Origins of the Federal Reserve

Via Mises.org:

The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, was part and parcel of the wave of Progressive legislation on local, state, and federal levels of government that began about 1900. Progressivism was a bipartisan movement that, in the course of the first two decades of the 20th century, transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism.

Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who, guided by a new generation of altruistic experts and intellectuals, surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late 19th century. A generation of research and scholarship, however, has now exploded that myth for all parts of the American polity, and it has become all too clear that the truth is the reverse of this well-worn fable.

In contrast, what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late 19th century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J. P. Morgan and Company, tried desperately to establish successful cartels on the free market. The first wave of such cartels was in the first large-scale business — railroads. In every case, the attempt to increase profits — by cutting sales with a quota system — and thereby to raise prices or rates, collapsed quickly from internal competition within the cartel and from external competition by new competitors eager to undercut the cartel.

During the 1890s, in the new field of large-scale industrial corporations, big-business interests tried to establish high prices and reduced production via mergers, and again, in every case, the merger collapsed from the winds of new competition. In both sets of cartel attempts, J. P. Morgan and Company had taken the lead, and in both sets of cases, the market, hampered though it was by high protective, tariff walls, managed to nullify these attempts at voluntary cartelization.

It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion, in other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism. But how could the American people, steeped in a long tradition of fierce opposition to government-imposed monopoly, go along with this program? How could the public’s consent to the New Order be engineered?

Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed.

Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as “grants of exclusive privilege” by the government. It was now simply redefined as “big business” or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed with big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing “big-business monopoly” on the free market.

In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of “opposing monopoly,” as well as promoting the general welfare and national security. Once again, it was railroad monopoly that paved the way.

For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation’s intellectuals, the class of professional opinion molders in society. The Morgans needed a smokescreen of ideology, setting forth the rationale and the apologetics for the New Order. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance.

The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational “guilds” of all types in the late 19th century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields.

In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever-increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious “middle way” between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business, and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all.

Continue reading the article here

The Man Who Predicted the Depression

Via WSJ:

Ludwig von Mises was snubbed by economists world-wide as he warned of a credit crisis in the 1920s. We ignore the great Austrian at our peril today.

Mises’s ideas on business cycles were spelled out in his 1912 tome “Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel” (“The Theory of Money and Credit”). Not surprisingly few people noticed, as it was published only in German and wasn’t exactly a beach read at that.

Taking his cue from David Hume and David Ricardo, Mises explained how the banking system was endowed with the singular ability to expand credit and with it the money supply, and how this was magnified by government intervention. Left alone, interest rates would adjust such that only the amount of credit would be used as is voluntarily supplied and demanded. But when credit is force-fed beyond that (call it a credit gavage), grotesque things start to happen.

Read the full article here

Weekend Book Reading: Concise Guide to Economics

This is a wonderful little book. Weighing in at only 126 pages, you have no excuse for not finishing it. It is a quick read, but contains a wealth of useful and factual information. It is particularly effective in debunking some very widespread myths, such as the minimum wage law being a good thing, and “price gougers” and “speculators” being a bad thing. If you find the book to be too concise and want some more in-depth information, I also highly recommend Economics in One Lesson and Defending the Undefendable.

To understand economics is to understand the practical case for freedom. The Concise Guide To Economics is a handy, quick reference guide for those already familiar with basic economics, and a brief, compelling primer for everyone else. Jim Cox introduces topics ranging from entrepreneurship, money, and inflation to the consequences of price controls (which are bad) to price gouging (which is good). Along the way, he defends the crucial role of advertising, speculators, and heroic insider traders. The book combines straightforward, common sense analysis with hard-core dedication to principle, using the fewest words possible to explain the topic clearly. And each brief chapter includes references to further reading so those who are curious to dig deeper will know where to look next. The Concise Guide makes a great gift to those who misunderstand the case for free-market capitalism.

David Galland on How the Government Programs Are Broken

Here’s a nugget from Chuck Butler’s Daily Pfening today. By the way, I highly recommend reading the Daily Pfening. Chuck Butler always keeps it informative and entertaining. David Galland puts to words what I have been saying to my friends for years. The way the government goes about doing things, the programs are guaranteed to fail. Of course, maybe the government should not get involved in areas that the founding fathers never intended it to get involved with. But that’s for another post…

A Quick History Lesson

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. So they’ve had 234 years to make it work. It is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. They’ve had 74 years to make it work. It is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They’ve had 71 years to make it work. It is broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They’ve had 39 years to make it work. It is broke.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. They’ve had 45 years to make it work. About $1 trillion of taxpayer money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor.” It hasn’t worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They’ve had 44 years to make it work. They are both broke.

AMTRAK was established in 1970. They’ve had 39 years to make it work. Last year it had to be bailed out and today continues running at a loss.

$700 billion bailout of 2008. It has yet to create a single new private-sector job.
Cash for Clunkers in 2009 went broke after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies.

Now that it’s put like that in black and white, it sure doesn’t look good does it?

Wait, doesn’t government make everything better? I thought more of it was always the panacea.

Why Is Capitalism So Unpopular?

Art Caden explains why he feels capitalism is so unpopular. Here’s an excerpt:

I think there may be a more straightforward explanation that plays a role in their dismissal of capitalism. To a “man of system,” to borrow Adam Smith’s terminology, capitalism just isn’t that exciting. Participants in the market economy are wholly beholden to consumer wants. The academics envision a grand world, where Great Men fight Great Wars, periodically inventing Great Things or developing Great Ideas. Instead, the market provides us with incremental processes, which expend enormous piles of resources, in a quest to make better Triscuits. It is hardly the stuff of high drama, to say nothing of Great History.

Under capitalism, the common man does not need an intellectual vanguard or a group of virtuous surrogates to make his decisions for him or to defend him against the rapacity of his fellows. He can do just fine without our help, thank you very much, and would be much obliged if we would go back to our ivory towers and leave him alone.

The idea that great statesmen are not needed — to say nothing about being wanted — can no doubt be galling to many who decry capitalism for its excesses. For the people who derive their self-worth from being paternalistic, this is a sorry state of affairs indeed.

Read more »

Rothbard Vindicated on Analysis of Great Depression

Joseph Salerno from Mises.org reports on a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper written by a prominent macroeconomist — and accepted for publication by the influential Journal of Economic Theory — which challenges the Friedman-Schwartz view and lends ample evidence to the Rothbardian position on the genesis of the Great Depression.

In America’s Great Depression, originally published in 1963, Murray Rothbard argued that the recession-adjustment that began in 1929 was greatly worsened and turned into a full-blown depression by the policies implemented by Herbert Hoover. Among the Hooverite policies that stifled the adjustment process, Rothbard identified public-works programs, increases in taxes, the imposition of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but especially Hoover’s efforts to prevent the downward adjustment of nominal wages by exerting pressure on big industrialists not to cut (and even to raise) their employees’ wage rates.

Rothbard’s explanation of how the temporary and benign recession-adjustment process was impeded and diverted into the Great Depression ran counter to the view that Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz put forth in their classic work A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960, also published in 1963. According to Friedman-Schwartz, it was the collapse of the money supply due to the negligence of the Fed that turned what should have been a “garden-variety recession” into the Great Depression. The Friedman-Schwartz view came to dominate mainstream macroeconomics after the collapse of the Keynesian consensus in the 1970s. Indeed, it is today the conventional explanation of the Great Depression, which Bernanke holds to and which governs the policy response of the Fed to the current financial crisis.

Thus, for decades Rothbard and a handful of Misesian economists were virtually alone in maintaining that Hoover’s interventionist policies, particularly as they impacted the industrial labor market, were mainly responsible for transforming what should have been a short and sharp recession into the economic catastrophe of epic proportions that we now know as the “Great Depression.” Now comes a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper written by a prominent macroeconomist with impeccable academic credentials — and accepted for publication by the influential Journal of Economic Theory — which challenges the Friedman-Schwartz view and lends ample evidence to the Rothbardian position on the genesis of the Great Depression. In writing his article, “Who — or What — Started the Great Depression,” UCLA economist Lee E. Ohanian spent four years poring over wage data and culling information from sources related to Hoover and his administration.

Read more »

End the Fed

Mises.org has posted Chapter 2 of Ron Paul’s glorious new book End the Fed. Here’s a small excerpt:

Most Americans haven’t thought much about the strange entity that controls the nation’s money. They simply accept it as though it has always been there, which is far from the case. Visitors to Washington can see the Fed’s palatial headquarters in Washington, D.C., which opened its doors in 1937. Tourists observe its intimidating appearance and forbidding structure, the monetary parallel to the Supreme Court or the Capitol of the United States.

People know that this institution has an important job to do in managing the nation’s money supply, and they hear the head of the Fed testify to Congress, citing complex data, making predictions, and attempting to intimidate anyone who would take issue with them. One would never suspect from their words that there is any mismanagement taking place. The head of the Fed always postures as master of the universe, someone completely knowledgeable and completely in control.

Read the whole chapter here

Why Austrian Economics Matters

Here is a timeless essay for your weekend reading enjoyment. Too many people do not know or understand the concept of Austrian economics. This is sad. We would not be in the economic mess we are today if more people were educated in the Austrian School. From time to time, I will post articles and essays on Austrian economics. The below essay is the first of these posts:

Why Austrian Economics Matters
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Economics, wrote Joseph Schumpeter, is “a big omnibus which contains many passengers of incommensurable interests and abilities.” That is, economists are an incoherent and ineffectual lot, and their reputation reflects it. Yet it need not be so, for the economist attempts to answer the most profound question regarding the material world.

Pretend you know nothing about the market, and ask yourself this question: how can society’s entire deposit of scarce physical and intellectual resources be assembled so as to minimize cost; make use of the talents of every individual; provide for the needs and tastes of every consumer; encourage technical innovation, creativity, and social development; and do all this in a way that can be sustained?

This question is worthy of scholarly effort, and those who struggle with the answer are surely deserving of respect. The trouble is this: the methods used by much of mainstream economists have little to do with acting people, and so these methods do not yield conclusions that have the ring of truth. This does not have to be the case.

The central questions of economics have concerned the greatest thinkers since ancient Greece. And today, economic thinking is broken into many schools of thought: the Keynesians, the Post Keynesians, the New-Keynesians, the Classicals, the New Classicals (or Rational Expectations School), the Monetarists, the Chicago Public Choicers, the Virginia Public Choicers, the Experimentalists, the Game Theorists, the varying branches of Supply Sideism, and on and on it goes.

The Austrian School

Also part of this mix, but in many ways apart from and above it, is the Austrian School. It is not a field within economics, but an alternative way of looking at the entire science. Whereas other schools rely primarily on idealized mathematical models of the economy, and suggest ways the government can make the world conform, Austrian theory is more realistic and thus more socially scientific.

Austrians view economics as a tool for understanding how people both cooperate and compete in the process of meeting needs, allocating resources, and discovering ways of building a prosperous social order. Austrians view entrepreneurship as a critical force in economic development, private property as essential to an efficient use of resources, and government intervention in the market process as always and everywhere destructive.

The Austrian School is in a major upswing today. In academia, this is due to a backlash against mathematization, the resurgence of verbal logic as a methodological tool, and the search for a theoretically stable tradition in the madhouse of macroeconomic theorizing. In terms of policy, the Austrian School looks more and more attractive, given continuing business-cycle mysteries, the collapse of socialism, the cost and failure of the welfare warfare regulatory state, and public frustration with big government.

Read more »