Tuesday, October 27, 2015

POPULIST-RAGE APPEALING BLOGGER, A GUY WITH NO ECONOMICS BACKGROUND CLAIMS BITCOIN IS MONEY. WHY DOES ANYONE READ HIM?

Today, In EU Rules Bitcoin is a Currency, US Says Bitcoin is a Commodity; Which Side is Correct? What About Gold and BitGold?, wildly popular "financial" blogger, Mike Shedlock, a guy who once confessed that he has no background in economics outside of reading books from the likes of huckster, cult-like Mises.org, idiotically claimed "bitcoin is both money and a commodity"Shedlock then pushed his mini-cult members to read a flawed work by Murray Rothbard, a long dead college professor associated with Mises.org.



Bitcoin is not money. Anyone who claims that Bitcoin is money simply doesn't know anything about money and is merely spreading stupidity. 

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. Money were it to exist could exist without bankers and without lawgivers. 

Cash, which is evidence of bank credit in circulation, requires banking. Legal tender cash, which is what all of us have, requires bankers' cash, lawgivers and their enforcers.

Never in the history of banking has any smart banker ever considered cash as money. No jurist every thought of cash as money.

The U.S. Congress requires the Federal Reserve to collateralize every dollar in circulation precisely because cash isn't money and never has been money.

Money hasn't existed legally in the USA since 1933. As a matter of practicality, the bulk of the economy of Americans has not relied on money since the Civil War.

Bitcoins are like Beanie Babies or DVDs. They're collectibles and nothing more.
Without doubt Bitcoins are not currency. You must prove title before you can trade Bitcoins. That is what the blockchain is all about.

Anything that requires title proof isn't currency by jurisprudence. Currency means the property (right of ownership) goes with the possession.

A liquor store robber can spend his ill-gotten cash in a supermarket for milk in a purchase and sale of cash for milk, milk for cash. By law, the supermarket can keep the cash because the sale was an honest exchange, even if the cash was ill-gotten.

Postage stamps circulate goods. So too do supermarket coupons. No one would be foolish enough to say that either postage stamps or store coupons are currency.

Bitcoins are useless without cash of various banking systems. Drug dealers accept bitcoins for their heroin because they know they can sell their bitcoins to future druggies for cash, through the surrogacy of Bitcoin exchanges.

Bitcoin exchanges are little more than financial launders, so-called "money" launderers for drug dealers, prostitutes and murderers-for-hire.

Murray Rothbard was a hack, so stupid about all things money, credit and banking, that he believed, wrongly, there is a double claim of ownership on deposits. For the entire history of banking and law, a banker owns what gets deposited, buying such in a purchase and sale. The depositor sells cash, other bank credit or debts. In the days of money, depositors sold money.

Read the definitive works on Bitcoin right here:


And to read more about Mike Shedlock and his rather questionable background, check out:






Read more ...

Thursday, March 5, 2015

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIST STEVE KEEN CONFUSES CASH WITH MONEY. NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO ACADEMICIAN ECONOMISTS AND THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES.

Today, I read this silly work published by Forbes and written by Ph.D. economist from Australia, Steve Keen, who seems to have become a darling among anti-banking conspiracy theorists in the blogosphere. Keen claims that a recent-dead Italian economist Augusto Graziani is the only guy ever who figured out what money is.

Graziani’s own words reveals he had no idea what money is. Graziani revealed himself to be wrong on the subject of money, thoroughly.

Graziani mixed up bank credit with money and in so doing, confused himself, embarrassingly so. Stupidly, Graziani said, “So money is fundamentally the promise of a bank to its customer, and a monetary payment is the transfer of that promise from one customer to another.”

For the entire history of commercial banking, every banker worth his salt would call that credit. Never in the history of commercial banking by anyone who engages in banking and commerce would anyone confuse credit with money as Graziani has.

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. There is no other definition of money. The Romans said so. It's their word.

It's easy to know what could be money and what isn't money. Money can exist without banking and without legislators.

Cash, which is evidence of deposits circulating in perpetuity, requires banking. Without banking there can be no cash. 

Legal tender is anything legislators deem legal to settle taxation and debt to legislators. Without legislators and their agencies of enforcement, there can be no legal tender.

It should be clear that legal tender cash, which is all that anyone has these days, couldn't be money because it requires both banking and government and it fails to settle debt. Cash is liability of bankers, the same as deposits.

Money, if it were to exist, could discharge debt in payment fully. Contemporary cash cannot do this precisely because it is irredeemable. That means, you cannot demand money (coined metal by weight and fineness) from a banker. There is reason why the technical phrase, demand deposit, exists in commercial banking.

Graziani and Keen get wrong the concept of currency as well. Currency means that which has bearer negotiability. It has never meant anything else. So if a thief buys milk from a grocer using stolen cash, the grocer gets to keep the cash by currency.

Academicians like Steve Keen and Antonio Graziani live in a fantasy land of false definition and fanciful bogus theory that fails to comport with reality. They preach a false doctrine, economics, which is quite pseudo-science.

If academicians like Keen only knew about trade, commercial banking and the jurisprudence with respect to trade, they wouldn't accept false theory such as the one perpetrated by a rather clueless Graziani.

Keen errs in the worst way that anyone could when he foolishly claims, "Banks create money by issuing a loan to a borrower; they record the loan as an asset, and the money they deposit in the borrower’s account as a liability." Heed my words: Bankers never, ever create money nor do bankers lend money.

First, no one has money. All anyone has is either cash or deposits, which can be traded through negotiable instruments like personal checks and ATM cards. Even if there were money, through the entire history of commercial banking, no banker ever lent money.

In the days of money, a banker was a merchant who bought money and debt and sold bank credits. Today, a banker is a merchant who buys cash and debt and sells bank credit. All loans are merely advances of bank credits.

About the only bit Keen gets right is his claim that “banks must be part of your economic analysis.” Of course, all regular readers of Bizarro Theater who have read The Theory of Trading Property for Profit know this.

It turns out that Keen once bet Rory Robertson, who worked as banker for Macquarie Bank. Keen bet Robertson that Australian house prices would collapse. Unsurprisingly, Keen lost.

The terms of the bet had Keen walk from Canberra to Mt. Kosciuszko — 224 kilometres — wearing a T-shirt that read: “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices”.

Long ago, beginning in the mid-1850s, the brilliant banking lawyer Henry Dunning MacLeod worked out the principles of money, credit, currency and the like. MacLeod could do so because as a lawyer and not a university theoretician, he understood property (the right of ownership) and the effects upon property through trade. MacLeod wrote excellent works debunking academician economists with their silly false theories like JS Mill and even Adam Smith.

Here is a later edition of MacLeod's Theory of Credit (1893), which many in America can read free.

Read more ...

Saturday, February 7, 2015

THE MYTH OF TAXPAYER MONEY. IT'S CONGRESS' GREEN, NOT YOURS.



One of the stupider expressions the mindless parrot goes something like this, "The government shouldn't spend millions of taxpayer money on ...".

First, no one has money. Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. Money hasn't existed for decades upon decades. Money, if it were to exist, could exist without banks and legislators.

What everyone has is cash and bank credits. Those who have bank credits can transfer such with negotiable instruments other than cash. Cash itself is nothing more than bank credits circulating in perpetuity.

Cash can exist only with banking. Cash decreed legal tender can only exist with legislators and their agents.


Second, taxpayers don't have property (right of ownership) in anything designated as taxes. In short, it's Congress' cash and bank credit.

Where there is law, there must be duty and right. There can be no duty without right and no right without duty. Without both, there is no law.

The absence of law in the presence of legislators with agency is known as freedom and also known as liberty. Where there is an absence of law and an absence of legislators with agency, which is what most name as government, there is anarchy.

In America, Congress gave itself the right to tax income of Americans. It imposed the duty upon some Americans to pay taxes.

At first, Congress imposed strict limitation in the way in which it could levy taxes.  However, with the 16th Amendment, Congress lifted all restriction it had with respect to taxing income. Now, Congress can impose any taxes without the need of apportionment according to population of the various states.

For those muttonheads who complain, rightly, they should say something like this:

No one should be forced to pay taxes so Congress can spend it on such a waste.

Until Americans awaken to reality and force politicians to pass amendment that limits the sum of taxes any American must pay each year, say a total of 12% to whatever legislators, whether Congress, any state or any county, nothing shall change. In short, there should be a known maximum sum any should be forced to surrender to all legislators. Let the states' legislators and Congresses fight it out from a highly restricted pool of potential taxes.

It makes it oh so easy for legislators because they have trained you to believe it's "your money." In so doing, legislators have conditioned you to pay gobs of taxes willingly while tricking you into believing you have a voice in how the collected taxes get spent.

You don't. You have no say precisely because you lack right in cash and credit taken from you in the form taxes.

You have no right in any cash or credit in which Congress has property unless Congress imposes duty upon itself and grants you right. That is what Congress does with welfare programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

Legislators have the rights to part of your income, which they call taxes. You have the duty to pay them in a manner in which they order you to do so.

Read more ...

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

HOOVER DIDN'T SPEND ENOUGH! A MEME BORN IN A VACUUM, EMPTY OF REALITY, BELOVED BY THE FOOLISH EVERYWHERE.

Once again in my life, I came across the oft-parroted false meme "Fretting over its cost when capital and labor are plentiful is Hebert Hoover economics," which is another way of saying Hoover didn't spend enough. Today, I read that expressed foolery over at Bloomberg.com.

In case you don't know, Herbert Hoover was President of the United States between the years 1929 and 1933. Hoover is the guy the Ph.D. priests of Academia Economics like to blame for the Great Depression rather than the guy they should, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Of course, Roosevelt was president who criminalized money by confiscating gold from Americans, and thus the guy who forced Americans into the legal tender cash system of the Federal Reserve.

Owing to party politics, Hoover nailed the job as the U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President Calvin Coolidge. President Coolidge said of the chronic meddler Hoover, "That man has offered me unsolicited advice every day for six years, all of it bad." 




Of course all should realize that Congress and not any President decides spending; and that Hoover signed in law massive spending increases during his term in office.

According to the Office of Management and Budget of the U.S., Hoover inherited the 1929 budget from Congress, which decreed federal spending at $3.1 billion. In the following years, Hoover signed into law, spending that increased to $3.3 billion in 1930, $3.6 billion in 1931, and $4.7 billion and $4.6 billion in 1932 and 1933. Over his four years, Hoover increased spending a whopping 48%! As a percentage of GDP, Hoover agreed to almost triple spending between 1929 to 1933, from 3.64% to nearly 9%!

Throwing out the crazy 1862-1865 war spending of the war-mongering Lincoln and the 1918-1919 war spending of the war-mongering Wilson, between 1792 and 1929, average Congressional spending as a percentage of GDP calculates to a scant 2.62%.

Taken from the National Bureau of Economic Research, Wikipedia lists 33 recessions after 1792 start with the Panic of 1797 up until the Great Depression


There is no correlation between Congressional spending and whether Americans experience recession or expansion in their economy, none. Recessions hit both after periods of increasing spending by Congress as a percent of GDP and decreasing spending as a percent of GDP. 

Recessions are periods of reckoning after the growth of credit outstrips the growth of output owing to credit being priced too cheap, or that which we call inflation, and profits fail to materialize. When enough discover that receivables cannot get collected and payables cannot get paid from income on sales — the profit squeeze — crisis arises.

Many come to see they cannot afford to stand losses formerly sustained in lines of business and thus shutter those lines. Efforts get underway to kill off all those firms unworthy of credit and whose existence constitute a standing menace to legitimate business enterprises.

Recessions are resultant of bad credit practices, especially by bankers. The residential realty bubble of the 2000s is a period of inflation that led to widespread bankruptcy because enough became incapable of servicing debt owed on extended credit.

The speculative expansion of inflation leads to the need to adjust credit lower through forced credit liquidation, which results in declining valuation of assets and a lessening ability to meet outstanding credit obligations. 


Academician economist priests all preach in their Temples of Academia that government spending is the key to bettering an economy.  However, they state their claims upon the false premises — utility and scarcity — of the pseudo-science of economics. 


Paul Krugman, the public face of the Economics Temple of Academia forever pushes the false Hoover meme to support his false beliefs that increased government spending is the key to a better economy. If Krugman's claims were true, then how can Krugman explain why between 2007 and 2014, Congressional spending as a percent of GDP has averaged 21.65% and yet most Americans have seen no improvement in their financial affairs.



In WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE, I reveal property and profit as the basis of all trade, also said as commerce, or what is authentic economics. 

In the end, credit is the means by which property, which is the right of ownership and never the thing owned, gets called into existence. When more property gets called into existence than profits arise for which to pay for new property, the debt duty owed to credit cannot get paid.



Read more ...

Monday, April 28, 2014

FALLACY FRAUGHT FORBES TRIES TO STOKE FEARS OF HYPERINFLATION

Over at Forbes, in an article intended to stoke fears of hyperinflation, writer Mike Patton who touts himself as an ex-wire house worker and an investment adviser,  pens a piece fraught with fallacy. Patton's work is typical of many, having its basis on shop worn fallacies that never cease in causing mischief in the minds of many.





"Inflation may be defined as a general rise in prices" ~ Mike Patton

Anyone who claims that to be the true meaning of inflation would be wrong. 

In the fiduciary monetary system of centralized bank notes, inflation is merely the growth of the circulating media — cash, which is evidence of past deposits circulating in perpetuity and bank credit in the form of checkable deposits.

The damaging effect of inflation becomes revealed when the growth of credit outstrips the growth of output owing to credit being priced too cheap. 

The residential realty bubble of the 2000s is classic inflation. When enough became incapable of servicing their debt owed on credit extended, widespread bankruptcy erupted and inflation stopped. 

Writers from at least since 1810 through the early 1920s understood well what inflation means:


  • Reflections on the abundance of paper in circulation, and the scarcity of specie; Francis, Sir Philip; J. Ridgway, 1810
  • Currency inflation: how it has been produced and how it may profitably be reduced. Letters to the Hon. B.H. Bristow, secretary of the Treasury; Carey, Henry Charles; Collins, printer, 1874
  • The principles of currency, and the error of “inflation”: an abstract of the Oxford lectures, applicable to financial questions in the United States; Price, Bonamy; H.L. Hinton & co., 1875
  • Currency inflation and public debts: an historical sketch; Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson; Equitable Trust Company of New York, 1921

"Why does the Fed want inflation? Because inflation is a signal of a growing economy." ~ Mike Patton
All prices conform to the one, true infrangible law of trade, the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

During times of excess credit, which is inflation, prices of the same assets get evaluated ever higher precisely because bidders have more buying power in the form of credit.

Contrary to Patton's claim, inflation is not a signal of a growing economy and thus Fed Res central bankers do not seek inflation based on that false belief.

As credit is another product, the same as cars and food, Fed Res bankers seek to inhibit the dollar from increasing in buying power relative to output. If output rises faster than cash in circulation, cash would buy more goods, more services, and more credit. As merchants of credit, bankers would earn less buying power.


"[W]hen the Fed expands the money supply, money is more plentiful..." ~ Mike Patton

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word. Even the U.S. Constitution supports that concept. 

Thus, it is impossible for Federal Reserve bankers to increase the amount of money in circulation. No money circulates goods, services or credit.

Today, Americans have cash. Specifically, Americans have legal tender cash. So too do Canadians have legal tender cash, the Brits, all those of the Eurozone, the Japanese, and so on. 

Cash arises as an artifact of banking. Money, if it existed, could exist irrespective of banking or of politicians and government agency.

Legal tender cash is centralized bank notes circulating in perpetuity. Seemingly, legal tender cash does the work of money, but never is cash actual money. 

Legal tender means Congress has decreed Fed Res banknotes as the only acceptable payment for debts owed to Congress. Whether legal tender or not, cash is denominated bank notes circulating as evidence of deposits. Deposits are bank credits.  

Federal Reserve bankers can strive to only increase deposits, cash or a combination thereof through re-discounting and through debt monetization of government bonds, buying bonds outright through conjured checking account credits.


"[W]hen the Fed reduces bank reserve requirements ... banks have more money to lend." ~ Mike Patton

Not only do bankers not lend money since money doesn't exist, but even in the days of money, bankers never lent money.

A bank is a firm that seeks profit through the business of selling its own credit. Through banking, bankers exchange their credit for the credit of others. Thus, a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. 

Bankers transmutes property into a form, which can get traded. Bankers facilitate the trade of merchant credit for bank credit, the trade of cash for bank credit and the trade of property in future profit for bank credit by holding lien against extant property.

Banking stands as the medium of exchange by making credit negotiable from one holder to another so that credit might work the same as money once did and as cash does now. Thus, a bank is a refinery for credit.

As a refiner of credit, bankers transmute credit, bankers transmuting property into credit through coining less merchantable property into more merchantable property, which is credit of general acceptability. In so doing, bankers engage in alchemy earning metaphorical gold when bankers earn profit through transmuting property into credit.

Bankers don't lend their own capital. Rather, bankers transmute the credit of depositors. In so doing, the guaranty of bankers upon this transmuted credit lets depositors trade upon this guaranty.

Bankers facilitate trade for wanted goods through bank checks.


"Another consequence of a significant expansion in the money supply is the devaluation of the currency." ~ Mike Patton

It's impossible to devalue currency. Currency means bearer negotiability. Bearer negotiability means the property (right of ownership) goes with possession. No need exists to prove title. 

Currency doesn't mean cash. The word currency isn't a synonym for the word cash. 

Anyone either has an instrument of currency or that one does not. Cash has currency. When you buy milk at the Quik-E-Mart with cash, you don't first prove to the cashier that you own the cash. The cashier readily takes your cash and lets you walk out the store with the milk.


"In essence, when there is a substantial increase in the supply of an item, including currencies, its value declines." ~ Mike Patton

Nothing has value. To claim the value of something declines is to fall for the fallacy of intrinsic value. Value is not a quality, an aspect of a thing residing absolutely within it.

It takes two things to make a value. Value results from the expression of a ratio of importance between two commodities in exchange. When one of two things in a purchase and sale is cash or credit denominated in cash, we give value another name. We call it price.
Read more ...

Monday, August 12, 2013

ON CREDIT, MONEY, CURRENCY, INFLATION, PRICES, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE

It is counterproductive to use wrong definition to discuss anything. The current misuse of the word inflation leads to all kinds of mischief and false beliefs.

Rising prices are not inflation. Regardless of how many times however many persons make the false claim that inflation means a rise in prices, logically, this can never be. Every economist who utters that false belief reveals himself to suffer from intense indoctrination, revealing that he or she lacks knowing the nature of money, credit, banking and central banking. Many believe, falsely, inflation and deflation are changes in prices rather than causal to such.

Concepts are invariant. The authentic concept of inflation that the word inflation once labeled has not changed, ever. And it means today what it has meant always, whether the monetary system is specie money based or fiduciary money based.

WHAT IS CREDIT?

Credit isn’t money. That should be obvious to all, at once. If credit were money, we would have but one word in our language and not two words, each which label separate concepts.

In past, Credit was a postponed payment of money; a promise to pay money at a time in the future.

Today, credit is postponed payment of cash or bank credits.

Credit is a right of action to demand the price of goods, which is given in exchange for goods, that is, a right of action against a person to pay or do something; itself is a property, an exchangeable right; produces the same effects as money or cash until paid off and extinguished; a right to collect on a promise to deliver a thing of goods or money or cash; is a right of action a man makes against himself when he promises to pay at a time in a future; the right to demand money.

Credit is auxiliary to money; supplemental to money; can get exchanged against goods; can get exchanged against other credit. Credit is a vendible commodity and thus can get sold or exchanged any number of times, like any material chattel until it gets paid off and extinguished.

Credit can become currency — that which has bearer negotiability and circulates goods — if title can get transferred, hand-to-hand. Credit is worthy as property in trade only to the extent to which another will take it for property in something else.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT CREDIT IS NOT MONEY?

Credit has the power of purchasing, but is not money. Credit instruments can mediate trade. However, not always is someone willing to accept offered credit. Credit can collapse as persons can refuse to pay or lack the means to pay.

Always, though, a possessor of money has the power of purchasing, always.

WHAT IS MONEY AND WHAT IS CREDIT?

Money is coined metal by weight and fineness. The Romans said so. It's their word. When money existed, money had these qualities.

When it existed, money rested upon the belief that any man would take it in a swap. Money made value (a ratio, a trade rate) because property in money could trade for property in something else.

When it existed, money was a good that has greater exchangeability than all others. When it existed, money would get offered for goods other than money. In short, money had one use — to be spent.

Money gave its holder bearer negotiability. One's property in money (right of ownership) passed along with honest possession in every purchase and sale. There was no need to inquire if the one offering money had title before trying to buy a thing. Because of bearer negotiability, property and the possession in money were inseparable.

Money was that commodity that anyone can receive freely in exchange for what he or she has but does not want to keep for himself or herself, taken in trust, that with it he or she can, at any time, get from others what they have but do not want to keep for themselves.

A banking system can have money or fiduciary cash. Without going into great detail, fiduciary cash depends partly or wholly on the confidence that the owner can trade it for other goods.

Today, you live with fiduciary cash of negotiable bank credits. You do not have money whatsoever.

Under a specie money system, money is only gold or silver coins. Under a fiduciary money system like we have today, money does not exist. Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. Treasury token coins — half-dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels, pennies — have taken the place of money.

There is money and then there is credit. Money were to exist could settle credit, always. Yet, in the final settlement, money could extinguished credit.

Money can exist without banking or lawgivers. Cash must have bankers to exist. For it to exist, legal tender cash must have lawgivers and their agents of enforcement as well as bankers.


WHAT ARE ECONOMIC QUANTITIES OF PURCHASING?

A quantity is anything that can get measured and an economic quantity is anything that can get measured by wealth (property of trade).

Because negotiable credit and cash are measurable quantities and because both get used in trade, credit and cash are an economic quantities; and because both get used in exchange, credit and cash are economic quantities of purchasing.


WHAT IS CURRENCY?

Currency is the circulating medium — that which someone holds in the middle ground. The key to coming to see and then to understand what is currency is to know what has bearer negotiability.

Bearer negotiability is an aspect embodied in money as well as negotiable debt instruments. In essence, bearer negotiability means the right of ownership in a thing gets passed along with honest possession in every sale or every exchange. The property and the possession are inseparable. Typically, bearer negotiability gets recorded on those things that could be lost, stolen, or sold and then used by another.

No need exists to inquire as to the title of ownership to money or negotiable debt instruments offered by anyone in exchange for goods. That is bearer negotiability.

Today, currency consists solely of cash, which is bank credit circulating in perpetuity. In practice, cash has bearer negotiability.

In our fiduciary monetary system, only Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. Treasury token coins are currency. Most often, ATM debit cards, credit cards, and bank checks have bearer negotiability. Rare are the times when these instruments lack bearer negotiability, but it happens.

Thus, currency is that which has the power of purchasing and resembles money, sometimes called money substitutes, although far too many include far too many things as so-called money substitutes. In short, currency consists of cash and checkable deposits.

In the U.S., the St. Louis Federal Reserve tracks these, which constitute currency:
  1. Currency Component of M1 (aka cash money, aka money — Fed Res banknotes + U.S. Treasury token coins)
  2. Total Checkable Deposits

FROM WHENCE DOES CURRENCY COME? 

Bank credit becomes extant through currency accretion — the addition of new Federal Reserve banknotes and U.S. token coins along with negotiable bank credits joining in circulation with existing ones.

It is banking customers themselves who call for currency accretion in the form of notes and coins. When the Wednesday through Saturday average of cash withdrawals from ATMs and bank tellers rise, central bankers of the Federal Reserve order the U.S. Treasury to mint more notes and coins.

WHAT IS INFLATION?

Inflation arises from purpose-driven process undertaken by central bankers — Federal Reserve bankers in America — to increase the number of products sold by their member commercial bankers — opened contracts of credit.

Inflation is a rise in bank credit over deposits subsequent to acts undertaken by central bankers that attempt to increase credit outstanding.


INFLATION AND MONETARY SYSTEMS

In the days of specie money, inflation was the word use to label an increase in banknotes issued over specie money deposited.

When central bankers reduce the inter-bank lending rate or reserve requirement ratio in hopes of its member commercial bankers selling more of their products — opened contracts of bank credit — that is attempt at inflation. Whether or not that an actual increase in sales arise — a rise in non-revolving credit outstanding or a rise in revolving credit outstanding — remains to be seen.

THE TRUE CAUSE OF RISING PRICES

Prices rise or fall owing to the one, true, great infrangible law of economics — the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.

Beliefs must arise from a logically consistent bedrock. The Law of Prices is that bedrock.

Often, the amount of the winning bids can increase if the economic quantities of purchasing increase. Today, that means an increase in currency. The true cause of price increases are winning bidders willing to spend more than previous winning bidders in the face of output.

When either the entire stock of currency or the flow (turnover) of currency increases relative to all output of the economy, that is, whenever there is a rise in economic quantities of purchasing relative to goods; then there shall be a tendency for all prices to rise.

Prices only rise if winning bids rise faster than output of products.

AGGREGATE PRICE LEVEL AND THE CPI: BOGUS CONCEPTS

No such thing as a monolithic price level exists. That is mere fantasy conjured by bad economists, notably, Irving Fisher. The price of any product sold fluctuates solely because of winning bidders.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services [see: Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions (No. 1) ]

The rest of the CPI frequently asked questions gives a cursory overview of the index but fails to mention hedonics and exactly what are the products carried in the market basket [see:Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions ].

In truth, the CPI is hypothetical and does not represent anything meaningful. The CPI makes for great persuasion in propaganda and thus great politics, but it's bogus with respect to authentic economics. Certainly, it does not measure inflation.

The payment method for some goods hinges on non-revolving credit, e.g., houses, college tuition. Thus when persons get less non-revolving credit or when fewer persons get such non-revolving credit, the amount of winning bids falls and in the face of supply, prices drop.

The payment method for some goods hinges on revolving credit, typically casual wear clothing, meals eaten out at sit down restaurants, tickets to attend sporting events, airline tickets. When persons get less revolving credit or when fewer persons get such revolving credit, the amount of winning bids falls and in the face of supply, prices drop.

The payment method for some goods hinges on money (cash) or credit that clears so amazingly fast that in all essence seems to function like cash. Such credit instruments are ATM debit cards and less so, checks drawn on checking accounts. The typical goods with prices dependent on cash include gasoline, groceries, cigarettes, booze, beer, wine, condoms, movie tickets. When persons get more cash because they increase their cash holdings in preference to credit that either they cannot get or do not want, the amount of winning bids rises and in the face of supply, prices rise.

HOW TO MEASURE THE EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND MONEY ACCRETION ON PRICES


When the rate of inflation rises faster than the rate of output of goods exchanged primarily for non-revolving credit, inflation leads to higher prices for those products bought with non-revolving credit, primarily.

When the rate of currency accretion rises faster than the rate of output of goods exchanged primarily for currency, currency accretion leads to higher prices for those products bought with currency, primarily.


WHAT IS AUTHENTIC PRICE INFLATION?

Price inflation does not mean a rise in prices. Fiscal policy is the source of price inflation. It is an attempt to get persons to rent cash from bankers by forcing up prices.

Prices get forced up by having the government become an even bigger bidder for goods, which leads to bank credits expansion — inflation — and currency accretion. Merely, central bankers become the highest bidders of new bond issuance by government. Today, this is known as quantitative easing.


WHO IS A COMMERCIAL BANKER?

Anyone who knows about Commercial Law today knows that a banker is a trader who buys cash and debt by selling bank credits. A depositor sells his cash or bank credits to a banker, which is a muutum that in law and commerce gets called a deposit and buys bank credits, which are rights of action against a banker, that is, the right to claim future cash.

Bank customers have rights of action to demand an amount of cash from bankers at a future date. Evidences of such rights include checking account bank statements and passbook savings books.

Of course, under U.S. Commercial Banking Law, bankers have up to 30 days to meet those obligations.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANKERS AND INFLATION

Federal Reserve central bankers do not hide this foregoing truth. Merely they do not explain it this way. It would become obvious to the woman and man on the street that the forever march of upward prices reflects increases in economic quantities of purchasing of which bankers and Congress are causal.

Mind you, bankers want output to grow at a faster rate than currency accretion and inflation rate because when that happens living standards rise wholly for many. Yet, the primary goal of commercial banking is to profit from the sale of revolving and non-revolving bank credits.

SHOULD YOU OPPOSE COMMERCIAL BANKING?

A banker is no different than a retailer who buys merchandise from a wholesaler or manufacturer by selling a 30-day net invoice, 60-day net invoice or whatever are the mutual terms between the parties.

Under Commercial Law, as the same for bankers, the retailer becomes the owner of the goods. The wholesaler or manufacturer relinquishes all title of ownership to said goods to the retailer. Likewise, the wholesaler or manufacturer gains a right of action against the retailer as evidenced by the invoice.

If your dads did not teach you this legal truth, now you know it. When you deposit cash, you are selling it for bank credits. You give up title of ownership to the cash you deposit.

Bank credits give you a right of action to the cash in a future of the same amount. This is a right, merely. You must assert your right. It is possible that even when your right gets upheld, you cannot collect any cash.

It is not true that bankers create cash from thin air; nor do bankers lend out other people's cash.

Now, if anyone has a beef, most likely it is that commercial bankers can whip up checking account credits from nothing, putting those on their accounting ledgers, selling those to depositors while buying cash from depositors.

Yet, if anyone opposes that, that one must oppose the concept of credit itself. And what the banker does, so too does the retailer who buys on credit, merchandise from the wholesaler; and so too does the wholesaler who buys on credit merchandise from the manufacturer.

Opposing commercial banking is tantamount to opposing credit. Credit is the great engine that has raised up mankind. It is the true source of human achievement and advancement.

Perhaps credit is the greatest invention from the minds of men, maybe even greater than potable water systems and sewer systems. For it is through credit that men call forth the future into the now.


FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

Conspiracy theorists believe that double claims of ownership exist on money deposited with a banker and thus fractional reserve banking must be fraudulent. Of course it is not fraudulent. Men have crafted laws to make it legal. Rightly, a deposit is a sale for bank credit and a right of action against a banker.

Conspiracy theorists could say the fractional reserve banking has been designed wrong. Yet if they did so, they would get forced to say that all credit suffers from wrong design. Because what commercial bankers with depositors do is what retailers do with wholesalers, exactly.

If conspiracy theorists knew how central banking worked, they could render a great argument against central bankers over monetizing government debt by issuing bank credits to government agencies without first taking deposits.

This, of course, should be banned as it robs savers of cash of buying power through the effects of money accretion and of course, money accretion leads to unit buying power loss.




Read more ...