|
Last month, Alan Greenspan spoke to the N.Y. Economic Club and
sounded, for a while, like his old self.
"Although the gold standard could hardly be portrayed as
having produced a period of price tranquility," he conceded, "it
was the case that the price level in 1929 was not much different,
on net, from what it had been in 1800.
But, in the two decades following the abandonment of the gold
standard in 1933, the consumer price index in the United States
nearly doubled. And, in the four decades after that, prices quintupled.
Monetary policy, unleashed from the constraint of domestic gold
convertibility, had allowed a persistent overissuance of money.
As recently as a decade ago, central bankers, having witnessed
more than a half-century of chronic inflation, appeared to confirm
that a fiat currency was inherently subject to excess."
Mr. Greenspan was setting the stage. He might have added that
no central banker in all of history had ever succeeded in proving
the contrary. Every fiat currency the world had ever seen had shown
itself 'subject to excess' and then subject to destruction.
Against this epic background, the new Mr. Greenspan strutted out,
front and center.
Today's essay is not about Mr. Greenspan, per se, but rather about
his trade. Each metier comes with its own hazards. The baker burns
fingers...the psychiatrist soon needs to have his own head examined.
The moral hazard of banking is well documented. Given the power
to create money out of thin air, the central banker almost always
goes too far. And if one resists, his successor will almost certainly
succumb.
There are some things, dear reader, for which success is more
dangerous than failure. Running a central bank - like robbing one
- is an example. The more successful the central banker - that
is, the more people come to believe in the stability of his paper
money - the more hazardous the situation becomes.
Warren Buffett's father, a congressman from Nebraska, warned in
a 1948 speech:
"The paper money disease has been a pleasant habit thus far
and will not be dropped voluntarily, any more than a dope user
will without a struggle give up narcotics...I find no evidence
to support a hope that our fiat paper money venture will fare better
ultimately than such experiments in other lands...."
In all other lands, in all other times...the story is the same.
Paper money does not work; the moral hazard is too great. Central
bankers cannot resist; when it suits them, they overdo it, increasing
the money supply far faster than the growth in goods and services
that the money can buy.
Asked to produce a list of the world's defunct paper money, Addison
was soon overwhelmed.
"I don't think you want all these," he replied, "looking
at his screen. They're in alphabetical order. But there are 318
of them and I'm still in the B's. And every one of them worthless."
Against this sorry record of managed currencies is the exemplary
one of gold itself. No matter whose face adorns the coin...nor
what inscription it bears...nor when it was minted...an unmanaged
gold coin today is still worth at least the value of its gold content,
and will generally buy as much in goods and services today as it
did the day it was struck.
Gold is found on earth in only very limited amounts - only 3.5
parts per billion. Had God been less niggardly with the stuff,
gold might be more ubiquitous and less expensive. But it is precisely
the fact that the earth yields up its gold so grudgingly that makes
it valuable.
Paper money, on the other hand, can be produced in almost infinite
quantities. When the limits of modern printing technology are reached,
the designers have only to add a zero...and they've increased the
speed at which they inflate by a factor of 10. In today's electronic
world, a man no longer measures his wealth in stacks of paper money.
It is now just 'information.' A central banker doesn't even have
to turn the crank on the printing press; electronically registered
zeros can be added at the speed of light.
Given the ease with which new 'paper' money is created, is it
any wonder the old paper money loses its value?
But for a while, Mr. Greenspan seemed to have a light shining
on him. Standing there, center stage of the world economy like
Moses in front of the Red Sea, he believed he had found the promised
land of managed currencies - for his paper dollars rose in value
against gold for two decades, when they ought to have gone down.
Mr. Greenspan explains how this Exodus came about:
"But the adverse consequences of excessive money growth for
financial stability and economic performance provoked a backlash.
Central banks were finally pressed to rein in overissuance of money
even at the cost of considerable temporary economic disruption.
By 1979, the need for drastic measures had become painfully evident
in the United States. The Federal Reserve, under the leadership
of Paul Volcker and with the support of both the Carter and the
Reagan Administrations, dramatically slowed the growth of money.
Initially, the economy fell into recession and inflation receded.
"However, most important, when activity staged a vigorous
recovery, the progress made in reducing inflation was largely preserved.
By the end of the 1980s, the inflation climate was being altered
dramatically.
"The record of the past twenty years appears to underscore
the observation that, although pressures for excess issuance of
fiat money are chronic, a prudent monetary policy maintained over
a protracted period can contain the forces of inflation."
Until recently, Mr. Greenspan's genius was universally acclaimed.
Central banking looked, at long last, like a great success. But
then the bubble burst. People began to wonder what kind of central
bank would do such a dumb thing.
"Evidence of history suggests that allowing an asset bubble
to develop is the greatest mistake that a central bank can make," wrote
Andrew Smithers and Stephen Wright in "Valuing Wall Street," in
2000. "Over the past five years or so the Federal Reserve
has knowingly permitted the development of the greatest asset bubble
of the 20th century."
When the stock market collapsed, Mr. Greenspan's policies began
to look less prudent. During his tour of duty at the Fed, the monetary
base tripled, at a time when the GDP rose only 50%. More new money
came into being than under all previous Fed chairmen - $6,250 for
every new ounce of gold.
All this new money created by the Greenspan Fed has the defect
of all excess paper money; it has no resources behind it. Though
taken up by shopkeepers and dog-groomers as if it were the real
thing, it represents no increase in actual wealth. The retailer
and the dogwasher think they have more 'money', but there is really
nothing of real value to back it up.
The new money was issued, light on value but heavy on consequences.
It helped lure the lumpeninvestoriat into their own moral hazard;
they no longer needed to save - because the Greenspan Fed always
seemed to make money available, at more and more attractive rates.
And it misled suppliers into believing there was more demand than
there really was. Consumers were buying, until recently; there
is no doubt about that. But how long can they continue to spend
more than they actually earn?
Encouraged by what seemed like almost unlimited buying from America,
foreigners - notably, first in Japan in the '80s, then in China
in the '90s - constructed new factories on a monumental scale.
They sold their products to Americans...and then invested the proceeds,
either in more capacity at home, or in more assets in the U.S.
As mentioned above, by the end of 2002, U.S. manufacturing was
in still in a 30-year slump...and foreigners owned nearly 20% of
the U.S. stock market...42% of the treasury bonds market...and
total dollar assets of as much as $9 trillion.
The effects of this moral hazard are just now being felt. The
consumer is more heavily in debt than ever before - and seems to
need increased credit just to stay in the same place. State and
Federal governments have gone from modest surplus to flagrant deficit.
Where was the money going to come from? Americans have very little
in savings; it must be imported from abroad. But the current account
is already in deficit by $450 billion annually. Stephen Roach estimates
that the new capital demands will push the deficit to $600 billion
- or $2.5 billion every working day.
Foreigners may be willing to finance the new U.S. spending binge.
Then again, with the dollar already falling, they may not. We cannot
know what will happen, but we can take a guess: they won't be willing
to do so at the same dollar price. The dollar ought to fall against
gold...and against foreign currencies. It probably will.
|