A Level Economics 84: Solutions to Inflation

 Responses to Inflation:

Inflation is a complex economic issue that requires careful consideration and appropriate policy responses. There are various approaches to controlling inflation, each with its advantages and limitations. Below are some common responses to the issue of inflation:

1. Monetary Policy:

   • Central banks can use monetary policy tools, such as adjusting interest rates and open market operations, to control the money supply and influence aggregate demand (AD). Raising interest rates can reduce borrowing and spending, which helps control inflation by reducing demand in the economy.
   • Effectiveness: Monetary policy can be an effective tool in controlling inflation in the short term. However, its effectiveness may vary depending on the responsiveness of consumers and businesses to changes in interest rates.

2. Fiscal Policy:

   • Governments can use fiscal policy to control inflation by adjusting taxation and government spending. Fiscal tightening, such as reducing government spending or increasing taxes, can reduce aggregate demand and help curb inflation.
   • Effectiveness: Fiscal policy can be effective in controlling inflation when applied judiciously. However, it may face challenges in implementation, especially in democracies where political considerations can influence fiscal decisions.

3. Supply Side Policies:

   • Supply-side policies aim to improve the efficiency and flexibility of labor and product markets. Measures such as labor market reforms, deregulation, and investment in education and skills can enhance productivity and reduce cost-push inflation.
   • Effectiveness: Supply-side policies can have a long-term impact on inflation by improving the productive capacity of the economy. However, their effects may take time to materialize, and they may face resistance from vested interests.

4. Direct Controls on Wages and Prices:

   • Governments may impose direct controls on wages and prices to limit their increases. Price controls can lead to shortages and distortions in the market, while wage controls may affect labor market dynamics.
   • Effectiveness: Direct controls on wages and prices are often seen as blunt instruments with unintended consequences. They may create distortions and disincentives, making them less effective and desirable as long-term solutions.

5. Inflation Expectations Management:

   • Central banks and governments can work to anchor inflation expectations through clear communication and credibility in their policies. By demonstrating a commitment to price stability, they can influence long-term inflation expectations and reduce the likelihood of wage-price spirals.
   • Effectiveness: Managing inflation expectations is crucial in curbing the wage-price spiral and fostering stable inflation. However, it requires consistent and transparent policies to build credibility.

Evaluation of Responses:

• The effectiveness of each response to inflation depends on the specific economic conditions, the source of inflation (demand-pull or cost-push), and the time horizon.
• A combination of monetary and fiscal policies, along with supply-side reforms, can provide a comprehensive approach to controlling inflation and supporting economic stability.
• Direct controls on wages and prices are generally seen as undesirable due to their potential negative impact on market dynamics and efficiency.
• Long-term success in controlling inflation requires a focus on managing inflation expectations and establishing credibility in policy-making.

Conclusion:

Addressing inflation requires a balanced and multifaceted approach. Both monetary and fiscal policies play significant roles in controlling inflation, while supply-side reforms can have lasting effects on inflationary pressures. Additionally, policymakers must manage inflation expectations and communicate their commitment to price stability to achieve successful and sustainable control of inflation. The effectiveness and desirability of each response will depend on the specific economic context and the balance of short-term versus long-term objectives.

---

Governments have often faced challenges in taming inflation due to various factors and complexities in the economy. Some of the reasons why inflation control can be challenging include:

1. Inflation Persistence: Inflation can become ingrained in an economy, especially when inflationary expectations are high. When people anticipate higher future inflation, they may demand higher wages and businesses may raise prices preemptively, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle of inflation. This phenomenon, known as inflation persistence, makes it difficult to quickly reduce inflation rates.

2. Conflicting Policy Objectives: Governments must balance multiple macroeconomic objectives, such as economic growth, employment, and price stability. Inflation control may conflict with other policy goals, particularly during economic downturns when expansionary policies are required to stimulate growth and employment.

3. External Factors: Inflation can be influenced by external factors, such as changes in global commodity prices, exchange rates, or economic conditions in other countries. These external shocks can complicate inflation control efforts, as governments may have limited control over these factors.

4. Political Considerations: Inflation control measures may have short-term costs, such as reduced economic growth or higher unemployment, which can be politically unpopular. Governments may be hesitant to implement unpopular policies that could harm their electoral prospects.

Real-World Examples:

1. Stagflation in the 1970s: In the 1970s, many advanced economies experienced stagflation, a combination of stagnant economic growth and high inflation. This phenomenon was largely driven by supply-side shocks, such as oil price spikes. The traditional policy tools of monetary tightening and fiscal contraction were not effective in combating stagflation, leading to a challenging policy environment.

2. Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe: In the late 2000s, Zimbabwe faced hyperinflation, reaching an annual rate of over 89.7 sextillion percent in November 2008. The hyperinflation was largely driven by fiscal deficits financed by money printing. The government's inability to control excessive money supply growth and its lack of credibility in managing inflation expectations contributed to the uncontrollable hyperinflationary spiral.

3. Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis: During the eurozone sovereign debt crisis of the early 2010s, some countries faced high inflation rates amid weak economic growth and mounting debt burdens. Implementing inflation control measures became challenging due to the need to balance fiscal austerity measures and support economic recovery.

4. Venezuela's Ongoing Hyperinflation: Venezuela has been grappling with hyperinflation since 2016, driven by a combination of fiscal deficits, excessive money printing, and political instability. Despite various attempts to implement monetary reforms, the hyperinflation has persisted, reaching an annual rate of over 1,743% in 2017.

In each of these cases, inflation control has been challenging due to a combination of domestic and external factors, policy constraints, and the complex nature of the economic environment. Taming inflation requires a combination of appropriate policy measures, credibility in policymaking, and a focus on managing inflation expectations to achieve long-term stability.

Thoughtful Negotiation Principles

 

Solutions for Inflation? Capitalism Faces a Dead End?

 

Compromise dies in the age of outrage

Hardening political positions are the sclerosis that may lead to a heart attack for democracies writes Tim Harford in THE FT


I don’t often find myself agreeing with Esther McVey, but I wondered this week whether the candidate for leader of the UK Conservative party might accidentally have spoken the truth: “People saying we need a Brexit policy to bring people together are misreading the situation. That is clearly not possible.” 

The British do indeed seem in no mood to compromise. The results of elections to the European Parliament produced a thunderous endorsement of parties that proudly reject an attempt to find common ground on Brexit. The Conservatives and Labour, each caught in an awkward straddle, were slaughtered. Labour offered the slogan “let’s bring our country together”. Ha! Voters preferred the Liberal Democrats (“Bollocks to Brexit”) and the Brexit party (“they’re absolutely terrified of us”). 

Sometimes an extreme position is the correct one. When King Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half, it wasn’t because he was looking for the middle ground. Yet a capacity to find compromises is a good thing to have. Positions may differ, but whether we live in the same home or on the opposite side of the planet, we benefit when we can find a way to get along. 

If this new distaste for compromise is a problem, it is not the UK’s alone. Positions seem to be hardening everywhere, the sclerotic arteries that may lead to a heart attack for western democracies. Perhaps this is driven by personalities. For a man whose name adorns a book titled The Art of The Deal, Donald Trump is curiously uninterested in negotiating lasting agreements with anyone. Or maybe it is a function of an information ecosystem in which outrage sells. 

Perhaps the problems themselves are more intractable. Some issues do not lend themselves to compromise. Brexit is one. Splitting the difference between Remainers and hard Brexiters is less like cutting a cake and more like splattering its ingredients everywhere. Egg on my face, flour on yours, and nobody even partially satisfied. 

Abortion is another. There is a principled case to be made for a woman’s absolute right to control her body. There is also a principled case to be made for the absolute right to life of a foetus. But like the unstoppable cannonball and the immovable post, both rights cannot be absolute simultaneously. 

In contrast, other complex and emotive problems may still allow for compromise. On climate change, we can shrug and do nothing, or we can turn our economic system upside down, but there is plenty of middle ground between those options. In a trade negotiation, a mutually advantageous outcome is almost always there to be discovered. 

Roger Fisher and William Ury’s classic negotiation handbook Getting to Yes advises: focus on the problem rather than the personalities; explore underlying interests rather than explicit positions; and consider options that may open up scope for mutual benefit. 

We may find a much better way to split the cake if we discover that you scrape the icing into the bin, while I would happily eat it with a spoon. It is sometimes astonishing how far a principled negotiation can go towards giving both sides what they want. 

It is clear that we British have failed to follow this advice. Our debate is driven by a bitter focus on personalities, from Theresa May to Nigel Farage to Jeremy Corbyn to the generic “Remoaner elite”. Each side knows what the other wants but has shown very little interest in why they want it. Without sincerely exploring the underlying aims and values of warring tribes there is no chance of finding an outcome everyone can accept. 

The US debate also seems the antithesis of Fisher and Ury’s advice. Too many politically active people seek the humiliation of the other tribe. Dismissing compromise as craven appeasement seems to be a winning tactic, particularly in the primary elections that set the tone of US politics. 

Compromise, however, is often possible even in unpromising situations. On abortion, for example, it emerges with a focus not on absolute rights but on practicalities. Many people can get behind policies to minimise unwanted pregnancies, and to make abortions safe and regulated rather than dangerous and illicit. It is a middle ground that many countries manage to find. 

One can see politics as a competitive sport or a search for solutions. There’s truth in both views. However, a democratic election is far closer to a competition than to a principled negotiation. Do we not wish to see the opposite team soundly thrashed? Do we not boo their villainous antics and laugh at their mishaps? Who wants to play out a nil-nil draw? 

I would not want to venerate compromise as the supreme good in politics. Sometimes it really is true that you and I, dear reader, are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong. (It may even be true that we are absolutely wrong and they are absolutely right.) Either way, the merits of the case must be weighed against the merits of trying to respect everyone. It feels good to win, but this isn’t a fairytale: the losers won’t stamp their feet and vanish through the floor. They — or we — aren’t going anywhere.

The future and AAP

Shiv Visvanathan in The Hindu

One of the most magical moments of this election, the moment when people saw politics once again as an act of faith and hope, was the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party. The story of AAP is not just its story, it is the story of these people reinventing politics and themselves

I want to begin with a story. Last night, I received a phone call from a friend of mine. She told me that she was on a truck heading for the Kolar Gold Fields to campaign for a friend who had joined the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). She hinted that AAP there spoke a different dialect from AAP in Bangalore or Varanasi.

AAP, she claimed, was a collection of dialects, a set of murmurings, whispers and silences. She did not use the word voice claiming that social scientists had wrecked the meaning of voice, divorcing it from speech. AAP, she claimed could be an amplifier of murmurings, little fragments of protest scattered across the landscape. Her candidate, Ramiah would not get the attention that a Nandan Nilekani commands but it is precisely why the former is important. AAP, she and others claim, is not a taproot like the Congress, or the CPI(M) or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); it is like a rhizome ready to spring anywhere and connect to anything. In an organisational sense, AAP is not a hierarchical party, with a centralised voice. In recreating the idea of empowerment as an enabling exercise, AAP has to continue to be inventive. Murmurings were her label for the new politics. She referred to it as the politics of humility because it captures the power of small protests. Empowerment, she said, begins with the marginal, or the forgotten; it has to entice the music of politics out of the silences of our time. Politics takes storytelling to realms beyond the formal by translating the “murmurings” of our age, the still inarticulate protests of our time. The beauty of AAP is that it is full of surprises. It realises that the conscience of politics will come from these people.

I realise my friend was right. One of the most magical moments of this election was the rise of AAP. I am not referring to Mr. Kejriwal only but the AAP effect, that magical moment when people saw politics once again as an act of faith and hope. Thousands of people including students, retired professionals, journalists and housewives saw in AAP a new phenomenon which renewed their faith in citizenship. In fact, the story of AAP is not just AAP’s story, it is the story of these people reinventing politics and themselves. AAP may not win many seats but it is an exemplary exercise. It will continue to reinvent itself long after this election is over. It is a chrysalis for the future.

This essay asks itself what the directions in which an AAP can create new worlds and possibilities could be.

Incompleteness of citizenship

In reworking politics, it questions old classifications. It realises that citizenship is not a fully hatched word like a large ostrich egg. It is a growth, a promise, a hypothesis which has to be tested. Citizenship is not a guarantee of entitlements but a promissory note. What AAP has to emphasise is the incompleteness of citizenship. It is the recognition of the fact that the refugee, the scavenger, the nomad, the subsistence farmer, the pastoral group, the fisherman and others in the informal economy constitute over 70 per cent of India and lack rights or even a temporary claim to citizenship. To reinvent democracy, AAP has to retain the mnemonic of the informal. In challenging the temporariness of citizenship, AAP creates a durability, a competence around the fragility of the informal threatened by clerks, police and goons. Empowerment is a way of going beyond these obstacles to rework cities, offices, hospitals, villages and technologies.

Learning from Gandhi

The history of AAP begins with the politics of body because the body is the real site for politics. In claiming the body as a vehicle of being and protest, students discover the violence of the state and vulnerability of their bodies facing water cannons, stones or lathi charges. The body gives politics an immediacy which fine-tunes protest. It is a site for struggle. The body also prevents politics from straying into the abstractions of ideology or policy. It is a statement of presence, of sensing politics and suffering as part of a sensorium of sounds, smells, touch, taste and memory. In this world, poverty can never be a statistic, but a way of experiencing the world. Poverty can never be reduced to Rs.32 a day when it is lived through the body. The body keeps politics concrete, tangible, and personal and creates a space for ethics. This much the AAP generation learnt from Gandhiji.

An experiment in politics as truth begins with the body. It is the tuning fork for understanding poverty, well-being, torture, communication and time. It gives politics the depth of everydayness as it understands pain, joy or stigma. When Mr. Kejriwal was stoned and slapped repeatedly he realised that there were other messages beyond coercion. When he communes with Gandhiji at Rajghat, he articulates a new strength and vulnerability that is profound by moving. Language then becomes critical because language is not mere text but speech and dialect. AAP realises the world of manifesto as text comes alive in speech, in orality, in gossip and rumour as the nukhad and mohalla embrace and debate an idea. Because language is playful, politics can be playful, allowing for humour, ambiguity, translation. In being playful with language, AAP can liberate politics from its pomposity, its ideological heaviness, and the hypocritical impasses it has got into. AAP has to return magic to old tired words like secularism, development, security, participation, and nation state. It is more open to mistakes as it is constantly rereads its own politics. It creates a new language of error which liberates it from pomposity. What makes AAP refreshing is the ease with which it owns up to mistakes. AAP has a more relaxed view of its role in history so it can see the comedy of politics.

An experimental party

The politics of AAP cannot be an act of storytelling in linear time as history and most U.N. and World Bank reports are. The obscenity of development is that it has no sense of defeated or obsolescent time. One needs a plurality of time to dream of diversity. Tribal time, body time, peasant time, displaced time of refugee, the obsolescent time of a craftsmen need space, voice and articulation. They cannot be confined to indifference. The nation state seeks to create a uniformity of time while AAP politics should seek to pluralise time. One cannot think of an ethics of memory or an ethics of sustainability without it. In this sense, AAP is creating a link between the ethical and the political, pointing out to the lost times in each word. History eats up myth, development destroys nomadic time, and innovation hides obsolescence. Forces like globalisation only understand speed and instantaneity. AAP, by creating a commons of time, allows for memories, silence, new tales of suffering, and new kinds of ecology. AAP in that sense is not a specific timetable but an act of storytelling, which unfolds terms of its own rhythms. This variety of time allows for little experiments all over India. Instead of a million mutinies, AAP becomes the politics of a million inventions, many of which are life sustaining. Democracy without that diversity of experiments in technology and livelihood is doomed.

Finally, AAP is experimental. As a result, it is not inflexibly tied to any ideology or any charter of the future. AAP wants politics to be full of surprises. In that sense, it is not a planned rocket but a wager. It does not need the mass leader in a fascist sense but insists that citizenship, when it is no longer passive, is a form of leadership. It takes problem-solving in a modest way realising that solutions to work are contextual and local. AAP requires a million exemplars to sustain itself as a paradigm. In doing this, it breaks the fossilisation of democracy as a fetish of rights, elections and governance. It is the democratisation of democracy that makes AAP the party of the future. I think this is why we have to look at AAP differently, expect more but expect the less predictable from it. This is what makes it the party of the future and a party with a future.

(Shiv Visvanathan is a professor at Jindal School of Government and Public Policy.)