See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: National Review Goes on a Crazed Attack of Ron Paul Monetary Economics
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel161.html
Published: Feb 21, 2012
Author: Robert Wenzel
Post Date: 2012-02-21 13:35:26 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 144
Comments: 8
Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor of National Review, is out with a vicious hit piece on the monetary views of Ron Paul (Apparently after studying Austrian economics for two weeks.) The attack can only be described as ignorant and absurd. Salvadore Dali would be proud. Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that Ponnuru assigned this task to himself. He has a graduate degree in history from Princeton University, which seems to specialize in monetary quackery. The economics faculty includes (or has included) such economic cranks as Paul Krugman (who most recently missed the call on the turning economy that was right in front of him) and Ben Bernanke, who as Fed chairman crashed the economy (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here) and is setting the economy up for one of the greatest price inflations in the history of the United States. So what problems does Ponnuru find with Ron Paul monetary economics? Let us review. Ponnuru writes: In End the Fed, his 2009 book, Paul writes that a rotten monetary system underlies "the most vexing problems of politics." In his view, any expansion of the money supply counts as inflation, whether or not prices rise. He ignores to mention this is the classic definition of inflation. (Webster's New World Dictionary 1957) defines inflation as follows: 2. an increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and a rise in prices: it may be caused by an increase in the volume of paper money issued or of gold mined). Ponnuru then goes on to correctly identify other features of Ron Paul monetary economics: Paul follows the Austrian school of economics, which holds that the expansion of the money supply (or, in some variants, the overexpansion of it) is the reason we suffer through business cycles. Loose money artificially lowers interest rates and misleads businesses about the demand for capital goods, causing them to invest in the wrong lines of production. Eventually the "false" or "illusory" prosperity of the boom gives way to a bust in which these malinvestments have to be painfully liquidated. Efforts to mitigate the pain merely prolong the necessary process. In End the Fed, Paul treats the entire period from 1982 through 2009 as "one giant financial bubble" blown up by the central bank. (At one point he dates its beginning to 1971.) Absent his preferred reforms, "we should be prepared for hyperinflation and a great deal of poverty with a depression and possibly street violence as well." Monetary expansion is also, for Paul, a key enabler of what he takes to be our imperialist foreign policy: The creation of money out of thin air allows the government to finance wars, as well as the welfare state. Central banking is a form of central planning, on his theory, and as such "incompatible" with freedom. Paul allows that "not every supporter of the Fed is somehow a participant in a conspiracy to control the world." The rest of them, judging from comments repeatedly made in the book, have fallen for the delusion that expanding the money supply is a "magic means to generate prosperity." Paul finds it baffling that anyone could hold this absurd view, but attributes it to Chairman Bernanke, among others. So what does Ponnuru think of Dr. Paul's economics? He writes: Almost all of the criticisms Paul makes of central banking, when stated in the axiomatic form he prefers, are false. To put it more charitably, he assumes that the negative features that monetary expansion can have in some circumstances are its necessary properties. Ponnuru begins his attack: Consider, for example, a world in which the Federal Reserve conducts monetary policy so that the price level rises steadily at 2 percent a year. Savers, knowing this, will demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for the lost value of their money. If the Fed generates more inflation than they expected, as it did in the 1970s, then savers will suffer and borrowers benefit. If it undershoots expectations, as it has over the last few years, the reverse will happen. The anti-saver redistribution Paul decries is thus not a consequence of monetary expansion per se, but a consequence of an unpredictably large expansion. For the same reason, monetary expansion does not necessarily lead to less saving. This indicates that Ponnuru has read perhaps one book on Austrian economics, but has no deep understanding. It brings to mind a Boston Bruins head coach who tells the story of taking under his wing for two weeks a cub reporter who was assigned to cover the Bruins and knew nothing about hockey. After two weeks, the reporter was writing columns criticizing the head coach's line changes. The problem with a steady price level (if somehow that could actually be achieved over a long period of central bank manipulation) is that such a price level is the result of three components: Money supply, the demand to hold cash and productivity. Thus, if the Ponnuru desire to achieve a steady 2% price level is to be achieved during a period of high productivity, it would require huge amounts of money printing and result in massive capital-consumption structure distortions. Ponnuru would have understood this if he had read Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression. In AGD, Rothbard points out that prices were stable for the most part but actually falling in certain sectors through most of the 1920's, despite the fact that the Fed was printing money aggressively, because of high productivity. One shudders to think how much more money the Fed would have had to print to achieve Ponnuru's goal of 2% annual price level increase. Rothbard teaches that every dollar printed by the Fed, despite the price level, distorts the economy. Does Ponnuru need empirical evidence that this can occur? I direct him to the Great Depression itself. Thus, by focusing on a fixed annual price level, Ponnuru fails to understand the key Austrian insight that ANY money printing, regardless of the price level results in distortions of the capital-consumption structure. Here's Rothbard in AGD: One of the reasons that most economists of the 1920s did not recognize the existence of an inflationary problem was the widespread adoption of a stable price level as the goal and criterion for monetary policy. The extent to which the Federal Reserve authorities were guided by a desire to keep the price level stable has been a matter of considerable controversy. Far less controversial is the fact that more and more economists came to consider a stable price level as the major goal of monetary policy. The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the Great Depression caught them completely unaware. Actually, bank-credit expansion creates its mischievous effects by distorting price relations and by raising and altering prices compared to what they would have been without the expansion. Statistically, therefore, we can only identify the increase in money supply, a simple fact. We cannot prove inflation by pointing to price increases. We can only approximate explanations of complex price movements by engaging in a comprehensive economic history of an era – a task which is beyond the scope of this study. Suffice it to say here that the stability of wholesale prices in the 1920s was the result of monetary inflation offset by increased productivity, which lowered costs of production and increased the supply of goods. But this "offset" was only statistical. It did not eliminate the boom-bust cycle; it only obscured it. In other words, after studying Austrian economics for all of two weeks, Ponnuru has no f'ing clue as to what he is talking about. Austrians understand problems are caused by money printing, even when the price level is stable, something Ponnuru doesn't even discuss. Ponnuru goes on: Paul's contention that the Fed has continuously abetted the expansion of the state – its wars, its welfare, its attacks on civil liberties – is also false. The federal government uses its monopoly over the currency to finance very little of its spending.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
I would love to deport Ponnuru back to India.
"You shall have fun, no matter what you do." -- Turtle
The money-junkies are all crowing about the DJIA being above 13,000 today. Here's a post I made at ZeroHedge earlier today: This country is fucked seven ways from Sunday. Ron Paul knows that. yeah ;)
Actually I find problems with both viewpoints although I am closer to Mr. Wenzel's Austrian analysis. The point missed in both is that monetary expansion is a conditional. That is monetary expansion in the face of economic contraction results in excess money in circulation in comparison to the supply of goods in services. To simplify - new money is being produced beyond the level justified or supported by real economic output. The same occurs in an expanding economy IF the increase in money supply is greater than the increase in productivity i.e., the increase in the availability of new goods and services. Since inflation is best defined as the result of prices being bid up as a result of more money in circulation than the increase in new goods and services it can be simplified as "too many dollars chasing too few goods". Thus each subsequent dollar, printed excess of the true output of the economy, decreases in value to the degree that the excess exceeds production. Contrariwise too little money in circulation, or too small of an increase in the money supply, will stall an expanding economy. Think of money as the grease that keeps the wheels of commerce rolling - remove the grease and it will eventually, very quickly actually, seize up and grind to a halt. Now there's a dishonest crock of shit. When the Fed increases money in circulation it is offset by the issuance of Federal Bonds (except with the recent "Quantitative Easing" which has been the production of new money without economic support to support corrupt and failed Banks) which are a debt obligation of the Federal Government and hence the taxpayers. The point being that the government is both issuing bonds faster than the economy is expanding, but in turn the Fed issues new money which is the substance which fulfills the excess spending. In short any time the Federal Government spends more than it receives in tax money it is using its monopoly power over the creation of money to spend. And so what is financing all of the imperial wars? Deficit spending of course. As can be clearly seen from the foregoing deficit spending is both new debt and an expansion of the money supply and thus is, in a contracting economy, by definition INFLATIONARY. Check of proof: In 1970 a gallon of gas could be had for as little as 27 cents. Today is, conservatively, about 10 to 15 times that. The supply of oil has not declined it has in fact expanded. While it would be easy to digress into market manipulation, the real constant has been the increase in the money supply. A test of this would be to compare a sampling of prices for other goods and services in 1970 versus today. In 1970 a pound of hamburger was about 59 cents (less on sale), a loaf of bread about a quarter, and a bottle of pop 15 cents. Try getting any of those at that currently. All of those goods now WHOLESALE for more than the 1970 retail price. The real constant has been the Fed's inflationary actions in producing new money in excess of new production. From here the analysis becomes a little more tricky but I wanted to stay with basics. The two principles to remember are: 1. Monetary expansion in excess of the growth in the production of new goods and services is inflationary. 2. Federal Spending growth, including borrowing, in excess of the growth of the economy, when subsidized by the expansion of the money supply, is inflationary. It would seem that Mr. Ponnuru set for himself the task, not of doing an honest analysis, but to further sell the NeoScum Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace disinformation. The National Review continues to circle the bowl. Will someone please flush it again? That comment is 100% BS. His analogy is a joke. All a person need do is look at what happened to gas prices in the 70s. There was no shortage of oil but because the oil companies chose to store/hoard the oil instead of selling it the price went thru the roof. The same would happen with his wheat example. This is a major factor in the process of price fixing which was mastered by Rockefeller, Carnegie and others back in the early 1900s. And it completely ignores vertical and horizontal integration. The goal of this bogus argument is to lower wages either by forcing the employees to accept a reduced wage or by building an excessive inventory and then laying off the workers and still providing the products. When inventories begin to diminish they either hire previous workers back at a lower wage or other unemployed individuals who have suffered from the same type of same labor control fisaco. It fits right in with what a U.S senator told me when he came to visit his daughter who lived next door. He said when the economy is strong the working classes benefit at the expense of the rich. In other words, the rich do not benefit as much financially as do the working class folks. So, he said, when the economy goes in the dumps it is only fair that the rich be able to buy up houses, small businesses etc whose owners can no longer afford them at substantially reduced prices, hold on to them until the economy improves and then provide them/sell them at a huge profit. In other words, he said a strong economy means the rich are providing welfare to the working classes and a weak economy is when the rich should benefit for having provided this welfare to the working folks. This senator was one of Reagan's closest friends and advisors and he was a psycho.
In other words, he said a strong economy means the rich are providing welfare to the working classes and a weak economy is when the rich should benefit for having provided this welfare to the working folks. This senator was one of Reagan's closest friends and advisors and he was a psycho. His analysis, as you recognized, is fatally flawed. What he was really expressing, whether he recognized it or not, is that in an expanding economy all benefit - except established business with static production methods and/or out dated products. In an expending economy the producer who improves production methods, and consequently expands their production while reducing cost is going to out-compete the "old money" who benefit most from a static or declining economy which prevents competition from arising. In a prosperous and expanding economy more wealth is being created and this signals to individuals opportunity to produce to their own benefit. As the economy expands at a growing rate not only do the wealthy owners of the means of production benefit but so do the workers whose wages are increased to reflect their greater contribution. What the Senator was saying was that he did not think that the working man should be compensated fairly for his participation in expanding that pie. He seems to be arguing that the working man should accept an increasingly smaller piece of the larger pie while the managerial class enjoys an ever larger piece. While good management should be rewarded that does not mean or imply that the workers making the production increase should be shat upon and not benefit. That was basically the outlook of the Robber Barons and their murderous strike breakers. It is the philosophy that some should benefit at the expense of all and "devil take the hindmost". His argument is basically that whether or not rape is a crime depends upon who is getting raped. Exactly... www.nevadalabor.com/barbwire/barb97/barb4-13-97.html
One thing that IS bas about Austrian Economics and gold. Dis you know that most of the gold and virtually all current gold mining activity is owned or controlled by the same Banksters that control and own the fiat money central banks?
#2. To: christine (#0)
I couldn't quickly find any historical charts of the 1990s peak but I found this on wiki:
"On May 3, 1999, the Dow achieved its first close above the 11,000 mark (11,014.70)."
So, poking 11,000 & 1999 into your BLS calculator, the Dow would have to be north of 30,000 just to be equal to what it was in the '90s. Super.
Thirty thousand, thirteen thousand, I guess they sound a lot alike anyway.
NASDAQ's still gonna be a whole 'nother story. :)
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#3. To: Esso (#2)
Thirty thousand, thirteen thousand, I guess they sound a lot alike anyway.
#4. To: christine (#0)
Paul's contention that the Fed has continuously abetted the expansion of the state – its wars, its welfare, its attacks on civil liberties – is also false. The federal government uses its monopoly over the currency to finance very little of its spending.
#5. To: christine (#0)
3. Keynes is constantly confusing the real interest of workers with their illusions regarding their interests. Take this strange sentence from page 14: "Any individual or group of individuals, who consent to a reduction of money-wages relatively to others, will suffer a relative reduction in real wages, which is a sufficient justification fort hem to resist it." To see how bad this argument is, let us try to apply it to commodities. We would then have to say, for instance, that if wheat fell in price relatively to corn, the wheat farmers would be "justified" in combining to refuse to accept the lower price. If they did so, of course, they would simply leave part of their wheat unsold on the market. The result of this would be to hurt both wheat farmers and wheat consumers .In a free, fluid, workable economy relative changes in prices are taking place every day. There are as many "gainers" as "losers" by the process. If the "losers" refused to accept the situation, and kept their prices frozen (or raised them as much as "the general level" had risen), the result would merely be to freeze the economy, restrict consumption, and lower production, particularly of the goods that otherwise have fallen relatively in price. This is precisely what happens in the labor field when the members of a single union refuse to accept a "relative" reduction of realwage-rates. By refusing to accept it they do not, in fact,improve their position. They merely bring about unemployment, particularly in their own ranks, and hurt their own interests as well as those of the entrepreneurs who employ them. Keynes remained blind to the most glaring fact in real economic life – that prices and wages never (except perhaps in a totalitarian state) change uniformly or as a unit,but always "relatively."
#6. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#5)
(Edited)
It fits right in with what a U.S senator told me when he came to visit his daughter who lived next door. He said when the economy is strong the working classes benefit at the expense of the rich. In other words, the rich do not benefit as much financially as do the working class folks. So, he said, when the economy goes in the dumps it is only fair that the rich be able to buy up houses, small businesses etc whose owners can no longer afford them at substantially reduced prices, hold on to them until the economy improves and then provide them/sell them at a huge profit.
#7. To: Original_Intent (#6)
His argument is basically that whether or not rape is a crime depends upon who is getting raped.
#8. To: christine (#0)
The FARO RESERVE BANK!!! 
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest