This dude is koko for cocca puffs! Get a grip man!

In the end, Truth alone shall prevail! Whatever Americans are doing they are just thinking of next 5 to 10 years, have they thought what would happen for next 50 years? I do not think so. Coz they dont 'care' as long as the money keeps coming. This is going to end in tragedy sooner or later. You cannot be happy forever by inflicting pain on others for personal gain.

@ Alex on 3/20/2011 7:47:42 PM

"Very nice... the way you put several seemingly separate things together one can now see that they are indeed connected and how. Two thumbs up. A lot of "food for thought". Thanks for putting things in perspective!"

May I assume that your comment was directed at me?

I thank you for having an open mind and willingness to consider the connections I point out.

A reader comment like yours does provide justification for me to continue to express my ideas here on the DB. A new look at a lot of economic and monetary concepts is required before we can turn back on the road to the abyss.

Very nice... the way you put several seemingly separate things together one can now see that they are indeed connected and how. Two thumbs up. A lot of "food for thought". Thanks for putting things in perspective!

@ DB

Under Anglo Saxon law the American colonists had allodial title to their land because they conquered it from the Indians. (See Jefferson's "Summary View of the Rights of British America). The North American colonies were not sovereign. It was the individual colonist who was sovereign in the ownership of the land he conquered or for which he traded.

When the colonists gave up their sovereignty by voting for the constitution of the new states, the individual colonists gave up their sovereignty and became citizens of the new states. With that vote, they gave up the allodial title (allodial title land can not be taxed under Anglo Saxon law) to the new state. However, the constitutions of the new states required that the lands be valued under the Anglo Saxon shire system and that the citizens/residents of the new states be assured of equal access to the land. The colonists accepted a "fee simple title" for exclusive use instead.

Later on, Article IV of the U.S. Constitution required that any new state joining the union must have a like constitution as those of the 13 original states.

The land value tax was never widely instituted. While the land was always valued by the county assessors, everytime a municipality wanted to charge a rent based on the value established by the county assessor, the user of the land just upped and left for the frontier where the "land value" and therefore the rent was zero.

Of course, that is no longer the situation today, unless you consider Alaska still a frontier.

As long as the 49 states properly value the land (California no longer values land), the municipalities cannot discriminate in the collection of the rent ("land value tax"), and thereby equal access to the land is assured to every citizen/resident.

@ DB

It all depends on who the "State" is. In Switzerland it is the 22 (26) Cantons. In the U.S. it is the 50 States. In the PRC and Russia it is the old communist nomenklatura.

The U.S. Constitution provided for the "land value tax" which makes "capitalism" possible. It is not a "land tax", which the Saudis and the dictator governments apply in the sale of natural resource. Your concern is properly placed in the case of a "land tax". It is misplaced in the case of a "land value tax".

Reply from The Daily Bell

Our point is not about the tax per se but your explanation that the land must be held in trust by the state. That is the salient issue. It is not the tax. It is explicit government involvement at a fundamental level. To the best of our knowledge, by the way, the US government - in any incarnation - never held colonial lands in trust for citizens. Or certainly not as a general rule.

@ DB

Quite true, but that is part of the game.

Austrian economic theory is based on a "free market" system. This means producers produce as much as they can sell at a price determined by the customer's marginal utility for the product. If the supply and demand is manipulated, you still have supply and demand, but not under "free market" conditions.

That is where I bring in the "land value tax" or "extraction fee". The crude properly valued for the payment of the fee, would establish the return for the use of a natural resource or "land". If that fee were collected, there would not then be a need to manipulate the supply or the demand of crude.

Labor to work the oil fields, capital in the form of the rigs to pump up the oil and the crude in the ground would all then compete in a free market setting and the costs of the factors of production would be optimal.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We can't get over the idea that your concept is all land would be held in trust by the state for your concept to work. Throughout history, the state has never proven to be a reliable partner for free-enterprise. Never. What makes you think that if you give it this awesome power, things would turn out any better than before?

@ DB

"We see it as a supply/demand manipulation as well."

So do I.

I pointed out that the supply/demand of crude is manipulated through OPEC production schedules.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, but it is more than that. There is so much oil in the US, say, that is being kept off the market - literally billions of barrels discovered but not developed. Steve Forbes admitted as much recently.

@ Vauung

"But then I'm still trapped in old-time supply and demand thinking, and at this point I've simply no idea what you (and it seems also DB) are suggesting as the alternative. Unless it is functioning socialism (an oxymoron to the Austrians, and rightly so)."

Yes, you do seem to be trapped. Carl Menger's great work consisted of showing that the "price" is not the intersection of the supply and demand curve. That instead the "price" is an arbitrage process whereby marginal utility is the determinant process by which "prices" are discovered. For that to happen accurately, "free markets" are essential.

The problem I point out, is that Carl Menger did not make it clear, and his students never picked up on it, that for his price discovery theory to work, there has to be a "constant". That constant is gold as the standard of value.

The trick pulled off by the U.S. and the Saudi's is that they replaced the "constant" gold as the "standard of value" with the "not-so-constant" crude oil as the "standard of value'. It could only work because the Saudis are the marginal cost producers. According to Austrian economic theory, the price is set at the margin. However, you lose the lowest cost producer advantage over price determination, if there is a glut of oil. If you manipulate the price of oil to the point where every oil producer in a cartel, such as OPEC, is happy with the price of oil, they will keep production at a certain level to determine the supply to fit the demand depending on the circulation of the one accounting standard used for oil sales, the USD/FRN.

However, when this goes on, there is nothing left of a "free market" as the Austrians teach. The price is total manipulation, though a very, very sophisticated one.

Socialism is a distribution system. You are correct to call this price manipulation socialistic because the U.S./FED distributes oil amongst the world's users according to their plan for distribution. It isn't "free market" distribution which distributes via prices depending on marginal utility. It is planned distribution by the "elites" who decide what the price should be.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, prices TEND TO FLUCTUATE more at the MARGIN. That seems to be one of Menger's insights. It's not just supply and demand that determines prices by any means. Say's law tells us that the producer can create demand, by the way, not just the consumer.

Also ... we are suggesting that free-markets ought to be allowed to work as a solution to the oil pricing problem. Like you, we believe the price of oil is highly manipulated. You see it entirely as a trading/monetary manipulation apparently. We see it as a supply/demand manipulation as well.

@ Ingo Bischoff

On the oil point, I'd need far more to be convinced. You seem to be saying that markets can be totally overridden by manipulation -- in which case the socialists are right (and I'm very sure they're not).

"'Pricing power is provided by the underlying dynamics of supply and demand.' If you are a student of 'Austrian' economic theory, you will know that this statement is wrong." -- this I don't understand at all. Yes, it was badly phrased -- in concession to the argument in process. Pricing power is dissolved by markets in the Austrian analysis, but you are far more out there than me! You're suggesting that markets are not even impinging on prices, and that sophisticated manipulation is able to maintain multi-decade price premiums under conditions of chronic supply glut. Where's the Austrianism in that?

IMHO the SPR is nowhere near big enough to do what you attribute to it. But then I'm still trapped in old-time supply and demand thinking, and at this point I've simply no idea what you (and it seems also DB) are suggesting as the alternative. Unless it's functioning socialism (an oxymoron to the Austrians, and rightly so).

Reply from The Daily Bell

Manipulation on a large scale is feasible in a mercantilist society where government (and the military industrial complex) actively conspire with Big Oil to manipulate the energy market.

The US is a world-spanning society, projecting its power and influence throughout the globe. It has so much power that it forced the Saudis to accept only dollars for oil. Market manipulation, as Ingo points out, is part of it.

All this may be changing now as the over-extended empire erodes. If so, prices will come down and known oil supplies will rise.

@ Vauung

Answer to Question 2

"Pricing power is provided by the underlying dynamics of supply and demand." If you are a student of "Austrian" economic theory, you will know that this statement is wrong.

As it regards the "price" of crude today, you will have to understand the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It turned the oil-futures market from a zero- sum, risk-hedging and price-discovery vehicle into a quasi-securities market. This invited non-industry hedge funds investing "smart" money, and they thereby created a self-inflating Ponzi situation.

This situation was used by the CIA oil traders and the Saudi low cost producers to manipulate the oil price, using the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) as a vehicle to insure to some suppliers coverage in case of backwardation.

When the Russians signed up to the oil pricing scheme under total control of the Saudi's and their Texan friends, it send a message to China that they will never have a chance to control the price of oil, and thereby threaten to USD/FRN.

The problem is not a world shortage of oil. The problem is a world glut of oil. Keeping prices high under those circumstances requires ultra sophisticated method to control the prices. The U.S.'s CIA and the Saudi's know how to do it. I guarantee you that basic supply and demand has no consideration in those methods. Any Supply and any Demand is a result of manipulation, not really what one could attribute to "free market" price discovery.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"The problem is not a world shortage of oil. The problem is a world glut of oil. Keeping prices high under those circumstances requires ultra sophisticated method to control the prices."

Excellent!

@ Vauung and @ Wayne

Vauung: "how do you think the status of the 1971-2008 USD is best described? In other words, is there a succinct and commonly accepted label for an "attractive irredeemable currency"?


First, there is no attractive irredeemable currency, although I did use the term. There is only none attractive and worthless irredeemable currency.


The FRN from 1971 to 2008 was exclusively monetized "sovereign debt". The TARP legislation authorized the monetization of defaulted mortgage debt. This caused great alarm among the people. The Treasury and FED knew that it would and it therefore went out to get authorization to buy up close to a Trillion Dollars worth of junk. There is now not a lot of junk left to monetize. Yet, because the interest debt has exploded, the present interest payment per month is 228 Billion Dollars and compounding. In a couple of month it will be $400 Billion and so on.....


There is absolutely no way to cover those payments with defaulted mortgage debt. Therefore, we have had QE1, QE2 and in the light of the Japan disaster, they'll put through a QE3. I haven't yet been able to figure out how they can legally create the FRNs under those authorizations. To print these bogus FRNs, they always have to amend paragraph (b), Section 14 of the 1913 FRA. Just watch the Act and check out the legislation referenced in Paragraph (b). It usually takes several month before it shows up on the FED website.


Wayne: "You really don't believe that there are different degrees of irredeemable garbage, do you?
This is really splitting hairs here."


Yes, I really believe there are different degrees of irredeemable garbage. You have used one kind of irredeemable garbage since 1971. Did it bother you...??? That irredeemable garbage you used since 1971 had a life span of thirty years. The only reason that it is still being used is because there is so much of the stuff floating around in the world and its value is being shored up by totally illogical interest rate swaps.


A different kind of irredeemable garbage is the TARP FRN. The life span of this is very short, if it had to stand on its own. Fortunately, we'' not see anymore of TARP FRNs. What is worrisome is the QE FRNs. This in my estimation are hyper inflationary.


If I am splitting hair here, I let the other readers decide.

@Ingo,
You really don't believe that there are different degrees of irredeemable garbage, do you?

This is really splitting hairs here.

This entire situation is loony tunes, and economic calculation/valuation is gone as a curious historical artifact.

Dr. Marc Faber said it best recently with this prediction "'Bernake is going to print so much money that the Stock Market will continue to rise long after no companies have any earnings at all".

No one has ever seen a economy of our size go insane before!

And we used to think that Dr. Timothy Leary was nuts!

Move over Zimbabwe, we coming through.

@ Ingo Bischoff

Many thanks, that was very lucid and helpful.

I read you as saying that the post-gold-standard but pre-TARP dollar was not a 'pure fiat' currency because "there was a break" on printing due to taxpayer backing and its associated (domestic) political constraints, which TARP removed (and replaced with garbage 'assets'). So if you think the description 'pure fiat' should be restricted to the post-TARP USD -- which still seems rather generous given your argument, IMHO, since the 'impurity' is entirely political -- how do you think the status of the 1971-2008 USD is best described? In other words, is there a succinct and commonly accepted label for an "attractive irredeemable currency"?

@ Vauung

"Since (post-1971) tax revenues are denominated in USD, without metallic backing, how do they serve to 'redeem' anything?"

I am sorry, you failed to properly read what I said. I said the "IRREDEEMABLE" USD/FRN after 1971. There was nothing "redeemable" about the FRN after 1971.

I think you fail to understand that there are two different "irredeemable" FRNs now, but both of them look alike.

There is the FRN which is irredeemable, and which is monetized government debt backed by the taxpayers. That kind of irredeemable currency lasts about 30 years before it self destructs because the interest debt explodes.

Then there is the irredeemable FRN that is monetized default mortgage debt. In other words totally worthless nothings. That is irredeemable currency created out of thin air, which is the same as defaulted, worthless mortgages. There are at least 800 Billion of pure fiat FRNs floating around, and the people, particularly the tea party people, are upset about it. That type of FRN loses the confidense of the people really, really fast and leads to hyper inflation.

While the taxpayer backed FRN is irredeemable, the people knew there was a break on them. The politicians would be allowed to only vote so much debt. That is what the fight in Congress is all about right now.

The TARP FRN is quite another thing. Private individuals or banks create mortgages that turn sour and sell them to the FED to monetize. People know there is no break to stop the creation of those types of FRN.

Therefore I made the statement that the taxpayer FRN is better than the TARP FRN. However, you can't tell the difference. Only if you understand that there are two types of irredeemable FRNs, can you make sense of what I am telling you.

Any smart investor will get out of USD/FRN denominated investments and go into gold or a more attractive irredeemable currency.

@ Ingo Bischoff
Apologies for being obtuse, but I'm still rather confused. Since (post-1971) tax revenues are denominated in USD, without metallic backing, how do they serve to 'redeem' anything? Isn't the treasury merely saying "this funny money is backed by that funny money"? Of course, TARP takes insanity to a stratospherically higher level, but it still seems generous to say that before 2008 the USD was anything other than "irredeemable currency printed ...'out of thin air'." Honest money types were already plenty distressed about the dollar before TARP.

@Vauung

Last question first.

"How was the USD not a pure fiat currency after 1971? -- Genuine question, I'm seeking education."

Pure Fiat is irredeemable currency printed, as is often referred to, "out of thin air".

In the case of the irredeemable USD/FRN, Paragraph (b) of Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act amended January 1934 authorizes the FED to monetize U.S. Treasury debt. The USD/FRNs thus created are an obligation of the U.S. taxpayer who owes the money back to the FED with interest. Since the USD/FRN is guaranteed by the U.S. Government, the USD/FRN is not a pure fiat currency, but an obligation of the U.S. Government pledging the collection of federal income taxes against it.

When the international system started to break down with the default on interest rate swaps by Bear, Stearns and then Lehman, the Congress was unable or unwilling to vote the 800 Billion demanded by the U.S. Treasury. The people wouldn't stand for it. They got around this problem with the TARP legislation. What is TARP? TARP stands for "Troubled Assets Relief Program". The faux commercial banks had made billions of dollars of real estate loans that they had to turn into FRNs by receiving payments from the mortgagees. Yet, the real estate market was going South and the mortgagees weren't paying. As a result, the banks had billions and billions of nonperforming real estate loans on their books which the FED offered to "buy". The USD/FRNs these banks got for the "troubled assets" they turned over to the FED were authorized through the TARP legislation.

Soon, as the records catch up, you will find an amendment to Paragraph (b), Section 14 of the FRA that deals with the TARP authorization to print FRNs against defaulted mortgages.

Defaulted mortgages have no value at all, regardless. FRNs printed against defaulted mortgages are therefore in effect "pure fiat" currency.

Pure fiat currency has a very short life span. If flames out very fast. You will find the Treasury and the FED low balling TARP whenever they can, because the value of a taxpayer guaranteed FRN and the value of a TARP generated FRN differ greatly. The problem is that when you pull it out of your wallet, you can't tell the difference.

See.....that's the trouble with holding investments in USD/FRNs. These central bankers get to you before you ever become aware of it.

@ Ingo Bischoff

Fascinating comments as always, thanks.
"All the Chinese are good for is to buy our debt..." is hardly a throw-away remark, though. China could crash the USD tomorrow if they bailed out of T-bills, and in that sense their complicity in the present world financial architecture is a straightforward fact. Of course, they are highly constrained in their actions, as you note, since they are dependent upon US consumers to maintain employment levels (and general economic development).

"Supply and Demand has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil." -- that seems somewhat overstated. Even mercantilist arrangements need to negotiate basic economic reality. Pricing power is provided by the underlying dynamics of supply and demand. Politics can only finesse it. No one could push the price of oil below US$50 today, regardless of motivation, unless supply was massively augmented, or demand crushed.

How was the USD not a pure fiat currency after 1971? -- Genuine question, I'm seeking education.

"They also share a commitment to the overall mercantilist structure of the world, founded upon the status of the USD as a pure fiat reserve currency (in which 'outside' players, especially China and Saudi Arabia, are deeply complicit)."

The USD/FRN has never been a pure fiat currency until September 2008 with the TARP legislation. While the Chinese do follow a mercantalist trade policy, they have never been complicit in valuing the USD/FRN. The only one complicit in establishing the "oil standard" are the Saudis and the U.S. Treasury/FED.

The U.S. has done everything to freeze the Chinese out of any control over oil production where possible. It invaded Iraq to stop the Chinese there, it invaded Afghanistan to block the Chinese from direct oil access to Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. The U.S. bad mouthes all the regimes which might allow the Chinese a foot hold such as Sudan, Syria, Iran and even Venezuela. China has nothing to do with the value of the USD/FRN. Even when they wanted to get a hold of tiny Unical Oil Company, the Congress threw a fit for fear that they might low ball oil prices.

All the Chinese are good for is to buy our debt. They have to do business with us, because 80% of their population earns less than $2 per day. What are the Chinese manufaturers going to sell to them...??? The money they earn must be invested for interest. The U.S. Treasuries are still the best financial investment instruments. The alternative is to invest in commodities other than oil, because excess to anything connected with crude oil is blocked by the U.S. at every turn. ...and, there is nothing China can do about it.

"Republicans don't seem to make much headway opening up domestic US hydrocarbons production when the political opportunity arises."

This statement implies that the oil price is set by supply and demand. Supply and Demand has absolutely nothing to do wih the price of oil. The oil price is a decision by the Saudis in conjunction with the U.S. The Saudis, after consultation with the CIA oil traders, decide on the price of oil. That decision is communicated to OPEC and its members comply according to a prearranged production schedule. While the Saudis do business with the central bank crowd in New York, if they have to, they are much happier to deal with the oil boys in Houston. One reason the central bankers installed Barack Obama as president is to make the contact with the Saudis easier.

Of course, he flopped dealing with the Chinese in trying to revise the renminbi/yuan upward.

Correct, it's not about oil. It's about Israel. Isaiah 14 to 21. God is re-gathering Israel (started after WWII) and soon he is going to give them peace and blessings (the oil too). The Jewish Temple will be rebuilt and those around them will serve them as they will come to know God. Will you?