Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2009

During a time when many people want to blame businessmen for their trials, they should keep in mind the words of Ludwig von Mises in the section titled, “Businessmen Improve Social Cooperation and Economic Welfare by Earning Profits” from a paper titled, “Profit and Loss.”

The businessmen are blamed because the only thing they have in mind is to succeed. Yet everybody—without any exception—in acting aims at the attainment of a definite end. The only alternative to success is failure; nobody ever wants to fail. It is the very essence of human nature that man consciously aims at substituting a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. What distinguishes the decent man from the crook is the different goals they are aiming at and the different means they are resorting to in order to attain the ends chosen. But they both want to succeed in their sense. It is logically impermissible to distinguish between people who aim at success and those who do not.

Practically everybody aims at improving the material conditions of his existence. Public opinion takes no offense at the endeavors of farmers, workers, clerks, teachers, doctors, ministers, and people from many other callings to earn as much as they can. But it censures the capitalists and entrepreneurs for their greed. While enjoying without any scruples all the goods business delivers, the consumer sharply condemns the selfishness of the purveyors of this merchandise. He does not realize that he himself creates their profits by scrambling for the things they have to sell. (Emphasis added.)

Neither does the average man comprehend that profits are indispensable in order to direct the activities of business into those channels in which they serve him best. He looks upon profits as if their only function were to enable the recipients to consume more than he himself does. He fails to realize that their main function is to convey control of the factors of production into the hands of those who best utilize them for his own purposes. He did not, as he thinks, renounce becoming an entrepreneur out of moral scruples. He chose a position with a more modest yield because he lacked the abilities required for entrepreneurship or, in rare cases indeed, because his inclinations prompted him to enter upon another career.

Mankind ought to be grateful to those exceptional men who out of scientific zeal, humanitarian enthusiasm or religious faith sacrificed their lives, health and wealth, in the service of their fellow-men. But the philistines practice self-deception in comparing themselves with the pioneers of medical X-ray application or with nuns who attend people afflicted with the plague. It is not self-denial that makes the average physician choose a medical career, but the expectation of attaining a respected social position and a suitable income.

Everybody is eager to charge for his services and accomplishments as much as the traffic can bear. Lu this regard there is no difference between the workers, whether unionized or not, the ministers, and teachers on the one hand and the entrepreneurs on the other hand. Neither of them has the right to talk as if he were Francis d’Assisi.

Source:

Planning for Freedom: Let the Market System Work
A Collection of Essays and Addresses
by Ludwig von Mises
Edited by Bettina Bien Greaves
Liberty Fund Inc., Indianapolis, 1952, 1962, 1974 and 2008

Read Full Post »

Formula One racing has, for the time being, avoided breakup.

The head of the F1 governing body will quit and many of his plans for reorganization will leave with him. (For those interested see… and related articles.)

Does this destroy my analogy about over-regulation. I don’t think so.

Read Full Post »

I gain a certain amount of encouragement that a number of people seem to recognize that the continuously expanding money supply causes problems. Of all the books, articles, blogs and new reports made in the last few months about the causes of the “financial crisis” very few even mention monetary growth as even a small part of the problem. So, the fact that a growing number of people even consider the role of monetary growth gives me some hope.

I believe that the role of monetary growth goes far beyond just playing a role in our current problems. Artificial expansion of the money supply provided the basis for the boom and subsequent bust. Without it we would not have had any problems with the financial markets. All the discussions about whom to blame would not have occurred.

Now, amongst those who recognize the problems of monetary growth, a movement has started to give the government more information and maybe control over the Federal Reserve Banking System. Members of that movement want to give support to the “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009” (HR 1207) introduced by Congressional Representative Ron Paul (and companion Senate bill the “Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009” (S 604) introduced by Senator Bernard Sanders.) This legislation would give authority to the Comptroller of the Currency to conduct audits of the Federal Reserve Bank.

I suggest that the supporters of this legislation reconsider their support for a couple of interrelated reasons:

First, this proposed legislation carries the implicit implication that oversight by the government has some benefit for citizens. The government has an unlimited number of commissions and agencies that oversee and regulate organizations inside and outside the government. Anyone astute enough to recognize a potential problem with monetary expansion should also see the fallacy of seeking benefit from government oversight of anything. Does the fox watching the other fox guarding the hen house come to mind?

Second, although I find encouragement from the number of people questioning the benefit of constant money growth, I feel a bit of discouragement that many of them think that the Federal Reserve represents the whole problem. It does not.

Artificial monetary growth (in the United States) results from the structure of the U.S. banking system. That structure includes fractional reserve banking, government deposit guarantees, the Federal Reserve Bank, and, most basic of all, the assumption that anyone (the Fed or any agency of government) should influence the money supply. Only after we dismantle that entire structure will monetary expansion, and the resulting boom/bust cycles, cease.

Passing this legislation only gives credence to the popular, yet fallacious, idea that more government control solves any economic problems. Having the same government that created the structure of the banking system peer more deeply into one element of that system, solves nothing. Indeed it will probably perpetuate the false hope that we now have safe money because the government has watch over it.

I say, dismantle the whole system, don’t audit part of it.

Read Full Post »

In an interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC June 23, 2009, Elizabeth Warren repeatedly declared that she believed in free markets. She said they just need the right regulation to work (or words to that effect, watch the video and check for yourself).

When I heard that, I fell out of my chair.

Remember this nice lady chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel, charged with assuring that money taken from citizens by force and forced upon banks (willing and unwilling) gets spent properly. How did the free market get involved in that process?

She also has the responsibility for setting up the Consumer Credit Protection Agency. This agency will join the laundry list of other agencies that tells parties to private contracts what those contracts must say. Again, I cannot figure out where the free market fits into this plan.

I pick on Elizabeth Warren simply because, of all the people falsely declaring their belief in free markets, I heard her last. How can an obviously intelligent woman like this really believe she cares about free market while at the same time playing an important role in the most prodigious destruction of market freedom in the history of the republic?

In free markets people do not have a right to credit; they earn it. If they don’t understand a contract, they don’t sign it. If they do sign it, they abide by the terms.

In free markets someone (or the government) does not confiscate the property of one person, no matter how rich or poor, and give it to another person or organization. If businesses make costly mistakes, they absorb the loss or go out of business.

A free market in this country would have 350 Million regulators (called consumers). Businesses that did not respond to the consumers would cease to exist. Elizabeth Warren’s version of a free market would have only a few thousand regulators.

Finally a free market would not have a government sponsored system that destroys the market’s money, thereby setting in motion the artificial booms that bring us these very real busts.

To Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden and any other Washington resident: quit the hypocrisy. You don’t believe in, nor want, free markets. In a free market you would have no control over other people’s lives. You would have to take responsibility for your own.

But, liberty does require an equal measure of personal responsibility.

Read Full Post »

For nearly sixty years Formula One auto racing has held the position of the premier racing series in the world. Although not extremely popular in the USA, the worldwide following may exceed that of any other form of motor sport. The teams spend immense amounts of money on the sport and advertisers pay premium prices to have their names appear anywhere on the cars.

Sounds like a formula (punt intended) for sporting success, doesn’t it?

Well, over the last several years formula one racing seems to have developed a problem. And now the series may break into parts, and the experience of other racing series that have tried operating split schedules does not bode well for the future for formula one.

So, what has caused this breakup to occur after so many years of success?

Quite simply the organization that governs the formula one series has imposed an excessive amount of regulation. Over that last several years they have added one rule after another, many of them threatening the basic nature of the sport. Finally, this year they reached that proverbial “tipping point.” Too many regulations have caused a large group of the participants to break away and form their own group.

The details of this whole mess probably do not interest anyone reading this post, but the underlying lesson should.

The growth in regulation simply amounts to a growth in tyranny. In the early stages the people subjected to the regulation/tyranny do not object. They would rather stay in the game than risk elimination because of their objections. But, eventually the level of regulation reaches the point that people subjected to the regulation start to object. They either actively resist the rules or they leave the game.

Those in favor of ever greater regulation by the U.S. Government should bear this in mind. At what point does the regulation in this country reach a level that people recognize it as tyranny and either revolt or leave?

If formula one racing splits up or disappears because of excessive regulation/tyranny, a lot of people will not notice. Others will cheer, for they do consume a lot of resources and burn a lot of gas.

If, on the other hand, the U.S. economy breaks up because of excessive regulation/tyranny, don’t you think you will notice?

Read Full Post »

Recently President Obama said in an interview that he believed in his economic plan because a large number of economists agreed with it. (I feel certain he includes some of these guys who supported his election. Of course, many of them now work for the Obama administration.) Based on articles I read and television interviews I see, I would say that most economists do agree with his plan.

Agreement of large groups, however, does not make the members correct.

President Obama’s comment brought another image to my mind. I thought of a scene from “Into the West,” a television series produced by Steven Spielberg about the American West that I have been watching.

This episode depicts a hunting tactic commonly used by American Indians to hunt buffalo. In this particular scene the Lakota Indians hunt buffalo by stampeding them over the edge of a cliff. Many buffalo die simply because they trust the buffalo ahead of them.

Economists operate in much the same manner as the buffalo. Ideas appear sound simply because others believe them. They create an intellectual stampede of inconsistent, illogical and unsound thinking. Now they have a huge confirmation for their faulty thinking: the President believes them.

The President has taken the lead of this stampede, and now, without questioning the soundness of the ideas he advocates, he wants the rest of us to join the herd. The President, the economists, the legislators, and now many citizens have stirred up so much intellectual dust they cannot see the economic cliff ahead of them.

Being a part of a herd does not make your ideas correct, even if you have the title President (or you follow the guy called President). The time has come to question how the same thinking that got us into this mess will also get us out.

I recall that Albert Einstein said something about solving problems with the same thinking that created them. But, what could he have known. He developed a great deal of notoriety by not joining herds.

Read Full Post »

On Monday, June 15, 2009, the Washington Post published an article co-authored By Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers titled “A New Financial Foundation,” and subtitled The Case for Financial Regulatory Reform. The article begins as follows:

Over the past two years, we have faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. The financial system failed to perform its function as a reducer and distributor of risk. Instead, it magnified risks, precipitating an economic contraction that has hurt families and businesses around the world.

“We have taken extraordinary measures to help put America on a path to recovery. But it is not enough to simply repair the damage. The economic pain felt by ordinary Americans is a daily reminder that, even as we labor toward recovery, we must begin today to build the foundation for a stronger and safer system.

“This current financial crisis had many causes. It had its roots in the global imbalance in saving and consumption, in the widespread use of poorly understood financial instruments, in shortsightedness and excessive leverage at financial institutions. But it was also the product of basic failures in financial supervision and regulation.”

They follow up these introductory remarks by discussing five key problems on which the Obama administration has and will focus. You can read the article for yourself but, in summary, the five key problems consist of:

  1. Lack of adequate regulation.
  2. Lack of adequate regulation.
  3. Lack of adequate regulation.
  4. Lack of adequate regulation.
  5. Lack of adequate regulation.

After putting their heads together they have come up with five creative solutions:

  1. More regulation.
  2. More regulation.
  3. More regulation.
  4. More regulation.
  5. More regulation.

(Do I hear an echo?)

When the authors say, “This current financial crisis had many causes. It had its roots…” they leave out the primary root cause of the entire financial calamity: artificial expansion of the supply of money. If we did not have the fractional reserve banking system that allows banks to create money from nothing, markets would never have suffered the price distortions that caused investors to make rational decisions based on misleading pricing information.

To the fuel of monetary expansion the government added the accelerants of taxation and regulation. Tax laws favored house purchases over other spending. Lending regulations encouraged loans to unqualified borrowers. And the plethora of other regulations designed to protect consumers and investors gave them reason to ignore risk.

Contrary to what Messrs. Geithner and Summers contend, the best solutions consist of:

  1. Less regulation.
  2. Less regulation.
  3. Less regulation, and
  4. Even less regulation…
  5. Then no regulation.

…then eliminate monetary expansion, government spending, and taxation.

The authors close by saying:

By restoring the public’s trust in our financial system, the administration’s reforms will allow the financial system to play its most important function: transforming the earnings and savings of workers into the loans that help families buy homes and cars, help parents send kids to college, and help entrepreneurs build their businesses. Now is the time to act.”

If you really want to “allow the financial system to play its most important function,” leave it alone. Don’t act now. Don’t act ever.

Read Full Post »

Regulating Risk Taking

Exercising a peculiar form of logic the Obama administration has said they want to curb Wall Street risk taking. The concept of regulating risk taking triggers many questions. I will address only two: 1. How will they measure risk? 2. Why?

To measure something you must first define it. For this discussion I will use the definition provided at Wikipedia: “Risk is a concept that denotes the precise probability of specific eventualities…[More]

So, the geniuses in the government want to measure precisely the probability that some specific event will occur in the future. To do so the burden falls on them to first define the specific event to which they refer. Do they expect to put a specific percentage on the amount of losses that an investor will suffer? If they do that, from what point do they measure that loss. Does this loss percentage apply to stocks, bonds, options, and treasury bills? The permutations of event that could happen make the potential list of eventualities nearly limitless.

But then they want to measure the probability precisely. Well, investing does not carry the same predictability of flipping a coin or rolling dice, for which one can make relatively precise prediction of probability. A nearly infinite number of factors influence the likelihood of whether an investment turns out successful or not. In addition, the probability of success or failure of every investment differs.

As usual the government people have promised to do something that, on the surface, sounds acceptable but prove impossible to accomplish. The first question boils down to, how do they plan to accomplish the almost impossible take of measuring investment risk?

I must then ask the bigger question: Why curb risk taking?

Risking taking drives a thriving economy. It drives it in all sectors – not just the financial sector.

When the grocer places produce on the shelf at the beginning of the day, he take the risk that consumers will not buy what he has provided (or that they will want more). Without that risk taking groceries would not exist.

If Thomas Edison had not risked failure 10,000 times, we might still light our houses with candles.

If the Wright brothers had not risked life and limb, getting from New York to Los Angels might take days, weeks, or months rather than hours. (One good thing would have come out of their failure: Politicians would have to confine their travels.)

More to the point, if people did not expose their savings to risk, people could not get mortgages at all, businesses could not expand rapidly, new ventures would cease. And those same risk takers would have to work until the day they died.

The arrogance of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington thinking they can accurately regulate risk defies description. The stupidity of putting a damper on the very act that drives the advance of our economy, however, overshadows that arrogance

Read Full Post »

A New Fed Chairman?

Because Ben Bernanke soon comes to the end of a term as Fed Chairman people have begun to ask, “Should the President reappoint him or find a new chairmen?” The responses to the question, of course, cover the water front. Some praise him for saving us from a greater catastrophe (yet unspecified). Others fault him for the incredible expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet and setting the stage future inflation.

These responses, however, all have one thing in common: they comment of picking the right man for the wrong job.

We should ask, rather than who should hold the position of Fed Chairman, should we even have a Fed Chairman (or a Fed for that matter).

Throughout the history of the Federal Reserve the quantity of money has steadily increased year after year – chairman after chairman. Even during the period of the great inflation fighter, Paul Volcker, the money supply continued to grow. And this continued inflation (i.e. expansion of money) has caused numerous booms and busts – the Great Depression and the current mess (whatever we name it) deserving particular note.

When will we learn to focus on the destruction nature of our inflationary banking system and not the person running it? It does us no good to have a person doing the wrong job well.

Read Full Post »

Government Motors will have a lot of problems trying to operate under the guidance of its major stakeholder: Uncle Sam. Some of those problems will result from the influence of people who have never run a business or met a payroll. But, regardless of the backgrounds of the people involved in this government intervention, they have one problem they cannot overcome: political entities cannot calculate.

Without the price setting mechanism of the free market, governments simply do not have the capabilities to make the calculations needed for intelligent business decisions. The allocation of resources in Government Motors will occur as the result of political whim not feedback from consumers and suppliers making free choices in the open market. And, examples to demonstrate that principle abound.

First, government made the decision to guarantee the debt of Chrysler during its last bailout. Congressmen made the decision to provide that guarantee based on some vague idea that the country could not afford the loss of jobs. Chrysler could not calculate its real cost of capital, for the government guarantee held the rate way below the rate set by the market. As a result of artificially low financing costs the program seemed to work. But since then, Chrysler has had a couple of different owners and they’re back in the soup again.

Second, government, as the result of political decisions, forced the auto industry to produce “fuel efficient” cars that the market did not want. In response, the market chose large vehicles that fell outside the mandated CAFÉ standards. The auto industry built a cost structure to support the manufacture of these products – a cost structure it could not maintain in an economic down turn. (I will save the influence of artificially cheap financing to car buyers for another day.) Thus, the government’s inability to make economic calculations caused them to make decisions for the auto companies that contributed to the current mess.

So, regardless of the good intentions of the Obama administration and Congress, government will do it again. They will simultaneously bail out these failed businesses and force them to manufacture uneconomic products.

But, what can you expect? They cannot calculate.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.