Making
Things Worse
by
David Dieteman
Typically,
this is done under the guise of making things better. And yet, it
never seems to work out that way. Although the Federal Reserve system
was allegedly established to stabilize American currency, the value
of the dollar has plummeted since the creation of the Fed. This
is exactly the opposite of the promised policy results. And still
we are burdened with the Fed.
Take
the case of the economy. The US economy has entered a slump, and
there are urgent calls for Congress and the president to do something anything to "fix" the economy.
The
fixes which are being proposed demonstrate only that the Congress,
the president and the journalist community have no idea what is
really wrong with the economy.
To
illustrate this problem, consider the case of Japan, which is also
in an economic downturn. Allegedly as a way out of the troubles,
the Japanese government has announced that it will, in effect, print
more money. Or, as the International Herald Tribune headlined
the Japanese government's plans, "Japan's
Central Bank to Open the Cash Tap."
An
honest headline is a refreshing thing.
"Opening
the cash tap" is the American approach to the economic downturn
as well. And it is the wrong approach. Putting more money into circulation
cannot cure malinvestment. It can only delay the liquidation of
bad investments and the return to wise investments.
By
artificially making it cheaper to borrow money, the Federal Reserve
causes malinvestment. Investments that would not be attractive when
borrowing is more costly and hence must be done more cautiously become more attractive when credit is cheap. This is the Austrian
Business Cycle theory, developed by economists such as Ludwig von
Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Murray Rothbard.
Do
not assume, however, that merely because such artificially cheap
credit causes malinvestment that politicians will avoid this strategy
like the plague. Malinvestment (bad investments, that is
to say, unwise investments) is a long-term consequence of
such credit inflation.
When
the Federal Reserve lowers rates, it takes time for banks to lower
their own rates, for profit-seekers to scratch their heads, make
decisions, and borrow money, and for people to spend the money.
Perhaps the money will be spent on dot.com startup companies who
promise merely possible future profits, and perhaps it will turn
out that money invested in such companies will return only pennies
on the dollar. How, then, will the loans be repaid? In many cases,
they will not.
Which
is where we are today. The credit expansion of the late 1990s fueled
the bubble in the stock market, and fueled the dot.com mania. Now
that the bubble has burst, what's the remedy?
More
of the same.
As
John
Cochran writes of the Austrian theory of the business cycle on Mises.org,
Rothbard's
answer is supported by the evidence provided in Vedder and Gallaway
in Out
of Work, as well as in Herbener's "Japan Can't
Inflate Away Its Woes" and "The Rise and the Fall of the Japanese
Miracle," wherein Herbener shows how the analysis applies to Japan.
As
for avoiding depressions, the remedy is simple: avoid inflations
by stopping the Fed’s power to inflate.
If
we are in a depression, as we are now [this is as applicable
now as it was when it was written], the only proper course of
action is to avoid governmental interference with the depression,
and thereby allow the depression-adjustment process to complete
itself as rapidly as possible and thus restore a healthy and
prosperous economic system.
Before
the massive government interventions of the 1930s, all recessions
were short-lived. The severe depression of 1921 was over so
rapidly, for example, that Secretary of Commerce Hoover, despite
his interventionist inclinations, was not able to convince President
Harding to intervene rapidly enough. By the time Harding was
persuaded to intervene, the depression was already over, and
prosperity had arrived.
When
the stock market crashed in October 1929, then-President Herbert
Hoover intervened so rapidly and so massively that the market
adjustment process was paralyzed. Following this, the Hoover-Roosevelt
New Deal policies managed to bring about a permanent and massive
depression, from which we were only rescued by the advent of
World War II. Laissez-faire a strict policy of nonintervention
of government by the government is the only course of
action that can assure a rapid recovery in any depression crisis.
(Murray Rothbard, America's
Great Depression, pp. xxvii-xxix).
God
save us from our supposed saviors in the government.
For
further reading, see two classic works of Murray Rothbard: The
Case Against the Fed and What
Has Government Done to Our Money (the latter may be read
online for free at Mises.org).
August
25,
2001
Mr.
Dieteman [send him mail]
is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy
at The Catholic University of America.
©
2001 David Dieteman
David
Dieteman Archives
|