Rick
Ackerman Defects to the Hyperinflationist Camp After 30 Years
by
Gary North
Recently
by Gary North: Questions
for Bernanke
Every once
in a while, some famous defender of a position switches without
warning to the rival position. A famous atheist becomes a believer
in God (Antony
Flew). A famous Protestant becomes a Catholic (Richard
John Neuhaus). A famous Chicago School economist becomes a Keynesian
(Richard
Posner). These events are unexpected, especially by the people
who make the switch. When it happens, the former disciples are left
high and dry.
I am not talking
about people who go to work for the enemy. Adam Smith, the most
famous opponent of tariffs, became the commissioner
of customs for Scotland within two years of the publication
of The Wealth of Nations. Alan Greenspan, a defender of the
gold standard in 1966, became Chairman of the Federal Reserve in
1987. I am talking rather about an unpredictable reversal of an
opinion which had defined the person. Such a reversal usually costs
the person. He is seen as having betrayed his followers, whose own
opinions had been shaped by his. He may lose income if he had been
selling his self-defining idea.
The amazing
thing is when the followers accept the switch and instantly adopt
their guru's opinion without question. Populist FED-hater Ellen
Brown's switch to full support of Bernanke's QE2 policies within
three weeks of the FED's announcement in November 2010 is a recent
example. She insisted that this
was not a switch at all. Her devoted followers went along with
her.
Sometimes the
person says that he was persuaded by new facts. Yet these supposedly
new facts in almost all instances had been around for years. Why
had the person not accepted these facts before? He does not offer
persuasive reasons.
RICK
ACKERMAN'S FLIP-FLOP
Rick Ackerman
publicly predicted price deflation serious, world-shattering
price deflation for 20 years. He believed it for 30 years.
Overnight, he has switched.
For two decades,
he has been saying I was wrong to predict price inflation. Typical
was this: Killer
Deflation Eludes Monetarist North. (I am not a monetarist, which
was Milton Friedman's position, which I have always opposed.) For
two decades, he was wrong. Yet he did not switch. The relentlessly
upward move in consumer prices did not persuade him, decade after
decade.
On April 5,
he
once again threw down a challenge: Big Gap in Logic Weakens
Hyperinflation Argument He has been doing this for 20 years.
Nothing new here. So, I ignored it. I have responded in the past.
Here is an example.
It was a waste of my time. In any case, I do not predict hyperinflation,
unless Congress intervenes and nationalizes the Federal Reserve
System, which I do not think it will do. I do predict rising price
inflation, but not the complete destruction of the dollar.
I agree with
Charles Hugh Smith. Ackerman began with him.
Basically,
he argues that it would not suit the interests of the rich and powerful,
who after all are heavily invested in financial assets that would
plummet in value. I have argued the same point, albeit from a different
angle, by asking the inflationists to explain why the supposed Masters
of the Universe would permit hyperinflation when it would effectively
allow Joe Sixpack to pay off his mortgage and all other debts held
by the rich and powerful with confetti. Smith's paper is entitled
The Mechanics of Hyperinflation: Bankers vs. Politicos, and it
can be accessed by clicking
here. He provides a further link to an Austrian analysis that
explains why Weimar's money blowout was quite different from anything
that might occur in the U.S. The crux of it is that Germany's money
supply was controlled by the political class rather than by such
rich and powerful behind-the-scenes players as created and still
control the Federal Reserve. I would ask that anyone who joins in
the discussion from this point forward be familiar with Smith's
argument, if not necessarily with the Austrian treatise.
Then he went
on with an argument about real estate prices.
I
predicted here years ago that home prices would eventually fall
by at least 70 percent before deflation ran its course, and I am
sticking with that forecast. It implies that even after the wholesale
price destruction that has occurred over the last three years, the
worst is yet to come.
And yet,
for the moment, it is understandable that the hyperinflation argument
has been enjoying (if you'll pardon that word) a bold resurgence
one that has caused even me, a hard-core deflationist who
has been writing on the topic since the mid-1990s, to second-guess
myself. After all, fuel and grocery prices are rising steeply,
and Federal debt $14.270 trillion and counting has
entered a vertical parabola.
He then presented
a completely convoluted argument.
To
repeat: Hyperinflation would require the shifting of cash money
into physical goods and assets. But other than mattress money and
the relatively paltry sums of cash on hand at branch banks, there
would be precious little cash to shift. And if the panicked money
is assumed to come out of Treasurys and other paper assets, it begs
the question of how much the paper assets will fetch on the day
when there are no buyers other than the Federal Reserve. . . .
I invite
readers to attempt to rebut my argument in the Rick's Picks forum
- to tell me exactly where the cash will come from that
would allow Americans to bid the price of hard assets into the
ionosphere. In the meantime, I plan to run a guest commentary
later this week concerning one asset class that seems likely to
outperform all others. Hint: it is not bullion. And, this investment
category could conceivably increase in absolute value for the
same reason that the pine forests of the Southwest are dying.
Under the circumstances, the asset appears to be very undervalued
at the moment. It will be out of reach once the system crashes.
I had never
seen him more incoherent. As it has turned out, he was at the end
of the road. It was a 30-year road. On
April 25, he announced:
Hyperinflation
vs. Deflation: I Concede
FOFOA
blogspot has taken pains to lay out the most cogent, exquisitely
nuanced and, ultimately, persuasive argument for hyperinflation
that I have read to date. You can access it by clicking here.
I've responded as follows but plan to write later, in agreement,
at greater length.
Sheesh! Where
to begin? It's difficult to give up a belief system that took
root 30 years ago, but I find your arguments irresistible. I took
notes as I read the essay, thinking to rebut you point-by-point;
instead, halfway through it I found myself overwhelmed by the
clarity of your thoughts. The real power of this essay is that
each step of the hyperinflationary endgame you foresee is entirely
consistent with human nature, particularly where self-interest
and self-preservation are fated to play out.
Incredible!
Three decades of bad assumptions, yet all that it took to persuade
his self-defining outlook him was an article on anonymous blog.
All of a sudden, hyperinflation is "entirely consistent with human
nature."
Out of the
deep freeze and into the fire.
But what of
non-hyperinflationary Charles Hugh Smith, who three weeks earlier
had been a model for him? Gone!
So, as always,
I find that I do not agree with Ackerman. I agree with Smith. Smith
wrote this in the article Ackerman recommended on April 5:
My
problem with the "hyper-inflation is inevitable" school of thought
is that I cannot identify what powerful interests would gain from
the destruction of the currency and all financial wealth. A hyper-inflationary
wipeout certainly wouldn't benefit the Financial Power Elites who
hold the vast majority of the financial wealth. Yet it is this very
Elite which wields the preponderance of political power.
Thus you
end up with this untenable conclusion: the politically powerful
Financial Elite will consciously choose to self-destruct. I don't
buy that as a likely scenario. If inflation started destroying
their wealth, then they would instantly influence political policy
to reverse course to preserve their wealth.
I will not
be spending time refuting Ackerman. That did me no good over the
last 20 years. It will do me no good now.
I am the equivalent
of a meat-lover. Ackerman was the equivalent of a vegetarian. He
would not hear of meat-eating. Meat-eating made no sense. All of
a sudden, he recommends cannibalism. I prefer steaks. I always did.
Here is the
April
4 essay that prompted him to write his convoluted article on
April 5.
Here is the
article that converted him.
It argues that
politics will overcome central banking. Hyperinflation will then
hit in full force. I believe that such an outcome is possible politically.
I think it will not happen. What I have always said is this: there
is no deflationary factor in the structure of the capital markets
to keep a central bank from destroying the currency unit. There
are no deflationary forces that central banking cannot overcome
if it chooses to destroy the currency unit.
EVER
SINCE 1967
I argued with
deflationist Martin Weiss back in a recorded debate in 1982 that
price deflation would not come anytime soon. I had been arguing
ever since 1967 that his father, J. Irving Weiss, had been wrong
in predicting deflation in 1967. Finally in 2009, the
son switched. He now predicts price inflation.
Will
price deflation ever come? Every inflationist says it will. The
question is timing: either before hyperinflation or after, when
the economy adopts a replacement currency. What Ludwig von Mises
called the crack-up boom (hyperinflation) inevitably cracks up.
A new currency replaces the now-extinct one.
I don't think
we are near an era of central bank monetary stability, recession,
and depression. Central bankers can still safely inflate, and they
will.
With Ackerman
gone, this leaves Mish and Robert Prechter as the last famous deflationists
still standing. But there were never many of them. They were always
vastly outnumbered by hard-money analysts who predicted price inflation.
From John Exter and C. V. Myers in the mid-1970s until today, the
leaders of the deflationist camp have been few and far between.
Today, they are fewer and even farther between.
April
28, 2011
Gary
North [send him mail]
is the author of Mises
on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.
He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An
Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright ©
2011 Gary North
The
Best of Gary North
|