|
It is taken for granted that the US will go into recession on the grounds
that the boom-bush cycle is an inherent part of the free market. (Democrats
and their lying media mates are fervently praying that the next recession will
happen on Bush's watch). Now that Greenspan has retired and Bernanke heads
the reserve most commentators expect that it will be business as usual. Unfortunately
they are right. Bernanke made that clear a while ago with a supportive comment
about the "price rule".
Commentators are relieved at the apparent ease at which Bernanke's slipped
into Greenspan's shoes. In order to see what is seriously wrong here we need
to re-examine Greenspan's record. In my opinion his performance is still being
grossly overrated an economic commentariat that should know better. It needs
to be understood that Greenspan and the rest of the Fed, including Bernanke,
subscribe to the dangerous price rule concept, according to which inflation
is defined as too much money chasing too few goods.
Hence, match monetary growth with output and this will stabilise prices and
thus the economy. Minor rises in the CPI of 2 per cent or so are considered
of little importance. It follows from the rule that falling prices are defined
as too little money chasing too many goods and that this situation would be
deflationary. Unfortunately, this rule is a dangerous recipe for recession:
a fact that I suspect Greenspan, no matter how dimly, is aware of. Perhaps
he still recalls that during the 1920s the likes of Fisher, Keynes and Sir
Ralph Hawtrey interpreted America's 'stable price level' as evidence that the
economy was on a steady growth path and immune to recession.
It was only a few dissenters like Benjamin M. Anderson, Ludwig von Mises and
Frederich von Hayek, sneeringly referred to as old fashioned "qualitative economists",
who pointed out that these so-called stable prices were concealing enormous "imbalances" created
by excess credit, and that these "imbalances" would eventually have to be liquidated
once the economy went into an unavoidable recession. It was pointed out later
on in the depression that the current
...difficulties are viewed largely as the inevitable aftermath of the world's
greatest experiment with a "managed currency" within the gold standard,
and, incidentally, should provide interesting material for consideration
by those advocates of a managed currency which lacks the saving checks of
a gold standard to bring to light excesses of zeal and errors of judgment.
(C. A. Phillips, T. F. McManus and R. W. Nelson, Banking and the Business
Cycle, Macmillan and Company 1937, p. 56).
The cruel irony is that though the "qualitative economists" were vindicated
by subsequent events their Cassandra-like warnings were virtually lost to history
while the free market got the blame for the Great Depression. The point that
needs to be emphasised is that Greenspan was fully aware of the economic debate
that waxed and waned during the 1920s and 1930s and may even have been influenced
to some extent by the "qualitative" approach. (Alan Greenspan, Gold and
Economic Freedom in Ayn Rand Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, New
American Library, 1967).
This might, I think, help to explain the number of references he made to imbalances
when he expressed concern about growth in consumer spending, despite an apparently
benign CPI. His refusal to comment on the possibility of a soft-landing also
suggests that he knew a recession was on the horizon.
The problem today, as always, is that nothing has been learnt from history.
Monetary policy is loose and the price rule still rules. In other words, another
recession is on the cards. It's only a question of time. One thing is also
certain: the public will never get the facts from America's phony media which
is now no better than a branch of the Democrat Party.
|