challenge to application of "what is money?"

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
back40's picture
back40
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 27 2009
Posts: 14
challenge to application of "what is money?"

 

Chris, Davos, any of you regular pros:

Would you have any interest in offering a layman's analysis of this in contrast to the inflation camp argument?   Would you say they are wrong in their assertion that the montary base and money are not one in the same?

My apologies if this is a recylced argument and i am simply behind the curve on the ongoing debate.

(article from Maudlin newsletter)

Quarterly Review and Outlook
Second Quarter 2010

Has the Recession Really Ended?

Real GDP has improved for four consecutive quarters (2nd qtr. est.), albeit at a substandard pace following the steep decline in economic activity of the previous year and a half. An impressive recovery in business sales and industrial production has occurred. The responsibility for dating contractions and expansions in the U.S. economy rests with the cycle dating committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Thus far, the NBER has been unwilling to proclaim an end to the recession that started in late 2007. This may partially reflect the fact that the ratio of people employed to our total population has fallen from 62.7% in December 2007 to 58.5% today. Although the recent low in this measure was 58.2%, touched just a couple of months ago, our present level is no higher than it was in 1983. This measure is a proximate indication of our country's overall standard of living and interestingly over the last twenty years has declined as the U.S. economy has become more indebted (Chart 1). Although the four coincident indicators that the NBER utilizes in judging recession troughs have turned positive, two of them (income less transfer payments and employment) have only marginally shifted upwards and are subject to significant revisions. Thus, history may come to judge that the NBER was very wise to hold off making this end of recession call. Four major considerations suggest that the past several quarters may be nothing more than an interlude in a more sustained economic downturn, with further negative quarters still ahead. Such an outcome will suppress inflation further and quite possibly lead to deflation.

jmotb071210image001

Four Major Impediments to Economic Normalcy

Deficit Spending
First, deficit spending is not conducive to sustained economic growth. Substantial scientific research from both U.S. and foreign countries indicates that the government expenditure multiplier is considerably less than one and quite possibly close to zero. This means that if an economy starts with real GDP of $14.3 trillion (i.e. the level for 2009), and it is shocked by a surge in deficit spending, such as has been the case in the U.S., GDP will grow, but the economy will then eventually return to essentially where it began. However, the deficit spending shock leaves the economy in a more precarious overall condition because the same sized economy must now support a higher level of debt. Additionally, the private sector's share, which was 79.4% in 2009, will be reduced in favor of a larger governmental share, which was 20.6% in 2009.

This situation is graphically illustrated in Chart 2. The U.S. economy is depicted in a pie chart that expands initially (arrow A, Chart 2) in response to the deficit spending but then as resources are transferred from the private to the government sector, the economy ends where it started (arrow B, Chart 2). However, the government share of economic activity will be greater than the 20.6% share where it started (arrow C, Chart 2). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects that the ratio of government debt to GDP will jump from 53% currently to 77.2% in 2020 (Chart 3). Based on this substantially elevated level of debt, the government share of total GDP could exceed 25% of GDP within five years followed by even higher levels thereafter, a dramatic difference from the share in 2009. The government share of GDP has been moving higher since the 2001 recession as the Government/Debt to GDP ratio has advanced (Chart 2). At the same time that the government share of GDP has risen, the private sector share of GDP has fallen. This period of extreme underperformance of the private sector since 2001 combined with higher relative levels of government debt constitutes a clear sign that the U.S. is following the path toward economic stagnation and a lower standard of living.

jmotb071210image002

jmotb071210image003

Going forward, the diminished private sector must generate the resources (i.e. the funds) to service and/ or repay the increased level of debt. If the private sector is not successful in generating the additional resources needed, the government sector must either go deeper into debt or impose additional taxes on the already stressed private sector. Considerable evidence suggests that this self-defeating process has already resulted in transfers of resources from the private sector to the government sector (Chart 4). In the past four quarters, total debt has dropped by a record $789 billion even though federal debt has surged by an outsized $1.45 trillion. The reconciling factor was a record $2.235 trillion contraction in private debt outstanding.

jmotb071210image004

Higher Taxes
Second, the other side of fiscal policy – taxes – also poses another major obstacle to a return to sustained economic growth. The scientific work indicates that the government tax multiplier has a negative impact on economic growth. Academicians estimate that the drag on the overall economy from a $1 increase in taxes is between $1 to $3 over time. Thus the multiplier is -1 to -3. According to the administration's figures, the sunsetting tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will result in a $1.5 trillion increase in taxes over the ten year period beginning in January 2011. Some have estimated that the health care reform legislation will raise taxes another $0.5 trillion, while adding to the budget deficit at the same time. Using a mid-range tax multiplier of -2, the contractionary force on the U.S. economy over the upcoming ten years would be $4 trillion, or approximately an average of $400 billion a year. This amount happens to be almost as much as the entire gain in GDP in the past four quarters. Clearly, a very vulnerable economy will not be able to absorb such higher taxes easily and the response may well be a renewed business contraction.

Massive Over-Indebtedness
Third, the U.S. economy remains extremely over-indebted. In the first quarter, the total debt to GDP ratio was 357%, 100 percentage points higher than in 1998. The best scholarly work indicates that the process of over indulging on debt ends badly – economic deterioration, systematic risk and in the normative case deflation. The private sector has deleveraged slightly either due to conditions imposed by the capital markets or their own choice. Nevertheless, the private sector remains massively over-leveraged.

Another aspect of the debt problem must be considered. The debt was used to acquire a large number of things that are no longer needed in the sense that they are not viable in view of current economic circumstances. Accordingly, the very reasonable risk is that individual private sector borrowers will not have the resources to make timely payments for debt service and amortization. The high debt ratio reflects vast amounts of unused factory capacity, office space, warehouses, retail space, and other facilities.

The seen and shadow supply of vacant homes is not only large, but also probably unknowable. After two costly home buyer tax credits, the housing industry is no healthier now than it was before the additional deficit spending was incurred. The homebuyer tax credit produced the same outcome as the cash for clunkers program, which added to the deficit without providing a sustained lift to vehicle sales. These individual programs, regardless of whether one thinks they were meritorious or not, are still constrained by the very great likelihood that the government expenditure multiplier is close to zero.

This long list of excess capacity serves to undermine the demand for labor. The U.S. must work through this redundant capital stock before longer working hours will be made available to the existing work force. Even more time will be needed before longer working hours lead to increasing demand for new hires.

It is estimated that 125,000 new hires per month are required to provide jobs for our growing labor force. If the economy is to re-employ the 8 million plus individuals thrown out of work over the past year and a half, another 240,000 new jobs per month will be required. If we are to reach full employment status over the next three years our monthly payroll gains should be about 365,000 per month. This prospect seems quite unlikely.

An Impotent Fed
Fourth, monetary policy is not working in spite of the widespread contention that the Fed is wildly printing money. The line of reasoning by many observers is that the Fed's actions will soon lead to faster economic activity but with rapid inflation. The rationale seems to rely on the work of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the world's leading researcher on money and its role in the determination of economic activity, inflation, interest rates and employment. Friedman's transition mechanism from money to either inflation or deflation appears to be poorly understood by those who assume that increases in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet are tantamount to inflation. To understand the fallacy of these arguments, first consider what constitutes money.

Money and Its Functions

Money can mean different things to different people and therefore defies a simple, rigid definition. But, Friedman and other leading scholars generally do agree that money, by definition, should be widely, if not completely, acceptable in exchange for all goods and services or paying off debts. Thus, money is valued because it can, with ease, be passed on to others without dispute that proper value is received. To understand Friedman's interpretation of money and its role, it is best to read Monetary Statistics of the United States: Estimates, Sources, Methods, (Columbia University Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 1970).

Money has three principal functions: a medium of exchange, a unit of account or standard of value and a store of value. First, money can be a tangible item, such as a dollar bill, that is accepted as payment for other tangible items or for services rendered. In this way, it serves as a medium of exchange in transactions. When an asset serves as a medium of exchange, it is completely liquid, as when the dollar bill is exchanged, without delays, for a hamburger.

Second, money can also serve as a unit of account or standard of value, in that it can be fashioned to define very precisely the value of particular goods or services. For example, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is reported in dollars, just as firms report their sales and profits.

Third, money can serve as a store for future use. According to Friedman, money, in this capacity, serves as "a temporary abode of purchasing power." You may store your wealth in a variety of places. Although gold coins were once used, gold is so illiquid that it is not even considered to be a form of near money--though it is still widely thought of as a store of value. Since its price can fluctuate widely and unpredictably, it no longer serves well as a medium of exchange or as a unit of account. Also, storage, insurance and conversion costs for gold may arise.

The Monetary Base is Not Money

The monetary base, bank reserves plus currency, does not fulfill these functions and hence does not constitute money. To paraphrase Friedman and Schwartz, the base, which is also known as highpowered money (currency in the hands of the public and assets of banks held in the form of vault cash or deposits at Federal Reserve Banks) cannot meet these criteria. The nonbank public – nonfinancial corporations, state and local governments and households - cannot use deposits at the Federal Reserve Bank to effectuate transactions. Moreover, currency is not sufficiently broad to be considered a temporary abode of purchasing power. For Friedman, high-powered money can be properly regarded as assets of some individuals and liabilities of none. So, let us be clear on this subject. In 2008, when the fed purchased all manner of securities, to the tune of about $1.2 trillion, the fed was not "printing money". Bank deposits at the fed exploded to the upside, the monetary base rose from $800 billion to $2.1 trillion, yet no money was "printed". Deposits did not rise, loans were not made, income was not lifted, and output did not surge. The fed could further "quantative ease" and purchase another $1 trillion in securities and lift the monetary base by a similar amount yet money would still not be "printed". It is obvious the fed authorities would like to see money, income, and output rise, but they cannot control private sector borrowing. If banks were forced to recognize bad loans and get the depreciated assets into stronger more liquid hands, it could be debated on how much reserves should be in the banking system. Until that cleansing process is completed it will be a slow grind to cure the one factor which makes the fed "impotent" and unable to "print money"....overindebtedness.

Friedman and Schwartz give very specific definitions of money, definitions that are consistent with the way that M1 and M2 are currently tabulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve calls the stock of money represented mainly by currency and checkable deposits M1.

M1 is the narrowest measure of the money supply, including only money that can be spent directly. Broader measures of money include not only all of the spendable balances in M1 but certain additional assets termed near monies. Near monies cannot be spent as readily as currency or checking account money but they can be turned into spendable balances with very little effort or cost. Near monies include what is in savings accounts and money-market mutual funds. The broader category of money that embraces all of these other assets is called M2. M2 is M1 plus relatively liquid consumer time deposits and time deposits owned by corporations, savings and other accounts at the depository institutions, and shares of money market mutual funds held by individuals. Thus, M2 is: M1 plus very liquid near monies.

Money can encompass even more than M2, including such big-ticket savings instruments as certificates of deposit whose worth exceeds $100,000 plus certain additional money-market funds and Eurodollars. The Fed no longer publishes this broader measure of money, which was called M3. M3 was M2 plus relatively less liquid consumer and corporate time deposits, savings accounts and other such accounts at depository institutions, and money market mutual fund shares held by institutions. A working definition for M3 was: M2 plus relatively less liquid near monies. Thus, the Fed, following the standards set by Friedman and Schwartz, has established money definitions that fulfill its three functions: unit of account, transaction mechanism and a store of value. The monetary base, however, does not achieve these functions and therefore is not considered money.

Excess Money equals Inflation;
Insufficient Money equals Deflation

Building on the fallacious assumption that the monetary base constitutes money, some authors have seized on Friedman's quote that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." These articles imply incorrectly that Friedman said that any increase in the quantity of money causes inflation, a proposition made even worse since Friedman actually rejected such a simple concept. According to Friedman, the inflation/deflation outcomes hinged on whether money increases are excessive or insufficient.

Early in his essay entitled The Optimum Quantity of Money Friedman wrote: "The real quantity of money has important effects on the efficiency of operation of the economic mechanism ... Yet only recently has much thought been given to what the optimum quantity of money is, and more important, to how the community can be induced to hold that quantity of money. ... it turns out to be intimately related to a number of topics ...(1) the optimum behavior of the price level; the (2) the optimum rate of interest; and (3) the optimum stock of capital; and (4) the optimum structure of capital."

As this passage reveals, for Friedman, an optimum quantity of money exists. Moreover, due to repeated Federal Reserve policy error, the nominal quantity of money has intermittently fluctuated wildly, forcing the nonbank sector to realign spending with the optimum level of desired money balances. By such policy actions, the Fed accentuated the volatility of the business cycle, which is why Friedman often advocated the FOMC be replaced by a monetary rule (i.e. with money growth fixed within a narrow band).

The evidence unambiguously indicates that current growth in the quantity of money is exhibiting a strongly deficient trend. In the latest twelve months, M2 has inched ahead by just 1.7%, the slowest pace in fifteen years, less than one-third the average annual gain in M2 of the past 110 years. Although the Fed no longer calculates M3, economist John Williams does, with his numbers registering the most severe contraction since the end of World War II. Hence, Friedman's monetary analysis is consistent with deflation not inflation.

jmotb071210image005

Prelude to Deflation?

With the GDP deflator up less than 1% in the past four quarters and the core CPI in a similar range, the trend in inflation remains down. The risk, if not the probability, is that deflation lies ahead. Under a neutral velocity assumption, nominal GDP might be expected to improve a mere 1.7% in the next four quarters, the same as the previous four quarter rise in M2 (Chart 5). If this were split between inflation and growth, this would result in sub 1% numbers for both real GDP and inflation. Velocity (V2), however, is more likely to fall. V2 is mean reverting, a bad sign since it has been above the mean since the early 1980s. Moreover, velocity historically has declined when the private nonbank sector is deleveraging, as is the case currently. This condition is partially the result of the heavier government absorption of the pool of available credit. Also, there is a reduced incentive to take risks in an environment of substantially higher taxes. Thus, inflation and real GDP could both post surprisingly meager readings.

Long term Treasury bond and zero coupon bonds will perform well in this environment. Collapsing inflationary expectations (or should we say rising deflationary expectations) will drive the bond yields lower; perhaps even into the range of prior historical lows. In this environment, holdings of long Treasury paper will serve not only as a safe haven but an asset whose value will appreciate significantly.

Van R. Hoisington
Lacy H. Hunt, Ph.D.

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

I only had time to skim it, tutoring my wife with a programming assignment she has for school, saw it on 2 fine blogs yesterday, 0 Hedge and Barry Ritholtz's. My comment on Barry's was ha, ha, ha. Mythical end to the recession was my recall of 0 Hedge. That pretty much nailed it.

I myself don't see treasuries as safe. Apparently neither does China who downgraded our rating firms' rating of them.

I don't see deflation.

I don't agree with their definition, but I'd have to read it closer.

Jesse's Cafe had a piece the other day that gold serves well in inflation or deflation, I've heard Mish (who believes in deflation) say this as well.

To me, deficits don't matter until the day they do matter. We have reached that day. Our currency is now in harms way. History is very clear about situations like this and how they play out. Anything can and will happen - but the S will HTF. How long? Who knows. 

rickets's picture
rickets
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 238
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

back40 - at the risk of beating a dead horse around here I will respond - because its pretty important if youre trying to forecast whats going to happen short and long term.

I think the key here is that you need to first decide what feels like money to you.  This is personal preference.  There are lots of great arguments to allow credit in the analysis of what is money, to not allow it.....and further whether to count bank money parked at the fed as money or not.  In the end, none of these choices matter - just pick the one that makes the most sense to you.

Then, here is the important part - as you read about money supply/printing/debt/contraction...etc - - - note what the author/economist is including into those conversations.  If they are discussing expanding monetary base - what specifically are they talking about.  Are they saying the fed is flooding the banks with cash?  Are they saying credit is expanding on main street?  Again....how they define it doesnt matter - as long as you can read their argument knowing what their definitions are.

As you read all these perspectives, with full knowledge of what their definitions of money and credit are, then you can make your own call on how likely it is or if you agree.  The article you posted by Mauldin is great - in that it demonstrates how the adjusted monetary base is counting a lot of money that is simply stuck (at the fed) and not circulating.  Further, many people dont count M3 do to their belief that credit is not money.  However, revolving credit is very much like money, as is credit card lines of credit.  So, I think its an easy argument to say parts of credit should be included (whether in the end you think that or not, I think common sense says its at least debatalbe). 

Its all definitional and thats it.  I think its only worth knowing the definitions and what they mean rather than debate the merits of each.  The merits dont matter - its the outcome and forecasting using any of them that matter.  So, while the fed has printed a gazillion - its not in the economy.  The questions are how hard would it be to get that money into the economy.  Further, credit is contracting.  What kind of credit?  revolving?  yes....etc etc etc....and what implications does that have.

 

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

lol.

Who was it that said: Often what they don't saw is what you have to listen to?

Back40: Take a peek at the budget.....oops the budget director quit and Congress, for the first time in 30 some years isn't publishing it.

It's not about the debt, the private sector or who is sitting on what. It's all about the deficit which can no longer be paid by tax revenues and borrowing.

rickets's picture
rickets
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 238
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

Back40:  A timely piece by Mish today:  http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/are-we-trending-towar...

He too mentioned definitions.  But, regardless of your definition, the section under Humpty Dumpty has some good points. 

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

I just skimmed it but there are some contradictions that were blaring:

Gold is money, I agree.

Dollar is rising? No. Not if you compare it to gold which you just stated was money. ALL currencies are in the tank. Saying the dollar is the last one going in the tank - Who the heck cares?

Here is the basket of currencies compared to gold.

The US IS broke. Broke is what happens to people(read:countries)  who don't have enough income (read:tax revenues) to pay their bills and can NO longer finance the difference (read:Sell bonds aka IUO's).

I suggest reading Jim Quinn's fine article, (do a ctrl-f for $3 trillion of equity) it's long, but if you just read where the money came from that went into the economy you will realize that the economy was a sham, a credit sham, and it won't be coming back. The US manufactures piddly after off-shoring it's manufacturing base, us workers compete against people making 2 bucks a day, close a bloated government which we can't afford and the rest of this economy will be in the tank.

It's done - stick a fork in it.

Enron strutted around for a long time with no pulse. So shall we.

back40's picture
back40
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 27 2009
Posts: 14
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

I love it.  Thanks for the input and I will keep reading and studying.  THere are limits to my ability to grasp the intracacies of this debate, but I am exponentially more educated after 2 years of listening and reading in forum's like this.

I am convinced it's going to tank.  I have "belief" based reasons (always interested in discussing offline) that affirm the factual evidence that continues to mount.  It's often difficult to discern when opposing interpretations of data are the result of calculated misinformation or  genuine difference of opinion, especially when one wants to save room for being wrong, but I am squarely in the camp of "when" and not "if" in terms of the pending gamechanger. 

 

back40's picture
back40
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 27 2009
Posts: 14
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"

davos - the quinn article was worth the long read.  Funny how your common sense can get a read on these things long before the consequences become mainstream.  All the shopping centers, all the satellites in the projects, all the people making half what I made driving new cars and living in big houses.  Despite all the theory and education and economic mumbo jumbo - it's really quite simple.  Which is why no matter what anyone says to the contrary in terms of interpreting the evidence, i don't see how you can argue with a gamechanging economic disaster in the not-to-distant future if based only on quinn's observations. 

How it will go down, what will stand in terms of universal value, and how to strategize between here and there is the million dollar question. 

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: challenge to application of "what is money?"
back40 wrote:

 - it's really quite simple.  

+1

When I was 5 someone in my family was babysitting me, we cut out of the house and he took me flying, he was practicing touch and goes for his commercial ticket. In the car ride back I stuck my hand out the window and said, oh, this is what makes planes go up. That earned me a 3 hour lecture on Bernoulli's law delivered by a some cum laude soon to be graduate of Dowling's aviation program.

Years later he crashed a jet blasting off on the shortest runway when he thought he was on the longest runway. A NO COMMON SENSE MOVE!

I began to question everything the genius ever told me. And, I'm talking literal high IQ level genius. 

A few years ago I read that Bernoulli's law was BS and Newton's 3rd law made planes fly. It's now on the NASA website after I put Flatows (?SP) book down. 

Now if it ain't simple I make it simple or I don't use it.

I'm attracted to CM's Crash Course because CM has a high IQ BUT he has common sense. Seems to me, usually people with common sense get scr#wed out of the high IQ part, but I'm not complaining, I'm glad I wound up with more of it and less of the other!

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments