Can President Obama “Fix” The Economy?

On w:st=”on”>December 1, 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER) made the shocking announcement that the w:st=”on”>U.S. economy is in recession. In
fact, NBER says we’ve been in a recession since last December. That this was
considered “news” is yet another indictment of the mainstream media. Who
exactly didn’t know that the U.S.
was in the midst of a recession? NBER’s class=GramE> declaration of the obvious merited no more serious news attention
than a proclamation by NASA that the earth in fact orbits the sun. After
all, the ongoing debate of the past several months hasn’t been whether or not
we’re in recession, but who precisely is to blame for it?

There’s No Painless
Fix for the Economy

Austrian economists accurately predicted this recession,
even as statists of all stripes (monetarists to
Keynesians, as if there’s a difference) predicted permanent prosperity.
Therefore, I think the Austrian take on who’s to blame is worthy of a hearing.

As I’ve discussed in other articles on Citizen Economists,
the Austrian theory of the business cycle holds that it is the government’s
artificial creation of money and credit that causes asset bubbles that
eventually have to burst. But interventionists of the left and right want to
blame other culprits—greedy businessmen, unions, speculators, foreigners,
immigrants, welfare recipients—take your pick. Thus in misdiagnosing the cause,
liberals and conservatives also err in prescribing a cure.

A tremendous amount of faith is being put in President-Elect
Barack Obama’s ability to
“fix” the economy. But unfortunately, the odds of him “fixing” our current mess
are only slightly better than the odds he’ll reveal himself to be the
reincarnation of Grover Cleveland. Obama, well- class=GramE>intentioned or not, cannot possibly “fix” the economy—at
least not without causing a lot of pain in the meantime. And that option is not
on the Obama menu.

Paul class=SpellE>Volcker’s Orchestrated Recession

What needs to be done? Well, Obama
should rely on the wisdom of Paul Volcker, who is on class=SpellE>Obama’s economic-advisory team. When Volcker
was tapped to chair the Federal Reserve in 1979, the country’s economic outlook
was nearly as bad as it is today. Four decades of pseudo-socialism under FDR,
Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford had wrecked the foundations of
the U.S.
economy—even the gold standard had been sacrificed. Austrians predicted
hyperinflation, the end of the dollar-reserve system, and maybe even the
implosion of the U.S.
government. They made these predictions because they were confident that no one
would have the political will to do what needed to be done—raise interest rates
through the roof, choke off monetary growth, and intentionally throw the
economy into a deep recession.

That’s just what Volcker did—and
he was hated for it. In fact, Ronald Reagan tried to get Volcker,
who had been appointed by Jimmy Carter, dismissed. But while class=SpellE>Volcker’s orchestrated recession was deep, it was also
short. Coming out of it, the U.S.
economy boomed. In fact, Reagan even reappointed him in 1983. But four years
later, the Gipper goofed with his appointment of
hardcore inflationist Alan Greenspan to succeed Volcker,
and the same story began to play out again. Now we’re right back to where we
were in 1979—and 1929.

style=’mso-bidi-font-weight:normal’>U.S. style=’mso-bidi-font-weight:normal’> Economy Headed For Credit O.D.

Why is it that the Fed and the politicians keep on wrecking
the economy? Two reasons: ignorance and greed. They truly don’t understand
economics, and who can blame them? Most economists don’t, either. Secondarily,
while politicians are quick to accuse businessmen and Wall Street speculators
of being “greedy,” it is the political class that’s greediest of all—greedy for
power. Inflation of the money supply allows them to buy more votes without
raising taxes, and so they direct the Fed to perpetually expand money and
credit. Why should the politicians care? Most of them will be out of office by
the time the fiat money hits the fan.

So when the chickens start coming home to roost, as they are
now, the government and the Fed pursue a policy of throwing gasoline on the
fire. They try to cure the problems of inflation with more inflation. A more
accurate analogy is that of the heroin addict. When he starts having withdrawal
symptoms, another shot of junk will make him feel better for the moment. But as
time goes by, it requires more and more H to keep him balanced, and eventually,
he dies of an overdose. This is where the w:st=”on”>U.S. economy is headed.

What class=SpellE>Obama Could Do – But Won’t

The best case scenario would be for Obama
to follow an even more aggressive version of Volcker’s
1979 playbook and direct Ben Bernanke to pursue a
hard-money course. Despite being an arch-inflationist Keynesian, class=SpellE>Bernanke would undoubtedly follow the long line of
supposedly “independent” Fed chairmen by doing exactly what the president
ordered. This would mean raising interest rates, preferably by closing the
Fed’s discount window, selling its entire hoard of government bonds (and other
assets), and possibly buying gold with the proceeds (or simply retiring the dollars).

This would help put the economy back on sound footing for
the first time since 1913, but it would also be very painful in the short run.
It would definitely cost Obama any chance at
re-election, and the next president would undoubtedly reverse course.
Therefore, even if Obama were aware of the Austrian
theory and believed in it, chances are he wouldn’t pursue this course of action
until into his second term. And we don’t have four years to wait.

Inflation, Deflation, Recession

We all know what inflation is, don’t we? Sure, we know, it is rising prices. Is it? Why? What is the reason for higher prices? And, more important, do the prices really rise? Compared to what?

Have I confused you? Good. Time to talk a bit about the foundation of money.

What do we mean with the term money? Easy one, it is what you give away when you buy goods and what you get for work. Yep, right. So, money is a medium of exchange. But now I need to confuse you even a bit more. Dollars, the nice printed paper bills, are money only since 1971, at least since than, they where backed partially by real money, which was gold at that time.

Hey now, what do you mean by “real money”? If I can go to the store and get T-bone Steaks in exchange for those bills, than it works for me and I call that money. Fair enough. I couldn’t agree more. But mind the “If” in your sentence. What is the reason for the butcher to hand you his valued tender T-bones for an ugly peace of paper showing always the same old men on them? Because, he believes, that he in turn can use them to get what he desires, maybe a fresh tasty bread and some tuna. This is the cool thing with a money (yes this is no grammatical error, it is a money, because there can be a lot of different moneys). Everybody accepts it as a medium for exchange.

Can you imagine how awkward it would be if you wanted to get 3 eggs and all you had is 1 pound of butter to offer? You might be lucky and the farmer could be in need for butter and is willing to exchange. But, what if not? In this case you have to find someone that has something the farmer could need and, at the same time, is willing to exchange this item for your butter. With a money, you are better of, you can exchange your butter for 1 unit of a money and buy those 3 eggs with the money you exchanged.

Money therefor is a commodity that everyone accepts for exchanges. It does not matter what the money is made of. In fact, all kinds of things have been used as a money. Iron bars, horse shoes, whiskey(yep here in the United States), cigarettes,mussel shells, gold, silver, grain and the like. The important thing for a money is that it is widely accepted for exchanges.

Agreed, some items are better suited to be a money than others. What if we would use eggs as a money? Well, risky thing to do. Eggs can easily break and broken eggs are hard to exchange. And if you would save for, say a new car, how long would it take for the eggs to rot? And even the car dealer I know wouldn’t accept rotten eggs for a new car (maybe for one of his used car occasions though).

So, bottom line, a money should have some attributes like durability, easy to divide, hard to counterfeit. Wait a minute. I understand the durability thing, even the requirement to be easy divisible, but why hard to counterfeit? Well, think about it, if there was a money price of one money unit (whatever the unit is let’s say a Taler) for an egg that would mean that one pound of butter (if we take the example above) would have a money price of 3 Taler(money units), because we exchange 1 pound of butter for 3 eggs. What would happen if all of a sudden there was more money in the market? Right you guessed it. You would have to pay more money units to get your butter or eggs or whatever you like to buy.

Say “bad Joe Counterfeiter” had a way to double the amount of money in a market. What would be the effect? Right, taking our example, all of a sudden you would have to pay 6 Taler for a pound of butter and 2 Taler for an egg, even if nothing else had changed. The value of the eggs compared to the butter has not changed at all, you still get 3 eggs for a pound of butter. Yet, you have to give more money units for this transaction.

Well, whats wrong with that? If the new money, “Bad Joe’s “ that is, comes on the market, it will equalize after some time. Right it will, but in the meantime, those having the new money sooner than the rest, benefit, for they buy to a price not already in sync with the amount of new money on the market.

This is the reason, why a good money should be hard to counterfeit. It prevents Inflation. Because this is how we call the process of pushing new money into a market. The rising prices are not the inflation, as coughing is not the cold. Rising prices are a symptom of Inflation. Inflation is the inflating of the amount of a money in the market. And it leads always to rising money prices. Yet, it does not lead to rising prices of a certain good compared to other goods, all goods rise only in money prices. So 3 eggs still go for 1 pound of butter but now the money price you have to pay is 6 Taler instead of 3.

Beside the raising of prices, how does this hurt the other participants in the market?

Well, you are a sober guy and you have saved some money every week from your paycheck for retirement. Say, 10000 Taler so far. Now, all of a sudden, your 10000 Taler can only buy half of what they would have bought before. Basically half of it is rotten. You sure are happy about that, are you?

And almost as worse, can you remember how long ago you received your last raise from your boss? If you earned 200 Taler a week before Joe’s coup, and you still earn 200 Taler now, you basically lost half of your salary. Ouch…

How can that be cured? Hmm, we could take money out of the market, can’t we? Yes we can, and guess how this process is called? Yes, you are right, it is called deflation. What will be the symptoms of a deflation? Right, falling prices.

So wrapping this thing up, Inflation is pushing more money into a market, thereby rising prices without changing the exchange ratios of the goods. Deflation is the removal of money from the market and has the opposite effect.

Not a really hard to grasp concept, isn’t it?

Now, we are a lucky bunch of citizens, because our good government makes sure Joe the Counterfeiter is caught quickly before he can do real harm to the economy as a whole. Really?

Well, there is a little problem with that view. The problem is, that the government determines what a money is inside its territory. Ooops. You mean they can just print it up like Joe? Yep. And they do. They call it monetary policies. With our dollars we are completely dependent on the whim of our government. Thank god we have a democracy and they can’t do what they like, can’t they?

Naw, we have responsible politicians, that have the common good and the prosperity of the citizenship always before their eyes. And we have laws, haven’t we?

Ok, granted all super-altruists find their way into some government office eventually, let’s make a thought experiment anyway.

Suppose some real bad guys, selfish, reckless in short typical capitalists find a way to act like the altruists and convince the people to vote them into office. Just for the sake of the argument. I know it never can happen here. Now those folks had their fingers on the printing press and could spill the economy with money. What would that mean? Well first inflation, later more inflation and eventually hyperinflation(If you like to know what that means google up pre WWII Germany).

So those bad guys would be the first to get the new money and could spend it for good items while the rest of us would see how our savings and our wealth is vanishing.

But, sure that can never happen, can it?

Can someone explain, why new money in a market is needed anyway?