Monetary expansion Argentina-style

Chart #2 shows the year over year growth rate of Argentina’s M2 money supply, which is up 97% in the past year. From late 2010 through early 2018, Argentina’s money growth averaged about 30% per year, and inflation was in the neighborhood of 25-30% per year. Given the recent surge in money creation, inflation in Argentina is going to be approaching 100% before too long.

Will the same happen to the US? I sincerely doubt it, but it’s not impossible.

In 2013 I wrote a post entitled “The Fed is not printing money,” which addressed in detail why the Fed’s monetary expansion in the wake of the Great Recession was not inflationary. Over the years since then I have consistently argued that the Fed’s huge expansion of bank reserves was unlikely to lead to higher inflation since the Fed was correctly supplying reserves to accommodate the banking sector’s demand for safe assets (bank reserves are functionally akin to T-bills). Inflation only happens, as Milton Friedman taught us, when the supply of money exceeds the demand for it. And indeed inflation has remained relatively low and stable for most of the past decade—which in effect proves that the Fed was not “printing money.”

The key feature of the US monetary system is that the Fed can not create money directly—only banks can do that. The Fed can, however, make it easier for banks to create money by increasing the supply of bank reserves. Banks need reserves in order to collateralize their deposits. The Fed creates reserves by buying securities (e.g., Treasury bills, notes and bonds, and more recently, mortgage-backed securities and some corporate bonds). In effect, the Fed buys securities and pays for them with bank reserves. But crucially, reserves are not money that can be spent anywhere. The Fed simply swaps reserves for notes and bonds, thus transmogrifying longer-term securities into short-term, risk-free securities. Reserves have become equivalent to T-bills, since they are default-free and pay a floating rate of interest.

In times of great uncertainty and surging money demand, like today, the Fed fills the market’s need for short-term safe securities by buying riskier securities and paying for them with risk-free reserves. If banks don’t want to hold the reserves they can use them to support increased lending, which indeed does result in a monetary expansion. But if that expansion exceeds the market’s demand for money, then higher inflation will be the result. The fact that inflation so far has not risen is proof that the Fed’s actions have not been inflationary. Excess reserves—which now total $3.2 trillion—have served to satisfy the banking system’s demand for risk-free, short-term assets, and more recently to satisfy the public’s demand for a massive increase in bank savings deposits and checking accounts, as shown in Chart #4, which in turn has been turbo-charged by all the uncertainties and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 panic:

Looking ahead, the most important question becomes, “What happens when the Covid uncertainties decline and the demand for risk-free assets declines?”

If the Fed does not reverse course in a timely manner (e.g., by selling notes and bonds and extinguishing bank reserves), then we will find ourselves flooded with unwanted money. And as Argentina has demonstrated, that can lead to a big increase in inflation.

And that is what my friend Nuni Cademartori is illustrating in the cartoon which follows. Too much money erodes the value of money. I’ve got stacks of million-peso Argentine notes printed decades ago that today are worth about the same as toilet paper.

Let’s hope this does not come to pass in the US: