This book is a simply written, illustrated allegory which details how economies grow and what can cause economic collapse.  The book begins with three men who are stranded on an isolated island.  The men spend all day fishing just to catch enough fish to barely survive.  After a time, one of the men underconsumes and is able to use his savings to increase the number of fish that he catches.  From this action, an island economy is born.

The story continues for generations and generations (immigrants eventually come to the island) as the island’s economy continues to develop.  I will refrain from giving specific details about the economic expansion so as not to ruin this book.

The chapters contain “Reality Checks” which simply relate the material in the chapter to real life by defining the concepts which are outlined.  In these short sections, the Schiffs explain things like underconsumption, productivity, savings, risk, and so on.  The “Reality Checks” help readers who may have little or no understanding of economics understand basic economics principles.

At the end of each section is a much more detailed (but still simple and easy to understand) section called “Takeaway.”  These sections elaborate on the lessons from the chapter and give further explanation of the underlying economic principles.  They greatly enhance the book by providing the reader with a nice overview as well as a great segue to the next chapter.  The “Reality Check” and “Takeaway” sections both help move the story along and are features which would be great in other books on economics.

The first 5 chapters of this book are absolutely amazing.  The Schiffs do an excellent job of using humor to make reading about economics fun and easy to follow.  They explain the causes of a growing economy (and the effects of a growing economy on society) in a manner that is easy for anyone to understand, regardless of their economic background.

In chapter 6, however, things took a slight turn for the worst.  In this chapter, the Schiffs explain the foundation of a banking system.  I have heard Peter Schiff give speeches on this in the past–his speeches are great and include detailed information on the historical evolution of banking.  It is always interesting to hear Schiff speak about this and I wish that he had included more of this information in his book.  For some reason or another, the Schiffs do not tell the full story of the evolution of the banking system.  This is somewhat perplexing, as he wrote about this quite nicely in his bestselling (and highly recommended by me) book, Crash Proof.  I have also seen him give numerous speeches on this subject, all of which were great speeches which gave this full history.  The failure to include this can certainly be excused, as the Schiffs’ book was surely intended to be a brief, simple overview of how an economy works.

The “Takeaway” section of chapter 6 was also somewhat perplexing.  There was a disconnect between the material in the chapter and the “Takeaway” section which is likely to confuse some readers.  In this section, the Schiffs launch an attack on the Federal Reserve system without explaining to the reader exactly how this ties in with the information in the early part of the chapter.  While I fully agree with the Schiffs on the Federal Reserve, an uninformed reader might have a little trouble understanding the Schiffs’ early critiques of the Federal Reserve System.  To their credit, however, the Schiffs do properly explain this later.

I do want to point out to my reader that this chapter is my only real criticism of the book and that while it is worth pointing out, it does not take much away from what is truly an excellent book.

Following this section, the Schiffs continue to brilliantly explain the evolution of a developing economy into a major economic player.  While the time line is a little off (something that the Schiffs warn the readers of in the introduction), the Schiffs paint a largely accurate picture of the history of the American economy and the growth of the American government (especially with regards to its intervention in the economy).

I wont give away the ending, but the economy in the book suffers a fate similar to that of the American economy during the current economic crisis–the title promises to explain how an economy crashes, so I dont think that Im giving anything away.  However, the Schiffs looks into the future and offers a glimpse of what the future of the American economy might look like if we do not quickly enact sound monetary policies.  Given Peter Schiff’s history of correctly predicting the course of the economy, his prediction is certainly worth taking into account.

My rating:

Strongly recommend:  9/10

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Many of the proposed solutions to this issue will improve the situation now, but create larger problems in the future.  However, there are some things that the Federal Reserve can do that will improve the current situation without mortgaging the future to do so.

As I wrote in my previous article, the Federal Reserve requires that banks maintain 10% of all checking deposits on hand.  For savings accounts, the reserve requirement is essentially zero (I say essentially because the Federal Reserve requires than banks hold a very small amount of money on hand in order to clear small overnight transactions, but when compared to the trillions of dollars held in savings accounts, this requirement is essentially zero).

Is this reserve requirement too high,  too low, or what?

To answer this question, we must first take a brief look at some of the important features of our monetary system [although the information below seems like a lot, I must assure you that it is brief and that numerous books have been written on the subject].  The information below can be found in many sources and I will be happy to provide them for you like.

Money is a medium of exchange.  We all know that exchange is necessary in just about every economy, and especially in one as large and developed as ours.  Without trade, each person would have to be self sufficient–they would have to grow their own food, make their own shoes and clothing, build their own houses, brew their own beer, and so on.

Trade allows each person to work in the field in which they have the greatest “comparative advantage,” when compared with others.  This simply means that people will choose to do the job that they are best at when compared to others.  For example, if I can grow 5000 pounds of wheat per day or work as a receptionist and answer 20 calls per day, while you could grow 1000 pounds of wheat per day or work as a receptionist and answer only 10 calls per day, I should seek employment as a wheat farmer and you should seek employment as a receptionist.  I might be better at both jobs that you are, but I have the “comparative advantage” in farming and thus should be a farmer.

In an economy with only two goods, exchange is easy–”I will grow wheat for you if you will answer my phones,” but as the economy expands this becomes harder to do.  It becomes difficult to make exchanges with someone in a barter economy if both parties do not have the goods that the other party wants.  As economist Walter Block explains the situation [page 200]:

“Consider the plight of the person who has in his possession a barrel of pickles which he would like to trade for a chicken.  He must find someone who has a chicken and would like to trade it for a barrel of pickles.  Imagine how rare a coincidence would have to occur for the desires of each of these people to be met.  Such a “double coincidence of wants” is so rare, in fact, that both people would naturally gravitate toward an intermediary, if one were available.  For example, the chicken-wanting pickle owner could trade his wares to the middleman for a more marketable commodity (gold) and then use the gold to buy a chicken.  If he did, it would no longer be necessary for him to find a chicken-owning pickle wanter.  Any chicken owner will do, whether he wants pickles or not.  Obviously, the trade is vastly simplified by the advent of the middleman.  He makes a double coincidence of wants unnecessary.”

If the government doesnt outlaw competing currencies, competition takes place over which good will be used as the “medium of exchange” until one or a few goods wins out and becomes widely accepted and used.  This material serves the same role as a middle man, it connects potential buyers and sellers in an efficient manner and facilitates trade.  Historically, from the time of the ancients to the Greeks and Romans, to the later Europeans, to the Chinese, Aztecs, Mayans, and so on, gold and silver have won out and been widely used as currencies.

Originally, banks were little more than storage facilities.   After all, if gold or silver is used in every transaction, it probably isnt smart to have all of your gold and silver lying around your house (especially back in the days before alarm systems).  People would bring their gold or silver to banks and would receive a receipt detailing the measure of either gold or silver, and often a description of the quality (ie, the receipt would read: 1 oz, 18KT Gold).  Over time, the receipts from the more reputable deposit facilities began to be used in everyday transactions.  If I held a receipt from a well known bank that promised the holder 1 oz of gold and I needed to purchase a product that cost the equivalent of 1 oz of gold, I might be able to convince the seller of the product to accept my receipt instead of making me go to the bank.

So, through time, these receipts began circulating and were known to be as “good as gold.”  Eventually, these receipts began to look more and more like what paper currency looks like today.  Here is a picture of some of these notes.  The image below is not to scale, but if you click the picture it will take you to the properly scaled image:

Often times, banks would realize that there was little chance that all customers would demand their gold or silver at once.  In these cases, banks would issue new currency that wasnt backed up and they would hope that people wouldnt redeem all of their notes at once.  Although dishonest and fraudulent, this was generally not a big problem for the economy as a whole–people were usually smart enough to deposit their money in banks that had the reputation of maintaining 100% reserves.

However, the government (governments both inside and outside of the United States) responded to this banking system by doing what it does best–interfering in the arrangements of private individuals.  Thus, governments often required that all banks redeem all bank notes, and not just their own notes.  This created a “moral hazard” problem because banks essentially had no reason to maintain high reserves.  When banks were not required to redeem the notes from other banks, they had an incentive to make sure that they kept high reserves (if they failed to do so, they would go out of business).  But, when the government required them to accept all notes, they knew that they could issue as many notes as they wanted and that these notes would be redeemed by other banks throughout the country.

This situation was one of the main causes of several banking crises in the 1800′s, including the Panic of 1819.  Furthermore, branch banking was prohibited which meant that banks had a tougher time dealing with the seasonal borrowing demands of their customers (ie, farmers might need to borrow more money during harvesting season and less after they have sold their crops).

And, while the “free banking period” has been described by many economists as the most stable period of banking in American history, what little instability that did exist was due to government intervention.  The most important government interventions were the ones mentioned above–the requirement that banks accept the notes of all banks and the prohibition on branch banking.

The government was able to use these problems as a justification for moving the banking system in a new direction.  Under this 2nd phase, the government prohibited banks from printing privately issued currency, but still allowed Americans to redeem their government issued bank notes for gold and silver.

This phase continued from the end of the Civil War through the early 1930′s, when President Roosevelt confiscated all gold and silver coins in the economy and changed the redemption rate of gold from around $20/oz to $35/an ounce (imagine losing 40% of the value of your money in one night).

During this third phase, money was still denominated in gold and silver, but could not be redeemed by American citizens.  Only foreign citizens and governments could redeem money for gold or silver.

This phase continued for several decades until 1971, when President Nixon removed America from the gold standard completely.  He was concerned with the rising costs of the Vietnam War and the entitlement programs of the Great Society, and became convinced that America’s economy would survive just fine off of a gold standard.  Not coincidentally, his move was followed by over a decade of record (for America) inflation, double digit unemployment, high interest rates, and general economic decline.  In this fourth phase, the American economy has been victim to a large number of economic booms, followed by economic busts, the national debt has soared, the value of the dollar has plumeted (the dollar has lost around 97% of its value, measured against gold since 1971).

To prevent massive rates of inflation and to restore order to the economy, the Federal Reserve must leave behind the policies that they have been following in recent decades.  One important step that it can do to achieve this is to announce a schedule for increasing reserve requirements until banks reach a level of 100% reserves.

Why 100% reserves?

Think back to the history of the banking system described above.  A bank deposit, whether redeemable for gold or cash is nothing more than an agreement between a bank and a person for the bank to hold some money now and return it later, on demand.

Thus, if I deposit $100 in a bank, the bank owes me $100.  That $100 is my property and is only being held by the bank.

Because that $100 is still my property, the bank has no [moral] right to loan out my property to someone else.  The Federal Reserve’s fractional reserve banking system exacerbates this problem because if I deposit $100 in a bank, they are only required to keep $10 on hand and can loan out the remaining $90 and thus create money out of thin air.  I described this process in detail in my last article, but this can result in $100 turning into nearly $1000.

My bank receipt entitles me to withdraw the $100 that I deposited, but there are 9 other people who now have receipts entitling them to withdraw that same money.  Thus is because there is now $100 in cash and $1000 in deposits. But this system is inherently immoral, after all, how can it be possible that 10 people own a legal title to the same property.

It is difficult to create an analogy that fits this situation because this practice itself seems like it just cannot be true.  Imagine that you go out of town on a long vacation and drop your car off the airport’s long term parking lot.  Pretend for the sake of this example that this lot is a valet lot and that you have handed the keys off to an attendant.  The attendant realizes that you will not be back for several months and decides to rent the car out to a friend for the next month.  This is immoral because the attendant has sold the rights to something that he does not own, but it is likely not to cause a problem as long as you dont come home early.  But, suppose you do come home earlier than expected to deal with an unexpected problem.  You will discover that the right to use your car is now being claimed by another person.  This clearly creates a problem, afterall, two people cannot both fully own the same property.

Banks act in a similar manner, however, their game is much less honest and much more problematic.  They essentially act as attendants who lend out your car to 9 other people (instead of just one) and hope that everyone’s schedules align just right so that no one will discover the fraud that has taken place.  The creation of new money by banks leads to price inflation and bubbles in the economy at first, but always ends in an economic downturn and bank failures.

As economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote:  “Two individuals cannot be the exclusive owner of one and the same thing at the same time…  This is an immutable principle; it is a law of action and nature that no contract can change or invalidate.  Rather, any contractual agreement that involves presenting two different individuals as simultaneous owners of the same thing is.. objectively false and thus fradulent.  Yet this is precisely what a fractional-reserve agreement between bank and customer involves.”

This system functions fine as long as Americans use debit cards rather than cash, but even a small increase in the demand for cash (as opposed to debit cards) can cause bank failures.

It is this artificial creation of money which causes temporary economic booms (whether it be in the form of a housing bubble, a dot com bubble, or something else), but these booms are inevitably followed by a bursting of the bubble and widespread economic chaos.  This current economic crisis is the result of a rapid expansion of the money supply, low interest rates, and government intervention into the housing sector.

Requiring banks to maintain a 100% reserve requirement would tighten credit and would make it harder for banks to make poor investments.  Thus, bubbles dont emerge and they dont burst.  The economy functions much more smoothly and banks forced to respect the property rights of their customers.

However, banks cannot currently be required to hold 100% reserves without causing a lot of people to lose a lot of their hard earned money.  But, this doesnt mean that we cannot begin the transition.

Currently, banks are “only” required to maintain a total of $67.041 billion.  Because there are no reserve requirements for savings accounts and a 10% reserve requirement on checking deposits, this means that there is around $670.41 billion held in checking accounts.  There is just over $1.05 trillion held by banks in “excess reserves,” meaning that there is a total of $1117.436 in reserves.  Thus, it would be no problem for the Federal Reserve to require that banks hold 100% reserves for checking deposits.  Banks would still hold around $400 billion in excess reserves and banks would no longer be able to create a situation where multiple people own titles to the same money.

But doing so could cause other problems.  There would still be a disparity between required reserves for checking accounts and savings accounts.  Banks could get around this problem by urging customers to move their checking deposits into savings accounts.  So, any solution to this problem must require that checking accounts and savings accounts be subject to the same reserve requirements.

If we were to begin the process by requiring that banks hold 20% of both checking and savings deposits, the situation would be much better.  There is currently $5.0455 trillion held in American savings accounts.  Thus, a 20% requirement would mean that banks would need to hold $1.0091 trillion.  If we add 20% of checking accounts [$134.082 billion], we are left with a requirement of $1,143,182,000,000 which puts us just under the amount of money actually held in reserves by American banks.  If banks are given several weeks or even a month to meet these new requirements, they would easily be able to do so by restricting their lending.

In order to get to a 100% reserve requirement, it would actually be acceptable for the government/Federal Reserve to print additional money, as long as it did not expand the money supply beyond what was necessary to get to 100% reserves.  The reason for this is that there is a great deal of money that is in the economy but that is not in print.  Recall from above that a $100 deposit can easily become nearly $1000, but only $100 in cash actually exists.  If we are to require 100% reserves and still prevent bank failures and people losing their deposits, it would be acceptable for the government to print the additional $900 created in the above example and send it to the banks.  This would mean nothing more than the government printing money that was already in existence on the ledgers of banks, and will make the transition to 100% reserve banking much smoother and quicker.

Would a 100% reserve requirement stifle economic growth?

If banks are required to maintain 100% reserves, it is clear that they will loan out less money.  While this is true, it does not mean that economic growth will be stifled.

Banks will still be able to make loans under a 100% reserve requirement.  These loans would be made from funds deposited in CDs.  CDs are a form of time deposit bank accounts in which a customer will deposit funds in an account for a specified time at a specified interest rate.  For example, a customer might deposit $100 in 1 year CD at a 5% APR.  During this period, the customer is not allowed to access their funds.  After the year, the customer would receive $105 and they would be allowed to roll the funds over into another CD or withdraw their funds.  The banks would be able to pay this sum by loaning that $100 out to a borrower at a rate higher than 5%.

Thus, banks would still be allowed to loan out funds and borrowers would still be able to receive loans to purchase houses, expand their businesses, or for any other purpose.  Loans would be made without banks arbitrarily creating new money.  Bank failures would no longer be a threat because banks would be required to maintain 100% reserves.  Interest rates would adjust naturally and would reflect the market prices for agreements between bank customers, banks, and borrowers, with banks essentially serving as middlemen between lenders (depositors) and borrowers.

Sound Money

Maintaining a 100% reserve is a great first step, but it should not be seen as the last.  The banking system must be integrated with the Federal Reserve’s supply of gold.  This would return us to the days when money was actually money (a medium of exchange that had value to people) and not just numbers printed on paper.  It would return us to a stable banking system and we would see the return of stable and slightly falling prices (which was the norm from 1800-1913).

The first thing that we need to do is figure out what the new total money supply would be if there were 100% reserves.  If we add the $5.0455 trillion held in savings accounts and the $670.41 billion held in checking accounts, we come to the total of $5.71591 trillion.

The Federal Reserve currently holds 261.5 million oz of gold.  Strangely, they value this gold at $42.22 per oz, even though the current market value of gold is around $1,200 per oz.

In order to readjust the value of gold relative to the dollar, we must divide the $5.71951 trillion by the 261.5 million oz of gold.  After doing so, we find that gold would need to be pegged at the new price of $21,871.93 per oz (as of Monday, May 24, 2010).

This change in the price of gold would not cause problems in the economy or even cause a massive price inflation.  It would essentially mean multiplying the price of everything the same number, meaning that all wages, prices, and costs would move together and would do so only one time.  This is the case if and only if banks are required to maintain 100% reserves.

If we multiply everyone’s income, wealth, and the prices they pay for goods and services by 18, then no one is made any better or worse off by this intervention.  But, what we have done is stabilize the banking system in order to ensure that everyone actually has a claim to their own funds.  This would be far better than the current system, in which multiple people hold claims to the same money.  It would also prevent the Federal Reserve and other banks from engaging in monetary inflation which can lead to price inflation, the boom and bust business cycle, and a destabilized economy.

Then What?

Following these measures, the Federal Reserve and its member banks must guarantee that customers may redeem their money for its equivalent value in gold.  This move is common sense: if we are to return to sound money and to a gold standard, we must ensure that money is redeemable in gold.  This would essentially make paper money equivalent to a ticket which can be exchanged for gold at any time.

After this is done, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department must take the necessary steps to allow competing currencies.  While gold has historically been the commodity chosen to serve as the medium of exchange, other metals including copper and silver have been used as well.  The government must allow banks to issue their own currencies which can be denominated in which ever manner the issuing banks/mints choose.

It will be up to retail stores, businesses, and individuals to decide which currencies they will accept as payment for their services.  The differences in currencies will undoubtedly be smoothed out by banks issuing debit cards which allow merchants to accept payments in the currency of their choice, despite the fact that the person paying for the services may be paying in a different currency.  If this sounds unfeasible, think about what happens when you go out of the country and make purchases: you pay for goods in a foreign country using your debit or credit card, the foreign merchant gets paid in his local currency, you pay in American dollars, and the bank facilitates the transaction.  The same process could occur at merchants within the United States with little difficulty.

The Federal Reserve and Congress have the ability to stop hyperinflation, further banking failures, the business cycle, and other economic disruptions.  However, their ability to do so depends on the implementation of the above policies.  We must return to a situation where each dollar was only owned by one person.  It is just not feasible to have a situation where two individuals have the same legal claim to ownership over the same property.  We must return to sound money, backed by a commodity which itself is valued by individuals.  We must end the legal monopoly status of Federal Reserve notes and allow individuals to accept payments and pay for goods and services with the currency of their choice.  Failure to do so could have consequences dire enough to make the current economic crisis look like a drop in the bucket.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Ok, clearly the chart above indicates that something unprecedented and drastic has been happening in our banking system for the past two years.  But you are likely asking “what does this mean?”

The United States’ banking system is a fractional reserve system, meaning that banks are not required to hold 100% of the money deposited.  Currently, the reserve requirement (the percentage of deposits that banks are required to maintain) is 10% for checking accounts.  Thus, if you were to deposit $100 of your money into a checking account, the bank would legally be required to keep $10 and could lend out $90 to those borrowing money from the bank.  Any amount they kept on hand above $10 would be considered “excess reserves.”

For those interested, the data used to make the above graph can be found here.  A quick glance at either the data or the graph shows that for most of the past 50 years, banks have maintained reserves at levels very close to the levels mandated by the Federal Reserve.  On August 1st, 2008, banks maintained excess reserves of $1.875 billion.  One month later, excess reserves shot up to $59.482 billion.  On October 1st, excess reserves equaled $267.159 billion, reaching $558.821 billion on November 1st, and $767.332 billion on December 1st.  On April 1st, 2010 (the last date for which data is available), excess reserves totaled just over $1.05 TRILLION, or around 1000 times higher than they were 20 months earlier!

You are likely still asking what all this means.

Well…

What this means is that banks are keeping reserves on hand above and beyond the ratios required by the Federal Reserve.  Banks are likely doing this for several reasons:

1)  The banks know that many of they loans they initiated over the past several years are likely to default.  These loans were purchased by these banks using the cheap credit made available by increases in the money supply and low interest rates.  Thus, banks are keeping the “excess” capital on hand so that they can pay the interest on the money that they borrowed to make these faulty loans–even if there is a large number of loan defaults.

2)  This ties in with the reason above, but these banks are worried about the consequences of asking for another large bailout from American taxpayers.  The government bailed out these banks a year and a half ago, despite widespread public opposition and used the rationale that doing so would save the economy.  However, since this bailout, the economy has only worsened.  The banks know that it is unlikely that the American people would be as willing to allow their government to hand rich bankers taxpayer money again.

OK, so the banks arent lending right now, but what does this mean?

There is another major reason why the banks arent lending: we are in the midst of a pretty serious recession.  No one knows how long it will last, and my guess is that no one really knows just how bad it is right now.  With the exception of the Austrian Economists, not too many economists out there even say this crisis coming–much less lasting this long.

With so many people unemployed, so many businesses failing, and so few businesses expanding (or new businesses being opened), there just isnt a massive demand for loans.  This gives banks another reason to continue to hold “excess” reserves.

But, the economy is slowly starting to pick up.  As this happens, banks will begin to loan out more money and will eventually start to lower their reserves until they reach levels of excess reserves near the historical rate (in other words, near zero).  In fact, it is already happening:  On February 1st, excess reserves were $1.162 trillion, on March 1st, excess reserves were $1.120 trillion, and on April 1st, excess reserves were $1.05 trillion.  In other words, banks decreased their excess reserves by about 9.6% between February 1st and March 1st.

As the economy recovers and banks make additional loans, this will increase the supply of money in the economy.  An artificial increase in the supply of money is, simply put, not good.  When there is more money in the economy chasing after similar amounts of goods and services, the result can be nothing else but an increase in prices (relative to what prices would have been without the increase in the money supply).

The effects of the increases in lending brought about by an economic recovery will increase the money supply by much much more than $1 trillion.  As mentioned above, under our fractional reserve system, banks are only required to hold 10% of checking deposits and are able to lend out the remaining 90% to borrowers.  However, the process doesnt stop there:  if you deposit $100, the bank holds $10 and loans out $90 to someone else.  When that person deposits their money in a checking account, their bank is then able to loan out $81 while only holding $9, and so on.  As this process continues, banks effectively create (out of thin air) over 9 times the money that is held in their vaults and your $100 becomes nearly $1000 in the economy:

Thus measure of money supply is known as the M2 money supply.  Thus, if banks return to their historical activities and maintain reserves at a level just above the reserve requirement rate, the result could be an increase in the M2 money supply of around $10 trillion.  Currently, the total M2 money supply is just over $8.4 trillion, thus if banks start to lend out their excess reserves, the M2 money supply will more than double.

The implications of this are quite sobering.  If the economy does not improve and continues to muddle along, things will be bad.  Unemployment will remain high or possibly even creep higher, the stock market will continue to drop, people will continue to suffer and so on.

However, if the economy shows marked improvement and begins to accelerate, things will be much worse.  At first, this might seem counter intuitive, but we must remember to take the above information into account.  When the economy improves, banks will start to lend out their “excess” reserves.  Because of the fractional reserve nature of the United States’ banking system, each dollar that banks hold in excess reserves has the potential to become nearly $10 when loaned out.

At first, this will make it look like the economy is growing at a very fast rate.  After all, the newly created money is being spent by lenders to purchase things that werent being purchased before.  The increased demand for these goods raises their prices (and initially the profits of the businesses selling these goods).  This may result in a rise in wages for the employees in that sector of the economy.  However, when monetary inflation occurs at a rate as high as the rates we are likely to see, this phenomena spreads throughout the whole economy.  Thus, prices and wages will generally rise throughout the economy.

Anyone who thinks that this is a good thing is fundamentally wrong.  We often are presented with the argument that increasing the money supply increases incomes and is necessary because without such increases “there wouldnt be enough money to go around.”  As economist Tom Woods wrote in his best selling book, Meltdown, “It is to misconceive the nature and purpose of money completely to think its supply needs to expand in order to allow more transactions to take place.”  In fact, in a system with a stable money supply, “prices fall over time and the value of money rises.”  The reason for this is that “as output increases, the monetary unit simply gains in purchasing power.”

Monetary inflation (and the resulting price inflation) does not mean greater standards of living–the opposite is true.  What monetary inflation does do is destabilize the economy, increase the inequality of wealth distribution, and make society less better off than it would be under a stable monetary system.

Just ask the citizens of Zimbabwe if the massive increase in their nation’s money supply have made them better off.  In 1980, each Zimbabwe dollar was worth $1.59.  After 30 years of constantly increasing the money supply, their economy is in shambles, and their money is worth less than the paper it is printed on.   “In March 2007 Zimbabwe’s inflation rate passed 50% a month, a good threshold for defining “hyperinflation” and equal to 12,875% a year. Since then, it’s gotten much worse.” In late 2008, their price inflation rate reached the incomprehensible rate of “80 billion percent a month. That means around 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent a year–or 65 followed by 107 zeros. To get a handle on it, realize that it’s equivalent to inflation of 98% a day. Prices double every 24.7 hours.”

Well then, if the argument that printing new money makes everyone in the economy better off has even a slight grain of truth in it, then Zimbabwe must be among the richest country in the world!  After all, Zimbabwe is following the economic philosophy of the “brilliant” John Maynard Keynes and his disciples who have argued that increases in the money supply bring about prosperity by accelerating spending.  Everyone knows that this is not the case, however.  Zimbabwe is among the poorest nations in the entire world and recorded a 94% unemployment rate last January.

Does this same fate await America?  Lets just say that something like this is possible.  The Federal Reserve has been printing money for too long and has accelerated these practices in recent years and months.  With a low reserve rate of only 10%, the Federal Reserve is just asking for trouble; when the economy recovers, things have the potential to spiral out of control quickly and result in a massive and destructive hyperinflation.

Yes, this can be slowed or even stopped.  But, before you get your hopes up, ask yourself  if the US government has ever learned from its mistakes or the mistakes of others.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

The government passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially mandated banks to loan to people who would not have been able to obtain loans otherwise.  Then, the government and the Federal Reserve created money out of thin air and lent it to banks at absurdly low rates.  Flush with new and cheap money, these banks massively increased their lending to “sub-prime” borrowers (begin bubble).  With the money supply growing at unprecedented rates in the 1990′s and this decade, there was always enough money for banks to make loans.  Borrowers were able to take out second mortgages at very low rates.  Home builders rapidly built houses to meet soaring (bubble-induced) demand.

As with all bubbles, this one burst, leaving home builders unable to sell newly built houses and borrowers unable to meet their obligations.  Banks had sold off the rights to their lender’s payments so they would have more money to make new loans.  This left the banks in the same boat as homeowners who could not make their payments.  But, while homeowners and home builders had to file for bankruptcy and sell off their assets to pay their debts, the banks used their lobbyists, fear, and their ownership of the Federal Reserve to convince our government to bal them out.

The government and the Federal Reserve then printed up a bunch of money–they simply created it out of thin air–and gave it to the banks in exchange for ownership.

This happened on October 3rd, 2008.  I can understand the government’s perverse rationale that led it to bail out these banks.  What I can not understand is why, over a year later, the government continues to own large stakes in these banks.

The government has now taken to regulating the salaries of banking officials, as well as the actions and practices of these banks.

So, it comes as no surprise to the observant that the government would use its power and control to create perverse incentives.

Bank of America and Citigroup–two firms now under the ownership of the federal government have begun implementing new fees.  These fees are not on late payments, gong over one’s credit limit, or cash advances.  Instead, these government owned banks have announced fees for customers who regularly pay off their balances.  Customers who leave monthly balances on their cards will not be charged the fees.

A fee is similar to a tax (especially if t is levied by a government owned entity).  Both taxes and fees use pricing to create incentives to change behavior.

Because Bank of America and Citigroup are owned by the government, a fee on those who pay off their balances regularly can be viewed as a tax on them.  Because those who leave monthly balances on their cards are exempt from these fees, this can be viewed as a subsidy for those who leave balances.

Our government is creating perverse and dangerous incentives: they are incentivizing debt and discouraging good and proper financial habits.

But, you cant hardly be surprised by this.  After all:  our perverse government’s perverse actions do tend to lead to perverse incentives.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I recommend posting the following messages on Facebook or anywhere else you think would be a good place to speard this message.  We now have 25 sponsors and cosponsors of this bill in the Senate (and I know of two more Senators who support the bill but have yet to cosponsor it). We need to keep pushing if we want this bill to pass.

Please make your calls and pass this information onto your friends and family.

Status for Monday, September 14:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 25 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Thomas Carper (DE) (202) 224-2441. Republican: John Kyl (AZ) (202) 224-4521. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Tuesday, September 15:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 25 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Evan Bayh (IN) (202) 224-5623. Republican: Lamar Alexander (TN) (202) 224-4944. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Wednesday, September 16:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 25 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Sherrod Brown (OH) (202) 224-2315. Republican: Thad Cochran (MS) (202) 224-5054. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Thursday, September 17:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 25 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Robert Casey (PA) (202) 224-6324. Republican: Susan Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Friday, September 18:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 25 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Kent Conrad (ND) (202) 224-2043. Republican: Richard Lugar (IN) (202) 224-4814. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Its a very interesting podcast and he hits on the health care debate from a different perspective than I usually do.  My interview starts at around 16:35.

Please check out Walter’s blog as well.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Ben Bernanke started as Chairman of the Federal Reserve on February 1, 2006–about two years before the economic crisis fully blossomed.  While his policies are not responsible for the onset of the crisis, they have done little to help the situation.  Chairman Bernanke has consistently been wrong about his assessments of the economy since he began his tenure:

I think that nominating Ben Bernanke for a second term is a careless move on President Obama’s part.  For one, the man ran on a platform of “change.”  He hit the Republicans and President Bush particulary hard on two main issues–the administrations handling of the war(s) and the administration’s handling on the economy.

And yet, in his first year of office, President Obama has continued to allow President Bush’s Secretary of Defense to serve, as well as allowing President Bush’s choice for Federal Reserve Chairman to stay on.  Selecting a new Federal Reserve Chairman would have been a great opportunity for the President to reinforce his message of “change.”  He could have dumped Chairman Bernanke and blamed President Bush for the economic crisis in the process.  By renominating Chairman Bernanke, President Obama has taken ownership of the economy, and tacitly accepted President Bush’s decisions with regard to the crisis.

This will be one of the moments that will come back and bite President Obama in the 2012 Presidential elections.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I usually say something like “hello, i am calling to find out if the Senator has decided to support Senate bill 604.”

There is usually a pause or they ask what bill that is.

I let them know that it is the bill to audit the federal reserve.

Then they usually tell me that the Senator hasnt released a statement on the bill yet, but that they’d be happy to pass along my opinions on the bill.

So I say something like “I think that Senator (XXXX) should absolutely support this bill. this bill is about transparency.  I think its a good thing for Americans to know where the trillions of dollars in bailout money has gone.

Then I reference how Democratic representative Alan Grayson asked Ben Bernanke which foreign central banks received $500 billion in money from the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke–the Chairman of the Federal Reserve did not know.  I tell them to check out one of the youtube clips of this testimony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ&NR=1).

I reiterate the point that this bill is about transparency, and then I remind them that the Federal Reserve is a private institution that controls our Nation’s money supply and that it has never been audited in its 95 year history and that the American people deserve to know what happening with our money.

Then i say something like “please let the Senator know that I would really appreciate it if he would support this bill, thank them and then get off the phone.  It usually takes about a minute and a half or less.  Easy stuff.

As I said on Friday, I started an effort to bombard Senators’ offices with phone calls to let them know about this bill.  Hundreds of calls are being made for this effort daily.  If you are on Facebook, please consider adopting the following statuses this week.  If you arent on Facebook, please get the word out about this bill and the effort to call these Senators any way that you can.

For those of you who havent read the bill, here it is.  The bill itself  is 335 words (337 if you count the words “a bill) and has no scary legalese to it..

Status for Monday, August 3rd:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Jeff Bingaman (NM) (202) 224-5521. Republican: Jon Kyl (AZ) (202) 224-4521. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Tuesday, August 4th:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Herb Kohl (WI) (202) 224-5653. Republican: Lamar Alexander (TN) (202) 224-4944. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Wednesday, August 5th:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Daniel Akaka (HI) (202) 224-6361. Republican: Judd Gregg (NH) (202) 224-3324. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Thursday, August 6th:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Daniel Inouye (HI) (202) 224-3934. Republican: John Ensign (NV) (202) 224-6244. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Friday, August 7th:

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Ron Wyden (OR) (202) 224-5244. Republican: John Thune (SD) (202) 224-2321. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

If you can take two minutes out of your day every weekday and call these Senators about this bill, we can get it passed.  We are now 8 House members away from having a veto-proof majority in the House, with persistence we can get a majority in the Senate.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

There are currently 280 sponsors and cosponsors of this bill in the House of Representatives.  This is enough to pass the bill with a substantial majority and only 11 supporters short of a veto-proof majority!

Remember, this bill is about transparency.  It is about letting the American people know where trillions of their dollars went.  The Federal Reserve is a private corporation which controls our nation’s money supply and interest rates.  It has been around since 1913 and has never been audited.

On top of that, the Federal Reserve’s Chairman, Ben Bernanke, doesnt seem to know whats going on in his own shop.  When asked by Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson which foreign banks received over $500,000,000,000 [$500 billion], Bernanke DID NOT KNOW THE ANSWER.  Watch:

We have just started to step up efforts in the Senate.  There are currently 21 sponsors and cosponsors of this bill in the Senate.  On top on this, Senator (and former hall of fame pitcher) Jim Bunning has come out in support of this bill, but has not sponsored it as of today.

I have been leading a campaign to bombard two Senators each day (one Democrat and one Republican) with phone calls in support of this measure.  Hundreds of phone calls are being made daily.  This really is a grassroots effort.  Those who follow me on Facebook are probably well aware of this campaign.  Many of you have stepped up and adopted the status messages I have posted regarding this effort.

I urge those of you who havent been involved yet to get involved.  This is grassroots Democracy at its finest.  For those of you on Facebook, I urge you to spred the word about this effort to your friends.

I recommend adopting the following Facebook status messages for the rest of the week:

Status for today (7/29):

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Al Franken (MN) (202) 224-5641. Republican: Jeff Sessions (AL) (202) 224-4124. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for tomorrow (7/30):

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Mark Udall (CO) (202) 224-5941. Republican: Olympia Snowe (ME) (202) 224-5344. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

Status for Friday (7/31):

S. 604 (The Audit the FED Bill) Now has the support of 21 Senators! Victory is within reach. Lets target 1 Democrat and 1 Republican today and bombard them with calls to get their support. Democrat: Joe Lieberman (CT) (202) 224-4041. Republican: Mitch McConnell (KY) (202) 224-2541. It literally takes less than 2 minutes to call! PLEASE REPOST!!!

And please be sure to make the phone calls.  You can call two Senators and express your feelings on this bill in less than two minutes.  Let them know that this bill is about transparency and that the American people have a right to know where their money is going.  Remind them that the Federal Reserve has been around since 1913 and has never been audited.  Here a list of contact information for all US Senators.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Last week, my mom even commented that she thought that we should cancel our debt so that we didnt have to pay back China.  No one can deny that my mom is very intelligent.  The old phrase “mother knows best” often applies, but in this case, mom is incorrect.

According to the US Treasury department, our national debt is currently $11,379,966,189,575.05 [$11.3+ trillion].  This amounts to over $37,000 per person! But, the above numbers dont paint the whole picture.  A while ago, I posted a link to a news story which claimed our “real” national debt totaled $78,800,000,000,000 [$78.8 trillion].

However, Richard Fisher who is President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas recently gave a very interesting interview with the Wall Street Journal.  In his interview, he talked about “the very deep hole [our political leaders] have dug in incurring unfunded liabilities of retirement and health-care obligations… [that] we at the Dallas Fed believe total over $99 trillion.” Thats $99,000,000,000,000.  But that is just the money for the unfunded liabilities and the costs of retirement and health care that have already been promised.  That number includes neither the current national debt, nor does it include the proposals by President Obama and the Democratic members of Congress to expand national healthcare.  However, even without including new proposals, the total national debt is astounding to say the least.  If you add the Dallas Federal Reserve’s estimation of unfunded liabilities with our current national debt, you reach a total of over $110,000,000,000,000 [$110 trillion]!  This amounts to a total debt of  over $360,000 for every American citizen!!!

Repudiating the debt probably sounds like a compelling idea.  After all, our national debt is massive and will continue to grow, especially as baby boomers start to retire and Social Security and Medicare costs soar while revenues for those programs drop.

[[And by the way, Mr. Fisher far from being a Republican hack who criticizes every move made by Democrats.In fact, Mr. Fisher is a Democrat who served in both the Carter and Clinton Administrations.  He was also the Democratic nominee for Senate in 1993 against Kay Bailey Hutchinson.]]

With current liabilities of over $360,000 per person, repudiating the debt may sound like a great idea.  Afterall, that is a massive sum for each America to be responsible.  In fact, there isnt enough money in the entire world to pay this debt. But, repudiating the debt is a terrible idea that must be opposed.

Yes, China and other foreign nations now own an increasing amount of our national debt.  This of course represents a massive national security risk to America (I believe that it is the greatest current threat to our National survival).  It is a security risk because the Chinese and other nations can threaten to dump their American debt holdings (making them worthless) unless we comply with their demands.  However, repudiating the debt and telling nations like China that we are not going to pay them the money they lent us in good faith may be an even greater risk to our Nation.

First of all, while China is now the largest foreign holder of our national debt, they hold less than 7% of the total debt.  Allies like Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, European nations, Mexico, India, and Israel also hold significant amounts of our national debt.  China’s holdings of our debt represents about 25% of the amount held by foreign governments.  Repudiating the debt to spite China would not only hurt China, but would also hurt many of our allies.

These nations could respond by exiting free trade agreements (if we can unilaterally declare agreements null and void, so can they).

The American public actually owns a higher amount of the national debt than do foreign nations.  As of January 31st of this year, the American public held 31% of the debt while foreign governments held 29%.  Repudiating the debt would adversely effect Americans who purchased government bonds to save for their futures.  Remember those savings bonds that your grandmother used to give you when you were a kid?  Well, those would be worthless if we repudiated the debt.  So would the treasury bonds that many older people have bought to prepare for their retirement.

Another 41% (if you add the numbers up you get a total of 101%–not my fault, these are government numbers) of the national debt is held by the government.  For example, the Social Security Administration holds treasury bills for money that it loaned to the Treasury Department.  Repudiating this portion of the debt would only mean that it would have to be reissued later when the sectors of the government that loaned money out need it in the future to manage their budgets.

[[The above numbers came from The Skeptical Optimist who used only government data.  The data is linked to in his article.]]

Besides all of this, of the $110,000,000,000,000 [$110 trillion] in total debt and obligation, only about 10% of that represents our current national debt.  Even if we repudiated the $11,379,966,189,575.05 [$11.3+ trillion] that we currently owe, we would still be responsible for a national debt of $99,000,000,000,000 [$99 trillion] in the future.  But if we repudiated the national debt, we could NEVER ever run a deficit again.  No foreign government would be dumb enough to loan money to a nation which had previously declared that its debt no longer existed.  That would be the definition of bad banking.  No financial advisor could ever recommend US bonds for his clients without being laughed at.

The political and economic costs of repudiating the debt are extremely high.  Like it or not, we are stuck with this debt.  However, we can think of this as a lesson.  If we balance the budget in the future and pay back the debt over the next 30 years (the maximum time a US treasury bond can be issued for) we will have plenty of time to think about the costs of running large deficits for so long.  All of the interest on the debt which is paid out should serve as a lesson for future generations of Americans about the importance of living within their means.

Repudiating the debt would make it impossible to pay for the bloated government programs which have already been promised to generations of Americans.  Im 100% for balancing the budget.  I believe that we should balance our budget and begin to wind down our entitlement and discretionary programs as fast as possible.  This debt should be taken care of the right way.  In this case, the right way happens to be the hard way:  We must oppose new government programs and discretionary spending, we must balance our budget, we must cut taxes to ensure economic growth, and we must pay back our national debt to those who have put their faith in us and loaned us money.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook