Author Archives: Keith Weiner

Unknown's avatar

About Keith Weiner

Dr. Keith Weiner is the president of Gold Standard Institute USA, and CEO of Monetary Metals. Keith is a leading authority in the areas of gold, money, and credit and has made important contributions to the development of trading techniques founded upon the analysis of bid-ask spreads. Keith is a sought after speaker and regularly writes on economics. He is an Objectivist, and has his PhD from the New Austrian School of Economics. He lives with his wife near Phoenix, Arizona.

Gold Bonds to Avert Financial Armageddon

This paper has been published in a number of places, notably including the Gold Standard Institute.  I submitted it to the Wolfson Economics Prize.  Now it can live here permanently on my own blog site.

——————————————————————————————————————

After the near-collapse of the financial system in 2008, a growing number of people have come to realize that our monetary disease is terminal.  It is that group to whom I address this paper.  I sincerely hope that this group includes leaders in business, finance, and government.

I do not believe that my proposal herein is necessarily “realistic” (i.e. pragmatic).  There are many interest groups that may oppose it for various reasons, based on their short-sighted desire to try to continue the status quo yet a while longer.  Nevertheless, I feel that I must write and publish this paper.  To say nothing in the face of the greatest financial calamity would go against everything I believe.

*** 

It seems self-evident.  The government can debase the currency and thereby be able to pay off its astronomical debt in cheaper dollars.  But as I will explain below, things don’t work that way.  In order to use the debasement of paper currencies to repay the debt more easily, governments will need to issue and use the gold bond[1].

I give credit for the basic idea of using gold bonds to solve the debt problem to Professor Antal Fekete, as proposed in his paper: “Cut the Gordian Knot: Resurrect the Latin Monetary Union”.  My paper covers different ground than Fekete’s, and my proposal is different as well.  I encourage readers to read both papers.

The paper currencies will not survive too much longer.  Most governments now owe as much or more than the annual GDPs of their nations (typically far more, under GAAP accounting).  But the total liabilities in the system are much larger.

Even worse, in the formal and shadow banking system, derivative exposure is estimated to be more than 700 trillion dollars.  Many are quick to insist that this is the “gross” exposure, and the “net” is much smaller as these positions are typically hedged.  But the real exposure is close to the “gross” exposure in a crisis.  While each party may be “hedged” by having a long leg and a balancing short leg, these will not “net out”.  This is because in times of stress the bid (but not the offer) is withdrawn.  To close the long leg of an arbitrage, one must sell on the bid (which could be zero).  To close the short leg, one must buy at the offer (which will still be high).  When the bid-ask spread widens that way, it will be for good reason and it does not do to be an armchair philosopher and argue that it “should not” occur.  Lots of things will occur that should not occur.

For example, gold should not go into backwardation.  This is another big (if not widely appreciated) piece of evidence that confidence in the ability of debtors to pay is waning.  Gold and silver went into backwardation in 2008 and have been flitting in and out of backwardation since then.  Backwardation develops when traders refuse to take a “risk free” profit.  That is, the trade is free from all risks except the risk of default and losing one’s metal in exchange for a defaulted futures contract.  See my paper on When Gold Backwardation Becomes Permanent for a full treatment of this topic.

The root cause of our monetary disease has its origins in the creation of the Fed and other central banks prior to World War I, and in the insane treaty signed in 1944 at Bretton Woods in which many nations agreed for their central banks to use the US dollar as if it were gold, and this paved the way for President Nixon to pound in the final nail in the coffin.  He repudiated the gold obligations of the US government in 1971, thereby plunging the whole world into the regime of irredeemable paper.

The US dollar game is a check-kiting scheme.  The Fed issues the dollar, which is its liability.  The Fed buys the US Treasury bond, which is the asset to balance the liability.  The only problem is that the bonds are payable only in the central bank’s paper scrip!  Meanwhile, per Bretton Woods, the rest of the world’s central banks use the dollar as if it were gold.  It is their reserve asset, and they pyramid credit in their local currencies on top of it.

It is not a bug, but a feature, that debt in this system must grow exponentially.  There is no ultimate extinguisher of debt.  In my paper on Inflation, I define inflation as an expansion of counterfeit credit.  I define deflation as a forcible contraction of counterfeit credit, and the inevitable consequence of inflation.  Well, we have had many decades of rampant expansion of counterfeit credit.  Now we will have deflation, and the harder the central banks try to fight it by forcing yet more expansion of counterfeit credit, the worse the problem becomes.  With leverage everywhere in the system, it would not take many defaults to wipe out every financial institution.  And there will be many defaults.   One default will beget another and once it really begins in earnest there will be no stopping the cascade.

Another key problem is duration mismatch.  Today, every bank and financial institution borrows short to lend long, many corporations borrow short to finance long-term projects, and every government is borrowing short to fund perpetual debts.  Duration mismatch can cause runs on the banks and market crashes, because when depositors demand their money, banks must desperately sell any asset they can into a market that is suddenly “no bid”.  In two papers (Fractional Reserve is Not the Problem and Falling Interest Rates and Duration Mismatch), I cover duration mismatch in banks and corporations in more depth.

Most banks and economists have supported a policy of falling interest rates since they began to fall in 1981.  But falling interest rates destroy capital, as I explain in that last paper, linked above.  As the rate of interest falls, the real burden of the debt, incurred at higher rates, increases.

Related to this phenomenon is the fact that the average duration of bonds at every level has been falling for a long time (US Treasury duration began increasing post 2008, but I think this is an artifact of the Fed’s purchases in their so-called “Quantitative Easing”).  Declining duration is an inevitable consequence of the need to constantly “roll” debts.  Debts are never repaid, the debtor merely pays the interest and rolls the principal when due.  As the duration gets shorter and shorter, the noose gets tighter and tighter.  If there is to be a real payback of debt, even in nominal terms, we need to buy more time.  At the US Treasury level, average duration is about 5 years.  I doubt that’s long enough.

And of course the motivation for building this broken system in the first place is the desire by nearly everyone to have a welfare state, without the corresponding crippling taxation.  It has been long believed by most people a central bank is just the right kind of magic to let one have this cake and eat it too, without consequences.  Well, the consequences are now becoming visible.  See my papers The Laffer Curve and Austrian Economics and A Politically Incorrect Look at Marginal Tax Rates) discussing what raising taxes will do, especially in the bust phase like we have now.

In reality, stripped of the fancy nomenclature and the abstraction of a monetary system, the picture is as simple as it is bleak.  Normally, people produce more than they consume.  They save.  A frontier farmer in the 19th century, for example, would dedicate some work to clearing a new field, or building a smokehouse, or putting a wall around a pasture so he could add to his herd.  But for the past several decades, people have been tricked by distorted price signals (including bond prices, i.e. interest rates) into consuming more than they produce.

In any case, it is not possible to save in an irredeemable paper currency.  Depositing money in a bank will just result in more buying of government bonds.  Capital accumulation has long since turned to capital decumulation.

This would be bad enough, as capital is the leverage on human effort that allows us to have the present standard of living.  We don’t work any harder than early people did 10,000 years ago, and yet we are vastly more productive due to our accumulated capital.

Now much of the capital is gone, and it cannot be brought back.  It will soon be impossible to continue to paper over the losses.  The purpose of this piece is not to propose how to save the dollar or the other paper currencies.  They are past the point where saving them is possible.  This paper is directed to avoiding the collapse of our civilization.

If we stay on the present course, I think the outcome will look more like 472 AD than 1929.  We must solve three problems to avoid that kind of collapse:

  1. Repayment of all debts in nominal terms
  2. Keep bank accounts, pensions, annuities, corporate payrolls, annuities, etc. solvent, in nominal terms
  3. Begin circulation of a proper currency before the collapse of the paper currencies, so that people have something they can use when paper no longer works

I propose a few simple steps first, and then a simple solution.  All of this is designed to get gold to circulate once again as money.  Today, we have gold “souvenir coins”.  They are readily available, and have been for many years, but they do not circulate.

A gold standard is like a living organism.  While having the right elements present and arranged in the right way is necessary, it is not sufficient.  It must also be in constant motion.  Gold, under the gold standard, was always flowing.  Once the motion is stopped, restarting it is not easy.  This applies to a corpse of a man as well as of a gold standard.

The first steps are:

  1. Eliminate all capital “gains” taxes on gold and silver
  2. Repeal all legal tender laws that force creditors to accept paper
  3. Also repeal laws that nullify gold clauses in contracts
  4. Open the mint to the (seigniorage) free coinage of gold and silver; let people bring in their metal and receive back an equal amount in coin form.  These coins should not be denominated in paper currency units, but merely ounces or grams

Each of these items removes one obstacle for gold to circulate as money, along side the paper currencies.  The capital “gains” tax will do its worst damage precisely when people need gold the most.  At that point, the nominal price of gold in the paper currencies will be rising very rapidly.  Any sale of bullion will result in a tax of virtually the entire amount, as the cost basis from even a few weeks prior will be much lower than the current price.  This amounts, in the US, to a 28% confiscation of gold.  This tax will force people to keep gold underground and not bring it to market.  It will contribute to the acceleration of permanent backwardation.

It is important to realize that gold is not “going up”.  Paper is going down.  There is no gain for the holder of gold; he has simply not lost wealth due to the debasement of paper.

Current law forces creditors to accept paper as payment in full for all debts, and there are also laws that nullify gold clauses in contracts.  Repeal them, and let creditors and borrowers negotiate something mutually agreeable.

Finally, the bid-ask spread on gold bullion coins such as the US gold eagle or the South African krugerrand is too wide.  If the mint provided seigniorage-free coinage service, then people would bring in gold bars and other forms of bullion until the bid-ask spread narrowed appropriately.  One of the attributes that gives gold its “moneyness” is its tight spread (even today, it is 10 to 30 cents per $1600 ounce!)  But currently, this tight spread only applies to large bullion bars traded by the bullion banks and other sophisticated traders.  This spread must be available to the average person.

As I said earlier, these steps are necessary.  Gold certainly will not circulate under the current leftover regime from Roosevelt and Nixon.  But it is not sufficient to address the debt problem.

Accordingly, I propose a simple additional step.  The government should sell gold bonds.  By this, I do not mean gold “backed” paper bonds.  I mean bonds denominated in ounces of gold, which pay their coupon in ounces of gold and pay the principal amount in ounces of gold.  Below, I explain how this will solve the three problems I described above.

Mechanically, it is straightforward.  The government should set a rule that, to buy a gold bond, one does not bid dollars.  One bids paper bonds!  So to buy a 100-ounce gold bond, then one could bid for example $160,000 worth of paper bonds (assuming the price of gold is $1600 per ounce).  The government retires the paper bond and in exchange replaces it with a newly-issued gold bond.

The government should start with a small tender, to ensure a high bid to cover ratio.  And a series of small auctions will give the market time to accept the idea.  It will also allow the development of gold bond market makers.

With gold bonds, it would be possible to sell long durations.  With paper, there is no good reason to buy a 30-year bond (except to speculate on the next move by the central bank).  The dollar is expected to fall considerably over a 30-year period.  But with gold, there is no such debasement.  The government could therefore exchange short-duration debt for long-duration debt.

At first, the price of the gold bonds would likely be set as a straight conversion of the gold price, perhaps adjusted for differing durations.  For example, a 100 ounce gold bond of 30 years duration might be bid at $160,000 worth of 30-year paper bond.

But I think that the bid on gold bonds will rise far above “par”, for several reasons I will discuss below.

The nature of the dynamic will become clear to more and more people in due course.  In the present regime, there is a common misconception that the yield on a bond is set by the market’s expectation of how much consumer prices will rise (the crude proxy for the loss of value for the dollar).  But this is not true.  Unlike in a gold standard, in an irredeemable paper standard, people are disenfranchised.  They have no say over the rate of interest.  The dollar system is a closed loop, and if you sell a bond then you either hold cash in a bank, which means the bank will buy a bond.  Or you buy another asset.  In which case the seller of that asset holds cash in a bank or buys a bond.  This is one of the reasons why the rate of interest has been falling for 30 years despite huge debasement.  All dollars eventually go into the Treasury bond.

The price of the paper bond today is set by a combination of central bank buying, and structural distortions in the system.  But it is a self-referential price, in a game between the Treasury and the Fed.  The price of the bond does not really come from the market.  And this impacts every other bond in the universe, which all trade at varying spreads to the Treasury.

An alternative to paper bonds would be very attractive to those who want to save and earn income for the long term, pension funds, annuities, etc.  Not only will the price of gold continue to rise (i.e. the value of the paper currency will continue to fall towards zero), but also a premium for gold bonds would develop and grow.  The quality asset will be recognized to be worth more, and at the least people would price in whatever rate of the price of gold they expect to occur over the duration of the bond.

This dynamic—a rising price of gold, and a rising exchange value of gold bonds for paper bonds—will allow governments and other debtors to use the devaluation of paper as a means to repay their debts in nominal terms, but affordably in real terms.

This is impossible under paper bonds!  This is because the process of debasement is a process of the Treasury borrowing more money.  Debt goes up to debase the dollar.  This path leads not to repayment of the debt cheaply, but to exponentially growing debt until a total default.

So we have solved problem number one.  With a rising gold price, and a rising exchange rate of gold bonds for paper bonds, we have set up a dynamic whereby every paper obligation can be met in nominal terms.  Of course, the value of that paper will be vastly lower than it is today.  This is the only way that the immense amounts of debt outstanding can possibly be honored.

This also solves problem number two.  If every financial institution is repaid every nominal dollar it is owed, then they will remain solvent.  To be sure, pension payments, bank accounts, corporate payroll, and annuities etc. will be of much lower real value.  But there is a critical difference between smoothly losing value vs. abruptly losing everything, along with catastrophic failure of the financial system.

I want to address what could be a misconception at this point.  Does this work only for governments that have gold reserves in the vaults?  No, this is not about gold reserves.  While that may help accelerate a gold bond program, the essential is not gold stocks but gold flows.  The government issuer of gold bonds must have a gold income (or a credible plan to develop one quickly). 

And this leads to problem number three.  Gold does not circulate today.  Who has a gold income?  That is where we must look to begin the loop.  There is one kind of participant today who has a gold income: the gold miner.  Beset by environmentalist lawsuits, regulations, permits, impact studies, fees, labor law, confiscatory taxes, and other obstacles created by government, these companies still manage to extract gold out of the ground.

The gold miners are the group to which we must turn to help solve the catch-22 of getting gold to circulate from the current state where it does not.  I think there is a simple win-win proposition to offer them.  In exchange for exemptions from the various taxes, regulations, environmentalism, etc. they have a choice to pay a tax in gold bullion.

There are other kinds of entities to consider taxing, but the problem is that they all would need to buy gold in the open market in order to pay the tax.  As the price begins to rise exponentially, this will be certain bankruptcy for anyone but a gold miner.

And now, look at the progress we’ve made on the problem of getting gold to circulate.  We have gold miners paying tax in gold to governments who are making bond coupon payments in gold to investors who now have a gold income.  We can see how gold bond market makers will enter the scene, and earn a gold income to provide liquidity for bonds that are not “on the run”.  These bond market makers could pay a tax in gold also.

And we have released other creditors from any restriction in lending and demanding repayment in gold.  And anyone else in a position to sign a long-term agreement involving a stream of payments over a long period of time, such as landlords, can incorporate gold clauses in their contracts.  And if the tenant has a gold income, perhaps from owning a gold bond, he can manage his cash flows and confidently sign such a lease.

Note that the lender, unlike the employee, the restaurant, or most other economic actors, is in a position to demand gold.  While everyone else would like to be paid in gold, they haven’t got the pricing power to demand it.  The lender can say: “if you want my capital, you must repay it in gold!”

If enough gold bonds are issued soon enough, we may reverse the one-way flow of gold from the markets into private hiding, that is inexorably leading to inevitable permanent backwardation and the withdrawal of all gold from the system.

One of the key points in my backwardation paper is that the value of the dollar collapses to zero not as a consequence of the quantity of dollars rising to infinity, but because of the desire of some dollar holders to get gold.  If they cannot trade paper for gold, then they will trade paper for commodities without regard to price and trade those commodities for gold.  This will cause the price of the commodities in dollar terms to rise to levels that make the dollar useless in trade (and collapse the price of commodities in gold terms).

If we reverse the flow of gold out of the markets, we may be able to prevent this disaster from occurring.  The dollar will then continue to lose value in a continuous (if accelerating) manner, as people migrate to gold.

This is the best outcome that could possibly be hoped for.  If it occurs along with a reduction in spending so that spending does not exceed (tax) revenues, we will avert Armageddon and be on the path to a proper and real recovery.  To be clear, times will be hard and the average standard of living will decline precipitously.

But this is infinitely preferable to total collapse.

It is now up to farsighted leaders, especially in government, to take the first concrete steps towards saving Western Civilization.


[1] Wherever I refer to gold, I also mean silver.  For the sake of brevity and readability I will only say gold in most cases.

Inflation: an Expansion of Counterfeit Credit

© Jan 3, 2012 Keith Weiner

The Keynesians and Monetarists have fooled people with a clever sleight of hand.  They have convinced people to look at prices (especially consumer prices) to understand what’s happening in the monetary system.

Anyone who has ever been at a magic act performance is familiar with how sleight of hand often works.  With a huge flourish of the cape, often accompanied by a loud sound, the right hand attracts all eyes in the audience.  The left hand of the illusionist then quickly and subtly takes a rabbit out of a hat, or a dove out of someone’s pocket.

Watching a performer is just harmless entertainment, and everyone knows that it’s just a series of clever tricks.  In contrast, the monetary illusions created by central banks, and the evil acts they conceal, can cause serious pain and suffering.  This is a topic that needs more exposure.

The commonly accepted definition of inflation is “an increase in consumer prices”, and deflation is “a decrease in consumer prices.”  A corollary is a myth that stubbornly persists: “today, a fine suit costs the same in gold terms as it did in 1911, about one ounce.”  Why should that be?  Surely it takes less land today to raise enough sheep to produce the wool for a suit, due to improvements in agricultural efficiency.  I assume that sheep farmers have been breeding sheep to maximize wool production too.  And doesn’t it take less labor to shear a sheep, not to mention card the wool, clean it, bleach it, spin it into yarn, weave the yarn into fabric, and cut and stitch the fabric into a suit?

Consumer prices are affected by a myriad of factors.  Increasing efficiency in production is a force for lower prices.  Changing consumer demand is another force.  In 1911, any man who had any money wore a suit.  Today, fewer and fewer professions require one to be dressed in a suit, and so the suit has transitioned from being a mainstream product to more of a specialty market.  This would tend to be a force for higher prices.

I don’t know if a decent suit cost $20 (i.e. one ounce of gold) in 1911.  Today, one can certainly get a decent suit for far less than $1600 (i.e. one ounce), and one could pay 3 or 4 ounces too for a high-end suit.

My point is that consumer prices are a red herring.  Increased production efficiency tends to push prices down, and monetary debasement tends to push prices up.  If those forces balance in any given year, the monetary authorities claim that there is no inflation.

This is a lie.

Inflation is not rising consumer prices.  One can’t understand much about the monetary system from inside this box.  I offer a different definition.

Inflation is an expansion of counterfeit credit.

Most Austrian School economists realize that inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  But simply plotting the money supply is not sufficient.  In a gold standard, does gold mining create inflation?  How about private lending?  Bank lending?  What about Real Bills of Exchange

As I will show, these processes do not create inflation under a gold standard. Thus I contend the focus should be on counterfeit credit.  By definition and by nature, gold production is never counterfeit.  Gold is gold, it is divisible and every piece is equivalent to any other piece of the same weight.

Gold mining is arbitrage: when the cost of mining an ounce of gold is less than one ounce of gold, miners will act to profit from this opportunity.  This is how the market signals that it needs more money.  Gold, of course, has non-declining marginal utility, which is what makes it money in the first place, so incremental changes in its supply cause no harm to anyone.

Similarly, if Joe works hard, saves his money, and gives a loan of 100 ounces to John, this is an expansion of credit.  But it is not counterfeit or illegitimate or inflation by any useable definition of the term.

By extension, it does not matter whether there are market makers or other intermediaries in between the saver and the borrower.  This is because such middlemen have no power to expand credit beyond what the source—the saver—willingly provides.  And thus bank lending is not inflation.

Below, I will discuss various kinds of credit in light of my definition of inflation.

In all legitimate credit, at least two factors distinguish it from counterfeit credit.  First, someone has produced more than he has consumed.  Second, this producer knowingly and willingly extends credit.  He understands exactly when, and on what terms, with what risks he will be paid in full.  He realizes that in the meantime he does not have the use of his money.

Let’s look at the case of fractional reserve banking.  I have written on this topic before (Fractional Reserve Banking).  To summarize: if a bank takes in a deposit and lends for a longer duration than the deposit, that is duration mismatch.  This is fraud and the source of banking system instability and crashes.  If a bank lends deposits only for the same or shorter duration, then the bank is perfectly stable and perfectly honest with its depositors.  Such banks can expand credit by lending, (though they cannot expand money, i.e. gold), but it is real credit.  It is not counterfeit.

Legitimate lending begins with someone who has worked to save money.  That person goes to a bank, and based on the bank’s offer of different interest rates for different durations, chooses how long he is willing to lock up his money.  He lends to the bank under a contract of that duration.  The bank then lends it out for that same duration (or less).

The saver knows he must do without his money for the duration.  And the borrower has the use of the money.  The borrower typically spends it on a capital purchase of some sort.  The seller of that good receives the money free and clear.  The seller is not aware of, nor concerned with, the duration of the original saver’s deposit.  He may deposit the money on demand, or on a time deposit of whatever duration.

There is no counterfeiting here; this process is perfectly honest and fair to all parties.  This is not inflation!

Now let’s look at Real Bills of Exchange, a controversial topic among members of the Austrian School.  In brief, here is how Real Bills worked under the gold standard of the 19th century.  A business buys merchandise from its supplier and agrees to pay on Net 90 terms.  If this merchandise is in urgent consumer demand, then the signed invoice, or Bill of Exchange, can circulate as a kind of money.  It is accepted by most people, at a discount from the face value based on the time to maturity and the prevailing discount rate.

This is a kind of credit that is not debt.  The Real Bill and its market act as a clearing mechanism.  The end consumer will buy the final goods with his gold coin.  In the meantime, every business in the entire supply chain does not necessarily have the cash gold to pay at time of delivery.

This problem of having gold to pay at time of delivery would become worse as business and technology improved to allow additional specialization and thus extend the supply chain with additional value-added businesses.  And it would become worse as certain goods went into high demand seasonally (e.g. at Christmas).

The Real Bill does not come about via saving and lending.  It is commercial credit that is extended based on expectations of the consumer’s purchases.  It is credit that arises from consumption, and it is self-liquidating.  It is another kind of legitimate credit.

For more discussion of Real Bills, see the series of pieces by Professor Antal Fekete (see here, Monetary Economics 101 Lectures 4 through 9).

Now let’s look at counterfeit credit.  By the criteria I offered above, it is counterfeit because there is no one who has produced more than he has consumed, or he does not knowingly or willing forego the use of his savings to extend credit.

First, is the example where no one has produced a surplus.  A good example of this is when the Federal Reserve creates currency to buy a Treasury bond.  On their books, they create a liability for the currency issued and an asset for the corresponding bond purchase.  Fed monetization of bonds is counterfeit credit, by its very nature.  Every time the Fed expands its balance sheet, it is inflation.

It is no exaggeration to say that the very purpose of the Fed is to create inflation.  When real capital becomes more scarce, and thus its owners become more reluctant to lend it (especially at low interest rates), the Fed’s official role is to be the “lender of last resort”.  Their goal is to continue to expand credit against the ever-increasing market forces that demand credit contraction.

And of course, all counterfeit credit would go to default, unless the creditor has strong collateral or another lever to force the debtor to repay.  Thus the Fed must act to continue to extend and pretend.  Counterfeit credit must never end up where it’s “pay or else”.  It must be “rolled”.  Debtors must be able to borrow anew to repay the old debts—forever.  The job of the Fed is to make this possible (for as long as possible).

Next, let’s look at duration mismatch in the financial system.  It begins in the same way as the previous example of non-counterfeit credit—with a saver who has produced more than he has consumed.  So far, so good.  He deposits money in a bank, and this is where the counterfeiting occurs.  Perhaps he deposits money on demand and the bank lends it out.  Or perhaps he deposits money in a 1-year time account and the bank lends it for 5 years.  Both cases are the same.  The saver is not knowingly foregoing the use of his money, nor lending it out on such terms and length.

This, in a nutshell, is the common complaint that is erroneously levied against all fractionally reserved banks.  The saver thinks he has his money, but yet there is another party who actually has it.  The saver holds a paper credit instrument, which is redeemable on demand.  The bank relies on the fact that on most days, they will not face too many withdrawal demands.  However, it is a mathematical certainty that eventually the bank will default in the face a large crowd all trying to withdraw their money at once.  And other banks will be in a similar position.  And the collapsing banking system causes a plunge into a depression.

There are also instances where the saver is not willingly extending credit.  The worker who foregoes 16% of his wage to Social Security definitely knows that he is not getting the use of his money.  He is extending credit, by force—i.e. unwillingly. The government promises him that in exchange, they will pay him a monthly stipend after he reaches the age of retirement, plus most of his medical expenses.  Anyone who does the math will see that this is a bad deal.  The amount the government promises to pay is less than one would expect for lending money for so long, especially considering that the money is forfeit when you die.

But it’s worse than it first seems, because the amount of the monthly stipend, the age of retirement, and the amount they pay towards medical expenses are unknown and unknowable in advance, when the person is working.  They are subject to a political process.  Politics can shift suddenly with each new election.

Social Security is counterfeit credit.

With legitimate credit, there is a risk of not being repaid.  However, one has a rational expectation of being repaid, and typically one is repaid.  On the contrary, counterfeit credit is mathematically certain not to be repaid in the ordinary course.  This is because the borrower is without the intent or means of ever repaying the loan.  Then it is a matter of time before it defaults, or in some circumstances forces the borrower to repay under duress.

Above, I offered two factors distinguishing legitimate credit:

  1. The creditor has produced more than he has consumed
  2. He knowingly and willingly extends credit

Now, let’s complete this definition with the third factor:

3.     The borrower has the means and the intent to repay

Every instance of counterfeit credit also fails on the third factor.  If the borrower had both the means and the intent to repay, he could obtain legitimate credit in the market.

A corollary to this is that the dealers in counterfeit credit, by nature and design, must work constantly to extend it, postpone it, “roll” it, and generally maintain the confidence game.  Counterfeit credit cannot be liquidated the way legitimate credit can be: by paying it back normally.  Sooner, or later, it inevitably becomes a crisis that either hurts the creditor by default or the debtor by threatening or seizing his collateral.

I repeat my definition of inflation and add my definition of deflation:

Inflation is an expansion of counterfeit credit.

Deflation is a forcible contraction of counterfeit credit.

Inflation is only possible by the initiation of the use of physical force or fraud by the government, the central bank, and the privileged banks they enfranchise.  Deflation is only possible from, and is indeed the inevitable outcome of, inflation.  Whenever credit is extended with no means or ability to repay, that credit is certain to eventually become a crisis that threatens to harm the creditor.  That the creditor may have collateral or other means to force the debtor to take the pain and hold the creditor harmless does not change the nature of deflation.

Here’s to hoping that in 2012, the discussion of a more sound monetary and banking system begins in earnest.

A Politically Incorrect Look at Marginal Tax Rates

In my last piece, The Laffer Curve and Austrian Economics, I argued that the “Laffer Maxima” moves depending on where the economy is in the boom-bust credit cycle. I used an example of a marginal restaurant business in the bust phase, which fails when the income tax rate on the people who live nearby rises by 100 basis points.

In that piece, I did not intend to address the impact of taxes on the “middle class” vs. taxes on “the rich”.  A reader raised the question however, and thus motivated me to write this piece.

As I implied in that piece, the middle class are obliged to cut their spending dollar for dollar with any increase in any tax that they must pay.  I stated that this is because their budget is zero-sum, especially in the bust phase.  This leads to an important point: a dollar of tax increase here must necessarily decrease spending by a dollar. And this is just the primary impact. When this decrease forces the marginal business under, the secondary and tertiary impacts may be far in excess of one dollar.

In my example, the marginal restaurant had 8 employees, and a mortgage on some fixtures and tenant improvements.  Ignoring the impacts to the vendors of tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese, the default on perhaps $100,000 in debt is very significant.  And so is putting 8 people out of work.

In the bust phase, the destruction wrought by this tax that most people would consider to be “small”, is anything but small. And of course this process occurs all over the country.

It’s worth noting (though I do not intend to go into detail in this piece) that part of the problem is that the middle class has very little savings.  They live almost entirely on their cash flow, which is inelastic.

But what happens when taxes are increased on “the rich”? Is it not “fair” to redistribute wealth to even out the gaps between the “rich” and the rest of us? What happens if we increase taxes on the “rich”?

One cannot look at the economy on the basis of consumption only. It is important to understand capital accumulation and decumulation.

If a business sells $100,000 worth of product, and it cost $50,000 to make and sell, then they have a $50,000 profit. This is still true, even if they buy a $50,000 manufacturing machine. The business should treat the machine as capital which depreciates over its expected lifetime.

Likewise, if a business is neglecting its tooling, not investing in research and development, and deferring maintenance, it may seem to generate a “profit”.  But this is illusory. In an accurate assessment, it is consuming its capital. If it cannot allocate some of its “profits” towards capital, it is in reality consuming itself. It will eventually go out of business.

And this is important to understand when it comes to assessing taxes on “the rich”.  While there are some “rich” people who earn staggering salaries (e.g. actors and athletes), most “rich” are wealthy because they own productive assets and investments.

One can’t understand the impact of taxes on the rich (nor see it immediately) just by looking at macro economic data.  The “1%” do not reduce their personal consumption if taxes are increased on either incomes or capital gains. This is because they don’t spend all of their income, much less net worth, on consumption.

One needs to understand the concepts of investment, and risk-adjusted rate of return. Obviously, whatever portion of a rich man’s wealth is taken away in taxes will not be invested. The wealth will be consumed, either by the government, or those to whom the government gives it.

An increase in tax serves to replace investment with consumption. This may even boost GDP that year or even for a few years. But eventually, the destruction of capital will be felt in the economy.

This is important, because capital is the leverage on human effort. We don’t work any harder or any longer today than people did 10,000 years ago, but we are vastly more productive due to capital accumulation.  If we deliberately enact policies to decumulate capital in favor of present consumption, this would have a disastrous effect on our quality of life.

There is a more complex and pernicious effect of increasing taxes on the rich. And it is politically incorrect to say it. But it needs to be said.  We need less pandering and more honest discussion.  So bear with me.

Let’s compare and contrast to the wage earner. If the tax on a wage earner who makes $8 per hour goes up 10%, the wage earner may work an additional 10% more hours (if he can find the work), or he must spend 10% less.

The one percenter, however, has different choices. He is investing his wealth to generate a profit. For every investment, he calculates the risks and the returns if the investment is successful. He must then subtract the tax. If the net result does not justify the risk, he won’t invest.  The higher the tax, the more possible investments he will pass over, because they fail this test.  He always has an alternative: the Treasury bond.  Only if the risk-adjusted rate of return exceeds the Treasury will the rich man invest.

If he chooses not to invest, the result is that innovative start-up technology companies, energy exploration projects, new drugs and medical devices are starved for funding. But Treasury bonds go up and up, as does the consumption subsidized by the government.

This piece should not be taken as a recommendation to raise the taxes of the poor wage earner. But if one looks at the true economic impact of taxes, I think I have shown that taxing the rich hurts the economy—especially in the long term.

The correct solution is to cut spending, and cut it some more, and then cut it again, and then really begin to cut. But that is outside the scope of this piece.

Why Can’t We All Just Net Along

Zero Hedge posted an article that asks an interesting question.  Every European country owes money to other European countries.  This creates a web of cross-linked debt.  Instead of each country laboring under the full nominal amount, why don’t they just cooperate and cancel out everything but the net debt?  This remainder would be very manageable for every country.

 Anyone with “common sense” should be able to grasp one thing about this supposition.  Each country borrowed, and hence got itself into debt, to run a budget deficit for many years.  This means each country consumed more goods and services than it could pay for by tax revenues.  Does it make any sense that this accumulated debt over many years or decades could be eliminated by a simple trick?

 As with many errors in politics and management, the fallacy becomes obvious if one eschews the “big picture view” (i.e. woozy floating abstractions) and dives in to the details.

 I read the paper on the site linked in the piece on Zero Hedge.  It was not clear to me if these numbers include only the sovereign debt of each country’s national treasury or if it includes banking system debt.  To make this simpler, let’s assume only sovereign debt.  This makes our case harder to prove, but stronger once proved.

 The paper discusses the problem of maturity and acknowledges that its simplistic method of putting all debt into three categories (short, medium, and long) was not realistic.  It notes that the fact that the true amount of debt at each maturity is withheld by the central banks is telling.

 What the paper neglects to address is that, in our worldwide regime of irredeemable debt-based money, debt is the basis for “money”!  Each central bank that buys this debt uses it on the asset side of the balance sheet against which it can issue money on the liabilities side.  Anyone who takes this asset away would be pulling the rug out from underneath the central bank!  The central bank would either keep the liability but witness the value of its currency crash as this would effectively be massive money printing in the true sense of the word: naked, unbacked paper created ex nihilo.  The affected currency would collapse, and prices of goods in terms of this currency would skyrocket (while they were quoted in this currency at all)!

 Or it would have to somehow call the liabilities, i.e. pull money and hence liquidity out of the markets.  How would this work?  Our system is based on (exponentially) growing amounts of credit and debt.  Every time the economy slows and begins to liquidate the malinvestments, the only antidote is to issue ever-greater amounts of fresh credit.

 So, how can this article blithely suggest that all of this credit could be pulled?  That would bring about a deflationary collapse, wherein every kind of debtor except the sovereign cannot get its hands on cash no way, no how.  The wave of defaults that cascaded through the economy would ensue until no debt, and no money, remained.

 One of the perversities of debt-based irredeemable paper is that it does not survive balance sheet consolidation.  The writers of this paper, and Zero Hedge failed to understand this simple (but unobvious) fact.

Broken Hedges

Peter Tchir wrote a piece yesterday describing yet another hole in the banks’ balance sheets:

I am not sure I fully understand it, but to me it looks something like this:

A bank has a duration mismatch.  Its funding is short-term, which means it must be rolled over frequently.  This subjects the bank to the risk of a rise in interest rates, which would make its cost of funding higher.  And of course if rates rise, then the market value of the bond it bought is lower.

So when they go to buy a new bond, they also buy an interest rate swap.  The calculus is as follows:

1) if interest rates fall, their funding will get cheaper (a gain), the bond they bought will go up in value (a gain), and the swap loses value (a loss);

2) if interest rates rise, their funding will get more expensive (a loss), the bond will go down in value (a loss), and the swap will rise in value (a gain)

 By calculating the amount of swaps to buy, the bank thinks it is controlling its risk.  The bank wants to make a pure spread: Interest on bond – funding cost – swap cost.

 But today as Mr. Tchir writes, the problem is that the bond is losing value not because rates are rising but because the issuer is in trouble.  So the swap is not providing the protection that the bank hoped for.  The bank’s funding costs may or may not be falling, but it is certainly taking a loss from the fall in the price of the bond due to credit risk and a loss due on the interest rate swap as well.

Capitalism: Death by a Thousand Cuts

Capitalism: Death By A Thousand Cuts

Capitalism died when they decided to subsidize railroads for the sake of national prestige in the mid 19th century.

Capitalism died when, to compensate for the consequences of subsidized railroads, they passed anti-trust laws in 1890, under which it is illegal to have lower prices, the same prices, and higher prices than one’s competitors.

Capitalism died in 1913 when they started taxing income, and created a central bank.

Capitalism died after 1929 under the flailing interventionism of Hoover.

Capitalism died in 1933 when FDR confiscated the gold of US citizens, outlawed gold ownership, and defaulted on the domestic gold obligations of the US government.

Capitalism died when FDR stacked the supreme court, and created a veritable alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that could write law, adjudicate law, and execute law.

Capitalism died when FDR created the welfare state replete with a ponzi “retirement system”.

Capitalism died in 1944 when the rest of the world agreed to use the US dollar as if it were gold, at Bretton Woods.

Capitalism died under Johnson’s Great Expansion of FDR’s welfare state (Medicare).

Capitalism died when Kennedy removed silver from coins.

Capitalism died in 1971 when Nixon defaulted on the remaining gold obligations of the US government to foreign central banks.

Capitalism died when rampant expansion of counterfeit credit led to a near-death experience for the US dollar in the 1970′s.

Capitalism died when they ended the era where investors paid a firm to rate the debt they were going to buy. Congress enacted a law giving a government-protected franchise to Moodys, Fitch, and S&P.

Capitalism died when they decided to tax dividends at a higher rate than capital gains, thus distorting capital markets.

Capitalism died when they created Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, and Sally.

Capitalism died when in 1981 Reagan and Volcker conspired to begin a long boom by a process of falling interest rates that continues to this very day, destroying inconceivable amounts of capital with every tick either up or (mostly) down.

Capitalism died when Greenspan discovered that market corrections could be overruled by another shot of crack cocaine, i.e. dirt cheap credit effluent, i.e. lowering the rate of interest.

Capitalism died with the growth of laws and court decisions granting legally privileged status to some kinds of employees but not others (and trampling all over the rights of employers). For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Capitalism died with the passage of Medicare Part D.

Capitalism died with the bailouts, stimulus and other lies, deceit, fraud, and theft post 2008.

Capitalism died when Obama set aside the rule of hundreds of years old bankruptcy law and precedent to give unions priority in the bankruptcy of GM.

Capitalism died when Obama socialized medicine.

Capitalism died with every new regulatory package for financial markets: “Operation FD” in the late 1990s (as I recall), Sarbanes-Oxley, and now Dodd-Frank. With each one of these, the process is the same. Congress floats an idea publicly to “go after” the banks and dealers and brokers. Then the banks must go to Washington, spend money like water, and 6 months of back-room deals later, a multi thousand page document emerges as law. Then the regulatory agency must write regulations, so the banks spend more money, and a year of backroom dealings later, a hundred thousand page regulation emerges. Then this is to be enforced by armies of regulators. …

Capitalism died with Zero Interest Rate Forevah(TM).

Capitalism is long since dead. Whatever the name for today’s failed system is, “capitalism” is not that name.

The Laffer Curve and Austrian Economics

The Laffer Curve And Austrian School Economics

Jude Wanniski, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, coined the term “Laffer Curve” after a concept promoted by economist Art Laffer.Laffer himself says the idea goes back to the 14th century

 The idea is that if one wants to maximize the government’s tax revenue, there is an optimal tax rate. (Ignore for the moment whether or not you think this makes good economics in the long run, or whether or not you think this is even moral.)

 Laffer noted that if the tax rate is zero, then the government gets no revenue. But likewise, if the rate is set at 100%, the government also gets no tax revenue. Mainstreamers say that there is no incentive to produce income at 100% tax rate, and this is true. But even more importantly, there is no means: a 100% tax rate is pure capital destruction.

 The “Laffer Maxima”, i.e. the tax rate which maximizes the tax take, is somewhere between 0% and 100%. The Wikipedia article shows a picture of a Laffer Maxima at 70%, and implies that although it’s somewhat controversial this may be the right number.

 There are two points about the Laffer Curve that are important to consider.

 First, what in the world makes any economist think that he can gin up some differential equations and compute the right value for this Maxima? In the first place, every market is composed of an integer number of people transacting an integer number of trades, and each of those trades consists of an integer number of goods. People do not behave like particles in an ideal gas—they have reason and volition. The very idea of modeling a large number of people with equations is preposterous. Never mind that degrees are awarded every year to economists who purportedly do just that.

 Second, what makes anyone think that the Laffer Maxima is a constant?

 Let’s do a thought experiment that is in the vein of the Austrian School of economics. Let’s consider the boom-bust cycle, or what Austrians note is really the credit cycle. The central bank first expands credit, which flows into wealth-creating as well as wealth-destroying activities (malinvestment). As the expansion ages, an even greater proportion of credit funds wealth-destroying activities. Sooner or later the boom turns to bust. Malinvestments are liquidated, people are laid off from their jobs, portfolios take big losses, tax revenues decline, etc.

 One clue can be found right there, in my description of the bust: tax revenues decline.

 OK, maybe the Laffer Curve remains static and the only thing that changes is the absolute tax dollars?

 Let’s continue comparing the boom and the bust phases. In the boom phase what’s happening is that economic activity is being stimulated, i.e. beyond what it would naturally have been. This fuels demand for everything: commodities, labor, construction, fuel, professional services, etc. And all of the people hired in the boom are demanding everything too. It feeds on itself synergistically, for a while.

 At this stage, the frictional cost of taxes may be masked by the lubricant and fuel of credit expansion. This is especially so when everyone feels richer and richer on paper. People spend freely and we saw this in spades in the most recent boom that ended in 2007.

 Now let’s look at the bust phase. The net worth of most people is falling sharply. Many are laid off, their careers, and sometimes lives, shattered. A huge component of the marginal bid for everything is withdrawn. People struggle to make ends meet. Budgets are stretched to the max.

 I submit for the consideration of the reader that in the bust phase, any change in the tax rate drives a big change at the margin of economic activity. The tax rate is more significant in the bust phase than it was in the boom phase. The Laffer Maxima is not a hard-wired, intrinsic value of 70 (or 42 for fans of Douglas Adams). Like everything else in the market, it moves around. It is subject to the forces of the markets.

 I will close with an example. Consider the marginal restaurant. Let’s say it is generating $25,000 per month in gross revenues. Net of $24,700 in expenses, it is generating positive cash flow of $300 per month. Why would the owner even keep it open? Well, times may get better…

Now, let’s say the tax rate goes up a little, say 100 basis points. The restaurant, making little money, pays essentially no taxes anyway. So this does not cause a direct impact. But what about the patrons of the restaurant? If their blended tax rate was 25%, then an increase of 100 basis points (i.e., to 26%) is a tax increase of 4%. These people will have to reduce their budget by 4%.

 One logical place to cut is eating out. Suppose that they reduce their spending in the restaurant by $1,000, in aggregate.  Now our restaurant has $24,000 per month in gross revenues. But its fixed costs cannot be reduced. And even the labor can’t be reduced in this case. The only reduction will be food supplies. So let’s say food supplies are reduced 1/3 of $1,000, or $333. So now the restaurant has expenses of $24,367. Whereas it formerly made $300 profit per month, now it makes a loss of $367 per month.

 The owner can’t continue this very long. And so he closes shop. He defaults on the loans on the fixtures and tenant improvements, lays off 8 people, leaves the electric and gas companies with fixed infrastructure which no longer produces revenue for them, etc.

 The impact to the economy (and hence to the total taxes collected) is negative and disproportionate to the tax increase.