It’s sounds new, but it is not. Following the Second World War, John Maynard Keynes pushed hard for a global paper currency administered by a global central bank. This was his proposed solution to the problem of national currency disputes. Let’s just take the inflation power away from the national state and give it to a world authority. Then we’ll never have to deal with a lack of coordination again.

The idea didn’t fly, but the institutions that were supposed to administer such a system were nonetheless created: the International Monetary Fund and the so-called World Bank. It didn’t work out that way. Instead, nation-states retained their monetary authority, and the new institutions became glorified welfare providers, conduits for transfer payments and loads to developing nations.

The dream lived on, however. The creation of the euro and its central bank was a step in that direction. So was the Nixon’s closing of the gold window. Each new currency crisis has created the excuse for further steps toward what Murray Rothbard calls the Keynesian dream.

Why hasn’t it happened yet? Many reasons. Nation-states do not want to give up power. The World Bank and the IMF are institutionally unsuited to the task. Many people in the banking world are also downright squeamish about the idea, with full knowledge of the ravages that unchecked inflationary credit can bring to the world economy. Mostly, there hasn’t been a crisis big enough to warrant such extreme measures.

However, that crisis might have finally arrived. Since 2008, the Fed has demonstrated that among all the world’s central banks, it alone is brave enough to embrace gigantic inflationary measures without wincing. The European Central Bank is under some strictures to not act as a monetary central planner. China is unconverted to the inflationary faith. The same holds true for England.

Ben Bernanke, however, is different: He is revealing himself to be an unreconstructed Keynesian with an unlimited faith in the power of paper money to solve all the world’s problems.

What this means is that it is left to the Fed alone to bail out the world. There is a perverse logic to this. After all, if you are going to be a world empire, operating under the assumption that nothing on the planet is outside your political purview, you bear certain responsibilities as well. Foreign aid and troops in every country are just the beginning. You must, eventually, embrace your financial responsibilities, too. A globalized economy addicted to debt needs an institution willing to step up and guarantee that debt, and provide the liquidity necessary to get us through the hard times.

As soon as the announcement of the new Fed measures came, the smart set of the World Wide Web lit up with the obvious observations that these measures come with massive risk of setting off a global inflationary crisis. It could lead to the final crack-up boom.

The Fed assures us otherwise. It “bears no exchange risk” in undertaking such actions. But as economist Robert Murphy explains:

“Strictly speaking, this isn’t true. If the Fed gives $50 billion in dollars to the ECB, which (at those market prices) gives $50 billion worth of euros to the Fed, then the ECB lends out the dollars to private banks, and before they repay the loans, the euro crashes against the dollar…then the ECB has no means of acquiring dollars to repay the Fed. Even though the ECB has a printing press, it is configured for euros, not dollars.”

He further states what everyone knows but no one is will to say:

“The current round of interventions will not solve the problem. Down the road — probably much sooner, rather than later — the central banks of the world will engage in some further extraordinary measures, again, lest the whole world fall apart. Even so, printing money doesn’t fix the underlying problems. No matter what they do, eventually, the whole financial world will fall apart.”

The speed at which all of this is happening is startling to behold. It was only 36 hours ago that we heard the first public worries about the drying up of credit in Europe. Large corporations were seeing their credit lines tightened. Banks were starting to become more scrupulous in their operations, which is hardly a surprise, given that zero interest rates have made it nearly impossible to make a profit in conventional lending operations.

Where in the fall of 2008, the Fed let the worries about tight credit grow to the point of international mania before it acted, this time, it jumped in to anticipate the inevitable warnings about the imminent death of civilization. Only trillions in paper money can save us now! The Fed saw what was coming and decided to do the deed, even before the demand came.

But rather than settle markets down, the real effect is the opposite. If you go to the doctor with a head cold, and he rushes you to the hospital for surgery, you don’t merely congratulate him for being thorough. You figure that he knows something that you don’t, namely that your condition is way more serious than you thought. Your family is likely to fly into a panic.

For this psychological reason alone, this action is likely to roil markets in crazy ways. The Fed is now paper money printer for the entire world. It’s a new world, and a brave one. If you think that a new era of prosperity, peace and stability awaits, you have been living under a rock for at least a century. There’s not a soul alive who will sleep soundly knowing that Ben Bernanke has elected himself the loan officer of the entire globe.

Regards,

Jeffrey Tucker

Leaping Toward the Keynesian Dream was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

Robert Preston, the BBC economics expert, last week claimed that the solution now lies with the ECB, and he spoke confidently of the ECB’s “unlimited resources.” Yesterday, Vince Cable demanded “unlimited powers” for the central bank. He also shamelessly regurgitated the well-worn politician’s excuse for Europe’s problems, namely, that these countries are under “speculative attack.” The advocates of large-scale ECB intervention now include many pundits and commentators, plus, a sizable group of financial market economists and strategists, whom decency obliges me to leave nameless. “It is important to keep the ECB engaged,” as one economist put it, “as only the ECB has unlimited resources.”

Such proclamations immediately invoke Albert Einstein’s famous dictum: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe.”

Everything Is Going According to Script.

None of what is going on surprises me. It is perfectly in line with what I predicted in my book. However, I am ready to admit that I am a bit baffled by the quick willingness by so many people to embrace what is, ultimately, a sure road to complete economic destruction. In Paper Money Collapse: The Folly of Elastic Money and the Coming Monetary Breakdown, I explain why systems of elastic money are always suboptimal, unstable and, ultimately, unsustainable. A monetary system like ours must, over time, accumulate dislocations and imbalances that will, finally, become so big that their liquidation through market forces is deemed politically unacceptable. Then, out of desperation, an unwinnable war against economic reality will be fought by means of the printing press. Ever more money will be created ever faster in a futile attempt to outrun the market’s urge to liquidate.

In Chapter 10 of my book, I describe the two final stages of a paper money system as monetization of debt and inflationary meltdown. We are now firmly in the monetization of debt phase. This process will accelerate in coming months and quarters. Not only in the eurozone, but also in the United States and in the U.K. All of these central banks will continue to expand their balance sheets aggressively and use their ability to print money — without limit — to support banks, governments and a wide range of asset classes.

Bernanke (Fed) and Draghi (ECB) pointed out, in their respective press conferences, recently that monetary policy is not a panacea for all economic ills. It doesn’t matter. Policy has no other tools left to postpone the inevitable or to make the status quo appear sustainable again. By the way, it is entirely immaterial what Bernanke or Draghi thinks and says. Their press conferences keep Wall Street and City of London economists busy. But these gentlemen are quickly becoming mere extras in a bigger political game, in which desperation rules, and in which they will simply perform their roles of fiat money producers.

When do we enter the final stage of inflationary meltdown? Difficult to say. It all depends on when the public loses faith in a form of paper money that is being printed in evermore bizarre quantities, only to keep states and banks alive and to project some resemblance of normalcy to the masses.

I do not disagree with the mainstream economists on whether paper money central banks can create, essentially, unlimited amounts of money. Of course, they can. That is precisely why gold and silver as monetary assets were replaced with entirely flexible state money under central bank control in the first place. And I do not disagree that we will soon see more debt monetization by the ECB and other central banks around the world.

What is sheer lunacy, however, is to advocate such a policy as a solution, or part of a solution, to our problems. This is where I draw the line. It is simply beyond me how people who call themselves economic experts, and who must have at least a basic understanding of monetary theory and some knowledge of economic history, can seriously advocate debt monetization as a sensible policy tool.

Dr. Strangelove — Or How I Learned to Love the Printing Press

Our financial market economists now cling to anything that promises to buy them time and some stability, even if logic tells them that what they are advocating is exactly the opposite of what should be done. They are not unlike the gambler who knows he should quit, but out of sheer desperation, is rolling the dice one more time.

Of course, there are always those who are imbued in Keynesian economics and other sorts of interventionist myth to such a degree that they honestly think that there is no problem that cannot be fixed with government stimulus. If the medication hasn’t worked, just keep increasing the dose. Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate) and Christina Romer come to mind. But I don’t quite believe that all economists are in this camp.

Whatever their reasons and motivations, it is quite clear that all these economists are now mouthpieces for the establishment. They are all defenders of the status quo, or of what has passed for the status quo for the past 30 years.

Government bonds should again be considered “risk free” assets, and banks should again be considered “too big to fail” and “too important to fail.” This is so the symbiotic relationship between states and banks that fiat money system fosters, and that has been so mutually beneficial to the political class and the banks, can finally be restored. It is a sad spectacle to see people who call themselves economists — and often, even free-market economists — come up with evermore extreme recommendations of how we can fund Big Government.

To the broader public and the economy as a whole, the collapse of this system would be painful first, but ultimately, hugely advantageous. It would allow a renaissance of real capitalism, rather than the continuation of this system of monetary interventionism that has allowed the state to assume control over such vast resources and the financial sector to enjoy uninterrupted fiat-money-fuelled growth for decades.

What good do these economists expect to come out of ECB debt monetization? Do they really believe that once the ECB has committed itself to buying hundreds of billions worth of Italian government bonds, in order to manipulate the yield on these bonds — against market forces — down to what the political class deems sustainable (let’s say 5%), that then Italian politicians will reform public finances in the country? That they will quickly bring down deficits and the debt load to sustainable levels, at which point, Italy can borrow from the market again, the ECB can safely sell its bonds and reduce its balance sheet and everybody lives happily ever after? Does anybody seriously suggest that this scenario is likely, probable or even possible?

The fact is that none of these governments can be trusted to bring their finances under control, as long as they have access to cheap credit, i.e., to funds at “sustainable” interest rates. Germany forced through the Stability and Growth Pact at the start of EMU (does anybody remember Theo Waigel?) that should have limited debt-to-GDP ratios to 60%, only to violate it herself. Germany’s ratio is now, officially, at 83%. The government is already on the hook for another €211 billion under its EFSF commitments, which are now all but guaranteed to come due, as the bailout fund is supposed to cover first losses on bonds in order to maximize its “firepower,” meaning Germany is already set for more than 90% of debt to GDP. And that is supposed to be Europe’s “stability anchor.”

All rules and guidelines that were designed to guarantee the fiscal and monetary stability of EMU and were implemented at its start have, by now, been broken — without exception. Do you think that this will change once the politicians have obtained the unlimited support of the printing press?

“Quantitative easing” in Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom goes hand in hand with growing debt, not debt reduction. Providing a lender of last resort and easy money and cheap credit to governments does not lead to deleveraging, but to the opposite.

Only default and cutting off a government from additional borrowing will reform the government. That is why I say: Embrace default!

The Future

When the ECB will have implemented its backstop for Italian government bonds, it will end up buying vast amounts of these securities at above-market prices. Draining equal amounts of liquidity from somewhere else in the system, in order to minimize the inflationary impact, will be illusionary. Inflation will creep higher. Concerns about sovereign solvency are, of course, not restricted to Italy. These concerns, plus rising inflation, will put upward pressure on the yields of other bond markets, in particular, Spanish and French bonds. The ECB will have to expand its support program in order to stabilize these bond markets as well. Why should unlimited ECB support be limited to Italy? What is good in the case of Italy must be equally good for Spain and France!

The notion that the ECB could ever change course now and tighten policy, in order to fight rising inflation pressure, will appear increasingly fantastical. Market participants and the wider public that uses the euro will simply not believe it. Inflation expectations will rise rapidly. Money will become a hot potato. When money demand falls, inflation will shoot up quickly, which would require the central bank to establish markedly positive real interest rates in order to restore confidence in paper money. But this would mean allowing several governments that are now reliant on cheap central bank funding to go bankrupt. This will not be allowed to happen, which will undermine confidence in paper money further. We will have reached the inflationary meltdown phase.

All complete paper money systems in history were established to fund the state. Our system is no exception, as becomes increasingly clear. All paper money systems in history failed. Ours will be no exception, either. Our system is the most ambitious. We had a global system of unrestricted fiat money production for 40 years. The endgame is fast approaching.

Regards,

Detlev Schlichter

Infinite Stupidity was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

However, I do think many of us who have written such analyses — and I very much include myself here — have not been consistent about making an important distinction, and this has left us unnecessarily open to a reasonable criticism. For example, I have used the analogy of traffic lights to explain why it’s wrong to blame the crisis on irrational behavior. Suppose someone turned all the traffic lights green. The obvious result would be a whole bunch of accidents. Would we blame those accidents on the drivers? Would we say they were acting irrationally? No, in fact we’d probably say they were behaving quite rationally given the signals they faced. A green light doesn’t just mean “go”; it also implies the light the other way is red and that going is safe.

Changing the Incentives

One way to view the housing boom is as the outcome of government’s turning all the lights green, changing the incentives facing market actors and causing their rational responses to distorted signals to produce irrational outcomes. The Austrian story of boom and bust is really a story of the unsustainable boom. Central bank-generated inflation (in this case combined with policies to subsidize housing) led to artificially low interest rates and excessive investment in long-term projects that cannot be sustained by the amount of real saving taking place.

So what’s the problem? Some have interpreted this argument as letting the bankers off the hook too easily. This and similar arguments seem to suggest the bankers were innocent in that they just responded rationally to signals generated by the central bank or Congress. The problem is that, as several critics of mine have rightly pointed out, many of the housing policies were not imposed on the bankers but rather were aggressively lobbied for. In many cases (such as Countrywide), it was the bankers themselves who asked Congress for policies making it easier to lend to marginal customers and for Fannie and Freddie to have access to the Treasury. They also favored the implicit bailout promise, which sustained the mortgage-backed securities market. And many bankers cheered on the Fed’s low interest rates during the middle of last decade.

In addition to any ethically shady dealings banks might have had (and I do believe there are examples of this), we should not hesitate to blame them for the crisis for the reasons outlined: They were at least partially responsible for the passage of many of the government policies that created the boom and therefore the bust. To that extent, then, we can agree with our friends on the left that the bankers were part of the problem, which also suggests that protesting Wall Street is not wrong. None of this undermines the importance of my traffic lights analogy to make the point that rational responses to bad signals is a better way to understand the problem than irrational or “greedy” behavior. But that point needs to be supplemented by reminding people that it was often the bankers in cahoots with politicians who turned all the lights green in the first place!

Face the Facts

The upshot is that we have to acknowledge these issues. For too many people, the claim that “the bankers are responsible” is the same as “the free market is responsible.” We have to disentangle these two claims not by appearing to deny both of them, but by agreeing that the bankers are responsible — and showing that their responsibility consists in preventing the free market from working.

We — and I again include myself here — have to be careful to say that the lesson is not that bankers bear no responsibility, but that the free market bears no responsibility. We should make it clear to those we talk to that bankers are not exempt from Horwitz’s First Law of Political Economy: “No one hates capitalism more than capitalists.”

Regards,

Steven Horwitz

Banks, Not the Free Market, Are to Blame was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

An unhealthy cultural myth has flourished that says everyone must go to college and get an advanced degree, even if it’s something for which there is virtually zero market demand. Meanwhile, below-market interest rates and government-backed loans have lured a couple generations of Americans down the road to higher education.

Further, the kind of education colleges provide — indeed, all of American schooling from kindergarten onward — doesn’t produce innovators, entrepreneurs and job creators.

In a recent article for The New York Times titled “Will Dropouts Save America?” Michael Ellsberg writes:

• “American academia is good at producing writers, literary critics and historians. It is also good at producing professionals with degrees. But we don’t have a shortage of lawyers and professors. America has a shortage of job creators. And the people who create jobs aren’t traditional professionals, but startup entrepreneurs.
• “No business in America — and therefore, no job creation — happens without someone buying something.”

Wealth is only created when value is added (You didn’t think it was when money was printed, did you?) The Austrian school of thought reminds us that value is subjective. People, ultimately, buy what’s worth buying to them with the money they’ve earned.

We cannot put too fine a point on this. It doesn’t matter what the seller thinks the item is worth. It doesn’t matter how much time, energy and material went into making the product or service. You can waste a lot of time, energy and material producing something no one will want to buy. The buyer determines the ultimate value…and whether he will part with his money for it.

There can be misallocations of resources. And when the central bank and government get involved, these allocations can grow very large and go on for a very long time before violently correcting.

So it is that, increasingly over the past couple of generations, there has been a gross misallocation of time and resources into higher education, aided and abetted by the central bank and the federal government.

Millions have been misled into pouring their young adulthood into endeavors that won’t pay off…and going deeply into debt for it. The federal government has encouraged this higher “education,” much like it did home “ownership.” The central bank made the borrowing easy with low interest rates — which powered the real estate bubble as well as the higher education bubble — while government entities backed the loans.

Now the education bubble is bursting. The bubble’s start can be traced to the GI Bill, whereby the government got into the business of shoving more people into college than the market would bear. Over time, the same easy loans and guarantees got extended to most of the population.

Over time, some bad notions gained traction. College came to be seen as the ticket to the good life as opposed to something that people already destined for greater things might undertake to help get them there. As often happens, causation became confused with correlation.

In the last 30 years, higher education has come to be viewed as a human right, something that governments are obliged to guarantee. Lost is the notion that a higher education is a path for the exceptional, particularly those exceptional people going into the hard sciences.

Of course, this doesn’t do anything to change the essential ability of the people now being shoved through the system. All it’s done is water down the quality of what’s being offered so that everyone can join in.

Exceptional people still become scientists and engineers. Everyone else gets a master’s in some field that was recently invented to meet the artificial demand for advanced degrees, for people who couldn’t be scientists or engineers, but who had a head full of misguided notions and a boatload of borrowed money.

Worse, this “education” came to supplant things like entrepreneurship, initiative, the willingness to take risk, to accept and learn from failure. As Ellsberg says in his article:

“But most students learn nothing about sales in college; they are more likely to take a course on why sales (and capitalism) are evil.”

Indeed. We hate to keep turning to the Occupy movement, but it is full of the poster children for this. They came out on the other side of the system unemployable and in debt. They feel lost and angry, unable to think of life past the burden of their student loans. And many of them (not all) feel that “capitalism” is somehow to blame, that the world of profits is somehow divorced from the well-being of people.

It’s criminal when “profits” are doled out to banks and “too big to fail” businesses by the government, with money taken from the taxpayers. But what about the real profits — not stolen goods — in which entrepreneurs take risks and business people add value, when the profits are the reward for serving people’s needs?

So the bamboozled have taken to the street. They would like their student debts to be wiped out, that “the people” be bailed out like the bankers and crony big businesses were. Or even worse, they get it in their heads that all higher education, henceforth, should be paid for by the government. It doesn’t matter whether there is a market demand for expertise in a course of study or not.

Here at the Whiskey Bar, we often rib today’s grad students for having expensive but, essentially, financially worthless degrees in things like transgender studies. We’re often accused of right-wing/conservative close-mindedness for it, too…

But we joke to underscore the point. We’re not disparaging such courses because of cultural bias, but because of economics. We suspect that without the inducement of easy money from the central bank, and the channeling of debt expansion into wrong-headed zeitgeists, the price of a course of study would reflect its inherent economic value. Art history and gender studies would be a lot cheaper to acquire expertise in.

A system has grown up that encouraged enormous debt for nonperforming assets, namely, schooling in things that won’t pay off. People are still falling for it. But markets aren’t mocked forever. There has to be some painful write-down in central bank-distorted asset values before the economy can regain solid footing. This is just as true for higher education as it is for real estate.

It won’t be pretty. We’re not sure how this will play out for those who’ve misallocated their time and energy based on false signals, and with nothing but debt to show for it. But the stories that we told ourselves about what’s valuable were built on distortions that are now coming to an end.

Reality is asserting itself. And the reality is that entrepreneurship is what drives wealth creation, not going into debt to be taught that wealth creation is secondary to cultural studies or worse, that wealth creation is downright evil.

Regards,

Gary Gibson

How College Has Killed Wealth Creation was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

What the Fed doesn’t understand is that full employment can exist in perfect harmony with stable prices. That’s because having more people producing goods and services can never by itself lead to an environment of rising aggregate prices. And most importantly, an increasing rate of inflation actually increases the rate of unemployment.Not only do these facts make sense economically but also are borne out in the historical data.

Each and every time the Fed has increased the money supply and sent prices rising, the rate of unemployment has risen, not decreased. The simple reason for this is that inflation diminishes the purchasing power of most consumers. Falling real wages means less discretionary purchases can be made. Falling demand leads to increased layoffs and the unemployment rises as economic growth falters.

The 12.2% year-over-year rise in CPI that occurred in November 1974 led to the cyclical high of 9% unemployment during May of 1975. Likewise, in 1979, the year-over-year increase in CPI reached a high of 14.6% in March and April 1980, which was followed by another cyclical high 10.8% unemployment print in November and December 1982. Once again, year-over-year CPI increased from 1.2% in December 1986 to 6.4% in October 1990. That again corresponded with the rise in unemployment that occurred from the 5% level in March of ’89 to 7.8% in June of ’92.

Today, we find that the unemployment rate is 9.1% due to the credit crisis and the Great Recession. Bernanke believes he can bring that figure down by creating inflation. He has become successful in bringing year-over-year changes in PPI to 6.9% and CPI to 3.9%. Inflation has now arrived. However, the rate of unemployment will only increase from here as long as the Fed mistakenly holds the belief that printing money can solve the employment situation. Quite the contrary, it only causes the dissolution of the middle class.

In reality, the Fed needs to uphold only one mandate: that of stable prices. Fulfilling that mandate by keeping in check the growth of money supply is the only way to ensure our economy displays full employment and maximum economic growth.

Regards,

Michael Pento

The Dual Mandates of the Federal Reserve was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

We found the following in our inbox today from the National Inflation Association:

“The Occupy Wall Street movement is gaining tons of momentum and is likely to continue picking up steam in the weeks and months ahead. Americans are angry, but they aren’t exactly sure what they are angry about, and they don’t know for sure with whom they should be angry. It is easy for them to point their fingers at Wall Street, but Wall Street is in no way responsible for the financial crisis our country has today.

“NIA believes that Occupy Wall Street protesters need to be educated to the facts and truth about the U.S. economy and what is truly causing our economic problems.”

And what exactly is causing our economic problems? In short: inflation. Both the creation of new money unbacked by productive activity — literally, conjured up from nothing at the whim of a central banker — and the artificially low cost of borrowing to expand the amount of debt…again, thanks to central bankers buying government debt with the money they create in order to shove interest rates down.

Inflation erodes the value of savings. It causes middle-class wages to rise more slowly than prices over time. The well connected — mainly, commercial banks — get the money first and benefit, while their spending of the new money causes prices to rise. Everyone else has to beg and hope for cost-of-living increases to their wages.

Inflation also causes asset bubbles that tend to benefit the rich while wiping out the middle class and poor, who pile into bubbles just in time to be left holding the bag.

In other words, inflation is causing the things that have people revolting in the streets. And central banks cause inflation.

Our comments here at the Whiskey Bar (and on our Facebook page) regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement have elicited plenty of responses. Some not so friendly. Like this…

“What utter drivel. Right out of the playbook of a goose-stepping sociopath like Ayn Rand. The fact is rather than sitting at a computer terminal all day long, pounding away nonsense in support of a capitalist kleptocracy, these ‘Occupiers’ are actually doing something constructive, and this is key, OUTSIDE the rigged political system. That is why the powers that be (including, apparently, you) fear them so much. These folks, at the very least, know that the LAST place they should be is ‘seig heiling’ to the Rand playbook by ‘making some money.’”

Ouch.

First, Ayn Rand would have neither goose-stepped nor seig heiled to anything. She was as ardently against the Nazis’ violent corporatist fascism as she was the communists’ totalitarian command economy. Her paeans to selfishness aren’t a call to theft and violence. They’re a dramatization of the importance of ownership — starting with self-ownership — and the drive to improve one’s own condition, leading to a better quality of life for all.

Second, capitalist kleptocracy? Last we checked, capitalism was about making money by adding value and meeting consumer demand, not about stealing anything. In fact, capitalism demands a sacred respect for property rights, starting with the individual’s ownership of himself.

(Capitalism was named by its enemies. We’re starting to prefer the term “propertyism.”)

The political system is the one eager to move around other people’s money. And it’s “political money” in the form of the monopolized currency issued by a government-backed central bank, which has resulted in the impoverishment of the middle class that the Occupiers are so up in arms about. It’s also something that we at the Whiskey Bar are up in arms about (and in an upcoming issue, we’ll propose a way for you to do something about it…and protect your wealth…in time for the Fifth of November)…

But we notice not a little sentiment among the Occupiers not just to stop the theft, but to redirect it.

We understand the anger behind the protests. We just worry about whom the protesters are blaming…and about some of the usual solutions that are floating through their heads. As Tim Staermose of The Sovereign Man writes:

“The anger is understandable. But it’s infuriating to so many of these protesters railing on YouTube against the free market, moaning how capitalism has pillaged the poor for the benefit of the rich.

“Nothing could be further from the truth. There hasn’t been a free market in money and banking for a century. The central bank/fractional reserve system is the biggest cartel in the history of economics. It’s nothing but big government price rigging.

“How can anyone argue we have free markets when the price of money is set by decree? An unelected board of governors at the Federal Reserve simply decides the price of money, and that’s that.

“Nearly EVERYTHING in our credit economy is driven from this number — mortgages, business purchases, trade finance, government spending…and it affects almost everyone on the planet. This is not a free market, it’s an economic dictatorship.”

We were sorely hoping that the collectivist and redistributionist spirit would be exorcised from the movement, perhaps with the help of that other populist movement who are angry at the same things. On this, David Franke says:

“When the protests first began, conservatives and Tea Partiers should have descended on New York to seek to influence the movement in the right direction. From what I have read and seen, some members of the Ron Paul Revolution have been trying to do just that. But the Tea Partiers have reacted like, well, conservatives. And now the opportunity has probably been lost. Occupy Wall Street has been taken over by the liberal branch of the establishment — the labor unions — just as the Tea Party has been taken over by the conservative branch of the establishment — Washington insiders. The union bosses and conservative power brokers saw their opportunity and took it.”

And Ralph Benko already said it in his article “Occupy Wall Street: Contempt of Political Class”…

“An article datelined Madrid, titled ‘As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around the Globe: Many Are Driven by Contempt of Political Class.’ Contempt of the political class? Sounds like…the Tea Party Patriots…Welcome to the party, #OWSers!”

Welcome to the party, indeed, comrades. We have a common enemy. And it’s not Wall Street. Or greed.

It’s a flexible currency that is constantly being created, and in which we’re all forced to transact.

As it stands now, there seems to be awareness, perhaps even a growing awareness, in the movement about what the real source of the trouble is. We hope that the protesters stop being angry at Wall Street and, instead, look behind the curtain at the forces that corrupted Wall Street.

Yes, we mean the central bank again.

Regards,

Gary Gibson

The Real Reason for the Uprisings was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

It will get mass inflation at some point: anywhere from 15% per annum to 30%. But it is not going to get 50% or 100% or more.

Why not?

1. The temporary nature of the payoff

2. The fear of getting blamed

3. The boom-bust cycle

4. The employees’ vested pension fund

1. THE TEMPORARY PAYOFF

Hyperinflation lasts only a few years. People in the hard-money camp ought to know this, but they tend to forget.

Those economic forecasters who keep telling us the dollar will fall to zero forget the obvious: big banks are creditors. Bankers lose when a currency falls to zero. Never forget this. If you believe, as I do, that the Federal Reserve is the enforcement arm of the largest commercial banks, then stop worrying about hyperinflation. But don’t stop worrying about Congress.

Ever since All the President’s Men — the movie, not the book — we have been told to follow the money. So, let us follow the money.

The four big U.S. banks — maybe three, with Bank of America on the skids — make their money by lending money. As with all fractional reserve banks, they borrow short (low rates) and lend long (higher rates).

Under hyperinflation, long-term interest rates skyrocket. This forces down the discounted present market value of bonds and mortgages. Nobody wants to lend long. Who gets killed? Banks and insurance companies that have lent long.

What saves them from bankruptcy is fake accounting. They are allowed to keep their bonds on the books at face value. But, sooner or later, bankers get paid off in fiat money. Their portfolios are locked into bad investments. They can’t sell them without reporting losses. So, they hang on. Month by month, the value of these assets falls.

Hyperinflation is bad for the super-rich. Why? Because they own their assets outright. The super-rich own land and homes. These go up in nominal value, but rich people don’t pay off their debts by selling a gold coin or two. They have no debts to pay off. They are the creditors. They own bonds and fixed-income investments.

When we read of the great hyperinflations, we find that urban people got ruined. Farmers did very well. They paid off their mortgages by selling a few dozen eggs. Wealth moved from cities to rural areas.

Bankers were in big trouble. Farmers were in hog heaven.

Has it ever occurred to you that there have been no hyperinflation periods in Great Britain? The Brits have gone through wars of their own making. Their elite ran an empire from 1700 until 1946. Yet for all the crises, they never had price inflation above 30%. You know why? Because the Bank of England would not allow it. The BoE was privately owned from its creation in 1694 until the government nationalized it 1946. Even after 1946, the bank would not allow hyperinflation.

The Bank of England inflated often. This created the boom-bust cycle on numerous occasions, but never got seriously blamed for any of the busts. This is because not enough people understood the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which was discovered in 1912 by Ludwig von Mises. Even today, hardly anyone knows about it, and of those economists who do, almost none believes it.

Which are the famous hyperinflations? In Western Europe, Germany, Austria, and Hungary after World War I. They had lost the war. There was Hungary in 1946 — the worst inflation ever. It was a Communist nation.

There was China in 1947-48. The nationalist government fell; Mao took over. No more hyperinflation.

There are Latin American examples over and over. These are not major industrial economies. If we count Brazil as industrial, it had a long, severe hyperinflation, 1981-95: That was the longest hyperinflation on record.

I know of only one major hyperinflation in the industrial West: the State of Israel, 1980-86. I went there in 1985 to study it. Life went on. Tourism brought in Western currencies. So did agricultural exports. The experience did not last long. This was the longest hyperinflation in modern times. Wikipedia describes it.

“Inflation accelerated in the 1970s, rising steadily from 13% in 1971 to 111% in 1979. From 133% in 1980, it leaped to 191% in 1983 and then to 445% in 1984, threatening to become a four-digit figure within a year or two. In 1985 Israel froze most prices by law and enacted other measures as part of an economic stabilization plan. That same year, inflation more than halved, to 185%. Within a few months, the authorities began to lift the price freeze on some items; in other cases it took almost a year. By 1986, inflation was down to 19%.”

This is the central fact: hyperinflations do not last long. The currency is ruined fast. Then there is a currency reform. The central bank starts over: boom-bust, boom-bust.

If you time things perfectly, and sell assets to pay off debt, you win. But hardly anyone does. They buy inflation hedges, thinking it will go on for years and years. It ends a lot sooner than the late-comers think.

Then there is a recession. The inflation hedges fall in price. In that period, cash is king. If you have money to lend, you are in fat city. You buy up assets at a discount. In short, you get out in time.

There are few winners in hyperinflation, and they do not win for long. Then the recession hits, and things go back to normal.

2. THE FEAR OF GETTING BLAMED

Ben Bernanke is under fire as no FED chairman ever has been. The critics are in the millions. This is historically unprecedented. There is a cause: Ron Paul. Ron Paul has focused millions of voters’ attention on the FED and Bernanke. Bernanke cannot escape scrutiny any longer.

If there is hyperinflation, millions of voters will know who did it: Bald Ben the Beard and his crew of yes-men on the Board of Governors. Investors know more about the FED today than they did in 2007. This knowledge will increase.

Then there is the Internet. The mainstream media cannot control the flow of information any longer. Word gets out, and you may have noticed, not much of it is favorable to the FED.

The FED is desperate to avoid an annual audit by the Government Accountability Office. This is good. It means that people other than Ron Paul are calling for such an audit.

Rick Perry used the word “treasonous.” Michelle Bachmann has called for a FED audit. Ron Paul is still running. The FED is today the target of Republican Presidential candidates’ sound bites. This has never happened before. This is terrific. They are trying to steal Ron Paul’s favorite issue. I say more power to them. Come one, come all! Pile on!

Milton Friedman made this line famous: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” He was correct. This insight has been resisted by Keynesian economists from day one, but the Keynesians find that the phrase has gotten into the thinking of millions of voters. Keynesians today are calling for larger deficits and Federal Reserve accommodation, but that is because consumer prices are rising very slowly. If prices were rising at 20% per annum, the Keynesians would find it difficult to conceal the source of the problem: the Federal Open Market Committee. The FOMC could not hide.

This is the central political fact facing the FED today: “It can run, but it can’t hide.”

Bureaucrats want to avoid blame. This is their #1 concern. Second is to increase the number of subordinates, in quest of a promotion. Third is to increase the bureaucracy’s funding. But the #1 concern is to avoid blame.

Bernanke will not be able to avoid blame for hyperinflation. He will therefore not adopt policies that produce it.

The FED could be nationalized. Congress could take over. Then all bets are off. But if we are talking about the existing Federal Reserve, with government-appointed academic economists visibly in charge and the privately owned and operated FOMC making the decisions — which will favor large banks — there will be no hyperinflation.

3. THE BOOM-BUST CYCLE

In Western industrial nations, including Japan, the central banks have always ceased inflating whenever consumer prices climbed close to 20% per annum. It has only happened once in U.S. peacetime history: 1977-80. Consumer prices rose in 1979 and 1980 by about 11% per annum. Jimmy Carter took the heat. He pressured the utterly incompetent G. William Miller to quit after only 18 months in office, and Paul Volcker replaced him in late 1979.

Volcker slowed the rate of monetary base growth. T-bill rates soared to 22%. The result was a recession. Carter lost the 1980 election as a result. Then Reagan took a hit: the 1981-82 recession. But prices started slowing, and interest rates began an 18-year decline.

Volcker wound up as a hero. He is still around. He is still beyond reproach. I can think of no person in power in the Carter-Reagan era who has a more distinguished reputation. Yet he oversaw two recessions.

He talked tough. He smoked cigars. Congress did not lay a finger on him.

This lesson is not lost on Bernanke. Bernanke does not talk tough. He does not smoke. But he knows this much: G. William Miller oversaw mass inflation, and never recovered. He is forgotten. He is forgotten because he left the office and made a hasty retreat to become Treasury Secretary — a no-power office. Then he disappeared. Had he held on, he would have become the fall guy: a pariah.

Here is the lesson learned by every Western, industrial central banker: the post-inflation bust will reduce price inflation. The bust can be justified as the necessary requirement to save the economy, save the currency, and save the social order.

Then the dog-and-pony show starts over.

Remember this: the FED will save the largest banks, That is its #1 unofficial task. Central banks all save the largest banks. The rest of the market can drop by 50% or more. The largest banks then re-finance on the new terms, meaning post-mass inflation terms.

As long as the largest banks are saved, the FED can put on the brakes and let the economy move into a recession.

This is the story of all central banks in large Western industrial nations ever since 1900, with only the exceptions of defeated Germany and Austria-Hungary.

The reason why Americans should not take seriously the scenarios of Germany-Austria in 1921-24 is because we are not defeated. There is no way, short of some sort of biological warfare-induced plague, that we will suffer what Germany suffered in 1921-24. In any case, during a plague, there would not be hyperinflation. There would be martial law, price controls, and rationing.

The Patriot Act offers this single advantage: it will make hyperinflation unnecessary.

Boom-bust, boom-bust, boom-bust: this is the pattern. Do not plan your future as if it will be broken.

What follows every hyperinflation? A recession. But, during hyperinflation, bankers are impoverished. So, if the result is the same at the end of the hyperinflation — a bust — why not call it to a halt early, in the mass inflation stage?

It worked for Volcker. It worked for every western, industrial banker in the 20th century except in Germany after the war.

4. THE EMPLOYEES’ VESTED PENSION FUND

The Federal Reserve System offers its employees a retirement plan. It is not as good as Congress’s, but it is better than yours. It is detailed in a 79-page document.

I regard this plan as the best payoff money in America. It is the equivalent of the Mob’s protection money. If you pay it, you receive protection… from the Mob.

We pay this money by letting the FED keep some of the money from interest payments on bonds that the FED bought with digital money created out of nothing. It can cover its operating expenses. Part of these expenses is the pension system.

This pension fund money is our protection money. The FED is not going to create hyperinflation, which would wipe out the value of its pension fund.

How big is this fund? Large and growing fast.

Contributions to the System Plan are actuarially determined and funded by participating employers. In 2010, the System made $580 million in contributions to the System Plan; the contributions may be adjusted upon completion of the 2011 actuarial valuation.

What is the fund invested in? I have provided an extract from the so-called independent audit for 2009. It was 53% in U.S. stocks, 13% in foreign stocks, and 34% in bonds — not non-marketable Social Security Treasury bonds.

Hyperinflation will play havoc with 34% of this portfolio: bonds. Stocks will not keep pace with consumer prices: 53% at risk. Only the foreign equities portion of the portfolio would not be devastated. Maybe.

This is why I do not think we are facing hyperinflation… at least not until Congress nationalizes the FED.

CONCLUSION

Whenever you hear that hyperinflation is inevitable, keep your hand upon your wallet and your back against the wall.

Hyperinflation is a policy option. It has been adopted only once by a Western, industrial nation’s central bank in peacetime since 1946: Israel’s. That is a small nation. Its leaders have not made that policy error since 1985.

If we get hyperinflation, it will not last long: a few years at the most. It will be a great disruption in the lives of most Americans, but if the government does not impose price controls, there will not be devastation. There will be losses. People will have to scramble. They will adjust. They will get poorer. They will consume capital. But they will survive.

If the government imposes price controls, as it probably will, there will be serious shortages for several years. There will be a large increase in the number of bankruptcies. Unemployment will rise. Families will be squeezed badly. But it will not last. The voters will not tolerate it. Without a war, voters will demand a reform. There are too many economists, even Keynesians, who know that price ceilings create shortages.

Hyperinflation is what Ludwig von Mises called the crack-up boom. It cannot last long because the currency system is rapidly destroyed. It no longer serves as a tool of economic calculation. People switch to gold coins, silver coins, and barter. Output falls. Capital is consumed rapidly. But then it must end. When the government cannot buy votes with worthless money, it stops inflating.

Ron Paul has performed a great public service in alerting the voters to the danger of the Federal Reserve System. He has exposed the source of mass inflation and hyperinflation. He has exposed the source of the boom-bust cycle.

The FED cannot escape. Its policies must lead to booms and busts. This is inherent in all central banking. The FED will choose a repetition of the boom-bust cycle rather than impose hyperinflation, for which it can no longer escape blame. Too many people have heard Ron Paul’s warning.

Regards,

Gary North

Gary North is the author of Mises on Money.

Mass Inflation, Yes; Hyperinflation, No was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

The Fed has essentially one trick. It can legally conjure new money whenever it wants. With this one trick it manages to force interest rates down. Mainly it lends the new money to the U.S. government. That is to say, it buys government bonds.

The artificial demand the Fed creates by throwing billions of dollars at government bonds has a depressive effect on interest rates. But these lower interest rates are not a result of those free market forces we champion at the Whiskey Bar. Rather, they are the result of the machinations of a government-chartered bank with a monopoly on the issuance of currency.

The Federal Reserve’s goal is to make borrowing more attractive because of the lower interest rates…but the boom that results is one built on debt that must eventually be serviced…and inevitably at higher rates.

The Fed also loves it when lower rates make lending money or putting it in interest bearing savings accounts less attractive to investors. People instead seek returns in other markets…like stocks. This is supposed to be a good thing. Notice Ben Bernanke points to a rising stock market as proof that his orchestrations were masterful.

But all he really did—all central bankers really ever do—is create new money and shovel it into circulation. Creating money to encourage mass indebtedness and speculative investing, however, isn’t exactly a winning strategy. It’s like taking up smoking so the nicotine will help your concentration when you’re picking the ponies. Or something like that.

You’ll notice that the stock market is responding less and less to the byzantine stimulus of lower bond yields. And people are up to their eyeballs in debt, and interest rates are rising despite the Fed’s efforts. This is your classic “pushing on a string” scenario. It’s rather like the point at which more alcohol starts shutting down the imbiber’s autonomic functions instead of producing more drunken bliss.

The stimulus of treasury-buying with new money is now having the opposite of the intended effect. After the initial euphoric response, things are getting worse.

And then there’s the matter of all that new money…

We’re not sure why central bankers and so many economists believe that new money can be created out of thin air—without any corresponding increase in economic activity or actual wealth—and inflationary results somehow be avoided…as if the new money will conveniently behave itself and keep from being used to bid up general price levels!

There wouldn’t be much of a problem if the Fed had only created just a few hundred new dollars…even thousands. Enough, say, to buy the legal counterfeiters cool new cars and some snazzy threads. But we’re talking about the creation of billions upon billions of new dollars here. Those dollars are sloshing their way through the economy and they’re going to show up more and more in the general price levels. (Their very creation also makes some of the other big holders of U.S. debt—like the governments in Asia—worried about being paid back with money that’s worth far less in real terms.)

Those new dollars have to get spent into circulation to do their damage, but that’s never a problem. Whoever gets them first will get to benefit before prices go up (and those prices go up at all because the new money is being spent in the first place!)

Cui bono? Why, those to whom the Fed hands the dough first. Traditionally that’s meant the government whose debt the Fed buys with the money it wills into existence, but lately the Fed has seen fit to hand new money straight to banks, because after all this is a crisis. Apparently you fix crises you engineered in the first place by bailing out your cronies in the big banks.

The government uses that money to pay the staff in its countless departments, contractors, military and others counting on a government check. The banks use the money to pay their senior members enough to keep them in million-dollar Manhattan apartments.

The rest of us get to beg our employers to give us raises that keep up with this mysterious price inflation. But it’s really not so mysterious. It happens as the first-users of new money drive up the prices on the things we all need…like food and energy.

The new money doesn’t simply go into the prices that the Fed would like it to, like stocks. It gets all over the place. The least connected, the very poorest farthest away from the new money feel the effects first. In our modern global system, that means that a family in a “developing country” will find themselves paying around half of their meager daily income for the food that used to take only a quarter of it. Eventually they may find that they can’t afford much food at all.

The typical middle class American is only just barely feeling the pinch now, but there’s a lot more pain to be felt. In 2010 Americans spent around 5% of their incomes on food. Things could be a lot worse. In fact, they likely will be soon enough. Increased food and energy prices are currently only a drag on consumer spending. Eventually, however, the essentials could get costly enough to cause serious privation.

The threat of mass starvation tends to lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. Individuals can do prepare by saving in real money (gold and silver and copper-nickel), but that does nothing to remedy the discontent and likely rioting from the millions of others who will not be so prepared.

We can’t say how much of this future woe is already baked in. We do know that more quantitative easing will just make a bad situation worse. It’s not idle speculation. History shows again and again that unbacked money creation by governments and central banks only leads to misery.

The pundits are debating whether or not QE3 will follow anytime soon or if will even follow at all. Let them hash it out. In the meantime, if you can’t or won’t get out of the U.S. entirely, you might want to consider at least not being in the middle of any large population centers.

Regards,

Gary  Gibson
Managing editor, Whiskey & Gunpowder

The Federal Reserve Is Why You Can’t Afford Food And Gas was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

He promoted the idea of educational vouchers issued by local governments and based on taxes extracted from the public. He did not consider the obvious fact that the courts would make this the wedge by which the state would take over private education. He and I debated this in 1993.

Most of all, he promoted the idea that storing gold in government vaults to back the currency is wasteful. It wastes gold. It wastes storage space. It wastes armed guards. So, to make monetary policy more efficient, the Federal Reserve should increase money — he never said which M — by 2% to 5% per annum. He wanted central-bank-controlled fiat money.

The only critics from the fringes of academia were the Austrian School economists. We knew that an efficient government is a dangerous government. We also knew that a central bank that does not face an outflow of gold in response to its policies of monetary inflation will inflate far more than would be allowed in any gold-related economy.

I responded to this argument, which had been picked up by The Wall Street Journal, back in 1969.

Hans Sennholz responded on many occasions. So did Murray Rothbard. But we were not taken seriously. We were not part of the mainstream. Academic economists had long since abandoned any support of a gold coin standard. They did not all support Friedman’s idea of a restrained Federal Reserve. In fact, very few of them supported it. They wanted flexibility. They still do.

Once Nixon closed the gold window, there was no turning back. The monetary base grew, all of the various Ms grew, prices rose, bubbles grew and blew, and the Federal debt rose to today’s gigantic, unsustainable level — unsustainable apart from mass inflation followed by hyperinflation.

The abolition of a currency convertible on demand into gold was only one part of Dr. Friedman’s contraption. The other part was his suggestion of floating exchange rates. This deserves special consideration.

Milton Friedman’s Contraption

Friedman easily took apart the idea of fixed exchange rates. Fixed exchange rates are a form of price control. Friedman was a good enough economist to know that price controls produce shortages. The artificially undervalued currency goes out of circulation. The overvalued currency produces gluts. There will be runs on central banks.

Domestic purchasers of foreign goods say to the central bank: “Sell us the artificially undervalued foreign currency at the official price.” The central bank runs out of foreign currencies. Trade collapses. There is then a devaluation. The official prices of the foreign currencies are raised to new fixed exchange rates.

It was easy for Friedman to expose this as ridiculous. “Just float the currencies,” he said. “Let the free market set their prices.” This was good advice. Price controls do not work as promoted. They always produce gluts or shortages.

But then Friedman recommended his old favorite: pure fiat currencies. He said that these can be managed rationally by means of a fixed rule governing a predictable expansion of money. “Turn it over to the Federal Reserve. All will be well if the Federal Reserve does not tamper with the rate of growth.” As John Wayne said in The Searchers: “That’ll be the day.”

Nixon adopted Friedman’s contraption. First, there would be no more convertibility of gold for foreign official government agencies.

For a little less than two years, there were universal price controls on American goods. These controls led to shortages and a disruption of international trade. The dollar was not officially floated until December 1973.

When the price controls came off, prices rose. In 1975, Gerald Ford launched the WIN plan: Whip Inflation Now. The recession of 1975 did exactly that. Then came the worst monetary inflation in American peacetime history: 1976-80. Gold and silver soared.

Friedman’s contraption clearly was not working. Floating exchange rates were not the problem. The abolition of the gold exchange standard was the problem.

Friedman’s contraption has engulfed the whole world in monetary inflation, bubbles, and busts.

Stockman on the Contraption

In a lecture to the Mises Institute on March 12, David Stockman blames floating exchange rates and the abolition of the gold standard.

That the demise of the gold standard should have been as destructive of fiscal discipline as it was of monetary probity can hardly be gainsaid. Under the ancient regime of fixed exchange rates and currency convertibility, fiscal deficits without tears were simply not sustainable — no matter what errant economic doctrines lawmakers got into their heads.

Back then, the machinery of honest money could be relied upon to trump bad policy. Thus, if budget deficits were monetized by the central bank, this weakened the currency and caused a damaging external drain on monetary reserves; and if deficits were financed out of savings, interest rates were pushed up — thereby crowding out private domestic investment.

This is an accurate assessment of what happened. But the anchor to this was not the fixed exchange rate system, because the IMF had no real authority to enforce them. The anchor was the promise of the United States to sell gold at $35 an ounce. When the chain was cut, and the U.S. kept its gold, the international currency system was cut adrift. The anchor resides in the vault of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

In the good old days, there was pain, Stockman observed. “Politicians did not have to be deeply schooled in Bastiat’s parable of the seen and the unseen. The bitter fruits of chronic deficit finance were all too visible and immediate.” This ended in 1971.

During the four decades since the gold window was closed, the rules of the fiscal game have been profoundly altered. Specifically, under Professor Friedman’s contraption of floating paper money, foreigners may accumulate dollar claims or exchange them for other paper monies.

But there can never be a drain on U.S. monetary reserves because dollar claims are not convertible. This infernal engine of fiat dollars, therefore, has had numerous lamentable consequences but among the worst is that it has facilitated open-ended monetization of the U.S. government debt.

The government is running a $1.6 trillion deficit. Nothing can be done politically to stop this. We are on a runaway train. The main brakes were removed in 1971. The only brake now is that of the bond vigilantes, but the Federal Reserve is the buyer of bonds today, along with Asian central banks. Stockman observed that “the Fed’s QE2 bond purchases have been so massive that it is literally buying Treasury paper in the secondary market almost as fast as new bonds are being issued.”

Is all this Friedman’s fault? Stockman lets him off the hook, to some extent.

By contrast, under the contraption that Professor Friedman inspired, trade account imbalances are never settled. They just grow and grow and grow — until one day they become the object of fruitless jabbering at a photo-op society called G-20.

In all fairness, Professor Friedman did not envision a world of rampant dirty floating. Indeed, it would have taken a powerful imagination to foresee four decades ago that China would accumulate $3 trillion of foreign currency claims or more than 50% of GDP, and then insist over a period of years and decades that it did not manipulate its exchange rate!

My response: it was all Friedman’s fault, intellectually speaking. When an economist recommends a policy, he also recommends its effects. Friedman failed to see what Austrian School economists had predicted: the unleashing of fiat money, and manipulated rates — dirty floating. Dirty floating is all there is in a world run by government-licensed central banks without gold coin convertibility. But for our saying this, decade after decade, the economics profession has marginalized us.

Conclusion

Milton Friedman was always too clever by half. He advised governments to get more efficient, and they did so. They used his advice to expand their power and expand their reach into our wallets.

We told him so. He did not listen. His followers did not listen. Today, they all sit mute at the side of the road, mumbling about potentially excessive deficits and potentially excessive price inflation, but generally approving of the Federal Reserve.

The problem is the original contraption: (1) government’s monopolistic control over money and (2) central banking as such. Here, Friedman was supportive of government.

The problem was not floating exchange rates or the breakdown of Bretton Woods in 1971. Those were the inevitable results of Bretton Woods, as Henry Hazlitt warned in the late 1940s, and was fired by the New York Times for saying so.

The problem was not even the Genoa Conference of 1922, the contraption designed to solve the inflation that came as a result of the suspension of redemption in the second half of 1914, when World War I broke out.

The problem was the mass confiscation of the people’s gold in 1914: first by commercial banks, then by the central banks.

Milton Friedman’s contraption was just one more ill-fated attempt to deal with the results of the original confiscation. It was one more case of his outlook: “The government was right to confiscate the gold and end the gold standard. That was an efficient way to fight a war, just as withholding taxes are efficient, and vouchers are efficient.”

Milton Friedman spent his career defending the efficiency of the free market. But, on the really big issues, he sold his peers on the efficiency and good will of government politicians and bureaucrats. “Trust them to be efficient.”

The Austrians said the same thing, but added, following Forrest Gump’s mother, “Efficiency is as efficiency does.” The state gets more efficient only in order to tyrannize people on a cost-effective basis.

Milton Friedman’s contraption was the unchecked welfare-warfare state: unchecked by annual taxation without withholding and unchecked by the gold standard.

If that’s efficiency, include me out.

Regards,
Gary North
Whiskey & Gunpowder

March 21, 2011

Milton Friedman’s Money Machine was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

The general public today knows little about the FED. Prior to Ron Paul’s Presidential run in 2007-8, far fewer people understood it.

I have been asked: “How could we get rid of the Federal Reserve? What will replace it?” The answer: either the free market or Congress.

People who think of themselves as free market people often are not. The tax-funded public schools and the state-regulated and accredited university faculties have taught that the modern system of intrusive civil government is necessary for an orderly society. People cannot imagine a market-based society.

There is an old saying, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” But the free market social order is not nothing. It is expanding around the world, which is why the world is getting richer.

At the Federal level, a free market social order in banking existed prior to 1914. That was back when the dollar was worth over 20 times what it is worth today. (On this point, see the inflation calculator of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

We can go back to that system. We will go back to it. The question is: When? The other question is: At what price?

Ending the Fed By Law

Ron Paul could introduce a bill to end the Federal Reserve System. He could call it: “The Monetary Liberty Act.” It would get known as the “End the Fed Act.” Here is what the text might say:

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is hereby repealed. So are all subsequent acts based on the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

All authority of the Federal Reserve System to act in the name of the United States government is hereby revoked.

The assets of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which are already the property of the United States Government, are hereby transferred to the Department of the Treasury. This includes all of the assets listed on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve System.

The twelve (12) privately owned Federal Reserve Banks will return all assets held in trust for the United States government within thirty (30) calendar days of the signing of this bill into law.

The gold reserves of the United States government that are held in storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will be transferred to the Government’s depository at Ft. Knox, Kentucky, within one calendar year after this bill becomes law. The Government Accountability Office will conduct an inventory of the gold held in storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before and after this transfer.

The Board of Governors will vacate the premises of the Federal Reserve building within thirty (30) calendar days of the signing of this bill into law.

Any pension fund assets of the employees of the various Federal Reserve Banks will remain under the control of those banks. All pension obligations under the authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are hereby transferred to the Department of the Treasury, to be administered under the retirement program of the Department of the Treasury.

This is simple.  The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a government agency. Its authority would be transferred to the U.S. Treasury.

The dozen Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. All authority of these 12 banks that derives from their connection to the Board of Governors will cease. If they can make a profit, fine. If not, equally fine. The free market will determine which will survive and which will not.

Is this radical? Not at all. There are two historical precedents: the refusal of Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States in 1811, and the refusal of Congress to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836. Both of them went bust.

The standard response is that there must be independence between the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. government. Let us apply this to other agencies:

• The Department of Defense
• The Department of the Treasury
• The Department of State
• The Department of Education

I could go on, one by one, to list all of the thousands of agencies that are funded by Federal taxes and which operate by means of the authority of the U.S. government. Only one government agency is defended by publicists, both on and off the payroll of the Federal Reserve System, as deserving to be independent of the government that has transferred authority to it: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

The phrase, “the independence of the Federal Reserve System,” is a code phrase for “the independence of the four largest U.S. banks from the threat of losses.” A growing number of voters has figured this out since the fall of 2008. This is why the Federal Reserve System is facing public criticism for the first time since 1914. This criticism will grow.

All of this may seem Utopian. Ron Paul could not get Congress to audit the FED, which by law possesses this authority. The Congress has been in the hip pocket of the FED for almost a century. The Congress lets the FED run the nation’s economy.

But as criticism spreads, there will be more voters who figure out what the FED is and has always been: a government-created cartel of the banks. It operates for the benefit of the largest banks.

Will Ron Paul get such a law passed by Congress and signed into law? No. Does this mean that the FED is forever untouchable? No.

We need the following:

1. A wave of price inflation caused by the FED
2. A subsequent recession caused by the FED
3. A depression caused by the FED
4. A wave of outage in response to the FED
5. An endless series of criticisms of the FED

This will result, ultimately, in the abolition of the FED. Whatever replaces it will decide the economic fate of Americans: Congress (hyperinflation) or the free market (economic stability).

But could the free market replace the FED without a catastrophe following? Yes. We are already seeing this in another sector of the economy.

“You’ve Got Almost No Mail!”

From the days of America’s most famous postmaster, Benjamin Franklin, two decades before the American Revolution, residents of North America have thought that the country could not do without a government-funded postal system. In the past 15 years, this faith has quietly died. The United States Postal Service now delivers mostly subsidized opportunity mail. (I hate the work “junk mail,” for I built my business on opportunity mail. But I have not used it for 15 years.) With email, UPS, FedEx, and text messaging, the first class letter is an anachronism. Historians will not be able to trace much after 1998 based on copies of letters.

With no fanfare, the postal system has become optional. The public does not go to the local Post Office often. If it were not for Netflix, a lot of people would not check their mailboxes daily.

All of this has happened without any new legislation. The once unbreakable monopoly of the Post Office is a rusted-out shell, staffed by union-protected workers who probably know their jobs are peripheral. Its volume declined by over 12% in 2010. This is expected to continue. That would cut volume by 50% by 2017. About 40,000 employees were fired in 2010. Saturday delivery will be dropped soon. There is another rate hike scheduled. Yet the outfit will lose $10 billion this year.

All this has happened without any enabling legislation. It has happened quietly. Market competition has reduced the USPS to an anachronism. It is a leftover shell of a bygone era.

In an essay about his youth, sociologist Robert Nisbet remarked that in the year he was born, 1913, the only contact that most Americans had with the Federal government was the Post Office. Later that year, the Federal Reserve Act was passed in a late session, just before Christmas break. Also in that year, the income tax came into effect. The expansion of the Federal government has been relentless ever since.

Nevertheless, the Post Office is slowly dying. No one planned this. The free market has replaced it, despite its official monopoly.

This offers hope. It means that free market solutions can come into existence before a government entity is shut down by law. The Post Office officially is a monopoly, yet its monopoly status has been eroded over the last four decades. It has been almost entirely replaced over the last two decades.

I think of a TV commercial that did not directly attack the Post Office. It was targeted at UPS. But UPS responded much faster than the Post Office could.

While critics of the postal monopoly had for decades tried to get Congress to revoke the Post Office’s monopoly, all attempts failed. They were associated with the fringe. Yet, year by year, the Post Office fell behind. It is irrelevant in American life today.

This was not planned by any political group. It was the result of new technologies. People made decisions, day by day, to bypass the Post Office.

An End Run Around the Fed

I do not expect Congress to revoke the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 in this decade. The powers that be who run this country do so by means of the Federal Reserve System more than by any other semi-private institution. It is at the center of control, because the monetary system is at the center of the economy.

But the central bank faces a problem. To maintain the boom, the FED must inflate. To cease inflating would allow the credit bubble to implode on a scale far more devastating than what happened in 2008. The FED has placed us all on the back of the tiger.

Yet if it does not reverse its policy, it must produce hyperinflation at some point. That will destroy the FED’s ability to guide the economy. Hyperinflation will lead to alternative currencies. Digital technology is now international. If buying and selling digital U.S. dollars is no longer profitable, because long-term contracts are not possible under hyperinflation, then the citizens of the United States will do what citizens of Zimbabwe did. They will use other currencies.

If the FED produces a Third World economy through hyperinflation, then people will do what Third World citizens do: find reliable currencies elsewhere. This can be done on-line nearly for free. The Internet has reduced the transaction costs of using rival currencies.

The FED economists know this. They know that transaction costs for using other currencies are low. If the FED’s policies undermine long-term contracts, the citizens are not helpless. They can switch.

It will not take legislation to end the FED. All it will take is the FED. If the FED continues to inflate, it will destroy its base: the monetary system based on the FED. But if it ceases to inflate, by ceasing to buy Treasury debt, it will create Great Depression 2.

QE2

Bernanke can get away with QE2 today only because commercial banks are not lending. If they start lending, M1 will rise, the M1 money multiplier will rise, and price inflation will return.

He has bought time with QE2, but he has not bought a way out of the credit bubble that Greenspan created and he created.

He can play hide and go seek with Ron Paul, refusing to show up at the hearings of the Monetary Policy Subcommittee. Congress cooperates. But he cannot play hide and go seek with the business cycle. Greenspan did, but he got out in 2006. He passed on the Old Maid to Bernanke.

The Federal Reserve System bases its power on its ability to control the monetary base. It swapped T-bills for toxic assets to save the big banks, but to replenish its supply of swappable liquid assets, it has to inflate, as it is now doing. QE2 is replenishing the supply of Treasury debt to swap with large banks.

The FED did not bail out any small banks in 2008. It never has. Its unofficial mandate is to bail out the largest commercial banks. This it has done.

I think Bernanke sees another banking crisis coming. This is why he has pushed QE2. Only Hoenig has voted against it. Bernanke has his way with the other members of the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. He has not said why this massive increase in the monetary base is mandatory for the economy. To talk about this would create doubts. He does not want to rock the boat. So, he gets away with another $600 billion in monetary base creation.

This is working for now. But the results are unavoidable: either price inflation or continued high unemployment and stagnation, because commercial banks thwart the stimulation. He is on the tiger’s back. So are we.

Conclusion

The Post Office looked unbeatable for over 250 years. Technology has made it peripheral. The same will happen to the Federal Reserve System. It looks unbeatable. But the Internet can beat it. There are ways out of the FED’s trap.

A lot of people will pay a heavy price for Bernanke’s policies. That will be the price of persuading those people with the bulk of their assets in digital dollars to sell those assets and replace them with other digits.

This is why I do not think the FED will resort to hyperinflation. The economists know that the FED’s victims can escape. The FED will risk mass inflation, but at some point it must say: “We will buy no more Treasury debt.” That will be the moment of truth. That will be the day it climbs off the back of the tiger.

So will we all.

Regards,
Gary North
Whiskey & Gunpowder

March 9, 2011

How to End the Fed was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.