By Dr. Ghassan Karam
Maynard Keynes, arguably the most influential economist of the last 84 years was responsible for popularizing the term “money illusion”, a concept that can be beneficial to any and all economic actors.
Essentially the idea behind money illusion is the fact that many people do not distinguish between the nominal and the real. As a result one winds up in comparing two different things. The error is easy to commit because one presumes that when a comparison between two things that have the same name is made then one is not committing the logical fallacy of comparing apples and oranges when one actually is.
Maybe the simplest example is that of wages. Most workers whose contract is to get say $10 an hour would describe a new contract that pays them $10.50 an hour as an increase of 5% in wages. Is it? It all depends on what was the rate of inflation. If the consumer price index had risen over 5% in the prior year then their new contract represents a decline in real wages. Obviously if the CPI was under 5% then the new contract is for a n real increase in wages.
This distinction is crucial in particular when comparisons are made between earnings at two different points in time or even earnings at two different cities whether within the same state or not. This distinction between face value and purchasing power is very significant in understanding the accomplishments of the macroeconomy in any country.
If we are to concentrate on Lebanon and use the GDP/Capita as a rough metric of economic welfare then the tendency to commit the error of money illusion leads to wrong policies and as far as citizens are concerned to probably backing wrong initiatives.
Let us go back to GDP/Capita, a concept that has its fair share of shortcomings, the most important of which is that it does not address distributional issues. Yet if the GDP of a country increases at a rate that is lower than the rate of growth in population then the GDP share for each individual declines. That is why it is a popular metric that is even more meaningful than just GDP.
In Lebanon this has a major application because the population over the past 45 years has almost tripled (It actually increased by X2.7). If the population tripled and so did the GDP then the share per individual would still be the same.
In Lebanon the GDP has increased a lot over the past 45 years but does that mean that the level of welfare is higher. Not necessarily. Two things must be adjusted for: the size of the population and then the comparison between a money unit in 2019 with that in 1974. The GDP/capita makes the required adjustment for the population but what about the money illusion.
The data shows that GDP per capita for Lebanon in 1974 amounted to $1842 while that for 2019 was $8306. But these are only nominal figures. Once the adjustment for the real is done it becomes clear that by this metric, Lebanon of 1974 was ahead of that of 2019 since 1974 dollar is actually equal to 5.24 2020 dollars and each 2019 dollar is equal to 1.01 2020 dollar.
Take a look at the adjusted data in the following data and note that 1974 was the highest level for this metric ever achieved in Lebanon. This has more than one implication.
Sadly, we need to ask where have the past 45 years gone?
We are at the moment behind where we were in 1974 and yet we expect to slide much further as a result of the economic and financial challenges facing us for years and possibly decades to come. Would Lebanon ever reach the economic level of prosperity achieved almost half a century ago?
Another clear possible explanation for this unacceptable economic performance over almost half a century is the war. The 15 years of war did take a heavy toll in blood and treasure. Note also that by 2010 Lebanon had almost regained the level attained in real terms in 1974 but then another decline in performance started, a decline that coincides with the start of the Syrian war and Lebanon’s inability to resolve its rather simple electricity production challenge among other issues. The decline started in 2010 has not stopped yet and is not likely to do so for years to come.
Maybe the most relevant application of this concept, money illusion, is that bank depositors might get back the same number of LL’s that they have entrusted the banks with but are getting back LL’s with probably only half the purchasing power. That is a big loss in a country that was proud of its fixed peg and kept assuring the public, incorrectly, that all is well. In this case the depositors have lost both access to their funds and an exchange rate devaluation that was not part of the bargain when they agreed to loan their funds.
Table 1: Real GDP per capita in $2020
Nominal Nominal Real
Year GDP GDP/Capita GDP/Capita
2019 56.9 0 B 8306 8389
2018 56.64 8270 8518
2017 53.39 7838 8308
2016 51.24 7635 8246
2015 49.97 7650 8339
2014 48.30 7712 8406
2013 46.87 7924 8796
2012 44.23 7986 8944
2011 40.08 7703 8858
2010 38.42 7757 9231
2009 35.48 7371 8919
2008 29.23 6135 7362
2007 24.87 5217 6521
2006 24.06 4632 5929
2005 21.49 4574 6038
2004 21.45 4628 6340
2003 20.08 4572 6447
2002 19.15 4579 6548
2001 17.65 4422 6456
2000 17.26 4492 6738
1999 17.39 4640 7192
1998 17.25 4670 7379
1997 15.75 4306 6933
1996 13.69 3792 6257
1995 11.72 3320 5611
1994 09.60 2820 4935
1993 07.94 2447 4380
1992 05.84 1902 3500
1991 04.49 1605 3050
1990 02.84 1013 1996
1989 02.72 0997 2084
1988 03.31 1234 2702
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
1975 04.36 1691 8134
1974 04.67 1842 9652
1973 03.63 1465 8541
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.