Posted tagged ‘Credit Expansion’

Some Econ Homework

June 20, 2017

Jean-Baptiste Say And The “Law Of Markets“, by Richard Ebeling, at fff.org. Say’s ‘Law Of Markets’ states: “A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value.”…..As each of us can only purchase the productions of others with his own productions – as the value we can buy is equal to the value we can produce, the more men can produce, the more they will purchase.”

You can’t consume what has not been produced. Production creates the ability to consume. The more you produce the more you can consume.

Say: “It is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales….Money performs no more than the role of a conduit in this double exchange. When the exchanges have been completed, it will be fount that one has paid for products with products….Should a tradesman say, ‘I don not want other commodities for my woolens, I want money,’ there could be little difficulty in convincing him, that his customers cannot pay him money, without having first procured it by the sale of some other  commodities of their own….”

Counterfeiting money creates an exchange of an actual produced good for dollars that are not backed by corresponding production. This is theft. Even if the counterfeiting is done ‘legally’ by The Federal Reserve, it is still an exchange of something for nothing (aka theft).

There are always imbalances with supply and demand in the market, but they are usually corrected rather quickly. Monetary intervention by the Fed creates imbalances that last much longer and are only corrected by stopping the monetary intervention or an eventual bursting of the bubble.

Federal Reserve monetary manipulation has been going on for about a decade. Does anyone know what is real and what is fake in our economy right now? All we can say is there are major imbalances in our economy that will eventually be liquidated, and it won’t be pretty.

“Priming The Pump” Won’t Create Real Wealth, by Frank Shostak, at mises.org. When a recession happens labor and capital become idle. ‘Experts’ think the way out of the recession is to increase demand for goods and services so these idle labor and capital will become employed once again. Ignoring how the over-supply of labor and capital happened in the first place can lead to the same Government and Fed policy solutions which created the problem in the first place. Idle resources are not the problem. Idle resources are the symptom of the problem. The problem is the initial intervention into the market using the policies of below market interest rates and injecting electronically printing counterfeit money into the economy.

Excerpt from the article: “Commentators are correct in believing that what prevents the expansion of the production and the utilization of idle resources is the lack of credit. There is, however, the need to emphasize that the credit that is lacking is the productive credit – the one that is fully backed by real wealth (real savings). The fact that this type of credit is scarce is the outcome of previous episodes of expansionary monetary mischief by the central bank, which resulted in the diversion of wealth from wealth producers to non – wealth producers.”

“What most commentators advocate is the expansion of credit out of “thin air,” via central bank…. direct monetary injections or via intervention in the money markets to maintain a lower target interest rate……This expansion of unbacked credit not only cannot revitalize the economy but, on the contrary, will set in motion a further weakening of the process of wealth generation.

Fed Officials Can’t See What’s Right In Front Of Them, Jonathan Newman, at mises.org. Fed officials can’t see the forest for the trees.

Here is an excerpt from the article:”Minnesota District Bank president, Neel Kashkari recently wrote…..the Fed faces a dilemma regarding asset bubbles and whether of not they should be met with raising interest. He summarizes in five points.”

-“It is really hard to spot bubbles with any confidence before they burst.”

-“The fed has limited policy tools to stop a bubble from growing, even if we thought we spotted one.”

-“The costs of making policy mistakes can be very high, so we must proceed with caution.”

-“What we can and must do is ensure that the financial system is strong enough to withstand the inevitable bursting of a bubble.”

-“Monetary policy should be used only as a last resort to address asset prices, because the costs of the economy of such policy response are potentially so large.”

“Then he admits that it is possible artificially low-interest rates increase the probability of asset bubbles forming: “Low rates…could make bubbles more likely to form in the first place.” He laments that there is no economic theory to back this up….”

It is hard to believe that with his myriad of  ‘credentialed ignorance’ he has never heard of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.  Excerpt from the article:

“For Mises and Hayek, the policy mistake involves any creation of credit out of thin air…….If any central bank increases the money supply through the financial system, it means that borrowers have the privilege of being the first to bid up prices as the new money ripples through the economy.”

“It means that nominal incomes, employment, consumption, the prices of capital goods, and other asset prices will increase. It means that capital will be directed into new, longer, and riskier lines of production, beyond what would have happened at the prevailing levels of real saving. These lines of production will turn out to be unprofitable as the increasing scarcity of capital becomes apparent and the costs of production become prohibitively high. Incomes, employment, consumption, and stock prices plummet as laborers and capital owners seek productive and profitable employment. The bust is made up of all of the necessary corrections for the errors made during the boom. Additional artificial credit will only delay this process and make it more painful when the day comes.

Mr. Kashkari, you said: ” Monetary policy should be used only as a last resort to address asset prices, because the cost to the economy of such policy responses are potentially so large.” Mr. Kashkari, do you know that the Fed monetary policies “of last resort” have been in effect since before 2000? These policies caused the tech and housing bubbles. What have been the costs to the economy after 20 years of these policies? They are incalculable. The only way to stop this waste is to allow interest rates to be set by the market and stop the money printing. This will bring about a recession which will correct all the dislocations of resources, capital and labor that were brought about by these policies. All thought the losses will be high, they won’t come close to the losses that will be incur the longer these monetary policies are allowed to continue.

Related ArticleInterest Rates Set By The Market vs. Interest Rates Set By The Fed, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleReal Savings = True Credit. Printed Savings = False Credit, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThomas Woods Explains The Austrian Business Cycle, at austrianaddict.com.

Related ArticleThe Fed has Proved The Lefts “Trickle down Straw Man” Doesn’t Work. at austrianaddict.com.

Confusing Capitalism With Fractional Reserve Banking, by Frank Hollenbeck

August 14, 2014

File:20090110 money printing-01.jpg

Fractional reserve banking isn’t a part of a true free market capitalist system. It is intervention into the free market that Government, through the court system, has sanctioned. The Government sanctions it because it is how they fund the growth of government without the people knowing it is going on. People understand getting taxed, but understanding fractional reserve banking isn’t quite that easy. This article by Frank Hollenbeck titled, Confusing Capitalism With Fractional Reserve Baking, at mises.org, does a great job in explaining fractional reserve banking and it’s consequences. Here are some excerpts form the article explaining how fractional reserve banking came about.

“In the past, we had deposit banks and loan banks. If you put your money in a deposit bank, the money was there to pay your rent and food expenses. It was safe. Loan banking was risky. You provided money to a loan bank knowing funds would be tied up for a period of time and that you were taking a risk of never seeing this money again. For this, you received interest to compensate for the risk taken and the value of time preference. Back then, bankers who took a deposit and turned it into a loan took the risk of shortly hanging from the town’s large oak tree”

“During the early part of the nineteenth century, the deposit function and loan function were merged into a new entity called a commercial bank. Of course, very quickly these new commercial banks realized they could dip into deposits, essentially committing fraud, as a source of funding for loans. Governments soon realized that such fraudulent activity was a great way to finance government expenditures, and passed laws making this fraud legal.”

A key interpretation of law in the United Kingdom, Foley v. Hill, set precedence in the financial world for banking laws to follow:”

 

Foley v. Hill and Others, 1848:

“Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. … The money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.”

In other words, when you put your money in a bank it is no longer your money. The bank can do anything it wants with it. It can go to the casino and play roulette. It is not fraud legally, and the only requirement for the bank is to run a Ponzi scheme…..”

“The primary cause of the financial panics during the nineteenth century was this fraudulent nature of fractional reserve banking. It allowed banks to create excessive credit growth which led to boom and bust cycles. If credit, instead, grew as fast as slow moving savings, booms and bust cycles would be a thing of the past.

“Banks will always be able to use new technologies and new financial instruments to stay one step ahead of the regulators. We continue to put bandages on a system that is rotten to the core. Banking in its current form is not capitalism. It is fraud and crony capitalism, kept afloat by ever-more desperate government interventions. It should be dismantled. Under a system of 100 percent reserves, loan banks (100 percent equity-financed investment trusts) would be like any other business and would not need any more regulation than that of the makers of potato chips.”

How many people would you have to ask to get the right answer to this question; Is the money you deposit in a bank yours, or the banks? They won’t believe you when you tell them it’s the banks money, and they probably won’t understand why, even after you explain it.

In a previous article titled, Keynes Was Correct In 1919 (here), I quote John Maynard Keynes from his book, The Economic Consequences Of The Peace, he said,  “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Keynes knew how difficult it is to understand money creation by the Fed through Fractional Reserve Banking.

Related ArticleThe Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking, by Thorsten Polleit, at mises.org.

Related ArticleFractional Reserves and Economic Instability, by John P. Cochran, at mises.org.

 

 

 

 

The Fed’s Policies Are Counterproductive.

February 4, 2013

Host Lauren Lyster interviews Jim Grant on The Daily Ticker in this video from economicpolicyjurnal.com.

Here is a quote from the article, “…the Fed intends to buy 85 billion, with a B, in securities every month. What you might ask is where does it get that money. It creates it, it didn’t exist before the Fed materialized it through the very humble action of a keyboard and a computer, that’s the way it does it. But notice that this money is coming into the system without any commensurate increase in production. This is money in search of mischief, and it is likely to find it. The Feds actions are counterproductive.”

If the Feds injecting 85 billion counterfeit dollars a month into the economy (QE3,4), since September, is considered counter productive, how much more counter productive was QE1 and QE2’s injection of 2.3 trillion total dollars since 2008. An even better question is (more…)