The Fed, Part IV: Bernanke on Deflation.—

In 2002, before he was named Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke gave an interesting talk on the dangers of deflation:

With inflation rates now quite low in the United States, however, some have expressed concern that we may soon face a new problem--the danger of deflation, or falling prices. That this concern is not purely hypothetical is brought home to us whenever we read newspaper reports about Japan, where what seems to be a relatively moderate deflation--a decline in consumer prices of about 1 percent per year--has been associated with years of painfully slow growth, rising joblessness, and apparently intractable financial problems in the banking and corporate sectors.

To be clear, Bernanke is not talking about a simple drop in investment assets, but a general deflation in consumer prices as well.

Bernanke then outlined how the Fed can avoid deflation:

[T]here are several measures that the Fed (or any central bank) can take to reduce the risk of falling into deflation.

First, the Fed should try to preserve a buffer zone for the inflation rate, that is, during normal times it should not try to push inflation down all the way to zero. Most central banks seem to understand the need for a buffer zone. For example, central banks with explicit inflation targets almost invariably set their target for inflation above zero, generally between 1 and 3 percent per year. Maintaining an inflation buffer zone reduces the risk that a large, unanticipated drop in aggregate demand will drive the economy far enough into deflationary territory to lower the nominal interest rate to zero. Of course, this benefit of having a buffer zone for inflation must be weighed against the costs associated with allowing a higher inflation rate in normal times.

Second, the Fed should take most seriously--as of course it does--its responsibility to ensure financial stability in the economy. Irving Fisher (1933) was perhaps the first economist to emphasize the potential connections between violent financial crises, which lead to "fire sales" of assets and falling asset prices, with general declines in aggregate demand and the price level. A healthy, well capitalized banking system and smoothly functioning capital markets are an important line of defense against deflationary shocks. The Fed should and does use its regulatory and supervisory powers to ensure that the financial system will remain resilient if financial conditions change rapidly. And at times of extreme threat to financial stability, the Federal Reserve stands ready to use the discount window and other tools to protect the financial system, as it did during the 1987 stock market crash and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Third, as suggested by a number of studies, when inflation is already low and the fundamentals of the economy suddenly deteriorate, the central bank should act more preemptively and more aggressively than usual in cutting rates . . . . By moving decisively and early, the Fed may be able to prevent the economy from slipping into deflation, with the special problems that entails.

As I have indicated, I believe that the combination of strong economic fundamentals and policymakers that are attentive to downside as well as upside risks to inflation make significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future quite unlikely.

Bernanke's 2002 analysis appears to be very sound.

Laura S.:
Except that it is by no means clear that deflation is itself harmful. As it happens there is a historical tie between deflation and recession; however, the great body of evidence is that deflation is the corrective pressure that ends the recession and is not a causative agent.
8.17.2007 12:21pm
michael (mail) (www):
I believe there was a mild deflation which occured through most of the nineteenth century in the US. Would it be economically possible then to have a price expectation or targeted 'inflation' rate of -1% to +1% per year.
8.17.2007 7:01pm
Kurt9 (mail):
The FED can set the official CPI inflation rate at zero and there will still be a 2% buffer zone. This is a result of the modifications to the CPI that Greenspan did.

First, the CPI was modified to account for the "substitution" effect. This is where if restarant meals become expensive, people eat at home more. Presummably, this means that when gocery store food goes up in price, people adopt some biotechnological method that allows them to not have to eat (maybe chlorophil in the skin or something like that).

Second came the improvement in quality fudge factor. This is where movie tickets going from $4 to $8 is not inflation because the cinema has bigger seats and is cleaned more often.

Lastly came "hedonic" factors, which is where the CPI was adjusted in some mysterious way to account for how much money per time people spend in enjoyment.

All of these Greenspan adjustments have resulted in 2% unrecorded inflation per year. So, you see, the official inflation rate can be set at zero, and the 2% buffer zone will still exist. There is no reason for the official inflation rate to be greater than 0-1%.

The real name for inflation is debasement of the currency. One of the fundamental social contracts between a people and a government that issues fiat money is that money has value. Governments that debase their currencies, for any reason, loose their legitimacy as far as I'm concerned.
8.18.2007 2:37am
michael (mail) (www):
Governments that debate their currencies loose their legitimacy as far as I'm concerned

I find it it a bit disorienting and anxiety provoking not to know what I have due to inflation. You 'know' what you 'have' from your historical experience but inflation negates that experience. I think it is more precisely the social contract that is deligitimized. This leads to identitarianism, basing social cohesion on a group identity as an implied contract. One can easily argue this was a factor in the German midcentury debacle. It may have been a factor in the Russian regression to Putin, and, speculatively, I wonder if it hasn't been a factor in our recent immigration debate.
8.18.2007 1:56pm