Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Investing in a Bubble Mania Stock Market Trending Towards Financial Crisis 2.0 CRASH! - 9th Sep 21
2.Tech Stocks Bubble Valuations 2000 vs 2021 - 25th Sep 21
3.Stock Market FOMO Going into Crash Season - 8th Oct 21
4.Stock Market FOMO Hits September Brick Wall - Evergrande China's Lehman's Moment - 22nd Sep 21
5.Crypto Bubble BURSTS! BTC, ETH, XRP CRASH! NiceHash Seizes Funds on Account Halting ALL Withdrawals! - 19th May 21
6.How to Protect Your Self From a Stock Market CRASH / Bear Market? - 14th Oct 21
7.AI Stocks Portfolio Buying and Selling Levels Going Into Market Correction - 11th Oct 21
8.Why Silver Price Could Crash by 20%! - 5th Oct 21
9.Powell: Inflation Might Not Be Transitory, After All - 3rd Oct 21
10.Global Stock Markets Topped 60 Days Before the US Stocks Peaked - 23rd Sep 21
Last 7 days
How Stagflation Effects Stocks - 5th Dec 21
Bitcoin FLASH CRASH! Cryptos Blood Bath as Exchanges Run Stops, An Early Christmas Present for Some? - 5th Dec 21
TESCO Pre Omicron Panic Christmas Decorations Festive Shop 2021 - 5th Dec 21
Dow Stock Market Trend Forecast Into Mid 2022 - 4th Dec 21
INVESTING LESSON - Give your Portfolio Some Breathing Space - 4th Dec 21
Don’t Get Yourself Into a Bull Trap With Gold - 4th Dec 21
GOLD HAS LOTS OF POTENTIAL DOWNSIDE - 4th Dec 21
4 Tips To Help You Take Better Care Of Your Personal Finances- 4th Dec 21
What Is A Golden Cross Pattern In Trading? - 4th Dec 21
Bitcoin Price TRIGGER for Accumulating Into Alt Coins for 2022 Price Explosion - Part 2 - 3rd Dec 21
Stock Market Major Turning Point Taking Place - 3rd Dec 21
The Masters of the Universe and Gold - 3rd Dec 21
This simple Stock Market mindset shift could help you make millions - 3rd Dec 21
Will the Glasgow Summit (COP26) Affect Energy Prices? - 3rd Dec 21
Peloton 35% CRASH a Lesson of What Happens When One Over Pays for a Loss Making Growth Stock - 1st Dec 21
Stock Market Sentiment Speaks: I Fear For Retirees For The Next 20 Years - 1st Dec 21 t
Will the Anointed Finanical Experts Get It Wrong Again? - 1st Dec 21
Main Differences Between the UK and Canadian Gaming Markets - 1st Dec 21
Bitcoin Price TRIGGER for Accumulating Into Alt Coins for 2022 Price Explosion - 30th Nov 21
Omicron Covid Wave 4 Impact on Financial Markets - 30th Nov 21
Can You Hear It? That’s the Crowd Booing Gold’s Downturn - 30th Nov 21
Economic and Market Impacts of Omicron Strain Covid 4th Wave - 30th Nov 21
Stock Market Historical Trends Suggest A Strengthening Bullish Trend In December - 30th Nov 21
Crypto Market Analysis: What Trading Will Look Like in 2022 for Novice and Veteran Traders? - 30th Nov 21
Best Stocks for Investing to Profit form the Metaverse and Get Rich - 29th Nov 21
Should You Invest In Real Estate In 2021? - 29th Nov 21
Silver Long-term Trend Analysis - 28th Nov 21
Silver Mining Stocks Fundamentals - 28th Nov 21
Crude Oil Didn’t Like Thanksgiving Turkey This Year - 28th Nov 21
Sheffield First Snow Winter 2021 - Snowballs and Snowmen Fun - 28th Nov 21
Stock Market Investing LESSON - Buying Value - 27th Nov 21
Corsair MP600 NVME M.2 SSD 66% Performance Loss After 6 Months of Use - Benchmark Tests - 27th Nov 21

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

How to Protect your Wealth by Investing in AI Tech Stocks

Economy Swamped by Confusion as Money Supply Goes Wild

Economics / Money Supply Oct 23, 2007 - 01:30 PM GMT

By: Gerard_Jackson

Economics What passes for economic commentary these days is enough to drive one to drink. Let's start with Mike Steketee, another of Rupert Murdoch's resident lefties. He tells us that Nicholas Gruen — an economist — “found that cutting taxes for low and middle-income earners generated the largest response in increased employment”. This is just another version of the consumption-drives-the-economy fallacy.


What Gruen is saying is that more jobs will be created by those with a higher propensity to consume. Keynesian hogwash. Consumption does not matter. Let us apply a little wisdom from a couple of nineteenth century economists, the sort of folk that the likes of Gruen and Steketee seem to think are passé. These men understood very well that which ‘modern' economists now sneer at. To wit, the fact

that consumption is posterior to production, as it is impossible to consume what is not produced. Consumption in the necessary order of things is the effect of production, not production the effect of consumption. (James Stuart Mill, Commerce Defended , C. and R. Baldwin, 1808, p. 79).

Now the above is so obvious any layman would wonder why it needs to be continually stated. Because the economics profession has swallowed the mercantilist fallacy (thank you, Lord Keynes) that consumption is the source of production. Speaking for his contemporaries John Stuart Mill stated:

I apprehend, that if by demand for labour be meant the demand by which wages are raised, or the number of labourers in employment be increased, demand for commodities [consumer goods] does not constitute demand for labour. I conceive that a person who buys commodities and consumes them himself, does no good to the labouring classes; and that it is only by what he abstains form consuming, and expends in direct payments to labourers in exchange for labour, that he benefits the harbouring classes, or adds anything to the amount of their employment”. (John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy , University of Toronto Press, 1965 p. 80)

When John Stuart Mill pointed out that “the demand for commodities [consumption goods] is not the demand for labour” he was merely stating what his contemporaries knew to be true. Consumer spending does nothing to raise productivity. To say that today's economists are schizophrenic on this point would be to understate the situation. Their indifference to the early economists reminds me that shortly before his death Keynes felt the need to remind the profession “that the classical teaching embodied some permanent truths of great significance”. ( The Balance of Payment of the United States , The Economic Journals , June 1946). It's a pity that he left it so late.

Now we have Saul Eslake, according to whom tax cuts would be

adding to the inflationary pressures that typically start to build in circumstances such as these, and thus to upward pressure on interest rates. ( The Age , Tax cuts invite a rate rise , 18 October 2007)

Spare me! Anyone seriously acquainted with Say's law of markets would know immediately that this is nonsense. As the old economists used to say: “supply constitutes demand”. Professor Hutt makes this clear:

When I sell fruit grown in my garden, what I receive and what the purchaser pays me are the same! But what is equally true, and which illustrates Say's law, is that I dispose of an identical value out of the money's worth I receive from that sale whatever I am destined to acquire in return for it .[Italics in the original]. ( A Rehabilitation of Say's Law , Ohio University Press: Athens, 1974, p. 34).

In the light of Say's law we can now see that genuine tax cuts cannot raise ‘aggregate demand'* — they only change its composition. Aggregate demand is treated as having basically two components: private spending and government spending. It should follow that if a government cuts taxes it can only maintain the same level of spending by borrowing from the public or inflating the money supply. The present surplus is the product of a massive monetary expansion. Reserve Bank figures show that from March 1996 to July 2007 currency grew by 101.6 per cent, bank deposits by 177.7 per cent and M1 by 169 per cent.

It is patently obvious that this expansion is the source of the government's massive revenue flow. Yet money supply is never mentioned by our commentariat. The same people who ignore the Reserve's dangerous monetary policy are the same ones who warn us about the inflationary consequences of tax cuts. These people are not content with putting the cart in front of the horse. They also shoot the poor beast.

On Henry Thornton's site we find the following quote from Reserve Bank Deputy-Governor Ric Battellino regarding Australia's record debt ratio:

... deregulation, innovation and lower inflation have simultaneously increased the supply, and reduced the cost, of finance to households.

Henry Thornton interpreted Battellino's comments as meaning that

The explosive growth of debt ratios is all about consenting adults optimizing their portfolios. Most of the increased borrowing is by wealthier households who have used it to purchase assets and thus become even wealthier.

Our debt ratio is 160 per cent of GDP and all the Reserve Bank's Deputy-Governor can say is that it doesn't matter because it's between consulting adults. By the same token runaway inflation would not matter either so long as consenting adults continued to buy and sell. At least the post-Keynesian Steve Keen realises that there is something very wrong here and it means that

we're headed for, to coin a Keatingesque phrase, “the recession we can't avoid”. ( ABC News Opinion , The elephant in Australia's economic living room , 15 February 2007).

What is unnerving here is that none of these economists have linked the “explosive growth of debt” to our exploding money supply. Where in heavens name do they think all this credit came from? The Reserve spends years flooding the economy with credit and no one notices? It's like someone flooding their house by leaving the taps running and then wondering where all the water came from..

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It ain't going to get better.

*Strictly speaking this need not be true. If the refunds are invested so that the capital structure is expanded then we can say that the cuts expanded demand. See How the Laffer curve really works

 

By Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor.

Gerard Jackson Archive

© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in