Author: Peter Schiff

When a 10-ton elephant plods through a village of grass huts, the big question on everyone’s mind is: which way is he going to turn next? With China, that fundamental question translates to guessing when Beijing will make changes to the value of the yuan. These decisions will determine the overall direction of the global economy, and will set the path that everyone must follow. Unfortunately, no Americans, even those who travel hat-in-hand to China, have a seat at the table where these decisions are being made.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me reiterate my central thesis with respect to currency valuation: just as it is always better to be rich than to be poor, it is always better to have a strong currency than a weak one. Although this simple maxim puts me into conflict with much of the economic establishment, I hold its truth to be…well…self-evident.

While I attended an economic conference last week in Shanghai, I found it notable – but not surprising – that two former Secretaries of the Treasury, John Snow and Hank Paulson, as well as current Treasury Secretary Tim Geither, and former President George W. Bush were then in the country at the same time. The fact that so many key American power brokers were in China simultaneously was no coincidence. In an overly indebted world, the $2.5 trillion that China holds in foreign reserves is acting as a center of economic gravity, inexorably pulling all market participants into its orbit.

The effect of current Chinese currency policy (which, despite Beijing’s protests to the contrary, is manipulation pure and simple) is to make the US dollar more valuable and the yuan less valuable. As a result, the benefits of manipulation accrue to Americans, not the Chinese. We get pay raises; they get pay cuts. Americans use their stronger dollars to buy products they would otherwise not have been able to afford. On the flip side, the Chinese people do without products that they otherwise would have been able to afford had their government not transferred their purchasing power to us.

The same effect is experienced with interest rates. In order to manipulate the dollar’s value higher, the Chinese government has gobbled up more than $1 trillion of them. The Chinese then loan the dollars back to the US through purchases of government and mortgage- backed debt, which reduces the cost of servicing our massive liabilities.

By the same token, if China were to stop manipulating the dollar higher, it would remove the props currently supporting our dysfunctional economy. American interest rates and consumer prices would soar, and our economy would suffer…perhaps dramatically so. Meanwhile, China would experience the opposite effect. Chinese consumer prices would fall, immediately raising living standards for average Chinese workers, whose higher real wages would finally allow them to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor.

What strikes me as particularly dangerous is that no one, not even the Chinese, appear to understand these fundamental dynamics. All of the Shanghainese with whom I spoke last week were unaware that a stronger yuan would be in their own best interest. The way most people see it, a stronger currency is a bullet that China must be prepared to take in order to save the rest of the world from further pain.

And so we watch the strange spectacle of China stubbornly resisting actions from which it would immediately and substantially benefit. In reality, an appreciating yuan is the bitter medicine Americans must swallow if our sick economy is ever to regain its health. (An allegorical explanation of this is contained in my new illustrated book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.)

When Beijing finally comes to it senses, the transition will be unavoidably disruptive. For China, the long-term growth would far outweigh the short-term shock. America, however, would face a much less certain outcome. There is no question that, for Americans, the immediate effects would be very painful, with the gains only developing with time and prudent decision-making. Still, that does not mean we should resist the process. For the longer it is delayed, the more severe the pain and the longer the road back to prosperity.

If you think China is important today, just wait a few years. For example, while the Chinese automobile market is now the largest in the world, 90% of Chinese car buyers pay cash. In contrast, only 15% of American car buyers do so. In other words, Chinese consumers can actually afford their cars, while most Americans cannot. Without huge car payments, Chinese consumers are in much better shape not only to trade up to newer cars in the future, but to purchase other products as well. This suggests huge future growth, not only in automobiles but also in other consumer products as well.

This eruption of consumer demand, made possible by pent-up savings, is creating historic opportunities for investors. When the Chinese start using their wealth to expand their own economy rather than to subsidize ours, infrastructure may well be a primary beneficiary.

Whenever the Chinese government decides to end the peg, the Chinese economy will benefit as a result. While as citizens we can hope that US leaders respond with the right policies to enable our economy to regain its former glory, as investors we should position ourselves to benefit from the more certain outcome.

Peter Schiff
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• US Economists Think China Should Raise the Value of Yuan
• Fed Vice Donald Kohn Urges Emerging Markets to Drop the Dollar Peg
• China Using Holdings of U.S. Treasury Bonds as Cudgel to Bludgeon United States
• Chinese Yuan Marches Towards World Domination
• Citizens Easily Coerced into Using Government Currency

In a commentary a few weeks ago, I rebutted dangerously silly arguments put forward by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman about how the United States should pressure China to drop its support for the US dollar. Although there is far more happening in the world outside of Mr. Krugman’s brain than within it, fresh drivel from the acclaimed Nobel Prize winner compels me to turn my focus there once again.

In today’s column, Krugman analyzes the Greek debt crisis, arguing that the best solution for Athens would be to simply inflate away its debt burden with printing press money. Krugman laments that this sensible option is being foreclosed by the monetary priggishness of the German heavyweights in the European Union, who are ‘foolishly’ seeking to prevent inflation and impose fiscal discipline.

His theoretical justification is put forward in a familiar Keynesian recipe: deficit spending leads to inflation and growth, which leads to greater employment and rising GDP, which makes debt payments much easier to bear in relative terms. He laments that Greece does not control its own currency and is therefore unable to pursue such a policy on its own accord. He implores US policy makers, who do control their own monetary policy, to take heed of the danger and avoid such a course.

In simple terms, Krugman believes that inflation is the best cure for burdensome debt problems. To prove his arguments, he points to the course followed by the Unites States in the decade after the Second World War. In 1946, due to unprecedented military spending during the war, US public debt as a percentage of GDP came in at a staggering 122 percent – which is even higher than the 113 percent currently weighing on Greece.

Krugman endorses US policy at the time which, he claims, concentrated on fostering growth instead of taking measures to drastically cut the post-war debt. He notes that by the end of 1956, the federal debt had not diminished in nominal terms, but had become much easier to bear because of the decade of GDP growth that inflationary policies had created.

He neglects to mention that during the five years from 1945 to 1949, federal spending dropped by 58% and taxes fell by 12%. Meanwhile, the budget deficit fell by 66% in 1946 and was in surplus from 1947 to 1949. In other words, although we did not pay down our nominal debt in the decade after the war, we did succeed in massively shrinking government and the burden that it places on society. Could it be that this had something to do with the post-war boom, or should we give all the credit to the monetary policy? (It is important to point out that our national debt did initially decline from 1945 to 1949, but the extra spending necessary to finance the Korean War reversed that trend.)

Also, after the war ended, American factories quickly retooled production from military hardware to consumer goods. The products not only created a domestic boom in living standards, but were also in high demand in war-ravaged Europe. The late 1940’s and 1950’s produced some of the largest US trade surpluses (in relative terms) in our history.

Today, government spending is rising at the fastest pace on record (not fast enough for Krugman) and our trade deficit is growing as well. In 2011, the government is forecast to spend $3.8 trillion. To truly replicate post-war fiscal policy, in the next four years: federal spending would have to be slashed by $2.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, tax revenues would have to be lowered from $2.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion, and the federal budget would have to record a $650 billion surplus. Since Krugman would never support these spending and tax cuts, he must feel that similar success can be achieved solely through the monetary policy of inflation.

In his column, Krugman warns that the biggest danger of the austerity measures necessary for Greece (and the United States) to pay down debt organically is the deflation that would ensue. Like most of his academic peers, Krugman believes that falling prices are the economic equivalent of kryptonite, guaranteed to bring low even the mightiest economy.

He is wrong. We need deflation. As a result of a phony boom in assets, prices levels are still too high relative to the earning power and productivity of American workers. Falling prices will cushion the blow of recession (by allowing people to buy more with their paychecks and savings) and will eventually encourage people to spend when prices fall low enough. Deflation is the only way to save us from the much greater horror of inflation, or hyperinflation, which Krugman argues is not actually that bad.

Inflation can’t save us from lower real wages and falling living standards, it will simply change the manner in which we are impoverished. With deflation, workers’ wages fall; with inflation, consumer prices rise. Deflation hurts, but inflation can spiral out of control, especially with an Administration addicted to spending.

In Paul Krugman’s world, deep structural problems can be solved simply by printing currency. I wonder whether he thinks all the Americans in debt should be given little basement printing presses to counterfeit away their troubles.

Krugman’s advice will appeal to his fans in government and academia, but won’t help the average American. If we dare to follow his lead, a Greek tragedy will be played out in American garb.

Peter Schiff
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• Krugman and His Hoover History
• Krugman Warns That the Run-up in Stocks Can’t Be Justified By the Fundamentals
• Paul Krugman Advised the Bank of Japan to Purposely Cause Inflation
• Keynesians Believe Governments Have to Manage Economy in Macro-Economic Way
• World Economy Faces Hyperinflation or Deflation?

(This guest post previously appeared at the author’s site)

In his latest weekly New York Times column, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put forward arguments that were so nonsensical that the award committee should ask for its medal back.

Recent rhetoric from Washington has put the economic relationship between the U.S. and China squarely on the front burner, and Krugman is demanding that we crank up the flame. This week 130 members of Congress sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding that the Obama administration designate China as a “currency manipulator”. Following that, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill that looks to force the Obama administration’s hand. For its own part, Beijing invites criticism by continuing to deny its utterly obvious currency agenda.

As these tensions escalate, most economists urge Washington to tread lightly because of the negative fallout for America if China were to begin selling its enormous cache of U.S. Treasury bonds. Krugman pushes back, asserting that the U.S. risks little by playing hardball, and that China has more to lose. He asserts that a Chinese decision to end its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt would make only a marginal impact on long-term interest rates. Did you hear that Stockholm?

According to Krugman, our secret weapon of economic invincibility is the Fed’s ability to print dollars endlessly. If China were to foolishly decide to attack us by selling our debt, the Fed could simply step in and buy the excess with newly printed greenbacks. (In other words, Krugman sees no difference between funding the debt and monetizing it. See my latest video blog on the subject.). For Krugman, China would gain little from such an attack, but would lose the ability to export to its best customer and suffer severe losses in the value of its dollar holdings. Krugman’s worldview is reassuring – but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

There is a huge difference between selling your debt to another and “selling” it to yourself. When China buys our debt, it uses its own savings. In order to purchase a trillion dollars of U.S. Treasuries, the Fed would have to expand our money supply by a corresponding amount. Even Krugman acknowledges that this would cause the dollar to lose value; however, he feels that a weaker dollar is good for America and bad for China.

Krugman does not believe that a tanking dollar will translate into higher interest rates or higher consumer prices at home. No matter how many dollars the Fed creates, or how much value those dollars lose relative to other currencies, he is confident that as long as unemployment remains high, rates will stay low and inflation will remain under control. This is absurd.

If the dollar were to nosedive, the Fed would normally look to protect the currency by raising interest rates, thereby increasing foreign demand for the currency. But with an economy currently on crutches, the Fed will ignore a weakening dollar and continue to try to boost employment with near-zero rates.

But keeping the Fed Funds rate low only holds rates down for U.S. government debt. If the dollar weakens substantially, other rates offered to other borrowers will rise as investors demand greater returns to compensate for inflation. To keep rates low for homeowners, credit card borrowers, corporations, municipalities, and state governments, the Fed would be forced to buy, or guarantee, all forms of dollar-denominated debt. The Fed would become the lender of only resort.

Once the Fed shows that its commitment to low rates is limitless (the value of the dollar be damned), private creditors will quit the game. Even average Americans would hit the Fed’s bid. It would be a race for the exits, with no one wanting to be left holding a bag of worthless paper dollars.

Most economists, Krugman included, see cheap money as a panacea for all ills. And while it’s true that a falling dollar, by lowering the real value of U.S. wages, would help make U.S. goods more competitive, it would also lead to skyrocketing consumer prices, rapidly rising interest rates, and a collapse in American living standards. Make no mistake: this is the end game of Krugman’s “get tough on China” policy.

This apocalyptic scenario can only be avoided if Washington jealously guards the status quo, avoiding confrontation with China at all costs. Yet, even that is an outcome that no one can rationally expect. Given exploding U.S. government deficits and the inability of U.S. citizens and corporations to repair their balance sheets, the United States faces financing needs that even China’s gargantuan savings stockpile will be unable to cover.

Krugman is right about one thing – China’s currency peg is destabilizing the global economy and must end. But he fails utterly to understand the implications for the U.S. and China. If China were to reverse its role in the U.S. Treasury market, both economies would be destabilized in the short-term. But in the medium- and long-term, China would clearly emerge as the winner.

Absent Treasury-bond purchases, the value of the Chinese currency would rise sharply, causing goods prices to tumble in China. This long-delayed increase in purchasing power for everyday Chinese will unleash pent-up demand in what is already the largest middle class in the world. Chinese factories would retool in order to produce goods for their own citizens to consume. In RMB terms, commodity prices would plunge, making it easier for China to produce all kinds of stuff, such as automobiles, while also making it cheaper for the Chinese to buy gas. Millions will trade in bikes for cars, and Chinese oil imports will swell.

The opposite would occur in America, where an artificial, consumer-based economy, supported by Chinese lending, will come tumbling down. Without the ability to import cheap goods from overseas, Americans will pay more and get less. While gas and food become cheaper for the Chinese, they will simultaneously become much more expensive for Americans – so too will automobiles, consumer electronics, furniture, and just about every other product we want or need (even those few we still make ourselves).

Washington’s best option is to recognize that the current relationship is unsustainable and to plan, as best as possible, for a more viable future. We Americans also must be honest with ourselves and recognize that we have been living beyond our means and that our lifestyle has been largely financed by austerity in China. We must conceive of a plan that weans us from this dependence without provoking China to pull the rug out from under us before we have a firm footing. To construct a policy around Krugman’s ridiculous assumption that we benefit China more than they benefit us is to invite catastrophe on an unimaginable scale.

For more analysis from the author see EuroPac.net >

Join the conversation about this story »

It is astounding how many economists, government officials, and Wall Street strategists construe the current economic conditions as evidence of a bona fide recovery. It is a testament to the power of the rose-colored glasses handed out by our nation’s leading universities that such a feeling could be widely held despite the clear and present danger that compounds daily. The myopia leads us to enact policies that actually exacerbate our problems. The “remedies” are postponing, perhaps indefinitely, a true recovery.

The oracles who have described the nature of this imminent recovery do so based on their conviction that consumer spending is slowly returning to levels that existed prior to the recession. New data released today seems to support this view, with consumer spending up 0.5% in January.

However, missing from their analysis is any plausible explanation as to why consumers will be able to sustain such spending given the plunge in income and credit, and the lack of available savings. In fact, the same January spending report showed that personal income increased by only 0.1%, while the savings rate slowed to the smallest since 2008.

I would challenge those who fantasize about a consumer-led recovery to describe where the spending money will come from. Most consumers are tapped out, millions are unemployed, and home equity has been wiped out. The only reasonable thing for them to do is to pay down debt and sock away as much money as possible to rebuild their savings.

Beyond the question of “how” the spending could be achieved, is the deeper question of “why” such activity should be sought at all. Excessive spending, fueled by an insane housing bubble and catalyzed by reckless monetary and fiscal policy, was the reason that our current recession became unavoidable. Why would we want to go down that road again?

During the run up to the crash, excess spending had created economic distortions that have yet to be resolved. Too many resources, including land, labor, and capital, were devoted to servicing an unsustainable economic model in which Americans borrowed money to buy homes, products and services they really could not afford. In many cases consumer behavior was influenced by overly optimistic assumptions regarding real estate related riches.

However, now that the real estate bubble has burst, Americans are coming to terms with a more sober reality. Many have cut up their credit cards, dramatically reduced their spending, and have squirreled away as much money as they can. This change in behavior should necessitate a dramatic shift in the labor market as workers move away from jobs associated with consumer spending and toward jobs associated with real production, primarily for exportable goods.

The real problem is that monetary and fiscal policy designed to re-inflate the burst spending bubble is preventing this transition from taking place. As a result we are not creating the jobs we need to replace – the ones we have lost in mortgage servicing, home improvement, and real estate sales (which we never really needed to begin with). As these jobless remain unable to find alternative employment, our economy will continue to languish.

Some will argue that the new jobs created by government stimulus spending will provide the additional purchasing power necessary to revitalize consumer spending. There are two problems with this expectation. First, those jobs being “created” by the government are outnumbered by those being destroyed by government domination of resources. Second, even if it were possible for job growth to return, having hopefully learned from their mistakes, workers will be far more frugal with their paychecks than they were in the past.

Others hope that rising real estate prices will give consumers more confidence to spend. The reality is that housing prices are still too high and will likely fall further. But even if they did rise, consumers will still be reluctant to resume their shopping spree. Home equity extraction loans, which just a few years ago turned houses into ATMs, are now much harder to come by. When it comes to spending, it’s not just about confidence; it’s about cash.

The only possible way consumers can spend is if the government gives them the money. However, since the government cannot legitimately give money to one American without first taking it from another, the most likely means of doling out cash will be to run it off the printing presses.

That, in a nutshell, is our government’s plan for economic recovery. Print a bunch of money and give it to consumers to spend. This is not a plan for recovery but a recipe for disaster. Those betting that this program can succeed in putting together a healthy and sustainable economy simply do not understand the nature of their wager. The smart money is going the other way.

Regards,

Peter Schiff
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• Feds Can’t Cause a Genuine Recovery Simply by Throwing Money into Economy
• Federal Government is Sabotaging a Genuine Recovery
• US Economy Still on Runway as Recovery Won’t Fly
• Buffett Not Worried About Depression But How Recovery is Financed
• Optimists Expect Mild Inflation in a Decent Recovery

(This guest post comes courtesy of EuroPacificCapital)

If the global economy could be described as a three ring circus, then the center ring attraction would definitely be the currency and debt exchanges between the United States and China. But for the past month the world’s attention has been distracted by an entertaining sideshow in which Greece and the European Union are jostling over a potential bailout for Greek debt and whether the European Union, and the euro itself, will exist for much longer. I believe the short-term problems in Europe are being overblown and the potential demise of the euro highly exaggerated. For those who can connect the dots however, the drama throws some much needed light on the far more daunting problems unfolding within our own fiscal house.

The scenario that is eliciting the greatest fears is that resentment from the more solvent EU members will prevent a bailout for Greece. If the Greek government then fails to adopt austerity measures that will bring it back in line with EU debt requirements, then an expulsion, or withdrawal, from the Union becomes a possibility. This could set off a domino effect that will bring down larger European political or monetary union. On the other hand, if Greece does receive a bailout, a moral hazard will be created that will encourage other indebted countries (Portugal, Spain, etc.) to press for equal benefits. Both scenarios would destroy confidence in the euro, remove the biggest rival of the U.S. dollar, and give a shot in the arm to the dollar’s global status.

However, there is a third more likely alternative that few are considering. My gut is that Greek politicians will find the prospect of being forced out of the union and re-creating their own currency, formerly called the drachma, even more unpalatable then swallowing the bitter pill of fiscal austerity. Even if defying the EU might seem like good politics now for Greek leaders, the risks associated with economic independence could be so daunting that politicians will refuse to roll the dice. Their better political choice would be to talk tough against draconian spending cuts but vote for them anyway. By playing the role of callous bullies, politicians in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels can provide Greek politicians with the political cover necessary for them to make the unpopular decisions. That way Greek politicians could have their cake and eat it too.

The best case for Europe would be a solution that is all stick and no carrot. This would mean that Greece would have to get its fiscal house in order with no help from the EU. However, even a solution that involved some help from Brussels, but still forced real reforms in Athens, would be seen as a positive for the euro.

Rather than being the beginning of the end for the euro, the Greek drama may well become the euro’s first major victory. If the EU forces Greek politicians to act more responsibly, the Union will show that it cares about the value of its currency and that it has the political will to keep its members in line.

On the other hand, the negative consequences for the EU, and the euro, of an outright Greek bailout would be devastating. Central to the euro’s viability is the limit it places on the ability of member nations to run deficits. The moral hazard associated with a Greek bailout would create a situation that would actually encourage all EU nations to run larger deficits because the costs of doing so would be borne by the more responsible members.

While I still have my doubts about the long-term viability of the euro, I feel that there will be many short-term successes before the experiment ultimately fails. In the meantime, if the euro can survive its current trial, its health could be bad news for the dollar. A battle tested euro, backed by a disciplined union, will have greater credibility as the currency capable of dethroning the dollar. This will eventually refocus attention back on the United States and will highlight the significant distinctions between the two economic powers.

First, while the European Union may have several member nations with fiscal problems, the same situation exists in the U.S. where many of our most populous States are currently navigating similarly dire financial straits. Like Greece, California cannot print money. So if leaders in Sacramento can’t find the will to raise taxes or cut spending, absent federal bailouts, default will be their only option.

However, my guess is that the political pressure in the U.S. to bailout State governments, or to avoid the huge cuts in State spending that would be required to avoid default, will be too great to resist. While Germans are vehemently opposed to bailing out Greeks, I do not foresee the same level of opposition on the part of New Yorkers to bailing out Californians, especially since New York will likely need its own bailout in the not too distant future.

This is especially true since most voters will not be asked to pay higher federal taxes to finance State bailouts. We will simply “pay” for State bailouts the same way we “pay” for all the others, we will borrow from abroad or print money.

As a result, none of the States will be forced to make the necessary spending cuts, and many will actually increase spending even faster, even as their tax bases continue to shrink. Those States that may have otherwise acted responsibility will likewise be incentivized to run large deficits themselves to get their fair slice of the bailout pie.

Of course, on a Federal level, there will be no one to force Uncle Sam’s hand, because unlike Greece, our government can print money. Since printing money is far more politically popular than cutting spending, raising taxes on the middle class, or honest default, it is the most likely option our leaders will choose.

If these two scenarios unfold, the EU holding the line on Greece and Washington caving to California, creditor nations will be presented with a clear message as to where to hold their currency reserves. The stampede out of the dollar will begin, and the greenback’s tenure as the world’s reserve currency will enter its final act. Such an outcome would also throw light on the solvency of the United States itself, which has its own debt issues which in many ways are far more daunting than those faced by the European Union. The real tragedy will play out not in Greece, but in America.

Learn more about Schiff and EuroPacificCapital here >

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Ron Paul Reaming Bernanke Over The Fed’s Possible Role In Bailing Out Greece
• Greece Gives Germany Another Reason Not To Bail It Out After Mentioning Nazi Gold Theft
• Is The US About To Adopt A "Maastricht Treaty" To Restrict States’ Rights And Their Ability To Run Deficits?

(This guest post appeared at the author’s site)

Over the past three or four years a strange phenomenon has developed in the global investment markets. With some exceptions, many asset classes, in particular domestic and foreign equities, commodities, and foreign currencies have tended to move in the same direction on a day to day basis. The mega-correlation has lasted so long that most now take it for granted. This leaves investors with relatively simple choices: when to get in to the market in general and when to park assets in cash and U.S. Treasuries.

However, few recall that this pattern is relatively new in the annals of financial history. Fewer still realize the reason for the current anomaly. From my perspective the most logical explanation is fear, which has become global, pervasive, and persistent. Traditionally, when investors fear inflation they buy stocks, commodities, gold, and foreign currencies, and sell dollars and U.S. treasuries. When they fear deflation they sell stocks, commodities, gold, and foreign currencies, and buy dollars and U.S. treasuries. The problem is that right now, no one knows which one to fear. Depending on the news the pendulum swings from one extreme to another on a daily basis.

The natural consequence of an inflationary boom should be a deflationary bust. We’ve had the boom, but so far we have avoided the lion’s share of the bust, or at least the deflationary part. If the government were pursuing a sounder monetary policy, one that allowed markets to function properly, the deflationary scenario would be playing out. While in the long-run this is the correct approach, such a scenario would be very bearish for stocks, commodities and many foreign currencies. If on the other hand, the government fights the recession by putting the inflation pedal to the metal (which is the course they have chosen) investors should look to real assets and certain foreign currencies to protect their purchasing power. But for the most part, that is not happening.

The foreign exchange markets seem to be the center point for this inflation/deflation tug-of-war. After all, if asset prices are falling, cash is king. Since the dollar is still the reserve currency, it is the king of cash, and benefits most from the global deflation scenario. When the dollar rises, treasuries go along for the ride, as investors need a “safe” place to park them. But when the U.S. government reveals yet another staggering deficit forecast, inflationary fears come right back. Hence, a market without a clear direction.

Many look at this dynamic from the perspective of risk appetite rather than fear. They claim that when investors seek risk, they buy risky assets, such as stocks, but when they are risk adverse they seek the safety. But those who fear inflation sell dollars and treasuries not because they seek risk, but because they seek to avoid it.

Of course, if investors felt that the Fed would actually fight inflation with aggressive rate hikes then higher inflation would be perceived as detrimental to stock performance. However, just about everybody realizes that there is virtually no inflation scenario virulent enough to encourage Ben Bernanke and his cohorts to actually raise rates. In actuality, the most feared probabilities are that inflation runs out of control, or that deflation overwhelms the Fed’s efforts to prevent it.

From this perspective regardless of the direction of the stock market, assets are simply being re-priced to reflect one of two very unpleasant outcomes. Those who look at rising stock prices as a harbinger of economic growth are therefore mistaken. These moves more than likely reflect investors growing fear that the U.S. debt levels will swamp the dollar.

Given the extent of the fundamental problems that underlie the American economy, and degree to which government policies are making these problems worse, there can be little conviction that our economy will return to sustainable growth anytime soon. Therefore, attributing stock market strength to inflation fears rather economic strength makes far more sense.

Also, if higher U.S. stock prices really did result from an improving U.S. economy, the dollar would be rising in tandem with stocks. However, every time stock prices rise the dollar falls. The best explanation for this dichotomy is that it is inflation not growth that drives both stocks and the dollar. So rising stock prices do not really indicate a bull market in stocks, but a bear market in the dollar. Those who cannot differentiate between the two will continue to misread the market and the economy.

Go here to learn more about Schiff and EuroPacificCapital >

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• The Greek Crisis Is A Dress Rehearsal For A Major Speculative Attack On The UK
• Dollar Finally Starts To Weaken, Stock Futures Pointing Higher
• Goldman: Actually, Betting On America Has Been A Huge Winner For Stocks

(This post previously appeared at the author’s website)

With today’s unexpected decline in December payrolls, the cry for more job-related stimulus will grow even louder. But the sad truth is that any new stimulus or jobs bills will ultimately swell the ranks of the unemployed, thereby raising calls for an even bigger federal effort. If we are not careful, government regulations, subsidies, and spending, all designed to fight unemployment, could push the labor market into a death spiral.

Regulation acts like a tax on job creation. By subjecting employers to all sorts of extra expenses when they hire people, regulations increase the cost of employment far beyond the wages employers actually pay their workers. In fact, some regulations are specifically tied to the number of workers employed. This provides some employers with a strong incentive to stay small and not hire.

The minimum wage law, which is really just a very visible workplace regulation, actually makes it illegal for employers to hire certain individuals and destroys entire categories of jobs. For instance, faced with high labor costs, some restaurants will avoid hiring dishwashers by switching to plastic utensils and paper plates. On a larger scale, factories may decide to switch to robotic assembly lines if human labor gets too expensive.

Other types of regulations, such as those that prohibit discrimination, create incentives for employers not to hire individuals that fall within the protected class. This is the result of potential litigation costs that may result from wrongful termination lawsuits. In other words, the more expensive government makes it to fire workers, the less likely they are to hire them in the first place.

Subsidies produce the opposite effect of regulation, but sometimes the results can be just as harmful. Government subsidies divert resources towards politically favored activities, resulting in more jobs in areas such as health care and education, but fewer jobs in other sectors such as manufacturing. The net effect of this transfer is to diminish the productive capacity and efficiency of the economy, which lowers real economic growth and diminishes employment opportunities.

Although not as visible as regulations and subsidies, government spending also plays a large role in job destruction. The more money government spends, the more resources it drains from the private sector. The fiscal 2011 budget proposed by President Obama contains $3.8 trillion in federal spending. Think of government as a cancer feeding off the private sector. The larger it grows, the more jobs it kills. Unfortunately, most politicians follow the misguided advice of economist John Maynard Keynes, who advocated government spending as a means of job creation. In reality, government spending merely results in government jobs replacing more efficient private sector jobs.

Some economists point to taxes as the primary job killer, and argue that lower taxes will boost employment. While I have sympathy for this view, it misses the larger issue that the burden of government is not what it taxes but what it spends. The proposed fiscal 2011 federal budget contains “only” 2.4 trillion of taxes. The remaining 1.4 trillion of spending is borrowed (incredibly, for every dollar the government collects in taxes, it now spends almost $1.60). I would argue that a dollar borrowed kills more jobs than a dollar taxed. Therefore, cutting taxes and borrowing the shortfall kills more jobs then it creates. This is true because jobs require capital and government borrowing more directly crowds out private capital investment than taxes do.

In the end, I fully expect the government to directly provide make-work jobs to the armies of the unemployed. This will accelerate the pace of private sector job destruction and make our economy even less productive than it is today. This means that while the government may be able to provide people with jobs, the wages they pay will provide little in the way of purchasing power. In the end, we will become a nation of government employees, with plenty of work but little to show for it.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Peter Schiff: Barack Obama’s Wall Street Reforms Are Doomed To Failure
• Peter Schiff: Chris Dodd’s Retirement Won’t Fix Our Broken System
• Peter Schiff Gloats About How He’s Whipping Chris Dodd In The Polls

In this week’s much anticipated State of the Union address, President Obama again demonstrated his poor understanding of the fundamental problems that confront our nation. By following the advice of the same people who helped guide our economy to the precipice of total collapse, Obama now threatens to push it over the edge.

Notwithstanding his well crafted lip service regarding future spending restraint, the essence of his current program is for more government spending and larger deficits. For all his talk about job creation, his policies will further burden those who might otherwise create those jobs with higher taxes and more regulation. While he did call for tax cuts for the middle class and offered what amounts to bailouts for those struggling to repay student loans, such cuts do nothing to promote growth in the near term and will add to the deficits in the long term.

The President spoke optimistically about the future, but in reality there is little evidence to support such an upbeat outlook. He began his speech by assuring us that the worst of the storm had passed. General Custer may have said something similar when the first wave of Indian attacks ebbed at Little Big Horn.

Read the rest >>

Join the conversation about this story »

(This guest post originally appeared at the author’s blog)

Watching the world’s leaders stumble their way through the economic crisis, it often feels as if political success and economic understanding are mutually exclusive. Even the Chinese, who over the past generation have engineered a dramatic turnaround from their Maoist economic nightmare, show a remarkable willingness to pursue a monetary policy (a currency peg to the U.S. dollar) that yields no benefit to their citizens. Amid this morass of economic quackery, it is refreshing to see a clear ray of sanity emanating from one country: Poland.

Last summer, I was invited to speak at the Economic Forum in Krynica, a resort town in Southern Poland. I was amazed at the level of economic activity and civic spirit that was on display throughout the country. I also was fairly surprised that my economic views, which are routinely ridiculed at home, have much wider support among the Polish economic officials who presented at the conference.

This common sense understanding was showcased in an opinion piece published this week in the Financial Times by Polish Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski. Contrary to the public flogging of the free market currently underway in Washington, under the auspices of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Rostowski explains how governments caused the Crash of 2008 by removing the necessary element of fear from the markets. He states that this was symptomatic of the “deep Keynesian project,” in which governments over the last half century have looked to smooth the economic cycle through periodic floods of monetary expansion and government spending. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

 A product of the Solidarity movement that opposed the Polish Communist Party in the 1980’s, Mr. Rostowski, like many of his colleagues in the current Polish Administration, is intimately familiar with the hazards of central economic planning. He has seen this movie before, and he knows how it ends.

Instead, Poland has enacted economic policies that are informed by a belief in Austrian School (read: free market) economics. After the downfall of the Communists in 1989, Rostowski was part of a group that called for “shock therapy”: the rapid privatization of state-owned enterprises and the dismantling of price and currency controls.

In 2007, the center-libertarian Civic Platform party was put in power, with Rostowski as Finance Minister. Along with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, he has continued the process of transforming Poland into a laissez-faire paradise. Not accidentally, Poland is the only EU member state that showed positive GDP growth in 2009, at 1.9%. Also its public debt, at roughly 55% of GDP, compares favorably with its neighbors – and with the United States.

A top priority of their administration was reduction of the income tax. The previous system, with three-tiers of 19%, 30%, and 40%, has been reduced to two tiers: 18% and 32%. In addition, the system’s minimal use of deductions and credits makes it radically simpler than the U.S. income tax.
 
In the meantime, Civic Platform is continuing its move toward privatization. Recently, Poland held an IPO for its state-owned power utility, Polska Grupa Energetyczna. According to a news report, “The sale brought in $2.1bn, pricing at the top end of the bankers’ guidance range, and becoming Europe’s largest IPO of the year.” The government has used these revenues to fund its budget and keep taxes in check. More importantly, it has returned capital to the marketplace to be used in the most efficient manner.

Civic Platform also understands that regulation hurts small business disproportionately by raising barriers of entry. Fortunately for Poland, a multi-year program of deregulation has been a boon for small businesses, and has given the country the most entrepreneurs of any state in Europe. This may explain the country’s resilience in the face of the global economic crisis.

Poland’s current growth is also fueled by an influx of foreign investment. To encourage such inflows, Rostowski has laid out a specific plan to adopt the euro as the country’s currency by 2015. While I have never been crazy about the euro concept, as opposed to a gold standard, the effort indicates to foreign investors a desire to control inflation. Assuming the block is able to stick together, the European Central Bank is considered a reliable enforcer of strict monetary policy. Poland’s zloty rapidly devalued after it was allowed to float, and though the rate of inflation is declining, it remains high. Eurozone membership will impose external discipline on the Polish government, even if Civic Platform loses power.

Anecdotally, I can attest that these people are hungry for free markets. My visit to Krynica was a breath of fresh air, and a startling reminder of how far America has strayed. If the Polish people can hold onto the traumatic lessons of communism, and continue undeterred down their current path, then this battleground of the 20th century may be the paragon of the 21st.

Lean more about Schiff and EuroPacificCapital here — >

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Peter Schiff: Chris Dodd’s Retirement Won’t Fix Our Broken System
• The Complete Guide To Investing And Making Money Off The MAVINS
• The Last Decade Was Great, It’s The Next Decade That Will Be Hell