The Sands of Time
by
Sean Corrigan
by Sean Corrigan
A very shrewd
and evidently humorous correspondent from Turkey – where, one presumes,
they know all too well about such things! – sent me the following
mail:
Dear Mr.
Corrigan:
Something
I feel a need to be enlightened on: falling prices.
I was watching
a regular TV program that is run by three economists – with occasional
guests – here (in Istanbul, on a national channel), and they answered
the fax of a viewer on the problem of "falling prices."
Naturally,
they being neo-Keynesians, quickly pointed out that it’s the worst
of all economic evils.
Their reasoning
went: if prices start to fall, consumers stop consuming as they
give into an expectation to wait for lower and lower prices.
For example,
even though I may be starving, I don't buy bread at $1 today,
which was $1.10 two days ago, since, if I fast for another week
or so, I may purchase it for 90c. And who knows, if I break Bobby
Sands' record, in 54 days or so, I may even get the darned thing
for free.
Seriously,
though, this "psychology of expectations" – and the accompanying
"conceit of low expectations from non-inflationary markets" –
is a difficult trick to deal with.
In fact,
I could bet my boots that three issues are what helps these guys
pull fast ones at every opportunity: (i) liquidity – what will
poor investors do if they can't make a fast buck by selling their
speculative holdings to some ever greater fool? (ii) consumption
– what will poor investors do if other people don't spend everything
on their chosen company’s products, even if they are simultaneously
consuming their seed-corn to do so? (iii) ‘deflation’ – what will
poor investors do if their company cannot post ever higher monetary
profits, thanks to the deceit of a debased currency?
I was wondering
if you might say a few words about this "nightmare" scenario of
falling prices?
Well, for the
hunger-striker gag alone, I thought this merited a considered reply,
and – for what it’s worth – I thought I’d share it with readers,
here.
As you say,
Sir, what nonsense!
Clearly, we
all know that iPods will be cheaper next year and cheaper again
the year after that; we all know that this season's must-have shoes
will be 50% off, come the Spring; we know that, when the barely-discernibly
different new model arrives, the perfectly functional car sitting
on the garage forecourt today will be 10, 20, 30% cheaper than its
near exact replacement; we all know that the presents we buy for
our kids at Christmas will be practically given away by the stores
on Boxing Day and – to adapt your marvellous bread analogy (which
I will certainly plagiarize!) – we know that if we buy a loaf on
the way home from work, rather than on the way to
work, it can be had for a song – yet, still, many of us are compelled
to buy the dearer product, precisely because we want it NOW!!!!!!
All Keynesians
and all under-consumptionists should be compelled to spend several
weekends escorting their five-year-old nephews and nieces around
the shops, in the run-up to the little treasures’ birthdays – let
them see how much psychic pain is really attached to the matter
of deferring the instant gratification of wants!
As you also
say, we live in a world so engrained with the effects of inflation
that it is hard to envisage how things could be other than they
are – much as a fearfully scourged galley slave would find it impossible
to comprehend the voluntarism inherent in an Oxbridge rowing eight.
Yes, in a world
run on debt and dissaving, where instant credit means one never
has to wait for anything and where assets are supposed magically
to appreciate every year to offset the debt incurred by one's unceasing
improvidence, generally falling prices would prove a formidable
– if a temporary and wholly beneficial –hardship, indeed. But, even
Heracles must have gotten his sandals wet when he cleaned the Augean
stables!
What everyone
also forgets is that, in an unhampered market, as prices
fall, costs are also likely to fall and that producers may
therefore count on earning one of: (i) the same nominal profit
per item; (ii) failing that, the same real profit per item;
or (iii) a lower unit profit which is compensated for by the higher
unit sales which a cheaper price usually occasions!
What everyone
also forgets is that as the money we hold and the wages we earn
go further and further in the shops, we are therefore becoming materially
richer and, therefore, we are likely to become increasingly less,
not more, reluctant to consume.
What they also
forget is that because we can satisfy our existing consumption needs
with less outlay today, we can provide for tomorrow's
consumption needs more richly – i.e. we can save and invest more
in an even more materially favoured, lower cost, more prosperous
future and so we can begin to reinforce this wholly virtuous circle!
Thank
the Gods that Keynes only arrived to plague us at the very tail
end of our antiquity! Can you imagine how it would be had he been
borne a thousand years earlier? For surely, the authorities would
have seen to it that, in their struggle to plaster over and otherwise
deface the rich tapestry of technological progress and entrepreneurial
innovation with the ragged scraps of their ever more debauched money,
the real price of cakes would hardly have fallen from the one they
commanded when King Alfred himself was burning them, even as their
nominal price would have soared beyond all possibility of calculation!
November
10, 2005
Sean
Corrigan [send him mail]
writes from Switzerland.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Sean
Corrigan Archives
|