Seeking Alpha

Avi Gilburt's  Instablog

Avi Gilburt
  • on Gold & Precious Metals
3,122 Followers
1 Following
Send Message
Avi Gilburt is a lawyer and accountant by training. Mr. Gilburt is also the Managing Member of Gilburt Financial Services, LLC, which provides: - advice and financial markets consulting to the public through ElliottWaveTrader.net; - Elliott Wave market analysis to institutional clients; -... More
My company:
ElliottWaveTrader.net
  • COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING INFLATION AND WHAT AN INVESTOR SHOULD KNOW AND DO 1 comment
    Jul 24, 2011 9:58 AM
    When we watch the financial news television media, or we read articles published in various other modes of news media, we are continually told that the drum beat of inflation is getting louder and louder. But is the actual drum beat itself getting louder, or is it simply that louder sound equipment is being used?
     
    I, for one, do not believe the inflation argument, since it does not fit the definition of inflation.  Furthermore, when I present the evidence for this argument to others, the reply is that the “old definitions no longer apply.”  I view this type of argument in the same manner as “this time it is different.”
     
    So let’s try and understand what inflation really is, and, if it is really causing certain price increases in certain markets and not others.
     
    DEFINITION OF INFLATION
     
    As defined by Webster’s Dictionary:
     
    Inflation is a persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.
     
    Written in a calculation format, we would present it as follows:
     
    INFLATION = MONEY/DEBT INCREASE   yields  GOODS & SERVICES PRICE INCREASE
     
    In its simplest form, inflation is CAUSED by CREDIT/MONEYBASE EXPANSION.  If you think about it, if everyone has more ability to buy goods because there is more money/credit available for them to do so, then the cost of the limited number of goods available must go up based upon the law of supply and demand.  Of course, the opposite is true as well.
     
    PERVASIVE MISCONCEPTIONS OF INFLATION
     
    How is a determination of “inflation” actually arrived at by many of our experts today?  We hear many pointing to the CPI or the PPI rising and then claim that we have inflation.  We hear many pointing to the rise in price of precious metals has gone up, and then claim we have inflation.  We hear many more pointing to energy and food prices rising and claim that we have inflation.
     
    Yet, these same “experts” seem to dismiss the declining employment statistics, or the declining housing statistics, or the true declining consumer debt statistics.  They say that those price declines are happening for “other” reasons.
     
    But, is the fact that we see certain prices rising (even though others are declining) a reason to cry from the top of the financial peaks that “inflation is upon us!?”  Let’s analyze the definition of inflation a little more closely and see if these cries for inflation are truly warranted.
     
    A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF INFLATION
     
    Whenever we analyze definitions, such as the one for inflation, we have to understand that there are two aspects to the equation; one is the cause, and the other the effect. 
     
    INFLATION CAUSE:   an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services
     
    INFLATION EFFECT:  a persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money
     
    Keep reminding yourself during this exercise that inflating prices is an EFFECT of the definitional cause, and not the determinative factor in making the case for inflation.   In order to determine if this effect is actually pervasive in the market and can be termed “inflation,” we need to determine if the CAUSAL side of the equation actually exists.  Ultimately, we need to see an increase in available currency or credit which is outpacing ALL available goods and services in the economy in a relative manner. 
     
    We have all heard the term that “a rising tide raises all ships.”  This is exactly how inflation works.  Again, if more people have more buying power through possessing additional greenback notes or additional credit, then the prices of ALL the limited available goods and services in the economy, as a whole, should be rising. 
     
    Yet, we have some asset prices which are soaring, while other prices have been declining.  But how can some asset prices really be declining if there is true inflation, which is supposedly caused by more “money” available to buy those assets?  Shouldn’t the additional purchasing power, if it truly exists, cause ALL asset prices to rise in a true inflationary bout?
     
    It seems to me that most analysts are only looking at the effect side of the equation and ignoring the causal side of the equation.  But simply identifying price appreciation in some assets is not how we appropriately define inflation.  Have you heard any “expert” point to a rising relative monetary base as the cause of the rising prices they cite?  If not, how can one reasonably claim a resulting effect of inflation?
     
    ULTIMATE CAUSE OF INFLATION THROUGH TARGETED CREDIT EXPANSION
     
    Based upon the definition of inflation, the key question we really have to ask ourselves is if the monetary base is increasing so fast that it is outpacing the ability of the market to keep up with the resulting demand for goods and services.  The best place to look for this answer would be the M3 chart, which should provide us with answers as to whether our monetary base is truly increasing at an alarming rate, as it is the most inclusive definition of the monetary base that we have.
     
     
    If you view the chart above, it is clear that there has been a positive uptick in the M3 over the last year.  However, the other piece of information that we glean from this chart is that M3 had been in a free-fall since 2008.  In fact, we have barely even retraced one quarter of that decline to date.  When you consider the Herculean efforts aimed toward monetary base expansion engaged in by our government, especially the significant infusion of credit orchestrated by our FED through Quantitative Easing, this increase is relatively pathetic. 
     
    In my opinion, this is not pointing to such a dramatic increase in the monetary base, through credit expansion, that would fit the inflation definition that we outlined above. Rather, this is simply showing us that the FED has been fighting a battle with a public that has been engaged in significant credit deleveraging.  Now that the FED has stopped fighting that battle, and there is still no evidence that the public has ceased to deleverage, then deflationary pressures should resume, and we should begin to see a resulting decrease in the M3 shortly.  Clearly, this would not be inflationary.
     
    IF THERE IS NO TRUE SYSTEMIC INFLATION, HOW DO WE EXPLAIN SOME PRICES RISING?
     
    Remember that each market works on rules of supply and demand.  Therefore, if you experience a supply shortage within a specific market, for one reason or another, but maintain stagnant demand, or even a lowered demand that does not keep pace with the reduction in supply, this would clearly cause certain markets to experience price increases.  This is NOT inflation, but rather specific supply and demand concerns within specific markets.  This is a potential cause for the recent food price increases.
     
    Another reason that specific market prices can rise without having systemic inflation is due to speculation and/or emotion.  Examples of markets that are experiencing these price increases are commodity markets such as oil and metals.
     
    Furthermore, we know that we have not been able to make much of a dent in the unemployment rolls over the last 3 years.  In fact, if we were to look at true underemployment, we then realize that the number has actually been on the rise.  A result of lower employment, coupled with a relatively stagnant productivity number, is that less goods and services are available in the market, which would also cause an increase in prices in certain markets.
     
    Let me provide an example of price increases in a market that is not caused by inflation. If you provide a service that is in high demand for whatever the market reason, and that demand outpaces the market’s ability to provide that service, then the price you charge for that service will rise based upon the laws of supply and demand, until an equilibrium is reached between the price and the demand.  Even though prices for this particular market service are going up, it does not mean that the economy as a whole is experiencing inflation. 
     
    However, if the price of this service is going to go up relative to rising prices for other goods and services, which is caused by a relative increase in the monetary base, then we can point to inflation within the economy.
     
    WHAT IS AN INVESTOR TO DO?
     
    Ultimately, if we are truly not experiencing systemic inflation, but rather fighting deflation, history has shown that deflation is much more difficult to beat. In fact, if the herculean efforts of our government have not sent deflation running for the hills, then chances are we will lose this battle.
     
    What we have learned from the deflationary scenarios of both the recent and “ancient” past is that almost all asset prices are eventually effected by deflationary pressures. This includes corporate debt instruments, corporate stocks, mutual funds, real estate, commodities, and, yes, even gold and silver. For those that do not believe there is any reason that gold or silver can be effected by deflation, simply look back at how shocked everyone was in 2008 as the price of gold was dropping at the same time as the equity markets.
     
    However, when we take a close look at what happened during deflations of the past, we notice that the home currency of the country that is being effected by deflationary pressures saw the value of their currency rise, as prices of assets were falling. Of course, based upon the inverse of the definition of inflation, this makes perfectly good economic sense. 
     
    As available debt contracts, which is how deflation is caused in our times, so do the value of the underlying assets which have been purchased by such debt. Yet, while we experience debt contraction, the relative amount of Greenbacks in the system rises, since the actual amount of Greenbacks never changes, causing their ratio to the overall M3 number to significantly rise.
     
    As a recent example, if we look at the YEN during a portion of Japan’s credit deflationary period, we see this exact phenomena when comparing equity prices to the value of the YEN.
     
     
     
     
    As another recent example, if we compare the US dollar to the S&P 500 during relatively the same period, we see a similar result.
     
     
     
     
     
     
    CONCLUSION
     
    When we are able to point to “other reasons” why only certain prices, and not all prices, go up, and it is not caused by a relative increase in the monetary base, then we are not pointing to price increases as being caused by inflation. 
     
    Inflation is defined as an end result of specific causes.  It is solely the result of a relative increase in the monetary base as compared to goods and services available in the market.  Therefore, if we were truly experiencing a relative increase in the monetary base that would be cause for inflation, then ALL goods and services available in the economic system would be rising as a result, and not simply rising within certain markets, and declining in others.
     
    Ultimately, this must lead us to a conclusion that we are not experiencing systemic inflation.  Rather, it is clear from the underlying dropping consumer and housing debt statistics, which the FED has been battling through QE, that the true battle has been with deflation.  Now that the FED has stated its lack of desire to continue any form of QE, this should become much more clear as more deflationary pressures begin to take hold of the entire economic system.
     
    Based upon history, we need to start raising cash as the deflationary signs grow more prominent, and store it in a safe place.
     
    NEXT ARTICLE: CAN YOU TRUST YOUR BANK TO STORE YOUR CASH?
     
     


    Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
Back To Avi Gilburt's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

This post has 1 comment:

Track new comments on this article
  •  
    I know that my comments herewith may not be well
    received in the Seeking Alpha community since by
    definition our members are mostly indoctrinated
    avowed capitalists. Capital tries to seek maximum
    concessions from Labor. Since the election of the Max
    Greed Proponent (Ronald Reagan-1980) labor has been
    putting $$$ in the elevator and the elevator has been
    delivering all that extra cash to the TOP. I submit
    to you that World History has proven time and again
    that this disproportionate redistribution of wealth from
    productive workers to ever more greedy Capitalists
    results in events like the French Revolution and such.

    In an Ideal World (I do not expect to live long enough
    to see it) Capitalists would re-set their brains to see:
    1) Workers are the 99%.
    2) Capitalists are the 1%.
    3) It is critical to EXPAND the wealth of workers.
    4) Workers are the Consumers that Capitalists need
    to buy the goods produced by workers under Capitalism.
    5) Simple Example: In an entire country of 1000 people
    950 earn $36,000 yearly and 50 earn $1,500,000. The
    country produces mostly Autos. 95% cannot buy them.
    6) Simple Example: Same entire country of 1000 people.
    950 earn $90,000 yearly and 50 earn $500,000. The
    country produces mostly Autos. 100% CAN buy them.
    7) Money nearly equally distributed Between Capital
    and Labor is not only a more fair society; it is also a
    more consumptive and less disgruntled society.
    8) Where the few Prosper and the Many Languish,
    such as Reaganomics proposed and instituted, the
    ultimate outcome is decreased buying buying, and
    increased resentment by the many against the few.
    Eventual Outcome: Take a Guess?
    9) Where there are not "many" or "few" but plenty
    of "well-offs" the buying buyer OF ALL is increased
    and prosperity and harmony prevail.
    10) Stop waste (mostly wars); increase minimum
    wages; decrease CEO compensation to no more
    than 30 times the pay of the lowest paid worker. Offer
    College and "Trades" education for free; otherwise
    Credit Card indebted graduates are in point of fact
    Restricted Consumers. Such changes would make us
    a richer and a better Nation, short-term and long-term.
    A 2012 Capitalist REPUDIATION of Reaganomics would
    be the start of a correct re-orientation: towards a strongly
    non-combative and co-operative Capital/Labor partnership.
    Perhaps I should change my HIDDEN VALUE moniker to
    THE THINKING CAPITALIST. What do YOU think? Cheers!
    25 Mar 2012, 10:07 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments


Most Commented
Posts by Themes
gold-and-precious-metals, INFLATION/DEFLATION AND THE EFFECT OF QE3, long-ideas, market-outlook
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.