blog of bile » monetary policy

Timothy Geithner vs the DIGG community

bile — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:00:18 +0000

This guy is a hoot. Government must step in to help with the economic problem? They created it. They need to protect the innocent actors? When you debase the currency there is no way to protect them beside stopping the intervention.

Federal Reserve to hire lobbyist to combat Ron Paul’s influence

bile — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:08:13 +0000

http://www.bloomberg.com/…

The Federal Reserve intends to hire a veteran lobbyist as it seeks to counter skepticism in Congress about the central bank’s growing power over the U.S. financial system, people familiar with the matter said.

Linda Robertson currently handles government, community and public affairs at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and headed the Washington lobbying office of Enron Corp., the energy trading company that collapsed in 2002 after an accounting scandal. She was also an adviser to all three of the Clinton administration’s Treasury secretaries.

Robertson would help the Fed manage relations with lawmakers seeking greater oversight of a central bank that has used emergency powers to prevent Wall Street’s demise. While she wasn’t tied to Enron’s fraud, her association with the firm may raise questions, analysts said.

“Some members of Congress think there are votes in attacking the Fed” after it “unnecessarily and unwisely entangled monetary policy with fiscal policy,” said former St. Louis Fed President William Poole. “The Fed is going to have a tricky time of unwinding what has been done” and will need to “keep in touch with members of Congress more thoroughly,” said Poole, now senior fellow with the Cato Institute in Washington.

They may not mention Paul but it was his presidential campaign and now his HR1207 which is putting some fire under the Fed’s feet.

Timothy Geithner gets laughed at, unfortunately not off the stage

bile — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:40:30 +0000

http://www.reuters.com/…

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar assets are safe and reaffirmed his faith in a strong U.S. currency.

A major goal of Geithner’s maiden visit to China as Treasury chief is to allay concerns that Washington’s bulging budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will fan inflation, undermining both the dollar and U.S. bonds.

China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds. U.S. data shows that it held $768 billion in Treasuries as of March, but some analysts believe China’s total U.S. dollar-denominated investments could be twice as high.

“Chinese assets are very safe,” Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s.

His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting scepticism in China about the wisdom of a developing country accumulating a vast stockpile of foreign reserves instead of spending the money to raise living standards at home.

Next time may I recommend a rotten tomato or two? Just for theatrics. Don’t hit the man. He’s sad enough.

Ron Paul talks the Constitution with highschool students

bile — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:07:39 +0000

Ron Paul getting some of the attention and credit he deserves

bile — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:33:47 +0000

The attacks on HR1207 are starting

bile — Wed, 13 May 2009 19:06:19 +0000

http://www.forbes.com/

Extraordinary times require extraordinary actions. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the bold policy moves undertaken by the Federal Reserve over the past two years. The financial crisis forced the Fed to be aggressive and creative in its attempts to provide liquidity to credit markets that had frozen up. These were necessary steps, and mostly applauded.

But the very boldness of its actions has put the independence of the Fed at risk. Congress is now clamoring to audit the Fed, and some of the policy proposals currently under discussion at the Federal Reserve will only increase the threat to its independence.

Without independence, the political cycle would subject the central bank to political pressures that, in turn, would impart an inflationary bias to monetary policy.

On this view, politicians in a democratic society are short-sighted because they are driven by the need to win their next election. This is borne out by empirical evidence. A politically insulated central bank is more likely to be concerned with long-run objectives.A variant of the argument for central bank independence is that control of monetary policy is far too important to put in the hands of politicians. As a group, they have repeatedly demonstrated the lack of political will power to make difficult economic decisions. But now they want to assert control over the Fed. The bill, HR 1207, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (who brought you the “Employ Americans First Act”) and Rep. Ron Paul, would assert greater control over the Fed. As Ron Paul writes on his Web site: “Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business.”

Great! Obviously, monetary policy is so falling-off-a-log simple that your elected representatives can insert themselves via the demand for transparency into decisions of true complexity and subtlety. Why am I not feeling reassured?

I believe cy_cy says it all:

Quoth Cooley- “Without independence, the political cycle would subject the central bank to political pressures that, in turn, would impart an inflationary bias to monetary policy.”

Is this sentence for real? Perhaps you could summon a grad student to investigate the “inflationary bias” pre-Fed and post-Fed. (I realize you’re too busy.)

Since the Fed’s inception, the dollar has lost over 98% of its value. Before the Fed, the dollar would actually GAIN value as time passed (thanks to productivity gains.) Are you implying that the so-called “independent fed” should be patting itself on the back for (so far) preventing hyper inflation?

You clearly imply that Ron Paul wishes to bring transparency to monetary policy so that he himself can make macro monetary calls (manipulating interest rates, reserve rates, etc.) You imply that he is not qualified to be making these decisions. I am sure he would agree: his entire point is that no individual or small group can centrally determine interest rates.

The fact that you would so horribly misstate Paul’s monetary thesis suggests you either have not bothered to research his thesis (yet have the audacity to write an article about it anyway), or you do know what he is trying to say, but you grossly misconstrued his message so that you could shout it down. Either option is an overwhelming suggestion of both intellectual bankruptcy and, in light of your career choices as a writer and an educator, severe moral bankruptcy as well.

Tags: The Fed, HR 1207, Intellectual Cowardice

MotorhomeDiaries interviews Ron Paul

bile — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:44:54 +0000

Sunday morning I had the great opportunity to sit down with Ron Paul. This interview was really special because I credit Dr. Paul with “awakening” the greatest number of people — getting them to think for themselves, to question the role and legitimacy of government and to take ownership of their life.

In Part I we discuss resources available to those new to the ideas of liberty, immigration, free markets, the welfare/warfare state and bailouts.

In Part II we discuss civil disobedience, jury nullification, secession, monetary policy, the power of ideas, self-government and a voluntary society, advice for activists and the potential for other freedom fighters to join Dr. Paul in the halls of Congress.

Much love goes to Jesse Benton, Norm Singleton, Allison Gibbs and Adam Dick for helping to make this happen.

It’s hard to manage something you can’t define

bile — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:05:53 +0000

Ron Paul questioning Greenspan about M3 and the increase in the money supply in 2000.

NYTimes: Ron Paul answers your questions, Part 2

bile — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:29:36 +0000

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/…

First batch here.

Here is the second. Like the first batch, they are well-considered and interesting throughout; they will surely make many readers continue to wish fervently for a Paul presidency.

Thanks again to Rep. Paul for his time and insights, and to all of you for the good questions.

Q: What is the first thing the country should do about its monetary policy?

A: We should immediately audit the Federal Reserve. I am the ranking member of the Monetary Policy subcommittee in the U.S. Congress, yet I can get more information about the internal workings of the C.I.A. than I can about our central bank. This secrecy is fundamentally wrong, and I believe that people from all over the ideological political spectrum can agree on that.

Bloomberg News this month has gone to court compel the Fed to disclose securities the central bank is accepting on behalf of American taxpayers as collateral for trillions of dollars of loans to banks. Expanding transparency is critical and could be done very quickly.

Q: What are your expectations for the next four years under an Obama administration? How might President Obama’s interventionist economic policies impact our lives?

A: Unfortunately, I don’t expect many good things. I do expect a lot of spending and even more debt. To really cut spending and balance our budget, we need to change foreign policy. Obama’s rhetoric on foreign policy is better than what we have gotten recently, but don’t expect any real change.

He may be more likely to wind things down in Iraq, but he’s still planning on keeping troops there for a least 16 more months. He wants money for Georgia and more troops in Afghanistan. He isn’t going to bring home our 30,000 troops from Korea or our 50,000 soldiers in Germany, and he won’t close any of our 700 foreign bases. At the same time, he is planning even bigger spending here at home. I hope I’m wrong, but if this spending and debt continue, the dollar is going to crash and we will see the middle class in this country take a grave hit.

Q: Do you deny global warming? Is Obama right to invest money in green technology? If you don’t deny it, and don’t think Obama is right, what is your solution?

A: I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.

Q: Will you run for a leadership position in the House Republican caucus?

A: I have no plans to do so. I don’t cut deals and trade votes, which is exactly what a role like that requires.

Q: What are your thoughts on abolishing America’s income tax and switching over to a consumption tax such as the fair tax?

A: I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990’s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.

Q: Did former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan really believe in free markets or did he fail to practice what he preached?

A: In my book The Revolution: A Manifesto I talk about an encounter I had with Greenspan when he was still Fed chairman. I had come across an old Objectivist newsletter Greenspan had written in the 1960’s supporting a real gold standard. It was great stuff!

At a gathering we both attended, I presented the booklet and asked if he still believed in its subject. He said he remembered the piece and still believed every word. I can’t profess to know what is in Mr. Greenspan’s heart, but his own words lead me to believe that he knew better than to pursue the policies he did.

Q: What policies should have been put into place in 1932 to stimulate the economy instead of the confiscation of monetary gold?

A: A trust in free markets and sound money would have made the 1930’s much less rough. Inflation caused the Depression, and the big government policies of Roosevelt exacerbated the problem. Murray Rothbard wrote a masterpiece on the cause of the 1929 crash and the Great Depression, and I highly recommend it to anyone with a deep interest who wants to read the authoritative view.

Q: Is there any part of the Republican Party reaching out to you? At what point do we dump the G.O.P. and leave it for dead?

A: The leadership in the House of Representatives and at the N.R.C.C. has been cordial, and I as a ranking subcommittee member am myself in leadership. Other national leadership bodies largely ignore me.

Where I get the most attention, though, is from rank-and-file members. Dozens of Republican congressmen from across the country asked me for money and support in November’s election. I was happy to support and contribute to several deserving individuals through my Liberty PAC.

As far as quitting or staying with the Republicans, everyone will have to make up his or her own mind. There can be value in choosing either path. I myself have no plans to leave the G.O.P.

Q: Why is it that, even in the midst of unimaginable deficits and an economic crisis, both our enormous military and our policy of drug prohibition remain sacrosanct? Do you think this reflects actual democratic opinion, or is it the work of powerful, but numerically small interest groups?

A: I think that it might reflect democratic opinion, but only because each issue has been demagogued.

Take military spending. I believe in a strong national defense. I want our troops here, defending our territory; I want nuclear submarines and an adequate arsenal of weapons that can repeal any conceivable attack. What I don’t want to do is spend a trillion dollars a year maintaining an empire.

Today, our troops are in 130 countries. We have 700 foreign bases. We can spend far less and have a stronger national defense than we do right now. But if you question our foreign policy, you are branded as un-American. And we’re told that if we don’t “fight them over there, we’ll fight them over here.” That’s absurd.

On your second example, the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.

There are certainly some powerful special interests that benefit from our flawed foreign and drug policies. Now, do I think they openly conspire together to deceive and manipulate? No I don’t. The system is much to complicated to think a few puppet masters control the strings. But I do think we’d be a lot better off if we listened to our founding fathers and obeyed the Constitution. The founders would never have formed a D.E.A., and they would be horrified if they saw our troops spread thin around the globe.

Q: What do you think were your biggest mistakes in the primary race, and what would you now do differently?

A: I was always pessimistic and never thought we would get to where we did. My regret is that we couldn’t see how quickly things would grow and were not adequately prepared for the explosion in money and support when they came. There are dozens, hundreds of things we could have done better, but we all worked hard and did our best. And I know we built something that will only get stronger in the years to come.

Whatever Happened To Inflation Targets?

bile — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:42:14 +0000

http://www.forbes.com/…

Remember when Ben Bernanke was a fan of a more transparent Fed, with bright lines on where inflation should be and how to get there?

“Inflation-targeting countries have achieved lower inflation rates and lower inflation expectation,” he wrote in his 1999 book Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience. “There is also evidence that the use of inflation targeting increases public understanding of monetary policy, improves policy-maker accountability, and provides a discipline-enhancing ‘nominal anchor’ for monetary policy.” In 2003 Bernanke said targeting in the 2% range seemed “the optimal long-run average inflation rate” for the U.S.

But since taking office, you’ll hear no such comments from the chairman. The reason? Reality. While the European Central bank’s primary concern is controlling inflation, the American Federal Reserve has the dual responsibility of maintaining both price stability and employment, making Bernanke’s job a tough one.

No one ever seems to look at those goals and ask why price stability is important and how exactly does what the Federal Reserve do which effects employment.

The supposed need for price stability is a result of government interventionism. Mises says on page 219 of Human Action:

Shortcomings in the governments’ handling of monetary matters and the disastrous consequences of policies aimed at lowering the rate of interest and at encouraging business activities through credit expansion gave birth to the ideas which finally generated the slogan “stabilization.”

and after describes just how ridiculous the true idea of stability is:

Stability, the establishment of which the program of stabilization aims at, is an empty and contradictory notion. The urge toward action, i.e., improvement of the conditions of life, is inborn in man. Man himself changes from moment to moment and his valuations, volitions, and acts change with him. In the realm of action there is nothing perpetual but change. There is no fixed point in this ceaseless fluctuation other than the eternal aprioristic categories of action. It is vain to sever valuation and action from man’s unsteadiness and the changeability of his conduct and to argue as if there were in the universe eternal values independent of human value judgments and suitable to serve as a yardstick for the appraisal of real action[2].

The Fateful Wish for Price Stability is a nice writeup on Mises position.

And how does the Federal Reserve influence employment levels? It creates the illusion of prosperity. The Phillips curve is a joke. In the long run the correlation disappears. Mises covered this topic in Economic Freedom and Interventionism where in part he says:

It is not the operation of the market economy that generates unemployment with all its moral and material evils, but precisely the ill-contrived, although well-intentioned, actions of unions and governments. There is no other means to do away with unemployment than to abstain from any government and union meddling with the height of wage rates.

Inflation Not Fit to Fight Unemployment

The self-styled American “liberals” propose to do away with unemployment by inflation. They suggest an increase in the quantity of money in circulation through credit expansion.

Lord Keynes did not invent, but merely popularized this makeshift. He was well aware of the fact that inflation inevitably results in a rise in all commodity prices or, what is merely another way of describing the same effect, in a drop in the monetary unit’s, the dollar’s, purchasing power. But he argued that the wage earners will acquiesce in “a gradual and automatic lowering of real wages as a result of rising prices.”[1] It is obvious that Keynes thus fully admitted that nothing but a lowering of real wage rates can do away with unemployment. The inflation which he recommended was designed as a clever trick to cheat the workers. He expected that they would not be shrewd enough to realize that real wages had dropped and that, therefore, they would not ask for higher pay to compensate for the reduction in the monetary unit’s purchasing power.

He criticizes the practice further in the 1933 The Causes Of The Economic Crisis: An Address

Credit expansion cannot increase the supply of real goods. It merely brings about a rearrangement. It diverts capital investment away from the course prescribed by the state of economic wealth and market conditions. It causes production to pursue paths which it would not follow unless the economy were to acquire an increase in material goods. As a result, the upswing lacks a solid base. It is not real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity. It did not develop from an increase in economic wealth. Rather, it arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase. Sooner or later it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand.

The wealth creation is fiction. People become unemployed because employers believe they have more wealth therefore attempt to expand by hiring while those looking for employment unknowingly accept lower wages.

So the Federal Reserve controls the money supply so they can inflate the currency so that employment goes up, even if it is under false pretenses, but doing so causes price inflation thereby negating their other goal. All that can be done is a careful balancing act between falsely stimulating employment and causing price instability. Add minimum wage laws and you end up placing a floor on employment when interest rates aren’t causing excess employment. Now this doesn’t negate the claim that the Phillips curve is bogus as it’s supposed to be a general theory rather then interventionist based.

The solution for this is simple. Stop manipulating the money supply and ideally allow for a complete free market in money. A coworker today, while we talked about todays announcement from the Federal Reserve, said that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. That’s in regards to changing the interest rate. If they leave it it will spur more inflation and price increases and yet if they increase it to curb inflation there will be an even worse credit crunch. I made it clear however that it isn’t do or don’t but do or do. The Fed’s very existence is a positive action and distortion of the market place. They are incapable of “don’t”ing.