Since the early 17th century, American governments (colonial, state, and federal) have tried and failed to restart business expansions by reflation, writes Scott Trask. But new money in the system is no substitute for genuine production. It is too early to see the long-run consequences of the Bush-Greenspan reflation, but if the past is any guide we can expect the next decade to more resemble the 1970s than the 1990s.
It's not new colors and security features that make money, "Safer. Smarter. More Secure." Money will never be safe and secure as long as the Federal Reserve and the Treasury can create money unchecked, writes Doug French.
Hans Sennholz writes: No central bank on earth, not even the Federal Reserve System, can continually inflate its currency and defy market rates of interest without harming both its currency and the economy. Inflation tends to accelerate and ultimately destroy the currency and cripple the economy. And no government whatsoever can suffer budget deficits of half a trillion dollars annually without impairing its standing with its creditors.
Many economists have suggested that the weakening in the US dollar could actually be good for the economy—since a weaker dollar will boost manufacturing production, which in turn will lift employment and all this will set in motion economic growth. Nonsense, says Frank Shostak: the emergence of competitive devaluations is the surest way of destroying the market economy and plunging the world into a period of crisis.
Economic libertarians focus on the fallacy of minimum-wage legislation because the issue serves as a window through which to observe the very soul of a policy world view. It is the pons asinorum of the relationship between economics and politics. If the free market works—meaning the existence of exchange under private property and contract enforcement—then there is no need for such laws.
The tax bills of many American families are falling during a period of exorbitant increases in federal spending due mainly to war and welfare spending. Odd? Not once we discover the record levels of government debt accumulation. It's the shell game of government finance at work.
H. Scott Trask sums it up: on the one hand, they believed in fractional-reserve banking, generally following Adam Smith's currency and banking theories. On the other hand, they were resolutely opposed to government-issued paper money, fiat money, legal tender laws, inconvertible paper currency, and land banks. On the question of a national bank, they were divided.
Back when the pegged currency was deemed to provide the only bastion of stability during the Asian crisis, and hence, a stable economy for which to sell American goods, no one cared a whit about establishing a "free market" for the Chinese yuan. While no one is ever safe so long as Congress is in session and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is occupied, this administration's policy, more so than any other in recent history, has been "buy here, sell elsewhere."
Central banks are a recent development in the history of civilization—the culmination of years of consolidation—but the tendency of governments to inflate the currency is not.
Aging populations tend to save more, which gives rise to complaints that this is bad for economic growth. But Chris Mayer explains that the level of "growth" should be determined by the market and the saving preferences of individuals. The real problem of aging demographics arises from the nature of a welfare state and the unrealistic pyramid scheme it represents.
