Showing posts with label deflation politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deflation politics. Show all posts

Thursday, April 24, 2014

How 3D Printing has been Enhancing the Housing Industry

Take away the property bubbles for a moment. 

The use of 3D technology has been spreading. Today, with 3D Printer technology, housing will not only become more affordable, they can be built fast and according to one’s taste or 'custom fitted' housing.

In China a Chinese company has introduced mass housing via 3D printer technology. The said company “3D printed” 10 houses in 24 hours using recycled construction materials for $4,800 (Php 214,000). The houses were printed offsite and assembled at the site location. 

The Chinese company hasn’t been the first to join the race to build 3D printed houses in 24 hours, a researcher from a US based university has been working on such goals too. I believe there are more but have been undisclosed.

In Amsterdam, the world’s first onsite 3D printed house—which is actually intended as a museum and a research facility—is being built. House materials consist of layers of molten plastic which function like LEGO materials.

Three insights. Technology brings about “deflation”—something which authorities and the mainstream—have been deeply averse to. Yet "deflation", for consumers, means more affordability or more goods or services one can buy with a given currency unit—such signifies as an increase in real purchasing power (What money can buy). 

What the mainstream doesn't tell you is that the "deflation" they all so rabidly dread is credit deflation (bubble bust). So they all promote sustained debasement of the real purchasing power of money via bubble blowing or credit inflation policies  

The second lesson is competition. The quest for profits has not just led to the discovery of new technologies, but has also been impelling companies to innovate or to introduce new or improvised uses (applications) for a specific technology in order to satisfy consumers. 

Lastly the potentials of 3D Printing technology remains vast. 3D printing technology is yet in the early phase of expansion in terms of diffusion of applications to commerce and to households. So for me, this an industry worth monitoring.

[Disclosure: As of this writing, I have no equity holdings in 3D technology stocks]

Thursday, November 14, 2013

US Stocks on a Record Melt Up on Yellenomics and ECB’s QE!

US stocks are on a “Wile E Coyote running off the cliff” momentum.

Here is media’s narrative of last night's record setting run by US stocks. From Bloomberg
U.S. stocks rose, sending benchmark indexes to records, as Macy’s Inc. led a rally among retailers and investors speculated the Federal Reserve’s Janet Yellen will continue the central bank’s stimulus policy as chairman….

image

The melt up frenzy mode in US stock markets has been broad based. All four major benchmarks from the S&P 500, Dow Jones, Nasdaq and the Russell 2000 have performed strongly.

And here is what has spurred the fantastic run… (bold mine)
Yellen, nominated to be the next chairman of the Fed, said the economy and labor market are performing “far short of their potential” and must improve before the central bank can begin reducing monetary stimulus

“A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases,” Yellen, the Fed’s current vice chairman, said in testimony prepared for her nomination hearing tomorrow before the Senate Banking Committee. “I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.”

The remarks show Yellen is committed to the central bank’s strategy of attempting to boost the economy and lower 7.3 percent unemployment, more than four years after the economy began to recover from the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Today’s stock market guidance: Bad news is good news. Bad news means more policies to implicitly redirect or to transfer resources from the real economy to the stock markets. Therefore, US stocks have nowhere to go but up

And it’s not just about Yellonomics. The European Central Bank hinted that Europe’s version of QE may be on the way,  from Reuters:
European Central Bank Executive Board member Peter Praet on Wednesday raised the prospect of the central bank starting to buy assets to bring inflation closer to its target, one of the central bank's most divisive tools.

He also suggested that the ECB could still create negative deposit rates, essentially charging banks to place their money with it.
Zero bound rates, QE, negative deposit rates: central bankers want to eviscerate everyone’s savings in the name of “growth”.

image
But obviously ballooning central bank balance sheets have hardly translated to “growth”, even the statistical ones. 

"Far short of their potential" has been the dynamic since 2008. It never ends. It seems like endlessly "Waiting for Godot"

The other reason central bankers are supposedly conducting even more easing has been to “combat deflation”.

Bizarrely, by selectively focusing on the CPI index, the mainstream ignores the frenetic stock market melt up yet declares “deflation”. It is as if stock markets operate on different dimensions from the real world.

Such equivocations has been media's du jour feature.

Today’s headlines from the Guardian on Spain’s supposed deflation “Deflation fears stalk eurozone as Spain reports fall in prices” is a good example 
Spain became the latest European country to report sliding prices, underlining fears that with inflation already at 0.7% across the 17 country single currency area in October, sky-high unemployment and a prolonged economic malaise may be dragging the eurozone towards a Japanese-style deflationary slump.

Madrid said prices in the crisis-hit country declined by 0.1% in the year to October, adding Spain to a list of countries – including Ireland, Greece and Cyprus – that are already mired in deflation.

image

The above is Spain’s stock market benchmark the Madrid General Index. Deflation in stocks?
image

Falling yields from Spain’s 10 year bonds means a rally in Spain’s bonds. Deflation on bonds?

So while it may be half true where CPI indices for crisis affected countries may have been in a decline, whatever loss in CPI has been offset by rallying financial markets.

Again such phenomena have been indicative of an ongoing shift of resources from main street to the banks, the financial industry, to the government and to relative fewer market participants occurring throughout the world, but mostly led by the US.

Yet the widespread engagement by media of doublespeak to justify these central bank interventions.

image

Ironically there has even recently been an “inflation” spike in the search for the term “deflation” in Google trends! Deflation, where?

Novelist George Orwell Power warned of such manipulation of information or "doublespeak" in his prescient classic 1984  
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Tanking Gold and Commodities Prices and the Theology of Deflation

One of the bizarre and outrageously foolish or patently absurd commentary I have read has been to allude to the current commodity selloffs to what I call as the theology of deflation, particularly the cultish belief that money printing does not create inflation. 

Yet if we go by such logic, then hyperinflation should have never existed.

Doug Noland of the Credit Bubble Bulletin debunks such ridiculousness:
With global central bankers “printing” desperately, the collapse in gold stocks and sinking commodities prices were not supposed to happen. Is it evidence of imminent deflation? How could that be, with the Fed and Bank of Japan combining for about $170bn of monthly “money printing.” Are they not doing enough? How is deflation possible with China’s “total social financing” expanding an incredible $1 Trillion during the first quarter? How is deflation a serious risk in the face of ultra-loose financial conditions in the U.S. and basically near-free “money” available round the globe?

Well, deflation is not really the issue. Instead, so-called “deflation” can be viewed as the typical consequence of bursting asset and Credit Bubbles. And going all the way back to the early nineties, the Fed has misunderstood and misdiagnosed the problem. It is a popular pastime to criticize the Germans for their inflation fixation. Well, history will identify a much more dangerous fixation on deflation that spread from the U.S. to much of the world.

I see sinking commodities prices as one more data point supporting the view of failed central bank policy doctrine. For one, it confirms that unprecedented monetary stimulus is largely bypassing real economies on its way to Bubbling global securities markets. I also see faltering commodities markets as confirmation of my “crowded trade” thesis. For too many years (going back to the 90’s) the Fed and global central bank policies have incentivized leveraged speculation. This has fostered a massive inflation in this global pool of speculative finance that has ensured too much market-based liquidity (“money”) has been chasing a limited amount of risk assets. Speculative excess today encompasses all markets, including gold and the commodities. Over recent months, these Bubbles have become increasingly unwieldy and unstable. Commodities are the first to crack.
In the theology of deflation espoused by monetary cranks, financial markets and the economy operates like spatial black holes, they are supposedly sucked into a ‘liquidity trap’ premised on the ‘dearth of aggregate demand’ and on interventionists creed of "pushing on a string" or of the failure of monetary policies to induce spending. Thus the need for government intervention to inflate the system (inflationism) to encourge spending.

Further money cranks tells us there has been no link between inflation and deflation.  Or that there are hardly any relationship of how falling markets could have been a result of prior inflation. 

Bubbles are essentially nonexistent for them. Inflationism has been seen as operating in a vacuum with barely any adverse consequences because these represent the immaculate acts of hallowed governments. Whereas deflation has been projected as “market failure”.

Yet we see plummeting commodity prices, contradictory to such obtuse view, as representing many factors. 

Global financial markets (stocks and bonds) have been seen as having implicit government support (e.g. the Bernanke Put or Bernanke doctrine), thus the safe haven status may have temporarily gravitated towards government backed papers rather than commodities.


Yet this doesn’t entail that endless money printing will not or never generate price inflation. Again such logic anchored on free lunch, simply wishes away the laws of economics.

Second, falling commodity prices doesn’t mean the absence of price inflation but rather monetary inflation has been manifested via price inflation in assets or asset bubbles so far. 

image

The “don’t fight the central banks” mantra has led the marketplace to go for yield hunting by materially racking up credit growth.


Both markets suggests that government policies has heavily influenced market actions to chase yields by absorbing or accruing more unsustainable debt.

China’s massive money growth backed by financial expansion have masked the marked deterioration in her economy.  This perhaps supports the essence of the broad based gold led commodity panic.

And as Mr. Noland points out, cracking commodity prices may be portentous of the periphery to the core symptom of a coming crisis.

Falling commodity prices will initially hurt the emerging markets and could likely spread through the world. 

image

Commodity exports plays a substantial role in emerging economies (IMF)

This means that global growth will be jeopardized thereby increasing the risks of bubble busts from the periphery (emerging markets and frontier markets)

image

Emerging markets are supposed to comprise nearly 50% of global growth this year. (chart from the Daily Bell)

I also earlier pointed out that Indonesia's boom has been popularly attributed to commodity exports, even when latest developments suggests more of a property bubble. The Financial Times warns of an ASEAN bubble and notes of an unwieldy boom in Indonesia's luxury real estate projects.
Ciputra Development, which builds luxury condominiums, said that while prices in central Jakarta, the capital, had been growing at a rapid clip – about 30-40 per cent a year – a new trend had emerged.
If woes from Indonesia's commodity exports will spread through the property sector, then the Indonesian economy will become highly vulnerable. This makes the region including the Philippines susceptible too.

Boom will segue into a bust.
 

image

Yet the recourse to eternal money printing will one day set another path. (chart from Zero hedge).

Inflationism comes in stages. Thus every stage commands a different outcome.  We are still operating on bubble cycles from which the current gold-commodity pressures signify as the typical the denial stage from inflation risks provoked by Fed policies.

As the great Ludwig von Mises predicted. (bold mine)
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.
In short we are in a stage where people have yet to become aware of a price revolution ahead even when policies have been directed towards them.

image

We have seen such setting before.

Gold prices surged from $35 in 1971, which began during the Nixon Shock or after the closing of gold window based on the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard, to about $190 in 1975 or 4.4x the 1971 level. Following the peak, gold prices plunged by about 45% to around $105 in 1976. (chart from chartrus.com)

The returns from Gold’s recent boom from $ 300 to $ 1,900 has been about 5.3x before today’s dive. So there may be some parallel.

image

Then, the interim collapse has served as springboard for gold’s resurgence. Gold prices evenutally hit $850 in the early 80s. (chart from chartrus.com)

Of course, the stagflation days of 1970-80s has vastly been different than today.

image

Debt levels of advanced economies has already surpassed the World War II highs. (from US Global Investors) This is why advanced economies has resorted to derring-do or bravado policies of unprecedented inflationism from central banks.

Most of which has been meant to finance fiscal deficits, increasing the likelihood of the risks of price inflation and debt default over time. Such has been the typical outcome based on EIGHT centuries of crises according to non-Austrian Harvard economist Carmen Reinhart (along with Harvard contemporary Kenneth Rogoff).

Monetary cranks essentially tells us that “this time is different”. They believe that they are immune from the rules of nature. They denigrate history.

Moreover there has been a global pandemic of bubbles, which simply means that the path dependency for governments policies will be directed towards sustaining them.

Authorities will resort to bailouts, rescues and further inflationism in fear of  bubble busts in order to maintain the status quo.

This will not be limited to advanced economies but will apply to emerging markets including the Philippines as well.

Another difference is that, then, US monetary policies had been severely tightened which caused a spike in interest rates and two recessions. US Federal Reserve’s Paul Volcker had been credited to have stopped the inflationary side of stagflation or the “disinflationary scenario”, according to the Wikipedia.org

Today, there has been a rabid fear of recessions

Globalization too, from the opening of China, India and many emerging markets, led to increased productivity which essentially offset inflation levels. A 2005 study from the Federal Reserve of Kansas City notes that
Rogoff also credits the “increased level of competition—in both product and labor markets—that has resulted from the interplay of increased globalization, deregulation, and a decreased role for governments in many countries” as contributing to the reduction in global inflation.
Today with almost every economy indulging in bubble policies and therefore serially blowing bubbles, capital consumption leads to decreased productivity, heightening the risks of price inflation.

The Royal Bank of Scotland recently pointed out that Asia’s credit bubble has been accompanied by decreasing labor productivity. When the public’s activities having been directed towards financial market speculation than production, then evidently labor productivity has to decline.

Of course, direct confiscation of people’s savings via the banking system ala Cyprus will also become a key factor for the prospective search for monetary refuge.

Third, in the world of financial globalization, speculative bubbles translates to immensely intertwined markets, such that volatility in global markets, particularly in JGBs may have prompted for massive reallocation or a shift in incentives towards government backed securities.

This Reuters article gives us a clue:
"The scale of the decline has been absolutely breathtaking. We tried to rally and that just didn't get anywhere ... there hasn't been any downside support, it's like a knife through butter," Societe Generale analyst Robin Bhar said.
The pace of the sell-off appeared tied to volatility in the price of Japanese government bonds, which has forced certain holders to sell other assets to meet the risk modeling of their investment portfolios.
Fourth is that such selloffs has deliberately been engineered by Wall Street most possibly to project support on Fed policies for more inflationism. Wall Street, thus peddles the inflation bogeyman to spur political authorities to maintain or deepen inflationism which benefits them most

In my edited response to a friend on the recent record levels of US markets, I explain the redistribution of Fed Policies to Wall Street to the latter's benefits

Given the relative impact (Cantillon Effects) from the Fed’s money printing, those who get the money first, particularly Wall Street, e.g. primary dealers and bondholders who sell bonds to the FED via QE, the 2008 bailout money (TARP), proceeds from the Fed’s Interest Rate on Excess Reserves and etc, may have used such to speculate on the stock markets and the credit markets (e.g. junk bonds, revival of CDOs) rather than to lend to main street. Thus the parallel universe: economic growth has been tepid, but financial market booms.

There has also been the interlocking relationship between bond and stock markets as I earlier pointed out here

Since December the politically connected Goldman Sachs has called for the selling of gold which has been followed by a coterie of Wall Street allies

From the Star Online:
Several renowned global financial institutions such as Credit Suisse Group AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Nomura Holdings Inc, Deutsche Bank AG, UBS Ag, and Socit Gnrale SA (SocGen) have already turned bearish on gold in recent weeks, and cut their gold-price forecast for 2013 and 2014.
So current selloff cannot be dismissed as having been a purely market dynamic and not having been influenced by a grand design to promote further inflationism.

Lastly, as I noted during the start of the year, gold’s 12 year consecutive rise has been ripe for profit taking.
Although, so far, with the exception of gold, no trend has moved in a straight line, so it would be natural for gold to undergo a year of negative returns.
Expect this selloff in gold-commodity sphere to increase risks towards a transition to a global crisis, and for central banks to engage in more aggressive inflationism. 

Such transition will eventually bring about the risks of stagflation.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Does Unemployment Cause Deflation?

I was apprised by a dear friend that in a part of the US, call center jobs have been migrating to the Philippines. Such phenomenon he sees as having a “deflationary” impact on the US economy. 

Such popular reasoning is fairly simple. Lack of jobs equals a fall in aggregate demand. Falling demand leads to falling prices. Falling prices result to more job losses. Thus the circular reasoning translates to an endless loop: a deflationary spiral.

The bottom line from such aggregate demand framework is that unemployment causes price deflation.

Of course, the alternative implication is that the Philippines, like China through alleged currency manipulation, has been “stealing jobs” from Americans.

And equally this means that for them, the optimal political solution is to inflate or apply protectionist measures or apply both against countries like the Philippines or China.

Have job losses or unemployment resulted to price deflation as alleged?

Here is a list of the largest world unemployment rates from Wikipedia.org.

Since there are many nations with over 10% in unemployment rates, I will only reckon with nations with over 50% in unemployment rates

Nauru 90%
Vanatu 78.21%
Turkmenistan 70%
Zimbabwe 70%
Mozambique 60%
Djibouti 59%

Given the huge unemployment rate, then we assume that these countries, according to the aggregate demand theory, to be in a deflationary depression.

Note: there is no price inflation figure for Nauru

image

Vanatu’s inflation rate (chart from Index Mundi) Positive inflation.

image

Turkmenistan price inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

image

Zimbabwe’s post hyperinflation CPI (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

image

Mozambique’s inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

image

Djibouti’s inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

Surprise, ALL 5 nations with the largest unemployment have ZERO account of price deflation!

So what’s wrong with such a claim or theory?

The fundamental premises are essentially misplaced:

-People all think the same or people don’t think at all. People mechanically and homogeneously follow the circular reasoning that falling demand leads to falling prices in a perpetual feedback loop to an eternal hellhole.

-People’s don't have marginal utility. All people share the same set of values, priorities, incentives and time preferences. 

-People are not human. People simply stop eating, drinking or clothing or finding shelter under a deflationary spiral. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs have been jettisoned out of the window. People are caught in a stasis, freeze like a deer caught in headlights, where demand totally evaporates.

-When people don’t think or when people think the same or when people stop being people then obviously the demand and supply curve, the law of scarcity and opportunity costs becomes inapplicable or ceases to exists.

-Capital has been nonexistent to people who act or behave in aggregates.

-Inflation is NOT a monetary phenomenon so does the consequent deflation.

In the real world, economies are vastly complex, with millions of spontaneously operating parts such that wages represents only part of the myriad of factors that influence the economic environment.

Other real factors are equally or even more important, e.g. proximity to markets, size and categories of markets, state of basic infrastructure, access to credit, connectivity, technology and labor, quality of labor force, comparative advantage/s, state of legal, political and regulatory institutions and environment, tax levels, state of economic freedom, depth of capital markets, monetary regime and much more.

Most important is property rights. When property rights are not secure, no one will dare to invest no matter the relative lower, if not the lowest costs, in terms of labor wages. Who invests in North Korea or in the above 5 nations with the largest unemployment (presumably the cheapest labor force) in the world where one's capital are likely to be arbitrarily seized by the incumbent authorities?

These are real factors that can't be seen as having neutral effects on people's incentives or which operates on a vacuum. 

How about the solution where government must step in to provide jobs, by inflation or protection? 

Well government, of course, comprises of people too.

Under the aggregate demand framework, the political class have been glorified as representing “superior” set of people in terms of knowledge and virtues, relative to the market which is seen as inferior non-political people, that lays ground for interventions on so-called “market failures”.

Such is an unalloyed myth. If the romance on politics is true, then inflation or deflation won’t exist. There won’t anything known as economics.

The reality is that inflation and protectionism represents two sides of the same coin: the political economy of destruction.

As the great Ludwig von Mises explained (bold mine)
By destroying the basis of reckoning values—the possibility of calculating with a general denominator of prices which, for short periods at least, does not fluctuate too wildly—inflation shakes the system of calculations in terms of money, the most important aid to economic action which thought has evolved. As long as it is kept within certain limits, inflation is an excellent psychological support of an economic policy which lives on the consumption of capital. In the usual, and indeed the only possible, kind of capitalist book-keeping, inflation creates an illusion of profit where in reality there are only losses. As people start off from the nominal sum of the erstwhile cost price, they allow too little for depreciation on fixed capital, and since they take into account the apparent increases in the value of circulating capital as if these increases were real increases of value, they show profits where accounts in a stable currency would reveal losses. This is certainly not a means of abolishing the effects of an evil etatistic policy, of war and revolution; it merely hides them from the eye of the multitude. People talk of profits, they think they are living in a period of economic progress, and finally they even applaud the wise policy which apparently makes everyone richer.

But the moment inflation passes a certain point the picture changes. It begins to promote destructionism, not merely indirectly by disguising the effects of destructionist policy; it becomes in itself one of the most important tools of destructionism. It leads everyone to consume his fortune; it discourages saving, and thereby prevents the formation of fresh capital. It encourages the confiscatory policy of taxation. The depreciation of money raises the monetary expression of commodity values and this, reacting on the book values of changes in capital—which the tax administration regards as increases in income and capital—becomes a new legal justification for confiscation of part of the owners' fortune. References to the apparently high profits which entrepreneurs can be shown to be making, on a calculation assuming that the value of money remains stable, offers an excellent means of stimulating popular frenzy. In this way, one can easily represent all entrepreneurial activity as profiteering, swindling, and parasitism. And the chaos which follows, the money system collapsing under the avalanche of continuous issues of additional notes, gives a favourable opportunity for completing the work of destruction.
The bottom line is that previous interventionists policies, e.g. policy induced boom bust cycles, regulatory mandates, entitlements etc..., have resulted to such lack of competitiveness which neo-mercantilists try to shift the blame onto the others. Yet they are asking for more of the same thing that led to this or they seek doing the same thing over and over again but are expecting different results.

The economics of aggregatism, thus, has mostly been about pretentious or pseudo-economics wrapped in populist anti-market politics constructed from heuristics, political religion and cognitive biases, or might I say, a grand deflation in logic.

Friday, March 23, 2012

The Mythical World of Ben Bernanke

For Ben Bernanke and their ilk, the world exists in a causation vacuum, as things are just seen as they are, as if they are simply "given". And people’s action expressed by the marketplace, are seen as fallible, which only requires the steering guidance of the technocracy (the arrogant dogmatic belief that political authorities are far knowledgeable than the public).

Monetary economist Professor George Selgin majestically blasts Ben Bernanke’s self-glorification. (bold emphasis mine)

So like any central banker, and unlike better academic economists, Bernanke consistently portrays inflation, business cycles, financial crises, and asset price "bubbles" as things that happen because...well, the point is that there is generally no "because." These things just happen; central banks, on the other hand, exist to prevent them from happening, or to "mitigate" them once they happen, or perhaps (as in the case of "bubbles") to simply tolerate them, because they can't do any better than that. That central banks' own policies might actually cause inflation, or contribute to the business cycle, or trigger crises, or blow-up asset bubbles--these are possibilities to which every economist worth his or her salt attaches some importance, if not overwhelming importance. But they are also possibilities that every true-blue central banker avoids like so many landmines. Are you old enough to remember that publicity shot of Arthur Burns holding a baseball bat and declaring that he was about to "knock inflation out of the economy"? That was Burns talking, not like a monetary economist, but like the Fed propagandist that he was. Bernanke talks the same way throughout much (though not quite all) of his lecture.

And for the central bank religion, politics has never been an issue. It’s always been about the virtuous state of public service channeled through economic policies…

In describing the historical origins of central banking, for instance, Bernanke makes no mention at all of the fiscal purpose of all of the earliest central banks--that is, of the fact that they were set up, not to combat inflation or crises or cycles but to provide financial relief to their sponsoring governments in return for monopoly privileges. He is thus able to steer clear of the thorny challenge of explaining just how it was that institutions established for function X happened to prove ideally suited for functions Y and Z, even though the latter functions never even entered the minds of the institutions' sponsors or designers!

By ignoring the true origins of early central banks, and of the Bank of England in particular, and simply asserting that the (immaculately conceived) Bank gradually figured-out its "true" purpose, especially by discovering that it could save the British economy now and then by serving as a Lender of Last Resort, Bernanke is able to overlook the important possibility that central banks' monopoly privileges--and their monopoly of paper currency especially--may have been a contributing cause of 19th-century financial instability. How currency monopoly contributed to instability is something I've explained elsewhere. More to the point, it is something that Walter Bagehot was perfectly clear about in his famous 1873 work, Lombard Street. Bernanke, in typical central-bank-apologist fashion, refers to Bagehot's work, but only to recite Bagehot's rules for last-resort lending. He thus allows all those innocent GWU students to suppose (as was surely his intent) that Bagehot considered central banking a jolly good thing. In fact, as anyone who actually reads Bagehot will see, he emphatically considered central banking--or what he called England's "one-reserve system" of banking--a very bad thing, best avoided in favor of a "natural" system, like Scotland's, in which numerous competing banks of issue are each responsible for maintaining their own cash reserves.

People hardly realize that central banks had been born out of politics and survives on taxpayer money which is politics, and eventually will die out of politics.

Any discussion of politics affecting central banking policymaking has to be purposely skirted or evaded.

Policies must be painted as having positive influences or at worst neutral effects. This leaves all flaws attributable to the marketplace.

In reality, any admission to the negative consequence of the central bank polices would extrapolate to self-incrimination for central bankers and the risk of losing their politically endowed privileges.

Besides ignoring the destabilizing effects of central banking--or of any system based on a currency monopoly--Bernanke carefully avoids any mention of the destabilizing effects of other sorts of misguided financial regulation. He thus attributes the greater frequency of banking crises in the post-Civil War U.S. than in England solely to the lack of a central bank in the former country, making one wish that some clever GWU student had interrupted him to observe that Canada and Scotland, despite also lacking central banks, each had far fewer crises than either the U.S. or England. Hearing Bernanke you would never guess that U.S. banks were generally denied the ability to branch, or that state chartered banks were prevented by a prohibitive federal tax from issuing their own notes, or that National banks found it increasingly difficult to issue their own notes owing to the high cost of government securities required (originally for fiscal reasons) as backing for their notes. Certainly you would not realize that economic historians have long recognized (see, for starters, here andhere) how these regulations played a crucial part in pre-Fed U.S. financial instability. No: you would be left to assume that U.S. crises just...happened, or rather, that they happened "because" there was no central bank around to put a stop to them.

Because he entirely overlooks the role played by legal restrictions in destabilizing the pre-1914 U.S. financial system, Bernanke is bound to overlook as well the historically important "asset currency" reform movement that anticipated the post-1907 turn toward a central-bank based monetary reform. Instead of calling for yet more government intervention in the monetary system the earlier movement proposed a number of deregulatory solutions to periodic financial crises, including the repeal of Civil-War era currency-backing requirements and the dismantlement of barriers to nationwide branch banking. Canada's experience suggested that this deregulatory program might have worked very well. Unfortunately concerted opposition to branch banking, by both established "independent" bankers and Wall Street (which gained lots of correspondent business thanks to other banks' inability to have branches there) blocked this avenue of reform. Instead of mentioning any of this, Bernanke refers only to the alternative of relying upon private clearinghouses to handle panics, which he says "just wasn't sufficient." True enough. But the Fed, first of all (as Bernanke himself goes on to admit, and as Friedman and Schwartz argue at length), turned out be be an even less adequate solution than the clearinghouses had been; more importantly, the clearinghouses themselves, far from having been the sole or best alternative to a central bank, were but a poor second-best substitute for needed deregulation.

To be fair, Bernanke does eventually get 'round to offering a theory of crises. The theory is the one according to which a rumor spreads to the effect that some bank or banks may be in trouble, which is supposedly enough to trigger a "contagion" of fear that has everyone scrambling for their dough. Bernanke refers listeners to Frank Capra's movie "It's a Wonderful Life," as though it offered some sort of ground for taking the theory seriously, though admittedly he might have done worse by referring them to Diamond and Dybvig's (1983) even more factitious journal article. Either way, the impression left is one that ought to make any thinking person wonder how any bank ever managed to last for more than a few hours in those awful pre-deposit insurance days. That quite a few banks, and especially ones that could diversify through branching, did considerably better than that is of course a problem for the theory, though one Bernanke never mentions. (Neither, for that matter, do many monetary economists, most of whom seem to judge theories, not according to how well they stand up to the facts, but according to how many papers you can spin off from them.) In particular, he never mentions the fact that Canada had no bank failures at all during the 1930s, despite having had no central bank until 1935, and no deposit insurance until many decades later. Nor does he acknowledge research by George Kaufman, among others, showing that bank run "contagions" have actually been rare even in the relatively fragile U.S. banking system. (Although it resembled a system-wide contagion, the panic of late February 1933 was actually a speculative attack on the dollar spurred on by the fear that Roosevelt was going to devalue it--which of course he eventually did.) And although Bernanke shows a chart depicting high U.S. bank failure rates in the years prior to the Fed's establishment, he cuts it off so that no one can observe how those failure rates increased after 1914. Finally, Bernanke suggests that the Fed, acting in accordance with his theory, only offers last-resort aid to solvent ("Jimmy Stewart") banks, leaving others to fail, whereas in fact the record shows that, after the sorry experience of the Great Depression (when it let poor Jimmy fend for himself), the Fed went on to employ its last resort lending powers, not to rescue solvent banks (which for the most part no longer needed any help from it), but to bail out manifestly insolvent ones. All of these "overlooked" facts suggest that there is something not quite right about the suggestion that bank failure rates are highest when there is neither a central bank nor deposit insurance. But why complicate things? The story is a cinch to teach, and the Diamond-Dybvig model is so..."elegant." Besides, who wants to spoil the plot of "It's a Wonderful Life?"

Cherry picking of reference points and censorship had been applied on historical accounts that does not favor central banking.

Of course, it is natural for central bankers to be averse to the gold standard. A gold standard would reduce or extinguish central banker’s (as well as politicians') political control over money.

Bernanke's discussion of the gold standard is perhaps the low point of a generally poor performance, consisting of little more than the usual catalog of anti-gold clichés: like most critics of the gold standard, Bernanke is evidently so convinced of its rottenness that it has never occurred to him to check whether the standard arguments against it have any merit. Thus he says, referring to an old Friedman essay, that the gold standard wastes resources. He neglects to tell his listeners (1) that for his calculations Friedman assumed 100% gold reserves, instead of the "paper thin" reserves that, according to Bernanke himself, where actually relied upon during the gold standard era; (2) that Friedman subsequently wrote an article on "The Resource Costs of Irredeemable Paper Money" in which he questioned his own, previous assumption that paper money was cheaper than gold; and (3) that the flow of resources to gold mining and processing is mainly a function of gold's relative price, and that that relative price has been higher since 1971 than it was during the classical gold standard era, thanks mainly to the heightened demand for gold as a hedge against fiat-money-based inflation. Indeed, the real price of gold is higher today than it has ever been except for a brief interval during the 1980s. So, Ben: while you chuckle about how silly it would be to embrace a monetary standard that tends to enrich foreign gold miners, perhaps you should consider how no monetary standard has done so more than the one you yourself have been managing!

Bernanke's claim that output was more volatile under the gold standard than it has been in recent decades is equally unsound. True: some old statistics support it; but those have been overturned by Christina Romer's more recent estimates, which show the standard deviation of real GNP since World War II to be only slightly greater than that for the pre-Fed period. (For a detailed and up-to-date comparison of pre-1914 and post-1945 U.S. economic volatility see my, Bill Lastrapes, and Larry White's forthcoming Journal of Macroeconomics paper, "Has the Fed Been a Failure?").

Nor is Bernanke on solid ground in suggesting that the gold standard was harmful because it resulted in gradual deflation for most of the gold-standard era. True, farmers wanted higher prices for their crops, if not general inflation to erode the value of their debts--when haven't they? But generally the deflation of the 19th century did no harm at all, because it was roughly consistent with productivity gains of the era, and so reflected falling unit production costs. As a self-proclaimed fan of Friedman and Schwartz, Bernanke ought to be aware of their own conclusion that the secular deflation he complains about was perfectly benign. Or else he should read Saul's The Myth of the Great the Great Depression, or Atkeson and Kehoe's more recent AER article, or my Less Than Zero. In short, he should inform himself of the fundamental difference between supply-drive and demand-driven deflation, instead of lumping them together, and lecture students accordingly.

Although he admits later in his lecture (in his sole acknowledgement of central bankers' capacity to do harm) that the Federal Reserve was itself to blame for the excessive monetary tightening of the early 1930s, in his discussion of the gold standard Bernanke repeats the canard that the Fed's hands were tied by that standard. The facts show otherwise: Federal Reserve rules required 40% gold backing of outstanding Federal Reserve notes. But the Fed wasn’t constrained by this requirement, which it had statutory authority to suspend at any time for an indefinite period. More importantly, during the first stages of the Great (monetary) Contraction, the Fed had plenty of gold and was actually accumulating more of it. By August 1931, it's gold holdings had risen to $3.5 billion (from $3.1 billion in 1929), which was 81% of its then-outstanding notes, or more than twice its required holdings. And although Fed gold holdings then started to decline, by March 1933, which is to say the very nadir of the monetary contraction, the Fed still held over than $1 billion in excess gold reserves. In short, at no point of the Great Contraction was the Fed prevented from further expanding the monetary base by a lack of required gold cover.

Finally, Bernanke repeats the tired old claim that the gold standard is no good because gold supply shocks will cause the value of money to fluctuate. It is of course easy to show that gold will be inferior on this score to an ideally managed fiat standard. But so what? The question is, how do the price movements under gold compare to those under actual fiat standards? Has Bernanke compared the post-Sutter's Mill inflation to that of, say, the Fed's first five years, or the 1970s? Has he compared the average annual inflation rate during the so-called "price revolution" of the 16th century--a result of massive gold imports from the New-World--to the average U.S. rate during his own tenure as Fed chairman? If he bothered to do so, I dare say he'd clam up about those terrible gold supply shocks.

So when it comes to the gold standard, it is not only the omission of facts and of glaring blind spots, but importantly, it is about deliberate twisting of the facts! At least they practice what they preach--they manipulate the markets too.

Now this is what we call propaganda.

image

It is best to point out how Bernanke’s central banking has destroyed the purchasing power of the US dollar as shown in the chart above.

Yet here is another example of the mainstream falling for Bernanke’s canard.

Writes analyst David Fuller,

Preservation of purchasing power is the main reason why anyone would favour a gold standard. However, if we assume, hypothetically, that the US and other leading countries moved back on to a gold standard, I do not think many of us would like the deflationary consequences that followed. Also, a gold standard would almost certainly involve the confiscation of private holdings of bullion, as has occurred previously. Most of us would not like to lose our freedom to hold bullion.

I have long argued that we would never see the reintroduction of a gold standard because no leading government is likely to surrender control over its own money supply. For current reasons, just ask the Greeks or citizens of other peripheral Eurozone countries, struggling to cope with no more than a euro standard.

There would also be national security issues as it would not be difficult for rogue states to manipulate the price of bullion as an act of economic war.

First of all, the paper money system is not, and will not be immune to the deflationary impact caused by an inflationary boom. That’s why business cycles exist. Under government’s repeated doping of the marketplace we would either see episodes of monetary deflation (bubble bust) or a destruction of the currency system (hyperinflation) at the extremes.

As Professor Ludwig von Mises wrote

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

Next, as previously pointed out the intellectuals and political authorities resort to semantic tricks to mislead the public.

Deflation caused by productivity gains (pointed out by Professor Selgin) isn’t bad but rather has positive impacts—as evidenced by the advances of technology.

Rather it is the money pumping and the leverage (gearing), or the erosion of real wealth, caused by prior inflationism from the central bank sponsored banking system. These political actions spawns outsized fluctuations and the adverse ramifications of monetary deflation.

And it is the banking system will be more impacted than that the real economy which is the reason for these massive bailouts and expansion of balance sheets of central banks. It's about political interest than of public interests.

In addition, it is wildly inaccurate to claim to say gold standard would “involve the confiscation of private holdings of bullion”. FDR’s EO 6102 in 1933 came at the end of the gold bullion standard which is different from the classical gold standard. In the classic gold standard, gold (coins) are used as money or the medium of exchange, so confiscation of gold would mean no money in circulation. How logical would this be?

Finally while the assertions that “no leading government is likely to surrender control” seems plausible, this seems predicated on money as a product of governments—which is false. Effects should not be read as causes.

As the great F. A. Hayek wrote (Denationalization of Money p.37-38)

It the superstition that it is necessary for government (usually called the 'state' to make it sound better) to declare what is to be money, as if it had created the money which could not exist without it, probably originated in the naive belief that such a tool as money must have been 'invented' and given to us by some original inventor. This belief has been wholly displaced by our understanding of the spontaneous generation of such undesigned institutions by a process of social evolution of which money has since become the prime paradigm (law, language and morals being the other main instances).

If governments has magically transformed money into inviolable instruments then hyperinflation would have never existed.

At the end of the day, the world in which central bankers and their minions portray seems no less than vicious propaganda.