Disrupting the Money Cycle
Artificial changes in the money supply always disrupt the money cycle and cause price disruptions that lead to production problems in otherwise normally functioning markets.
The complexity of large markets makes the diagramming of market processes difficult at best. One must take great care in not overstepping the bounds of logic and systems thinking.
However, occasionally a small diagram can at least trigger questions that need to be asked about the system under discussion. In this article, I will discuss an extremely simple — possibly overly simple — diagram depicting the cycle of money in two markets.
First, I will describe the cycle of money in a free and voluntary market without monetary intervention.
Second, I will give a brief description of the market subject to monetary intervention.
My objective consists of getting you to ask more pertinent questions regarding assumptions about monetary expansion, used by the Federal Reserve system and strongly advocated by the modern monetary theorists.
The ridiculously simple diagram that I have provided below should open your thinking to questions about the operation of a free and voluntary market.
In this diagram, I have represented three producers/consumers named Eddy, Joe, and Max. I think you can see already that this does not accurately portray the immense complexity of any market. But, bear with me, and I think this diagram will help me make a significant point.
I have identified the steps in this process by the circled numerals.
- Eddy, also the producer of Good1, finds what I refer to as Good0. (The quantity of this Good found by Eddy represents all that exists in the system.) This Good will, in this diagram, come to be accepted as a form of money—a medium of indirect exchange. I have used dollar signs to indicate money, but dynamics applies to any form of money.
- Eddy exchanges his newfound money with Joe for Good2, produced by Joe. Eddy consumes all of the Good2 that he has acquired. The cycle can repeat through time as long as Joe produces more Good2 in Eddy as a source for money. I will explain how Eddy gets money in the next few steps.
- Joe uses the money that he received in the exchange with Eddy for Good3 produced by Max. Joe consumes all of the Good3 that he acquires. Max now has money that he can use for exchange.
- Max exchanges his newly acquired money for Good1, produced by Eddy. Eddy now has money he can use to repeat the cycle, returning to step 2).
This diagram provides a terribly oversimplified model of the daisy chain of events that make up a market system. A real market will consist of billions of the exchanges similar to those depicted in this diagram, all connected in very complex ways.
Despite the oversimplification of the system depicted in this diagram, each individual transaction works precisely the same as a transaction in the real market. One person exchanges money for a Good he values more than the money he gives up. These individual exchanges provide the foundation of a complex system that provides effective price discovery and efficient resource allocation.
Two essential things happen during this cycle. First, the fixed quantity of money, first found by Eddy, has served for three transactions. The system has required no additional money. Second, each transaction has produced an objective money price — the ratio of money given to goods received. This money price will serve to inform the allocation of resources in future cycles.
For the sake of this example, each person in these exchanges requires the Good that he receives for his subsistence. If he does not receive that good, he will perish.
I have modified the diagram given in the free-market example to demonstrate the effects of monetary intervention. The steps are very much the same as in the first example with one significant difference in step one.
- Instead of finding a Good that he can use as money, the government gives Eddy the money he needs to purchase the goods he requires. Eddy produces nothing. (Create your own reason why Eddy produces nothing to trade. Maybe he likes being on the dole.)
- Eddy makes the same exchange with Joe and consumes the Good that he receives.
- Joe makes the same exchange described above with Max and also consumes all of the Good that he receives.
Max now has all the money he requires to buy Good1 that he requires for subsistence. But, no one in this system now produces Good1 and Max perishes.
With the absence of Max, no Good3 exists to provide subsistence for Joe, who also perishes. With the demise of Joe, Eddy gets no Good2, and he also perishes.
Thus, with the injection of new money into the system, for the purpose of keeping it going, the process has reversed itself and the system has died.
I’m sure that you can see that I have left a number of factors out of this discussion to make it as simple as possible. For example, I have not addressed the effect of rising money prices caused by the addition of new money. And, I have not taken this example to any level of reasonable complexity.
I have created this example the sole purpose of raising one fundamental question: what happens when no one produces any Good to acquire the money that enters the system—regardless of source?
Very complex systems, unlike my oversimplified example, can absorb a large quantity of artificially created money before this question becomes significant. But, at some point, the system responds to this unanswered question.
In the case of the real estate crash that occurred in 2008, it had taken from 45 to 50 years for the money artificially funneled into real estate to wreak havoc on the market. The advocates of MMT want to create a perpetual hole in the production cycle through the artificial expansion of money that they propose.
Watch out for the free lunch. It could cost you everything.