Saturday, May 29, 2010

Where or Where Did the Money Supply Go?

The graphs on the left  and right (may show as lower left and upper right) are courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank. The graph on your left is of M-1, the supply of cash and checking accounts or demand deposits. As you can see, the uptrend since 1975 (actually the uptrend begins with the founding of the Fed) was sharp, but it increased even more in 2008.  The graph on your right is of the monetary base.  The monetary base is the cash and deposits in banks that the Fed has created out of thin air.  Banks lend the reserves to borrowers so that the money supply is a multiple of the monetary base.  It is not true that the entire money supply is based on debt, but government debt is used as the means by which the monetary base is increased. The Fed buys treasury bonds from money center commercial banks, creating the money to buy the bonds out of thin air. The banking system then lends up to ten times the deposit.  It is able to do this because only a small percentage of cash on deposit is redeemed each day.  Thus, the entire monetary system is based on counterfeit.  The Fed counterfeits the new reserves and the banking system counterfeits loans.

When the United States was at its greatest there was no Federal Reserve Bank. Immigrants, including my great grandparents and grandparents, came here to escape monarchical and socialistic Europe. Innovation increased at an increasing rate.  The possibilities for America seemed endless. The fly in the ointment was that there was deflation during this period. The deflation lasted for 30 years in the late 19th century.  Deflation means that prices are going down.  When you go to the supermarket you pay less this week than you paid last week.  Most of us benefit from lower prices, hence we are better off because of deflation. 

However, four groups do not benefit from deflation: (a) stock speculators (b) real estate speculators (c) profit seeking business (d) banks and other financial institutions.  Stock speculators do not benefit because lower prices mean lower profits and therefore lower stock prices. However, the loans borrowed to purchase the stocks have to be paid in more valuable dollars.  Real estate speculators do not benefit from deflation because lower prices mean that real estate prices fall. However, the loans borrowed to purchase the real estate also have to be paid in more valuable dollars.  Profit seeking business dislikes deflation because profits decline because of the lower prices.  Banks dislike deflation because there is less money available to counterfeit (because the cause of the deflation is a contracting money supply).

The founding fathers were split on this subject.  The friends of the farmer and working man, Jefferson, Sam Adams, other anti-Federalists and many of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans were opposed to inflation. Hamilton and other Federalists who believed in strong government, socialism and subsidization of business and banking, favored inflation. As well, the US financed the Revolutionary War through inflationary means, the Continental.  However, it was evident from that experience that inflation harmed the average person.

The central bank was abolished in the 1830s, but in order to finance the Civil War paper money was introduced.  The result was a post-Civil War inflation.  In stopping the inflation and recalling the greenbacks the US government committed what Milton Friedman has called the "crime of 1873".  Instead of introducing a bi-metallic standard a pure gold standard was introduced.  This led to the deflation of the next three decades, during which there were several "depressions".  It is important to understand, though, that the deflation and the depressions were highly beneficial to the average American.  Most Americans were far, far better off in 1900 than they were in 1873.  David Ames Wells, author of Recent Economic Changes in 1889 observed that the real wage had doubled in about 40 years.

However, several groups were unhappy.  Not surprisingly, they were the same groups who benefit from inflation today: real estate speculators, stock speculators, bankers and business owners.  Although the business community was unhappy with deflation, it was the period of greatest innnovation in the history of the world. Inventions like wireless, television and radio, that are still motivating progress now, were conceptualized in that period. Wells lists hundreds of inventions and commercial improvements that had been made in the USA. The names of Kettering, Edison, and Tesla were only the impressive tip of a massive iceberg of innovation, dwarfing the level of innovation that has occurred in our lifetime.  As Wells points out, the stimulus for the innovation was the deflation that forced businesses to compete.

After 1913, the process went into reverse.  The Fed created paper money inflation from its inception.  The booms and busts were far worse and far more dramatic than the mild depressions that occurred in the late 19th century.  Starting in the 1970s the real hourly wage started to decline for the first time in American history.  However, Wall Street's power began growing coincidentally with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.  All that counterfeit monety available for stock investments to wealthy borrowers.

Beginning in the 1930s, the Wall Street, banker, real estate and business elite (which has increasingly become a Wall Street elite) began to take control of universities.  This was done via John Maynard Keynes's economic theories, which became dominant. Keynes's theories were not at all new.  They were just a rehash of ideas that David Hume and other mercantilists had advocated and that Hamilton advocated in the 18th century, copying Hume's ideas directly in his argument for a central bank. However, what was new in Keynesian economics was the emphasis on mathematical models and econometrics, all of which turned out to be wrong.  Almost all who disagreed with the mercantilist/Federalist/Whig model of economics, the claim that monetary creation would spur growth, were banished from universities.  The socialistic Whig ideology even reached unrelated fields like psychology.

By the 1970s the Keynesian model turned out to be wrong.  Its major predictions had been contradicted by evidence.  However, economists clung loyally to the Whig model.  Of course, the fact that investment and commercial banks donated to the universities at which they taught had little to do with it, at least according to them.

The outcome of the commitment to Keynesian economics is the exact reverse of the outcome to the Democratic and then Republican Party philosophy of the 19th century.  Whereas profits were flagging and Wall Street was weakening in the 19th century, whereas real wages were growing in the 19th century, in the 20th century real hourly wages began to decline in the 1970s and have, after 40 years, remained flat.  However, the stock market, real estate prices, banking profits, government employment and corporate profits have all exploded.

Jim Crum sent me a link to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's UK Telegraph article about the US money supply, which claims that the US money supply has plunged (see above graphs).  The government stopped publishing the M3 monetary statistic several years ago, but the article attributes the statistic to an unnamed conspiracy of  "British and European monetarists." Evans-Pritchard claims that M3 has plunged (look at the graph of M1 above) and that Larry Summers and other incompetent economists claim that the trillion dollars that was spent by government last year was not enough (it failed to reduce unemployment) and that additional wasteful spending is needed.

Note that the difference between M1 and M3 has little to do with expanding the monetary base or M1, as the article claims (were the government to expand the money supply, as Mr. Congdon states in the article, it would be M1, not M3).  The difference between M1 and M3 is easy to find on Wikipedia.  M3 includes savings and time deposits whereas M1 excludes them but includes checking accounts, cash, and travelers' checks.  Thus, the massive increase in M1's being offset by an even more massive decline in savings accounts seems unlikely, but even if it has occurred the explanation is likely that more people are living off their savings because of higher prices (despite bogus inflation numbers showing near zero inflation, not deflation as occurred in the 1930s) and because of the unemployment that is higher now after a trillion dollars in the moronic, failed "stimulus" that Mr. Summers and President Obama squandered last year and resulted in seasonally unadjusted unemployment's rising to just under ten percent. 

As I have pointed out recently, banking interests have a taste for government debt, for they profit handsomely from the sale of government bonds.  Thus, Mr. Summers and his coterie of Wall Street water boys in Washington are eager to waste more money at your grandchildren's expense.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Has the Obama Administration Turned Government Statistics into Soviet-Style Propaganda?

Right Wing News (h/t Larwyn's Links) discusses a New York Post article that claims that the Census Bureau has engaged in considerable fudging of its employment roll.  The Bureau hires people and then fires them after only a few hours work, then hires a replacement, then fires the replacement after a few hours, etc.  The churning of employment has, according to the article, potentially bloated the US Department of Labor's employment data. Thus, the Obama administration may have significantly distorted the non-seasonally adjusted 9.9% unemployment reported last month. John Crudele of the Post writes:

"Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs...Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month...One hour! A month! So, if a worker is terminated after only one hour and another is hired in her place, then a second new job can apparently be reported to Labor . (I've been unable to get Census to explain this to me.)

I used to think that government statistics are accurate, even sacrosanct.  There have been increasing numbers of questions about inflation data.  For instance, the exclusion of house costs reduced the stated inflation rate from the early 1980s until the housing price collapse, when some pundits started to suggest that house prices should be included in the inflation rate.  It is not clear how quality adjustments are integrated into the inflation rate.  Nor is it clear how the size of a given product influences it.  For example, for the past 10 years or so I haven't bothered with a big charcoal grill, just purchasing a small hibachi from Wal-Mart.  Until recently they were about $20, but this year it was $25.  But the quality had been significantly reduced. It is much less steady and the materials used are cheaper.  Were those changes included in the inflation rate?

Increasingly government data seems like propaganda.  The Census Bureau's manipulation of the unemployment rate suggests that the Obama administration does not shy from the use of official information for propagandistic purposes.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Is This the End of the Whigs?

In March 2009, 14 months ago, the Wall Street Journal announced that Obama's popularity had fallen faster than George W. Bush's had fallen in 2001 and that his net presidential approval (strong approval less strong disapproval) had fallen to only six percent.

In April Jesse Walker of Reason Magazine reported that the Rasmussen poll had found that Ron Paul's popularity among likely voters was within one percent of Obama's, 42% to 41%. Since Paul's name recognition is worse (Obama is a sitting president who has been trumpeted by the Wall Street media for the past 2 1/2 years) a run would likely increase Paul's advantage so long as he stays away from conspiracy theories and the like.  Thus, it may be that Paul can beat Obama.

Today, the Rasmussen Tracking Poll (h/t Glenda McGee) finds that only 24% of voters strongly approve of the way that Obama is performing his role, compared to 44% who strongly disapprove. Thus, in 14 months Obama's net approval rating has fallen from the measly six percent in March 2009 to -20%. Moreover, only 42% somewhat approve or better and 56% disapprove.  As well, only 27% of the public has faith in Congress.

Given that Mr. Obama has blown his popularity, and that voters are now closer to my initial reaction to him, can we hope for better?

I fear the answer is no. The United States public does not understand the nation's values, specifically the ideals of freedom, limited government, decentralization and individualism. Nor do any of the Republican frontrunners save Paul understand the word "freedom" the way that Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson understood it. At best, television announcers, including those on Fox, are Hamiltonian Federalists or Progressives. The Democrats are as authoritarian as any European national socialist.  The public that supports the Democratic Party is so poorly educated (or rather indoctrinated, for American education is little more than Progressive indoctrination) that they do not know how deviant from Jefferson their ideas are.

Nor does the public understand what it would mean to live free of government intervention and welfare. When my great grandparents and grandparents fled monarchical Europe to come to this country, it was still free. Today, I think the countries from which they emigrated, Hungary, Poland and Russia, are almost as free as the United States.  As John Lukacs has claimed, the entire world has become committed to national socialism, the system of Adolph Hitler and the Swedes.
The source of the increasing tyranny here is the two party system.  The founders did not believe in political parties, but two parties, the pro-freedom party of Samuel Adams and the big government party of Hamilton, formed in the debate over the Constitution.  Hamilton, John Adams and their party, the Federalists, won the debate with the libertarians, the anti-Federalists.  But their authoritarian socialism, their suppression of free speech and the financial speculation, high taxes and corruption associated with their central bank led to their banishment. James Madison switched from the Federalists to Jefferson's Democratic Republicans. As well, internecine squabbles between Adams and Hamilton contributed to the end of the Federalists.
There was as a result only one party, the Democratic Republicans, from 1800 to the 1820s.  Thereafter, Andrew Jackson renewed the anti-Federalist mindset,  although he believed in a strong presidency and stopped South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification. In doing so he established that states' rights did not extend to  nullifying trariffs and by implication to secede.  Nevertheless, he opposed the central bank.

The two parties thus reappeared with the rise of Jackson.  Henry Clay founded the Whigs in response to the libertarianism of Jackson's Democrats.  Abraham Lincoln was Clay's admirer and protege. Henry Clay and the Whigs reinvented the Federalist viewpoint and the party included a number of former Federalists. The Whigs believed in the American System, a big government program consisting of tariffs, road and canal building, a central bank and corporate enterprise.   The Democrats believed in hard money and competition.  The two parties were largely a product of the persistent debate between those who advocate state activism and support for the rich, and those who advocate freedom and small, competitive business.

The Republican Party grew out of the Whigs.  They would have liked to establish a central bank but knew that such a move would have been unpopular. The Democrats had been discredited at the federal level because of their role in the Civil War. But the Democrats' corrupt machines dominated local elections, especially in the cities, and in the South.

By 1896 the Democrats had rejected their belief in hard money in favor of populism. This occurred as big business interests subsidized local Democratic politicians.  Railroads needed local rights of way as did Standard Oil for its pipelines.  The growth of big business was associated with increasing Democratic  corruption in the states.  The Democratic politician most famous for corruption in the Gilded Age, Boss Tweed, was bailed out of jail by Jay Gould, one of the biggest and most corrupt of the "robber barons."

In response to the corruption of government at the state level, and to the ideology of social Darwinism with which late nineteenth century Republican intellectuals like William Graham Sumner were associated, Progressivism became the dominant Republican ideology in the 1890s.  Progressivism based its ideas on the odd belief, still advocated by Democrats and Progressive Republicans today, that if regulation fails, add regulation; if government is corrupt, make it bigger; and if government does not work, spending more on government will work.  Progressive Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt showed that populist views could be combined with elitism.  This idea was pushed further by the Democratic Party via William Jennings Bryan and then Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Thus, the Democrats adopted the Whig perspective, big government, support for the rich and socialism, with a twist.  Instead of saying that their big government policies would rationalize government and the corporatist system and support the rich, they claimed that they opposed corporations and favored the poor while at the same time quietly subsidizing the same corporations that they claimed to oppose.  They could count on the stupidity of the American public and the mild complexity of the banking system to fool the American public into accepting that abolition of the gold standard and putting the money supply into the hands of the banks helped them and not the banks.

Since the 1890s the two party system has evolved into a one party system. This occurred because of the inability of the Americans who still understood the concept of freedom to articulate their vision in response to Keynesian economics and the Democratic Party's propaganda.  Thus, the GOP, with the exception of Barry Goldwater and those like him, gradually became the has-been Whig Party, while the Democrats with their Roman-style bread and circus routine became the new Whig Party.  Today, we have one party, the Whig Party, comprised of moderate Whigs, the Republicans, and extreme Whigs, the Democrats.

The American public understands that life has gotten worse under the Whigs.  There is less freedom and today many Americans are forced to work two or three jobs in order to experience an increasing standard of living, whereas in the past one job was enough.  Yet, despite the failure of the American economy to create sustainable, innovative growth, the public continues to be bamboozled.  Perhaps it is force of habit. Whatever the reason, Americans remain committed to the corrupt, failed two party system that in reality is a single party, the pro-banker Whig Party.
Will Americans wake up to the failure of the two party system in the face of President Obama's failure?  Or will they continue to vote for Whigs and Wall Street stock jobbers who have destroyed the American dream?  Will stupidity continue to prevail as it has over the past 75 years?

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Politics Has Two Purposes

I just received this e-mail from Andrew Matthews of the Capital District Tea Party.

Dear Professor Langbert,

I am a member of the Capital Dist. Tea Party Patriots and while checking on Rhinebeck area Teaparty movement I came across your name and decided to read your Blog.  I usually do not like the term "expert" mostly used by reporters.  But I am really proud to say that you really are an expert on what you write!

I came from India in 1973 and on the very first day in the country, after watching the evening news (October 1st, 1973) I decided to be a strong critic of America's mainstream press because of the "America hatred" I sensed in their report.  They have been highly successful in turning the entire country against Republicans and our free-market system because of the only one sinner in America at that time - Richard Nixon! I have been a peaceful political activist ever since.

I have seven blogs which have not been updated lately because of lack of time. is one of them.

If you ever decide to run for any national political office you can count on my vote.  Keep up the great work.

May I also give you one of my quotes?  Years ago I was trying to explain to plain average people what POLITICS is all about and why every one has a personal interest in taking part in it.  Finally I came up with the following truth.  

"POLITICS has only two purposes, (1) To protect what you have and (2) To TAKE what other have!"

At the core anything else humans do we can detect either of these two motives.  If you are running for any office please make this your clarion call!


Letter to Michael Moore: Please Be Transparent

Dear Mike:  Have you published a list of the sources of your financing of all your film and journalistic ventures since the beginning of your career?  As well, have you published a list of the individuals with whom you negotiated in obtaining distribution for Roger and Me and other of your films?

If not, I would appreciate it if you could publish such a list.  Just as business ventures are expected to have a sufficient degree of ethics to make their balance sheets and profit-and-loss statements public, so should you have the ethics to publish those with whom you have done business and the sources of your financing.


Mitchell Langbert