Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Stock Markets and the History Chart of the End of the World (With Presidential Cycles) - 28th Aug 20
2.Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook... AI Tech Stocks Buying Levels and Valuations Q3 2020 - 31st Aug 20
3.The Inflation Mega-trend is Going Hyper! - 11th Sep 20
4.Is this the End of Capitalism? - 13th Sep 20
5.What's Driving Gold, Silver and What's Next? - 3rd Sep 20
6.QE4EVER! - 9th Sep 20
7.Gold Price Trend Forecast Analysis - Part1 - 7th Sep 20
8.The Fed May “Cause” The Next Stock Market Crash - 3rd Sep 20
9.Bitcoin Price Crash - You Will be Suprised What Happens Next - 7th Sep 20
10.NVIDIA Stock Price Soars on RTX 3000 Cornering the GPU Market for next 2 years! - 3rd Sep 20
Last 7 days
Gold, Silver and Copper - The 3 Metallic Amigos and Their Messages - 5th Dec 20
TESCO Christmas Decorations Festive Shop 2020 - How to Beat the Coronavirus Economic Depression - 5th Dec 20
Premium Bonds Good, Bad or Ugly Investment? Here's What Return (Prize Wins) to Expect - 5th Dec 20
How to accomplish a technical analysis with the Forex - 5th Dec 20
What is life insurance and what are the benefits of having it? - 5th Dec 20
Pre-COVID US Economy Wasn’t All That Great Either - 4th Dec 20
Bitcoin Breath Taking Surge - Crypto Trading Event - 4th Dec 20
Platinum Begins A New Rally – Gold & Silver Will Follow - 4th Dec 20
Don't Let the Silver (and Gold) Bull Shake You Off! - 4th Dec 20
Stronger Risk Appetite Sends Gold below $1,800 - 4th Dec 20
A new “miracle compound” is set to take over the biotech market - 4th Dec 20
Eiro-group Review –The power of trading education - 4th Dec 20
Early Investors set to win big as FDA fast-tracks this ancient medicine - 3rd Dec 20
New PC System Switch On, Where's Windows 10 Licence Key? Overclockers UK OEM Review (5) - 3rd Dec 20
Poundland Budget Christmas Decorations Shopping 2020 to Beat the Corona Economic Depression - 3rd Dec 20
What is the right type of insurance for you, and how do you find it? - 3rd Dec 20
What Are the 3 Stocks That Will Benefit from Covid-19? - 3rd Dec 20
Gold & the USDX: Correlations - 2nd Dec 20
How An Ancient Medicine Is Taking On The $16 Trillion Pharmaceutical Industry - 2nd Dec 20
Amazon Black Friday vs Prime Day vs Cyber Monday, Which are Real or Fake Sales - 1st Dec 20
The No.1 Biotech Stock for 2021 - 1st Dec 20
Stocks Bears Last Chance Before Market Rally To SPX 4200 In 2021 - 1st Dec 20
Globalists Poised for a “Great Reset” – Any Role for Gold? - 1st Dec 20
How to Get FREE REAL Christmas Tree 2020! Easy DIY Money Saving - 1st Dec 20
The Truth About “6G” - 30th Nov 20
Ancient Aztec Secret Could Lead To A $6.9 Billion Biotech Breakthrough - 30th Nov 20
AMD Ryzen Zen 3 NO UK MSRP Stock - 5600x, 5800x, 5900x 5950x Selling at DOUBLE FAKE MSRP Prices - 29th Nov 20
Stock Market Short-term Decision Time - 29th Nov 20
Look at These 2 Big Warning Signs for the U.S. Economy - 29th Nov 20
Dow Stock Market Short-term and Long-term Trend Analysis - 28th Nov 20
How To Spot The End Of An Excess Market Trend Phase – Part II - 28th Nov 20
The Gold Stocks Correction is Maturing - 28th Nov 20
Biden and Yellen Pushed Gold Price Down to $1,800 - 28th Nov 20
Sheffield Christmas Lights 2020 - Peace Gardens vs 2019 and 2018 - 28th Nov 20

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

FIRST ACCESS to Nadeem Walayat’s Analysis and Trend Forecasts

Falling Prices and The End of the Nation State

Politics / Social Issues Feb 04, 2011 - 06:23 AM GMT

By: Gary_North


Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleWe are living in the greatest era of falling prices in the history of man. Our lives are being transformed by this phenomenon year by year, yet most of us take the change for granted. We barely notice it. Yet we would wonder what is wrong if it ceased.

Falling prices, you say? What falling prices? Where is there any sign of this.

Right in front of your eyes. Literally.

You are probably reading this on a computer screen. It is full color. It is thin and lightweight. It is probably 17 inches – maybe larger. If it wears out (which it won't for years), you will replace it for a monitor that costs less than you paid for this one.

What would you have paid for it five years ago? What would you have paid for it a decade ago? Nothing like it was available ten years ago.

Earlier this week, I wrote a brief article that included a series of funny YouTube videos ridiculing taxes. One was British. One was Canadian. One was American. It took me about five minutes to write that article and embed the videos on a page. I posted the page on my site by clicking a button. Anyone on earth who follows my posts can read that page. He can click each video and enjoy the fun. See for yourself.

How could I have done this six years ago? YouTube did not exist six years ago. You can verify this on Wikipedia, which did not exist eleven years ago.

Are you getting my drift? That which we take for granted today is revolutionary. Much of it did not exist during the dot-com bubble. It appeared after that Federal Reserve-created bubble had popped.


You can consult an encyclopedia with 17 million free articles. Here is a list of the languages available.

Only 3.5 million are in English, but there is translation software a click away that will translate most of the others into readable English with one mouse click. They are then readable.

It is not just that the intellectual division of labor keeps these entries updated and corrected. It is this: nothing can stop you from consulting them. The governments of the world might like to stop some of them from being posted, but they cannot do this. In any case, there are too many online articles to evaluate. Government bureaucrats cannot keep pace with the rate of change.

How do we compare Wiki and its many imitators with what was available in 2000? Nothing like them existed in 2000. They are all free. We cannot compare the "Encyclopedia Britannica" with Wikipedia. I bought a digital version of Britannica a few years ago. I used it only once. I shall not use it again. A few thousand articles written by lone scholars are not worth paying for. There has been a quantum leap in the production of encyclopedia articles. That which is free has completely replaced that which has a price tag.

You want price deflation? You've got it.

How can we measure this? Whatever a standard encyclopedia on a disk was in 2000, Wikipedia is orders of magnitude greater today. We would need a log-scale graph to compare their content. Yet Wiki is free. That is price deflation of 100%.


Let's say that you were hired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare encyclopedias at the end of 2000 with those at the end of 2010. You are asked to calculate the cost of information. You go to the Encyclopedia Britannica in 2000. There were about 15,000 articles. Do you calculate cost per article? Go ahead. Put 15,000 as the denominator. Do you calculate Wikipedia's cost per article with a denominator of 3.5 million or 17 million? Remember, there is translation software that did not exist in 2000. Is a translated article worth (say) 70% of an English language article? Or maybe only three-fifths? It does not really matter. The numerator is zero.

It will be zero next year and the year after. Then what? How should you calculate the price effects of (say) 7 million English-language articles with 3.5 million, when they all cost zero? This is not a trick question. It is a real-world question.

If the numerator is zero today, and it will be zero in ten years, but the supply doubles, is that relevant? Of course it's relevant. You get twice as much for free. I reply that the price has not fallen. It is still zero.

"But," you reply, "we have to do something with that doubled supply. We can't just pretend there has been no change. More is better than less, right?"

So, you propose a modification of the formula. You insist that there has to be an implicit price adjustment based on doubled output. The price per article remains the same – zero – but there has to be an implicit reduction of price. Otherwise, the public will be misled. People will think that things have not gotten better, when in fact things are twice as good. Well, not really twice as good. The next 3.5 million articles will be on less important topics. There is a declining rate of return. Economists say that the marginal value of each additional article falls.

Now what should you do? Things are obviously better by 3.5 million articles. But how can we estimate how much better? There is no theoretically valid answer. We cannot come up with a formula that estimates the collective value of those extra 3.5 million English-language articles. We cannot scientifically measure the subjective valuation of any reader, let alone all readers. That newly posted article on your brilliant career may not be worth much to the rest of us, but you will surely be ecstatic – if it's nice. You will be outraged if it isn't. How do we measure the marginal value of that article? We can't.

Yet we have to say something relevant. After all, 7 million articles are better than 3.5 million. We just do not know how much better.

So, you will have to fake it. You have to do something that reflects the newer, better state of affairs. Even if you use some simplistic formula – "articles cost half as much apiece" – meaning half of zero, this still conveys a more accurate picture than if you say that nothing has changed: zero is still zero.

Do you agree so far?


There is such a formula. The Bureau of Labor Statistics applies it. The rest of us really don't know how it works. Face it: we don't know much about how anything works.

The important thing is this: the formula does not change. We can see the trend, even though we cannot be sure if the formula is accurate. The fact is, no formula is accurate. But a formula that acknowledges that 7 million at zero price is better than 3.5 million at zero price is better than a formula that doesn't.

A hedonics formula says that improvements in quality count for something. Yes, we can always reply: "Count for how much?" The statistician replies, "I don't really know, but something." He is correct. If there is no implicit deflationary formula that reflects the fact that we are getting more than before at zero monetary price, then we cannot begin to understand economic history.


In a free market economy, there is constant competitive pressure to improve quality. The history of the free market social order is a story of small improvements in most things offered for sale, interspersed with major improvements that change everything. Think of electricity, automobiles, medical care (Salk vaccine for polio), and on and on. Our world today would be barely recognizable to a person transported through time from 1900. Similarly, the world of 1900 would not be recognizable to someone living in 1800.

Late last year, I interviewed the grandson of President John Tyler. I would also like to interview his brother. John Tyler was born in 1790. Think of his world at age 20 compared to our world at age 20. The economic world of Jesus at age 20 would have been more recognizable to John Tyler than our world.

Because of the fractional reserve banking system, our world is constantly dealing with rising prices. Because of rising prices due to monetary inflation, this increased physical output due to capital investment and innovation is concealed. This element of concealment is more than mere increases in physical output. It is also due to improved quality.

I used the example of Wikipedia, because it is so spectacular. Also, we can compare the number of articles with conventional commercial encyclopedias. I found that the Wiki articles are far better than the articles on Microsoft's Encarta. So did everyone else. Microsoft abandoned Encarta in 2009. It had 62,000 articles when it finally was killed. How do I know this? I read about it on Wikipedia.


What astounds me is this: there are journalists out there who insist that the hedonics implicit deflator is some kind of scam by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is another way of saying that the increased output of free market social order should be ignored. The critic is saying this: "If we cannot see a price change, no change happened." Or, put another way, going from no entries on Wikipedia in 2000 to 17 million in 2011 did not lower the cost of information in the United States. After all, free is free. The numerator did not change.

Maybe you think I am exaggerating. Maybe you think that nobody could be this dense intellectually. You would be wrong. You do not factor in what I like to call the Brett Arends school of financial reporting. Mr. Arends writes for the Wall Street Journal. In an article posted on January 26, he wrote this.

Or consider the case of Apple computers. We all know Macs are expensive. And we know Apple doesn't discount. The cheapest Mac laptop today costs $999. A few years ago, it also cost $999. So the price is the same, right?

Ha. Not according Uncle Sam. Using a piece of chicanery called "hedonics," Uncle Sam calls this a price cut. His reasoning? You're getting more for the money. Today's $999 Mac is lighter, fancier and faster than last year's $999 Mac. So the government calculates that the "real" price has actually fallen.

How's that work in the real world? Try it. Go into your local Apple store and ask for 50% off thanks to hedonics. (If you do, please, please video the exchange and put in YouTube. We could all use a good laugh.)

Instead, the government is worrying about deflation, partly because of all the "cheap" MacBooks out there.

My daughter owns a 2005 Mac. It is slow. It is barely functional. So, I bought her a new PC for Christmas. It cost $500. It is vastly more powerful than the 2005 Mac. But so is the 2011 Mac. The Mac Air is a dream machine.

Mr. Arends' version of rhetoric is to ask us to try to get a discount Mac – today's Mac – based on hedonics. But you can surely get a discount on a 2005 Mac. My daughter will sell you hers for only $800. And if you are dumb enough to pay that much, I will put your story on YouTube, as he suggested.

Here is my challenge to Mr. Arends. I challenge him to find a YouTube video posted in January 2005 describing the 2005 Mac.

Problem: there was no YouTube in January 2005. The site did not exist.

But, in the world of Brett Arends, YouTube would not be in the hedonics formula. After all, YouTube is free today. It was free in January 2005, since it did not exist. Conclusion: there has been no economic change. After all, zero is zero. Right? We should compare numerators with numerators. Forget about denominators: the products. They are irrelevant. Price is all that matters: numerators.

He went on.

The second reason to treat the official inflation figures with some mistrust is that they look backward. They register what just happened, not what's about to happen next.

OK, so the prices of many things haven't risen. Yet. But if the laws of economics mean anything, they will have to. Why? Because costs are rising.

The laws of economics supposedly teach that rising costs produce rising prices. They do? Since when? He is operating in terms of pre-1870 classical economics: a cost-of-production theory of retail pricing. It is as if the marginalist intellectual revolution of the early 1870s had never occurred. It is as if Jevons, Walras, and Menger had never written.

Consumer prices are set by consumers competing against each other in a huge auction process. Producers compete against producers. The outcome is an array of prices. If the prices of raw materials are rising, this is because buyers are forecasting increased demand by future consumers – demand that it will be profitable to meet. So, manufacturers bid against each other, while raw materials sellers compete against each other.

The marginalist revolution explained rising materials cost in terms of expectations by manufacturers. Rising costs do not lead to rising prices. Rising costs are the outcome of an auction process that is based on the expectation of rising demand. Arends has causation backwards.

In any case, it is not the job of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to register future consumer prices, factoring in rising raw materials production prices into the Consumer Price Index, which measures changes in – memo to Arends – CONSUMER prices.

He goes on:

Sooner or later this is going to show up in your supermarket, or at the mall, in higher prices.

Really? What if there is a double-dip recession? What if there is a contraction in Chinese consumers' demand for goods because of the phenomena described by the Austrian theory of the business cycle: monetary inflation followed by monetary stabilization? What if the forecasts are wrong? Then consumer prices will fall, and raw materials factors also will fall.

Rising raw materials prices may be a good forecasting tool some of the time, because entrepreneurs who are paid to forecast prices have bid up raw materials prices. But – another memo to Arends – the price of food is not subject to the BLS hedonics formula. The BLS does not assume that there are significant improvements in food quality that justify implementing the hedonics formula in this sector of the economy.

He has moved without telling the reader from the realm of digits – Mac computers – to the realm of raw materials. To put it simply, he has criticized the hedonics formula, which applies to "electrons," as if it applied to "atoms": food. He has dismissed the hedonics formula, calling it "chicanery." He is inescapably also calling into question the real-world effects of constant attention to quality that the free market encourages through the system of profit and loss.

I remind him and anyone else who follows his line of reasoning: "You can't beat something with nothing." If the BLS formula is chicanery, then which formula isn't? Show that this rival formula enables us to better understand the extraordinary improvements in quality and the historically unprecedented decline in costs in the realm of computers and digital communications.

My advice: forget about the weakness of the formula. Pay attention to the trend. In matters digital, the trend is down. With respect to the cost of information, the trend is down.


To get some idea of what Mr. Arends is ignoring, read my article on Moore's law and the other parallel laws that are transforming our world. Output in the realm of silicon and fiber optics is now doubling every 12 to 24 months in two dozen fields. This is transforming our world as never before.

These changes will create a new world – hopefully brave, but unquestionably new. The BLS is trying to deal with this statistically. If it did not, it would be ignoring the most important development in the last 4,000 years.

Let's here it for hedonics! More free Wiki articles, more free YouTube videos, more free articles, more free books in's Literature section. At zero price, I want more, more, more. I am not insatiable – my time has value – but I want lots of producers trying to meet my demand. Give it a shot, guys! See if I overload.

Gary North [send him mail ] is the author of Mises on Money . Visit . He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible .

    © 2011 Copyright Gary North / - All Rights Reserved

    Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.

© 2005-2019 - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Onc' Scrooge
05 Feb 11, 06:05
Falling prices - a great lie !?

Dear Gary,

I am not your opinion that prices fall in order to new inventions, mightier tools etc.

I think that every time and even every region (country) of the world in a given time has a level of consumption, prices and wages of his own. What ever is normal, poor, rich or middle-class is not decided by rational factors but by social feelings of the community.

In other words if my grandma hasn't owned a washing-machine and my mother had one with 4 programmes and an electric comsumption of x and my wife has a machine with 20 programmes and a consumption of a half of x and my daughter will have once upon a time a machine with 100 programmes and a comsumption of a quarter of x that doesn't matter.

1. all the 4 wifes owned what the majority owned in their time there is none of them changing graduation in her society because of her better washing machine.

2. Evidence is that my wife uses only 3 or 4 of her 20 programmes most of the others she doesn't understand.

And what do you think will happen with my daughter ?

3. Yes, the electric consumption is lower every generation - but the price for a unit has inflated 2 times too.

Yes, in internet we can do much more than we could do 5 or 10 years ago - but really for nothing?

We pay a price I think at least in being forced to look more adversiting in being registrated as consumers and we give the knowledge about what we like, what we read, what we eat, what we think etc. to somebody else who try to earn something with this informations (think of the 77 $ worth customer of facebook!).

And the new notebook with the new screen we need to have for looking the new videos which need another viewer which needs a quicker notebook and more pixels on the screen for the video AND THE ADVERTISING JOINED WITH.

What do we gain there ?

Nothing because our old notebook didn't work with the informations of the new time anymore and we are FORCED to buy a second new one - means we have 2 times to pay in order to maintain the possibity of consumption!

Gain ? NO THIS IS A LOSS (at least in terms of money).

Falling prices - hum?

Another reason is in the defintion of inflation -

when we count (thought to be) 0-priced aproovement in goods or new or better tools as a deflating factor of the ongoing inflation we forget one thing:

We have 2 main factors in the inflation theory:

Prices and wages:

The wages have a nominally inflation too which could not be redeflated by comparable gains to that which you think of for the prices. Example:

Year 2000 - Wage 1000 - Price of basket 1000

Year 2010 - Wage 1500 - Price of basket 1800 without and 1200 with redeflation of quality gains in products -

Nominal inflation 80% - redeflated inflation 30%.

Means the comsumer looses 20% of purchasing power without and gains 20% of purchasing power with redeflation of the inflation !!

For somebody of low income who spend most of his money for bread and energie (in this goods are no 0-price quality gains possible) and uses only 3 programmes of his new washimg machine there is inflation but his gouvernement tells him something about deflation !?

Gouvernments like this methods to prouve that we live better than our parents in reason of her good gouvernance.

And here is the another reason:

If we redeflate price inflation by 0-priced gains we will do harm to the historical comprehension of inflation.

As we have seen above gouvernement tells us that we are earning more in the same time paying nearly unchanged or even falling prices.

If we compare our salaries with the salaries of our grandpa's in 1950 and their official price-index with our offical price-index we will be astonished that our grandpa's lived in her own payed houses and not under the bridges. If your compare the official price and wage indices over a long run you will be astonished that people in old time have survived.

WHY ? Because of the fraudulous official indices which are frauded with a lot of tricks whereof one is the redeflation by using 0-priced gains in development cycles of goods.



Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules