Seeking Alpha

Pater Tenebrarum

View as an RSS Feed
View Pater Tenebrarum's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Armchair Planners Plotting Monetary Conflagration [View article]
    Imo the only way to have sound money is to return money to the market. We currently have a centrally planned, fully socialistic money system. That is however not a 'normal' state of affairs. The State has usurped money due to the obvious advantages this monopoly gives it. But money has not originated as a creature of the state - it has originated in the marketplace. Ron Paul had exactly the right idea when he demanded that competing, privately issued currencies be made legal. Whether the free market would choose gold is a separate question, but it probably would.
    Oct 25, 2012. 09:39 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Doesn't Care About Its Competition [View article]
    The theory makes no sense to me either. I'm also considering buying a small tablet, and I am definitely comparing the various different ones that are on offer. It could be that the min-ipad ends up convincing me, but this is not a certainty.
    Oct 25, 2012. 05:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lessons From 5 Years Of Economic Crisis [View article]
    "There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."

    Ludwig von Mises, in 'Liberalism'
    Oct 11, 2012. 10:58 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lessons From 5 Years Of Economic Crisis [View article]
    It calls itself 'MMT' these days, but it is the same hoary inflationism countless monetary cranks have preached since the 1920's. In fact, it is better called chartalism, taken from Georg Friedrich Knapp's 'The State Theory of Money' (the title speaks for itself...).
    Never mind that these inflationist theories have all been refuted a thousand times already - they seem to have more lives than a cat. If one could really create wealth by printing money, we'd already be in the Land of Cockaigne and the roasted chickens would fly into our mouths. Somehow it hasn't happened yet.
    Oct 11, 2012. 10:54 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lessons From 5 Years Of Economic Crisis [View article]
    In fact, Hoover was a major interventionist. FDR merely continued what he started.
    Oct 11, 2012. 10:49 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Please note, the Fed did NOT 'take money out' of the economy during the Great Depression. The Fed expanded free bank reserves by more than 400% between September 1929 and March 1933.
    What happened was that so many banks went under that all the deposit money that had been created during the 1920's boom and was deposited with these banks went to money heaven. Since there was no FDIC, this part of the money supply - essentially money substitutes created by fractional reserve banking for which no standard money backing existed - disappeared. This is why the money supply shrank in the first three years of the depression. This was by the way the very last time the US money supply has declined, apart from a tiny year-on-year decline in 1981 as a result of Paul Volcker's money supply targeting policy in the early 80's.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:32 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    I can answer that question. We still have a market economy, even if it is a severely hampered market economy - and a market economy tends to create wealth. If you had seen a few earlier articles of mine, I have quite often made the point that while the inflationary boom-bust sequence 'impoverishes' us, one must be very careful in interpreting this term in this context. It does not necessarily mean that we are poorer at the end of the bust than we were on the eve of the boom. It only means that we would have attained an even greater degree of wealth and want-satisfaction had there been no inflationary boom in the first place.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Thanks for the kind words- and quite right - the point that all economic activity is ultimately actually funded by real goods is something that escapes most observers and is rarely discussed.
    An excellent and extensive discussion of this point can by the way be found in Richard von Strigl's 'Capital and Production'.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Please note that I make no claim anywhere that there is an imminent threat of hyper-inflation. The extreme case is only considered in the context of the hubris of policymakers who maintain that such outcomes are impossible.
    There need not be a 'loss of productive capacity' to produce hyperinflation. In historical cases of hyperinflation there were of course always extraneous factors contributing to the desperate decisions that ultimately led to a loss of faith in the currency's purchasing power. No policymaker ever embarked on such a policy with the explicit aim to destroy the currency. But these circumstances were different in every case. The revolutionary assembly of France did not face a 'loss of production capacity' for instance. Neither did John Law and the Duc d'Orleans. Nevertheless, they managed to inflate their respective currencies to oblivion.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Even the two of us can create credit. If I lend you $100, credit in the economy will have increased by $100, but the money supply will be unaltered. It is different if a commercial bank takes in a $100 deposit, and then creates an additional $90 deposit (via fractional reserve lending) in favor of a borrower. Then both credit and the money supply will have increased. And that makes all the difference with regards to the boom-bust cycle.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    One can not outlaw human error, but a vast misallocation of capital to the extent that it creates the boom-bust cycle is a direct result of suppressing interest rates through the creation of fiduciary media ex nihilo. Why else would resources be misallocated in grand style? When new money created from thin air enters the economy, exchanges of nothing for something take place - while the economy's pool of real funding remains unaltered. And there is a difference between money and credit, even if the two are linked in a fractionally reserved banking system operating with fiat money.
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    It is imo very difficult to argue that the stance of monetary policy is 'tight' when the broad true money supply has increased by more than 80% in a little over four years. What we observe, or can infer, is that there has been a concomitant increase in the demand for money (i.e., a demand for holding higher cash balances), which for the time being has confined the inflationary effects to pushing only certain prices up (look at a chart of the CCI to see which ones).
    Oct 5, 2012. 01:00 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Just to make one more point clear: I am not claiming that the US dollar is likely to lose its usefulness as a viable medium of exchange anytime soon. Such a possible 'end game'. a breakdown of the monetary system, is not an event that is hewn in stone. It will depend on the future decisions of policymakers, which we cannot predict with certainty. It is always possible that the inflationary policy is abandoned in time. To me the problems with the policy are of a more imminent and practical nature (as noted further above), mostly to do with capital malinvestment and capital consumption.
    However, it is legitimate to speculate about the possibility of an eventual breakdown. We don't know yet which contingencies might motivate future policymakers to throw caution to the wind. This is why I specifically mentioned that in past examples of crack-up booms, the people responsible never did anything to cause them on purpose, and often enough they were well aware of the dangers. They simply erred when they thought they would have things under control when the time came.
    Oct 5, 2012. 12:57 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    Money and treasury debt are not the 'same thing'. I have discussed the topic in some detail here:
    'Money and Credit: There is a Difference'

    It is imo quite important to define money correctly.
    Oct 5, 2012. 12:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    It is true that economic calculation is still 'possible', but economic calculation is nevertheless falsified. As noted above, there are no constants in economics. The fact that an 80% increase in the true money supply over four years has not resulted in 'CPI inflation' does by no means prove that everything is just fine. In reality, there has been a price revolution through the entire economic system, as the introduction of additional fiduciary media distorts interest rates, and with them, relative prices in the economy. It is this alteration of relative prices that is the true evil.
    I would think that the housing bubble should convince even the most dedicated empiricists that this is what the main problem with inflation is. The housing bubble stands as a monument to capital malinvestment due to an overly inflationary policy (in 2001-2002, the true US money supply grew by over 20% annualized). Houses and land can for analytical purposes be treated as akin to capital goods, and in the post Nasdaq bubble inflation this was the sector that received a disproportionate share of the new money that was created. Prices in the housing sector were certainly distorted to such an extent that factors of production were drawn en masse into it, in a capital misallocation orgy of nigh unprecedented proportions. The now well known end result was a financial and economic disaster that almost destroyed the banking system. What were our vaunted monetary bureaucrats planning for back then? A crash?
    Moreover, it should be clear that prices would not only be different, but also generally lower than they now are if not for the inflationary policy. How come that anyone actually believes that a handful of bureaucrats can possibly know better than the free market whether prices should be higher or lower, or how much money the economy needs? If central planning were really so great, we could just as well institute a command economy. Sound money cannot be created by bureaucratic fiat - it can only be a creature of the market. 
    Oct 5, 2012. 12:44 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment