How
the Fed Fuels Unemployment
by
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Recently
by Thomas DiLorenzo: Another
Court Historian’s False Tariff History
Testimony
of Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo
Professor
of Economics, Loyola University Maryland
Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary
Policy and Technology
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2128 Rayburn House Office Building
Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
address the issue of today’s hearing: "Can Monetary Policy
Really Create Jobs?" Since I am an academic economist, you
will not be surprised to learn that I believe that the correct answer
to this question is: "yes and no." Monetary policy under
the direction of the Federal Reserve has a history of creating and
destroying jobs. The reason for this is that the Fed, like all
other central banks, has always been a generator of boom-and-bust
cycles in the economy. Why this is so is explained in three classic
treatises in economics: Theory
of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises, and two treatises
by Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek: Monetary
Theory and the Trade Cycle and Prices
and Production. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic
Science in 1974 for this work. I will summarize the essence of this
theory of the business cycle as plainly as I can.
When the
Fed expands the money supply excessively it not only is prone to
creating price inflation, but it also sows the seeds of recession
or depression by artificially lowering interest rates, which can
ignite a false or unsustainable "boom" period. Lower interest
rates induce people to consume more and save less. But increased
savings and the subsequent business investment that it finances
is what fuels economic growth and job creation.
Lowered interest
rates and wider availability of credit caused by the Fed’s expansionary
monetary policy causes businesses to invest more in (mostly long-term)
capital projects (primarily real estate in the latest boom-and-bust
cycle), and there is an accompanying expansion of employment
in those industries. But since the lower interest rates are caused
by the Fed’s expansion of the money supply and not an increase in
savings by the public (i.e., by the free market), businesses that
have invested in long-term capital projects eventually discover
that there is not enough consumer demand to justify their investments.
(The reduced savings in the past means consumer demand is weaker
in the future). This is when the "bust" occurs.
The economic
damage done by the boom-and-bust policies of the Fed occur in the
boom period when resources are misallocated in the ways described
here. The "bust" period is actually a necessary cure for
the economic miscalculations that have occurred, as businesses liquidate
their unsound investments and begin to make decisions on realistic,
market-based interest rates. Prices and wages must return to reality
as well.
Government
policies that bail out businesses that have made these bad investment
decisions will only delay or prohibit economic recovery while encouraging
more of such behavior in the future (the "moral hazard problem").
This is how short recessions can be turned into seemingly endless
ones. Worse yet is for the Fed to create even more monetary inflation,
rather than allowing the necessary economic adjustments to take
place, which will eventually set off another boom-and-bust cycle.
As applied
to today’s economic situation, it is obvious that the artificially
low interest rates caused by the policies of the Greenspan Fed created
an unsustainable boom in the housing market. Thousands of new jobs
were in fact created – and then destroyed – giving an updated meaning
to Joseph Schumpeter’s phrase "creative destruction."
Many Americans who obtained jobs and pursued careers in housing
construction and related industries realized that those jobs and
careers were not sustainable after all; they were fooled by the
Fed’s low interest rate policies. Thus, the Fed was not only responsible
for causing the massive unemployment that we endure today, but also
a great amount of what economists call "mismatch" unemployment.
The skills that people in these industries developed were no longer
in demand; they lost their jobs; and now they must retool and re-educate
themselves.
The Fed has
been generating boom-and-bust cycles from its inception in January
of 1914. Total bank deposits more than doubled from 1914 to 1920
(partly because the Fed financed part of the American involvement
in World War I) and created a false boom that turned to a bust with
the Depression of 1920. GDP fell by 24% from 1920–1921, and the
number of unemployed more than doubled, from 2.1 million to 4.9
million (See Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway, Out
of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America).
This was a more severe economic decline than was the first year
of the Great Depression.
In America’s
Great Depression economist Murray N. Rothbard demonstrated
that, once again, it was the excessively expansionary monetary policy
of the Fed – and of other central banks – that caused yet another
boom-and-bust cycle that spawned the Great Depression. It was not
the Fed’s subsequent restrictive monetary policy of 1929–1932 that
was the problem, as Milton Friedman and others have argued, but
its previous expansion. The Fed was therefore guilty of contributing
greatly to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.
In summary,
the Fed’s monetary policies tend to create temporary and unsustainable
increases in employment while being the very engine of recession
and depression that creates a much greater degree of job destruction
and unemployment.
February
10, 2011
Thomas
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the
author of The
Real Lincoln; Lincoln
Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe
and How
Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s
Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution
– And What It Means for America Today.
Copyright
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
The
Best of Thomas DiLorenzo at LRC
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org
|