« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Not Worth a Continental

The Federal Reserve System (the Fed) was established in 1913 as one of the cornerstones of the Progressive agenda.  They said it was a way to stop the boom and bust cycle which has always been a fixture of capitalist economies.  The Fed is America’s third Central Bank.  The First and Second Banks of the United States were born out of Alexander Hamilton’s ideas as expressed in his famous Second Report on Public Credit in 1790.  The first bank was allowed to expire and the last was ultimately killed by Andrew Jackson in 1833.  Jackson believed the Bank had too great an influence politically and economically.

The United States grew to become the greatest industrial power on earth in the next eighty years without a central bank.

Established in 1913, the Federal Reserve is America’s central bank.  It is semi-independent/semi-public depending on which role is needed to justify its actions.  It is run by a board of seven Governors.  These Governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  Led by a Chairman who is also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate these eight people control a system of twelve Regional Federal Reserve Banks which have numerous branches throughout the United States. The Fed can expand or contract the money supply in many ways.  They print money both physically and digitally, they set interest rates, they can loosen or tighten the regulations for lending, and they can purchase debt from the Treasury.  Most of these measures are neither understood nor noticed by the general public.  This helps build and maintain the impression of a mysterious institution behind a curtain pulling levers and pressing buttons secretly controlling the economy.  In many ways this impression is correct

Ben Bernanke is the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  Some believe that this is the most important post in the United States because the Federal Reserve controls our economy through its control of the money supply.  Mr. Bernanke acquired the nickname Helicopter Ben from a speech he delivered in 2002 entitled, “Deflation: Making Sure “It” Doesn’t Happen Here.”

In this famous speech he said, “The sources of deflation are not a mystery. Deflation is in almost all cases a side effect of a collapse of aggregate demand – a drop in spending so severe that producers must cut prices on an ongoing basis in order to find buyers. Likewise, the economic effects of a deflationary episode, for the most part, are similar to those of any other sharp decline in aggregate spending–namely, recession, rising unemployment, and financial stress.”  This is a well stated summation of the problem of deflation.

As a defense against the ravages of deflation the future Chairman of the Federal Reserve never actually said he would drop money from a helicopter.  What he said was, “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”  Which was coupled by later analysts and pundits with the statement, “A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous ‘helicopter drop’ of money.”

In the popular imagination this has been shortened into the oft misquoted belief that he said he would get in a helicopter and drop bales of money to combat deflation.

The collapse of the Housing Bubble in 2008 brought the American economy to a standstill and threatened to escalate into a systemic collapse of major banks and other financial institutions.  To stop the wheels from coming off the commercial cart the politicians reacted with unusual speed and vigor.  George Bush famously said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” when he advocated and passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) which was designed to buy mortgage backed securities in an effort to inject money into the American banking system and thus restart the economy.  This 700 Billion dollar fund (later resized to 475 Billion) was eventually used instead to bailout major banks, AIG, and buy GM and Chrysler with only 22 billion ever going to buy toxic assets.

This was followed by President Obama’s stimulus bill which cost another 800 billion and was supposedly designed to kick start the economy by providing jobs.  The Congressional Budget Office eventually evaluated that these shovel-ready jobs cost 4.1 million each.  But then again as our President later joked, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”

Spending government money to prime the economic pump cannot work.  The government doesn’t produce anything.  It must either take the money out of the economy through taxation taking from the productive for the benefit of the unproductive or print the money thus causing inflation.  All the government can do is redistribute wealth; it does not create it.  And when the government is in the business of picking winners and losers we all lose freedom, liberty, and opportunity.

Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and the resulting loss of value of currency.   The Progressives didn’t invent inflation.  The Obama Administration isn’t the first to resort to inflation to keep the ball rolling without the pain of tax increases.  America was born in inflation.  During the Revolution one of the greatest problems was how to finance the war.  America was effectively blockaded by the massive British fleet and unable to trade with the rest of the world.  So the government printed the money they needed, and printed and printed and printed until the money was effectively worthless coining instead of wealth the shameful saying, “Not worth a Continental.”  These early ancestors to our dollar were eventually redeemed at 100 to 1.

Helicopter Ben has already overseen two rounds of monetary inflation referred to by the mysterious name of Quantitative Easing (QE) which is a fancy way of saying the Fed floods the banks with money.  The staggering size of these have only now begun to come to light showing that since the 2008 collapse the Fed has flushed more than 16 trillion dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the hands of banks and corporations both foreign and domestic designated by the Federal Government as too big to fail.  That is more money in four years than the entire national debt which has taken 236 years to accumulate and QE 3 is on the way.

While running for office and telegraphing his distributive goals Mr. Obama said we need to spread the wealth around. Chairman Bernanke has said the government can produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.  However, no matter what these two wannabe puppet masters may believe there is no free lunch.  In their insolated ivory-tower gated community world they may never have to pay the tab for their misguided attempts to create wealth with the wave of their hand.  Those of us who work for a living who live in the world of family budgets will.  The money we earn will be worth less and less and less until it is worthless.  The money we have saved will lose value day by day.  Someday people may not say, “It’s not worth a Continental.” They may instead say, “It’s not worth a dollar.”

The problem with getting older is you can remember when what we now pay at the pump was a car payment, and what we now pay for groceries was a house payment.  The central-planers behind the curtain in OZ may tell us there is no inflation, but our eyes and our wallets tell us something else: the truth.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

 

COMMENTS

  • bbjaylive

    Can’t we have a rule that bans Austrian thought? At least the conspiracy-laden kind. It’s completely ridiculous that this school of thought is tolerated and New Keynesiasm is irrationally bashed. Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisors, and a small-government conservative is a new Keynesian. Can WE PLEASE just keep it between actual mainstream economic thought? Monetarism and Keynesiasm (and maybe some stuff from Minksy like Steve Keen espouses and some MMT and NGDP), NOT fact-free, evidence-barren, non-scientific Austrianism.

    • Viet71

      The Fed’s creating money, as you argue, does not now debase the currency; or to put it another way, create inflation.

      But question to you: How do you feel about handing ultimate political power to the Fed? I’m guessing, you feel OK, because you trust the Fed guys more than you trust congress or the White House. I’m guessing you’re an Alexander Hamilton fan.

      As a lawyer, I like the jury system. Two adversarial lawyers; an impartial judge; a jury of the defendant’s peers. Not perfect, but really good.

      Academics and pundits: pay ‘em and ignore ‘em.

      • acat

        Supply and demand works .. but Japan, during their lost decade, had plenty of supply and near-zero demand.

        That’s where most of the models I’ve looked at break down, “demand” is sort of taken on faith, like “the big bang” or … “air”. It’s just always gonna be there, so when it isn’t …. crunch goes the model.

        We can somewhat measure demand – consumer confidence is one proxy, durable goods orders are another, housing starts are a third…. and y’know what? They all say demand is way down despite supply being way up.

        Note – not an Austrian, certainly no Paulistinian .. but not a Hamiltonian or Keynesian or .. well, really not much of anything other than an observer of the passing scene… I suppose you could call me a Jacksonian…but I’m not sure how that’d apply to economics.

        Mew

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          Keynes was wrong because he thought something called “aggregate demand” determined economic growth. But it is a symptom not a cause. Other economic systems also get it wrong when they concentrate on demand.

          There is only one cause of economic growth. The increases in productivity, and creation of new products and services caused by business investment.

          When new products and services or cheaper products and services arrive they create their own demand. That is because of the first law of economics. “Human needs are infinite.” Technically there is never really a problem with demand.

          • acat

            The problem isn’t a focus on demand, the problem is ..also philosophical, perhaps .. that demand does wax and wane.

            You’re half right – lowering prices does shift demand to the new lower-cost alternative. Sometimes, new products and services take off because they fill a demand. For both scenarios, the Walkman replaced the transistor radio, and the iPod replaced the Walkman.

            That said .. demand isn’t constant, and can’t be stimulated. You can’t “create demand”, you can only identify and meet it…

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            at least it reveals demand which was already there. We say demand is slow in a recession, but that is the symptom not the cause. There is only a minimum in hiring, very few start up businesses, and all big projects put on hold. This is business uncertainty

            That is then reflected in consumer reluctance because of the lack of new jobs or pay increases. Of course both consumer and business confidence feed off of each other. But in order for this cycle to end one of them must make the first move, and it is always business investment because as I said before, that is the only thing that can cause economic growth.

          • acat

            Demand can be revealed, it cannot be created by manipulating supply. It simply either exists or it doesn’t.

            Yes, consumer confidence and business uncertainty are related, they can either inflate or deflate one another. As consumers start to buy more, business spreadsheets look better, and they hire more, which creates more consumers, yadda yadda.

            Interestingly, you need to look at what moved first at the end of every recession post-Reagan. Hint – it wasn’t business growth. The consumer drove the cycle.

            Mew

          • barleycorn

            Particularly in this day and age of constant bombardment by advertising, demand can be created several different ways.

            By marketing a product that is mundane and useless as being sexy and useful.

            By convincing people that there is a threat to their health and well-being that doesn’t really exist or is exaggerated.

            By convincing people that something non-utilitarian is in short supply and may soon cease to be available at all.

            By creating a new product.

            I’m not an economist but I do know a thing or two about words and the difference between “reveal” and “create” in this particular example is inconsequential.

            To the extent there is an arguable difference then I would say this:

            The natural human condition is to want stuff we don’t have, and thus we are always demanding something. In this scenario “demand” is a constant factor that simply changes it target depending on the situation, our bank account and/or our ability to get credit..

          • acat

            There’s entire articles about overhyped products that fail to take off

            Even hype can’t create demand .. it can only help consumers and businesses realize that .. “Yeah, that really would help me.”

            Mew

          • barleycorn

            I didn’t expect to convert you. ;-)

            But the failure of some products does not disprove my theory when there are so many products that in fact do succeed for no reason other than manipulation of human acquisitiveness, ego, and vanity.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The wealth and income of the individual consumer both of which have fallen fur to housing bubble value drops and less income due to recession and ongoing hostile business environment due to Obama care and regulations etc

          • rightlane1111

            While I might not be in the same intellectual category as most of you, I know this…because of this economy, Obamacare, out of control spending that produces nothing…I’m not investing, I’m not buying, I’m just existing as are many seniors today.

            Yes, we could invest, yes we could buy the latest and greatest…we could go on more vacations…but what do we do when the bottom falls out? I think that … fear..plays a part in supply and demand…we don’t demand it any longer so why should anyone supply it?

          • bbjaylive

            People are paying off their debt, so of course that means they have less income which means demand is down. Fair enough, I can see how you see it as a symptom, but ultimately it is still the cause.

            I guess focusing on the word ‘demand’ is wrong, because anyone could want the lastest iPad, but it’s the ‘effective demand’ that determines or not whether someone has the means to pay for the latest iPad, and the low ‘effective demand’ is most certain certainly why we aren’t seeing enough economic growth.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            In the first place there is nothing you can do about consumer demand directly because government hiring always backfires.

            You can only effect it superficially by setting up the right atmosphere for new business investments which will cause more hiring which will pump up demand.

            Growth is not caused by demand it is a symptom of it. Growth is caused by new products, new applications, new plant and equipment, and new hiring or raises. It is the Businesses and the investor class that is the key to growth.

            Keynesian economics hurts them by creating debt and uncertainty. That is why it always fails.

          • bbjaylive

            It is ridiculous to suggest that whenever the government hires someone, it backfires. Do you want any federal government at all?

            I have to question your use of the word “superficially”. What is superficial about the government investing in infrastructure? Without a doubt, it helps businesses (and don’t tell me about the bridge to nowhere) and increases money velocity.

            You cannot get growth if you don’t have demand. No one is going to hire more people if their sales don’t justify it. You don’t get jobs if you’re not getting sufficient sales revenue. All those new products, applications and equipment were created because profits from sales of old products was used to invest in new ones.

            Keynesian economics always fails? What happened after WW2? What happened when Reagan became President?

          • acat

            …[citation needed], dude.

            Mew

          • bbjaylive

            (And yes, I know, it wasn’t his fault spending was increased, but seeing as I’m coming from a different economic perspective I don’t find that as a fault) Anyway, that IS Keynesian economics is it not? Cut taxes and increase spending during a downturn to stimulate the economy? (And yes I know, spending is supposed to be cut during the booms and Keynes never advocated for constant deficit spending, but that is what has happened in practice)

            Anyway my point still stands, even if you dismissed the Reagan example, kyle8 is wrong in saying that Keynesian economics has failed every time.

          • Jack_Savage

            Speaking about Austrian economic theory is almost forbidden around here, but instead of being “fact-free, evidence-barren, non-scientific Austrianism”, it recognizes one simple fact. The thing that economists most want to measure, study and model cannot be measured, studied and modeled, and that is how human behavior and economics intersect and exactly how one affects the other.

            If that were not so, there would be only one school of thought on economics, just as there is one school of thought about gravity and liquids and solids and boiling points and so on. It amuses me that the people who are most harsh toward the Austrian school of thought are the ones who are first to shout that climate modeling is bogus and doesn’t predict anything.

            Anyway, you refute your own argument in only one post:

            “Anyway, that IS Keynesian economics is it not? Cut taxes and increase spending during a downturn to stimulate the economy?”

            Then say:

            “And yes I know, spending is supposed to be cut during the booms and Keynes never advocated for constant deficit spending, but that is what has happened in practice.”

            So your argument may be that Keynesian theory has never really been tried, but you cannot point to anything in the real world that proves Keynesianism works.

          • acat

            Nobody has ever actually *done* Keynesian economics because once the deficits are there, nobody ever pays them off.

            It’d be equally valid to argue that the rather massive Clinton tax increase was “Keynesian” .. we were in a boom/bubble period, and taxes went up .. but so did spending, so .. another “close but no cigar”.

            As for the Austrian school, I’d hardly say it’s verboten to speak about .. although I would say you’d best be prepared to defend such speech with real world examples and not just Paultard-style distractions, eh?

            Mew

          • bbjaylive

            But self-congratulations aside, the fact that they don’t seem to model ANYTHING, and just spend their time talking about malinvestment, the Fed and “printing money”. Mainstream economists’ models are much closer to reality because they have been changing them when reality finds a fault in their model, but Austrians don’t seem to have bothered and instead find themselves on the fringe, with hardly any of their predictions coming to fruition.

            Your second paragraph is a strawman, sorry to disappoint you.

            I didn’t refute my own argument. Keynes was advocating a solution to the GD, demand was low and he wanted the government to be the spender of last result. The point was how to get of the hole. What happened after that was less important.

            I’ve noted that you have conveniently ignored my WW2 example.

          • acat

            In the Real World, Keynesian fails *because of* “what happened after”, i.e. after the government increases cash in peoples’ pockets, they spend the cash, business demand increases, employment increases, etc.etc., we have the #EpicFailure to increase taxes and *return to* a a low-debt situation.

            This is why Keynesian economics” are a joke – *nobody* has tried ‘em!

            Taking the post-WWII example you seem so proud of – post-WWII, did the government debt shrink? If so, what was the lowest level it sunk to, when, who was POTUS, and who controlled Congress?

            Mew

          • bbjaylive

            to slow the growth of debt. There have been times in American history, where the debt was slashed and it plunged the US into a recession.

          • acat

            meaning “growing fast enough to reduce debt.”

            I would point out that some of the past “debt slashes” have been effected by inflation, not by actual pay-downs.

            I would further note that none of the above is what Keynes had in mind.

            I’d also point out that, like demand, government can’t create growth.

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            In the first place, Government spending hasn’t actually been cut in a long long time. There was a rather sharp reduction in the growth of government in the 1990′s and that corresponded with a boom!

            Growth would help with our debt problem, but we have piled up so much debt I don’t know if we can grow our way out of this mess. And certainly not if we don’t start cutting spending.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            was funded by the largest expansion of private sector credit in US history. We are currently in a credit crunch and an economic crunch. Repeal Dodd-Frank; it’s evil cousin Sarbanes-Oxley and get banks into the lending business and out of speculation. The banks are not providing capital to the growth sectors. Until that is accomplished, we can slash government/raise government spending…it will matter little. Government interference in the market place is causing this disruption.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            nteaseeee

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            We could replace all of the myriad and byzantine finance laws with four basic things. First, complete disclosure, and higher and hard limits set on reserve requirement, equity to debt ratios, and down payments for real estate.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            if could reduce government drastically and start balancing the budget in 2 years. America is like a man that jumps off the Empire State Building and around about the 50th floor he decides he wants to solve the problem, but gravity still must exact its price.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            we should stop digging our hole deeper. This entire discussion stems from the absurd argument that we should not cut government spending now because it will make the recession worse.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            nt

          • bbjaylive

            Every decade, the average GDP has been on a downward trend. NO ONE should be looking to balance the budget in two years.

          • aesthete

            The GDP has grown almost every year, and certainly has not been on a downward trend.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            gdp growth has fluctuated, and certainly gone upwards in recent years.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The 50s were a unique time for the US given that all of our allies were devastated by the war.

          • aesthete

            Large increases in spending did not come until Reagan’s second term.. They were also extant for 4 years before Reagan’s term. What happened was that Volcker (the Fed chair) and Reagan ended stagflation, which caused a minor recession that cleared up rather quickly.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. Volcker asked him, in the Oval Office, just days after his Inauguration, what he should do to fight inflation, and the Eureka econ major, replied: “Whatever it takes.”, knowing what it would take.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            What happened after WW2? Well, here is what happened, the Keynesians predicted a huge recession because of all the people leaving government service, but the opposite happened.

            No, Keynesian attempts to use borrowed money to spike aggregate demand must and always will fail.

            As for infrastructure, yes that can have a positive effect, but it is a slow process and an expensive one the way we do it in our modern corrupt kleptocracies.

            At any rate it has almost no bearing on the discussion because here is the dirty secret. Keynesian spending explosions have NEVER RELIED much upon infrastructure in the last fifty years. The money goes to almost everything else but infrastructure, The last stimulus is a perfect example.

            By the way, I don’t want no government but the closer we can get to that the better. Yes government hiring ALWAYS backfires when it is used to try and stimulate demand, because government jobs are expensive and wasteful. And the money has to come from somewhere, it comes from either taxes, money that would be available for investment, or it comes from debased money.

          • acat

            have a very “cargo cult” feel.

            Four-lane highways built parallel to (but with no connections to) existing and perfectly usable highways. Bridges over nothing, connecting nothing, literally “in the middle of nowhere”.

            The thing about infrastructure is .. just as we’ve been discussing .. it *has to* satisfy demand at some level, or it’s wasted money.

            A more classical U.S. example – I-88 across Illinois is a tollway. It parallels I-80, which is not a tollway, as well as US-20 and US-30, also not tollways.

            I-88 is very under-utilized, very low demand, and should never have been built. It got built because, at the time, the bonds on I-294, a high-demand and heavily traveled tollway, were just about paid off… and the Illinois Tollway Authority wanted to justify its’ continued existence.

            Overall, I’m agreeing with you, I think … I just wanted to point out that supply-and-demand applies to infrastructure as well.

            Mew

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            looks like a big Mr. Potato head. And they built a big modern prison, but have no prisoners to put into it. Seriously, it has been operational but empty for a year and half.

          • acat

            The Land of Lincoln has its’ share of cargo-cult facilities as well …

            Mew

            p.s. Then, there’s Meadowdale International Raceway …

          • bbjaylive

            Economics ISN’T math. You can’t just make a priori statements willy-nilly and completely ignore empirical evidence. This is my biggest beef with Austrians. Anarcho-capitalist dogma and fanaticism. Everyone to the left of them is a “Keynesian Socialist”, whatever the heck that is supposed to be.

            Why MUST it fail? Have you got a problem with the government borrowing money NOW, with the current and rare opportunity, CHEAPER THAN FREE (negative interest rates, real terms) to invest in infrastructure for the future? Who do you expect to pay for the roads and bridges?

            Prove your penultimate paragraph. Anyone can make wild statements without backing them with evidence. If China can do stimulus relatively well, why can’t America? Wasn’t there a stimulus plan under Bush?

            Lastly, federal taxes aren’t used for spending and there is NO LINK between money growth and inflation.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            no link between money growth and inflation? Milton Friedman proved that inflation was a monetary phenomenon.

            And when asking for proof, where is your proof that China does stimulus well? What is your criteria? China has a newly industrialized economy with a nouveau riche, heavy government involvement, and very poor bookkeeping rules. We really don’t know what is going on there with any certainty.

            I will give you this, I suppose that I should not make a blanket sweeping statement. The original Keynesian assumption that a government could use stored money to fund infrastructure projects to alleviate a recession may have some merit.

            The problems are that governments never have surpluses anymore, and stimulus money is hardly ever used for necessary infrastructure.

            Poring borrowed money into unproductive rat-holes will ALWAYS fail. that much I can be dogmatic on.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            The government should provide for needed infrastructure upgrades as a matter of “they are needed” not stimulus to the economy. The government does not invest in police as a stimulus or firefighters or teachers or standing army or provide medicare, etc. The government can stimulate nothing. The government removes resources from the private sector; it does not create resources. The government should remove resources only to meet it’s legitimate role (and I’ll agree providing for infrastructure is a legitmate role of government). When the government does infrastructure as a stimulus, you end up with 15 roads that go to same place and bridges that go to nowhere (as acat describes above).

            The federal government spending as a stimulus is like a thief breaking into my house, stealing $5, taking a crap in my yard, then running to Wal-Mart purchase a shovel, then ringing the door bell and asking me for 5 bucks for shoveling the crap out of my yard.

          • bbjaylive

            It isn’t. It issues its own currency (don’t talk to me about debasement or inflation, you don’t have evidence of that.

          • aesthete

            Nominal prices and overall price level have been rising since the 60s.

            And at any rate, I was under the fanciful notion that a common currency is jointly owned by the citizens in a democratic republic, and that the good faith and assurance of a sovereign state is buttressed by the economic power that the people provide — else, all governments and non-governments issuing their own currency would be equal in the eyes of investors. The currency is very much dependent on the economic output of the citizenry among other things.

          • acat

            A gallon of gasoline, in the ’80s, was under a buck .. a gallon of milk was under two bucks.

            Today, that gallon of gas is over three bucks and that gallon of milk is hovering just under $3.50 for the cheap stuff.

            Took me 5 minutes to pull that off the BLS web site.

            Mew

          • bbjaylive

            nt

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            nt

          • aesthete

            It puts policymakers in the position of having to deal with a number of tradeoffs down the line, which are largely negative and involve ways of managing the debt so that it does not become outsized and cause other problems.

            There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            One I think you have your theories mixed up MMT (and for the record Kruggie hates MMT -which actually might be a point in their favor) states that the government is either a net saver or net spender and should strive to be a spender and that the role of taxes essentially cool inflation by removing capital. Alright now that I got that out of the way, I’ll explain now what is happening and why it is happening since you are severly misinformed. I understand that…hanging out at the NY Times reading Kruggie’s blog will do that. Here goes, we are not seeing high inflation numbers right now because the largest drivers of CPI are housing prices and wages and both those markets are depressed. However, commodities and food certainly aren’t depressed relative to the beginning of the recession. If Keynes was correct this would be impossible, the commodoties and food would have to drop along with wages i.e. rise in unemployment (demand would be forced down). High unemployment/high commodity pricing is always the result of government regulation colliding with a supply shock. In the 1970′s, Nixon’s wrong headed move to hold down prices caused businesses to move to reduce production and then the OPEC embargoes caused supply shocks in oil. Now, we have excessive government regulation in the financial sector which caused a credit crunch that prevents production, building, expansion. The inflation in the commodities market is being caused by banks pouring capital into derivatives (speculation) causing those prices to spike. This increase in capital is being provided by the Fed through QE (provided with the hope that banks would loan it out – which the regulations are preventing – this is a paradox – one the Fed is right on and the government is wrong). The supply shock is the supply of credit. This is where Keynesians get it wrong, they equate government growth to private sector growth. “Government growth” is a zero sum game (at best) in that the government has to remove resources from the private sector in order to grow or borrow. The government is funded by taxes and debt (if it were otherwise neither taxes nor debt should exist).

          • bbjaylive

            Economics isn’t a hard science, theories are provided, reality ensues and then the theories are then disproved.

            I’m quoting from Forbes.com now:

            “the most important inflationary episode in post-WWII history was that during the 1970s and early 1980s. From 1968 through 1972, consumer price inflation averaged 4.6%. Over the next ten years it was 7.5%….What caused this sudden and dramatic acceleration in prices? Did the Fed accidentally print too much money?…

            As the price of oil skyrocketed, so costs of production rose for many, many US businesses. Because there is a lag between purchasing inputs and selling output, most firms have to borrow money (working capital) to bridge the gap. As the ripple effect of the OPEC price increases moved throughout the economy, the demand for cash by these businesses rose. Quite reasonably, private banks and the Fed did what they could to accommodate. These were fair requests on the part of US entrepreneurs. Loans were extended and government debt sold by the private sector to the central bank. This raised the supply of money. Therefore, the rising prices led to an increase in the supply of money and not the other way around. QE, QE II, and the federal government deficit cannot by themselves cause inflation.”

            So it was OIL PRICES that lead to inflation, not the money supply.

          • acat

            Know why it’s wrong? Because it’s *simple* – and even the 101-level economics student should know there are very rarely “simple” answers.

            Ford’s ineffective Whip Inflation Now! campaign, Nixon’s completely wrong-headed price controls, and Carter’s policies all played a role completely outside of OPEC or the amount of money in circulation.

            So far, all you’ve proven, bbjaylive, is that you can quote a lot of stuff that doesn’t match what’s happening in the real world. Say… do you, perhaps, have a job as an economist?

            Mew

          • bbjaylive

            I’m just debunking the myth that “money growth has a direct link to inflation” because it clearly ISN’T.

          • aesthete

            if you want a more coherent view on monetary policy which takes into account what we know about economics, inflation, and central banking.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            And inflation increased as well. That is hardly a convincing argument.

            Commodity prices are always increased during inflationary times. I don’t discount the effect of the oil cartel, but it was the government reaction that caused the inflation.

            As for the effect of the various quantitative easings, they are most certainly, by themselves, inflationary. However, as we are faced with worldwide deflation right now, they hardly make a difference.

          • Jack_Savage

            While you’re at it.

            And it seems like you are saying that since the supply of money was raised due to demand for cash from businesses, the inflation that resulted doesn’t count. Or something.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • lineholder

            Keynes’ economic theory provides a convenient excuse for government to waste money, increase taxes, expand government…and then pat themselves on the back for what good job they’re doing.

            Any attempts to “stimulate” the economy by Keynesian methods usually results in an artificially-stimulated market that they have to keep pouring money into for it to survive. The bursting “bubble” effect that happens when they don’t follow through with continued “stimulation” totally disrupts normal economic activity.

            I’d rather see smaller government that didn’t constantly stick their grubby, greedy little fingers into the economy every time the direction of the wind changes!

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            And I am using that term Keynesian, although much of what is done by modern governments he would have objected to. What they do is take wealth out of the loop so to speak, where it would be used by people for economic uses. and directs it toward political uses.

            So, perhaps some of that government spending is used for something really good and needed, like a new bridge, but most of it will be squandered because it it politically directed spending.

            There is no two ways about it, if the money is borrowed, or just printed the result is the same. less wealth is used for economic decisions and more for political decisions. That lowers productivity and thus lowers wealth. I can’t see how it improves things in any way.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            govt employees, not the truly needy, for example.

          • bbjaylive

            Look, you could just as easily make an argument that cutting spending is impossible because “politicians are incompetent”.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            but I would add corruption to incompetence.

          • aesthete

            The public choice argument is that complex policy positions and programs are often subverted for political gain in ways and for reasons that have little to do with the good intentions or stated goals of the program.

            Cutting government programs is not a complex policy. In fact, it is a simple binary: yes or no. There are ways to structure government cuts so as to benefit certain groups, but in general cutting government is a simple policy choice which can be understood by voters, and where voters can observe whether the policy is implemented or not (i.e., “does government program X exist or not”; rather than, “do the 2000 pages of ObamaCare do what it says it’s going to do”).

            Public choice does, however, predict that politicians are *unlikely* to eliminate subsidies to organizations which donate to and support their campaigns, and give them more power. That observation seems to be borne out by fact.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            I see “the market” as a living organism that seeks to achieve equilibrium between supply and demand. Esoterically speaking, a product has to “supplied” before it is “demanded”. For instance there was no demand for IPhones in 1955. The demand did not occur until Steve Jobs anticipated the market and supplied IPhones. Jobs correctly anticipated the market, demand was there and the IPhone has been incredibly successful. Likewise investors in Solyndra felt like they were anticipating a market for alternative energy. They were unable to bring a product that the market demanded at a price the public was willing to pay and their company was destroyed by the lack of demand. A third example the PC did not take off immediately. The explosion in the PC market did not occur until the boys at Microsoft came up with windows that allowed a wide range of computers to have GUI

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Demand, so to speak is always present, even the demand for products and services that do not exist yet.

            It is the market place that supplies the things that cause demand.

            Now demand can be depressed by a slow economy, but what is the ultimate cause? Well because there is a lot of unemployment and underemployment as well as losses in equity.

            If the environment changes so that there is more business investment then that will cause more hiring, more wealth circulation and will begin the long road to recovery.

            The “stimulus” bill might have helped had it concentrated only on infrastructure, included only permanent and not temporary tax cuts, and had paid for itself by cutting other spending (or at least cutting future spending) But it did none of those things.

      • bbjaylive

        We want them to do what HAS TO BE DONE, otherwise what it seems that you’re suggesting is that politicians should be able to interfere with the FED (as they have tried to do in the past) which would be an absolute DISASTER. The Fed is supposed to be independent and MANAGE the economy, not MANAGE political persuasions.

        The Fed guys just look at the numbers and seek to do what’s best for the economy. Politicians…well, we know most of them are there for their own self-interest.

        • Viet71

          …federal tax law, the Fed reigns supreme, through its ability to control short-term interest rates. Short-term rates determine the “IRS discount rate” (section 7520(a) rate), which affects a wide range of tax calculations and tax planning strategies.

          In our low-interest-rate environment, certain wealth-transfer techniques, used to avoid estate and gift taxes, become very attractive to high-net-worth individuals.

          If and when Uncle Ben raises the Fed Funds rate, the IRS discount rate will rise, and tax planners and their clients will shift strategies. In addition, revenue to the federal government will take a certain hit as certain deductions (e.g., the charitable deduction for certain arrangements) will increase.

          In my estimation, the long lever the Fed controls amounts to a lot of economic power; I call that political power, but maybe you and others don’t.

        • aesthete

          “The Fed guys just look at the numbers and seek to do what

  • Dave_A

    1) The Fed as ‘part of a Progressive Agenda’

    First off, calling the Federal Reserve ‘progressive’ is a bit odd, since the Democrats & Woodrow Wilson ran AGAINST the creation of the FED claiming it represented a so-called ‘Money Trust’.

    The initial bill creating the FED was a Republican initiative, which Wilson signed only after the Democrats won the specific concession that Presidential appointees be involved in the governance of the new institution – the original design for the Federal Reserve had it as a 100% private institution.

    2) Nostalgia Argument

    A common argument against the FED is the ‘I can remember when…’ position.

    It may sound good to the writer, but as an economic argument it’s abjectly worthless…

    The reason? It ignores all of the other conditions in the market, to focus on the price of ‘whatever’…

    For example, Gasoline.

    Yes, gasoline was cheaper back then… BUT over-all demand for oil was lower (Smaller world population, and even less of it developed enough to use large quantities of oil), the quality of fuel produced was worse (Tetra-ethyl-lead is NOT a good antiknock agent, purely from a mechanical perspective), and there was less government regulation as to the formulation of fuel & fuel tax.

    When you add in those factors over time, you get a higher price of fuel even in constant-dollars

    Another example: Cars

    The average car of the 60s was a primative, dangerous & inefficient beast. Yes, you could buy one for $2k… But it had no fuel-injection, no digital engine control, likely had no AC or automatic transmission (hence the reason why a manual tranny used to be called ‘standard’ – it was the default option)…. All of those advancements cost money… Plus there’s the regulatory-capture cost of adding in 30 years worth of safety-gear (10 different air-bags, side-panel reinforcements, ABS, ATIS, etc)….

    The reason you can’t compare a car of ‘today’ with a car of ‘back then’ is that it’s no longer legal to make cars like they used to in the 60s – thus, there’s no valid price comparison between a modern vehicle & the bare-bones ‘classic’….

    This traces back through everything in our economy – yes, life was cheaper back in the old-days… But you get what you pay for… Lower wages, less luxuries, less advanced technology…. Quality of living has gone up, and with that higher quality comes a higher cost.

    3) The false premise that ‘Inflation is Bad’

    Another key-point of your average anti-FED argument, is that inflation is ‘bad’ for the average American, and that the FED is inflating the dollar to benefit [Insert Conspiracy-group Here]… Variations of this tale include ‘the international banking cartel’, or ‘the US Government’ or ‘President Obama’…

    The problem is, it’s abjectly false and either ignores or glosses over the key defining issue of our PRIVATE-SECTOR economy: Consumer and corporate debt.

    You see, inflation is only *bad* in a situation where most participants in the economy store their wealth in the form of money. In that case, inflation decreases wealth, because wealth is held as money & inflation is a surplus of money relative to demand.

    In America, our national savings rate tends to fluctuate between 1% (in good times) and 5% (in bad), which indicates that AMERICANS DO NOT STORE THEIR WEALTH IN THE FORM OF MONEY.

    Thus, the OPPOSITE is true for the American consumer: Since people don’t store their wealth as money, moderate inflation has little impact on American ‘real wealth’…

    Deflation, on the other hand (the increase in the value of money, due to a shortage of money relative to demand) would kill us – as it would debase the value of PROPERTY in order to increase the value of MONEY.

    Thus, the claim that the Fed’s inflationary policies harm the average consumer to benefit (insert-conspiracy-here) are bunk – it is, in fact, the consumer’s choice of credit instead of savings, that drives the FED to implement inflationary policy.

    THE FACT IS, THAT IF WE IMPLEMENTED YOUR AVERAGE ‘ANTI-FED’ CAMPAIGNER’S MONETARY POLICY, IT WOULD DESTROY THE PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMY IN THE NAME OF ‘A STRONG DOLLAR’.

    4) The argument that we need a more ‘accountable’ monetary system

    The problem with this, quite simply, is illustrated in the question ‘Accountable to WHOM?’

    To Congress? Ex-cuse-me, but that’s flat-out insane… Congress – the people who brought us the 2008 bubble, the ever-growing national debt, and a slew of other pay-to-play scams, is the LAST group of people who should control the money supply, well, except…

    To ‘The People’ as a whole? Sorry, but ‘the people’ are economically illiterate, and the US does not practice direct democracy in any other form, so why should we handle money any differently?

    The fact is, that the FED was made independent precisely to keep US monetary policy out of the reach of demagogue politicians & rabble-rousers (like Ron Paul)…. That reasoning is still valid to this day…

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: look

  • Pingback: sexy lady

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: http://hiphopmusicnow.com/2011/10/29/jet-life--jet-world-order-artwork/

  • Pingback: letmewatchthis movies

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: Make money online

  • Pingback: How to fight

  • Pingback: Better sex

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: diablo 3 gold

  • Pingback: jak szybko schudnac

  • Pingback: home yoga

  • Pingback: worry beads

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Tax

  • Pingback: phen375 pills

  • Pingback: Marketing Digital

  • Pingback: Isabel Marant sneakers

  • Pingback: adultwebcam

  • Pingback: cheap viagra

  • Pingback: spar op til 60% p� solbriller

  • Pingback: best spinner

  • Pingback: Nikon 1 V2

  • Pingback: Electric Mini Guitar

  • Pingback: Download Apple softwares

  • Pingback: How To Make A Youtube Video

  • Pingback: How to make money fast online

  • Pingback: Chilli Seeds

  • Pingback: evenimente

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg seo powersuite

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg seo specialists

  • Pingback: steelhead trolling

  • Pingback: This Site

  • Pingback: Find Out More

  • Pingback: Related Site

  • Pingback: birkin handbag

  • Pingback: nursing sleepwear

  • Pingback: Extreme weight loss diet

  • Pingback: listen to this podcast

  • Pingback: uslugi remontowo budowlane

  • Pingback: paleo recipes

  • Pingback: cardio workouts

  • Pingback: software toko program kasir terbaik

  • Pingback: free online classifieds

  • Pingback: nikon d3200

  • Pingback: leappad

  • Pingback: mastercard casino

  • Pingback: ugg boots pas cher

  • Pingback: george brown google sniper warrior forum

  • Pingback: nimotop

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: lainaa

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: he has a good point

  • Pingback: he has a good point

  • Pingback: acheter casque beat

  • Pingback: pond 5 promo code

  • Pingback: sushi catering Somerville ma

  • Pingback: seo fabrikasi

  • Pingback: Larissa Braggs

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: Teddy Hartrick

  • Pingback: monoloop.com

  • Pingback: Ian Kanahele

  • Pingback: paleo diet recipes

  • Pingback: property in dubai

  • Pingback: Read more about web design

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: spybubble

  • Pingback: Read Full Report

  • Pingback: Clicking Here

  • Pingback: best supplements for muscle gain

  • Pingback: gadgets

  • Pingback: alternatives to steroids

  • Pingback: atlanta

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: pakej umrah

  • Pingback: Trade Used Cars

  • Pingback: battery tips

  • Pingback: astral project what to expect

  • Pingback: webcam show

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Continue Reading

  • Pingback: Discover More

  • Pingback: density

  • Pingback: pure green coffee extracts

  • Pingback: escorts leeds.

  • Pingback: gutters

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: Homepage

  • Pingback: steam showers

  • Pingback: los angeles publicists

  • Pingback: people search

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: Best Credit Repair

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: Dell Battery

  • Pingback: 2013 honda civic si redesign

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: make the future now

  • Pingback: jeux

  • Pingback: jeuxjeux

  • Pingback: junk car milwaukee

  • Pingback: beauty product.

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claims

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: Angel Care Baby Monitor

  • Pingback: I was reading this

  • Pingback: mortgage help

  • Pingback: tartamudez tratamiento fonoaudiologico

  • Pingback: eporner

  • Pingback: ITSM Training

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: PPI Claim

  • Pingback: Fuck you.

  • Pingback: sushi delivery Somerville ma

  • Pingback: velkoborsky.

  • Pingback: tumblr followers

  • Pingback: garage doors melbourne.

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: garage doors perth.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors.

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: gryphon garage doors

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park

  • Pingback: the stables towneley park,

  • Pingback: casino,

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: amarillo tree.

  • Pingback: porn

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: ipage complaints

  • Pingback: gambling

  • Pingback: Cucciolo Rottweiler

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: Deliver my Dumpster

  • Pingback: Deliver my Dumpster

  • Pingback: mls inmobiliarias

  • Pingback: startoption

  • Pingback: Weldon Ehlen

  • Pingback: annual free credit report

  • Pingback: land of nod

  • Pingback: junk car towing milwaukee

  • Pingback: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVXfRT84C9g

  • Pingback: check this out dude

  • Pingback: bear grylls messer

  • Pingback: network marketing

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: pc dial.

  • Pingback: pc dial.

  • Pingback: eames dsw

  • Pingback: chaise eames

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org/

  • Pingback: zynga poker chips hacks

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: PA Boy

  • Pingback: buy my car scam

  • Pingback: Bügelperlen Vorlagen

  • Pingback: natural depersonalization treatment

  • Pingback: natural depersonalization treatment

  • Pingback: female hair loss treatment

  • Pingback: t3u Blog

  • Pingback: Product Reviews

  • Pingback: lida hapi

  • Pingback: freelance logo design

  • Pingback: pirater facebook

  • Pingback: kitchen designs

  • Viet71

    Because he saw far too much power in the hands of un-elected bankers, whose allegiance might not always be to the U.S.

    The Fed today seeks to prop up the international monetary system. Not an unreasonable goal, assuming one flushes the U.S. and its Constitution down the privy.

    I’ve read the arguments here in favor of the Fed. They amount to, the economic world is a world without borders.

    Problem is, the political world has borders.

    Economist can ignore famine, torture, and the like.

    So can politicians if they buy into central bank supremacy.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Since it is still necessary to have some of the powers of a central bank, if those powers devolve to Treasury, then they become even more political.

    However, I do think it’s dual mandate should be changed and it’s power somewhat curtailed.

    During the years that the Fed followed a mechanistic approach to monetary policy we prospered. During the times when there was a lot of tinkering, we saw a negative result.

  • cactusjack

    actually curious evidence of what you say about JFK, V71. I refer of course to Executive Order 11110 signed by JFK in 1963. He was removed from the scene before he could set straight what the apologists and conpiratorialists have argued over ever since – the true intent purpose of E.O. 11110. But it was signed andy it allowed the executive branch to start issuing silver certificate dollars after Congress had passed an act removing that power from the Fed. Was this our first, halting steps back to the Gold/Silver standard? JFK had also gotten tax cuts passed in 1961. One could at least make an argument here was a Massachusetts limousine liberal who was starting to get off the reservation…arguing the gold standardbe reinstated today carries this quaint venir of outdatedness & hopelessness (I dont remember if it was in Ron Paul’s platform) but I will grant it one thing that seems a little eerie given all the banking chicanery 2009-10: when the nation’s curency is backed by the gold standard, the people own the money. When the currency is not backed by precious metals…the bankers….own the money.

  • Dave_A

    My point is, (A) mild-to-moderate inflation is good, in a debt-based society, (B) Monetary policy needs to be conducted by bankers & financiers, not politicians, and (C) the FED is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, so there is no problem requiring a ‘fix’ in the first place…

    There has yet to be a better system for implementing monetary policy than the Federal Reserve – as can be seen by the various nations that have ‘something else’ and also have currency problems…

    Vs the US, under the FED, where the Dollar has displaced gold as the reserve-commodity of choice world-wide…

    If the product sucked like the anti-FED folks claim it did, then people wouldn’t be complaining…

    P.S. For the ‘old-timers’ – I’m sorry, but in order to go ‘back’ to the bad-old-days of $2,000 cars and $0.10/gal gasoline, I’d also have to take a nice big cut to my $50k/yr income…. And my car would get 8mpg instead of 38… No thanks…

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    that I would like to see the Fed put back on a single purpose, not the dual purpose that has it trying conflicting things.

    And I would not mind a little bit more oversight from congress.

    I don’t disagree with your points But I still feel that the Fed often wields too much power. the truth is that they often do not know what they are doing. I give Bernanke some points for keeping money supply up during the worse part of the slump, but I get the feeling that he is in over his head.

  • Viet71

    – No accountability.

    – No attempt to explain policy to the people.

    – Bailouts that let guys like Jamie Dimon continue to fly high.

    The Fed succeeds by getting it right. Problem is, lots of times they get it wrong, which reinvigorates the appearance problems.

    Seems to me over the past 40 years, the Fed has been best at causing bubbles and busts.

  • Dave_A

    They’re not supposed to be accountable to anyone except the market itself…

    Nor can they explain policy to the people, when the people don’t have the ability to comprehend basic macroeconomics – let alone the detail required to explain the US money supply….

    And as for Dimon – the man did nothing wrong & Chase was never bailed out (Chase bought a bunch of bailed out banks, but they never needed a bailout themselves) …

    The Lib narrative that there is somehow something WRONG morally with Chase losing some money on the market is way, way off target…

    Of course, the lib media also characterized the FED lending money to banks as ‘bailouts’ when in reality it’s just one bank doing business with another…

  • Dave_A

    If the ‘purpose’ is 2-3% annual inflation, then I’d have no problem with that…

    Supposed ‘price stability’ has no place in monetary economics, however…