The Last Time the Feds Devalued the Dollar to Save the Banks

The Last Time the Feds Devalued the Dollar to Save the Banks
14 January 2009

We dipped once again into the Federal Reserve Bulletin Publication from June, 1934 to take a closer look at the growth of the monetary base, and found an interesting graphic that shows the accounting for the January 1934 devaluation of the dollar and the subsequent result on Bank Reserves in the Federal Reserve System.

As you will recall, the Gold Act, or more properly Executive Order 6102 of April 5, 1933, required Americans to surrender their gold coinage and certificates to the Federal Reserve Banks by May 1, 1933. There were no prosecutions for non-compliance except one benchmark case which was brought voluntarily by a person who wished to challenge the act in court.

After a substantial portion of the gold was turned in by US citizens and taken from their bank based safe deposit boxes, the government officially devalued the dollar from 20.67 to 35.00 per ounce in the Gold Reserve Act of January 31, 1934.

The proceeds from this devaluation were used to provide a significant boost to the Federal Reserve member bank positions as shown in the first chart below.

The inflation visited on the American people because of this action helped to take the CPI as it was then measured up 1200 basis points from about -8% to +4% by the end of 1933. To somewhat offset the monetary inflation the Fed also contracted the Monetary Base which served the nascent recovery in the real economy rather poorly and is viewed widely as one of a series of policy errors.

Considering that the actions did little for the employment situation this was painful medicine indeed to those who were dependent on wages.



Fortunately at the same time FDR was initiating the New Deal programs which, despite continual opposition from a Republican minority in Congress, managed to provide a small measure of relief for the 20+% public that was suffering from unemployment and wage stagnation.

People ask frequently "Will the government seize gold again?"

While there is no certainty involved in anything if a government begins to overturn the law and seize private property, one has to ask for the context and details first to understand what happened and why, to understand the precedent.

Technically, the government did not engage in a pure seize of private property, since at that time the US was on the gold standard, and much of the gold holdings of US citizens were in the form of gold coinage and certificates.

Governments always make the case that the currency is their property and that the user is merely holding it as a medium of exchange. The foundation of the argument was that the government required to recall its gold to strengthen the backing of the US dollar against the net outflows of gold for international trade. The devaluation helped with this as well, since dollars brought less gold for trade balances.

People also ask, "Why didn't the government just revalue the dollar without trying to recall all the gold from the American public?"

The answer would seem to be that this would have been more just, more equitable recompense for the public. The Treasury could have purchased gold from the public to support its foreign trade needs.

But it would have left much less liquidity for the banks.

One can make a better case that the recall of the gold, with the subsequent revaluation to benefit a small segment of the population in the Banks, was a form of seizure of wealth without due compensation. Hence the lack of active prosecutions.

So, will the government take back gold again to save the banks by devaluing the dollar?

Highly unlikely, because they not only do not need to this, since the dollar is no longer backed by gold, and is a form of secular property except perhaps for gold eagles, but they do not have to, because they are devaluing the dollar already to save the banks.

This time the confiscation of wealth to save the banks is called TARP.

If one thinks about it, US Dollars are being created and provided directly to the banks to boost their free reserves significantly, at a scale comparable and beyond to 1933-34.

The confiscation of wealth is being spread among all holders of US dollars and dollar assets, foreign and domestic, in the more subtle form of monetary inflation.

Granted, the government must be more opaque to mask their actions in order to sustain confidence in the dollar while the devaluation occurs, but this is exactly what is happening, and all that is required to happen in a fiat regime.

There is no need to seize widely held exogenous commodities like gold and oil, but merely dampen any bellwether signals that a significant devaluation of the dollar is once gain being perpetrated on the American people in order to save the banks.

Its fascinating to look carefully at this next chart below.



First, notice the big drop in gold in circulation of 9.8 million ounces, or roughly 36% of the measured inventory at the end of 1932. Think someone was front-running the dollar devaluation? We suspect that the order went out to start pulling in the gold stock to the banks.

The reduction in gold in circulation AFTER the announcement of the Gold Act in April would be about 3.9 million ounces, or roughly 22% of the gold remaining in circulation in March 1933.

Considering that all gold coinage held by banks in the vaults was automatically seized, the voluntary compliance rate is not all that impressive. We are not sure how much of this was being held in overseas hands by non-US entities.

But beyond a doubt, there was a unjust, if not illegal, seizure of wealth by requiring citizen to turn in their gold to the banks, which was then revalued at the beginning of 1934 by 69% from 20.67 to 35 dollars.

It would have been much more equitable to devalue the dollar and to change the basis for dollar/gold first, before requiring private citizens to surrender their holdings. But of course, this would have lessened the liquidity available for direct infusion into the Federal Reserve banks.

Chicago Fed Says Take Interest Rates "Below Zero" and Monetize Debt (to Devalue Dollar)

Quantitative easing to mimic interest rates 'below zero' effectively penalizes the buyers of US bonds and dollar savings by providing a negative rate of return after inflation.

Inflation is desirable if you are a net debtor and you control the value of the method of your payment, ie. cheaper dollars to pay off service your debt.

We have to wonder how well negative real interest rates will support the enormous increase in the supply of Treasury debt that is coming to market this year because of a soaring national debt of about two trillion dollars.

The obvious target buyers are the exporting countries such as OPEC, Japan and China. We also suspect the Fed will start buying the yield curve, quietly and indirectly if not transparently.

Other central banks, such as Europe, will be expected to follow suit and devalue their own currencies through lower rates, to decrease the perceived impact of a dollar devaluation, in a group 'ratcheting down' of the developed nations' currencies.

This will require 'management' of the price of real things like commodities. Fortunately the price for most of them is set in London and New York. Life is tough for an exporting nation when you are riding the dollar reserve currency regime and an industrial policy of 'beggar your people' to support it.

The boundary constraint on the Fed in a purely fiat regime is the value of the US dollar and the Treasury debt. Greenspan's Fed managed to inflate its way out of the tech crash of 2000-2 with bubbles in equities and housing prices, a significant dollar devaluation, but an amazingly resilient bond thanks to official buying by a few foreign central banks.

Alan Greenspan famously stated, in a repudiation of his earlier views while responding to Congressman Ron Paul, that a fiat dollar as the reserve currency is viable because "the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard and...the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending."

We expect to see Bernanke and the Congress test the limits of monetary and Keynesian economic theory again this year, and the acceptance of the US dollar and fiat currencies as a faux gold standard, as being of the utmost integrity and impartiality, immutable and nationless.

We tend to remain skeptical of the outcome however, keeping in mind the words of George Bernard Shaw, "You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold."

The major challenge for the governments of the world for the remainder of this decade, other than blowing us all to pieces, will be to create a viable alternative to the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and a major vehicle for international trade.

This could be one for the record books.



Reuters
Evans says Fed needs to mimic below-zero rates
By Ros Krasny
Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:18pm EST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A grim economic outlook highlights the need for the Federal Reserve to step up quantitative measures to boost growth, with official interest rates already effectively at zero, Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, said on Saturday.

Evans said that based on the outlook for rising unemployment, falling industrial production and a wider output gap, economic models suggest rates should be below zero.

"If it were not constrained by zero, those models would want to push it below zero, but that's not possible," Evans told reporters after a panel at the American Economic Association's meeting in San Francisco.

Quantitative easing, a way to flood the banking system with large amounts of money, "is a way to mimic below-zero rates and provide support to the economy," he said. (They would intend to create a monetary inflation to take the 'real rate' below zero. "Quantitative Easing" is Fedspeak for "printing money." - Jesse)

The process often involves buying up large quantities of assets from banks, such as the Fed's latest programs to buy mortgage-backed securities. (This is known as "monetizing debt." - Jesse)

In December, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed's policy-setting body, took the surprising step of lowering the federal funds rate to a range of zero to 0.25 percent. Cash fed funds had been trading below the previous 1 percent target rate for several weeks.

In his remarks, Evans, who is a voting member of the FOMC in 2009, said the Fed's various lending programs should help cushion the impact of the year-old U.S. recession but a large traditional fiscal stimulus plan is also needed, even with the problems it could create over the longer term.

"I believe a big stimulus is appropriate," Evans said. "But it is sobering to be deploying large amounts of taxpayer funds at a time when our fiscal balance sheet is already coming under significant stress."

Without the Fed's programs to help unfreeze credit markets and to-the-bone rate cuts, "the downturn -- and its costs to society -- would be even more severe than what we are currently facing," said Evans.

Since the financial market crisis erupted, the Fed has created several new programs aimed at bypassing the traditional banking system and smashing through the credit-market logjam, including the direct purchase of mortgage-backed securities.

Even so, the U.S. jobless rate appears on pace to exceed 8 percent in 2009, from the most recent reading of 6.7 percent in November, Evans said.

Although the current recession started with the collapse of the U.S. housing market, Evans said many non-financial industries now face the risk of "long-term structural impairment." (It was the Fed's reflationary effort after the Crash of 2000-2 that created the housing bubble. - Jesse)

Evans said fiscal programs to support growth "must be large in order to be effective and to instill badly needed confidence" given the severity of the downturn. (We have an intuition that the Congress will meaningfully explore the concept of 'large' government programs - Jesse)

President-elect Barack Obama has said that signing a major economic stimulus package will be his first priority when he takes office on January 20, with a goal of creating 3 million jobs over two years.

Evans also said the market crisis that erupted in 2007 showed huge holes in financial regulation.

"Significant weaknesses have been revealed in our system of financial regulation. ... These failures call for a reassessment of the roles of market discipline and our regulatory structures," he said

US Equities Are Short Term Overbought - Watch Treasuries and VIX for a 'Tell'

With the McClellan Oscillator, although the reading is now at an extreme high, it will be the character of the decline from the extreme that will tell us if we are going to get a sideways consolidation or a serious decline for the first month of the new year.



The Bullish Percent is running in neutral, although the SP is at a high reading in its channel. IF the indicators turn lower and break down then we will see a correction lower, and perhaps a major decline.



There is an abnormally large amount of money hiding in Treasuries. If this starts coming out of the safe havens and into stocks we may see follow through. Keep an eye on the yield curve, especially the longer end.

Corporate profit forecasts have not fully discounted the severity of the recession. On the bullish side, the Fed is pouring money into the economy, as noted in the Adjusted Monetary Base.

If they do manage to trigger a sustained rally it may be sharp. There was a significant rally after the Crash of 1929. However, we don't expect this until later in the first quarter, and it will be met with waves of selling and a new low unless the Fed can do something truly exceptional.

We like ot use the January Indicator if its a down month, because the correlation to a predictable result is higher.

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.