|
"...Just like the Bank of England, the US Fed seems to have Britney-sized
'issues' with its core stock-in-trade - money itself..."
PROFESSOR TIM BESLEY, one of the nine people chosen to set interest-rate
policy at the Bank of England in London, gave a speech on Tuesday about "Inflation
and the Global Economy".
For a central banker talking about commodity prices and the cost of living,
he managed a remarkable feat.
He didn't use the word "money" once.
Nor did his BoE colleague Charles Bean when he spoke about the "prospects
for the UK economy" on 17th April.
Nor did the deputy governor, John Gieve, when he spoke on "global imbalances" at
the Sovereign Wealth Fund conference in London last month.
In fact, if you ignore the phrase "money market(s)", seven different members
of the Bank's policy team used the word "money" just three times in nine speeches
over the last ten weeks.
Their chosen topics included "policy dilemmas", "the return of the credit
cycle", and even - on Wednesday this week - "Sterling and monetary policy".
But of money itself, the very thing the Old Lady issues? It got three name-checks
only.
The Federal Reserve seems to have Britney-sized "issues" with its core stock-in-trade,
too. Issues verging on the neurotic, in fact. Allowing for one bizarre exception
(in which Fred Mishkin claimed that the Dollar's forex collapse won't create
any Main Street inflation), some 23 speeches from five Fed policy-makers since
mid-February mentioned "money" a total of only eight times. Four of those mentions
came in the phrase "money market(s)".
And this from a team charged with providing a "flexible currency" - meaning
money, of course - to the citizens of the United States. So why hide from the
issue? Is the Fed scared of naming its very purpose? It can't surely fear a
pile of paper, can it?
The Fed's Open Market Committee wields so much power, according to Robert
Reich, former US secretary of labor, it should be classed the "fourth branch
of government." Forget about Congress, the White House, the courts; the Fed
holds "more power over your daily life than your congressman and Senator, maybe
even your president," Reich writes in his blog.
In short, the Federal Reserve "can do amazing things..." according to Reich,
but from our review of Fed speeches here at BullionVault,
it can't talk about money. Things like:
- "Decide one big bank, JP Morgan, is going to take over another, Bear Stearns,
backed by $29 billion of taxpayer money...
- "Expose taxpayers to hundreds of billions of dollars of potential losses
without a single appropriation hearing, as it did when it allowed Wall Street's
major investment banks to exchange tainted mortgage-backed securities for
nice clean loans from the Treasury...
- "Deciding the threat of recession is bigger than inflation, so it's been
lowering interest rates."
This last super-heroic ability, notes Reich - now professor of public policy
at Berkeley - "has made the Dollar drop further and faster, which means you're
paying more for gas and food.
"Can you imagine if Congress caused this to happen?"
A cynic might add that Congress does plenty to depress the value of Dollars
as well. But if you can't guess what would happen in Washington if Congress
set out to destroy the currency, the Fed most likely can. It simply needs to
turn history upside down for a moment.
At the start of the 1980s, former chairman Paul Volcker was burnt in effigy
by an angry crowd on the steps of the Capitol for hiking short-term interest
rates to 19%. His policies aimed to quell inflation, of course, defending the
value of Dollars. Looking at Ben Bernanke's decisions today, you may wonder
if he intends precisely the opposite.
Volcker's infamous weekend announcement of sharp hikes in the cost of money
- and therefore in its future discounted value - was a huge political gamble.
Already sliding into recession, could the US bear such a high cost of borrowing?
To judge just what was at stake, ask if America could bear it today.
So to hold America's nose and get his strong medicine down, Volcker made plain
he was in fact looking to target not growth but "money" - meaning the quantity
of credit and cash flowing through the economy. He was simply following the
monetarist tactics of the German and Swiss central banks, stemming the flood
of cheap credit and reducing the excess piled up during the 1970s.
As the value of each remaining Dollar bill stopped falling, the cost of living
would ease off. And at first, it worked like a charm.
Breaking out of the lecture theatre, the idea of whipping the money supply
made sense to politicians and voters alike. It had first been put forward by
the "Bullion School" of British economists at the start of the 19th century.
Milton Friedman confirmed it with his "monetarist" theories of the 1950s.
The German Bundesbank and Swiss National Bank then applied it - successfully
- to keep inflation at bay right through the late '70s. US and UK households,
meantime, suffered double-digit growth in the cost of living each year.
Now in spring 2008, Zimbabwe offers the latest example of monetary inflation
in action. There the cost of living is rising by 165,000% per year as the central
bank prints 10 million-dollar notes. But here in the developed West's inflation-free
dream world, the idea of targeting money itself - its supply and quantity -
has lost out entirely to the idea of controlling its outcome, the cost of living,
instead.
"Most people think economics is the study of money, but there is a paradox
in the role of money in economic policy," as Mervyn King, now governor at the
Bank of England, noted in a lecture first given at the University of Birmingham,
England, in Oct. 2001.
King repeated his findings the following spring at the Banque de France in
Paris. But not even he was listening.
"As central banks became more and more focused on achieving price stability
[in the '80s and '90s], less and less attention was paid to movements in money," he
explained. "Indeed, the decline of interest in money appeared to go hand in
hand with success in maintaining low and stable inflation."
This Zen Buddhist approach to monetary policy - ignoring money and thereby
controlling it - was also noted by Prof. Glyn Davies in his History of Money (University
of Wales, 2002). During "the overt acceptance of monetarist policies, inflation
[was] far worse than when Keynesian policies prevailed." Overlooking the money
supply seems the answer to delivering low, stable inflation.
Well, stable in a way that nobody noticed. The US Dollar, along with the Pound
Sterling, still lost half its value for consumers and savers between 1981 and
today. But annual rates of inflation held below 3%, with occasional dips towards
1% growing ever-more frequent at the start of this decade.
And all this while, with no one daring to mention it beyond a few cranks at
the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, the supply of money worldwide has surged
once again.
Over the last 12 months, the money supply in Australia has expanded by 16%,
in Canada by 13% and in the United Kingdom by 12%. China's supply of money
grew 18%, Singapore's 14%, and in both India and Saudi Arabia it grew 22%.
The Eurozone, stuck with those old Bundesbank cranks, got a mere 11% surge
in money supplies. The United States, which stopped reporting such out-dated
things in March of 2006, is estimated to have got a 15% expansion.
Might it matter? On Mervyn King's analysis, yes. The correlation between annual
money-supply growth and rates of inflation, he found, reaches 0.99 if you track
the three-decade period ending in 1999. It would stand at 1.00 if they moved
absolutely in lock-step.
But that research was done before King got top-dog position at the Bank of
England. Since then, he's overseen (and overlooked?) double-digit growth in
the UK's money supply, running now for a full 37 months.
"Habits of speech not only reflect habits of thinking, they influence them
too," King went on in that long-forgotten speech about money. "So the way in
which central banks talk about money is important.
"My own belief is that the absence of money in the standard models which economists
use will cause problems in future...It would be unfortunate if the change in
the way we talk led to the erroneous belief that we could turn Milton Friedman
on his head, and think that 'Inflation is always and everywhere a real phenomenon.'
"Money, I conjecture, will regain an important place in the conversation of
economists," the current Bank of England chief concluded six years ago.
That day still remains a long way off yet. Meaning there's plenty more room
for mayhem in money ahead.
|