Before the Fed blessed this country with unlimited liquidity, American history saw two previous attempts at creating a centralized institution of money and credit: the First and Second Banks of the United States. Both generated financial havoc, and were rightly opposed by the champions of freedom and sound money. Historian Scott Trask explains.
The current international monetary system is based on floating fiat currencies and is constantly subject to unsustainable distortions. This much has been known to Austrians for some time, and Robert Blumen provides the background from Bretton Woods to the current day. Awareness of the problem is now starting to spread to mainstream economists, as suggested by Richard Duncan's new book. He tells the story of how the dollar unsupported by gold has gotten led the world into a terrible mess.
In a wide-ranging interview Sudha Shenoy comments on her decision to become an economist, the influence of Rothbard and Kirzner, the politics of Hayek, current trends in global trade, US protectionism, the bad turn in economic theorizing, and the need to resolve the conflict between Islam and the West.
The American people have not seen widespread bank runs since 1933. In that object at least, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has succeeded. But Scott Trask asks: at what cost? To insure deposits is to invite bad banking—and worse; it is to foster reckless speculation and unsound investments, help make inflation permanent instead of intermittent, obstruct the curative powers of economic contractions, and divorce freedom from responsibility.
Gold is the best money, because for centuries, as a result of countless individual choices, it has evolved as such. It was not imposed on the market by force, but was cultivated in the soil of the market itself. Christopher Mayer explains.
It was Mises, before Hardin, who identified the problem of overutilization wrought by public property. The problem is not limited to land ownership, however. In banking, writes Philipp Bagus, common deposit ownership leads to credit expansion and finally the drive to centralized control of money and banking in the form of a central bank.
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.
