Inflation isn’t just a function of unemployment. Unemployment isn’t just a function of inflation.
It could be that with all else held constant, plotting the two against each other would give a similar curve to the left. Or it could be that the curve on the left was presented as an oversimplification of the big picture to manipulate policy or political will.
From my pov, the ratio of money supply minus savings to goods/services supply is the biggest factor for inflation, though there’s a time lag and prices are sticky downward.
Focusing on money supply misses the most significant factor in inflation, missed by all armchair economists- the private banking system.
A $1 million asset is not part of the money supply, if it’s value increases to $2 million it has no impact on inflation.
If the owner of that asset then aquires a loan against that asset and spends that money, they have increased the money in circulation. That is a far more significant driver of inflation than government spending. Meanwhile the FED (or equivalent) has not printed one additional dollar.
These models don’t work because they ignore the MOST significant driver of inflation
These models don’t work because they ignore the MOST significant driver of inflation
Wellll… they work just fine for their intended purpose - demonstrate the correlation between 2 variables in an understandable way.
What you are (correctly) referencing is that there is a much more complex system in reality than the simplified model - they literally exist to try and explain difficult concepts in digestible ways. Everyone’s eyes glaze over if you try to do the "if this, then that, but if this then the other (at 45 variables level).
So yes, inflation is wildly more complex than just money supply or demand push inflation (the flavour the Phillips curve is looking at).
But the people in this thread bitching about economists dumbing stuff down so they can understand it resulting in simplistic models that don’t reflect the real world would be just as quick to bitch about how they’re in an ivory tower because they refuse to explain things in laymans terms.
Inflation isn’t just a function of unemployment. Unemployment isn’t just a function of inflation.
It could be that with all else held constant, plotting the two against each other would give a similar curve to the left. Or it could be that the curve on the left was presented as an oversimplification of the big picture to manipulate policy or political will.
From my pov, the ratio of money supply minus savings to goods/services supply is the biggest factor for inflation, though there’s a time lag and prices are sticky downward.
Focusing on money supply misses the most significant factor in inflation, missed by all armchair economists- the private banking system.
A $1 million asset is not part of the money supply, if it’s value increases to $2 million it has no impact on inflation.
If the owner of that asset then aquires a loan against that asset and spends that money, they have increased the money in circulation. That is a far more significant driver of inflation than government spending. Meanwhile the FED (or equivalent) has not printed one additional dollar.
These models don’t work because they ignore the MOST significant driver of inflation
Wellll… they work just fine for their intended purpose - demonstrate the correlation between 2 variables in an understandable way.
What you are (correctly) referencing is that there is a much more complex system in reality than the simplified model - they literally exist to try and explain difficult concepts in digestible ways. Everyone’s eyes glaze over if you try to do the "if this, then that, but if this then the other (at 45 variables level).
So yes, inflation is wildly more complex than just money supply or demand push inflation (the flavour the Phillips curve is looking at).
But the people in this thread bitching about economists dumbing stuff down so they can understand it resulting in simplistic models that don’t reflect the real world would be just as quick to bitch about how they’re in an ivory tower because they refuse to explain things in laymans terms.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
What’s the loan money in your example if it’s not an increase of the money supply?
Or a reduction in savings.
Edit: though it is more complex than that because the banks can reloan the money as others put it into their savings.