Ron Paul Grills Bernanke

Here's a good video of Ron Paul giving Fed chair Ben Bernanke the business.

Much has been said about how Ron Paul sounds crazy, conspiratorial, etc., but at least he's up there questioning the economic guru of the day.

Ben Bernanke firmly believes that the reason the Great Depression happened was that the Fed did not act aggressively enough, and allowed monetary policy to tighten, worsening the Depression. In fact, the Fed was quite aggressive. Consider that the Fed flooded the banking system with liquidity, raising the money supply by 10% in a single week. However, this was counteracted by the contraction in bank lending, because banks were in the process of deleveraging.

If that doesn't sound familiar, it ought to.

The very same thing happened in the Fall of 2008. The money supply actually tightened, despite the Fed creating massive amounts of money and injecting it into the system. This is because the money supply is not controlled directly by the Fed, but rather it's a product of the fractional reserve system. If banks lend less, the money supply falls, perhaps as much as $10 for every $1 fall in lending. That's the magic of the fractional reserve system. Banks create and destroy money, and the process is not under the direct control of the Fed.

"No reputable economic forecaster is predicting a depression"

Says Edward Leamer, Director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, on Marketplace. He sees no depression in the near future:

We've frightened consumers to the point where they imagine there is a good prospect of a Great Depression. That certainly is not the prospect. No reputable forecaster is producing anything like a Great Depression. So it's still OK if you spend a little bit. You do not have to put all your money into a mattress.

Dr. Leamer also sees the economy in a "healing cycle" by the second half of 2009, without "significant growth", but with fewer of the "large negatives" we've seen so far.

We shall see. I do not think that the errors and excesses of the boom years will be corrected by then. My guess is that the inflationary recession will continue for a period of years rather than quarters, particularly since government policy seems driven to prevent markets from reaching equilibrium, and the Fed is producing monumental amounts of new money, much of it secretively, off its balance sheet. Estimates of Fed off-balance sheet money creation are in the trillions of dollars.

Here are a few analyses of the magnitude of these Fed activities: ritholtz.com/blog, nowandfutures.com (this site also has a reconstruction of M3, the broad monetary aggregate that was discontinued by the Fed in 2006.)

Solving the US Banking Crisis

[Written for the Borsen-Kurier]

Most efforts proposed these days go exactly the wrong direction: back toward unsustainable economic activity like debt-funded consumer spending, home buying, and government spending, or away from the transparency that markets need to reach equilibrium (for example, the recent proposal at the G-20 meeting that accounting standards be ‘temporarily’ loosened—as if we could escape our problems through denial).

Here is an economic plan that would work immediately; it would stabilize the banking sector instantly, preventing the crisis in the stock market from reducing business investment in the real economy, thus preventing a major contraction of GDP.

The catch? It will involve some short-term economic pain.

The reason that banks are fragile is that they have only a fraction of their deposits on hand at any given time. Because banks are currently scrambling to increase their reserves, they have restricted lending by $100 bil from October 29th to November 19th. Granted, this is a small decrease when the total volume of loans is over $7,000 bil, but any decrease in lending tends to be pro-cyclical, resulting in the contraction of the money supply at precisely the wrong time. In theory, a money multiplier of 10 would imply that a $100 bil restriction in lending would lead to money destruction of $1,000 bil. Additionally, because of decreased consumption and investment spending, there is a falling velocity of money, meaning fewer transactions per week. This exacerbates the effect of a contraction in the money supply. As of November 28th, 2008, the total money supply (M2) was $7,854 bil. Bank reserves have skyrocketed from $44 bil in August to $652 bil in October, while bank deposits have stayed constant at about $7,000 bil.

Here’s the plan, in two parts.

Part 1: the total cash and coin in the US is less than $800 bil. Print an additional $7,000 bil, and give it to banks in exact proportion to their deposits. Then make sure that bank reserves always equal bank deposits, creating a 100% reserve system. This would cause no net change in the money supply, for we’d simply have printed money to back up bank deposits, money that was already in use. We’d merely replace checkbook-money with paper money. No problem so far. There would be no inflationary pressure, and the cost would be minimal - the cost of printing and distributing the money.

Part 2: Define the dollar as a portion of gold. This is where the sacrifice begins, for it involves a substantial devaluation of the dollar. The US holds 8.133 bil grams of gold, and the IMF has another 3.217 bil grams; if we divide the total money supply M2 by the total US and IMF gold reserves, we get about $700 per gram, meaning a dollar is worth 1/700th of a gram. Now the tough part: we keep this ratio in good times and bad, at all times allowing anyone to trade $700 for a gram of gold. Since the current market price of gold is about $26 per gram, this plan would entail that the dollar must fall to 3.7% of its current value. (The drop would probably be less severe, as this plan would pull gold out of private gold stocks and into service as money).

The sacrifice would begin when all imported goods immediately rise in price dramatically (an imported good that costs $1 may rise to $25). International trade flows would change as markets reach equilibrium. This would certainly cause some dislocation. But we’d skip the lasting pain of a sequel to the Great Depression because the main damage to the economy would be avoided. The money supply would not contract due to banks rational fear of collapsing during the financial crisis. Banks would be on a solid basis, and they could immediately begin lending (from savings accounts only; these would have to be set aside specifically for investment purposes, and would no longer be available on demand).

Sacrifices would continue as the US could no longer maintain a current account deficit without draining US gold reserves. The federal government would not be able to borrow billions or trillions to finance deficit spending. The depreciation of the dollar would mean foreign bond holders would immediately lose money, and large-scale selling of bonds would ensue. While it is unfortunate to break the trust of those who bought US bonds, it is simply unavoidable. The US has too much debt to pay it back. The US government will repudiate its debt, either simply and honestly, as in this plan, or covertly, through inflation.

Without access to deficit spending, cuts in government spending will add to the economic contraction, but the plan will prevent future pain, for the current strategy of massive money creation and fiscal deficits will surely devalue the dollar, without the benefit of ever leading to a sound medium of exchange.

The financial crisis is first and foremost a debt-deflation crisis, which was produced by banks’ wanton money creation during the expansion of the 1990s and early 2000s (an expansion supervised by the Federal Reserve). If we give the market a medium of exchange that can be trusted to hold its value, the extraordinary ingenuity and entrepreneurship that is America’s greatest asset will be unleashed, and we will soon be enjoying prosperous times again.