Tag: money supply

–Are we inflating our way out of debt?

An alternative to popular faith

Some experts tell us the federal government wishes to “inflate its way out of debt.” The theory is this: During inflation, money loses value. For instance if the buying power of tomorrow’s dollar will be worth only 90% of today’s dollar, paying today’s $1,000 debt tomorrow will cost you only $900 in today’s buying power.

That is why, if you positively knew inflation will average 3%, borrowing money at 2% would net you more buying power than you have today. This was part of the lure of home ownership. Real estate inflation would make your house appreciate faster than your interest payments – an automatic profit.

Let’s say you have no money in the bank, but you are able to acquire a $100 thousand, low-interest-only mortgage to buy a house. The house inflates in value 10% a year. Ten years after buying the house, you could sell it for $260 thousand. You could pay off your mortgage principal and have tons of money left over. In essence you have inflated your way out of debt and made a profit, a nice, no-effort game, that millions of people played.

It’s a philosophy that, during inflation, can work for people, companies, and state and local governments, but not for the federal government.

You see, the federal government creates all the money it needs, to pay bills of any size. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government does not rely on taxes or any other income to pay its bills. If all federal taxes ended today, the federal government’s ability to pay its bills would not change by even one penny. No federal check of any size would bounce.

When you receive a federal check, you deposit it in your bank account. Your bank sends the information the government, which unfailingly credits your account. This credit to your account is not related in any way to taxes, inflation, balance of payments, T-securities or to any other economic reality. The federal government does not maintain a stash of dollars from which it pays bills. It merely creates money by crediting bank accounts. This may sound “too-good-to-be-true” or a “free-lunch,” but it’s the way federal financing works.

Further, the government owes virtually all its debts in dollars, which makes inflating useless. One trillion dollars in debt must be repaid with one trillion dollars, neither more nor less, regardless of inflation.

So the question is: If the government can pay any bill of any size, simply by creating all the money it needs and crediting bank accounts, and if no federal check ever bounces, why would the federal government need to “inflate its way out of debt”? The answer: It doesn’t.

Anyone who says the federal government wants to inflate its way out of debt simply does not understand the reality of federal government finance. They probably have confused federal debt with all other debt.

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


–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

–Why a recession every 5 years?

An alternative to popular faith

In the past 100 years, why have we had 20 recessions or depressions, an average of one economic crisis every 5 years. I was thinking about this, when I received a response to one of my posts. The writer criticized a position by quoting Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson!

Economics is one of the few sciences where someone feels free to correct a hypothesis by quoting two-hundred-year-old statements from a politician. Imagine a physicist or a medical doctor being criticized on the basis of statements by Columbus.

Physics turned with the Relativity and Quantum theories. Medicine changed with the development of the microscope and the discovery of germs. Astronomy changed with the telescope and the realization the sun is just one of myriad stars. Economics has changed, too.

This science, and most of its hypotheses, were turned on their heads with the end of the gold standard. Just as Einstein gave us E = MC2, and told us space and time actually were spacetime, a single continuum, the end of the gold standard told us that debt and money were debt/money, a single entity, and gave us, Money = Debt.

Years ago, money was a physical substance, a barter substance. No debt involved. Later, money represented a physical substance. The merger of debt and money had begun, because the holder of money now was owed the physical substance.

With the end of the gold standard, money became pure debt, in short, debt/money. Yet the public, including the politicians and the media, and sadly even some economists, imagine 1971, the final end to the gold standard, never happened. What they believed before 1971, the greatest change in the history of economics, they still believe. It’s tantamount to basing all your unchanging astronomical theories on a flat world and the earth as center of the universe.

So in the minds of the public, the politicians and the media, debt and money still remain two separate entities. In their minds, the U.S. federal debt is too large, though “federal debt” merely is an accounting term meaning the net money created by the federal government. Those same people, if asked whether the U.S. has too much money, would say, “No,” but they feel the U.S. has too much debt!

In their minds, federal deficits are “unsustainable,” though the federal government now has the unlimited ability to create debt/money.

In their minds, the federal budget should be balanced, even while population growth, the trade deficit and inflation all conspire every day to reduce the per capita supply of real money. With a population annual growth of 1% and a modest 2% inflation, the per capita supply of real money in a balanced budget would fall 26% in only 10 years. Visualize each of us owning $10,000 today. By 2020, we each would own only $7,300 in real money. How could that support even zero economic growth? Add in the needs of growth itself, and the debt/money supply requirement grows further.

In their minds, the current debt should be erased by increased taxes and/or decreased spending, despite acknowledgment that increased taxes and/or decreased spending hurt people and hurt the economy.

In their minds, a federal profit (for instance, on interest coming from loans to industry) is good, despite federal profits being defacto taxes, debt/money coming from the private sector.

In their minds, the federal government is just like you and me, and must live by our rules of fiscal prudence. Yet the federal government is not like you and me, not even like state, county and local governments, not even like corporations. The federal government is unique, for it has the unique power and authority to create unlimited amounts of debt/money.

We first must acquire debt/money in order to spend. The federal government creates debt/money by spending, a wholly different process with wholly different rules.

As a science, economics has not grown from the philosophical beliefs of Everyman. Intuition dominates. It is less a science, than a religion based on personal experience, rumor, authority, faith and desire. Despite close study of endless data (Visualize religious scholars bending endlessly over their bibles), facts are ignored, discounted or twisted, while those who speak facts are ridiculed by the masses.

No politician would dare to say, “Federal debt growth is necessary, forever,” though that is true. The few academics with the courage to speak the truth are shouted down. The repeated failures of the government to prevent inflations, deflations, recessions, depressions and stagflations all are ascribed to normal, inevitable, unstoppable cycles, not to errors of belief and action.

And that is why we have had a recession every 5 years and will continue to do so.

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

–Ben Bernanke and the popular faith

An alternative to popular faith

According to the April 8, 2010 Wall Street Journal, “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that huge U.S. budget deficits threaten the nation’s long-term economic health and should be addressed soon.” That is the popular faith, with “faith” being defined as belief without scientific evidence.

By using the words “addressed” and “soon” Mr. Bernanke is relieved of the responsibility to provide a specific solution or a timetable.

The Journal said, “In remarks to the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Bernanke agreed […] that the economy, while improving is still too weak to bear all the new taxes and spending cuts that would come with an aggressive deficit reduction campaign.” The Journal continued, “Cutting the deficit ultimately will mean choosing between cutting (Social Security and Medicare) entitlements, raising taxes or other spending cuts.”

This is exactly correct. Federal deficits never have been shown to cause inflation (See: item #8. )or to have any other negative effect on people or on the economy in general. In fact, substantial evidence indicates that reducing deficits has caused nearly every recession and depression in our history. (See: Click here, items #3 and #4. )

By contrast, increasing taxes or cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits or cutting other expenses (defense, infrastructure, health care, food stamps, education, research, etc.) absolutely will have a negative effect on people and on the economy in general.

So which does a sane person choose, something not proven to have a negative effect or something proven to have a huge negative effect?

Mr. Bernanke worries large deficits cause high interest rates. He subscribes to the popular faith that low rates stimulate the economy, despite there being no historical relationship between interest rates and economic growth (See Item #10 ), as he should have learned from his, and his predecessor’s twenty futile rate cuts leading into the recession.

Quoting the Journal, “[…] higher rates push up borrowing costs for many businesses and consumers,” ignoring the many businesses and consumers who are lenders, and who benefit from higher rates. For every borrower there is a lender. All of you who own savings accounts, NOW accounts, money market accounts, corporate bonds and T-securities profit when rates are higher. It may surprise you to learn higher rates have been economically stimulative, because they’ve forced the government to pay more interest into the economy. Finally, some economic hypotheses indicate low rates were partly at fault for the housing bubble.

In summary, Mr. Bernanke promotes a goal with no proven benefit, provides neither a plan nor a timetable for achieving his goal, admits it would require tax increases and spending cuts, both of which hurt people and the economy, and he discusses a possible problem (high interest rates) history shows is more a benefit than a problem.

At long last, will someone please stand up and say, “The popular faith doesn’t seem to work. May we try something new?”

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