Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Debt’

JP Morgan Chase for Dummies

May 11, 2012 Leave a comment

-

Breaking News:

JP Morgan sent out a notice at 4:30 p.m. that it would be holding a conference call at 5 p.m. which will include CEO James Dimon.

At the conference call, as reported by WSJ, Jamie announced that the the largest US bank has “taken $2 billion in trading losses in the past six weeks and could face an additional $1 billion in second-quarter losses due to market volatility”.

Here’s a Dummy trying to make sense of Wallstreet speak.

The losses stemmed from derivatives bets gone wrong in the bank’s Chief Investment Office, a part of the corporate branch of the bank that manages risk… Jamie announced.

So they lost $2 billion in 6 weeks and possibly another $1 billion over the next month. But what exactly are these derivative bets? Isn’t betting associated with gambling? Did the largest bank in the US take some of their bailout money, went gambling and now calling a press conference to announce their losses?

Mr. Dimon said the so-called synthetic hedge, using insurance-like contracts known as credit-default swaps, was “poorly executed” and “poorly monitored.” He said the bank has an extensive review underway of what went wrong, and that there were “many errors,” “sloppiness” and “bad judgment” on the bank’s part.

Ah… it’s not gambling, it’s actually a “synthetic hedge”. But I don’t even understand what’s a hedge, never mind the difference between synthetic and real! All I know up to this point is they lost big time through derivatives bets, which is a synthetic hedge, also known as credit-default-swaps. That’s quite a mouthful for a mere mortal.

What then are these credit-default swaps?

I know what’s a swap. You give me something, I give you another. But they’re  swapping “credit-default” for something else? That sounds like a weird thing to be swapping. Fortunately I have good ole Wikipedia to the rescue:

A credit default swap (CDS) is a financial swap agreement that the seller of the CDS will compensate the buyer in the event of a loan default or other credit event. The buyer of the CDS makes a series of payments (the CDS “fee” or “spread”) to the seller and, in exchange, receives a payoff if the loan defaults.

Oh, how could I have missed something so obvious! Didn’t Mr. Dimon say it’s an “insurance-like” contract? Now I get it, so I’ll just call it an insurance. JP Morgan sells insurance and receives an insurance premium. It works something like this: You lend me money, then buy an insurance policy from JPM saying that if I fail to repay your loan when it becomes due, they will pay you for the sum insured.

But insurance companies do payouts all the time. What’s the big deal? Then I recall that when there’s a major disaster - like the recent Christchurch earthquake, the payout was so big that AMI, the insurer, went under and had to be bailed out by the government to the tune of NZ$1 billion.

Now it begins to make sense why the conference call was made in such a haste. I recall that Greece defaulted in their debt triggering a payout around a figure of $3.5 billion, and I know JP Morgan is one of the major insurers and major holders of other types of “insurance contracts” collectively known as OTC Derivatives.

But how big exactly is JPM’s potential liability to these kinds of bets?

According to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), which is the Central Bank of all national Central Banks, the total outstanding OTC Derivatives is $708 Trillion. Of this total notional amount,

  • 67% are interest rate contracts,
  • 8% are credit default swaps (CDS), 
  • 9% are foreign exchange contracts,
  • 2% are commodity contracts,
  • 1% are equity contracts, and
  • 12% are others.

Since CDS makes up only 8% of the total OTC Derivatives, and a relatively minor default by Greece caused such a significant loss for JPM, imagine what will happen to JPM and the likes of JPM when the other PIGS countries ( Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) actually go into default. Also imagine what will happen when the interest rate contracts, comprising the bulk of OTC Derivatives actually triggered?

There must be good reasons why derivatives are referred to as Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  Trying to time the explosion or implosion of this WMD is futile. Preparing for its consequences is vital. Take a look at the chart below, and see if you can spot where in this crazy world of finance is the safest place to be.

Mouse over each bar for details. Click to read data source

JP Morgan CDS OTC Derivatives

Updates:

-

Can you spot the Bubble(s)?

May 9, 2012 2 comments

-

With gold and silver gradually heading south since leap day, many PMs investors are beginning to get cold feet.  Then we have, over the weekend Charlie Munger, Berkshire Hathaway’s No.2 commenting that “civilized people don’t buy gold”. Not surprising – why would anyone bother since “gold is a barbaric relic” anyway.  And with Bill Gates saying he’s in the same camp with Buffett & Munger, are we missing something?

Today, GATA posted an “encouragement from Embry and Sinclair”, while Jim Sinclair wrote in his “Answering The Cries For Help” email despatch:

Today has been interesting in a perverse way. I have heard from every gold short who knows my name. I have heard from every weak gold holder that knows my name yelling for help. This time I cannot answer all the incoming communications. Nobody could.

A month ago I got over 3500 incoming emails in less than three hours. The shorts exulting by email really cannot expect an answer. Even the weak gold and frustrated gold share holders cannot expect me to assuage their pain one at a time. ..

It sure does look or sound scary out there. If I were a PMs investor, I’d probably be among the first to heed Sinclair’s advise “If you cannot stand the heat you must get out of the kitchen”.

But if you’re not investing in gold or silver, merely holding them as a form of currency, there’s really no need to panic. Take a minute to study the chart below. It puts things into perspective. And while you’re at it, try to see if you can spot a bubble or two!

-

Perspective: The BIG Picture
Mouse over each bar for details. Click on bars for data source.

Why did Buffet, Munger & Gates say what they said? The answer is in this video.

-

Sources:

?modestbranding=1

If you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur

May 6, 2012 Leave a comment

Robert Wenzel: Economic Policy Journal

My Speech Delivered at the New York Federal Reserve Bank

At the invitation of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, I spoke and had lunch in the bank’s Liberty Room. Below are my prepared remarks.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak here at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Intellectual discourse is, of course, extraordinarily valuable in reaching truth. In this sense, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my views on the economy and monetary policy and how they may differ with those of you here at the Fed.

That said, I suspect my views are so different from those of you here today that my comments will be a complete failure in convincing you to do what I believe should be done, which is to close down the entire Federal Reserve System

My views, I suspect, differ from beginning to end. From the proper methodology to be used in the science of economics, to the manner in which the macro-economy functions, to the role of the Federal Reserve, and to the accomplishments of the Federal Reserve, I stand here confused as to how you see the world so differently than I do.

I simply do not understand most of the thinking that goes on here at the Fed and I do not understand how this thinking can go on when in my view it smacks up against reality.

Please allow me to begin with methodology, I hold the view developed by such great economic thinkers as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard that there are no constants in the science of economics similar to those in the  physical sciences.

In the science of physics, we know that water freezes at 32 degrees. We can predict with immense accuracy exactly how far a rocket ship will travel filled with 500 gallons of fuel. There is preciseness because there are constants, which do not change and upon which equations can be constructed..

There are no such constants in the field of economics since the science of economics deals with human action, which can change at any time. If potato prices remain the same for 10 weeks, it does not mean they will be the same the following day. I defy anyone in this room to provide me with a constant in the field of economics that has the same unchanging constancy that exists in the fields of physics or chemistry.

And yet, in paper after paper here at the Federal Reserve, I see equations built as though constants do exist. It is as if one were to assume a constant relationship existed between interest rates here and in Russia and throughout the world, and create equations based on this belief and then attempt to trade based on these equations. That was tried and the result was the blow up of the fund Long Term Capital Management, a blow up that resulted in high level meetings in this very building.

It is as if traders assumed a given default rate was constant for subprime mortgage paper and traded on that belief. Only to see it blow up in their faces, as it did,  again, with intense meetings being held in this very building.

Yet, the equations, assuming constants, continue to be published in papers throughout the Fed system. I scratch my head.

I also find curious the general belief in the Keynesian model of the economy that somehow results in the belief that demand drives the economy, rather than production. I look out at the world and see iPhones, iPads, microwave ovens, flat screen televisions, which suggest to me that it is production that boosts an economy. Without production of these things and millions of other items, where would we be? Yet, the Keynesians in this room will reply, “But you need demand to buy these products.” And I will reply, “Do you not believe in supply and demand? Do you not believe that products once made will adjust to a market clearing price?”

Further , I will argue that the price of the factors of production will adjust to prices at the consumer level and that thus the markets at all levels will clear. Again do you believe in supply and demand or not?

I scratch my head that somehow most of you on some academic level believe in the theory of supply and demand and how market setting prices result, but yet you deny them in your macro thinking about the economy.

You will argue with me that prices are sticky on the downside, especially labor prices and therefore that you must pump money to get the economy going. And,  I will look on in amazement as your fellow Keynesian brethren in the government create an environment  of sticky non-downward bending wages.

The economist  Robert Murphy reports that President  Herbert Hoover continually pressured businessmen to not lower wages.[1]

He quoted Hoover in a speech delivered to a group of businessmen:

In this country there has been a concerted and determined effort  on the part of government and business… to prevent any reduction in wages.

He then reports that FDR actually outdid Hoover by seeking to “raise wages rates rather than merely put a floor under them.”

I ask you, with presidents actively conducting policies that attempt to defy supply and demand and prop up wages, are you really surprised that wages were sticky downward during the Great Depression?

In present day America, the government focus has changed a bit. In the new focus, the government  attempts much more to prop up the unemployed by extended payments for not working. Is it really a surprise that unemployment is so high when you pay people not to work.? The 2010 Nobel Prize was awarded to economists for their studies which showed that, and I quote from the Nobel press release announcing the award:

One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times.[2]

Don’t you think it would make more sense to stop these policies which are a direct factor in causing unemployment, than to add to the mess and devalue the currency by printing more money?

I scratch my head that somehow your conclusions about unemployment are so different than mine  and that you call for the printing of money to boost “demand”. A call, I add, that since the founding of the Federal Reserve has resulted in an increase of the money supply by 12,230%.

I also must scratch my head at the view that the Federal Reserve should maintain a stable price level. What is wrong with having falling prices across the economy, like we now have in the computer sector, the flat screen television sector and the cell phone sector? Why, I ask, do you want stable prices? And, oh by the way, how’s that stable price thing going for you here at the Fed?

Since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241% [3]. that’s not me misspeaking, I will repeat, since the start of the Fed, prices have increased at the consumer level by 2,241%.

So you then might tell me that stable prices are only a secondary goal of the Federal Reserve and that your real goal is to prevent serious declines in the economy but, since the start of the Fed, there have been 18 recessions including the Great Depression and the most recent Great Recession. These downturns  have resulted in stock market crashes, tens of  millions of unemployed and untold business bankruptcies.

I scratch my head and wonder how you think the Fed is any type of success when all this has occurred.

I am especially confused, since Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), developed by Mises, Hayek and Rothbard, has warned about all these things. According to ABCT, it is central bank money printing that causes the business cycle and, again you here at the Fed have certainly done that by increasing the money supply. Can you imagine the distortions in the economy caused by the Fed by this massive money printing?

According to ABCT, if you print money those sectors where the money goes  will boom, stop printing and those sectors will crash. Fed printing tends to find its way to Wall Street and other capital goods sectors first, thus it is no surprise to Austrian school economists that the crashes are most dramatic in these sectors, such as the stock market and real estate sectors. The economist Murray Rothbard in his book America’s Great Depression [4] went into painstaking detail outlining how the changes in money supply growth resulted in the Great Depression.

On a more personal level, as the recent crisis was developing here, I warned throughout the summer of 2008 of the impending crisis. On July 11, 2008 at EconomicPolicyJournal.com, I wrote[5]:

SUPER ALERT: Dramatic Slowdown In Money Supply Growth

After growing at near double digit rates for months, money growth has slowed dramatically. Annualized money growth over the last 3 months is only 5.2%. Over the last two months, there has been zero growth in the M2NSA money measure.This is something that must be watched carefully. If such a dramatic slowdown continues, a severe recession is inevitable.

We have never seen such a dramatic change in money supply growth from a double digit climb to 5% growth. Does Bernanke have any clue as to what the hell he is doing?

On July 20, 2008, I wrote [6]:

I have previously noted that over the last two months money supply has been collapsing. M2NSA has gone from double digit growth to nearly zero growth .

A review of the credit situation appears worse. According to recent Fed data, for the 13 weeks ended June 25, bank credit (securities and loans) contracted at an annual rate of 7.9%.

There has been a minor blip up since June 25 in both credit growth and M2NSA, but the growth rates remain extremely slow.

If a dramatic turnaround in these numbers doesn’t happen within the next few weeks, we are going to have to warn of a possible Great Depression style downturn.

Yet, just weeks before these warnings from me, Chairman Bernanke, while the money supply growth was crashing, had a decidedly much more optimistic outlook, In a speech on June 9, 2008, At the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s 53rd Annual Economic Conference [7], he said:
I would like to provide a brief update on the outlook for the economy and policy, beginning with the prospects for growth.  Despite the unwelcome rise in the unemployment rate that was reported last week, the recent incoming data, taken as a whole, have affected the outlook for economic activity and employment only modestly.  Indeed, although activity during the current quarter is likely to be weak, the risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so.  Over the remainder of 2008, the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus, a gradual ebbing of the drag from residential construction, further progress in the repair of financial and credit markets, and still-solid demand from abroad should provide some offset to the headwinds that still face the economy.

I believe the Great Recession that followed is still fresh enough in our minds so it is not necessary to recount in detail as to whose forecast, mine or the chairman’s, was more accurate.

I am also confused by many other policy making steps here at the Federal Reserve. There have been more changes in monetary policy direction during the Bernanke era then at any other time in the modern era of the Fed. Not under Arthur Burns, not under G. William Miller, not under Paul Volcker, not under Alan Greenspan  have there been so many dramatically shifting Fed monetary policy moves. Under Chairman Bernanke there have been significant changes in direction of the money supply growth FIVE different times. Thus, for me, I am not at all surprised at the current stop and go economy. The current erratic monetary policy makes it exceedingly difficult for businessmen to make any long term plans.  Indeed, in my own Daily Alert on the economy [8] I find it extremely difficult to give long term advice, when in short periods I have seen three month annualized M2 money growth go from near 20% to near zero, and then in another period see it go from 25% to 6% . [9]

I am also confused by many of the monetary programs instituted by Chairman Bernanke. For example, Operation Twist.

This is not the first time an Operation Twist was tried. an Operation Twist was tried in 1961, at the start of the Kennedy Administration [10] A paper [11] was written by three Federal Reserve economists in 2004 that, in part, examined the 1960′s Operation Twist

Their conclusion (My bold):

A second well-known historical episode involving the attempted manipulation of the term structure was so-called Operation Twist.  Launched in early 1961 by the incoming Kennedy Administration, Operation Twist was intended to raise short-term rates (thereby promoting capital inflows and supporting the dollar) while lowering, or at least not raising, long-term rates. (Modigliani and Sutch 1966)…. The two main actions of Operation Twist were the use of Federal Reserve open market operations and Treasury debt management operations.. Operation Twist is widely viewed today as having been a failure, largely due to classic work by  Modigliani and Sutch….

However, Modigliani and Sutch also noted that Operation Twist was a relatively small operation, and, indeed, that over a slightly longer period the maturity of outstanding government debt rose significantly, rather than falling…Thus, Operation Twist does not seem to provide strong evidence in either direction as to the possible effects of changes in the composition of the central bank’s balance sheet….

We believe that our findings go some way to refuting the strong hypothesis that nonstandard policy actions, including quantitative easing and targeted asset purchases, cannot be successful in a modern industrial economy.  However, the effects of such policies remain quantitatively quite uncertain. 

One of the authors of this 2004 paper was Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. Thus, I have to ask, what the hell is Chairman Bernanke doing implementing such a program, since it is his paper that states it was a failure according to Modigliani, and his paper implies that a larger test would be required to determine true performance.

I ask, is the Chairman using the United States economy as a lab with Americans as the lab rats to test his intellectual curiosity about such things as Operation Twist?

Further, I am very confused by the response of Chairman Bernanke to questioning by Congressman Ron Paul. To a seemingly near off the cuff question by Congressman Paul on Federal Reserve money provided to the Watergate burglars, Chairman Bernanke contacted the Inspector General’s Office of the Federal Reserve and requested an investigation [12]. Yet, the congressman has regularly asked about the gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve [13] and whether the gold at Fort Knox backing up the certificates will be audited. Yet there have been no requests by the Chairman  to the Treasury for an audit of the gold.This I find very odd. The Chairman calls for a major investigation of what can only be an historical point of interest but fails to seek out any confirmation on a point that would be of vital interest to many present day Americans.

In this very building, deep in the underground vaults, sits billions of dollars of gold, held by the Federal Reserve  for foreign governments. The Federal Reserve gives regular tours of these vaults, even to school children. [14] Yet, America’s gold is off limits to seemingly everyone and has never been properly audited. Doesn’t that seem odd to you? If nothing else, does anyone at the Fed know the quality and fineness of the gold at Fort Knox?

In conclusion, it is my belief  that from start to finish  the Fed is a failure. I believe faulty methodology is used, I believe that  the justification for the Fed, to bring price and economic stability, has never been a success. I repeat, prices since the start of the Fed have climbed by 2,241% and there have been over the same period 18 recessions. No one seems to care at the Fed about the gold supposedly backing up the gold certificates on the Fed balance sheet. The emperor has no clothes.  Austrian Business cycle theorists are regularly ignored by the Fed, yet they have the best records with regard to spotting overall downturns, and further they specifically recognized the developing housing bubble. Let it not be forgotten that in 2004, two economists here at the New York Fed wrote a paper [15] denying there was a housing bubble. I responded to the paper [16] and wrote:

The faulty analysis by [these] Federal Reserve economists… may go down in financial history as the greatest forecasting error since Irving Fisher declared in 1929, just prior to the stock market crash, that stocks prices looked to be at a permanently high plateau.

Data released just yesterday, now show housing prices have crashed to  2002 levels. [17]

I will now give you more warnings about the economy.

The noose is tightening on your organization, vast amounts of money printing are now required to keep your manipulated economy afloat. It will ultimately result in huge price inflation, or,  if you stop printing, another massive economic crash will occur. There is no other way out.

Again, thank you for inviting me. You have prepared food, so I will not be rude, I will stay and eat.

Let’s have one good meal here. Let’s make it a feast. Then I ask you, I plead with you, I beg you all, walk out of here with me, never to come back. It’s the moral and ethical thing to do. Nothing good goes on in this place. Let’s lock the doors and leave the building to the spiders, moths and four-legged rats.

-

Footnotes

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Depression-Guides/dp/1596980966/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335313972&sr=8-1

[2] http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2010/press.html

[3] ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

[4] http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great-Depression-Murray-Rothbard/dp/146793481X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335314537&sr=8-1

[5] http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/super-alert-dramatic-slowdown-in-money.html

[6] http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/alert-collapsing-credit.html

[7] http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20080609a.htm

[8] http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/announcing-epj-quarterly-economic.html

[9]http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/super-alert-dramatic-slowdown-in-money.html

[10] http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2011/el2011-13.html

[11] http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200448/200448pap.pdf

[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/federal-reserve-watergate-iraqi-weapons_n_1400645.html

[13] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

[14] http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/visiting.html

[15] http://fednewyork.org/research/epr/04v10n3/0412mcca.pdf

[16] http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/checkmate-new-york-fed-as-totally.html

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/business/economy/survey-shows-us-home-prices-still-weak.html

Special thanks to the following, who helped me research and collect data for this paper: Stephen Davis, Bob English, Jon Lyons, Ash Navabi, Joseph Nelson, Nick Nero,  Antony Zegers

Compulsive Hoarding is an affliction, an illness

April 19, 2012 Leave a comment

Submitted by Adrian Ash | BullionVault

Just because you hoard money or Gold Bullion, doesn’t mean you’re sick or wrong…

-
It disables the sufferer and those around them, presenting a health hazard as stuff piles up and the home turns into a trash can.

“Hoarding and anxiety go hand-in-hand,” says one struggling survivor. “For many people, including hoarders and non-hoarders, fear keeps us from letting go of objects we don’t need.” Beating fear is a tough ask, however, and “clean-up usually provokes intense anxiety,” says another report.

Anyone helping the hoarder – even a professional cleanup crew – should be gentle, always caring and encourage the person to deep breathe and relax.

Now, given these sensitivities – and seeing how the causes of hoarding include dementia, depression, and obsessive compulsive personality – you might expect people to be a bit nicer when trying to get hoarders to stop. But no.

“Companies’ growing cash piles are irking shareholders and stunting growth,” barked the Financial Times in late January. “Politicians and policymakers are going to have to ask the question,” declared David Bowers of Absolute Strategy Research in London – “How much longer are we going to allow companies to run themselves for cash?

Two weeks later, Martin Wolf was at it in the same pages. “Britain needs to whittle down corporate cash piles,” he announced, also quoting approvingly a London finance type, this time Andrew Smithers of Smithers & Co. “If the fiscal deficit is to disappear…there needs to be a mixture of lower profits, higher investment, and significantly smaller current account deficits.

“Increases in government investment and private housebuilding would also help,” said Wolf, parroting UK and US economic policy since the Second World War. But the slaughter of corporate hoarders is new. Because the phenomenon is new, and “highly indebted UK households should not run large deficits again.” Or to quote The Times this Monday, “Consumers cannot lead recovery. Britain needs business to stop ‘stashing the cash’.”

Now “Companies must stop hoarding cash and start investing instead,” says – choke! – Will Hutton in The Guardian, quoting this week’s same press release from the same think-tank, Ernst & Young’s ITEM Club. “David Cameron and George Osborne have still not developed a full-throated industrial policy that would encourage companies to spend money on investment and innovation.”

“Business investment has picked up nicely in the US,” says ITEM’s chief economic advisor, Peter Spencer, apparently missing the $1.24 trillion in US corporate cash piles stacked up by end-2011 – well over half of it outside Uncle Sam’s borders according to Moody’s, as emerging-market growth plus onerous US tax treatment drives businesses to avoid remitting profits back home.

“But UK companies remain extremely risk-averse, which is sapping strength from the economy. Until these companies…start increasing levels of investment and dividends, the economy will remain on the critical list.”

Perhaps if everyone shouts loudly enough, the hoarders will snap out of it? But then, they are trying already, albeit at gun point. US equities have been paying a higher yield than Treasury bonds for the first time in six decades. “Total dividends paid by UK companies hit a record £67.8 billion in 2011 [$110bn] a rise of almost 20% on 2010,” says Hargreaves Lansdowne, the retail-investor brokerage. “Encouragingly, dividend growth was seen across all industry sectors.”

And it’s not like corporate US and Britain didn’t do their bit in fighting the war of debt vs. recession starting in the mid-1990s either. Over the 12 years ending spring 2009, for instance, private-sector UK companies outside the financial sector spent 124 months growing their bank debt net-net. Yes, UK households  fought harder (141 out of 144 months), but they began to rein in their borrowing sooner and actually saved money right when the canon fodder were called on for a last “big push” in late 2007.

But so what? “British companies are running a cash surplus of some 6% of GDP, the largest in the world,” says Hutton, gasping at people making a profit and daring to keep it.

[They] are refusing to spend that cash on investment or innovation, preferring to hoard it, preserve profit margins or buy back their own shares.

Oh the monsters! Refusing to spend…stashing the cash…hoarding what should be shared for the good of us all! It must not be allowed. And luckily the financial press began softening up public opinion at the start of the year, when the FT first ran that story about what it called “the $1,700bn problem. Companies in the US are flush with cash and are paying out a smaller proportion of their earnings as dividends than ever before. Much the same can be said for western Europe. Governments and households on both sides of the Atlantic are meanwhile strapped for cash. This cannot persist much longer.”

“Businesses run ‘for cash’, rather than spending in an attempt to boost revenues, do not promote growth,” said the Pink ‘Un.  The government should do something to stop it!

The battle front today is against the hoarding of currency. No one will deny that if the vast sums of money hoarded in the country today could be brought into active circulation there would be a great lift to the whole of our economic progress.

So said Herbert Hoover, then US president, in early 1932, and quoted in Murray Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression (Princeton, 1963). “We are making war on depression. War against a lack of confidence. Our people must have something tangible to do in the fight. There is no use to go out and say ‘Have confidence, courage and faith.’ They must have something positive to bite on.

They can bite on the question of hoarding.

Hoover’s war on the hoarders presaged Roosevelt’s war on fear, with a task force of opinion and business leaders enlisted to make hoarding cash – then outside the banks, under the mattress, for fear of default – socially unacceptable. “It [hoarding] began in April last year in consequential amounts,” Hoover told a private White House gathering of newspaper editors and other luminaries that February. “The disturbances in Austria, which finally culminated in the German panic, showed paralleled increases of hoarding in the United States, which rose at one time to about seventy or one hundred million a week…[Then came] the disturbance in Great Britain which finally resulted in the British abandonment of the gold standard.

“Instantly, within 24 hours after the Bank of England ceased paying gold, hoarding jumped in the United States to $250,000 a week.”

This was unsurprising. Because then, as now, people kept hold of their money – hoarded it, if you must – for fear of losing it to one of the catastrophes striking so many others around them. And then, as now, US citizens also had the option of what would soon prove a rare privilege, of hoarding Gold Bullion too. In the early 1930s, however, people kept their cash at home, out of deposit accounts, for fear of banking collapse. Gold meantime really was money.

Keeping gold at home – out of circulation and safely away from bank credit – was therefore bad for the nation. It could not be allowed to persist, and Hoover’s successor, F.D.R., wasted no time in making Gold Bullion illegal for everyone but the State, nationalizing private gold holdings at $26 per ounce, raising the official price to $35 per ounce, and thereby enforcing on the United States the very Dollar devaluation which gold hoarders had feared.

Bite on that. Or to put it another way, just because you hoard gold or fear bank credit today, doesn’t mean you are in need of treatment or tough love.

Buying Gold today? Make it simple, secure and low cost…starting with a free gram of Zurich bullion right now…at BullionVault

Commodity Money and Fiat Money: A Bushel of Wheat for a Penny

April 12, 2012 2 comments

A Bushel of Wheat for a Penny Part 1

by Steve Elwart, IDB Folio Specialist
Republished with permission from Koinonia House 

-
This is Part 1 of a three-part series on money: where it comes from, how governments use it to control our lives, and how modern money policy makes the prophecies in the Book of Revelation seem very close to fulfillment.

Everyone reading this article is being robbed. We all use paper money and every day, governments are lowering its value. That value is being stolen from us. To understand how this is happening, we need to get to the basics of money. What is it?

Commodity Money

We learn in Genesis that Abram (renamed later by God to Abraham) was a rich man. How do we know? We are told that “he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.”1 In Biblical times, these things were all media of exchange. No king decided this; he didn’t call in his magi to decide what the medium of ex-change would be. Ordinary people, or “the market” made the decision. Let’s say a king did decree that rocks could be used as money. Would anyone use them? Probably not, because they would not know the value of those rocks. Unless you are building a lot of things (or stoning a lot of adulterers), rocks fail to meet a standard for money: they have no intrinsic value.

If a civilization was to advance though, it had to come up with a convenient way to save and exchange value to buy things. Leather was used in ancient Rome. (Contrary to popular belief, Roman soldiers were not paid in salt. The term salary [from the Latin salārium] was money given to Roman soldiers to buy salt.2) Animal pelts, whiskey, and tobacco leaves were used in the former British Colonies, wampum (strings of beads) was used by the American Indians, dried fish were used in the Canadian maritime colonies, maize or corn was used in Mexico, and salt, iron and farming tools were used in Africa. These things are called “commodity money.” As civilizations became more complex, most forms of commodity money be-came very cumbersome. (Who would want to give or get 300 sheep to buy a car?) Another medium of exchange had to be found.

Over the centuries, the answer came to be the precious metals, gold and silver. These two metals became the basis for money in most of the world. Gold and silver were used as money for very specific reasons and they were chosen by “the market.” People decided that these two metals had all the qualities that made for a good medium of exchange:

  • They were easily portable. They had high value to weight ratios. (So if you want to buy a car, you only have to bring 16 ounces of gold rather than 300 sheep.)
  • They are fungible. Every ounce is like every other ounce no matter where they were mined. People didn’t have to worry about the quality of the pure metal.
  • They are highly divisible. They can be divided into very small parts or coins. The term “pieces of eight” came from the practice of taking a Spanish dollar, a real de a ocho and breaking it up into eight pieces or reales to make change. Diamonds fail the test of being divisible because if you break up a gem-quality diamond, it loses its value. (For that matter, sheep aren’t easily divisible either unless you are very hungry.)
  • They are highly durable; the thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas are still in existence today.
  • They are naturally scarce. They can’t be multiplied.

Fiat Money

There is another type of money besides commodity money, called fiat money. (Fiat from the Latin fiat, meaning “let it be done.”) This is an item, usually paper or low value metal coins, that is decreed to have value by a government.

A government puts fiat money into circulation first by connecting it to a gold or silver standard, but then cuts the link and says that gold and paper are no longer convertible, making the piece of paper “legal tender for all debts public and private.” It is obvious that debtors would be very happy if the pa-per money lost its value because they could pay their debts with inflated currency. In a letter to Edward Carrington in 1788, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Paper is poverty … it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” Jefferson died bankrupt because of the early United States money (monetary) pol-icy based on paper.

It is not that fiat currency is a new invention. Fiat currency actually made its appearance over 1,000 years ago. China was the first country to issue true paper money around the 10th century A.D. Although the notes were valued at a certain ex-change rate for gold, silver, or silk, conversion was never allowed in practice. The bills were supposed to be redeemed after three years in circulation, but as more bills were printed with the older notes being refused redemption, inflation became evident. Government measures to prop up the currency were unsuccessful and it fell out of favor.3

In Europe, fiat money came into being around the 12th century. Villagers would store their gold and other valuables in their lord’s castle for safekeeping. But during this time of the Crusades and other European Wars, noblemen were always strapped for cash. When times were particularly bad, the noblemen would confiscate the villagers’ gold and silver and issue notes for it, to be redeemed later. Needless to say, the notes weren’t always honored or if they were redeemed, the holder of the note received less of their gold back than what they were promised. This is an early case of price inflation.

Today, fiat money will always bring on inflation for two reasons: 1) Politicians like to induce inflation because it gives the people the illusion of prosperity and 2) its declared value is much higher than the cost of producing it. Whether it is a $1 or $100 bill in fiat money, it costs only 4 cents to produce. In today’s electronic age, the production cost for new money is zero since money creation is just a keystroke and an entry in cyber-space. On the other hand, in history, if you had a $20 gold piece, the cost of that gold piece, less the cost to produce it, was about $20.

The Gold Standard

History of Gold Standard

If the relative value of gold is tracked over the years, one can see how fiat money loses its value over time.

By the 1400s, most countries that had complex trading systems were using gold and silver for transactions. Prices held relatively steady through the early 20th century, except for lo-cal shortages and wars. In the United States the price of gold and the things it bought held its value with exceptions for war-time when the government printed paper money to cover its war debts. After the emergencies and the country went back on the gold standard, prices went back to about where they were. During the First World War, most countries involved in the war suspended the gold standard so they could print enough money to pay for their involvement in the war. After the war, these countries went back to a modified form of the gold standard, but abandoned it during the “Great Depression.”

In 1941, most countries adopted the Bretton Woods system, which set the exchange value for all currencies in terms of gold. Countries that signed the Bretton Woods agreement were obligated to convert their currencies held by foreign countries into gold valued at $35 per ounce. However, many countries just pegged their currency to the U.S. dollar, thus making it the de facto world currency.

In the 1960s the United States had done something unprecedented in its history. The country fought two wars at once. The United States fought a war halfway around the world in Vietnam and a second war at home, the “War on Poverty.” To do this, the United States started to borrow massively and brought on double digit inflation. To curb the inflation, the United States government started to deflate the dollar. 1963 marked the entrance of the new Federal Reserve notes and the disappearance of the $1 silver certificate. This marked the point that no longer did the U.S. Government have to pay in “lawful money.” Finally, in late 1973, the U.S. government decoupled the value of the dollar from gold altogether and the price shot up to $120 per ounce in the free market.4 Since the United States went off the Gold Standard, a dollar is worth only one-sixth of what it was in 1973. (At this writing, gold is priced at $1,220 per ounce.5)

Inflation Always Follows Fiat Money

The history of price inflation in the United States is repeated in every country that uses paper money. Keep in mind, rising prices are not always bad. If a good becomes scarce, its price will go up and may provide the motivation to introduce a new, better product for the market. The reason petroleum became so popular so quickly was because of the rising cost of whale oil. If governments propped up the price of whale oil to keep whalers and whale oil processors employed, it would have taken decades for the world to embrace petroleum as a substitute. And someday, petroleum will go the way of whale oil as long as market forces dictate the transition.

When a government inflates its currency, it increases prices by reducing the purchasing power of the money. The short-term effects though, can seem to be positive. Like a drug addict, inflated money gives the illusion of prosperity, making people feel good. But like the addict, withdrawal follows the high.

At first, the surge of more money makes people feel good be-cause they can pay off their debts with cheaper money and they seem to have more disposable income. As prices catch up, people then find it more expensive to live. In addition, their tax burden goes up, since many government taxes are progressive in nature, meaning the percentage tax increases as in-come or asset values (houses, cars, etc.) increase. Eventually the market will try to correct itself and a depression will follow.

At this point, people start to feel the pinch of their money buying less. They demand that their government do some-thing. Since studies have shown that voters only have a memory of one year when it comes to politics, politicians will make sure that the economy is good in an election year.6 They will artificially stimulate the economy to give voters the illusion that times are good again and reelect the incumbents. This lasts only so long and inflation, with its problems kick in again. This cycle of increasing the currency supply and price inflation ultimately ends with the collapse of the currency, sometimes preceded by hyperinflation. (Hyperinflation and its cultural effects will be covered in Part 3 of this series.) Surprisingly, the country has not learned its lesson and the devalued fiat currency is replaced with yet another fiat currency. Greece is a perfect example of this cycle.

The Greek drachma was minted in gold and silver in ancient Greece and made its reappearance as a fiat currency in 1841. Since then, the value of the drachma decreased. During the German-Italian occupation of the country from 1941-1944, hyperinflation ravaged the country, ending with the issuance of 100,000,000,000 (100 billion)-drachma notes in 1944. After Greece was liberated from Germany, old drachmae were ex-changed for new ones at the rate of 50,000,000,000 to 1. Only paper money was issued, again a fiat currency. Greece then went on a program of deficit spending for social programs and inflation started once again.

In 1953, in an effort to halt inflation, Greece joined the Bretton Woods system and the drachma was revalued at a rate of 1000 old drachma to one new drachma. In 1973 the Bretton Woods System was abolished; over the next 25 years the official exchange rate gradually declined, from 30 drachmas to one U.S. dollar to a ratio of 400:1. On January 1, 2002, the Greek drachma was officially replaced as the circulating currency by the Euro (again a fiat currency).7

Today, Greece is once again is in trouble. After years of continued deficit spending and the government’s easy monetary policy, Greece’s financial situation was badly exposed when the global economic downturn struck. Very quickly, the government’s “creative accounting” practices were exposed. The national debt, put at €300 billion ($413.6 billion), is bigger than the country’s entire economy, with some estimates placing it at 120 percent of gross domestic product in 2010. The country’s deficit—how much more it spends than it takes in—is 12.7 percent.

This time though, Greece just can’t inflate their way out of the problem. Now that they are on the Euro (in the “Euro-zone”), they have little control over their monetary policy. All their loans are in Euros and they must pay back the loans in Euros. One way to balance the national books is to implement harsh and unpopular spending cuts. Another way is to default on their debt. This would seriously damage the Euro as other countries look at default as a way out of their financial problems. (In fact, financial experts are predicting the demise of the Euro in as early as five years.8) A third way out is to separate itself from the Euro, go back on the drachma (fiat currency again) and then set an exchange rate of the drachma to the Euro at an artificially high number. The cycle of fiat money would then begin again.

As long as a country is on a fiat currency, inflation is sure to follow. Using a fiat currency could well reduce a civilization to work an entire day for a “bushel of wheat.”

In Part 2 of this series we will look at central banking and how the banks can change a society.


Notes:

  1. Genesis 12:16b (KJV).
  2. “The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition”. Answers.com. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  3. Ramsden, Dave (2004). “A Very Short History of Chinese Paper Money.” James J. Puplava Financial Sense.
  4. History of the Gold Standard: http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/p/gold_history.htm
  5. Monex Precious Metals: http://www.monex.com/monex/controller?pageid=prices.
  6. “Voters Respond to Economic Woes” Economics and Public Policy: http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1668.
  7. Greek Drachma, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_drachma#First_modern_drachma.
  8. “Euro ‘will be dead in five years’”: http://www.telegraphic.com.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7806065?Euro-will-be-dead-in-five-years.html

150 Years Of U.S. Fiat Currency

April 9, 2012 1 comment

-

5 days ago saw the 150th year anniversary of an event so historic that a very select few even noticed: the birth of US fiat. Bloomberg was one of the few who commemorated the birth of modern US currency: “On April 2, 1862, the first greenback left the U.S. Treasury, marking the start of a new era in the American monetary system…. The greenbacks were originally intended to be a temporary emergency-financing measure. Almost bankrupt, the Treasury needed money to pay suppliers and troops. The plan was to print a limited supply of United States notes to meet the crisis and then have people convert the currency into Treasury bonds. But United States notes grew in popularity and continued to circulate.” The rest, as they say is history.

In the intervening 150 years, the greenback saw major transformations: from being issued by the Treasury and backed by gold, it is now printed, mostly in electronic form, by an entity that in its own words, is “set up similarly to private corporations, but operated in the public interest.” Of course, when said public interest is not the primary driver of operation, the entity, also known as the Federal Reserve is accountable to precisely nobody. Oh, and the fiat money, which is now just a balance sheet liability of a private corporation, and thus just a plug to the Fed’s deficit monetization efforts, is no longer backed by anything besides the “full faith and credit” of a country that is forced to fund more than half of its spending through debt issuance than tax revenues.

More on the history of American fiat from Bloomberg:

At the start of the Civil War, the U.S. didn’t have a national paper currency. Instead, the money supply consisted of U.S. coins and a collection of paper notes issued by private banks. Technically, the federal government began issuing its own paper currency in 1861. That year, the Lincoln administration issued $60 million in demand notes, a variant of a Treasury note that was redeemable “on demand” for gold coins at the Treasury or any sub-Treasury.

These notes were overshadowed in 1862 by the issue of $150 million in a new fiat currency officially known as United States notes and popularly known as greenbacks or legal tenders. By the end of the war, close to $450 million worth of greenbacks were in circulation.

The name greenbacks referred to the reverse of the notes, which were printed in green. The name legal-tender notes referred to the text that originally appeared on the back, which began, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” This provision made the currency a valid form of payment on par with gold and silver, which was a very controversial action at the time. It made the United States note a fiat currency — meaning its value was established by law alone and wasn’t based on some other unit of value, such as gold, silver or land.

Many Americans during and after the Civil War believed the creation of a fiat currency was unconstitutional. The Constitution explicitly stated that only gold and silver could be considered legal tender. In 1871, in the case of Knox v. Lee, the Supreme Court settled the matter by declaring that making United States notes legal tender was indeed constitutional.

By this time, the greenback was at the center of a countrywide debate on monetary policy. When the post-Civil War economic boom ended in the panic and depression of 1873, many people, especially farmers, blamed the Treasury’s policy of contracting the currency — that is, removing United States notes from circulation in an attempt to go back to the gold standard, which would require that a $1 note could be redeemed for $1 in gold.

As a consequence, there was a call for the expansion of United States note circulation or an inflation of the currency. This belief became joined with a political ideology that opposed big business and banking interests, resulting in the birth of the Greenback Party in 1874.

Opposing the Greenbackers were more conservative interests, sometimes known as “gold bugs,” who found support in the Republican Party and in elements of the Democratic Party. Gold interests proved the stronger contestant in the debate and in 1878, the total circulation of United States notes was fixed at a little over $346 million and the notes eventually became redeemable in gold (at least until 1933, when this provision was removed).

During the 20th century, United States notes became ever less important in the nation’s money supply, though Congress supported their continued circulation. They were increasingly replaced by currency issued by the Federal Reserve System, which came to look almost identical to the United States note. The Federal Reserve note thus became the new greenback.

In 1966, Congress allowed the Treasury to start removing United States notes from circulation. The last delivery of the notes by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to the Treasury was made in 1971. In 1994, the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act eliminated the issuance of the notes altogether.

So instead of real money, America has an impostor “which came to look almost identical to the United States note” with the full complicity of everyone in charge, just so that when needed, any and all untenable debt burdens can be inflated away. And while the latter is a topic of a whole different discussion, we present another chart which, unlike the 150th anniversary of fiat, should be something discussed far more broadly… Because in a fiat world superpower status is always relative.

-

Source: ZeroHedge

Related Articles:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 175 other followers