Milton Friedman on inflation
32 passages for “inflation”, 26 checked against the source. Page 3 of 4.
Full topic page: Inflation
It matters little whether the Federal Reserve is unable or unwilling to exercise its independence in deeds as well as words. In either case, let us be done with the fiction that “independence” is somehow or other a bastion against inflation. Let us put the responsibility for the rate of monetary growth—and therewith for the subsequent rate of inflation—squarely and openly on the Administration and Congress.
Why Inflation PersistsColumn, 1977, Newsweek (October 3, 1977); reprinted in full in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, September 29, 1977, p. 31684, introduced by Representative Parren J. Mitchell of Maryland, who gives it as appearing “in the October 3, 1977, issue of Newsweek”, Congressional Record, September 29, 1977, p. 31684The rates of monetary growth specified by chairman Burns are too high. Yet, even so, actual monetary growth has been substantially higher.
The Inflationary FedColumn, 1973, Newsweek, August 27, 1973; reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, November 7, 1973, p. 36327, introduced by Representative Robert Huber of Michigan as “Mr. Milton Friedman’s article that appeared in Newsweek of August 27, 1973”, Congressional Record, November 7, 1973, p. 36327It is essential to distinguish changes in relative prices from changes in absolute prices. The special conditions that drove up the prices of oil and food required purchasers to spend more on them, leaving less to spend on other items. Did that not force other prices to go down or to rise less rapidly than otherwise? Why should the average level of all prices be affected significantly by changes in the prices of some things relative to others?
Perspective on InflationColumn, 1974, Newsweek (June 1974); reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, June 18, 1974, pp. 19786 to 19787, introduced by Representative Jack Kemp of New York, who calls it “his column this week in Newsweek.” The reprint gives no issue date, and the chart that ran with the column is not reproduced, Congressional Record, June 18, 1974, pp. 19786 to 19787It takes several years for monetary growth to exert its full influence on prices. As a result, we have so far experienced only the early effects of the nearly 8 percent rate of growth of the past year and a half.
The Inflationary FedColumn, 1973, Newsweek, August 27, 1973; reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, November 7, 1973, p. 36327, introduced by Representative Robert Huber of Michigan as “Mr. Milton Friedman’s article that appeared in Newsweek of August 27, 1973”, Congressional Record, November 7, 1973, p. 36327Stagflation was the end of naive Keynesianism. Now obviously the term "Keynesian" can mean anything you want it to mean, and so you have new Keynesianism, but this particular feature was put to an end by the stagflation episode.
Commanding Heights: Milton Friedman interviewInterview, 2000, PBS, “On John Maynard Keynes,” interview conducted October 1, 2000Jarvis-Gann has many defects. It is loosely drawn. It cuts only the property tax, which is by no means the worst tax. It does nothing to halt the unlegislated rise in taxes produced by inflation. Proposition 1 was a far better measure, and a revised version will be needed even if Jarvis-Gann is passed. Yet I strongly support Jarvis-Gann. It does cut taxes. It does raise obstacles to further increases in government spending. And it will not have the dire consequences its opponents threaten.
A Progress ReportColumn, 1978, Newsweek (April 10, 1978); reprinted in the Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, April 4, 1978, pp. 8709 to 8710, introduced by Representative John H. Rousselot of California, who describes it as “his byline article which appeared in the April 10, 1978 issue of Newsweek”, Congressional Record, April 4, 1978, pp. 8709 to 8710The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I'm not sure that I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.
Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that is the true tax. Every budget is balanced. There is no such thing as an unbalanced federal budget. You're paying for it. If you're not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you're paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The thing that you keep your eye on is what government spends. And the real problem is to hold down government spending as a fraction of our income. And if you do that, you can stop worrying about the deficit.
For both long and short periods there is a consistent though not precise relation between the rate of growth of the quantity of money and the rate of growth of nominal income. If the quantity of money grows rapidly, so will nominal income, and conversely. The relation is much closer for long than for short periods
Over short periods, the relation between growth in money and growth in nominal income is often hard to see, partly because the relation is less close for short than for long periods, but mostly because it takes time for changes in monetary growth to affect income. And how long a time is itself variable. Today's income growth is not closely related to today's monetary growth; it depends on what has been happening to money in the past. What happens to money today affects what is going to happen to income in the future