What is essential for us today is to continue the research, the writing, the advocacy for sound money, for a dollar that is as good as gold, for a monetary system that is separate from the state. It is a beautiful vision indeed, writes Lew Rockwell, one in which the people and not the government and its connected interest groups maintain control of their money and its safe keeping.
What we see in Japan has nothing to do with the mythical liquidity trap, writes Frank Shostak, and everything to do with an explosion in debt, a reckless monetary policy, and tight government controls of businesses via the ministry of trade and industry. To put it bluntly, the Japanese have been depriving themselves of real funding in return for American government promises to repay the debt.
There is something about monetary phenomena that make them a particularly misunderstood aspect of economic life. Deflation is no exception. There seems to be little understanding as to what it is, what causes it, and whether or not it is something that should be prevented. The effects of deflation, like the quality of drinking water, cannot be considered without regard to its source.
The idea of resorting to work and entrepreneurialism as a means to material well-being has historically become a poor second to the idea of acquiring resources through theft. This robbery is always most effectively perpetrated when disguised and when legally underwritten by the threat of political violence–-i.e., when it is committed by the State.
So long greenbacks; hello pinkbacks. So says the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which promises to start changing the color of money next fall, beginning with the $20 bill.
Argentina and now Brazil are the latest chapters in Latin America's long financial history of foreign debt and default, writes Antony Mueller. It is a consequence of bad policy, underwritten by international financial institutions and subsidized from a pervasive culture of debt.
Popular thinking about economic growth is still strongly influenced by the productivity theory of capital, which presumes that capital engenders a yield like the fruits from a tree, writes Antony P. Mueller. If it were merely aggregate investment that mattered, economic development and continuous wealth creation would be child's play.
Fannie Mae's monopoly privileges have given it an ever-increasing share of the secondary conforming mortgage market, writes Robert Blumen, and it currently is seeking to expand into other parts of the mortgage market. The net result has been a nightmare of resource misallocation and massive systemic risk.
The quirky nature of credit is that it is not necessarily better in abundance, writes Christopher Mayer. It's not like beer, butter, and bananas--where more means cheaper and cheaper is good. Credit is like money; it represents buying power. More credit means more buying power, which means a bidding up of assets and a spark for an unsustainable boom.
The burdens imposed upon producers by easy money and their consequent lack of profitability are among the main reasons why there is no significant capital expenditure. The overhang from the 2000 capital-spending boom only partly exacerbates this, since much of the outlay undertaken then was wastefully misallocated and is not germane to the needs of the current economy anyway.
