Regulation vs Freedom

Question. Which competition do you fear the most? Oracle? Sun Micro-systems? 

Answer. The two guys inventing away in a garage somewhere.

A quote from Bill Gates during Microsofts height of dominance during the late 1990's

Human history has been a constant struggle for individual liberty. A belief to allow individuals to make choices for themselves and to allow everyone the right to pursue their own happiness. We should always bear this in mind. In the past the minority used to fight for the abolishment of slavery. They won. They fought for the vote for the common man. Then women. The key word is minority. Liberty is always initially pursued by the minority. The majority get used to the status quo and what is preached by the intellectuals paid for by the centralised powers. The majority of people are passive thinkers. They listen and obey. Then there are people who are able to question conventional intellectual thinkers and critique the theories that are espoused. 

Regulation. We need it. Or so we are told. Do we need central authorities telling individuals what they can and can't do? If people wish to enter into a mutual two way interaction then who has the moral right to stop such a human action? Regulation manifests itself as a third party, dictating to people what actions they can and can not perform. The false promise of regulation is protection. Protection of "consumer rights". Its classic twisted Government logic that in fact tramples on consumers rights and slows the progress of humanity. Big companies love Regulation. Its sold as protection to the little guys from the big guys. In reality it performs the complete opposite function. Bureaucracy in the form of regulation is big corporations way to stop the small competitors from even getting off the ground. It ensures they won't eat their lunch. Some of the most sluggish sectors in Western economies are also some of the most regulated ones.

Finance has become a big web of regulation. I find it embarrassing when people call it a bastion of freedom. During the so called "de-regulation" of the 1980's for every regulation Regan repealed in America, he created several new regulations. Small banks are no longer on the landscape, the megabanks are getting ever more powerful and larger. They can always pay for the armies of compliance officers and mountains of paper work. Small banks have no chance. 

Lets take the Financial Crisis of 2008 (soon to be eclipsed by the next financial crisis due to similar policies that are still in place). Interests rates which many agreed were too low were not just regulated but are set directly by the Government. Paul Krugman, one of the Governments paid intellectuals said at the turn of the century, that the Federal Reserve needs to lower interest rates in order to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Prior to this we had the near failure of large fund called LTCM. In a free market it would have failed, ensuring banks would always maintain prudent polices; if they didn't they would go to the wall. Instead, in what became known as the "Greenspan Put", they were bailed out by the Federal Reserve. This also had the effect of ensuring banks would be more reckless as the bigger they were the more likely they would fall into the Federal Reserves "Too big to fail" category.

A lot of media coverage was given to sub-prime, a so called failure of the free market. Yet it was the Government who encouraged reckless lending. From Clinton, to Bush, Acts were passed that actively lowered lending standards. This isn't fiction, feel free to look this up. The Government witnessed banks more prudent lending practices, the type that assesses a persons income, dependability etc as too restrictive in order to "give" everyone a home. Politicians demanded everyone should have a right to a home rather than having to earn one. Acts were passed that instructed banks to lend to people with poor credit histories and no incomes. Sub-prime was a Government initiative.

Large parts of the mortgage market was underwritten by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who were in effect backed by the US treasury. The so called "saviours", the guys who are regulating the market, were instead running with more leverage than hedge funds. They lent with complete disregard to credit-worthiness, heck, it was a good old Government Ponzi scheme. Many sub-prime mortgages were pushed through these Government mortgage institutions. Credit Default Swaps, Mortgage Backed Securities, the so called financial instruments of mass destruction, were, you guessed it; Regulated. Of course who was rating all this packaged sub-prime mortgages? The credit agencies who were funded and run by the Government. AAA grade for mortgages that were worth less then the Zimbabwe Dollar. America has several financial regulation (not just one!) institutions all with armies of workers and armed to the tooth with regulation laws. Yet the financial crisis still happened. It happened not from the absence of regulations but from the presence of such distortions. The crisis had been brewing for years. Just like the next one to come (the Government bond bubble).

We could look at a number of other sectors and we would see a long list similar to finance. Medicine continues to have increasing costs and a lack of consumer innovations due to regulation. Drug companies keep the little guy out by ensuring the FDA impose huge barriers for entry; in the supposed interests of the consumer. 

All regulation does is impede the producers, the wealth creators. It stops the trial and error process that creates prosperity. There are regulations to instruct Restaurants what colour tiles they are allowed, as certain colours could "hide" dirt (despite the fact the most deadly "dirt" to humans is invisible bacteria). Many have had to amend under such restrictive planning laws, passing costs onto society. Not contempt with current infringements on liberty the "do-gooders" now want to ban knives that are over 4 inches, ban fast food, ban certain fats to name a few ridiculous ideas. If people wish to eat in a dirty restaurant then they should be free to; likewise to eat so called "junk food". That's personal freedom and choice. To take those away is tyranny; pure and simple. If I wish to harm my body then no one has the right to tell me otherwise (we all do. Alcohol, wheat based food, cigarettes, sugar, man made fats - that's our choice). That's where the majority of passive thinkers give away their liberties. They are mislead into being told it is the duty of others to make decisions on their own behalf. It is supposedly the Government that has the moral right to protect us, despite the fact that freedom has done a far better job of protecting humanity throughout history that centralised authorities. 

What about the oil snake men wouldn't they just run rampant in an "unregulated" market? People like Bernie Madoff? First off all you will always get the con men in any economic system, it is unavoidable  Crooks are just a part of life. Its not freedom that creates such people, but they are who they are. The free market limits their powers. Secondly, Madoff was investigated a number of times by the SEC, the very regulators who "protect" us.

I was astonished. They never even looked at my stock records. If investigators had checked with The Depository Trust Company, a central securities depository, it would've been easy for them to see. If you're looking at a Ponzi scheme, it's the first thing you do.

Madoff was also in bed with the Regulators. He got away with it for so long because of their very existence. The freedom of choice that exists in all us is the ultimate form of regulation  Any rip-off businesses soon get punished with bad consumer reports and with the transparency of the Internet dispersing information in seconds to billions, no business can survive long with such a tool on the side of consumers.

From all the regulations imposed on finance a new digital finance sector is emerging to challenge conventional banking, known as Bitcoin. People involved in such communities are not seeking permissions for their own liberty; they are taking liberty into their own hands. Bitcoin has the potential to revolutionise finance the way the Internet revolutionised information. Finance is just the tip of the iceberg. By solving the Byzantine Generals Problem, Bitcoin will revolutionise anything that involves a trusted third party. "Smart Property" could be held on the blockchain such as the deeds to your house, saving society billions in legal fees. Shares in companies, bonds, tradeable assets such as Gold could be transacted through the blockchain. No need for expensive fraud services that costs the economy trillions, automated mathematics will handle that moving forward. Peer 2 peer lending reducing lending fees and removing the middle man that is banks with all their expensive offices, paper work and high paid staff. Another such example of enriching us all.

Yet with innovation comes the regulators. Usually for technology the Government turns their back but not when the technology imposes a direct threat on their monopoly of money. Their guise will be to protect the people but the real motive is to stop the competitor. Conventional banks will demand regulations as they, like Bill Gates, fear the two guys working in the garage. Its been too cosy for too long. Regulators aren't sure what to do, but they want to regulate something about Bitcoin even if its just to make a name for themselves. The most common slur against Bitcoin is that its used for "illicit" activities. Under such logic the US dollar should be banned as this funds 99% of global criminal activities. The government can not pass moral judgement on free will. Bitcoin is amoral and allows individuals to transfer value as they please. Peoples actions are their own choice. Bitcoin doesn't need regulation. It got here with no regulation. In the space of 5 years a Global Currency run by the free market has been created. Anyone with no documents, can set up an account and transfer money to anyone, anywhere around the globe in minutes. A single unit of the currency has gone from no value to hundreds of dollars in value. The services are increasing in sophistication by the day now that intellectual and monetary capital has started pouring in. When I started with Bitcoin there were very little startups. Now they pop up daily and regularly raise millions of dollars in cash. The accounts ledger is public for all to see, a truly revolutionary concept that has far more security than conventional centrally held ledgers. All of this has been done so quickly because there was no regulation. There were no barriers for entry. People under their own free will used Bitcoin at their own risk. If they didn't like the risk or the eco-system then they were free not to participate. Free Choice. There is no place here for regulation.

One common concern for people outside of the Bitcoin community is stories of Bitcoins being stolen. First off; if you don't like this, then don't use Bitcoin. People have no right telling other people who wish to take such risk that they can't use such a system. Second; in many cases there are some fly-by-night banking setups. Reputable businesses such as coinbase or Blockchain.info build a reputation of trust, removing the unreputable con men in the long run. Third; many cases have been poor security implementations. Bitcoin is new, its on the cutting edge; its called growing pains. Market forces without regulation solve such problems. They implement two factor authentication, open source their implementations. They come up with hardware wallets such as the Trezor or paper wallets; pulling the security out of cyber space and into the physical dimension. What would the regulators do to solve such issues? They would shut down such innovations. They don't understand any domain, the wealth producers do and go about solving such problems and create the wealth that the regulators ride along on. 

The Quote at the top from Bill Gates is what happens in the Technology sector. Regulation is minimal. The producers are free to challenge the status quo. There is no rule book to follow; anything goes. Regulators aren't producers. They are not even on the same level as consumers who earn their income. They are parasites, paid for by society. Not contempt with that they go around and stop the progress of human ingenuity, the trial and error process that enriches us all. Regulation will one day be banished, just as slavery was. Liberty; choice; freedom. They are the ultimate forms of regulation.

Tory Election Boom

"The panic appears to be over. Now is the time to get worried."

William Keegan, Author and Journalist

It's been over three years now since the formation of the UK Coalition Government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Austerity was supposed to be on the agenda but the reality differs, there is still budget deficits, increased spending and lots more debt. Private debt still remains at historic high levels. As all politicians always do, with an election due in less than two years its time to engineer a boom based on a policy of reckless monetary and fiscal policy. Public debts are over 1 trillion pounds, yet mainstream politics has a consensus towards further spending.

The conservatives have recently announced the "We'll help you buy a house" scheme to try and inflate the recently lagging housing market, creating the voter "feel good" factor. Monetary tightening is mentioned, as it has since the crash of '08, but words do not match the actions of our monetary overlords who continue with loose money and low interest rates. BoE recently appointed Governor Mark Carney is all for abandoning inflation targets, instead shifting the focus towards Growth, a move mirroring the priorities of the Federal Reserve. Janet Yellen has been given the the nod by another big spender Obama. Stuck within the confines of academia and Government agencies she makes a good choice to a leader who has not attempted to tackle the deficit and whose legacy will be a disaster for his successor.

The Eurozone still has too much debt, the plasters continue to hold but like any temporary measure are making the problems worse. America continues to raise the US debt ceiling as though it has validity. If they keep raising it at will then how can it be called a ceiling. Cuts from all corners of the Globe are hypothetical.

Fundamentals, as always, are key. A panic can reside but the fundamentals always come back into the picture. Golds bull market is not over, its just on its next leg, like it has been over the past decade plus with various ups and downs just like any Bull market. Governments can't defy economic reality of spending money they don't have - bond markets, currencies, commodities - will all catch up with their reckless spending. Running budget surpluses is hard work for Governments only when a party feels they require to obtain economic credibility from the electorate does a political institution follow such a path. With all parties in the UK promoting spend-onomics there will be no immediate return to that concept.

I never believed this current Government would sort the mess and they are doing what I thought they would, dodging the real issues, tinkering on the fringes with little progress to show for it. Expect more short term polices. Tackling long term issues are no good for politicians precious votes. Ironically the short term Tory boom will please Keynesian's who will proclaim our troubles are over. In reality the problems continue to compound. 

The lights are on, but is anyone home at the FED?

While people debate about regulating "Capitalism", very few people are asking who is regulating the Government and Central Banks? If you think the free market is the source of the problems we see, have a look at this video. The Fed are setting up the next crisis, again having no idea where it is going, as the free market will continue to be reckless if there are never any consequences for their actions. The video even shocked me.

Rick Santelli - Now theres an Idea

At least someone is speaking up for people who still believe in Individualism and the responsibility for ones actions. A new Brain Drain over the next 5, 10, 15 years? If these policies continue, I think so.

The Descent of Niall Ferguson?

We came close to financial collapse, Wall Streets big Investment banks went bankrupt or were merged into other banks, the IMF bailed out various countries from monetary implosion, Sterling plunged, Governments turned to Socialist solutions, the myth of houses being a 'safe investment' was derailed. In all the turmoil with every asset in sight heading south, historian Niall Ferguson was on our screens again, this time with a series titled "The Ascent of Money" to promote his new book. A six part series that looked at the historical impact of finance within human society and how it has evolved, into the modern system we now use in our economies. I personally enjoy reading Niall Ferguson's books and there are some interesting titles to his name, my favourite being Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. After the last episode there was an open web chat in which he answered peoples questions, which can be found here. Like the television series, Prof Ferguson seemed to have flawed analysis of economic matters, such as deflation and inflation which I wish to explain briefly here. Inflation and deflation is strictly a monetary phenomenon, it is caused by an increase in paper money compared with the goods and services in an economy. This shows up as rising prices, however the goods do not rise in price from market forces, but from monetary expansion. For the sake of this article, I may refer to deflation as falling prices, but technically it is a falling money supply. However I will use this definition to elaborate on Prof Ferguson points in question. I have selected some of the quotes he made in the online discussion that I found interesting.


"Well, right now Ben Bernanke is more worried about deflation than about inflation. But if he's successful we can soon revert to worrying about inflation. As I said in an earlier post, central banks today do not want 0% inflation (i.e. price stability). It limits the room for monetary policy too much. Are we going to see a big surge in inflation after this crisis is over? I frankly doubt it. The Fed can mop up a lot of this excess liquidity quite easily, as the Bank of Japan did after the end of quantitative easing."

The above analysis is flawed, in many aspects. First of all, that we are suddenly worried about deflation. This is a myth, as the past couple of decades have been deflationary. As I've said before market forces are always deflationary, people reinvest capital to increase productive capacity, thus reducing the cost of goods and services. Prof. Ferguson confuses general deflation, with the aspect of deflation that Ben Bernanke is worried about, that is asset price deflation - houses and stocks. As the US and UK have consumption debt based economies, where the 'wealth' is based on the price of the above assets, when these are falling in value then the economy contracts. This is what the Western Central Banks are worried about, as our whole economy revolves around these assets. They will inflate these assets at all costs, hence why they want to print money. History has always shown governments will do this as people want the government to take action. Prof. Ferguson does not mention any of this which is a big omission. He also doesn't mention it in the television series.

Apart from the first episode there is no great mention about inflation. Inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon, which amazingly he doesn't seem to explain in great depth. In order to obtain the 'price stability' he references above, central banks must constantly inflate the currency as the prices of goods and services continue to fall. Achieving price stability is a path to periodic financial crisis. Price stability helped cause the Great Depression, as the FED had to inflate during the 1920's in order to ensure inflation was ticking along, fighting against the deflationary forces of industialisation. Then when the bust came in, they tried to inflate to keep inflation up (i.e. keep wages, agriculture and stock market prices high), however they were beaten in the end by the gold convertibility so deflation won in the end. Rather than the economy resuming normal operation it stagnated for years due to the huge inflation in the proceeding years, accompanied by the draconian measures that were introduced as the government constantly interfered during the bust. It wasn't deflation that made the great depression, it was the inflation in the stock market. Then there was the stagflationary seventies. All currencies were off gold, therefore governments this time could inflate so inflation reached as high as 25% in Britain. Again the result was the same - economic hardship for years. It was inflation again in the 50's and 60's into asset prices that caused this as central banks looked for 'price stability'. Yet again, we are following the same foolhardy decisions, as price stability causes financial instability.

When Dr Ferguson mentions this price stability he says it limits the room for monetary policy. Does he really understand what he is saying here? The only thing it limits is the economies ability to re-deploy its resources efficiently and effectively. It has helped cause the stock market bubbles and the housing bubbles with the recent one, being one of the prime reasons we find ourselves in this mess as Greenspan and Co decided we had to pump cheap money in the system to ensure 'Price Stability' to combat these deflationary forces. They expanded the money supply so much that the West quite simply misallocated its resources in the wrong areas, hence the major correction we are now going into. Capital should always be scarce despite what people say, as it tries to direct a scarce amount of resources in the real economy into the required productive channels.

Then we come onto his other comment regarding if we going to see a big surge in inflation, in which he doubts we will. His reasoning is that we will be able to mop up any excesses like Japan. Like Japan did? As I have mentioned before, and unfortunately our governments have begun implementing this policy, Japan cut interest rates to 0% and tried to inflate to cure their downturn in the 90's but all it did was kill the economy. They also tried the new buzz word in the media "Quantitative Easing" which is effectively printing money, as I have earlier warned about. The reason Japan didn't experience inflation domestically, was that they exported this excess money to the world. Japan exported inflation to the world. You have probably heard of the Yen Carry trade well this is what it was in effect, people buying up huge amounts of Yen at cheap rates and putting the money to use in other countries where the returns were higher. It was also the reason for the Yens surge this year, and the deleveraging we saw in the autumn and winter of 2008 as these returns evaporated and the Yen increased in value against all currencies - people had to sell to cover these loses. This is also one of the causes of our asset booms in the stock market and housing. If it wasn't for this and the fact Japan is a huge creditor nation who have a trade surplus, they would have experienced huge inflation. So then we ask the question, how will the West mop up this excess money if the majority of the worlds economies are doing it? Quite simply, they can't, once this money is in the system along with less goods and services (which is what is happening at the moment as businesses won't invest) inflation is inevitable. The only way to stop it is by raising interest rates to double digits, a policy politicians don't particularly like, as Margaret Thatcher found when she became a demonised figure. Our economy is based around debt, so they are not going to be doing this for some time.


"Don't know the book. But people are always writing things like that. My favourite is William Rees Mogg's Great Depression of the 1990s, which never materialized (rather the reverse). Usually the predicted event doesn't happen. Sometimes it does -- though by 2010 I suspect we'll be out of this hole and Harrison's book will be out of print."

The comments above are in regards to Fred Harrison's book, Boom Bust: House Prices, Banking and the Depression of 2010, this is also a book I have read. Yet if Prof. Ferguson had done sufficient research and indeed read the book before passing judgement, he would have discovered that there is a very set pattern for the gap between each housing boom, specifically 18 years which Fred Harrison shows in his book. The book was also written in 2005, just as the housing market was slowing down and many thought it would collapse, however Fred stated that it would carry on for another two years, the period he terms as the "winners curse". He also said it would carry on with double digit rises, when everyone said it would slow to more moderate growth, as he claimed hysteria would grip the market once more. He also wrote a book back in the early eighties, The Power in the Land, in which he predicted the recession of the early nineties, so this is not a one off.

The assumption that we will be over the worst by 2010 is wrong and sounds like he has been listening to the Labour Government. This stagnation will go on for years in the West. 2009 will be even worse, with more bank failures, huge unemployment, and rising debt. Government finances will be in a hideous state and 2010 will be a grim year too, with in all probability the beginning of what will be years of inflation, as 2009 winds down.

"No, we are in a very different situation from the world in 1929, although the potential was certainly there for a Great Depression 2.0. The key difference is that the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. Treasury are doing everything in their power to combat the collapse of the banking system. And so far they've done a pretty good job. I find it hard to believe that this time next year will be so worried about deflation and depression. The conversation may even have switched to inflation and the need to reverse some of the stimulus that was injected."

The final sentence of the above comment concurs with the first statement in this article, however it is his comments regarding the authorities' interventions that I wish to tackle, as he quite clearly has a incorrect interpretation of history. As I have shown in a previous post the Great Depression was caused by government intervention, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates from 6% to 1.2% and took all sorts of financial instruments from the banks to prop them up. Prof Ferguson seems to place a belief that they have done a good job, however President Hoover was saying exactly the same at the end of 1930. It wasn't until the second half of 1931 when things really were desperate, and the previous measures had quite clearly had no effect. Governments make the situation worse, which I will dedicate a post at a later date to fully explain why free markets should never be interfered with, even during a bust. He's right in once aspect that later in 2009 we shouldn't be worried about deflation, the monetary expansion along with the depletion of goods should ensure a resurgence in inflation again. We are facing a depression, even if the authorities never admit it, but it will be an inflationary depression.


These were just three of the comments he made in the web chat, I didn't feel the need to choose anymore comments as the post would have been too long. There were some good points regarding the Socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende from various posters and from Prof. Ferguson himself. His successor, General Pinochet was a tyrant and an oppressor of personal liberty, but Allende would not have been the Socialist Utopian alternative, as so many among the left like to believe. Before the coup, Chile was already showing signs of Totalitarianism, along with the classic hallmark of Socialist overspend resulting in the escalation in inflation. There was quite an extensive debate on this subject matter, with some emotions running high.

One of the terms coined in the series is that of "Chimerica", or the union of China and America in recent times. Ferguson paints a rosy picture of this relationship, although he does mention the possibility of a Third World War between the two without the mention of possible alliances. In one of his books "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire", he evidently can see that America is on its way out as the worlds superpower, displaying signs of overstretch and faltering economic growth, similar to Britain's decline, decline that I suspect we will see over the coming decades (as empires always decline in over a long period of time). In the book he doesn't use the term Chimerica but acknowledges the China effect and the deficits that America is running with the rest of the world. This is one point he doesn't make an issue of in the series, which in my view is a major point. Britain, when it began its decline, was a large creditor nation with assets all over the world. America, on the other hand, is a huge debtor nation the largest in history with very little in terms of overseas assets. America, is in a far worse state than Britain was during its decline. Yet Ferguson seems to believe that America will be the main economic powerhouse for years to come. I disagree, and think he has overlooked this fact, or forgot to mention this historic parallel. The globalisation of today is far different to the one before the first world war. He mentions British trade with China, however the Chinese were very restrictive back then, only allowing European merchants to trade at key ports. They had no access to mainland China, and shifted their goods through the local merchants. In this recent revisit of Globalisation, the situation is very different. China now produces and exports huge amounts of goods to the West, and have modern economic capabilities. They are becoming self sufficient, while the West now relies on their productive facilities to make goods. This is why this time it is more experimental, as the West slowly loses its status as the economic center of the world.

In the final series Prof. Ferguson detailed the various financial events of the past two decades, from the Savings and Loans Crisis, the Asian financial crisis, the Russian Government Default, LTCM collapse, the dot com bubble, Enron then finally the housing bubble. Yet he didn't link into what caused these events, and how they kept reoccurring. Again the Federal Reserve has fostered these, and persistently distorted the market causing the major downturn we are now seeing today. All the above is created by Greenspan and Co who kept bailing the markets out. People were amazed that Lehman Brothers went bust last year, but half of those US investment banks should have gone bust 10 years ago, along with LTCM at the time. He instead pins the mistakes on human behaviour and markets. This is not true, as the market would have corrected these excesses long ago, instead the Central Banks kept bailing out everyone. In other words they took the risk out of the free market. The free market therefore did not price risk, which is a reason why the banks have so many issues we see today. This omission was fatal, as it explains the bust we are going into is not a product of the true free market, or the product of Capitalism (as many anti-capitalists have begun prophesying its downfall) but the product of Central Bank intervention. The market would have corrected all the above long before, thus we would have never had house values escalate as high as they did and an economy orientated so heavily towards these asset prices. These banks would have gone bust long before and along with it more sensible lending standards, with a more balanced economy.

After viewing the series I don't think I will be buying the book, and will probably wait until it becomes available at my local library. I was also disappointed that the series did not go into the details of fractional reserve banking, Central Banks and the artificial market forces that China have been exerting in recent years in order to grow their economy quicker. There was also a lack of history towards recent financial events, which would explain more clearly the predicament we find ourselves in. However, Prof. Ferguson is an academic, not an economist. His book Cash Nexus, another book that I have read, he declares gold as an old relic with comments such as "Gold has a future, of course, but mainly as jewelry". This was in 1999, around the bottom in Golds price, since which Gold has increased around 400%-500% in Sterling a decade since these comments. Other recent comments such as "Money is trust, not metal", is true with our modern fiat currency, however only metal ever keeps its value over history. Another historical point Prof. Ferguson misses.

Alan Greenspan, who helped cause the current issues we see, understood the damage central banks and a fiat monetary system can cause. Back in 2002 Ron Paul asked him about Gold and Economic Freedom, an essay he wrote (in which I have taken an extract from), and if he still believed it to be true and valid for today. He responded with "I wouldn't change a single word". It's a shame many mainstream commentators such as Prof. Ferguson can't see the flaws in our current system. Greenspan could.

"But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion ... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value."
Alan Greenspan, Gold and Economic Freedom, 1967
Note: The Federal Reserve was established in 1913

The Next Great Depression?

A great deal can be learnt through history. In a practical sense its completely useless, as it merely just documents past events, but past events can help explain current and possible future events. If you can never get to grips with a subject matter it is best to look at history to try and to identify possible similarities. I have taken some quotes from a historical book and I think a lot of the quotes below could be said of the current situation we find ourselves in.

"If the Federal Reserve had an inflationist attitude during the boom, it was just as ready to try to cure the depression by inflating further. It stepped in immediately to expand credit and bolster shaky financial positions. In an act unprecedented in its history, the Federal Reserve moved in during the week of the crash—the final week of October—and in that brief period added almost $300 million to the reserves of the nation’s banks. During that week, the Federal Reserve doubled its holdings of government securities, adding over $150 million to reserves, and it discounted about $200 million more for member banks. Instead of going through a healthy and rapid liquidation of unsound positions, the economy was fated to be continually bolstered by governmental measures that could only prolong its diseased state."

"The Federal Reserve also promptly and sharply lowered its rediscount rate, from 6 percent at the beginning of the crash to 4.5 percent by mid-November. Acceptance rates were also reduced considerably. This enormous expansion was generated to prevent liquidation on the stock market and to permit the New York City banks to take over the brokers’ loans that the “other,” non-bank, lenders were liquidating."

"Dr. Anderson records that, at the end of December, 1929, the leading Federal Reserve officials wanted to pursue a laissez-faire policy: “the disposition was to let the money market ‘sweat it out’ and reach monetary ease by the wholesome process of liquidation.” The Federal Reserve was prepared to let the money market find its own level, without providing artificial stimuli that could only prolong the crisis. But early in 1930, the government instituted a massive easy money program. Rediscount rates of the New York Fed fell from 4.5 percent in February to 2 percent by the end of the year."

"During 1930, the Federal Reserve had steadily lowered its rediscount rates: from 4.2 percent at the beginning of the year, to 2 percent at the end, and finally down to 1.2 percent in mid-1931."

"President Hoover was proud of his experiment in cheap money, and in his speech to the business conference on December 5, he hailed the nation’s good fortune in possessing the splendid Federal Reserve System, which had succeeded in saving shaky banks, had restored confidence, and had made capital more abundant by reducing interest rates. Hoover had done his part to spur the expansion by personally urging the banks to rediscount more extensively at the Federal Reserve Banks. Secretary Mellon issued one of his by now traditionally optimistic pronouncements that there was “plenty of credit available.” And William Green issued a series of optimistic statements, commending the Federal Reserve’s success in ending the depression. On November 22, Green said: All the factors which make for a quick and speedy industrial and economic recovery are present and evident. The Federal Reserve System is operating, serving as a barrier against financial demoralization. Within a few months industrial conditions will become normal, confidence and stabilization in industry and finance will be
restored."

"By early 1930, people were generally convinced that there was little to worry about. Hoover’s decisive actions on so many fronts—wages, construction, public works, farm supports, etc., indicated to the public that this time swift national planning would turn the tide quickly. Farm prices then seemed to be recovering, and unemployment had not yet reached catastrophic proportions, averaging less than 9 percent of the labor force in 1930."

"During the second half of 1930, production, prices, foreign trade, and employment continued to decline. On July 29, Hoover called for an investigation of bankruptcy laws in order to weaken them and prevent many bankruptcies—thus turning to the ancient device of attempting to revive confidence by injuring creditors and propping up unsound positions."

"As a consequence, while the immigration law had already reduced net immigration into the United States to about 200,000 per year, Hoover’s decree reduced net immigration to 35,000 in 1931, and in 1932 there was a net emigration of 77,000. In addition, Hoover’s Emergency Committee on Employment organized concerted propaganda to urge young people to return to school in the fall, and thus leave the labor market."

"He hailed the Federal Reserve System as the great instrument of promoting stability, and called for an “ample supply of credit at low rates of interest,” as well as public works, as the best methods of ending the depression."

"As 1931 drew to a close and another Congressional session drew near, the country and indeed the world were in the midst of an authentic crisis atmosphere—a crisis of policy and of ideology. The depression, so long in effect, was now rapidly growing worse, in America and throughout the world. The stage was set for the “Hoover New Deal” of 1932."

"During 1929, the Federal government had a huge surplus of $1.2 billion"

"From a modest surplus in 1930, the Federal government thus ran up a huge $2.2 billion deficit in 1931."

"One thing Hoover was not reticent about: launching a huge inflationist program. First, the administration cleared the path for the program by passing the Glass–Steagall Act in February, which (a) greatly broadened the assets eligible for rediscounts with the Fed, and (b) permitted the Federal Reserve to use government bonds as collateral for its notes, in addition to commercial paper"

"Thus, the Hoover administration pursued a giant inflationary policy from March through July 1932, raising controlled reserves by $1 billion through Fed purchase of government securities. If all other factors had remained constant, and banks fully loaned up, the money supply would have risen abruptly and wildly by over $10 billion during that period. Instead, and fortunately, the inflationary policy was reversed and turned into a rout. What defeated it? Foreigners who lost confidence in the dollar, partly as a result of the program, and drew out gold; American citizens who lost confidence in the banks and changed their deposits into Federal Reserve notes; and finally, bankers who refused to endanger themselves any further, and either used the increased resources to repay debt to the Federal Reserve or allowed them to pile up in the vaults. And so, fortunately, inflation by the government was turned into deflation by the policies of the public and the banks, and the money supply dropped by $3.5 billion."


Notice some parallels between the present and the period being described above? The things I find most striking are the fact the FED drastically cut rates from 6% to 1.2%, compared with today in which they cut from 5.25% to 2% at present. Also the fact that at the beginning of the bust the government were running huge budget surpluses, and within a couple of years were running huge deficits, compared with now where the US has persistently for years now been running up huge deficits which will get worse.

Of course the period being described was the Great Depression and the Quotes were taken from Murray Rothbards book, Americas Great Depression. Contrary to what people believe the great depression was not suddenly brought about after the infamous stock market crash in October 1929, it was brought about over a 3-4 year period of excessive monetary inflation in the previous years during the 1920's boom and increasing inflationary policies during the bust along with increased government interference, which made the Depression so great. In fact the stock market also rallied during this time and didn't bottom out till around 1933. Hoover was the creator of the New Deal, Roosevelt just merely carried on with it with even more enthusiasm contary to the myth that Hoover had a no hands approach to the economy. In the end this is where we now stand,


"But here, in the crisis of 1933, the banks could no longer continue as they were. Something had to be done. Essentially, there were two possible routes. One was the course taken by Roosevelt; the destruction of the property rights of bank depositors, the confiscation of gold, the taking away of the people’s monetary rights, and the placing of the Federal Government in control of a vast, managed, engine of inflation. The other route would have been to seize the opportunity to awaken the American people to the true nature of their banking system, and thereby return, at one swoop, to a truly hard and sound money."


We all know what happened in subsequent years. Nixon removed the US from the gold standard, and in effect all western currencies from gold as bretton woods was dissmantled. Now the dollar and world currencies are backed with nothing as we enter another dissasturous chapter in history of fiat currency.

If we wish to draw the parallels to today, roughly in 1928 real estate prices began to fall compared with 2006 in the US. 1929 and stock prices began to fall, compared with 2007 when the Dow was at its all time high. So what does that mean in the next few years if we are only at 1930. Well we have a lot further to go and the governments and Central Banks are doing exactly what history has taught us not to do.

However there are differences, which I believe position the US in a worse position. Back then the US had huge budget surpluses in previous years, exported goods throughout the world and had huge oil reserves (cheep energy reserves which can never be overstated). They also theoretically had the dollar backed by Gold which meant even though the FED tried to inflate they were constrained, where as now it is a complete fiat currency meaning there will be no limits to inflate this time. Ben Bernanke the current head of the FED is supposedly a student of the Great Depression but from what I've seen, he's repeating what was done 75 years ago, and he's doing a pretty good job of fooling everyone. Nationalising Fannie and Freddie Mac, that were created at the end of the Great Depression, is an absolute disaster as I have said before, and is exactly what President Hoover and the FED would have done during the last depression.

I will end on the following note from Murray Rothbard. Maybe we are facing another depression and crisis of the same magnitude? Or worse?

"What was the trouble? Economic theory demonstrates that only governmental inflation can generate a boom-and-bust cycle, and that the depression will be prolonged and aggravated by inflationist and other interventionary measures. In contrast to the myth of laissez-faire, we have shown in this book how government intervention generated the unsound boom of the 1920s, and how Hoover’s new departure aggravated the Great Depression by massive measures of interference. The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same."