The damning truth about the UK’s 2% inflation target: it’s completely made up | Louis-Philippe Rochon ( www.theguardian.com )

But let’s focus on the choice of a 2% target. After the high inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it reached over 20% in the UK, central banks were left scrambling to find some new theoretical model to deal with rising prices. The first central bank to propose an inflation target of 2% was in New Zealand. But where did they get it from? Apparently, from thin air.

Recently, I came across this one story that suggested the choice of 2% was the result of an off the cuff remark by then New Zealand finance minister, during a TV interview, who told reporters he would be happy with an inflation between 0% and 1%. This led the governor of the central bank at the time, Don Brash, to factor in an inflation bias of roughly 1% to arrive at the magical number of 2%. Michael Reddell, a colleague of Brash’s at the time at the Reserve Bank, admitted: “It wasn’t ruthlessly scientific.” Brash himself admitted as much: “It was almost a chance remark. The figure was plucked out of the air to influence the public’s expectations.”

Tobberone ,

It needs to be low, but positive and keept stable. If it's to high it will be self sustaining and increasing, if it's negative everything stalls. 2% seems to fit the bill.

There could be an argument that 4% would have been just as good, and had the rest of the world united on 4% it would*. However, it would not have changed anything in last year's combat of inflation. The target would have been defended just as fiercely causing just as much collateral. Only the numbers would have been slightly different.

*Ignoring for a bit those countries that has had to fight to keep inflation up.

porcariasagrada ,
@porcariasagrada@slrpnk.net avatar

“It wasn’t ruthlessly scientific.”

nothing about economics is scientific. economics is modern day astrology, it uses math but it all comes down to belief.

ralphio ,

Yeah, I'm sorry but this is stupid. I think you're on to something here in that technocracy has led to a situation where corporate stooges are put into positions of power as "experts" who just make policy that benefits capital. On the other hand economics is a legitimate science with rigorous case studies to back up at least some of its theories. The real problem is there are a lot of junk theories out there that have been implemented through the political weaponization of faux-expertise. Chicago Boys' economics is a good example of the problem.

ShittyBeatlesFCPres ,

Economics filtered through politics and media can get silly but actual economists doing actual economics create rigorous models (like any science) and most don’t even necessarily make predictions about the future. A cross-discipline academic project on the effects of past coastal erosion might, for instance, have an ecologist, historian, and economist all write separate papers. That’s more common than pontificating on TV.

Econ is also prone to being misrepresented by politicians because there’s almost always trade-offs in the real world. Like imagine a proposed tax on gas/petrol to fund public transportation. An economist would just predict who will benefit or be harmed but you probably already know exactly what the different political parties and media outlets in your country will focus on.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Stable currency should be the goal. Anything else is ultimately a kind of theft.

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

Theft from... creditors?

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

The creditors do fine, unless inflation outpaces interest. It mostly hurts those on fixed incomes (non-investors).

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

That's an argument to peg social security to inflation, not to get rid of inflation.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Is there a good reason not to adopt both positions?

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

Yes, absolutely. The number of reasons why inflation is good for the general economy is... rather vast.

Gradually_Adjusting ,
@Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world avatar

Only because our economic system is underpinned by consumption and "always more". A more sustainable form of capitalism needs to be imagined, imo

PugJesus ,
@PugJesus@kbin.social avatar

It's not just a question of growth. It's also a question of wealth inequality and the accumulation of liquid capital, of the velocity of money, avoiding liquidity traps, etc etc etc etc.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • world@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines