Inflation as Loss Function

Banks create money and then lend it to borrowers. The quality of projects that banks select will cause inflation, stable prices or deflation. The best quality projects would cause productivity to exceed the amount of money created, and so monetary expansion to be deflationary. If projects that banks select just equal the average quality of economic productivity then there will be neither deflation nor inflation. If banks consistently choose projects that are inferior to the average project with respect to productivity then there will be inflation.

This suggests that inflation can be viewed as a quality loss function (see discussion in Taguchi). The target loss should be negative. Economically, diminishing marginal productivity suggests that as more money is created losses will be greater. However, if banks are competently run and have adequate quality processes with respect to project selection, they can offer loans to projects and sustain zero inflation.

The management of banks becomes a critical problem to economic welfare if the banks themselves lack quality management capacity to select loans. This has been the case. It is impossible for outsiders to design quality processes that will improve loan selection because this depends on identification of borrower and project characteristics that are only known to lenders.

There is no literature on selection of entrepreneurial risk by lenders. This is not a topic that academics have treated and it is not a topic that bankers have carefully considered.

As a result of the absence of quality processes in making loans, the financial system has failed to make loans effectively. The current financial process results from quality losses, i.e., the Taguchi loss function among banks is large and so results in bad loans. Consistent inflation since the establishment of the Fed suggests that banks have failed to develop competent quality processes in lending.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that banks have consistently made loans based on incompetent criteria: to large institutions who cannot make good use of the funds; to firms with close connections to the banks and to firms engage in activities that loans other banks are making. This mimetic pattern suggests a financial system that is, in Deming's terms, "out of control". A competently run banking system would permit economic expansion coupled with stable prices.

The banking system requires restructuring to facilitate adoption of competent, quality driven practices with respect to lending. Banks must become competitive. Banks which fail to produce loans that generate net gains to society (i.e., deflationary loans) should be refused access to Federal Reserve bank credit.

Revving Up the Helicopter

Howard S. Katz of the Goldbug.net has published this revised chart of expansion of Federal Reserve Bank Credit. The reserve bank credits increased by another 50% since the last chart. This variable drives the amount of money in circulation in the United States. It is likely that both Barack Obama and John McCain have favored this step although none of the major media has asked or covered this question. If you are eager to pay 30% higher prices in order to subsidize hedge fund, Wall Street and commercial banking lobbies then vote for either candidate. This has nothing to do with regulation, sub-prime mortgages or bail outs. This is classic monetary inflation brought about by irresponsible political leadership.

Evolution of a Bail-Out Opponent: Correspondence with Jim Crum

Prior to 1980 I became interested in the problem of economic decline, especially in New York City, and inflation. I met Howard S. Katz, who interested me in the gold standard around 1979. I lost interest in inflation issues after Reagan's election in 1980. I didn't pay attention because I assumed that the Fed had changed to a monetarist position and so was controlling inflation. Then I learned that "supply side" economics was really just Keynesian economics coupled with tax cutting and the pretense of free market rhetoric (while expanding government you tell everyone you're for small government and it's inevitable and that you can't stop government's growth because of the Democrats, even when the Democrats are a minority). Then I learned that Greenspan was increasing the money supply at better than 8 percent a year over many years. Then I learned that foreigners were monetizing US debt for us, facilitating an extra six or seven years of monetary expansion from 2001-8 but creating the risk of hyper-inflation if the foreigners panic. Then I learned that George W. Bush believes in government. Then I learned that President Bush appointed a Fed chairman who believed that dollars should be spread from a helicopter. Then I learned about the bail out. Then I learned that the Fed increased the money supply by 35% in August and September. I don't have to head for the hills. I already live in the hills, and I have re-habbed my house in the hills!

Jim Crum writes:

This is going to get interesting- fast.

I know our business is feeling it. I have many friends in the trades and that work is coming to a grinding halt in many areas. I am not a fearful man. Yet the signs are very ominous, and it might be too late to bring things under control. To that end, I am of the opinion that things may really deteriorate quickly. Such a surge in cash and a slowing in economic output could lead to really aggressive inflation while wages drop- 1970’s stagflation all over again.

I cannot say, using polite language, how upsetting this is. The rank in competency of those in charge (Congress & Fed) is just short of criminal. With nothing to hold them in check, the last thirty years have been setting us up for a tremendous fall.

Paying For Your Burger With A Wheelbarrow of Cash

I just received the following e-mail from Howard S. Katz, the "Goldbug".

Dear Mitchell,

Sorry to ruin your day, but I just checked out the Federal Reserve Report. They have been increasing Reserve Bank Credit (their portion of the money supply) at a massive rate. It is up 56% in the past 3 weeks. Since the Fed's portion of the money supply is 57%, this computes to a 32% increase in the nation's money supply in 3 weeks (with more to come later when the nation's banks start lending out all those reserves).

John McCain Follows Jimmy Carter

In an e-mailed press release, Andy Martin asks whether George Bush's invitation to Barack Obama to "help solve the financial crisis that is supposedly threatening America" may have been "the biggest blunder in presidential politics since President Jerry Ford in 1976 said Poland was not in the Soviet sphere of influence."

I have been complaining about the Federal Reserve Bank's influence on the economy and the triumph of Keynesian economics among Republicans for the past two or three years, and my old friend Howard S. Katz has been complaining about them for nearly 40 years. The underlying problem with the current financial system is its excessive expansion of credit, which in turn stimulated overly aggressive lending and excessive real estate prices.

The response of conservatives to the crisis reflects what psychologists call perceptual distortion. Distortion occurs when someone feels threatened by information. The person does not hear it or hears it differently.

Conservatives have been reacting to the current decline in real estate prices by saying it is due to Progressive lending programs, which is only partly true. The excessive lending, like the tech bubble, would not have occurred without Republican Federal Reserve monetary policies. When Nixon said that "we are all Keynesians now" he ensured that distortions of this kind would occur over time. It took 37 years, and Howard is to be commended for fighting this fight during the upswing of the Republican Keynesian bubble.

Politicians always try to repeal the laws of economics, and we see the same kind of distortion occurring among Republicans now. One example is the belief that even more inflation, increasing the money supply by one half or $750 billion, would solve the problem. This, of course, begs the question of why the past 75 years of monetary inflation did not solve the "problem". Also, the idea that house prices must always rise was nonsensical when people were saying it in the '80s, '90s and '00s. Now that it is turning out to have been false all along, politicians and conservatives argue that there is a CRISIS.

The correction of real estate prices will causes losses among those who paid too much, just as the tech bubble of 1999 caused losses. Rather than confront the excesses and incompetence of the Federal Reserve Bank as an institution, conservatives, along with the Progressive media, frame this as a CRISIS. A CRISIS.

Martin points out that Obama has been making political hay out of Bush and McCain's naive invitation:

"Obama will have attained the last stop on his self-referential crusade by being accepted at the White House as a statesman and dealmaker. Good grief."

The invitation is symptomatic of incompetence at the apex of the Republican hierarchy that is philosophical as well as political. Lacking a truthful model of what Federal Reserve Bank monetary expansion over the past 40 years has done to the economy, the Republicans fall into the same pattern that Jimmy Carter did in the late 1970s when he listened to the Progressive economists of the Brookings Institution who claimed that inflation helps the poor and working classes because they hold more debt than the wealthy. This claim overlooked historical and dynamic realities. In particular, monetary expansion boosts the stock market, helping the wealthy. Inflation comes several years later and will not show up in cross sectional or even three-year-lagged correlations between monetary expansion and wealth. The gains that the middle class enjoys due to inflation are entirely attributable to increasing house prices and so are difficult to extract except through debt (or becoming homeless), which requires a riskier profile than many people prefer. Neverthelss, debt and inflation have become national habits, creating a stress-and-risk profile that frustrates many Americans, even as they consume on credit. Moreover, much of the gain from house prices is eroded through increasing repair, insurance and property tax costs.

Older Americans are forced to give up their homes because of such costs, and many are forced into poverty in order to continue to live in their homes. Economists treat increasing house prices as wealth gains, but such gains come at the costs of increased risk.

Equally, such gains come at the expense of other Americans. In order to gain due to house prices, Americans must ultimately sell their homes to new buyers, and those buyers must pay much higher prices. Thus, higher house prices mean that new buyers cannot afford homes equal to what they once could. My students will not share in the American dream if the current Republican administration has its way. On paper Americans seem to become wealthier, but what has occurred is a transfer of wealth from buyers to sellers, and the sellers often do not want to sell but have to because they would forced into eating cat food otherwise. Moreover, they cannot enjoy their "wealth" because doing so involves increasing stress due to borrowing or selling. Thus, inflation destroys community. It pits one generation against the other, it forces people to leave their homes and it prevents children from remaining in the communities in which they grew up.

The lag between monetary expansion and price inflation prevents economists from detecting monetary expansion's relationship to income inequality. Hedge funds have obtained capital and made profit through monetary expansion. That wealth is attributable to future inflation. Demand for resources increases prices in later periods, when average Americans foot the bill for the hedge fund managers' profits. In order to see this you need a multi-decade view. The methodologies that economists use look at single years at a time and relate same-period phenomena (inflation in this period versus house price in this period), but the process takes decades to unfold. However, left wing writers such as William Greider in his book "Secrets of the Temple" about the Fed, were happy to make the nonsense claim that inflation helps the poor. Greider can be excused because he was basing this argument on academic studies. But how wrong can academics be before we conclude that they are simply quacks and then move on?

Unfortunately, today's conservatives have bought into the Keynesian model, which is now going to turn out to be suicidal for them. They are following the path of Jimmy Carter.

I would urge a return to monetary conservatism, the gold standard, and a Great Awakening from Republicans' Keynesian slumber.

Petition to Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank

I just received an e-mail from Ron Holland concerning a petition to abolish the Federal Reserve Bank. I have signed it and have forwarded Ron's e-mail to several friends. Ron's e-mail reads:

>"The Federal Reserve Has Created the Risk of a Global Depression!

>"Please sign, publish or forward our Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

to all your pro-freedom friends and associates. The collapsing dollar, exploding oil and food prices, falling housing market, the subprime mortgage and growing credit crisis and stock market weakness are all a result of earlier Federal Reserve actions designed to maximize Wall Street and banking profits at the expense of productive, working people around the world."

http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

The Central Economic Question of Our Time Is Monetary

Dinocrat points out that emerging market nations now export and import to and from each other as much as they do to and from the United States and Europe. Dinocrat suggests that multilateral trade will lead to increased commodity prices if the US and Europe are in recession because the third world will continue to demand commodities given that their economies are independent of the first world's.

The increase in commodity prices is due not just to real demand for commodities but, more importantly, to monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank. Monetary expansion (the Federal Reserve Bank's and the banking system's printing of new dollars) escalated when Richard M. Nixon abolished the gold standard for international dollar holders in 1971. The Federal Reserve Bank has increased the number of dollars in circulation by something in the area of 8 percent per year since then.

Until recently, this generous dollar inflation has not translated into higher prices for three reasons. First, the Department of Labor began excluding increases in home prices from their price inflation statistic, the consumer price index, in the early 1980s, and a significant share of the price inflation went into home prices. Second, international investors have held the majority of dollars. Approximately ten dollars are held internationally for every dollar held in the United States. The expansion of international holdings of dollars has permitted low interest rates to be coupled with relatively low price inflation. Should the international dollar holders decide to sell, there could be hyper-inflation in the United States, resulting in much increased commodity and general price inflation.

The recent increase in commodity prices is not especially long in the tooth. We could see much greater inflation in the coming years if global dollar holders decide to sell.

Third, Howard S. Katz has argued, convincingly, that the low commodity prices of the 1990s were attributable to the Greenspan Fed's high rate of monetary inflation. The initial effect of the Greenspan Fed's monetary expansion since the Reagan era was to reduce interest rates. The low interest rates led to an expansion of commodity production because miners and other commodity producers could borrow and so expand their production. The expanded production led to price competition in the 1990s, which in turn led to low commodity prices and low inflation. However, the producers closed their doors because of the lower prices. Mines and farms became less profitable. However, the monetary expansion has led to continued increased demand. It will take time before the mines can reopen, and therefore commodity price inflation will continue for several years.

As well, the Fed lent money to real estate developers who developed farm land. When President Bush pushed through the ethanol policy that increased demand for corn, farm land that had been previously available for farming was no longer available because it had been developed into shopping malls, residential housing and related real estate investments. This has been true globally as nations like China have also inflated their money supplies, malinvesting artificial, central bank-created money into real estate and reducing the amount of farm land available. Thus, the recent food, metals, energy and other commodity shortages are interrelated, and they are the result of the Greenspan Fed's and third world central banks' policies.

In order for commodity prices to fall, new commodity production will need to reopen. However, there is a multi-year lag because it is expensive and difficult to re-open mines once closed. In the case of agriculture, it is prohibitively expensive to reclaim farm land that has been converted into homes that cost six figures apiece.

If the recent secular upward trend in commodity prices were merely due to demand for specific commodities in the third world, increases in one commodity's price would be offset by reduced demand for that commodity. This is true whether third world nations trade with themselves, with the US or with the man in the moon. When all commodities go up in tandem the reason is that central bankers have increased the money supply.

One of the key effects of monetary inflation has been increasing asset values. Thus, the increases in the stock market since 1981 have been attributable to the same Federal Reserve policies that caused the post-2000 real estate bubble, the hedge fund and private equity boom, increased starvation in the the third world, and flat real wages among US workers (due to price inflation).

These ideas are expressed in the writings of Ludwig von Mises and in Howard S. Katz's Paper Aristocracy. In order to end price inflation, the Federal Reserve's monetary expansion (reduction of interest rates below their market level) would need to be ended. Because the stock and real estate markets depend on the wealth transfer that the Federal Reserve effects, this is unlikely to happen unless the public demands a metallic standard, a gold standard. Inflation will exist as will food shortages and third world (if not first world) starvation as long as the Fed transfers wealth to wealthy borrowers from wage earners.