Home » Posts tagged 'patrick barron'

Tag Archives: patrick barron

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Role Reversal: The Collapse of the Dollar-Enforced Empire

Role Reversal: The Collapse of the Dollar-Enforced Empireold soviet money

The Soviet empire started to crumble around 1989. The time period between the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the late 1940s and the retreat of Russia from Eastern Europe with the eventual collapse of communism in Russia is known as the Cold War. There was a great power confrontation in Europe that did not result in war.

Essentially, US-led NATO stood its ground to prevent further Soviet expansion from the territory it occupied at the end of World War II and waited for the inevitable collapse. Now, perhaps not everyone saw the collapse of the Soviet empire as inevitable. But all one had to do was view the Soviet empire for oneself, up close and personal, which is what I did in the early 1970s as a young Air Force officer.

The State of the Communist Economy

The Russian economy at that time is painful to describe. Moscow and Leningrad (Saint Petersburg), the so-called jewels of the Soviet Union, were depressing. Everything was shoddily built. There were very few cars on the streets. There were no retail shops deserving of the name. Lines formed in the middle of the night awaiting the opening of the few bakeries. I saw this for myself from my hotel window on the Nevsky Prospekt in Leningrad. GUM, the “world’s largest department store” near Moscow’s Red Square, sold nothing that was equal to what could be found in any garage sale in the West.

Actually, that should not be a surprise since at one time all those garage-sale goods were marketable. I did not visit Berlin, but those who did say that crossing the Brandenburg Gate from West Berlin to East Berlin was shocking…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

World Dollar Hegemony Is Ending (and That May Be a Good Thing)

World Dollar Hegemony Is Ending (and That May Be a Good Thing)

petrodollar

The end of world dollar hegemony is coming and hardly anyone in government is taking notice or even understands what this means. Since the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the dollar has been the only currency accepted throughout the world for settlement of international trade accounts among nations.

Prior to 1944, physical gold was used for international settlement. When an exporter in country A sold goods to an importer in country B, country B would pay with its own currency. But country A would have no interest in allowing country B’s currency to build up in its vaults beyond an amount required to settle its own importers’ needs. Thus, country A would demand that country B redeem its own currency in gold. Sometimes country B would ship physical gold to country A. Or perhaps gold held in safekeeping in a third country would be designated as now belonging to country A, a book entry transaction that is more convenient than physical movement.

The Bretton Woods Agreement and Its Demise

The Bretton Woods Agreement added the dollar as tantamount to physical gold at $35 per ounce. The reason was simple: at the end of World War II the United States had accumulated a preponderance of gold, due primarily to its role as the “arsenal of democracy.” Thus, central banks could exchange dollars for settlement rather than moving or redesignating the ownership of physical gold. The weakness of this system was that the world had to trust the USA not to create more dollars than it could redeem for gold at $35 per ounce. But central banks always had the option to demand physical gold from the USA and hence ensure that their trust in the measure of $35 per ounce was fully supported.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Counterfeiting Money Is a Crime — Whether Done by the Fed or A Private Individual

Counterfeiting Money Is a Crime — Whether Done by the Fed or A Private Individual

A few years ago, shortly after the 2008 subprime lending disaster, the Fed sent a public relations team around the country to conduct supposedly “educational sessions” about how the Fed works and the wonderful things it does. The public was invited, and there was a question and answer session at the end of the presentation. One such session was held in Des Moines, Iowa. At the time I was teaching a course in Austrian economics at the University of Iowa, so I lusted at the prospect of hearing complete nonsense and having a shot at asking a question. I was not disappointed.

The educational part of the session lasted about an hour, and it became clear to me that the panel of four knew almost nothing about monetary theory. They may even have been hired especially for this grand tour, because all were relatively young, well scrubbed, and very personable–let’s face it, not your typical Fed monetary policy wonks or bank examiners! The panelists discussed only one of the Fed’s two remits–its remit to promote the economic advancement of the nation. Its other remit is to safeguard the monetary system. However, the panelists did touched upon the Fed’s control of interest rates and ensuring that money continued to flow to housing and other high profile areas of the economy.

Finally, at the end of the presentation, those with questions were asked to form a queue and advance one at a time to a microphone. I was last in a line of about a dozen. Here’s my recollection of what followed:

Me: You say that you (the Fed) have the power to increase the money supply. Is that right?

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

China’s Currency Manipulation Does NOT Harm Its Trading Partners

China’s Currency Manipulation Does NOT Harm Its Trading Partners

Americans are being told that China’s currency manipulations are causing harm to its trading partners, America being the main victim. Nothing could be further from the truth. China’s currency manipulations certainly cause harm, but to China itself!

No country can cause harm to another by adopting any economic intervention. All economic interventions cause harm only to the country that adopts them. This applies to subsidies of home industries, quotas restricting import volumes, tariffs imposed on imports, and currency manipulations.

A nation typically manipulates its currency by giving more of its own currency in exchange for the currency of other countries. Thus foreign importers can buy more goods per unit of currency exchanged. In other words, if the free market exchange rate between the dollar and the yuan is six yuan per dollar, an importer would be able to buy goods costing six yuan by tendering one dollar. If the Bank of China arbitrarily decides to boost imports, it can give eight or ten yuan for each dollar presented. Chinese goods drop in price on the American market.

Protectionists such as President Trump view this as harm, but where exactly is the harm? A Chinese good that previously cost a dollar now may be purchased for sixty or eighty cents. Our American standard of living goes up at China’s expense! The extra money in Americans’ pockets may be used to consume or invest more. This is a very strange definition of harm.

The real harm occurs in China. The Bank of China sets off price inflation in its own country. It may try to mitigate this inflation by raising the interest rate on its own debt in order to withdraw the extra yuan from circulation. This is known as “sterilization”. It then appears as if China has achieved greater exports with no price inflation. However, China’s debt rises.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Can an Economy Advance Without Savings?

Can an Economy Advance Without Savings?

According to Frank Decker, Honorary Associate at the University of Sydney Law School, it certainly can. Not only that, but eschewing savings in favor of “monetisation of assets” will yield better results! I refer to his article in Economic Affairs–Volume 37, Number 3, October 2017–, a publication of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London.

Mr. Decker purports to answer the question “Central Bank or Monetary Authority? Three Views on Money and Monetary Reform.” The three views examined are commodity money, state money, and money as a derivative of property. All three views are explained very well, and a beginner to the study of the role of money will learn a lot in a short period of time.

Commodity money is the name Decker aptly gives to money backed by gold or some other widely accepted medium of indirect exchange. Commodity money’s proponents see two major advantages–that it ends inflation and the business cycle. He quotes Mises and Rothbard to good effect.

State money, or money as a state liability, is fiat money that all the world knows today. Its two most famous proponents are Keynes and Friedman. State money’s main advantages, as seen by Decker, are that the state can engage in countercyclical spending and the state can fund itself by printing all the money that it needs for current expenditures.

Decker’s third type of money–money as a derivative of property–sounds no different than fractional reserve banking, except that the fraction of reserves required to be held by the lending banks is so low that it is not a factor of lending restraint. Decker gives the example of a business that uses its assets as loan collateral. According to Decker, the money that the bank creates is NOT created out of thin air, because it is backed by private property; i.e., the loan collateral.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

My letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer in defense of Brexit

My letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer in defense of Brexit

Dear Sirs:
Trudy Rubin claims that “Brexit would be a huge step backward”, but she never explains why. Oh, she does correlate the growth of the EU regulatory state with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this is not cause-and-effect. The Soviet Union collapsed because NATO stood guard over the Western democracies until the internal cancer of communism had destroyed the Russian economy. Even Ms. Rubin admits that Europeans resent its (the EU’s) massive bureaucracy, myriad regulations, financial disasters, and open border policies. Furthermore, she admits that Brexit probably would lead to the dismantling of the EU. Is this not democracy in action? The Europeans, of all people, understand the dangers of large, undemocratic, centralized, bureaucratic states, of which the EU is just the latest incarnation.

Patrick Barron

The history, meaning, and probable end of “dollar hegemony”

The history, meaning, and probable end of “dollar hegemony”

This thirty minute interview is part one of a two part series. Part two will be released next week.

In this interview I explain how the dollar became the world’s leading reserve currency, what it means to be a reserve currency, how the US has benefited financially from this arrangement, and how delinking the dollar to gold has allowed our military empire to expand in an irresponsible manner.

Pat Barron
http://www.wakeupcallpodcast.com/dollar-hegemony/

Where Negative Interest Rates Will Lead Us

Where Negative Interest Rates Will Lead Us Where Negative Interest Rates Will Lead Us

Despite zero-interest-rate-policy (ZIRP) and multiple quantitative easing programs — whereby the central bank buys large quantities of assets while leaving interest rates at practically zero — the world’s economies are stuck in the doldrums. The central banks’ only accomplishment seems to be an increase in public and private debt. Therefore, the next step for the Keynesian economists who rule central banks everywhere is to make interest rates negative (i.e., adopt negative-interest-rate-policy or “NIRP.”) The process can be as simple as the central bank charging its member banks for holding excess reserves, although the same thing can be accomplished by more roundabout methods such as manipulating the reverse repo market.

Remember, it was the central bank itself that created these excess reserves when it purchased assets with money created out of thin air. The reserves landed in bank reserve accounts at the central bank when the recipients of the central bank’s asset purchases deposited their checks in their local banks. Now the banks have liabilities that are backed by depreciating assets (i.e., the banks still owe their customers the full amount in their checking accounts), but the central bank charges the banks for holding the reserves that back the deposits. In effect, the banks are being extorted by the central banks to increase lending or lose money. The banks have no choice. If they can’t find worthy borrowers, they must charge their customers for the privilege of having money in their checking accounts. Or, as is happening in some European banks, the banks try to increase loan rates to current borrowers in order to cover the added cost.

In European countries where NIRP reigns, so far, the banks are charging only large account holders for their deposits. So, these large account customers are scrambling to move their money out of banks and into assets that do not depreciate.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The implications of a reduction of Chinese holdings of US government debt

Below is my response to a reader of my blog, who asked about the implications of China reducing its holdings of US treasury debt.
Pat Barron

Dear Lawrence,

I think that in the simplest terms, China is exiting the market for US Treasuries, which means that the US government must offer a larger yield in order to entice buyers who are still in the market to make up for the loss of Chinese demand. That means that US interest rates would have to rise, because the T Bill is the base upon which all other rates are set. Why would someone buy a corporate bond at a lower yield when he can buy a T Bill, which has less risk, for the same or even higher yield? Alternatively, the Fed could monetize the debt, which would cause US prices to rise (eventually) due to the increase in the money supply.
I have contended for some time that this event would lead to a crisis. When the world market eschews T Bills, the government is left with difficult choices. It can raise taxes to pay off the debt that it can’t roll over. It can cut spending to decrease the amount of debt that is required to fund all the government’s programs. It can increase interest rates to suck more money out of the private economy and into government bonds. Or it can monetize the whole thing. Of course, it could do a combination of all these things. My least favorite option is that the government monetizes the debt; i. e., prints more money. My favorite option is for government to drastically reduce its expenditures, but this is probably the most politically difficult option.
Pat

Patrick Barron interview with Jeff Deist re: The End of the US Dollar Imperium-Part 1 – Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada

Patrick Barron interview with Jeff Deist re: The End of the US Dollar Imperium-Part 1 – Ludwig von Mises Institute Canada.

Jeff Deist and Patrick Barron address the issue of monetary imperialism. How does the US use the dollar as a weapon of economic and cultural power? How long can it last? What might the unprecedented collapse of a worldwide reserve currency look like? And, how do the BRIC nations and Asian central banks fight back?

From: Mises Weekends , Thursday, October 23, 2014 by Jeff Deist & Patrick Barron

http://mises.org/media/8767/Mises-Weekends-gtgt-Patrick-Barron-The-End-of-the-US-Dollar-Imperium

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress