The Daily Bell Newswire – It's Free!

News & Analysis

Central Bankers to Prick Bubbles

Thursday, July 22, 2010 – by Staff Report

Ben Bernanke

IMF Shifts Advice to Banks on Asset Bubbles ...The International Monetary Fund's executive board said central banks may want to use interest rates in a "limited" way the next time they encounter an asset bubble that needs to be pricked, weighing in as the Federal Reserve and other major central banks reevaluate their bubble-fighting strategies. Before the global financial crisis, the Fed's main strategy for addressing bubbles was to mop up after they burst, lowering interest rates to cushion the blow to the economy and restart growth. That was a central conclusion of the academic work of Ben Bernanke (left) before he became Fed chairman and was an approach embraced by his predecessor Alan Greenspan. – Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: It is time to rethink and then recalibrate the wisdom of monetary management.

Free-Market Analysis: We have reported before on the propensity for central bankers to make the weakness of the process into a strength. Central banks, for instance, print more money than economies need. Since it is impossible to tell accurately how much money an economy needs – absent a marketplace environment in which gold and silver are dug up out of the ground based on supply and demand – central banks almost always print too much money.

Too much money (inflation) fools average investors and businesspeople into believing that the economy is better than it really is, resulting in over-expansion and rash investments. When markets realize that numerous investments are not going to pay off, then a contraction begins and markets sell off. The "bubble" is both revealed and punctured.

It is not a situation that central bankers enjoy discussing. They wish to pose as economic salvationists and thus wish to emphasize their after-the-fact roles in attempting to ameliorate the messes they have made. This gives rise inevitably, to a power-elite-initiated sub-dominant theme that central bankers are vigilant about inflation (the process of printing too much money). Some want to be known as "hawks," excessively concerned about the over-printing of paper and digital currency – and also resolutely opposed to what they consider to be overly-reduced central-bank controlled interest rates. Here's some more from the article:

The IMF, in a paper released Tuesday, urged central banks to use tougher regulation to head off asset bubbles, including tighter capital requirements for banks, limits to banks' use of short-term loans and tougher collateral requirements for loans they make. ...

The Bank for International Settlements is also looking at how monetary policy could be used to deflate asset bubbles. One way may be to include risks to financial stability as part of the economic modeling used by central banks to choose optimal interest-rate policy, said the BIS 2010 annual report.

We can see from this excerpt that there is no limit to how far those involved with the central banking process will go to defend it. The systemic (artificial) complexity they are willing to tolerate and even encourage is mind-boggling. Of course it should be much simpler. In a market-driven economy, gold and silver are dug out of the ground to create money. If there is too much gold and silver in circulation, people begin to hoard gold and silver because the price is dropping. Mines shut down because it is not economically feasible to dig up more precious metals at lower prices. Gradually equilibrium reasserts itself. Thus it is that the free-market regulates the money supply based on supply and demand.

Unfortunately, modern Western societies have determined that supply and demand are not to be part of the process of issuing money. Over the past 100 years, Western countries, especially, have made it difficult for gold and silver to circulate as money. Gold and silver in the past were routinely deposited in warehouses (banks) and the warehouse would then provide a receipt that showed the gold and silver were in the vaults. This receipt – scrip – eventually became accepted in lieu of gold and silver. It is the basis of today's modern-day money.

By making it difficult or illegal for banks and other warehouse-oriented entities to issue private receipts that circulated as money, central banking proponents managed to substitute public-oriented money for private money and basically eliminated the supply-and-demand that governed the creation of money. The result has been a predictable explosion of ruinous side-effects, but such is the control that the powers-that-be have over the system, the actual effects of central banking are hardly ever made clear to the public or regularly reported on within a mainstream context.

These days, as criticism grows, the powers-that-be have begun to allow a bit more mainstream economic and media criticism of the central banking process. It is instructive to note in the excerpt above the following quote: "Some Fed researchers say that loose monetary policy can play a role in promoting asset bubbles by encouraging banks to take on too much leverage and that small changes in interest rates could help tame bubbles." This is of course a free-market analysis and one that has been around for close to a century now.

Central banking basically allows those in charge of the process to print as much money as they like, enriching both themselves and their chosen colleagues. The power elite that has put this destructive process in place will do almost anything to defend it because it is the key to power. Unlimited flows of money have allowed the construction of an aggressive form of regulatory democracy, one that touches every part of citizens' lives and ensures elite primacy. Without central banking, the almost limitless wealth and social control the elite enjoys would be significantly constrained.

Many have problems believing that there is an overt conspiracy by a hidden power-elite to regularly consolidate power and wealth as a byproduct of a march toward global government. How then is it that a financial procedure as blatantly destructive and unjustifiable as central banking remains at the core of Western power politics without being debunked either academically or by the mainstream press? Surely there is no greater evidence of the power of the elite conspiracy than the continued acceptance of central banking and aggrandizement of its bankers.

That the IMF feels compelled to suggest to the central banking community that bankers extend the farce of "inflation-fighting" to "bubble-fighting" only illustrates once more that the powers-that-be are now on the defensive – in large part thanks to the Internet. Here at the Bell we try to be disciplined meme-watchers and suggest that others practice the same discipline. It helps one understand how the larger system is faring (including financially) and how effectively its stakeholders (the power elite) will be able to defend it.

Conclusion: We, of course, believe the system is degrading and the IMF's latest suggestions to central bankers on ways to defend it only further confirm our perceptions. In the US, the Federal Reserve remains under severe pressure from our perspective while the world second-most powerful central bank, that of the European Union's, staggers from crisis to crisis. Central banking, once the power-elite's crown jewel, is increasingly tarnished. It is most doubtful that posing as "bubble prickers" will help.




Latest Daily Bell Articles

Feedback

Effective April 25, 2012, the Daily Bell will discontinue allowing feedback comments. We have left in place the large body of responses posted in the past, as we appreciate the valuable contributions made by some of our readers.
Showing 1 - 20 of 24 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by Ed Waggoner Sr. on 07/25/10 04:32 AM

The U.S. Constitution grants to the Federal government the authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof", (Article 1 Section 8). How do you regulate the value of gold and silver coins (Article 1, Section 10)? The answer could not be more simple. Only two things need be decided in order to regulate the value of a gold or silver coin, WEIGHT and PURITY. The denomination assigned to the various coins is arbitrary and for convenience and accounting purposes. A twenty dollar denomination for one ounce of gold and one dollar for an ounce of silver works pretty well. As for the actual ratio between gold and silver, let the market place sort it out.

In my opinion having the Federal government coin the gold and silver coins is a good thing. The states could also do it, I suppose, in lawfully approved mints. Personally I would outlaw any kind of paper money from whatever source, private or otherwise. The beauty of a check is that once the transfer has been made the check is canceled, no inflation. I don't mind carrying a few silver coins, nickles and pennies in a small suede bag in my pocket. For larger purchases I can use checks.

  Posted by Peter Underwood on 07/23/10 10:07 AM

@ Bionic Mosquito

Perhaps the DST should be: "After 100 years (or 400 for the BoE) we are still working to get the hang of this. Stick with us."

It seems the Daily Telegraph (Friday 23 July 2010)agrees with you:

"In a rare moment of frankness for a central banker, Spencer Dale (B of E Chief Economist)said: "Last year, our central view was that inflation would be below 1pc, and, as you know, inflation is above 3pc. We've been very surprised about that and we need to understand the factors behind it."

Nothing to do with QE then? Maybe they will figure it out after another 400 years? How do these jokers get be in the positions they are? [Dale went from a mid-range University with modest MA Econ, in 89 directly to the B of E.]


@DB

And more from Dale in support of this excellent and informative article:

"Some observers believe that high inflation is part of a plan to erode Britain's £927bn of national debt, but Mr Dale warned against such thinking. "We know the evils of inflation. We have to be incredibly vigilant," he told The Independent in an interview."

Wow, what a cunning plan " so it hasn't happened before? I guess Mr Dale would have been better off studying economic history " or better still, got some experience on the shop-floor of economics.

"Mr Dale said there is a serious risk that inflation will become entrenched through wage settlements if it remains high for too long".

So we know who to blame for inflation then? And he is part of the PE? Pat Fields may have a point, I just can't believe the PE are that clever " unless they are being deliberately obtuse.

Click to view link

  Posted by Gilbert Morales on 07/23/10 09:13 AM

Gold is a barometer. When printed money loses value the price of gold increases. Fiat money is being printed and distributed without a value placed upon it by financial wizardry and governmental decree. Gold's value is made by supply and demand.

  Posted by Victor Barney on 07/23/10 07:02 AM

I say it again, Mr. Bernanke represents the Illuminati(Council of Foreign Affairs) and is going to have a "cashless society" and accept the one who comes in his own name as his ruler, Lucifer!
PS: Yes, I'm aware of Obama's executive order to murder people when he feels like they are disrupting his Marxist takeover(what is it, 80 members in Congress, including Pelosi are registered Marxists?)!
We're just going by the "book" believe me and they already have been beaten!

  Posted by AmanfromMars on 07/23/10 05:38 AM

"is understatement a device?" ... Reply from the Daily Bell

Quite probably the smartest and most stealthy of Prime Global Operating Devices. And an Immaculate Driver for Perfect Searching Servers, DB?

  Posted by AmanfromMars on 07/23/10 02:09 AM

"The Bell is coy?" ..... Reply from the Daily Bell

At times, can a deserved forthright criticism appear somewhat muted by being excessively generously compassionately circumspect, although it is a style much appreciated and an admirable model for expansion and building upon with further constructive conversation ..... :-) Dealogue.

In a world, and in worlds, in which there are no smart answers but only intelligent questions, is it a crazily effective default.

Reply from The Daily Bell

is understatement a device?

  Posted by Clayton on 07/22/10 09:08 PM

Thank you for your reply to my post.

I do feel at bit guilty though for failing to give credit to the ideas on seignorage. I must acknowledge that they are an elaboration on certain assertions first put forward by an acquaintance of mine, who is an Professor of Economics. He writes for a think tank from time to time and has yet to publish these thoughts and I do not have his permission to mention him in this connection. Hopefully, he will go ahead and finish up his thinking and brave the professional scrutiny in am sure he will receive when he makes them public. I took his original idea and expanded on it, because I think it provides an important insight into what is perplexing the PE at the moment.

As for the WWII parallels, in my earlier posts I have discussed my thinking that this period might more resemble the conditions of 1937/8 than 1929 thru 1932. That earlier period may have been the fractal counterpart to 2001 to 2003/4. Then we had the great financial rescue of the late Greenspan period, in which the housing and derivative bubbles formed. As in 1937/38, the 2008/9 near catastrophe bookmarked the limits of the rescue effort and the diminishing returns available on continuing it. So the music stopped and we got to see who were provided chairs at the end of the dance.

Now we maybe heading into the fractal counterpart of the period from 1939 to 1946. That was the period of the greatest financial privation, hardship and forced sacrifice. It was masked by the War, but I assert that the War was necessary to distract the public from the immense financial adjustments that were being made during this time. Using wage and price controls and through the War Bond program, capital controls, the PE were able to let go of the legacy of their past blunders and lay a new foundation for Global Government in the period that followed.

Immediately following the War, wage and price controls were lifted and the price level nearly doubled, meaning that the remaining savings of the public that had been accumulated over the past 17 years were largely confiscated by the project and its directors. This is not a happy parallel possibility to look forward to down the road that we must travel in our immediate future.

These are theories that I am continuing to develop. They are a simple outline and I hope those with a deeper Historical knowledge base would help flesh them out, so that they would flow better as a narrative with depth, which would improve their appeal to the general public.

I am very thankful to the Bell for providing me the forum and incentive to develop and present these ideas. As von Mises said, we are in perilous times and it is incumbent on all men to step forward and do what they can to preserve Civilization. Your efforts are more than important, but essential.

  Posted by Pat Fields on 07/22/10 08:38 PM

Keith Cite: "We would not have had the housing bubble had the treasury been allowed to use TARP funds for the direct purchase of defaulting mortgages ..."

We'd never even have had the possibility of a housing bubble if government had contented itself to remain within its Constitutional limits. Government has no lawful authority to involve itself in the mortgage industry at all!

If left to normal private channels, all the appropriate ratios applicable to the local conditions and specific capabilities of the borrowers would have winnowed out excessive risk and the mortgage market would have naturally cooled down long before the stupid get we witnessed.

  Posted by Keith on 07/22/10 07:45 PM

We would not have had the housing bubble had the treasury been allowed to use TARP funds for the direct purchase of defaulting mortgages at the then market price and kept the low interest rate in place that the buyers had purchased originally.

A good part of the ones that defaulted would still have been able to pay off their mortgages if the rate had not increased and the market would have continued much stronger and the market prices may have kept firm. This would have held the economy at a more sustained level. The ones that defaulted would have been able to keep up their payments and the demand for new homes would have had a better chance of continuing.

For how long, one will never know, now that this did not take place. Just a thought, I guess you could not expect congress to think of that.

  Posted by Clayton on 07/22/10 03:35 PM

First, where do you guys find these great pics of Fuzzy Face? We don't get to see them in the MSM, but they tell a whole story of their own. Perhaps your photography enthusiast could do a collage of them to humor those of us who enjoy a musing or two at the absurdity of the PE's assertion that, "everything is under control." They just need "a little more time and authority." Or, "they'll get right the next time." All the time pro-offering the caveats "unforeseen circumstances" or "uncontrollable market forces." Not to mention "the Bearded Man in the Cave."

The quotations from the article you sight have a major "tell" in them, "the IMF's Executive Board said that central banks may want to ..." Is this their way of giving them permission? I suspect that they may already be in charge here. This, of course, has been an ongoing position of the Bell's view of the Global Financial structure. But it is clear confirmation that this is most probably the case, at least for the G20.

Knowing this, market participants have to go beyond being Fed Watchers to being IMF Watchers. This, I believe, is much more difficult to do. So Big Ben's comments on uncertainty before the Committee yesterday may be a Greenspeak coded message to the market that they may have to revise their calculation and valuation models to factor in the new paradigm of triangulation between the Fed, the IMF and the balance sheet well being of the international financial institutions deemed "too big to fail." Such a shift in gravitational forces is bound to generate additional perturbations through out the decision making process that sets the market prices on a daily basis. It is certainly certain that we can see once again that sovereignty is slipping away.

One of the complicating factors that I think the readers need to contemplate is the declining benefit of seignorage enjoyed by the State and its minions. Part of the revolution in finance that occurred since the end of WWII is the extent to which the money printing distributional effects have been transferred to the private sector. This has provided those who have the political connections that immunize them from catastrophic losses, to possess the same ability to sponge up the wealth created in the World without scarcely anyone (but of course, the kinds of folks who read the Bell) noticing.

This process is all due to the existence of fractional reserve banking combined with the implicit guarantee of deposits that flows through to the institutions thru the FDIC, which like Fannie and Freddie, is implicitly backed up by the Fed. As this near effortless means of getting rich became clearer, the more various individuals wanted to get in on the game. In a way, the whole Real Estate fiasco was the publics mass use of the same mechanism that the bankers had been using all along.

However, with everyone creating money out of thin air, the moneyness of money has been brought into question as has its utility to the State and the PE. So, the structure that the PE has created is now in mortal danger of loosing its glue, the power of these debts that binds us. Deleveraging lies ahead, or we will see the end of the moneyness of the various paper moneys circulating in the World today. Money must be made scarce again.

Austerity is part of this new paradigm. Like the sacrifices called for during WWII, it will be presented to the people as a form of patriotic duty, going without so that the system to which they have been habituated can go on as usual. This is genuinely depressing, and is now embedded in the current social mood.

The Fed and the ECB must go slow in sliding folks into a lower expectation of what life in going to be for them in the future, lest rebellion explode the PE's plans for Global Government. Bennie Bright is mouthing the needed words, " asset bubble busting," with the caveat "limited." However, the assets in question that they will be targeting will be the ones most small investors will be inclined to seek refuge in during these time of uncertainty concerning the moneyness of money, namely Real Estate, Commodities, and that old enemy of the State, Precious Metals.

This will present many unforeseen difficulties for the PE as we go forward. So volatility will be the name of the game, and with it more arbitrary efforts to increase control. The internet complicates this in that we can now see them coming and how they operate. Interesting Times indeed!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Well done. Good pickup. The IMF suggesting to the Fed what to do seems some kind of evolution, you are correct. This is really an excellent post. Glad you agree with us on austerity.

  Posted by Bill on 07/22/10 03:26 PM

Sounds like the Fed is trying to get the ELITE to buy into: a pig gets fat but a hog gets slaughtered mantra. Be greedy but not too greedy in your plunder of the masses.

  Posted by Desmond on 07/22/10 03:21 PM

As religion declins as a control mechanisim Eco is emerging as the next religion. A new device to shame and blame while the foxy elite run off with the Monsanto turkey. "If I had a bell I would ring it in the morning...."

  Posted by Sovereignjim on 07/22/10 12:17 PM

The powers did not design and achieve the current financial crises.
The condition we are now in is simply the unintended consequence of legalizing fraud.

  Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 07/22/10 10:38 AM

Perhaps the DST should be: "After 100 years (or 400 for the BoE) we are still working to get the hang of this. Stick with us."

One minor point, or perhaps two sides of the same coin:

DB: "When markets realize that numerous investments are not going to pay off, then a contraction begins and markets sell off."

I don't view the bubble bursting as caused by markets realizing investments will not pay. I see it as resulting from their being a lack of capital as compared to what an abnormally low interest rate implies. In other words, there is not enough capital (savings) to actually finish all the projects. So, many projects must be aborted -- hence the bust.

I picture "capital / savings" as wheat -- as thinking of fiat money as "capital" distorts the picture. Before the farmer can build the barn, he needs wheat stored to eat while he can't farm the field...he is building the barn instead.

Magically, ten farmers think they are getting ten bushels of wheat when in fact only one has been saved (fractional banking made possible by the cartel's mother hen)...so 10 barns are started instead of only one (which is all that can truly be funded by the stored wheat). But of course, they can't be finished, as the farmers have run out of wheat for food. Talk about a bust.

  Posted by Victor Barney on 07/22/10 10:25 AM

Dominant Social Theme: "It is time to rethink and then recalibrate the wisdom of monetary management.": Just you watch Illuminati member Mr. Bernanke establish the New World Order's "cashless society" under the spiritual leader of this world, Lucifer! You know, the one described as coming in his own name that you will believe! Watch!

  Posted by Michael on 07/22/10 10:18 AM

@ The Daily Bell.

Both the FED along with other central banks, and large corporate banks (Bank of America, etc.) both lead to inflation. Central banks because of money printing and large corporate banks because of the money multiplier. Turning a 100,000 dollar mortgage into the creation of 1 million new dollars some how.

Colonel E.C. Harwood of the American Institute for Economic Research thought that it was large corporate banks with their money multiplier that led to more inflation than the central banks. I would assume because their are literally millions of people with mortgages and if they are multiplying that each time that sounds like a ton of money created. What is your view of the creation of money between the two and which would be more damaging for a free market economy? Thank you kindly

Reply from The Daily Bell

There is no problem with private money. Let the private sector "create" all the money it wants in any form. Market competition will winnow out winners and losers and the economy will be no worse for it. It is only when government gets involved, mandating this money or that central bank, depriving people of the right to circulate gold and silver, etc. that problems arise. Private sector money is good. Government interference abrogating competition and the invisible hand ... bad.

  Posted by Hank on 07/22/10 09:40 AM

Reply from the Daily Bell:
"Because it buys fewer goods and services by weight."

Posted by Pat Fields on 7/22/2010 8:59:46 AM
"By their 'purchasing power' in ratio to all other goods."

Well Duh! It is amazing how one gets so accustomed to thinking 1200 FedDollars buys an ounce of gold and 20 FedDollars buys an ounce of silver, but forgets that "price" and "purchasing power" are one and the same thing. My bad. DB, thanks for all you do.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for stopping by.

  Posted by Pat Fields on 07/22/10 08:59 AM

Hank Cite: "(I)n what units is the "price" of gold and silver measured?"

By their 'purchasing power' in ratio to all other goods (each other inclusive).

Reply from The Daily Bell

See our response as well.

  Posted by Michael on 07/22/10 08:51 AM

@ The Daily Bell.

Is it true that when the FED was first created it was said to the people that the FED was here to make everything in the economy run smoothly and stable and that it was going to prevent depressions and recessions?

Also, could you explain a little more about the "jumping from crisis to crisis with the European Union"? I know only of the most recent activities and the plunge of the Euro. Thank you kindly.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, the putative reason for the Fed's establishment was to provide a cash "reserve" for banks. How many people believed this at the time, we don't know.

As far as the EU goes, we were referring to the various crises that have consumed it over the past several years, starting with failed attempts at developing a constitution and ending with failed attempts to create a "bailout" fund for its increasingly bankrupt membership.

  Posted by Hank on 07/22/10 08:42 AM

"In a market-driven economy, gold and silver are dug out of the ground to create money. If there is too much gold and silver in circulation, people begin to hoard gold and silver because the price is dropping. Mines shut down because it is not economically feasible to dig up more precious metals at lower prices."
I must be missing something. If gold and silver is in circulation as money, in what units is the "price" of gold and silver measured? That is, how does one know that the "price" of gold and silver is dropping?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Because it buys fewer goods and services by weight.

1 2 Next