Question About Money Supply and the Economy

Splinter

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
20
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Throughout the history of the Central Bank, they have been able to manipulate the money supply according to their ideas of where the economy should be heading (or where they could make profit). It has been generally observed that when they increased the money supply, times were prosperous and business was booming. Then they would decrease the money supply, and business would be cut off from capital and many would fail.

What is making this time different? The FED is increasing the money supply greatly with the stimulus and QE's. Why isn't business booming. I know capital is not available as banks are not lending, but why? Is it the uncertainty? Is it because we are now in a global economy, and maybe this increased money supply is being focused elsewhere in the world?

Just stuff on my mind that I hope starts a good conversation.
Thanks.
 
Monetary policy - carried out through central banks - has a lot to do with whether we are in the long-run or short-run. There is disagreement among economists as to whether we are still in the long-run or short-run now.
 
Expansionary monetary policy - lowering discount rates, increasing the money supply - only stimulates economic growth in the short-run.
 
The debt that the banks hold have not been liquidated. If you look at the European banks, they all hold large amounts of sovereign debt that is losing value by the minute. Any capital they have are being reserved in anticipation of future losses and not being used to lend out.
 
The problem today is not a lack of available credit at lending institutions (the product of "printing money"). The issue is a lack of demand, created by the overextension of credit. Basically, we're all too broke to buy anything because they keeps interest rates do low for so long on top of us already spending the last 60 years shifting from a savings-based to credit-based economy. Were in the part of Keynesianism that fails. The part Keynes himself warned us to avoid, actually.
 
So if debt hasn't been liquidated out of the system yet. Has this been the case in any other period in history? IE The late 19teens and depression era? Was it because this was the begining of the central bank and therefore the US hadn't racked up the enormous proportional debt that it encounters now?
 
my 2 zinc cents.

If the money supply doubles, then eventually prices double. It seems that the bond market is in a bubble. For the Fed, it's like walking a tightrope. Two, three, or four percent inflation doesn't starve too many people and most working people hardly notice and just tighten their belts. But 15 ->20 ->40% inflation causes rebellion. Since they created $15+ trillion since 2008... out of control inflation is a concern if that money gets into the general economy. Easy does it if they can control it. If they can't, then hyperinflation ensues. And hyperinflation ends the paper dollar. It's not the end of the world. It just changes the world.
 
The problem today is not a lack of available credit at lending institutions (the product of "printing money"). The issue is a lack of demand, created by the overextension of credit. Basically, we're all too broke to buy anything because they keeps interest rates do low for so long on top of us already spending the last 60 years shifting from a savings-based to credit-based economy. Were in the part of Keynesianism that fails. The part Keynes himself warned us to avoid, actually.

This explains the position of business scared to do anything right now. Along with stifling regulations, it's no wonder there are no jobs being offered.
 
It's really also in large part due to cumulative effect of having the same economic policies since the 30's. Eventually you keep kickicking the can down the road so to speak, and you finally hit a wall. Now, you can debate whether the wall has been hit yet. We might be able to keep keep the pyramid scheme going for 20 more years. But eventually the value of a dollar will drop so low and long term cumulative effects of malinvestemnt will be so high the whole thing will collapse in on itself.

Honestly, I answered your question in very broad terms. I suggest you pick up the various books on Austrian economics touted by Ron Paul and learn the finer details as to why our economic policies have failed. Once you do you will be better educated on why our policies fail, and you will also be a heck of a lot madder!
 
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Throughout the history of the Central Bank, they have been able to manipulate the money supply according to their ideas of where the economy should be heading (or where they could make profit). It has been generally observed that when they increased the money supply, times were prosperous and business was booming. Then they would decrease the money supply, and business would be cut off from capital and many would fail.

What is making this time different? The FED is increasing the money supply greatly with the stimulus and QE's. Why isn't business booming. I know capital is not available as banks are not lending, but why? Is it the uncertainty? Is it because we are now in a global economy, and maybe this increased money supply is being focused elsewhere in the world?

Just stuff on my mind that I hope starts a good conversation.
Thanks.

Your assumptions are wrong for the most part. The real economy generally does well when savings are high and therefore that capital is available for investment, and also when the government doesn't interfere with it as much.

The economy appears to do well when we have inflationary bubbles being blown up by Federal Reserve credit, but those "booms" are never sustainable and must bust and allow the economy to shift the resources away from those wasteful endeavors and use them in productive ones.

The problem this time is that for the last 20 or so years, we haven't allowed the economy correct whenever it slowed down. The Fed just kept the easy money and credit flowing allowing us to move from one bubble to the next, and now resources are so misallocated the real economy can't really do anything productive. Also this time we have no savings, and the government is doing everything they can to make sure people spend their money instead of saving it, so there is no capital available for investment. The banks won't lend the newly created money because they are all insolvent unless they make a guaranteed return on that money, so they just take that money and buy treasuries to finance the federal debt. The Fed's easy credit allowed the banks to take wild risks and bankrupt themselves, and nothing is going to save them. They are way too leveraged with bad debt. It would destroy the dollar for good to give them the bailout they need.

Also, this time it is different because the dollar is so weak. We haven't had a productive economy for a long time. We have kept the printing presses going for too long already, and now prices are rising every time Bernanke blows a fart. The consumer is crushed with every bailout. We have stagflation with a perilously weak currency.

There are only 2 options. They keep printing and borrowing and trying to centrally plan a solution. This will lead to hyperinflation, probably within 10 years. The other option is to raise interest rates, which will bankrupt the federal government, liquidate the bad debt, and suffer through a severe correction while the free market figures out the best way to allocate resources and put people back to work. Guess which one they will opt for.
 
But 15 ->20 ->40% inflation causes rebellion. Since they created $15+ trillion since 2008... out of control inflation is a concern if that money gets into the general economy. Easy does it if they can control it. If they can't, then hyperinflation ensues. And hyperinflation ends the paper dollar. It's not the end of the world. It just changes the world.

THis would almost suggest the Central bank would mandate that banks tighten their lending standards so the money supply doesn't expand too quickly. So I guess that this would suggest that they announced these policy's as a general "appeasment" to try and quell fears to wall street and the general public knowing full well that this money will not hit the streets.
 
It's really also in large part due to cumulative effect of having the same economic policies since the 30's. Eventually you keep kickicking the can down the road so to speak, and you finally hit a wall. Now, you can debate whether the wall has been hit yet. We might be able to keep keep the pyramid scheme going for 20 more years. But eventually the value of a dollar will drop so low and long term cumulative effects of malinvestemnt will be so high the whole thing will collapse in on itself.

Honestly, I answered your question in very broad terms. I suggest you pick up the various books on Austrian economics touted by Ron Paul and learn the finer details as to why our economic policies have failed. Once you do you will be better educated on why our policies fail, and you will also be a heck of a lot madder!

Yeah i've done some research already, but I definitely need to delve deeper. THanks
 
Your assumptions are wrong for the most part. The real economy generally does well when savings are high and therefore that capital is available for investment, and also when the government doesn't interfere with it as much.

The economy appears to do well when we have inflationary bubbles being blown up by Federal Reserve credit, but those "booms" are never sustainable and must bust and allow the economy to shift the resources away from those wasteful endeavors and use them in productive ones.

I didn't mean to imply that the expanded money supply "booms" were sustainable. It just seems that this time is not following the normal course. And You people are a wealth of knowledge. I appreciate it.
 
Yeah i've done some research already, but I definitely need to delve deeper. THanks

Meltdown is a great book, as someone suggested.

I would also read Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt. The great thing about that book is that it was written years ago and still applies today.

Same with The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek. Save this one for last.

If you can read those three your off to a pretty decent start my friend!
 
Thanks Guys.

Now on to a new question. I know Ron advocates a return to a gold standard, but is that really viable? Who knows what the gold reserves are at this point. I know it is a heck of a lot better than the fiat system going now, but couldn't gold be manipulated and hoarded by the banks also. What do people think of the "Greenback" system that was implemented by Lincoln during the civil war?
 
Yeah i've done some research already, but I definitely need to delve deeper. THanks

By the way, I admire your willingness to take the plunge and learn. I've managed to convert quite a few people to Paul because I've managed to go beyond talking in broad strokes. Many people, including those on this board, get thrown off when someone asks for greater detail on how true free economies work. Or they throw up arguments that can be easily refuted if your well read on topics such as foreign policy or economics. You truly start to convert people when you go beyond emotion and use pure logic. Of course it doesn't work for everyone, so be advised.

I don't fault people by the way for not having read as much as I have. I'm sure for many it can be dry, boring reading. I find it fascinating personally, but I'm probably strange. That, and finding them time can be hard sometimes. I welcome even our lesser read brothers and sisters to the movement however, because at least they have an open heart and mind and realize something is seriously wrong with the establishment.
 
Thanks Guys.

Now on to a new question. I know Ron advocates a return to a gold standard, but is that really viable? Who knows what the gold reserves are at this point. I know it is a heck of a lot better than the fiat system going now, but couldn't gold be manipulated and hoarded by the banks also. What do people think of the "Greenback" system that was implemented by Lincoln during the civil war?

First of all, Lincoln was a tyrant.

Seemingly, the "best" way to return to the gold standard would be through legalizing competing currencies.
 
Back
Top