Political Theory

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Luis Buenaventura — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:18:48 GMT

Steve Bachman:

From: Steven Bachman (bachy1076@hotmail.com)

Sent: Mon 12/01/08 4:09 PM

To: butkiewj@lerner.udel.edu

Subject: RE: Your quote in the News Journal, and questions regarding monetary theory
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:04:33 -0500
From: butkiewj@lerner.udel.edu
To: bachy1076@hotmail.com

Professor Butkiewicz,

Thank you for responding; I realize that your time is valuable.

You're correct that the traditional gold standard was unworkable, but this was due to government intervention, not to the nature of free-market money. Statutes intended to fix the ratio of value of silver to gold (I believe it was 15:1?) was what put Gresham's Law into effect. Had the exhange ratios of each been allowed to freely "float," so to speak, the issues concerning bi-metallism would have never come into being.

I strongly disagree with your assessment regarding the genesis of the Federal Reserve system, as well as the cause of the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was actually conceived during a highly secret nine-day retreat on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia; attendees included Senator Nelson aldrich, Paul Warburg, Henry P. Davison, Abe Piatt Andrew, Frank Vanderlip, and Benjamin Strong. The meeting was secret, of course, because the Federal Reserve Act was presented to the public as a means of "breaking the grip of the 'money trust'"; if the public had any inkling that the bill was actually written by the "money trust"... well, you could imagine.

Anyhow, the purpose of the system is easy enough to ascertain once you understand the nature of money and banking. "Fractional-reserve" banking is inherently insolvent; it requires the sanction of government to sustain it and make it profitable in the long run for competitive interests. The answer that the banking giants of the time -- the interests of J.P Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller, and Kuhn Loeb & Asooc. -- came up with was to establish a banking cartel, in partnership with the government, in order to pool together the reserves of the entire banking system, and pass inevitable losses incurred by the system off to the taxpayers.
The government acquires a means of securing funds beyond the limits of what is politically viable for them to accrue through overt taxation and open borrowing, via the hidden form of taxation called inflation, and the banking cartel aquires monopoly privilege over the nation's supply of money and credit, thus overcoming the problems inherent in the operation of a scheme wherein banks intentionally enter into contractual agreements with customers, the terms of which they could not possibly be good for.

The crash of 1929 was classic "bust" brought about by systematic clusters of malinvestment, the inevitable result of artificial interest rate manipulation via phony expansion of money and credit. The artificial expansion of money and credit does not increase the supply of capital or augment a nation's wealth; you cannot increase aggregate demand by printing more green pieces of paper or merely by putting new entries in a ledger somewhere. All this does is to re-allocate existing scarce resources to areas where they create an unsustainable condition; it distorts the vital market signal that is constituted by the natural rate of interest, misleading investors and entrepreneurs into embarking on projects the unprofitability of which would have been evident but for the artificial market distortions created by the central bank.

I don't see how anyone could attribute the length and depth of the Great Depression to the gold standard, considering that FDR unconstitutionally ordered the seizure of Americans' gold holding in excess of 5 oz. in 1933. From that point, the problems concerning monetary policy derived not from the limitations inherent in the gold standard, but rather the central bank's attempts to undermine those limitations.
As to the greater nature of the Depression itself, the problem wasn't so much "deflation," as it was government policy which precluded the economic systems ability to adjust naturally to the contraction of the money supply. In order for that to have occured, there would have needed to be wage and price flexibility downwards, and government policy in many areas was designed expressly to prevent that from happening.

If you are a fan of markets, you should know that the free-market price/wage structure and the profit/loss test of the market must be allowed to operate freely if it is to perform its vital social function. What the goal of monetary policy in all this should be is not to provide "stable prices," as the typical Keynesian fallacy holds -- as Professor Mises once noted, the only time we should expect "stable prices" is if the market economy were in its "final state of rest" -- rather, to provide accurate prices. If the economy is growing, and the money supply remains relatively static (as it does under a commodity-money system), then there is a natural downward tendency of prices. But this is what is supposed to happen when the productivity of labor is increased, natural scarcity is alleviated, and society becomes wealthier; the increased wealth of the public is reflected in the increased purchasing power of their wages and savings. As it is now, so much of the increased wealth that each of us should be experiencing in times of economic growth, is siphoned off to the first people to receive the artificially-expanded money and credit.
Inflation constitutes a real redistribution of wealth, generally regressive.

In closing, I will venture to step way out of line, and offer a suggestion to a man who is a thousand-times my superior in knowledge and life experience: check out Professor Murray Rothbard's awesome and most important works on these topics: America's Great Depression (http://www.mises.org/store/Americas-Great-Depression-P63.aspx) and A History of Money and Banking in the United States (http://www.mises.org/store/History-of-Money-and-Banking-in-the-United-States--P191.aspx).

Also, a relevant work that I believe is very important and was quite helpful to me, is Henry Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics" (http://www.mises.org/store/Failure-of-the-New-Economics-The-P337.aspx).

Ok, enough sentimental jibber-jabber, how did he parry your lunge?

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Daniel J. Sanchez — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:08:55 GMT

Steve Bachman:
It's such a liberating, almost exhilirating experience, to come across the writings of Mises, Rothbard, et al; I really am at a loss to explain the sense of inner satisfaction that comes from drawing from the insight and understanding of these men, but I'm sure that most of the people here know exactly what I'm talking about.

I certainly do. I too am always in the middle of some Austrian book (right now I'm finishing up Menger's Principles) with another on deck (Bohm-Bawerk's Positive Theory of Capital). I also have every Rothbard audiobook I can find on my iPod, and not a day goes by when I don't listen to some of at least one of them: either while commuting or at home. It may sound corny, but his writings and his life fill me with hope: Obama's got nothing on Rothbard.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Steve Bachman — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:41:07 GMT

Daniel J. Sanchez:

Steve, I am exceedingly impressed at the fullness of understanding of Austrian economics and its application to history you've managed to achieve in 1+ years.

Thank you very much, Daniel. I really do appreciate that.

I will say, it hasn't been your average "informal, in my own spare time" effort as I portrayed it in my first email to the professor. I became utterly fascinated with this stuff pretty quickly; it was really the first time in my life that I had found something I truly enjoyed learning about, so putting in the effort to learn was really no effort at all, if you know what I mean. I've kept a waiting roster of books; I always have another book "on deck," to begin as soon as I finish whatever one I'm on, and it's always the case that I can't wait to finish the one I'm reading, because I so look forward to taking in the next one. It's such a liberating, almost exhilirating experience, to come across the writings of Mises, Rothbard, et al; I really am at a loss to explain the sense of inner satisfaction that comes from drawing from the insight and understanding of these men, but I'm sure that most of the people here know exactly what I'm talking about.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Steve Bachman — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:14:17 GMT

Rytz,

To be honest, it really didn't occur to me that I could be doing anything underhanded. It's a correspondence between two complete strangers regarding economics; there's nothing personal being shared here. I wouldn't be the least bit disturbed -- in fact, I would consider it a compliment -- if I found out that Professor Butkiewicz had shared our correspondence with his students.

Anyhow, you're kind words are very much accepted, and you have said nothing that would need forgiving. Thanks.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Daniel J. Sanchez — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:18:49 GMT

Steve, I am exceedingly impressed at the fullness of understanding of Austrian economics and its application to history you've managed to achieve in 1+ years.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Spideynw — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:59:50 GMT

Unless the professor explicitly said to not share it, I see no problem.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Rytz — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:12:12 GMT

Ahem ...

Great initiative and all. But did you obtain the Professor's consent to post what really at this point only amounts to half a conversation? Have you considered that this is somewhat bad form? I mean, I find this truly fascinating and all - but perhaps you do yourself, the Professor and the conversation a disservice by publishing it midstream?

These issues are of monumental importance - needless to say - so all the more care must be taken to ensure a proper debate. Especially when "we" (yes, that would be "us", the fringe) manage to get a debate going with the establishment. May I propose that you suggest to the professor that your conversation be published on mises.org and wherever he would like? And that you set up certain ground rules? As it stands now you have had the last word in the conversation - or rather the last 12000 words judging from that final email of yours.

And just a bit of praise: Your prose is beautiful, no less. You clearly have a gift for producing words of sparkling clarity in these heady and heavy matters. Do please accept my admiration - and forgive my criticism.

Mike

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Conza88 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:28:57 GMT

liberty student:

I don't know how I missed this. Great thread. Fantastic initiative.

As far as conspiracy theory, that stuff pisses me off. I really get agitated when people dismiss historical fact as conspiracy theory. Professors no less, it's very disappointing. If they disagree with the record, they should state that clearly, and with their reasons for doing so.

Claiming conspiracy theory is a copout. I suppose he's one that thinks the Lusitania still was only a passenger ship, and that the Gulf of Tonkin attack actually happened?

Kudos to the Professor for answering. But I think the OP has given him a run for his money intellectually, and I enjoy that because like the OP, I only have a high school education, and yet seem to know more than Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize Winner.

Hitler didn't burn down the Reichstag...

A general reply I like to invoke.... "Ohh, so you're a coincidence theorist then..."

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Eric — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:15:00 GMT

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, i believe was said by Barry Goldwater

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Steve Bachman — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:22:26 GMT

Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I'll post Prof. Butkiewicz's next response, if he should reply (as he stated he would in his last brief email to me).

If anyone here can point out any factual or theoretical flaws in my argument thus far, or give any general advice as to how I could improve my approach in any subsequent correspondence, I would greatly appreciate it.

I'm still pretty new to this stuff, and I've learned alot even since my last email to the Professor, which has clarified my thinking, and I now see some things that I would have approached differently if I could go back and do it over. I've also noticed an error in terminology; when I was talking about how new money would be produced if it were profitable under a commodity-money economy, I said that the "increase in the marginal utility of the monetary unit" would guide investment to production of the money-commodity, but I now realize that this is an improper application of the concept of marginal utility. I should have just said that the increased purchasing power of the monetary unit, relative to the costs of producing the money commodity, would make the production of the money-commodity for monetary purposes profitable, and thus guide the expansion of the supply of money in accordance with the laws of supply and demand, as opposed to in accordance with the whim of central-planners at the Fed and the selfish pleading of special interests.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Steve Bachman — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:57:57 GMT

GilesStratton:

liberty student:
Claiming conspiracy theory is a copout.

Yes. And yet, proponents of conspiracy theories often take it too far.

I did a presentation about conspiracy theories not long ago.

But if what is being off-handedly dismissed as "conspiracy theory" is the truth, then how is it that a persistent -- but rational -- exposition of the truth could ever be "taken too far"?

I can't remember who said it, but I remember reading a quote by someone that said (paraphrasing): "Extremism in defense of liberty is never a vice." I think the same could could be said regarding truthful representations of history: Extremism in defense of the truth is never a vice.

I can see how some people can "take it too far," in terms of appearing irrational when arguing in favor of accurate accounts of history which are typically regarded as "conspiracy theory," by making strong revisionist assertions without ample historical or even theoretical evidence. But this is a crime of technique; not of substance. It doesn't make them an irrational person; it just means their method of argumentation is not sufficiently persuasive given the nature of their argument.

In the case at hand, the "conspiracy theory" that Professor Butkiewicz is attempting to dismiss, and which I am asserting, is one which is demonstrably true, and can be proven so by adequate research into pertinent public records.

The old resort where the "conspiracy" I referenced occured is still standing, though it (and the entire island) is now owned by the state of Georgia. They turned the clubhouse into a tourist attraction. Today, anyone can go there, and there is a plaque hanging on one of the doors in the old mansion, and it reads: "The Federal Reserve system was conceived in this room."

I suppose one could attempt to argue that the state of Georgia is engaging in fantastic "conspiracy theory" by putting up that plaque; but then, who would be on the "irrational" side of such an argument?

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

liberty student — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:56:12 GMT

Spideynw:
You should think of it more as that you only have a high school indoctrination.

Yup! I'm not at all insecure about it. I changed schools so many times, I think I slipped through the cracks. A little more stability and consistency, and I would probably still be a statist.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

hayekianxyz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:07:03 GMT

liberty student:
Claiming conspiracy theory is a copout.

Yes. And yet, proponents of conspiracy theories often take it too far.

I did a presentation about conspiracy theories not long ago.

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Eric — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:01:00 GMT

I reall do have to say that this is one of the most interesting posts here, as it concerns the very people most of us critizise. But i do very much appreciate both Steve for writing and the professor for answering. Great stuff

Re: My correspondence with a local pro-central bank economics professor

Spideynw — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:20:24 GMT

Kudos to you for writing to him. And kudos to him for responding. However, my guess is he thinks he is far smarter than you. I mean, he does think of himself as a self-styled expert on money.

From:	Steven Bachman (bachy1076@hotmail.com)
Sent:	Mon 12/01/08 4:09 PM
To:	butkiewj@lerner.udel.edu