|
Below is an extract from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on
20th January 2008.
There's a lot of talk about trying to stave off a recession using a combination
of monetary and fiscal stimulus, but you can't stave off a recession that began
months ago. And in any case, how could a recession possibly be avoided, or
even postponed, by creating more money out of thin air? (Regardless of whether
the stimulus comes in the form of tax cuts or increased government spending
or lower interest rates, it boils down to creating money out of thin air since
there isn't an existing supply of spare money at the disposal of the monetary
authorities). If it were possible to do so then no country would ever have
to experience a recession since officialdom always has the power to increase
the money supply.
The idea that the government and the central bank should take steps to increase
the supply of money to counteract an economic slowdown is based on the Keynesian
fallacy that recessions are caused by insufficient aggregate demand. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
Recessions occur because the inflationary policies of the government and the
central bank lead to the misdirection of investment, which, in turn, results
in a lot of the wrong stuff being produced. Putting it another way, the problem
revolves around the fact that inflation distorts price signals, thus causing
investment to be directed in ways that would not be justified in the absence
of the inflation. You can't fix this problem by creating more inflation, and
yet more inflation is the solution being advocated by almost everyone!
All the central bank and government can reasonably hope to achieve by a so-called "stimulus
package" is a reduction in the purchasing power of the currency. This may hoodwink
some people into believing that things are getting better, but actually things
will be getting worse because the new inflation will lead to another round
of misdirected investment.
Strangely, considering the almost universal acceptance of the idea that a
stimulus package is needed, the sorts of proposals that are being advocated
to address the current downturn have been tested and fallen flat on their faces
many times in the past. That is, it's not like there isn't a mountain of empirical
evidence to back-up the theory that fiscal/monetary "stimulus" hurts more than
it helps. In fact, we only have to look back to the early years of this decade
to see just how 'effective' the combination of massive monetary and fiscal
stimulus can be.
Massive stimulus in the form of slashed interest rates, substantial tax cuts
and a dramatic increase in government spending was implemented during 2001
in reaction to the economic downturn that began with the bursting of the NASDAQ
bubble the year before, but the US economy remained in recession until mid-2003
(the US Government claims that the recession ended in November of 2001, but
real-world observations tell us that recession-like conditions remained until
at least the middle of 2003). Furthermore, the strong downward trend in the
US stock market persisted for almost two years following the implementation
of the combined monetary and fiscal stimulus. The stimulus measures put in
place to address the economic downturn that began in 2000 were, however, largely
responsible for inflating the gigantic mortgage-lending bubble. And we can
see how well that turned out!
Creating a lot of money out of thin air will always have the effect of pushing-up
prices somewhere in the economy, but it can't stimulate real growth. As a result,
the downturns in the stock market and the economy will run their natural courses
regardless of whether or not a stimulus package is implemented. Actually, the
smaller the eventual stimulus package the better because the less harm it will
do.
|