(un)Common Sense from Ron Paul on CNN

Excellent video clip of Ron Paul on CNN:



-----------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

Will printing money help the economy?

Of course, we side with Brian Doherty...

Will printing money help the economy?
What's the wisdom behind the Fed's recent actions? Doug Henwood and Brian Doherty debate.

December 17, 2008 - LATimes.com

Today's question: Critics say that the Federal Reserve -- which will buy up to $800-billion worth of troubled mortgage and consumer-credit assets -- is effectively printing money to fix the economy. What's the wisdom behind the Fed's actions? Doug Henwood and Brian Doherty debate the consequences of federal monetary policy.

It's better to inflate than deflate.

Point: Doug Henwood

It's not just critics who say the Fed is printing money to fix the economy. That's what it's doing, and I don't see what's wrong with it.

Back in 2002, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke gave a speech reflecting on what a central bank might do if faced with the threat of deflation -- an extended period of falling prices. Falling prices might sound nice, but over the last century, they've generally accompanied severe economic crises, like Japan in the 1990s or, worse, the U.S in the 1930s. A deflation turning into a depression is a central banker's worst nightmare. And we're at risk for one of those today.

In that speech, Bernanke -- who made his academic reputation by studying the role of bank failures and other financial troubles in propagating the Depression -- said that everything should be done to prevent a deflation from taking hold, and if one took hold, everything should be done to reverse it. Speaking six years ago, Bernanke laid out the framework for what the Fed is doing today -- deep cuts in interest rates, unorthodox purchases of securities (not the short-term U.S. Treasury paper the Fed usually trades in but long-term bonds, mortgage bonds and even private securities) and financing a big fiscal stimulus by printing money. "If we do fall into deflation ... we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press ... must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation," he said.

For further perspective on current events, we can turn to a classic 1933 paper on debt deflations by economist Irving Fisher. His model boils down to this: Some shock hits the economy, resulting in an increase in pessimism and asset sales. Asset sales drive down prices, leading to more pessimism and distress selling. That results in a shrinkage in the money supply and a decline in velocity (the speed at which money turns over, a function of how quickly people spend). Prices for goods and services fall, hitting profits and raising the real value of debts. Businesses go bust. Managers of surviving firms cut production and employment.

This deepens pessimism, leading those with cash to hoard it. Repeat in a vicious cycle. The point of Bernanke's printing press is to arrest and reverse this process.

Fisher, writing when the New Deal was only months old, noted that FDR's early policies of imposing a bank holiday (after 10,000 had failed) and going off the gold standard quickly reversed the deflation and marked the beginning of an economic recovery. After contracting by 27% between 1929 and 1933, the economy grew 43% from 1933 to 1937.

Sure, printing money sounds awful, but not as bad as watching the unemployment rate hit 25%, as it did in 1933.

Libertarians consider this an interference with the self-adjusting beauties of the free market. Some even argue that the New Deal made the Depression worse, by not allowing the system's excesses to be purged, through some economic equivalent of a high colonic. Bernanke doesn't agree, and I'm glad for that.

Doug Henwood edits the Left Business Observer and does a weekly radio show on WBAI-FM in New York and KPFA-FM in Berkeley.

Runaway inflation would cause far more misery than a bit of deflation.

Counterpoint: Brian Doherty

Deflations can be grim, and inflations can be grim. As a way to help ameliorate -- though not eliminate -- these often damaging fluctuations in currency value, I'm going to speak up for a line of thought I've long been sympathetic to: the hard money school of economics (the Austrian variety is my favorite) which posits that the best way to "manage" the money supply is to remove from political authorities the ability to make more of it willy-nilly.

The most dire eventuality of government's ability to inflate its way out of perceived problems (as I fear Bernanke is gearing up to do today) dwarfs even the difficulties in America in the 1930s or 1990s Japan (more on that in a minute). See the hyperinflations of Germany in the 1920s, Hungary in the 1940s and, more recently, Zimbabwe.

Given Bernanke's firmly stated beliefs, and the fear of the early '30s deflation you mention, we have far more reason to fear inflation out of control than rampant deflation. Inflation out of control means, among other evils, the wiping out of most savings and most Americans seeing their real resources gradually shrink even with apparent monetary gain.

Deflation, especially of the mild variety we might be seeing right now, need not lead to the looping downward spiral of Fisher's model. In the last half of the 19th century, for example, America saw overall price deflation combined with overall healthy economic growth (with some ups and downs along the way). See this data sheet from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank on how deflationary episodes can correspond with economic growth and health.

Even if Fed money supply looseness doesn't lead to a repeat of a 1923 Germany horror show, I think we have recent evidence indicating that a Bernanke inflation solution might not save us. Although Doug has elsewhere argued that the problem was Japanese authorities not acting quickly enough, I think the experience of Japan in the 1990s -- where at least 10 attempts at massive fiscal stimulus, lowering interest rates to rock bottom and raising the money supply all failed to propel the nation from recessionary doldrums -- should at least make us wonder if Bernanke's policy is worth the risk.

Yes, deflationary hangover adjustments from years of cheap credit and money growth can be painful, which is why free-market, hard-money types advocate eschewing willy-nilly credit and money growth in the first place. One big worry arising from Bernanke's current intentions is that if we seem hellbent on increasing the quantity of these mysterious paper things to get out of today's mess, those things are going to be worth less -- far less -- even if that inflationary action solves an apparent short-term problem.

And that could hasten the day when the people who lend the U.S. money in the hopes of getting back something that's worth close to what they lent us will stop. Which, as gold goes up and the dollar down, leads us to tomorrow's topic, roughly: How much government debt is too much?

Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and author of "Radicals for Capitalism" and "Gun Control on Trial."

---------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

The "crack-up boom"

Beat the rush to real assets. Consider converting your dollar-denominated assets into gold, silver, and select, fire-sale real estate.

The Worldwide Crack Up Boom, According to Ludwig Von Mises
By Bill Bonner • June 26th, 2007

A kiss is still a kiss. A sigh is still a sigh. And a bubble is still a bubble.

When a kiss is over, it's over. When a bubble pops...well...that's all she wrote! All kisses end - even the wettest "French" kisses. And so do all bubbles - even sloppy mega-bubbles of liquidity. This one will be no exception. But of course, it's not the certainties that make life interesting...it's the uncertainties - the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, as Mr. Rumsfeld says. We are all born of woman and end up where all men born of women end up - dead. But that doesn't mean we can't have some fun between baptism and last rites.

You'll remember we said that this worldwide financial bubble is both worldlier, and more financial than any in history.

And, for the moment, it is very much alive. So much alive that the media can hardly keep up with it. Forbes magazine, for example, tries to estimate the wealth of the world's richest people. But the rich don't typically give out their balance sheets, telephone numbers and home addresses. So, there's a fair amount of guesswork in the calculations.

But when it came to guesstimating the net worth of Stephen Schwarzman, founder of Blackstone, the Forbes crew wandered off into fiction. They put his wealth at about $2 billion. Recent filings in connection with the new Blackstone IPO show he earned that much in a single year!


In this phase of the bubble, it is as if your neighbors were throwing a wild party - and you weren't invited. You detest them... envy them... and want to join them, all at once. A very small part of the population is having a ball; everyone else is getting restless and wondering when the noise will stop.

We wish we knew. And we've given up guessing.

Meanwhile, the experts, commentarists, kibitzers and analysts are saying that there is a whole new phase of the giant bubble about to unfold; things could get a whole lot crazier. Even many of our respected colleagues are pointing to a text by the great Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, for a clue. What we have here, they say, is what Mises described as a "Crack-Up Boom."

Before we go on, readers should be aware that the "Austrian school" of economics is probably the best theory about the way the world works. Like The Daily Reckoning, it is suspicious of efforts to control the natural workings of an economy, in general...and suspicious of central banking, in particular. The fact that it was a one-time "Austrian," Alan Greenspan, who became the most celebrated central banker in history, only increases our suspicions. He was able to master central banking, we imagine, because he understood what it really is - a swindle.

What is a "Crack-Up Boom?" Von Mises explains (with thanks to Ty Andros for reminding us):

"'This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.'

"But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

"It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last."

Mises is describing the lunatic phases of a classic inflationary cycle.

At first, no one can tell the difference between a real dollar - one that is earned, saved, invested or spent - and one that just came off the printing presses. They figure that the new dollar is as good as the old one. And then, prices rise...and people don't know what to make of it. Later, they begin to catch on...and all Hell breaks loose.

You see, if you could really get rich by printing more currency, Zimbabweans would all be as rich as Midas, since the Mugabe government runs the presses night and day.

Von Mises died in 1973 - long before this boom really got going - let alone cracked up. He may never have heard of a hedge fund...or even a derivative, for that matter. A world money system without gold? He probably couldn't have imagined it. People spending millions of dollars for a Warhol? Twenty million for a house in Mayfair? Chinese stocks at 40 times earnings? He would have chuckled in disbelief. He understood how national currency bubbles expand and how they pop, but he probably never would have imagined how insane things could get when you have a whole world monetary system in bubble mode.

He'd have recognised the beginning of this bubble...and he'd have recognised the end, but the middle...or the beginning of the end - that would have dumbfounded him. During his lifetime he saw a Crack Up Boom in Germany in the '20s...and a few more here...but he never saw a worldwide Crack Up Boom.

No one, anywhere, has ever seen a worldwide Crack Up Boom. We're the first, ever. Pretty exciting, huh?

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning Australia

---------------------------
Buy Gold & Silver

The predictable business cycle

Austrian Economic Theory has predicted the current economic situation all along. If you wish to understand what is happening, study Austrian Economic Theory.

Now It’s Jobs
By: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

-- Posted Tuesday, 9 December 2008 | Digg This Article | Source: GoldSeek.com

The downturn is following a path so predictable, day by day, that people who comprehend the business cycle don’t even need to read the news. You can intuit what will happen next because it’s happening like a textbook case – even as it is reported with a continued sense of surprise.

Press reporting on the downturn has been like reports from a committee that knows nothing about gravity, but which has nonetheless been assigned to watch what happens when you drop objects from high places.

They keep filing surprised reports about how the objects fall – what a bizarre and unwelcome turn of events – and then they conjure up ways to keep this from happening through some outside intervention. They recommend bailouts, spending, programs, controls, and inflation.

You just want to get their attention and explain: what you are observing is part of the structure of reality itself, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You can cover your eyes, put up fancy mirrors, turn somersaults, speculate and talk and decry all you want. But in the end, the downturn is a necessary and inevitable response to the previous boom. It must be allowed to continue on its course.

Most recently, for example, we have seen an uptick in the unemployment rate, now at 6.7% according to official statistics. Here we have the human face of recession. It is also the inevitable response to the boom. The people over-employed in bubbled-up industries are led from failing sectors into viable ones – with a serious transition cost. Wages adjust downward and people move from uneconomic undertakings to more economically viable ones.

What is enough to make a person crazy is how all this is reported as something correctable, as if they all constituted marching orders for Washington. A bank is failing? Someone had better bail it out! Home prices are falling? Spend trillions to boost them. People are losing jobs? Make work for them or subsidize their unemployment to make it last longer.

On unemployment in particular, this is the issue that led to many calamities in the 20th century. The problem itself is largely artificial in the sense that it has been created by the boom-bust cycle, which itself is a consequence of the central bank’s loose money policy. In every society with sound money, there is no problem with unemployment. This is because, as Mises wrote, in a free market, all unemployment is purely voluntary.

What do we mean by this? It is a feature of the world itself. We live in a world of scarcity so there is always and everywhere work to do. Economically useful work pays a return of wages and salaries, which act as compensation for the opportunity costs of work over leisure and reflect the value of the work to overall output. Because there is always work to do at some price, unemployment is not a feature of the market economy, and this is one reason we only begin to note the existence of long periods of unemployment in the 20th century. The attempt to "cure" the problem has only reinforced it.

But in economies with business cycles, it is not only capital that is misdirected toward sectors where it doesn’t belong. Labor chases bubbles created by subsidized credit. When those bubbles pop, the jobs are eliminated. There are ripple effects too that flow from sector to sector. A widespread shifting takes places.

There is no reason to assume that labor is less able than capital to shift from one production line to another. But when there are labor unions, minimum wage floors, mandated benefits, and other interventions, these shifts can take longer than they should, and that’s when we begin to see high unemployment that lasts and lasts.

The surest way to guarantee that the problem grows worse is to attempt to fix it by means of unemployment insurance, government spending, jobs programs, and the like. All of these interventions delay the necessary adjustment and prolong the crisis.

Vedder and Gallaway devoted many years of study to questions of unemployment in the 20th century, and ended up proving with a mass of historical detail that the entire problem is due to the attempt to fix the problem. Their results are reported in their book Out of Work – a work which should have put an end to labor-based interventions forever.

Sadly, the political class cares nothing about facts and logic, so they barrel ahead with the cheers of the media to repeat all the mistakes of the past. The bottom line is that these people can create all the unemployment they want so long as they continue to try to "do something" about it. The public goes along because the entire subject is among the most alarming and scary of all economic concerns. Surely there is something that the political class can do!

If we are really sincere about not wanting to repeat the 1930s, the political classes should do nothing but cut taxes and free the labor market, but otherwise do nothing to "help" the problem. Just as objects fall when you drop them, so markets must adjust during recessions.

December 9, 2008

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

-- Posted Tuesday, 9 December 2008 | Digg This Article | Source: GoldSeek.com

-----------------------
Buy Gold & Silver