How damaging would another round of protectionism be? With international relations already highly strained—thanks largely, if not wholly, to the unwontedly belligerent approach generally adopted by the current U.S. Administration in its dealings with others—the clear peril here is that a series of escalating trade disputes impairs the ability of flows of goods to discharge the existing financial burdens of debt service and repayment as they come due.
The idea behind the cuts is more or less that by forceably lowering the interest rates, the costs of businesses and households will fall, consumption and investment will commence, and profits will recover. But why hasn't it worked the former 12 times? Is there something wrong with this idea?
Any upturn whether in economic statistics or in the stock market is almost certain to follow the patterns not of economic recovery but rather a mini-boom. There is no way that this particular boom, as pathetic as it is, can be sustained for a long time, unlike the boom of the late 1990s. In fact, the Fed's recent actions can only force more malinvestments which themselves will have to be liquidated in the future.
In recent newspaper columns, Paul Krugman of Princeton University and Lawrence Kudlow have sounded deflation alarms. The solution to combat falling prices, they argue, is for the Federal Reserve System to increase the money supply.
There is no radical disconnect between the interest of consumers (who always want lower prices) and overall economic health. What's good for consumers is good for everyone, writes Lew Rockwell. Thus one can only marvel at the many economists and commentators who try to convince the public that deflation is a very scary thing.
The Fed is powerful but it can't create economic growth, writes Frank Shostak. Contrary to Monetarist claims, even the attempt to flood the markets with money can backfire if the conditions that allow for sustainable investment don't exist. More pumping destroys real funding and destroys more businesses, which in turn makes banks reluctant to expand lending.
Allan Meltzer did not set out to encourage Americans to consider the unthinkable: the Fed is so dangerous to our economic and political health that it should go. But maybe, just maybe, his new but flawed book may reignite a debate that goes back to Jacksonian America. Gregory Bresiger is the reviewer.
The Fed has announced that it will turn its attention from fighting inflation to fighting deflation. There are serious problems with this approach, writes Frank Shostak. There is nothing wrong with lower prices, and if currency depreciation could improve economic conditions, poverty would have been eradicated a long time ago. In fact, pumping the money supply even more could lead to all round economic devastation.
The World Bank has warned that central bankers around the world are running out of tools for dealing with the flagging global economy. The Fed, in particular, has almost no room left to cut interest rates. The report then turns to hand-wringing about the great monetary fear of our time: deflation.
No one can argue about the current moribund economy, complete with flat or falling stock prices, nonexistent profits, layoffs, airline bankruptcies, and exploding federal and state budget deficits. But few people have accurately pointed out why there is no recovery from the original recession.
