On January 8, 1912 the National Monetary Commission established by the Aldrich-Vreeland Act issued its final report. The Aldrich-Vreeland Act had been passed in 1908 in response to the Panic of 1907. The act established a monetary commission that studied the banking systems of England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, and other countries, and issued a series of documents during its existence. The Commission’s final report contained suggestions for a National Reserve Association to further nationalize the banking system, centralize reserves, and respond to combat financial panics. The ideas and language in that final report formed the basis for the eventual creation of the Federal Reserve System. Some advocates of sound money have advocated the creation of a new monetary commission, the Centennial Monetary Commission, which would examine the Federal Reserve’s performance over the past century and put forth proposals for a potential overhaul of the American financial system.
Today is the anniversary of the death of Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard in 1995. Along with Ludwig von Mises and others, Rothbard was one of the men most responsible for popularizing the Austrian School of Economics in the United States. Following in the vein of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, Rothbard made important contributions to economics as well as economic and monetary history, and gave penetrating insights into the public policy impacts of monetary policy. For those wishing to begin reading Rothbard’s work on money and banking, his short book “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” and the longer “The Mystery of Banking” are great introductions to and explanations of the workings of the American banking and monetary system.
As expected, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raised its target federal funds rate to 0.50-0.75%. There wasn’t much substantive change in the language of the statement. Economic activity was judged to be expanding at a moderate pace, with a declining unemployment rate. Measures of inflation were said to have “moved up considerably” but still remain low, which seems to be contradictory. All FOMC members voted in favor of raising the target federal funds rate at this meeting.
Looking forward to 2017, some media reports have touted that the Fed’s “dot plots” point to the potential for three rate hikes in 2017. That possibility has a few things working against it. First, the Fed is watching closely to see what other central banks are doing. If the European Central Bank, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan maintain loose monetary policy, the Fed will find it tough to raise rates unilaterally. Secondly, the FOMC membership is switching up again as it does every year. For those who are unfamiliar, here’s the Federal Reserve’s description of the FOMC:
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.
Next year the four Federal Reserve Bank Presidents rotating onto the FOMC are: Charles Evans of Chicago, who has a dovish reputation; and Patrick Harker of Philadelphia, Robert Kaplan of Dallas, and Neel Kashkari of Minneapolis, all of whom are recently-hired and will be voting on the FOMC for the first time. Dallas and Philadelphia have reputations for being more hawkish, but it remains to be seen whether the new Presidents will maintain that reputation.
This video originally aired at the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Just about everyone expects the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to raise its target interest rate at its meeting this week. The talk of raising rates has occupied newspaper columns all year, and the comments from FOMC participants have become stronger in recent months in discussing their desire to raise rates. But the decision to raise rates won’t have come about because of any strong economic data, be it inflation hovering around the Fed’s target or the low unemployment rate showing strength in the labor market. Labor market activity has been relatively steady all year and there haven’t been any surprisingly strong signs of economic growth, so why the green light now? Because the European Central Bank (ECB) announced at its meeting last week that it would extend but taper its bond purchases.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, one central bank after another engaged in quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve, Bank of England, ECB, and Bank of Japan all engaged in large-scale asset purchases in attempts to drive down interest rates, remove overvalued assets from bank balance sheets, and attempt to jump-start their economies. Various interest rate targets were driven to near-zero, and even negative in Japan and Europe. Central bankers eventually realized that they couldn’t maintain those levels of policy accommodation indefinitely. But no one wanted to be the first one to start tightening. The fear was that if a central bank began to tighten policy while other central banks didn’t, the first country’s tighter policies would cause its economy to slow down, harming its relative position vis-a-vis other major countries. No central bank wanted to take the blame for weakening its country’s economy. So month after month, meeting after meeting, central banks just held pat.
By Ron Paul
Former Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher recently gave a speech identifying the Federal Reserve’s easy money/low interest rate policies as a source of the public anger that propelled Donald Trump into the White House. Mr. Fisher is certainly correct that the Fed’s policies have “skewered” the middle class. However, the problem is not specific Fed policies, but the very system of fiat currency managed by a secretive central bank.
Federal Reserve-generated increases in money supply cause economic inequality. This is because, when the Fed acts to increase the money supply, well-to-do investors and other crony capitalists are the first recipients of the new money. These economic elites enjoy an increase in purchasing power before the Fed’s inflationary policies lead to mass price increases. This gives them a boost in their standard of living.
By the time the increased money supply trickles down to middle- and working-class Americans, the economy is already beset by inflation. So most average Americans see their standard of living decline as a result of Fed-engendered money supply increases.
Some Fed defenders claim that inflation doesn’t negatively affect anyone’s standard of living because price increases are matched by wage increases. This claim ignores the fact that the effects of the Fed’s actions depend on how individuals react to the Fed’s actions.
Historically, an increase in money supply does not just cause a general rise in prices. It also causes money to flow into specific sectors, creating a bubble that provides investors and workers in those areas a (temporary) increase in their incomes. Meanwhile, workers and investors in sectors not affected by the Fed-generated boom will still see a decline in their purchasing power and thus their standard of living.
Adoption of a “rules-based” monetary policy will not eliminate the problem of Fed-created bubbles, booms, and busts, since Congress cannot set a rule dictating how individuals react to Fed policies. The only way to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycle is to remove the Fed’s power to increase the money supply and manipulate interest rates.
Because the Fed’s actions distort the view of economic conditions among investors, businesses, and workers, the booms created by the Fed are unsustainable. Eventually reality sets in, the bubble bursts, and the economy falls into recession.
When the crash occurs the best thing for Congress and the Fed to do is allow the recession to run its course. Recessions are the economy’s way of cleaning out the Fed-created distortions. Of course, Congress and the Fed refuse to do that. Instead, they begin the whole business cycle over again with another round of money creation, increased stimulus spending, and corporate bailouts.
Some progressive economists acknowledge how the Fed causes economic inequality and harms average Americans. These progressives support perpetual low interest rates and money creation. These so-called working class champions ignore how the very act of money creation causes economic inequality. Longer periods of easy money also mean longer, and more painful, recessions.
President-elect Donald Trump has acknowledged that, while his business benefits from lower interest rates, the Fed’s policies hurt most Americans. During the campaign, Mr. Trump also promised to make audit the fed part of his first 100 days agenda. Unfortunately, since the election, President-elect Trump has not made any statements regarding monetary policy or the audit the fed legislation. Those of us who understand that changing monetary policy is the key to making America great again must redouble our efforts to convince Congress and the new president to audit, then end, the Federal Reserve.
In an unsurprising decision, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided today once again to keep its target federal funds rate steady at 0.25-0.50%. It was widely speculated that the FOMC would hold rates steady at today’s meeting due to concerns about influencing next week’s Presidential election. Expectations now are that the Fed, if it decides to raise rates, will do so at next month’s FOMC meeting.
There were no significant changes in the language of the statement from September’s meeting. Household spending was described as “rising moderately” rather than growing strongly, price inflation and measures of inflation expectations have risen but still remain lower than what the Fed would like to see, and the case for raising rates has continued to strengthen. Voting against today’s action were Esther George from Kansas City and Loretta Mester from Cleveland, both of whom wanted to raise the target federal funds rate to 0.50-0.75%. Eric Rosengren, who voted against September’s FOMC action, switched this month to supporting the most recent FOMC action.
It remains to be seen when the Fed might raise rates, as it seems that central banks are waiting to see what the other central banks are going to do before they make their own decision. The Fed, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, and others are playing a game of chicken. They are like cars heading full-speed towards a volcanic crater, soon to plunge into the chasm and assured of destruction. Yet none of them want to be the first to hike rates. That would be tantamount to admitting error, or at least admitting defeat, and would be a tremendous blow to their pride. And so meeting after meeting we see central bank after central bank holding steady.
Some of them like to talk a good game, jawboning markets into thinking that more easing might be on the way (BOJ, ECB) or that rate hikes are just around the corner (Federal Reserve), but they never back up their tough talk with action. Watching central banks nowadays is like watching a game of poker in which each player has a horrible hand, tries to bluff, and is unwilling to show his hand. And so it goes again today. Even if the Fed were to raise rates next month, it would likely only be to 0.50-0.75%, still an abnormally low figure. Given that the Fed spent all year talking about raising rates and not doing anything, it would be safe to say that rates won’t even approach 1% until December of 2017. Don’t expect full “normalization” to be reached until 2020 at the earliest, assuming the economy doesn’t go down the toilet before then, which is very likely given the huge asset bubbles that easy money policies have inflated all across the world.
The following is the prepared version of a speech delivered at the Ron Paul Institute Conference in Sterling, VA.
I am here today to talk about one of the most important, but also most overlooked, issues of our day: the relationship between central banking and total war. When you focus on central banking and the problems that result from it, it’s very easy to see how central banks enable larger, more centralized, and more pervasive governments. But it isn’t always easy for those who oppose war to see how central banks enable war. So I’ll go ahead and give you kind of the 10,000 foot view of the symbiotic relationship between central banking and war.
One of the primary activities that states engage in is fighting wars. But wars cost money. Armies march on their stomachs, and someone has to buy the necessary food and transport it. Weapons and armament cost money too, all of which has to be paid for. So where have kings and governments historically gotten that money from, particularly when their own treasuries ran out? As Willie Sutton could have told them – banks.
Banks developed initially as a means for merchants to store their funds safely and securely. But eventually those banks took in so much money that they got the idea to loan out some of those funds, hoping that they could juggle loans and receive enough payment on outstanding loans to satisfy demands for redemption by depositors. Thus was born fractional reserve banking and the recourse to banks as lenders of money. Sure, kings could expropriate money from banks, but that only went so far. If you continued to rob banks outright, they would eventually either hide their money or disappear from the kingdom and the king was left with no money to fight his wars. So what developed was a relationship that has developed over time and become ever closer and more symbiotic over the course of time between banks and governments.
Watch Ron Paul interview Carl Menger Center President Paul-Martin Foss in this edition of the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
The Wells Fargo bank account scandal took center stage in the news last week and in all likelihood will continue to make headlines for many weeks to come. What Wells Fargo employees did in opening bank accounts without customers’ authorization was obviously wrong, but in true Washington fashion the scandal is being used to deflect attention away from larger, more enduring, and more important scandals.
What Wells Fargo employees who opened these accounts engaged in was nothing more than fraud and theft, and they should be punished accordingly. But how much larger is the fraud perpetrated by the Federal Reserve System and why does the Fed continue to go unpunished? For over 100 years the Federal Reserve System has been devaluing the dollar, siphoning money from the wallets of savers into the pockets of debtors. Where is the outrage? Where are the hearings? Why isn’t Congress up in arms about the Fed’s malfeasance? It reminds me of the story of the pirate confronting Alexander the Great. When accused by Alexander of piracy, he replies “Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You, with a great navy, molest the world and are called an emperor.”
Over two thousand years later, not much has changed. Wells Fargo will face more scrutiny and perhaps more punishment. There will undoubtedly be more calls for stricter regulation, notwithstanding the fact that regulators failed to detect this fraud, just as they have failed to detect every fraud and financial crisis in history. And who will suffer? Why, the average account-holder of course.