Cryptocurrency: Backed By What Exactly
The Problem With Money Authored by Charles Hugh Smith http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-problem-with-money.html I'm simply pointing out "money" isn't simple, and "backing money with X" leads to questions about the nature of "money," collateral and the fluidity and complexity of the social construct we call "money." The problem with money is it isn't just one thing. We think it's one thing because we use it to buy things, but it's actually a bunch of different things. This is why I often refer to it as "money:" in other words, one of the class of things that are stores of value, transactional grease, debts and various other bits and pieces. Recall that "money" is not a fixed class of things; it is a social construct. People agree to use (or are forced to use) something to transact tax payments, debt payments, stores of value, etc. "Money" only has value in a socio-economic system that is a social construct with social contracts and power relations. Everyone wants to pin down what money is, but it isn't that easy. Money stock in the U.S. is called M2, which is basically the total of cash in accounts. On the chart of total debt below (TCMDO), courtesy of the Federal Reserve St. Louis database (FRED), I've noted M2 is currently $21.8 trillion. Is this all the "money"? No. If you own a Treasury note or bond--debt issued by the federal government-- or a bond issued by a state or local government agency, you can sell that debt instrument fior cash. All government debt instruments are also "money." So are private-sector debt instruments. If you own a corporate bond or shares in a mortgage-backed security, you can sell those debt instruments for cash and buy whatever you want--or pay your taxes. Notice how "money" expands. This isn't just from the Treasury printing currency bills, or issuing new bonds, or the Federal Reserve creating "money" out of thin air to buy those Treasury bonds, it's also government agencies issuing bonds, corporations issuing bonds, mortgages on real estate being originated, student loans being issued, auto loans being originated, etc. Note that all this debt "money" is backed by some sort of collateral. It might be a tangible object like a house on a parcel of land, or it might be the income stream from a government, corporation or individual. Let's say we want to back all our "money" with gold. Which kinds of "money" do we back with gold? All of it, or just M2? If we only back M2, i.e. cash, then what's going to back the issuance of new "money" via mortgages originations, Treasury bonds, student loans, etc.? If not more gold, then what? You see the problem. There is $88 trillion in "money" and only $21.8 trillion in cash. If we only back the cash (which also expands--see chart below), then what backs the rest of the "money" when people sell their bonds, etc.? There was about $7.5 trillion in M2 "money" in 2008. Now there is about $22 trillion. If we're backing that "money" with gold, do we triple the number of ounces of gold we hold to back the cash, or do we dilute the amount of gold backing each unit of currency by holding the same amount of gold? Do we limit the issuance of debt based on collateral? In other words, do we limit new loans to M2 cash, meaning any lender that wants to issue a mortgage has to have all the cash in hand? Dp we limit corporations from issuing debt to the cash they have on hand? If we allow the expansion of "money" based on collateral, then how do we back such a rapidly expanding stock of "money"? If we grant that collateral "backs money," and that income streams are a form of collateral, then why do we need to "back money" with gold or anything else? If we back a quarter of "money" with gold and let the rest float on the value (i.e. supply and demand for) collaterized "money," then we have two forms of "money": cash which can be converted to gold in some sort of unit-for-unit conversion and all other forms of "money" which aren't backed until they are converted to cash. So what happens when people sell half the collateral-based "money" to convert it into cash? The supply of cash increases, while the stash of gold backing cash stays the same. What's the value of the cash measured in gold, given that each unit of cash now has a smaller claim on the gold stash? Backing "money" with tangible things like gold sounds like a splendid solution to problems like inflation, but it comes with knotty questions about exactly what counts as "money," what "money" is actually backed, and how is this "money" backed if it cannot be converted into whatever is backing it-- gold, wheat, land, shares in a corporation, etc. Consider a mortgage. The mortgage is debt backed by the collateral of a house on a parcel of land. The house and land "back" the new "money" created when the mortgage is originated. When I pay off the mortgage, I'm converting my cash "money" into what "backed" the "money": a house and parcel of land. In other words, I converted cash into what "backed" the money: a house. If gold "backs" money, then it's only actually "backing" money if I can convert my cash into gold, just as I can convert cash into a house by paying off the mortgage. If we discount collateral as "backing money," then what sort of financial system and economy do we have? Is collateral not a worthy "backing" of "money"? If not, why not? Why is a house and land not worthy of "backing money" any more than gold? And if I can't convert my cash into gold, then what is backing my cash? Wouldn't I be better off with "money" that can be converted into collateral I can use such as a house than "money" I can't actually convert into anything? These questions upend conventional beliefs about "value," "backing money with X" and convertibility of collateral and "money." Am I proposing an answer to these knotty questions? No. I'm simply pointing out "money" isn't simple, and "backing money with X" leads to questions about the nature of "money," collateral and the fluidity and complexity of the social construct we call "money."
The Contrarian Curse http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-contrarian-curse.html https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077S8PJ5Y/ What if all the new consensus memes are as wrong as the ones they replaced? I have the Contrarian Curse, and I have it bad. The Contrarian Curse is: as soon as the herd adopts your previously contrarian view, you start questioning the new consensus, just as you questioned the previous consensus. Example #1: fiat currencies are doomed. After all, if creating "money" out of thin air solves all our problems, why not just let everyone print as much as they want at home? Oh, wait, only the super-wealthy and powerful get the newly created "money"? Oh, that makes it really sustainable, doesn't it? Now the hot meme is the US dollar is expiring and gold / commodity-backed currencies will replace it atop the heap. Many of us on the fringes have pondered alternatives to fiat currency, and so this becoming mainstream is a real sea change. Which immediately arouses my contrarian curse. Ok, so exactly how does a gold/commodity-backed currency work? If gold or wheat declines (as measured in purchasing power to everything else), does the quantity of currency shrink to reflect this decline in value? Can the currency supply only expand if gold/commodities rise in relative value? Can the issuing central bank just keep emitting new currency without expanding the reserves of gold/commodities? What about private banking creating new "money" by originating new mortgages and other loans? What's backing all this new privately-created "money"? Lots of knotty questions, few if any detailed answers to how a gold-backed currency functions in actual markets. An idea can be great as an abstraction but the execution of the details is what differentiates an abstraction from a real-world system that's functional, transparent and thus trustworthy. Can I convert my gold-backed quatloo into gold? If not, then what exactly does gold-backed mean? As for digital currencies issued by central banks or private banks, how are these different from existing fiat currencies, which are for all intents and purposes, already fully digital currencies? Even more contrarian: what if the demand for US dollars pushes the relative value higher despite the intrinsic flaws in fiat currencies? "Money" is a funny thing. You can print more, but expanding the supply tends to devalue the existing stock of "money," reducing the value of the newly issued currency. But if demand for the "money" exceeds supply, the relative value increases even as the supply continues to expand. Here's another funny thing about "money." Take a bunch of loans--student loans, truck loans, mortgages, lines of credit, etc., and extinguish all that debt by writing them off as uncollectible, forgiving the loan, reducing the market value of the underlying collateral (if any), and so on. All that "money" goes to Money Heaven and the supply of "money" shrinks accordingly. If demand remains steady, this reduction in the supply of "money" will push its relative value up. (Questions like this prompted me to write Money and Work Unchained.) Example #2: yields and interest rates have to stay near-zero or the system implodes. Now that debt has ballooned to insane levels, there's no way to service the debt except at near-zero rates of interest which means Treasury yields also have to be near-zero. Now that this is the consensus, I wonder: what if rates will continue rising anyway? What would it take for the 40-year bull market in bonds--i.e. 40 years of declining yields/interest rates--to reverse into a Bear market for bonds, i.e. yields/interest rates steadily marching higher? What if entire mountains of debt are extinguished, effectively reducing the supply of "money"? If capital becomes scarce, then perhaps there will be a premium charged to borrow it. Geopolitically, one way to reduce the burden of higher commodity prices is to increase the value of the nation's "money" by inducing demand while limiting supply. One way to induce demand is to treat capital fairly and transparently. What if all the new consensus memes are as wrong as the ones they replaced? I told you it's a curse.
Roots Of Our Current Inflation: A Deeply Flawed Monetary System https://mises.org/wire/roots-our-current-inflation-deeply-flawed-monetary-sy... https://mises.org/library/apoplithorismosphobia-1 https://mises.org/library/whos-afraid-deflation https://mises.org/wire/there-no-optimum-growth-rate-money-supply https://mises.org/library/what-optimum-quantity-money https://mises.org/library/unseen-consequences-zero-interest-rate-policy https://mises.org/wire/social-and-economic-side-effects-negative-interest-ra... https://mises.org/wire/why-has-there-been-so-little-consumer-price-inflation https://mises.org/library/stimulus-scam https://mises.org/library/natural-and-neutral-rates-interest-theory-and-poli... https://mises.org/library/gold-standard-myths-and-lies A monetary system that allows the creation of money out of thin air is vulnerable to the fits of credit expansion and credit contraction. Periods of credit expansion typically occur over many years and even decades while the phases of credit contraction happen like sudden implosions. The monetary policy makers tend to promote the prolongation of credit expansion because they fear deflation. By doing this, however, the central banks prevent monetary moderate deflation as it would happen as the natural consequence of rising productivity. This way, an antideflationary monetary policy lays the groundwork for an upsurge of price inflation along with augmenting the risk of an abrupt contraction of the financial markets. Credit Cycles Financial cycles can extend over long periods of time. In the past decades, there has been a massive global credit expansion, each of which has received new waves of boosts as it happened since the 1980s and as the result of such events like the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 pandemic policy, and the current policy of sanctions in response to the war in Ukraine. Figure 1: Global debt since 1970 as a percentage of World GDP The chart (fig. 1) shows total global debt, public debt, household debt, and non-financial corporate debt as a percentage of the global gross domestic product. Calculated in absolute terms, total global debt is rapidly approaching $300 trillion. With the end of the US dollar's link to gold in the 1970s, the international monetary system lost its anchor. Global debt in relation to the world’s gross domestic product has risen from one hundred percent to over two hundred and fifty percent. The attenuation of this credit cycle is long overdue. However, again and again, the major central banks have been fighting any sign of a credit contraction for several decades. In Japan, the battle against credit consolidation began as early as the 1990s. In the United States, the fight against a perceived threat of deflation began around the turn of the millennium. Since the European debt crisis in 2010, the European Central Bank has also joined the monetary orgy. Obviously, the monetary policy makers ignore the risk that by not letting moderate deflationary contraction happen, they produce a monetary overhang. This in turn, poses the twin risk of higher price inflation along with an uncontrolled collapse of the credit markets. Central banks are waging a relentless fight against deflation. Being traumatized by the Great Depression, the modern monetary policy makers suffer from the psycho-pathological condition of “apoplithorismosphobia”—the fear of deflation. The battle of the central banks against deflation has created so much liquidity that the earlier deflationary tendency begins now to manifest itself as an upsurge of price inflation that even the official statistics cannot hide anymore. Having internalized the monetarist lesson about the origin of the Great Depression, central bankers have a deep-seated fear of price deflation, assuming that a fall in the general price level would provoke an economic contraction. However, had central banks left the system alone, deflation would have happened gradually without much turmoil. The economic actors would have had enough room and time to adapt. As such, deflation would not only be harmless but also beneficial. Trapped by their obsession with “stabilization,” central banks have not permitted the economy to move on its natural path. Instead of allowing the self-correcting economic fluctuations, monetary policy has fabricated one artificial expansion after the other. The conventional monetary theory claims that a growing economy would need an expanding money supply. Even monetarist economists like Milton Friedman supported this idea. Yet Murray Rothbard has shown that there is no need of expanding the money supply to provide more liquidity even when the economy grows. If the money supply remains constant and productivity increases, prices would fall accordingly. This would be a beneficial deflation. Why complain when the goods are getting cheaper for consumers and the real wages rise? The crucial point is whether the price deflation happens due to productivity gains in the economy or abruptly as a sharp decline of the liquidity due to a financial market crisis. When central banks intervene and expand the money supply, as it happened in the form of the "zero interest rate policy" (ZIRP) or in some cases of a "negative interest rate policy" (NIRP), tensions will arise between the natural tendency of the interest rate to rise and the monetary interest rate that is kept low through the interventions of the central bank. Because of this discrepancy, there will be an additional demand for money. Over time, this monetary overhang promotes financial fragility and lays the foundation for future price inflation. The massive expansion of the Federal Reserve’s money supply in the form of its monetary base did not immediately lead to price inflation because the velocity of money experienced a sharp fall since 2008. The trend of a falling velocity began to stop in the third quarter of 2020—well before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Given that the monetary overhang had persisted, prices began to rise right away, and the official consumer price inflation has accelerated to its highest rate in the past four decades. Changes in Relative Prices Do Not Cause Price Inflation The increase in individual prices—for example, crude oil—manifests itself as the change in the relative price. One specific good becomes more expensive in relation to other products. Only if there is a monetary overhang as the result of a previous or ongoing credit expansion, such individual price increases would show up in the so-called price level as an increase of general price inflation. When the policy makers manipulate the interest rate, they create a discrepancy between human time preference and the monetary interest rate. Stimulus policies push down artificially the monetary rate below the natural interest rate, which would emerge in the unhampered market if there were no central bank intervention. Disproportions occur in the financial markets the same way as they do when the state intervenes in the market for goods. Relative prices then no longer reflect consumer preferences and the marginal cost of production. The consequences are economic disruptions in the supply and demand of these goods. The monetary system possesses a natural degree of elasticity. Even if the money supply were tied to a fixed supply of central bank money or in a gold standard, there would be expansions and contractions in macroeconomic spending and the nominal national income. With an anchor of the money supply, these variations of economic activity would happen mainly as fluctuations and short-term swings and not as prolonged phases. The whole idea of stabilization stands in contrast to the need for a system in motion to fluctuate. Money does have loose joints to do its job, yet it should have an anchor to prevent extreme cycles. Under a gold standard, for example, there is an elasticity of money, even if the gold stock is constant. In this respect, the current monetary system is dysfunctional. The use of money will oscillate naturally also with a fixed quantitative amount of its base. It is wrong to claim that only the artificially created so-called fiat money would offer financial flexibility. Rather, the decisive point is that with an anchored monetary system, the degree of deviation is limited, while under the current fiat money regime, there is no restriction. Conclusion A state-sponsored fiat currency system with only a partial reserves coverage of the money in circulation allows the commercial banks to put more money into circulation than they hold in cash. By persistently pursuing an anti-deflationary policy, the central banks have fueled an ongoing credit expansion. They artificially prolonged the cycle of credit expansion. This means that a natural contraction has been prevented. Along with an upsurge of price inflation, this policy has also increased the risk of an uncontrolled implosion of the credit markets. The current outbreak of price inflation does not come by accident or because of external shocks. The foundation for rising prices was laid over a long period of time. As a consequence, another severe financial crisis looms now again on the horizon.
participants (1)
-
grarpamp