A central question for 2010: What is money?
Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 02:06AM Greetings Fellow Inmates,
It has been a long 20 days since we last convened, so we wish all our readers and friends all around the global penitentiary system a prosperous start to 2010. We have spent these 20 days on leave in a fruitful little corner in The Yard; we played, we toiled, and return refreshed to our regular routine. For this first post on the new year, we thought to begin with what will be one of the central themes of our discussions in 2010; money, itself. In many ways, we have already spent a great deal of time thinking about what constitutes money, its sufficient and necessary conditions, and attempted to come up with some draft definitions. 2010 is likely to be a year that will lead to many people to question very basic notions about risk, wealth (what it means and how to preserve it) and well-being. Now, let us be clear and specific. We have thus far made very few predictions about 2010. As many of our readers know, we are weary of prognostication; we mostly like to spot problems and inconsitencies, whose eventual consequences become impossible to time given the chaotic nature of herd behaviour and information absorption coefficients. We did predict however that by 11.07.10, Uncle Benny will have increased quantitative easing, and put our money where out mouth is. The most recent Fed Board Minutes confirm our suspicions. This alone could be enough to trigger a collective “realization” that QE is getting out of control, and in combination with the rising inflation pressures continuing and worsening in 2010 could really lead investors worldwide to seriously question the viability of the current UST/USD-denominated system. Therefore, we are strongly predicting a very significant lack of confidence in the UST/USD-system, as qualitative as this is. Will 2010 be enough to break the greenback’s back? Who knows, but the first flowerings will certainly appear this year. Make no mistake about it, the coming crisis will be one of confidence, a break of the faith in the system. A central tenet of the broken faith will be to shift from paper/digital assets into real ones. When the full crisis is set and done, most of us will have been forced to re-evaluate what constitutes “real” wealth, and how to best store it; a discipline we have long forgotten generationally (since 1933), and will thus lead us to question basic notions about money.
Tonight, our discussion will be framed by an exceptional essay written by one of the most notorious characters in the twentieth century, Judy Greenscam. As a brief aside, we’d like to direct our readers to “The Enforcers” section, where we have just added a bio sheet for Judy Greenscam. Once again, this section is highly recommended reading and well worth your while. Moreover, we would like to announce a contest where the first reader to correctly identify the origin of the nickname “Judy” will win an autographed copy of Judy’s book, The Age of Turbulence shipped anywhere in the world, as well as permanent enshrinement in Judy's biosheet; we have left ample clues throughout the website. Anyway, back to the essay.
The piece, grandiosely titled “Gold and Economic Freedom”, first appeared on 01.06.66 in Ayn Rand’s “The Objectivist” Newsletter. It really is a marvellous brief treatment of the gold standard and how it protects/defines wealth so much better than a paper fiat system. Imagine that: Judy at one point was succinct, precise, thorough and piercing. Of course she was! The whole greenscamspeak charade was nothing but a smoke-and-mirrors show, at which Judy maniacally and hysterically laughed in private. But that is neither here nor there. The true value of Judy’s piece, which we recommend you read in its entirety, is its attempt at clear and unquestionable definitions of money, wealth and savings. Judy’s words ring just as true today as they did in 1966, and will remain true for the foreseeable future: such is the nature of exact and rigid definitions. We will quote Judy in italics, and we begin with the most basic definition of all.
Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
General and robust, we shall adopt it; whenever we use the word “money”, we mean the above. Beyond this literal definition however we will, of course, still explore all the ontological, philosophical and ultimately practical nuances of properly defining/designing a form of money, or store of wealth. Judy then proceeds to describe some of the features of such a medium of exchange, in much the same way we have attempted to do many times here at DP. Quite fundamentally, she asserts that a universally accepted medium of exchange allows market participants to “store wealth”, or rather, “save”. This is of course, the crux of the issue, and one that we will continue to flesh out in 2010, just as we started way back when back when in “A Brief Commentary on Intrinsic Value and Stores of Value”.
Judy proceeds to make several bold statements concerning gold’s role as protector and insurer of economic freedom. It is extremely ironic, yes, but also mind-bogglingly ridiculous that such an intelligent person, capable of emitting such harsh maxims and syllogisms about gold as economic liberator can then become the Chief Architect of the system created specifically to remove said gold standard¸ and thus, according to Judy, created to economically imprison the populace. If you are unable to see how this is an enormous case of doublethink then we suggest turning off your BlackBerry, your BloomBerg, and stop listening to Barack oBama. Judy’s following statements about gold are, again, mostly interesting when juxtaposed to the actual system, for which Judy is perhaps most single-handedly responsible.
Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.
When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade.
It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.
The statements speak for themselves, but we mostly emphasize the nature that gold leads to quick and efficient market corrections, as it inhibits the accumulation of excesses (unlike paper). There is ample historical evidence for this, and we strongly urge you to verify this yourself. Perhaps at some point, we will model this in history (some sort of depth studies of recessions on/off gold standard), but for now our intent is not to expound on the nature of the gold standard, nor even evaluate the merits of Judy’s claims. We merely point out again the deep and troubling irony of Judy’s avowed knowledge about the nature of the gold standard, 21 years before she became Chairman of the Fed, acting directly against the interests of “Economic Freedom” as she defined it here in 1966. It’s almost like Judy likes playing the “contrapositive”, or the “receptive” end of the negative. Hmm.
If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913.
This is a marvellous quote that aims a painful arrow of truth at the Fed’s little heart-place-holder. This is the principal alleged reason why the Fed was created; to eliminate the business cycle. If a central bank could create liquidity at will, it was claimed, businesses would never run out of money. Well, this hypothesis has now been unequivocally, often and robustly proven to be false. Hence, on its outwardly public purpose, the Fed has failed miserably. It should be abolished, and a new system devised. The one thing the Fed has done however though, invariably, is to increase inflation. Just look at the CPI chart in our previous post. At creating inflation, the Fed has been an enormous and unwavering success. This, we believe, was the actual real purpose of creation of the Fed: to create a persistent and stable inflation and thus deprive the populace of their wealth. The people in charge of the world are very successful at achieving their aims, so as the obvious architects and players in the Fed (again, see The Enforcers), we are confident in assuming that the actual purpose of the Fed is precisely that at which it is the most successful, creating inflation. This amounts to the grandest-scale theft, a gargantuan erosion of the wealth, a mass impoverishment of the world’s peoples. Some might call us histrionic, but we beg to differ, and so does Judy. We are simply sticking to definitions, as was Judy back in her 1966 pre-greenscamspeak days: a system that creates/promotes a persistent inflation is equivalent to a system that discourages long-term saving, erodes wealth and deprives its participants of economic freedom. Or as Judy says, remember, way back in 1966,
The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods.
Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.
We could have hardly said it any better, right on Judy. Let us repeat, “Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” Scheme. Confiscation. Strong words. We would absolutely love to simply sit Judy, Uncle Benny Obummer, Granpa Volcker, and Mayo Larry in a room as ask them to respond, in the most clearly-worded way possible to the above quotes. They are largely irrefutable, barring any semantic Idea Shape-Shifting such as that Judy would later-on perfect. Deficit spending causes greater in debentures, which only increases the ratio of claims to assets, leading not only to further economic imprisonment (in time-terms), but also much greater risk of systemic fiat collapse.
It’s amazing to think the kind of world we would currently live in if the person that wrote this article in 1966 would have actually served as the Chief Monetary Authority in the World for 19 years. Instead, what we got was Judy, one of the puppeteer’s many masks (also one of the most funny-looking ones).
We thus conclude this little post. We will now resume regular postings on DP after our little vacation. We will resume many of threads we began late last year and cover some of the most pressing developments in our financial and economic universe. Ultimately, it is important for DP staff to constantly evaluate and reiterate the purpose of our little endeavour. We are truly immersed in a life-quest to unravel the different risks and economic shackles that imprison us. We have found that some of the simplest questions pose the most difficult conundrums and are the most problematically dealt with in our current world. We do not, however, believe we are bound for eternal failure. It is entirely within the grasp of human intellect to arrive at sound and robust definitions of value and money, to at least a modicum of self-consistency, and build an economic system around them that does not violate or “fuzzy-up” these definitions. We will attempt this exercise for ourselves, as it will offer invaluable insights for the rearranging of our own lives and risk, and we will fervently hope that our discussions here help further the mental discourse of at least a few survivors that will shape the system of tomorrow.
May your capital be safe and your investments prosperous,
MAAA
MAAA |
5 Comments |
Reader Comments (5)
As an aside ... ONE key reason for this massive contradiction and shift to blatant doublethink clearly described above emanates from United States domestic oil production peaking-out in 1970-71.
From that point, we had to start importing more and more oil to make up for both the decline in domestic production AND the expansion of the new U.S. “suburbia” (new “mall” concept, new super highways from Eisenhower).
Being on the gold standard then, this growing imported oil bill would ultimately be paid for with U.S. gold, and, the U.S. gold supply, it was feared, would diminish.
So, rather than finding ways to “live within our means”, we trashed the regulatory mechanism implied within a gold standard and went the free market, fiat currency route.
Under the fiat currency system, it then became “acceptable” to pay for oil import with debt, specifically, U.S. Treasury debt. That lit the fire of today’s chronic deficit economics.
That step toward paying for oil imports with credit – which Jimmy Carter tried to alleviate via his attempt to direct us toward both “energy conservation” and “alternative energies” – began the start of today’s economic cancer of debt. (Remember when Carter attached solar panels on the WHITE HOUSE roof ... AND ... Reagan then took them down in 1981?)
Judy Greenscam – and others in her league – had to adjust pronouncements to fit within this new deficit environment, and, by default, doublespeak became required as chronic deficit economics is not rational, in the long run.
Dear Dork, It is another very excellent point you bring up. Without a doubt, oil and the recyclement of petrodollars through the "fractional reserve" system of those times were of central importance to the establisment of deficit economics. Completely agree that it is irrational, and that is precesily what strikes me the most, especially considering the gargantuan losses in case of its effectively inevitable collapse. It does beg questions about human beings' tolerance for "irrationality", given enough potential losses. It clearly has a CENTRAL role in the fact that all bubbles crash, and the self-correcting nature of economic markets as human beings eventually become horrified at their vanity, at their "animal spirits", and squirrel away into their dungeon.
I believe that in the mid-term future, the exponentially growing (and I dont use "exponentially" lightly) absurdity and irrationality of the system will lead to such a correction, where THE HUMAN looks at itself in disgust after a long night/decade/century of absurd and unsustainable behavior, and runs away from the house of cards/tower of babel he's built for itself, crashing upon him and nearly killing him.
As for your earlier point about Grandpa Volcker going apeshit with the Fed Funds, I have been thinking and reading more about it and must say you are completely right. That definitely excuses his earlier erratic behavior, which I condemned by looking only at CPI. However, that still does not excuse him from the 666 other charges!
Just wanted to get this in.
4. In the correspondence referred to in question 2 above, if the Respondent wished to protect its “privacy” why did it not do so by simply using its business name TE Internet Services, instead of by using the name “Judy”?
5. Apparently the disputed domain name has been used to present a photograph of Mr. Alan Greenspan “for over 5 years”. The Response indicates that Mr. Rose has not developed the site further due to “personal and health reasons”, but that he hopes to expand the site in the future. If the Respondent’s intention was to “honor” Mr. Greenspan, why did it take the Respondent approximately six years to post the one photograph mentioned?
Discipulus, you got it! Unfortunately, someone else by the name of Rob Green won the contest by figuring it out first. Of course my friend, you probably also understand the implication that Judy is Jason Rose is Alan Greenspan, and the URL in question is nothing but a prank by that eternal jokers that loves to laugh at the poor destitute slaves and our ignorance, even as the truth is flaunted right before our eyes. The irrefutable proof of this lies mostly in the mind, but I could go on EXTENSIVELY about the myriad other "clues" left on www.theeconomist.com, as to the real author. Also, it is quite interesting to check out web.archive.org and see that the only change to theeconomist.com happened IMMEDIATELY after the WIPO ruling and the changes were minor cosmetic changes as well as capitalization the indefinite article THE, of which a big point was made in the WIPO case.
Let me know if you need any further convincing and a private avenue through which to reach you so as to not spoil the quest for others. It is after all I think only after you come to this realization yourself that the true value of this exercise comes out.
Also, Rob Green has not produced an address where I can ship the book, and I will have time limit for claiming it. As second in line, if he does not claim it, the autographed version of the book is yours!
Interesting stuff, just started reading this blog and I am loving it. After quickly looking over the Greenspan article, I wanted to offer some brief criticisms. In my view, Greenspan is guilty of naturalizing the market mechanism - in his account, it is only through the conscious interference of misguided and/or greedy elites that markets are disrupted and prevented from achieving optimal outcomes. This explains his simplistic characterization of the origins of welfare states. He claims: "Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes."
What Greenspan ignores here is that the rise of welfare states (and other regulatory institutions) took place as part of an inevitable "countermovement," as societies sought to protect existing structures against the revolutionizing market forces.
My theoretical reference point here is Karl Polanyi's "The Great Transformation": “For a century the dynamics of modern society was governed by a double movement: the market expanded continuously but this movement was met by a countermovement checking the expansion in definite directions. Vital though such a countermovement was for the protection of society, in the last analysis it was incompatible with the self- regulation of the market, and thus with the market system itself." “Yet simultaneously a countermovement was on foot. This was more than the usual defensive behaviour of society faced with change; it was a reaction against a dislocation which attacked the fabric of society, and which would have destroyed the very organization of production that the market had called into being"
Left to run its course, the market rapidly rearranges existing social constellations, resulting in unprecedented social dislocation. The countermovement necessarily follows, society acts to preserve itself; it is the revolutionizing vortex of the market mechanism itself which brings forth state-led interventions. The welfare state, including high rates of taxation to support social spending, is at the core of this countermovement, at least in liberal societies. Of course, welfare state liberalism is deeply flawed, and should be subject to vigorous immanent criticism. We should keep in mind, however, that alternative resolutions, or countermovements, were attempted during the 20th century, including the facisms and state-socialist projects of central and eastern Europe. Point being, even supposing strict adherence to a policy of universal free-trade regulated by gold-convertibility, various forms of state intervention would have remained necessary. The task now is to "invent" new forms of collective action which transcend the state/market dialectic. Until we have such an alternative, it is vital to protect existing welfare states against those who would dismantle them to make a quick buck (this process is most visible in the experience of the post-Soviet states but has been ongoing in "the West" for decades).
One last point: a few quick internet searches will demonstrate that an effective welfare state is not necessarily dependent upon deficit spending, as Greenspan suggests ("the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending"). Compare the Scandinavian economies to that of the US. That said, the thesis that deficit spending effectively transfers wealth to the political class is quite compelling, and perhaps helps account for the unwillingness of US elites to end the ongoing wars despite the government's looming bankruptcy, highly profitable as they have been for those doing the 'rebuilding', supplying the weaponry etc..