Objectivity and Knowledge: So Vital

Nothing like stating the blindingly obvious, right? It is to me, and, hopefully, to my readers. Of course, it also depends if you understand objectivity as a connection to reality and knowledge as the integration of what is provided by that connection, which is known by very few today.

I am reminded of the importance of objectivity and knowledge in considering the relative virtues of three of my favorite books on the 2007 financial crisis. I recommend all three. Each has its own virtue and benefits to the reader. But, one book is in a different class because of the objectivity and knowledge of the author. He is an accomplished businessman and a serious student of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.

The difference between the books written by economists and journalists and a banker can be huge. The difference is especially large when neither the economist or the journalist actually understands what it means to understand and know a subject, i.e., to know it objectively – tied to reality. This is the difference, in today’s culture, between a person whose method of thinking is objective, subjective, or intrinsic (the corresponding order would be a banker who understands their subject, the journalist who thinks anything goes and there is no actual truth, and the economist who thinks that laws themselves are part of reality and thus his ideas float). Obviously, only one of these three has a sound grasp of the morality of the individuals they write about.

The book by the journalists, Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption led to Economic Armageddon by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, does offer a well-researched account of some parts of the crisis, which is to say that they are trying to be objective. But they have no clue about several issues: how banking functions, how regulators function, how a functioning economy works and why, and what is morality. Consequently, at times they make wildly impossible accusations, misrepresent events, and hold the innocent accountable (they do point at some truly guilty people, too, which is one reason the book is worth reading). If you don’t have a better understanding than they do, the book may lead to some poor conclusions. (You could recommend this book if it was read after the other two books.) In that the book offers a lot of information that wasn’t published before, you do learn important details.

Then there is Meltdown by Thomas Woods, who is an economist with a foundation in modern Austrian economics (post-Hayek, libertarian). He also makes many very good points. His understanding is better than that of the journalist, and although he has some obvious intrinsicist leanings, he makes no real bloopers. He is known to be religious and believes in self-sacrifice, which results in a rather flat support for the capitalist economy that he sees as better than the command economy. His justification is the benefit of the consumer. He tends to ignore the businessman. It is also worth reading because of the details he offers of the crisis and his decent understanding of the economics. But when compared with someone with an objective understanding of the crisis, it is obviously deficient.

So, the place to begin, and the one to read whether you have or have not read any other book on the crisis, is John A. Allison’s The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure. Mr. Allison has done the work to understand what objectivity means, i.e., connecting one’s ideas to physical reality. He also has years in the banking industry. Thus, he offers a fact based, conceptual analysis of what happened, why, what the consequences are, what the supposed cures are that Congress and the regulators imposed, and what we should actually do about it. This is what real explanation and analysis should look like.

Allison concretizes important points: the impact of regulation; the attitude and style of regulators; the destruction of independent action by the banker; the elevation of political pull over the blindingly obvious; etc. Ayn Rand and her followers have been asserting the destructive nature of government controls for decades. In this book are some specifics.

In future posts I will mention some of John Allison’s observations.

A Suggested Perspective on the DIM book

I expect that most people read The DIM Hypothesis and come away focused upon LP’s conclusion, his prediction on the direction of U.S. culture. Certainly, LP does himself center the book on the goal of reaching a prediction. The force of his prediction is magnified by the fact that the book is closely reasoned and objective, i.e., it is based in the facts of the reality of human history and human nature. The book is itself an excellent example of the scientific method.

I, however, want to focus your attention on a different perspective, what I perceive as an implication. I want you to think about what LP has to say about how cultural, philosophic change occurs. I want to examine the implications and proscriptive insights we can gain. What does the book mean for our own actions? Can we do things, our attempts to achieve our own view of a proper culture, better, based upon what LP has to teach us about cultural change? What do we do differently? What are we doing that is effective?

I have one specific idea in mind, which I will present here in the next few days. But I want you to think about this perspective first.

A Return to Writing

This blog has been quiet for over six months. My economy updates were beginning to sound fairly repetitious. All I was doing was waiting for something to happen. I could not be like the people who expected massive price raises at every turn. And if you read anything that I had written you already knew that I didn’t think that the government was doing anything good.

Having read some very good books recently, I am ready to get back to writing. To do so I have decided to widen the blog’s focus. I am not going limit my comments to only economic issues. I will slightly expand my range of issues to include cultural change.

I will also change my tactics a little, no longer publishing huge articles, but will be often content with short pieces and breaking up longer pieces into parts. I hope by this to publish more often.

One of the books that I have read is Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West are Going Out. (“Reading” being a term that also includes intense study.) I cannot understate how highly I regard the book. It is a must read/study. I have some thoughts about the book which I will include in the blog.

I welcome any comments about DIM and my interpretations and derivations. I also would welcome and seriously consider other essays on the subject. If you want to write something to include in my blog project, send it or some ideas about it to me. My email address is krazy.economics@gmail.com.

The Fiscal Cliff and the Whole Context

These days we are swamped with TV and internet coverage of the fiscal cliff scheduled to occur on January 1st. What the cliff amounts to is a reduction in government deficit spending, which in itself is a good thing. But, since the deficit would still be astoundingly and disastrously large, the cliff isn’t as big a deal as one would wish. That the “cuts” are in fact just reductions in the rate of spending increases and not reductions in spending, it is clear that the whole thing is mostly a sham (e.g., see).

On the other hand, since the reduction in the deficit would be mostly tax hikes, the pain would fall on the productive population. In the context of the economy, it is spending that needs to be reduced. An increase in taxes would be an additional drag on the economy, increase the rate of the decline of our standard of living, and enhance the movement toward destruction of rights and the importance of the individual in our society. What happens with the fiscal cliff could hasten the slide toward a fate like Greece or Spain. We really don’t want that to happen. Of the options that Obama seems to accept, i.e., no deal or higher tax on high incomes levels and no spending cuts, I find it hard to choose. There is some indication that BO wants a limited increase in taxes and increases in spending, which could be worse.

But the fiscal cliff is just part of the problem: the hoopla over the “fiscal cliff” provides a smoke screen covering additional pending disasters for our economy, namely, the beginning of the implementing of ObamaCare taxes and regulations, and the coming tidal wave of Dodd-Frank and other anti-business regulations.

Quite possibly the impact of Dodd-Frank will dwarf the fiscal-cliff. It has already drastically restructured parts of the financial community. There are many regulations still to be issued from Dodd-Frank (many are already late) and they all are intended on reducing the range of options of a financial institution, which will lower its profitability, more tightly limit its decision making capability, and reduce its ability to fund American production.

ObamaCare has many elements (some still little known) that will be instituted in 2013 that will raise business costs, lower employment, and cause further problems with health insurance and medical costs. All of these together, including whatever nonsense ends up as the “solution” to the fiscal cliff, will mean slower growth, or possibly recession for the US economy (which won’t be good for the world economy either).

Think what that will mean for the federal deficit and budget.

We have seen many projections as to when the federal revenue will equal the sum of interest payments on debt, Social Security, and Medicare, in other words, severe problems with funding the government and retaining the appearance of the safety of government debt. If you look closely at each, I expect that you will see that the assumptions include some growth in the US economy and that there will be a significant number of people paying the Social Security and Medicare taxes. But, with four more years of BO and the total number of people employed remaining low (as opposed to actually producing; and as opposed to the unemployment figures that are meaningless), tax revenue, including FICA, is not going to grow while the interest on federal debt, even at today’s absurdly low levels, Social Security and Medicare demands will grow rapidly. The only way to pay for defense and the astounding number of programs the federal government supports, is to constantly grow the deficit. It is also possible that Obama will try to raise taxes, but that may be too obviously destructive for today’s population.

The federal deficit will be the tipping point, but the real cause of death for our economy is the restrictions on doing business and producing. The arguments about spending and deficits need to begin including emphatic emphasis on the disaster of regulation.

For us, the unwilling and resisting passengers on this train into the tunnel of death, it means that we need to arrange our thinking to prepare personally and philosophically. I will leave to you the personal preparations (I am thinking about a potential blog post on this topic.)

Philosophically, we need to emphatically tell anyone we can that the coming mess is not the result of capitalism or selfishness (maybe we can equate blaming the Jews in Germany after WW1 with blaming capitalists). That is in addition to the stuff we are already doing, e.g., focusing on helping ARI and other similar activities and aiming at the destructive educational system we have.

And now for a final comment that is going to be a theme for me:

Understanding the Objectivist philosophical method is vital to anyone concerned about his freedom, as well as his life in general, of course. Recently I have been getting my own intense reminder. I have been reading Understanding Objectivism and The DIM Hypothesis. I want to emphatically recommend these books. If you want to understand an individual’s mental functioning, UO is the book to read. It is also helpful in leading up to the other one. To better understand the trends and conflicts in our own situation here in the US, The DIM Hypothesis is absolutely necessary. It is very philosophical. But philosophy matters, and our conflicts today are philosophical. For your own sake, read them.

Basic Economics: Savings Accounts

Looking at the modern relationships between interest rates, taxes, and price inflation, I have wondered why anyone would put money into savings accounts or buy bonds, especially U.S. government bonds. A savings account, earning 1.6% (The top rate offered by my credit union recently.), after taxes of say 20% and price inflation of 2% gives you a guaranteed annual loss of 0.72%! The situation for bonds isn’t that much better, if at all. For someone with a higher income, with higher tax rates, the loss is substantially greater .

On the other hand, I know that savings accounts have historically been the primary savings vehicle in the U.S. I know from 100 Voices that Ayn Rand held her money from the sales of her novels in savings accounts. What is the difference between then, even as late as the 1970s and the 1990s, which is when I first realized the problem.

In thinking about this issue, one of the first things I saw is that interest rates have been declining as a trend since the spike in 1990. At that time I had a mortgage at 10.75%. The decline in interest rates since then has been the consequence of the Fed’s view that below market interest rates on loans encourages consumption and business activity and that if they don’t have the economic activity that they want, they decide they should lower rates more. Each round of recession and boom and financial crisis over the last twenty plus years has seen the Fed pushing short-term interest rates lower and lower. Today, the short-term rates are about as low as then can go. The rate the Fed controls directly, the rate it charges banks to borrow overnight funds for their Fed “reserves” (deposits) is zero to 0.25%. (Some recent auctions of German government short-term bonds have seen negative interest rates.) And, for the third time since 2009, they are trying to lower medium and long-term rates with “quantitative easing.”

So, first, the problem I am seeing is a very recent event. What are some of the consequences?

First there is the complete disassociation of savings and capital. The creation and use of capital is a vitally important activity in an economy. The creation and use of capital causes prosperity, not to mention the survival of our population. A population as large as ours cannot survive (or occur) without industrialization. Just to maintain industrialization requires capital. Economies either grow or contract. There is no equilibrium.

Over the last twenty years the number of households that have ownership in corporations, i.e., own stocks, has gone up significantly. One major reason is that people recognize that they have to have a more rapid growth in their retirement savings than can be provided by bank savings accounts. The need is two fold. With taxes and other restraints on creating wealth, they are not able to save enough. And then, price inflation has a double impact in that not only will it make the process of saving enough difficult, but it will also make the amount the retiree needs to live increase significantly and unpredictably. Even a 2% price inflation rate is a danger. That means that in just twenty years, a retiree would need 25% more cash for the same standard of living. Since many retirees live longer than that in retirement, and the percentage of people with such long lives is growing, the impact of even small amounts of price inflation is significant and ignored by the government planners. Bernanke has recently remarked that the effect of the Fed’s goal of 2% price inflation on retirees is unimportant in policy decisions.

You might think that a higher percentage of stockownerships is good for the economy. I’m not so sure. I was, but my view is changing. There is a difference between creating capital and owning existing capital. Saving and putting your money directly into a new or growing business is creating capital. Buying a stock from another owner is not.

Consider what should happen when you put your money into a bank savings account. (I am going to ignore the consumer loans and the loans to business for normal business activities.) Businesses come to banks for the purpose of borrowing money to start a new business or grow their existing company. This is the direct application of capital, i.e., new productive activity. Here we also see the division of labor at work. The person who saved the capital is engaged in his own profession or job and by saving, he is putting money into the hands of the banker whose profession is apprising risk and opportunity in expanding production. Then there are the businessmen who compete for funds by presenting their plans and expectations of profit.

The normal person does not have the expertise to appraise business opportunities. (Although in a rational culture he would have a better understand of the reality of business activity than people do today.) This is true in the case where people already know something about the industry. Some financial writers have advised investors to place their money in industries in which they are familiar. It isn’t a bad idea, but it does not address the additional need to be able to appraise the financial, managerial, and competitive strength of a company. Correctly understanding the context for investing is difficult enough for the professional, especially in today’s complex economy. For those who do not have the relevant education, experience or time, the prospects are very poor. No wonder everyone is so hopped up on the gambling metaphor for investing.

The need for non-professional investors to put their savings into asset markets is part of the make-up of the two recent booms: tech stocks and residential real estate. Without the amateur investor, both booms would have been less dramatic. Note that many of these investors lost lots of money, right along side the so-called professionals. This is over and above the normal losses that the non-professional investor tends to lose in the normal course of events. Some professionals use the activity of the individual investor as a contra indicator. If individual investors are buying, the reasoning goes, it is time to sell. Every study that I have seen clearly concludes that the non-professional consistently looses money investing in asset markets.

Then, over the last twelve years, as I have indicated in a previous post, the equity markets have failed to bring positive returns. Comparing equal dollars of purchasing power, today’s Dow (without including dividends or taxes) is 20% to 25% below the level at the end of the tech stock boom.

In fact, the only asset class that has shown consistent positive returns in the last decade is long-term bonds. But that brings us back to the beginning point, the Fed’s push to lower interest rates, because the reason long-term bonds have shown a gain is that interest rates keep falling. When interest rates begin to go up, watch out. Look at the returns of the bondholders of Greece, Spain, and Italy. When the interest rates on these dead bonds moved from less than 3% to near 6% or more, bond holders lost about 50% of their capital on the secondary market. To me, even 6% or 7% doesn’t seem very high when I wonder if the bonds will be repaid, or repaid with money worth anything.

There are surely lots of other consequences of the Fed’s disastrous decisions. Many are clearly visible, including the continued recession we are suffering through. (Officially the recession ended, but the psychology is still that of a recession, the unemployment level is that of a recession, and the government is doing all it can to keep us there, just like it did in the 1930s.) But the consequences that I have discussed are the ones I have recently added to my list.

But then there is the important question: Is the use of savings accounts by people who aren’t financial professionals a good thing in a laissez-faire economy and how?

The first thing to realize is that in a laissez-faire economy prices and wages tend to fall over time, which is the consequence of having a money immune from government manipulation. Prices fall faster than wages so that there is a continuous raise in the standard of living. That means that the dollar you place in a savings account will have a greater purchasing power over time even without consideration of interest paid.

The second important issue is the level of what is called the ordinary interest rate. That is the amount of return required for a person to delay consumption. This interest rate does not include consideration of risk, etc. I have seen suggestions that the rate of ordinary interest tends to be around 1%. That is, the normal person would be willing to put off spending $100 if in one year they had $101, assuming a laissez-faire economy. Other issues, such as the supply of physical capital (one market where supply does play a role in price) and risk factors, increase the interest rate within different market contexts.

So, if a savings account offered 2% interest, it was a great deal. The same is true for bonds issued by businesses. Saving for retirement would require much less of a struggle, later medical bills would be less of a problem, and our standard of living would continue to raise and we could have the flying car (see, my avatar means something – what we have lost due to government interference!).

Then, money placed into savings accounts was then loaned by banks to businesses who were credit worthy and had the best available plans for additional profits. Savings, that is capital, was accumulated and placed in the service of wealth creation, capitalism. That is basic banking.

I think much of the concern and fuss over fractional banking is based upon the view that banks are warehouses rather than institutions involved in the accumulation of capital. In the modern world, even ignoring the stupid, forced level of interest rates required by welfare state banking theory, savings have been diverted from banks and their major source of funds are demand deposits.

While unused demand deposits, and the goods represented by that money, are a kind of unintentional savings, real savings involves conscious decision and results in the funds being placed accordingly. When real savings is placed into profitable enterprise, and market rates of interest paid, investing and profit making activity would actually be a less risky activity.

With the manipulation of the money supply, the extensive regulation of the financial community, and the control of interest rates, none of the prices for savings or the factors of production reflect any part of the reality of business activity, market opportunities, or costs (not to mention political pull). Who knows what can or will happen when no facts are available for reason to evaluate.

So my conclusion is that in a laissez-faire economy, placing your money in savings accounts and buying bonds (of businesses) is a sane and personally beneficial decision.

In our economy, the government has pretty much taken way sane and beneficial opportunities. If you accept the idea that one should know what one is doing, then probably 90% of the investing public is acting irrationally. They do not understand the world as it currently functions, including the existing markets and the impact of government regulations and manipulations. Yes, I think that is true of many of my readers. Sorry.

Personal Responsibility

Recently, Don Watkins, in a blog posting (I can’t find the specific post for some reason, but it was on http://capitalism.aynrand.org/, which is very good), referenced an article arguing that anyone who tries can succeed, at least to some level. This article was written recently and not one hundred years ago. Now, I don’t disagree with its basic sentiment. I especially agree that one should take responsibility for one’s welfare and future. Further, I emphatically agree that we live in a world where it is possible to make our own way, metaphysically speaking. But, as I read the article, I kept wanting to ask the author if he’d been paying any attention to what has been happening in our economy and culture now, and for the last one hundred years.

I know why Dr. Watkins referred to the article. It is rare to find anyone who is willing to say anything good about personal responsibility today. Any such sentiment needs to be encouraged. But, in fact the article is wrong in its application to today’s America. Personal responsibility is not encouraged. Personal success is often disparaged (not by business people, but certainly within the culture). Most important, the government has been actively attacking personal success and making it more difficult for a long time.

I think that it is difficult to succeed today and becoming more so. I think that the article should have had some important provisos. I mean, haven’t we been saying that it matters what the government does? Haven’t we been arguing that man needs to have certain conditions to succeed and that the U.S. government has been moving away from those conditions.

Now, in order to make sense of the issue of personal responsibility in our context certain basic notions have to be made plain. Most important, and thus first, is that if man’s life is the standard of value, the actions by individuals based upon their own understandings and judgment is the only way in which human survival is achieved and prosperity or progress, in any rational sense, occurs. It isn’t the action, or the amount of effort, or the “work” done that is the cause of success, but the use of reason and the resulting ideas, and their correspondence with the real world. Nor does good reasoning guarantee success. A rational man can fail, even in a rational or free environment.

But, we are not living within a rational environment. We are living within an advanced welfare state with millions of regulations, probably a million regulators, and an endless number of imposed government costs of doing business. In business after business, the risk of failing to meet some idiotic government regulation or expense has become greater and greater. Starting a business was always risky. Small businesses have always failed at very high rates.

And then there is the issue of what our personal responsibility is.

Some guy on facebook told me that people on Social Security were deadbeats, and we shouldn’t care what happens to them. But after nearly one hundred years of regulation of the financial sector, the chances that most Americans can save sufficiently for retiring, at nearly any age (not to mention the costs of health care after fifty plus years of government interference in the medical industry), is nearing zero (see my blog post). Many people, if not most, who are dependant upon government retirement money are victims.

Most importantly, the facebook guy had the cause and effect backwards. While it is true that there are some people who duck personal responsibility, at least in America that percentage is a minority. It is also true that some people are misled by the claim that their forced savings by the Social Security tax, for example, does lead to some level of personal protection at retirement. Neither type of group explains the large numbers of people who end up dependent upon Social Security.

What does explain those figures is the consequences of government actions in the economy. Just to point the finger at one element (out of a list of hundreds), look at the disconnection between savings and capital entailed in the policies of the Federal Reserve Board. The Fed thinks that the economy works best with an annual increase of price levels at two percent. This means that in just ten years, a dollar loses well over twenty percent of its purchasing power. At the same time, the Fed has driven interest rates down to very low levels. The interest rate offered by the standard savings account will not allow the saver to keep up with price inflation, especially after income taxes. To try to make ones savings work and grow, people have been forced to become investment professionals. However, the Fed’s policies have resulted in asset booms that have in fact left Americans with considerably less wealth.

The facebook guy is blaming the victim for the consequences of government actions.

Ayn Rand didn’t write about this issue directly. But she was asked about it. One response is on point. She was asked about unemployment insurance. The questioner clearly expected that Miss Rand would condemn the person taking the government money, but she didn’t. She said, “Government controls create unemployment. No matter what happens to your employer, if you are out of work today, why should you protect him and starve? There cannot be individual responsibility for something that is the government’s fault. In any situation where the government creates a hardship that pushes you into a position of martyrdom, you are morally justified to take advantage of whatever money is offered to you, provided you don’t spread the kind of ideas that created the trouble.” (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 124) (Note that Ayn Rand kept her wealth earned from her writing in savings accounts.)

Fundamentally, we are not individually responsible for the consequences of government actions. Nor can we hold other individuals responsible by demanding that they suffer when they are victims. In a society that is attacking the innocent, we are now in a lifeboat context, and the rules of morality apply differently. Condemning the victim, the innocent, is joining the government. It is corrupt. It is evading the cause. It makes finding the correct solution nearly impossible.

If we tell someone who can’t find a job because of government interference, say minimum wage laws or restrictions starting a new business, that he isn’t taking personal responsibility, we are doing the liberal’s job. We need to be telling him that he, too, is a victim. If he is to have a future he needs to live within capitalism.

If we then tell someone who wasn’t able to save for retirement and sees the cost of living and their medical expenses rising beyond reach that they didn’t take personal responsibility, we are doing the liberal’s job. We need to be telling him that he, too, is a victim. That if he is to be able to live, and even enjoy his old age, he needs to live within capitalism.

If we then tell someone who is poor and uneducated that they are failing to take personal responsibility, just because they are poor and uneducated, we are doing the liberal’s job. We need to be telling him that if he does not want to remain poor and if he wants an education of any kind, he needs to live within capitalism.

The only other option besides capitalism is a declining economy and ultimately depression and perhaps the collapse of civilization.

Let’s keep the cause and effect clear. Let’s not advocate policies that will further harm the victims. For example, declaring that we must first stop the entitlement programs before we have a functioning economy (meaning one that can create wealth) only means that we are telling people that they will have to suffer without hope. Yes, there will be some suffering in any event. But telling anyone that will have to suffer is only justified if we are moving toward capitalism, which means a free economy. So first we have to liberate the economy. Then we can cut the entitlements. But if we don’t begin with freeing the economy, we will only add suffering without the possibility of a prosperous future.

My Predictions

Although I originally began this blog with the idea of keeping track of inflation and potential results for prices and prosperity in general, I haven’t engaged in prediction. My focus has been on commentary. We are, however, at a point that offers some interesting prospects for the future and I though it might be interesting and possibly helpful to suggest a possible set of outcomes.

Specifically, at this point in late 2012 the governments in the major economies have either implemented or are poised to implement some massive monetary flooding, which they call “easing.” The U.S. Federal Reserve officials have announced an open ended $40B a month scheme that will continue until either employment begins increasing or the end of time, whichever comes first. In Europe, the European Central Bank is ready to create unlimited amounts of money, claiming that it has to reduce the spread in government bond prices (between Spain and Italy, who have had to pay high interest rates, and Germany’s very low rates). China is expected to begin more “easing” in that it is currently seeing a much deeper and more significant drop in economic activity than the government seemed to expect. Apparently they thought that they were a separate, insulated entity. In response, just as any Western mixed economy government would do, the Chinese are moving toward spending newly made-up money. Japan has just begun its own easing program and England began theirs a few months ago. There is a great orgy of money creation in progress.

Those countries with “strong” currencies are also involved. They really don’t want to see their competitive position undercut by having other currencies diving in comparative cost, making their own products much more expensive on the world market. One example is that Switzerland’s central bank been buying euros for several months to keep their currency in line. As has been said by others, there is something akin to the arms race growing where every country inflates their currency in competition with the others. This process could also lead to protectionism, with higher tariffs and import controls.

As long as our economic problems are seen as the consequences of low consumption or low demand (and demand is seen as just money and not production related), we can always expect that the government response will be to create more money. There is some fear of the new money increasing consumer prices beyond a certain level (generally at an annual rate of 2% - some poison is good for you apparently). This concern is an interesting hold over from a point where government economists had a closer contact with reality. But there is little concern about the prospects for unacceptable levels of price inflation. It is the case that the upward pressure on prices from constant increases in the money supply tends to be less when production levels are low.

Consequently, we can expect that we will soon see a lot more money being created and put into the larger, more industrialized economies and interest rate will remain extremely low.

The amount of money that actually comes into the U.S. economy is a question for which I have no good answer. There is certainly some, but not as much as you might think when you hear the Fed brag about its easing. The money created by the Fed for QE1 and QE2 is mostly still sitting at the Fed in the deposit accounts for member banks receiving 0.25% a year.

 

The money supply has continued to grow, but the pace is not as fast as one might expect.

 

You can see in the graph that the average dollar amount of growth every year has been somewhat consistent. That means that the percentage rate of growth is falling. To just keep the constant percentage rate, this graph would need to show a much larger constantly increasing dollar amount, as the total grew each year.

As a result, consumer prices have moved upward modestly in the last few years (by comparison) and asset prices are mixed (housing downward and equities upward, but less than the CPI). Only bond prices have moved upward, as the Fed has moved to force down long-term interest rates as well as short-term. Long-term rates are very low, especially considering the need for capital in our economy. There is no connection today between savings, investment, interest rates, and the capital markets.

In these conditions, I wonder what the Fed believes that more “quantitative easing” or lower interest rates, could achieve. They talk about lowering unemployment as if the problem is that jobs are not being created for of financial reasons. Here we have an excellent example of theoretical, rationalist thinking that doesn’t consider even the possibility of looking at the real world. At present, there is no connection between the interest rate (including the supply of money) and investment/growth decisions. For a business, the difference between 3% and 2.5% on a long-term, profitable investment is insignificant. The real question for businesses is whether the project could be profitable. Some companies have invested when they have cash on hand. Many are considering a merger or acquisition, which doesn’t add to our productive capacity (although it might improve efficiency). But U.S. companies see no justification in future profitability to make the investment needed to put over two million people to work. The Fed and the Government, and Romney and the Republicans just don’t see that.

Another upcoming set of events in the U.S that could have a negative impact on our economy is the end of the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts required by law. These events, both scheduled for January 1, 2013, won’t improve the capital and investment situation, although the rate of growth of government debt will slow some. At least in the short-term, if the tax cuts do end and the rate of spending slows, the immediate result will be a drag on the U.S. economy.

I am not convinced that the supposed mandatory cuts in spending are particularly important economically. Some people try to make this situation seem cataclysmic by quoting a cut of over a trillion dollars. That is fraud, since that is a ten-year number. As is always the case with government cuts, they are loaded mostly into the latter years. I think that the 2013 number is closer to $69B, which is for the full year. When you are talking about a multi-trillion budget and a deficit of over a trillion dollars, sixty-nine billion is an accounting error.

But saying “cuts” is intended to be misleading. The Congress didn’t pass a cut in spending. They authorized a reduction in the expected growth of spending. It was a cut from what they thought current laws would require the government would spend. There is not going to be a cut in spending. Let me repeat: These are not cuts in spending but small reductions in the growth of spending. Even so, there may be some companies that will feel an impact in their expected revenue from government contracts. But, economically, compared to the total level of spending and the prospect of more “easing”, big deal.

Combined, the tax cut, possible cuts in the growth of spending, and the Fed’s money flood, mean that there will be less money in people’s pocketbooks, but more, potentially, in the banking system. Remember that the way the Fed’s money gets into the economy is via bank loans. If the banks continue to maintain their stricter standards there is not going to be a significant increase in bank loans. In fact, the current trend is for lower corporate profits, meaning that businesses will be less credit worthy than before (and stock prices should decline, instead of booming). In addition, ever since the beginning of the “Great Recession,” bank regulators have been constantly checking on the “quality” of bank loans. Unless regulators are willing to loosen the strings, banks aren’t taking any riskier loans. I don’t see much of the Fed’s new money getting into the economy. That is not to say that there won’t be an effect. As in the past, there is a tendency to some money to find its way into assets.

In addition, the final Dodd-Frank regulations have yet to appear and the costly ObamaCare provisions are coming into effect. All businesses, but especially banks, are legitimately confident that their costs will increase significantly and their range of action considerably curtailed. Startup businesses have declined. dramatically. For the economic/cultural pessimist, there is much support in the U.S.

In Europe, the central bank is being pushed into acting because the market for Spanish and Italian government bonds demands much higher returns to compensate for higher risk. Personally, I think that there is no uncertainty. Neither Spain nor Italy will be able to repay their bonds in the coming years. (I equate being given worthless money with not being paid.). So the higher rates are certainly justified. But enough of the euro country governments don’t like that. The higher rates mean that Spain and Italy would have to face their insolvency soon, which would be a big problem for the other euro government countries. So the euro block is pushing the central bank to create money to avoid reality. In this case the money will go directly into government spending and will have very negative consequences. Not the least consequence will be a lessening of the pressure on Spain and Italy to solve their problems. (Spain is expected to need the euro bank bailout. No one is currently talking about Italy, but its economy is heading the same direction.) By creating money to buy government bonds the European Central Bank is defaulting on the loans by directly creating inflation and thus reducing the purchasing power of the money that bought the bonds. Everyone in Europe is ignoring that fact. In addition, there will be a lot of upward pressure on prices and everyone will feel the cost. But, most of all, the importance of freeing their economies and being fiscally responsible can be evaded. The ultimate result will be greater disasters.

I expect that China’s new money will be similar to earlier efforts, which went primarily into government owned and controlled businesses, shrinking the portion of the economy that is private. It may also be more of a “consumption” orientation, which will mean less of a push in industrialization, and a move toward Western ideas of a consumer driven economy. That government decision would necessarily reduce the growth rate even without the normal consequences of asset booms and busts.

If more “easing” won’t help solve the unemployment problem (who cares about actual production?) and thus won’t help with economic activity, what will it do?

Well, the U.S. economy isn’t going to grow much, if at all. In fact, it could contract. If the new money just sits at the Fed as before, we needn’t worry about hyperinflation. The money supply will grow, but not significantly faster than before, although those numbers should be watched carefully.

I heard someone point out that since the first “easing” the Dow has risen 4000 points and since the second “easing” nearly 3000. I am sure that the Dow and other indexes will raise some more. The Dow has already gone up a few hundred points since the Fed announcement. What would a push by the Fed be without a serious increase in asset prices? Commodity prices could also rise. Some are saying that industrial commodities, such as copper, will not because industrial production is tending to fall. But the money being created will go somewhere. You just need to keep an eye out to see where that is.

So, if you want to put your money somewhere, based upon recent history, there you are! Just be careful about your timing and don’t lose perspective about the causes of the asset price rise and its duration. Be ready to short.

Of course, economic events are really harder to predict than that, especially in a controlled economy. Something will happen that we don’t foresee and things will happen differently than we expect. One thing we do know, whatever happens, it’s unlikely to be good.

Long-term, the consequence of all of this “easing” is to probably bring the day of reckoning closer, possibly by years. With unemployment staying down, Social Security and Medicare spending will continue to widen the gap between tax income and spending. The demands upon the Treasury will increase, meaning more debt. The low levels of production will mean that wealth is not being created and our personal wealth and standard of living will continue to fall.

I think that money can be made from the chaos and misallocation of resources. You just have to pick your method based upon the circumstances and pay attention to the situation.


P.S. I just listened to Yaron Brook on the Mike Slater show (via a notification from Lassiez-Faire). He says so much of what I just mentioned. I really did work it out before. But he says it well.