Posts Tagged “money”

How we think it works:

We deposit our money at the bank and the bank then lends out that money to others, right?

How it really works:

People do make deposits, yes.  Banks also make loans, yes.

What I’m having trouble with is conceptualizing how they are connected.  Banks don’t need the deposits to make the loans. Loans are NEW money that didn’t exist before.

Banks are not taking your money (from your deposit) and then giving it to the loanee.  The bank simply says “Ok, we are giving you a loan,” and then they make a digital keystroke in the loanee’s account, and, presto, there is new money! Magic!

All those millions of bank customers (i.e. all of us) are a hassle. We aren’t very profitable.  We require banks to put branches everywhere and have tellers.  Mostly just so they can “warehouse” our money, as most of us don’t use fancy services.  We just write a few checks and add and subtract money from our account.  Those are pretty modest needs.  Why not simply stop providing depositor services and still give out loans (which is far more profitable)?

An aside here is for people to remind me that our fractional reserve banking system requires banks to keep about 10% of assets on deposit for every dollar they lend out.

This is simply a legislative requirement though (we invented it); so we could easily change it.  Also, it reminds us that banks are created legislatively by government; they wouldn’t exist otherwise…so for banks to ask government to stay out of their affairs is disingenuous.  The two are inseparable by definition.

However, even with the 10% requirement, why would the 10% need to come from us in the form of our deposits?  Why not borrow the 10% from the government or from other banks.   In essence, when we deposit, the bank is borrowing from us and paying a small interest to our account.

Why not just borrow from elsewhere and pay a small interest to them?  Then the banks wouldn’t have to deal with all the small consumer accounts, which is admittedly a lot of work for little reward from a bank profitability perspective.  In the end all money (even the money which we eventually deposit) originates from the government.  Why not just borrow directly from the government (since that is what is happening indirectly anyway)?

Indeed, why not?

I guess I’ll restate here in summary:

I’m saying consumer banking (where normal people deposit paychecks and maybe write some checks and use an ATM) is not causally related to lending. The two are associated, but you don’t need one to do the other.

Deposits wouldn’t go away entirely if lending and consumer banking were separated.  If banks provide loans, they will likely provide the ability to deposit for loanees, since banks generally deposit the amount of the loan you just asked for in an account they just created to be the repository of the loan (alternatively they could give you a suitcase of cash).  But the model of normal people depositing a paycheck and such….that just isn’t related to lending that I see.

Am I missing something?

I can think of a few reasons to keep the consumer depositor services: a) for marketing reasons (maintain the relationships for people who might need loans), and b) for public relations reasons (maintain the illusion that banks do something useful for us and so tie up the risk of our money with the risk of their investment arms which cause us to need to bail them out).

In short though, banks must have some other reason for maintaining consumer depository services; isn’t for reasons of profitability.

Tags: , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

Here is a question:

If the government can simply print money…….why do they need to tax us?

They don’t need our money at all.  They have the blank check of the printing press at all times.  They could simply spend new money into existence, and leave it at that.

As long as they didn’t print so much that it devalued the currency, it would work fine.  That’s the same basic issue they have now (even with taxes), so that isn’t much of a shift.

Honestly, I can’t think of an economic reason (can anyone else?).

The cynic in me says there are two good psychological reasons to tax:

  1. Incentives:  If the government taxes one thing (or gives a tax credit on another) it can influence our behavior.  That’s what the government does…..governs/influences/controls.
  2. Government spending and the value of money would be more obvious:  People would realize printing more money devalues the money they already have; it is like theft.  They would equate inflation with theft, knowing the government printed too much (perhaps for war) and that took part of the value of the money that they’d already saved.  On another note, tax evasion would be impossible, since there wouldn’t be any taxes.

Another good question is why we allow governments to run deficits.  The flip side of the original question is:

Why do we allow the government to run the printing press?  Why not force them to spend ONLY tax revenue?

This would produce an even more dramatic outcome than ceasing the printing press:  NO MORE FOREIGN WARS.  If we had to pay each year the full cost of our military and were forced to choose between wars and education or health care (or being taxed at 100% of our income so that we’d starve)….we would always choose domestic issues.  This would also naturally limit the size of the government (since they’d no longer have a blank check).  Government spending could only grow as the economy grew (or shrunk).

Economists argue against this as they cite that governments need to issue debt to undertake large scale activities (wars, stimulus, etc.) that would be impossible if they had to pay for it each year.  I understand this argument and agree to a certain extent….and will only point out that Economists are full of shit and can’t predict as a group whether the sun will come up tomorrow.  As the new day rose and even into the sunset they would still be arguing about whether the sun was actually there at all.

I say the government and its band of inbred, self-serving economists whose theories have no relation whatsoever to reality (and cause us to have to bail them out) should be limited in a natural way.  Perhaps tax-revenue-only spending would be the answer.

I actually know why governments don’t choose this option: it causes them to get overthrown.

In the old days of gold currencies, the governments could only spend the amount of gold they had.  They had to go find new gold to fight wars and they taxed until it impoverished their people.  The people then overthrew the government.

Then one day a nifty, smart group of revolutionaries figured out that with fiat currency they could get around the spending limit problem and just borrow continuously from people who weren’t born yet.  The first groups failed because they got greedy with the printing press, which also impoverished their people…..who then overthrew the government again (notice the theme?).

Then the governments figured out they needed a Goldilocks printing press….print enough, but not too much to impoverish their people.  It doesn’t matter though that they know; it is always easier to mortgage the future than it is to pay in the present….and so all governments will succumb to the temptation of the printing press…and get overthrown as they impoverish their people.

I guess the final question, if I were a government, would be:

Why not both tax us and print money?

Why not have the best of both worlds?  No need to limit yourself to just one of those two options.   Indeed, why not?  I guess, unfortunately, that is the answer.

Tags: ,

Comments No Comments »

I pride myself for being a hack, weekend economist.  I admit it isn’t going to make me rich, but it is interesting.

It is easy, at first pass, to answer the “why did we bailout the financial sector” question.  The answer is because they are rich and have powerful lobbyists, and there is intuitively some truth to the claim that without a finance sector to grease the wheels of the economy, that it would grind to a halt.  So whether or not the companies are to blame for their own mess; we need them, so we have to save them….I guess.

But why do we need them?  Why, if too much credit got us into this mess in the first place, was there a deafening cry from Washington to get credit flowing again.  How could the disease be the cure? (BTW:  that was the premise of the bailout:  We want this bailout money to go towards lending.  Lending had stopped because risk couldn’t be accurately gauged.)

The question then becomes, “Why do we need lending?”  What is so important about the ability to keep credit flowing that we literally cannot do without it, even for a little bit, while the financial sector shakes out and healthier companies (those without exposure to bad debt) take the place place of the old financial sector?  How long could that take?  A year?

Why the cry from Washington of “We must act NOW,” as in RIGHT now.  They passed the TARP bill almost immediately with no rules attached, and started handing out money willy-nilly….compare that with healthcare: In healthcare there is a near endless debate over a change everyone agrees in theory needs to happen (overhaul of costly system) and for which there is a moral imperative (richest country in the world with 47 million uninsured citizens)….then TARP:  No debate, no moral imperative, very costly, no oversight/enforcement, benefits only a few.  How did that happen?

I think I figured it out, and I figured out a few other things in the process:

Money is debt.  That is why we need debt.  Without it there is no money….literally.  95% of all money in circulation is debt.  If all that debt were paid off……..there would be almost no money, and thus no economy.

The government doesn’t create money in our monetary system.  The banks do. They do so through loans.  To simply a bit, when you take out a loan, that is new money.  It isn’t taken from another person’s deposit and given to you.  The money didn’t exist before.  When the bank credits your account for the amount of the loan the money comes from nowhere…it is created with a digital keystroke. Money can be thought of as a series of IOUs (debt), which, if they are all paid back….equals zero.

(This answers the question as to why banks are so profitable.  They don’t actually need any money.  They give you money they just created from thin air, and then you have to put up the house/car/etc for collateral (which you may end up losing to them) and pay them back interest.  Interest on what? They didn’t risk anything…..they didn’t actually put up any money on their side.  They don’t stand to lose much, since they can buy insurance on loan failures and they get the collateral if you don’t pay.)

So back to the bailout:  Why must the debt keep flowing?  Why MUST banks lend or the economy comes to a screeching halt?

Two reasons:

1) Loans are always being paid back (which destroys money; money lent is money created, money paid back to the banks is money destroyed), so for the money supply to continue to increase, there must always be more loans going out than there are payments coming back in.  If loans don’t go out, the money supply contracts and deflation occurs. Deflation is a hard loop to get out of, and is definitely bad for the economy.

2) If I borrow a dollar from you and then you borrow a dollar from me and we later pay each other back, then all is good.  But what if we decide to charge interest (which banks do)?  There is only two dollars in our economy…the money simply doesn’t exist.  One of us has to go bankrupt because we won’t be able to pay.  The only way to pay is to borrow money from a third party (or borrow more your original lender).  This is how our economy works.  You always borrow the principal of the loan, but you must pay back principal plus interest.  Where does the interest come from? We borrow it (because that is pretty much the only way to create money).  Individuals may be debt free; that is true…but the system as a whole must always borrow an escalating amount because the system must always pay back principal plus interest on the original principal or people (the system) goes bankrupt. That is what we are seeing now.

And that is why lending must happen.  That is why we saved the financial sector.  Debt is money.  Without the debt/credit/banks….there is no money and no economy.

I think if everyone were a little more educated on how our money system works this would be a better country to live in.  All that shit they do in Washington is just smokescreens and old, self important white men thinking they know something.

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.” — Thomas Jefferson

Tags: ,

Comments No Comments »

I keep hearing all this crap from the media about rising food prices.  And then they talk about the price of gas.  And then they talk about the falling home prices (which aren’t really falling, but simply returning to a more reasonable level after being inflated themselves).

But they always talk about them separately, as if they had nothing to do with each other.

They are very related…and the relation is to the value of our money, which is a fiat money issue.  It is related to ramping up the printing press, and a crisis in the faith of the value of the dollar.

Remember that fiat money has no value other than the agreement that it can be exchanged for things.  The US dollar is worthless if everyone decides we don’t want to use it for payments anymore.  At that point the govt must enforce its use, prevent by law the exchange of the dollar for something of hard value….and then the govt usually collapses some time after that.

So….what does this have to do with anything?  The recent rise in prices is caused by the devaluation of the dollar (a fiat money, printing press issue), not by any smokescreen the government or media may be reporting.

Here is the thought exercise:

The government is printing more dollars (through low interest rates), making each dollar worth less.  We see this, and the international community sees this. 

It is in everyone’s best interest to convert the value of your dollars into another store of value (gold, the Euro, real estate, etc.) that is more stable.  Every day you hold dollars, they are worth less…so you convert the dollars to something of hard value.

What do you choose?  The first option for the international community is probably another currency, because it is a quick, easy way to convert value….and we see this:  Major currencies all appreciating versus the dollar. 

But what happens when other central banks also depreciate their currency, or there is a crisis of trust in the fiat money system in general?  Easy:  We choose a hard store of value…something that doesn’t represent something of value (like a bill or coin), but actually IS valuable (like food, oil, real estate, etc.)

What is the most popular hard store of value ever???  Real Estate.  You cannot turn up the printing press on land.  Unlike paper bills, they’ll never make any more:  the supply side is fixed.  In uncertain economic times, land is a certain store of value.  And that’s what we saw:  Housing (and thus real estate) prices shot through the roof.  People liquidated their dollars (which were very cheap anyway due to low interest rates) and bought a hard asset.  We did it, and the international community did it.

So the “fall” in real estate values is not a fall so much as it is a return to more reasonable levels after a real estate bubble created by the process I described above.

Now lets look at Food prices:  Do you think there are suddenly more people eating?  Or that crops are failing all over the world?  No.  We buy most of our food from abroad, the dollar is worth less, so it takes more of them to buy food.

Now let’s look at Gas prices:  Is there a supply side issue?  Is less oil being pumped?  No.  Is there a sudden rise in demand?  Not enough to justify the current rise.   Here is the price of oil in gold instead of dollars:  our currency is plainly losing value.

Part of it is our dollar is worth less, so the price is rising.  On a related note, oil is priced in dollars as an international commodity, so the price cannot rise the same as non-dollar denominated assets.  So why the sharp rise?  Is inflation THAT bad?  I’m not exactly sure about this one…but it may be oil speculation.  The movers/shakers on the international scene are looking for safe stores of value for their money.  Currencies are being devalued (can’t invest there), real estate prices have already been run up (can’t invest there)….so what’s the next hard store of value to move to…..commodities (oil, metals, etc).  So the next bubble would be in commodities.

Is there anything we, as regular people, can do about the government devaluing our dollars?  Not really unfortunately.  For those with the determination, it is possible to denominate your savings accounts in other currencies, or gold….but I think most of us are stuck with inflation.

Update 5/30:  Here is an interesting article that makes the point I’ve been getting at with historical examples (which I was too lazy to lookup):  Fiat currencies always fail.

Tags: , ,

Comments No Comments »

My two geek hobbies are happiness research and economics. I post about them often. Today I’ll talk a about economics and money as it relates to the big, bad looming/imminent debt crisis.

I’ve written before about Fiat money. Fiat money is money with no intrinsic value, backed by nothing of intrinsic value. It is just paper and we all agree that it will be treated as money, and so behave as if it had value.

Most modern economies (us included) use fiat money. In the early 1970s profligate spending mostly brought on by the Vietnam war forced us to abandon Bretton Woods (an agreement for currency backed by gold instead of fiat). Of course there would be no economic lessons to be learned about Iraq from Bretton Woods/Vietnam 😉

The problem with money that isn’t backed by anything of value is that its easy to abuse with a printing press. Government controls the printing press for money and everyone agrees to keep up the charade that it has value as long as the government is responsible with the printing, since a stable money supply equals a money of stable value.

That is the advantage of gold…even though gold doesn’t really have an intrinsic value either (its just a yellow rock)…it is of limited supply and it has a long history of value…so people trust it. (If we could figure out how to manufacture gold in a lab, gold would lose its value too.)

So the incentive is for a government to be responsible with the printing press of money, because they’ll make their currency worthless if they print too much. It is a dangerous temptation though to know that you can just print another reem of hundred dollar bills and you’ll magically have thousands more dollars. Printing free money is a temptation that government will eventually yield to (yes, I know I have a dangling preposition). Our government is currently yielding.

Once you get irresponsible with the printing press, you’re on your way to worthless currency…as well as wrecking your nation’s standard of living.

The US government creates money several ways, but the main way is by allowing banks to lend money in a fractional banking system and then regulating the lending and reserve rate. This is our complicated way of printing money; the effect is the same.

For instance, when the Fed “lowers the rate”, it suddenly becomes cheaper for banks to borrow money (they borrow money from the government, which creates money since the government doesn’t really have any money except through the printing press). The banks generally (but not always) pass along this savings to us….which makes money cheaper.

We borrow more, but the banks don’t have to keep all of it on hand. They may have 100 bucks in their bank vaults, but 1000 bucks in outstanding loans. That extra 900 bucks is created when they lend. The more they lend, the more money is created. The cheaper it is to borrow, the more we borrow, the more money is created.

So when the Fed “lowers the rate”, he is creating money. Creating money generally stimulates the economy. Why? Two reasons: 1) The loans (which create the money) are usually taken out to pay for some sort of business or personal investment, which is actually good for the economy (but what happens when it isn’t…what if its wasted on some foreign war like is happening now?). 2) Creating more money can give the illusion of being richer for a short time. “Flooding” the market with money (this is sometimes called “papering over” an economic issue) gives us money through inflation, which we spend, which stimulates the economy…but it is eroding the value of the currency at the same time.

What happens though if it is a big crisis? What if the crisis isn’t with a specific part of the economy, but with the debt/banking system itself (the worldwide financial markets get scared of “debt” because they think it won’t be paid off, that they haven’t valued the risk correctly. They will steer clear of the risk.)? Remember that trust is the ONLY thing that gives the US dollar value.

US debt was considered good and so people value the dollar. Now it appears the whole system is under stress (since debt itself is what creates our money). The debts people thought were safe, were not. The US dollar is not safe.

That creates two problems. 1) Even with a stable money supply, when the international community thinks your currency is more risky, the value falls. 2) We are creating more money by lowering rates to stimulate the economy. An increase in the supply of money devalues your currency.

Those two things are working against us in tandem. The more the Fed tries to rescue the economy by lowering rates, the more value the dollar loses….which is part of the problem to begin with. You’re in a catch-22.

There is a choice to make: On the one hand we can devalue our currency to try to stimulate the economy (which is the traditional approach). On the other hand if a debt crisis is what caused the economic problems in the first place…how can issuing more debt help?

What if lowering the rate doesn’t stimulate the economy? Well, they lower it more…further devaluing the dollar, causing more of what got us into the mess in the first place: too much debt.

The Fed pumping money into the system to “save” the economy is only postponing the debt crisis and making it worse. The Fed knows this as well, but I am guessing there is tremendous policital pressure to keep the economy limping along. No politicians will take the pain now for a better day tomorrow…since there won’t be a tomorrow (no re-election) if things aren’t good today.

People can also invest in (lend to) the government, as well as borrowing from them. The government sells bonds, and US government bonds are considered one of the safest investments in the world. They yield a low but passable return, let’s say 5% annually.

In this scenario the government is in debt to us (the US citizens), and we get 5% interest on our loan to the governement. But what if the government inflates the currency 5%? We break even, which is just like hiding money under the mattress..not a good investment. Investors (<– the people with the real money) get really mad about inflation, since it erodes their profits.

What happened to the 5% return we were supposed to get though? This is where it gets interesting: The government stole it back from you. They spent too much money (on wars or whatever), and didn’t want to raise it with taxes, so they raised the money a different way: Instead of paying back your loan to them with 5% interest, they inflated the currency and kept the 5%. They pay back their debts with ever more worthless money, and we can’t do anything about it. In the process they are eroding our savings (since every dollar we have saved is now worth less…we need ever higher rates of return just to maintain its present value).

In the extreme scenario, you can see that an overspent government is forced to inflate the money more and more to make paying back the interest on their loans less painful. In essence, as you inflate/devalue the currency, any debt denominated in that currency becomes cheaper.

Here is another extreme example: The government owes me a trillion billion dollars. They obviously can’t pay it off. What does Uncle Sam do? Prints off a trillion billion dollar bills and gives them to me; yet in the act of doing so has made them worthless. I can’t do anything because technically the debt has been paid.

Let’s think about this internationally: Many commodities are priced in US dollars. Oil is one (but anything priced in US dollars follows the analogy). Many oil rich countries are mad about our inflationary monetary policy, and have threatened to price oil in Euros and break their peg to the dollar.

What is the effect of dollar denominated oil as we’re inflating our currency? We get to buy oil with every more worthless dollars (in essence, stealing). If oil were priced in another currency, we’d see the price of oil rise for us, but it would be stable for everyone else. We’d price ourselves out of the market for oil (since it would be so expensive for us), and would have to stop the devaluing of our currency (since we couldn’t buy anything with our worthless currency. In the extreme case, countries would no longer accept US dollars as payment). But since its in US dollars, the price can’t jump that high, because the price would also jump for everyone else. Again, in essence we’re forcing the rest of the world to deal in and accept our ever more worthless currency. (Coincidentally, the price of oil is at an all time high and is rising…much faster than inflation…which makes you wonder how accurate the inflation numbers are when all goods/services depend on oil.)

Also, there are the countries that peg to the dollar (lots of them): We are exporting our inflating currency to them as well, and many of their economies are not as stable as ours. Exporting inflation (as we saw in the other example) is sort of like the government stealing from you. There is a good reason many countries are mad about what the US is doing. We are stealing from, and exporting our problems to them.

Everyone pegged their currencies to the dollar and priced international commodities in dollars in the first place because they trusted the US government and its responsibility with its currency. We have broken that trust.

But what if the debt train stops (they don’t buy our dollar denominated debt), and commodities are no longer priced in dollars? What if a country’s foreign exchange reserves are no longer dollar denominated?

The government fails. The dollar is worthless. We’ve printed ourselves into oblivion. (This actually happens occasionally)

The government fails?? Really? I know you’re thinking that can’t happen….but it can. A government supported by worthless money can yield no power. No one would accept their payments. They wouldn’t be able to afford upkeep of their infrastructure (roads, military, etc.). You can’t trust them…and it really goes back to that trust.

A crisis of the debt agreement (what we have now), is much more significant than manufacturing jobs leaving, or the auto market struggling. A crisis of debt is a crisis of the foundation of the economy, and government.

Not to sound too alarmist though: Our government will not fail (at least in the same manner as my extreme example). Why? Because other countries will and are subsidizing us. And they aren’t happy about it. In essence, we are stealing from them in a very sophisticated way.

All the countries out there pegged to the dollar (and many others in general) are holding US dollar reserves to stabilize their country’s currency. If all of them suddenly liquidated those dollars for another currency….we would see a glut of dollars hit the market, and a fall in demand for the dollar. Again, rising money supply = inflation, and fall in currency demand (less dollars would be demanded because country X has decided it no longer wants dollar reserves) = less value for the currency.

Also, we’d have to start buying the goods from that country at a real market rate (instead of our dollar subsidized rate). This is the same analogy as with dollar denominated oil above. As long as a commodity (bananas, or copper or whatever) is priced in dollars, we can just print more paper and force others to accept the money. Price the commodity in a stable currency (Euros or whatever) and we have to pay market rate by first buying Euros. In this scenario we don’t get the advantage of the “dollar subsidy”.

But Elliott (I hear you thinking), we don’t “print” money persay; we issue debt to create money. What if people simply quit borrowing? What if foreign governments quit holding US reserves, or quit buying or Govt T bills?

Well, the fact is there are trillions of dollars already out there…..many trillions…owned by other countries. If other countries “quit” all their dollar denominated assets…..they would essentially make them worthless by the act of selling them. There would be a “run on the bank” for US dollars.

Other countries have a vested interest in the seeing the dollar continue to be strong because they would devalue their own US dollar assets if the dollar failed. Also, many governments/economies depend on the US economy. If the dollar failed, the world economy is in real trouble.

Because so many countries have a vested national interest in US economy, we are able to devalue the dollar, and force the world to pay for it. The have to keep buying our crap in dollars…otherwise their own dollars become worthless, the US economy would fail, which in turn causes their own economy to fail.

Its a strong-arm tactic by the US government: They’ve spent too much money, and they’re forcing the world to pay for it…because they can.

So in reality, political pressure will save the economy if it happens…forcing foreign governments to finance our financial irresponsibility by continuing to invest in US dollar assets/concerns until the money supply re-adjusts to growth.

In the long term though, this won’t work. It only works now because we are the lynchpin in the world economy. We’re too big to fail, so other countries must bail us out. However, with the rest of the world economies growing and a distrust of the US economy/currency, they’ll cut us out of the loop, and the US will lose relevancy: death by a thousand cuts. We’ll look up in twenty years and realize we’ve lost the lynchpin status and we’re just a nation among many others, perhaps worse….no special favors available.

You think I’m just making this stuff up about the government “stealing” from us through inflation?

Here is what Alan Greenspan said (too bad he never remained true to it):

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”

This plays out all the time in real life. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is doing ok these days, even if the economy isn’t doing all that well right? It sits relatively close to its all time high, even with all our woes. That depends on how you price it.

Think about inflation again. Priced in dollars, we can make the Dow look like its rising, even when its falling…just inflate the currency. But when we price the Dow against other assets (gold for instance), it tells a different story.

Here is the Dow priced in dollars:

Here is the Dow priced in gold:

Think it doesn’t matter? It does. You always pay the piper eventually (though admittedly perhaps not in our lifetime).

Also, I note that inflation, even today with all my alarmist rantings about what’s going on, is not that high. Well, the CPI (consumer price index), which is the general surrogate for inflation, is not a number without controversy. Many people think it far underestimates real inflation, and once you delve a bit into how the number is calculated…you’ll get suspicious too.

The basket of goods the BLS (bureau of labor statistics) uses changes (at their discretion), and they use several “weighting-factors” for quality of goods that basically allows them to massage the number to say whatever they like. It doesn’t mean they ARE manipulating the numbers, it just means that based on the way they calculate CPI….massaging is very possible. Under-reporting inflation would allow the government to steal and then tell us nothing is happening.

Fiat money is a pyramid scheme, but it is so complicated that it becomes very possible to fool all the people all the time…almost always. Sometimes the politicians even fool themselves and forget that printing money is not the same thing as creating value.

So when you hear talk about these bailout schemes by the government or complex financial products to help smooth over the crisis….beware…there is only one scheme that is being put on the table: Devaluing the currency (which forces us and other countries to bail out the US govt).

Why are we not outraged by all of this? Why are we not calling for the head of the Federal Reserve Chairman, a return to the gold standard, or writing our politicians asking them to stop fleecing us?

Easy: I have a masters degree in international business, read econ books for fun, and actually spend time thinking about these issues (as evidenced by this post)…..and its still hard for me to explain.

No one understands what’s going on. And even though I’m right, there is no way to know when it might all come to a head, or if our govt is crafty enough to really force the world to bail us out.

Tags: , ,

Comments 2 Comments »