The Fed Does Not Need More Data. It Needs Better Interpretation.

After years of treating monetary aggregates as background noise, policymakers are once again considering whether measures like M1 and M2 should play a larger role in forecasting inflation. That reconsideration is overdue. It is also incomplete.

The Fed’s failure during 2020 and 2021 was not simply that it ignored the expansion of money. It was that it misunderstood what the expansion meant, where the money was moving, and how quickly it was becoming available for spending. Bringing monetary aggregates back into the policy framework may improve the analysis. Treating them as undifferentiated totals will not.

The standard monetarist premise is familiar enough: an economy cannot absorb unlimited monetary expansion without eventually producing higher prices. That principle did not disappear because central banks stopped discussing it. The pandemic made that clear. Government spending surged. The Fed expanded its balance sheet. Deposits flooded the banking system. Monetary aggregates accelerated at rates rarely seen outside wartime. Yet the Fed continued describing inflation as temporary long after the monetary conditions for persistent price increases were already in place. A framework that incorporated money more directly may have produced an earlier warning.

But aggregate growth alone would not have told the entire story.

M2 rose sharply in the early stages of the pandemic, but much of that increase initially represented fear rather than economic confidence. Households and businesses were not preparing to spend. They were moving money into savings, reducing risk, and waiting for clarity. The quantity of money was increasing. Its disposition remained defensive. That is the weakness of treating M2 as a single signal – the components do not behave the same way.

Savings deposits often rise during uncertainty. Demand deposits generally increase when money is positioned for immediate use. Money market balances reflect another layer of liquidity preference. Credit creation introduces yet another dynamic, shaped by borrower behavior, bank risk tolerance, and regulatory conditions. These are not interchangeable forms of money. They may appear together inside the same aggregate, but they do not carry the same economic intent. A rise in M2 can signal expansion, fear, stimulus, or balance-sheet repair – sometimes all four simultaneously. Without understanding the composition, the total misleads.

The more revealing signal during the pandemic was not that deposits increased. It was what happened next. Savings growth began to slow as funds migrated toward more liquid forms, financial markets, and direct consumption. Money that had been stored defensively was becoming active. That transition mattered more than the original increase, because it indicated a change in behavior. The public was no longer holding the money. It was preparing to use it. That is where inflation pressure became structurally more likely.

The distinction appears subtle only if money is treated as static. It is not. Money has velocity, but before it has velocity, it has intent. A dollar held as precautionary savings is not economically equivalent to a dollar moved into a checking account, deployed into markets, or spent on goods and services. The amount is identical. The behavior is not.

That is why the Fed does not merely need monetarism restored. It needs a more behavioral understanding of money itself.

The central bank’s analytical weakness has never been a shortage of information – the Fed has access to more economic data than almost any institution in the world. Its weakness is interpretation. It repeatedly mistakes categories for conditions. Employment totals are treated as labor market strength even when job quality is deteriorating. Asset prices are treated as confidence even when they are sustained purely by liquidity. Falling headline inflation is treated as restored stability even when underlying monetary behavior points elsewhere. Monetary aggregates can easily become another version of the same mistake – a higher M2 number read as inflationary, a lower one as restrictive, neither conclusion reliable without understanding what depositors, borrowers, banks, and businesses are actually doing.

This is not a minor technical dispute. It determines whether policymakers hold rates steady, begin cutting, or tighten further. A model that misses the behavioral transition can identify the correct variables and still reach the wrong conclusion. That was the central failure of the transitory inflation period. The Fed saw supply disruption. It saw temporary shortages. It saw base effects. What it failed to see was that an extraordinary monetary expansion was moving from institutional creation into household action. By the time the behavior became undeniable, inflation was already embedded.

Reintroducing monetary aggregates would be an improvement, but only if the Fed resists the temptation to reduce money to another dashboard indicator. The purpose is not to monitor totals. It is to diagnose movement. Where is the money held, and why? Is it becoming more defensive or more active? Is credit expanding because borrowers see opportunity, or because balance sheets are deteriorating? Are savings rising because households are becoming wealthier, or because they are becoming afraid? Those questions contain more information than the aggregate itself.

The Fed’s policy errors rarely begin with an absence of data. They begin when the institution imposes the wrong meaning upon it. A return to monetarism may help correct that. A return to mechanical monetarism may simply recreate the same failure in a different form.

Money matters. But how money behaves matters more.

Until the Fed understands that distinction, it will continue recognizing inflation only after the public has already paid for it.

Disclaimer: The content published across MYTR reflects opinions, analysis, and perspective.
It is offered to inform thinking and encourage consideration—not to provide instruction, direction, or individualized advice. How any idea is interpreted, evaluated, or applied remains the responsibility of the reader, listener, or viewer, as applicable.
Responsibility for decisions—and their outcomes—begins and ends with the individual making them. Please read, or re-read the “Policy Notes” page for any questions or clarifications.