|
|
By Detlev Schlichter, on 8 November 11
Keynesian and other mainstream economists cannot explain the present crisis. That doesn’t seem to bother them.
All they can offer is a description of symptoms, such as with their favourite phrase of lack of ‘aggregate demand’, which, if you think about it, doesn’t really explain anything. How come demand dropped? Why did it drop now and not at any other time? Whose demand dropped? (Hint: mine didn’t.)
“Sigmund Freud meets Dr. Ruth”
But hey, when faced with a lack of proper economic explanations, you can always fall back on some amateur psychology. Everything must be down to what goes on in people’s heads, right? People just get all mixed up. Too pessimistic. Animal spirits, anybody? That’s why it is always up to those cool-headed guys and gals in government to use their policy tools to change expectations, change the psychology of people, cajole everybody into some elevated state of positive thinking and hence more economic activity. Save the masses from their own silly notions in their tiny heads, like saving and getting rid of debt. They all just clam up and save. Pitiful. But most importantly, why even worry about explaining the recession if you are confident, if you simply know deep down in your heart, how to get out of it.
Most politicians don’t know any better. They certainly don’t know any economics. So the same toxic policy mix of Keynesian deficit spending and Monetarist money printing has been implemented around the world since this crisis started four years ago. Just like in any other recession of the past forty years, ever since Nixon cut the last link to gold and fulfilled every interventionist’s wildest fantasy: unlimited paper money under full control of the state! Yeah, baby, no more recessions!
Alas, it is not working, is it?
Rates were cut and the state did not only spend money it didn’t have, as usual, it spent much more money it didn’t have. But the economy did not recover. So more of this policy was implemented. And then, more again. In fact, by any standard, never before in modern times has the economy been ‘stimulated’ more through Keynesian and Monetarist government intervention than over the past four years. Balance sheets of major central banks have tripled, banks have been receiving limitless funds for free and will continue to do so forever, and governments are running deficits the likes of which mankind has only ever seen at the height of major wars, and which are increasingly funded by the printing press.
It is still not working.
You would probably guess that the interventionists of Keynesian and other ilk would be a bit more humble by now. Maybe check a few of those premises in their models? Or maybe start thinking again about those elusive explanations for what’s wrong with the economy in the first place? Are we really suffering from a lack of paper money and government spending? Maybe it is not simply down to all of us being too depressed, morose, and in need of some policy Prozac. Maybe something else is broken.
Alas, no. The academically trained Keynesian economist is too committed to his or her beliefs to let the facts get in the way. Why has policy not worked? Because, wait for it, we have been too timid. We need the same policy. We just need more of it. A lot more.
More monetary madness
Here is the High Priestess of Keynesianism, Christina Romer in her recent op-ed in the New York Times. She suggests a radical policy ‘change’ at the Federal Reserve: toward more money printing.
Rather astutely, she calls for Helicopter-Ben to embrace a Volcker-moment. Maybe by quoting the poster boy of the Reaganites and the hard money crowd she hoped to reach a new audience for her tiring and dreary old policy recipe of more and bolder interventionism. She almost had me fooled. Wait a minute, I thought. Volcker? He is the guy who abruptly stopped the printing press and allowed high real market rates to cleanse the system of the dislocations of previous booms and to squeeze inflation out of the system, thus giving the paper dollar another lease of life – albeit one that is quickly running out. I thought, has Christina finally seen the light? Has she begun to realize how massively disruptive a constantly expanding supply of fiat money is for an economy? Is she calling, as I do, for an end to this monetary madness of zero policy rates and quantitative easing?
Well, no, she isn’t. She wants the Fed to print more money, much more. She wants the Fed to adopt a nominal GDP target. This will allow the Fed to become even more aggressive in its monetary policy and to communicate this aggressiveness better. Make people trust in that aggressiveness. And this is important for Romer. The communication. As we have seen, for the good Keynesian the policy was never wrong. The policy was just not ambitious enough. All it needs is a more ambitious goal and better communication. People just have these bad thoughts and wrong expectations. The public is just not playing ball, not going along with this enlightened economic program. Well, we’ll teach them.
The Volcker-analogy works like this for Romer: In 1979 inflation was too high and small rate hikes didn’t work. So Volcker implemented a much tighter policy and crushed inflation. And it worked because people believed him. Today unemployment is too high. Gradual policy easing – not sure what planet Christina is on but from where she is sitting monetary policy in the U.S. must have appeared to be gradual, hmmm – is not working either. So Bernanke needs to become more aggressive, and publicly so. Because if people believe that you stick to your policy, which – please remember – was of course the right policy to begin with, then the policy will really begin to work. You just need to drill it into those blockheads.
Every first semester economics student, not only those at Berkeley where Romer is economics professor, should be able to tear this apart with ease. The analogy with Volcker is, of course, completely silly. Volcker used monetary policy to fix a monetary problem, inflation. Stopping inflation by not printing money any more is pretty straightforward. The link is kind of — direct? To be honest, it doesn’t even matter whether the public believes or not. If you stop printing money, inflation will drop. Period. The link is that direct. You don’t need the accompanying belief system.
Was there full employment in Weimar Germany?
However, unemployment or the level of ‘aggregate demand’ is decidedly not a monetary phenomenon. Only in the airy-fairy dreamland of macroeconomic models is there a direct link. To assume that we can simply and straightforwardly establish whatever nominal growth rate and level of employment we desire by means of the printing press is precisely the type of naïve ‘building bloc economics’ that got us into this mess in the first place. According to this world view, the economy is just a machine, and all we need to do is to pull the right levers. Or it is like a cooking recipe, in which we need to simply change the ingredients a bit and – voila! The soufflé will rise!
It is precisely because (a certain type of) economists have been telling us – wrongly! – that we can have more growth and high employment by constantly debasing money that we created this highly levered economy over the past four decades that is so thoroughly addicted to ever larger fixes of cheap credit and that is now choking on excessive debt and weak banks. By printing money and artificially lowering interest rates we have, again and again, bought near-term economic growth at the expense of long-term economic imbalances. That this was bad economics everybody is now learning the hard way. Everybody, that is, except Christina Romer. Her simple world view is unshaken.
It is this weird combination of childlike belief in the simplicity of the problem (aggregate demand, lack of optimism) and the striking arrogance of the notion that the government can and should control the economy by simply pulling at the right strings hard enough, that makes Romer’s article such an illustrative example of the intellectual dead end that is mainstream economics today.
Romer has apparently no notion of relative prices and of the importance, in particular, of interest rates for coordinating saving with investment. She cannot see that lowering interest rates administratively and injecting new money into the financial system will have many additional effects, other than lifting some statistical measure of aggregate economic activity. Easy money will always change resource use and capital allocation. Cheap credit encourages borrowing and debt accumulation, and will cause additional problems for the economy later.
Romer cannot perceive these complexities. In her ivory tower, the world is one of simple statistical aggregates and large wholes that you can direct and mend to your liking. You just add the desired real growth rate (2.5 percent) and the acceptable inflation rate (2 percent) and stir it nicely to come up with the nominal growth rate (4.5 percent). How hard can it be?
We have some indication that Bernanke is not very sympathetic to this proposal at present. It doesn’t look like this will become official policy any time soon. But who knows? A lot of what is now accepted monetary and fiscal policy in major countries and debated dispassionately by financial market economists would only a few years ago have been the mark of the economic crank, or the populist policy program of some economic backwater just before it was put under IMF surveillance.
But what is striking is this: such rubbish emanates from the highest echelons of academic economics in America. Christina Romer is economics professor in Berkeley, California, and I fear that a lot of very bright young people burden themselves and their families with student loans and waste valuable time absorbing such drivel. If Romer is all that economics in Berkeley has to offer, why not emulate the late Steve Jobs and drop out?
This article was previously published at Paper Money Collapse.
By Alasdair Macleod, on 26 October 11
Speech to the Committee for Monetary Research and Education
At the Fall Meeting, 20th October 2011.
Before addressing the consequences of today’s macro-economic policies I want to tell you my philosophy. I support sound money for two very good reasons:
1. Firstly, it is a basic human right to choose to save, without our savings being debased by the tax of monetary inflation. Those that are worst affected by this inflation tax are not the rich (they benefit), but the poor and the barely well-off, which is why monetary inflation undermines society and why the right to sound money should be respected. If government gives itself a monopoly over money, it has a duty to protect the property rights vested in it.
2. Secondly, it is a basic right for us to own our own money rather than have it owned by the banks. For them to take our money and expand credit on the back of it debases it. It is an abuse of an individual’s property rights and a banking licence is a government licence to do so. If anyone else was to do this, they would be guilty of fraud. Banks should be custodians of our money, and it should not appear on their balance sheets as their property.
If we had stuck to these sound money principles, several benefits automatically follow, some of which I will briefly summarise for you, and I will have a little more to say about them in a moment:
1. With sound money, governments cannot print money to fund their activities, so the true cost of government becomes apparent to the electorate. The result is that in a democracy the electorate votes for small government because profligate politicians simply do not get elected. Indeed, we need sound money for democracy to work.
2. With sound money, governments are unable to go to war without taxpayers being conscious of the true cost. This is a great incentive for peace and an electorate that accepts the benefits of free markets, and therefore peaceful trade, is less belligerent.
3. With sound money, savings are protected. Prices tend to fall gradually over time, reflecting improved efficiencies in production and of economic progress generally. So the purchasing power of savings increases over the years. For a pensioner, the purchasing power of his savings grows. He can then afford the healthcare he increasingly requires as he ages, and he can afford to leave something for his family when he dies. His savings work with his needs, which is the opposite of the situation in our inflation-ridden economies. In a sound money economy, our pensioners look after themselves and need not be a burden on the state.
4. With sound money, business cycles do not occur. The business cycles we are familiar with are in fact credit-driven cycles, the result of central banks expanding money and overseeing bank credit. They are the result of the misconception that monetary expansion leads to growth. It doesn’t: it merely distorts the economy by favouring a select few at the expense of the many.
These are just some of the benefits of sound money; benefits we can only dream about today. So long as we have unsound money we will have difficulties that will always end in a crisis. Today, we have sunk to the point where the answer to everything is found in more money and bank credit instead of the genuine production of goods and services.
The long-term consequence of monetary inflation is that voters now believe that a government always has the money to provide everything they need. So they naturally vote for more government. They do not question the source of government’s money. They have also been encouraged to believe that the freedom for everyone to do what they want with their own money only enriches the few, when the opposite is the case. People have become genuinely frightened by the thought of free markets. For this reason, governments regulate most of the private sector. Between government spending and government regulation, the private sector is now dominated by government interference. A minimal amount of capitalism is tolerated in economies that are otherwise socialistic; yet our ills are blamed on the only part of the economy that actually works.
The most effective curb on political ambition is sound money. But we don’t have sound money. So government abuses its monopoly power over the currency to pay for its ambitions. Fiat money gives a free rein to the ambitious politician. The First World War was made possible by German economists, led by George Knapp, the Keynes of his day. He showed the Kaiser the way to finance a war without increasing taxes. In the four years from 1913 the Reichsbank increased paper money in circulation to pay for 85% of Germany’s war expenditure for those years. Of course, after that the script did not go to plan, and as we all know it ended with the total collapse of the currency in 1923.
Collapse the currency, and you collapse savings. Savings today are continually devalued by the expansion of money and credit. Only a fool lends his money for an interest return, and savers are therefore forced to speculate to protect themselves. The result is that there is now a separate destabilising pool of foot-loose capital. It is used by the financial engineers of Wall Street and the City of London to offer higher speculative returns. It has become the feedstock for spendthrift borrowers, particularly governments, who have no intention of ever repaying it.
The damage of unsound money to business has been acute. Business cycles are actually credit cycles, the result of the central banks’ monetary policies. It is easy to understand why the expansion of money and credit drives us into cycles of boom and bust – the exact opposite of what it is meant to achieve.
Take the example of businesses operating with sound money. A business developing a new product or improving an existing one has to invest its own funds, or find a lender with savings. In either case, this takes money away from consumption, money that is reallocated into savings and from there into the proposed investment. And because this money is not spent on consumption, the labour and raw materials required for any new project become available. There is a shift of resources from consumption into savings, from savings into investment, and from there into capital goods. A balance is maintained within the economy and there is no boom and bust. It is a non-cyclical process, driven only by peoples’ economic needs. Business activity is inherently stable.
Now look at the situation when business investment is financed by newly created money and bank credit instead of savings. The process starts with the central bank lowering interest rates. Cheap credit makes investment appear attractive, so the businessman borrows to invest in his business. But many other businessmen are encouraged by the same cheap credit to do the same thing at the same time.
Businesses start investing simultaneously. The randomness has gone. But it gets worse: cheap money also supports consumption, because saving money is less attractive due to lower interest rates.
So our businessman has to bid up for labour, because it hasn’t been released by lower consumption, and he is in competition with the other businesses also taking advantage of cheap credit. He has to pay up for raw materials, for the same reasons. The combination of industry and consumers responding to cheap finance, in the short-term will drive the economy better. But with no extra resources available, prices rise due to bunched demand. And since the quantity of money in the economy has increased, its purchasing-power also falls; exacerbating price inflation even more.
And with prices now rising strongly, interest rates also now rise from artificially low levels. Our businessman’s plans are totally screwed. He got the cost of labour and raw materials completely wrong, and because interest rates have shot up, his Return-On-Investment calculations turn out to be far too optimistic. And to make matters worse, the deteriorating economic conditions that follow, as surely as night follows day, force him to accept that his sales projections were also too optimistic.
His fellow entrepreneurs are in the same boat. Businesses start cutting back. They act as a crowd on the way up and on the way down.
The essential point is fake money has created a business cycle which didn’t exist before. It is never just a question of central banks getting their timing wrong, as many suppose.
The central bank then compounds the problems it has created by again lowering interest rates with the downturn. More than anything else it is scared of a fall in GDP, so it cannot allow the distortions and false investments of the earlier round of monetary stimulation to unwind properly.
But next time round, the businessman is not so easily tricked. He builds greater margins into his investment calculations. So the economy becomes slower to respond to a new, deeper round of interest rate cuts. The central bank has to act more aggressively to create yet more fake money, to get a result.
These credit expansions work like a ratchet, becoming more destabilising over each credit cycle.
The businessman eventually wises up, overcomes his patriotic instincts and moves his manufacturing to somewhere where at least some of the factors of production are available. He needs to plan for ten, fifteen, twenty years. He cannot afford to ride destructive credit-driven cycles of three or four years. It is cheaper for him to build a factory in the jungle and train up hard-working natives. It is unsound money that has driven him abroad more than any other factor. Over a number of these credit cycles, the economy in countries with falling savings, like the US and UK, becomes more and more dependent on consumption, and less and less on manufacturing.
And eventually, to encourage GDP growth, consumers are encouraged to actually borrow to spend and abandon saving altogether. So on every credit cycle, savings diminish and debt increases, finally accelerating to unsustainable levels of debt. And that is where we arrived in 2008. That marked the end of the road for the post-war Keynesian experiment.
So understanding our economic condition from a sound money perspective gives us a unique viewpoint. It makes it easier to see through the fog of weak money. It also allows us to see through the problems posed by reconciling contrary statistics. And it is here that the establishment deludes itself as well as the rest of us.
The abuse of the GDP statistic is the most important delusion of all, because all economic policy is directed at ensuring it grows. But we must stop and think what it actually represents. GDP is not economic output, it is its money-value, which is a very different thing. It gives us no information about the relative values of the goods and services that constitute the economy.
It is crucial to appreciate this distinction, so by way of explanation let us again assume sound money. This is like an economy operating with gold as money and without credit expansion. To keep it simple, assume that trade is in balance, and there are no net capital flows to or from other countries. Therefore, at the end of the year, there is exactly the same amount of money, or gold, as there was at the start of the year.
What does this mean for GDP? It is exactly the same of course, irrespective of actual economic activity. It doesn’t matter how much people save, because those savings are reapplied into the production of capital goods. The rest goes on consumption. It really doesn’t matter what proportion is private sector and how much is government. But if you start with a million ounces of gold, after a year you still have a million ounces of gold. The only difference is what a million ounces buys. The reconciliation between the start and the end of the year is obviously a combination of prices and how efficiently the available gold is deployed.
In practice, human nature constantly strives for improvement, so over a period of time in a free market the purchasing power of sound money increases. This was borne out by the experience of Britain, which went on the gold standard in 1821 and only went off it before the First World War. During that time, Britain freed up her economy by dropping tariffs and other restrictions on free trade, and we became the most powerful nation on earth. The purchasing power of the gold sovereign increased substantially over those ninety-odd years.
So if we look at how an economy operates in a sound-money environment, we see that the benefits of free-markets flow to consumers, savers and businesses. We can see that any attempt to measure these benefits by changes in GDP are simply absurd. It therefore follows that any change in GDP represents a change in the quantity of money in an economy and not of the level of production.
Now, for some of us this is quite a discovery. We are so used to thinking that GDP is the economy that government policies are now entirely focused on boosting it, mistaking it for the economy itself. It justifies mainstream macro-economic theory, because within that money identity, there is no differentiation between good and bad deployment of economic resources. This, in the minds of most economists, is why badly targeted government spending is no different from the productive private sector’s use of economic resources. It persuades Keynesians and Monetarists that injecting government spending into an economy or expanding the quantity of money in the economy is a valid route to recovery.
Understand this error and you understand why unemployment in the United States is already at depression levels, but according to the GDP statistic you have only just arrived at the brink of a possible economic downturn. Understand this error, and you understand the frantic attempts to get more money and credit into the economy rather than address the real issues. Understand the error of confusing the condition of an economy with its accounting identity and understand the policy mistakes yet to be made.
So we can see that governments are doing just about everything wrong. They have completely failed to understand the productive difference between free markets and government intervention. They have no knowledge of the real cost of diminishing the productive private sector to pay for the unproductive public sector. The activities of central banks have encouraged boom-bust cycles that have led to the accumulation of debt in both private and public sectors to the point where it has finally become unsustainable. In the process, they have destroyed savings, which are the necessary pre-requisite, the bed-rock for any sustainable recovery.
This is the background to today’s crisis. Governments everywhere are now trying to borrow the largest amounts of money in history, all at the same time. And to those who say that global savings are high, I say those savings are in the hands of the Chinese and Indian workers, who wisely are more likely to buy gold and silver than our government debt.
Governments are now waking up to the fact that real economic growth is disappearing far into the future and taking their hoped-for tax revenues with it. The debt-trap has snapped firmly shut. Some countries, such as the Eurozone members, who cannot print money to finance themselves, are simply the first victims of the imbalance between the financing requirements of governments and the available capital. Others, such as the UK and US, who can print money, do so to defer funding problems and keep their borrowing costs low; but it is only a matter of time before they are found out.
Price inflation will put an end to these artificially low bond yields, if markets don’t first: it has always been this way in the past and now is no different. We already see prices measured in paper currencies rising everywhere. Commodity prices are reflecting the increased quantities of paper money and credit. Prices of essentials, such as food and energy, have been rising sharply. But there are still people who think that the risk is deflation not inflation. Presumably the Fed thinks so, since it has stated that it expects interest rates to stay at close to zero until mid-2013. They will be in for a shock, and here’s why.
They are about to learn the difference between sound money and their fiat money. Real money cannot be issued by central banks. Fiat money is an undated interest-free claim on a government whose central bank merely tells us that it is money. The difference is important, because in a depression, the purchasing power of real money, measured in goods, increases. In the same depression the purchasing power of fake money falls with the financial condition of the issuing government and with its accelerating supply. This is the dynamic behind the rise in the price of gold over the last decade.
The rising inflation I’ve talked about is measured in fiat money. The rise will accelerate because when you are in a debt trap the only way bills get paid is to issue increasing quantities of fiat money and to borrow. And remember, in a depression tax revenues collapse, while social security costs escalate. To defer the “Grecian moment” we have become unhappily familiar with, both the US and the UK will require more fiat money and bank credit than we can imagine.
So what those who worry about a depression haven’t noticed, is that we have been in one for some time. That comes of confusing GDP with real goods and services. Produce enough fake money and GDP looks good. What doesn’t is the level of unemployment. Doubtless George Knapp – remember him? The German predecessor to Keynes? – Knapp would have felt good that German GDP from 1920 to 1923 looked fantastic. But then there was the small matter of a collapse in the fiat money of the day, and GDP hadn’t yet been invented anyway.
Today people are stumbling towards an awareness of some of these problems. Most visible to everyone so far is the parlous state of the banks. While it would be foolish to completely discount systemic risk, we should bear in mind two things. Firstly, the central banks are now very aware of this risk, which is different from the time of the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses. So you can reasonably bet that every scenario that frightens us has been anticipated. The banks themselves are now acutely aware of counterparty risk. Secondly, the evolution of banking over the years has given central banks enormous control over their banking systems. It is wrong to think that you can compare the situation today to that of the banking crisis triggered by the collapse of Kredit Anstalt in 1931. The ECB in Europe only has to stand by with unlimited funds when necessary. Indeed, there has been a run on the Greek banks for at least the last eighteen months without systemic failure. All that is required is for the ECB to make its fiat money available in sufficient quantities.
In a few months we will enter 2012. The immediate stresses of today will probably diminish when enough fiat money has been thrown at them. So to my mind the two biggest headaches for next year will be increasing price inflation, the result of too much paper money chasing too few goods if you like, and rising interest rates. I do not expect the Fed to keep its promise of zero rates into 2013. I do expect them to blame unexpected stagflation.
And finally, we must understand that when it comes to resolving our current difficulties, the order of events is bound to be crisis first, solution second. I wish it could be the other way round, but that is the political reality. What we must do meanwhile is get the message home why the establishment has got its macroeconomics so wrong, and why the only solution is to progress towards sound money.
Today I have only focused on two aspects of the problem: the destabilising effects of credit-driven business cycles, and the misapplication of a statistic, GDP, which should have no importance whatsoever. There is much, much more in this sorry tale. I have touched on the role of savings, without going into how their destruction through monetary inflation is now bankrupting governments. I have not gone into the fallacies surrounding trade imbalances, which are always the result of unsound money. I have not asked how we are to feed our elderly and poor, who have become reliant on government pensions and hand-outs, which governments can increasingly ill-afford.
Please just accept, even if you don’t follow my analysis, that sound money guarantees a stable yet progressive economy where people are truly equal. It allows people to save properly for their retirement so that they will not become a burden on the state. It leads to democracy voting for small governments. It encourages peaceful trade and discourages war. It is the only path, after this mess, that leads us to long-lasting and peaceful prosperity. We really need everyone to understand this for the sake of our future.
Thank you.
This speech was previously published at FinanceAndEconomics.org.
By James Tyler, on 19 July 10
An entertaining article, choc-a-bloc with Monetarist whitewash, in The Telegraph today.
Apparently Jean Claude Trichet is “inflicting a triple shock of fiscal, monetary and currency tightening on a broken economy”.
Well, at least I agree with the last part. Europe’s economy is well and truly broken, thanks to a decade of loose monetary policy, low private savings, bankster socialism and the fiscal incontinence of our various Kings of Europe, but is Ambrose saying that the cure should be more of the same?
A “deflationary vortex” is what is awaiting us around the corner. Well, I agree things are bad. Monumentally bad. The plane is out of fuel (they never put enough in), and we are lurching downwards – and this is going to hurt. We are facing massive credit deflation in the private sector.
“Spiraling public sector debt precludes further Keynesian spending, so this must come from central bank stimulus.”
Uh, what? Oh please.
Let’s take a step back from all of this aggregate nonsense, and think, in clear, incisive, terms what is happening.
1. Central banks were in control of setting interest rates
2. Given low headline CPI inflation (which is a very problematic measure), policy tended to be looser than the free market would have been, and interest rates were set artificially low. (No central banker would ever keep rates a little too high – that would have risked a deflation shurely, hic, pass the punch bowl).
3. As the price of credit was set artificially low, excess credit was demanded (that bit of ‘A’ level economics, supply and demand curves, sort of work), and was happily met by the banks (thanks be to Mr. Taxpayer for all that free insurance of deposits allowing them to be lent out again and again and again).
4. People bought stuff with that credit, especially houses. Remember house price rises in 2005 and 2006 – did it seem silly or not?
5. Higher asset prices supported more credit creation by our taxpayer guaranteed banksters, which fed into higher asset prices etc
6. Something happened, depositors wanted their money back, and the spiral went into reverse
Excess private sector credit creation was the problem. The market is now trying to correct this mistake, and banks are being forced to call in credit lines that should have never been given out in the first place. Heartless some will say, but it cannot be helped. The damage was done during the period of credit creation and the resultant boom, the best thing to do, now, is to trust the free interaction of people to swiftly reallocate wasted resources from misuse towards productive use. The statist alternative is to try to mask and hide the pain, as the Japanese did in the 90’s. Look where it got them.
Now think a little about what the usually-admirably-free-market Ambrose Evans-Pritchard implies.
“Far from taking steps to offset Club Med austerity [err ‘Austerity? Shouldn’t that read ‘sanity’?] it is winding down its €50bn purchase of government bonds”
The implication here is that we should purchase more of those government bonds, all with newly-created money tokens.
Am I the only one to be horrified at the spectacle of the emperor’s nakedness here? Think about what AEP implies should be done:
1. Private sector credit is being called in, so;
2. The central bank, the guys who got it wrong in the first place, are the guys to deal with it, sooo;
3. The destruction of private sector credit (i.e. banks calling in loans to you and me) should be offset, soooo;
4. They create public sector credit via QE, soooooooo;
5. Public sector credit allows government to do more things than it should not have been doing in the first place
This credit for the purchase of government bonds does not appear out of thin air. It is funded by devaluing all of the privately held money in existence. It does nothing to sort the structural problem of business and consumer loans being called in.
The net result, after all of this, is a smaller private sector and a bigger state (unless, that is, you surrender yourself to a belief in some kind of magical process in the middle, called Monetarism or Keynesianism).
Mr. Evans-Pritchard, why are you so ardently, and happily, proposing a massive expansion of the state?
By Toby Baxendale, on 22 March 10
Do you think it is very worrying that not one government policy encourages the entrepreneurs of the world to create wealth?
Without wealth creation we are doomed to a long slow decline in the productive capacity of the economy. We are doomed to the stagnating to slow growth economy that all the policies of our Great Leader, Gordon Brown, is inflicting upon us. It is all because he does not understand how wealth is created and the role of entrepreneurship in society. Most politicians are the same, I am afraid to say, with a few shining lights and notable exceptions. This is desperately worrying for all of us.
How is Wealth Created?
I have said here on this site before http://www.cobdencentre.org/2009/09/can-the-manipulation-of-interest-rates-create-wealth/ “I would like you to absent the concept of money and consider a situation of barter. As a butcher, when I kill an animal, I may get for the sake of argument, 10 cuts of meat: this is my production. I only need 2 for my immediate consumption, so with the remaining 8 cuts, I trade with Andrew, a garment manufacturer, for some garments to keep me warm. I consume 2 cuts and I save 8 cuts in order to trade for other goods and services. I need to produce to consume: I need to save/invest to consume.
“If I wish to consume more of Andrew’s garments as I have a family to dress and keep warm, 8 cuts of meat may well not be enough to purchase these new needs and requirements of mine. At this point in time, I am faced with a choice, either my production has to increase so I can generate more cuts to exchange for other goods, or I accept my fate and stay where I am. I decide that I can invent a method of cutting up the parts quicker by using a sharper knife, thus I seek to invent the “steel” or knife sharpener that improves my productivity from generating 10 cuts in a day to 15. With these 5 extra cuts, I can get more garments.
“The problem is, that in order to get the steel built, I need to spend some of my time that would be making the 10 cuts. Thus, I have to save and forgo some consumption while I have the steel built. I also have to rely on my savings — those stored cuts of meat — that I have not consumed to keep me afloat. This is what an economist may mean when he says adding capital to an economy lengthens the structure of production. The steel in this example adds a stage to the capital structure of society, to make me more productive, so I can consume more things.
“To be clear, saving is the only thing that allows this to happen. In this example, my personal capital structure has gone from me with a knife in my hand consuming two cuts a day and exchanging 8 saved portions, to me and a knife and a steel to produce 15 cuts of which I consume 2 and exchange 13 saved cuts. Now Andrew will be doing the same, i.e. lengthening his structure of production to meet my new found desires for more goods. He will also have to save — i.e. forgo consumption — to invest with the sustenance that savings gives him, to become more “capitalistic” or capital intensive in his production structure, to meet my demand.”
In summary, during the passage of time, only an act of saving to invest in a longer capitalistic method of production can lead to more goods and services being produced and consumed. No amount of creating money out of thin air creates more goods and services.
The Austrian School Role of the Entrepreneur in Economics
Humans Act
One of the great contributions of Ludwig von Mises to our understanding of the world, in his book ‘Human Action’ is that humans act and they act purposefully to satisfy their most urgent needs and requirements. Absent action and you would not have a moving human society, but a static world with no existence at all. We rank our most immediate preferences first and our most remote preferences last, thus we always have a downward sloping demand curve for things.
Sub Categories of Action: the Entrepreneur
All men act, they are in economic theory either an entrepreneur, a capitalist, a landowner, a worker or a consumer. These are ideal types, ideal styles. The reality is that we are all a combination of more than one of the above.
In the real world everybody is an entrepreneur except the children and elderly we look after, and wards of state that we pay in various forms to do nothing, such as the unemployed and those on incapacity benefit.
Israel Kirzner shows us in his books ‘Competition and Entrepreneurship’ and also in ‘Perception, Opportunity, and Profit’, how the spontaneous discovery of new opportunities by alert individuals is a defining characteristic of entrepreneurship. For example, a man who is more alert than another to satisfying the most urgent needs and requirements of other men, such as Bill Gates in inventing Microsoft and its worldwide and world changing software is rewarded by his fellow consumer entrepreneurs more so than the man who comes and fixes the boiler as he is providing a more valuable and needed service. Gates’s unique ability over the years to be alert to the potential opportunity, to think, to create to make happen, makes him the richest man in the world.
The Economy as Dynamic Creative Process
De Soto, in his books ‘The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency’ and ‘The Austrian School, Market Order and Entrepreneurial Creativity’ shows us that as the economy is predicated by acting man seeking ways to satisfy his most urgent needs and requirements first, and with limited resources, everything in politics should be geared to letting the full creative talents of the most humble entrepreneur to the giants on entrepreneurship flourish. Past Popes such as John Paul the II and Leo XIII, in ‘Centesimus Annus’ and ‘Rerun Novarum’ have been wonderful in expressing the moral ethic of human being s able to express our own creativity unhindered so long as we hinder no one else.
To our current political class, astonishingly, it is never about creating, but about distributing: X, the group of more deserving persons, is going to get Y taken from them, and it will be promptly redistributed to the less deserving class. In most cases the less deserving class is the successful entrepreneur who has satisfied the most urgent needs of consumers the most and been rewarded for doing so by his consumers!
How the Political Class Understands Economics: the Neo-classical Way
Lord Lionel Robbins, a great early Austrian School economist from the LSE, sadly left us with a very negative legacy concerning entrepreneurship in his otherwise exceptional book, ‘An Essay on The Nature and Significance of Economic Science’. My copy is online here, http://mises.org/books/robbinsessay2.pdf This would be the starting point marking when economics is described as the science which studies the utilisation of scare resources which may be put to alternative uses in order to satisfy human needs. So the economic problem is a technical one of allocation.
This contrasts with the real world creative dynamic actors who are constantly alert to creating new means to satisfy new ends by using all their creative talents and those of others they can muster in order to satisfy the largest number of ends. This is entrepreneurship as a discovery process. No economics is about choosing between competing uses to satisfy set ends.
In the Neoclassical world – and we must remember the School of Keynes and Friedman, the Keynesians and the Monetarist are but subsections of the Neoclassical School – it is impossible for there to be pure entrepreneurial profit or genuine discovery, as they are enclosed in a world where there is call for intervention in the distribution of scarce resources. Technical allocation is the height of the Neoclassical Mission. The man who ‘discovers’ the wheel, the internal combustion engine, the computer etc are all acts of great creativity and are examples of where pure entrepreneurial profit is generated. To the technician/administrator/bureaucrat/resource allocator of the Neoclassical School, there is no role for this, but when it does happen, lo and behold there is a role of how to technically allocate its benefits!
The Role of Knowledge and Information
I was fortunate to study under Dr Robert Orr at the LSE who was a protégé of the outstanding political philosopher, Michael Oakeshott. I will never forget my first introduction to his 1962 classic book, ‘Rationalism in Politics’, where Oakeshott cleverly distinguished between “practical knowledge” and “scientific knowledge.” The former he describes as the dispersed know-how that we all have that allows us to do things that cannot be formalised, like the tacit knowledge a cook has when he/she cooks a fantastic dinner. Putting the food together in various combinations and heating for various times are, after all, simple acts that could be described in a very formulaic fashion. But how many of us have that practical, unquantifiable knowledge to cook an outstanding dinner? The former, formulaic knowledge, is the scientific knowledge or technical knowledge that we can formalise such as the knowledge of science itself. The study of entrepreneurship or economics in general is about the study of which entrepreneurs use this practical knowledge to bring about co- ordination and more goods and services by doing more things to satisfy more people. Scientific knowledge may boost this process as entrepreneurs exploit the information that the scientific knowledge produces. The danger is when the people who study economics and the application of entrepreneurship or the use of this dispersed practical knowledge or know how think they can scientifically manage it.
Harmony / Coordination and not the Creative Destruction of Schumpeter
Technical direction by the ‘enlightened’ entrenched administrators who dominate large parts of our lives is no match for the co-ordinating forces of entrepreneurship. The price mechanism throws up information that suggests opportunities to alert entrepreneurs to supply goods and services or solutions to satisfy peoples’ most urgent needs. This co-ordination can never be facilitated by administrators. Each time a profit opportunity is found and then satisfied, a creative and co-ordinating act has happened. Entrepreneurship is coordination. Each act of entrepreneurship in fact smoothes out dis-co-ordination in society. It is the most civilising act. This is very different to the creative destruction of Joseph Schumpeter who, in ‘Capitalism , Socialism and Democracy’ says that entrepreneurs enter established industries that start to exercise some monopoly power, thus allowing a smaller, nimbler competitor to enter and value-destruct and then value re-create something new and better. Schumpeter, unlike his Austrian contemporary, Mises, viewed booms and busts to be caused by innovation and not by excessive credit creation.
The Austrian Approach
So for the Austrian, we all act to satisfy our ends. Some do it better than others, some do it to many others, and these latter entrepreneurs are, in truth, the dynamic, creative, co-ordinating and above all harmonious drivers of the economy and facilitators of a peaceful society. This is in direct contrast with the homo oeconomicus of Robbins and the Neoclassical School, whose modern members are Keynesians and Monetarists. Resource allocation between competing needs is the name of their game.
They conflate scientific knowledge with the practical. This allows them to advocate constant spending by a thing they describe as a third party: Government. Government is meant to inject new money into the economy to get us all moving again. There is a horrible inevitability here: like a Greek tragedy, it is played out on epic proportions. There is no such thing as a government standing above and separate from us that can stimulate us. The government can only take from one section of the population and give to other sections of the population. When they spend money, they are spending the money you would have spent. The positive government spending multiplier is exactly negated by the negative spending multiplier from where the government has extracted the money in the first place. The net effect is zero extra spending. However. It does not stop there. For a great dis-co-ordination in the practical knowledge of people will take place when a government spends as the entrepreneurs will now be confused as to which activity in the economy will produce a sustainable outcome. Which bits of price information are driven by the most urgent needs of consumers that needs satisfying? Which are driven by the technical director of some government department directing who he thinks – or his political master thinks – the given set of resources should be allocated?
We are told we should print more money. I tell no lie, I witnessed one economist, Roger Bootle, see here http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/02/policy-exchange-and-the-near-consensus-on-the-merits-of-qe/ say we should, if need be, print money indefinitely until people knew we were so serious that we would not allow a deflation! He equates a growing money supply with more wealth. But a growing money supply without more goods and services means a lowering of each money unit’s purchasing power! This has nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of wealth, as I have demonstrated above. Both endless spending and endless printing of money are the policies of the mystic and witch doctor!
In conclusion,the correct and urgent policy for the political class must be to remove all restrictions on the ability of each person to use their best entrepreneurial endeavours. Each person can then take advantage of the practical knowledge that is out there and create, ex novo, new combinations of the factors of production to produce new things. Abolish all laws that prevent and hamper business unnecessarily; pro-union legislation; employment law excesses; presumption of guilt by you, the employer, for anything your staff does, thus absenting you from any individual responsibility. Stop paying the people who abuse the benefit system, who form the massive, larger than the army size workforce we have idle on unemployment and or incapacity benefit. Stop wasting resources going to war. Stop printing money and creating confusion as it is harder for an entrepreneur now more than ever to distinguish between what is or is not a bubble supported activity that is never going to be sustainable. This latter disruption in the co-ordinating ability of entrepreneurs to bring about economic harmony is the worst part of the legacy that this current government will gift the next.
Until they understand the nature of entrepreneurship, we are in for a prolonged and rough recession.
|
|
