ETF Guide
Line
# 1 FREE Exchange Traded
Funds Newsletter
Join the ETF Revolution! Keep up
With The Latest News & Trends
Line
Advanced Search
Welcome, Please Log In
 
twitter   rss  
Subscribe Bookmark and Share
Back 
Hyperinflation Can Not Just Happen, But Can Be Sudden
Hyperinflation Can Not Just Happen, But Can Be Sudden
By, DARYL MONTGOMERY
Jun 10, 2010
Most market observers are currently worried more about deflation rather than inflation. A new theory though explains how hyperinflation is not only currently possible, but could take place overnight.
 

While everyone acknowledges that governments are printing and printing excess amounts of new money, more market observers are currently worried about deflation rather than inflation. There is a smaller group concerned about hyperinflation, but the theoretical underpinnings have been missing up to now that would justify how this could be possible. There is an explanation though and this indicates that hyperinflation can not only take place, but it can happen suddenly.


There have been a number of impediments in how economists look at hyperinflation that have prevented original thought (and sometimes any thought at all) in this area.  Here are the necessary ideas:

1. Inflation is a currency losing its value (an idea most mainstream economist can't seem to grasp).
2. Severe deflation is a precursor to hyperinflation. They are not inconsistent events as is generally thought, but deflation sets the stage for hyperinflation.
3. Disinflation/deflation and inflation need not by symmetrical. For instance, if there is 30 years of disinflation, this doesn't have to be balanced by 30 years of inflation. The same amount of inflation could take place in only months or even weeks, let alone 30 years.
4. Inflation doesn't have to be a continuous phenomenon. The chart can have gaps in it with prices going up significantly overnight. Furthermore this can start from a low point where almost no inflation exists.

The origins of hyperinflation are with excess 'money' printing by a government. It is not possible to produce an ever-larger amount of currency and have each unit of that currency maintain its value. If it were, real money could be created out of thin air and everyone in the world could become infinitely rich overnight. This would also violate the basic laws of arithmetic. So excess money printing always devalues a currency and because of this less and less can bought with each unit of that currency.

This becomes a potentially dangerous problem when severe deflation takes place because of a shock to the financial system (the Credit Crisis for instance). To make up for the loss in value of assets (deflation), the government prints a huge amount of money. The printing causes devaluation of the currency and requires more printing to try to make up for the additional loss of value. A self-feeding money printing cycle then develops.

Even though huge money creation has occurred because of the Credit Crisis, we still haven't seen significant inflation yet. Indeed, the American government claims the U.S. inflation rate has fallen close to zero. How is this possible? The answer can be found in the banking system. The feds have pumped huge amounts of money into it (U.S. bank reserves have increased approximately 100 times or 10,000% since the Credit Crisis began) and banks have received this money at close to a zero percent interest rate.  Yet, if you look at commercial and consumer bank lending, you will see that they have been declining. So where did all this money go?  It was used to buy treasuries and this is what is allowing the federal government to fund its massive deficits. For all intents and purposes, this is a massive Ponzi scheme being run by the U.S. government.

Ponzi schemes though don't follow the same rules as normal businesses or economic statistics. They build to a crescendo over time and then suddenly collapse to zero instantly. The analogy for inflation will be the opposite however. Inflation will go to zero and then suddenly jump up to some very high level. In theory, zero interest rates should produce infinite inflation (hyperinflation), but nothing mandates that this has to be a gradual, long-term process. If you think about it, the Credit Crisis seems to have come out of nowhere. It didn't of course; there was a slow, long-term build up behind the scenes that just exploded suddenly. Inflation is likely to follow that same path of development. Global governments eventually got control of the Credit Crisis collapse by throwing trillions of dollars at the problem. That solution however won't work for dealing with inflation.

Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21 

 
Subscribe Bookmark and Share
 Rating
0.78 (18)
 
 Comments
ETFguide said on June 11, 2010
  krh - We have made the correction. Thank you for keeping our contributors on their toes.
 
0 like 0 dislike
 
krh said on June 11, 2010
  it's "...for all intents and purposes..."
 
0 like 0 dislike
 
MFried QE said on June 10, 2010
  I'm curious, with a fractional reserve banking system, why would you predict that kind of inflation without expansion in the broader money supply (M1->M3)? Unless they print upwards of 10X what's already been printed, this would require LENDING, right? The monetary base is just that, a base... it doesn't directly determine inflation. At a < 10% reserve requirement (amplified by fraudulent derivatives, and progressive tranches reaching 0% reserve requirements at the low end), the money multiplier is well upwards of 10 fold during our bubble years. During contractionary years (like now), the M3 (which they don't publish anymore, for fear that we'll see the deflation and start saving our money) just falls off a cliff from the inflated number that creates asset bubble years. How do you think it will be possible to experience inflation at a rate that exceeds our previous asset bubble-boom cycles unless lending starts happening again on that scale? And if you're worried about excessive lending again, can't the Fed just throttle the lending back through interest rate hikes, and with the amplified control that's afforded to it by adjusting the reserve requirements. A 10% reserve requirement gives a 10 fold money multipier on the broader money supply, while a 20% requirement only gives 1/2 of that, or 5 fold... Furthermore, don't you think the Fed can force banks to buy back those bad assets, bringing in the M0 base against which the multiplier is applied... I know they're a bunch of morons, but they do understand basic Econ 101... right? Well, maybe not.
 
0 like 0 dislike
 
More Comments...
 Add Comment
Comment:
Your Name:
Your Email: (Email will not be displayed anywhere)
Verification Code:
 
 Author Profile
Bullet DARYL MONTGOMERY
  New York Investing meetup
  Organizer
  Mr. Montgomery is Author of Inflation Investing – A Guide for the 2010s. He's an independent market strategist and trader along with organizer of the New York Investing meetup.
  http://investing.meetup.com/21
 Other Research from Author
Why the EU Debt Crisis...

Retail Sales and Emplo...

The Art of Statistical...

Why Deflation Creates ...

Crises in Europe, Chin...

Ads
©2012 ETFGuide.com All rights reserved.
For more information regarding use of this site, please review our
Sitemap, Contact Us, Resources, Advertise with Us, Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions,Webmaster
Web designed and Powered by BimSym eBusiness Solutions, Inc.