-Caveat Lector-

The Fed's Con Game
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The Federal Reserve and Wall Street agree that the stock
market needs a big confidence boost. Fed policy, and brokers
around the country, are trying to provide it, with their
exhortations to stay calm and keep holding stocks. The idea
is that if we all work together, we can keep the ship
afloat. Just don't notice those huge holes in the hull!

Implicit in this view is a grave falsehood that nothing in
the real world is responsible for falling stock prices. The
business cycle, in this view, reflects nothing but waves of
emotion that sweep through markets. Not only stock analysts
but also many economists have bought into this convenient
error.

Where does this leave the Fed? Instead of doing what it can
do, which is refraining from manipulating the money supply
and interest rates, it is playing psychological games with
the public. As Pace University economics professor Joseph
Salerno argues, Fed policy is nowadays dealing not with
concrete reality but with "the meta-economy of impressions,
anxieties, perceptions and anticipations."

Underneath it all, the Fed appears to be pursuing an
outrageously reckless policy. It is attempting to push
through the impending recession by printing as much money as
possible. The latest numbers from the Fed show monthly money
increases reaching as high as 20 percent per annum (as
measured by MZM).

But the Fed can't win at this game. We've already seen how
dramatic attempts to gin up the market by lowering interest
rates have been greeted with a huge ho-hum from investors.
At best, the effect is short term. The Fed seems to have
learned nothing from the Japanese experience, where even
interest rates of zero failed to bring back the boom. Lower
rates also threaten to revive serious price inflation, which
is already looming.

Salerno further argues that Alan Greenspan, a legendary
lover of data, has lost sight of the underlying relationship
between cause and effect in economic events. The cause of
the business cycle is not mysterious or emotional. It is
economic imbalances that correct themselves during
sell-offs, imbalances brought about by misguided Fed policy
to begin with.

If we seek an explanation for the stock sell-off, we must
first explain how it is that valuations became so wildly out
of line. Looking back, it is clear that Greenspan need look
no further than his own monetary policy. He enjoys a
reputation as a hard-money man, but that is far from the
case.

The problem began in the early days of the Clinton
presidency, when the Federal Reserve gunned the money supply
in late 1992 under the belief that this was the only way to
get us out of the Bush recession. Also, Greenspan, contrary
to the idea that Fed chairmen are "independent" of politics,
was cozying up to the Clinton administration, ostentatiously
escorting Hillary to the State of the Union speech.

In a modern economy, newly created money enters the economy
through the credit system, so it is borrowers who end up
receiving the initial blessings. They invest in projects
that would be too expensive in the absence of the newly
created money. These investments may lead the economy to new
heights, but they tend to be unviable over the long term.

In the following two years, through 1994 and early 1995, the
Fed reversed itself and held money flat. But beginning in
mid 1995, the Fed began taking us on a wild ride. Money
supply increases were between 7 and 9 percent for 1996 and
1997. Beginning in 1998, they shot up to 10 percent, and
reached an astonishing 15 percent annual rate in early 1999.

All told, between 1996 and last year, the Federal Reserve
worked with the banking system to inject more than $100
billion in new money (as measured by M2) into the economy.
So much for Greenspan the tight-money man!

Now, $100 billion would have distorting effects with or
without a stock market, new technologies, and complex new
financing techniques. Replicate this same monetary policy in
any time period, injecting new money through credit markets
at double-digit rates, and you can create amazing investment
imbalances.

Indeed it did. Real private investment soared from 12
percent of GDP in 1991 to a remarkable 20 percent of GDP by
last year, with a pause in the increases taking place in the
tight money years of late 1993 through early 1995. It so
happened that all this new money hit at a time of
extraordinary technological gains, particularly as related
to the Internet. And it was the dot-coms and information
technologies that were left holding the bag.

Why haven't you heard about the spectacular monetary
inflation of the late 1990s? One reason is that most people
think there's nothing to worry about so long as overall
prices are not rising. But stable prices can often conceal
underlying rot, and they did in the 1990s as they did in the
1920s. Besides, looking at money supply numbers has been
distinctly unfashionable for many years.

A few economists warned about underlying problems, most of
whom are associated with the Austrian School. Some
incredulous stock analysts were rightly skeptical that any
company with a P-E ratio of zero should be able to sell
stocks to anyone. But most others were too busy marveling at
the amazing performance of the stock market and the GDP and
couldn't be bothered to look at the fundamentals.

As in any economic boom, housewives and gardeners, to say
nothing of run-of-the-mill brokers, began to believe that
they were stock-picking geniuses. Millions of workers across
America would forego lunch to dabble in day trading. Kids in
high school would go to their school libraries to join in
the fun, and dispense stock advice to their teachers and
fellow students. Workers didn't want wages; they wanted
stock options!

The scene, comparable to something out of Charles MacKay's
"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,"
looks absurd in retrospect. But at the time, otherwise
sensible people threw caution to the wind to announce the
repeal of economic law and the transformation of human
nature. It's incredible how a couple of years of money
growth can affect the human psyche!

The whole thing was doomed to collapse no matter what the
Fed did. But it so happened that Greenspan began slamming on
the brakes again in mid to late 1999. Throughout the year
and 2000, the money supply collapsed dramatically. And to
many analysts, this collapse is the reason for the Wall
Street meltdown and the current recessionary environment.
Thus the supply-siders at the Wall Street Journal counsel
Greenspan to open wide the money spigots.

But let's be clear. The problem isn't that Greenspan slammed
on the brakes. That was only the precipitating event. The
problem was the massive monetary expansion that caused the
outrageous run-up in the first place. It created a fantastic
amount of artificiality in the system that needed to be
purged. In this sense, the present economic environment is a
much-needed one.

But the story is not over yet. Since the beginning of the
year, Greenspan has reversed course again. The latest
numbers coming out of the Fed show that the same mistake is
being repeated again. In the first quarter, the money supply
soared again at a rate of more than 10 percent as measured
by M2 and 20 percent as measured by MZM. But it doesn't seem
to be working -- yet. If a "recovery" does take place, it is
only setting the stage for another artificial boom to be
followed by another bust. It is late 1992 all over again.

For now, the Bush administration isn't panicking over the
economic situation because it helps create a political
environment favorable to the Bush tax-cut plan. But what
happens after the small cuts take place and yet they have no
noticeable effect on the macroeconomy? That's when the Bush
administration will turn to the Fed to manufacture another
boom. Then the trouble really begins.

Oh, for the days of the gold standard, when money wasn't the
property of a central bank to manipulate according to the
political winds! If we really want to end this nonsense,
let's make the dollar as good as gold again, and send the
Fed chairman out to earn an honest living.

March 16, 2001

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von
Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily
news site, LewRockwell.com.

Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to