FORTUNE -- The International Monetary Fund isn't known for its candor.
As a political institution with a multitude of sponsors with differing -- or even competing -- interests, it often puts forth policy recommendations in a swirl of circumlocution, or as Paul Krugman recently asserted, euphemism.
Krugman was referring to a recent IMF report in which the bank, using very imprecise language, seemed to support the idea that central banks should raise their target interest rates from the 1% to 2% norm of today closer to 4%, as many economists have argued. Those supporting higher target levels of inflation argue that:
But the IMF report doesn't explicitly argue these points. Instead, it makes vague reference to the first idea and then moves on. Why is the IMF so reticent when other economists have been much more forceful arguing for higher inflation? Krugman believes it's because the IMF serves the interest of the richest people on earth:
How did the 70s get framed as the ultimate bad time? For sure they weren't good -- but the really bad times for ordinary working families were the big recessions, which took place under Reagan, to some extent under Bush I, and above all after the financial crisis.
Krugman shows that even though real economic growth was somewhat slow in the 1970s, average families saw their real wages rise. On the other hand, financial assets like stocks and bonds didn't perform so well during that period of high inflation. And who owns most financial assets?
"The 0.1 percent, who according to the Piketty-Saez database 'only' get about 4 percent of total wages but have more than 20 percent of the wealth and surely a larger share of financial assets," Krugman writes.
Therefore, he argues, economists in institutions like the IMF can't come out in favor of more inflation, because it would harm the wealthy masters of the universe who are the real forces behind institutions like the IMF.
But blaming class warfare for anti-inflation sentiment stems from the same lazy thinking that anti-inflation zealots partake in. After all, if it is in fact just as easy to anchor inflation at 4% as it is at 2% -- as pro-inflation economists argue -- then is there any logical reason why financial assets should perform worse in such an environment than real estate or other hard assets? Stock values are based on the discounted flows of future nominal earnings, and those values shouldn't be depressed in an environment of higher but stable inflation.
Bond values will suffer during periods when inflation spikes, but if a central bank were able to maintain yearly 4% price increases in a stable and predictable way, interest rates (and coupon payments) could simply rise to reflect this new reality.
There doesn't seem to be any logical reason why the wealthiest 0.1% would be worse off in an environment of higher -- yet stable -- inflation than they would in the current world of persistently low inflation. Just because financial assets performed poorly in the 1970s doesn't mean that that was due to higher inflation. In fact, aiming for higher inflation would enable central banks to combat recessions more effectively, and the 0.1% would benefit on the wings of higher overall growth.
That said, there sure are a lot of those in the 0.1% who are suspicious of governments targeting higher inflation. High inflation tends to occur in economies that are mismanaged. And a 4% target implicitly puts faith in the government's ability to manage the economy, and the very wealthy, on average, are less trustful of government activism than other segments of the population.
But the cohort with the most to lose from higher inflation isn't the wealthy, but the retired. In the U.S. alone, there are more than 45 million retired people living at least partially off social security. Those payments are indexed to inflation, but many retired Americans supplement that income with money they have saved throughout their working lives, and the purchasing power of retirement savings would be eroded substantially by higher inflation.
The 0.1% are a powerful political constituency, but they have the wherewithal to thrive in inflationary or deflationary environments, and they are likely more concerned about tax policies than whatever central banks are up to. But older people of lesser means do, in fact, have a lot to lose from inflation, and politicians the world over know very well that these people vote.
If you thought Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea was quick, just look at how fast investors have changed their tune on Russia.
By Jen Wieczner, writer-reporter
FORTUNE -- It wasn't too long ago that Russia was considered one of the BRIC powerhouses among emerging markets, along with Brazil, India, and China. Toward the end of 2013, many respected money managers were excited about Russia -- if not bullish. David Darst, then the MOREMar 31, 2014 5:00 AM ET
A "clever" bond deal will add even more tension to the neighboring nations' negotiations.
FORTUNE -- Just months before the toppling of its government, Russia cut a loan deal with Ukraine that would make even an ace structured finance dealmaker envious. One expert on sovereign debt has called the transaction "clever." And the deal could come back to haunt Ukraine's economy.
Back in December, Russia lent Ukraine $3 billion as part of MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 12, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Big IPO-like spikes, clients being favored over others, and the potential for unfair Wall Street profits. This certainly sounds like another manipulated market.
FORTUNE -- Wall Street may have a new debt problem.
Late last week, Goldman Sachs (GS) disclosed that regulators are probing how it allocates and trades bonds. Citigroup (C) is reportedly in regulators' crosshairs as well, along with the rest of Wall Street. At issue is how banks decide MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Mar 6, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Target-date funds did well in 2013 for all the wrong reasons.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Feb 18, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Buyer beware. A single year in which stocks soared and bonds tanked can throw the long-term numbers way out of whack.
FORTUNE -- Today let's have some fun with numbers. The kind that investors rely on. Which turn out to be the kind that can be skewed by their start or end dates, and that can skewer your investment portfolio if you follow them blindly.
Let's start with a key number, the MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Jan 15, 2014 5:00 AM ET
Bridgewater Associates has claimed that one of its key funds will do well in up and down markets. So how come it couldn't perform in 2013?
FORTUNE -- The hedge fund that claims it will never have an off year just had one in 2013.
Bridgewater Associates' All-Weather fund dropped 3.9% last year. This has come at a time when the sky for many investors has been quite clear. The stock MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 9, 2014 2:50 PM ET
Markets should welcome the end of the Federal Reserve's stimulus.
By Sanjay Sanghoee
FORTUNE -- The U.S. Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful bodies on the planet today, able to shake global markets with the force of a single word: taper. Analysts shudder, investors wail, bond yields spike, and stocks collapse whenever the mere possibility of a taper arises. And yet, the fear that the world will end if MOREDec 17, 2013 9:01 AM ET
Will tapering be a "sell the news" moment for 10-year yields? The pundits don't seem to agree.
By Daryl Jones, Hedgeye
FORTUNE -- Like many Americans nowadays, I tend to tune out much of the mainstream media, but I did catch myself watching a little CNBC recently. Interestingly, it made me realize that the buy side, sell side, and media are arguing with many of the same platitudes on the topic MOREDec 12, 2013 9:08 AM ET
PIMCO's Bill Gross and the other big bond boys are experiencing some performance issues this year.
By Daryl Jones, Hedgeye
FORTUNE -- For those of you who missed it in high-school history class, Sir Ernest Shackleton is the best-known figure in the "Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration," which began in 1911 after Roald Amundsen successfully reached the South Pole. Shackleton was a maverick. He wanted to one-up Amundsen. So he set MORENov 26, 2013 10:04 AM ET
|Canadians arrest a Heartbleed hacker|
|US Airways won't fire worker who sent lewd tweet|
|5 people you might not tip (but should)|
|Google stock sinks after missing Street|
|Toyota unveils redesigned Camry|