Инфляция (Inflation)

Дополнительное чтение по английскому языку

На тему:

Инфляция

2009

Inflation

If the supply of caviar were as plentiful as the supply of potatoes, the price of caviar--that is, the exchange ratio between caviar and money or caviar and other commodities--would change considerably. In that case, one could obtain caviar at a much smaller sacrifice than is required today. Likewise, if the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unitdecreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also.

When, in the sixteenth century, American resources of gold and silver were discovered and exploited, enormous quantities of the precious metals were transported to Europe. The result of this increase in the quantity of money was a general tendency toward an upward movement of prices in Europe. In the same way, today, whena government increases the quantity of paper money, the result is that the purchasing power of the monetary unit begins to drop, and so prices rise. This is called inflation.

Unfortunately some people prefer to attribute the cause of inflation not to an increase in the quantity of money but, rather, to the rise in prices.

How ever, there has never been any serious argument against the economic interpretation of the relationship between prices and the quantity of money, or the exchange ratio between money and other goods, commodities, and services. Under present day technological conditions there is nothing easier than to manufacture pieces of paper upon which certain monetary amounts are printed. In the United States, where all the notes are of the same size, it does not cost the government more to print a bill of a thousand dollars than it does to print a bill of one dollar. It is purely a printing procedure that requires the same quantity of paper and ink.

In the eighteenth century, when the first attempts were made to issue bank notes and to give these bank notes the quality of legal tender--that is, the right to be honored in exchange transactions in the same way that gold and silver pieces were honored--the governments and nations believed that bankers had some secret knowledge enabling them to produce wealth out of nothing. When the governments of the eighteenth century were in financial difficulties, they thought all they needed was a clever banker at the head of their financial management in order to get rid of all their difficulties.

Some years before the French Revolution, when the royalty of France was in financial trouble, the king of France sought out such a clever banker, and appointed him to a high position. This man was, in every regard, the opposite of the people who, up to that time, had ruled France. First of all he was not a Frenchman, he was a foreigner--a Swiss from Geneva, Jacques Necker. Secondly, he was not a member of the aristocracy, he was a simple commoner. And what counted even more in eighteenth century France, he was not a Catholic, but a Protestant. And so Monsieur Necker, the father of the famous Madame de Stael, became the minister of finance, and everyone expected him to solve the financial problems of France. But in spite of the high degree of confidence Monsieur Necker enjoyed, the royal cashbox remained empty. Greatest mistake having been his at- tempt to finance aid to the American colonists in their war of independence against England without raising taxes. That was certainly the wrong way to go about solving France's financial troubles.

There can be no secret way to the solution of the financial problems of a government; if it needs money, it has to obtain the money by taxing its citizens (or, under special conditions, by borrowing it from people who have the money). But many governments, can even say most governments, think there is another method for getting the needed money; simply to print it.

If the government wants to do something beneficial-- if, for example, it wants to build a hospital--the way to find the needed money for this project is to tax the citizens and build the hospital out of tax revenues. Then no special "price revolution" will occur, because when the government collects money for the construction of the hospital, the citizens--having paid the taxes--are forced to reduce their spending. The individual taxpayer is forced to restrict either his consumption, his investments or his savings. The government, appearing on the market as a buyer, replaces the individual citizen: the citizen buys less, but the government buys more. The government, of course, does not always buy the same goods which the citizens would have bought; but on the average there occurs no rise in prices due to the govern-ment's construction of a hospital.

I choose this example of a hospital precisely because people sometimes say: "It makes a difference whether the government uses its money for good or for bad purposes." I want to assume that the government always uses the money which it has printed for the best possible purposes--purposes with which we all agree. For it is not the way in which the money is spent, it is the way in which the government obtains this money that brings about those consequences we call inflation and which most people in the world today do not consider as beneficial.

For example, without inflating, the government could use the tax-collected money for hiring new employees or for raising the salaries of those who are already in government service. Then these people, whose salaries have been increased, are in a position to buy more. When the government taxes the citizens and uses this money to increase the salaries of government employees, the taxpayers have less to spend, but the government employees have more. Prices in general will not increase.

But if the government does not use tax money for this purpose, if it uses freshly printed money instead, it means that there will be people who now have more money while all other people still have as much as they had before. So those who received the newly-printed money will be competing with those people who were buyers before. And since there are no more commodities than there were previously, but there is more money on the market--and since there are now people who can buy more today than they could have bought yester-day--there will be an additional demand for that same quantity of goods. Therefore prices will tend to go up. This cannot be avoided, no matter what the use of this newly issued money will be.

And more importantly, this tendency for prices to group will develop step by step; it is not a general upward movement of what has been called the "price level." The metaphorical expression "price level" must never bemused.

When people talk of a "price level," they have in mind the image of a level of a liquid which goes up or down according to the increase or decrease in its quantity, but which, like a liquid in a tank, always rises evenly. But with prices, there is no such thing as a "level." Prices don't change to the same extent at the same time. There are always prices that are changing more rapidly, rising or falling more rapidly than other prices. There is a reason for this.

Consider the case of the government employee who received the new money added to the money supply. People do not buy today precisely the same commodities and in the same quantities as they did yesterday. The additional money which the government has printed and introduced into the market is not used for the purchase of all commodities and services. It is used for the purchase of certain commodities, the prices of which will rise, while other commodities will still remain at the prices that prevailed before the new money was put on the market. Therefore, when inflation starts, different groups within the population are affected by this inflation in different ways. Those groups who get the new money first gain a temporary benefit.

When the government inflates in order to wage a war, it has to buy munitions, and the first to get the additional money are the munitions industries and the workers within these industries. These groups are now in a very favorable position. They have higher profits and higher wages; their business is moving. Why? Because they were the first to receive the additional money. And having now more money at their disposal, they are buying. And they are buying from other people who are manufacturing and selling the commodities that these munitions makers want.

These other people form a second group. And this second group considers inflation to be very good for business. Why not? Isn't it wonderful to sell more? For example, the owner of a restaurant in the neighborhood of a munitions factory says: "It is really marvelous! The munitions workers have more money; there are many more of them now than before; they are all patronizing my restaurant; I am very happy about it." He does not see any reason to feel otherwise.

The situation is this: those people to whom the money comes first now have a higher income, and they can still buy many commodities and services at prices which correspond to the previous state of the market, to the condition that existed on the eve of inflation. Therefore, they're in a very favorable position. And thus inflation continues step by step, from one group of the population to another. And all those to whom the additional money comes at the early state of inflation are benefited because they are buying some things at prices still corresponding to the previous stage of the exchange ratio between money and commodities.

But there are other groups in the population to whom this additional money comes much, much later. These people are in an unfavorable position. Before the additional money comes to them they are forced to pay higher prices than they paid before for some--or for practically all--of the commodities they wanted to purchase, while their income has remained the same, or hasn't increased proportionately with prices.

Consider for instance a country like the United States during the Second World War; on the one hand, inflation at that time favored the munitions workers, the munitions industries, the manufacturers of guns, while on the other hand it worked against other groups of the population. And the ones who suffered the greatest disadvantages from inflation were the teachers and the ministers.

As you know, a minister is a very modest person who serves God and must not talk too much about money. Teachers, likewise, are dedicated persons who are sup-posed to think more about educating the young than about their salaries. Consequently, the teachers and ministers were among those who were most penalized by inflation, for the various schools and churches were the last to realize that they must raise salaries. When the church elders and the school corporations finally discovered that, after all, one should also raise the salaries of those dedicated people, the earlier losses they had suffered still remained.

For a long time, they had to buy less than they did before, to cut down their consumption of better and more expensive foods, and to restrict their purchase of clothing--because prices had already adjusted upward, while their incomes, their salaries, had not yet been raised.

There are therefore always different groups in the population being affected differently by inflation. For some of them, inflation is not so bad; they even ask fore continuation of it, because they are the first to profit from it.

Under these changes brought about by inflation, we have groups who are favored and groups who are directly profiteering. I do not use the term ''profiteering» as a reproach to these people, for ii there is someone to blame, it is the government that established the inflation. And there are always people who favor inflation, because they realize what is going on sooner than other peopled. Their special profits are due to the fact that there will necessarily be unevenness in the process of inflation.

The government may think that inflation--as a method of raising funds--is better than taxation, which's always unpopular and difficult. In many rich and great nations, legislators have often discussed, for months and months, the various forms of new taxes that were necessary because the parliament had decided to increase expenditures. Having discussed various methods-of-getting the money by taxation, they finally decided that perhaps it was better to do it by inflation.

But of course, the word "inflation" was not used. The politician in power who proceeds toward inflation doesn't announce: "I am proceeding toward inflation." The technical methods employed to achieve the inflation a reso complicated that the average citizen does not realize inflation has begun.

One of the biggest inflations in history was in the German Reich after the First World War. The inflation was not so momentous during the war; it was the inflation after the war that brought about the catastrophe. The government did not say: "We are proceeding toward inflation." The government simply borrowed money very indirectly from the central bank. The government did not have to ask how the central bank would find and deliver the money. The central bank simply printed it.

Today the techniques for inflation are complicated by the fact that there is checkbook money. It involves another technique, but the result is the same. With the stroke of a pen, the government creates fiat money, thus increasing the quantity of money and credit.

The government simply issues the order, and the fiat money is there. The government does not care, at first, that some people will be losers, it does not care that prices will go up. The legislators say: "This is a wonderful system!" But this wonderful system has one fundamental weakness: it cannot last. If inflation could go on forever, there would be no point in telling governments they should not inflate. But the certain fact about inflation is that, sooner or later, it must come to an end. It is a policy that cannot last.

In the long run, inflation comes to an end with the breakdown of the currency; it comes to a catastrophe, to a situation like the one in Germany in 1923. On August1, 1914, the value of the dollar was four marks and twenty pfennig. Nine years and three months later, in November 1923, the dollar was pegged at 4.2 trillion marks. In other words, the mark was worth nothing. Into longer had any value.

Some years ago, a famous author, John Maynard Keynes, wrote: "In the long run we are all dead." This is certainly true, I am sorry to say. But the question is, how short or long will the short run be? In the eighteenth century there was a famous lady, Madame de Pompadour, who is credited with the dictum: "APRs nous ledeluge" ("After us will come the flood"). Madame dePompadour was happy enough to die in the short run. But her successor in office, Madame du Barry, outlived the short run and was beheaded in the long run. For many people the "long run" quickly becomes the "short run"--and the longer inflation goes on the sooner the» short run. » How long can the short run last?

How long can a central bank continue an inflation? Probably as long as people are convinced that the government, sooner or later, but certainly not too late, will stop printing money and thereby stop decreasing the value of each unit of money.

When people no longer believe this, when they realize that the government will go on and on without any intention of stopping, then they begin to understand that prices tomorrow will be higher than they are today. Then they begin buying at any price, causing prices Togo up to such heights that the monetary system breaks down.

I refer to the case of Germany, which the whole world was watching. Many books have described the events of that time. For several years, the German people believed that their inflation was just a temporary affair, that it would soon come to an end. They believed it for almost nine years, until the summer of 1923. Then, finally, they began to doubt. As the inflation continued, people thought it wiser to buy anything available, in-stead of keeping money in their pockets. Furthermore, they reasoned that one should not give loans of money, but on the contrary, that it was a very good idea to be a debtor. Thus inflation continued feeding on itself.

And it went on in Germany until exactly November 20, 1923. The masses had believed inflation money to be real money, but then they found out that conditions had changed. At the end of the German inflation, in the fall of 1923, the German factories paid their workers every morning in advance for the day. And the workingman who came to the factory with his wife, handed his wages--all the millions he got--over to her immediately. And the lady immediately went to a shop to buy some-thing, no matter what. She realized what most people knew at that time--that overnight, from one day to an-other, the mark lost 50% of its purchasing power. Money, like chocolate in a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people. This last phase of German inflation did not last long; after a few days, the whole night-mare was over: the mark was valueless and a new currency had to be established.

Lord Keynes, the same man who said that in the long run we are all dead, was one of a long line of inflationist authors of the twentieth century. They all wrote against the gold standard. When Keynes attacked the gold standard, he called it a "barbarous relic/' and most people today consider it ridiculous to speak of a return to the gold standard. In the United States, for instance, you are considered to be more or less a dreamer if you say: » Sooner or later, the United States will have to return to the gold standard.

Yet the gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of money under the gold standard is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments. If, under the gold standard, a government is asked to spend money for something new, the minister of finance can say: "And where do I get the money? Tell me, first, how I will find the money for this additional expenditure. » Under an inflationary system, nothing is simpler for the politicians to do than to order the government printing office to provide as much money as they need for their projects.

Under a gold standard, sound government has a much better chance; its leaders can say to the people and to the politicians: "We can't do it unless we increase taxes.

But under inflationary conditions, people acquire the habit of looking upon the government as an institution with limitless means at its disposal: the state, the government, can do anything. If, for instance, the nation wants a new highway system, the government is expected to build it. But where will the government get the money?

One could say that in the United States today--and even in the past, under McKinley--the Republican party was more or less in favor of sound money and of the gold standard, and the Democratic party was in favor of inflation, of course not a paper inflation, but a silver inflation.

It was, however, a Democratic president of the United States, President Cleveland, who at the end of the 1880svetoed a decision of Congress, to give a small sum--about $10,000--to help a community that had suffered some disaster. And President Cleveland justified his veto by writing: "While it is the duty of the citizens to support the government, it is not the duty of the government to support the citizens." This is something which every statesman should write on the wall of his office to show to people who come asking for money.

I am rather embarrassed by the necessity to simplify these problems. There are so many complex problems in the monetary system, and I would not have written volumes about them if they were as simple as I am de-scribing them here. But the fundamentals are precisely these: if you increase the quantity of money, you bring about the lowering of the purchasing power of the monetary unit. This is what people whose private affairs are unfavorably affected do not like. People who do not benefit from inflation are the ones who complain.

If inflation is bad and if people realize it, why has it come almost a way of life in all countries? Even some the richest countries suffer from this disease. Thenited States today is certainly the richest country in theorld, with the highest standard of living. But when youavel in the United States, you will discover that there constant talk about inflation and about the necessity stop it. But they only talk; they do not act.

Unfortunately, we have now, in almost all countries all over the world, a second power that is in a position to exercise force: the labor unions. The labor unions determine wages and then strike to enforce them in the same way in which the government might decree a mini-mum wage rate. I will not discuss the union question now; I shall deal with it later. I only want to establish that it is the union policy to raise wage rates above the level they would have on an unhampered market. As a result, a considerable part of the potential labor force can be employed only by people or industries that are pre-pared to suffer losses. And, since businesses are not a bleto keep on suffering losses, they close their doors and people become unemployed. The setting of wage rates above the level they would have on the unhampered market always results in the unemployment of a considerable part of the potential labor force.

In Great Britain, the result of high wage rates enforced by the labor unions was lasting unemployment, pro-longed year after year. Millions of workers were unemployed, production figures dropped. Even experts were perplexed. In this situation the British government made a move which it considered an indispensable, emergency measure: it devalued its currency.

The result was that the purchasing power of the money wages, upon which the unions had insisted, was no longer the same. The real wages, the commodity wages, were reduced. Now the worker could not buy as much as he had been able to buy before, even though the nominal wage rates remained the same. In this way, it was thought, real wage rates would return to free market levels and unemployment would disappear.

This measure--devaluation--was adopted by various other countries, by France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. One country even resorted twice to this measure within a period of one year and a half. That country was Czechoslovakia. It was a surreptitious method, let us say, to thwart the power of the unions. You could not call it a real success, however.

After a few years, the people, the workers, even the unions, began to understand what was going on. They came to realize that currency devaluation had reduced their real wages. The unions had the power to oppose this. In many countries they inserted a clause into wage contracts providing that money wages must go up automatically with an increase in prices. This is called indexing. The unions became index conscious. So, this method of reducing unemployment that the government of Great Britain started in 1931--which was later adopted by almost all important governments--this method of» solving unemployment" no longer works today.

In 1936, in his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Lord Keynes unfortunately elevated this method--the emergency measures of the period between 1929 and 1933--to a principle, to a fundamental system of policy. And he justified it by saying, in effect: » Unemployment is bad. If you want unemployment to disappear you must inflate the currency.

He realized very well that wage rates can be too high for the market, that is, too high to make it profitable fo ran employer to increase his work force, thus too high from the point of view of the total working population, for with wage rates imposed by unions above the market only a part of those anxious to earn wages can obtain jobs.

And Keynes said, in effect: "Certainly mass unemployment, prolonged year after year, is a very unsatisfactory condition." But instead of suggesting that wage rates could and should be adjusted to market conditions, he said, in effect: "If one devalues the currency and the workers are not clever enough to realize it, they will not offer resistance against a drop in real wage rates, as longs nominal wage rates remain the same." In other words, Lord Keynes was saying that if a man gets the same amount of sterling today as he got before the currency was devalued, he will not realize that he is, in fact, now getting less.

In old fashioned language, Keynes proposed cheating the workers. Instead of declaring openly that wage rates must be adjusted to the conditions of the market--be-cause, if they are not, a part of the labor force will inevitably remain unemployed--he said, in effect: "Full employment can be reached only if you have inflation. Cheat the workers." The most interesting fact, however, is that when his General Theory was published, it was no longer possible to cheat, because people had already be-come index conscious. But the goal of full employment remained.

What does "full employment" mean? It has to do with the unhampered labor market, which is not manipulated by the unions or by the government. On this market, wage rates for every type of labor tend to reach a point at which everybody who wants a job can get one and every employer can hire as many workers as he needs. If there is an increase in the demand for labor, the wage rate will tend to be greater, and if fewer workers are needed, the wage rate will tend to fall.

The only method by which a "full employment" situation can be brought about is by the maintenance of an unhampered labor market. This is valid for every kind of labor and for every kind of commodity.

What does a businessman do who wants to sell a commodity for five dollars a unit? When he cannot sell it at that price, the technical business expression in the United States is, "the inventory does not move." But it must move. He cannot retain things because he must buy something new; fashions are changing. So he sells at a lower price. If he cannot sell the merchandise at five dollars, he must sell it at four. If he cannot sell it at four, he must sell it at three. There is no other choice as long as he stays in business. He may suffer losses, but these losses are due to the fact that his anticipation of the market for his product was wrong.

It is the same with the thousands and thousands of young people who come every day from the agricultural districts into the city trying to earn money. It happens so in every industrial nation. In the United States they come to town with the idea that they should get, say, a hundred dollars a week. This may be impossible. So if amen cannot get a job for a hundred dollars a week, he must try to get a job for ninety or eighty dollars, and perhaps even less. But if he were to say--as the unions do--"one hundred dollars a week or nothing," then he might have to remain unemployed. (Many do not mind being unemployed, because the government pays unemployment benefits--out of special taxes levied on the employers--which are sometimes nearly as high as the wages the man would receive if he were employed.)

Because a certain group of people believes that full employment can be attained only by inflation, inflationism accepted in the United States. But people are discussing the question: Should we have a sound currency with unemployment, or inflation with full employment? This is in fact a very vicious analysis.

To deal with this problem we must raise the question: How can one improve the condition of the workers and of all other groups of the population? The answer is: by maintaining an unhampered labor market and thus achieving full employment. Our dilemma is, shall the market determine wage rates or shall they be deter-mined by union pressure and compulsion? The dilemma is not "shall we have inflation or unemployment?"

This mistaken analysis of the problem is argued in England, in European industrial countries and even in the United States. And some people say: "Now look, even the United States is inflating. Why should we not do it also? » To these people one should answer first of all: "One of the privileges of a rich man is that he can afford to be foolish much longer than a poor man." And this is the situation of the United States. The financial policy of the United States is very bad and is getting worse. Perhaps the United States can afford to be foolish a bit longer than some other countries. Inflation can adversely affect business in a number of ways.

1. Accounting and financial problems.

Significant rates of inflation can cause accounting and financial problems for businesses. They may experience difficulty in valuing assets and stocks, for example. Such problems can waste valuable management time and make forecasting, comparisons and financial control more onerous.

2. Falling sales

Many businesses may experience falling sales during inflationary periods for two broad reasons. Firstly, it may be that saving rises in a time of inflation. We would expect people to spend more of their money when prices are rising to avoid holding an asset (cash), which is falling in value. However, during the mid-1970s, when industrialized nations were experiencing high inflation rates, savings as a proportion of income rose! It is not easy to identify the reason for this, but some economists suggest that people like to hold a relatively high proportion of their assets in a form which can tie quickly converted into cash when the future is uncertain.

Whatever the reason, if people save more they spend less and businesses suffer falling sales. The economic model predicts that if savings rose the level of activity in the economy would fall. Clearly, if this happened we would expect businesses to experience difficulty in maintaining their levels of sales.

Businesses may be hit by a reduction in sales during a time of inflation for a second reason. As inflation progresses, it is likely tliat workers' money wages (that is, wages unadjusted for inflation,) will be increased broadly in line with inflation. This may well take a worker into a higher tax bracket and result in a higher percentage of his or her wages being taken as tax. This process, known as fiscal drag, will cause workers to have less money available to spend on firms' goods and services. The poverty trap has a similar impact. As money wages rise, the poor may find that they no longer qualify for state benefits to supplement their incomes and at the same time they begin to pay income tax on their earnings. Again, this leaves less disposable income to spend on the output of firms. Finally, it may be that the wages of many groups are not index-linked and so they rise less quickly than the rate of inflation, causing a reduction in spending power and demand for goods and services.

Once again, the economic model can be used to predict that increases in the level of taxation will increase withdrawals, lowering the level of economic activity and depressing firms' sales.Not all businesses will suffer equally from declining demand in an inflationary period. Those selling essential items, such as food, may be little affected whilst others supplying less essential goods and services, such as foreign holidays, may be hard hit.

3. High interest rates

Inflation is often accompanied by high interest rates. High interest rates tend to discourage investment by businesses as they increase the cost of borrowing funds. Thus, investment may fall. Businesses may also be dissuaded from undertaking investment programmes because of a lack of confidence in the future stability and prosperity of the economy. This fall in investment may be worsened by foreign investment being reduced as they also lose some confidence in the economy's future.

Such a decline in the level of investment can lead to businesses having to retain obsolete, inefficient and expensive means of production and cause a loss of international competitiveness. Finally, a fall in investment can lower the level of economic activity, causing lower sales, output and so on. Thus, to some extent, businesses can influence the economic environment in which they operate.

4. Higher costs

During a bout of inflation firms will face higher costs for the resources they need to carry on their business. They will have to pay higher wages to their employees to compensate them for rising prices. Supplies of raw materials and fuel will become more expensive as will rents and rates. The inevitable reaction to this is that the firm has to raise its own prices. This will lead to further demands for higher wages as is called the wage-price spiral. Such cost-push inflation may make the goods and services produced by that enterprise internationally less competitive in terms of price. An economy whose relative or comparative rate of inflation is high may find that it is unable to compete in home or foreign markets because its products are expensive. The economic model tells us that a situation of declining exports and increasing imports will lower the level of activity in the economy with all the consequent side-effects.

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God; inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy--a deliberate policy of people who resort to inflation because they consider it to be a lesser evil than unemployment. But the fact is that, in the not very long run, inflation does not cure unemployment. Inflation is a policy. And a policy can be changed.

Therefore, there is no reason to give in to inflation. If one regards inflation as an evil, then one has to stop inflating. One has to balance the budget of the government. Of course, public opinion must support this; the intellectuals must help the people to understand. Given the sup-port of public opinion, it is certainly possible for the people's elected representatives to abandon the policy of inflation.

We must remember that, in the long run, we may all be dead and certainly will be dead. But we should arrange our earthly affairs, for the short run in which we have to live, in the best possible way. And one of the measures necessary for this purpose is to abandon inflationary policies.

Если поставка икры была бы столь же многочисленна как поставка картофеля, цена икры ,то есть, обменное отношение между икрой и деньгами или икрой и другими предметами потребления изменяется значительно. В этом случае, можно было получить икру с наименьшей жертвой, чем требуется сегодня. Аналогично, если количество денег увеличено, покупательная способность денежно-кредитных единиц уменьшается, и количество товаров, которые также могут быть получены для одной единицы этих уменьшений денег.

Когда, в шестнадцатом столетии, американские ресурсы золота и серебра были обнаружены и эксплуатировались, огромные количества драгоценных металлов транспортировались в Европу. Результатом этого увеличения количества денег была общая тенденция к восходящему движению цен в Европе. Таким же образом, сегодня, когда правительство увеличивает количество бумажных денег, результат состоит в том, что покупательная способность денежно-кредитной единицы начинает понижаться, и так происходит ценовое повышение. Это называют инфляцией.

К сожалению, в Соединенных Штатах, так же как в других странах, некоторые люди предпочитают приписывать причину инфляции не к увеличению количества денег, а, скорее к повышению цен.

Однако, никогда не было никакого серьезного аргумента против экономической интерпретации отношений между ценами и количеством денег, или обменным отношением между деньгами и другими товарами, предметами потребления, и услугами. На настоящий момент имеются технологические условия, и это легко произвести листки бумаги, на которых напечатано определенное денежно-кредитное количество. В Соединенных Штатах, где все примечания имеют тот же самый размер, это не стоит правительству больше, чтобы напечатать тысячи долларов, чем, чтобы напечатать один доллар. Это - просто процедура печати, которая требует того же самого количества бумаги и чернил.

В восемнадцатом столетии, когда первые попытки были сделаны выпустить банкноты и дать этим банкнотам качество юридического тендера то есть, право, которое будут соблюдать в обменных сделках таким же образом, что золотые и серебряные соблюдали , правительства и нации полагали, что у банкиров было немного секретного знания, позволяющего им произвести богатство из ничего. То, когда правительства восемнадцатого столетия были в финансовых трудностях, они думали все, в чем они нуждались, был умный банкир во главе их финансового управления, чтобы избавиться от всех их трудностей.

Прежде всего он не был французом, он был швейцарцем иностранцем из Женевы, Jacques Necker. Во-вторых, он не был членом аристократии, он был простым человеком. И что посчитало даже больше в восемнадцатом столетии Францию, он не был католиком, а был Протестантом. И таким образом господин Necker, отец известной Мадам de Stael, стал министром финансов, и все ожидали, что он решит финансовые проблемы Франции. Но несмотря на высокую степень уверенности господин Necker наслаждался, королевская касса оставалась пустая, самая большая ошибка Necker которая была ,его заставляют финансировать в помощь американским колонистам в их войне независимости против Англии, не поднимая налоги. Это было конечно неправильным способом пойти о решении финансовых неприятностей Франции.

Не может быть никакого секретного пути к решению финансовых проблем правительства; если оно нуждается в деньгах, оно должно получить деньги, облагая налогом его граждан (или, при специальных условиях, заимствуя от людей, у которых есть деньги). Но много правительств, мы можем даже сказать, большинство правительств, думают, что есть другой метод для того, чтобы получить необходимые деньги; просто напечатать их.

Если правительство хочет сделать кое-что выгодное - если, например, оно хочет построить больницу ,чтобы найти необходимые деньги для этого проекта, должны обложить налогом граждан и построить больницу из налоговых доходов. Тогда никакая специальная "ценовая революция" не произойдет, потому что, когда правительство собирает деньги на строительство больницы, граждане заплатили налоги принудительно, чтобы уменьшить расходы. Индивидуальный налогоплательщик вынужден ограничить или его потребление, его инвестиции или его сбережения. Правительство, появляющееся на рынке как покупатель, заменяет индивидуального гражданина: гражданин покупает меньше, но правительство покупает больше. Правительство, конечно, не всегда покупает те же самые товары, которые купили бы граждане; но в среднем там не происходит никакое повышение цен из-за строительства правительством больницы.

Я выбираю этот пример больницы точно, потому что люди иногда говорят: "Это имеет значение, использует ли правительство свои деньги для хорошего или в плохих целях." Я хочу предположить, что правительство всегда использует деньги, которые оно напечатало в самых лучших целях, с которыми все мы соглашаемся. Поскольку это не путь, которым потрачены деньги, это - путь, которым правительство получает эти деньги, которые вызывают те последствия, которые мы называем инфляцией и которые большинство людей в мире сегодня не рассматривает как выгодный.

Например, без раздувания, правительство могло использовать собранные с налога деньги для того, чтобы нанять новых служащих или для того, чтобы поднять зарплаты тех, кто уже находится в правительственном обслуживании. Тогда эти люди, зарплаты которых были увеличены, имеют возможность покупать больше. Когда правительственные налоги собраны и эти деньги использованны, чтобы увеличить зарплаты правительственных служащих, налогоплательщики имеют меньше, чтобы потратить, но правительственные служащие имеют больше. Цены вообще не будут увеличиваться.

Но если правительство не использует налоговые деньги с этой целью, если оно использует недавно напечатанные деньги вместо этого, это означает, что будут люди, у которых теперь есть больше денег, в то время как все другие люди все еще имеют столько, сколько они имели прежде. Таким образом те, кто получил недавно печатные деньги, будут конкурировать с теми людьми, которые были покупателями прежде. И с тех пор есть не больше предметов потребления чем было ранее, но есть больше денег на рынке - и так как есть теперь люди, которые могут купить более сегодня, чем они, возможно, купили вчера будет дополнительное требование на то же самое количество товаров. Поэтому цены будут иметь тенденцию повышаться. Этого нельзя избежать, независимо от того каково использование этих недавно выпущенных денег будет.

И что еще более важно эта тенденция за цены, чтобы сгруппироваться разовьется шаг за шагом; это не общее восходящее движение того, что назвали "ценовым уровнем." Метафорическое выражение "ценовой уровень" никогда не должен смущать.

Когда люди говорят о "ценовом уровне," они имеют в виду изображение уровня жидкости, которая повышается или вниз согласно увеличению или уменьшению в его количестве, но который, как жидкость в резервуаре, всегда повышается равномерно. Но с ценами, нет такой вещи как "уровень". Цены не изменяются до той же самой степени в то же самое время всегда есть цены, которые изменяются более быстро, повышаясь или падая более быстро чем другие цены. Есть причина для этого.

Рассмотрите случай правительственного служащего, который получил новые деньги, добавленные к денежной массе. Люди не покупают сегодня точно те же самые предметы потребления и в тех же самых количествах, поскольку они сделали это вчера. Дополнительные деньги, которые правительство напечатало и ввело на рынок, не используются для покупки всех предметов потребления и услуг. Это используется для покупки определенных предметов потребления, цены которых повысятся, в то время как другие предметы потребления все еще останутся по ценам, которые преобладали прежде, чем новые деньги были помещены в рынок. Поэтому, запуски инфляции в различные группы в пределах населения затронуты этой инфляцией по-разному. Те группы, которые получают новые первые деньги, получают временную выгоду.

Когда правительство раздувает, чтобы вести войну, оно должно купить боеприпасы, и первыми, чтобы получить дополнительные деньги являются отрасли промышленности боеприпасов и рабочие в пределах этих отраслей промышленности. Эти группы находятся теперь в очень благоприятном положении. У них есть более высокая прибыль и более высокая заработная плата; их бизнес перемещается. Почему? Поскольку они были первыми, чтобы получить дополнительные деньги. И имея теперь больше денег в их распоряжении, они покупают. И они покупают от других людей, которые производят и продают предметы потребления, которые хотят эти производители боеприпасов.

Эти другие люди формируют вторую группу. И эта вторая группа полагает, что инфляция очень хороша для бизнеса. Почему нет? Не замечательно продать больше? Например, владелец ресторана по соседству фабрики боеприпасов говорит: "Это действительно изумительно! У рабочих боеприпасов есть больше денег; едят еще больше из них теперь чем прежде; они все покровительствуют мой ресторан; я очень счастлив об этом." Он не видит причину чувствовать иначе.

Ситуация - это: у тех людей, к которым деньги на первом месте теперь, есть более высокий доход, и они могут все еще купить много предметов потребления и услуг по ценам, которые соответствуют предыдущему государству рынка, к условию, которое существовало накануне инфляции. Поэтому, они находятся в очень благоприятном положении. И таким образом инфляция продолжается шаг за шагом, от одной группы населения к другому. И все, тем, к кому дополнительные деньги прибывают в раннее государство инфляции, приносят пользу, потому что они покупают некоторые вещи по ценам, все еще соответствующим предыдущей стадии обменного отношения между деньгами и предметами потребления.

Но есть другие группы в населении, к которому эти дополнительные деньги прибывают, намного позже. Эти люди находятся в неблагоприятном положении. Прежде, чем дополнительные деньги прибывают к ним, они вынуждены заплатить более высокие цены, чем они заплатили, прежде для некоторых - или для фактически всех предметов потребления из кторых они хотели купить, в то время как их доход остался тем же самым, или не увеличился пропорционально с ценами.

Рассмотрите например такую страну как Соединенные Штаты во время Второй Мировой войны; с одной стороны, инфляция тогда одобрила рабочих боеприпасов, отрасли промышленности боеприпасов, изготовителей оружия, в то время как с другой стороны она работала против других групп населения. И те, кто перенес самые большие неудобства от инфляции, были учителями и министрами.

Как Вы знаете, министр - очень скромный человек, который служит Богу и не должен говорить слишком много о деньгах. Учителя, аналогично, посвящены люди, которые, как предполагается, думают больше об обучении молодёжи чем об их зарплатах. Следовательно, учителя и министры были среди тех, кто был больше всего оштрафован инфляцией, для различных школ, и церкви это было последним, чтобы понять, что они должны поднять зарплаты. Когда церковные старшие и школьные корпорации наконец обнаружили, что, в конце концов, нужно также поднять зарплаты тех преданных людей, более ранние потери, которые они понесли все еще, оставаясь.

В течение долгого времени, они должны были купить меньше, чем они сделали прежде, сократить их потребление на более дорогие продукты, и ограничить их покупку одежды - потому что цены уже приспособились вверх, в то время как их доходы, их зарплаты, еще не были подняты. (Эта ситуация изменилась значительно сегодня, по крайней мере для учителей).

Есть поэтому всегда различные группы в населении, затрагиваемом по-другому инфляцией. Для некоторых из них инфляция не настолько плоха; они даже спрашивают переднее продолжение этого, потому что они являются первыми, чтобы получить прибыль от этого. Мы будем видеть, в следующей лекции, как эта шероховатость в последствиях инфляции жизненно затрагивает политику то лидерства к инфляции.

Под этими изменениями, вызванными инфляцией, у нас есть группы, которые одобрены и группы, которые являются непосредственно спекуляцией. Я не использую термин "спекуляция" как упрек этим людям, для второго есть кто-то, чтобы обвинить, это - правительство, которое установило инфляцию. И всегда есть люди, которые одобряют инфляцию, потому что они понимают то, что продолжается скорее чем другой населенный. Их специальная прибыль - следствие того, что обязательно будет шероховатость в процессе инфляции.

Правительство может думать, что инфляция как метод подъема в фондах лучше чем налогообложение, который всегда непопулярный и трудный. Во многих богатых и великих нациях законодатели часто обсуждали, в течение многих месяцев, различные формы новых налогов, которые были необходимы, потому что парламент решил увеличить расходы. Обсудив различные методы получения денег налогообложением, они наконец решили, что возможно было лучше сделать это инфляцией.

Но конечно, слово "инфляция" не использовалось. Политический деятель во власти, который продолжает инфляции, не объявляет: "я продолжаю инфляции." Технические методы, используемые, чтобы достигнуть инфляции столь сложный, что средний гражданин не понимает инфляции, начались.

Одна из самых больших инфляций в истории была в немецком Рейхе после Первой Мировой войны. Инфляция не была настолько важна во время войны; это была инфляция после войны, которая вызвала катастрофу. Правительство не говорило: "Мы продолжаем инфляции." Правительство не должно было спрашивать, как центральный банк найдет и поставит деньги. Центральный банк просто напечатал их.

Сегодня методы для инфляции сложны фактом, что есть деньги на чековой книжке. Это вовлекает другую технику, но результат - то же самое. С ударом ручки правительство создает деньги указа, таким образом увеличивая количество денег и кредита.

Правительство просто выпускает заказ, и деньги указа там. Правительство не заботится, сначала, что некоторые люди будут проигравшими, оно не заботится, что цены повысятся. Законодатели говорят: "Это - замечательная система!" Но у этой замечательной системы есть одна фундаментальная слабость: это не может продлиться. Если бы инфляция могла бы продолжиться навсегда, не было бы никакого смысла в говорящих правительствах, которые они не должны раздуть. Но определенный факт об инфляции - то, что, рано или поздно, она должна закончиться. Это - политика, которая не может продлиться.

В конечном счете, инфляция заканчивается с расстройством валюты; это прибывает в катастрофу, в ситуацию как та в Германии в 1923. На 1914, ценность доллара составляла четыре марки и двадцать пфеннигов. Девять лет и три месяца спустя, в ноябре 1923, доллар был привязан в 4.2 триллионах марок. Другими словами, марка ничего не стоила. Дольше имела любую ценность.

Несколько лет назад, известный автор, Джон Maynard Keynes, написал: "В конечном счете мы - все мертвы." Это конечно верно, я сожалею, что сказал. В восемнадцатом столетии была известная леди, Мадам Де Помпадур, которой приписывают изречение: "После нас хоть потоп ". Вскоре Мадам Де Помпадур была достаточно счастлива умереть. Но ее преемница при исполнении служебных обязанностей, Мадам де Барри, переживала короткую жизнь и была казнена в конечном счете. Для многих людей "длинная жизнь" быстро становится "коротким пробегом" - и более длинная инфляция продолжается скорее» Как долго короткий может быть последним?

Как долго центральный банк может продолжить инфляцию? Вероятно, пока люди убеждены, что правительство, рано или поздно, но конечно не слишком поздно, прекратит печатать деньги и таким образом прекратит уменьшать ценность каждой единицы денег.

Когда люди больше не верят этому, когда они понимают, что правительство пойдет вперед и вперед без любого намерения остановиться, тогда они начинают понимать, что цены завтра будут выше, чем они сегодня. Тогда они начинают покупать по любой цене, вызывая цены до таких высот, которые ломают денежно-кредитную систему.