|
Gold Standard University Live: R.I.P.
The Inaugural Session of GSUL took place in February, 2007, at the Martineum
Academy in Hungary. Subsequent sessions, including one in Dallas, Texas, showed
a healthy increase in attendance, on average by fifty percent. Still, I am
now forced to announce that Session Four in Hungary in July, and Session Five
in Canberra, Australia in November will be the last. GSUL will fold tent as
its sponsor, Sprott Asset Management, Inc., has withdrawn its financial support.
Mr. Eric Sprott said in his letter that "we weren't attracting enough interest
to justify that ongoing expenditure".
To give you an idea of the odds I am facing let me quote from the article
in Wikipedia (June 9, 2008) captioned under my name: "It should be noted that
mainstream economic theorists criticize gold standard-oriented monetary economists
and monetary reformers such as Professor Fekete as 'fringe' or 'amateur' economists,
not worthy of serious study. Professor Fekete has never held a teaching position
in the economics department of any prominent university".
A deep, searing corruption
Pre-1936 theorists of the gold standard are likewise dismissed by the mainstream
as "not worthy of serious study". I am proud that I have tried to continue
that tradition in the footsteps of giants like Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Böhm-Bawerk,
Ludwig von Mises, Frank Fetter, Benjamin Anderson, among others. Monetary scientist
Walter E. Spahr, who served as Chairman of the Department of Economics at New
York University from 1927 to 1956, wrote in The Commercial and Financial
Chronicle on March 20, 1947: "A deep, searing corruption has afflicted
monetary science. It may require many years of painful effort to overcome this
disease if, indeed, it can be combated successfully. The well-being of our
nation has been undermined by this affliction... When gold payments were suspended
in 1933 and we embarked upon a sea of managed currency, a very large number
of professors and organizations [list appended] urged a prompt return to a
gold standard. The question arises what has become of those voices. Were they
in error then? Did those 710 economists know so little about monetary principles
in 1933 that they could not, a short time later, defend their earlier position? Or
were they simply corrupted by a political movement which they found it inexpedient
to oppose? There appears to be no valid defense that can be offered for
men who pretend to be scientists but who adjust their so-called principles
in accordance with changing political tides. A very great number of those who
pass themselves off as monetary economists either have not understood the lessons
of the past or have been willing to junk them, in the interest of expediency,
for such personal gains as they may have supposed they might realize..."
Perpetuation of an immoral and dysfunctional monetary regime
One representative of the mainstream, Professor Jeff Frieden of Harvard, says
that "the topic of the gold standard has received massive attention from scholars
since the 1980's -- from Barry Eichengreen to Ben Bernanke with hundreds in
between -- and a serious analysis of its implications requires a serious engagement
with the existing scholarly literature."
I have studied most of that literature and I have not been able to find one
iota connecting our crisis-ridden monetary system to the forcible removal of
gold from it. Rather, the gold standard is portrayed as an anachronistic monetary
regime, the removal of which was due to popular demand. Moral considerations,
sanctity of contracts, the honor of the government, the opprobrium of declaring
bankruptcy fraudulently, the question of tormenting widows and orphans did
not enter into it. Nor did long term economic considerations such as the ticking
time-bomb of capital destruction. The question is never raised how well the
gold standard succeeded as the protector of savings, as the instrument of capital
accumulation and, above all, as the stabilizer of the interest rate structure.
A façade that the mainstream has provided a reasonably complete and
balanced view of the gold standard, past and future, is maintained but is outright
mendacious. The existing literature is in fact a stumbling block in the way
of impartial inquiry. It is dedicated to the maintenance of the status-quo,
the perpetuation of an immoral and dysfunctional monetary regime: that of irredeemable
currency. This has led me to found Gold Standard University Live that is free
to challenge the Keynesian and Friedmanite orthodoxy.
Let me mention just two broad areas of inquiry which have been overlooked
by others, but which we have planned to tackle:
(1) Gold and the theory of interest. The latter cannot be understood
without the former. We have to incorporate the theory of hoarding into the
theory of interest. We have to study the problem of capital destruction in
the wake of gyrating interest rates, the main consequence of ousting gold from
the monetary system.
(2) Gold and the theory of speculation. To understand the causes of
the Great Depression we must understand speculation. The theory of speculation
covers such topics as arbitrage, futures trading, basis (especially gold and
silver basis), contango, backwardation, short squeeze, corner. Speculation
is virtually ignored by conventional economic theory. The hurly-burly on the
floor of the exchanges apparently does not reach the ears of inhabitants of
the ivory tower.
The economic consequences of Mr. Keynes
Once these two gaps are filled, it becomes clear that the gold standard is
naturally ordained as the only system that can stabilize interest and foreign
exchange rates. By contrast, the regime of irredeemable currency has been inflicted
upon the people through fraud and chicanery. Its foundation is no firmer than
the gullibility of people who are, for the time being, willing to exchange
real goods and real services for irredeemable promises to pay. But as the prices
of crude oil and various foodstuffs convincingly show, there are definite limits
to gullibility.
The claim of Keynes parroted by most mainstream economists, that the Great
Depression was due to the "contractionist tendencies of the gold standard",
is untenable. Just the opposite is true. Here is what happened.
In 1933 the forcible removal of gold signaled to bond speculators that the
one and only competition to government bonds has been knocked out. They were
quick to realize that their chance to bid bond prices sky high has come. The
result was continually falling interest rates causing widespread capital destruction,
as well as falling prices. Producers were bankrupted en masse. Economists
have never bothered to study the untoward consequences of the forcible removal
of gold, even though common sense would suggest that it cannot be done with
impunity.
A careful and impartial examination of the record shows that the scuttling
of the gold standard, as advocated by Keynes, was the main cause of the Great
Depression and, unless it is rehabilitated with all deliberate speed, a new
depression may be waiting in the wings.
Theory of speculation
Speculation is man's main tool to deal with risks and future uncertainties.
Mainstream economics fails to make a distinction between risks created by nature
and risks created by man. This distinction is fundamental. Speculation can
effectively confront the former, while it will only aggravate the latter.
Risks created by man include risks involved in foreign exchange and interest
rate fluctuations. They are certainly not created by nature witness the fact
that such risks are non-existent under a gold standard. Clearly, they were
created by governments while abandoning the gold standard.
It is untenable to assume that under the regime of irredeemable currency speculation
will tame the fluctuations in foreign exchange and interest rates. Just the
opposite is true. Futures markets make them even less stable and more volatile.
It is not possible to predict whether bond prices go to zero as they would
under hyper-inflation, or whether they go sky high as they would under hyper-deflation.
This problem is crucial and it can be approached only through understanding
bond speculation, especially as it is helped by tail-winds provided by the
central bank.
The following facts are either not widely known or not well-understood. Open
market operations of the Federal Reserve (Fed) were introduced in the 1920's
in violation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. They were legalized retroactively
in the 1930's. There was hardly any public discussion of the wisdom of the
move or the stakes involved. Pre-1936 economics was categorical in its condemnation
of the monetization of government debt. Introducing the catchy name "open market
operations" has made it possible to monetize government debt through the back
door.
Economists failed to predict the disastrous consequences of this ex post
facto legislation. Bond speculators were given a risk-free opportunity
to profit. In pre-empting the Fed they would buy the bonds beforehand, dumping
them after the Fed has completed the purchase of its quota. Risk-free speculation
imparted a bias to the market favoring rising bond prices or, what is the
same to say, falling interest rates.
It speaks volumes about the degradation of economics in the wake of the Keynesian
revolution that an illegal trick could be elevated to the holiest of gestures
whereby high-powered money is created, and nobody points to the downside of
the prestidigitation.
Revisionist theory of the Great Depression
Most importantly, economists have also failed to identify falling interest
rates as the main cause of the Great Depression. They have concentrated on
falling prices, not realizing that in doing so they are confusing cause and
effect. The true chain of causation is as follows.
Persistently falling interest rates result in the erosion (ultimately, destruction)
of capital deployed by the producing sector. In effect, bond speculators siphon
off money stealthily from the capital accounts of the producers. The latter
are unaware of being victimized by this vampirism of the financial sector.
But they are, whether they recognize it or not. Profits of the bond speculators
do not come out of nowhere. They are the flipside of the opportunity loss suffered
by the producers who have to continue financing their capital at the higher
rate. Unable to escape from the clutches of debt, the producers are squeezed.
They scramble to sell more of their product at fire-sale prices in order to
fend off bankruptcy. In this way a downward spiral of prices is created.
The prevailing optical illusion suggests that money is scarce. Everybody cries
out for the Fed to create more money. The Fed complies and enters the open
market to purchase more bonds. In doing so it provides bond speculators with
another opportunity to make risk-free profits. Interest rates fall further
and producers are squeezed more. A vicious circle is activated. At the end
of the spiral producers go bankrupt in droves.
According to my revisionist theory the Great Depression, far from being caused
by overproduction as suggested by Keynes, was caused by wholesale destruction
of capital. The ultimate cause was risk-free profits granted to bond speculators
through the Fed's open market operations.
This is a serious challenge with which the prevailing orthodoxy is confronted.
The weakness of its position is shown by the unwillingness to take it up and
have an open debate. It is with regret that Gold Standard University Live has
to suspend its operation to let Keynesian orthodoxy win by default.
Witch-hunt in Washington
High energy and food prices have given occasion for a witch hunt in Washington.
Politicians are trying to push the blame on speculators, calling for legislation
to limit long positions in the futures markets. These laws, if enacted, would
be counter-productive. All this goes to show that economics is a complete ignoramus
when it comes to speculation.
Speculating in crude oil and in grains is not risk-free. Profits are
the incentive for speculators to lend liquidity to the markets and to temper
price swings. Indeed, speculation stimulates production or retrenchment according
as the threat is scarcity or overproduction.
It is a blunder to regulate speculators out of the commodity markets. The
result is predictable: illiquidity, more volatility, more scarcity. Consumers
would end up paying even more for energy and food.
So much for commodity speculation. Bond speculation is another matter. As
explained, bond trading does not address risks that exist in nature. It addresses
risks created artificially by the government. Worse still, instead of promoting
stability, it destabilizes the interest rate structure further. Worst of all,
bond speculation is made risk-free by the open market operations of the Fed.
The cap on bond prices has been removed, and continually falling interest rates
may push the world into another Great Depression, possibly worse than the last
one in the 1930's.
Farewell message
These are just some of the questions GSUL has set out to investigate in depth.
Mainstream economics avoids these topics like the devil avoids holy water.
Other schools such as the Austrian, for example, appear to be more interested
in cultism and in regurgitating old tenets than in new research of new problems
to which mainstream economics turns a blind eye.
It is with regret that GSUL gives up its plans to discuss these burning issues
in public just at a time when the need for such debate appears to be the greatest.
I take this opportunity to thank everybody, participants as well as sponsors,
for their support of our cause. I wish everybody a prosperous journey through
what promises to be truly hard times.
Reference:
A. E. Fekete, Fiat Currency, Destroyer of Capital, www.financialsense.com,
December 5, 2007
|