Donald Boudreaux: 1968 a milestone year for economics, too |
Featured Commentary

Donald Boudreaux: 1968 a milestone year for economics, too

This has been a banner year for historical reflection — in particular, reflection on 1968. That year of exactly a half-century ago witnessed much more than its share of historically significant tragedies and achievements. Assassinations and extraordinary political turmoil here at home, the Tet offensive and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and (more inspiringly) Apollo 8 orbiting the moon — these and other unusually important events do indeed make 1968 a year especially worthy of reflection.

1968 is especially noteworthy also for an economic event: the publication of Milton Friedman’s article “The Role of Monetary Policy.” In this, his presidential address to the American Economic Association, Friedman (1912-2006) buried the then-widely accepted myth that society faces an unavoidable tradeoff between employment and inflation.

For much of the post-World War II period until 1968, economists and policymakers had come to believe that two desirable economic outcomes — full employment and low inflation — are incompatible with each other. As an economy moved closer to full employment, the conventional wisdom insisted, it must pay the price of higher inflation. And if the people of that economy want to reduce inflation, they can do so, but only if they’re willing to suffer increased unemployment. “Tradeoffs,” economists stoically lamented, “are unavoidable.”

Enter Friedman with happy news: There is no long-run tradeoff between employment and price stability. We can have full employment and low inflation. No need to choose.

Why, though, did so many intelligent people ever believe the contrary? The answer, according to Friedman, is that they mistakenly assumed that what is true in the short run is also necessarily true in the long run. In the short run a central bank can indeed raise the level of employment by increasing the supply of money — that is, by fueling inflation.

Because increases in the money supply typically cause output prices to rise before causing wages to rise, the initial rise in output prices makes it profitable for firms to hire more workers in order to increase outputs. But the inflation eventually causes nominal wages also to rise — which prompts firms to restore their previous levels of employment and output. So what appears in the short run to be a connection between inflation and employment turns out in the long run to be no such thing.

Friedman went further. He noted that people are neither stupid nor short-sighted. We form expectations about future inflation based upon our experience. If, say, inflation has been running at a 6-percent annual clip, then employers and workers — and borrowers and lenders — all eventually incorporate an expected 6-percent annual rate of inflation into their plans going forward. And so when employers actually witness the prices of the goods they sell rising by 6 percent, they’ll know that a similar rise in wages isn’t far behind. This inflation no longer causes employers to hire more workers.

And so, argued Friedman, the only way a central bank can artificially stimulate employment is for it to bring about inflation that is unexpectedly high — say, causing inflation to be ten percent when people expect only a six-percent rate. But Friedman insisted that this game is for fools. It leads to constantly accelerating inflation with no long-run effect on employment.

Friedman counseled that central banks should therefore follow a strict rule of keeping inflation low.

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.