US Monetary Aggregates Update - Failure to Reform - At the Edges of the Policy Continuum

Dude, where's my deflation?

It may seem a little counter-intuitive, that the money supply measurements are growing strongly, at the same time that the growth of consumer credit and spending remains sluggish, with GDP lagging.

Well, perhaps not so sluggish as some might wish to portray, as show in the last chart, but certainly not with enough force to bring back jobs.  The Fed can create money but not real growth.

As a reminder, the changes in money supply are not independent, and must be judged in relation to other things in the real economy to determine their nature and its effects. Growth must match growth, and decline, decline, over some reasonable period of time and trend, in relation to population, real transactions ex-financial, or some other measure of genuine economic activity.

That is one of the better arguments, by the way, against the use of a gold standard.  To say that there is not enough gold is ludicrous, since it is just a relative thing, a matter of valuation.  The drawback is that the supply of gold seems to grow stubbornly slow, and may not keep pace with the growth of the economy in response to some event like the industrial revolution.  This could be handled by the revaluation of the gold and the currencies, so again one wonders how real the objection is.  Its greatest opposition is from those who wish to exercise a more flexible and stealthy monetary control.  

As I said I am not in favor of such a standard now, as the economies of the west are too weak to support their rigor, and they would be quickly corrupted.  A bi-metallic standard holds more promise, but that too is a discussion for another time.  These are remedies best used before the fact, and not ex post facto in response to long years of monetary abuse and distortions.

Increasing the money supply in response to a credit crisis, which the Fed is doing with historic vigor, is a blunt instrument. And despite all the so-called proofs and theories to the contrary, they said they would do it, they could do it, and so they are doing it.

There is certainly no lack of people who remain obstinate in their errors and illusions. I have a little more respect for those who try to maintain their theories while at least accepting the obvious. But unless they can create a whole of it, their theory is found to be lacking.

Money is a little esoteric I admit, but the mindsets of those who have been wrong for so long is even more mysterious to me, unless one assumes some misinformed, cultish adherence. And as forecast, their rationales and arguments are becoming increasingly hysterical, in every sense of the word. They are even reluctant and resistant to accepting any 'existence proofs.'

"...we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- I refute it thus."

Boswell, Life of Johnson

Deflation and Inflation in an otherwise unconstrained fiat currency regime is a policy choice. The restraints come from any external standards including the acceptance at value of the currency by those outside the system. This is what the proponents of Modern Monetary Theory, those sons of Zimbabwe, fail to understand. At the end of the day, money printing at will must always resort to continual expansion and the threat of force to maintain its value. And when that force fails, the money fails.

The Fed certainly can do more to curtail speculation and incent real money into productive activity rather than speculation in a web of financial instruments. The Fed as bankers have rarely done well with their regulatory functions. And it would be denounced as 'political' and interfering with the [rampant fraud and looting in the] markets.

Rather it is to the governance of the nation, and fiscal and legislative policy, that the nation must turn. Unfortunately that segment of governance is caught in the same credibility trap as the rest of the country's fortunate ones who profited abundantly from the status quo and the financial bubble, and are feeling very smug about it, rationalizing self-proclaimed genius in their delusions, and 'winning.'

Make no mistake, as a policy choice deflation is possible. And for debtor nations to voluntarily choose deflation, in the artificial constraint of money and debt in pursuit of a stronger currency, without systemic reforms to address what specifically caused the recent credit crisis, is an act of national suicide. Minds fixed to extremes either can not or will not see or find the via media, the middle ground. They pass from extreme to extreme without ever finding a balance.

If one considers the Political and Economic Continuum I have constructed before, it is easier to understand this, and how the neo-liberals can become neo-conservatives, seemingly overnight.  The energy to cross the boundary from one extreme to another is less than the required energy and effort of returning to the center.  

At that end of the scale one sees only their extreme counterparts, and loses the ability to view the more distant middle ground, the vast center of society.  It is more than a willful blindness; it is a pathological disconnect from reality and the particular, an implosion of the self into a dissolute abstraction of slogans, symbols, and ideas.

And the extremes will tend towards distortion and delusion, as life does not flourish naturally on the tails of probability.  The far Left is as noxious and rarefied as the far Right.  At the end of the day, there is relatively little distance between them in terms of what it means to be specifically human.  The others, the great mass of humanity clustered at the center, becomes fully objectified, stereotyped, and statistical.  The far ends of the continuum are the well springs of the cults of death.

From a practical standpoint, central planning, whether it is performed by faceless bureaucrats or the monoplies of oligarchs, will tend to corruption and failure.
The path being pursued by some Western nations today seems to be untenable and lacking balance, and so the bleeding begins.  Crony capitalism has the momentum to create ever bigger losers and winners.  They are unwilling, and seemingly incapable of, discussing and investigating the frauds, much less correcting them. They fear to implicate themselves, and to disturb their 'good thing.'   And so they keep pressing forward to the hard stop, and the precipice.

The governance of old has tolerated the occasional bloodbath, so long as the few might personally benefit, as corrupt governments, mad rulers, and empires are wont to do. I pray not for that tragedy there, or anywhere.

Reform is the hard medicine that the governance of the country refuses to take. The failure is with the establishment as they once quaintly called it, the monied interests in a former age, and as always, the venality, blind ambition, and vanity of the privileged.

Monetary Aggregates - Dude, Where's My Deflation? Better Yet, My Job, Savings, Economy?

Plenty of money printing, and therefore money supply growth, but little of it is from organic expansion. Printing money in low growth environments creates asset bubbles and a top down wealth effect for the upper crust. It also facilitates speculation and fuels soft frauds.

The US economy is a broken machine, burdened by an oversized financial sector and policy failures abounding in taxation, trade, and regulation.

Unfortunately the governance failures have their roots in crony capitalism and a variety of white collar crimes, disinformation campaigns, and public ignorance, so they are going to be difficult to surmount.

The recurrence of evil, whether it be in physical or economic privation, never fails to surprise one with its lack of originality, if not its sheer banality. It is rarely elegant or complex, but merely dull and ignorant, a brutish force, self-centered, animalistic, and cruel. Beneath the surface the madness lurks, in dark places and hardened hearts, awaiting its hour to rise once again.

"The receptivity of the masses to information is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must repeat these until the lowest member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogans...The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Adolf Hitler

US Monetary Aggregates

It is easy to be misled by short term trending in money supply charts, especially those showing year over year growth as a percentage.  Money supply changes are seasonal and often very volatile, but nevermoreso during a credit collapse and quantitative easing.

A look at the longer term trends is most useful. And if necessary a review of Money Supply: A Primer.

The last chart is an index where 100 equals the M2 supply around the end of 2007, and the onset of the credit crisis. Since then it has grown almost twenty percent. 

Has GDP or the population grown 20 percent? So money per capita or per unit of productive effort is growing.   All one has to do is look at some reality based metric of money supply growth and negative real interest rates to understand the ten year bull market in gold and silver, and commodities in terms of US dollars. 

I understand people like to look at the various independent M3 estimates, but since the Fed no longer reports Eurodollars I have not seen what I could consider a credible recent estimate. And I doubt VERY much that M3 is underrunning M2 given the dollars that the Fed has been spreading around the world's banks.

Can the Fed keep this QE up? Will deflation set in, finally? It is a policy decision in a purely fiat currency. That could change, and I will know what to look for when it does. The Fed could be subjected to some external force, either from foreign creditors or domestic politics.   I expect that foreign shock to be inflationary rather than deflationary however.  As for the domestic forces, a choice for third world status is always an option.

The top five percent of Americans hold by far most of the country's wealth. And deflation may be in their short term interests, as in the case in the UK which seems to be going down that path. These policy decisions bring up a different set of considerations, many of which will stress the social fabric to the breaking point.  But a people grown coarse by war and ideology have done much odder things before. 
But for now the trend has not changed, and it would probably take a global economic collapse to change it. That is possible. And in such an event everything will get sold, for a time, as they were in the market crash of 2008.

Those who have been betting on deflation for the past five or ten years have been wrong. They could be right some time in the future. But one can be wrong on a mistaken principle for a very long, long time.

US Bonds have been in a long term disinflationary rally. There seem to be a number of 'name' people now looking for a trend change. That is the crux of Bernanke's short term focus, and the target of QE^n.

US Money Supply Figures: Dude, Where's My (Monetary) Deflation?

As a review or refresher please read: Money Supply A Primer if you need to remind yourself what these money supply figures represent.

Considering the high unemployment and sluggish GDP the fall off in year over year growth in the money supply figures is to be expected, especially after the bubbliciously high growth rates (11% and 16% respectively) just prior to the financial crisis. That is why one should look at both the nominal and the percent year over year charts.

There is certainly price deflation from slack aggregate demand fueled by stagnant wages and high unemployment, and it may get worse as the Fed and the government coddle their unreformed pet Banks, leaving the real economy and most Americans to twist in the wind. But there is no true monetary deflation yet, the kind which is supposed to stiffen the back of the dollar and all that.

There is also sufficient room for concern about the US dollar and its sustainability as the world's reserve currency. This would be familiar to most economists as Triffin's Dilemma. As the world shifts from the Bretton Woods II compromise to a less dollar specific regime the adjustment could be quite traumatic, especially to the financialization industry. Here is another description of the same phenomenon called the Seigniorage Curse. It is why I have called the US dollar and its associated bonds The Last Bubble.

"The Seigniorage Curse appears to hollow out the economy by the following manner: First, the premium charged to holders of dollars becomes a new source of accrued, aggregate revenue. This extra capital flowing into the economy is initially seen as a global honoring of our economy’s strength, and innovation. But when innovation falters and less value is created, seigniorage is maintained–and thus the unhealthy dynamic begins. From this point forward, whether the US economy either leads in innovation, or lags in innovation, the Dollar advantage grows regardless. It then becomes clear that manufacturing Dollars, rather than manufacturing goods, is a better value proposition. Once that dynamic is in place, then a long cycle of financialization ensues, in which innovation and talent moves from design and manufacturing to the financial sector. The financial sector then becomes rapacious, as it scours what’s left of the economy to monetize. Whereas manufacturing and innovation were once monetized, the financial sector begins to monetize itself...

Every inheritance starts out as a gift. Just as oil-cursed nations remain ever vulnerable to swings in the price of oil, the United States is now vulnerable to its own number one export–the value of the US Dollar and by extension the value of US Treasury Bonds."

True Money Supply is included for all you Austrian Economists, and it has enjoyed a bumper expansion under Bernanke's chairmanship. This is the money that is ready and able to be used as a medium of exchange, what the Austrians consider 'real money.' I am quite sure that Messrs Ludwig and Murray would be aghast at Bernanke's banking practices.

I include Eurodollars chart at the bottom. This is the 'missing component' from the M3 series. Several commentators seek to estimate M3 by obtaining the other M3 components from existing sources and then estimating eurdollars based on correlations and trending. See M3 Hysteria and a Look at M2, MZM, GDP and PPI.

The Eurodollar is a particularly interesting money measure to me be because of the two enormous dollar short squeezes which we have seen in Europe as customers demanded dollars based on dollar assets deposited in dodgy CDOs. It was on a parabolic trajectory BEFORE the squeezes, and one can only wonder where they are now.

I am still comfortable with my forecast for a severe stagflation, considering both a protracted monetary deflation and hyperinflation as less probable 'on the tail' events that almost certainly would reflect fiscal and monetary policy errors. What also concerns me is the failure to reform and address the grossly imbalanced economy. I am less confident today however, that Bernanke and the Congress will not make these errors because of the blind greed of the oligarchy and their influence over the country.

M2



M2 Year over Year Growth



MZM



MZM Year over Year Growth



True Money Supply (aka Rothbard Money Supply)

"The True Money Supply (TMS) was formulated by Murray Rothbard and represents the amount of money in the economy that is available for immediate use in exchange. It has been referred to in the past as the Austrian Money Supply, the Rothbard Money Supply and the True Money Supply. The benefits of TMS over conventional measures calculated by the Federal Reserve are that it counts only immediately available money for exchange and does not double count. MMMF shares are excluded from TMS precisely because they represent equity shares in a portfolio of highly liquid, short-term investments which must be sold in exchange for money before such shares can be redeemed. For a detailed description and explanation of the TMS aggregate, see Salerno (1987) and Shostak (2000). The TMS consists of the following: Currency Component of M1, Total Checkable Deposits, Savings Deposits, U.S. Government Demand Deposits and Note Balances, Demand Deposits Due to Foreign Commercial Banks, and Demand Deposits Due to Foreign Official Institutions."

Eurodollars

I think a case could be made that the US is exporting its monetary inflation overseas, particularly to Asia. At some point these eurodollars may come home to roost, and the arrival could be quite memorable. I try to recreate some sense of Eurodollar growth from the BIS reports, especially when verifying these eurodollar short squeezes, but the lags of over a quarter in reporting are quite tiresome.

The Price of Gold and the Growth of the Money Supply

We have seen comparisons of the price of gold to the adjusted monetary base and to M1. Based on intense study and reasoning about the current trends in money supply we are convinced that this comparison of growth in MZM with a lag to the change in the price of gold is significantly much more valid than any other we have been able to produce, if one only considers the correlation of the graphs. And it makes logical sense.

MZM is the most valid measure of broad 'liquid' money in the system. We formerly used M3 but this has not been available, with any published certainty, since 2006.

It would make sense that in a free market, the growth trend of a broad measure of 'liquid money,' as opposed to credit or potential money, would be statistically valid with the price of an alternative currency, or wealth asset, like gold over the longer term.



Speaking wonkishly, our preferred comparison would be to be able to measure the difference in growth between real GDP and the growth in broad money supply, and then trend and compare that with the growth in the price of gold.

Since we have no honest measure of price inflation that task is difficult. Our second preference would be to make a similar comparison per capita the economically active rather than real GDP. Is there an accurate measure of job population growth fluctuations with the ebb and flow of the illegals? We are not sure, but are looking into it.

Money Supply: A Primer

You walk into a Merchant and a sign says, "All Items on Sale Today for Cash Only No Credit."

You are interested in purchasing an item. The Merchant, being a crafty sort asks "How much money do you have to spend(in US dollars)?"

How would you answer that if you are being truthful?

You might start by looking into your wallet and pockets, and counting all the cash and coins you have with you at that moment.

M0: Monetary Base

This is equivalent to the monetary base, or M0. It is money you have that is immediately available requiring no change or conversion. There is very little risk to the merchant, unless it happens to be counterfeit which is easily verified.

"Not enough" says the Merchant. "I am sorry, but do you have more?"

M1

Then you remember that in addition to cash, you have your checkbook with a current balance in it, and a debit card to an account you maintain in a local bank, but with no overdraft or lines of credit provisions.

That plus the currency in your pockets is M1. See the difference? You do not have ALL your money in your pockets for immediate presentation, but with a little transactional effort the money is readily available and it is inherently your money, it belongs to you. It is just being held elsewhere besides your pockets and wallet. The merchant assumes a little more risk, but he can quickly call your bank to verify that the funds are available for the check, and the debit card is even more mechanized. More risk, a little more delay, but almost as 'good as cash.'

"I am sorry sir," says the Merchant, "but this is still not enough to exchange for such a valuable object as I have for sale here."

M2

You think about it, and remember that you have a savings account across the street at the bank, and a money market fund at your brokerage office next door, that have more of your money on deposit. You have no cards for those accounts, but it would be an easy thing to walk next door or across the street and obtain the cash.

This is M2. There is a more complex transaction involved, since the transfer is not electronic as in the case of a debit card, and you must leave the store to obtain the money in the form of currency unless they bring it over to you. But it is your money that is available to you on demand. There is a small amount of risk of your bank not being solvent when you need the money, but these are slight inconveniences compared to the safety of not carrying around large sums of money that earn no interest in the form of cash.

"I am so sorry," says the Merchant. "But this item is far too valuable to part with for such a sum as you have offered."

M3

You think about it, and remember that you have a large Certificate of Deposit at the bank across the street that matures in one year. There is a small penalty if you redeem it today to receive your money since you promised it to them for a time in exchange for a specific return, and you must fill out some paperwork, but it is still your money. It involves no sale of an asset or conversion.

That is M3. It involves money that is still yours without borrowing, but has additional conditions set up on it for its retrieval.

One could make the case, and perhaps appropriately so, that while certificates of deposit with a term contract that might effect their value are money, they are not readily available money since the terms of the CD's may differ greatly. They are not 'liquid' and the value before maturity is not always certain due to a penalty.

MZM

If one takes all the things we describe as M2, but takes out the time deposits or certificates of deposit, and includes ALL money market funds, that is what the Fed considers to be the broadest measure of liquid money, or Money of Zero Maturity (MZM). "Zero maturity" means that the money is not tied up for a period of time to mature to its full value.

Are credit cards or loans Money? No,those are all forms of borrowing something that is not yours that you promise to return with conditions. You are receiving money that was not yours.

Credit Is Not Money.

Credit, or debt, is the 'potential' for money, a way of receiving it.

Whether water is held in a canteen, a well, a cistern, or a private lake, it is still water and it is yours if you own it. So too money is still money if it is yours, no matter under what conditions you hold it or save it for your use.

The cloud of credit, or debt depending on your perspective, is the potential for money as it is defined in our economy. It is a source of money. At a given point in time, you either have the money as your property or you do not.

But the source is not the money itself, and the source can be different and can change over time. In our society borrowing is so common and so technologically convenient that there is little difference in most people's mind between credit and money.

But the difference is that if you spend real money, you incur no obligation for it in the future. You receive no payment request from another at the end of the month.

That is what money is, at least in our economy, and the various measure of money as it is held and shifts through the economy and a variety of transactions, where it flows and rest in pools, and moves again. A measure of the money supply is a snapshot in time.

How money increases or decreases, and how it is stored or held, is a significant indicator of economic activity for those who study such things. It is also significantly affected by custom, technology, and the prevailing mood and perception of the public.

The best and broadest measures of money supply are either MZM, or M2, now that M3 is no longer being reported by the Fed. This can easily be seen from the illustrations.

As springs feed into brooks, and brooks streams, and streams into rivers, and rivers into lakes, so the money supply components change in size and shape over time as money flows from its various sources. The speed of the flow is the 'velocity of money' and as one can easily understand that flow will have a different force and speed depending on when you measure it, and whether you are measuring one of the streams or a major river.

People often prefer to jump into discussions and turn them into debates (arguments) with hair-splitting definitions (what is 'control' of the money supply) and red herrings (why does a dollar cross the road?) before defining any terms or facts and setting some boundaries for the analysis, because their goal too often is not understanding, but to promote some theory or point of view. 'Winning the argument' is their objective, not a search for the truth.

Money is the instrument of the official economy. This gives money a certain arbitrariness over time because, after all, it is the product of a committee. Official money is the creation of government, managed by its agents, validated by the people who use it.

Official money rises and falls from favor to disfavor, as do governments. What if you were a citizen of Zimbabwe? Or the US in the 1860's? Or Germany in 1922? How would you feel about your official money then? Why is it different for you now? What would change your opinion?

What is the 'natural growth rate' of the money supply? Zero?

The discussion of how money supply increases, and who or what determines the supply, and what an appropriate level of growth would be is a matter for discussion on another day. So too is the strange phenomenon of 'natural forms of money' that keep turning up in every era and nearly every society.

But for now at least you have the means to understand what money supply is and how it is measured, and how it is different from potential money, or credit, the representations of money, and asset stores of wealth.

Is the Money Supply Contracting?

The bottom line is that although growth is slowing in MZM which is our preferred broad liquidity indicator, there is no indication that money supply growth is cntracting (e.g.negative).

Theories abound. We like to look at the data.

There are various interpretations and we look into almost all of them.

But we like to keep an eye on the data, and skip arguments that are long on rhetorical flourishes and short of hard analysis.

A monetary deflation is possible. A price deflation in response to slack aggregate demand is not only possible it is happening. We are in a recession. Demand is decreasing. And money supply growth should be decreasing in sympathy with that.

We could even tell you how to cause a monetary deflation, and are confident we could do it. Raising short term interest rates to 20 percent would probably do the trick pretty handily. Right now they are a negative number, however.

There are also theories that the banks are hoarding cash and the money supply figures are no longer valid. The money is flowing to Europe and not into the US economy.

Well, we can look into this, but it does not seem to be borne out by anything we have looked at in more than one dimension yet. We have an open mind.

But we're short on economic creationism and long on hard data and analysis in our book.

Recession: Straight Up, With a Twist

There is a significant debate going on in economic and financial circles about the odds for a recession in the United States in 2008. In fact we heard on Bloomberg Television a savant saying that it is unthinkable that the economy could decline to negative so quickly from its current positive growth.

Definition of a recession

The textbook definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in real GDP. This definition has been problematic in this decade however, because of the tinkering that our government has done with the measures of inflation. As you know, real GDP is GDP deflated by the inflation rate. The official deflator used for GDP is called the GDP chain deflator.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recognized this and determined that there was a recession in the US in 2001 from March through November, even though the quarter to quarter real GDP annualized growth rates for the four quarters of 2001 were -0.5%, 1.2%, -1.4% and 1.6%. As you can see, we did not have two consecutive quarters of real GDP declines. How does the NBER explain this?

"Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001 [as of October 2003], the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in economic activity.' Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP [including personal income, employment, industrial production and manufacturing/trade sales]. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology."

The point of this diversion is to define what a recession is, although it cannot be so neatly compartmentalized to such a simple formula, especially in these times of government revision of economic data.

A quick look at the chart at John Williams' excellent site, Shadow Government Statistics will give you the idea of how the notion of Consumer Price Inflation has been distorted by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Inflation has a direct effect on real GDP, and therefore on the formal definition of recessions. Of course, it has a real impact on lots of other things including consumer and voter sentiment, and Social Security and other cost of living increases, which is a strong incentive for the government to down play inflation.


Advance Indicators of Recession

We tend to favor the US Treasury yield curve as a significantly reliable indicator of approaching recessions. Here is a description of the classic definition from Paul Kasriel of Northern Trust:

"...each of the past six recessions (shaded areas) was preceded by an inversion in the spread between the Treasury 10-year yield and the fed funds rate. But there were two other instances of inversion - 1966:Q2 through 1967:1 and 1998:Q3 through 1998:Q4 - immediately after which no recession occurred. It would appear, then, that an inverted yield curve is more of a necessary condition for a recession to occur, but not a sufficient condition. That is, if the spread goes from +25 basis points and to -25 basis points, a recession is not automatically triggered. Rather, whether an inversion results in a recession would seem to depend on the magnitude of the inversion and, to a lesser extent, the duration of it. Recession-signaling aside, the yield curve remains a reliable leading indicatorof economic activity. Although the spread going from +25 basis points to -25 basis points might not result in a recession, it does indicate that monetary policy has become more restrictive." That's the current theory, but has it? Has the growth of US money supply been restrictive?

Has Monetary Policy Been Restrictive?

The most alarming thing to us is that despite the inverted yield curve and the Fed funds tightening we just witnessed over the last few years, from historic lows to the 5+% level, monetary policy has not only NOT been restrictive, it has been what many would define as loose. When one looks at real interest rates we had been in a prolonged period of negative interest rates, and only recently had been back in the positive area. It appears that we might be slipping back down into the negative again as the Fed tries to forestall the impending recession and the collapse of the stock - housing bubbles.

It appears to us that even while the Fed feigned monetary conservatism with the right hand, with the left hand they were doing all that was in their power to encourage the reckless growth of credit and the lowering of regulatory oversight and market discipline. To use an analogy, they were preaching energy conservation while running every light on in the house, the backyard, the neighbors house, and slipping pennies into the fuse box to keep it all going. Well, here we are.

What we are seeing is true moral hazard, the unintended consequence of the financial engineering being practiced by the wizard's apprentices at the Fed helping to nuture market distortions, asset bubbles, and imbalances that have become too big to correct naturally without systemic risk. Even though one can mask one's actions with words, and use information selectively and slyly to dampen the alarms and misdirect the public awareness, the chickens will come home to roost, and in this case they are more like the nemesis of retribution for our many economic trespasses. Let us hope that it is not as bad this time as the last time the Fed tried short circuit market discipline and engineer the economy centrally. We believe that the next twenty years or so will provide a rich opportunity for study, and probably the rise another new theory, a new school of economics, that tries to account for exactly what happened and why.

We are old enough to remember that stagflation, now seemingly so familiar, was once considered an improbability, a black swan. In the 1970's stagflation was triggered by an exogenous supply shock in the disruption in the market pricing of crude oil, impacting a slowing economy in monetary inflation from the post-Nixon era and the abandonment of the vestiges of the gold standard. The tonic that time was the tough monetary love of Paul Volcker.

What will they call it when a slowing economy with monetary inflatin is hit with a currency shock, as the dollar is displaced as the reserve currency of the world? We're not sure what they will call what we are about to experience, except on the bigger scale of thing, it will be just another episode in the hubris of arrogant men who consider themselves to be above principle, above the rules.