Prolonged Monetary Easing Paves Way for Wealth Redistribution

Last night's Republican debate was a farce from beginning to end.

The first laugh line of the evening was Fox Business personality Stuart Varney having a difficult time getting through the name of his co-host Ilia Calderón.

Awkward start for Stuart Varney... #GOPDebate pic.twitter.com/MwSwVJj4Kh

— ElectionMuse (@ElectionMuse) September 28, 2023

The debate's conclusion ended in a similarly awkward moment for the moderators, with candidates rebelling against an attempt to turn the debate into a political game of Survivor. 

Fox News actually tried to get the candidates to play Survivor and write down who they would "vote off the island."

The candidates looked at Dana Perino like she was an insane person. pic.twitter.com/rL5YD4rrdM

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) September 28, 2023

In between,  the politicians on stage attempted to deliver carefully planned one-liners designed to demonstrate more personality than what comes naturally to them. In particular, while there is plenty to laugh at Mike Pence about, his attempted joke was not one of them.

Mike Pence absolutely bombs with the debate crowd with this joke:

"Look, I do sagree with something Tim Scott just said. Joe Biden does not belong on a picket line. He belongs on the unemployment line." pic.twitter.com/iXHM5HIddi

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) September 28, 2023

The most comedic line of the night belonged to South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. Scott, whose ten-year career in the Senate has left him with no argument for his candidacy beyond latent Republican desires for diversity on the ticket, dutifully stood up to defend the increasingly unpopular bipartisan financial aid lawmakers have provided Ukraine. In response to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis stating that he would reject further US financial support for the Ukrainian effort, Scott contended that 90% of the assistance is a loan that will be paid off.

Dissension arises over the proper response to the Ukraine war

Tim Scott: 90% of the money we send over there is a loan pic.twitter.com/cWuYTcB3cd

— MRCTV (@mrctv) September 28, 2023

It is difficult to know whether or not Senator Scott actually believes this; most of what is said on a political debate stage should not be taken at face value.  Even if we put aside the question of his 90% figure, which is significantly inflated from the percentage of financial aid that is currently considered a loan, a sincere belief that Ukraine will be expected to actually pay back war-time loans shows a disconnect with the way the modern American empire operates.

It is worth noting that there was a time when the United States government took repayment of political loans seriously. As a 1993 report by the Congressional Research Service noted:

Historically, the U.S. Government has rarely forgiven debts owed to it by foreign governments and individuals. It has been willing to adjust the repayment schedule, when the borrowers found they were unable to meet the original repayment terms for U.S. loans. Generally, however, the rescheduling process has been effected on a businesslike basis. Any foreign assistance effect of U.S. loans was provided up front, through the activity financed by the loan and any concessions or discounts in the payment terms. The debt collection procedure was not treated as an additional avenue for providing aid

Interestingly, a footnote in the first sentence did recognize that $2 billion of the $3 billion of Marshall Plan loans made to West Germany was forgiven in 1953, while most other European nations received direct grants rather than loans from the program and therefore didn't have to worry about repayment.

As the report goes on to document, any pre-existing federal commitment to debt repayment began to quickly erode during the George H.W. Bush Administration.

The movement towards debt forgiveness began with an initiative by Congress in 1989, augmented by subsequent legislation in 1991, authorizing the Administration to forgive foreign aid debts owed by countries in Africa and other very poor countries. As a result, the Administration wrote off $2.7 billion in low-income country debt. In 1990, President Bush proposed, in the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, that debt be written off for Latin America in order to encourage democratization and economic policy reform. Following the adoption of legislation in 1990 and 1992, $605 million in foreign aid debt was forgiven through this program. President Bush also recommended in 1990 that debt owed by Egypt should be forgiven in order to assist and demonstrate U.S. support for that country. Congress concurred and added a similar debt write-off for Poland. As a result of legislation approved in 1990, $8.3 billion owed by these countries (most of it market-rate debt) was forgiven in fiscal year 1991. 

This trend has continued since. President Bill Clinton worked with the IMF and the World Bank for major debt forgiveness for "heavily indebted poor countries." President George W. Bush added on to this legacy with the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative. Further international debt relief was one campaign promise that Barack Obama fulfilled, even after Republicans took back the House after the 2010 midterms. These programs continue today, such as in 2021 when U.S. taxpayers generously financed $120 million in debt relief grants to the Sudan.

Additionally, any pretension that the United States expects repayment from Ukraine and Europe for loans offered during the Russian conflict flies in the face of how NATO currently operates. On the one hand, some political leaders have suggested a future where Ukraine may be admitted as a member of either NATO or the European Union. While, again, it is reasonable to be skeptical of the credibility of these proclamations, particularly given the history of the West cynically entertaining NATO expansion as a bargaining chip in geopolitical relations with Russia prior to the invasion, the financial standards these international bodies have for admission would be severely undermined by the expectation of Ukrainian debt forgiveness after the war. 

Prior to Russia's invasion, Ukraine's economy would have been an extreme outlier relative to other E.U. nations. As Ryan McMaken notes, E.U. admission of Ukraine would create new economic hardships for a political union that has already been tested in recent years by financial crisis. Does Senator Scott honestly expect the U.S. government to add to these pressures with the expectation of debt forgiveness?

If the answer is yes, that would arguably be more disqualifying than telling a knowing lie.

Libertarian Autobiographies, edited by Jo Ann Cavallo and Walter Block, delves into the trials, tribulations, intellectual formation, and accomplishments of 80 libertarians from around the world—in their own words! The following is an amended excerpt from the introduction written by the co-editors:

It is our fervent belief that libertarianism is the last best hope for humankind with regard to economics, liberty, justice, prosperity, peace, and thus even survival (pardon us for hyper-ventilating, but we maintain this is indeed the case). This belief of ours is predicated upon the crucial importance of the non-aggression principle (NAP): proper law should allow all people to engage in whichever acts they prefer, with the one exception being any behavior that violates this precept or any threat thereof. Thus, murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, fraud, and similar evil actions should be prohibited, and virtually everything else should be legally permitted.

But why assemble a collection of autobiographies penned by libertarians? Why not, instead, offer a collection of scholarly articles demonstrating the benefits of liberty? Many of the contributors to this volume have published just that sort of work on numerous occasions. Why not do so one more time? Although people may gain an understanding of this philosophy via rational argument, it cannot be denied that autobiographies, too, are important for the promotion of liberty. The personal touch may reach some people not approachable via any other means. Additionally, we all want to know the libertarian stories of people such as those who appear on these pages. Indeed, we find that libertarians have the most interesting stories to share because they often embrace this philosophy as the result of intense encounters with foundational texts or life-changing experiences.

One of the big “problems” we have with some of the best-known libertarians throughout history—such as John Locke, Lord Acton, Ludwig von Mises, Isabel Paterson, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard—is that they never wrote an autobiography. Of course, if they had, alternative costs being what they are, they would likely not have been able to write other precious publications of theirs. But what about libertarians alive today? Would they be willing to share their stories? We already have the example of two volumes of libertarian autobiographies: Why Liberty: Personal Journeys Toward Peace & Freedom (Cobden Press), with 54 autobiographies edited by Marc Guttman, and I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians (Mises Institute), with 82 autobiographies edited by one of the co-editors of this present volume, Walter Block (available as a free pdf at https://mises.org/library/i-chose-liberty-autobiographies-contemporary-libertarians). Both volumes were published over a decade ago, however, in 2010. We wanted to learn more about the lives of contemporary libertarians not covered in these two volumes and of others who have emerged since the time of these publications.

We therefore reached out to a number of influential scholars, activists, professors, journalists, and cultural icons who have worked toward a freer society across the globe, inviting them to write a brief autobiography for this collection. We asked them to articulate, for example, what their lives and thoughts were before they embraced libertarianism; which people, texts, or events most influenced their intellectual formation; what experiences, challenges, tribulations, and achievements they have had as participants or leaders in this movement; and how this philosophy has affected their personal or professional lives.

A volume of autobiographies on the part of libertarians immediately raises the question of precisely what constitutes this political economic philosophy. In our “big-tent” view, it comprises several strands. They all have something in common, such as an appreciation for individual liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and free enterprise, but there are also discernible differences. That is why if you get ten libertarians in a room and ask them a question, you’ll likely get eleven (or more!) different responses. In this volume, we invited libertarians across the political-philosophical spectrum, including (1) anarcho-capitalism; (2) minimal government libertarianism, or minarchism; (3) constitutionalism; (4) classical liberalism; (5) thick libertarianism. The contributors to this volume range over the five main viewpoints mentioned above, and also fill in the gaps between them. Their essays express different perspectives on many issues even while articulating the same core principles. In fact, it is our desire that their very differences of opinion on some matters will invite readers to think for themselves. What we have sought to present is a sampling of the myriad individual journeys toward libertarianism, however defined.

Although the majority of contributors to the volume live in the United States, we are grateful to the libertarians from around the world who accepted our invitation to share their stories. This volume thus includes voices from Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. 

It is the hope and expectation of the editors that by bringing together a range of contemporary voices from outside the dominant left–right paradigm, this volume will contribute to the viewpoint diversity that is crucially needed in today’s public discourse. Moreover, these personal and intellectual journeys not only offer compelling insights into their individual authors and the state of the world in our lifetime, but may also serve as an inspiration for the next generation who will feel called upon to make our society a freer one.

N.B. The publisher’s link to the book is: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-29608-6. Both the hardcover and the ebook are available for purchase internationally. Get 20% off the printed book or eBook by entering the following coupon code at checkout on link.springer.com: H5DoMQW47RT2HD (valid until Oct 13, 2023). In addition, the MyCopy version (printed ebook) is available at a low cost ($39.99 in the US) to individuals who belong to a university subscribed to SpringerLink. If your university subscribes to SpringerLink, you can also read the book online for free. (If you’re not on a university-sponsored device, a VPN, or the school’s WiFi, you might have to access the book through your university’s library page.)

After not raising rates to fight inflation last week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell delivered his usual speech and Q & A. He opened with three very peculiar sentences regarding price stability, leading to a few unsettling conclusions.

He starts with:

Price stability is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve.

This statement raises concerns. First, it fails to define what price stability means. Even if Congress had assigned this responsibility to the Fed, it’s not something many would agree with if given the chance. While the approach to achieving this desired state of price stability appears quite absurd, for argument’s sake, let’s consider this statement true.

In Powell’s following sentence he inadvertently shares the dire consequences of giving this responsibility to a central bank, as explained:

Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone.

This is a rather bold, yet hollow statement. He essentially suggests the economy cannot function without the Fed's intervention.

Examining the history of America reveals that central banking hasn't always been a requirement for prosperity and development. Looking at present-day and historical hyperinflations, it becomes evident central banking is largely culpable in a nation's currency collapse. From what we’ve seen of the Fed, there’s little reason to believe this current iteration of America's central bank is somehow different.

The Austrians have argued for over a century that a currency monopoly or central authority controlling a nation's currency is unnecessary, much like we don't need a czar to regulate the production of shoes, cars, or gold.

To state that the Fed makes the economy work for everyone is simply untrue. It’s clear how bankers who receive bailouts and capitalize off borrowing millions and low interest rates are better off; but the average person on main street who ultimately pays for this market distortion can hardly say the Fed’s policies work in their favor.

The third sentence follows a similar vein as the previous:

In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all.

This claims that a strong labor market is due to the Fed’s management of price stability. He’s taking credit for something that cannot be verified. It would be useful if, during the Q&A session, a reporter inquired as to how the Fed ascertains what a "strong" labor market is and how market intervention contributes to a stronger labor force. However, questions like this are seldom asked.

Returning to one crucial point: although Powell does not address what he means by price stability, the St. Louis Fed has an article elaborating on it…

Price stability means that inflation remains low and stable over the longer run. When inflation is low and stable, people can hold money without having to worry that high inflation will erode its purchasing power.

In addition to not utilizing the historical definition of inflation, the notion that a gradual reduction in purchasing power could ever be beneficial to society is something everyone should recognize as false.

It's also worth noting Powell’s same three sentences have been used nearly verbatim in speeches in February of this year, as well as August and November of last year. If one were the wagering type, it would be reasonable to bet these three sentences have been reiterated more than four times during Powell's tenure.

The Biden Administration is celebrating the first anniversary of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocates trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to industries of their choice. Welcome to five-year plans. 

While guest-lecturing in Moscow one cold March night in 1993, a student asked why western firms didn’t invest more in Russia. I had just finished my PhD Dissertation on the subject of US-Russian joint ventures, so I probably gave a long, boring answer, that ended with an observation that in Russia, it was hard to make plans. One bright student quipped, “We used to have plans. Five-year plans.” And the whole room erupted in laughter. 

When I tell that story in my classes in the US, no one laughs. That’s because the Biden administration has just launched their version of “five-year plans.” They won’t work. I explain the failure of the Soviet socialist five-year plans in the classroom by asking a student who might be wearing a Patrick Mahomes Kansas City Chiefs jersey, “Will Mahomes be with the Chiefs in five years? Will they be in the Super Bowl in five years? Will they still be the Kansas City Chiefs in five years, or will they move to another city?” Students quickly get the idea that five-year plans are dumb because no one knows what jersey will be demanded in five years. Yet, five-year plans require that you make that prediction. 

That statement from former House Speaker Dick Armey should be on the wall of every congressperson in DC. “The reason markets are smart is because they aggregate all the information available from every possible producer and consumer. Markets are where everyone votes. Isn’t that a good way to solve problems? Wasn’t that how the congressional representative was elected? We hear cries continually about “threats to democracy.”  Well, the recent flood of money into narrowly specified industries is a threat to the democratic medium that we call the market. Why should only government elites get to vote? What’s wrong with “one person, one vote?” Because that’s what happens in a market. Here’s how economist Friedrich von Hayek explained it, "The advantage of a free market is that it allows millions of decision-makers to respond individually to freely determined prices, allocating resources - labor, capital, and human ingenuity - in a manner that can't be mimicked by a central plan, however brilliant the central planner." 

When our house was built in 1999, the owner wanted to be “ahead of the curve,” so he ran three physical hard wires to every room: TV, telephone, and internet. We don’t use any of them. The investment was wasted. As the trillions of dollars in funding through the Inflation Reduction Act will be wasted. The Biden administration’s commitment to broadband, the power grid, and electric vehicles will suffer the same fate. No one knows which technology will dominate in the future. 

“Predictions are difficult, especially those about the future,” quipped Danish Physicist Nils Bohr. But that doesn’t seem to slow the economic humanism that’s behind the motivation that encourages governmental bureaucrats to pick winners and losers. Speaking of those Kansas City Chiefs, would any reasonable person suggest that the government put their enormous resources behind ONE of the 32 teams in the NFL? Of course not, that would destroy the league. What do you think providing $28 billion via the Chips Act will do to the semiconductor industry?

When Milton Freidman popularized the phrase, “There is no free lunch,” he was making the point that trillions of dollars forcefully extracted from taxpayers are dollars that could have gone to other investments. Financial folks expect a return on their investment that is equal to, or above the average rate of return. Government subsidies perform well below that expected rate. Thus, every dollar that is committed to a government subsidy - on average - underperforms. That makes all of us poorer. 

Solyndra is a classic example of governmental elites trying to predict the future. The solar panel manufacturer received $535 million in loan guarantees. When it failed, President Obama observed that he didn’t know which technologies would prevail. He’s right, he does not know. But the market does. The half-billion dollars that President Obama flushed down the Solyndra toilet was forcefully extracted from obedient, tax-paying citizens by the use of power. That’s why we should rely on the market. 

When the market works, investors willingly contribute their own assets, by choice. 

So it’s pretty simple: Would you rather have a society operated by power, or by freedom? That’s why it’s called free market capitalism. Another warning from the economist Hayek, “I regard the preservation of free markets, as an essential condition of the very survival of mankind.” Or as Whole Foods founder John Mackey said, “Capitalism is humanity’s greatest invention.” Then, government subsidies are humanity’s worst invention.