Steve Keen’s DebtWatch No 20 March 2008: Double or Nothing?

flattr this!

The rev­e­la­tion in the min­utes of the RBA’s Feb­ru­ary meet­ing that debate focused, not on whether there should be a rise, but on whether it should be 0.25 or 0.5 per cent, shows that the RBA wagers that the threats to the Aus­tralian econ­omy are upside ones–tighter labor mar­kets and higher inflation–rather than down­side ones–a global slow­down as asset mar­kets col­lapse dur­ing a credit crunch. The Feb­ru­ary min­utes implied that the RBA might really throw its cards on the table at the March meet­ing, with a 0.5% rise being a dis­tinct possibility.

This is in stark con­trast to the biggest gam­bler in the reg­u­la­tory stakes, the US Fed­eral Reserve. Not only did it drop US rates down by 1.25% last month, it is now sig­nalling another 0.5% fall dur­ing March.

So which reg­u­la­tory gam­bler is right–or, against the odds, are they both right? The answer depends on just how big a threat the cur­rent finan­cial mar­ket tur­moil poses to the global econ­omy, and how well Aus­tralia is pre­pared to weather any storm this might cause.

A key issue for the for­mer point is the size of the cur­rent finan­cial bub­bles, in both Amer­ica and Aus­tralia. They are obvi­ously burst­ing now, and the amount of pain that a bust can inflict clearly depends on how big the bub­ble itself was.

On that point, the answer is sim­ple for the USA: the USA’s recent bub­ble was the biggest in world finan­cial his­tory.

Robert Shiller, the man who coined the phrase “irra­tional exu­ber­ance”, makes that clear in the 2005 update to his book, where he com­pares Amer­i­can house prices and stock mar­ket indices to the CPI.

Houses are nor­mally pur­chased on credit, and while an indi­vid­ual can pay back his or her mort­gage debt by sell­ing the house to some­one else, soci­ety as a whole can’t do that. Ulti­mately there­fore, an economy’s mort­gage ser­vic­ing has to be financed from its income, which is derived from sell­ing goods and ser­vices. The ratio of asset prices to con­sumer prices gives the best mea­sure of how hard or how easy that is to achieve. While there is no obvi­ous “magic num­ber” for the ratio (and the ser­vic­ing cost of debt will rise and fall with changes in inter­est rates), its level tells us how sus­tain­able house prices are at any point in time. A low ratio implies very afford­able hous­ing; a high one implies very expen­sive housing–and one that tow­ers over the long term aver­age implies a bubble.

A sim­i­lar obser­va­tion applies to the Stock Mar­ket. Though the Price to Earn­ings (PE) ratio is a com­moner mea­sure of the verac­ity of the Stock Market’s val­u­a­tion, earn­ings can be inflated by tricks rang­ing from out­right fraud, to fancy “finan­cial engi­neer­ing”, to debat­able reval­u­a­tions of assets–something that is becom­ing painfully obvi­ous as the domi­noes fall in the cur­rent Aus­tralian and US stock mar­ket slumps.

No such prob­lems apply with the CPI, and since earn­ings have to come from sales of goods and ser­vices, the com­par­i­son of the asset index to the CPI gives a bet­ter idea of how sus­tain­able the share market’s prices are.

These cal­cu­la­tions gives the lie to Greenspan’s asser­tion that a bub­ble can only be iden­ti­fied after it has burst.

The US House Price Bubble

The bub­ble in US hous­ing prices is obvi­ous: between 1892 and 1995, the aver­age for this index was 103, while its pre­vous peak value–set over a cen­tury ago in 1894–was 133.6.

This long run max­i­mum was breached in 1989, two years after Greenspan took over as Fed­eral Reserve chair­man, after he “res­cued” Wall Street after the 1987 Stock Mar­ket Crash–a res­cue which sim­ply trans­ferred the Wall Street bub­ble into a Main Street one, in com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial prop­erty. The prop­erty mar­ket crash in 1989 ush­ered in the 1990s reces­sion that helped Clin­ton come to power. House prices still hadn’t returned to the his­toric norm before the next boom began–fuelled by and feed­ing into the eupho­ria over the Inter­net. The hous­ing bub­ble con­tin­ued even after the Stock Mar­ket bub­ble tem­porar­ily burst, until it peaked in 2004 at 228, over twice the his­toric norm, and 70% above the high­est level the index had reached over a cen­tury ear­lier. If the index reverts to any­thing like its his­toric norm, then US house prices have much fur­ther to fall. Even now, after a ten per­cent fall from its peak, the index is still almost twice the pre-1995 long term average.

Com­men­ta­tors who are pre­dict­ing a fur­ther 25% fall in US house prices may turn out to be optimists.

Chart One: USA Real House Prices
 Chart One: America's CPI Deflated House Price Index

The US Stock Mar­ket Bubble

One intrigu­ing fact that the deflated Dow Jones index reveals is that the pre­vi­ous biggest Stock Mar­ket­bub­ble wasn’t in 1929, but in 1966.

n 1929, the index reached an inflation-adjusted value of 407 (before col­laps­ing to as low as 60 in 1932–an 85% fall). In 1966, theinflation-adjusted value of the Dow peaked at 567–after which it plunged for 16 years, to a low of 152 in mid-1982. This was a 73% fall in real terms.

Since then–with the dra­matic excep­tion of Black Mon­day in Octo­ber 1987–it was all up until 2000. The Stock Mar­ket had already exceeded its Roar­ing Twen­ties peak by the time Greenspan took office in August 1987. Just two months later, it plunged back into near long-term ter­ri­tory with Octo­ber 19th’s 23% crash. Rather than the rever­sion to the mean con­tin­u­ing, the Greenspan Put embold­ened the mar­ket, which sailed through the 1929 record in 1992, and kept right on going into an unprece­dented level of overvaluation.

By 1996, it had left 1966 behind, and at the height of the Inter­net frenzy, it hit 1252–almost five times the aver­age that had pre­vailed up until 1995. Then in 2000, just as Greenspan was reit­er­at­ing his belief that a bub­ble can only be iden­ti­fied in its after­math, the one he was rid­ing burst.

Chart Two: USA Real Stock Prices 

Chart Two: America's CPI Deflated Dow Jones Index

Quick res­cue work by the Fed–both injec­tions of liq­uid­ity, and drop­ping the reserve rate to 1%–and mas­sive gov­ern­ment deficits to finance the war in Iraq, turned the market’s rever­sion to the mean around by mid 2003. By late 2007, it revis­ited its 2000 peak.

Then its recent plunge began.

A more cur­rent value of this index must await the US CPI fig­ures for Jan­u­ary and Feb­ru­ary, but it must be of the order 1050 now. Even so, this puts it at more than four times the pre-1996 average.

Where could the index head to, if the mar­ket finally heads back to its his­toric norm? As the USA basked in the col­lec­tive delu­sion of the Inter­net Bub­ble, some authors put out books with the titles Dow 30,000, Dow 36,000, and even Dow 100,000 (Zuc­caro; Glass­man, Has­sett & Has­sett; and Kadlec; look for them in the remain­der bins of your local book­shop). On this data, Dow 3,000 looks more the go.

Of course, it is also pos­si­ble that the bub­ble could re-form–but that would require a renewal of the trend for an ever-increasing debt to GDP ratio, since lever­age is what has dri­ven house and share prices to their cur­rent levels.

This is pos­si­ble, but unlikely, for the same rea­son that a sim­i­lar “solu­tion” is unlikely here: America’s debt to GDP ratio is already at record lev­els. Even if the Fed drops offi­cial rates to zero (as Japan’s Cen­tral Bank did dur­ing the ‘90s), and aver­age com­mer­cial inter­est rates drop to three per cent, the debt ser­vic­ing bur­den on the econ­omy will still be immense. And a cut in offi­cial rates won’t res­cue home buy­ers who have signed up for fixed inter­est loans, which are the norm in the US mar­ket.
Chart Three: USA vs Aus­tralian Pri­vate Debt Ratios
Chart Three: Private Debt to GDP Ratios in the USA and Australia

How Big Are Our Bubbles?

How do the Aus­tralian house and stock mar­ket bub­bles com­pare to America’s? The bad news is that Australia’s hous­ing price bub­ble is at least 50% larger than America’s. I cur­rently lack really long term data for Aus­tralia, but Nigel Sta­ple­don at the Uni­ver­sity of New South Wales pro­vided the fol­low­ing per­spec­tive in his PhD the­sis: (the fol­low­ing chart, which com­pares Stapledon’s index for Aus­tralia to Shiller’s for the USA,is taken from:

Clearly, the Aus­tralian house price bub­ble dwarfs America’s.

Some may wish to explain the diver­gence on the basis of real fac­tors such as Australia’s higher rate of pop­u­la­tion growth, etc. While these fac­tors undoubt­edly play some role, I very much doubt that they can explain the volatil­ity shown in Stapledon’s data. The two country’s house price indices were vir­tu­ally iden­ti­cal in the mid-1980s, for exam­ple, and then within a cou­ple of years, Australia’s was almost twice America’s. We didn’t take in that many more migrants then–nor could their influx explain a bub­ble focused on the mid­dle to upper-range sub­urbs.
Chart Four: USA vs Aus­tralian Long Term Real House Prices
Chart Four: USA vs Australian Long Term Real House Prices

It’s also appar­ent that Aus­tralian house prices have increased more than the USA’s since 1987, and remain in a bub­ble today, while the USA’s index has clearly turned.

Chart Five: USA vs Aus­tralian Recent Real House Prices
Chart Five: USA vs Australian Recent Real House Prices
Given that our house­hold debt to GDP level was half that of America’s in 1990, but is iden­ti­cal now, I expect that the true expla­na­tion of Australia’s greater hous­ing bub­ble is finan­cial, not “real”. If so, we face just as seri­ous a poten­tial down­side to house prices as does Amer­ica, if not more so. The dif­fer­ences in out­comes to date may result from the China Boom, com­bined with the very dif­fer­ent mort­gage default laws in the two countries.

Chart Six: USA vs Aus­tralian House­hold Debt Ratios

Chart Six: USA vs Australian Household Debt Ratios
So much for the bad news. The good news is that Australia’s stock mar­ket hasn’t been nearly as bubble-based as the USA’s since 1987. In 1984 (when the ASX data begins), the CPI-deflated value of the Dow Jones was 2.3 times that of the ASX; by 2000, when the DJIA first hit its his­toric peak, the US index was 5.2 times the Aus­tralian one.
Chart Seven: USA vs Aus­tralian Real Stock Mar­ket Indices
Chart Seven: USA vs Australian Real Stock Market Indices
On the other hand, it’s also appar­ent that its per­for­mance in the last four years has been more speculation-driven than the USA’s. By time time both indices had peaked, the diver­gence between the USA and Aus­tralia had fallen to 3.2 to 1. It is likely that the recent obses­sion with mar­gin lend­ing as a “wealth enhance­ment strat­egy” has played a role here.

Chart Eight: USA vs Aus­tralian Stock Mar­ket Indices Trends

Chart Eight: USA vs Australian Stock Market Indices Trends
Chart Nine: USA vs Aus­tralian Stock Mar­ket Indices Trends

Chart Nine: USA vs Australian Stock Market Indices Trends
So which Reg­u­la­tor is “on the money”?

Nei­ther the Fed­eral Reserve nor the RBA deserves acco­lades for its man­age­ment of the finan­cial sys­tem. While they are diverg­ing now over the threat posed by infla­tion, ver­sus that ema­nat­ing from sys­temic fragility, both have shared an obses­sion with keep­ing com­mod­ity price infla­tion under con­trol, while asset prices and debt have spi­ralled out of control.

That said, the Fed­eral Reserve clearly appears more real­is­tic about the major threat fac­ing the econ­omy at the moment–even if that threat was fuelled by its own com­pla­cency dur­ing the great­est finan­cial bub­ble of all time. Now is not the time to be fight­ing com­mod­ity price infla­tion, while ignor­ing both debt and asset price inflation.

An aside: “Low” Busi­ness Leverage?

I’ve seen a num­ber of media reports claim­ing that the cur­rent string of busi­ness defaults is unex­pected, since busi­ness lever­age is quite low these days.

That may well be true when debt to equity is the mea­sure of lever­age, but as I remark above, both asset prices (which deter­mine the equity denom­i­na­tor in debt to equity cal­cu­la­tions) and indeed earn­ings are rather rub­bery figures.

A far bet­ter guide is to com­pare busi­ness debt lev­els to Gross Oper­at­ing Surplus–the busi­ness com­po­nent of national income. On that basis, the level of busi­ness gear­ing today sub­stan­tially exceeds the pre­vi­ous peak set in 1990.

Chart Ten: Busi­ness Leverage

Chart Ten: Business Gearing

Of course, the debt ser­vic­ing bur­den on busi­ness is much lower than in 1990, when the rate of inter­est was twice what it is now. But when a cash cri­sis hits, the rate of inter­est is irrel­e­vant: what mat­ters is the cash flow you have on hand to ser­vice debts as and when they become due. The cur­rent tur­moil in our most heav­ily geared com­pa­nies empha­sises that point.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Steve Keen’s DebtWatch No 20 March 2008: Double or Nothing?

  1. Pingback: Bad Debt » Blog Archive » Steve Keen’s DebtWatch No 20 March 2008: Double or Nothing?

  2. Ken says:

    A rea­son­able expla­na­tion is that the Fed­eral reserve isn’t being hon­est about their rea­sons. Rather than try­ing to pre­vent a reces­sion, they are try­ing to avoid the col­lapse of their finan­cial sys­tem. By low­er­ing whole­sale inter­est rates, they allow for increased mar­gin with­out an increase in retail inter­est rates, so lenders can off­set their defaults. For the moment it seems bet­ter than watch­ing the banks go bust, and hav­ing to clean up the mess. Not to men­tion the mort­gage insurers.

    We haven’t got there yet. It might be inter­est­ing to con­sider how secure the money lent by super funds for mort­gages is, as I sus­pect mort­gage insur­ance isn’t going to be worth a lot if the insurer goes broke. One of the more stu­pid things to hap­pen has been not to require at least 20% deposit. In the UK the required deposit is increas­ing rapidly, which is one rea­son for falling house prices as first time buy­ers leave the mar­ket. One more exam­ple of pos­i­tive feed­back in economics.

    A ques­tion: Does the RBA have any choice in how it man­ages the econ­omy, as it is restricted to cer­tain inter­ven­tions and for cer­tain rea­sons? I know they have done eval­u­a­tions but they seem restricted to ques­tions about whether our finan­cial insti­tu­tions will sur­vive a reces­sion than will it be pleas­ant for the population.

  3. david says:

    So good to see our M3 only grow­ing at around 22%. For a while I thought we might have had an infla­tion prob­lem here too. For­tu­nately our board of the reserve bank has a got a good han­dle on the cause of infla­tion, it’s a cou­ple of per­cent on the lend­ing rate that will make a dif­fer­ence! Mean­while our M3 growth is com­pet­ing with Zimbabwe..

  4. historyman says:

    Professor/Doctor/Guru Steve Keen, from the ABC 1 May 2006. Do you have any clue??

    A lead­ing econ­o­mist says even though infla­tion is at the upper end of the tar­get range, the Reserve Bank should not raise inter­est rates.

    There has been spec­u­la­tion that the bank will raise inter­est rates at its next meet­ing tomorrow.

    Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor Steve Keen, from the Uni­ver­sity of West­ern Syd­ney, says house­hold debt lev­els are too high to with­stand a rise of even 0.25 per cent.

    He says putting up inter­est rates now could be disastrous.

    The thing which is at the upper end of the tar­get rate is the level of debt,” he said.

    Infla­tion might be touch­ing 3 per cent which is not exactly scary, but the level of debt is to me quite scary.

    Any­thing which could accel­er­ate that or make the bur­den that it is putting on peo­ple at the moment would be, as I said, play­ing with fire.”

  5. john h says:

    This is all very inter­est­ing and could ‘scare the pants off’ but what would help me (and every­one else who’s every thought of jump­ing out the win­dow after read­ing these) would be an acknowl­edge­ment of the data source.

    Not that I’m an unbe­liever but go to: to under­stand just how we can be influ­enced, espe­cially by peo­ple who know more than us.

  6. john h says:

    All this is very inter­est­ing but it would be help­ful to me at least, if the data source was achknowledged.

    Not that I don’t believe but go to for an idea how we are influ­enced by those who have more knowledge.

  7. Steve Keen says:

    Re His­to­ry­man,

    I pre­sume the “do you have any clue?” is a query about whether I was wrong in 2006 to say that the RBA shouldn’t increase rates?

    No, rates were too high then given the debt bur­den on house­holds and busi­nesses, and they are higher still now.

    Inter­est rate changes oper­ate with a lag. They are also ampli­fied by debt lev­els, which are not taken into account by stan­dard eco­nomic models.

    The momen­tum behind an asset price bub­ble can also mean that rate rises are inef­fec­tive at stop­ping it until they reach ridicu­lous levels–or have far greater impact than expected by those who ignore debt lev­els. Both applied dur­ing the 1989–91 period; both apply now, even with much lower rates than then.

  8. Steve Keen says:

    Dear John H,

    I wish I could say that I was mak­ing all this up, but unfor­tu­nately my data sources are the RBA, US Fed­eral Reserve, and Stan­dard & Poors, and Robert Shiller’s well researched data:,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0.html

    I sim­ply analyse this pub­licly avail­able infor­ma­tion from a per­spec­tive that takes debt seriously.

    My worry about the attri­bu­tion the­ory you refer to is that we have for too long believed neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists who have a flawed under­stand­ing of the econ­omy. One effect of this is that they have ignored debt, and now we’re see­ing the con­se­quences of that “omit­ted vari­able bias” in their models.

  9. Punchy says:

    Inter­est­ing Charts Mr Keen.
    Seems we have one less prob­lem or cat­a­lyst for a crash. We dont have the same over­built hous­ing mar­ket like the US. Will this make any dif­fer­ence in Aus­tralia? Or is the credit crash so big it wont mat­ter?
    I also think we have a prob­lem with China export­ing infla­tion to the world. The effects of Chi­nese infla­tion on Aus­tralia has been masked by our ris­ing dol­lar. If the AUD falls this infla­tion will be unmasked and infla­tion will shoot up. As infla­tion shoots up the RBA will put up inter­est rates. Neg­a­tive feed­back loops seem to be com­pound­ing every week and will even­tu­ally over­come all pos­si­tive news.
    The media are pro­vid­ing the pub­lic with mixed sig­nals every day now. The Bris­bane Sun­day paper reported a mas­sive increase in home repos and on the next page ran a story on home prices increas­ing 5% this year. This is con­fus­ing the pub­lic (and me).

  10. david says:

    China export­ing infla­tion? Sorry, you haven’t fol­lowed the prob­lem back to it’s source: The U.S. is cre­at­ing the infla­tion with M3 growth around 16%. We are too — but worse: M3 Growth around 22%. Either inter­est rates keep going up here, or the dol­lar declines. The end result is the same; we will see much higher prices for any­thing imported — par­tic­u­larly energy.

    The trade deficit is approach­ing 7% here. We will not be able to sus­tain that if there is a global downturn.

    It’s quite obvi­ous that we are fac­ing a global de-leveraging, all asset prices will fall if cen­tral banks can’t get liq­uid­ity into the sys­tem — Or more specif­i­cally, to prop up lever­aged asset prices. The liq­uid­ity that they are pro­vid­ing is going into hard assets. i.e. commodities.

    Any­one who is lever­aged to the hilt to buy a house is doomed. Short­age of sup­ply means noth­ing if peo­ple can­not get credit. This is what is hap­pen­ing now. Watch houses prices tank as loans tank.

  11. david says:

    Do you really under­stand what causes infla­tion? Loose mon­e­tary poli­cies by both our reserve bank and that of the Fed­eral Reserve have con­tributed to a rise in money and even more sig­nif­i­cantly, credit.

    The answer is not to allow this to con­tinue, but rather to elim­i­nate the devalu­ing of our currency.

    Just look at the A$ in terms of gold. It has lost approx 40% in pur­chas­ing power in 5 years!

    The debase­ment of our dol­lar is scan­dalous. Any­one who thinks our reserve bank have been good stew­ards of the A$ are being deceived.

  12. Steve Keen says:

    Dear Punchy,

    The fact that Aus­tralia has a hous­ing shortage–a side effect of a truly insane hous­ing system–will atten­u­ate how far and how fast our house prices fall com­pared to the USA, where absolutely noth­ing is slow­ing the decline. But we’re still going to have to return to a rough his­toric bal­ance between house and con­sumer prices at some point, and that implies house prices falling–or ris­ing more slowly than con­sumer prices–for a very long time.

    As for China, it’s been export­ing DEfla­tion for a long time–its cost lev­els were so much below those of the West that as it took over man­u­fac­tur­ing, West­ern prices had to fall. But it now appears to be reach­ing its lim­its in that regard, so at some stage there could be infla­tion exported from China.

    Which brings me to Dave’s posts. More anon.

  13. Steve Keen says:

    Dear David,

    While I agree with a lot of your comments–deleveraging has to occur, unsus­tain­able deficit,e tc.–I don’t agree with your analy­sis of what causes inflation.

    You ask whether I really under­stand what causes it. Firstly, I don’t think any­body truly “really” does: we have mod­els of its cau­sa­tion, and there has been sub­stan­tial cham­pi­oning of rival mod­els, and pre­cious lit­tle com­par­i­son of them unfor­tu­nately, within economics.

    You appear to sub­scribe to the Aus­trian the­ory: “money growth IS inflation”–if I’ve remem­bered a state­ment by Con­trar­ian ear­lier. While money growth is a fac­tor, to me, this Aus­trian per­spec­tive is rather like a quote that I’m cur­rently using in an aca­d­e­mic paper:

    If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, call­ing a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.” (Abra­ham Lincoln)

    Tech­ni­cally, infla­tion is mea­sured growth in com­mod­ity prices–and that gen­er­ates all sorts of index num­ber prob­lems which Aus­tri­ans rightly point out, but nonethe­less, that’s its tech­ni­cal def­i­n­i­tion. To say that “money growth IS infla­tion” is to con­flate a the­ory with the data.

    The dilem­mas for the “money growth is the only cause of infla­tion” perspective–which this effec­tively is, and there­fore puts it in the same camp as Neo­clas­si­cal theory–are:

    (a) that the stats fre­quently show sub­stan­tial short term (ie, a decade or two) diver­gences between money growth and mea­sured infla­tion. That’s hap­pen­ing right now–as it nor­mally does dur­ing asset price bub­bles. Of course, you can always find another com­mod­ity to rebase your price system–such as mea­sur­ing infla­tion in gold terms, as you imply–but money is used to buy com­modi­ties in our credit sys­tem, not gold (though I realise there are nuances there that I won’t go into now); and

    (b) more inter­est­ing tim­ing data shows the rela­tions between (A) money growth, (B) wages and © prices is often the reverse of this the­ory. Rather than being A–>C–>B, it tends to be B–>C–>A. In other words, changes in cost struc­tures in the econ­omy force, some­how, a change in money.

    For those empir­i­cal rea­sons, I am more per­suaded by the Post Key­ne­sian the­ory of inflation–which is that it is dri­ven by strug­gles over the dis­tri­b­u­tion of income, and cost pres­sures from com­modi­ties that can­not be repro­duced (min­er­als) or finely con­trolled (agri­cul­tural goods).

    The money sup­ply is then “accommodating”–it expands to suit these pres­sures, rather than caus­ing them via “too much money” in the first place.

    Of course, you can get sit­u­a­tions like Zim­babwe where “the gov­ern­ment print­ing too much money” is clearly the culprit–but those are hyper­in­fla­tions, not the gar­den vari­ety infla­tion we get typ­i­cally in the West.

    So no David, I don’t “really under­stand”, but I am aware of a range of empirically-oriented debates that advo­cates of one posi­tion or another (Aus­trian or neo­clas­si­cal pre­dom­i­nantly) don’t appreciate.

    Two key aspects of this argu­ment are:

    the nature of price-setting in an advanced econ­omy (see Alan Blinder’s “Ask­ing About Prices” for the best cov­er­age of that–or read my review of it on for a pre­cis); and

    How the money sup­ply can be accom­moda­tive to those cost pres­sures. Here the data is also AGAINST the stan­dard Aus­trian per­spec­tive: if the Aus­trian case was cor­rect, the accom­mo­da­tion would occur because the RBA and its cor­re­spond­ing insti­tu­tions will­ingly “printed (fiat) money” rather than con­fronting these cost pres­sures head on, and the “money mul­ti­plier” then gen­er­ated the addi­tional (credit) money.

    In fact, the empir­i­cal evi­dence is the other way around: credit money moves first, and then sub­se­quently gov­ern­ment money fol­lows. The mon­e­tary author­i­ties there­fore AREN’T in con­trol of the money supply–in effect, the money sup­ply is in con­trol of them.

    The best evi­dence of this actu­ally comes from the staunchly neo­clas­si­cal authors Kyd­land and Prescott in “Real Facts and a Mon­e­tary Myth”, (which you can locate on the web for free). To cite their con­clu­sions on that front:

    There is no evi­dence that either the mon­e­tary base or M1 leads the cycle, although some econ­o­mists still believe this mon­e­tary myth. Both the mon­e­tary base and M1 series are gen­er­ally pro­cycli­cal and, if any­thing, the mon­e­tary base lags the cycle slightly…

    The dif­fer­ence of M2-M1 leads the cycle by even more than M1, with the lead being about three quar­ters. The fact that the trans­ac­tion com­po­nent of real cash bal­ances (M1) moves con­tem­po­ra­ne­ously with the cycle while the much larger non­trans­ac­tion com­po­nent (M2) leads the cycle sug­gests that credit arrange­ments could play a sig­nif­i­cant role in future busi­ness cycle theory…

    Intro­duc­ing money and credit into growth the­ory in a way that accounts for the cycli­cal behav­ior of mon­e­tary as well as real aggre­gates is an impor­tant open prob­lem in economics.”

    So the empir­i­cal data “lets the author­i­ties off the hook” vis-a-vis the Aus­trian cri­tique of mon­e­tary pol­icy and the­ory of infla­tion. How­ever they are on another hook, from my point of view, with their atti­tude to asset price inflation.

    There’s a lot more I could say, but this is already almost blog-length, so I’ll stop here. I will at some point explain my model of money cre­ation in a pure credit model, but I’m too busy doing that for an aca­d­e­mic paper right now to write up another ver­sion here; maybe after I get back from the speak­ing tour I’m doing this week and next.

  14. Nuffield says:

    Get your cash behind agri­cul­tural based assets such as land. That’s why this farmer is with Rabobank. Purely agri­cul­tural lend­ing book and least exposed of major banks to cur­rent housing/commercial prop­erty deflation.

    Invest in organic infra­struc­ture — the stuff that builds itself. Trees that pro­duce sta­ple food com­modi­ties and prefer­ably oil. Once estab­lished low pro­duc­tion costs and depen­dency on imported resources for pro­duc­tiv­ity gains.

Leave a Reply