The gold standard, printing money and getting the right amount

A return to the gold standard and the printing of money to provide a social dividend have recently been suggested on LinkedIn and Reddit as ways to deal with the economic crisis.  The gold standard and the printing of money have been both tried with disastrous results.  To the best of my knowledge the social dividend has not been tried but I see it as a guaranteed annual income and I believe it has a lot of potential – subject to paying attention to the amount of money in the economy.

The problem  with the gold standard is that it can cause recession because it limits the amount of money to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.  The problem with printing money is that it can lead to inflation which wipes out people’s savings.

The key to financial economic nirvana is to have just the right amount of money for the quantity of goods and services a society wants to exchange.  Too much money leads to inflation and too little money leads to deflation and a curtailment of economic activity.   The amount of money needs to be flexible to follow the ups and downs of economic activity.

At several times during their history Americans have tried to follow a gold standard.  Generally the result was depression.  In the 1930s the monetary authorities tried to restrict the amount of money in circulation and the result was depression.  The exception was during the gold rushes of the late 19th century when the newly discovered gold allowed the money supply to increase along with economic growth.

Following the first world war the German Weimar republic had lots of financial obligations.  As the external obligations were requiring gold the government met its internal obligations by printing money.  As the money was printed faster than economic activity increased that country experienced inflation which became hyperinflation.  The result was that the savings of most people became worthless.

The social dividend proposal was a feature of Social Credit which had its origins in England in the 1920s and prospered in Alberta and British Columbia.  At least in British Columbia the social dividend was forgotten and the party became a right of centre business coalition.

To the best of my knowledge the social dividend has not been tried.  I think it should be so long as the amount of money in the economy is close to the amount needed.

Money is something we all use and we teach our children at an early age how to manage their money.  However,  very few people understand the economics of money and especially how money is created. I believe that if we are to resolve economic problems we have to understand the economics of money and banking.  The essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis”  talks about how money is created, some of the problems with fractional reserve money which we currently use and proposes an alternative way of creating money based on Local Exchange Trading Systems.  Also a number of posts on this weblog have dealt with money.  Here they are.

Money is a highly emotional issue in part because our culture has raised us to believe that our future depends upon our having adequate savings.  As it is so important one would think people would be wanting to understand it and be prepared to consider reforms as there are such emotional costs to losing it.

I believe the fractional reserve way of creating money is a Ponzi scheme and has built into it a mechanism for forcing a continuous increase in the money supply regardless of increases or decreases in economic activity.  As a part of money creation reform we should look at incorporating a social dividend or universal income scheme.

However the money process is reformed an essential feature is that the money supply should be flexible up and down according to changes in the level of economic growth or degrowth.

The quantity theory of money and transforming economists into fairy godmothers

It could be that the quantity theory of money is controversial and often dismissed because it deals with two aspects of economics where we most want to deceive ourselves – money and economic growth.

When I  started to research and think about this post I quickly got so ticked off that I went downstairs to my lathe to transform a piece of firewood into a magic wand for one of my grandchildren.  (Abracadabra.  All economists will become fairy godmothers – in their next reincarnations.)

The theory states that MV=PQ  where M is the money supply, V is the velocity at which the money changes hands,  P is the price level and Q is the quantity of goods and services exchanged.  What gets me ticked off is that this is frequently taken to mean there is a direct, proportional relationship between the money supply and the inflation rate or price level.   Can’t people see there are four variables in this formula?

The value in this formula is in that it explains relationships and shows how the real or physical side of the economy connects to the financial.  It is difficult because there are problems with fractional reserve money and because some people believe (or need to believe) that economic growth will always continue.  I think these are two aspects of economics where some people have psychological problems accepting the truth.    It becomes even more difficult if one tries to use this formula in a computer model as the four variables are difficult if not impossible to measure.

To maintain the equality, if one variable goes up then one or more of the other variables must also change,  For example, if the money supply increases then velocity must go down and/or one or both of the price level or the quantity of goods and services produced must go up.  It could be that during  recent decades the money supply was increasing faster than Q was increasing. We saw the difference as inflation.

The way we create money is a  major problem.

The fractional reserve creation of money works only so long as more and more money is being created.  Bankers create money by making loans. The problem is the interest.  If all loans plus interest had to be repaid at one time there would not be enough money in the system.. This is similar to a Ponze scheme and works only so long as more and more money can be created.

This means there is constant upwards pressure on the M in the formula – until the money creation breaks down and the M goes down suddenly and either prices fall or the quantity of goods and services produced goes down or both.  When the United States was trying to stick to a gold standard there were frequent economic crises because there was not always enough gold to support the amount of economic activity for which there were human and material resources.  The gold discoveries of the 19th century contributed to prosperity because they added to the money supply.

The big problem on the other side of the equation is Q.  A lot of people believe or assume economic growth will continue forever.  I figure Q behaves as a fractal, that is with ups and downs and ups and downs within each up and down – something like the seashore.

Some of the things which drive Q are not likely to be steady.  Discoveries of energy and mineral resources are erratic;  agricultural  production can vary with the weather; and new technology comes in spurts.  I think Q is currently being restrained because we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  We have picked the low-hanging fruit and what is left is going to take a lot of energy to get.

As Q is a fractal its changes in direction are likely to throw the equation out of balance and force one or more of the other variables to adjust.

Prices appear to respond mostly to changes in M or Q.  Sometimes governments decide to try to control inflation with price controls. and this usually causes problems with the balance of the equation.  Inflation is to the advantage of borrowers and deflation is to the advantage of lenders.  To be fair to everyone we need price stability.   As governments are large borrowers it is natural for people concerned with government finances to favor inflation.  Probably the best way to price stability would be to find another way of creating money so that the total is flexible.  Then the money supply rather than prices could respond to changes in the quantity of goods and services produced.

To the best of my knowledge not much is known about velocity.  I understand that in the days of the gold standard people would hoard gold if they were worried about other forms of money.

To call the formula MV+PQ the quantity theory of money is probably a little misleading. It would be better to think of it as the connectivity formula.  As such I believe it is very valuable in understanding what is happening to the economy.

Perhaps if we had more fairy godmothers we would have  a better understanding of what is happening to us.

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

A grumpy old man in favour of a basic income scheme

The “free money” giveaway or basic income or universal income scheme being proposed by a few people is a great idea but one that is probably impossible to implement.  However it is nice to dream and fun to think out how to solve economic problems; so here goes.

The basic questions are where does the money come from and how to give the money to people?

The simple answer to the first question is that with a universal income scheme there will no longer be a need for subsidies to producers.  A more difficult answer is that the introduction of an income scheme would be the ideal time to reinvent money.

Generally subsidies (sometimes as tax exemptions)  are given to firms to encourage them to establish plants and provide employment or to save the business and save jobs.  This is great for those who get the jobs or whose employment is saved but it leaves a lot people with nothing.  Subsidies also distort prices so that when we make purchasing decisions based on price we are not necessarily getting the item that was cheapest or most efficient to produce.

Money is something most of us use daily and is probably the least well understood of all the things that are a part of our economy.  When central banks were doing quantitative easing there was some disbelief that they could create money out of nothing.  This is because we have for so long associated money with gold that we think of it as a commodity with value in itself.  It might be better to think of it as a tool with which to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.  It represents purchasing power.

Most of what we use as money is created by bankers making loans.  How this works is explained at numerous locations throughout the world-wide web.  My own version along with some of the problems with fractional reserve money is included in the essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.

One way to reinvent money and implement a universal income scheme would be to take the concept of “local exchange trading system”  and expand it to the national level.  A good part of the essay talks about how this could work and again  I refer you to the essay.  There are many details to be worked out and many problems to be overcome.  The mechanics of the money supply would be easy.  Getting people to accept new ways of thinking about money would be extremely difficult.   Getting people to accept that others should be allowed to do as they wish, whether that be creating art works or drinking beer, would also be difficult.  Getting people to change their vested interests would probably be impossible.

One of my concerns is that our economic order is going to return to something similar to what existed before the industrial revolution in which there was a small group living in relative luxury and the balance of the population lived at a subsistence level. (The ultimate inequality)  I am concerned because I think our economy is possibly going into an extended period of decline.  While there are lots of energy and mineral resources left on this planet the energy required to extract them is becoming more and more excessive to the point it will be less viable.  Without resources it will difficult to maintain everyone at what has been the North American standard of living.

An income scheme would make it a lot easier to cope with an economy on a downward slope.

More and more I am getting to be a grumpy old man.  My generation has been very lucky in the time and place we have lived out our lives.  More and more I am recognizing the next generations, including my grand children, are going to have to deal with a lot of economic pain.  I hope I am wrong and if not I hope I won’t have to see it.

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

Solving the debt crisis with two coins in the bank. Probably not.

Two platinum coins worth $1 trillion each to solve the U.S. debt problem.  This proposal is reported in this article on the Huffington Post.  The coins would be made by the mint and deposited with the federal reserve to meet debt requirements.  Platinum would be used to get around legal requirements.

The good part of this proposal is that it would replace fractional reserve money with fiat money.  Fractional reserve money is created by the banks when they make loans.  Very little economic thought has gone into the effect of interest rates in this money creation.    This new fiat money would not involve interest charges and that is probably very good.

The problem would be what it does to the money supply.  Presumable  the $2 trillion would be used to pay off government debt.  Some of this debt would be held by the central bank and repaying this shouldn’t change the money supply.  The rest would be to repay bondholders and this would increase the money supply.  Further it would be what economists call high-powered money which is subject to a multiplier effect as it worked its way through the banking system.

The result would be the potential for a massive increase in money supply.  This is the opposite to a return to the gold standard which would force a decrease in the money supply.    The result would be deflation and a decrease in economic activity.

There are four variables in the equation that connects the financial system and the physical side of the economy: the amount of money, the quantity of goods and services produced,  the price index and the velocity or speed at which money circulates. The formula is MV=PQ.  If one of these changes at least one of the others has to change.

If we were to have an increase on the money supply then the velocity must decease or either the price index (inflation) will go up and/or the quantity of goods and services will go up(economic growth).

In an attempt to stimulate economic growth central banks have been trying to increase the money supply and called it quantitative easing.  So far there has been little indication of its working.  This leaves either inflation or a decrease in velocity.

There has been little inflation from quantitative easing so probably the velocity has fallen.

So the impact of the two little platinum coins is unclear but they would certainly be disruptive and have the potential for hyperinflation.

For a fuller explanation of fractional reserve money is created and some of its problems please see the essay “LETS go to market: dealing with the economic crisis” on this weblog.

 

If you liked this post your are invited to comment, press the like button and/or click  one of the share buttons. If you disagree you are invited to say why in a comment.  While I like the idea of sharing this platform, my personality is such that I don’t reply to many comments.

The Euro and fiscal timebombs

The Euro crisis and the fiscal cliff are such serious threats they should be considered time bombs.  For that reason I have been trying hard not to even read about them let alone think and write. Well, anyways, here goes.

There are two parts to the problems – the physical and the financial.

The physical is that the resource base is in trouble.  We have used up the most easily extracted resources.  Those which are left are difficult to extract and require a lot of energy – energy which was previously used for other economic activity.

As most of these resources, especially energy, are non-renewable there is bound to be a negative impact on our lives.  Yes, I know we can recycle some items and there are several sources of renewable energy, but so for there is not a lot of evidence that either of these will save us.

The impact of resources will probably be a slow steady decline.  For those people hit be natural disasters recovery will be slow and difficult.

The impact of the financial crisis will likely be a much wilder ride.

The source of the financial crisis is the fractional reserve way of creating money.  Money is created when the banks make loans.  Thus most of our money supply is based on debt and the fact interest is being charged on this debt means there is never enough money in existence to repay all the debts.  (For a more detailed explanation of how money is created and the problems, please see the essay LETS go to market: dealing with the financial crisis on this weblog.)  The effect is that our money supply is a Ponzi scheme which is likely to collapse at any time. And it has in the past.  We could say we are living in a house of cards.

At this point in the crisis the question is whose standard of living is going to be hurt.  So far the answer is “everybody but me.”  Thus we have demands for austerity which impacts those with less income, demands for stimulus which means inflation which impacts those with savings, and protests in the streets.  If or rather when the crash happens a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, savings or fortunes.

Just thinking about all this makes me depressed.  At this time I want to spend the rest of my life in the  wood shop  or taking the dog for walks in the forest.  However, it won’t be long before the urge to write resurfaces.

Last week I received in the mail a little statue of the Laughing Buddha.  One of his functions is to tell us to laugh in spite of all the suffering in this world because there is also a lot of joy and happiness.

Electronic money payments in the Middle East

This week’s The Economist has an article about the introduction of electronic payment systems in the Middle East.

This sounds like a major change in the type of money being used  – a transition from cash to a more intangible type of money.

It illustrates that money should be considered purchasing power rather than a commodity.

I wonder what percent of the money supply in Middle East countries is cash and what percent is bank deposits?  To what extent is fractional reserve money being used?

For their sake I hope the transition does not include increasing fractional reserve money because that is a Ponzi scheme.  As fractional reserve money is based on loans if all debt plus interest had to be repaid at once there would not be enough money.  This type of money works only so long as there is continued economic growth and a continuously increasing supply of new money via new loans.

(The author of this comment has a web log on economics at https://economics102.wordpress.com/)

The Ponzi scheme of creating money

The first time I used “Ponzi scheme” to describe the fractional reserve process of creating money I feared I was skating on thin ice. It’s a rather strong term with which to describe a process which most of the people who don’t understand how it works (and those who do) consider to be motherhood.  However, it has in the past (the depression of the 1930s)and almost certainly will in the future cause a great deal of human suffering.

Therefore it was with some relief that I discovered that Richard Heinberg says the same thing in his book The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality (P. 33)

I like his way of explaining the problem.  because all of our money is created by the making of loans, if all the outstanding debt were to be paid off at one time there would not be enough money to repay it all because of the interest.  The charging of interest on the debt/money means there is never enough money available to repay all outstanding debt.

The system works only so long as there is continued economic growth and a continuously increasing supply of money which means more and more debt.  The problems come when economic growth slows or stops and some of that debt has to be reduced.  As there is not enough money to repay it the purchasing power of the debt is reduced  by  the failure of financial institutions or the drop in prices of assets such as housing.  (The purchasing power of money can also be lost to inflation.)

Heinberg sees a need for a new way to create money and directs our attention to  local currencies such as a Local Exchange Trading System. (LETS).  That too made me feel good as my own proposal for money is to expand the LETS into a National Exchange Trading System.  For more on this and an explanation of fractional reserve banking see my essay “LETS go to market: Dealing with the Economic Crisis” on this web log.

%d bloggers like this: