WEBVTT

NOTE New Eras, Old Fallacies: The Fed and the Coming Recession

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.300
Unfortunately, there's not one word of optimism in this title.

2
00:00:04.300 --> 00:00:09.000
New Year's, old fallacies, the Fed and the coming recession, it's all pretty grim.

3
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.000
The only thing humorous about it is that I get to make fun of Alan Greenspan in the course of this talk.

4
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:21.500
Let me start with the old fallacies that are still current.

5
00:00:21.500 --> 00:00:28.000
I'll start with them, and then I'll go on and talk a bit about the events that they've led to,

6
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:48.000
and that we're now living with. We're on the precipice, on the precipice of the establishment of a world or global central bank that will be able to inflate to what Murray Rothbard used to call a fairly well, just inflate as much as they wish.

7
00:00:48.000 --> 00:01:04.000
Let me just talk about some of the fallacies, and at the end of which I will read a statement, testimony, given by Alan Green's fan to Congress last Tuesday, which very nicely embodies these fallacies.

8
00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:20.000
Let me begin with one statement we all hear, and we all think we know, or not us as the people who are economically enlightened, but certainly the public at large, unfortunately, and the media.

9
00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:27.000
Low interest rates cause economic growth. That's fallacious. It's a lie.

10
00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:38.000
Old-fashioned thrift, voluntary savings, postponing present satisfaction and investing the money is what causes economic growth.

11
00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:44.000
It also happens to bring about at the same time, as a necessary part of the process, a lower interest rate.

12
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:52.000
That lower interest rate indicates that people no longer prefer the present as greatly as they did before, that is, present satisfaction.

13
00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:59.000
So interest rates are, falling interest rates are a part of the process of economic growth, but they're not the cause of it.

14
00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:07.000
In fact, we know the Fed can lower interest rates. The Fed, by simply printing up money, creating money out of thin air as it were,

15
00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:12.000
the Fed simply lowers interest rates in that way and it does it all the time. It doesn't cause economic growth.

16
00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:19.000
In fact, it wastes scarce resources. It causes businesses to borrow at a lower interest rate

17
00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:24.000
that really corresponds to what people feel about the present and the future.

18
00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:27.360
And in the course of this, they create too many capital goods.

19
00:02:27.360 --> 00:02:31.320
Okay, we get too few McDonald's hamburgers and too much steel,

20
00:02:31.320 --> 00:02:34.760
which eventually, when the trades go back up again,

21
00:02:34.760 --> 00:02:37.160
is going to cause a situation of recession.

22
00:02:37.160 --> 00:02:39.520
That is, the people in the steel industry that were newly hired

23
00:02:39.520 --> 00:02:42.480
to add to the amount of steel or other capital goods in the economy

24
00:02:42.480 --> 00:02:44.400
are going to be thrown out of work.

25
00:02:44.400 --> 00:02:47.920
And they're going to have to move back to producing hamburgers

26
00:02:47.920 --> 00:02:51.920
and other goods that directly satisfy human wants.

27
00:02:51.920 --> 00:02:55.120
So for a while, you may see more goods being produced,

28
00:02:55.120 --> 00:02:58.840
but eventually, the chickens come home to roost,

29
00:02:58.840 --> 00:03:03.160
and those manipulated interest rates go back up

30
00:03:03.160 --> 00:03:06.480
to a level that corresponds to people saving preferences,

31
00:03:06.480 --> 00:03:08.000
and we get a recession.

32
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:12.040
If, in fact, low interest rates cause economic growth,

33
00:03:12.040 --> 00:03:14.480
then the Japanese economy would be booming,

34
00:03:14.480 --> 00:03:15.440
instead of shrinking.

35
00:03:15.440 --> 00:03:17.480
It's literally shrinking, it's getting smaller.

36
00:03:17.480 --> 00:03:25.480
But the interest rate is 0.6%. It's less than 1%. You or certainly a business can get a loan for less than 1% in Japan.

37
00:03:25.480 --> 00:03:34.480
That hasn't caused economic growth. The fact is, we'll see in a few minutes, that's caused a tremendous distortion of the Japanese economy, which is still ongoing.

38
00:03:34.480 --> 00:03:42.480
Okay, economic growth causes inflation. This is a complete mistake.

39
00:03:42.480 --> 00:03:47.480
Economic growth, if it means anything, means that there's an increase in the supply of goods and services.

40
00:03:47.480 --> 00:03:51.480
Our economy is becoming more productive and it's producing more things.

41
00:03:51.480 --> 00:03:56.480
When more things are produced, all other things equal, if there are more goods coming onto the market,

42
00:03:56.480 --> 00:04:01.480
in order to sell those additional goods, these sellers have to lower their prices.

43
00:04:01.480 --> 00:04:05.480
They have to. We're assuming the government does not increase the money supply,

44
00:04:05.480 --> 00:04:10.480
which means the prices will then fall. Economic growth causes falling prices.

45
00:04:10.480 --> 00:04:20.480
If you look at economic growth in the computer industry, tremendous economic growth in the 80s, prices of personal computers fell from something like $20,000 down to less than $1,000.

46
00:04:20.480 --> 00:04:30.480
I don't see any inflation there. The price of hand calculators fell dramatically in the 70s, from $350 to something like $10 today.

47
00:04:30.480 --> 00:04:36.880
And of course, one of the greatest periods of economic growth in the U.S. was from 1880 until 1890.

48
00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:44.680
We were growing at 4-5% per year, which is equivalent to what Japan was growing at in the late 80s.

49
00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:52.280
Very high rates. And yet, prices were 7% lower in 1890 than they were in 1880.

50
00:04:52.280 --> 00:05:00.280
The economic growth requires an increase in the money supply to finance the purposes of the extra goods that are being produced.

51
00:05:00.280 --> 00:05:06.280
That is, if there's more goods, we have to have more demand, right?

52
00:05:06.280 --> 00:05:08.280
We're going to get extra demand if we don't have any more money.

53
00:05:08.280 --> 00:05:14.280
Well, as I've just mentioned in talking about fallacy number two, you don't need any extra money

54
00:05:14.280 --> 00:05:21.280
because prices naturally fall on the market as the supply of goods and services increase, okay?

55
00:05:21.280 --> 00:05:30.280
So today your dollar can buy 20 times more computers than it could 15 years ago.

56
00:05:30.280 --> 00:05:34.280
A dollar can buy about one thousandth of a computer today, right?

57
00:05:34.280 --> 00:05:36.280
A thousand dollars or so.

58
00:05:36.280 --> 00:05:40.280
15 years ago it could only buy about 120,000 of a computer.

59
00:05:40.280 --> 00:05:47.280
So as the course of price is falling, each dollar becomes more and more powerful and is capable of buying off those extra goods.

60
00:05:47.280 --> 00:05:51.280
So you never have to worry about having efficient money in the economy.

61
00:05:51.280 --> 00:05:55.280
If the money supply could be perfectly constant, that would actually be an ideal situation.

62
00:05:55.280 --> 00:06:00.280
It would be constant and prices would naturally fall over time,

63
00:06:00.280 --> 00:06:07.280
indicating that all things are becoming cheaper to us because they're becoming less scarce,

64
00:06:07.280 --> 00:06:11.280
and that lower scarcity is reflected in the lower prices.

65
00:06:11.280 --> 00:06:23.280
A fourth fallacy I want to touch on is that an increase in consumer spending is good for the economy in that it can cause, or will cause, an increase in real output.

66
00:06:23.280 --> 00:06:28.280
If consumers spend more, well, businesses will produce more. It's more profitable, okay?

67
00:06:28.280 --> 00:06:34.280
This is a terrible fallacy that came into mainstream economics in the 1930s.

68
00:06:34.280 --> 00:06:40.280
In fact, if nothing else changes and people begin spending more on consumption, that means they're saving less.

69
00:06:40.280 --> 00:06:47.280
If they save less, there's less money available to be loaned out to business and invested in capital goods.

70
00:06:47.280 --> 00:06:55.280
So all that an increase in consumer spending does is to cause losses to occur in the capital goods industries.

71
00:06:55.280 --> 00:07:02.280
We will have less steel, less computers produced, and so on, because there's not much money being saved and invested.

72
00:07:02.280 --> 00:07:07.280
There will be profits in the consumer goods industries, and resources labeled shift into producing consumer goods.

73
00:07:07.280 --> 00:07:21.280
But think about it. After a period of time, as our capital goods, our factories are wearing out and rusting, the supply of consumer goods is going to begin to decrease.

74
00:07:21.280 --> 00:07:29.280
So in the short run, all that an increased consumer spending can do is to increase consumer goods temporarily and decrease capital goods.

75
00:07:29.280 --> 00:07:37.280
Five, falling prices hinder economic activity by destroying business profits, that is, that falling prices are bad for business.

76
00:07:37.280 --> 00:07:45.280
Well, tell that to Microsoft. Tell that to other industries in which prices have fallen tremendously in the 80s.

77
00:07:45.280 --> 00:07:52.280
35% a year, prices have fallen in the computer industry, and yet, more and more entrepreneurs are entering.

78
00:07:52.280 --> 00:08:02.280
Business was booming. Why? Because when you have technological improvement, you have lower costs and greater productivity.

79
00:08:02.280 --> 00:08:09.280
So with better technology and more machinery and so on, you can lower your costs. So prices will fall naturally.

80
00:08:09.280 --> 00:08:17.280
In fact, costs have fallen more than prices, and that's why profits stay up. Profits are simply the difference between prices and costs.

81
00:08:17.280 --> 00:08:28.280
6. Estable consumer prices indicate an absence of inflation. That is, if you don't see consumer prices going up, well then there's probably no inflation.

82
00:08:28.280 --> 00:08:36.280
That's what we hear all the time, including in more sophisticated financial media like the Wall Street Journal.

83
00:08:36.280 --> 00:08:44.280
But in fact, an increase in the money supply has many other effects, many, many other more important effects than merely an increase in consumer prices.

84
00:08:44.280 --> 00:08:54.280
and I'll come back to this when I talk about current events, but it artificially lowers interest rates, it increases stock prices, it increases the price of capital goods,

85
00:08:54.280 --> 00:09:00.280
it also increases real estate prices and it causes a redistribution of real income and wealth.

86
00:09:00.280 --> 00:09:09.280
In fact, consumer prices increasing aren't even a very important effect, relatively unimportant effect of inflation.

87
00:09:09.280 --> 00:09:21.280
and they can be actually obscured or suppressed that is the increase in consumer prices if people increase their demand for money for example or if there's economic growth.

88
00:09:21.280 --> 00:09:35.280
Let me give you an example, in the 1920s we had tremendous economic growth, there was a lot of investments and technological improvement, yet at the end of the decade prices did not change.

89
00:09:35.280 --> 00:09:41.280
So people assumed, most American economists among them, that there was no inflation.

90
00:09:41.280 --> 00:09:51.280
But in fact, as Murray Rothbard has shown in America's Great Depression, the money supply was exploding during the 1920s, increasing at 7% per year.

91
00:09:51.280 --> 00:10:04.280
But that was obscured by the fact that the American economy had become so productive that there were more goods and services flowing forth each year, preventing prices from rising as a result of the increase in the money supply.

92
00:10:04.280 --> 00:10:10.280
But that did not stop the distortion of the interest rate and all the other effects that I'm talking about.

93
00:10:10.280 --> 00:10:21.280
The same thing happened in the 1980s. From 1982 to 1986, to give you an example, in those four years the money supply increased by about 17% per year of the President Reagan.

94
00:10:21.280 --> 00:10:32.280
The Reagan miracle was really a myth. It wasn't caused by these relatively minor tax cuts in 1982-81. It was really caused by this tremendous increase in the money supply.

95
00:10:32.280 --> 00:10:37.280
And the consumer prices only rose by about 3% per year during those four years.

96
00:10:37.280 --> 00:10:41.280
Other things were happening. The world economy had gone into a recession.

97
00:10:41.280 --> 00:10:49.280
US dollars were being used abroad to finance the drug trade and black market activities.

98
00:10:49.280 --> 00:10:53.280
So we had a tremendous increase of demand for money that hit the inflation.

99
00:10:53.280 --> 00:10:59.280
But the inflation did exist. There was a tremendous increase in the money supply that worked its other effects.

100
00:10:59.280 --> 00:11:04.280
Two more fallacies I want to touch on.

101
00:11:04.280 --> 00:11:09.280
Seven, the Fed is an inflation fighter.

102
00:11:09.280 --> 00:11:14.280
And President Clinton is a father figure to Monica Lewinsky.

103
00:11:14.280 --> 00:11:21.280
The Fed is the only agency that is legally empowered to increase the money supply.

104
00:11:21.280 --> 00:11:26.280
Therefore, the Fed is not an inflation fighter. It is the sole cause of inflation.

105
00:11:26.280 --> 00:11:30.280
The Fed causes inflation. It doesn't fight it.

106
00:11:30.280 --> 00:11:36.280
Finally, bank failures are the worst thing that can happen to an economy and must be avoided at all costs,

107
00:11:36.280 --> 00:11:44.280
including using U.S. taxpayer money, billions of dollars, to bail out Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and so on.

108
00:11:44.280 --> 00:11:54.280
This is a fallacy and a scary one at that, because now, since this has been accepted and has been voiced out in public,

109
00:11:54.280 --> 00:12:06.280
were being asked to bail out these countries that have gotten into difficulties as a result of their own monetary policies and partly as a result of ours, not, of course, the American public, but the policy of the Fed.

110
00:12:06.280 --> 00:12:19.280
But in fact, bank failures are a healthy reaction to inflation. That is, banks partake in the inflationary process. They print up money out of thin air and loan it out.

111
00:12:19.280 --> 00:12:41.280
The collapse of banks reverses this process, prevents credit from going to businesses that are wasting resources and aid in driving those businesses out of business.

112
00:12:41.280 --> 00:12:46.280
You want those businesses that are producing things that don't suit consumers to go out of business.

113
00:12:46.280 --> 00:12:51.280
and bank collapses help this process. There's nothing wrong with them.

114
00:12:54.280 --> 00:13:01.280
Now, as I mentioned before, a number of these fallacies are embodied in a testimony given by Alan Greenspan to Congress last Tuesday.

115
00:13:01.280 --> 00:13:08.280
I want to read at least part of the report on Greenspan's testimony.

116
00:13:08.280 --> 00:13:19.780
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the Fed is on hold until it determines that the storm clouds massing over the Western Pacific and heading our way,

117
00:13:19.780 --> 00:13:29.780
these mysterious inflationary storm clouds that he has nothing to do with, will damp the momentum of the U.S. economy on the verge of running out of available workers.

118
00:13:29.780 --> 00:13:35.780
In other words, somehow we're running out of workers, and this is going to cause wages to go up, and that's going to cause inflation.

119
00:13:35.780 --> 00:13:59.780
The key question is whether the restraint building from the turmoil in Asia will be sufficient to check the inflationary tendencies that might otherwise result in the strength of domestic spending and tightening labor markets.

120
00:13:59.780 --> 00:14:05.780
So there are two things going on. Asia is going into a recession. They're not spending as much as they were.

121
00:14:05.780 --> 00:14:14.780
That's causing downward pressure on inflation. On the other hand, we're running out of workers mysteriously and therefore it's causing upward pressure.

122
00:14:14.780 --> 00:14:21.780
So Alan Greenspan is there watching his gauges and trying to decide whether or not he should act to fight inflation or fight recession.

123
00:14:21.780 --> 00:14:28.780
Mr. Greenspan suggested the effects of the Asian financial crisis will suffice to head off an outbreak of inflation.

124
00:14:28.780 --> 00:14:40.780
Inflation, so that the Fed would have to act soon. This is crazy. I mean, the Fed is causing inflation, but yet he's playing it on the sidelines, you know, calmly watching as things develop.

125
00:14:40.780 --> 00:14:54.780
And then he goes on with more of this, saying, as we suspect, the restraint coming from Asia is sufficient to bring the demand for American labor back into line with the growth of the working age population.

126
00:14:54.780 --> 00:15:04.380
Labor markets will remain unusually tight, but any intensification of inflation should be delayed very gradually, very gradual and readily reversible.

127
00:15:04.380 --> 00:15:16.220
And he concludes by saying that, he describes the Fed as caught between finally balanced though powerful forces, which is the contractionary effects of Asia and the inflationary risk of tight labor markets.

128
00:15:16.220 --> 00:15:46.220
and that's unable to know whether its next move should be to lift the lower rates, again, the Fed's manipulating rates here, the Fed will do nothing for now, okay, so as Lew referred to Greenspan last night, our bamboos were achieved, you know, this is a fact claiming that the Fed really has absolutely nothing to do with inflation, okay, except to fight it when it breaks out, okay, now these fallacies

129
00:15:46.220 --> 00:15:55.220
are responsible for the deepening global economic crisis of the 1970s, which has come to a head with the so-called Asian crisis.

130
00:15:55.220 --> 00:16:10.220
So what I want to do is talk a little bit about three aspects of this crisis, Japan, the US, and then Asia itself, the southeastern Asian countries that are enveloped by the crisis.

131
00:16:10.220 --> 00:16:16.220
First, let me talk about Japan, because we're following Japan. Japan is a number of years ahead of us.

132
00:16:16.220 --> 00:16:24.220
What happened was, from 1983 to 1986, Japan was increasing the money supply at a rapid rate, about 8% per year.

133
00:16:24.220 --> 00:16:35.220
That's fairly rapid, pretty high inflation. They drove interest rates down from about 6.5% or so to about 5%.

134
00:16:35.220 --> 00:16:40.220
But consumer prices didn't go up. The Japanese economy is tremendously productive.

135
00:16:40.220 --> 00:16:50.220
So supply of new goods and services was offsetting, the increase in goods and services was offsetting the natural tendencies of prices to rise when you increase the money supply.

136
00:16:50.220 --> 00:16:59.220
So prices were only rising during those years by about 1.7%. Their GDP, their real output was growing very rapidly, about 3.7%.

137
00:16:59.220 --> 00:17:28.220
And they had a low unemployment rate. Now, let's go from that period, 83 to 86, to 87 to 90. In 1987, the U.S. and other countries put pressure on Japan to increase their money supply to drive the value of the dollar, to stop the value of the dollar from dropping, so we wanted Japan to join our inflation. Japan agreed. They began to increase the money supply at almost 11% per year.

138
00:17:28.220 --> 00:17:35.220
and their interest rates first went down but then shot up because people began to expect inflation

139
00:17:35.220 --> 00:17:39.220
but consumer prices again didn't increase much one and a half percent

140
00:17:39.220 --> 00:17:46.220
their GDP growth, now for the U.S. 3% is normal, for Japan it shot up to over 5%

141
00:17:46.220 --> 00:17:52.220
and a tremendous amount of resources were shifted out of consumer goods industries into investment goods industries

142
00:17:52.220 --> 00:17:57.580
industries. The investment now took up about 31% of their GDP rather than the old 28%.

143
00:17:57.580 --> 00:18:08.420
Unemployment went down. Finally, last period, 1991 to 1997, Japan panicked. They were fearful

144
00:18:08.420 --> 00:18:13.140
of inflation. They cut back the rate of growth of money supply to about 2.5%, very, very

145
00:18:13.140 --> 00:18:43.140
for Japan. It went into a severe recession. In fact, the stock prices fell by about 33 percent from 1990 to 1997. The Nikkei collapsed. It was up to 32,000 yen and it dropped to 14,000 yen. So, actually, it was cut in half. So, the stock market collapsed. Consumer prices still didn't rise much

146
00:18:43.140 --> 00:18:48.540
but their economic growth fell to about 1.4% per year. Now this is Japan

147
00:18:48.540 --> 00:18:55.260
Incorporated growing at a miserable rate for six years. In fact, in the last few

148
00:18:55.260 --> 00:19:02.740
quarters, as I said before, the economy has been shrinking. Okay, now what advice

149
00:19:02.740 --> 00:19:07.500
is being given to Japan and what advice would an Austrian economist give?

150
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:14.500
Well, let me tell you what Miller Friedman's advice is, and then I'll also tell you what Alan Greenspan's advice is.

151
00:19:14.500 --> 00:19:22.500
Basically the same thing. Japan should go back to increasing the money supply at about 8%, what they were doing in 1983 to 1986.

152
00:19:22.500 --> 00:19:28.500
And they should increase government spending. Basically, they should re-inflate to get out of this recession.

153
00:19:28.500 --> 00:19:35.500
And at the same time, to increase the amount of money in the Japanese economy, and therefore increase the imports

154
00:19:35.500 --> 00:19:38.500
from the Southeast Asian countries that are having problems.

155
00:19:38.500 --> 00:19:43.500
Now, Milton Friedman is not known as an inflationist,

156
00:19:43.500 --> 00:19:48.500
so that's his article that he published,

157
00:19:48.500 --> 00:19:50.500
actually it was a letter to the Wall Street Journal,

158
00:19:50.500 --> 00:19:54.500
published this past December with Starlin.

159
00:19:54.500 --> 00:19:59.500
Let me just give you a few sentences of what he says here.

160
00:19:59.500 --> 00:20:00.500
He says,

161
00:20:00.500 --> 00:20:13.500
So the surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth to shift from tight money to easier money to a rate of monetary growth closer to that which prevailed in the golden 80s, but without overdoing it.

162
00:20:13.500 --> 00:20:22.500
Now he's asking them to go back to 8% increase in their money supply. Remember, every dollar that is printed means a redistribution of wealth away from the public to the government.

163
00:20:22.500 --> 00:20:28.500
and then he's known as a pre-market economist, is pushing this.

164
00:20:28.500 --> 00:20:34.500
That would make much needed financial and economic reforms far easier to achieve.

165
00:20:34.500 --> 00:20:40.500
And then he goes on to say, there's no limit to the extent to which the Bank of Japan can increase the money supply if it wishes to do so.

166
00:20:40.500 --> 00:20:43.500
Higher monetary growth will always have the same effect.

167
00:20:43.500 --> 00:20:47.500
After a year or so, the economy will expand more rapidly and so on.

168
00:20:47.500 --> 00:20:59.500
So his idea is to get out of this terrible recession by inflating. Alan Greenspan, not as surprising, of course, says the same thing.

169
00:20:59.500 --> 00:21:06.500
He was asked by Senator Connie Mack, is the Japanese Central Bank doing enough?

170
00:21:06.500 --> 00:21:23.500
No, I think not, Mr. Greenspan promptly replied, but I have to say that the argument he marked before the Senate panel that Japan needs to be more comprehensive than simply cutting taxes.

171
00:21:23.500 --> 00:21:31.500
Japan must first move conclusively to solve its banking crisis before fiscal policy can have significant effect.

172
00:21:31.500 --> 00:21:38.500
Now what he's saying here is this, not only does he want Japan to cut, to increase spending, to increase the supply of money,

173
00:21:38.500 --> 00:21:44.500
he also wants Japan to bail out its banks. Japan hasn't completely done that.

174
00:21:44.500 --> 00:21:51.500
They're, they're waffling there. Now he wants all this to occur for the following reason, and that is that he doesn't,

175
00:21:51.500 --> 00:21:58.500
he's very fearful of some of the Asian countries going under. So he wants Japan to lead a re-inflation in Asia.

176
00:22:01.500 --> 00:22:11.500
In fact, the real problem and the Austrian solution is that the fallacy that banks should never fail is being accepted here.

177
00:22:11.500 --> 00:22:16.500
Instead of allowing banks and the bankrupt companies to fail, there are many of them in Japan,

178
00:22:16.500 --> 00:22:24.500
the Ministry of Finance has forced the solvent banks and other financial institutions to pay 5 trillion yen,

179
00:22:24.500 --> 00:22:33.500
5 trillion yen and taxpayers to cough up another 680 billion yen to bail them out.

180
00:22:33.500 --> 00:22:40.500
So this is being done. And while it's being done, it means that these bankrupt companies are going on wasting scarce resources.

181
00:22:40.500 --> 00:22:47.500
If the banks were permitted to fail and credit contracted, these companies would not be able to pay back their debtors.

182
00:22:47.500 --> 00:22:51.500
They'd go out of business. There would be a lot of unemployment. There would be a sharp recession.

183
00:22:51.500 --> 00:23:00.500
But eventually, the laborers would move back to those productive employments that they were in before the inflation began.

184
00:23:01.500 --> 00:23:08.500
So, middle treatment is all wet here. We should allow the banks to collapse and allow credit deflation to take its course.

185
00:23:10.500 --> 00:23:18.500
Let me just say a few words about the US speculative bubble, which began in 1991.

186
00:23:21.500 --> 00:23:28.500
Basically, the US began increasing the money supply very rapidly to get out of the recession of 1990.

187
00:23:28.500 --> 00:23:35.500
And it was increasing the money supply about 10% per year, very high rate from 91 to 93.

188
00:23:35.500 --> 00:23:41.500
As a result, interest rates were pushed down. They were pushing interest rates down, thinking that would bring about economic growth.

189
00:23:41.500 --> 00:23:49.500
Commercial paper went from 8% to 3% just in three years. They knocked five percentage points off the interest rate.

190
00:23:49.500 --> 00:24:00.500
And the long-term interest rate on AAA bonds went from 9% to 6.5%, but prices only were going up by 3.5% per year.

191
00:24:00.500 --> 00:24:04.500
So people thought, well, inflation isn't quite dead, but it's not terrible.

192
00:24:04.500 --> 00:24:13.500
But in fact, 1991 and 1993 saw an incredible economic boom, but it wasn't manifested in consumer prices.

193
00:24:13.500 --> 00:24:19.500
What did happen was that it set the stage for the stock market boom that was to follow after 1994.

194
00:24:19.500 --> 00:24:27.500
And it caused American businessmen to begin to invest a lot of funds in capital goods.

195
00:24:27.500 --> 00:24:35.500
1994-1995, the Fed stopped increasing the money supply. In fact, it was actually slightly negative those two years.

196
00:24:35.500 --> 00:24:43.500
Interest rates went up during those three years. It went from three to five percent for short-term interest rates, three to five and a half percent.

197
00:24:43.500 --> 00:24:46.500
And long-term interest rates went up by about one percentage point.

198
00:24:46.500 --> 00:24:50.500
We would have gone through a recession under normal circumstances, but we didn't.

199
00:24:50.500 --> 00:24:57.500
What happened was that the stock market boom had begun, the Japanese recession had taken hold,

200
00:24:57.500 --> 00:25:05.500
And you found a lot of foreign money pouring into the United States, keeping our boom, artificial boom going for those two years.

201
00:25:05.500 --> 00:25:13.500
Finally in 96 and 97, in fact towards the end of 96, the Fed began to inflate the money supply.

202
00:25:13.500 --> 00:25:17.500
Part of the reason was that the Clinton administration was putting a lot of pressure on the Fed.

203
00:25:17.500 --> 00:25:24.500
Because signs looked like, or signs were pointing to a recession in 94-95.

204
00:25:24.500 --> 00:25:41.500
And Clinton wanted to avoid this because we know that presidents who have experienced a recession in the year prior to an election, sitting presidents, tend to lose that election. They lose a lot of votes as a result of the poor state of the economy. So that was to be avoided.

205
00:25:41.500 --> 00:25:47.900
So Alan Greenspan knuckled under, gave him a quasi-inflationary policy, and we were back

206
00:25:47.900 --> 00:25:55.420
stoking the fire to the boom. And just to give you an idea of what went on there, the

207
00:25:55.420 --> 00:26:02.220
stock market took off in 1994, and it increased in 96 by about 20 percent. Stock prices went

208
00:26:02.220 --> 00:26:09.220
up 97 by 32 percent in just the last 12 months, ending in February. So we had a tremendous

209
00:26:09.220 --> 00:26:24.520
a stock market boom, we had a lot of increase in investment, and interest rates have begun to fall again, okay, 96, 97, they're tending slightly downward, so we're heading to the top of a boom.

210
00:26:24.520 --> 00:26:30.520
All right, so keeping those two things in mind, let's now turn to the Asian crisis.

211
00:26:30.520 --> 00:26:42.520
As it turns out, the so-called Asian miracle that was valued so much by many people and by the media, especially the Wall Street Journal,

212
00:26:42.520 --> 00:26:51.520
turns out that it was built on bank credit inflation, which was made in the US, Japan, and in the countries themselves, Thailand, Malaysia, and so on.

213
00:26:51.520 --> 00:26:57.520
There was a huge investment boom in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea.

214
00:26:57.520 --> 00:27:04.520
The party was due to their own monetary policies to increase the money supply tremendously at tremendously high rates.

215
00:27:04.520 --> 00:27:11.520
But also the increases in the Japanese and U.S. money supplies in the 90s pushed down worldwide interest rates.

216
00:27:11.520 --> 00:27:20.520
And as lenders looked around for better investments as interest rates fell in the U.S. and Japan, their money went to Southeast Asia.

217
00:27:20.520 --> 00:27:30.520
So the paper boom, the boom not based on economic fundamentals, on economic growth built on genuine saving and investment, but built on paper.

218
00:27:30.520 --> 00:27:47.520
And the stock markets went crazy in these countries. In Malaysia, and it was reversed in 1997, I don't have the figures for the increases, but just to give you an idea of the money that poured in first of all, then we'll talk about the collapse of the stock market.

219
00:27:47.520 --> 00:28:00.520
In 1996 alone, East Asia, which was China, and Southeast Asia received nearly half of the $243 billion of foreign private investment throughout the world.

220
00:28:00.520 --> 00:28:04.520
So half of the whole total foreign private investment went into these countries.

221
00:28:04.520 --> 00:28:06.520
They're fairly small economies.

222
00:28:06.520 --> 00:28:08.520
Of course, it set off a tremendous boom.

223
00:28:08.520 --> 00:28:13.520
And of course, the boom was reflected in the increase of stock market prices.

224
00:28:13.520 --> 00:28:20.160
and so as a result in 97 when this was reversed we found that the Malaysian

225
00:28:20.160 --> 00:28:25.400
stock market fell by 48 percent, Indonesia fell by 30 percent, Philippines by 45

226
00:28:25.400 --> 00:28:32.040
percent, and South Korea by 24 percent. The Indonesian currency depreciated by 70

227
00:28:32.040 --> 00:28:35.920
percent in seven months, well 70 percent of its value with regard to foreign

228
00:28:35.920 --> 00:28:41.920
Inflated currency in merely seven months. So it shows you how inflated that currency was.

229
00:28:41.920 --> 00:28:51.920
Now when the stock price is full, it makes it more difficult for these domestic companies that are indebted to foreign creditors to raise money, to pay off their loans.

230
00:28:51.920 --> 00:29:03.920
And when they're depreciating currencies, they have dollar loans. If their currencies now buy fewer dollars, it makes it even more difficult to pay off foreign debtors.

231
00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:22.920
So there's a great risk that arose in 1997 of defaulting on loans to Western banks, and this is why Greenspan and the group of seven nations, that is the industrialized countries, began to put pressure on the IMF to bail these banks out, to bail these countries out.

232
00:29:22.920 --> 00:29:32.920
So now we have a spectacle of US taxpayers having to ante up billions of dollars.

233
00:29:32.920 --> 00:29:35.920
Now we already have billions of dollars in the IMF.

234
00:29:35.920 --> 00:29:43.920
There's a $43 billion bailout plan for Indonesia, $50 billion for South Korea, and $17 billion for Thailand.

235
00:29:43.920 --> 00:29:46.920
I think Lou mentioned these figures last night.

236
00:29:46.920 --> 00:29:51.920
In addition, the US is being asked to ante up another $18 billion in contributions to this bailout effort.

237
00:29:51.920 --> 00:30:00.920
This is a fiat effort. US taxpayers' money is already being used by the IMF. They already have funds that were extracted from US taxpayers.

238
00:30:00.920 --> 00:30:03.920
So this is an additional 18 billion. This has not passed yet.

239
00:30:03.920 --> 00:30:11.920
And this also explains now why Alan Greenspan and others have been berating Japan for not increasing their money supply.

240
00:30:11.920 --> 00:30:20.920
They're not only worried about the Japanese economy, they also want Japanese banks to begin lending again to these Southeastern countries so they can pay back the Western banks.

241
00:30:20.920 --> 00:30:50.920
Banks. Now, what are the solutions? Two sets of solutions here. On the one hand, some economists associated with the World Bank, not the IMF, but former Clinton economists, for example, Joe Stiglitz, has argued that the terms imposed by the IMF on these countries are much too severe. In other words, the IMF wants them to stop running deficits and maybe run a surplus of 1%

242
00:30:50.920 --> 00:30:57.920
They want them to take care of the non-performing loans, bail out their banks.

243
00:30:57.920 --> 00:31:02.920
They want them to raise taxes and to cut government spending.

244
00:31:02.920 --> 00:31:05.920
Well, people like Stiglitz think that's too severe.

245
00:31:05.920 --> 00:31:08.920
They're not against the bailout. The bailout's fine.

246
00:31:08.920 --> 00:31:14.920
But they want the bailout on even easier terms.

247
00:31:14.920 --> 00:31:16.920
Now, there's another solution that's been proposed.

248
00:31:16.920 --> 00:31:35.920
It's very hard getting to Austrian, and that is the fact by someone who is associated with the Mises Institute, Steve Henke, who is an economist at Johns Hopkins University, and is on the board of editors of the QJA, the Court of Journal of Austrian Economics.

249
00:31:35.920 --> 00:31:46.920
He's become an advisor to President Suharto of Indonesia, and he has recommended that Indonesia abolish its central bank and go to a currency board.

250
00:31:46.920 --> 00:31:59.920
Basically, it would be a setup in which the Indonesian rupiah would be set at a fixed rate to the US dollar, let's say 10,000 rupiah to a dollar.

251
00:31:59.920 --> 00:32:05.920
and the money supply would only be increased when more dollars flowed into the country

252
00:32:05.920 --> 00:32:12.920
so that the politicians would now be unable to increase the money supply on their own whim

253
00:32:12.920 --> 00:32:16.920
and there would be no more central banks that could simply buy up government securities

254
00:32:16.920 --> 00:32:21.920
print up Rupiah and buy up government bonds and increase the money supply that way

255
00:32:21.920 --> 00:32:22.920
that wouldn't be the way it would happen

256
00:32:22.920 --> 00:32:24.920
the only way it could happen is through foreign trade

257
00:32:24.920 --> 00:32:32.920
If Indonesia exports more real goods and services to the U.S. than they import, then extra dollars would flow in and they could increase their money supply.

258
00:32:32.920 --> 00:32:39.920
That would put a very big break on the increase in the money supply in Indonesia.

259
00:32:39.920 --> 00:32:44.920
What's interesting is that the whole international establishment has come down on its head.

260
00:32:44.920 --> 00:32:53.920
Let me just conclude, just read a slight excerpt from the Wall Street Journal on this.

261
00:32:53.920 --> 00:32:59.920
They're all horrified, because this would mean that you really couldn't bail out the banks, that the banks might start collapsing.

262
00:32:59.920 --> 00:33:09.920
And if the banks started collapsing, they couldn't pay back Western banks, and then you'd get a domino effect, which for me would be great.

263
00:33:09.920 --> 00:33:20.920
For several weeks, Mr. Henke bested the elite economists of the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury, who considered him a crank, and fervently opposed his prescriptions for Indonesia.

264
00:33:20.920 --> 00:33:33.920
They were caught by surprise when he turned up at Mr. Suharto's side, when Mr. Henke got a February 2nd award for the president, a top treasury official found out only when a reporter mentioned it two days later.

265
00:33:33.920 --> 00:33:38.920
That's also a curating thing to a bureaucrat to actually cut out of the loop like that.

266
00:33:38.920 --> 00:33:46.920
Alright, now, then the global economic establishment launched a massive counter-strike against the poor, you know, poor little Steve Henk.

267
00:33:46.920 --> 00:33:58.920
IMF Managing Director Michelle Kandesu threatened to suspend the $43 billion IMF-led bailout if Indonesia pursued Mr. Henk's plan.

268
00:33:58.920 --> 00:34:04.920
They're blackmailing him with $43 billion. Obviously, anybody's going to cave under those circumstances. Why wouldn't they?

269
00:34:04.920 --> 00:34:09.920
President Clinton telephoned Mr. Suharto on Friday. Clinton got me involved.

270
00:34:09.920 --> 00:34:13.920
For the second time in a week, the lobby against Mr. Hankey's advice.

271
00:34:13.920 --> 00:34:19.920
Leaders of Germany and Japan weighed in as did finance ministers from leading industrial nations at a weekend meeting in London.

272
00:34:19.920 --> 00:34:23.920
The campaign, unfortunately, is now showing signs of success.

273
00:34:23.920 --> 00:34:29.920
A top Indonesian monetary official said over the weekend that the government has suspended plans to implement Mr. Hankey's idea.

274
00:34:29.920 --> 00:34:37.720
and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said that would be a constructive step so the

275
00:34:37.720 --> 00:34:43.520
bottom line is unfortunately the news isn't optimistic it looks like the

276
00:34:43.520 --> 00:34:47.280
bailout is going to go through and that this is going to even give more

277
00:34:47.280 --> 00:34:54.240
momentum the plans to have an international lender of last resort that

278
00:34:54.240 --> 00:34:59.680
that is to turn the IMF into basically a world central bank.