt to reduce the aftershocks. Prices were momentarily restrained by the limits until they were lifted, contributing to the inflationary spiral that began in 1974.
Since at least 1979, economist Alan Blinder has argued for a supply-centered explanation, and he and colleague Jeremy Rudd characterized the “supply-side” position succinctly in a 2013 paper.
They point out that the Great Inflation was actually two: one between 1972 and 1974, which “can be attributed to three major supply shocksrising food prices, rising energy prices, and the end of the Nixon wage-price controls program,” and another between 1978 and 1980, which reflected food supply constraints, rising energy prices, and rising mortgage rates. Mortgage interest payments were included in the most widely used inflation measure until 1983, which meant that when the Fed responded to inflation by raising interest rates which in turn led mortgage rates to rise this policy change boosted measured inflation on its own.
The policy implications of a supply-side account for 1970s inflation are vastly different from the “Volcker shock” of high interest rates intended to shrink the economy. Instead of lowering demand and expenditure to meet the period’s lower supply, economists like then-American Economic Association president and future Nobel Laureate Lawrence Klein advocated in 1978 that the government should actively try to raise the supply of certain rare products. This could have taken the form of efforts to increase crop yields or support domestic oil production in the United States.
We’ll never know if it succeeded, but it’s a compelling and in my opinion persuasive alternative to the story we’ve been taught for decades.
What this revised story of the Great Inflation means for policy in 2021
This alternate tale suggests that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should not contemplate slowing the economy as a blunt tool to keep prices down in 2021. Instead, the federal government should intervene in specific regions to prevent certain sorts of fast growing costs from becoming even more so.
As my colleagues Emily Stewart and Rani Molla have pointed out, the most significant price rises affecting consumers are in the food and beverage sector “In recent months, new and used cars, as well as air travel, have contributed to “core” non-gas or food inflation. According to the Biden Council of Economic Advisers, vehicle prices alone accounted for at least 60% of inflation in June, with a large portion of the rest coming from services like air travel rising in price as everyone rushes back to travel following the pandemic.
A semiconductor shortage accounts for a large portion of the growth in automobile prices, meaning that improving semiconductor supply, particularly increasing production in the United States, might be a better method to combat inflation than raising interest rates. The kind of intervention anticipated by this approach is Biden’s recent efforts to get Taiwan to increase manufacturing for US automakers.
Powell recently testified to Congress that the Fed is thinking along these lines “Supply restrictions have slowed activity in some areas, most notably in the automotive industry, where a global scarcity of semiconductors has drastically reduced production this year.” The same has been said by Lael Brainard, a powerful member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
“If you believe this supply-side story is credible, that changes the way you want to think about things,” Steinsson explained. “Someone is going to build a new semiconductor factory at some point, so there’s no reason to use the blunt tool of hiking loan rates across the board.”
Yes, inflation is growing, there is a lot of uncertainty, and the 1970s are looming large. Given how much economic misery was inflicted on millions of people in the struggle against inflation decades ago, it’s reassuring that today’s leaders are more inclined to consider the path that their forefathers did not.
Is the United States printing too much money?
It’s possible that some individuals of the general population believe this. The majority of authority, on the other hand, answer “No.” Asher Rogovy, an economist, debunks the common online claim that the United States is printing too much money, resulting in hyperinflation.