Economics

Inflation Returns!

Free market economists debate the prospects, fears, and even hopes for rising prices in post-crises America

|

Since the financial crisis hit the country in September 2008, the White House, Congress, and Federal Reserve have responded with a combination of bailouts, federal spending, and an expansion of the money supply. Meanwhile, many free market thinkers have been warning of a wealth-sapping malady last seen in the U.S. more than a quarter century ago: It's a word that strikes fear in the hearts of survivors of the 1970s, elicits shrugs from the young voters who helped elect Barack Obama president, and (as we'll see) provokes fierce debate among even the most libertarian economists.

After decades of relative confidence that the price of milk would be more or less the same today as it was yesterday and last year, Americans are once again wondering whether to keep what money they have in mattresses, gold bars, or banks. Has the time come to stockpile canned goods and pick up a wheelbarrow for transporting currency, or should we be afraid of the opposite—a prolonged contraction that causes prices to crash?

In mid-July, inflation seers got their first juicy slice of supporting data when June wholesale prices jumped 1.8 percent, the sharpest rise in two years and twice the increase most analysts expected. Gold prices surged on the news to nearly $940 an ounce. Just before those figures were released, reason asked eight free market economists to assess the short-, medium-, and long-term prospects for inflation and to say what, if anything, can or should be done about it.—Katherine Mangu-Ward

Inflation Is Already Here; Next Come Rising Prices
Peter Schiff

Despite economists' efforts to obscure inflation in a tangle of jargon, it is an extremely simple phenomenon. Almost every dictionary defines inflation as an expansion of the money supply, not rising prices.Although more money may not immediately translate into rising prices, over time the correlation is extremely reliable.

Inflation has always been a means for governments to raise revenues without taxation. When gold was the only accepted currency, governments inflated through debasement of coins, surreptitiously blending base metals into gold. By melting down one real coin to make two alloyed coins, money could be "created" with little effort. Nice trick. But eventually consumers caught on that their coins were bogus. Their reaction was often violent.

Paper money largely solved this problem by allowing governments to print money, or extend credit, at will. And thanks to the overly complex Rube Goldberg explanations of inflation devised by academics, such as "the wage-price spiral," "demand pull," and "cost push," governments can
inflate without admitting culpability for rising prices. The Federal Reserve's monetary base statistics show that in the last year the money in circulation has increased far faster than at any other point in American history. Thus, by the dictionary definition, we have inflation. But prices
have been relatively stable because downward recessionary pressures are currently counterbalancing the upward pressures of the expanded money supply.

The new money has been largely parked in financial institutions. Thanks to government prodding and aggressive stimuli, it will soon be showered on the economy at large.When the tide rolls in, there will be more money chasing fewer goods. (Recessions reduce the supply of things.) The result: higher prices.

The government clings to the fantasy that it will be able to "mop up" this excess liquidity before the business end of inflation kicks in, effectively taking money back out of circulation. Good luck with that. Recent history clearly shows that the authorities have no political will to dispense tough medicine."Removing liquidity"would require either much higher interest rates or a severe curtailment of credit. But politicians believe that credit is the "lifeblood" of our economy. President Barack Obama himself has said so. If the Fed was unwilling to raise interest rates substantially in the middle years of this decade, when the economy seemed healthy, how can we expect it to do so now?

Peter Schiff (info@europac.net) is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (Wiley).

Why Forecasts Are All Over the Map
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

Under normal circumstances, a massive and sudden monetary explosion—like the one initiated by the Federal Reserve after September 18, 2008, which took us from a monetary base of $850 billion to $1.7 trillion in three months—would bring skyrocketing inflation. But these are not normal circumstances. A high demand for liquidity, mostly on the part of banks, has thus far prevented inflation from taking off. In fact, almost all of that increase was concentrated in bank reserves, which during that short period mushroomed by an incredible factor of 13.

On one hand, the Fed's expansion of the base encouraged banks to make loans, thereby increasing the amount of checkbook money: an inflationary step. On the other hand, it simultaneously paid banks to hold more reserves: a deflationary step.Is it any wonder that economists' forecasts have been all over the map? Ben Bernanke, in what must stand as the most egregious example of central planning hubris on the part of any Fed chairman since the institution's founding, seems convinced that fine adjustments to these two controls will allow him to manage the price level perfectly.

Buried within the bailout bill of October 3, 2008, that set up the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was a provision permitting the Fed to pay interest on bank reserves. This seemingly technical change not only gives banks an incentive to hold reserves rather than make loans; it also essentially converts reserves into more government debt. Fiat money traditionally pays no interest and therefore allows the government to purchase real resources without incurring any future tax liability. Economists refer to this revenue from creating money as seigniorage. Federal Reserve notes will continue to earn no interest. But now the seigniorage that government gains from creating bank reserves will be much reduced, if not entirely eliminated.

Outside of America's two hyperinflations (during the American Revolution and under the Confederacy during the Civil War), seigniorage peaked during World War II, to nearly a quarter of the war's cost,or about 12 percent of GDP. By the Great Inflation of the 1970s, financial innovations and market sophistication had managed to reduce seigniorage to only 2 percent of federal revenue, which translates into less than half a percent of GDP. Now with the Fed having to divert potential government revenue to pay interest on base money held by banks, seigniorage has virtually been eliminated as a source of future funding. And this constraint will become tighter as people replace the use of currency with bank debit cards and other forms of electronic fund transfers.

This is not to say that monetary increases cannot still generate high inflation rates. But if the U.S. does get high inflation,even inflation exceeding double digits,the government is still confined to essentially two sources of revenue: 1) current taxes and 2) borrowing, which represents future taxes. 

Interest-earning bank reserves also blur the distinction between monetary policy and fiscal policy. To see how, imagine the extreme case:Assume the interest the Fed pays on reserves is exactly the same as the interest the Treasury pays on its outstanding debt. Then Fed open-market operations are no longer exchanging government debt for created money; they are exchanging one form of government debt for another form. Monetary policy becomes entirely neutral and impotent, in a self-fulfilling Keynesian prophecy.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is an associate professor of economics at San Jose State University.

Inflation? We Should Be So Lucky
Scott Sumner

This crisis has been poorly understood by economists from the very beginning. The original subprime crisis of 2007 had a relatively modest impact on both financial markets and the broader economy. The much more severe crash of late 2008 resulted from monetary policy (unintentionally) becoming far too contractionary for the economy's needs. Most economists missed this problem, as they are used to looking at faulty indicators such as nominal interest rates and the monetary base (which is the money actually produced by the Fed-cash plus bank reserves). Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz showed that these two indicators gave highly misleading signals during the Great Contraction of 1929-33. They are no more reliable in the current crisis.

It is discouraging to see so many free market economists now warning of an inflationary time bomb. I'm afraid that New York Times columnist and recent Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman is right: The real problem is that inflation is likely to remain too low.

In a fiat money world the only sensible indicator of monetary policy is market expectations of growth in the variable actually being targeted by the central bank. That variable might be the Consumer Price Index, but I believe the economy would be more stable if the Fed targeted nominalGDPat a roughly 5 percent annual growth rate.We know from various asset markets that nominal growth expectations turned quite bearish after mid-2008. This severely depressed aggregate demand and dramatically worsened the debt crisis.

Almost everyone has reversed the causation, assuming that the intensification of the financial crisis caused the big drop in nominal income,whereas the reverse is closer to the truth. Nine months later the markets continue to signal that inflation and nominal growth will remain below the Fed's
implicit target for years to come. Monetary policy remains too contractionary, which has led to a very costly reliance on fiscal stimulus.

Most economists have a deeply ingrained instinct that printing money inevitably leads to inflation. Although our gut might tell us that the recent explosion of the monetary base is reminiscent of Germany circa 1923, it is actually more like Japan after 1998. Yet Japan has seen almost no growth in nominal incomes since 1993. This isn't to say that Japan was "stuck"in a liquidity trap; although nominal interest rates cannot fall below zero, monetary policy could have sprung the trap if the Bank of Japan had been willing to devalue the yen or commit to a policy of mild inflation. Zero interest rates reflected deflationary expectations, not "easy money."

Once the Fed began paying interest on reserves in October 2008, banks hoarded massive amounts of excess reserves, and monetary policy became much less effective. This deflationary policy was analogous to the Fed's 1936-37 decision to double reserve requirements, but it was even more costly. Both policies encouraged banks to hold on to reserves, which prevented monetary injections from stimulating the economy.

It may be hard for free market economists to admit they were wrong about inflation, but I'm afraid that is exactly what the markets are telling us. If we don't pay attention, then monetarist, supply-side, and Austrian ideas may be discredited for all the wrong reasons. 

Scott Sumner (ssumner@bentley.edu), a professor of economics at Bentley University, focuses on monetary economics, particularly the role of the gold standard in the Great Depression. He blogs at blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion.


The Choice: Great Depression or Great Inflation?
Randall Parker

Now that it appears the threat of a worldwide financial market meltdown has subsided, the public is assessing the threat of future inflation.Many commentators are speaking as if massive 1970s-style inflation is a foregone conclusion and claiming the Fed has done a great wrong.

Hardly. How about a recap of Federal Reserve actions with some historical perspective? 

Beginning in August 2007, the Fed had a choice: either increase the monetary base dramatically and stop financial markets from unraveling, or let the market take its course and eliminate the threat we currently face of potential inflation. In other words, would you rather have a Great Depression or the threat of a Great Inflation? I know which one I'm
picking, and you should not doubt what side Ben Bernanke picked either.

The Great Depression happened as it did because the Fed of the 1930s was always worried about the next inflation in a world economy that was dead from deflation. Ben Bernanke knows this history and its lessons better than anyone else walking around this big blue marble. We may yet have a depression, but it won't be because the Fed abdicated its responsibilities and let the money supply fall by 33 percent like it did in the 1930s. 

The Fed has blown up its balance sheet from $902 billion on August 8, 2007, to more than $2.3 trillion today, mostly in new lending facilities created to earmark credit for specific areas of our financial markets. The danger is that the Fed's independence has been compromised in the process. Yet the money supply has increased only by about 15 percent. That is big, to be sure, but increasing the monetary base is not the same as increasing the money supply dollar for dollar.

The threat of inflation is real, but the Fed has two ways out. First is the new policy of paying interest on bank reserves. It can increase that rate as high as it wishes and thereby stop banks from loaning excess reserves and creating money. Second, there is talk of permitting the Fed to issue its own debt. This too would drain the monetary base and prevent money creation. Of course, the Treasury could take the assets off the Fed's balance sheet in a new Treasury-Fed Accord like the one reached in 1951. Don't hold your breath.

Inflation is a threat. But I would not be too ready to cash that ticket as a sure thing.

Randall Parker, a professor of economics at East Carolina University, is working on a book titled Interwar Historical Antecedents of Modern Inflation Targeting. He blogs at randallparker.blogspot.com.

Greenspan's Fear of Deflation Is What Got Us Here
James Grant

By the standards of any other moment in history, the world today is a cornucopia. Prices fell steadily in the last quarter of the 19th century, another time of bounding human progress. What has been holding them up in the 21st century? Why, our central bankers have. In 2002-03, soggy consumer prices alarmed Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Ben Bernanke, then
a member of the Fed's Board of Governors. "Deflation!" they cried.

Inflation is too much money. Rising prices are a symptom of that excess. Deflation is too much debt. Falling prices are a symptom of that excess. But Greenspan and Bernanke defined deflation, if they defined it at all, as "falling prices." They said nothing about debt.They made no attempt to distinguish between the Wal-Mart business model (i.e., everyday low and lower prices) and a collapse in prices brought about by desperate debts. So the Bank of Alan Greenspan pressed interest rates to the floor. It was the ensuing derangement of credit- the crackup in subprime mortgages, in the debts of sub-prime corporations, and in the banks that trafficked in those items-that led us to the present pass. To forestall an imagined deflation, the Fed instituted a real one.

Now comes the money printing. The Federal Reserve has set out to debase the dollar. It makes no bones about it. "Excess reserves" is one marker of Fed policy. You may think of these balances as monetary dry tinder.At the end of 2007, excess reserves totaled $1.8 billion.Today, they stand at $744 billion.

The Fed will surely haul away this underbrush before it can catch fire, many on Wall Street insist. Perhaps. But in the wake of the previous two recessions, ending in 1991 and 2001, the Fed was slow to extinguish the extra dollars it had printed in an attempt to hasten economic recovery. And in neither one of those episodes was the nation's financial system as close to collapse as it came last year. I predict that the Fed will indeed vanquish deflation. It will vanquish deflation by creating a new inflation. You may wish it had never tried.

James Grant (jgrant@grantspub.com) is the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer.

A Little Inflation Can Be Good for You
Steven Gjerstad and Vernon L. Smith

Long considered the bane of modern economies, moderate inflation-around 6 percent per year for several years—may be the only way out of our current dilemma. 

It would be worthwhile to carefully consider the benefits of and alternatives to inflation before taking measures to curb it. Moderate inflation, if it can be achieved, will gradually reduce the debt burden of households and stimulate household spending, generating a decentralized, market-driven recovery.

Two questions arise. First: How does inflation affect long-term creditors? Second, and perhaps more difficult: How do we induce inflation when private demand for credit is suppressed? Credit is a crucial element of the money supply. If households and firms are determined to reduce debt loads, their declining demand for credit will undermine efforts to increase the money supply.

Inflation involves a tradeoff for long-term creditors in mortgage and corporate bond markets. The values of earlier loans or bond issues depreciate, but delinquencies and foreclosures fall as asset values and consumer spending recover. The real value of U.S. Treasury debt also declines with inflation, but other assets will appreciate as consumer spending recovers. Most debt holders should benefit from  moderate inflation, except those whose only investments are U.S.Treasury debt.

Although inflation may be the best way out of a deflationary spiral, the Japanese experience suggests we may not be so fortunate. In 2005, after 15 years of a debt-deflation spiral in Japan, private firms finally became net borrowers (and hence investors) again. Throughout this terribly long and arduous recovery, Japan relied on public spending and an export-driven industrial sector to maintain production and employment and to work off the stultifying debt loads of households and firms from prior asset bubbles. Political consensus for public sector spending over a 15-year period will be difficult to maintain in the United States. Strong exports that helped sustain Japan through the "lost decade" depended on the rapid growth of worldwide demand.Long-standing American trade deficits and the slowing worldwide economy make export-driven growth an unlikely way out of the U.S. downturn.

Declining demand for private credit reduces the money supply, which in turn reinforces the deflationary spiral. Even the large increase in the Federal Reserve balance sheet in September 2008 may not presage inflation. In usual circumstances, the Fed's asset purchases increase bank reserves and lead to more lending, but its recent purchases have not had the usual effects. Banks are reluctant to lend to any but the best credit risks, while many households and firms are reluctant to buy assets in a declining market.Japan has faced this dilemma for almost 20 years now.

If inflation does arise, the excess reserves of banks provide a simple means to contain it.The enormous increase in the Fed balance sheet from about $800 billion to $1,800 billion creates an unprecedented surge in the monetary base, but the Fed could limit the impact of this increase by placing a lower limit on excess reserves and thereby control credit creation by banks. Consequently, it appears now that deflation could pose a more serious risk than inflation.

Steven Gjerstad (gjerstad@chapman.edu) is a research associate at Chapman University. Vernon L. Smith (vsmith@chapman.edu) is a professor of economics at Chapman University and the 2002 Nobel laureate in economics.

The Fed Fears Unemployment More Than Rising Prices
Donald L. Luskin

Inflation is inevitable in the intermediate and long term. Short-term inflation, however, is unlikely, because the recent financial crisis had the deflationary effect of creating enormous global demand for money balances.

The Federal Reserve responded to that demand with an enormous increase in the money supply. Politics and economics conspire to make it unlikely that the Fed will contract that supply rapidly enough to prevent inflation as the crisis ebbs and recovery ensues.

First, the economics. The Fed makes its policy decisions under extreme uncertainty and therefore must err on the side of avoiding unacceptable risks even if that means deliberately taking on acceptable risks. To the Fed, deflation is an unacceptable risk. Most economic historians, including Ben Bernanke, believe that deflation was the greatest single cause of the Great Depression; averting a repetition of that was uppermost in Bernanke's mind as he expanded the money supply so copiously during the last three quarters.

Inflation, on the other hand, is an acceptable risk. While it leads to the diminution of the real value of savings and induces all manner of economic distortions, the Fed feels confident that it is not catastrophic. Thus the Fed will surely keep the money supply extremely generous even as the economy recovers, preferring to accept the near certainty of inflation rather than any risk at all of deflation.

Second, the politics. The Fed is tasked by statute not only with ensuring "price stability"-that is, no inflation -but also with achieving "full employment." As the economy slowly recovers from an unprecedented global recession, the Fed's employment mission may have to take priority over its inflation mission. Unless inflation becomes extreme, employment is a much more potent political concern.

The Fed is likely at some point to judge that the risk of deflation has passed; yet it will not dare to take the restrictive policy actions required to quell inflation for fear of disrupting recovery in the labor market. If Ben Bernanke signals to the Obama White House that he will not support the labor market at the price of inflation, I have no doubt he will be replaced by someone else who will.

Donald L. Luskin (don@trendmacro.com) is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics.

Advertisement

NEXT: Your Sad Devotion To That Ancient Religion Hasn't Helped Us Move These Blu-Ray Players Even At 20% Off

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Flat Tax – bring it!

    “The effects of collectivism are inevitably and undeniably destructive.”
    F.A. Hayek

  2. Inflation is one of the stealthiest taxes. A more libertarian government would have the currency pegged to something real it can be redeemed for, or at least have laws limiting the average inflation rate to 0%.

  3. Amen, Profeed! Ban the Fed and the IRS! Re-establish the gold standard! Initiate the flat tax! Invest in gold!

  4. I favor a return to the gold standard.

  5. Flat tax?! How about no tax at all.

  6. What the hell is with that guy’s hair. Use some conditioner for the love of God.

  7. A government gold standard ain’t much better than a government fiat system. A gold standard isn’t proof against inflation, unless you went to 100% reserves. But we don’t have enough gold in the world to cover the monetary supply, so you can’t do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    Free banking is the answer. Get the government OUT of banking, and let a system emerge and evolve from the monetary choices of individuals. Let the market decide, not some anti-social Rothbardian sitting in his mother’s basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.

  8. How about just freeing us from politically induced standards?

    Such standards are illusory referents, as their value is as subject to market forces as any commodity.

  9. “A more libertarian government would have the currency pegged to something real…”

    And a real libertarian government would not presume the right to enforce an absolute monopoly on currency. I don’t trust the government to dictate the price of my bread, so why should I trust it to dictate the value of my money?

  10. Of course a flat tax.
    With a round number.
    ZERO

  11. Anybody who doesn’t think we’ve already baked hyper-inflation into our currency is economically clueless.

  12. A flat tax too?! Can’t you Americans get by just with tire tarriffs?

  13. Never mind. My deputy just explained it to me: “inflation” and “flat”. Very funny.

  14. I think Sting sang it best:

    “History… will teach us nothing.”

    Or maybe it was Ambrose Bierce who said something about children trying to spell “GOD” with all the wrong blocks.

    Anywhoo… no one has a freaking clue. Someone will be right, and it will be of no more value than praising a broken watch for being right twice a day.

    Which is all the more reason to get the government out of trying to regulate the economy.

  15. John Maudlin has done a very excellent series on articles on the inflation/deflation debate

    http://www.2000wave.com/gateway.asp

    Short answer, you’d better hope they can cause inflation, because deflation would have been worse.

    Longer term though, things will have to change. Debts will have to shrink, and savings will have to go up.

    It’s going to be a very tough transition.

  16. Inflation?

    LMFAO at retards like Peter Schit.

    We’ll be lucky if we don’t see 20% more DEFLATION.

    Milk, dairy, natural gas and other consumable commodities are at 10-yr lows.

    The “inflation” town criers are basically opportunistic goldbugs.

  17. We just created an organization to discuss just this! Please visit us at

    http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org

  18. Following Luskin and Schiff’s investment advice is a pretty fast way to go broke.

  19. Milk, dairy, natural gas and other consumable commodities are at 10-yr lows.

    Yet, oddly, with very few exceptions, the rest of the commodities complex are heading up, with some metals (particularly the “bellwether” copper) up pretty sharply.

    There’s a reason why anyone with big dollar reserves is trading them for commodities, especially fuel and metals, as fast as they can. Long-term, the dollar is wrecked.

  20. How long is ‘long term’?

  21. Shrike… I would say that I hope you put your money where your mouth is, and prepare for severe deflation like Krugman is telling you to……. But even idiots deserve some mercy, I suppose.

    In other news silver is up nearly $4 an oz since I bought in… Hooray for that.

  22. Brandybuck:

    so you can’t do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    You mean hyper-*in*flation, right? Because each $ would suddenly be worth a lot fewer grams of gold than it is now.

    not some anti-social Rothbardian sitting in his mother’s basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.

    Interesting you should put it this way since Rothbard was a proponent of free banking, not of a gold standard.

  23. “Brandybuck:

    so you can’t do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    You mean hyper-*in*flation, right? Because each $ would suddenly be worth a lot fewer grams of gold than it is now.”

    No, he had it right… Right now gold is “pegged” at $1000 an oz, let’s say. But if we returned to a gold standard now, and divided the supply of money by the US’ supply of gold, there would be many times more of the amount of dollars per oz. of gold available – much much greater than $1000 per oz.

    A quick googling says the US reserve is 282,191,696 ounces of gold (8,000 tonnes). So if we set a gold standard again, based on the current M2 money supply – $8.2977 Trillion – that would be about $29,404.47 per Ounce of Gold.

    I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but we’re talking about a massive “inflation” of the price in gold.

  24. oh… oi vey… sorry Brandybuck, I think I misread what you’d said. Anyway… There’s some fun math just the same.

  25. The thing that actually really concerns me is that there’s probably no way out of the current financial mess the US is in. Scott Summer takes this Friedman/Schwartz view, which was – as far as I can tell – pretty wrong on the Great Depression in terms of discovering the ultimate causes, and is basically towing the Bernanke line……. It’s shit like that that makes me disillusioned with the Chicago School.

    Anyway, I’ve been thinking about it all a lot lately, and like Peter Schiff, I just don’t see how we’re going to escape significant inflation but worse I don’t see how it’s going to be politically viable to do anything about the debt of the unfunded liabilities.

    To some extent, the only thing I can think to do is just bail and go move somewhere else, renounce or evade future US taxes and try to raise a family someplace that doesn’t think my life belongs to the overlords. There aren’t many really appealing options on the table right now.

  26. “Following Luskin and Schiff’s investment advice is a pretty fast way to go broke.”

    Gold and other precious metals are at an all-time high right now. Mining stocks are profiting well. Anyone who took Schiff’s advice is probably doing great. He is a goldbug, but he’s not a goldbug for no reason whatsoever; I’m pretty sure the deficit spending and quantitative easing of the Federal Reserve might have a lot to do with it.

  27. To some extent, the only thing I can think to do is just bail and go move somewhere else, renounce or evade future US taxes and try to raise a family someplace that doesn’t think my life belongs to the overlords. There aren’t many really appealing options on the table right now.

    I’m going to reiterate this after they pass ObamaCare, but basically This Is America and it’s the Socialists who will have to leave, not me. They can leech off me all they want and I will keep working harder. I will not shug, I will fight to keep this country as free as it can be. There are so many more battles to be fought. Debating is infinitely preferable to despairing. Hold onto your wealth as best you can, but take comfort in the knowledge that wealth is not everything, and in fact you can’t take it with you. The journey is just as important as the destination.

    How’s that for cliche-based wisdom? Hope it helps, nonetheless.

  28. 1) How can an economist who supports a central planning authority to set the price of money be considered a “free-market” economist? Or is Reason using Bush’s definition?

    2) Why is Schiff the only one that makes a distinction between inflation and price inflation?

    3) I don’t know all of the details of Schiff’s investments but I know from reading one of his books that his strategy is very similar to mine and I have been doing very well. I think I may take advantage of volatility more than he does (I don’t know for sure), selling into strength and buying the dips but it would be hard for me to believe Schiff’s clients have lost money if they didn’t liquidate their positions late last year.

    …Rothbardian sitting in his mother’s basement who wants to use the state to impose his ideal of anarchy.

    Huh?

  29. They can leech off me all they want and I will keep working harder.

    Mark, stop by for a beer anytime.

  30. I appreciate the sentiment Mark, and I share it to a large degree, but I don’t see how it’s smart or moral to accept being leeched from. It’s not about money, but about the quality of life I want to provide for myself and my potential family.

    I’m still early in this metaphorical game… I’m 26. I have a lot of life, a lot of social security & FICA, a lot of income tax, a lot of lowered productivity years ahead of me if I stick around and watch this country implode. But worse, I think it’s actually going to be a lot more painful than anyone’s prepared to acknowledge.

    I’m not sure how to solve that problem…

  31. I’m 27, so apparently both of us have a lot left to learn. After this whole health care battle is over, I plan on studying philosophy and history. They assigned me Thucydides in college but I never read it; instead I read Ayn Rand. It had some kind of value for me then, but really I would have rather read something more meaningful, and more useful, like the Tao Te Ching.

    I hope to be ready for any possible implosion, but like I said before, This Is America, and I just don’t see this country going down the proverbial tubes. Things are going to get worse before they get better, but history shows that they always get better.

    Frankly I would not be so invested in debating politics if I wasn’t paying FICA. Now I can, with a straight face, complain that my money is going to GM to buy state-sponsored propaganda during Monday Night Football. And I can find plenty of other people who can appreciate the sentiment. Taxes keep the government accountable, ultimately (which is why I hate inflation, it’s so goddamn sneaky).

  32. Empires rise and Empires fall… Worth checking out and reading upon antiquities historian, John Lewis.

  33. Anyway, I’ve been thinking about it all a lot lately, and like Peter Schiff, I just don’t see how we’re going to escape significant inflation

    In the long run we can’t. In spite of what anyone in the interviews may have said, sooner or later the cat has to get out of the bag. Unless the whole system manages to collapse first, in which case kitty-kitty is muosh.

    but worse I don’t see how it’s going to be politically viable to do anything about the debt of the unfunded liabilities.

    The only thing that will be politically viable is adding to the unfunded liabilities. You remember how California got away with that one.

    There is nowhere else to go. I’ve got (ahem) a few years on you and have been looking for the escape hatch longer than you have. Give it up, you’re here and this is it. When it’s all said and done, people from third world countries would still rather be here, given the chance. Meanwhile, Europe has decided that its own success just isn’t worth anything after all and they wish they could just go back to being a third world rat hole. Which Europe is in the process of doing, and the US seems intent on following a few steps behind.

    My reading of history: the US has survived in the long run only because, every time the government comes up with a way to slam the economy, the economy has managed to grow even faster.

    It’s always been the actual way out, and this time is no different. Maybe we’ll invent nano-fortified, nuclear powered computer-brained cyborg worker beasts that you can grow bazillions of overnight in test tubes, and they’ll just take care of us because that’s what they were grown for and besides their heads are full of software.

    Or maybe we’ll come up with something even better than that.

  34. Donald Luskin? Do you guys have no self respect at all? Why not just grab a random crack whore and see what she thinks? Luskin is a complete moron.

  35. That Ayn Rand comment I made was a bit of a cheap shot. Harry Browne said her books were important to him, so I can’t just dismiss her out of hand. But it’s important to realize that she did not have the Answer to life, only one of many ways to look at it.

  36. Federal Reserve Notes will keep their value as long as the government accepts them as payment for taxes. If it stopped accepting them, and we had to pay our taxes in beaver pelts or other commodities, then the argument our currency’s lack of “backing” would start to make some sense.

  37. @ Scrooge

    The politically viable thing might be to issue more debt, but the bond market won’t/can’t take that much. There’s jut no way the rest of the world is going to finance trillion dollar deficits each year for the next 50 years.

  38. But we don’t have enough gold in the world to cover the monetary supply, so you can’t do it without extreme hyper-deflation.

    What is the downside of hyperdeflation?

  39. “Dr. Deflation” (Martin Weiss) Changes His Mind After 27+ Years

    Dr. Martin Weiss has reversed course. He now thinks price inflation lies ahead.

    This is the equivalent of Steve Jobs announcing: “The future of computing over the next decade is with Microsoft Windows 7.”

    I have waited for this for 27 years. Better late than never.

    Source

  40. What I got out of this article is that even well respected economists don’t have a fucking clue what’s going to happen. These guys were all across the map with their predictions, and had varying explanations for their predictions. What bothers my libertarian sensibilities is that the more Keyensian/Krugman-minded economists seem to have much more detailed explanations for their analyses than the free-market-minded ones do. And everyone one knows the world economy is complicated as hell. I would like my beloved free-market economists to show more details than the obligatory “spending=inflation, Fed” rhetoric. I’m free market to the bone, and it’s discouraging to see our ideas get hammered.

  41. Peter Schiff says: “Almost every dictionary defines inflation as an expansion of the money supply, not rising prices.” Untrue. Inflation is the loss of money’s value compared with the value of goods and services.”

    The value of money is based on supply and demand. Increasing the supply does not cause inflation if the demand (interest rates) increases proportionately.

    Peter Schiff says, “Although more money may not immediately translate into rising prices, over time the correlation is extremely reliable.” Untrue. Look at a graph of inflation vs. M3 growth and you will see there is no historical relationship between M3 growth and inflation. The reason: Money supply is only half the supply/demand story.

    When the Fed gets a whiff of inflation it raises interest rates, which by increasing the demand for money, increases the value of money (i.e. prevent/cure inflation).

    You can read more about this at: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/46/ and http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/is-inflation-too-much-money-chasing-too-few-goods/

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  42. As I read all the bloviating in these essays, my eyes crossed in boredom. I did read all of them, but could have missed what I was primarily looking for (I could not bear to read them a second time).

    While realizing that these writers were trying to be factual, I was hoping to find some reference to the moral issue of the Federal Reserve manipulating what I consider my private property: my money. Why does the libertarian press not discuss the morality of money more often? Would this not put more pressure on politicians and their pet economists to discuss moral issues? I don’t expect this kind of discussion from Fox or MSNBC but I wish they would. I wish everyone would, including Reason.

  43. good,very good post,thanks,it is very useful for me

  44. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke

  45. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp.

  46. Federal Reserve Notes will keep their value as long as the government accepts them as payment for taxes. If it stopped accepting them, and we had to pay our taxes in beaver pelts or other commodities, then the argument our currency’s lack of “backing” would start to make some sense.
    reply to this

  47. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.a6rbna.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.m-arabi.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.