Tag: euro standard

–Europe and the welfare-entitlement state

An alternative to popular faith

Today, the Wall Street Journal’s editors managed to pack one sentence with more misleading inferences than I thought possible. The sentence was: “Greece’s problems are familiar across Europe: a welfare-entitlement state that is unaffordable given the country’s anemic economic growth.”

First, Greece’s economic problems are familiar across Europe, because most of Europe is in the European Union, an ill-conceived, economically doomed arrangement. These nations have essentially the same problem, and it has nothing to do with a welfare-entitlement state. It has to do with each EU nation’s inability to control its own money supply — a charter requirement for belonging to the EU. So when one nation encounters its individual economic crisis, it is prohibited from creating the money necessary to save and rebuild its economy.

The EU nations are on a “euro standard,” similar to a gold standard, in that the supply of their money is controlled by the EU. In this, the EU nations resemble California, Illinois, Cook County and Chicago, which are on a “dollar standard.” None can create the money needed to rebuild its economy.

Because a political entity on a “standard” cannot arbitrarily create money, it eventually will need to receive money from outside, either in the form of export payments, or payments from the owner of the money. For Greece, the owner is the EU. For California et al, the owner is the U.S. government.

For Greece to survive, it must receive money from the EU. It cannot survive on taxes alone, because taxing does not add money to the state. California, to survive, must receive money from the federal government.

The so called “welfare-entitlement” state merely is description of what every nation is and must be: A source of funds for the common good. Since all countries are “welfare-entitlement states, to greater or lesser degree, at what point does the state offer too much welfare?

–When the government pays for its army?
–When the government pays for roads, bridges, levees and docks?
–When the government pays for police and fire protection?
–When the government pays unemployment benefits? Food stamps? Medicaid? Housing?
–When the government pays for primary education? Secondary education? Advanced education?
–When the government pays to rebuild parts of a city that has flooded or hit by a hurricane or volcano?
–When the government provides FDIC insurance?
–When Social Security and Medicare benefits are provided to people over the age of 95? 55? 35? 10? All?
–When the government pays for vaccines? Inspects food? Supervises investments? Makes medical expenses tax deductible? Creates and enforces laws?

Where should a welfare entitlement state begin and end? I’d guess the WSJ editors, who criticize the “welfare-entitlement” state, have no idea. But, the term makes for a handy whipping boy, like “socialism” and “bailouts” and “big government” and “activist judges,” that everyone dislikes in general, but wants in the specific.

Finally, the “welfare-entitlement” state is not unaffordable because of the nation’s anemic economic growth. The government doesn’t pay its bills with Gross Domestic Product. Of course, some argue that increased GDP growth begets increased taxes, making government spending more affordable. But high taxes cause anemic economic growth, so in essence you have a circular argument and a self-fulfilling prophesy.

What makes EU governments’ spending unaffordable is the EU system, which prevents unilateral money creation. By contrast, no amount of U.S. spending is unaffordable for the U.S. government.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Please help the Wall Street Journal

An alternative to popular faith

Would someone please help the Wall Street Journal. I have serious concerns about those folks, because for a newspaper focused on finances, they seem clueless about . . . well, finances.

Their 4/12/10 editorial said, “[…] Greece’s predicament resembles that of New York and California […] New York. California and Washington are on the same path.” Right, as to New York and California. Dead wrong as to Washington.

Not understanding the difference, between governments on a standard and governments not on a standard, has caused endless problems. You see, Greece is on a “euro standard.” Being on a euro standard, gold standard, or on any standard, prevents a government from increasing its money supply when necessary. President Nixon took us off the gold standard, because we were in danger of becoming what Greece is, today — a debtor with no source of money.

Greece’s “euro standard” is functionally identical with a gold standard. To pay its debts and avoid bankruptcy, it must come begging to the European Union or to the International Monetary Fund for loans. Of course these loans are nothing more than a delaying tactic. They must be paid back, with interest. Long term, they cure nothing.

Just to keep up with inflation, Greece and all governments, national, state, county and city, continuously must increase their nominal money supply. They cannot rely on taxes, for taxes do not add money to an economy. They need money coming from outside — either from exports or as gifts from another source.

Since exports are insufficient and unreliable, eventually all EU nations will need gifts from the EU, which will need to create euros out of thin air, just as the U.S. government creates dollars out of thin air.

New York and California are on a “dollar standard,” and so are similarly unable to create unlimited money. In fact, every state, city and county in America is on a dollar standard, and all eventually would go bankrupt were the federal government not to create and give them money.

The U.S. government, by contrast, cannot go bankrupt. It can create endless money to pay its bills. Now that we’re off the gold standard, no federal check ever will bounce. For the EU nations to survive, the EU must act like the U.S. federal government and supply money to its members. There is no other solution. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t understand this.

The Journal’s editorial also says, “The Obama Administration may quietly assume the U.S. can devalue its way out of debt with easy money, but sooner or later the bond vigilantes will blow the whistle on that strategy and raise U.S. borrowing costs, too.”

Where does the cluelessness end? First, because the U.S. can create unlimited dollars, it does not need to devalue the dollar to pay its bills. Yes, there is an advantage for most borrowers to service loans with cheaper money, but that doesn’t apply to the U.S. government, which can service any size loan, no matter how weak or strong the dollar may be.

Second, the “bond vigilantes” can do what they will. The U.S. can pay any interest of any amount. An no, there is no historical relationship between interest rates and economic growth, as Messrs. Greenspan’s and Bernanke’s 20 futile rate reductions taught us.

Third, the U.S. doesn’t even need to borrow. Rather than creating T-securities out of thin air, it simply could, and really should, just create money out of thin air, and omit the borrowing step. Borrowing is a relic of gold standard days.

The Journal’s recommendation: “[..] stop the spending spree […] stop the tax increases […]” In short, they want a balanced budget, which by decreasing the supply of inflation-adjusted, population-adjusted money, is guaranteed to cause a depression.

So, please, please, someone supply the WSJ with a clue, before it’s too late.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

–Three Equivalent Standards: Gold, Euro and Dollar

An alternative to popular faith

A gold Standard, indeed any Standard, consists of two parts: An asset (gold) and a system. Of the two, the system plays the leading role.

In any Standard, the system requires that for every unit of currency a country issues, that country must own a fixed amount of the chosen asset. The fundamental purpose and effect of a gold Standard, or of any Standard, is to restrict the ability of a nation to issue money.

Gold has been a popular asset with attractive attributes. It’s consistent, malleable, permanent, pretty and scarce. But, other assets can be part of a Standard, for instance: silver, platinum, copper, wheat, the euro. The euro?

Yes, nothing says the asset in a Standard must be a physical substance. The only necessary attribute is some degree of scarcity. Today, much of Europe is on a “euro Standard.” This means that to spend money, each nation first must obtain euros. The fact that the money and the euros are identical is irrelevant. Rather, the necessity of owning euros restricts each nation’s issuance of money. This restriction is the key to any Standard.

The United States abandoned the gold Standard in 1971 because it restricted the issuance of dollars. The U.S. found itself unable to obtain enough gold to fund its growing economy. It easily could have been unable to service its debts, i.e. gone bankrupt. With the elimination of the gold Standard, the U.S. government demonstrated it is able to service any size debt, while creating unlimited money to fund economic growth.

Today Greece finds itself in the same restricted position. Being on the euro Standard, Greece is now unable to create sufficient currency to fund its growth, and having been forced to borrow, now faces the (unlikely) prospect of bankruptcy. The EU has ordered Greece to reduce its debt supply (aka money supply) by raising taxes and reducing expenditures – a prescription for recession and depression.

Any political entity that cannot create money eventually will be unable to service its debts, and faces economic stagnation and ultimately, bankruptcy. American states, counties and cities are on the “dollar Standard.” Unlike the federal government, they cannot spend money without obtaining dollars. Over time, all must obtain money by raising taxes and/or cutting expenditures, both of which have a depressing effect on their economies.

To save the state, county and city economies, the U.S. federal government increasingly must support local spending. Roads, bridges and dams are local initiatives, once the financial responsibility of local governments, that will need to be funded by the federal government. Education, local transportation, infrastructure, health care and anti-poverty programs also will require federal support to prevent local economic disaster or bankruptcy.

The federal government, because it can create unlimited money without taxation, ultimately will fund the vast majority of local programs, the key political question being: Who will have the power to direct these programs, local agencies or the federal government? The anti-“big government” people do not take this reality into consideration.

Just as the American states, counties and cities can, must and will be supported by the U.S. government, the members of the EU can, must and will be supported by the only entity with the unlimited power to create money: the EU itself.

Eventually, it will become apparent that forcing EU nations to raise taxes and reduce spending only will serve to make economic growth impossible. At that point, the EU will assume the money-creation role for the euro. Thus, the euro will force a de facto “United States of Europe,” well before formal treaties are ratified.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com