Cantillon effect: Who’s paying the highest price?

by
Claudio Grass
My articles My booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterLinkedIN

Every time we hear government officials announce their big spending plans, their new welfare programs and their ambitious “job creating” schemes, they always present them as being in defense of the poorest and the most marginalized members of our societies. In coordination with their central bankers, they print and spend new money at will, claiming that it is all for the benefit of the weakest among us and that all the freshly created funds will support them without further burdening the taxpayer. According to them, this is the best way to prosperity and its a simple one, really: if we want to help those that don’t have enough money, why don’t we just print some and give it to them?

While the fallacy in this line of “reasoning” might be obvious even to a child, it still escapes most citizens and voters. After all, nobody likes to pay higher taxes and if there’s a painless, “win-win” way of helping out those in need, most rational actors would opt for it. The problem is that nothing in that assumption is actually true. For one thing, it is most certainly not painless. When more money is chasing the same amount of goods, prices inevitably rise and everybody loses. However, there is one very important distinction to be made here, one that swiftly invalidates the entire argument for printing and spending to help the poor: While it is true that everyone loses in the end, we don’t all suffer those losses at the same time, or in the same severity.

This phenomenon was first described and explained centuries ago by Richard Cantillon, a great economist, far ahead of his time. As Murray Rothbard put it: “The honor of being called the “father of modern economics” belongs, then, not to its usual recipient, Adam Smith, but to a gallicized Irish merchant, banker, and adventurer who wrote the first treatise on economics more than four decades before the publication of the Wealth of Nations. Richard Cantillon (c. early 1680s–1734) is one of the most fascinating characters in the history of social or economic thought.”

He examined the question of what happens in any economy when new money is suddenly injected into it. His very insightful conclusion was that the effect depended on who had control of this new money and on which point it entered the economy. Even though adding enough new money will ultimately lead to inflationary scenarios, these effects do not affect everyone at the same time. In fact, they actually benefit a minority of economic participants before they impact everyone else adversely. 

The main idea behind this argument is quite straightforward: After the new money is created, those that receive it first get to spend it and buy things at the same price levels as before. But as the fresh cash circulates further, those price levels begin to rise, and eventually, it is those unfortunate enough to be “last in line” that suffer the most from the price increases. By the time that the new funds make their way to them, even the bare necessities have become significantly more expensive, usually by a margin much larger than the new cash can cover. 

And who are those lucky enough to always find themselves in the front of the line and who push the prices up for everyone else? Well, as we saw during the Great Recession, but also as we’re seeing now, in real time, after the Covid relief fiasco and the unprecedented amounts of new money that were injected into the system, it’s the banks, the financial sector at large, and all the crony capitalist corporations that are close to governments. This is how the real estate bubble got out of control and how ordinary citizens and taxpayers ended up bailing out those who took advantage of the system. And now, the Cantillon effect is playing a massive role in the energy crisis too. It’s the poorest and the most marginalized among us that are being forced to choose between heating their homes and putting food on their tables. 

While it remains true that inflation, as a wider phenomenon, is toxic to an economy and to society at large, these nuances are important to remember. The political rhetoric that is used, especially in the West, to justify fiscal largess and monetary recklessness heavily relies on the fact that most citizens do not understand the “small print”. This is why we see so many appeals to emotion and so many “arguments” that essentially condemn anyone who disagrees with such policies as misanthrope, who doesn’t care about his less fortunate neighbors. 

Putting forward seemingly honorable goals, such as the “greater good”, “compassion” or “solidarity” is the oldest trick in the book, after all, for politicians of all stripes and convictions. It is our duty as independent thinkers and rational citizens to disperse this self-contradicting nonsense though facts and Reason. As history has clearly shown, the “greater good” is never as poorly served as it is when the State tries to meddle in the economy to achieve that end. 

Claudio Grass, Hünenberg See, Switzerland

This article has been published in the Newsroom of pro aurum, the leading precious metals company in Europe with an independent subsidiary in Switzerland. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Therefore please feel free to share!

You Might Also Like

JERM WARFARE WITH ASTRID STUCKELBERGER & CLAUDIO GRASS & BREAKING FREE FROM COVID MADNESS

2022-03-09

Astrid Stuckelberger and Claudio Grass have been on my podcast before.

Central Banks’ record gold stockpiling

2022-01-22

According to recently released data by the World Gold Council (WGC), as of September 2021, the total amount of gold held in reserves by central banks globally exceeded 36,000 tons for the first time since 1990. This 31-year record was the result of the world’s central banks adding more that 4,500 tons of the precious metal to their holdings over the last decade and it provides ample support for the investment case for gold, in both directly performance-related terms, but also from a big picture perspective. 

Lessons from 2021: The rational way out

2021-12-27

As we are all preparing to bid farewell to 2021, there is a general feeling that this year, much like its predecessor, will not be missed. To my mind, however, it is clear that even though the past 12 months didn’t really teach us anything new, they did help cement the lessons of 2020 and spread important ideas to people who might otherwise have never come to question anything about the status quo.

Government interventions and the Cobra effect – Part II

2021-12-03

Of course, one of the most important and consequential parts of the incredibly complex organism that is the economy is money itself. It is its lifeblood and as the song goes, “it makes the world go round”. Therefore, manipulating the currency itself is one the most dangerous and hubristic things a central planner can do, which probably explains why it’s their favorite pastime.

Government interventions and the Cobra effect – Part I

2021-12-02

Almost two decades ago, German economist Horst Siebert coined the term the “Cobra effect” to describe the real-world consequences of “well-intentioned” government interventions that go awry and produce the exact opposite results from what they aim for.

Corruption of the currency and decivilization – Part II

2021-11-03

Many rational economists and students of history have written countless analyses on the gold standard and the terrible impact that its end has had on the world economy. However, as the Fall of Rome clearly demonstrates, the implications of the introduction of the fiat money system and of the limitless manipulation of the currency by the State reach much further.

50 years since the closure of the “gold window”

2021-10-09

President Nixon’s unilateral decision to sever the last link between the dollar and gold had wide ranging and long lasting consequences for the global economy and for the entire monetary system. The end of sound money facilitated and accelerated the concentration of power at the top and the ability to manipulate the currency allowed politicians and central planners to further expand the state’s reach and push ahead with populist, reckless and wasteful policies.