Chart usGOLD   Chart usSILVER  
 
Food for thought
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity
Yeats  
Search for :
LATEST NEWS  :
MINING STOCKS  :
Subscribe
Write Us
Add to Google
Search on Ebay :
PRECIOUS METALS (US $)
Gold 1230.900.34
Silver 17.17-0.02
Platinum 1243.50-2.00
Palladium 776.00-2.75
WORLD MARKETS
DOWJONES 16805128
NASDAQ 448431
NIKKEI 15292153
ASX 539929
CAC 40 4129-29
DAX 8988-60
HUI 184-1
XAU 760
CURRENCIES (€)
AUS $ 1.4416
CAN $ 1.4227
US $ 1.2669
GBP (£) 0.7875
Sw Fr 1.2059
YEN 137.0400
CURRENCIES ($)
AUS $ 1.1382
CAN $ 1.1230
Euro 0.7893
GBP (£) 0.6217
Sw Fr 0.9518
YEN 108.1000
RATIOS & INDEXES
Gold / Silver71.69
Gold / Oil15.17
Dowjones / Gold13.65
COMMODITIES
Copper 3.060.01
WTI Oil 81.14-0.61
Nat. Gas 3.60-0.02
Market Indices
Metal Prices
RSS
Precious Metals
Graph Generator
Statistics by Country
Statistics by Metals
Advertise on 24hGold
Projects on Google Earth
Drowning in a Liquidity Trap?
Published : May 25th, 2013
1389 words - Reading time : 3 - 5 minutes
( 5 votes, 4/5 ) , 2 commentaries Print article
 
    Comments    
Tweet

Bruce Bartlett recently lamented in The New York Times that given the current state of economic affairs we need more Keynesian medicine to fix the US economy. According to Bartlett, the core insight of Keynesian economics is that there are very special economic circumstances in which the general rules of economics don’t apply and are in fact counterproductive. This happens when interest rates and inflation rates are so low that monetary policy becomes impotent; an increase in the money supply has no boosting effect because it does not lead to additional spending by consumers or businesses. Keynes called this situation a “liquidity trap.” Keynes wrote,

There is the possibility ... that, after the rate of interest has fallen to a certain level, liquidity-preference may become virtually absolute in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to holding a debt which yields so low a rate of interest. In this event the monetary authority would have lost effective control over the rate of interest.[1]

Bartlett holds that:

Under such circumstances government spending can be highly stimulative, because it causes money that is sitting idle in bank reserves or savings accounts to circulate and become mobilized through consumption or investment. Thus monetary policy becomes effective once again.

Bartlett regards this as an extremely important insight that policy makers have yet to grasp. According to our columnist, despite massive monetary pumping by the Fed since 2008, it has produced very little boosting effect on the economy. The Fed’s balance sheet jumped from $0.897 trillion in January 2008 to $3.3 trillion in early May 2013. The Federal Funds Rate target stood at 0.25 percent in early May against 3 percent in January 2008.

According to Bartlett,

In normal times, one would expect such an increase in the money supply to be highly inflationary and sharply raise market interest rates. That this has not happened is proof that we have been in a liquidity trap for several years. We needed a lot more government spending than we got to get the economy out of its doldrums.

Note also that Nobel Laureate in economics Paul Krugman holds similar views. For them what is needed is a re-activation of the monetary flow that somehow got stockpiled in the banking system. Observe that in the Keynesian framework the ever-expanding monetary flow is the key to economic prosperity. What drives economic growth is monetary expenditure.

Why is money not the driver of economic growth?

Contrary to popular thinking, monetary flow has nothing to do with economic growth as such. Money is simply a medium of exchange and nothing more than that. Also, note that people don’t ultimately pay for goods and services with money, but rather with the goods and services that they have produced.

For instance, a baker pays for shoes by means of the bread he produced, while the shoemaker pays for the bread by means of the shoes he made. When the baker exchanges his money for shoes, he has already paid for the shoes, so to speak, with the bread that he produced prior to this exchange.

Again, money is just employed to exchange goods and services. Being the medium of exchange, money can only assist in exchanging the goods of one producer for the goods of another producer.

What drives economic growth is savings that are used to fund the increase and the enhancement of tools and machinery, i.e., capital goods or the infrastructure that permits the increase in final goods and services: real wealth to support the lives and well being of people.

Contrary to popular thinking, an increase in the monetary flow is in fact detrimental to economic growth since it sets in motion an exchange of something for nothing — it leads to the diversion of real wealth from wealth generators to wealth consumers. This in the process reduces the amount of wealth at the disposal of wealth generators thereby diminishing their ability to enhance and maintain the infrastructure. This in turn undermines the ability to grow the economy.

What is behind the so called liquidity trap?

The fact that so far the Fed’s massive pumping has not resulted in a massive monetary flood should be regarded as good news. If all that new money were to enter the economy, it would have entirely decimated the machinery of wealth generation and produced massive economic impoverishment.

It seems that market forces have so far managed to withstand the onslaught by the US central bank. What allowed this resistance is not some kind of ideology against aggressive pumping by the Fed (in fact most experts and commentators are of the view that the Fed should create a lot of money in difficult times), but the fact that the process of real wealth generation has been severely damaged by the previous loose monetary policies of Greenspan’s and Bernanke’s Fed.

The badly damaged process of wealth generation has severely impaired true economic growth, and obviously this has severely reduced good quality borrowers and subsequently has reduced banks willingness to lend. Remember that in essence banks actually lend real wealth by means of money. They are just intermediaries. Obviously then, if wealth formation is being impaired, less lending can be done. We suggest that it is this fact alone that explains why all the pumping by the Fed has ended up stacked in the banking system. So far in early May banks have been sitting on over $1.7 trillion in surplus cash. In January 2008 surplus cash stood at $2.4 billion.

Given the high likelihood that the process of real wealth generation has been severely damaged, this means that the pace of wealth generation must follow suit. Now, contrary to popular thinking an increase in government spending cannot revive the process of wealth generation, but on the contrary it can only make things much worse.

Remember government is not a wealth-generating entity, so in this sense increases in government spending generate the same damaging effect as monetary printing does; it leads to the diversion of wealth from wealth generators to wealth consumers. Observe that in 2012, US government outlays stood at $3.538 trillion, an increase of 98 percent from 2000.

As long as the rate of growth of the pool of real wealth stays positive, this can continue to sustain productive and nonproductive activities.

Trouble erupts, however, when, on account of loose monetary and fiscal policies, a structure of production emerges that ties up much more wealth than the amount it releases.

This excessive consumption relative to the production of wealth leads to a decline in the pool of wealth.

This in turn weakens the support for economic activities, resulting in the economy plunging into a slump. The shrinking pool of real wealth exposes the commonly accepted fallacy that loose monetary and fiscal policies can grow the economy.

Needless to say, once the economy falls into a recession because of a shrinking pool of real wealth, any government or central-bank attempts to revive the economy must fail.

This means that a policy such as lifting government outlays to counter the liquidity trap will make things much worse.

Not only will these attempts not revive the economy; they will deplete the pool of real wealth further, thereby prolonging the economic slump.

Likewise any policy that forces banks to expand lending “out of thin air” will further damage the pool and will further reduce banks’ ability to lend.

Again the foundation of lending is real wealth and not money as such. It is real wealth that imposes restrictions on banks’ ability to lend. (Money is just the medium of exchange, which facilitates the flow of real wealth.)

Note that without an expanding pool of real wealth, any expansion of bank lending is going to lift banks’ nonperforming assets.

Summary and conclusion

Contrary to various experts, we suggest that in the current economic climate an increase in government outlays is not going to make Fed’s loose monetary policies more effective as far as boosting economic activity is concerned.

On the contrary, it will weaken the process of wealth generation and will retard economic growth.

What is needed to get the economy going is to close all loopholes for money creation and drastically curtail government outlays.

This will leave a greater amount of wealth in the hands of wealth generators and will boost their ability to grow the economy.

Tweet
Rate :Average note :4 (5 votes)View Top rated
Previous article by
Frank Shostak
All articles by
Frank Shostak
Next article by
Frank Shostak
Receive by mail the latest articles by this author  
Latest comment posted for this article
"In normal times, one would expect such an increase in the money supply to be highly inflationary and sharply raise market interest rates. That this has not happened is proof that we have been in a liquidity trap for several years. We needed a lot more g  Read more
overtheedge - 5/25/2013 at 7:09 PM GMT
Rating :  2  0
TOP ARTICLES
Editor's picks
RSS feed24hGold Mobile
Gold Data CenterGold & Silver Converter
Gold coins on eBaySilver coins on eBay
Technical AnalysisFundamental Analysis

Frank Shostak

Frank Shostak's consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies.
Most recent articles by Frank Shostak
10/21/2014
10/15/2014
10/7/2014
9/24/2014
9/1/2014
All Articles
Comment this article
You must be logged in to comment an article8000 characters max.
 
Sign in
User : Password : Login
Sign In Forgot password?
 
 
       
"In normal times, one would expect such an increase in the money supply to be highly inflationary and sharply raise market interest rates. That this has not happened is proof that we have been in a liquidity trap for several years. We needed a lot more government spending than we got to get the economy out of its doldrums. "

As the author pointed out Mr Bartlett is, to put it nicely, seriously confused.

Government has no wealth. Zip, zero, nada. It gains monies by printing and taxation. Printing has, does and always will impoverish a nation. More money chasing a fixed amount of goods. Those who create goods that are in demand are the wealth generators. Once government purchases those goods, they are effectively consumed. The monies spent by the government will still be held by the producer for liquidity's sake. No net change in the status of the liquidity trap.

So government takes in more taxes. The most productive bear the burden of the least productive. Government does NOT produce, it consumes. It gorges itself on the earnings of productivity.

Now kiddies here is the rest of the story. There is no liquidity trap. It is a government con-job foisted on the ignorant masses. Yes, businesses and a few individuals have liquidity. It is called savings. The government and its hired economic idiots have stated that savings creates liquidity traps.

The rest of the story is quite simple. It is NOT a liquidity trap at all. It is a reduction in the velocity of money consequently robbing the government of a substantial tax revenue stream.

In conclusion, it is a simple supply/demand relationship. Increase the supply of money substantially and its value drops prompting its use while it still retains some value. This hoped for increased use of liquidity increases velocity of money and its evil brother, the tax revenue stream. It is ALWAYS about redistribution of taxes. Tax revenues drop - redistribution drops - voter retaliation follows.
--------------------------
Mr vox, the wealth generators are NOT in the financial sector.
"They have not been updating their machinery or hiring new people. Rather than creating prosperity, they have been sucking the life blood from ordinary folks."
Consumer spending is down, so you suggest the problem is NOT ENOUGH production of consumer goods?
Using the standard you presented, shame on you if you haven't divested yourself from all investments and savings. Your unwillingness to spend it all is "sucking the life blood from ordinary folks."

"An economy only works when ordinary folks actually have some money in their pockets to spend. " NO, no, no. The economy only works when the ordinary folks actually produce something. Taking in one another's laundry only redistributes wealth with a substantial handling fee imposed by taxation.

All wealth begins with accumulation of raw materials by harvesting or mining. These raw materials go for essentials and luxuries. Without demand for luxuries, homo sapiens returns to hunter-gatherers. Well, only a few actually survive that transition. If you impede the accumulation of raw materials, you impede productivity and reduce wealth generation to dead stop. That is exactly what a service industry/ bureaucracy (public/private) partnership does. There is no productivity only consumption.

At least Mr Shostak has tried to explain what a liquidity trap is. I don't think you are qualified to make any recommendation on much of anything. Of course I have no letters after my name and I've never won a Nobel. So I could be just another big-mouth with no debts and in the liquidity trap as well. Shame on me for not hiring ordinary folks ... like you perhaps. BTW at what point do you cease to be ordinary folk? Is it at 4, 5, or 6 digit annual income or is it a sliding scale based upon accumulated assets? Admittedly I haven't bought any new machinery lately because what I already have does the job just fine. But like you said, "They have not been updating their machinery or hiring new people. Rather than creating prosperity, they have been sucking the life blood from ordinary folks." No sir, supporting CNP*s sucks the lifeblood out of the economy.

CNP: curious non-producers. Effectively non-participants in an enterprise that demand the right of oversight.
Rate :   2  0Rating :   2
EmailPermalink
Shostak needs to update his bio. He WAS the chief economist at M.F. Global. M.F. Global no longer exists after taking his advice to buy Greek government debt with its clients' money. Along with Corzine, he should be serving a lengthy prison sentence.

That being said, the man is a fool. The so called wealth generators have been sitting on record amounts of cash. They have not been updating their machinery or hiring new people. Rather than creating prosperity, they have been sucking the life blood from ordinary folks. History has never before witnessed a transfer of wealth on this scale. An economy only works when ordinary folks actually have some money in their pockets to spend. As for his solution, just ask the Greeks, Spaniards or Cypriots how that has worked out for them.

PLEASE, do not post any more articles from this individual. The only place where his views should be heard is in the prison yard.
Rate :   2  3Rating :   -1
EmailPermalink
Receive 24hGold's Daily Market Briefing in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Disclaimer