The 5,000-Year Sovereign Debt Bubble

maelstromby James A. Bacon

Every financial bubble has its own unique characteristics. The late-1980s Savings & Loan Bubble was restricted mainly to anachronistic savings & loans institutions. The Internet bubble was limited mainly to tech stocks. The real estate bubble was tied mainly to mortgage finance. The common thread is that in each case, the powers that be convinced themselves that “this time it’s different” — and ridiculed the warnings of the doom sayers. Now we find ourselves in the midst of the sovereign debt bubble, the largest financial bubble in human history, and the story is the same. The experts tell us that everything is just fine and lampoon the critics as cranks and gold bugs.

This bubble is not limited to the United States. Indeed, other economies such as Japan, China and the European Union have been pushing the experiment of covering massive debts with massive credit creation even more aggressively than our own Federal Reserve Bank. But when the bubble bursts and the dominoes start toppling, they’ll eventually reach the United States. In a global economy, everyone is connected to everyone else in ways that are not always visible to policy makers.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, James Freeman notes that there is no evidence in 5,000 years of recorded history of negative interest rates. Such rates are an innovation of modern central banks, and they take the world into uncharted territory. Writes Freeman:

However it ends, the deflating of the sovereign debt bubble may have us longing for the carefree days of the 2008 mortgage crisis. Internationally traded bonds amount to nearly $60 trillion, according to the Institute of International Finance. That’s about six times the mortgage debt outstanding for American homeowners. But those sovereign bonds are a mere fraction of the liabilities carried by the world’s governments. If you count political promises to support retirees, patients and others, the obligations are hundreds of trillions of dollars higher. …

The sovereign debt boom certainly has its share of liar loans. European countries routinely violate pledges to limit larger budget deficits. As for documentation, has anyone found a thorough and comprehensible description of government accounting?

And then there’s China, arguably in a league all its own when it comes to financial opacity. I suspect China is one big Enron, kept afloat by unfounded confidence in its financial integrity. When that confidence starts eroding, watch out. The financial collapse will be spectacular, and China’s economy is big enough to send shock waves around the world.

It’s impossible to predict how the global debt bubble will play out. In the early stages, the U.S. actually might benefit as capital flees to safe havens. Insofar as the dollar is regarded as less un-safe than other currencies, U.S. Treasuries might stay strong. But the unwinding of the global sovereign debt bubble will be unpredictable, creating wreckage in ways that no one today can imagine. There will be secondary and tertiary effects as nation states pursue protectionist policies to blunt the damage.

Many readers are confident, no doubt, that the “experts” who didn’t foresee the real estate crisis know what they’re doing this time. And perhaps, after 5,000 years of recorded human history, we finally have perfected a fiscal-monetary perpetual motion machine that allows us to spend and borrow without negative consequence.

If you don’t believe that fairy tale, however, the only sane course for Virginians is to pursue is a contrarian policy of eschewing debt, building reserves and strengthening the balance sheets of governments and public institutions in preparation for the travails to come. That’s why I obsess over the Virginia Retirement System pension crisis, the Petersburg fiscal meltdown, the decaying finances of other small jurisdictions, the unsustainable increase in college costs and the exposure of higher-ed institutions to declining enrollments, land use policies that drive up the costs of utilities and public services, the overbuilding of transportation infrastructure that governments cannot afford to properly maintain, and the mal-investment of public dollars in futile economic development projects. We are part of the global problem. I don’t want Virginia to be part of the global calamity.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

52 responses to “The 5,000-Year Sovereign Debt Bubble”

  1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
    Reed Fawell 3rd

    This article, and its aspects, reminds me of a long ago lunch with a business partner. That lunch was around the latter part of 1989, or thereabouts.

    Strange things were happening daily out our world of real estate development. We didn’t have to go the banks anymore begging for money. Banks were coming to use begging to lend us more. But in our world out on the front lines the market was going south. To get pro-forma (projected) rents on say a five year lease deal, we had to give away 18 months of occupancy free. Our competitors were doing the same and doing so by side agreements outside the four corners of the lease document. No problem said the bankers who oddly were visiting us, “we’d running with our competitor lenders too, so will happily underwrite your lease at face value.”

    Our world was upside down, and nobody wanted it to stop. To stop would be to admit that the great party over and nobody knew how to get home.

    After a few of those lunches we sold most everything spec. we had for top dollar. The last deal close closed 18 days before the crash.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” The late-1980s Savings & Loan Bubble was restricted mainly to anachronistic savings & loans institutions. The Internet bubble was limited mainly to tech stocks. The real estate bubble was tied mainly to mortgage finance. The common thread is that in each case, the powers that be convinced themselves that “this time it’s different” — and ridiculed the warnings of the doom sayers.”

    well not exactly but the folks who spin and believe the fairy tales don’t let that faze them.

    Each one of the cited were NOT govt-created debt from bad govt policies, but instead unregulated private sector skullduggery that then required the govt and taxpayers to clean the mess up by bailing out the bad actors with taxpayer money.

    and it wasn’t the govt saying “everything is alright” – it was the folks involved in the skullduggery who were saying that and then after the govt bailed them out – they whine about those “job killing” regulations that they want to get rid of …so they can go back to bad practices and the fairy-tale folks are their biggest supporters!

    the same thing happens with pension plans that the govt has to bail out (more than 5000 companies) while the naysayers keep saying “oh look.. the govt has unfunded pensions – the sky is falling “!!!

    when you give most folks the CHOICE as to whether they want the govt to insure their money versus the private sector – there is no contest. They rather PAY the govt to keep their money than trust the private sector!

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      I would agree with you as to “the late-1980s Savings & Loan Bubble.” These were earlier Mom’s and Pops who suddenly found themselves able for the first time to act like Big Boy Banks, but without the culture, infrastructure and know how to behave like Big Boy Banks.

      So crooks moved in. And it snowballed, as regular Big Boy banks started acting the kiddie S&Ls gone berserk. So it all took down a key and and important American industry, the local S&Ls we dearly need today.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    I would posit that the sub-prime meltdown also had mom/pop mentality in that people were willing to take these awful loans so they could gamble in buying a property low and selling it high .. i.e. “Flip that house” and their get out of jail card was that they’d just walk away if things did not work out.

    and they did – in droves… but the real question is – WHO would have loaned them money under those circumstances to start with ?

    It wasn’t the government. The government didn’t make them do it despite those who say so. Not one of the hundreds of financial institutions that were bailed out and then many subsequently fined by the SEC :

    7 years on from crisis, $150 billion in bank fines and penalties

    not one of these banks claimed the govt made them do it – as a defense to their actions. they all admitted guilt and paid their fines.

    https://public.tableau.com/static/images/ba/bankfines-I/banks/1_rss.png

  4. Les Schreiber Avatar
    Les Schreiber

    One of the things that was different about the most recent crisis was the invention of credit default swaps. These were basically insurance on the securities backed by mortgages. AIGFP issued these without either putting up adequate reserves or assessing the quality of debt they were insuring. In effect much of the risk in the market was centralized in one institution. If they failed to pay when the debt went bad,the institutions that held the bad baad paper would have had their capital depleted forcing the financial system into a massive problem.

  5. So:. These eight years and Dodd-Frank later, are we any better prepared than in 2008 to withstand the crash of a bubble, even if largely an external bubble?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” external”… when the “external” drags others into the death spiral – even those who were not even “playing” – the question is should “external” be free to do what it pleases no matter who gets hurt?

      the anti-regulation folks say that increased reserves also has a “cost” – it becomes a drag on the economy ….

      so pick your poison……

      some folks say – take away the mortgage deduction – and you take away the opportunity of those who would gamble. Others – that housing is what drives our economy…

      Here’s a list of all the institutions that were fined by the SEC for illegal actions .. it’s a lengthy list and not a single one of them claimed the govt made them do it:

      SEC Enforcement Actions Addressing Misconduct That Led to or arose from the Financial Crisis

      https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml

      How Jim hops from this to the “The 5,000-Year Sovereign Debt Bubble” is truly miraculous… but apparently deeply embedded in the “all govt is destined to fail” orthodoxy of the “converts”. 😉

      of course they’ll point out that the Govt is the judge and jury and of course the Govt is not “guilty” by definition, eh?

      1. Good points, but here, the “external” is other nations. And you’re not saying this is a U.N. or WTC matter, and it’s not the consequence of a financial commitment, like Greece agreeing to the EU common currency so that it has to bear the economic consequence of Germany’s greater productivity — so what alternative is there but accept that the “‘external’ [is] free to do what it pleases no matter who gets hurt”? What are we in a position to do about it?

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    oh , okay. Well there are over 200 countries in the world and some of them are in pretty awful financial condition and have been for decades . We typically refer to them as 3rd world or developing world. Few of them are what we find to be to our liking fiscally but to Jim’s point they did not get that way as a downfall from once being in good shape.

    so his and the folks he reads never-ending “we’re all gonna die (fiscally) from irresponsible govt .. and central banking”… tome is focused on the modern OECD , first world nations that do “unsustainable” stuff like health care and pensions and central bank stuff , deficits/debt – that sort of thing… and of course it comes complete with tales of “bad” cities like Detroit and Petersburg , etc, etc, et al, ad infinitum…

    My view is that cities and nations are like people.. Some have credit scores of 500 and some have credit scores of 800 – as opposed to everyone having ever borrowed a red cent had partook of evil potion and strayed from the God of responsible finance.

    The thread is a core distrust of government in general that if left unchecked with “other folks money” will always do wrong – whether accidently or on purpose so don’t be letting the govt keeping your FICA taxes.. they’re gonna screw you if you trust them….

    I can only handle so much of that swill before wanting to switch to better tasting brew…. which I DEFINE as ….ALSO looking at the Govt and the cities that are NOT Greece and Detroit – AND acknowledging that like people who well manage their finances – cities and nations are also capable of doing that – and actually do it – for more than a few years!

    Now, if Jim actually lived in a wretchedly bad county or city in Va.. like a couple of respondents who frequent these pages do – then I could understand his eternal pessimism… but he lives in AAA Henrico county where those same nefarious other-folks money grubbers are in control – ALSO – and by gosh and golly somehow manage to keep that ship of state on an even course.

    but that don’t mean there are not real financial hobgoblins traipsing through the fiscal wilderness… no siree bob … they walk among us… !!!

    we’ve got these danged flawed creatures called humans.. monkeying around with other people’s money and even entire national economies… and we have Greeces and Detroit corpses swinging in the wind ..stinking up the place to remind us – to keep us on the straight and narrow – that this too can happen to us!!!!

    all kidding aside.. I “get” what Jim’s concerns are – and they are indeed real… but sometimes we need to get a grip and KNOW when we’ve gotten too much of that ideological catnip… at one sitting…

    it’s like a cyclical thing…I think..

    😉

    1. I think you are severely misreading the mortgage crisis if you say the government had nothing to do with it. I agree that the federal government was not the cause of it, but they were the tool by which much of it was accomplished.

      In 2004, the Federal Reserve chief, Alan Greenspan, made a speech to the National Credit Union Association saying many homeowners would save money with adjustable rate mortgages. He then increased rates 17 consecutive times, quadrupling interest rates. He also printed $1.7 trillion of new money in the middle of a massive stock bubble. I know the Fed is not a government agency, but the average American thinks it is. Congress removed the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Now investment banks could gamble with your money as well as their own.

      In 2000, Congress deregulated the derivatives market. A regulator within the SEC wanted to regulate this trading and put it into public markets to give it transparency, but was told no by the Treasury Secretary and the Fed. States wanted to regulate CDOs and credit default swaps using gaming laws, since many of these new financial wagers were indistinguishable from racetrack bets. But the federal government said no.

      AIG was allowed to “insure” these bets even though they had almost no money to pay them off. Banking regulators allowed banks to use these toxic assets to act as reserves in place of the traditional treasury notes and other safe securities that had been used to meet bank reserve requirements. This false sense of security allowed lenders to feel they were covered and free to take even more risks. The rating agencies fraudulently rated these securities as AAA, making them “safe” for pension funds to purchase them.

      Most of this probably would have worked out with minor to moderate losses to many players. But Goldman Sachs pressed for full payment even though much of what they were owed was collateralized by good securities. Goldman’s pressure put state insurance commission’s in a tough bind and precipitated the federal intervention that caused hundreds of billions of taxpayers money to bail out the financial wizards who placed these risky bets.

      The free market did not penalize those whose took incautious risks. Rather they were given a clear signal to continue to take ever greater risks. The gains would be theirs and the losses would be ours.

      Since that particular house of cards fell, the too big to fail banks are now 40% larger. A small peek at the Fed’s activity revealed that in 2012 they loaned out $12 trillion to central banks throughout the world and healthy multi-national corporation in the U.S. and abroad at near zero interest. All backed by the full faith and credit of the citizens of the United States.

      The zero and negative interest rates charged by global central banks has reduced the return on bonds and CD’s to near zero as well. These have been a significant share of the investments used for retirement plans. Decades ago the government ordered a change in retirement funds. Responsibility was shifted from employers (defined benefit plans) to the employees (defined contribution plans). Most people, not being savvy investors, choose mutual funds for their primary investment vehicles. This provides liquidity to the stock market and feeds investment firms’ computerized trading schemes. However, 90+% of those mutual funds have below market yields and 60-70% of the yields they do get go to pay the fees of the fund managers (many of which are hidden from investors).

      Government is often the means by which these schemes to move money from Main Street to Wall Street are accomplished. Government is not the cause, but the co-conspirators, so to speak.

      The world’s monetary system is based on credit/debt. The flaw in that system is that there is no extra money to pay the interest without expanding the money supply – like a Ponzi scheme. So it becomes a perpetual motion debt expansion machine – always doomed to fail.

      The rise and fall of every civilization involved the depletion of their soil and a debasement of their currency. We are well along on both those counts. The world’s leading governments (G20) will meet soon to plan the further devaluation of the dollar. We have already lost 97% of its value in the last 100 years. This is not a cyclical thing. It is a long-term trend.

      Those who control the money printing press are buying up the world’s assets and means of production. And events such as the housing crisis move wealth from individual homeowners into hedge funds (they were massive buyers of drastically marked down real estate) and other concentrations of wealth. It is not a free market that is causing this, but a carefully contrived manipulated market. Regulations are modified or repealed to create special opportunities for those in the know.

      The best we can do is recognize what is happening and understand the difference between money and wealth; so we can help our families and our communities.

      1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
        Reed Fawell 3rd

        A great post and, of course, there was also the subprime mortgage debacle thanks Fannie, Freddie, the political machinations of the US Congress, Wall Street’s derivative wizards, the deregulated predator mortgage lenders and other mindless financial regulations, all feverishly working in tandem to ignite then blow up the US economy.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar

        long wind warning… 😉 I’ve captured TomH entire post and responded point by point and then added additional commentary… which some may find an obnoxious ill wind.
        read it at your own discretion and keep in mind I did warn you.

        re: ” I think you are severely misreading the mortgage crisis if you say the government had nothing to do with it. I agree that the federal government was not the cause of it, but they were the tool by which much of it was accomplished.”

        read Shelia Blair’s take ”

        http://themortgageinsider.net/banks/blair-explains-causes-of-the-mortgage-crisis.html

        she’s not alone… many others agree.

        but when you say “tool” – you’re basically saying that they “used” the way the banking system “worked” and exploited the areas the govt had not regulated….. that’s sorta like blaming bad locks for theft.

        “In 2004, the Federal Reserve chief, Alan Greenspan, made a speech to the National Credit Union Association saying many homeowners would save money with adjustable rate mortgages. ”
        he, like a lot of folks think that home ownership is “good” for the country and he was basically saying that ARM – properly used – were an additional innovation… he was NOT advocating misuse of ARMs.

        “He then increased rates 17 consecutive times, quadrupling interest rates. He also printed $1.7 trillion of new money in the middle of a massive stock bubble. I know the Fed is not a government agency, but the average American thinks it is. ”

        this makes no sense – if you printed money wouldn’t that increased money supply make interest rates lower?

        “Congress removed the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Now investment banks could gamble with your money as well as their own.”

        so you’re blaming the govt for relaxing regulation? And TODAY – what are the folks who blamed the govt for the crisis advocating? They are once again advocating that regulation is harming the industry and higher reserve rules are costing jobs and hurting the economy.. for the critics – it’s the govt’s fault when they regulate and then their fault when they don’t.

        “In 2000, Congress deregulated the derivatives market. A regulator within the SEC wanted to regulate this trading and put it into public markets to give it transparency, but was told no by the Treasury Secretary and the Fed. States wanted to regulate CDOs and credit default swaps using gaming laws, since many of these new financial wagers were indistinguishable from racetrack bets. But the federal government said no.”

        so how do you explain the fact that the SEC fined the dooda out of these banks for their misconduct during the sup-prime crisis?
        Billions of dollars of fines to most all the players and not a one o them ever claimed they were misled by the govt or directed by the govt to do what they did…. they were all found guilty of their own misconduct.

        “AIG was allowed to “insure” these bets even though they had almost no money to pay them off. Banking regulators allowed banks to use these toxic assets to act as reserves in place of the traditional treasury notes and other safe securities that had been used to meet bank reserve requirements. This false sense of security allowed lenders to feel they were covered and free to take even more risks. The rating agencies fraudulently rated these securities as AAA, making them “safe” for pension funds to purchase them.”

        so again – you’re blaming the govt for not regulating, right? The critics say it was the govt’s fault for encouraging these banks to do what they did…

        “Most of this probably would have worked out with minor to moderate losses to many players. But Goldman Sachs pressed for full payment even though much of what they were owed was collateralized by good securities. Goldman’s pressure put state insurance commission’s in a tough bind and precipitated the federal intervention that caused hundreds of billions of taxpayers money to bail out the financial wizards who placed these risky bets.”

        again – how in the world did the Govt cause this? by NOT regulating?

        “The free market did not penalize those whose took incautious risks. Rather they were given a clear signal to continue to take ever greater risks. The gains would be theirs and the losses would be ours.”

        is this your opinion? and who gave the signal to take greater risks?

        “Since that particular house of cards fell, the too big to fail banks are now 40% larger. ”

        and there are those that want to regulate them and those that don’t … guess which ones were blaming the govt for too much regulation?

        “A small peek at the Fed’s activity revealed that in 2012 they loaned out $12 trillion to central banks throughout the world and healthy multi-national corporation in the U.S. and abroad at near zero interest. All backed by the full faith and credit of the citizens of the United States.”

        The US Fed loans money to other countries? can you provide a cite for that? I was under the impression that they do not.

        “The zero and negative interest rates charged by global central banks has reduced the return on bonds and CD’s to near zero as well. These have been a significant share of the investments used for retirement plans. Decades ago the government ordered a change in retirement funds. Responsibility was shifted from employers (defined benefit plans) to the employees (defined contribution plans). Most people, not being savvy investors, choose mutual funds for their primary investment vehicles. This provides liquidity to the stock market and feeds investment firms’ computerized trading schemes. However, 90+% of those mutual funds have below market yields and 60-70% of the yields they do get go to pay the fees of the fund managers (many of which are hidden from investors).”

        The US is not using negative interest rates, right? It’s the demand for loans that drives interest rates – the govt sets interest rates on the Tnotes according to demand. If they actually lowered them below market rates no one would want Tnotes – but instead people PREFER T-notes because in their mind they are SAFER than others who pay interest and also safer than the stock market – but the stock market is going great guns – it’s the reason the rich are doing so well… right now.

        “Government is often the means by which these schemes to move money from Main Street to Wall Street are accomplished. Government is not the cause, but the co-conspirators, so to speak.”

        no – what happens is that people argue that the govt should not regulate because it harms the free market – so then industry will weak spots in the regulation and exploit them – as they did with sub-prime banking – which was not regulated. You’re blaming the govt as being a co-conspirator for NOT regulating. Well the folks who say the govt should not regulate then blame the govt when bad stuff happens as a result – are the ones to blame.

        and they’re at it again by opposing the govt’s current plants to regulate – Dodd-Frank – they want to gut it… they cite it as an example of regulation that is “hurting”.

        it’s the same group of folks – they fight regulation.. when industry exploits that flaw and bad stuff happens – they blame the govt for not regulating… then the cycle repeats….

        “The world’s monetary system is based on credit/debt. The flaw in that system is that there is no extra money to pay the interest without expanding the money supply – like a Ponzi scheme. So it becomes a perpetual motion debt expansion machine – always doomed to fail.”

        If you buy a house or car -you do the same. are you doomed because you can’t pay the interest? Come on…guy…

        interest is the cost of borrowing money – and it’s as old as the monetary systems …. that have been in place for hundreds of years…

        people borrow against the future… they buy tangible stuff – on credit – promising to pay it off with future work…

        Everytime you use a credit card – that’s what you are doing….

        How do you think the credit card company pays the merchant for your purchases until you pay your bill? where do they get that money from? Is that a “ponzi scheme”?

        how about your car or home? where does the money come from to pay for it until you pay it back? is that a ponzi scheme?

        People fundamentally do not understand the banking system – and now there is a proliferation of really ignorant – financial luddites spreading their fears on the internet…

        The bottom line is this – if people REALLY believed it – more and more people would be buying gold and only converting it to cash at the moment they wanted to make a purchase. They don’t have bank accounts …they don’t trust others to “hold” their “money”…

        If you REALLY and TRULY think what say is actually true -this is what you do….

        How many people do you know that does that? Yes.. there are some.. I don’t know a single one… I read about them in the paper along with stories about “preppers” and would be sovereign citizens, who are building bunkers stocked with freeze-dried food…guns, bullets, etc.

        In a true free market – you NEVER give your money to someone else on a “promise” – because there is no govt to protect you and that promise – and enforce that contract. everything is a “in situ” transaction. That’s the “banking system” in most 3rd world countries. The idea that the govt is going to protect your interests is a joke. That’s why “investment” is “risky”.

        “The rise and fall of every civilization involved the depletion of their soil and a debasement of their currency. We are well along on both those counts. The world’s leading governments (G20) will meet soon to plan the further devaluation of the dollar. We have already lost 97% of its value in the last 100 years. This is not a cyclical thing. It is a long-term trend.

        Those who control the money printing press are buying up the world’s assets and means of production. And events such as the housing crisis move wealth from individual homeowners into hedge funds (they were massive buyers of drastically marked down real estate) and other concentrations of wealth. It is not a free market that is causing this, but a carefully contrived manipulated market. Regulations are modified or repealed to create special opportunities for those in the know.

        The best we can do is recognize what is happening and understand the difference between money and wealth; so we can help our families and our communities.”

        If you have a loan or credit card or bank account or 401k – you have “voted”…what you actually believe in… in reality.

        you have a choice -you really do – live in an OECD country with the central bank banking system that all of them have – or choose a country that does not do that… or live in this country but do so without using the banking system…

        1. I’ll go around this once, otherwise we could be at this for days. But I think it is important because many intelligent people don’t have a complete understanding of what is at the core of our monetary system.

          Here are some headlines from the head of the FDIC, Shelia Blair, that you referenced:
          The Failure of Market Discipline and Regulation
          Consumers lacked protection from toxic mortgage products
          Low interest rates stimulate the demand for mortgage debt
          Private-label Mortgage Backed Securities and structured-debt fund a housing bubble
          The role of rating agencies

          They pretty much match up with the points that I made. But Ms. Blair is also part of the problem. Her agency promotes the fact that your deposits in certain institutions are 100% “insured” (up to a limit). But never has she told you that her agency has only about 1% of the assets needed to cover all of the deposits that they have guaranteed. The FDIC is operating much like AIG when AIG gave the buyers of credit default swaps a false sense of security. True insurance companies must fully capitalize their risks.

          “he (Greenspan), like a lot of folks think that home ownership is “good” for the country and he was basically saying that ARM – properly used – were an additional innovation… he was NOT advocating misuse of ARMs.

          What was he advocating then? Would you consider it good advice if you told a friend to take out an adjustable rate mortgage just before interest rates increased four-fold? (And you were the one responsible for the increase).

          If the monetary powers were so interested in home ownership, here is what we could have gotten for the the $13 trillion that is estimated to have ultimately have been spent on the bailouts:

          We could have paid off every subprime mortgage in the country ($1.4 trillion), and we could have paid off all the remaining mortgages of any type in the U.S. With the money left over we could have bought a new house for anyone who didn’t yet own one.

          “this makes no sense – if you printed money wouldn’t that increased money supply make interest rates lower?”

          The printed money started in an attempt to cushion the blow from the dot-com bust. Another bailout by taxpayers (we collateralize the Fed’s lending). “Irrational exuberance” was rewarded rather than discouraged. But the Fed far over did it with the money printing and this created the pool of cheap easy money that led to the mortgage crisis ( and the shale gas and oil boom).

          Mortgage brokers pushed loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Many people were sold loans that were ARMs (without their knowledge) when they could have qualified for fixed rate loans because the mortgage brokers made higher fees. In addition, there were the famous NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). Crooked behavior was rampant all along the chain, it just differed in scale. Confidence men say “you can’t con an honest man”. Many tried to make a fast buck, as you suggested, trying to flip houses. Some were given loans that allowed monthly payments that did not even cover the interest expense (because the brokers received higher fees).

          ” that’s sorta like blaming bad locks for theft.”

          No. There were no locks. That is the point that I am trying to make. The financial industry spread a bunch of money on the floor and left the doors wide open. Then they charged people to come through the door. Once the borrowers were hooked, they raised interest rates and accelerated defaults. All of the crooked participants made money with the scam and then all of their potential exposure was paid for by innocent bystanders (the tax payers).

          “so you’re blaming the govt for relaxing regulation? And TODAY – what are the folks who blamed the govt for the crisis advocating? ”

          I did not say the government caused this debacle. I said they were co-conspirators. Congress repealed Glass-Steagall. But it depends on your notion of who the “government” is. We began as a representative democracy. But even then the Constitution was designed for the power of governance to be in the hands of the elite. The aristocracy occupied the senior house (the Senate). They were not elected by the people but appointed to the office. Most of the same wealthy land and business owners who ran the government under the British governors were the ones who governed the new American nation.

          They were fully aware that if the “rabble” was allowed to govern, they would soon create ways to appropriate the wealth of the few. Only 4% of the adult population qualified to vote to adopt the Bill of Rights.

          Fast forward to today. There is a line in the movie Charlie Wilson’s War – “People don’t elect Congress, contributors elect Congress.” There is much evidence to suggest that most laws are passed to favor special interests all along the political spectrum. Two Treasury Secretaries at the time this mess began were former heads of Goldman Sachs.

          Greenspan had retired so they needed a new Fed chief who would continue to keep the fire hose of money supply wide open. They found a guy, Ben Bernanke, who had written his PhD. thesis about how the Fed had caused, or mightily contributed to, the Great Depression. He said the Fed failed in its statutory duty of committing its reserves in a time of low liquidity in the banking system. This is why the Federal Reserve System had been created in the first place. At least this was the reason that was explained to the public. The stock market crash did not cause the depression, although it helped lay the ground work for it. It was the lack of liquidity in the banking system that froze the economy for nearly a decade. They knew Bernanke would keep the printing presses going to avoid any disasters on his watch.

          This is the government to which you refer. Former Wall Street titans pulling the levers of government to serve their own and other colleague’s interests.

          “so how do you explain the fact that the SEC fined the dooda out of these banks for their misconduct during the sup-prime crisis?”

          This was a charade to appease the angry masses. Goldman Sachs received $13 billion in public assistance through the AIG bailout, $10 billion more from TARP and another $29 billion from FDIC backing from another bailout program. They only paid a $50 million fine for all of this largesse and for establishing the important precedent of being too big to fail.

          There should have been numerous people put in jail for the fraudulent activity that existed throughout this scam. I’m not sure anyone was even indicted.

          “so again – you’re blaming the govt for not regulating, right?”

          For any great con to be perpetrated it requires an inside man and and an outside man who “hooks” the mark. The government was the insider who made things seem legitimate. The public servants dismantled barriers to the scheme and looked the other way for everything else and then created theatrics at the end (the fines) to make it appear that they had not been involved. There are protections against predatory lending, rules that are supposed to disallow the improper rating of securities (it’s called fraud). None of these antics or many others were dealt with while they were occurring.

          Many now liken Wall Street to a casino. Less than 1% of all of the money in the market actually goes to fund actual business activities. The rest is speculation. After the mortgage crisis, how can you be sure the tables aren’t rigged?

          “The free market did not penalize those whose took incautious risks. Rather they were given a clear signal to continue to take ever greater risks. The gains would be theirs and the losses would be ours.”

          is this your opinion? and who gave the signal to take greater risks?

          We did, by bailing out gamblers who acted irresponsibly (and often illegally). Previously, market cycles would discipline investors who became overextended and took too much risk in search of profits. We have now artificially disrupted that feedback loop. And the financial sector is now in a feeding frenzy. At least $600 trillion and perhaps as much as $1,500 trillion of derivatives exist in the global marketplace today. The annual economic output of all the nations on earth is just $65 trillion per year.

          Only a handful of PhD. mathematicians understand the algorithms that underlie most of these derivatives. They are many, many times removed from any connection to a tangible asset.

          Financial organizations trade these back and forth and make money out of thin air. None of that activity contributes to the everyday economy that most of us experience. The majority of growth in the U.S. GDP comes from two sectors: finance and health care.

          “The US Fed loans money to other countries? can you provide a cite for that? I was under the impression that they do not.”

          This came from an “audit” of the Fed by Congress. The Fed would not answer most of their questions but did give them a quick glimpse. You can find it on the internet if it is still there.

          “The US is not using negative interest rates, right? It’s the demand for loans that drives interest rates – the govt sets interest rates on the Tnotes according to demand. If they actually lowered them below market rates no one would want Tnotes – but instead people PREFER T-notes because in their mind they are SAFER than others who pay interest and also safer than the stock market – but the stock market is going great guns – it’s the reason the rich are doing so well… right now.”

          The U.S. has a zero interest rate policy (.25 – .50%). We have not yet succumbed to the negative interest rates that are infecting Europe and Japan (and we probably won’t). The T-bill rates are not set primarily by demand; more by our interest rate policy and the value of the dollar. There is very little demand for treasuries now compared to most of our history. The Fed is the primary buyer of Treasury debt these days. Foreign buyers still participate, but only because it costs them money to finance their own countries.

          But it costs us money too. T-bill yields (now 1.5%) are below the inflation rate, so they have a negative actual yield in terms of buying power.

          The stock market is high only because of all of the extra money that has been put into circulation with bailouts, Quantitative Easings, etc.

          Because the extremely low yield of traditional “safe” investments such as Treasuries, CD’s, etc. people are encouraged to chase higher, but far riskier yields in the stock market. Many investors are now chasing higher yields in corporate bonds. But many of these firms are on the edge of default, but it doesn’t appear that way. Again, thanks to loose and friendly ratings from the rating agencies paid by the issuers of the debt. This is another time bomb waiting to go off.

  7. “The world’s monetary system is based on credit/debt. The flaw in that system is that there is no extra money to pay the interest without expanding the money supply – like a Ponzi scheme. So it becomes a perpetual motion debt expansion machine – always doomed to fail.”

    If you buy a house or car -you do the same. are you doomed because you can’t pay the interest? Come on…guy…”

    This is an extremely important point to understand. By definition our money supply is defined by the outstanding debt and credit plus the few percent that is actually currency. If the total amount of money is defined by what is owed – where does the extra money come from to pay the interest? The only way to create more money in our system is to create more debt.

    Debt + interest will always be greater than debt (the actual money supply). That is why we must keep expanding debt in order for our economy to function. Raising interest rates discourages borrowing and the expansion of our money supply slows down and so does our economy. We are in the economic doldrums right now (despite what our contrived government numbers might say) because consumers whose spending creates 60+% of our GDP, are still hungover from their rampant spending using home equity loans and are not borrowing or spending as they once did. Corporations are borrowing but not to invest in new equipment or more hiring. They are buying back their stock, even in the face of record high stock prices.

    Those who advocate responsible spending and decreasing our debt would precipitate a financial crisis. This would collapse the house of cards, repudiate much of the debt and cause a great deflation. This scares those who have used any means, legal and illegal, to accumulate assets because deflation devalues them. Even so, after the cleansing we would still be stuck with a monetary system based on debt that requires long-term expansion. The pain would be for only temporary gain.

    Besides, using made-up money to buy votes from the military – industrial complex and other welfare recipients is much easier. The day of reckoning will come on some other person’s watch. As a famous economist once said, “in the end we are all dead”.

    “How do you think the credit card company pays the merchant for your purchases until you pay your bill? where do they get that money from? Is that a “ponzi scheme”?

    how about your car or home? where does the money come from to pay for it until you pay it back? is that a ponzi scheme?”

    Yes! Please understand that the United States money supply only increases when a debt is created or credit is extended. This is done out of thin air by private bankers, not by the U.S. government. With our fractional reserve banking system, if banks are required to keep just 10% in reserve, then a single loan from one bank can trickle through our economy and deposits with other banks to create nearly $10,000 of new money supply from just a single $1000 loan. The bank did not create anything of value other than make an entry in their balance sheet. Yet they are entitled to collect interest on the money that they created out of thin air.

    This is all done nowadays through 1’s and 0’s entered in computers. No currency actually changes hands. But if currency is needed, the Fed pays the U.S. Treasury 4 cents to put a $100 bill into circulation thorough one of their affiliated banks.

    We have given over this power to create money to a small group of private bankers. Every time our federal government wants to build a road or a bridge, it must go hat in hand to the group of private bankers that own the Federal Reserve to borrow its own money! The bankers collect interest and the loan is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the people of the United States. That is why your grandchildren are already in debt.

    We could have elected to let the federal government just spend the money into circulation. No debt would be required. If we needed to expand the economy and the money supply we would just build a new bridge or new school and that would put additional money in circulation. No debt or compound interest required.

    Alexander Hamilton understood the power to create money, most of the other delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not. He usurped the power to create the nation’s money from the people and soon put it into the hands of a private bank.

    Baron Rothschild understood the power to create money. He once said, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”

    “they don’t trust others to “hold” their “money”…”

    Except the bank does not “hold” your money. It is no longer yours. You have loaned it to them and in the fine print in your deposit agreement it is up to them how much they return to you at any one time. Good luck getting your money when the ATM’s are down. Greece already experienced that.

    “f you have a loan or credit card or bank account or 401k – you have “voted”…what you actually believe in… in reality.”

    Not necessarily. You have might have been captured by the illusion of an extremely well made advertisement. Much of our behavior is governed by what we are told and exposed to over and over again. Mutual funds don’t exist to make investors money. They exist to make the mutual funds money. Besides what choice do most people have have? Few have guaranteed pensions anymore. And those that think they do are in for a surprise as some of the recent Bacon’s Rebellion articles attest. Investing in individual stocks and options is often a faster way to transfer your money to Wall Street.

    My comments are only intended to bring awareness that the system that you observe or call “reality” is not what you think it is. Only when we have that realization can we do something about it. Until that time we are just pawns in the game.

    It will take a good deal of deep thought and collaboration to identify alternatives. In the meantime, there is a significant effort to do away with cash. Imagine your ability to access the most basic necessities of life when your “card” is no longer accepted or is totally under some faceless stranger’s control and supervision.

    I do not wish people to go into a “fear” mode. Fear is the source of greed and the desire for control. I only hope that more people make an honest appraisal of what truly exists and if they wish, work to create something that serves them better.

    1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
      Reed Fawell 3rd

      Tom – This is as good as good a short summary of these issues and history as I have read everywhere. What else would you recommend as a good read on the subject? Reed

      1. Reed,

        I have read bits and pieces from many different sources over the years. There is no single source that comes to mind that is a good summary. If I think of something, I’ll pass it along. My knowledge is definitely incomplete and my presentation is lacking. But these are important issues and they deserve more attention. Thank you for input and cogent comments.

        1. Reed Fawell 3rd Avatar
          Reed Fawell 3rd

          Then it is yet another groundbreaking first found only on Bacon’s Rebellion. I hope for our sake you keep it going.

      2. Reed,
        I ran across a few sources that you might find useful:

        “Aftershock” by David Wiedemer, Robert Wiedemer and and Cindy Spitzer (2011) has a lot of information about bubble economies.

        “Griftopia” by Matt Taibbi. He is a columnist for Rolling Stone so his style is rough and irreverent, but his research is good. There is a section in this book about the housing crisis, the artificial run-up in oil prices due Goldman encouraging pension funds to invest in commodities, and several other interesting issues.

        There is a lot out there about the Fed, but I haven’t had time to track down my old notes. Some of it is good, some minimize what the Fed does, others blame the Fed for every conspiracy known to man.

  8. LarrytheG Avatar

    I’m still trying to understand if you WANT the govt to be involved in the banking system or not.

    you say things like ” Raising interest rates discourages borrowing and the expansion of our money supply slows down and so does our economy.” the in other places that zero-interest money is also harmful because it hurts people’s savings.

    you seem to advocate that the govt regulate private sector banking … right?

    do you think they should or should not regulate money supply at the Central Bank level?

    at what level do you want the govt involved – or not?

    and I do not understand your “debt+interest” argument… at all..

    no matter what level loans occur at – when you borrow money the lender wants interest … but this is a commonly accepted practice whether it’s a Tnote or a car loan or credit card …so what’s the deal?

    debt is something you pay back with future work…productivity right?

    are you making a distinction between how non-govt entities and people borrow money and govts borrowing money?

    both seem to be borrowing against future pay back.. which means things you will produce in the future…

    many of us look 30 years into the future and decide we want 30 years worth of future earnings – now -to buy a house now – on the premise that in the future – we’ll earn the money needed to pay it back.

    right?

    you say this: ” where does the extra money come from to pay the interest? The only way to create more money in our system is to create more debt.”

    when you take a 30 year loan on a home – and also agree to pay interest… how is that different than a govt doing something similar?

    you’re borrowing against work – performed in the future and yes there is a cost to do that.. but it’s still considered acceptable as a ton of people do that so they can live in a house right now that they will pay off. no?

    1. LtG,

      I’m sorry to be so long winded and still not be clear. We have covered a lot of ground. Let me see if I can clarify a bit.

      Let’s assume our banking system is the way it presently is. I would recommend that commercial banks be separated from investment banks. Bankers should not be able to make risky investments with depositors’ money. Banks should also receive proper oversight that preserves depositors capital. They should not be allowed to use risky securities such as derivatives to fulfill their reserve requirements.

      We actually have fairly effective banking regulations. They were just not applied properly in this situation. The nation’s top banking regulator is supposed to be the Federal Reserve, but they were part of the group that poured on the gas and lit the match that torched middle class Americans’ net worth and credit ratings.

      In an ideal world, I would not have the U.S. money supply in the hands of private bankers. There are hazards of putting it into the hands of politicians too. If the money supply was spent into existence rather than based on debt that would remove a great burden from our people and revitalize productive enterprise.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar

    TomH – go slow here… break it down so I can understand the essential things you are saying… thanks.

    ” Debt + interest will always be greater than debt (the actual money supply). That is why we must keep expanding debt in order for our economy to function”

    it takes longer to pay it off.. just as if you re-did your home loan…

    but debt can be paid off … or paid down… why not?
    if you raise taxes, get rid of tax breaks, or cut budget.. why not?

    1. Thanks for hanging with me on this. I’ll see if I can find a way to explain it better. It’s hard, because the way the monetary system works is contrary to our everyday experience.

      The big point of confusion is that you are seeing it from the point of view of a loan and repaying a loan. The process you describe is correct. But I am talking about the money supply, the total amount of “money” in any form that is available to buy and sell goods and services, pay our taxes, etc.

      Let’s imagine a Monopoly board, but with different rules. Instead of someone giving us money at the beginning of the game or for passing Go, the only way to create money with which to play the game is to go into debt or receive credit. Suppose I take out a loan for $100,000. There is now $100,000 of money in the game. I bought a house so the money is gone. Even if I didn’t buy anything, I need all $100,000 to repay the principle of the loan.

      Say that I owe 5% interest on that loan each turn. Where does the money come from to pay the interest? The rules of the game say that the only way to create more money is by using debt or credit. To use our money printing press we have to insert debt or credit in order to print more money.

      To get the extra amount of money to pay the interest we had to create more debt. Now we don’t have enough money to pay back the new loan because we used some of it to pay the interest on the first loan. Plus, we owe interest on the second loan too.

      As long as the total amount of money in the game is equal only to the total amount of debt there is never enough money to cover the interest on the debt and never will be. We have to go through never ending cycles of debt creation to have enough money for our economy to function and to repay the lenders. We will forever be slaves to this debt, generation after generation.

      We have gone through recessions, depressions and other economic calamities that cause debts to be erased. But when they are, the money supply is reduced by an equivalent amount. There is still no “extra” for interest. And when the economy recovers, we are back on the treadmill of debt creation.

      The current thinking is that we can inflate our debt away. If we increase our money supply by 10 times it is easier to get the money to repay that original $100,000. Good – we have paid back China and Japan. But they are not too happy because the money they loaned us was worth a lot more than the money we repaid them with. And all of that new inflationary money only came into existence because of more debt/credit. There is no escaping the fundamental flaw in this system, short of having it all fall apart and creating something different.

      The Romans dealt with this problem too. Overwhelming debts would arouse the population against the rulers and periodically they would declare a debt holiday and reset the playing field. Things worked better for a while, but the nature of the system would exert itself and they would end up back in the same situation.

  10. LarrytheG Avatar

    okay – one part:

    ” Suppose I take out a loan for $100,000. There is now $100,000 of money in the game. I bought a house so the money is gone. Even if I didn’t buy anything, I need all $100,000 to repay the principle of the loan.”

    well the 100K was already in the game… someone had it and loaned it to you… and you promised to pay it back from your future earnings…

    right?

    “Say that I owe 5% interest on that loan each turn. Where does the money come from to pay the interest?”

    well the same place the money came from to repay the principal – your future earnings…

    right?

    how would the govt printing more money – affect that 100K .. it wouldn’t make it 110K or 90k, right?

    it might change the interest charged ….so instead of 8 or 10% it might be 3 or 5% like it is now.

    people forget – that yes.. you won’t earn much on your bank deposit or 401K …but you can also buy a house now for a really low interest rate also… and that in turn keeps your monthly payment LOWER so you can then save more money yourself and/or invest in a more expensive house…

    I got more to say but will stop here.. so we can chew this part.

  11. “well the 100K was already in the game… someone had it and loaned it to you… and you promised to pay it back from your future earnings…”

    No. This is where your everyday experience conflicts with the reality of how the monetary game works. The 100k was not already in the game. The only way for the 100k to appear in the game was for a debt to be created. That is how money is created now. The government does not create money (only the little bit of currency in circulation and the banks make a 2500% profit on $100 bills). The Fed and the banks create money out of thin air by making a loan. That is the only way that it can occur.

    Once the money supply is created it can circulate throughout the economy and you can earn some as an employee or by selling something, but the origin of that money was always through the creation of a debt. The printing press is a bank’s loan officer. The money did not exist somewhere else. It sprang into existence when the loan was made and was entered on the bank’s books and in your bank account.

    I know this is confusing when we are accustomed to dealing with tangible things. And it appears that someone else has it and then loans it to us. And that does occur but only after the money was originally created from debt.

  12. LarrytheG Avatar

    When you borrow the 100K for your home – that 100K exists and is real – and is transferred to the people who build the house at the time you agree to pay it back

    no?

    someone had 100K in their possession and they wanted to invest it for a ROI.

    right?

    aside from that – the Govt DOES ADD MONEY to the EXISTING SUPPLY –

    but how does the Fed adding that money …create debt?

    Does the Fed “owe” someone when they print more money?

    you can make the argument that when they print more money – they risk devaluing what’s already in the economy … but the money already in the economy is still there …still being invested, loaned, paying workers, and paid back by those who incurred debt.

    take the Fed totally out of the equation – and consider an economy with existing money circulating… and people who have accumulated money – will then loan it out to others who will buy something now and pay the loan back with their future productivity – earnings.

    the debt is secured with a legal attachment to the item the borrower bought with the money – collateral..

    it works that way without a Fed… right? Has long before there
    ever was a Fed.

    so how does the Fed – printing money change that?

    1. “When you borrow the 100K for your home – that 100K exists and is real – and is transferred to the people who build the house at the time you agree to pay it back”

      No. Not if the mortgage comes through the banking system in all its variations. Mortgage brokers don’t originate loans they only “broker” them. It is all created out of thin air when the loan is created. If the loan came from a private individual, the money that they have in their bank account was originally created sometime, somewhere through debt. That is the only way that it can be created.

      “aside from that – the Govt DOES ADD MONEY to the EXISTING SUPPLY ”

      The only way the government adds to the money supply is through coinage and currency. And that is only to a very limited degree (about 3% of the money supply). Most of the printing of bills is for replacement of currency not for new money supply. For additions to money supply through currency, the Treasury Department prints a bill. It charges the Fed 4 cents for that bill (the cost of printing) whatever the denomination of the bill. The Fed then distributes those bills through the banking system and gains their full value.

      “but how does the Fed adding that money …create debt?

      The Fed adds to the money supply mostly by buying Treasury bills and notes. They do this by simply making an entry in their books and an entry in the account of the U.S. government. These new treasury securities become part of the reserves of the Fed and they can make loans against that reserve. These loans are to the member banks of the Federal Reserve System, private companies or other governments and central banks. The Fed also bought many of the toxic assets during the mortgage crisis and added those to its reserves which allowed it to lend more. By loaning money to the banks, those banks can make loans for 10-20 times more than they have in reserve (it depends on the rate the Fed has established). This also adds to the money supply.

      Does the Fed “owe” someone when they print more money?”

      No, and this is the real kicker. When the Fed expands the money supply it does not owe anything, others owe it money. When the Fed buys U.S. treasury debt it simply makes an entry in the “bank account” of the U.S. government equivalent to the amount of Treasury debt that was transferred to the Fed. The U.S. government now has money to spend on warplanes, highways, Social Security payments, and interest on its previous debt. That Treasury debt now becomes an asset on the Fed’s books because the American government must now pay the Fed the principle and interest on that debt. The Fed did not pay any existing money to the U.S. government. It conjured money into existence, adding to the money supply, in exchange for the debt.

      The banks go through this same process when they make a loan. They make an entry in your bank account (adding to their liabilities) in exchange for your debt (their asset). The only money they need is the reserve they must keep (say 10%) for each loan. But this reserve does not get “spent”. The reserve might be treasury bills that they have so they earn money on that too. Or they can keep some of their reserves with the Fed and get paid interest on that.

      This is an over-simplified version of the process, but it gives you the basics. The most important point that most people are unaware of is that we have given over the power to create money in the U.S. to a small group of private bankers (the Fed is owned by private banks). Except for tax receipts, the U.S. government must go into debt to private bankers in order to have money to operate and this debt is guaranteed by existing and future citizens and taxpayers.

      There is no value (existing money) that the Fed and the banks exchange for your debt. They create this money out of thin air. It does have value by creating a money supply for others to use to facilitate their transactions.

      But this same money supply could be created by the U.S. government spending it into existence without putting themselves and the taxpayers deep into debt. Of course, with that system you would need restraints on spending and inflation.

      “take the Fed totally out of the equation – and consider an economy with existing money circulating”

      If the Fed were suddenly removed from the equation and the existing money supply remained, the money in circulation would still be equal to the total debt and there would be no extra for interest.

      “it works that way without a Fed… right? Has long before there
      ever was a Fed.”

      Hamilton convinced the Constitutional Convention that the government should not be allowed to create a currency based on debt, so the delegates rejected a clause that would have given Congress the authority to issue paper money. Once the U.S. government was formed and Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, he asked Congress to create the First National Bank. Jefferson and Madison opposed this. The agrarian South distrusted the financiers in New York. Jefferson opposed the notion that “one generation could incur a debt that would become a burden on the next.” And he feared that the bank would become controlled by foreigners since the U.S. would only own a minority share in it.

      Hamilton made a deal with Jefferson and Madison to gain their support for the bill. He would agree to move the nation’s capitol from New York to an area on the Potomac, if they would support his bill. They agreed believing that if the capitol was in the South they could restrain the financial shenanigans of the New Yorkers. Hamilton proposed to temporarily locate the capitol in Philadelphia while the new federal district was being prepared, because he needed the votes of the Pennsylvania delegation.

      When the bank was authorized, Hamilton did not back it with silver and gold as he had proposed during the Convention. He used the debt issued by the Continental Congress. Financiers and speculators had bought up most of it for pennies on the dollar, but Hamilton honored it at face value. This caused a great uproar from those who had staked the fledgling nation in its time of need, but now had nothing to show for it. The nation’s first national banking system began with a scam.

      Jefferson remained bitterly opposed to the national bank and during his term as President he let the 20-year charter for the national bank lapse. When that occurred, it was discovered that the bank was primarily owned by the British and the Dutch, just as Jefferson had predicted.

      The money interests fought back and a Second National Bank was established. This was bitterly opposed by Andrew Jackson because the corrupt practices of the bankers did not serve the nation. The president of the bank fought back by reducing the money supply and causing widespread economic distress. He hoped that would be enough to keep Jackson from being re-elected. Jackson paid the national debt in full, the only President to ever do so, and closed the bank.

      The U.S. went through the remainder of the 1800’s without a central bank. After one of many economic gyrations, when J.P. Morgan had to inject his own money into the banking system to maintain its liquidity, President Wilson was eventually convinced to sign a bill creating the Federal Reserve.

      Wall Street bankers had traveled to Jekyll Island, ostensibly on a hunting trip. Traveling separately so they would not be discovered to be in collusion, they met to write the legislation for what became the Federal Reserve Bank. Wilson signed this bill and the one that created the national income tax ( a tax he was told would only be for the “rich”) in 1913, a fateful year.

  13. LarrytheG Avatar

    I did not get past this…

    ” If the loan came from a private individual, the money that they have in their bank account was originally created sometime, somewhere through debt. That is the only way that it can be created.”

    and I won’t read the rest until we can figure this part out.

    when someone works – they get paid… for their labor, right?

    if they have a job and get paid week after week , earn money , – and save that money – in the bank – the bank will then loan that money to someone else to buy a house…

    the guy who put the money in the bank then earns interest on that money and the guy who got the loan pays interest on it as he works, earns money and pays it back.

    multiply that by millions of people..and you have millions of people working ..earning money… saving it and someone else borrowing it and themselves working to earn money to pay it back.

    you work to earn money to buy the things you need.

    you borrow “ahead” if you want a house now instead of saving up for it.

    other folks maybe earn MORE than they need for their house, and save that extra money..”invest” it … they’re not only not in debt.. they’ve accumulated wealth and by investing it – they increase their wealth.

    you don’t even need a bank to do this. In fact, people used to lend their excess wealth directly to others and get it paid back – with interest as the borrower worked … week by week to earn money to make payments to pay it back.

    how is the above wrong? It worked like that even before banks existed… once banks came along – they just became the “broker” between those that had wealth to invest and those that wanted to borrow ahead and pay back.

    then it became wealth people gained through a variety of activities.. and loans made for a variety of things beyond houses…

    but the basics remained the same.

    1. LtG,

      I know this is hard to wrap one’s head around. All that you have described is correct. But it is about how our economy functions not our money supply.

      “when someone works – they get paid… for their labor, right?”

      Yes they do. But where did the money come from that paid them for their labor? If you trace all of the transactions that money went through, the original transaction that created that money was a loan (debt or credit). The particular unit of money did not exist until it was loaned into existence. Just because you have money doesn’t mean that you are in debt. It’s just that that money came into being because someone incurred a debt and then that money circulated through our economy. The speed at which money circulates through our economy is called velocity. The faster it circulates the more work the same amount of money can do in a fixed amount of time. But that is a whole different concept and I don’t want to confuse things.

      Instead of Monopoly let’s play the game of Life. Again, to create money with which to play this game, a debt must be incurred. Let’s say you were born at age 18 and began life with a student loan of $100,000. In exchange for your promise to pay (a debt), a bank gave you $100k. The money did not exist until the bank entered your debt on their books and put 100k in your bank account (creating it out of thin air). Up until this time no money existed in the game. Assume there are three other players and they each did the same thing. Now there exists $400,000 of money in the game and $400,000 of debt. They buy and sell from one another, hire and pay each other, etc. They all go through the normal economic transactions, continuously circulating the $400k. The players can also loan each other money, but this does not add to the money supply because they do not have the authority to create new money out of thin air, only the banks can do that. They can only loan one another money that is already in the money supply.

      Money has value only as a facilitator of transactions. Its value is only what we agree it to be in our current system. We can continue to play the game as long as we want. There is still only $400k of money in the system. The money may exist in a wide variety of tangible and intangible things but it still totals $400k. If it is time to pay back the loan, you must remove money from your assets or bank accounts to pay back the $100K. And when the debt is retired the $100k is removed from the game. Since every one owes $100K there is only enough money to back the debt. None exists to pay the interest. If you paid interest to the bank there would not be enough money left in the game to pay back all of the debt.

      This is the fundamental flaw I was pointing out. Because the money supply is equal only to the amount of debt, the system must keep creating more debt to have a large enough supply of money to pay debts plus interest at any one time. But because of the nature of the system, it is impossible for the society to avoid getting deeper and deeper in debt. A monetary system based on debt must ultimately fall apart when the culture can no longer service the debt.

      This is a simplification, obviously. Our money supply is approximate because it is difficult to account for everything. It expands and contracts with business cycles, bankruptcies, short sales, etc. But the long-term trend must always be towards more debt. That is why modern economists are so fixated on growth. It is the only way for an economy to operate within a debt based monetary system. Natural system do not exhibit continuous growth. They reach a dynamic equilibrium. We do not keep growing taller throughout our lives. We reach an optimum size and then go through continuous renewal. Unrestrained growth is unhealthy. It is called cancer.

      There is also an interaction between the economy (that you describe) and the monetary system (which I am talking about). If the money supply expands faster than the supply of goods and services (inflation), prices rise because there is more money chasing the same amount of goods and prices are bid up. If the money supply declines compared to the amount of goods and services (deflation) prices fall because there is less money available to pay for the same amount of goods.

      We would have much higher inflation now with the recent huge increase in money supply but most of it has gone to inflate prices in the stock market and is sitting on the balance sheets of banks and large corporations and is not being loaned or spent into the general economy.

      ” It worked like that even before banks existed… once banks came along – they just became the “broker” between those that had wealth to invest and those that wanted to borrow ahead and pay back.”

      The first banks were created by the Knights Templar who created a system that allowed people to travel and use their wealth at a distance without physically moving it. They were also the primary lenders to heads of state and the Vatican. The French king and the Pope became so deeply indebted to them that they hatched a plot to seize the Templar leaders and seize their treasure. The Templars learned of the plot at the last minute and sailed off with most of their treasure using ships from their large navy flying their traditional flag, the skull and crossbones (later appropriated by Hollywood pirate movies).

      Modern banks are not brokers between lenders and borrowers. Banks are the lenders and do not need any depositors in order to loan money. Having deposits boosts their reserves and allows banks to loan much more, but they are not required. Banks are the only entity that is allowed to create the money supply out of thin air. If you are a wealthy investor ( a hard money lender let’s say) and want to loan someone money to buy a house, the investor has to possess money that is already in existence before it can be loaned for interest.

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    well again , short steps here:

    ” Yes they do. But where did the money come from that paid them for their labor? If you trace all of the transactions that money went through, the original transaction that created that money was a loan (debt or credit). ”

    you make widgets that are bought by others..you earn money on the widgets you produced…

    You fix a persons car.. he pays you for your labor…

    those folks that paid you – they earned their money in similar ways – creating things of value or services.. that others needed and were willing to pay for – with their labor.

    people produce things of value with their work – your doctor fixes your injury – he buys bread that you made… etc..

    farmers borrow money to buy a tractor.. that tractor allows them to produce 5 times as much than if they did not have it… it’s worth the debt and then some… they can pay that debt back and still have more wealth than if they did not get the tractor.

    It’s productivity TomH… it’s labor … that generates things of value that others want and will work themselves to get it.

    you did a ditch – that night you buy groceries for your family.

    you can go back to when there was no money. You gave a guy eggs from your hens and fruit from the trees you planted so he would fix your roof… no debt… just two people working to produce things of value – then engaging in commerce to get things they don’t have in exchange for things they did produce..

    If a guy had a LOT of hens… and no longer needed his roof fixed…what would he receive from others for his eggs?

    that’s where money came from… it became a token of your labor. the more labor -the higher the value of the token. The more tokens the more other things you can buy instead of barter for.

    we have to agree at this point before we go further.. if we do not agree here – the rest is pretty futile…

    1. We are still talking about two different things. You keep talking about activities by which you “earn” money – how money comes into your possession. This is economic activity. I am trying to explain how the money itself is created, not earned. It had to exist before you could earn it by some form of economic activity.

      “that’s where money came from… it became a token of your labor. the more labor -the higher the value of the token. The more tokens the more other things you can buy instead of barter for.”

      Now we are getting closer together. In the early days, barter was the primary form of commerce. You had to trade what you had for what you wanted. But that was not very efficient if the person who wanted what you had did not have what you wanted. So we made up symbols that “stood for” our labor or something of value and traded those. On a Pacific island they had giant wheel shaped stones that they used as money. In pastoral societies, sheep or goats were often used as money. In colonial America, warehouse receipts for tobacco or cotton were used as money. Money is exactly how you described it, a token. It exists to facilitate transactions, the economic activities that you describe.

      In the early days, money itself had value. Roman coins were made of silver so their value could be recognized throughout the empire. But what began as 100% silver ended up with perhaps just 5% silver. The money was debased and the empire collapsed. The British Empire came along and also based their international trading empire on silver money (pounds of sterling silver). It became easier to represent and transport this money with a piece of paper that represented the silver that was stored elsewhere. By that time they had an established reputation and people would accept the paper as a representative of the silver. To expand their money supply they would have to mine more silver, or conquer someone and steal theirs. But the money supply would increase only if their stockpile of silver increased.

      No matter how much economic activity they engaged in, the money supply was equal to their store of silver. In the 20th century up until 1971, America’s monetary system was based on gold and silver. An ounce of gold was valued at $35. I still have a dollar my Dad gave me that says Silver Certificate on it. That paper bill could be exchanged for an ounce of silver. This was how our money was created at that time, as a surrogate for a certain amount of precious metal that had a defined value.

      Tying our money supply to a certain amount of precious metal imposed discipline on our money creation. The Fed could not just create a bunch of new money through loans. Otherwise we would have more dollars than we had gold and the gold would be priced at more than $35 per ounce.

      In those days, countries would settle their balance of payments by moving gold back and forth. If France bought more goods from Britain than it sold to Britain, France would have to pay that difference in gold. Having more gold in their possession to back the same amount of currency would increase the value of the British pound compared to the French franc and make British goods more expensive in France and bring the balance of trade back in line.

      After World War II, with European economies in ruins, a new agreement was arrived at in Bretton Woods. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were formed and the world’s monetary systems transitioned to being based on debt rather than precious metals.

      Eventually, America’s trade imbalances got so out of whack with other nations there were more demands to ship our gold to balance these deficits than we had gold in our vaults. So Nixon closed the gold “window” in 1971.

      This made the dollar less valuable because it was no longer backed by gold. The U.S. then agreed to provide military protection to Saudi Arabia in exchange for accepting only dollars in exchange for oil worldwide. This became known as the “petrodollar” and that along with the strength of the American economy has made our money valuable worldwide.

      This is a roundabout explanation of what I am talking about when I say “money”. It is the token that we have created to facilitate our economic transactions such as buying and selling, earning a wage, lending or borrowing money, etc. But the specific point I am trying to make is that the creation of the money is a separate activity from the use of the money in the economic transactions that you describe.

      Currently, in the U.S., money can only be created by issuing debt. Once created, money can be used, accumulated, and spent in all of the ways that you describe.

      I hope this gets us closer together on the difference between “creating” and “earning” money.

  15. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” am trying to explain how the money itself is created, not earned. It had to exist before you could earn it by some form of economic activity.”

    no it did not. you started with a barter system.. Money came later as a way to “barter” through 3rd parties when the two principles did not have the “exact” change!!!

    even debt came before money.

    people would agree to provide work – over time – in exchange for say – a cow or a barn…

    we have to get this part to an agreement before we can take the discussion to central banks and money supply.

    if we cannot agree on the basics of economic activity then money supply just becomes more of a belief than tied to how economic activity works – or not.

    If I want a house and all I have is 2 cows and 20 ducks and the builder already has all the cows and ducks he needs and instead needs a horse – and I have not got one… how do you get to a willing transaction? There are clearly ways to do it – without money – but clearly those ways gave way to money because money is far more flexible and parseable – two and a half ducks don’t do it.

    Finally – do you have savings… ? a 401 or such?

    do you think it sits in a vault and is not loaned out?

    isn’t that how money that is borrowed is ‘created’… ?

    in other words – if you earn money – and do not spend it – but save it … are you not “creating” money that can be borrowed by others?

  16. “if we cannot agree on the basics of economic activity then money supply just becomes more of a belief than tied to how economic activity works – or not.”

    “do you think it sits in a vault and is not loaned out?

    isn’t that how money that is borrowed is ‘created’… ?”

    No. This is still our sticking point. In our current system, economic activity does not create “money”. It just moves it around. When you earn money from employment, existing money transfers from your employer to you. When you use your money to buy groceries, you transfer your money to the grocery store. If you loan your money to another person and get paid interest, again it is simply a transfer of existing money.

    If you put $10,000 of your money in a bank and increase their reserves, they can now make loans of up to $100,000 because of your $10,000. That $100,000, created out of thin air by the banks, now adds new “money” to our money supply (because of the debt).

    Economic activity merely moves existing money from place to place. Depending on your economic activity you might have more money or less, but there is nothing you can do to increase the total amount of money in the U.S. economy, except by going into debt which includes running up your balance on a credit card.

    You imagine that economic activity creates more money because when you go to work and get paid you now have more money. If you make a product and sell it at a profit you now have more money. But this does not bring more money into existence. Money has merely moved from someone else to you.

    The money supply (our monetary system) creates the supply of money that is used to facilitate the transactions in our economy. In our current system, economic policy will not change our money supply unless those policies encourage people to take on more debt.

    When we change our money supply it can affect our economy. For example, by adding to our money supply faster than we have produced goods and services we have diminished the value of labor. People now work more hours for less purchasing power than they had in the 1970’s.

    Obviously, this is a simplified explanation. We live in a global economy. Much of our money (US dollars) is held overseas and global trade affects the ebb and flow of our money supply. But we have to agree on the basics first.

    Basic premises:

    At the present time, the money supply of the US (97% digital) is created by individuals, businesses and governments going into debt.

    New money is created out of thin air by private banks (the Fed and others) when these debts are incurred.

    This supply of money is used to facilitate all of our economic transactions.

    Economic activity only moves money around but does not create new supplies of money, except through more debt.

    The design of a debt based monetary system means that the nation can only get deeper and deeper in debt.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      TomH – where did our money supply come from originally?

      and take a look at this and tell me what you think in terms of the variation of the surplus/deficit over decades:

      http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

      does this mean the money supply changed from year to year?

      what happened to the money supply from the time it was created and we grew in population? ‘

      finally – how does printing money -increasing the supply – create debt?

      where is that debt ? is it the debt that accumulates from the deficit or something else?

      Have all countries with a central bank – created money and caused debt?

      1. “where did our money supply come from originally?”

        It evolved over time, as I explained. In colonial days we used a mix of barter, warehouse receipts, and Spanish silver money (pieces of eight). The British would not allow the use of their currency in the colonies. This limited money supply slowed economic development.

        After the birth of the new nation, Hamilton created the First National Bank, based on debt (the Continental Congress debt). He knew that debt based lending would accelerate economic development and it did. But it also led to a centralized, powerful federal government. Which, had they known what a debt based monetary system leads to, would have been resisted by many States. Jefferson had experienced the heavy debts he inherited from his father and did all he could to keep that from happening to the new nation. After Jackson shut down the Second National Bank, currency was created and bank drafts (checks) were facilitated by State chartered banks backed by their initial capitalization and deposits.

        In the 20th century, we had the debt based money creation (out of thin air) by the Fed since 1913. But this was tempered by the fact that our currency was linked to gold and silver and could only expand within limits. Once the connection to gold was cut in 1971, it removed any discipline on the money supply. The Fed is supposed to create the money supply, regulate banks and maintain optimum employment. With current unemployment at 23% (if calculated in the same way it was in the 70s) the Fed has certainly failed at that.

        “and take a look at this and tell me what you think in terms of the variation of the surplus/deficit over decades:”

        This is a list of only the debt of the federal government. Consumer debt and business debt is not included, so it is hard to draw any conclusions about the money supply. From the Clinton era and after, federal surpluses and deficits cannot be compared to previous years. Clinton moved so many items off of the “official” federal budget it is hard to determine if surpluses were really surpluses if the numbers had been calculated the way they had been previously.

        Also, from the Reagan era onward, a large percentage of federal expenses were paid by the gigantic surpluses flowing into social security from the baby boomers in the workforce. If this money had been kept in SS we would not the funding problems we have today, but the annual federal operating deficits would have been much higher.

        The federal government is by far the nation’s largest single borrower, so variations in federal borrowing (surpluses/deficits) would have an effect on money supply.

        “what happened to the money supply from the time it was created and we grew in population? ”

        The theory behind monetary policy is that you want to expand money supply in step with increases in the amount of goods and services (which roughly increases with population). That keeps prices constant. Obviously, we expanded money supply faster than that or it would not cost at least 5 times more now for the same item as it did 50-60 years ago.

        “finally – how does printing money -increasing the supply – create debt?”

        Actually, it’s the other way around. Creating debt increases the money supply. The “money” bankers create out of thin air when they make a loan is added to the existing money supply.

        “where is that debt ? is it the debt that accumulates from the deficit or something else?”

        It varies. The debt that is created by federal deficit spending is mostly in the form of Treasury bills and notes (notes being for any period greater than 1 year). But now that many formerly federal agencies are off the “official” federal budget, they issue their own securities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now financed by issuing their own bonds.

        Consumer debt is usually in the form of mortgages, car loans, student loans, and credit card debt, etc. Business debt is usually bank debt and corporate bonds.

        “Have all countries with a central bank – created money and caused debt?”

        Yes. That is the only way they can create money, using debt. The U.S. central bank (the Fed) loaned billions (trillions?) to central banks and corporations in Europe to contain the economic collapse of Europe from their debt overindulgence. The only thing is, if they default on that debt, the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook to pay the Fed back. They loaned this money at near zero interest so there is no reserve being built up (as credit card companies do) to cover future defaults.

        The private central bank of Germany caused their hyperinflation in the 1920’s (wheelbarrows of money to buy bread) by their unsound monetary policy.

  17. Sorry, we haven’t reached a meeting of minds about how we currently create and manage our money supply. But I thought for certain you would have a reaction about how the creation of that money supply is left in the hands of a few un-elected private bankers and that the ability to make money from thin air and to receive a benefit (interest) from money that they did not earn – was given to a few private citizens.

    “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — President Woodrow Wilson

    “If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.”- George Washington

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” . . . “Paper is poverty. It is the ghost of money and not money itself.”– Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

    “If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”– President Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837

    “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. ” – Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1865

    “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford, circa 1925

    “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter written to Colonel House, l933

    “The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting Americas’ money supply by one third between 1929 and 1933.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist, Stanford University

    “In the United States today, we have two governments. We have the duly constituted government and then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System operating the money powers which are reserved for Congress by the Constitution.” – Rep. Wright Patman, 1893-1976 (Congressman Wright Patman was Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years.)

  18. LarrytheG Avatar

    I don’t think the quotes do much good. I could go out and find a bunch also… so what does that prove?

    but I’ll ask – say for a hypothetical country… that has x number of dollars in circulation and over time the population doubles and it has no central bank printing money or ‘injecting’.. just a natural fixed supply of money.

    does that mean that each person ends up with less dollars?

    what if productivity doubles over 20 years… what does that mean relative to the money supply? Does that mean the same dollars are worth a lot more or less?

    so if you owned a million dollars worth of assets – what would the value of that million be if the population doubled or productivity doubled?

  19. The quotes were just to give perspective about what other people whom you might trust have to say about these issues. You don’t really know me. You might think I’m crazy and making all of this up.

    “but I’ll ask – say for a hypothetical country… that has x number of dollars in circulation and over time the population doubles and it has no central bank printing money or ‘injecting’.. just a natural fixed supply of money.”

    If the money supply stayed constant and the amount of goods doubled (with rising population) the price of everything would be cut in half. If $1 bought one widget, and now you still had $1 but two widgets, they would each cost $0.50.

    But you don’t need a central bank to increase money supply. Lenders learned long ago that they could loan out more money than they had to back up the loan. No one really knew how much they had and the depositors seldom wanted their money back at the same time. If they did (a run on the bank) they shut their doors or became insolvent and depositors lost their money.

    “does that mean that each person ends up with less dollars?”

    If the money supply stayed constant (it usually doesn’t – see above) there would be a fixed amount of money spread over more people so each person would have less. The temptation is always to create more money because a few people have been given the authority to create money out of thin air and earn interest from it. Greed usually pushes them to create more than is necessary. Hence, our continual inflation.

    “so if you owned a million dollars worth of assets – what would the value of that million be if the population doubled or productivity doubled?”

    The asset value is not directly related to population or productivity. Higher productivity only means that you create the same amount of goods using less labor. It does not by itself changes prices. Although, less labor or lower cost labor does tend to reduce prices , other things being equal. Although, if less labor or lower cost labor means that consumers have less money to spend that also causes problems.

    Population increasing does not by itself change prices. Although as population rises, usually so does the production of goods. It is the ratio of the amount of goods to the amount of money supply that is the primary determinant of pricing. If money supply goes up faster than the supply of goods, prices increase. If money supply declines in relation to the supply of goods, prices go down.

    The elite, who own most of the assets, don’t like to see the value of their assets decline so they try very hard to avoid deflation. Except for short periods of time (when bubbles burst) when they can buy assets for dimes on the dollar from those who were trapped by an artificially created bubble.

    They will go as far as creating negative interest rates to force people to spend money rather than holding on to it; just to increase economic activity enough to allow for further increases in money supply.

  20. LarrytheG Avatar

    most of the quotes were from folks who live before the modern concepts of finances and monetary issues.

    so how does money supply change so that prices don’t get cut in half when population doubles?

    who created the original money supply and who determined how much it would/should be – and whether it should never change after that or if it did change what mechanism would control?

    1. “most of the quotes were from folks who live before the modern concepts of finances and monetary issues.”

      The concept of money has been around for thousands of years. These wise leaders were expressing their opinion about the difference between sound monetary systems and unsound ones. They would be aghast to see how our financial system has evolved in the last 45 years. As George said:

      “If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.”- George Washington

      “so how does money supply change so that prices don’t get cut in half when population doubles?”

      As I said earlier, money supply is increased as the supply of goods and services increases (usually as a result of population increasing). Prices remain stable if the ratio stays the same. Typically, money supply increases at a faster rate than population increases (more goods) so we have inflation.

      “who created the original money supply and who determined how much it would/should be – and whether it should never change after that or if it did change what mechanism would control?”

      I don’t know who created the first money supply. Perhaps in Egypt or Babalonia or long before.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        no – no… the money supply in the US…

        who created it?

        and how was it treated/handled after initial creation?

        it apparently did not stay static as population increased because deflation did not occur… and instead some level of rough increase in supply apparently occurred as population increased.

        what was that process and who was manipulating – using what rules or principles?

        1. U.S. money supply was created by the first two national banks between 1790 and the 1830’s. There was no central bank again until 1913, so various banks increased money supply by issuing loans up until that time.

          A huge deflation did occur during the 1930’s, we call it the Great Depression. Leading economists agree that it was caused by the Fed not injecting reserves into the banking system when liquidity was greatly needed. This was the reason that the Fed was created (at least the public reason). Not only didn’t the Fed do the job for which it was created, it actually contracted the money supply during this period causing great economic distress to millions of people.

          Andrew Mellon, the richest man in the world at the time who served as Treasury Secretary during three administrations, felt this was as it should be. He said:

          “liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.”

          The principles are supposed to be to keep the ratio of money supply to goods and services stable so as to keep prices stable. But the Fed’s policy has always encouraged long-term inflation. They are also supposed to maintain a healthy level of employment, which was assumed to mean about 4-5% unemployment, but the calculation of those numbers has become so manipulated that it is no longer a meaningful target.

          More recently the Fed has created bubbles to lure unsophisticated investors (including many pension funds) into situations where they lose their assets which are then moved into the accounts of “more competent people” who designed the bubble or commodity scam or whatever the current scheme was.

          I don’t like to set one group against another, but I think it is important that American citizens realize that there has been a deliberate series of policies that have been enacted in the last 30 years or so that have resulted in a massive shift in economic activity and ownership of assets from Main Street to Wall Street.

    1. Notice that the line was relatively flat until 1971 when there was no longer any connection between the money supply and a tangible asset (gold). Once the creation of money was not disciplined by any other mechanism, we went crazy. Take any group of 15 or so people (about the size of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee, the group that sets monetary policy) and give them the unrestrained ability to “print money” and make loads of money from that process – what do you think would happen?

      This rapid influx of money has created the long-term bull market in stocks, and the various bubbles that have come and gone. This is not a responsible way to manage the monetary policy for a nation. But it is a perfect way to shift assets from one group to another.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        but if you look at deficits and debt over that time – there is no easily discernable connection – there are even surpluses some years…

        when you say “debt” do you mean the budget deficit and debt or something else?

        1. Debt includes all debt – government (at all levels), consumer and business. You were just showing variations in federal government debt, and as I explained, because several administrations “cooked the books” (which have remained that way), the reported variations in federal government debt don’t reflect what that debt truly is.

  21. That is basically the process that we have been discussing, with a few extra concepts thrown in. Perhaps, they explained it for you better than I did.

    I thought they would have explained the different categories of money supply:

    M0 (M zero) is material currency (cash itself); all notes, coins, specie and bearer certificates convertible on demand (which includes, by definition, depositor reserves of banks which must be kept in physical cash).

    M1 includes M0 plus the balance of all deposit accounts which can be instantly converted into cash of equal value (known as “cash equivalent”). This is more than M0 (up to 10 times M0 in fact) because a fundamental principle of economics is that there doesn’t have to be enough paper money in existence to cover everyone’s bank deposits, because the entire economy won’t want their accounts cashed and closed at the same time. So, M1 includes some “fake money”, but in the working economy it changes hands as if it were physical cash.

    M2 is M1 plus all other depositor accounts that can be readily (within 30 days) converted to physical cash of equal value (known as “near-cash”).

    M3 is M2 plus all other investment instruments that can be converted into cash, but which may have significant restrictions on a timely conversion and/or a lack of guarantee that the investment’s stated worth will be retained in the conversion to cash. This can also include foreign currency that the Fed has purchased. This is a very broad definition of the money supply. The Fed stopped reporting it a few years ago when people questioned the Fed’s large speculative position in Euros.

  22. LarrytheG Avatar

    I was particularly interested in our view of how they explained the Feds role in managing the money supply as legitimate or not…

    as well as the idea that actual paper money in circulation is no where near the actual value in banks – that when someone makes a deposit in cash – the cash moves on and all that is left is a “credit” . – payable in paper money at the time it is demanded.

    is this how money “supply” is “increased”?

    see – I don’t totally understand how all of this actually does work. I read – and I increase my understanding but am by no means so totally educated that I can cite chapter and verse.

    but I do think that the economists – worldwide – in all major countries that do support the creation and operation of central banks – know and understand more than folks like you – and me – all due respects.

    so I ask questions – of you – to see if what you believe matches what I read or if not – where you disagree… and in the process increase my own understanding – of both the establishment and the critics.

    I do not subscribe to the idea that we’re all doomed by the existence of central banks… but I do admit that their machinations often are in contest with what the free market would do but the free market by itself would be a disaster to civilization as we know it. the organization and operation of monetary systems that are unpredictable and chaotic are disastrous to the maintenance of civilization itself – the difference between tribes living in the jungles and cities that provide potable water, sewer, law enforcement, fire service, etc.. all are predicated on a tamed monetary egosystem – a domesticated animal versus a wild animal.

    1. “I was particularly interested in our view of how they explained the Feds role in managing the money supply as legitimate or not…”

      There are many different opinions on this. My view is that most people don’t know enough about how it really works to form an opinion about it. They just assume someone is taking care of things and it’s all OK.

      I believe that in a nation that was intended to be free and allow equality of opportunity (not equal results, but an equal chance) the money making power of the nation should not be in the hands of un-elected and, except for three, un-appointed private bankers. They have no obligation to serve the general interests of the nation. Why should just a few people gain the right the make money out of thin air and gain an income from it without giving anything in return? Why should the citizens of an entire nation (and their descendants) doing the business of the nation go into debt to a group of private bankers who have offered nothing of value in return? You might argue that the bankers gave money in return. But they didn’t give money in return. They just made it up. Why shouldn’t the citizens collectively be able to create a supply of money for the nation’s use without going into debt to a group that does not represent the nation?

      ” how money “supply” is “increased”?”

      When a bank makes a loan. Say the money supply is a billion dollars. When the bank issues a loan for a $100,000. The money supply is now $1,000,100,000. There was a set amount of money in circulation before the loan was made. New money was created out of thin air by entering numbers in your account by the bank. Since the money supply includes money on deposit, the supply grows by the amount of the loan. The bank did not give you money that they had already. They just entered numbers in a computer and voila – you had money. Since it was money that never existed before that moment, it increased the money supply.

      After it is created, the money flows from account to account in our economy, as you have described. It flows by cash, check, credit card, wire transfer, whatever. But these methods do not increase the money supply. They just move it around.

      “– know and understand more than folks like you ”

      I fully agree. I don’t know very much about this, but what little I know worries me. I think we all should know more. This system underpins our economy and we live in a culture that values economic activity. I prefer a meritocracy. People should be rewarded according to what they contribute. A group should not benefit because they usurped a function that belongs to all of the people. Some might argue that stealth and manipulation are skills and should be rewarded. I think the system that is supposed to serve the common good should be prized and protected.

      “I do not subscribe to the idea that we’re all doomed by the existence of central banks”

      I agree. The land survives, as do the people. Although central banks will cause them many unnecessary travails. The banks only doom our currency and economic system. They always have a limited life span. But we don’t seem to learn from previous failures. We just keep reinventing the same concept (with modern improvements) that has failed every time.

      “but I do admit that their machinations often are in contest with what the free market would do but the free market by itself would be a disaster to civilization as we know it.”

      Even Adam Smith argued that we needed an “invisible hand” and compassion (many people forget he argued for that).

      But we don’t have anything resembling free markets today. They are all manipulated markets with special interests creating barriers to entry and special dispensations. A certain amount of regulation is necessary. Then that regulation is perverted to favor a few. I think our goal should be to provide “fair markets”. But currently that requires a political system to enact and that political system is already owned by the owners of the markets.

      “a tamed monetary egosystem – a domesticated animal versus a wild animal.”

      I think you are mistaking the wolves of Wall Street for domesticated dogs. We do not have human systems that resemble natural ecosystems. The natural world is predicated on connection and collaboration. Predators have a necessary role and operate in tandem with the populations they help optimize.

      Nature “red in tooth and claw” was a misinterpretation of the Social Darwinists to justify their plundering of the lowering classes. Mellon felt it was the duty of the elite to take wealth from other “less capable” hands in order to manage it properly. Many societies, back to the dawn of our written history, have kept power in the hands of the few. They created distractions (bread and circuses, TV and organized sports) to keep the rabble in check. A lesson learned in the last few hundred years is that people can best be held in check by the illusion of freedom.

      How much freedom will you have when the only way you can gain the necessities of life is by using a “card” that is constantly monitored and can be revoked at any time. Currency is being slowly withdrawn with the explanation that cash is only used by tax evaders and crooks.

      The issues about our money supply and who governs it and for what purpose are central to our freedom. I don’t want to sound like a crazy man, but Jefferson had a lot of faith in the common sense of our yeoman farmers, craftsmen and shopkeepers to run their affairs. We have created such a complex system that no one takes the time to understand it. We have given up the fundamental aspects of our daily lives to others without asking what they are doing with it. As a result, people’s pensions, 401ks, savings accounts, home equity, etc. are being slowly drained away to Wall Street. Main Street is dying. We need to reclaim control over our destiny, and allow innovation and creative work to determine our economic production; not debt and computer entries for a pile of derivatives.

  23. LarrytheG Avatar

    “I was particularly interested in our view of how they explained the Feds role in managing the money supply as legitimate or not…”

    There are many different opinions on this. My view is that most people don’t know enough about how it really works to form an opinion about it. They just assume someone is taking care of things and it’s all OK.

    your view with respect to the people who believe there should be a Central Bank – the folks who support it’s existence and the those who operate it.

    “I believe that in a nation that was intended to be free and allow equality of opportunity (not equal results, but an equal chance) the money making power of the nation should not be in the hands of un-elected and, except for three, un-appointed private bankers. They have no obligation to serve the general interests of the nation. Why should just a few people gain the right the make money out of thin air and gain an income from it without giving anything in return? Why should the citizens of an entire nation (and their descendants) doing the business of the nation go into debt to a group of private bankers who have offered nothing of value in return? You might argue that the bankers gave money in return. But they didn’t give money in return. They just made it up. Why shouldn’t the citizens collectively be able to create a supply of money for the nation’s use without going into debt to a group that does not represent the nation?”

    how can 3 un-appointed bankers have any authority to do anything?

    I do not agree with your definition of “debt” ..either, I’m afraid…

    you have not really explained it in logical terms.. you seem to have arbitrarily decided this – do you have any cites from any credible sources that you are getting this from? Do central bankers agree with you on this?

    ” how money “supply” is “increased”?”

    When a bank makes a loan. Say the money supply is a billion dollars. When the bank issues a loan for a $100,000. The money supply is now $1,000,100,000. There was a set amount of money in circulation before the loan was made. New money was created out of thin air by entering numbers in your account by the bank.

    didn’t the 100K come from bank deposits and people can pull that money out anytime they want unless it is committed for a term?

    Since the money supply includes money on deposit, the supply grows by the amount of the loan. The bank did not give you money that they had already. They just entered numbers in a computer and voila – you had money. Since it was money that never existed before that moment, it increased the money supply.

    did it not exist as a deposit that someone made … or for instance an IRA that is owned by someone and kept at the bank?

    see… if you do not get this part right -the rest of your theory is based on this… and I think you are ignoring the fact that people save money and that money is then loaned out.

    when you get paid – some percent is often allocated to go into a retirement account. that’s real money – that is really earned by someone who provided work in exchange for it.

    “– know and understand more than folks like you ”

    I fully agree. I don’t know very much about this, but what little I know worries me. I think we all should know more.

    well first – before you layer on the rest of what you believe you need to address the issue of people who work – then earn money for their work – then set some of it aside – and then that money they set asid is loaned to others who will repay it with interest.

    that’s a money supply.. that exists in reality – without any central bank…

    you seem to be confusing what Central Banks do with this and they are not the same.

    you can have people saving money – put it in a bank – the bank loans it out and people repay it – without a central bank…

    but you seem to this this process somehow “creates” money and debt…

    why don’t we work on this part – without talking about central banks .. save that for later.. but get agreement on this part of how money works..?? first? ?

  24. “how can 3 un-appointed bankers have any authority to do anything?”

    I stand corrected, seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A full term is fourteen years. One term begins every two years. Janet Yellen is the current Chairman. This nomination process is what gives many people the false impression that the Fed is a federal agency (plus the word Federal in its name). But all of the nominees are provided by the Fed from the list of presidents of the various branch banks of the Fed. The President’s and Congress’s role in the appointments is largely ceremonial.

    They can do a great deal, because they are essentially the executive committee of the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve, which creates the money supply and monetary policy for the United States.

    “I do not agree with your definition of “debt” ..either, I’m afraid”

    It’s not my definition, it’s the Fed’s. All government debt, business debt, and consumer debt that originates in the banking system results in an entry in a bank account. This “new” money is counted in the M1 money supply reported by the Fed.

    “didn’t the 100K come from bank deposits and people can pull that money out anytime they want unless it is committed for a term?”

    No, it doesn’t. This is the source of confusion I think. The only role that depositor’s money plays in this is that it contributes to the reserve that banks must have on had. Only a small portion of this reserve is actual cash. Most of it is interest bearing debt (such as T-bills) that can quickly be converted into cash or it can be funds (computer entries) on deposit with the Fed. A decline in a bank’s reserves (from customers removing deposits) could reduce the amount they are able to lend. However, they can always borrow from the Fed to increase their reserves at 0.5% interest and loan it out at 4-18% for mortgages or credit cards. For every $1 they have in reserves they can loan out $10 or more depending on the current policies of the Fed. It is a very enticing business to be able to borrow $10,000 at 0.5% interest from the Fed and earn perhaps an average of 10% interest on $100,000 from money that you created out of thin air. This is why banks don’t “need” deposits to make loans, but customer deposits allow them to make more loans.

    “did it not exist as a deposit that someone made … or for instance an IRA that is owned by someone and kept at the bank?”

    No – see above.

    “when you get paid – some percent is often allocated to go into a retirement account. that’s real money – that is really earned by someone who provided work in exchange for it.”

    Yes. But your employer paid you with money that was already in existence. They cannot make it up out of thin air like a bank can. Your money that is deposited in a bank account (not stocks, etc.) can be used as part of a bank’s reserve to make new loans, and create new money out of thin air.

    “People who work . . . that’s a money supply.. that exists in reality – without any central bank…”

    It is money, but it came into existence through the fractional reserve banking system. Then was passed through our economy. Be careful about talking about “real money”. Our paper currency or computer entries is not “real money”. It has no value in and of itself. In fact, federal law states that our “money” has no value. It is a fiction that we all have agreed to in order to facilitate our transactions. It does not hold any value by itself other than what we agree it does. And that agreement can dissolve at any moment.

    Imagine that a computer virus destroyed our computer systems. You no longer have any money. Even if you had some currency, it has no value unless someone was willing to exchange something of value for it. What if someone was willing to give you $100,000 for a sandwich because they had not eaten in a week. You have wealth (food), they have money. In our system, we are constantly trading money for wealth and wealth for money. So we equate money with wealth, but it is not the same. Sorry, I am digressing.

    “you can have people saving money – put it in a bank – the bank loans it out and people repay it – without a central bank…”

    Yes, I agree. As I said before, you can create a money supply by issuing debt without a central bank. The U.S. did it for nearly a century. A central bank is supposed to make the coordination of the creation of the money supply and monetary policy more efficient. But central banks can also accelerate the consequences of bad decisions.

    “that’s a money supply.. that exists in reality – without any central bank…

    you seem to be confusing what Central Banks do with this and they are not the same.”

    First – see the point about “real money”. Central banks operate exactly the same way as the individual banks in the creation of new money using debt. Look up “fractional reserve banking”. Perhaps some other source can explain this better than I have been able to do.

    ” but get agreement on this part of how money works..?? first? ?”

    I think most people understand that money exists to facilitate transactions. I don’t believe that most people know that it is created by a private group for public use. And because that small group can charge interest on money they create out of thin air, they impose a heavy burden on our citizenry and transfer the wealth from all to a few, through the corrosive effect of compound interest. Why should a sovereign nation not be able to create its own money supply? This is the essential point to grasp. It is not my theory. I have just been trying to explain how the system works that is in plain view to everyone, but very few understand that it exists. This is not some oddball conspiracy theory. It is described on the Fed’s own website, although considerably sugar coated.

    Most people are mesmerized by the fact if they want to pay for something, like a house, they have to go into debt to get it. They assume the same process must work for the government. We do not have to have a monetary system based on debt. There are other options. But how do people yearning to be free wrest their lives back from those who control the levers of government and the money that powers our economy? This is not a partisan political issue. The us vs. them contests are designed to distract us from what is really happening. A very wise man once said, “A nation divided against itself . . . cannot stand.”

  25. LarrytheG Avatar

    I stand corrected, seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    so your point? elected, not elected, what? should they exist and do that role?

    “I do not agree with your definition of “debt” ..either, I’m afraid”

    It’s not my definition, it’s the Fed’s. All government debt, business debt, and consumer debt that originates in the banking system results in an entry in a bank account. This “new” money is counted in the M1 money supply reported by the Fed.

    can you find a paragraph from an authoritative source that says this? when someone puts money in a bank account -how is that “debt”? If I put some money in a mattress to save for the future – is that “debt”?

    “didn’t the 100K come from bank deposits and people can pull that money out anytime they want unless it is committed for a term?”

    “No, it doesn’t. This is the source of confusion I think. The only role that depositor’s money plays in this is that it contributes to the reserve that banks must have on had. Only a small portion of this reserve is actual cash. Most of it is interest bearing debt (such as T-bills) that can quickly be converted into cash or it can be funds (computer entries) on deposit with the Fed. A decline in a bank’s reserves (from customers removing deposits) could reduce the amount they are able to lend.”

    okay stop here – without a central bank – can you not still put money in a bank and the bank loan out money as long as they have the assets to pay back the depositor on demand?

    “However, they can always borrow from the Fed….”

    won’t debate any further until we agree how conventional banking works without a Fed.

    “when you get paid – some percent is often allocated to go into a retirement account. that’s real money – that is really earned by someone who provided work in exchange for it.”

    Yes. But your employer paid you with money that was already in existence. They cannot make it up out of thin air like a bank can. Your money that is deposited in a bank account (not stocks, etc.) can be used as part of a bank’s reserve to make new loans, and create new money out of thin air.”

    they sold widgets for a profit – they have the money… it’s the same money they pay you for making those widgets that they sold for a profit.

    that commerce has absolutely nothing to do with a fed or central bank – it has occurs since the time money existed.

    it works this way in countries without central banks right now.

    “People who work . . . that’s a money supply.. that exists in reality – without any central bank…”

    “It is money, but it came into existence through the fractional reserve banking system. ”

    no – I’m talking about money and commerce BEFORE there was a centralized banking agency – just banks….

    “Then was passed through our economy. Be careful about talking about “real money”. Our paper currency or computer entries is not “real money”.”

    it is “real” as long as you can take it out of the bank and it is accepted for payment in commerce.

    keep thinking how money worked BEFORE there was any Fed…that’s what I’m talking about.
    ” And that agreement can dissolve at any moment.”

    it CAN … but before there was a central bank that is exactly how currency worked – around the world –

    it don’t even have to be money guy.

    you could work for someone at a farm – and they would promise to pay you in eggs or milk – you work – you “produce” stuff of value – and then you gather wealth as your share of the production.

    you could do that by yourself.. produce horse shoes for folks and they pay you for your work and it can be not in currency.

    “Imagine that a computer virus destroyed our computer systems. You no longer have any money. Even if you had some currency, it has no value unless someone was willing to exchange something of value for it. What if someone was willing to give you $100,000 for a sandwich because they had not eaten in a week. You have wealth (food), they have money. In our system, we are constantly trading money for wealth and wealth for money. So we equate money with wealth, but it is not the same. Sorry, I am digressing.”

    well no – you’re showing what it was like BEFORE there was a central bank that “backed” the money system so that it would not become worthless …

    isn’t that one of the reasons the central bank concept came to be?

    “you can have people saving money – put it in a bank – the bank loans it out and people repay it – without a central bank…”

    Yes, I agree. As I said before, you can create a money supply by issuing debt without a central bank. The U.S. did it for nearly a century. A central bank is supposed to make the coordination of the creation of the money supply and monetary policy more efficient. But central banks can also accelerate the consequences of bad decisions.

    you could have an economy that conducted commerce and a bank owned by someone and not controlled by the govt… right?

    “First – see the point about “real money”. Central banks operate exactly the same way as the individual banks in the creation of new money using debt. Look up “fractional reserve banking”. Perhaps some other source can explain this better than I have been able to do.”

    right – but I’m asking you think back when there were banks but NO CENTRAL BANK. Didn’t those banks exist and didn’t people work, earn money, put it in the bank…etc … without central banks?

    ” but get agreement on this part of how money works..?? first? ?”

    “I think most people understand that money exists to facilitate transactions. I don’t believe that most people know that it is created by a private group for public use.”

    in an economy without any central banks – don’t you have “money” and “banking”? without a “private” group controlling anything?

    isn’t that the way that banking worked before there were central banks?

    under a system of banks without a central bank – do you believe the “create money out of thin air” is still the process of people putting money in banks – and banks loaning that money out?

    this is a key point here in our discussions… Can you envision a time when there was money and banking but no central bank and if you can do you still believe that money was “created out of thin air”?

    I’m trying for us to find a time and place where we agree on how money did work.. before we bring in the Central Bank concept.

Leave a Reply