"Yes, but then if the dollar is debased, you are taxed on a fictious gain." - AdamSelene235
No, not if you traded in all of your Dollars for gold. In fact, at that point your gold will be worth more, so your investment would have proven fortuitous.
Posted on 12/10/2002 3:28:25 AM PST by freeper12
It was a conference to mark Milton Friedman's 90th birthday last month, and who should give the toast to the world's most famous monetarist? A governor from the US Federal Reserve, naturally.
The man from the Fed, a monetary expert in his own right, Ben Bernanke, delivered a dense, 10-page tribute to Friedman's contribution to modern economics, then this punchline: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton ... regarding the Great Depression: You're right, we did it.
"We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
A couple of weeks later, seemingly following through on this pledge, Bernanke delivered an unprecedented speech in Washington DC. The title: "Deflation: Making sure it doesn't happen here."
It was the Fed's emergency plan, the economic equivalent of the The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook
Bernanke laid out the extraordinary measures the Fed could take - including buying assets from private companies - if the US economy fell into that condition people associate most closely with the Great Depression - deflation, a fall in the general level of prices, the opposite of inflation.
If inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, then deflation is too little money chasing too many goods.
advertisement
advertisement
How close is the US to deflation?
Fed chairman Alan Greenspan told anxious members of Congress in October that "we are not close to the deflationary cliff". But how good are his forecasting skills? The Fed, by its own admission, utterly failed to foresee Japan's slide into deflation seven years ago.
And a solid core of serious analysts now believes it to be a very real risk. The Fed's own behaviour betrays a distinct unease. A month ago it cut the key official interest rate by an aggressively large increment - from 1.75 per cent, already the lowest in over 40 years, to 1.25 per cent.
Fed officials have called that move insurance. Although the financial markets think there is little chance that the Fed will cut rates again at its policy meeting this week, "the Fed is, I won't say panicked", says Steve Roach, economist for the investment bank Morgan Stanley, "but it is very much on alert".
The decision by President George Bush to replace his economic team last week is another indicator that American officialdom is alert to the need for decisive action to keep the economy from quicksand.
As the Fed's Bernanke says: "Sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy and should be strongly resisted."
Consider the evidence of deflation so far.
The broadest measure of price pressures in the US economy - the gross domestic product deflator - is barely above zero. In the year to the end of September, it was up by 0.83 per cent, its feeblest in half a century.
"The essence of deflation is that business leaders know they do not have pricing power," the ability to raise the price of their products, points out Wayne Angell, a former governor of the Fed and chief economist for the Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns.
And the prices received by US firms overall have declined in each of the past five quarters, the longest run in more than 50 years. For the latest quarter, they were down 1.3 per cent.
At first, and sometimes for years, executives think that this lack of pricing power is temporary, due to a downturn in the business cycle, Angell says.
"They expect that pricing power will return with recovery." With deflation, it doesn't. "This is precisely what is happening in the US economy today."
Consumer prices in the US are still rising - by 1 to 2 per cent a year, depending on the measure. But David Rosenberg, an economist in the Canadian office of the US investment bank Merrill Lynch, points out that the price of 40 per cent of the hundreds of items that go into the basket to make up the consumer price index are falling.
Indeed, all the inflation in US consumer prices is coming from only five areas that make up a quarter of the index - housing, tobacco, car insurance premiums, hospital services and tuition.
"There's a compelling case for deflation," says Morgan Stanley's Roach. "We are in a rarefied and highly dangerous period."
The two top-most international finance officials in Japan last week took the warning even further. They declared that it was not just a danger facing the US - it was a risk to the entire world economy.
In an unorthodox move, the Vice-Minister for International Affairs at Japan's Ministry of Finance, Haruhiko Kuroda, and his deputy, Masahiro Kawai, put their case starkly.
"Monetary policymakers around the word are still fighting the old enemy of inflation, not the new foe of deflation," they wrote in the Financial Times.
"There is an urgent need to switch to global reflation in order to avoid a deflationary spiral." They called on the Europeans, Americans and Chinese to join Tokyo in heading off a global deflation. And the Japanese know something about contemporary deflation - they pioneered it.
The mainstream of US forecasters does not foresee deflation in the US. But then again, the mainstream does not have such an enviable record of forecasting - the consensus of US economists conspicuously failed to foresee the length of America's boom of the 1990s, and completely missed its 2000 bust.
What of Milton Friedman's school, the monetarists, whose believe that the supply of money is the key to inflation and deflation?
A respected US monetarist, Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University and author of a new book, A History of the Federal Reserve, dismisses the possibility of deflation as nonsense.
"It's just bad thinking by badly trained Wall Street economists," Meltzer says. "I don't think any competent economist can make the case for deflation with M2 [the base money supply] growing at 8 per cent year on year and the economy expanding.
"You hear it from that Morgan Stanley guy, and his policy is being able to say, if something goes wrong, 'See, I told you so!', and he hopes that people forget the 800 times he was wrong."
What does the Morgan Stanley guy - Roach - have to say about this?
"I don't want to call a guy like Allan Meltzer simplistic ... but he's pretty consistent with his monetarist framework.
"With all due respect to him, the money supply may be growing, but there's no guarantee that it will go into consumption or prices. It's a circuitous route, at best - especially in an overindebted economy.
"Money can go into debt or saving; if you print enough of the stuff it will eventually spill over, but it's a long and arduous path."
It should also be pointed out that Roach's forecasting record is quite good, and better than most.
But even if you disbelieve the case for deflation, the most persuasive case for vigilance comes from the Fed itself.
An important research paper by 13 Fed staff economists, titled Preventing Deflation: Lessons from Japan's Experience in the 1990s, says: "Japan's deflationary slump was not anticipated. This was true not only of the Japanese policymakers themselves, but also of private-sector and foreign observers, including Federal Reserve staff economists.
"Moreover, financial markets had no better handle on the economy's prospects ... The failure of economists and financial markets to forecast Japan's deflationary slump in the early 1990s poses a cautionary note for other policymakers in similar circumstances: deflation can be very difficult to predict in advance.
"In consequence, as interest rates and inflation rates move closer to zero, monetary policy perhaps should respond ... to the special downside risks - in particular, the possibility of deflation."
Deflation is not necessarily a bad thing. The world economy has enjoyed booms while prices were falling, during the 1920s, for example.
But it looks malign at the moment for two main reasons. First, there is a kind of good deflation that happens when productivity is high and the economy is robust. This is not that kind of deflation. Today's deflationary pressures come from excess supply of goods and industrial capacity.
Second, deflation is especially dangerous now because the US has unprecedented proportions of debt. Why does this matter?
In an inflation, money loses value, so the inflation-adjusted value of debt shrinks as the years go by. So inflation is kind to borrowers.
But in a deflation, the opposite holds. Because prices are falling, the real value of money goes up in a deflation. So the value of debt actually rises, and borrowers are punished.
This can create a debt trap, forcing firms and families into a spiral of cutbacks to service a growing burden of debt - even though they're not borrowing a cent more. This pattern of retrenchment and bankruptcy can create recession and depression.
"We've already got debt deflation stories - we do have quite a large number of firms that are facing those kinds of pressures from unexpected sort of deflation already," says former Fed governor and leading forecaster Larry Meyer.
"And, as slack builds up in the economy, we're likely to see inflation fall below the implicit target" of the Federal Reserve, says Meyer.
"And, we know in those situations, again, following the lessons of Japan, that the policy authorities have to be particularly even more aggressive about pushing inflation back [up] to its target."
The Fed's contingency plan includes drastic options. If the key official interest rate should hit zero and the Fed loses its ability to stimulate the economy in the customary way - the current rate is already at 1.25 per cent - it could
buy up masses of government debt, even private corporate debt and private real estate, as a way of pumping liquidity into the economy. Fed governor Bernanke also points out that big devaluations of the US dollar have helped defeat deflation in the past.
Ultimately, "the US government has a technology, called a printing press ... that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost ... Sufficient injections of money will always reverse a deflation", he says.
Morgan Stanley's Roach says that the Fed's speech and its actions "are all very carefully orchestrated; they are shaping policies as if deflation is going to happen - and that's a good thing, because it is such a dangerous time".
Yes, but then if the dollar is debased, you are taxed on a fictious gain.
If you want land, then the Dollar already buys that, too.
And then you are forced to support the local socialist indoctrination camps.
So I don't see the reason to clamor for a mandatory currency replacement. Why force everyone to change to a "new" form of currency away from the Dollar?
I'm not trying to force people to do anything. The problem is that the current system exposes people to unneccesary risk. Why should you or I be on the hook for the speculative activity of JPM or the GSE's ? We don't share the profits, why should we share the risk?
Is there any possible currency that will be MORE flexible than the Dollar? Is there any possible currency than can insure that EVERY conceivable liquidity demand in our entire economy is always met?
But that comes at price. And the price is collectively held risk with privately held profit. TANSTAFL. Infinte liquidity isn't neccesarily a good thing. While it allows for spectacular progress it also allows for spectacular stupidity. I don't have a problem with high risk adventures, but the risk should be isolated to those who stand to profit. This is the role of stocks and bonds. There *is* no collective good so stop pretending the system is for the good of the "community".
Are there any limitations to what the Dollar can currently buy that another currency would remedy? If so, I certainly don't see it
How about a currency that preserves wealth? How about a currency that segregates stores of value from speculative activity.
"Yes, but then if the dollar is debased, you are taxed on a fictious gain." - AdamSelene235
No, not if you traded in all of your Dollars for gold. In fact, at that point your gold will be worth more, so your investment would have proven fortuitous.
We share no more of the collective "risks" for JP Morgan Bank than we enjoy in collateral benefits from having the most dynamic, affluent economy to ever grace this planet in its entire history of Man.
No currency prohibits spectacular stupidity. Name a currency and some government has probably gone broke under that system.
You've already got it. The Dollar enables you to store your wealth in whatever form you think will best preserve its value; gold, land, cash, whatever, the Dollar lets you obtain it at your leisure.
Yes, but our current system openly encourages it by shielding speculators from their full responsibility. Surely, you understand this or did you enjoy bailing out the S&L's and the peso?
Do I really have to point out that a capital gain, even if highly taxed, is still BETTER OFF than having made no gain at all?!
You can't exit these items without being taxed and you can't hold dollars without exposure to the whims of the Fed, the banks, the GSEs, etc.
You mean that I can't take gold to my vacation villa in St Martin?! Man, somebody stop me...
No but this is an implicit admission that I am not free to leave the dollar as you have claimed. No matter what asset I choose, I am punished for the mistakes of others while not sharing in their profit. Sure, I *reduce* my risk exposure by moving to another asset but I am still responsible for what happens with the helicopter money despite the fact they aren't dropping it in my yard.
Get it? I think you do but can't bear to agree with me on anything.
How can you say that?
You can trade ALL of your Dollars for gold or land if you want.
You can take all of your gold overseas if you want.
So how does that lock you in to the Dollar as you claim above?
What I am pointing out is that the Dollar is the best of most worlds; you get infinite flexibility along with the ability to store your wealth in any other vehicle (if any) of your choosing.
Uh no. Its illegal to export gold without declaring it on US Customs Form 4790. And its illegal to transition to another currency without paying fictious capital gains regardless where you are on Earth.
So yes, you are locked into to dollars.
Lets do a little Gedanken experiment. Say I've $100 I want to preserve. Say I buy some stable asset.
Now lets say the wise wise men at the Fed double the money supply and my asset is worth $200 in funny money.
Now lets say I wish to buy something else, like a case of SS109 since things are kinda getting sketchy outside. I have to transition back to dollars and pay, say long term capital gains: 20%.
My $100 had suddenly become $90 (or $180 inflated) and I have lost 10% of my labor and purchasing power.
Why? Because I am held responsible for the speculators at JP Morgan, Fannie Mae, etc. If they screw up down at the casino, I am obligated to clean up their mess. If they win, I get nothing.
That's not what I call free to leave the dollar.
Ask the farmers who lost everything in the 80's about the shared benefits. The collective good is a myth. I challenge you to name one. Vaccines ? Not to the .001% who drop dead. Public education? A complete waste of resources on the stupid or unmotivated. Highways? The Amish don't see it that way.
(Some things bear repeating .... )
The Amish didn't go to the Moon or invent nuclear power.
They don't want those things. Should they be forced to pay for things they don't want?
I want those things and will pay for it. Sadly NASA has murdered the spirit of the space program and you're not even allowed to build a nuke today, much less innovate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.