Of Inflation and Borrowing

 

Photo by Mar Cerdeira on Unsplash

Inflation is good for borrowers?  Really?  So some say.  The case goes like this:  when the borrower receives his loan for so much, he promises to pay it back with money that would buy so much, but after inflation the money he uses to repay the loan will buy less.  He repays with cheaper money.  The lender gets his money back, but it is worth less than it was when he lent it.  Hold that thought, because that is the weakness in the case.

This inflation “benefit” may work for borrowers who already have loans, with a fixed rate that they can handle.  For all others, however, inflation raises the costs of everything, including borrowing.  How long will lenders be willing to lose value in the loans they make?

Think of it this way.  Does inflation work for people who sell things?  Maybe for their current supply, but their new supply will cost them more, eating into what they earn and raising the cost of what they try to sell to the next potential buyer.  The same reality is true for people who “sell” money, which is what lenders do. 

As we buyers know, inflation does not work well for buyers.  We face ever higher prices for the same things.  The same is true for people who “buy” money, which is what borrowing is.

New borrowers will find interest rates, the price of borrowing, rising with inflation, too.  That could put borrowing out of reach for some, just as it does for buying a house, a car, or work tools.  Businesses that need to roll over their existing loans could find the new loan more expensive, maybe even too expensive.  People who want to refinance their mortgage may find the new rate makes that much less attractive.  Floating rates, like credit card rates, will rise, so the cost of the products charged to the card will not be the only higher costs that card users face.  In short, only some borrowers, a declining some, may benefit from inflation, and only for a time.

Today’s money rests on trust, whether we talk of paper money, coins, or financial accounts.  We sell our time, our goods, our services in exchange for money.  That money is a promise that we can use it in trade with someone else for something of comparable worth.  When we accept money in payment, we in turn are making a loan to someone who has already received our goods, or services, or time.  All we got was a promise, which we trust we can exchange with someone else.  Inflation undermines that trust.  We receive a $100 payment of money which because of inflation may soon buy only what $95 used to buy.

Even governments will face the challenge of higher costs.  Sure, they will be paying back existing government debt with devalued money, but their new borrowings will carry a higher price tag, as will the things that governments buy.  I was going to say, look in the mirror if you want to know who will pay that higher cost of government debt, but if you do, have your children looking with you.

Of More Money and Higher Prices

 

Photo by Shane on Unsplash

We have a new occupant of the Oval Office.  I did not hear his inaugural address, uncertain who would forget it more quickly, myself or its deliverer.  Inaugural addresses are highly forgettable literature, Lincoln’s first and second addresses (the second especially) the only ones that anyone can seem to remember, and worthy they are as exceptions to the genre.

I have been remembering the mountains of money that the government has been spending that it does not have, wondering where it is coming from even more than where it is going.  It is hard to find anyone who can tell you much with certainty about either.  The current attention is more focused on plans to spend yet another two trillion dollars that the government does not have on things that are not very clearly explained.  This would be on top of the most recent trillion dollars approved by Congress drawn from an empty well to be spent watering many a hidden garden.

I can understand the first round or two of multi-trillion dollar government expenditures.  Since government caused the collapse of a strongly growing economy by shutting down commerce and locking up the population, a strong argument can be made that paying these victims is not exactly a bailout as it is compensation.  To quote Will Rogers, if Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out? 

A serious problem seems to be that once you get into the game of paying people more to stay at home than they can earn on the job, how do you bring the game to an end.  The plan of the new Oval Office occupant seems to be to go into extra innings but continue serving spiritous refreshments well past the seventh inning.  How will the people get home safely once the game is over?

The classic formula for inflation is to have too much money chasing too few goods and services.  The kindling for a roaring inflation would appear to be carefully set. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve have been dramatically expanding the money supply, with the Federal Reserve supporting the market for the government’s electronic debt (not much money is printed on paper anymore) by purchasing gobs of Treasury securities from banks, paying the banks with electronic credits on their accounts held at the Federal Reserve, which the banks cannot find much to do with.  At the same time, many governors continue to issue orders to suppress the supply of goods and services.  As Elon Musk reportedly said last year, if you don't make stuff, there is no stuff.

If this worry is well-founded, then why have we not yet seen any inflation, government spending surges and the Great Cessation having been Federal and State policies for nearly a year?  A very good question, the answer to which may be found in the savings rate.  While a lot of electronic money has been going into people’s bank accounts, people have been shy about spending it.  The personal savings rate jumped in 2020 from about 7% to nearly 35%.  Worried people hoard more than toilet paper.  And a lot of things that people might spend money on, such as travel, suddenly were not available.  I was surprised last year when our car insurance company sent us a rebate:  insurance losses were down because people were traveling less.

The roads are a bit more congested these days, and the economy is showing strong signs of trying to recover.  Even the savings rate is coming down, dropping to about 13% as 2020 approached its close.  More activity is good, but what is the Federal Reserve going to do if more people spend more savings faster than more goods and services are provided?  How will the Federal Reserve respond to another couple trillion dollars of deficit spending to stimulate an economy that is already on a recovery trajectory and families continue draining their savings?  They could allow interest rates to rise, to encourage people to keep some of their money in savings accounts that have paid less than a penny a year per dollar saved.  Recent Federal Reserve comments, though, declare that is not on the table.

In the late 1970s, when Jimmy Carter was president, economists invented the term “stagflation,” as inflation was high and the economy was in the doldrums.  Joe Biden was a relatively new Senator back then.  Maybe he will remember those days.  That economic pattern served no one well.

Of the Federal Reserve and Taking from Savers

Ben Bernanke has a blog.  You can find it here, courtesy of the Brookings Institution.  Of course, what would the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board write about, other than decisions he made as Chairman, and why people who take issue with them are wrong?  One would expect no less, and reading the light he sheds on previous decisions—offered in Fedspspeak at the time that they were made—is surely the chief lure of Ben Bernanke’s blog.  Allowed to communicate in regular English, not worried about how Fed Watchers might construe or misconstrue everything he says and does not say, Ben is more able to speak his mind clearly.

The former Fed Head chose for his first blog post a vigorous defense of price controls on interest rates.  In the process Bernanke demonstrates the assumption that we are safe letting government economists control the economy—an assumption continually disproven by real-world experience. 

In fact, as a result of entrusting much of our economic freedom in the United States to government economists, we do not have a free market for interest rates, at least not short term rates, and we pay for that every day.  The Federal Reserve sets short term rates in this country, and so far the market has had zero success in moving rates from the near zero interest rate range that the Federal Reserve has decreed and maintained for some years.  Keep that in mind the next time you wonder why you earned $1.73 in interest on your savings account last year.

If you borrow money—when you can get a loan—then you might consider yourself lucky.  The biggest borrower of all, in the whole world, is the United States Government.  Uncle Sam must be feeling very lucky, because he is paying comparatively little on the $18 trillion of U.S. Government debt, increased by another half trillion dollars last year.

If you save money, though, especially for your retirement—and if you have to live off of those savings in retirement—you might not feel so fortunate.  By keeping interest rates lower than the market would set them, the Federal Reserve is daily transferring many billions of dollars from savers to the Federal Government.  And you thought that only the IRS takes your money.

Let me illustrate with an example.  For the last three months of 2014, all of the banks in the United States, all of them together, paid no more than $11 billion to people who had their money in banks.  Is that a lot of money?  It depends.  When that is the interest paid on nearly $12 trillion in deposits, the answer is, no, that is not very much money at all. 

Do not blame the banks, though.  They are in the saving and lending business, too. Try as they might, with the Federal Reserve controlling interest rates, banks could not pay any more interest to depositors.  If a bank did, it would have more money than it could lend as people shifted their deposits where they could get a better return.  To pay interest on deposits, banks cannot get much more interest from the loans they make than the Federal Reserve price controls allow, and many relatively good loans present more repayment risk (banks do need to be paid back) than those low interest rates would cover.  Low interest earned means low interest paid. 

All the banks in the nation have a little over $15 trillion in loans and other assets, on which they earned last year about the same amount as they did five years ago, when they had $2 trillion less in loans and other assets.  In an environment of low interest rates, banks have to concentrate their lending on the safest borrowers. 

That is how the low interest rates controlled by the Federal Reserve are oppressing the economy.  When savers and lenders can only get a few cents on a hundred dollars lent, they place their money with the very safest of borrowers, since they cannot afford to take any losses.  Someone who has a really good idea—which like all good ideas may or may not succeed the first time—has trouble getting the money to give his idea a go and hire people to help him try. 

Ben Bernanke claims that the Federal Reserve’s near zero interest rate policy—called ZIRP—has been stimulating the economy.  If so, where is the stimulation?  Why has the recovery been so weak?  There has been stimulus, but it has gone primarily to support Federal Government spending and to pay down the debt of the largest and healthiest businesses that can trade in their higher cost loans for the Federal Reserve’s lending bargains.  The biggest increases in bank loans have been in Treasury debt and deposits at the Federal Reserve.

Ben Bernanke, in his blog, reminds me of the story of the lawyer representing a client charged with stealing a car and returning it damaged.  The lawyer says, first, that his client never had the car; second, that he returned it in perfect condition; and, third, that it was already irreparably damaged when his client took it. 

Bernanke begins by explaining that the Federal Reserve does not set interest rates, or that at most its ability to do so is only “transitory and limited.”  He pleads that the Fed can only affect short term rates “in the short run.”  He does not explain how seven years of ZIRP can be considered the short run.  Then he progresses in his blog to describe how the Federal Reserve “influences” interest rates and then how the “Fed’s actions determine” interest rates.  His argument, after denying that the Fed can set rates, is that the economy has been so weak that the Fed has had to lower interest rates for the nation’s own good.  Bernanke next argues that the economy has remained so troubled (he does not say, despite ZIRP) that the Federal Reserve has had no choice but to continue with ZIRP, concluding that it is the economy after all the forces the Fed to do what it does.  Do not blame the Fed Governors, they had no choice but to continue doing what they cannot do because it has not done any good so far.  I think you need to have a Ph.D. in economics to make such an argument.

We cannot do it, we did what we had to do, and since it has not helped we cannot stop.  I wonder how he reacted to those kind of explanations from his teenagers.  Any responsible parent would reply, no, you cannot have the car, give me back the keys.

Of Unbanked and “Underbanked”

Speaking of banks, as I did on this page a short time ago, there are those who are concerned that too many people in the United States are “unbanked” or “underbanked.”  By the former they seem to mean those who do not use any banking services, particularly who do not have any bank accounts.  By the latter, they mean those who obtain some banking services from businesses that are not banks.  The very existence of the terms, and the way that they are used by those who use them, implies that being “unbanked” or “underbanked” is a bad thing.

I will here disclose that I have worked for banks for nearly 10 years and for all I know may continue to do so for some time into the future.  Whatever bias or color to my views that this condition provides I will nevertheless try to comment from a fair and factual point of view.

My first point, therefore, is that I am not prepared to assert that absolutely everyone should have a bank account.  I can easily envision the value of a bank account for most if not all people, but I concede that they should be allowed to choose for themselves and that it would be terribly wrong to force people into banks.  I acknowledge that there are some alternative providers of financial services who seem to please their customers, and I do not deny that banks can benefit from good competition.  Banks have a long history of drawing upon the ideas and innovations of non-banks, just as non-banks have been eager to try their hand at successful new products and services that banks have pioneered.  Bank customers have benefited the most from that process, as the variety and value of financial products have expanded, and the United States has led the world in the discovery of new and useful financial services.

Having said that, the nation cannot do well without a strong, vibrant, and prosperous banking industry.  Our nation and people grow as we save financial resources and invest them in improvements for the future, whether new homes, new factories, or new ideas of how to do and make things better, faster, and cheaper.  That is a major part of what banks do and are all about. 

Moreover, there are a lot of things we do and a lot of places we go because we know that our ability to pay and get paid—to exchange things we value less for things that we value more (the reason we buy and sell things and use money to do it)—is secure, reliable, accurate, and relatively quick.  That is our payments system, and banks created it and are at the center of it.

Americans also like the idea of becoming wealthier and expect to do so.  If that seems a commonplace to you, recognize that it is not so in all parts of the world, where getting by from day to day is about the most to which people can aspire, for whom poverty is a way of life that they expect to bequeath to their children.  To the extent that this miserable condition is becoming less the case in much of the world, that more people are beginning to believe that they can build and improve their wellbeing for themselves and their posterity, this new-found hope for accumulating wealth is attributable to the dispersion of principles of freedom and prosperity that Americans take for granted but which are new to much of the world.  The global adoption of many American principles of prosperity has been a major contribution of the New World to the Old World and to all mankind.

Now get ready for the bold but true statement:  you cannot get there and stay there without banks and the services that banks provide.  Banks gather wealth, safeguard wealth, allow it to be used efficiently, and apply it to building the future.  That is why governments pay so much attention to banks, and also why it is so harmful when governments try to capture banks and channel their services to the personal gain of themselves and their cronies.  That is also why misguided bank regulations are harmful—even if in subtle but powerful ways—to the nation and its people.

Which brings us back to the agenda of the “unbanked” and the “underbanked.”  In the United States, chief causes for people remaining “unbanked” are regulations that make banking more difficult and services more expensive; cultural barriers for people who come from societies where personal banking is either unknown or where the experience has been one of banks used by local governments to harvest wealth from people to enrich the governing elites and their cronies (much of Latin America, for example); and people who for whatever reason just do not prefer to use banks.  The first cause regulators can solve but have largely been resistant to solving; the second can be overcome by time and experience and is showing signs of that; and the third cause is no more of a problem than people who prefer to rent rather than own their home, to eat eggs without grits, or who do not like the New York Yankees.  I do not have to understand the personal preference to acknowledge it.

The concept of “underbanked” (that government needs to help banks figure out how to serve people who may get some banking services outside of banks) I fear may be a political device to harness American banks to serve the cronies of the “underbanked” advocates.  We have already seen this game with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations, adopted ostensibly to ensure that banks lend to their local communities (as if bankers, unlike other businessmen, need government regulation to notice business opportunities right under their own nose).  In practice, CRA has been used to coerce banks into providing loans and even grants to and through poverty advocacy agencies that tend to prosper more than the people whom they claim to be helping.  The folks who fret about the “underbanked” have marvelous formulas and plans for other people’s money to solve problems about which the people to be helped seem little concerned.  I have never heard of any truly “underbanked” people themselves calling for the firm hand of government to get them into the banking system; if they want banking services, they just go and get them. 

I have the haunting suspicion that the “underbanked” advocates would if they could use banks the same way found in the abandoned societies of the “unbanked,” where banking services came through the hands of people who knew better than others and always made sure to get their cut for their benevolence.  That is not really banking, and that is symptomatic of why people flee those lands.  The wealth creation of such captive banks seems to be for someone else.  If it happens in America, where will the people go?

Of Claiming Good and Doing Bad

A very good book was published this month.  Ostensibly, it is about our economy and the recession.  It is actually about much more.  It is the first book about the current American economy written by a philosopher, and it is perhaps the best book I have read yet about all the recent unpleasantness.  Some might say that the economic trouble still continues, more like a long, slow convalescence from a serious illness than a healthy recovery.  For many whose financial condition stagnates, for those who have replaced a full-time job with one or two part-time jobs, for graduates who have a degree in hand but no work in the field for which they have trained, and especially for the millions who remain out of work, talk of an economic turnaround can seem like a mockery.

For those and others, Infiltrated, by Jay W. Richards, can help make some sense of what hit us.  The book does not suggest that there was a massive conspiracy to drive our nation into economic turmoil.  It explains how turmoil came nevertheless as national policymakers followed the prescriptions of people who claimed to be doing good but tried to cheat the laws of economics and markets to impose what they might call “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

It was their idea that in order to help more people own homes lenders should ignore such things as ability to repay a mortgage, strong history of employment and steady income, and having some equity in the value of the house so there would not be an incentive to walk away if prices dropped.  They also agitated for the government to expand its guaranties for mortgages to people with poor credit histories and loans where lenders cut corners.  And they badgered builders to keep building more houses. 

Their plans horribly miscarried, and yet those people have even more control over us and our economy today and are more able and determined to try again.  The recession, rather than educating and deterring them, has made them bolder.

I am reminded of what the late Louis Rukeyser, the very popular host of the PBS program Wall Street Week, wrote in the 1990s:

            Washington has been taken over by an impregnable mob of short-sighted, power-hungry megaclowns.

They try their worst to micromanage every detail of the economy, but succeed only in whipping the markets back and forth, up and down in spastic patterns.  They despise the gentler forces of a free market, which would moderate swings far more predictably.

(Louis Rukeyser, 1993 advertisement for his financial newsletter)

The people to whom I refer and whom Richards exposes in his book do not like the markets.  They trust themselves more and think that you should trust them, too.  They seriously do believe themselves smarter than the markets, and that is the problem.  No one, other than God, is smarter than the markets.  A large part of economic history, the tragic part, is a chronicle of the disasters caused when a small coterie of people are able to enforce their wishes and preferences on the rest of us in contravention of economic reality.  It never works. 

That was the story of the Great Depression, and it was entirely the story of communism, where whole societies were based upon the now well-proven fallacy that any group of people, no matter how smart or well intentioned, can gather sufficient data and know and understand enough to run a national economy.  It is just far too complicated, with billions of economic decisions being made by millions of people all day and all night long.  The markets make it all work, because the markets are the sum combined total of all of those economic actions and decisions interacting with each other.  No human five-year plan for economic control has escaped failure.

What is worse, as well intentioned as such people may start out, all too often, as Richards’ book exposes, their efforts not only fail to do what they set out to do, they fail to stay virtuous and instead  become enlisted in the service of private gain at the expense of the rest of us.  The Soviet system might have worked pretty well for the party owners of the dachas along the Black Sea but only by impoverishing the workers their leaders claimed to be serving.

Do not let yourself be put off that Richards is a philosopher.  His book is remarkably readable, one that you can take with you to the beach and actually enjoy, and feel that you have learned something—a lot—in the reading.  Richards mixes real life narrative with hard facts and good research, unified by sound reasoning to expose a nasty and growing problem in American government today.  The problem is a big part of why government is expanding and becoming more intrusive in all aspects of our lives, including our financial affairs, education, healthcare, energy use, the products we buy, the food we eat, and the entertainment we enjoy, and even the breath we exhale. 

That is to say that the story told by Jay Richards, in Infiltrated, is actually a longer story, a story that began long before the recession, and continues afterward, a story that is bigger than his book.  The recent economic events and their painful aftermath illuminate Richards’ core message, the human wreckage caused when some people are able to harness the coercive force of government to impose their personal notions of “benevolence” on the rest of us. 

Roger Kimball, writing in 2011 in The New Criterion, warned that such efforts are “intoxicating, addictive, expensive, and ultimately ruinous.” (Roger Kimball, “Liberty versus benevolence,” The New Criterion, February 2011, p.6)  Richards offers several well-described examples, well illustrating the truth of Kimball’s observations. 

A valuable lesson for policymakers and for the people they would govern:  the more discretion you give to government, the more you create the opportunity for abuse of that discretion for private gain.  Europe in the 18th century was lousy with the practice.  Our forebears sought to escape it and fought a revolution to get out of its grip.  The men who threw the tea into Boston Harbor were acting in protest of the partnership between the British Crown and the British East India Company. 

Beware the public-private partnerships.  Jay Richards explains how some public-private mortgage partnerships went bad, very bad, for the partners and for all of us caught in the dust and debris of their collapse.  I am reminded of the warning by former Congressman Dick Armey, that when you enter into a partnership with the devil, you are always the junior partner.

I conclude with the words of New York City Democrat Congressman Bourke Cockran, delivered 110 years ago:

That Government only is good, that Government only is great, that Government only is just, which has neither favorites nor victims.

(W. Bourke Cockran, speech given before the National Liberal Club of England, London, July 15, 1903, in W. Bourke Cockran, In the Name of Liberty, p.190)

Our government should be that government.

Of Marriage and Happiness

Last week I completed teaching another “Strengthening Marriages” course at church.  The principles I taught were my own.  By that I do not mean that I thought them up.  They are mine because I embrace them.  The course was designed under the direction of living Apostles and prophets.  The concepts are divinely inspired. Their purpose is not to “fix” troubled marriages but rather to help husband and wife in any marriage increase the joy of this most important of all human relationships.

Here is a summary of some of the key principles taught.

The first and foundational principle is that the family is not only the most important institution in the Church but is in fact the most important institution in all time and all eternity.  The marriage relationship is our most important relationship and can be the source of our greatest joy, beginning now and lasting forever.  The key to that joy is building our marriages and our homes on the rock of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.  So built, we can withstand all that this life of trial throws at us, allowing us to begin living in heaven already while here in mortality.

Another central principle of happiness is unity in marriage.  Husband and wife are intended to be one.  Man and woman were created to be united and become a greater one.  No man or woman is complete or whole without wife or husband.  To enjoy the most of that unity husband and wife should allow their differences in gifts to complement one another.  God intended man and woman to be much alike but also significantly different in physical, mental, and even spiritual gifts.  Embrace that, do not fight it.  Unity in marriage also requires complete loyalty to each other, placing commitment to each other above any relationship with anyone else on earth.  This unlocks an unending wealth of happiness in marriage.

Important in the day-to-day life of marriage is nurturing love and friendship with each other.  Frequent expressions of love and kindness—in ways large and small— play no small part in that nurturing.  The proper expression of intimacy in marriage is a gift that God has extended to His children that, kept in proper channels, unlocks enormous eternal power.  Complete faithfulness to each other strengthens that intimacy and enfolds it in an ever increasing love.

Both husband and wife should expect and acknowledge that there will be challenges.  The purpose of mortal life is to be immersed in a world of challenges and grow from those challenges, our reactions to them shaping us into who we choose to be for the eternities.  In marriage we find help to face those challenges, a help meet that we can find in no other way or relationship.  Husbands and wives, with the aid and inspiration of the Lord, can work through any challenge.  This is part of the marriage covenant.  Marriage, to be what the Lord intended, to manifest all of its power for joy, must be a covenant, not a contract, a covenant through which we give all to each other without consideration of an “exchange.”  The concept of “prenuptial” agreements, of counting the contributions of each in marriage, are foreign to the eternal union of souls that marriage can be as intended by God.

An important principle of happiness that needs to be applied whenever a challenge arises within the marriage itself, be the challenge large or small, is that we can choose to react in patience and love rather than in frustration and anger.  That may take practice, but it is a rewarding practice.  As children of God, we can increase our power and freedom to make that choice each time that we choose well.  Strong lines of communication between spouses will enable us to respond to challenges most effectively.  When looking at each other, seeing the admirable qualities rather than the temporary weaknesses facilitates that communication and builds the confidence that underlies it.

A successful eternal marriage involves the Lord as a constant Partner, Help, and Guarantor of the covenant.  He wants us to succeed.  We draw upon His help and strength through faith and prayer.  Modern prophets for a hundred years or more have counseled that great power comes to husband and wife and then to their family from such inspired practices as regular, daily family prayer and scripture study and weekly family home evening.  From long experience I can tell you that this is true.

We know that we each will come up short from time to time.  The atonement of Christ gives us the best tool for dealing with our shortcomings and not letting them harm our marriage:  forgiveness.  We discussed how we need to seek forgiveness from each other and be ever ready to extend forgiveness.  The result is peace, trust, and security.

Do not neglect to follow, jointly, principles of sound family finances.  Managing family finances together can be a powerful way of uniting marriage in real life.  As we manage the material elements of our life we build eternal spiritual ties with each other.  In a material way we see our complete union growing closer.  A few of the key principles of successful financial management include paying an honest tithe (as a constant reminder of the spiritual nature of all things material), spending less than we earn, and the freedom that comes from living within a budget.

These are just highlights of the marvelous truths that God has revealed to us through His prophets to make our marriages what He intends them to be, the greatest source of happiness and joy in this life and happiness and fulfillment beyond anything that we can imagine in the eternal worlds.

As you consider them, think on the words of the modern prophet Brigham Young about the marriage relationship:

But the whole subject of the marriage relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on this earth.  It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach.  We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity.  (Brigham Young, October 6, 1854, Journal of Discourses, 2:90)

Of Financial Crisis and Hopes for Better

Sitting by the hearth on a Sunday afternoon, comfortable and cozy, while the winter winds blow, it is easy to ponder how the changing of the year has come to be a time for leaving behind the failings of the past and embracing hopes for better in the future.  I reflect upon the general healthy recognition at this time that happiness in the new year is to some important degree connected with our own personal performance.  Success is not so much the luck of what happens to us as the result of what we do, hence our natural determinations to resolve to do better in some way or another.

Within a few weeks—or even a few days—many of us overcome such thoughts, abandon our resolutions to do better, and settle back into familiar patterns, including the narcotic belief that what happens to us is largely a matter of fate and fortune and little related to our efforts and actions.  Successful people are seen as more “fortunate” than others, who somehow owe something to the “less fortunate,” especially if we consider ourselves among the “less fortunate.”  How else could rational people conjure up the palpably false claim that it is fair to demand and take the property of more successful people and give it to those who have done little or nothing to earn it, who in fact have in many ways squandered their wealth and opportunities for success?

Had we as a nation embraced the principle that what a man or woman earns is his or hers to use or keep or share as he or she wishes, we would have avoided the weeks-long political soap opera called “the fiscal cliff.”  The misleading story proffered by the institutional media is that our nation is on the edge of economic calamity because Congress—meaning by implication the Republicans in the Congress—is unwilling to do its job.  In fact, there are important fundamental principles at the heart of the disagreement between congressional Republicans and President Obama, namely whether cutting government spending—mostly government give away programs—should be postponed by raising taxes on the “wealthy” and independent businesses, and moreover whether raising any taxes on a weak economy makes economic sense.  There is a growing gap in views over these principles.  But for the national cult of coveting there would not be one, but there is, and sooner or later it will be too wide to bridge.

Without this disagreement, we would address excessive government spending the same way that families do.  Families that spend more than they earn will either borrow (within their means to support debt), reduce spending, or earn more, or some combination of these.  Our government has almost exclusively relied upon borrowing (beyond our ability to support it without foreign help), has increased its spending, and has “earned” less. 

On this last point, keep in mind that governments do not earn anything; people do.  Governments take what people earn.  Government policies over the years have reduced economic growth below the growth of government, inhibiting the ability of people to earn, which in turn undermines what our government can afford.  This trend has not been getting any better and has brought us to economic crisis.  A refocus on economic growth, not government growth, is what is needed, but there lies the disagreement in Washington.

In that context, I take advantage of the year-end season of better rationality—however brief—to propose that the bells we sound for the new year ring out the old and destructive coveting for the fruits of others’ labors and ring in the determination to improve our own condition by our own labors.  I propose that for you and for me and for our society as a whole we commit to rely more upon ourselves and to unleash our creative powers for growth and prosperity.  In the same way we will increase our ability and willingness to help others, but we will do so as a healthy exercise of our free will.  Government cannot be generous, for there is no generosity in distributing other people’s money.  But the individual people who make up society can and will open their hands to those around them, as Americans have more than any other people for more than two centuries.  More productive ourselves, we will have more means to share and better judgment about how to share it—ennobling to ourselves and to those we choose to aid.

Of Lawlessness and the Constitution of the United States

Trivia question for the day:  What is the smallest national legislature in the world?  If you answered, the Supreme Court of the United States of America, give yourself 25 points and a chance at the bonus question:  What is the highest law of the land?  If you answered, the Constitution of the United States of America, subtract 50 points from your score and shake hands with the moderator as you leave the contest in polite and condescending disgrace.

If you are a student of the history of the United States, particularly of its founding, and if you are in addition a constitutional scholar, including some experience reading the writings of the writers of the Constitution, you can take some solace in knowing that your second answer used to be right.  It was right for most of the first 100 years of the history of the United States, and remained right for another 50 years or so after that, although things were already changing in the late 1800s.

In the latter part of the 1800s the Progressive movement, and its fellow travelers the Positivist legal scholars, asserted its voice in America with the notion that law was not at all really connected to natural law as the Founders believed and intended.  In the Progressive/Positivist view, law was whatever lawmakers wanted it to be, and that extended to how the Constitution was to be interpreted.  The Constitution was a collection of written words, words whose meanings were to be interpreted by the new supreme legislature, the Supreme Court, to accommodate the Progressive/Positivist agenda.

The whole idea of a constitution is that there are some fundamental, basic laws that do not change, or that change only by the specific decision and action of super majorities of the population (super majorities to ensure that the rights of minorities are safeguarded).  To preserve their integrity those fundamental laws are written down and taught and embraced from generation to generation.  In the United States, it was on the basis of written constitutions that our nation came together, first the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States begins with the words, “We the People”.  All of these were new, exceptional ideas.  The approach at the time in the rest of the world was, “You the People”, with a despot, monarch, or some small group of people governing the rest of the population.  In America things were different, and the Founders sought to enshrine and perpetuate that difference within strong bands of a written constitution and the division of governmental power prescribed  and preserved by the Constitution.

It does not seem so different or exceptional anymore.  It seems that today the law, constitutional or otherwise, can be changed or written by five out of nine unelected people in black robes issuing their decrees from a Greek temple in Washington, D.C.  The rest of the 313 million who make up We the People have no more say about it.  That is tolerable, and even desirable if these nine, or the five of the nine, limit themselves to enforcing the laws and Constitution that the people themselves have established through constitutional process.  It becomes intolerable when they just make it up, as they have been increasingly doing since the 1930s.  That is not law.  It is tyrannical lawlessness.

This is very real to the 313 million who are expected to follow the dictates of this tiny legislature.  Under the influence of the lawless behavior of the members of the Supreme Court and their failure to uphold the Constitution, lawlessness and lack of respect for the Constitution are spreading throughout the American system of government.  In very recent years we have witnessed a narrow majority in the Congress, violating its own procedures, pass legislation that obviously violated the Constitution. The executive branch, suspected by the nation’s Founders as ever prone to plans to oppress the people, has exerted an increasingly cavalier attitude toward the Constitution.

These lawless acts themselves are not trivial.  They were explicitly designed to restrict the freedoms of the people, whether with regard to their healthcare choices, how they conduct their financial affairs, or how they find, develop, and use energy—all pretty fundamental to the way that the people live their daily lives.  Under the rule of law we would look to the courts (among other places) to uphold the law and turn back unconstitutional and thus lawless efforts to take away the rights of the people.  Too often lately we look to the courts in vain.  It is far from a sure thing these days that the Court will come to the rescue of the Constitution and the freedoms it was written to protect, witness the suspense that precedes each new decision.

The recent Obamacare decision is the latest and most painful insult to “We the People” yet to come from the Supreme Legislature.  For now, the Five have said that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution cannot be used to force Americans to buy health insurance.  No need.  The Five decided that the taxing authority can be used to force people to do whatever our leaders in Washington want us to do—although they failed to indicate which taxing authority was used. 

The Founders were chary with the taxing authority that they extended to Washington, putting strong walls and tight rules around its exercise.  Remember, it took an amendment to the Constitution to allow an income tax.  Obamacare is not an income tax, or any of the other constitutionally allowed taxes.  Yet a tax it is, now decreed by the five of the nine Justices, that can be applied to anyone—and the anyone is mostly younger adults—who choose in the future not to buy health insurance.  The Five did not say what we might next be forced by taxes to do:  that is just a blank that they have left for people in Washington to fill.

In the days when the Constitution was the highest law of the land one of its great defenders, Daniel Webster, declared in a pleading before the Supreme Court that, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”  The Chief Justice of that Court, John Marshall, quoted and enshrined that thought in his ruling, McCulloch v. Maryland.  Today that power is now available, at the will of the Five, to destroy the freedoms of the people, freedoms that the Constitution and the earliest Courts served to protect.

Of Inflation and Words of Offence

The professional political commentators were all atwitter today about a word. It was one word from a comment that new presidential candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, said yesterday in discussion with some likely Republican voters in Iowa. The subject was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board. These are the monetary policies that affect the price of everything in the United States and the value of the dollar abroad.

This is what Governor Perry said. Read it carefully, and see if you have any difficulty figuring out what Perry’s message was:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all will do to them in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas . . . I mean printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion. Because all it’s going to be doing—we’ve already tried this—all it’s going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that. We have to learn the lessons of the past three years.

Have you figured out what he was talking about, what his message was? This is not a trick question. His message seemed clear and obvious to me. That message was not what the professional commentators were largely talking about. I guess they missed it. As they interviewed each other, pretending that they were somehow reporting news, they zeroed in on Governor Perry’s use of the word “treasonous”. Was Governor Perry accusing the Federal Reserve Board Chairman of “treason” they all asked?

Having been interviewed by the TV talking heads on numerous occasions, I could not help imagining myself responding to their question. Of course they did not ask me, or anyone like me. They were busy interviewing each other.

But if I had been asked what seems to be the important question of the day—or, like Sesame Street puppets, the word of the day—I suspect I might have answered something like this:

“Are you asking me about a word or about the principle that Governor Perry was emphasizing? My religion teaches me not to make a man a transgressor for a word (see Isaiah 29:20, 21), but it is the principle, his message that we should consider if we want to evaluate his candidacy for President. What principles would likely guide him while in office? That is what we need to know if we want to have an intelligent conversation about who should be president.”

I would then add that it seemed to me that Governor Perry’s message was very clear:

Inflation is a bad policy, an especially bad policy at this time of a weak economy. We have tried it before, and it hurts the nation and the people. It would be particularly wrong for the independent Federal Reserve to choose inflation for political purposes.

That would be my recitation of Governor Perry’s message. I think I got it right. And I think that Governor Perry got it right.

Inflation is terrible. It breaks the promise embedded in money and makes it a lie. Remember that money is just a certificate of a promise between two people: I will give you my labor or goods or service in exchange for a promise that I can obtain something of equal value later. That becomes a lie if inflation means that when I redeem that promise I get something that government has reduced in value by depreciating the money that carries that promise. I provide $20 of labor and only get $18 of value in return. That is what inflation means. It corrupts that value of our goods and services. Even worse it corrupts the value of the promises we make and receive.

Inflation is particularly hard on retired people. These are people who set their money aside for 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more so that they could live off of it in their old age. Inflation cheats them, giving them only a fraction—sometimes only a small fraction—of the value that they set aside and hoped and relied upon for the rest of their lives. They lived a lower standard of living so that they could save for the future, only to find inflation make that future poorer for them. That is a life-time theft, when it is all too late to be reclaimed.

So if you want, go ahead and choose whatever word you want to describe inflation and its effects, especially if that inflation were inflicted on the nation for short-term political gain. Choose your word if that political inflation were to be inflicted by those public servants—the Federal Reserve Board—who took on the legal duty and responsibility to maintain stable prices, to fight inflation.

Whichever word you may choose, the policy of national inflation is wrong. Even if governments throughout history and into the modern era frequently resort to inflation when their national debt becomes too heavy to carry, it is still wrong. It is destructive and undermines the economy and robs the people who rely upon honest money.

Governor Perry was right to say, in very clear language, that it would be a major mistake for the Federal Reserve to choose that road, that the Federal Reserve must guard its independence from political pressure and hold to its legal mandate to fight inflation, not promote it.

If you must choose a word to describe it, go ahead. To quote Gilbert and Sullivan,

I conceive you may use
Any language you choose
To indulge in without impropriety.
(Iolanthe)

Of People and Government

One hundred-fifty years ago William Tecumseh Sherman was engaged in the early efforts to put down the rebellion in the southern slave states. He had the idea that it would require several hundred thousand troops. The savvy people of the day seriously thought that Sherman was crazy. After the war and more than a million soldiers later Sherman had another insightful comment:

My opinion is, the country is doctored to death, and if President and Congress would go to sleep like Rip Van Winkle, the country would go on under natural influences, and recover far faster than under their joint and several treatment.
(William T. Sherman, letter to General Ulysses S. Grant, February 14, 1868, in William Tecumseh Sherman, Memoirs of William T. Sherman, p.922)

We need more Shermans today. No one knew better than Sherman what government could do militarily. He also knew its limitations and understood that military competence does not transfer to economic competence.

The federal government, having caused the recent economic turmoil and the resultant recession by an elaborate and pervasive system of guaranties and subsidies, then precipitating a financial panic with massive intervention programs that drove investors out of the markets, quickly followed up with new laws to take over the healthcare and financial systems, simultaneous with uncontrolled spending. The government has tried all that it can do—and far more than it should do. The government’s quack medicine recurrently and unpredictably applied, like in the 1930s, is making sure that private initiative has little chance for recovery.

This highlights the fundamental question: do you or do you not trust people. This is not a new question. It is as old as government, which is practically as old as time. The evidence of the ages is clear: trusting people is the only economic system that works.

The reason is not complicated. Government economic programs are run by men and women making decisions about things that they do not fully understand, applying their own incentives to other people’s money, property, and talents. As smart as these men and women might be—and they are neither smarter nor dumber than the rest of the population—they are not smart enough to know enough to run an economy of over 300 million individuals making billions of economic decisions every day. No mortal is, and until the Second Coming of Christ government remains in the hands of the mortals.

Fortunately, if you trust the people you do not need to make their choices for them. Leave them alone, and they will know best how to invest their money, how to create new jobs, how to invent new products, how to be more efficient, and they will do it in the best ways that they know how, because their own money, resources, and reputations are on the line. Those who are best at these many tasks will succeed the most.

Because government has different incentives and does not work that way, the founders of the United States adopted a government whose founding document begins with the words, “We the People”. Today we have a changing system of government, increasingly based upon the idea of, “You the People”, and it is not working very well. That formula never has.

Of Depressions and Government Rescues

The government is running out of things to do. I am referring to the economy and with reference to improving the economy. A successful government program to recover from the financial crisis and recession that the government caused is turning out to be much harder than presidential candidate Barack Obama promised.

All prolonged recessions and depressions are caused by governments. The recent financial crisis occurred, first, because the elaborate house of cards of government promises and guarantees that dominated the mortgage and housing markets was flattened by a puff of the wind of reality. With government reinforcement and in fact much prodding, builders were encouraged to build more houses bigger and faster than people could use them, realtors were rewarded for selling them, mortgage brokers were drawn to get mortgages for people who could not afford them, and investors were lured into thinking that there was no risk in pumping their money into funding these mortgages. Reality eventually took over, as it always does.

All of this would have caused a major recession, but former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson ensured that the recession would turn into a full blown financial panic. Nearly every Sunday in the fall of 2008 Paulson was on national camera, little hiding his deer-in-the-headlights expression, announcing the latest desperate and ill-conceived Federal financial rescue program. Remember that the disastrous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (that was not used to purchase assets after all) was Paulson’s idea. The markets were spooked by it. Markets tanked when Congress defeated it and tanked again when Congress passed it about a week later (sweetened with enough pork to buy needed votes). Investors went on strike.

President Obama has been unsuccessful, coming up on three years, in ending the strike. In fact, each time investors have shown some interest in coming back some new government plan or program has renewed enough uncertainty to drive investors back to the sidelines. For example, in early 2009 bank stocks were starting to recover until the Administration decided to impose stress tests to see how banks would fair if the Obama recovery plan failed. Investors returned to their seats to watch, and even the regulators’ findings that the banks could weather continued recession did not bring more than a tepid response from bank investors. The Obama Administration’s plan to restructure the entire banking and financial system—realized in the Dodd-Frank Act—has served to warn investors against taking new investment risks until they could see how it would all play out. It now seems clear that the financial crisis has been replaced by a regulatory crisis, with the regulators already falling way behind the mandates of the last Congress to write hundreds of new rules and no bank able to make any business plans extending much beyond a few months.

The housing markets remain at depression levels. New Dodd-Frank rules are making it much harder for families to get, lenders to offer, and investors to fund new mortgages for new houses. Is an economic recovery even conceivable with housing and mortgage markets mired in depression?

Our government has tried pulling its other levers. The United States has never, ever, witnessed the amount of government spending intended to stimulate the economy artificially. The Federal Reserve has expanded the money supply by trillions of dollars. Most of that Federal Reserve money has gone into funding government deficits, driving down the value of the dollar, and stimulating the prices of gold, silver, oil, and other commodities. The government takeover of the healthcare system, it was argued, was the only way to control medical costs that were said to be harming the economy.

Of course, there are more government actions waiting in the wings. The Administration wants to raise taxes dramatically, especially on investors and businesses—the energy business, the banking industry, investment firms, anyone who uses carbon (one of the elements necessary to life and essential to breathing), “rich” people, and small businesses that would be caught in the definition of “rich people.”

And yet the economy remains in the doldrums. Nothing seems to work. It conjures up memories of the Great Depression, that economic recession that Franklin Roosevelt was eager to take over. Through the whole decade of the 1930s FDR tried one thing after another to restore economic recovery, but nothing worked. Instead, FDR helped weaken world faith in representative government, greatly encouraging the willingness of desperate people to embrace the desperate measures of the dictators in Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union who gave us World War II.

The Obama Administration has tried everything that government can do. Why not now try getting government out of the way and letting the people solve this one as they always have? Investors still have plenty of money ready to invest, if they were only confident that the rules would not change and that their investments would not be taxed away. Businessmen would be eager to hire new employees if they only knew how much the employees would cost and that some new government program would not impose new costs and burdens on their business. Banks would love to lend to businesses and provide mortgages if the regulators would stop changing the rules and discouraging banks from making loans to anyone other than to the government.

Maybe there is the worry that government will not get credit for the recovery if there is no new government program to point to, no government guarantee to praise, no stimulus spending to trumpet. Maybe that would be O.K. But I would be ready to vote for the government leaders who removed the obstructions to investment, lowered tax rates, lifted regulatory burdens, and dispelled the clouds of regulations and barriers to growth that are gathering on the horizon.

Of Dishonest Money and a Poorer Future

Interest rates in the United States are low, far lower than they would normally be. The Federal Reserve has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy to keep them low. Is that a good thing? For the federal government it might be—in the short run—but for savers it is bad. One percent back on your savings is pretty low. The persistent, artificially low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Board has become a major transfer of wealth from private savers to the federal government. Low interest paid by the Treasury means low interest earned by savers. Measured against inflation, you may be letting the federal government use your money for less than nothing.

Perhaps even worse, the low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve is supporting the colossal spending binge of the federal government. The federal government can spend trillions of dollars it does not have, because the cost of government borrowing is so cheap.

It is not naturally cheap. Normal markets would not support the continued massive deficits from Washington. When the government spends more than it takes in it has to borrow from you and me, or more particularly from our pension plans and insurance programs, as well as from banks (and foreigners, a subject for another day). Savers and banks do not, however, have an unlimited appetite for lending to the government, especially at the low rates that the government offers. In past decades, persistent federal deficits would result in rising interest rates, as investors would demand a higher return to keep them willing to buy more government bonds.

Some months ago, when the ballooning federal deficit showed no signs of easing, the Federal Reserve stepped in and started buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt just as investors were backing away. Interest rates on government borrowing would have gone up, but the Federal Reserve bought up the oversupply of debt and pushed interest rates down. Interest rates on government borrowing today remain at historically low levels, six-month Treasury securities going for about one-tenth of one percent. That is way below the rising rate of inflation, which lately is at about 2.5% and going north. That means that many investors in government debt are actually losing money, the return on their government debt falling behind the rate of inflation, the government paying back the money it borrowed with dollars that buy less than the ones that they took in. Federal Reserve policies are helping this go on.

Speaking of inflation, the Federal Reserve announced this past week that it is O.K. with inflation of 2.5%, that in fact the Federal Reserve sees inflation trending toward 3% for the coming years. Some of us who remember back to the Jimmy Carter days when inflation approached closer to 20% than 10% might be tempted to think that 3% inflation sounds pretty good. Keep in mind, though, what inflation means.

Remember what money is. Money is an exchange of promises. I promise that I will give you, say, $100 worth of value, whether my goods, my time, or my services, in exchange for which you give me a certificate—money—that can be exchanged for $100 worth of goods, time, or services with someone else. Money lets me take that promise and put it in my pocket and carry it around to where I think that it will be of most use to me. Money is enormously efficient. I do not work for the grocery store. I work at my job and get paid and then take my money to the grocery store and exchange it for groceries. The store exchanges that money, in turn, for more goods, as well as to pay the salaries of the people who work there. They in turn take that money and use it for what they want.

Inflation makes all of that dishonest. I get paid the $100. If I wait a year to spend it, and there is a 3% inflation rate, that $100 dollars will then only by me what about $97 would have bought when I got paid. Of course, that is an even bigger deal if the inflation rate is 10%, my $100 only being worth some $90 of goods and services in my example. But even 3% can be a very big deal, a far bigger deal than the Federal Reserve seemed to acknowledge this past week.

Consider retirement. Not enough people do, but you should. Perhaps you are an average couple saving and investing and hoping to have a retirement income of say $80,000 per year. You have figured that you can live on that. With an inflation rate of 3%, you had better think again. Your $80,000 retirement income will only be able to buy what $40,000 or less buys today. Setting aside adequate money to save and invest for retirement is hard enough. Inflation makes it all much harder.

Massive government deficits are already driving the Federal Reserve to cheapen the return on your investments (in order to keep the federal deficit from snuffing out the weak recovery). The inflationary pressures that they are building up inside the federal volcano will undermine your retirement even further. The longer we wait to solve the deficit problem, and the interest rate and inflation dangers it spawns, the worse it all gets. Government may not be able to create wealth, but it can surely take it away.

Of Financial Panic and Lessons Learned

Late last month I met with a group of German businessmen. They were on a visit to improve international understanding through cross-Atlantic dialog. As you can imagine, they were most interested in how the economy was doing. The German economy is off to a quicker recovery than is the U.S. economy, but in all fairness the Germans have not had to overcome as much government help as we have (during and following the financial panic of 2008)—although they are very worried about having to swim while being chained to drowning economies like Greece and perhaps others of the European community.

Among the specific issues that they asked to discuss was the question, “Have we learned lessons from the recent world economic crisis?” As I pondered that question, I came up with a list of eight lessons that we perhaps have learned. There are certainly others you or I might add, but here are the eight lessons learned that I came up with at the time, in no particular order of priority:

1. Economic and financial models are not as good as advertised. Much of the financial regulatory program of recent years was based upon the notion that regulators and the firms that they regulated had come up with powerful models to identify how well financial firms and the economy were doing, models that could be relied upon to control the economy. In fact, confidence in models was so high, that policymakers were starting to rely upon them to help predict the future. It turns out that economic reality is far more complex than any models, regardless of how powerful the computers are that run them. Once again we have seen that no group of policymakers, regardless of how smart they are or how much information they have, can control the economy any more than they can control the weather, and we should not fault them for failing to do so. We can only fault them for trying.

2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not the best run companies in the world. This lesson seems so painfully obvious that it is hard to believe that there was a time when people held them out as examples for emulation of corporate and financial management. But that was their reputation. We now know that the government privileges that they enjoyed allowed them to become sloppy in many crucial ways, especially in the management of their financial risk.

3. The biggest risk to the financial system is regulatory risk. Nearly every one of the financial firms that were strongly “persuaded” by policymakers to take government TARP money suffered market and reputational damage from those investments far worse than any financial challenges that they had. Nearly all of the largest recipients of TARP money paid it back as fast as the Congress and the regulators would let them, at a very expensive rate of interest. While a few have complained of these and other regulatory costs, more would if they were not afraid of the danger of being sent to the cornfield if they did, so they just say that it is “all very good” as their highest new costs today come from government regulations.

4. Economic reality always catches up with you, eventually. By the laws of economics, housing prices cannot long continue to exceed the rate of economic and population growth, but during the housing bubble the myth was that housing prices do not go down, at least not by much and not for long. The same was said about oil prices, by the way, as they grew even faster than housing prices. All came down, and all who believed and acted as if they would forever go up paid for expensive lessons. The same lesson is true today about government deficit spending. In spite of economic reality, too many policymakers act as if there is no limit to how much debt the government can put into the market. That false notion will crash on the rocks of economic reality, eventually.

5. Accounting rules, especially mark-to-market rules, are highly pro-cyclical. Accounting rule makers are on a multi-year crusade to force all companies to value practically everything by what you can sell it for in the market place right now. That means that in times of exuberant markets everything will look great and better than it really is, transferring market manias onto the financial books of companies. It also means that in times of panic, all things will look worse than they really are, accounting rules making sure that panic prices are written onto companies’ financial books. Mark-to-market financial rules were the amplifiers that helped puff up the housing balloon, just as they helped feed the subsequent financial panic.

6. You can hide risk, mask risk, but you cannot avoid risk. All economic growth comes from someone taking a risk. There is risk in whether a new invention will be well received in the market place, or whether a new store will succeed in its new location, or whether the new employees will do a good job, and on and on. There is a natural human tendency to want to harvest the rewards of investment without being exposed to its risks. So people try to get others to take that risk, or try to pretend it is not there, but the risk will be there, and the less obvious it is the less likely that people will take precautions to manage it. The biggest problem from the housing boom was that people thought that building houses and lending people mortgages to buy them were riskless, when in fact they are loaded with risk. A variety of things masked that risk. When it finally asserted itself, people who thought that they had made no-risk investments panicked. The same is happening today with people who invest in “no-risk” government securities. You might be able for a time to hide the risk; you cannot avoid it.

7. Bad underwriting is bad. When a lender decides to lend money he first evaluates the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. That evaluation is called underwriting, it is the lender making the determination that the loan is a good investment. Lenders and others will make mistakes: borrowers will get into unforeseen troubles, their new invention might not work as well as thought, their business might face a new and better competitor, some tax or new regulation might eat away anticipated profits. The lender expects that some small portion of loans will run into repayment problems, and the lender plans for that by setting aside reserves for loan losses. But when the lender does not pay attention to the risks that he can see, then he engages in bad underwriting, and no amount of reserves can absorb those losses. Would we have had a housing bubble and then a housing crash if so many mortgages were not provided to people who could not afford the houses that they were buying? Not enough lenders looked carefully enough into that question.

8. Financial firms cannot long offer products that policymakers and the public do not understand. Recent legislation and regulations are aimed at curbing some of the most successful financial products and practices, largely because policymakers and the public do not understand them. In times of financial turmoil, policymakers look for something to do, and one of the first things that they try to do is stop what they cannot understand. The public is vulnerable to the rants of people seeking to deflect criticism from their failings to products or practices that the public does not understand. The credit default swaps market was one of the few financial markets that worked extremely well throughout the recent financial turmoil, never freezing up while other markets pretty much stopped. As another example, bank investments in the securities markets—other than loans—were an important source of diversified income for banks, helping keep banks afloat when bank loans were suffering heavily from people and businesses that defaulted. Recent legislation and regulations are placing heavy new burdens on these profitable activities, and in some cases banning them entirely, because policymakers do not understand them. Financial firms have to be more active in explaining everything that they do, or they will continue to find many of their newest and best financial activities curbed in times of regulatory fear.

As I say, you can probably add to this list, as could I. As I ponder now the question that the German businessmen put to me, the actual lessons that we have learned seem to me less important than whether we will remember the lessons.

Of Liberty and the Caesars

As we near another annual celebration of our Declaration of Independence and the proclamation of American liberty, it is worthwhile reflecting on what that independence and liberty rest. At its core, the American Revolution revolved around the deep desire to preserve something. That something was the rule of law, an elementary principle of government that the founding fathers had found here and nurtured. The rule of law is the fundamental idea that we should be governed by laws and not by men. It is that principle that throughout our history has set America apart from the rest of the world. Embracing the rule of law the founders built our nation upon a written Constitution.

Our founding fathers frequently used the word “liberty” when referring to the rule of law. When they said “liberty” they did not mean wantonness and libertinism, to be abusive without consequence. Our founding fathers meant by “liberty” the freedom that they had found in America to live beyond the wanton grasp of the arbitrary rule of kings, lords, ladies, and even parliaments. Our founding fathers were comfortable with the idea of government only if what the government did—or more precisely, if what the people in government did—was closely and clearly controlled by laws that everyone understood. To them that meant that they had liberty, and they loved it. The Declaration of Independence is a detailed protest by the Congress of the thirteen new States against the arbitrary violations of the rule of law—of American liberty—by the British crown.

Precisely because the American Revolution was an appeal to the rule of law we succeeded in creating a stable government and society where the French Revolution (and many others since)—appealing to the rule of men, albeit a different crowd of men—fell into chaos and anarchy, merely replacing one despotism with another. The French tore down the monarchy in order to replace it with the Reign of Terror. Americans enshrined liberty in a document that still operates today to resist the arbitrary rule of one group of men over the rest. The Constitution protects the rights of each and all—individuals and minorities—through the rule of law.

The rule of law was not a new idea. Rome’s greatness was built upon it. Its weakness and eventual collapse came as the Romans traded the rule of law for the rule of men under the Caesars. Even then, the Roman tradition of the rule of law was so strong that it took nearly 500 years for the progressive rule of men to lead to the sack of Rome and the ushering in of the Dark Ages, an era dominated by the rule of men.

The idea of the rule of law, however, is much older than Rome. It is found at the heart of Christianity, reaching back to the Garden, from which man was expelled by the breaking of law. Man was redeemed from the broken law by Jesus Christ, whose great sacrifice was made to bind up the broken law and create the path for man to live in harmony with divine law. In modern times Jesus Christ explained the eternal purpose of law in these words: “that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:34)

As our eternal freedom is protected by law, so it is with our civil freedom. Law is our shield against the whim of other men. Without the law, our only defense against someone’s whim is the protection provided to us by the whim of someone stronger. That is the essence of feudalism. That is what our founding fathers were so desperate to leave behind in the Old World, whichever “Old World” they left. That same search for liberty under the law inspires many refugees to America today.

That is perhaps why Americans are made nervous by all of the policy “czars” that have been created by the Obama administration. Czars suggest rule by men rather than by law. “Czars,” the Russian variant of the Latin “Caesar,” are justified by the argument that “they can get things done,” but in the doing they rely upon the arbitrary will of single individuals invested with extraordinary power: rule by men (and women).

Congress is on the verge of enacting—unless the Senate votes “No” when it returns to session in mid July—a major restructuring of the American financial system that would replace rule of law with the rule of men. The new structure rests upon enormous power given to new financial czars. There is a new czar for all federally-chartered banks and thrifts, a new financial consumer czar with power to dictate every aspect of any financial product and service that is offered to the public, and a new systemic risk council with authority to reorganize or even break up any company in America if in their opinion its operations are too risky for the financial economy. The authorities that this new legislation would give are broad, the instructions on how to use those authorities vague, and the ability to find appeal from the mandates of the new czars seriously restricted.

Our founding fathers, who escaped from that kind of rule, would have warned us.

Of Financial Safety and Lost Liberty

Americans are about to lose more of their liberty, in a very big way. Like the oil leaking away from the deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, American financial liberty will be steadily draining off with few ideas on how to stop the leaking once it has begun.

First the housing markets panicked, then the Paulson Treasury panicked, and then the financial markets panicked. Now panic has hit Congress. Ignoring that the housing-financial crisis was set up and fomented by bad government regulatory programs, Congress is on the verge of enacting legislation that will give to government regulators authority to control any financial activity in the United States.

You may think that I am exaggerating a bit here, getting carried away by rhetoric. I wish that I were. Looking at the provisions of the legislation that the Senate is now debating and is scheduled to pass in the near future, I cannot think of a single financial transaction that government agencies would not be able to control. By control, I mean set rules as to how the transaction would be structured, to whom it could be offered, by whom it could be offered, how it could be advertised, how it would be priced, or even whether it could be offered at all.

Let us consider a simple financial service: a home equity line of credit, or HELOC. With a HELOC a customer can borrow money from the bank up to the amount of equity that the customer has in his house. The attractiveness of the HELOC is that you do not have to sell your house in order to use the equity in it to help pay for college, fund needed remodeling, or even start a small business. With the loan backed by the equity in the house, the borrower gets a far lower interest rate than he would without that collateral.

The legislation would create a new, totally independent federal bureau of consumer regulation. This new bureau—headed by a one person consumer czar endowed with power that would make an old Russian despot jealous—could determine, for example, that it would be “unfair” or “abusive” if the amount of money that a customer could borrow under a HELOC were reduced by the bank when the value of the customer’s house declined. I am not making this up. At a recent Federal Reserve meeting self-appointed consumer advocates, who would dominate the new bureau, complained that banks during the housing bust were lowering HELOC amounts for no good reason other than that home prices declined, neglecting that what makes a HELOC affordable is that it is backed by the value of the house. The value of the house goes down, so must the value of the collateral and the loan amount secured by the collateral. The law would not require, however, that the new consumer bureau be guided by common sense.

Other provisions of the proposed law would allow government agencies to break up any company in America, or make it set aside any reserves, or give up any line of business—and allow the agencies to play favorites by acting one way with one company and very differently with another—as long as the agencies claimed that their actions were appropriate to deal with systemic risks. The agencies would be the sole judges of what makes for a systemic risk. Or, to look at the authority another way, the federal financial agencies would be able to define what they consider to be “safe” financial conduct and effectively ban everything else, and steer individuals and businesses into government-identified safe financial activity.

In case the recent financial panics tempt you to think that all of this is a good idea, remember that we have tried this all before, and very recently. The example—housing—is staring us in the face. Maybe policymakers in Washington are too close to it all to notice.

In the housing fiasco, the government determined that mortgages were very safe (as demonstrated by Federal Housing Administration programs that allow homeowners to have a negative equity position on day one of their new government-guaranteed mortgages), that investing in mortgages was safe (hence the creation of government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to encourage investment in mortgage securities), that packaging mortgage securities was safe (as demonstrated by AAA ratings for packages of securities, awarded by credit rating agencies that were franchised by the Securities and Exchange Commission), and that housing assets on bank balance sheets were safe and worthy of incentives by regulatory standards that allowed banks to hold relatively little capital for their mortgage loans.

So, given how well the government identified safe financial activity in the housing markets we can expect the government officials to be equally mistaken in identifying other forms of safe financial activity. Even as I write this, government officials are working on new plans to establish rules to require banks to stock up on various types of government debt. These rules are based upon the near-sighted assumption that government debt is safe—ignoring the rising flood of Greek government debt, held back only temporarily by sandbags filled with fiat money from other European governments.

On the wall in my family room I have a framed $500 government bond. Only one coupon from it has been clipped, a semiannual payment for $15 in interest. The next coupon is payable on July 1, 1865, by the government of the Confederate States of America. That coupon and all the rest of the coupons through 1894 remain unredeemed. The proposal by Congress to exchange American financial freedom for the wisdom of government to identify safe financial activity has the crackle of Confederate money.