Thursday, October 24, 2024

Slow M2 means low CPI


Long-time readers of this blog know that I have been one of only a handful of observers who have linked rapid M2 growth (i.e., money printing) to the big inflation problem that hit the US economy beginning in the first part of 2021. The source of the M2 growth was the government's decision to send out some $6 trillion of checks to the public to compensate for Covid shutdowns and their damaging effects on the economy. At first, most of this money sat idle in consumers' checking and savings accounts as a hedge against great uncertainty and also because consumers had little ability and little willingness to spend it. This amounted to an enormous increase in the demand for money which effectively neutralized the enormous increase in the supply of money. But as life began to return to normal in early 2021, the demand for money declined, and the money was released (monetized) into the economy. Unwanted money fueled a dramatic increase in the price level (otherwise known as inflation). 

Fortunately, this problem began fading away more than two years ago, and it continues to do so. Money supply and money demand have returned to more normal levels, and inflation (abstracting from the government's flawed measure of shelter costs) has been 2% or less the for the past year or so. 

Regardless, it is still vitally important to monitor money supply and demand. So far, nothing out of the ordinary seems to be happening, and that implies no unpleasant inflation surprises for the foreseeable future. The following charts include M2 as of the end of September, and my estimate for Q3/24 GDP. 

Chart #1

Chart #1 shows how the surge in the federal deficit was mirrored by an increase in M2 growth. The link between the two dissolved in the latter half of 2022, with the result that ongoing deficits, though still quite large, are no longer being monetized.

Chart #2

Chart #2 tracks the level of the M2 money supply (currency, retail savings and checking accounts, CDs, and retail money market funds). From 1995 through late 2019 M2 grew at a fairly steady rate of 6% per year, and inflation was relatively low and stable. M2 then surged beginning in April '20 and peaked in early '22. M2 now is only about $1.6 trillion above its 6% trend growth line, and is growing at a modest 3-4% annual rate. 

Chart #3

As Milton Friedman taught us, inflation happens when the supply of money exceeds the demand for it. The Fed publishes the M2 measure of money supply once a month. But nowhere will you find a measure of money demand, except here. My measure of money demand is driven by dividing M2 by nominal GDP, which is shown in Chart #3. The best way to understand this is to think of it as the amount of cash and cash equivalents the average person wants to hold relative to his or her annual income. As the chart shows, money demand tends to rise during recessions, and to decline during periods of growth and stability—with the exception of the 2009-2019 period, when it steadily rose. 

Money demand soared in the wake of Covid shutdowns, then began to fall as Covid fears faded and the economy revived. It is now only modestly higher than in the pre-Covid period. Money supply and money demand, I would argue, are now back in balance, and that explains why inflation has declined and is likely to remain low.

Chart #4

Chart #4 shows M2 growth (blue line) and the year over year change in the CPI (red line, shifted one year to the left). From this perspective, inflation picked up about one year after M2 surged, and it began to decline a year or so after M2 growth peaked. The red asterisk marks the change in CPI ex-shelter costs, which is, I think, the appropriate measure to watch. The chart further suggests that inflation has fallen pretty much as you would expect, given the decline in M2 growth, and it is likely to remain muted for the foreseeable future. 

9 comments:

The Commodity Guy said...

What do you think of the tariffs that Trump has proposed?

Downtown Adam Brown said...

Given the post's title, I was really hoping you'd take on Wesbury's assertions that falling M2 is worrisome and a recession warning. You seem to view it as a healthy mean reversion. He, with seeming disregard for very recent history, views the decline as doomsday, ignoring the heights M2 has to fall from.

A comment or post about your intelligent friend's differing views on M2 decline would be enlightening.

Salmo Trutta said...

re: "The link between the two dissolved in the latter half of 2022"

I'd say that the link broke because the FED misclassifies O/N RRPs.

Salmo Trutta said...

Since I sold my house, my rent this year increased by 18%. That's inflation.

Variant said...

I don't think they disagree significantly. Wesbury's recent posts on M2 have observed that if M2 gets too small, it could increase chances of a recession (Doubt Scott would disagree). Wesbury also recently observed that M2 is growing again and, since the Fed ignored that in the past, it could risk re-igniting inflation if they don't ensure their interest rate policies take it into consideration.

https://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/blogs/economics/index.aspx?ID=7654&Print=Y

Scott Grannis said...

Re Wesbury's view of M2: I can't explain why he thought a slowdown in M2 from a very high level would cause a recession. I think he just made a mistake that unfortunately has caused him to lose some credibility. Regardless, now he worries much less about M2 because its growth is picking up.

Scott Grannis said...

Re Trump's tariff proposals: I'm solidly anti-tariff, and so are most of the people advising Trump on economic policy. The only way to understand this is to view tariffs as a strategic tool. Trump loves tariffs because he can impose them/use them as a threat to achieve other ends. His advisors say their strategy is to "escalate to de-escalate." Threaten tariffs in order to eventually reduce them with the ultimate objective being to improve trade flows and strengthen the US economy. Still, I think they worry too much about China taking advantage of us and so they see tariffs as punishment for China's abusive behavior.

cyclingscholar said...

To Salmo about your 18% rent increase: NO, its NOT inflation. It is exactly what it says it is, an increase in rent, which is one item and only that. Inflation is a sustained increase in a BROAD INDEX of prices. I suspect you actually know this and are just making a gasping remark about how much rents have soared.

wkevinw said...

Libertarian Naivete - often from insulated academics

A couple of topics have been opined on by high level academics over the years, e.g. immigration and trade. Basically, the argument is "open borders" and "no tariffs".

I am a big fan of Professor Friedman, and saw him debate in person once. When he was cornered about what exactly would be an acceptable number of TVs and vehicles that the US could constructively absorb (from Japan), he actually got very humble and said he was but a humble professor and not a businessman.

Similarly, a prominent prof from SoCal is advocating open borders- from the libertarian point of view. These folks have never come up with a number that would be manageable- maybe 7 billion immigrants would be OK?

There are quantitative limits that people who actually have to manage the real world need to work within. It's easy to be a prof or in a similar perch to tout "free trade" and "open borders" if you never have to deal with the consequences.