Video: Greenspan Says Stock Markets causes Economic Growth

In the face of US fiscal problems, former Fed chief Alan Greenspan says in the following video interview that only the stock market is truly important.

Quotable:

[3:40] data shows that not only are stock markets a leading indicator of economic activity, they are a major cause of it – the statistics indicate that 6% of the change in GDP results from changes in market values of stocks and homes.

This is just an example of experts who resort to statistics to misleadingly associate asset inflation with economic growth: a post hoc fallacy. This has been anchored on the so-called Wealth Effect myth which sees consumption as drivers of the economy.

As I previously explained real economic growth is about the acquisition of real savings or capital accumulation from production.

And that the real concealed reason for the promotion of the wealth effect has been to justify government intervention.

But of course the principal reason behind the populist consumption economy narrative has been to justify myriad government interventions via ‘demand management’ measures applied against the supposed insufficient “aggregate demand” from so-called “market failures”.

Moreover, the consumption story aims to buttress mostly indiscriminate debt acquisition as a means of attaining statistical rather than real growth based on value creation.

The central banks' serial blowing of asset bubbles is really an illusion that eventually will implode, thus the bubble cycles. 

Also a major reason for such undertaking has been to subsidize the crony banking system, who serves as agents for central banks and as financiers of the political class at the expense of the economy.

Nonetheless, inflating asset bubbles has become the de facto central banking standard adapted by the world monetary authorities, that has been articulated by Mr. Greenspan’s successor, the incumbent Ben Bernanke, as a “smart way” of protecting the economy.

Quote of the Day: Why Is Obama Such A Cheapskate?

Pres. Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour, reflects his contempt for lower-income people.  If a $9.00 minimum wage would help poorer people - and without any negative effects, as defenders of this form of price-fixing often pretend - why would he not have the state confer untold wealth on us all by raising the minimum wage to $9.00 per minute, or even higher?  Why is he such a piker? After all, wealth is just money, is it not?  And if providing every American with $100 billion in cash would make us all rich, why is he holding back?  If the government of Zimbabwe had the foresight - and generous intentions - to do this, why not America?

This is from Law Professor Butler Shaffer at the Lew Rockwell Blog

Quote of the Day: The Failure of Leadership

That’s what leadership is all about — solemn and pompous lying. The greatest leaders are those who do it most grandly. Abraham Lincoln, for example. Without his leadership, the US would have probably split apart, which is to say the southern states would have been permitted to exercise the right laid out for them in the Declaration of Independence. They merely demanded to do what the 13 colonies had done before them — to misgovern themselves rather than have it imposed on them by others.

Lincoln — at Gettysburg — told the biggest lie in American history. He said they were fighting to preserve the promise of the revolution, and that the war was a test of whether “any nation, so conceived…can long endure.” In the end, his generals, Grant and Sherman, decided the matter in the negative.

The next greatest leadership debacle came in 1917. That was when Woodrow Wilson launched the US into someone else’s war on the basis of a breathtaking deceit. It was a “war to make the world safe for democracy,” he said. But if that were so, the US went in on the wrong side. Specifically, Britain and France ruled hundreds of millions of people — in Africa, Ireland, India, Southeast Asia — with no votes allowed! Germany, in comparison, was a model of democratic humbug.

Leaders lie. And their leadership — founded on lies — typically brings disasters. WWI was a disaster. Then came an economic disaster — the Great Depression. In the previous depression, 1920-1921, US president Warren Harding and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, simply ignored it. No leadership was provided. Two years later the depression was over.

This is from Agora publishing editor Bill Bonner at the Daily Reckoning.

Chart of the Day: “Overcharging” Governments

I pointed out last night that we should instead put pressure on the governments for “overcharging” taxpayers for the provision of so-called “public goods”.

the table should be turned where overcharging should also be pinned on the extravagance and insatiability of governments to incessantly work on extorting more taxes from the entrepreneurs, capitalists and investors by using “social justice” as pretext to benefit political boondoggles

In the US, the chart below courtesy of EPJ’s Bob Wenzel shows of the “cost overruns” by select government agencies.

Governments recklessly and relentlessly waste taxpayer’s money. Yet the paradox is that the government penalize taxpayer, and simultaneously award themselves for such foolhardiness with even more resources extorted from the taxpayers. What is "social justice" as implicitly defined by the political class has, in reality, been a parasitical relationship enabled by mandated coercion.

I just hope that there would be a local counterpart of this chart.

Video: Murray Rothbard on Trade Balance and Government Budget

Many mistake the effects of balance of trade with that of government budget. Some do this deliberately, through the use of statistical ruse, to promote the mercantilist or protectionist agenda.

In the following video, the great dean of the Austrian school of economics Murray Rothdard tersely clarifies on such distinction and or dispels the mercantilist myth.

Quote of the Day: Money Printing will lead the Sheep to Slaughter

The fallacy of the belief that countries that print their own currency are immune to sovereign crisis will be disproven in the coming months and years. Those that treat this belief as axiomatic will most likely be the biggest losers. A handful of investors and asset managers have recently discussed an emerging school of thought, which postulates that countries, as the sole manufacturer of their currency, can never become insolvent, and in this sense, governments are not dependent on credit markets to remain fiscally operational. It is precisely this line of thinking which will ultimately lead the sheep to slaughter.

(italics original)

 

This excerpt is from Kyle Bass, American fund manager and founder of Hayman Capital, from his November 15th newsletter (source Zero Hedge)

For many, the laws of economics don’t apply. Inflation is not about monetary expansion. Money printing has neutral effects and supersedes everything else. This myth which will eventually be shattered.

Quote of the Day: Demand and Supply are Two sides of the Same Coin

It’s not that “supply creates its own demand,” but rather that supply is demand. One produces a good either to consume it oneself or, more commonly, to trade it for another good. Demand and supply are two sides of the same, well, coin—which reminds me to add that Say’s Law holds not just in a barter economy but a monetary one also—a freed one, that is, unlike the corporate state we all occupy.

True, someone might sell a good and not spend the money received. But this would lead to idleness only if the economy did not consist in a time structure of production coordinated by interest rates. In other words, money not spent is saved and available for investment (that is, payments for producer goods and labor, which will be spent on consumer goods) at stages remote from the consumer-goods level; that is, long-term investment in production for future consumption…

Given our insatiable demand for goods, in a freed market a general glut couldn’t happen; if prices were free to fluctuate in response to changed conditions or entrepreneurial error, the price of goods plentiful relative to demand would fall, while the price of goods deficient relative to demand would rise. Entrepreneurs would then adjust their plans, but since change is the rule, the market would never reach a state of rest. Say’s Law is about a (free) process through time, not general equilibrium.

This is from American political writer and libertarian Sheldon Richman at the Reason.com refuting progressives who deliberately misstate the great proto Austrian Frédéric Bastiat’s “Broken Window fallacy” or the fallacious economic doctrine which sees, from the perspective of spending, net benefits from destruction (e.g. natural calamities or wars).

Quote of the Day: Infrastructure is the Effect of Economic Progress

Nor is it true that a substantial infrastructure is a precondition of development….  The suggestion that ready-made infrastructure is necessary for development ignores the fact that the infrastructure develops in the course of economic progress, not ahead of it.  The suggestion is yet another example of an unhistorical and unrealistic attitude to the process of development.

I am sharing Café Hayek’s or Professor Don Boudreaux’s quote of the day which is from the late Peter Bauer’s invaluable 1976 collection (page 111), Dissent on Development (Revised Edition); specifically, it’s from Bauer’s 1969 Scottish Journal of Political Economy essay

The popular notion where “infrastructure drives economic progress” which justifies for government interventions simply accounts for the fallacy of confusing cause and effects. This popular fiction has been peddled by media and politically captured institutions, which accounts for as either utter ignorance, political inculcation or propaganda aimed at brainwashing the gullible public.

In reality as recently pointed out, the industrial age had been largely driven by private sector infrastructure. This serves as evidence that growing economic activities motivates people to build and invest in infrastructure to augment their existing conditions with accumulated capital from earlier transactions.

As Professor Ludwig von Mises noted,

saving and the resulting accumulation of capital goods are at the beginning of every attempt to improve the material conditions of man; they are the foundation of human civilization. Without saving and capital accumulation there could not be any striving toward non-material ends

This means capital don't appear from nowhere!

The mystic of government’s supposed magical potency on the economy has not only been based on fallacies but on the poor understanding of capital, opportunity costs and the law of scarcity.

Moreover, such popular misimpression have been backed by the assumption that governments possess omniscience, which in reality they don’t.

Quote of the Day: The Fiction of the Mass of the People

Representative government cannot express the will of the mass of the people, because there is no mass of the people; The People is a fiction, like The State. You cannot get a Will of the Mass, even among a dozen persons who all want to go on a picnic. The only human mass with a common will is a mob, and that will is a temporary insanity. In actual fact, the population of a country is a multitude of diverse human beings with an infinite variety of purposes and desires and fluctuating wills. 

In a republic, a majority of the population from time to time decides what a candidate for public office shall have the use of The State’s police power. From time to time, an action of a majority can alter the methods by which men get power, the extent of that power, or the terms upon which they are allowed to keep it. But a majority does not govern; it cannot govern; it acts as a check on its governors. Any government of multitudes of men, anywhere, at any time, must be a man, or few men, in power. There is no way to escape from that fact. 

This is from American author, journalist and libertarian Rose Wilder Lane in her essay Credo (1936) So goes the local populist media concept of the "madlang people"

Bastiat on the Twin Doctrines of Luddism and Mercantilism

The great French proto-Austro libertarian Frédéric Bastiat exposes the fallacies of the twin doctrines of Luddism (opposed to modern technology) and mercantilism, which the great Dean of the Austrian school of economics, Murray Rothbard, defines as a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state

The following incisive excerpt, published by the Mises Institute, has been culled from an essay entitled “Human Labor and National Labor” which appeared in Economic Sophisms and in the Bastiat Collection (bold mine)

What misleads the adversaries of machinery and foreign importations is that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory effects, instead of following them out to their general and definite consequences.

The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious machine is to render superfluous, for the attainment of a given result, a certain amount of manual labor. But its action does not stop there. For the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer efforts, the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and the aggregate of savings thus realized by all purchasers enables them to procure other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual labor in general to exactly the extent of the manual labor which has been saved in the special branch of industry which has been recently improved. So that the level of labor has not fallen, while that of enjoyments has risen.

Let us render this evident by an example.

Suppose there are used annually in this country 10 million hats at 15 shillings each; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this branch of industry £7,500,000 sterling. A machine is invented that allows these hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum now wanted for the support of this industry is reduced to £5,000,000, provided the demand is not augmented by the change. But the remaining sum of £2,500,000 is not by this change withdrawn from the support of human labor. That sum, economized by the purchasers of hats, will enable them to satisfy other wants, and consequently, to that extent will go to remunerate the aggregate industry of the country. With the five shillings saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, Jerome a piece of furniture, etc. Human labor, taken in the aggregate, will continue, then, to be supported and encouraged to the extent of £7,500,000; but this sum will yield the same number of hats, plus all the satisfactions and enjoyments corresponding to £2,500,000 that the employment of the machine has enabled the consumers of hats to save. These additional enjoyments constitute the clear profit that the country will have derived from the invention. This is a free gift, a tribute that human genius will have derived from nature. We do not at all dispute that in the course of the transformation a certain amount of labor will have been displaced; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or diminished.

The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us revert to our former hypothesis.

The country manufactures 10 million hats, of which the cost price was 15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the national labor will not be thereby diminished.

For it must produce to the extent of £5,000,000 to enable it to pay for 10 million hats at 10 shillings.

And then there remains to each purchaser five shillings saved on each hat, or in all, £2,500,000, which will be spent on other enjoyments — that is to say, which will go to support labor in other departments of industry.

Then the aggregate labor of the country will remain what it was, and the additional enjoyments represented by £2,500,000 saved upon hats will form the clear profit accruing from imports under the system of free trade.

It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings that, on this hypothesis, the displacement of labor will entail.

For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labor would have found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no displacement would have taken place.

If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive employment of labor, it is prohibition, and not liberty, that is to blame for a displacement that is inevitable in the transition from what is detrimental to what is beneficial.

Quote of the Day: Private Sector Infrastructure Investment and the Industrial Age

Any growth theory where government investment plays a crucial role in stimulating growth immediately runs afoul of the historical record, however.  The first countries to industrialize did not require extensive government involvement to make these investments.  In England, it was apparent that neither early capital accumulation nor social overhead investment depended heavily on the public sector, as Phyllis Deane (1979) notes when commenting on traditional explanations of growth that rely on government involvement to overcome lumpiness and externalities:

“The consequence is that social overhead capital generally has to be provided collectively, by governments or international financial institutions rather than individuals, and the mobilization of the large chunks of capital required is most easily achieved through taxation or borrowing.  The interesting thing about the British experience, however, is that it was almost entirely native private enterprise that found both the initiative and the capital to lay down the system of communications which was essential to the British industrial revolution.” [p. 73]

Private returns were, apparently, sufficiently high in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century to induce the private sector to make the necessary infrastructure investment required by the Industrial Revolution.

(bold mine)

This excerpt is from John Wallis’s Chapter 13 of the 1994 essay “Government Growth, Income Growth, and Economic Growth,” of Capitalism in Context: Essays on Economic Development and Cultural Change in Honor of R. M. Hartwell (John A. James & Mark Thomas, eds., 1994) (link added) as quoted by Professor Don Boudreaux at the Café Hayek.

The above dispels the popular myth that only governments can provide the required infrastructure investment (e.g. roads, bridges, and etc…) for a society.

And an even more important point is that such initiative from the private sector came about when the world had been less economically prosperous.

In other words, the miraculous economic development, or the rags to riches story, or the magnificent transformation of human society from the medieval age--through the industrial age--to today’s information age, during the last 200 years as depicted by Hans Rosling in this video has been rooted from private sector’s infrastructure investments.

Costs are not benefits. Contrary to another popular misperception, capital does NOT just emerge out of nowhere. They are accumulated by the private sector through savings and investments. And that the resources that government has always accrue from, or have been coercively taken from, the private sector.

This means that outside the ambit of regulatory and political obstacles or interference, the private sector could have used these resources to finance and build the required infrastructure ala the industrial age.

The problem is that politicization of infrastructure investments emerges from its capacity to deliver votes.

It’s also a mistake to see the world as operating in a vacuum, such that only governments can make the “right” decision based on presumed "superiority" of knowledge, for infrastructure spending.

After all, the government is comprised of people too.

This means that politicians and bureaucrats have similar limitations like anyone else except that they have the privilege of using guns and badges against their constituents to meet their goal.

Yet any erroneous actions from centralized institutions will have far greater “externalities” or impact to the society than from the decentralized private sectors.

The entrenched belief that governments “know better” accounts for as one of the greatest myths of our time.

Quote of the Day: Currency Devaluation is a Subsidy to Cronies

currency devaluation is merely a transfer of wealth from all of a nation's citizens to politically favored industries, usually export industries. It is no different from giving a subsidy to any domestic producer. The subsidy is paid by all the citizens of the subsidizing country, not by the foreigners who buy the subsidized good. They get a bargain. 

Furthermore, devaluation does not make a nation more competitive. It does nothing to spur increased domestic saving or external capital investment, which lead to the increased application of capital per capita, the only sources of increased worker productivity and the only sources of increased real wages. Devaluation does not reveal the onerous, wealth-destroying effect of economic regulation, not does it reveal the true costs of the welfare state, which relies on high taxes to fund present consumption at the expense of future prosperity. What the state spends cannot be saved and invested, no matter how cheap the currency. 

This is from Patrick Barron at the Mises Institute who talks about bad economic prescriptions, by a recently awarded expert, on the European crisis. 

It is important to point out that even the major proponents or advocates of inflationism-devaluation recognize the baneful effects from such policies. 

The inflationist advocacy represents more about heuristics and oversimpflication of reality which has been masked as pretentious economic analysis (through the fixation to aggregate based statistical models). 

Nonetheless, the mainstream who subscribe to such snake oil nostrums have  been blinded or brainwashed by political ideology (where they see social solutions as only coming from the "moral authority" of government through the quackery of pseudo-science models) or have been duped by the propaganda or machinations from vested interest groups or wishes to attain social desirability through conformity with popular "feel good" talking points, or have been afflicted by sheer ignorance.

It takes sheer common sense and real world observations to debunk such fallacies, which ironically, in the world of politics have been uncommon.

Quote of the Day: The Folly of Institutional Worship

The individual is king, and all these other things exist for the service of the king. It is a mere superstition to worship any institution, as an institution, and not to judge it by its effects upon the character and the interests of men. It is here that socialist and Catholic make the same grand mistake. They exalt the organization, which is in truth as mere dust under our feet; they debase the man, for whose sake the organization and all other earthly things exist. They posit a priori the claims of the external organization as supreme and transcending all profit and loss account, and they call upon men to sacrifice a large part of their higher nature for the sake of this organization. They both of them sacrifice man, the king, to the mere dead instrument that exists for man’s service.

(bold mine)

This excerpt is from writer, theorist, and 19th century individualist Auberon Edward Herbert in a splendid rejoinder against socialist J. A. Hobson in 1899. (libertarianism.org)

IMF’s Christine Lagarde Inflationist Delusions

From the Deutsche Borse Group: (bold added)

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde praised monetary stimulus efforts of the world's major central banks Thursday, but said non-monetary authorities in Europe, the United States and elsewhere need to build on those steps to improve growth in a slowing world economy.

Lagarde, at a press conference ahead of the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank, said she "expects courageous, cooperative action" at the meetings.

She also aimed criticism at China, whose top economic policymakers declined to attend the meetings because of territorial disputes with host Japan. China needs to be more of a global partner and increase demand for foreign products, not just concentrate on exporting its own products, she said, after pointedly noting its officials' absence.

Lagarde vowed the IMF "will spare no time and effort" to help Greece, but said the objective is to ultimately free that country from dependence on outside assistance.

Noting that the IMF has downgraded its projections of global growth, Lagarde said, "we are not expecting a very strong recovery." Indeed, she called high unemployment rates in advanced countries "terrifying and unacceptable."

The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have all adopted additional easing measures, and she praised their moves, but said that by themselves those actions are "not sufficient." 

The "momentum" imparted by monetary easing "should be seized as an opportunity," she said.

Ms, Lagarde’s “momentum” remarks essentially echoes former President Obama’s chief of staff and current Mayor of Chicago Emanuel Rahm’s infamous sly quote on establishing political controls over society…

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

And emerging market central banks have fawningly embraced Ms. Lagarde’s recommendations.

This from Reuters:

Emerging market central banks have clearly taken to heart the recent IMF warning that there is “an alarmingly high risk”  of a deeper global growth slump.

Two central banks have cut interest rates in the past 24 hours: Brazil  extended its year-long policy easing campaign with a quarter point cut to bring interest rates to a record low 7.25 percent and the Bank of Korea (BoK) also delivered a 25 basis point cut to 2.75 percent.  All eyes now are on Singapore which is expected to ease monetary policy on Friday while Turkey could do so next week and a Polish rate cut is looking a foregone conclusion for November.

South Africa, Hungary, Colombia, China and Turkey have eased policy in recent months while India has cut bank reserve ratios to spur lending.

The BoK’s explanation for its move shows how alarmed policymakers are becoming by the gloom  all around them. Its decision did not surprise markets but its (extremely dovish) post-meeting rhetoric did.  The bank said both exports and domestic demand were “lacklustre”.  (A change from July when it admitted exports were flagging but said domestic demand was resilient) But consumption has clearly failed to pick up after July’s surprise rate cut — retail sales disappointed even during September’s festival season.  BoK clearly expects things to get worse: it noted that ” a cut now is better than later to help the economy”.

Ms. Lagarde’s comments, which gives emphasis on the short term at greater costs of the future, can be summed up into two types of casuistry: 

The delusion of central planning: 

From the great Ludwig von Mises (Omnipotent Government),

It is a delusion to believe that planning and free enterprise can be reconciled. No compromise is possible between the two methods. Where the various enterprises are free to decide what to produce and how, there is capitalism. Where, on the other hand, the government authorities do the directing, there is socialist planning. Then the various firms are no longer capitalist enterprises; they are subordinate state organs bound to obey orders. The former en­trepreneur becomes a shop manager like the Betriebsführer in Nazi Germany.

As well as the delusions of the elixir of inflationism or perhaps a stealth scheme being employed by the cabal of central bankers to demolish what remains of laissez faire capitalism 

From the deity or icon of inflationism, Lord John Maynard Keynes (PBS.org) [bold added]

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Inflationists are either aware of the evils their policies create but nevertheless insidiously impose them for covert political reasons, or have been too blinded by their possession of power.

The US Dollar Renminbi Standard Myth

Another bizarre mercantilist claim today is that the world monetary system operates on a supposed “USD-Renminbi” standard.

(From Tradingeconomics.com)

Such claim has been anchored on supposed “trade imbalances”, particularly US trade deficits, from where the world evolves only around only two nations, the United States and China. From such premise it is easy to dismiss this as false choice.

A further assumption is that central bankers of both nations have only been fixated on each other’s economy while ignoring the rest of world.

Nevertheless here a few charts to dispel such myths

Based on merchandise trade, it would be a mistake to assume that both these countries equally been trade oriented.

The fact is that the US despite the deficits, external trade in goods account for only a little over 20% of the economy. This makes the US essentially relatively a closed economy.

Meanwhile China’s merchandise trade is about half their economy. In contrast Germany’s external trade accounts for more than 70%. 

Germany largest share among the three squares with the EU’s position as the largest trading bloc. (Wikipedia)

To further add, China accounts as the second largest trading partner to the United States. (US Bureau of Commerce)

Also in terms of trade deficit with the US, while it is true that China has the largest surplus, there are many other countries that maintains where the US has a deficit. (US Bureau of Commerce) Add all to the 9 largest trading partners with surpluses these will easily overshadow China. A further implication is that should protectionist measures be imposed on China, US deficits will only shift to these countries.

Yet for those blinded by deficits, they fail to also account that China’s exports have been (51%) owned by foreign owned companies based on China.

In reality, the obsession towards trade deficits are misleading for the simple reason that trade deficits are balanced out by capital account (Mark Perry)

To quote Professor Mark Perry (bold original)

As a direct consequence of our current account deficits, the U.S. economy has been the beneficiary of more than $8 trillion worth of capital inflows from foreigners since 1980. Because the Balance of Payment accounts are based on double-entry bookkeeping, the annual current account and capital account have to net to zero, so that any current account (trade) deficit (surplus) is offset one-to-one by a capital account surplus (deficit) and the balance of payments therefore always nets out to (equals) zero. And that's why it's called the "balance" of payments, because once we account for trade flows and capital flows, everything balances, and there are no deficits or surpluses on a net basis.

The other side of the coin is that China’s ownership of US debts has been overstated.

In reality, foreign ownership as a total of US treasuries account for only 25% (Wikipedia)…

…where China owns about 8% share of total foreign ownership as shown by the breakdown above. 

In terms of international currency reserves…

The Euro-USD constitutes 90% of global foreign exchange reserves. Add the pound sterling, yen and the swiss franc such would account for 95% of foreign reserves. (Wikipedia) In other words, global trade and banking reserves have hardly been about the Chinese yuan yet. Although China has been making inroads with other emerging markets (e.g. ASEAN, Brazil India Russia, Chile and even Africa) to use her currency as an international reserve.

China’s fixed currency has partly been accused for such relationship. But China’s currency has been fixed since 1994. If fixing currency to the US dollar has been about stealing jobs…

…then all these countries have been guilty

But then again, currency fixing or pegging has been adapted by these countries mostly to promote stability.

According to Investopedia.com

The reasons to peg a currency are linked to stability. Especially in today's developing nations, a country may decide to peg its currency to create a stable atmosphere for foreign investment. With a peg, the investor will always know what his or her investment's value is, and therefore will not have to worry about daily fluctuations. A pegged currency can also help to lower inflation rates and generate demand, which results from greater confidence in the stability of the currency.

Other reasons have been for expanding trade network externalities and importing policy credibility, (University of California) aside from lack of depth in their respective domestic and sophistication in domestic financial markets. 

Bottom line: As I have been pointing out, US trade balance, aside from the conditions of the US dollar has mostly been a function of domestic boom bust cycles, the Triffin dilemma (frictions arising from the collision of international and domestic interests based on short and long term objectives) and many other domestic interventionists policies. 

There has not been a single factor. (Fallacy of a single cause)

Financialization of the US has been an outgrowth of these from which trade deficits have been funded through the growth of financial industry. Wikipedia points to the “greater role arising from the issuance of fiat currency untethered to gold or other commodities, as well as the “end of the post-World War Two Bretton Woods system of fixed international exchange rates and the dollar peg to gold in August 1971”. 

Neither has supposed trade imbalances been deliberately caused by China.

Boom bust cycles, for instance, draw in lots of resources and labor to malinvested areas where during a booming phase distorts the price mechanism and distribution and production process via overvaluing wages, the domestic currency, asset prices, welfare (pensions), fake profits and etc....

Once a bust arrives these policies induced boom becomes key sources of retrenchment.

Mercantilists have been flagrantly blind to this.

Finally as I pointed out, Ben Bernanke has not been targeting the exchange rate for his latest QE. This means, if you believe his uprightness, then he acknowledges that the issue has been local, particularly putting a floor on asset prices and hardly about foreign (devaluation).

Seeing things from reality (than from political biases) gives us a better chance at being right in our investment positions.

World Economic Trend: Mercantilism or Globalization?

To paraphrase a recent comment I received from a mercantilist: Because of the US dollar standard, mercantilism have been more prevalent today.

It is easy to dismiss such an argument as post hoc fallacy since two distinctive variables have been made to function as causally related. Nevertheless let us see from a few charts and graphs whether this claim has validity, even if we exclude the role of the US dollar.

To rephrase the issue: Has the world economic trend been more about mercantilism or globalization?

According to Google’s Public Data World merchandise trade as % of GDP has ballooned from a little less than 20% in 1960s to about nearly half of the world's economy today.

Even trade balance of services, again from Google Public Data, based on OECD economies volume has leapt sixfold since 1996.

Above is the breakdown of global trade per sector in 2010 (World Trade Organization)

Add to the current dynamic the dominance of intra-region trade

One major reason for the surge in global trading activities has been due to major moves to LIBERALIZE trade via substantial reductions tariffs which came from Regional Trade Agreement (RTA), Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) and or even unilateralism (WTO)

Bilateral investment treaties peaked in 1995 but the effects of these are still being felt today through massive growth in cross border investments

While there have been some protectionist pressures as consequence to the financial crisis of 2008, generally speaking trade liberalization has been minimally affected.

From IMF Finance 

The number of new protectionist actions peaked in the first quarter of 2009 and bottomed in the third quarter of 2010. However, recent GTA data suggest that protectionist measures are increasing again; protectionist actions in the third quarter of 2011 alone were as high as in the worst periods of 2009 (Evenett, 2011).

The Group of 20 (G20) advanced and emerging economies account for most of the trade measures, most of which did not involve tariffs, imposed since 2008. There has been no significant increase in the overall use of tariffs or temporary trade barriers, such as antidumping measures, aimed at assisting local firms injured by import competition (Bown, 2011). Such measures affected only about 2 percent of world trade (Kee, Neagu, and Nicita, 2010; WTO, 2011). The trend of gradual tariff liberalization observed since the mid-1990s has not been affected

The World Trade Organization (WTO) notes of the recent increases in Non-Tariff Measures (NTM). But these have been based on technical barriers to trade (TBT) regarding standards for manufactured goods and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) or measures concerning food safety and animal/plant health, and partly domestic regulation in services which have hardly been about restricting competition.

From the WTO,

“I think it is a good time for the WTO to have a closer look at non-tariff measures (NTMs)”, said WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, at the launch of the Report. “A clear trend has emerged in which NTMs are less about shielding producers from import competition and more about the attainment of a broad range of public policy objectives. The new NTMs, typically SPS and TBT measures but also domestic regulation in services, address concerns over health, safety, environmental quality and other social imperatives. The challenge is to manage a wider set of policy preferences without undermining those preferences or allowing them to become competitiveness concerns that unnecessarily frustrate trade.”

The above trends seems quite clear. Globalization has been the dominant theme of the world economy over the past decades, regardless or in spite of the role of the US dollar.

Now of course, events of the past may not extrapolate to the future. 

Bottom line: The religion of politics makes many people see fantasies as self constructed reality.

Tom Woods and Bob Murphy Refutes HuffPo’s 11 Myths about the Fed

Austrian economists Tom Woods and Bob Murphy turns the table on an apologist for the FED at the Huffington Post with a terrific smackdown

From Messrs. Woods and Murphy [bold original]

The other day the Huffington Post ran an article by a Bonnie Kavoussi called “11 Lies About the Federal Reserve.” And you’ll never guess: these aren’t lies or myths spread in the financial press by Fed apologists. These are “lies” being told by you and me, opponents of the Fed. Bonnie Kavoussi calls us “Fed-haters.” So she, a Fed-lover, is at pains to correct these alleged misconceptions. She must stop us stupid ingrates from poisoning our countrymen’s minds against this benevolent array of experts innocently pursuing economic stability.

Here are the 11 so-called lies (she calls them “myths” in the actual rendering), and our responses.

HuffPo’s Myth #1: “The Fed actually prints money.”

She leads off with this? As if this is some big discovery that will refute the end-the-Fed people? When we talk about Fed money-printing, we are speaking in shorthand. We’re pretty certain someone like Ron Paul knows the Fed doesn’t actually print money. But he, along with pretty much the whole financial world, speaks of the Fed as printing money. You know why? Because it’s a teensy bit more convenient than saying, “We need the Fed to credit some banks’ accounts with increased balances, which it does by means of a computer, though if these balances are lent out and the borrowers prefer to use some of this lent money as cash, the Treasury will go ahead and print the cash.”

HuffPo’s Myth #2: “The Federal Reserve is spending money wastefully.”

You may think the Federal Reserve is throwing around money like crazy, just like the federal government. But you’re wrong! As Kavoussi explains, the Fed doesn’t spend money like the federal government does; it creates money! That’s just totally different! And so we read, “Both CNN anchor Erin Burnett and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have compared the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing to government spending. But the Federal Reserve actually has created new money by expanding its balance sheet.”

She then points out that hey, the Fed earned a profit of $77.4 billion last year. We are supposed to be impressed. But if you can create money out of thin air and buy bonds with it, and then earn interest on those bonds, wouldn’t it be pretty hard to lose money? (But they just might, if interest rates should spike.)

HuffPo’s Myth #3: “The Fed is causing hyperinflation.”

Is it just us, or does Bonnie Kavoussi word things awkwardly? Do you know of anyone who says the Fed is causing – as in present progressive tense — hyperinflation?

Kavoussi then goes on to tell us that the CPI is showing low price inflation — again, as if she’s reporting some extraordinary revelation that will put all Fed critics to shame. There is no hyperinflation because the banks are holding the newly created money as excess reserves with the Fed. If the banks begin lending and the money multiplier is enacted, an inflationary spiral could easily occur — trillions of dollars of high-powered money would expand via the fractional-reserve banking system into tens of trillions of dollars. The only way for the government to stay ahead of the curve would be for the Fed to keep creating boatloads of new money — which is how hyperinflation happens, after all. If that were to happen, we rather doubt Kavoussi would want to come tell us how the CPI is doing.

HuffPo’s Myth #4: “The amount of cash available has grown tremendously.”

“Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed has devalued the U.S. dollar through a massive expansion of the amount of currency in circulation,” says Kavoussi. “But not only is inflation low; currency growth also has not really changed since the Fed started its stimulus measures, as noted by Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal.”

This looks like another silly gotcha with definitions, like the “printing money” canard. The graph below shows that the currency component of M1 hasn’t shot up like a rocket, it’s true; but M1 itself (which consists of not just physical paper but also checking account deposits) has indeed risen sharply, notwithstanding the insights of Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal.

HuffPo’s Myth #5: “The gold standard would make prices more stable.” 

Kavoussi writes, “Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has claimed that bringing back the gold standard would make prices more stable. But prices actually were much less stable under the gold standard than they are today, as The Atlantic’s Matthew O’Brien and Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal have noted.”

Does our critic even read the things she links to? Her two authors’ blog posts depict a very brief period in the twentieth century, after the classical gold standard had already given way to the gold exchange standard. What is that supposed to prove?

So against Bonnie Kavoussi’s two blog posts that examine the gold exchange standard and only for a period of about 15 years at that, all we have in reply is only the most meticulous study of gold and its purchasing power ever written, Roy Jastram’s The Golden Constant: The English and American Experience 1560-2007, which finds gold to be extraordinarily stable over four and a half centuries.

Even John Kenneth Galbraith, not exactly gold’s biggest fan, conceded that once someone had gold, there was little uncertainty about what he would be able to get with it. “In the last [19th] century in the industrial countries there was much uncertainty as to whether a man could get money but very little as to what it would do for him once he had it. In this [20th] century the problem of getting money, though it remains considerable, has diminished. In its place has come a new uncertainty as to what money, however acquired and accumulated, will be worth. Once, to have an income reliably denominated in money was thought…to be very comfortable. Of late, to have a fixed income is to be thought liable to impoverishment that may not be slow. What has happened to money?”

Of course, gold standard advocates, at least in the Austrian tradition, are not fixated on price stability in the first place.

Read the rest here