Hummel and Richman at

DECEMBER 03, 2010

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, a Freeman contributor and associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, and Freeman editor Sheldon Richman have published a commentary at disputing that the government would benefit greatly from inflation through monetization of its debt:

Historically governments inflated their currencies because they benefited in various ways. For example, they spent the new money, gaining the purchasing power lost by holders of the depreciating currency. This gain, called seigniorage, is an implicit tax on the people’s cash balances.

Another way government can gain is in its role as a debtor. If inflation is unanticipated, interest rates will not have risen enough to compensate lenders for the decline in purchasing power. Net debtors gain, and net creditors lose. Government, of course, is the economy’s biggest debtor. During the Great Inflation of the 1970s private investors holding long-term U.S. Treasury securities actually earned negative real returns despite receiving positive nominal interest. So from 1946 to 1982, while the government’s nominal debt to the general public rose from $242 billion to $925 billion, in 1946 dollars it had actually fallen to $201 billion.

If in the past inflations were able to ease the government’s financial problems, this is less true now since globalization gives investors more options.

Globalization, with the corresponding relaxation of exchange controls in all major countries, allows them easily to flee to foreign currencies, with the result that changes in central-bank policy are almost immediately priced by exchange rates and interest rates. Add to this the ability to purchase inflation-indexed government securities, and it becomes highly unlikely investors will be caught off guard by anything less than sudden, catastrophic hyperinflation (defined as more than 50% per month)–and maybe even not then.

Thus it would take a mighty and unexpected inflation indeed for the U.S. government to benefit in its current fiscal predicament–but at what cost?

The full commentary in Forbes here.

Hummel’s original Freeman article on government’s diminishing benefits from inflation is here.


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


April 2014

Around the world, people are struggling to throw off authoritarianism, with deeply mixed results. From Egypt to Venezuela, determined people build networks to overthrow their regimes, but as yet we have not learned to live without Leviathan. In this issue, Michael Malice and Gary Dudney discuss their glimpses inside totalitarian regimes, while Sarah Skwire and Michael Nolan look at how totalitarian regimes grind down the individual--and how individuals fight back. Plus, Jeffrey Tucker identifies a strain in libertarianism that, left unchecked, could reduce even our vibrant movement to something that is analogous to the grim aesthetic of architectural brutalism. The struggle for our lives and freedom is a struggle for beauty; it begins inside each of us.
Download Free PDF





Image from Shutterstock

Which Way Do You Lean on Economic Theory?

Whose approach do you find yourself taking more often, Mises's or Friedman's? Read both quotes and choose the one that aligns with your opinion of what makes for good economics.