Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Fed - Part II

In part I, we talked a little bit about what the Fed does, and how it tries to juggle its multiple mandate to safeguard the banking system, achieve the highest level of employment possible, and keep inflation under control.



But what about the provocative title, about the New World Order and Jewish Conspiracies?  Well, a quick look around the intertubes will show you that there's an awful lot of people who think those things and more, though ironically these days there seem to be more websites debunking those stories than there are sites purveying them.

The Jewish conspiracies stem from the usual sources, such as 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' the infamous 19th century forgery that claimed to be the minutes of a meeting in which Jews plotted to control the world.  And then German/Jewish emigre Paul Warburg, of the famous banking family, was instrumental in the creation of the Fed.  Recent years have fanned the flames, especially since the last two Fed chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke are both Jewish.  That covers the past 21 years, believe it or not.

The 'New World Order' stuff emanates from a separate but intertwined strand of paranoid thinking, revolving around 'money power.'  Though money power conspiracies are often tied up with Jewish conspiracies, they actually have a separate and fascinating history of their own.  For a great discussion of this, by the way, check out Daniel Pipes' book 'Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From'.  These theories go back at least to the French revolution, the illuminati, and the early Freemasons.  Some trace them back to the Knights Templar and even further.  Money power theorists love to point out all the secret symbols on the money, and they are obsessed with the valuelessness of paper money, or 'fiat currency,' as it is known.  They prefer gold, which has tangible value.

Personally, I've often wondered about that.  why does gold have tangible value?  Because we agree it does.  and that's why our money has value, too.  Of course, the government can print too much money, causing the money to lose value... but then governments have been famous for watering down the currency even when it was made of metal.

It's the Fed that creates money out of thin air (not really), and that's why they're the center of the money power theories.  The Fed was also chartered in an odd way, to get around the founding fathers' dislike of central banks.  A series of banking crises in the 19th and early 20th centuries convinced many people of the need for a central banking authority, but they structured it as a private corporation - owned by the banks in each region of the country.  And yes, the Fed does earn a profit every year, which they deposit into the US Treasury.  Not into the coffers of the member banks or anyone else.

The Fed's independence is another source of paranoia, but this I will tell you from experience:  the more independent a central bank, the better they'll be at taking the sometimes painful steps needed to fight inflation, and in the long run the better they'll be at achieving their other goals of maximum employment and banking stability.  If anything, the Fed has become less independent in recent years, and their inflation fighting credibility has suffered.

As to what they're doing now - flooding the system with cheap money to keep the banks afloat at the risk of causing inflation even as growth falters - well, that's why I think of the current situation as the Hurricane Katrina of finance.  We'll have to wait for another post to talk more about that.

21 comments:

  1. Okay. I'm up on what the Fed is doing and how it does it, but I'm not clear on how the Fed - as a corporation - makes a profit. If they are adding and subtracting funds from the system, shouldn't they net out to zero in the long run? Or end up a little on the negative side as inflation devalues the funds in their vast underground faults guarded by the Gnomes of Zurich?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Weeerll, there is the small matter of over $700 billion in US Treasury securities that they hold in order to facilitate collateralized borrowing to and from the system. If they are making even 3% per year on that, it amounts to $21 billion. They pay their operating expenses out of that, and return the rest to the Treasury.

    Update: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual07/sec6/c3.htm
    That's the Fed's official numbers for 2007 and 2006. They earned $40 billion in interest income in 2007, and after all was said and done and accounted for they paid $34.5 billion back to the Treasury. The difference was mostly paid into the Fed's surplus fund, which covers losses on operations and currency positions (for example).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey! love the new blog. I think it's a great idea to start tackling the economic side of skepticism! Jon, i'm a big fan of your work with the SGU crew too.

    I saw this video called "money as debt" a while back that was highly critical of The Fed as an institution. The video is rather popular and about 45 minutes long so i'll avoid summarizing the topic for fear of mangling the talking points. You can see it here:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

    this video seemed to make logical, cogent points about the dangers of the fed and fractional reserve system. In the interest of being a good skeptic, i would like to know what your view is on this matter (as well as the views of any of the readers here), since monetary policy is out of my area of expertise. I know it's not exactly a conspiracy theory, but i could see how this could germinate a conspiracy theory or two.

    thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will have to check it out. I am sure that there are cogent arguments against the Fed and even fractional banking, but that 'money as debt' thing is ringing a bell, and I seem to remember some paranoid thinking around it. I will have to watch the video and let you know what I think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Edit: ok i was wrong. i havent watched the vid in a while and the end is completely dominated by conspiracy theories of the grandest kind.

    While that fact alone sets of my skeptical alarms, it doesnt' change the facts and concepts previously presented.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Okay, I watched the money as debt thing, and it is very slick, and very full of baloney.

    Yes, bankers create money via the fractional banking system, and they then loan out the money. But against what? Against collateral and the promise to repay. In fact, those things have value. The goods and labor of the people borrowing the money have real value, and they back the money. Even the video admits that the government monitors and limits the money supply - in fact, that's what the Fed does all day every day.

    His alternative - barter systems and total government control over money, interest free, is effectively what we already have (except for the interest free part)! We are bartering goods and services, with money acting as the medium of exchange. The government already creates and spends money on infrastructure and other forms of spending. The whole thing about interest and ever growing debt and interest payments is a total red herring (sorry to anyone who hasn't seen the video). As the economy grows - as the total value in the system grows - the money supply grows to accommodate it. It's certainly true that if the supply of money grows too fast, there will be inflation, and if it grows too slowly, there will be deflation - but I already said that.

    If the government were to simply 'create money and credits' where would that money come from, and what would back it? In the video, he says it would be the value of the things created. Exactly, and exactly what we have now. I'm not sure I understand his 'interest free' money concept, but what would happen to people who stored up a bunch of money? They wouldn't be able to earn interest, so what would they do? Spend it all? Buy corn? Where would a company get the money to build a new factory? Would the government own everything, and be responsible for all businesses? Isn't that communism? What the hell is this guy talking about?

    In the current system, I can pledge my goods and my labor to repay a loan that allows me to build a business, or buy a car, or do whatever I want. That's freedom, not slavery. Being dependent on the government for everything? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He also acts like all this stuff is a big secret that nobody ever teaches. Jeez, its econ 101. I mean, people may not be interested, but wikipedia has a big entry on fractional banking.

    His conspiracy stuff is very weak. Almost all of his quotes are taken out of context, and the idea that Lincoln and Garfield were assassinated for their views on Banking is hysterical. Why not throw in Kennedy? I understand he was riding in a Lincoln... and had worthless Federal Reserve Notes in his pocket!!!

    Now, when the government borrows and spends too much, when we have huge trade deficits that rely on foreigners to buy our debt... well, maybe he should make a video about that, because THAT's a REAL problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. well i think the point that i found interesting is that as long as banks are allowed to make money by loaning out money they don't have and charging interest on it, they are essentially charging a free to bring money into existence. With this system, it costs 1.15 to bring 1.00 into the world. Collateral covers the principal, but not the principal + interest that is brought into the bank after the loan has been repaid. Therefore, logic would dictate that as long as the baseline figures of the economy include the vast majority of people paying their loans back in full with interest, you have a negative affect on overall money supply. Only when people default on their loans before a significant amount of interest can be payed back to the bank does is the equilibrium maintained (as long as the collateral at least closely matches the loan amount).

    A friend told me that this point is invalid because loans allow business to be created which increase value in the system. I bought this for a while, but upon further scrutiny I'm not so sure it helps the situation. It seems to me that corporations and individuals do create value, but value is simply the ability of an individual to have a certain monetary-affinity within the existing money supply. Put another way, because people and corporations can't create money themselves, the only power they have is related to how much of the existing money supply they can corner or be linked to. This is "value". It seems to me that creating value in the system is irrelevant to the discussion because the issue isn't with how the people within the system use money, it's how the money itself is brought into the system.

    i think of it like this. The entire money supply is a big circle. Everyone wants to increase their relative portion. Banks make loans to allow people to increase how much of the circle is attributed to them. However, the act of bringing the circle, which represents, say, $50, into existence has cost $55. It's at this point that money no longer represents "value", but instead represents your portion owed of an overall debt. I think this is the main point of the video - all the nonsense conspiracy theories aside and questionable alternative theories aside.

    My big question is whether or not this is an accurate assessment of the system, and if it is, how is this NOT a recipe for disaster in "The Long Run"? :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bottom line: This is NOT a recipe for disaster in the long run, and you've been taken in by a red herring. Overall growth in the money supply is a GOOD thing, as long as there is economic growth underlying it. That's where the value is. Interest on money is not evil - it is the mechanism whereby money increases in value (after accounting for inflation). It is also the price of money - and remember that it is also used to stratify the market by risk. Riskier borrowers pay more for credit than less risky borrowers. When you borrow, you are renting the lender's money, and that doesn't come free.

    Also, this idea of 'everyone wants to increase their relative portion of the money supply' is an odd idea that in this case is being used as the foundation of a conspiracy theory. I don't agree that 'value is simply the ability of an individual to have a certain monetary-affinity within the existing money supply.' Creating value is absolutely relevant, because it is the value - of goods and service and the strength of your promise to repay the loan - that backs the currency. Value grows INDEPENDENT of money supply, and money supply needs to grow to accommodate it.

    Anyway, use of money has a price. When you borrow, you promise to repay the principal plus the price (the interest). Your ardent hope is that you generate more value out of that loan than you pay back in the price.

    We have lots of problems, many related to the government's taste for huge deficits and our own taste for trade deficits, but the mechanism by which money is created and interest charged is not one of them. This is a HUGE red herring. Banks are not just charging a fee to bring money into existence, because if you fail to repay a loan, the bank bears the brunt of the loss - the total amount, not just the fractional amount. So the bank is being paid for its willingness to take the risk.

    Seriously, this guy has led you down an irrelevant garden path. Spend your time worrying about deficits, not money creation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. [...] is Money? I had an exchange with a commenter in the thread after my post about the Fed.  Seems he saw a video (the link is in the thread, I don’t really recommend that anyone [...]

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jon Blumenfeld: You, obviously, took the blue pill and are living in a state-of-confusion and need to put down your pom-poms and back up your information w/facts.

    I enjoy reading your blog and I am going to refute your mis-information, step-by-step, starting this very instant!

    I am doing this to offer my brother a look at the "kool-aid" of mis-information he has been given since he has been "on and around Wall Street since 1989" while serving a greedy, albeit non-existent (bankrupt), company that served in the trading of the souls of Men.

    I invite everyone who reads my words to visit my blog and read my replies, and posts to which I invite Jon Blumenfeld to comment, to the articles he has written and will write.

    I have been waiting to use my blog for a useful purpose and God has shown me the way.

    I appreciate your time and look forward to enlightening conversation.

    Peace be with you!

    Bob Dabalina @ signatureline.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. [...] a post written by Jon Blumenfeld titled “What is money” and then another titled “The Fed - Part II” which immediately piqued my curiosity as a piece filled with un-substantiated fact and [...]

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Interest on money is not evil - it is the mechanism whereby money increases in value": How can "money" increase in value when it has no intrinsic value? When it is nothing but paper?

    ReplyDelete
  14. #6 "The goods and labor of the people borrowing the money have real value, and they back the money"

    Men have value not goods nor labor.

    ReplyDelete
  15. #9 : "if you fail to repay a loan, the bank bears the brunt of the loss - the total amount, not just the fractional amount."

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!

    Once a promissory note is signed it is SOLD for a PROFIT!

    "Money" is created by Man using a bank whereas the latter needs the former in order to complete the circle of money creation. Banks do not lose money by default on loans: They lose money when no one will purchase their promissory notes.

    I believe you were previously employed by an institution that partook in such purchasing of such notes?

    ReplyDelete
  16. #9: "Seriously, this guy has led you down an irrelevant garden path. Spend your time worrying about deficits, not money creation."

    It is interesting to note your use of obfuscation and ridicule to belittle and discredit views which do not conform to the paradigm of falsity you believe.

    Why worry when it is a waste of one's imagination?

    When you understand that it is YOU that creates money and not a bank, etc. then you are on a path of enlightenment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Okay, Bob, I'm game. Remember that I am using words like 'value' in the economic, rather than the moral or philosophical sense. 'Value' here means exactly goods and services and the like, rather than the intangible moral sense of the soul. Now, to your points:

    'How can "money" increase in value when it has no intrinsic value? When it is nothing but paper?'

    But this paper represents something. A blank piece of paper may have no value, but a promise does, and that's what the paper really represents.

    #6 Men have value not goods nor labor.

    Again, I think this is a semantic difference. I'm talking about economics, you're talking about souls.

    #9 "if you fail to repay a loan the bank bears the brunt of the loss, etc..." to which you reply that once a promissory note is signed it is SOLD for a PROFIT.

    Irrelevant, and certainly not always true. Astoria Federal and Hudson City Savings Bank never sell on their mortgages. They keep them and service them themselves. But it doesn't matter. If someone buys a loan or loan-backed security and the borrower fails to repay, the holder of the note loses the money. It amounts to the same thing.

    #9 - that's not obfuscation and ridicule. I really think this whole debate about paper money is a red herring, and I think there are other, more serious problems to worry about. So do you, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I’m talking about economics, you’re talking about souls.": The subject is the same but you have been deceived by believing the information that has been TOLD to you while not verifying said information for your edification.

    "Astoria Federal and Hudson City Savings Bank never sell on their mortgages.": Show me your proof! Any person can say Astoria Federal and Hudson City Savings Bank neve5r sell on their mortgages. Show me your proof!

    "But it doesn’t matter.": Why does it not matter? Because what you aforementioned is not true?

    "that’s not obfuscation and ridicule.": Jon, then what is it? If you make a claim then you need to provide proof of your claim!

    I again will quote what I previously said: "It is interesting to note your use of obfuscation and ridicule to belittle and discredit views which do not conform to the paradigm of falsity you believe."

    ReplyDelete
  19. "But this paper represents something. A blank piece of paper may have no value, but a promise does, and that’s what the paper really represents.": O.K.; now we are getting some where; please answer this question: Whose promise is represented regarding Federal Reserve Notes?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wish I had a "paradigm of falsity"

    ReplyDelete
  21. [...] world of finance and it does a great job of it. Jon’s descriptions about how the federal reserve actually works is what got me good and hooked into this blog. His departure has not gone unnoticed, [...]

    ReplyDelete