|
"...If only consumers hadn't taken the world's central bankers at their
word..."
WE ONLY have ourselves to blame. Consumers in the West, rich in credit
ratings if not cash, shouldn't have borrowed and spent so much money when interest
rates hit a half-a-century low in 2003.
Nor should we have continued to borrow and spend when the rate of interest
slipped below the inflation rate - making debt pay as cash savings lost value
- over the next two years.
And we really should have then spurned all those super-low teaser mortgages...0%
charge cards...and money-back deals on shiny new SUVs...when the global money
supply began to balloon between 2005 and 2007.
If the cost of living suddenly shoots higher, then our monetary masters at
the West's central banks will stand ready to say: "Told you so!" Because they
themselves, of course, have got nothing to do with the problem.
UK: Base Rate vs. CPI Inflation

"The sooner households begin to acknowledge the consequences of higher interest
rates," warned Bank of England member Tim Besley in a speech this week, "the
greater is the chance of a smooth adjustment towards a level of consumption
consistent with maintaining the inflation target in the medium term."
In other words, "Stop - or the economy gets it!" And Besley's logic, like
his task as a central banker, is simple enough.
The more people spend, the more they risk pushing up prices. He might have
been wagging his finger at consumers across the Atlantic as well as in the
United Kingdom - along with households in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
Spain, Ireland...
Wherever household debt has exploded, funding an explosion in house prices
and consumptive debt, the solution looks clear: Make money dearer, and inflation
will recede. Indeed, "it is a widely accepted proposition in the economic profession," as
the European Central Bank notes in its most recent policy statement, "that
a change in the quantity of money in the economy will be reflected in a change
in the general level of prices."
The task of central banking, in short, is to maintain the quality of money
- preserving its purchasing power - by controlling the quantity that's sloshing
around.
Right?
Eurozone M3 vs. Main Refi Rate

Trouble is, the Western world's central bankers don't seem to have much control
over the very mechanism that they claim turns higher interest rates into lower
inflation. The supply of money - the actual quantity of cash and near-cash
financial instruments sloshing around the globe - has shot higher even as the
Fed, Bank of England and ECB in Europe have begun making debt more expensive.
Classically defined, inflation means exactly this kind of growth in the quantity
of money. Capping it with higher borrowing costs makes sense in theory. That
was how central bankers led by Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve finally
got round to killing the Great Inflation of the late 1970s. It took them more
than one attempt, too.
"By the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s a number of the leading central
banks acted more forcibly against inflation," Volcker said in a speech 10 years
later. "They acted in the only way they effectively could, by restricting the
overall growth of money and credit."
Problem was, "as the restraint took hold, one country after another was caught
up in recession or an extended period of stagnation" - and even central bankers
need to make their mortgage repayments each month. Raising interest rates to
slow inflation will never be popular. Raising them so far that your neighbors
lose their lose jobs is a tough call to 'fess up to at your local barbecue.
"Many government officials throughout the free world became monetarists in
the 1970s," writes David Hackett Fischer in his grand history of price inflations, The
Great Wave. "Major efforts were made by the Federal Reserve Board in the
United States and the Bank of England in the United Kingdom to stabilize their
disordered economies by regulating the money supply. These efforts were not
successful and actually increased instabilities."
"Economist Milton Friedman raged against the errors of his own disciples," notes
Hackett Fischer, "repeatedly accusing the governors of the Federal Reserve
System and the Bank of England of grievous incompetence."
But as John Kenneth Galbraith commented, "An economic policy needs to be within
the competence, however limited, of those available to administer it." In other
words, a solution proposed is no solution at all if it proves impossible in
practice - and perhaps a return to some kind of Gold Standard would prove to
be just such a non-solution today.
Limiting the growth of world money supplies to the 1.3% growth in above-ground
gold stocks each year, a Gold Standard might seem the only solution to our
brave new century's insane bubble in credit and debt. Tinkering with interest
rates has done nothing to slow the current boom in world credit and debt.
"The global derivatives market grew nearly 40% in 2006," as Robert Rodriguez
of First Pacific Advisors, an $11-billion investment fund, noted in a speech
to the CFA Society of Chicago late last month. "The amount of contracts based
on bonds more than doubled to $29 trillion. The actual money at risk through
credit derivatives increased 93% to $470 billion, while that amount for the
entire derivatives market was $9.7 trillion.
"The International Monetary Fund, in its April 2006 Global Financial Stability
Report, estimated that credit-oriented hedge fund assets grew to more than
$300 billion in 2005," Rodriguez went on, "a six-fold increase in five years.
When levered at five to six times, this represents $1.5 to $1.8 trillion deployed
into the credit markets."
Squashing the global supply of what now passes for money into the even broadest
measure of world gold holdings - the outstanding stock of 153,000 tonnes now
reckoned to sit above ground - might just mean destroying the economy first.
That's why, like the fake monetarism practiced by central bankers in the late
'70s, it's unlikely to work. Just try getting a Gold Standard past Congress...no
matter how bad inflation becomes! Asking politicians to defend the value of
money would be like getting David Beckham.
But that's not to say gold doesn't hold a monetary value today. The only question
for investors and savers: Why wait for the rest of the world to catch on?
If the bubble in credit and money hadn't grown so large in the first place,
we wouldn't need to defend ourselves with a lump of shiny yellow metal. But
perhaps that's where we've got to, awaiting the whirlwind now due after sowing
so much bad debt.
|