Why Inflation Does Not Matter?

Summary. Unexpected inflation hurts those whose money does not rise with inflation in terms of wages and interest payments. Inflation can favor those who owe money that can be repaid in less valuable, inflated currency. Inflation rates that are low have a limited economic impact in the short run.

Is it true that inflation matters?

Inflation has an impact on taxes, government spending and programs, interest rates, and other factors. Inflation that is low, consistent, and predictable is considered beneficial to an economy. It indicates that the economy is growing and that there is a healthy demand for goods and services.

Does inflation happen regardless of the circumstances?

Inflationary pressures throughout the 1970s and 1980s were not even, as is often the case. Keep in mind that when you pay more for something, the person on the other side of the counter receives more. It depends on your personal purchasing habits, as well as where you earn your money. Those in the oil sector, while experiencing the same rising prices at the gas pump, grocery store, and everywhere as everyone else, were actually better off as a result of OPEC inflation because their wages and earnings increased at a faster rate. This was especially true of individuals in charge of oil supplies in the OPEC countries. Isn’t it true that the inflationary process redistributed income in their favor? This is an extremely crucial fact to comprehend. Inflation does not effect everyone in the same way. It moves purchasing power from one group to another (even if the winners may still grumble since they perceive themselves as being harmed by overall price increaseswhat they don’t realize is that they contributed to the latter!). In fact, in these circumstances, the drive to grab more income is at the root of the inflationary process. OPEC’s attempt to gain a larger income share caused prices to rise, not money supply growth. No amount of monetary tightening could prevent the ultimate effect of increased oil prices: income redistribution towards those countries and the oil sector.

It’s worth noting, as a side note, that just because the market established a certain price, wage, profit rate, or income does not mean that it is objectively correct “Equal.” These figures just quantify our current social ideals. Of course, there are also more simply economic forces at work. Because there is less of it, gold is more valuable than silver. But can we honestly defend African Americans’ earnings and incomes in the 1950s as being economically acceptable as a result of their productivity? The truth is that in a racist culture, a free-market economy reflects and encourages racist ideals. Markets are made up of individuals, and their tastes, for better or worse, are reflected in the prices we observe. My point is that there may be occasions when, as a country, we would want to change the outcomes of competitive pressures. Desegregation, as well as activities aimed at making workplaces safer, disrupted the market process and the forces of competition. Furthermore, compensating African Americans more and minimizing the likelihood of on-the-job accidents resulted in inflation (due to increased expenditures) and wealth redistribution. Was this justified, or was it not? Unfortunately, these are not straightforward inquiries.

A rise in demand compared to supply is another way for inflation to occur. Assume that during a period of economic expansion, there is an increase in the demand for housing. Certain building materials, such as lumber, may experience bottlenecks. Contractors bid up these rates in order to get the supplies they require, and the price hikes spread throughout the economy. Firms and consumers are once again requesting a higher money supply in order to operate, which the Fed is probably willing to provide. As a result of this process, lumber and brick companies may see an increase in their earningsand why shouldn’t they? This is how a market system should function. Profits and wages should rise for those supplying in-demand goods and services, despite the fact that this will almost likely lead to inflation. This encourages others to market similar goods and services, while some customers look for alternatives. The adaptability of a market system in the face of unanticipated changes is its greatest strength.

Inflation can also be pumped from the asset market, which is highly significant today. There is a shaky link between the pricing of commodities and services and the prices of financial assets. There are instances when there is almost none at all. Consider the 1990s, when stock values rose dramatically yet the consumer price index barely moved. Lines of causation can, nevertheless, exist, notably in the case of commodities futures. I’ve already written extensively about this in the context of petrol prices:

This is the gist of the preceding. When speculative money bids up the price of a commodities future, it incentivizes those who are actually selling the commodity to hold off on producing it today in favor of the future (when prices will presumably be higher). The speculator is therefore convinced that her bet was accurate, and she raises her position as a result of the higher spot price. This might cause futures prices to rise even more, and so on. As a result, the price of a financial asset drives up the price of a good. 1) Those whose portfolios include those assets (of course, they can only realize their gain by selling) and 2) the producers of the commodities in issue are the winners here. These producers are frequently blamed for inflation, yet they are not the source. As is customary with inflation, taking out loans and selling government securities increases the money supply. The only way to stop this inflation is to manage the relationship between the asset market and the commodity price, not by restricting monetary growth.

Last but not least, there is a supply shock. If a storm rages into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying oil derricks and refineries along the way, the price of oil and gas might skyrocket. This is as it should be, because it generates incentives for companies to build new derricks and refineries, as well as for customers to seek out alternative energy sources. This is, after all, what capitalism is designed to do. It’s certainly more complicated to determine who wins with this type of inflation because it depends on whose derricks were damaged and who gets to build new ones. In any case, this, too, can lead to an increase in the money supply, and the Fed has no incentive to prevent it.

This is not an exhaustive list, but I believe it encompasses the great majority of what we have witnessed since WWII ended (today, we are most threatened by the link between financial markets and commodities). The final line is that inflation can be caused by a variety of mechanisms, none of which begin with, “The money supply is expanding.” Someone must be able to make a conscious decision to raise a price or wage and make it stick. Inflation causes a redistribution of income since every higher price you pay means someone gets more money. Sometimes it does so in a way that we approve of, and other times it does not. In any case, it raises demand for money, which the Fed will almost definitely meetand rightly so, because refusing to do so nearly invariably punishes those who are already in the most vulnerable situation.

I’m afraid that, unlike the money growth ==> inflation group, this more realistic viewpoint does not provide a neat, straightforward rule. That said, they don’t either, because that’s not how the world works! In truth, monetary policy does not generate inflation and is ineffective in preventing it. It does, however, have a significant and direct impact on interest rates. However, prices are set elsewhere in the system.

Why are we so opposed to inflation?

Regardless of whether the Mack bill succeeds, the Fed will have to assess if it still intends to pursue lower inflation. We evaluated the costs of maintaining a zero inflation rate and found that, contrary to prior research, the costs of maintaining a zero inflation rate are likely to be considerable and permanent: a continued loss of 1 to 3% of GDP each year, with increased unemployment rates as a result. As a result, achieving zero inflation would impose significant actual costs on the American economy.

Firms are hesitant to slash salaries, which is why zero inflation imposes such high costs for the economy. Some businesses and industries perform better than others in both good and bad times. To account for these disparities in economic fortunes, wages must be adjusted. Relative salaries can easily adapt in times of mild inflation and productivity development. Unlucky businesses may be able to boost wages by less than the national average, while fortunate businesses may be able to raise wages by more than the national average. However, if productivity growth is low (as it has been in the United States since the early 1970s) and there is no inflation, firms that need to reduce their relative wages can only do so by reducing their employees’ money compensation. They maintain relative salaries too high and employment too low because they don’t want to do this. The effects on the economy as a whole are bigger than the employment consequences of the impacted firms due to spillovers.

Is inflation always a negative factor?

Inflation isn’t always a negative thing. A small amount is actually beneficial to the economy.

Companies may be unwilling to invest in new plants and equipment if prices are falling, which is known as deflation, and unemployment may rise. Inflation can also make debt repayment easier for some people with increasing wages.

Inflation of 5% or more, on the other hand, hasn’t been observed in the United States since the early 1980s. Higher-than-normal inflation, according to economists like myself, is bad for the economy for a variety of reasons.

Higher prices on vital products such as food and gasoline may become expensive for individuals whose wages aren’t rising as quickly. Even if their salaries are rising, increased inflation makes it more difficult for customers to determine whether a given commodity is becoming more expensive relative to other goods or simply increasing in accordance with the overall price increase. This can make it more difficult for people to budget properly.

What applies to homes also applies to businesses. The cost of critical inputs, such as oil or microchips, is increasing for businesses. They may want to pass these expenses on to consumers, but their ability to do so may be constrained. As a result, they may have to reduce production, which will exacerbate supply chain issues.

Advantages of Inflation

Deflation has the potential to be exceedingly harmful to the economy, as it might result in fewer consumer spending and growth. When prices are falling, for example, buyers are urged to put off purchasing in the hopes of a lower price in the future.
The real worth of debt is reduced when inflation is moderate. In a deflationary environment, the real value of debt rises, putting a strain on discretionary incomes.
Inflation rates that are moderate allow prices to adjust and goods to reach their true value.
Wage inflation at a moderate rate allows relative salaries to adjust. Wages are stuck in a downward spiral. Firms can effectively freeze pay raises for less productive workers with moderate inflation, effectively giving them a real pay cut.
Inflation rates that are moderate are indicative of a thriving economy. Inflation is frequently associated with economic growth.

Disadvantages of Inflation

Inflationary rates create uncertainty and confusion, which leads to less investment. It is said that countries with continuously high inflation have poorer investment and economic growth rates.
Increased inflation reduces international competitiveness, resulting in less exports and a worsening current account balance of payments. This is considerably more troublesome with a fixed exchange rate, such as the Euro, because countries do not have the option of devaluation.
Inflation can lower the real worth of investments, which can be especially detrimental to elderly persons who rely on their assets. It is, however, dependent on whether interest rates are higher than inflation.
The real value of government bonds will be reduced by inflation. To compensate, investors will demand higher bond rates, raising the cost of debt interest payments.
Hyperinflation has the potential to ruin an economy. If inflation becomes out of control, it can lead to a vicious cycle in which rising inflation leads to higher inflation expectations, which leads to further higher prices. Hyperinflation can wipe out middle-class savings and transfer wealth and income to people with debt, assets, and real estate.
Reduced inflation costs. Governments/Central Banks must implement a deflationary fiscal/monetary policy to restore price stability. This, however, results in weaker aggregate demand and, in many cases, a recession. Reduced inflation comes at a cost: unemployment, at least in the short term.

When weighing the benefits and drawbacks of inflation, it’s vital to assess the sort of inflation at hand.

It’s possible that cost-push inflation is simply a blip on the radar (e.g. due to raising taxes). As a result, this is a one-time issue that isn’t as significant as deep-seated inflation (e.g. due to wage inflation and high inflation expectations)
Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, tends to lower living standards (short-run aggregate supply is shifted left). Cost-push inflation is also difficult to manage because a central bank cannot simultaneously cut inflation and boost economic growth.
It also depends on whether or not inflation is expected. Many people, particularly savers, are more likely to lose out if inflation is significantly greater than expected.

Governments seek inflation for what reason?

Question from a reader: Why does inflation make it easier for governments to repay their debts?

During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when inflation was quite high, the national debt as a percentage of GDP dropped dramatically. Deflation and massive debt characterized the 1920s and 1930s.

Inflation makes it easier for a government to pay its debt for a variety of reasons, especially when inflation is larger than planned. In conclusion:

Nominal tax collections rise as inflation rises (if prices are higher, the government will collect more VAT, workers pay more income tax)
Higher inflation lowers the actual worth of debt; bondholders with fixed interest rates will see their bonds’ real value diminish, making it easier for the government to repay them.
Higher inflation allows the government to lock income tax levels, allowing more workers to pay higher tax rates thereby increasing tax revenue without raising rates.

Why inflation can benefit the government at the expense of bondholders

Let’s pretend that an economy has 0% inflation and that people anticipate it to stay that way.
Let’s say the government needs to borrow 2 billion and sells 1,000 30-year bonds to the private sector. The government may give a 2% annual interest rate to entice individuals to acquire bonds.
The government will thereafter be required to repay the full amount of the bonds (1,000) as well as the annual interest payments (20 per year at 2%).
Investors who purchase the bonds will profit. The bond yield (2%) is higher than the inflation rate. They get their bonds back, plus interest.
Assume, however, that inflation of 10% occurred unexpectedly. Money loses its worth as a result of this. As prices rise as a result of inflation, 1,000 will buy fewer products and services.
As salaries and prices rise, the government will receive more tax money as a result of inflation (for example, if prices rise 10%, the government’s VAT receipts will rise 10%).
As a result, inflation aids the government in collecting more tax income.
Bondholders, on the other hand, lose out. The government still owes only 1,000 in repayment. However, inflation has lowered the value of that 1,000 bond (it now has a real value of 900). Because the inflation rate (ten percent) is higher than the bond’s interest rate (two percent), their funds are losing actual value.
Because of inflation, repaying bondholders needs a lesser percentage of the government’s overall tax collection, making it easier for the government to repay the original loan.

As a result of inflation, the government (borrower) is better off, whereas bondholders (savers) are worse off.

Evaluation (index-linked bonds)

Some bondholders will purchase index-linked bonds as a result of this risk. This means that if inflation rises, the maturity value and interest rate on the bond will rise in lockstep with inflation, protecting the bond’s real value. The government does not benefit from inflation in this instance since it pays greater interest payments and is unable to discount the debt through inflation.

Inflation and benefits

Inflation is expected to peak at 6.2 percent in 2022 in the United Kingdom, resulting in a significant increase in nominal tax receipts. The government, on the other hand, has expanded benefits and public sector salaries at a lower inflation rate. In April 2022, inflation-linked benefits and tax credits will increase by 3.1%, as determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate in September 2021.

As a result, public employees and benefit recipients will suffer a genuine drop in income their benefits will increase by 3.1 percent, but inflation might reach 6.2 percent. The government’s financial condition will improve in this case by increasing benefits at a slower rate than inflation.

Only by making the purposeful decision to raise benefits and wages at a slower rate than inflation can debt be reduced.

Inflation and bracket creep

Another approach for the government to benefit from inflation is to maintain a constant income tax level. The basic rate of income tax (20%), for example, begins at 12,501. At 50,000, the tax rate is 40%, and at 150,000, the tax rate is 50%. As a result of inflation, nominal earnings will rise, and more workers will begin to pay higher rates of income tax. As a result, even though the tax rate appears to be unchanged, the government has effectively raised average tax rates.

Long Term Implications of inflation on bonds

People will be hesitant to buy bonds if they expect low inflation and subsequently lose the real worth of their savings due to high inflation. They know that inflation might lower the value of bondholders’ money.

If bondholders are concerned that the government will generate inflation, greater bond rates will be desired to compensate for the risk of losing money due to inflation. As a result, the likelihood of high inflation may make borrowing more onerous for the government.

Bondholders may not expect zero inflation; yet, bondholders are harmed by unexpected inflation.

Example Post War Britain

Inflation was fairly low throughout the 1930s. This is one of the reasons why individuals were willing to pay low interest rates for UK government bonds (in the 1950s, the national debt increased to over 230 percent of GDP). Inflationary effects lowered the debt burden in the postwar period, making it simpler for the government to satisfy its repayment obligations.

In the 1970s, unexpected inflation (due to an oil price shock) aided in the reduction of government debt burdens in a number of countries, including the United States.

Inflation helped to expedite the decline of UK national debt as a percentage of GDP in the postwar period, lowering the real burden of debt. However, debt declined as a result of a sustained period of economic development and increased tax collections.

Economic Growth and Government Debt

Another concern is that if the government reflates the economy (for example, by pursuing quantitative easing), it may increase both economic activity and inflation. A higher GDP is a crucial component in the government’s ability to raise more tax money to pay off its debt.

Bondholders may be concerned about an economy that is expected to experience deflation and negative growth. Although deflation might increase the real value of bonds, they may be concerned that the economy is stagnating too much and that the government would struggle to satisfy its debt obligations.

What is the current source of inflation?

They claim supply chain challenges, growing demand, production costs, and large swathes of relief funding all have a part, although politicians tends to blame the supply chain or the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as the main reasons.

A more apolitical perspective would say that everyone has a role to play in reducing the amount of distance a dollar can travel.

“There’s a convergence of elements it’s both,” said David Wessel, head of the Brookings Institution’s Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy. “There are several factors that have driven up demand and prevented supply from responding appropriately, resulting in inflation.”

What causes inflation, exactly?

Inflation is the rate at which the price of goods and services in a given economy rises.
Inflation occurs when prices rise as manufacturing expenses, such as raw materials and wages, rise.
Inflation can result from an increase in demand for products and services, as people are ready to pay more for them.
Some businesses benefit from inflation if they are able to charge higher prices for their products as a result of increased demand.

Who is harmed by inflation?

Inflation is defined as a steady increase in the price level. Inflation means that money loses its purchasing power and can buy fewer products than before.

Inflation will assist people with huge debts, making it simpler to repay their debts as prices rise.

Losers from inflation

Savers. Historically, savers have lost money due to inflation. When prices rise, money loses its worth, and savings lose their true value. People who had saved their entire lives, for example, could have the value of their savings wiped out during periods of hyperinflation since their savings became effectively useless at higher prices.

Inflation and Savings

This graph depicts a US Dollar’s purchasing power. The worth of a dollar decreases during periods of increased inflation, such as 1945-46 and the mid-1970s. Between 1940 and 1982, the value of one dollar plummeted by 85 percent, from 700 to 100.

If a saver can earn an interest rate higher than the rate of inflation, they will be protected against inflation. If, for example, inflation is 5% and banks offer a 7% interest rate, those who save in a bank will nevertheless see a real increase in the value of their funds.

If we have both high inflation and low interest rates, savers are far more likely to lose money. In the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis, for example, inflation soared to 5% (owing to cost-push reasons), while interest rates were slashed to 0.5 percent. As a result, savers lost money at this time.

Workers with fixed-wage contracts are another group that could be harmed by inflation. Assume that workers’ wages are frozen and that inflation is 5%. It means their salaries will buy 5% less at the end of the year than they did at the beginning.

CPI inflation was higher than nominal wage increases from 2008 to 2014, resulting in a real wage drop.

Despite the fact that inflation was modest (by UK historical norms), many workers saw their real pay decline.

Workers in non-unionized jobs may be particularly harmed by inflation since they have less negotiating leverage to seek higher nominal salaries to keep up with growing inflation.
Those who are close to poverty will be harmed the most during this era of negative real wages. Higher-income people will be able to absorb a drop in real wages. Even a small increase in pricing might make purchasing products and services more challenging. Food banks were used more frequently in the UK from 2009 to 2017.
Inflation in the UK was over 20% in the 1970s, yet salaries climbed to keep up with growing inflation, thus workers continued to see real wage increases. In fact, in the 1970s, growing salaries were a source of inflation.

Inflationary pressures may prompt the government or central bank to raise interest rates. A higher borrowing rate will result as a result of this. As a result, homeowners with variable mortgage rates may notice considerable increases in their monthly payments.

The UK underwent an economic boom in the late 1980s, with high growth but close to 10% inflation; as a result of the overheating economy, the government hiked interest rates. This resulted in a sharp increase in mortgage rates, which was generally unanticipated. Many homeowners were unable to afford increasing mortgage payments and hence defaulted on their obligations.

Indirectly, rising inflation in the 1980s increased mortgage payments, causing many people to lose their homes.

Higher inflation, on the other hand, does not always imply higher interest rates. There was cost-push inflation following the 2008 recession, but the Bank of England did not raise interest rates (they felt inflation would be temporary). As a result, mortgage holders witnessed lower variable rates and lower mortgage payments as a percentage of income.

Inflation that is both high and fluctuating generates anxiety for consumers, banks, and businesses. There is a reluctance to invest, which could result in poorer economic growth and fewer job opportunities. As a result, increased inflation is linked to a decline in economic prospects over time.

If UK inflation is higher than that of our competitors, UK goods would become less competitive, and exporters will see a drop in demand and find it difficult to sell their products.

Winners from inflation

Inflationary pressures might make it easier to repay outstanding debt. Businesses will be able to raise consumer prices and utilize the additional cash to pay off debts.

However, if a bank borrowed money from a bank at a variable mortgage rate. If inflation rises and the bank raises interest rates, the cost of debt repayments will climb.

Inflation can make it easier for the government to pay off its debt in real terms (public debt as a percent of GDP)

This is especially true if inflation exceeds expectations. Because markets predicted low inflation in the 1960s, the government was able to sell government bonds at cheap interest rates. Inflation was higher than projected in the 1970s and higher than the yield on a government bond. As a result, bondholders experienced a decrease in the real value of their bonds, while the government saw a reduction in the real value of its debt.

In the 1970s, unexpected inflation (due to an oil price shock) aided in the reduction of government debt burdens in a number of countries, including the United States.

The nominal value of government debt increased between 1945 and 1991, although inflation and economic growth caused the national debt to shrink as a percentage of GDP.

Those with savings may notice a quick drop in the real worth of their savings during a period of hyperinflation. Those who own actual assets, on the other hand, are usually safe. Land, factories, and machines, for example, will keep their value.

During instances of hyperinflation, demand for assets such as gold and silver often increases. Because gold cannot be printed, it cannot be subjected to the same inflationary forces as paper money.

However, it is important to remember that purchasing gold during a period of inflation does not ensure an increase in real value. This is due to the fact that the price of gold is susceptible to speculative pressures. The price of gold, for example, peaked in 1980 and then plummeted.

Holding gold, on the other hand, is a method to secure genuine wealth in a way that money cannot.

Bank profit margins tend to expand during periods of negative real interest rates. Lending rates are greater than saving rates, with base rates near zero and very low savings rates.

Anecdotal evidence

Germany’s inflation rate reached astronomical levels between 1922 and 1924, making it a good illustration of high inflation.

Middle-class workers who had put a lifetime’s earnings into their pension fund discovered that it was useless in 1924. One middle-class clerk cashed his retirement fund and used money to buy a cup of coffee after working for 40 years.

Fear, uncertainty, and bewilderment arose as a result of the hyperinflation. People reacted by attempting to purchase anything physical such as buttons or cloth that might carry more worth than money.

However, not everyone was affected in the same way. Farmers fared handsomely as food prices continued to increase. Due to inflation, which reduced the real worth of debt, businesses that had borrowed huge sums realized that their debts had practically vanished. These companies could take over companies that had gone out of business due to inflationary costs.

Inflation this high can cause enormous resentment since it appears to be an unfair means to allocate wealth from savers to borrowers.

Is it feasible to have zero inflation?

Inflation has a variety of economic costs – uncertainty, decreased investment, and redistribution of wealth from savers to borrowers but, despite these costs, is zero inflation desirable?

Inflation is frequently targeted at roughly 2% by governments. (The UK CPI objective is 2% +/-.) There are good reasons to aim for 2% inflation rather than 0% inflation. The idea is that achieving 0% inflation will need slower economic development and result in deflationary problems (falling prices)

Potential problems of deflation/low inflation

Debt’s true value is increasing. With low inflation, people find it more difficult to repay their debts than they anticipated they must spend a bigger percentage of their income on debt repayments, leaving less money for other purposes.
Real interest rates are rising. Whether we like it or not, falling inflation raises real interest rates. Rising real interest rates make borrowing and investing less appealing, encouraging people to save. If the economy is in a slump, a rise in real interest rates could make monetary policy less effective at promoting growth.
Purchase at a later date. Falling prices may motivate customers to put off purchasing pricey luxury products for a year, believing that prices would be lower.
Inflationary pressures are a sign of slowing economy. Inflation would normally be moderate during a normal period of economic expansion (2 percent ). If inflation has dropped to 0%, it indicates that there is strong price pressure to promote spending and that the recovery is weak.
Prices and wages are more difficult to modify. When inflation reaches 2 percent, relative prices and salaries are easier to adapt because firms can freeze pay and prices – effectively a 2 percent drop in real terms. However, if inflation is zero, a company would have to decrease nominal pay by 2% – this is far more difficult psychologically because people oppose wage cuts more than they accept a nominal freeze. If businesses are unable to adjust wages, real wage unemployment may result.

Evaluation

There are several reasons for the absence of inflation. The drop in UK inflation in 2015 was attributed to temporary short-term factors such as lower oil and gasoline prices. These transient circumstances are unlikely to persist and have been reversed. The focus should be on underlying inflationary pressures core inflation, which includes volatile food and oil costs. Other inflation gauges, such as the RPI, were 1 percent (even though RPI is not the same as core inflation.) In that situation, inflation fell during a period of modest economic recovery. Although inflation has decreased, the economy has not entered a state of recession. In fact, the exact reverse is true.

Inflation was near to zero in several southern Eurozone economies from 2012 to 2015, although this was due to decreased demand, austerity, and attempts to re-establish competitiveness, which resulted in lower rates of economic growth and more unemployment.

It all depends on what kind of deflation you’re talking about. Real incomes could be boosted by falling prices. One of the most common concerns about deflation is that it reduces consumer spending. However, as the price of basic needs such as gasoline and food falls, consumers’ discretionary income/spending power rises, potentially leading to increased expenditure in the near term.

Wages that are realistic. Falling real earnings have been a trend of recent years, with inflation outpacing nominal wage growth. Because nominal wage growth is still low, the decrease in inflation will make people feel better about themselves and may promote spending. It is critical for economic growth to stop the decline in real wages.

Expectations for the future. Some economists believe that the decline in UK inflation is mostly due to temporary factors, while others are concerned that the ultra-low inflation may feed into persistently low inflation expectations, resulting in zero wage growth and sustained deflationary forces. This is the main source of anxiety about a 0% inflation rate.

Do we have a plan to combat deflation? There is a belief that we will be able to overcome any deflation or disinflation. However, Japan’s history demonstrates that once deflation has set in, it can be quite difficult to reverse. Reducing inflation above target is very simple; combating deflation, on the other hand, is more of a mystery.

Finances of the government In the short term, the decrease in inflation is beneficial to the government. Index-linked benefits will rise at a slower rate than predicted, reducing the UK government’s benefit bill. This might save the government a significant amount of money, reducing the deficit and freeing up funds for pre-election tax cuts.

Low inflation, on the other hand, may result in decreased government tax collections. For example, the VAT (percentage) on items will not rise as much as anticipated. Low wage growth will also reduce tax revenue.

Consumers are frequently pleased when there is little inflation. They will benefit from lower pricing and the feeling of having more money to spend. This ‘feel good’ component may stimulate increased confidence, which could lead to increased investment, spending, and growth. Low inflation could be enabling in disguise in the current context.

However, there is a real risk that if we get stuck in a time of ultra-low inflation/deflation, all of the difficulties associated with deflation would become more visible and begin to stifle regular economic growth.