Rand Paul says Milton Friedman would oppose the Fed’s Bond Buying Program

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2013

Week in Review

What’s the difference between hard money (gold, silver, etc.) and paper money?  You can’t print hard money.  Which is why big-spending governments hate hard money.  And love paper money.  They use lofty economic explanations like having the money supply grow at a rate to support an expanding economy.  But the real reason they love paper money is because there is no limit on what they can spend.

This is why some people would prefer bringing back the gold standard.  To make the government as responsible as the rest of us.  Governments and their liberal friends hate this kind of talk.  And try to dismiss it with all-knowing condescension.  Because they sound so learned in their defense of their monetary policies despite a long record of failure they get to keep trying the same failed policies of the past.

Now it’s Rand Paul talking about the gold standard.  Invoking the name of Milton Friedman.  A monetarist.  And receiving the expected criticism (see Rand Paul is dead wrong about Milton Friedman by James Pethokoukis posted 8/13/2013 on the guardian).

Friedman understood the power of monetary policy, for both good and ill. He would almost certainly have been aghast that the Fed blew it again in 2008 by its tight money policies that possibly turned a modest downturn into the Great Recession. And he almost certainly would have been appalled at Republicans pushing for tight money – or, heaven help us, a return to the gold standard – with the economy barely growing and inflation low. It is certainly inconvenient for Paul that Friedman – a libertarian, Nobel-laureate economist – would have little use for the senator’s supposedly Hayekian take on the Fed or monetary policy.

Although the Bernanke Fed has imperfectly executed its QE programs, they are a big reason why the US is growing and adding jobs – despite President’s Obama’s regulatory onslaught and tax hikes – and the EU (and the inflation hawk ECB) is back in recession. Paul is wrong on Friedman and wrong on the Fed. It’s not even close.

One of Friedman’s criticisms of the gold standard is that to maintain the international price of gold—and price stability—governments would have to give up control of their domestic policies.  As a gold standard would prevent them from expanding the money supply at will.  So they couldn’t print money and devalue their currency to increase government spending.  To give themselves an unfair trade advantage.  And to monetize their debt from past irresponsible government spending.  But governments being governments they will do these things even with a gold standard.  As Richard Nixon and the US government did in the 1970s.  Rapidly devaluing the dollar.  Causing a great outflow of gold from the US as our trading partners preferred to hold onto gold instead of devalued US dollars.

The idea of monetarism was to have something similar like a gold standard while having the ability to expand the money supply to keep up with the growth in GDP.  And this would work if responsible people were in charge.  Who would resist the urge to print money.  Like Ronald Reagan.  Under the advice from none other than Milton Friedman.  Who served on the President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.  Reagan shared Friedman’s economic views.  Believed in a limited government that left the free market alone.  So Reagan cut taxes, reduced government spending (other than defense) and deregulated an overregulated free market wherever he could.  All things Friedman endorsed.

It is unlikely that Friedman would endorse any quantitative easing.  Because a lack of credit is not causing our economic woes.  It’s a complicated tax code.  High tax rates.  And way too much governmental regulation and interference into the free market.  Especially Obamacare.  That has frozen all new hiring.  And pushed full-time workers into part-time positions.  Or out of a job entirely.  More money in the economy is not going to fix this anti-business climate of the Obama administration.  In fact, the only people making any money now are rich people.  Who are using all that new money to make more money in the stock market.  And when the government shuts off the quantitative easing tap those rich people are going to bail out of the stock market.  To lock in their profits.  Causing the stock market to crash.  And putting an end to the phony illusion of an economic recovery.  And the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression will get worse.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Poverty is Down in Chile thanks to Job-Creation and Subsidies paid for by those Newly Created Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Job-creation reduces poverty in Chile.  And it goes back to the Seventies.  But you wouldn’t know it by reading this (see Poverty indicators decline posted 7/25/2012 on Economist Intelligence Unit).

Improvements in Chile’s poverty indicators in the past two decades are back on track after a setback in 2009. The proportion of the population living in poverty fell from 15.1% in 2009 to 14.4% in 2011, according to the latest Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (Casen) household survey. There was also a substantial drop in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from 3.7% in 2009 to 2.8% in 2011. The main factor explaining these trends was the strong level of job-creation recorded in Chile in the past two years, but well-targeted government subsidies also played an important role…

Within the IEF programme, the monthly bonuses under the “dignity” component, worth Ps6,000 (US$12.5) per person in the household, plus Ps13,000 per household, are targeted at those in extreme poverty, and will be unconditional. Beyond that, if the children in the household attend their mandatory healthcare check-ups and achieve a school attendance rate of at least 85%, the household will receive a monthly bonus of Ps8,000 per child. This yields Ps53,000 per month to a household with two adults and two children satisfying these conditions, or US$97 per month for one with one adult and two children.

Yes, job-creation was a strong factor.  Targeted government subsidies?  Not really.  First of all, you can’t do targeted subsidies if you don’t have a lot of jobs creating a lot of tax revenue.  You can have jobs without subsidies but you can’t have subsidies without jobs.  Because jobs pay for subsidies.

Paying people to have children?  Where have I heard this before?  Oh, yes.  LBJ’s Great Society.  That gave us AFDC.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  That destroyed poor families by encouraging single mothers to have more babies to collect more benefits.  Allowing men to father as many children as they pleased with as many women as they pleased because they don’t have to pay to raise their children.  The state became the father to these children (and husband to these women).  Raised them in crime-infested housing projects.  And sent them to broken, substandard schools.  Which these kids dropped out of and joined gangs.  Yeah, AFDC worked so well that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, reformed welfare to fix this ill-conceived policy.  Because even he knew you can’t fix problems by simply throwing money at them.  Jobs were better.  And families.  Where a child grew up with a mother and a father to nurture and discipline the child.  To put them on the right path.  Something the state just couldn’t do.

Missing from this piece is any mention of Milton Friedman.  The Chicago Boys.  El Ladrillo.  The economic plan put together by the Chilean economists who studied at the University of Chicago.  In the Chicago school of economics.  It was so thick they called it The Brick.  Or El Ladrillo.  Milton Friedman and these great Chilean economists, the Chicago Boys, turned the Chilean economy around.  The dictator Augusto Pinochet even invited Milton Friedman down to Chile to help.  Friedman went.  Gave some advice.  And Pinochet followed it.  Turning their horrible economy around (see Monetarism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Hyperinflation, El Ladrillo, Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman and Miracle of Chile).

He ditched the mercantilist policies.  Embraced laissez-faire capitalism.  Privatized the state industries.  Established free trade.  Cut government spending.  And stopped printing money.  Ending the hyperinflation.  Replacing it with a strict monetary policy… Friedman’s monetarism turned the Chilean economy around.  Creating a prosperous market economy.  With a growing middle class.  The strong economic growth led to some healthy tax revenue.  Which in later years funded antipoverty programs.  The Miracle of Chile even replaced the military junta with a democratic government.  Chile now has one of the healthiest and freest economies in the world.

It was these sound economic policies that created the Miracle of Chile in the Eighties.  Not targeted subsidies.  Real economic growth provides prosperity.  People with jobs.  Who earn money to spend in the economy.  And pay taxes.  That’s the way it always works.  Jobs first.  Then prosperity.  And then the tax revenue that funds government spending.  It just doesn’t work the other way around.  If it did Greece wouldn’t be in the trouble it’s in.  The United States wouldn’t still be lingering in the Great Recession.  And President Clinton wouldn’t have reformed welfare to end the family killer AFDC.  No.  Excessive government spending only creates great debt.  High inflation.  And a permanently impoverished underclass.  At least this is what history has shown us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Has Keynesian Monetary Policy in India only created Jimmy Carter Stagflation?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 19th, 2012

Week in Review

Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”  This means only government can create inflation by ‘printing’ too much money.  And they ‘print’ money these days by keeping interest rates low to ‘stimulate’ economic activity.  But when you increase the amount of money each unit of that currency becomes worth less.  And therefore takes more if it to buy the same things as it did once before.  Which is why prices rise when you ‘print’ money.  Just like they did in India (see April CPI inflation accelerates to 10.36 pct y/y by Manoj Kumar posted 5/18/2012 on Reuters).

India’s consumer price inflation accelerated in April to 10.36 percent, making life harder for the RBI as it looks to kickstart a flagging economy, government data showed on Friday…

The Reserve Bank of India, which unlike other central banks uses mainly the wholesale price index for monitoring inflation, slashed policy rates by a steeper-than-expected 50 basis points last month to boost a sagging economy.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) lowered interest rates in April to stimulate the economy.  At the end of April the consumer price inflation increased to 10.36%.  Just like Milton Friedman said.  Only government can create higher prices with inflationary monetary policy.  A lesson we all need to learn.  Especially the Keynesians whose answer to everything is to lower interest rates and spend money.  So India followed this Keynesian advice.  Now they have a flagging economy and double-digit inflation.  Reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s stagflation in the Seventies.

Will Keynesians ever learn?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monetarism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Hyperinflation, El Ladrillo, Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman and Miracle of Chile

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 6th, 2012

History 101

During the 19th Century Mercantilism gave way to Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Free Trade

Portugal and Spain were superpowers around the 16th and 17th centuries.  Great monarchies with mercantilist economic policies.  Which was all about trade.  Maximize exports.  Minimize imports.  Settle colonies to mine/harvest raw material.  To ship back to the mother country.  Where they manufactured goods from the raw materials.  And exported them to other countries.  Selling them for gold and silver.  Which was key.  Maximizing the trade surplus in the balance of trade.  Finished goods going out.  Gold and silver coming in.  For the nation that gathered the most gold and silver won in the zero-sum game of mercantilism.  Where the monarchy works with business.  Picking winners and losers.  And rewarding the winners who help enrich the monarchy.

Of course, these policies force a kingdom’s subjects to pay higher prices.  By keeping out lower-priced imports.  And with special deals favoring some domestic industries so they can sell at monopoly prices.  They nationalized their Industries.  Creating an aristocratic class.  Composed of government officials.  And their partners in the nationalized industries.  Living the good life on the backs of the poor.  Who paid high taxes.  And high prices.  To support those mercantilist policies.  And it was these policies that settled South America.  Taking all of their gold and silver (bullion).  Shipping it back to the mother country.  The surge in bullion in Europe made it less scarce.  And less valuable.  Meaning it took more of it to buy the same things it once did before this surge.  Resulting in higher prices.  And inflation.  Hurting the consumer more.  And leading to the development of the quantity theory of money.  And monetarism.  Which held that the amount of money in circulation had a direct impact on prices.  The more money the higher the prices.

With the rise of Parliament in Britain power shifted from the king to the people.  Via their representatives in Parliament.  Instead of rule by dictate there was rule by consent.  Which made the business of choosing winners and losers more difficult.  Parliament had the power.  But Parliament was more than one person.  It was full of special interests.  Which made it more and more difficult to choose any one special interest over another.  Unable to curry favor for one’s own interest one didn’t support another’s interest.  At least not when that support came at the expense of your interests.  So there was another power shift in addition from the king to parliament.  There was also one from the king to the markets.  So during the 19th century mercantilism gave way to laissez-faire capitalism.  And free trade.  An economic system that let the British Empire dominate the world during the 19th century.  Making it rich.  And powerful.  Thanks to that vigorous economic activity that could build the world’s most powerful navy.  And pay for an army to garrison an empire.  Meanwhile the old school mercantilist empires fell from superpower status.  And became shadows of their former selves.  Soon the Spanish and Portuguese colonies would gain their independence from these dying empires.

Milton Friedman’s Monetarism turned the Chilean Economy Around

The South American nations may have hated their European masters but they liked one thing about them.  Their mercantilist policies.  Which survived into the 20th century.  Where government partnered with business.  In the worst of crony capitalism.  Where special interests that favored the ruling powers received government favors in return.  Usually protected markets.  And favorable legislation.  That allowed them monopoly prices.  Giving them great profits.  Generous union wages and benefits.  And generous health care and pensions.  At least, for those politically connected.  So the government rigged the game for them.  And they made it worth the government’s while to rig the game.  All of this paid for on the backs of the poor.  Who paid high taxes.  As well as high prices.  And suffered abject poverty.  Which made for an unhappy people.  And a large amount of government turnover through revolution as dictatorships and military juntas overthrew other dictatorships and military juntas.

In 1973 it was Augusto Pinochet’s turn in Chile.  Who came to power in a military coup.  At the time the country wasn’t doing so well.  And in full mercantilism.  The economy was in the toilet.  There was abject poverty.  And hyperinflation (peaking at 1000% or so) as the government printed money to pay for its out of control spending.  To try and bribe the angry mob and keep them from overthrowing the latest dictatorship.  Pinochet was the guy to fix that.  Like everybody that came before him.  And after his military junta failed as the previous military juntas failed, he tried something new.  Thanks to something called El Ladrillo.  And economic plan so thick and heavy they called it ‘the brick’.  A plan prepared by the Chicago Boys.  Chilean economists schooled in the Chicago school of economics.  Pinochet even met with Milton Friedman.  Prominent economist of the Chicago school.  And monetarist.  Who came down to give a speech.  (Interestingly, for the American left roundly criticized Friedman for giving a speech in a right-wing dictatorship.  Though he received no such criticism for giving the same speech in a left-wing dictatorship – communist China.  Showing that the political left was okay with human rights violations as long as they were committed in the left-wing dictatorships they so admired). 

Pinochet asked for some economic advice.  Friedman gave it.  And Pinochet followed it.  He ditched the mercantilist policies.  Embraced laissez-faire capitalism.  Privatized the state industries.  Established free trade.  Cut government spending.  And stopped printing money.  Ending the hyperinflation.  Replacing it with a strict monetary policy.  This didn’t please the politically connected as they lost their privilege.  But Friedman’s monetarism turned the Chilean economy around.  Creating a prosperous market economy.  With a growing middle class.  The strong economic growth led to some healthy tax revenue.  Which in later years funded antipoverty programs.  The Miracle of Chile even replaced the military junta with a democratic government.  Chile now has one of the healthiest and freest economies in the world.  An economy better and stronger than their former colonial master.  Spain.  Who maintained enough of their mercantilist policies to pull them into the Eurozone debt crisis.  And probably could learn a thing or two from their one-time colony.  Who is doing very well these days.  Thanks to the Miracle of Chile.  Milton Friedman.  And the Chicago Boys.  Those great Chilean economists given a chance by of all people a military dictator.

Everyone does Better under Free Market Capitalism, not just the Politically Connected

In 2010 a 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti.  A country rife with political corruption.  With little, if any, free market capitalism.  And even less rule of law.  Where most people live in abject poverty.  In ramshackle housing.  This earthquake claimed 230,000 lives.  A heart-wrenching loss of life.  Especially sad because the impoverished masses suffered the most.  As is often the case in countries with poor economic and political institutions. 

Later that same year, an 8.8 earthquake hit Chile.  Thanks to the economic reforms that rebuilt Chile into a healthy and prosperous democracy, Chileans did not live in ramshackle housing.  The higher standard of living created by the Chicago Boys’ economic reforms created better housing.  And safer cities.  Because of this the far stronger earthquake in Chile killed far fewer people than the lesser earthquake in Haiti.  The death toll in Chile was less than 1,000.  Which is impressive considering that was one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history.

Economics matter.  Say what you want about free market capitalism.  Malign it all you will.  But you can’t change some facts.  In particular, everyone does better under free market capitalism.  Including the poor.  For if this wasn’t the case Chile would have seen the loss of life Haiti saw.  But they didn’t.  Because there were no impoverished masses living in ramshackle housing in Chile.  Because those economic reforms improved the standard of living for all Chileans.  Not just the politically connected. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Chicago School of Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 5th, 2012

Economics 101

Monetarists believe in Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Fiat Money

Keynesian economics supports hands-on government management of the economy.  Using fiscal and monetary policy to move the aggregate demand curve at will to end business cycles.  The boom bust cycles between inflation and recession.  Leaving only the inflationary boom times.   Using tax and spend fiscal policies.  Or simply printing money for government expenditures.  For in Keynesian economics consumption is key.  The more of it the better.  And when people stop buying things the government should step in and pick up the consumption slack.

The Austrian school is a more hands-off approach.  The markets should be free.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  And the business cycle should remain.  For it is a necessary part of the economy.  Part of the automatic pricing mechanism that adjusts supply to meet demand.  When people demand more prices go up.  Encouraging businesses to expand production to sell at these higher prices (inflationary expansion).  Then when supply exceeds demand businesses have excessive inventory that they can’t sell anymore at those higher prices.  So they cut their prices to sell off this excessive supply (deflationary recession).  Also, that hands-off approach means no playing with monetary policy.  Austrians prefer a gold standard to prevent central bank mischief that results in inflation.

The Chicago school of economics takes a little from each of these schools.  Like the Austrians they believe that government should take a hands-off approach in the economy.  Markets should be free with minimum government intervention.  But unlike Austrians, they hate gold.  And blame the gold standard for causing the Great Depression.  Instead, they believe in the flexibility of fiat money.  As do the Keynesians.  But with a strict monetary policy to minimize inflation (which is why proponents of this school were also called monetarists).  Unlike the Keynesians.  For monetarists believe only a government’s monetary policy can cause runaway inflation.

(This is a gross simplification of these three schools.  A more detailed and comprehensive study would be a bit overwhelming as well as extremely boring.  But you get the gist.  At least, for the point of this discussion.)

We used Gold and Silver for Money because it was Durable, Portable, Divisible, Fungible, Scarce, Etc.

At the heart of the difference between these schools is money.  So a refresher course on money is in order.  Money stores wealth temporarily.  When we create something of value (a good or a service) we can use that value to trade for something we want.  We used to barter with other creative people who made value of their own.  But as the economy got more complex it took more and more time to find people to trade with.  You had to find someone who had what you wanted who also wanted what you had.  If you baked bread and wanted shoes you had to find a shoemaker who wanted bread.  Not impossible.  But it took a lot of time to find these people to trade with.

Then someone had a brilliant idea.  They figured they could trade their good or service NOT for something THEY wanted but something OTHER people would want.  Such as tobacco.  Whiskey.  Or grain.  These things were valuable.  Other people would want them.  So they could easily trade their good or service for one of these things.  And then later trade it for what they wanted.  And money was born.  For various reasons (durable, portable, divisible, fungible, scarce, etc.) we chose gold and silver as our money of choice.  Due to the inconvenience and danger of carrying these precious metals around, though, we stored our precious metals in a vault and used ‘receipts’ of that deposit as currency.  And the gold standard was born.

To understand the gold standard think of a balance scale.  The kind where you put weights on one side to balance the load on the other.  When the scale balances the weight of the load equals the sum of the weights needed to make the scale balance.  Now imagine a scale like this where the VALUE of all goods and services (created by talented people) are on one side.  And all the precious metal in the gold standard are on the other.  These must be in balance.  And the sum of our currency must equal the amount of precious metal.  (Because they are ‘receipts’ for all that gold and silver we have locked up someplace.)  This prevents the government from creating inflation.  If you want to issue more money you have to put more precious metal onto the scale.  You just can’t print money.  For when you do and you don’t increase the amount of precious metal on the scale you depreciate the currency.  Because more of it equals the same amount of precious metal.  For more currency to equal the same amount of precious metal then each unit of currency has to be worth less.  And when each unit is worth less it takes more of them to buy the same things they bought before.  Thus raising prices.  If a government prints more currency without adding more precious metals on the scale they increase the value of that precious metal when MEASURED in that currency.  It becomes worth more.  In other words, you can trade that precious metal for more of that depreciated currency than before they depreciated it.  You do this too much and eventually people will prefer the precious metal over the currency.  They’ll lose faith in the currency.  And when that happens the economy collapses.  As people move back towards a barter system.

Milton Friedman wanted the Responsibility of the Gold Standard without Gold’s Constraint on increasing the Money Supply

A healthy economy needs a stable currency.  One that people don’t lose faith in.  Imagine trying to shop without money.  Instead, taking things to trade for the groceries you need.  Not very efficient.  So we need a stable currency.  And the gold standard gives us that.  However, the thing that makes gold or silver a stable currency, its scarcity, creates a liability.  Let’s go back to that balance scale.  To the side that contains the value of all goods and services.  Let’s say it increases.  But the precious metal on the other side doesn’t.  Which means the value of that precious metal increases.  The currency must equal the value of that precious metal.  So the value of the currency increases.  And prices fall.  It takes less of it to buy the same things it bought before.  Not a bad thing for consumers.  But it plays havoc with those who borrowed money before this appreciation.  Because they now have to repay money that is worth more than when what is was worth when they borrowed it.  Which hurt farmers during the 1920s.  Who borrowed a lot of money to mechanize their farms.  Which helped to greatly increase farm yields.  And increased food supplies while demand remained unchanged.  Which, of course, lowered farm prices.  The supply increased on the scale.  But the amount of gold didn’t.  Thus increasing the value of the gold.  And the currency.  Making prices fall.  Kicking off the deflationary spiral of the Great Depression.  Or so say the monetarists.

Now the monetarists wanted to get rid of the gold supply.  The Keynesians did, too.  But they wanted to do it so they could print and spend money.  Which they did during the Seventies.  Creating both a high unemployment rate and a high inflation rate.  Something that wasn’t supposed to happen in Keynesian economics.  For their solution to fix unemployment was to use inflation to stimulate aggregate demand in the economy.  Thus reducing unemployment.  But when they did this during the Seventies it didn’t work.  The Keynesians were befuddled.  But not the monetarists.  Who understood that the expansion of the money supply (printing money to spend) was responsible for that inflation.  People understood this, too.  And had rational expectations of how that Keynesian policy was going to end.  Higher prices.  So they raised prices before the stimulus could impact unemployment.  To stay ahead of the coming inflation.  So the Keynesian stimulus did nothing to reduce unemployment.  It just caused runaway inflation.  And raised consumer prices.  Which, in turn, decreased economic activity.  And further increased unemployment.

Perhaps the most well known economist in the Chicago school was Milton Friedman.  Who wanted the responsibility of the gold standard.  But without gold’s constraint on increasing the money supply to meet demand.  The key to monetarism.  To increase the money supply to match the growth in the economy.  To keep that scale balanced.  But without gold.  Instead, putting the money supply directly on the scale.  Printing fiat money as needed.  Great power.  But with great power comes great responsibility.  And if you abuse that power (as in printing money irresponsibly) the consequences of that abuse will be swift.  Thanks to the rational expectations of the people.  Another tenet of the Chicago school.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,