Tag

Slider

Browsing

It’s been said there’s no such thing as a controlled experiment in the social sciences, including economics. But we had something close to a laboratory experiment back in 1920-1921 and 1930-1931.

In each of these periods there was a depression. Unemployment was high – for a while — it briefly was higher in the 1920s than in the 1930s. Prices fell in both periods. 

In the 1920-21 depression, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York crashed the monetary base, thereby reducing the money stock, and jacked interest rates to record highs. In the 1930-1931 depression, however, the federal reserve gradually increased the monetary base and lowered the interest rate. 

In the 1920-21 period the government slashed spending and allowed nominal wages to fall. In the 1930-31 depression the government increased spending and deficits while pressuring industrial leaders to maintain wage rates.

Tax Policies

Coming out of World War I the highest marginal income tax rate was 77 percent. First President Warren G. Harding, then President Calvin Coolidge (following Treasury secretary Andrew Mellon’s advice) lowered tax rates steadily in the early 1920s. By 1925 the highest tax rate was around 25 percent. Tax receipts began to climb, as people stopped playing defense and looked for ways to grow their income. As incomes increased, so did tax revenue despite the lower rates. 

In 1932, President Herbert Hoover pushed through one of the highest peacetime tax increases in U.S. history. A person making above a million dollars in 1931 could keep 75 cents on the dollar; a year later the amount plunged to 37 cents. In the lowest bracket, rates more than doubled. Along with this were countless taxes on items that had never been taxed. From 1931 – 1933, revenue from the individual income tax dropped by more than half. By 1933, the economy was at the depth of the Depression.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt went further. The top income tax rate had spiked from 24 to 63 percent under Hoover, and then to 78 percent in 1935 under FDR. Capital gains taxes more than doubled, going from 12.5 percent during the 1920s and early 1930s to 32 percent by 1934-1935. 

In 1936, the New Dealers decided to tax corporate savings, imposing a severe penalty on businesses that depended on profits to expand operations. Called the Undistributed Profits Tax, it entrenched the bigger firms by keeping their smaller competitors from expanding. It also pressured firms to use debt instead of equity to finance expansion.

Throughout the 1920s, the Coolidge administration ran a budget surplus every year. Throughout the 1930s, first Hoover, then Roosevelt ran budget deficits every year.

Keynesians such as Christina Romer tell us that the deficits were not big enough. It took the huge deficits of World War II to break the back of the Depression, they claim. Whether fighting the war overseas or on the home front, however, Americans were anything but prosperous during this period.

Monetarists such as Milton Friedman tell us the Fed didn’t inflate enough after the Crash to offset the fall in the money supply. People were pulling their money out of the banks, and the Fed failed to offset the deflationary effect this was creating. 

As Robert Murphy writes:

If Friedman is right that the Federal Reserve’s inaction caused the Great Depression, then why didn’t the U.S. experience even worse catastrophes before 1913, when the Fed didn’t even exist?

Gold takes the blame

Both Keynesians and Monetarists blame the gold standard for restricting policy options. When FDR confiscated the people’s gold in 1933 and outlawed contracts denominated in gold, the Fed went on a printing spree and the government stepped up its spending. From 1933-1936, unemployment declined steadily while GDP increased.

But the gold standard in some form had existed for centuries prior to the 1930s. Why did it suddenly cause a massive depression? It existed during the depression of 1920-21, yet that crisis was over in two years and was followed by one of the most prosperous periods in U.S. history.

And if the gold standard of 1929 did cause the depression, why didn’t going off gold end it? Fed monetary inflation and government spending improved the statistics somewhat, but the economy remained in a depressed state throughout the 1930s and beyond. 

Critics of gold rarely mention that the gold standard that failed was not the classical gold standard of the 19th century. European governments ordered their banks to stop redeeming gold in 1914 so they could use the printing press to pay for the carnage of the Great War. The “gold standard” abandoned in the 1930s had been erected in 1922 at a conference attended by 34 countries in Genoa, Italy. Called the gold exchange standard, its purpose was to keep gold “in the vaults” by redeeming currencies not in coins but in large bars. 

Most European citizens were thereby disarmed of their means for keeping government spending under control. U.S. citizens could still legally redeem bank notes for gold coins, but in practice it was rare. The gold exchange standard collapsed in 1931 when England went off gold completely because it couldn’t redeem France’s sterling holdings.

The Monetaristsslam-dunk: The double-dip of 1937-1938

According to monetarists, the Fed interrupted the New Deal’s recovery in 1936-1937 when it doubled the reserve requirements of its member banks, thus contracting the money stock and producing a double-dip or a “depression within a depression” in 1937-1938. Unemployment spiked and GDP fell off.

Let’s take a closer look at this period and the years preceding it. Following passage of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, the U.S. Treasury was under a legal mandate to purchase all the gold offered to it at the rate of $35 an ounce, a 69 percent increase over the classical rate of $20.67. The Treasury was in effect mimicking the Fed’s inflationary open market operations by freely purchasing demonetized gold instead of government securities. Gold flowed into the U.S. from abroad, increasing bank reserves and inflating the money supply by over 10 percent annually from 1934-1936.

When in 1937 the Treasury began sterilizing their purchases (i.e., selling securities to pay for the gold instead of printing money) it slowed the growth of the money supply. Doubling the reserve requirements brought interest rates up a notch but they were still very low. Cheap loans were still available for businesses that wanted them. 

So, what caused the plunging economic indicators? As Joseph Salerno points out, money wages shot up 13.7 percent in the first three quarters of 1937. The Supreme Court had recently upheld the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, and unions were cashing in. With labor productivity remaining constant, unemployment began to rise. 

As business profits were squeezed by the run-up of labor costs and the economy slipped into recession, banks prudently began to contract their loans and pile up liquid reserves to protect themselves against prospective loan defaults and bank runs. To offset this uncontrolled decline of the money supply, beginning in mid-1938 the Fed (and the Treasury) once again resorted to an inflationary policy, reversing the reserve requirement increase and allowing gold inflows, once again pumping up bank reserves.

Between June 30, 1937, and June 30, 1938, the money supply did in fact decrease, but this was a result, rather than a cause, of the recession, Salerno concludes.

And the winners? Experts from the leading schools of economics today – the Keynesian and monetarist – tell us the Great Depression could’ve been avoided. They know the depression of 1920-21 was followed by the Roaring Twenties. They know the depression of 1930-31 turned into the Great Depression and is one of the reasons the world went to war in the 1940s. So, do these experts take the government/Fed response to the 1920-21 depression as their model?

Perhaps because it would put them out of work, their answer is a resounding No. That these same experts never see a crisis on the horizon should not dissuade us from ever trusting them.

Sources:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, Robert M. Murphy

America’s Great Depression, Murray N. Rothbard

The Forgotten Depression: 1921, The Crash That Cured Itself, James Grant

Money and Gold in the 1920s and 1930s: An Austrian View, Joesph Salerno

While many market participants are concerned about rate increases, they appear to be ignoring the largest risk: the potential for a massive liquidity drain in 2023.

Even though December is here, central banks’ balance sheets have hardly, if at all, decreased. Rather than real sales, a weaker currency and the price of the accumulated bonds account for the majority of the fall in the balance sheets of the major central banks.

In the context of governments deficits that are hardly declining and, in some cases, increasing, investors must take into account the danger of a significant reduction in the balance sheets of central banks. Both the quantitative tightening of central banks and the refinancing of government deficits, albeit at higher costs, will drain liquidity from the markets. This inevitably causes the global liquidity spectrum to contract far more than the headline amount.

Liquidity drains have a dividing effect in the same way that liquidity injections have an obvious multiplier effect in the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. A central bank’s balance sheet increased by one unit of currency in assets multiplies at least five times in the transmission mechanism. Do the calculations now on the way out, but keep in mind that government expenditure will be financed.

Our tendency is to take liquidity for granted. Due to the FOMO (fear of missing out) mentality, investors have increased their risk and added illiquid assets over the years of monetary expansion. In periods of monetary excess, multiple expansion and rising valuations are the norm.

Since we could always count on rising liquidity, when asset prices corrected over the past two decades, the best course of action was to “buy the dip” and double down. This was because central banks would keep growing their balance sheets and adding liquidity, saving us from almost any bad investment decision, and inflation would stay low.

Twenty years of a dangerous bet: monetary expansion without inflation. How do we handle a situation where central banks must cut at least $5 trillion off their balance sheets? Do not believe I am exaggerating; the $20 trillion bubble generated since 2008 cannot be solved with $5 trillion. A tightening of $5 trillion in US dollars is mild, even dovish. To return to pre-2020 levels, the Fed would need to decrease its balance sheet by that much on its own.

Keep in mind that the central banks of developed economies need to tighten monetary policy by $5 trillion, which is added to over $2.50 trillion in public deficit financing in the same countries.

The effects of contraction are difficult to forecast because traders for at least two generations have only experienced expansionary policies, but they are undoubtedly unpleasant. Liquidity is dwindling already in the riskiest sectors of the economy, from high yield to crypto assets. By 2023, when the tightening truly begins, it will probably have reached the supposedly safer assets.

In a recent interview, Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel said that the ECB will begin to reduce its balance sheet in 2023 and added that “a recession may be insufficient to get inflation back on target.” This suggests that the “anti-fragmentation tool” currently in use to mask risk in periphery bonds may begin to lose its placebo impact on sovereign assets. Additionally, the cost of equity and weighted average cost of capital increases as soon as sovereign bond spreads begin to rise.

Capital can only be made or destroyed; it never remains constant. And if central banks are to effectively fight inflation, capital destruction is unavoidable.

The prevalent bullish claim is that because central banks have learned from 2008, they will not dare to allow the market to crash. Although a correct analysis, it is not enough to justify market multiples. The fact that governments continue to finance themselves, which they will, is ultimately what counts to central banks. The crowding out effect of government spending over private sector credit access has never been a major concern for a central bank. Keep in mind that I am only estimating a $5 trillion unwind, which is quite generous given the excess produced between 2008 and 2021 and the magnitude of the balance sheet increase in 2020–21.

Central banks are also aware of the worst-case scenario, which is elevated inflation and a recession that could have a prolonged impact on citizens, with rising discontent and generalized impoverishment. They know they cannot keep inflation high just to satisfy market expectations of rising valuations. The same central banks that assert that the wealth effect multiplies positively are aware of the disastrous consequences of ignoring inflation. Back to the 1970s.

The “energy excuse” in inflation estimates will likely evaporate, and that will be the key test for central banks. The “supply chain excuse” has disappeared, the “temporary excuse” has gotten stale, and the “energy excuse” has lost some of its credibility since June. The unattractive reality of rising core and super-core inflation has been exposed by the recent commodity slump.

Central banks cannot accept sustained inflation because it means they would have failed in their mandate. Few can accurately foresee how quantitative tightening will affect asset prices and credit availability, even though it is necessary. What we know is that quantitative tightening, with a minimal decrease in central bank balance sheets, is expected to compress multiples and valuations of risky assets more than it has thus far. Given that capital destruction appears to be only getting started, the dividing effect is probably more than anticipated. And the real economy is always impacted by capital destruction

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called for crypto to be regulated after Sam Bankman-Fried, a 30-year-old Democrat darling, spent more than $40 million to ‘pay off’ DC elites to turn a blind eye to his Ponzi scheme through the crypto exchange he founded (FTX).

As TGP’s Joe Hoft reported, the FTX crypto company gave at least $40 million to Democrat candidates and causes in the midterms.

Up to $2 billion is ‘missing’ after FTX collapsed this week.

The company filed for bankruptcy on Friday and Sam Bankman-Fried’s private jet was seen en route to Argentina.

Most tracked flight right now – https://t.co/g65UMuTWD8
According to tweets the founder and former CEO of @FTX_Official is en route to Argentina after the FTX collapse earlier this week. pic.twitter.com/e42sI7Huto

— Flightradar24 (@flightradar24) November 12, 2022

Sam Bankman-Fried is Biden’s second biggest donor.

Financial contributions – FTX Sam Bankman-Fried second only to George Soros in Democratic donations… pic.twitter.com/CImZk0oUvJ

— .. (@Xx17965797N) November 12, 2022

And now Janet Yellen is calling for Crypto to be regulated.

How convenient.

“It shows the weaknesses of this entire sector,” Yellen told Bloomberg News on Saturday.

“In other regulated exchanges, you would have segregation of customer assets,” she said. “The notion you could use the deposits of customers of an exchange and lend them to a separate enterprise that you control to do leveraged, risky investments — that wouldn’t be something that’s allowed.”

FTX also happens to be related to Ukraine.

How much of the billions going to Ukraine went to the Bidens and their corrupt friends?

The post HERE WE GO: Janet Yellen Calls For Crypto to be Regulated After Biden Mega-Donor Collapses Multi-Billion Dollar Crypto Ponzi Scheme appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

President Trump just blasted Mitch McConnell for his failures to stop the Democrats.

Trump on Truth Social:

Now they’re finding all sorts of Ballots in Clark County, Nevada. They are pulling out all stops to steal the Election from Adam Laxalt. Mitch McConnell, the Republicans Broken Down Senate Leader, does nothing about this. He’s too busy spending vast amounts of money on bad Senator Lisa M of Alaska, when Kelly S is FAR better. Should have fought and stopped the steal in 2020. Gave Dems 4 Trillion Dollars, never used Debt Ceiling. He is the WORST!

Rather than helping Republicans in a key senate race in Arizona, Mitch McConnell cut funds from Blake Masters.

Instead, he funded RINO Lisa Murkowski in Alaska who was running against Trump-backed GOP candidate Kelly Tshibaka.

The Gateway Pundit reported:

Mitch McConnell was funding Lisa Murkowski in Alaska against the Republican candidate but did not fund Blake Masters in Arizona.

Of course, Murkowski is a horrid person who helped push ranked choice voting in Alaska that will throw elections to Democrats for decades to come. Ranked choice voting already cost Alaska Republicans their one GOP representative seat.

At the same time, Mitch McConnell cut back his PAC support to Blake Masters in Arizona in his tight race with Mark Kelly.

This was an unthinkable move by the GOP Senate leader.  McConnell actively worked against the Republican candidate this election cycle.  What an awful, selfish man.

Multiple GOP senators have called for a delay in voting for GOP leadership in the senate.

Fox News reported:

“It makes no sense for Senate to have leadership elections before GA runoff,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, tweeted Friday. “We don’t yet know whether we’ll have a majority & Herschel Walker deserves a say in our leadership. Critically, we need to hear a specific plan for the next 2 yrs from any candidate for leadership.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also tweeted Friday that the leadership vote “should be postponed.”

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., tweeted in support of Rubio’s proposition.

As did Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

Mitch McConnell should no longer be in GOP leadership.

The post Trump Rips Into Mitch McConnell For Funding RINO, Caving To Dems – “He Is The WORST!” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Newly-elected Democrat Governor Kathy celebrated her win by dancing with masked children.

A maskless Hochul was dancing with masked children in a Puerto Rican school.

She’s the perfect Democrat.

VIDEO:

Kathy Hochul visits a school in San Juan. She doesn’t wear a mask but all the kids have to. Know your betters, peasants. pic.twitter.com/GzQUt8ID0j

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 11, 2022

Hochul got roasted.

Why is this still allowed to happen
Its in your face slaves and masters https://t.co/aYqFDIWt5M

— Jackie Rocks Celeb Psychic Tv&Radio (@jackietvpsychic) November 12, 2022

Why are children masked and adults in power not? Government science…no logic but do as we say https://t.co/2FADgZdMbF

— Jane Harrison (@77jayne) November 11, 2022

Forcing kids to wear masks while you exploit them for your own political career. What shameful cruelty

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 11, 2022

The post The Perfect Democrat: Maskless Kathy Hochul Celebrates Her Win by Dancing Next to Masked Children (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

ATTENTION ARIZONA PATRIOTS:
Officials with the AZ GOP candidates want to discourage folks from coming down to Maricopa counting center. They think the opposition is itching for a reason to shut down the vote. We are being told we need to be united in our messaging. Kari Lake is going to release video momentarily.

It’s better for folks to STAY AWAY from Maricopa county offices, so they can finish their job of counting votes. The last thing anyone wants is a reason to stop the counting.

We don’t need another fed-induced incident

True Patriots are out here early! Rally starts @ NOON #countthevotes @BenBergquam @baldwin_daniel_ @KariLakeWarRoom @AbeWarRoom pic.twitter.com/DcJqCj1pKm

— Jordan Conradson (@ConradsonJordan) November 12, 2022

The post ATTENTION ARIZONA PATRIOTS: Friends in AZ Discourage Supporters from Protesting Outside Maricopa Counting Center – Don’t Need Another Fed-Induced Incident appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Adrian Dingle, a former San Diego Charger defensive end in the National Football League and Clemson University standout, passed away unexpectedly on Tuesday at the age of 45.

A statement was released by Clemson University confirming the death of Dingle. The official cause of Dingle’s death has not been released.

“Dingle lettered at Clemson in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 and served as a starting defensive end in each of his last three seasons. He helped the Tigers to three bowl games over his career,” Clemson University wrote.

“Dingle was drafted by the San Diego Chargers in the fifth round of the 1999 NFL Draft. After missing the 1999 season, he went on to play five years in the NFL with the Chargers from 2000-04, playing 70 total games. He had his best year in 2003 when he had six sacks and 16 total tackles for loss among his 37 tackles.”

Amy Bell, Dingle’s fiancee, posted on Instagram a photo and video of Adrian with their kids.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Amy Bell (@amy.c.bell)

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Amy Bell (@amy.c.bell)

“While Adrian was known for his football accomplishments, he was so much more than football. In the few short days since his passing, I’ve been overwhelmed by the outpouring of stories and memories,” Bell told PEOPLE.

“The common theme is his infectious smile and his selfless love. I’ve never met any other person who could meet someone once and go on to be a groomsman in a wedding. His smile will live on through his gorgeous babies who loved their daddy beyond measure.”

Tributes have poured in following his death.

RIP to my teammate @AdrianDingle
We were just hanging, laughing, swapping war stories, and talking family. Rest easy big dog! pic.twitter.com/XC4FsxFOao

— Marcellus Wiley (@marcelluswiley) November 10, 2022

Clemson Football mourns the passing of former defensive end Adrian Dingle.https://t.co/30hCcbEQPP pic.twitter.com/pKrr54M5uD

— Clemson Football (@ClemsonFB) November 10, 2022

RIP former Holly Hill-Roberts, Clemson and San Diego Chargers defensive end Adrian Dingle. Only 45 years old. pic.twitter.com/Nn3MtGS0Nk

— Mike Mooneyham (@ByMikeMooneyham) November 10, 2022

The post Former NFL and Clemson University Athlete Adrian Dingle Dies Suddenly at 45 appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

On Saturday afternoon, two planes collided in mid-air during the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) Wings Over Dallas show at Dallas Executive Airport.

“Jason Evans, a Dallas Fire-Rescue spokesman, said two planes collided about 1:30 p.m. at Dallas Executive Airport in the 5300 block of Challenger Drive, near U.S. Highway 67 in Red Bird. According to WFAA-TV (Channel 8), the crash involved a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress,” according to Dallas Morning News.

At around 2:00 p.m., Evans stated that he was unsure if the pilots were okay or if there were any injuries on the ground.

Watch the video below: (GRAPHIC VIDEO)

BREAKING: Footage shows air collision of a B-17 bomber and smaller plane at Dallas airshow pic.twitter.com/eD1c2GHvu4

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) November 12, 2022

Here’s another video:

Another video of the mid-air collision involving B-12 bomber and a small plane at Dallas Executive Airport

pic.twitter.com/w7llZmv4Rr

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) November 12, 2022

This is a developing story.

The post BREAKING: Planes Crash Mid-air During Over Wings Show at Dallas Executive Airport (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.