|
Monday marked the annual get together of the central bankers' central bank -
the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland.
This shadowy institution was set up at the explicit urging of the eccentric
and somewhat occultist Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England for
most of the interwar period.
Now, Norman - the Alan Greenspan of his day—was one of those unaccountable
grandees among the world's elite who wants both to have his cake and to eat
it, too. Like most of them, he ended up both hungry and pastryless.
His goal - aimed at reversing the effects of the complete abandonment of all
sustainable means of finance during the ruinous Great War - was to return Sterling
to the gold standard at its pre-war parity, but without undergoing the deflation
necessary to reset the levels of prices either to the existing supply of gold,
or to where they would be in rough harmony with that of Britain's overseas
competitors.
That very modern sounding fudge turned out to be the basis for two decades
of ad hoc expediency which started with bootleggers and bellhop stock
pickers and ended up sowing the seeds for the even more devastating War of
the Dictators In setting up the BIS, Norman had one explicit and two tacit,
though not secret, objectives.
Ostensibly, it was where the problems posed by the imposition of vast levels
of war reparations on Germany would be co-ordinated - hence, its rather prosaic
name. But, it was also to provide a confidential venue for the cabal of international
central bankers to consort with one another, indeed, to conspire with one another,
in relative secrecy and, further, it was to be the centre of those efforts
at denying the underlying economic realities of the time, adopted at the Genoa
monetary conference in 1922, which went under the name of 'economizing on the
use of gold'
The inauguration of this so-called gold-exchange standard marked the first
stage in the progressive loosening of the politically- inhibiting, but individually-
liberating, rules intrinsic to using the Sun Metal as the base for the world's
monies.
As such, it was the direct cause of both the Boom of the 1920s and the Bust
of the 1930s, as well as of the internationalization of the general inflation
in goods prices, and the wild swings in asset prices upon which our increasingly
violent business cycles have been superimposed.
Ironically, a mere year after the BIS itself was set up, it was already partly
an anachronism - for, by 1931, the German and Austrian banking systems had
collapsed, President Hoover had declared a moratorium on the payment of war
debt and reparations, and Norman himself was to lead Britain - and thus the
rest of the Empire - off gold in the attempt to mitigate the crisis all this
had triggered at home.
Of course, under the iron rule of the self-perpetuation of international bureaucracies
(see under: NATO), the fact that the original premises for such an institution's
founding had been overtaken by events, in no way meant it would be abandoned.
So, even now, seventy years on, every month a conclave of the highest fiat
money cardinals on the planet gathers in camera there amid the Alps,
to dispose of the fate of nations.
Two interesting things came out of the annual meeting just held.
Firstly, though there was some sound good sense talked about how falling prices
- when brought on by a burst of output and extra productive activity - would
be anything BUT a curse, this was instantly vitiated by the sustained special
pleading that today's peculiar circums tances - essentially those of already
lowered interest rates, high indebtedness, and sticky wages - would almost
inevitably make such an occurrence a dangerous one.
Thus, the collected Princes of Paper and Kaisers of Credit pretty much endorsed
all the recent Federal Reserve-propagated craziness about administering the
whole pharmacopoeia of quack remedies to any economy so afflicted - among them
the accelerated reduction of interest rates for those so able; to be followed
by the monetization firstly of government securities, then of those issued
by other entities, and, lastly, of real assets if necessary; this to be coupled
with morally hazardous guarantees of support for the financial firms which
comprise the central banks' cartel; the avowal of cast- iron assurances as
to the extended duration of all such policies; and the possible adoption of
rising price level, rather than just inflation, targets.
That way madness lies, since implementation of these would at best increase
the chances of a Japanese-style stagnation - by keeping dead companies alive
and leaving entrepreneurs befuddled in a narcopecuniary world of unreal prices
and false valuations - and at worst it might lead to wheelbarrow hyperinflation
if the taps are kept open too long after any upturn was engendered.
Secondly, there was a revealing comment from the BIS President - Dutchman
Nout Wellink - in an accompanying address, that: 'the depreciation of the
dollar is one mechanism that would tend to narrow the US external imbalance' -
banker-speak for its yawning trade gap - and this, 'by providing room for
easing monetary policy elsewhere… could also contribute to a welcome
boost to global demand..'
Translated, this means that as the Greenback is again eased lower in value
- for this must decidedly not be allowed to take place at 'at an uncomfortable
pace' - other countries' interest rates will continue to be lowered, all
the way to nought, if necessary, to compensate.
As that great bird of ill-omen, John Maynard Keynes himself, once said: 'Everything
balances at zero' - though much good may the practical application of
that mathematical truism do to us, if it happens!
But, no such worries were openly expressed by the attendees, as the Toronto
Globe & Mail reported: 'Everybody was very confident about it,' said
Gordon Richardson, former Bank of England governor. 'It was a theoretical
discussion without any sharp corners,' remarked Matti Louekoski, deputy
governor of the Bank of Finland, cryptically.
But, Gold Bugs please note: according to several central bankers who spoke
to the paper, Alan Greenspan again argued that measures once considered 'unorthodox'
might now become conventional. 'We used to watch only commodity prices,
exchange rates and interest rates, but now it seems we also have to examine
or monitor asset prices,' one unnamed participant was quoted.
The central bankers, though grudgingly acknowledging that their doctrine of
ensuring generic price stability is insufficient to maintain financial stability
- for reasons no Austrian will need to have enumerated - still resolutely eschew
all suggestion that they should 'examine or monitor asset prices' in
the upswing, of course.
This, they explain, is because any increase in interest rates 'sufficient
to offset wildly exuberant expectations in some sectors of the economy could
wreak havoc elsewhere' - which is a tacit admission that fiat money and
elastic credit is ultimately insupportable - and also because 'convincing
the public of the need for such a policy would also be difficult' - which
is simply a confession of political cowardice.
But, once let the Bust succeed the Boom and the central banks' focus switches
from the prime directive of underwriting oligarchic and State expropriation
of private property and to the second imperative of protecting their own. 'While
it might be possible to minimise the excesses,' the report baldly states, 'a
more important objective would be to keep the financial system functioning
properly even after a credit or asset price bust.'
Add this to the glaring asymmetry outlined above in the circumstances under
which asset prices should be 'monitored' and does anyone still really doubt
the existence of some form of heavy- handed and ultimately counter-productive
market intervention, such as that reputed to be carried out by the agency colloquially
known as the 'Plunge Protection Team'?
If so, please send me your address. I have an interesting proposition concerning
a certain landmark bridge to show you.
|