The Morality of the Keynesian Monetary Dogma: The Euthanasia of the Savers

The US Federal Reserve and central bankers around the world have conjointly been applying artificially low interest policies (Zero Bound Interest Rates-ZIRP) pretty much in adherence to John Maynard Keynes’ dogma of the “euthanasia of the rentiers”—the idea where capital can be made plentiful by merely tinkering with interest rates.

Since every political decision entails a moral dimension, Professor Robert Higgs eloquently explains how the Keynesian prescription, which in reality signifies a nostrum that resembles the Philosopher’s stone—the alchemy of turning lead into gold—hurts the average citizens. (bold emphasis mine)

In short, the highest yield available to ordinary investors who seek a simple, low-risk investment of their funds is, at best, roughly equal to the rate of inflation—and then, with a 30-year term to maturity, only with substantial risk of capital loss if interest rates should rise. To put the matter another way, all ordinary investors are now being progressively impoverished because the nominal return on their investments falls short of the loss of purchasing power of the dollar during the term of the investment. Getting a positive real rate of return is effectively impossible for the proverbial widows and orphans. Only investors with the knowledge of how to invest in gold, crude commodities, and other such esoteric assets stand any chance of earning positive real returns, and then only with great risk of substantial capital losses.

Given that the Fed’s official policy is to drive all interest rates to near zero, one may conclude that the Fed seeks to impoverish the widows, orphans, retired people, and all other financially untutored people who rely on interest earnings to support themselves in their old age or adversity. Can a crueller official policy be imagined, short of grinding up these unfortunate souls to make pet food or fertilizer?

The politicians constantly bark about their solicitude for those who are helpless and in difficulty through no fault of their own. Yet, the scores of millions of people who saved money to support themselves in old age now find themselves progressively robbed by the very officials who purport to be their protectors. There are many reasons to oppose the Fed’s policy. The reason brought to mind by the official enthanasia of the nation’s small savers deserves far more attention than it has received to date.

Bottom line:

Keynesian policies have been designed at propping up the privileges of the INSIDERS (the central banking-banking-political elites) all at the expense of the outsiders or the ordinary people of the world (this includes me).

Although such policies are camouflaged by rationalizations from academic gibberish as ‘aggregate demand’ and ‘liquidity trap’, the mantra “privatize profits and socialize losses” represents as its implicit ethical framework.

Despite coordinated actions to attain such an environment, which instead has led to higher consumer prices, and that has been explicitly expressive of the policymakers’ intents that deserves the public’s reprobation, ironically there has hardly been a popular uproar.

Instead protestations today have been misdirected at the effects—financial sector deliberately being sustained by the political class.

No wonder politicians and their bureaucrats can afford to keep bamboozling us. Nevertheless, eventually or at the fullness of time, there is no escaping the laws of scarcity.