|
I guess the title of this article is really redundant. When it comes to economics
politicians rarely, if ever, learn from history. Hell, many of them refuse
to even learn anything from the appeasement of the 1930s. (Such is life and
death). Even though the '90s IT boom is fading into history, as have a lot
of balance sheets, bank accounts and business fantasies, a considerable amount
of unhealthy nostalgia remains, suggesting that the lesson has yet to take
root.
So what is the lesson? Quite simply, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
I continually warned that the Fed's criminally loose monetary policy had generated
a boom whose consequences were inevitable.
In the 1800s (I don't mean 1890s either) David Ricardo was already arguing
that booms and busts were caused by excess credit, i.e., credit expansion generated
by the fractional banking system. Although he used an aggregate approach rather
than a microeconomic one his analysis was a considerable breakthrough and one
that the Austrian school elaborated on nearly a hundred years later. Unfortunately
Ricardo's thesis was virtually forgotten by the 1840s leaving the field to
be taken over by John Stuart Mill's fallacy of explaining booms and busts in
terms of rampant speculation instead of monetary disturbances.
In previous articles I drew readers' attention to Britain's railway mania
of the 1840s that culminated in a very nasty depression when the boom collapsed.
A striking episode in British economic history that exhibited the kinds of
speculative activities, accounting shenanigans and hopeless optimism that marked
the nineties hi-tech boom. And this instructive event has virtually disappeared
from the pages of history, as if it was just one of those things that could
not be avoided. The economic equivalent of a violent storm, so to speak.
The characteristics these booms shared are not a mere coincidence. Just as
the money supply raced ahead under Greenspan in the 1990s, it exploded under
the Bank of England in the 1840s. The Bank lowered its discount rate from 4
per cent to 2.5 per cent. The result was predictable. From the end of 1844
to about February 1946 its discounts rose from about £2 million to over £13
million pounds while bank credit jumped from $22 million to nearly £36
million. What we have here is a massive credit expansion in which discounts
rocked by about 464 per cent and bank credits by 64 per cent, even though there
was only a modest increase in the note issue thanks to Peel's 1844 Bank Act.
(By accepting the currency school error of denying that checking accounts
are money Peel inadvertently allowed the Bank of England to circumvent the
Act).
Now where did a most of this money go? Into hi-tech speculation, i.e., railway
investment. More than £180 million were poured into railway schemes
in 1845 and 1846, about twice the investment of the previous 10 years. Almost
as if it were describing the 1990s The Economist painted a grim picture
of the boom, contemptuously referring to
the folly, the avarice, the insufferable arrogance, the headlong, desperate,
and unprincipled gambling and jobbing, which disgraced nobility and aristocracy,
polluted senators and senate houses, contaminated merchants, manufacturers,
and traders of all kinds, and threw a chilling blight for a time over honest
plod and fair industry.
By September 1847 the boom was finished. Notice how The Economist described
the inflationary spirit that, "contaminated merchants, manufacturers, and traders
of all kinds"? Well, this brings us to Enron. The behaviour this company's
executives were really the remnants of that speculative fever and "insufferable
arrogance" that came to plague the 1990s.
The late Lionel Robbins, a British economist, was not the first to point out
that booms create "a favourable atmosphere for the fraudulent operations of
sharks and swindlers. The big frauds almost all have been perpetrated on a
rising market." Robbins emphasised his point with a quote from Pope:
Blest paper credit. Last and best supply
To lend corruption lighter wings to fly
The '90s demonstrated that monetary booms are still highly corrosive of morals
and ethical behaviour, a sad fact that is never going to change while men remain
as they are. So will the US economy learn from history, meaning its central
bankers and economic commentariat? No more than any other country, meaning
not at all. There will be another recession and once again the market will
charged with committing the dirty deed.
|