US Debt and the Restraint of a Gold Standard

Although FDR ended the use of gold in domestic circulation as currency in 1933, the US dollar remained on the gold standard until 1971.   The international currency system was formalized by the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

When Nixon arbitrarily shut the 'gold window' in 1971 the world entered a reserve currency system of fiat dollars, restrained somewhat by the debt markets and floating exchange rates, often called Bretton Woods II.

The existing monetary system is still under development, even though we assume it is well established and settled because of the Pax Americana.

As these things go, its relatively short reign from 1971 does not guarantee its continuing longevity. The inherent instability introduced by having one nation essentially own the reserve currency, and subordinate to its own domestic policy requirements, has not been sufficiently resolved. Certainly not to the satisfaction to the rest of the world, even if it is a jealously guarded privilege.

Related:   The Continuing Endgame For Bretton Woods II and the Role of Gold
                 An Essay Considering the Current Monetary Order and Gold
                 Europe Finally Has an Excuse to Challenge the Dollar

Bullion Bank Apologists and Physical Versus Paper Gold

I see that the apologists for the status quo are actively 'refuting' the tightness of physical gold in the London markets, largely by ignoring that and concentrating on the Comex, which they assert is 'well-stocked.'

Clever people learn from the political process to ignore the tough questions that they do not wish to answer, and to misconstrue the question into whatever it is they would rather answer, often squirming through the issues to put some proposition in the most favorable light for their firms.

So we see this in so much commentary from the bullion bank and trading house apologists this past week.  I won't dignify them by citing their names, but I think you will know who they are.

Peter Hambro's recent point was fairly clear.  It is almost impossible to obtain sizable amounts of physical gold in London which is the center of the Western physical gold trade.

"It is virtually impossible to get physical gold in London to ship to those countries now. We get permanent requests in Russia now. Would we please sell our physical gold to India and to China?

Because there is not enough physical about.  There are endless promises. And I worry that the market, the paper market, could be stamped on and people say 'sorry we're going to have a financial closeout' and it's all over. If you want to be in the gold business, you ought to be in the physical business."

 Peter Hambro

The gold apologists bravely assert that there is plenty of gold in the Comex, relative to the demand there.  Never better.  More on that later.

As I have pointed out on any number of occasions, the amount of physical gold in all of the Comex warehouses of any categories is a rounding error on the physical markets of Asia.  As I said the other day:

I am certainly not suggesting that there will be hard default at the Comex.  How could one expect that in a relatively small market that almost always settles in cash and is dominated by a few, very large insiders who are actively working both sides of the trade?    No, if there is a default anywhere, it will precipitate in a physical marketplace where bullion changes hands and form, more likely in London, perhaps even Switzerland.  And then it will cascade to all the other markets quickly.

The portion of the gold in London that is not specifically 'spoken for' and held closely is considered to potentially be part of 'the float.' 

That was the key point that the apologists are ignoring.  They ignore the physical market, and concentrate on a scenario at the Comex which is becoming almost atavistic, but still worth noting nonetheless as a kind of barometer.  Comex seems to have lost its position as a source of genuine price discovery relative to the greater market of physical demand and supply.

The Comex gold warehouses, all of them, are a rounding error on the physical gold demand in India and China alone.  The Comex serves as a diversion from the developing situation with the supply of bullion.

As you know if you frequent this site, there is an interesting phenomenon of diminished deliveries and stocks of gold at Comex that is 'for sale' that extends back to 2013.

Further, the volumes of paper contracts traded against the physical backing for them is reaching unprecedented numbers of leverage, even going back twenty or more years.

You may see this information at Record Low 'Deliverable' Gold At the NY Comex - Unusual Tightness of Supply In London.

Yes Comex is well supplied in relation to its deliveries if one is to assume that it is just a betting parlor unrelated to the physical market worldwide for which it presumably provides price discovery.  

The analyst for Mitsubishi was speaking directly to the booming demand for physical bullion in India and China, and to the current conditions in London as you can see by reading Financial Media Wakes Up to 'Physical Tightness' In London Gold Bullion Market.

And so his concerns are answered by apologists again pointing to plenty of supply on the Comex.

Anyone who questions this situation, who looks at the data, who sees the almost daily slamming of the price of gold into the London PM fix and the New York trade, is obviously a hysterical conspiracy theorist, right?  And we must do what is required to intimidate them, to shut them up.

After all, what could be odd about such a multi-year pricing pattern like this in a market that purports to genuine price discovery, not for two cities alone, but for the world?

One *could* explain this by saying that Asia is buying, and the West, particularly London and New York, are selling.  And you could cast aspersions on the foolish Orientals for wasting their money on 'pet rocks.'  All of this has been done.

That is not the point.  The point is that there is such a phenomenon, it is valid, and it tells us something that some people apparently do not wish us to think about.

Given the opaque nature of the markets, and the lack of honest disclosure and discussion of what is happening, it is difficult to engage in reasoned arguments about this, especially when the sides quickly degenerate into hysteria, name calling, and all too often in search of headlines.

 It happens on both sides of the argument, although I will confess that the paid professionals are getting rather good at it, and may confound many.  Clever boys are well taken care of by this foul and rotten financial system.  Oh you think I exaggerate?  Where have you been the last ten years?

No, this situation will be resolved by a hard failure to deliver, and most likely in London or Switzerland. The last place I will look for a clear indication of the market is at the Comex, although as Hambro was suggesting it is likely to be significant collateral damage.  That is what he said.

And then when that tide goes out, we will see who is who and what is what. And we may have to wait awhile. But given that so many major markets have been proven to have been manipulated for the benefit of a few powerful firms, even though perhaps justice has not been done and settlements made without criminal admission, I think questioning the odd events and integrity of this particular market is certainly worthwhile in the light of its recent performance.

And for my own part, the arguments that seek to 'explain' the oddness in these markets are found to be wanting at the very least, and disingenuous in far too many. But I understand that one must do what their position requires.

So tell me fellows, is London well stocked relative to gold available AT THESE PRICES?  Are we secure in the knowledge that continuing levels of demand from 'Chindia' and elsewhere will be met AT THESE PRICES?    Is the true state of the Comex and the LBMA transparent to all market participants?

The total amount of ALL gold held by ALL market participants at ALL the Comex warehouses, whether it is on offer or not, is about 218 tonnes.  That is less than one month's demand for physical bullion in China and India and India alone.   And by far the vast majority of that gold is not for sale AT THESE PRICES.

And given the leverage of paper claims everywhere, not just Comex but at the more important LBMA, and one can see that a misstep by the gambling goofballs of Wall Street could lead to quite a messy market situation.  This also is what Peter Hambro said.

Oh no, they would NEVER overextend their positions in the quest for easy money.  Who could even think that?

It is good to keep a level head, and be guided by common sense.  And I think it is all too easy to fall into the habit of either shutting up and keeping your head down, or answering ridiculous excuses with equally ridiculous assertions, and so leave the poor bewildered investor in a state of confusion.

Let's recall what Kyle Bass, who is not so easily dismissed as a 'crank' had to say.

Gold Daily and Silver Weekly Charts - About Those Special Issue Bonds and Full Faith and Credit

I was expecting another 'hit' on the futures contracts around the May-June contract dates I have posted several times.

Perhaps the antics today will be all for now. Let's see what happens.

Someone said something unintentionally funny about the Social Security Trust Fund bonds and the reliability of the US government today that I ordinarily would ignore, but it may serve to illustrate a point.

This fellow seems to think that defaulting on the Social Security Trust would be fine and good, because 'the money is not there, it is spent.'

That can be said about almost ANY bond that is ever issued. The bonds are essentially instruments with certain terms backed by 'the full faith and credit' of the borrower, or some other designee. The money received for them is almost always 'spent' or in the case of a trust invested in some other instruments. That is the purpose of issuing the bond, whether they are for a retirement plan, a school, or a missile defense system!

In the case of Social Security there are two types of bonds that are now held, both 'special issue' meaning that they are not publicly marketed through the primary dealers. This is a bit of a change, in that the Trust formerly held both public and special issue bonds.

The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.

Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.

The Social Security trust funds hold money not needed in the current year to pay benefits and administrative costs and, by law, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.

You can see a listing the Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust here.

The key point is that the special issue bonds are not subordinate debt, or a secondary obligation, but fully guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Treasury. I have never actually held or read one of the bonds, but this is my understanding of it, and would accept detailed and specific language that shows that they are susceptible to selective default based on the wording of the bonds or a specific statute and not some interpretation of other documents.

Yes, the Congress can make changes to the Social Security System as they have done in the past, although they generally make those changes gradually, and set future dates for the changes. They have even denied a person in the past from collecting Social Security (Flemming vs. Nestor) because of the transgressions against the state, in this case a non-citizen who was deported for their activities in the Communist party at the height of the Red Scare. It is not a general precedent, and finds no application in general case law with which I am familiar, although I no longer have access to Lexus.  It will stand as a specifically narrow ruling so long as it is not challenged or expanded by some other case(s). That is how law of precedents works.

The government can also revoke your right to vote should you be convicted of a specific class of criminal offense. Does this mean that the government has broad powers to deny the right to vote to anyone it wishes for any reason, or that it can easily do so?

But the key point is that it does not really matter since this does not affect the underlying value and guarantees of the special issue bonds in the Trust fund which is the whole point of this. Not one bit. When it comes to the bonds, they are backed by 'the full faith and credit' of the Treasury, the same as any other bonds it issues.

And as such, they are no different than the bonds issued for public sale by the Treasury which are held by China in exchange for their own inputs for example. And this includes bonds of zero duration, which are Federal Reserve Notes.

What I find a little repugnant about some of the arguments about the Social Security Trust is that they are sometimes put forward by people who would like to see the obligations defaulted upon, in order to provide extra tax cuts to the wealthy for example.  That is a matter of policy and law going forward, and has nothing to do with the status of the special issue Bonds of the Treasury.  If some people wish to take from the old and the poor and give to the rich they will have to find some other justification than the value of the Special Issue Treasury Bonds.

By the way, this argument about the existence of the Trust Fund has its roots in the Bush II Administration.  Who would have guessed that?

"Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund – in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money – payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."

George W. Bush, February 9, 2005

It is not clear to me that Bush II understood what he was saying, understood the legal and economic issues and their implications, or really did not care.  If some politicians would like to say the money taken from the public and held in Trust is not there, that the bonds are a fraud and subject to default, then they ought to be able to say who stole it and when, because theft and betrayal it surely is, and as bad or worse than the theft of customer money from the accounts at MF Global, which similarly vaporized by unknown hands, or so they claim. 

And that hardly lends itself to trust, for who can have confidence in the full faith and credit of a thief and a betrayer of trusts, who goes so far as to rob the elderly and the disabled?   Is this the government of Washington, Jackson, Roosevelt, Jefferson and Lincoln?

How are the mighty fallen, and their oaths of duty and honor perished.

But these are all plays on words in the manner of Washington and the financiers. There is a Trust and it contains special issue bonds guaranteed by the Treasury.  Some confusion arises because they are not marketable bonds, which means that their value does not vary, and the Banks cannot get their mitts on them to take a piece of the action. So technically one might think that they are not assets. But they are liabilities and are included in the calculation of the public debt.

These comments were criticized as laying the groundwork for defaulting on almost two trillion dollars worth of US Treasury bonds, or more likely facilitating the transfer of the obligations of the Trust into private investments such as US equities. At the same time in 2005 Wall Street brokerage firms were lobbying heavily for the suspension of Social Security in favor of privately held retirement accounts, managed by them of course. George W. was most likely just reading the talking points for his constituents.

Fortunately it did not matter because the President has no power to default on the sovereign obligations in the Trust even by Executive Order; only the Congress has that power. And no matter what existential truthiness arguments pundits like George W. Bush would like to make to justify it, the action would be to declare a selective default on over two trillion in US government bond obligations.

But perhaps more important than the arbitrary respect for legality, the principle of the law of the markets is an impediment to be overcome. Creditors become very uneasy when they see an organization or government that starts to default on its sovereign obligations, particularly foreign holders of the debt who are often as disadvantaged in the local power structure as the weak and the old.

But the punchline of the whole thing was this. This person went on to suggest, in colloquial language, that indeed the bonds are obligations, but so are Greek bonds. And if you can't pay you can't pay.

In other words, US bonds backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the US government are no different than Greek bonds.  To that I might add, not yet, but give it some time.  lol

In one of the instances where I might agree with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), a sovereign issuer of its own currency never really has to default on its bonds, if the terms of payment are in their own currency, and they have the right and ability to create any amount of that currency which they wish. The US has this ability, and unfortunately for Greece they do not.

Where I disagree somewhat with MMT is that this is a bit of sophistry, a technical nicety. Yes, they may avoid a technical default on the longer duration bonds, but a sovereign issuer most certainly can and has defaulted on the value of their currency, or their bonds of zero duration in a fiat currency regime. In most cases it is a protracted erosion of value, and the US has been doing a good job of this for the past 75 years or so to say the least.

The only 'currencies' that do not bear such counterparty risk from the issuer, that do not rely on the full faith and credit of some issuing authority, are gold and silver. And this is why they have been used throughout history as such, because they are natural currencies from their very characteristics of durability and relative scarcity.

Governments can and have interfered with gold and silver, and made it their own, setting the value. They have even seized it in the past on some pretext. But they have also handed tickets to families and sent them to relocation camps as well. There is a chasm of difference between what can happen and what will likely happen, and what the possible responses to arbirary actions and even the oppression of tyranny might be

And there you have it. The case for the direct ownership of gold and silver, the only currencies that do not rely on the promise of a temporal government or entity, but stand by their own value from their very nature.

*Technical Note: When I refer to Federal Reserve Notes as government bonds of zero duration, one can consider that shorthand for 'government zero coupon bonds of unrestricted duration.' Thanks to Knukles for forcing me to the additional precision. lol.

Morgan Stanley: Government Defaults Inevitable

In addition to "It's different this time" and "Self sufficiency is an out-moded concept" one of the deadliest assumptions is "That can never happen here."

Morgan Stanley says what we have all known for some time. There will be government defaults of various types on debts which have become unmanageable.

As we see in a UK Telegraph story today, a report claims the Tories are placing the greatest pain in managing their budget gaps on the backs of the less well to do, presumably protecting their more well to do constituency. No surprise to anyone if it is true. And yet this may not be enough unless the economy recovers and the great mass of the public can regain some reasonable level of organic economic activity.

In the States, the uber wealthy will be spending large sums to lobby against new taxes, and even removing tax cuts that were known to be untenable, and based on false economic assumptions, at the time they were passed under Bush. Instead they will point to more broadly public and regressive taxes such as VATs, and seek to curtail public programs like Medicare and Social Security, while leaving their own subsidies and welfare, such as those in the financial sector and corporate and dividend tax breaks, sacrosanct.

In the US the broad mass of consumer have been the economy's golden goose, and after decades of median wage stagnation, neo-liberal economic policies, and overseas military expansions and expeditions, that goose looks cooked.

But at the end of the day this soft class warfare, despite its vicious hypocrisy and pettiness, is all intramurals, as the real defaults and debt reconciliation will most likely be in the form of artificially low bond rates accompanied by devaluations in the Western fiat currencies. I have been trying to figure out a way that a selective default could be accomplished, but have not quite muddled through that yet.

The limit of the Fed's and Treasury's ability to monetize the debt, which is a form of default through a true monetary inflation, is the value of the dollar and the bond. People who have never lived through it will begin to finally understand this in the days to come.

Bloomberg
Morgan Stanley Says Government Defaults Inevitable
By Matthew Brown
Aug 25, 2010 11:44 AM ET

Investors will face defaults on government bonds given the burden of aging populations and the difficulty of securing more tax revenue, according to Morgan Stanley.

“Governments will impose a loss on some of their stakeholders,” Arnaud Mares, an executive director at Morgan Stanley in London, wrote in a research report today. “The question is not whether they will renege on their promises, but rather upon which of their promises they will renege, and what form this default will take.” The sovereign-debt crisis is global “and it is not over,” the report said.

Borrowing costs for so-called peripheral euro-region nations such as Greece and Ireland surged today, resuming their ascent on concern that governments won’t be able to narrow their budget deficits. Standard & Poor’s downgraded Ireland’s credit rating yesterday on concern about the rising costs to support nationalized banks.

Mares said debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is a false indicator of an economy’s health given it doesn’t reflect governments’ available revenue and is “backward- looking.” While the U.S. government’s debt is 53 percent of GDP, one of the lowest ratios among developed nations, its debt as a percentage of revenue is 358 percent, one of the highest, the report said. Conversely, Italy has one of the highest debt- to-GDP ratios, at 116 percent, yet has a debt-to-revenue ratio of 188, Mares said.

Double Dip

“Outright sovereign default in large advanced economies remains an extremely unlikely outcome, in our view,” the report said. “But current yields and break-even inflation rates provide very little protection against the credible threat of financial oppression in any form it might take.”

Mares once worked at the U.K.’s Debt Management Office and is a former senior vice-president at credit-rating company Moody’s Investors Service.

“Note that a double-dip recession would not invalidate this conclusion,” Mares’ report said. “It would cause yet further damage to the governments’ power to tax, pushing them further in negative equity and therefore increasing the risks that debt holders suffer a larger loss eventually.”

Investors’ concern that the U.S. may fall back into recession has grown in recent weeks as U.S. economic data missed economists’ estimates. A Citigroup Inc. index of U.S. economic data surprises fell to minus 59 last week, the least since January 2009...

“The conflict that opposes bondholders to other government stakeholders is more intense than ever, and their interests are no longer sufficiently well-aligned with those of influential political constituencies,” such as elderly voters and their claims on pensions and health insurance, Mares wrote.

The Monetary Base During the Great Depression and Today

Economic commentator Marty Weiss has put out this chart with the somewhat florid headline, Bernanke Running Amuck

"Fed Chairman Bernanke is running amok, and for the first time since the birth of the U.S. dollar, our government is egregiously abusing its power to print money.

Specifically, from September 10, 2008 to March 10 of this year, he has increased the nation’s monetary base from $850 billion to $2.1 trillion — an irresponsible, irrational and insane increase of 2.5 times in just 18 months.

It is, by far, the greatest monetary expansion in U.S. history. And you must not underestimate its sweeping historical significance."

This chart with its editorial commentary are from Marty Weiss.



Here is a closer look at this monetary expansion, without the editorial comment



Is it without historical precedent? I wondered.

Let's take a look again at a prior period of dollar devaluation and monetary expansion in a period of deep recession, the period in the 1930's in which the US departed from specie currency to facilitate the radical expansion of the monetary base.



As you can see, the Federal Reserve increased the monetary base in several steps, resulting in an aggregate increase of about 155% in four years. In this chart above one can also nicely see the contraction in the monetary base, the tightening, that caused a dip again into recession in 1937.

It is also good to note that the recession ended and the economy was in recovery prior to the start of WW II, which I would tend to mark from Hitler's invasion of Poland in August, 1939. There was a military buildup in Britain before then, but I believe that the common assumption that only the World War could have ended the Great Depression was mistaken.

If real GDP is any indication, the recovery of the economy was underway, but somewhat anemic compared to its prior levels, reflected in a slow decline in unemployment. It is absolutely essential to remember that the US had become a major exporting power in the aftermath of the first World War. The decline therefore of world trade with the onset of the Depression hit the US particularly hard. But the recovery was underway, until the Fed dampened it with a premature monetary contraction that brought the country back into recession, a full eight years after the great crash. Such is the power of economic bubbles to distort the productive economy and foster pernicious malinvestment.



What prolonged the Depression in the US was the Federal Reserve's preoccupation with inflation that caused it to prematurely contract the money supply. In addition, the Supreme Court overturned most of the New Deal employment programs before the economy had fully recovered from the shock of the Crash of 1929, and the severe damage inflicted by liquidationism on the financial system and the real economy. One can hardly appreciate today the impact of repeated banking failures, with no recourse or insurance, on the public confidence.

It is instructive to look at the Consumer Price Index for that period of time to see what was motivating the Fed.



It is fair to say that the Fed made several policy errors out of a fear of inflation. Keep in mind that it was only 1933 that the Fed had been freed of the gold standard, and there was tremendous pressure from the monied interests to maintain a strong currency, as we can see, to a fault. The public interest was sacrificed to protect the pre-Crash gains of the wealthy.

The US economy had a more difficult time adjusting to the collapse and the Depression because it had been a net exporting nation in the 1920's. The decline in markets for its exports, and the constrictions in international trade symbolized in the US by the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, affected it much more than other nations that had been net importers, and which exited the Depression earlier.

With the collapse of its export business, the US would have been well-advised to stimulate its domestic markets, to help take up the slack and help to rebalance its productive capacity. In this case, domestic liquidationism was exactly the wrong thing to do. This, by the way, is why the Wall Street money men starting looking at foreign direct investments in the domestic production of recovering economies such as Germany and Italy in the late 1930's. Indeed, the search for profit was so compelling that several of the money houses, and famous men, did not stop investing with the Nazis until they were prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy laws.

This provides an instructive example to the exporters German and China in this modern crisis perhaps. Now is the time for them to stimulate domestic markets. China must create internal markets, and Germany best try and hold the EU together and keep it healthy.

Japan is in a much more difficult circumstance because of its particular demographics and cultural homogeneity. I see no way out for them in the short term.

Here is what the monetary base did during World War II. As one can easily see, war is bad for people but good for industrial output and monetary expansion.



Expansion of the monetary base during the war was nothing short of astonishing, if one forgets that there was a significant monetization of war debts occurring, and there was less opportunity for inflation because of rationing and wage and price controls. But inflation there was, and it gained a significant leg up after the War.



Here is our real GDP chart extended through the War so one can more easily see the build up and then the flattening of growth post War.



Where Do We Go From Here?

The status quo has failed in its own imbalances and artificial distortions. But while avoiding bubbles in the first place through fiscal responsibility and restraint is certainly the right thing to do, plunging a country which is in the aftermath of a bubble collapse into a hard regime, such as the liquidationists might prescribe, is somewhat like taking a patient which has just had a heart attack and throwing them on a rigorous treadmill regimen. After all, running is good for them and if they had run in the first place they might not have had a heart attack, so let's have them run off that heart disease right now. Seems like common sense, but common sense does not apply to dogmatically inclined schools of thought.

What the US needs to do now is reform its financial system and balance its economy, which means shrinking the financial sector significantly as compared to its real productive economy. This is going to be difficult to do because it will require rebuilding the industrial base and repairing infrastructure, and increasing the median wage.

The US needs to relinquish the greater part of its 720 military bases overseas, which are a tremendous cash drain. It needs to turn its vision inward, to its own people, who have been sorely neglected. This is not a call to isolationism, but rather the need to rethink and reorder ones priorities after a serious setback. Continuing on as before, which is what the US has been trying to so since the tech bubble crash, obviously is not working.

The oligarchies and corporate trusts must be broken down to restore competition in a number of areas from production to finance to the media, and some more even measure of wealth distribution to provide a sustainable equilibrium. A nation cannot endure, half slave and half free. And it surely cannot endure with two percent of the people monopolizing fifty percent of the capital. I am not saying it is good or bad. What I am saying is that historically it leads to abuse, repression, stagnation, reaction, revolution, renewal or collapse. All very painful and disruptive to progress. Societies are complex and interdependent, seeking their own balance in an ebb and flow of centralization and decentralization of power, the rise and fall of the individual. Some societies rise to great heights, and suffer great falls, never to return. Where is the glory that was Greece, the grandeur that was Rome?

The lesser concern for the US now is globalization, new trade agreements, and its debt, which is largely held by foreigners who have provided vendor financing while using exports to build their own economies. The mercantilists are addicted to exports because it provides them the means to bring in national wealth for the benefit of a narrow elite, without empowering the masses and allowing them a greater measure of say in their government, with only a modestly improved standard of living.

This Will Not Be Your Father's Inflation

Why is this important? Because as I think is apparent in the stunning chart contained in Debt Saturation in the US Dollar Economy, the US dollar is already entering an inflationary spiral that will lead to its destruction and reissuance.



Although as you know I always allow that deflation and inflation are policy decisions, at some point a threshold can be passed, and the likelihood of one event or the other becomes more compelling. The US is at that crossroads wherein it must change, or go down the painful path of selective monetary default, of a degree different than a hyperinflation, more similar to that which was seen in the former Soviet Union, than the monetary implosion of a Weimar.

One can watch the growth of the traditional or even innovative money supply figures, and be reassured at their nominal levels, only to misunderstand that money has a character and quantity of backing, that can erode as surely as the supply of money can increase, to produce a type of inflation that comes upon a nation quickly, like a thief in the night. It will bear the appearance of stagflation, because it is caused by a degeneration of the productive economy coupled with a disproportionately increasing money supply.

A transactional economy can have all the appearance of vital growth and activity, when in fact it may be an increasingly hollow shell, a Ponzi scheme, and prone to unexpected collapse. Such a systemic collapse was almost witnessed when the US financial system was threatened by the fall of Lehman Brothers. That event was averted. But the system still remains in a precarious, unreformed state of imbalance.

What does a country have to providing a backing to its money, except its natural resources, its productive labor, and the ability to create products of value? Some countries, or more properly empires, may provide the backing for their currency through force and fraud, and a sort of indirect or de facto taxation on the many. These types of arrangements can last many years, but can disappear quickly, based as they are on conditional situations, subject to relatively sudden change.

Cutting expenses to reduce deficits is a weak attempt to reform. One does not starve themselves back to health. What is needed is growth, savings and investment, the reallocation of capital and true valuation of goods and services. The productive economy must come back into balance with the administrative sectors, those being finance and government.

At the end of the day, some of the greatest impediments to economic recovery reside in the selfish and fearful desire for control and power in rather narrow oligarchies, both in the East and the West. They were the primary beneficiaries of the status quo, and they will seek to maintain and even recreate it, even though it has proven to be unsustainable.