|

"This currency, as we manage it,
is a wonderful machine. It performs its office when we issue it; it pays
and clothes troops, and provides victuals and ammunition; and when we are
obliged to issue a quantity excessive, it pays itself off by depreciation."
~ Ben Franklin, April 1779
These
words, spoken by one of America’s founding fathers acknowledges, one of
the privileges of government: access to the monetary printing press. In June 22,
1775, the Continental Congress issued two million dollars on bills of
credit. As the Continental Congress began making preparations for war with
England, it needed a source of revenue to help pay for the coming conflict.
Since taxation was a root of the conflict, raising taxes wasn’t even
considered. Instead, Congress resolved to pay for the war through the
issuance of paper money. In essence Congress did what governments have
done throughout all of history, which was to debase the currency through
the issuance of excess quantities of money. The first Great American
Inflation was about to begin.
|

Source: Scott Trask,
"Inflation
and the American Revolution," Mises.org
|
Paul
Revere made the plates to issue the new currency and a committee of
28 individuals, which included Benjamin Franklin, had the responsibility
for signing and issuing the new money. Initial issuance was two
million dollars. As with all paper currencies, which have no backing, it was
never enough. Congress immediately began to crank up the printing
press. In theory the States were supposed to enact taxes to retire
the bills.
|
Since
taxes were unpopular with the people, the States never raised them. This
left the government with no choice but to issue ever-increasing amounts of
money. The result is illustrated in the table above.
From its origination in June of 1775, the aggregate amount of bills in
circulation rose to $241,000,000.
The
immediate result was that the paper currency began to depreciate in value.
“In January, 1781, Captain Allan McLane paid $600 for a pair of boots
and $10 for a skein of thread.”
From its original printing in June 1775, the Continental dollar had
lost over 66% of its value by the following year. To combat a depreciating
currency, the States made the new paper currency legal tender for all
debts and purchases. They enforced the new currency with price controls
and instituted fines for refusal of acceptance as legal tender. As the government
printed ever-larger amounts of money, they enacted laws making it a crime
to refuse payment, to charge lower prices for specie, and to demand a premium
for payment in paper. However, this did not stop inflation. Individuals
took evasive action.

Source: Prof.
Robert C. Sahr, Political Science Dept., Oregon State Univ., used with
permission
Farmers
refused to grow crops, leaving the government and its army to impressments
(seizing property for public service or use). Those impressed altered their behavior by hiding crops,
livestock, horses, and machinery; anything that could avoid their being
confiscated through the forced sale by government officials.
By the
beginning of 1780 the government realized the jig was up. By then it had
issued $241 million in Continental dollars. The States had issued $209
million of their own notes. Additional millions had been issued through
counterfeiting by the British and private individuals. In the end the
government was forced to call on the States to retire the debt by issuing
taxes payable in paper or specie; specie being defined as one silver
dollar, which was equal to $40 in taxes. The government had learned that
there was a limit to the amount of debasement an economy or a populace
could withstand. Despite the government's best efforts to force its will upon the people,
the people found an end means around these controls; from barter and hoarding
of goods to the use of alternative money.
Government
officials, including Mr. Franklin, continued to defend the practice. For the
remainder of the war Congress continued to issue paper money, albeit at a
slower pace. In Franklin’s words as noted in my introduction, the issuance of paper money was a
”wonderful machine" as it allowed the government to pay its bills
without enacting taxes. From the birth of this nation to the present, the government would from time-to-time resort to debasement of the
currency in time of war or in time of economic duress. We find it always
ends with the
same consequences: debasement of the currency and concomitant inflation.
Despite the best efforts of government alchemists, the result is always
the same in the end – inflation.

Source: Prof.
Robert C. Sahr, Political Science Dept., Oregon State Univ., used with
permission
Fast
forward 230 years later and we find the same mistakes made by government.
We now have another Ben in charge of the nation’s money. Like his
predecessor, Mr. Franklin, our current Ben has a similar philosophy. The two
Bens could have exchanged places with each other and given the same
speech.
“Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the
extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But there U.S. government
has a technology, called a printing press ( or, today, its electronic
equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes
at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of dollars in
circulation, or even credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government
can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services,
which is the equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods
and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined
government can always generate higher spending and hence positive
inflation.” ~ Ben S. Bernanke
Our
present “Ben” was acknowledging an irrefutable law of money. This law
is better known as the “Quantity Theory of Money.” Under the
“Quantity Theory of Money” and under a system of fiat money as we
have today, the supply of money can be increased to any amount the
government desires. The historical tendency of government is to accelerate
the quantity of money in circulation as a means of covering government’s
voracious appetite for expenditures. What isn’t feasible under a system
of taxation is made up through money creation. The only limit to the
quantity of money created is the destruction of its value. If a
government creates too much money, it has the risk that debasement runs
ahead of the government printing presses. At that point money ceases to be
accepted as a means of payment. The result is it loses its character as
money. In the end the government's counterfeiting scheme is exposed and
stopped.
In his
book “What has Government Done to Our
Money,” Murray N. Rothbard
describes the ultimate outcome of such practices: "With fiat money established and gold
outlawed, the way is clear for full-scale, government-run inflation. Only
one very broad check remains: the ultimate threat of hyper-inflation, the
crack-up of the currency. Hyper-inflation occurs when the public realizes
that the government is bent on inflation, and decides to evade the
inflationary tax on its resources by spending money as fast as possible
while it still retains some value. Until hyper-inflation sets in, however,
government can now manage the currency and the inflation undisturbed.”
One of the ways
government manages inflation is through ignorance of money. By obfuscation
the government creates the impression that inflation is caused by elements other than its own money-printing. I covered this issue in my “Great
Inflation” piece written in the fall of 2004. Perhaps a part of this
bears repeating below.
WHAT CAUSES INFLATION?
Ask any person today what
causes inflation and they will tell you that it is rising prices. Like
many issues on money, the inflation issue is clouded and confused. That is
because the inflationists want it that way. By focusing attention on
rising prices, it takes the attention away from the cause, which is
excess money creation. Instead, all of the attention is focused on the symptoms
of the disease rather than the root of it.
There are only three ways
that prices can rise. The most important influences are as follows:
-
The
supply of money and credit
-
Supply
of goods and services
-
Demand
for goods and services
Prices can increase by:
-
Increasing
the supply of money
-
A
decrease in the supply of goods and services
-
An
increase in demand, i.e. population increase
Conversely, prices can
decrease by the same three measures when:
-
The
supply of money declines
-
The
supply of goods and services increases
-
Demand
decreases
These are the only three
ways that prices can increase or decline.
There is very little
understanding of where inflation comes from or where it originates. Most
individuals define inflation as rising prices. They speak about symptoms
rather than cause. If inflation is simply rising prices, then what causes
it? You’ll find that inflation is attributed to many sources—none of
which are accurate. The common misperceptions by policymakers and the
public is that inflation has three principal causes:
-
Cost-push
inflation as a result of arbitrary demands of labor unions.
-
Profit-push
inflation resulting from the greed of businesses raising prices.
-
Crisis-driven
inflation resulting from acts of God or weather.
The general belief that
inflation is the result of something other than its true cause makes it
hard to understand and resolve. Most people believe that inflation is
conspiratorial such as OPEC raising crude oil prices, businessmen wanting
to make higher profits, or unions looking to enhance worker benefits and
pay. Somehow inflation has become an evil caused by greedy individuals and
businesses. To most people inflation has become a causeless phenomenon
inexplicable and born of ill will.
LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT
Definition
There is irrefutable
evidence that government is the source of all inflation. An undue increase
in the quantity of money is what stands behind a rise in prices. The
source of all money or credit is government. Thinking of inflation only in
terms of rising prices is similar to looking at the symptoms of a disease
rather than the disease itself. A more exact definition of inflation would
be an increase in the quantity of
money and credit relative to available goods resulting in a substantial
and continuing rise in the general price level, an increase in the
quantity of money caused by government.
You will notice that this
definition doesn’t say anything about cost-push, profit-push, or
crisis-push inflation. It simply states that the supply of money expands
leading to higher prices. It is the expansion of money and not rising
prices that leads to inflation. This also points to the real cause
behind inflation as government intervention in the economy and financial
system by expanding the supply of money and credit in the system.
Formula
When the government
increases the supply of money and credit in the economy, it increases
demand for goods leading to higher prices. Higher demand or lower supply
is the only conceivable cause of higher prices. It can be demonstrated by
the formula below: [Price Level = Demand/Supply]
P
= Dc
Sc
To expand and elaborate
on this formula, we must add a time factor, which is how long and
how fast the holders of money decide to make it available. Lord John
Maynard Keynes referred to this as “liquidity preference,” or how much
and how long the holders of money liked to keep it on hand. The reverse of
this is called the velocity of money, which measures the volume of
purchases relative to the supply of money. Money velocity is the hardest
to understand because it is dictated by psychological factors. The volume
of spending within an economic system is not only determined by the supply
of money, but also by the demand for money. The greater the demand for
money, the greater is the preference to hold it. (Keynes’ liquidity
preference) The smaller demand there is for money, the less preference
there is by holders of money to want to hold or store it. Simply put, the
greater the demand for money, the lower the velocity and the smaller the
demand to hold money, the greater the velocity.
When individuals decide
not to hold money and instead have a preference to spend it, the velocity
of money increases. Likewise, when there are desires to hold money instead
of spend it, the velocity of money decreases. Therefore,
to our quantity theory of money, we must add velocity to the
equation. The new formula for price levels can then be stated as follows:

The new equation shows
that the general level of prices moves in direct proportion to the
quantity of money and its velocity. Price levels move in inverse
proportion to the aggregate supply of real values. If money velocity is
held constant, then price levels will depend on the quantity of money.
It is only when people begin to distrust money and feel that the security
of their money is being threatened that money velocity increases. When the
value of money is insecure, the demand for it falls. There is less
of a desire to hold it because its value is depreciating. People dispose
of their money and find a replacement for it in tangible goods that are real.
The desire to own commodities or real goods increases because these
goods represent a better source for meeting future cash needs.
During the latter stages
of inflation, money velocity increases because people no longer have faith
in their currency. As shown in the chart below, the depreciation of the
Reichmark increased as the supply of money expanded as did money velocity.
Money velocity is a direct reflection of the degree of confidence that
people have in their currency. A sharp increase in velocity normally takes
places during the final stages of an inflationary crisis.

INFLATION IS HERE IN 2005
This
brings us back to where we are today. Once again inflation is on the rise.
Through September the PPI was up 6.7% year-over-year, while the CPI was up
by 4.7% over the same period. Even worse for Americans, who now import more
of what they consume, import prices are up 9.9% over the last 12 months.
|
PRODUCER,
CONSUMER AND IMPORT PRICES
(Composite Results & Annual PPI, CPI
Results)
|
| Month/Year |
Producer
Price Index |
Consumer
Price Index |
Import
Prices |
| Y/Y |
L3Mos* |
Y/Y |
L3Mos* |
Y/Y |
L3Mos* |
| 09/05 |
6.7% |
14.8% |
4.7% |
9.4% |
9.9% |
20.5% |
| 08/05 |
5.1% |
6.1% |
3.6% |
4.2% |
7.9% |
15.3% |
| 07/05 |
4.6% |
1.8% |
3.1% |
1.9% |
8.2% |
6.4% |
| 06/05 |
3.6% |
-0.5% |
2.5% |
1.9% |
7.4% |
5.3% |
| 05/05 |
3.6% |
3.2% |
2.8% |
4.4% |
5.9% |
9.4% |
| 04/05 |
4.7% |
6.7% |
3.5% |
6.2% |
8.4% |
17.1% |
| 03/05 |
5.0% |
5.4% |
3.2% |
4.3% |
7.6% |
15.4% |
| 02/05 |
4.7% |
1.1% |
2.9% |
1.7% |
6.1% |
0.0% |
| 01/05 |
4.2% |
2.1% |
2.9% |
1.3% |
5.7% |
-4.5% |
| 09/04 |
3.3% |
1.9% |
2.5% |
0.6% |
8.2% |
9.8% |
|
Source:
www.gillespieresearch.com
*Trailing three-month compound annual rate of change. |
Given
the fact that the PPI & CPI numbers are inherently understated through
statistical manipulation, it is hard to ignore the fact that inflation is
on the rise. However, the chorus on its rise is being blamed on
something other than its cause. The political and financial media are
focusing on the symptoms rather than the root of inflation; excess money
and credit created by government and its central bank, the Federal
Reserve. Instead of excess money and credit, the blame for today's
inflation is placed on greedy
oil companies and acts of nature (Katrina, Rita & Wilma). We have
official acknowledgement of inflation, but the blame as been shifted
elsewhere.
|

Source: John
Williams, Shadow
Government Statistics
|
Until recently, rising prices have been dismissed as an aberration caused
by temporary events such as rising oil prices or the damaging effects of
hurricanes. Washington and Wall Street try to divert attention away from
rising prices by constantly referring to the “core rate,” a
meaningless number that bears no resemblance to the price increases facing
the average American. The “core rate” [Reference
article] is a fictitious
number that has been striped of life’s necessities such as eating,
heating, cooling, turning on the lights, driving to and from work, and the costs of owning a home. Even if we look at the gross numbers contained
within PPI or CPI, they are distorted by hedonics, owner’s equivalent
rent, seasonal adjustments, or geometric weighting that purposefully
understates the true rate of inflation. |
Today the true rate of inflation
is running well over 7% as shown in the chart above by John Williams. Williams maintains
the CPI index as
it was originally constructed before the government began to tinker with
the index. The pre-Clinton CPI portrays a different picture than the
numbers popularly bantered around by the press. It more closely relates to
what most Americans experience daily in their lives.
As the
price of oil rises and inflation surfaces throughout the economy with rising medical premiums, rising gasoline costs, utility
and
college tuition increases, there are cries for government to do something about it.
We have now reached the point where the public realizes that
inflation is on the rise. We have passed the point where it is
considered temporary. Inflation psychology is taking hold and that is what
worries the Fed. If that psychology gets out of hand, confidence in the
currency diminishes and along with it, the government’s ability to
contain inflation without taking drastic action that could imperil the economy
and the financial markets.
|
Inflation
Rates For Selected High-Frequency Spending Items
% Change in Consumer Prices: August 2004 to August 2005 |
| Gasoline |
31.3 |
Movies
and Theatre Tickets |
3.7 |
| Gas
and Electricity |
7.6 |
Tax
and Accounting Services |
3.7 |
| Sporting
Tickets |
7.4 |
Prescription
Drugs |
3.5 |
| College
Tuition |
7.3 |
Vehicle
Repair |
3.2 |
| Delivery
Services |
6.3 |
Cable
and Satellite |
3.1 |
| Veterinary
Services |
5.8 |
Physician
Services |
3.1 |
| Parking |
5.3 |
Hotels |
2.6 |
| Cigarettes |
5.2 |
Personal
Care Services |
2.6 |
| Dental
Services |
5.1 |
Laundry
Services |
2.4 |
| Repair
of Household Items |
5.0 |
Newspapers
and Magazines |
2.3 |
| Child
Care and Nursery |
4.4 |
Food |
2.2 |
| Intracity
Transport |
4.4 |
Alcohol |
1.8 |
| Legal
Services |
4.1 |
Telephone
Services |
-1.0 |
|
Source:
International Bank Credit Analyst, BCAResearch,
October 2005, p. 12 |
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
In
typical and predictable fashion there are cries for government to do
something about it. So the fox is being put in charge of the henhouse.
Proposals are surfacing everywhere. Two of the suggestions are to apply a
windfall profits tax on the greedy oil companies and to impose price controls on the products they sell.
U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) plans to introduce a bill that would
impose higher taxes on oil companies once prices rise above $40 a barrel.
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has recently called for a $20 billion tax on oil
companies to help fund alternatives and help boost funding for the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Out of ignorance of what
causes inflation or what causes higher oil prices, the public is calling
for a solution. Public opinion polls show that 4 in 5 Americans want a
windfall profits tax on “Big Oil.”
Is
Fair Share Fair?
On the
day this was written ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Microsoft all reported
third quarter profits. Exxon Mobil reported sales of $100 billion and
profits of $9.9 billion. ConocoPhillips reported sales of $49.7 billion
and profits of $3.8 billion. Microsoft reported that sales rose to $9.7
billion and profits rose to $3.14 billion. ExxonMobil earned a 9.9%
return on sales; ConocoPhillips earned a net return on sales of 7.65%.
Microsoft’s profits reflect a return of 32.2% on sales.
| Company |
Sales
(B) |
Profits
(B) |
Return
on Sales |
| ExxonMobil |
$100 |
$9.00 |
9.90% |
| ConocoPhillips |
$49.7 |
$3.80 |
7.65% |
| Microsoft |
$9.7 |
$3.14 |
32.2% |
The rise in
ExxonMobil’s and ConocoPhillips' profits promptly called for a windfall
profits tax to be imposed on the oil companies. Microsoft’s profits of
32.2% on sales called for no similar action nor were there calls for
windfall profits taxes on homebuilders, banks, and other technology
companies who all reported higher profits on sales. The oil companies have
become the government’s new whipping boy for government-created
inflation. The object of course is distraction and shifting the blame.
The
Blame-Shifters
On
hearing of ExxonMobil’s profits, Senate majority leader Bill Frist said
oil company executives will be called to testify at a hearing on the
reasons of high energy prices. House majority leader Dennis Hastert pleaded
with oil companies to find new sources of oil, natural gas, and build new
refineries. On the same day a partisan fight in the Senate doomed a new
federal incentive to increase the nation’s oil refinery capacity for at
least another year. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee deadlocked 9-9 over a Republican
proposal that would streamline federal and state permit procedures for
companies that want to build refineries or expand plants. Eight Democrats
and one Republican voted to block the measure. A Democratic strategist
said the Democrats see political opportunities in recent announcements of
high oil company profits and plan on using it as an election issue in next
year's congressional races.
As we
see inflation's inexorable rise, there are further cries by an uninformed
public for government to fix it. The exact programs that are called for
today—a windfall profits tax, price controls, and various taxes—were tried
before with disastrous results. They led to gas lines, shortages, higher
energy prices and greater dependence on foreign oil. “The United States
has tried this before, between 1980 and 1987, and the results were hugely
counterproductive, according to a 1990 Congressional Research Service
report. The WPT reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent,
and increased oil imports from 8 and 16 percent,“ says the report.
“This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil."
INFLATION / DEFLATION
It should be
crystal clear by now. Higher prices at the pump and at the supermarket are
not inflation. They are simply symptoms and not the cause. The rise in
oil prices because of tight supply and greater demand has nothing to do
with inflation. The same with rising food prices, which are dependent on
global demand, weather, and the success of the year’s harvest. Inflation has and always will be a monetary event brought on by government
and its central banks. It is caused by an expansion in the quantity of
money. Deflation is caused by a contraction of the supply of
money. As shown in the chart below, inflation has been almost non-stop
since the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

Source: Prof.
Robert C. Sahr, Political Science Dept., Oregon State Univ., used with
permission
We have
only had a few brief moments of deflation. They occurred when the
U.S. was on the classical gold standard or the gold exchange standard
when gold acted as a restraining force on government. The last great
deflation occurred during the Great Depression when the U.S. government
still used gold to back its currency.
The next graph shows that over the
last 35 years, especially since abandoning the Bretton Woods system in
August 1971, the money supply has increased from a low of $613.3 billion
in February of 1970 to $9,976.7 billion as of September 30,
2005, an increase of more than 1,500 percent.

During that same period, the price of housing has
gone up ten-fold or 1,000 percent.

For
those who like to measure inflation and deflation inaccurately in terms of
rising or falling prices, the last time the CPI was negative occurred in
1955 when Eisenhower was President. Since that time we have had inflation
every year and every decade.
|
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
1910s
|
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
7.9
|
17.4
|
18.0
|
14.6
|
|
1920s
|
15.6
|
-10.5
|
-6.1
|
1.8
|
0.0
|
2.3
|
1.1
|
-1.7
|
-1.7
|
0.0
|
|
1930s
|
-2.3
|
-9.0
|
-9.9
|
-5.1
|
3.1
|
2.2
|
1.5
|
3.6
|
-2.1
|
-1.4
|
|
1940s
|
0.7
|
5.0
|
10.9
|
6.1
|
1.7
|
2.3
|
8.3
|
14.4
|
8.1
|
-1.2
|
|
1950s
|
1.3
|
7.9
|
1.9
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
-0.4
|
1.5
|
3.3
|
2.8
|
0.7
|
|
1960s
|
1.7
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
1.3
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
2.9
|
3.1
|
4.2
|
5.5
|
|
1970s
|
5.7
|
4.4
|
3.2
|
6.2
|
11.0
|
9.1
|
5.8
|
6.5
|
7.6
|
11.3
|
|
1980s
|
13.5
|
10.3
|
6.2
|
3.2
|
4.3
|
3.6
|
1.9
|
3.6
|
4.1
|
4.8
|
|
1990s
|
5.4
|
4.2
|
3.0*
|
| | |