Economics Lessons For Liberals: Inflation
- Date: 2009-04-02 - Word Count: 881
Share This!
This past week, the Federal Reserve announced that it's going to buy $300 billion worth of long-term Treasury bills over the next six months, and $750 billion of mortgage-backed securities, to try to loosen up credit and lower mortgage rates. It was also announced that they're not going to raise taxes to come up with this additional trillion-plus dollars (on top of the recent bailouts and stimulus bill). Instead, they would just crank up the printing presses and print up the money.
How many things can you find wrong with this picture?
Wasn't it loose credit that created the current financial crisis they're purportedly trying to get us out of? Aren't mortgage-backed securities the "toxic assets" that precipitated the collapse of all those banks and financial institutions that we're already bailing out with our tax dollars? These are the very building blocks of the biggest Ponzi scheme in economic history, but the Fed, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to gamble 3/4 of a trillion dollars of our money on the most discredited and dangerous financial instrument ever concocted to dupe unsuspecting investors. Only, at this point, they can hardly be said to be unsuspecting.
We're supposed to be placated by the fact that, this time, they're not using our tax dollars, but are printing up the money on their little printing presses. So, therefore, it doesn't cost us anything, right? That would seem to be what they expect us to believe.
Economics for Liberals, Lesson #1. When the Fed prints new money, it devalues all the money that's currently in circulation. Printing more money literally dilutes the value of everybody's savings, investments, salaries, and retirement funds.
Currency has no intrinsic value; it's merely symbolic of the value of goods and services that can be exchanged. The only way to increase the total value in a system is to increase the production of goods and services that somebody wants to consume. The sum total of the currency in a system represents the sum total of the real value in the system (goods and services produced). The value that each unit of currency represents is the ratio of the total units of currency to the total actual value in the system. When the actual value (goods and services produced) remains stable, but the total units of currency are increased, each unit of currency represents less of the total actual value and, consequently, has less purchasing power. That's what's known as inflation.
Inflation is simply another type of taxation. Instead of taxing you on each incremental unit of value you produce, the Fed simply dilutes the value of everything you currently have, as well as every dollar you will earn in the future. It's an invisible tax, because you don't see the government taking it away from you. You see higher prices for everything you buy, and you blame the producers. But the producers are paying higher prices for everything they have to purchase to produce what they sell to you.
So everybody's stuck paying higher prices for everything, but they don't have any more money. So everybody's purchasing power is reduced, making everybody, in real terms, poorer than they were before the currency was diluted. That's because the money that was printed up by the government was not distributed to the people whose currency lost its value, but rather was used to buy whatever the Fed buys with it. -- In this case, toxic assets that they know are overvalued.
How do I know with such certainty they are overvalued? Because, if they were not overvalued, they'd be able to be sold on the free market. The very fact that government has to buy them up indicates they're not worth the price at which the government is buying them.
Economics for Liberals, Lesson #2. The value of an investment is based on the ratio of risk to potential reward. If the risk is greater than the potential rewards, the investment is overvalued and nobody will buy it unless the risk is reduced or the reward potential is increased. In many investments, the risk is simply the risk of losing what you invested, so the risk can be reduced by lowering the price. When a balance is reached between risk and potential, buyers can be found on the free market who are willing to assume the risk.
But, when the government assumes the risk, the people making the decisions aren't risking their own money. They're risking the taxpayers' money, either directly (through taxation) or indirectly (through inflation). In this case, the Fed is cranking up the printing presses and diluting all of our savings, investments, salaries, and retirement funds to purchase investments that are known to be bad before they buy them. If any corporate CFO were to behave that way, knowing what we all know today, they would be fired.
And, to add insult to injury, they think we're stupid enough to believe it isn't costing us anything because they aren't raising our taxes -- yet. But the biggest irony of all is that the purpose used to justify this devious machination is to perpetuate the very circumstances (loose credit and easy availability of mortgages) that got us into this economic crisis in the first place.
Just how stupid do they think we are? Just how stupid are we?
How many things can you find wrong with this picture?
Wasn't it loose credit that created the current financial crisis they're purportedly trying to get us out of? Aren't mortgage-backed securities the "toxic assets" that precipitated the collapse of all those banks and financial institutions that we're already bailing out with our tax dollars? These are the very building blocks of the biggest Ponzi scheme in economic history, but the Fed, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit to gamble 3/4 of a trillion dollars of our money on the most discredited and dangerous financial instrument ever concocted to dupe unsuspecting investors. Only, at this point, they can hardly be said to be unsuspecting.
We're supposed to be placated by the fact that, this time, they're not using our tax dollars, but are printing up the money on their little printing presses. So, therefore, it doesn't cost us anything, right? That would seem to be what they expect us to believe.
Economics for Liberals, Lesson #1. When the Fed prints new money, it devalues all the money that's currently in circulation. Printing more money literally dilutes the value of everybody's savings, investments, salaries, and retirement funds.
Currency has no intrinsic value; it's merely symbolic of the value of goods and services that can be exchanged. The only way to increase the total value in a system is to increase the production of goods and services that somebody wants to consume. The sum total of the currency in a system represents the sum total of the real value in the system (goods and services produced). The value that each unit of currency represents is the ratio of the total units of currency to the total actual value in the system. When the actual value (goods and services produced) remains stable, but the total units of currency are increased, each unit of currency represents less of the total actual value and, consequently, has less purchasing power. That's what's known as inflation.
Inflation is simply another type of taxation. Instead of taxing you on each incremental unit of value you produce, the Fed simply dilutes the value of everything you currently have, as well as every dollar you will earn in the future. It's an invisible tax, because you don't see the government taking it away from you. You see higher prices for everything you buy, and you blame the producers. But the producers are paying higher prices for everything they have to purchase to produce what they sell to you.
So everybody's stuck paying higher prices for everything, but they don't have any more money. So everybody's purchasing power is reduced, making everybody, in real terms, poorer than they were before the currency was diluted. That's because the money that was printed up by the government was not distributed to the people whose currency lost its value, but rather was used to buy whatever the Fed buys with it. -- In this case, toxic assets that they know are overvalued.
How do I know with such certainty they are overvalued? Because, if they were not overvalued, they'd be able to be sold on the free market. The very fact that government has to buy them up indicates they're not worth the price at which the government is buying them.
Economics for Liberals, Lesson #2. The value of an investment is based on the ratio of risk to potential reward. If the risk is greater than the potential rewards, the investment is overvalued and nobody will buy it unless the risk is reduced or the reward potential is increased. In many investments, the risk is simply the risk of losing what you invested, so the risk can be reduced by lowering the price. When a balance is reached between risk and potential, buyers can be found on the free market who are willing to assume the risk.
But, when the government assumes the risk, the people making the decisions aren't risking their own money. They're risking the taxpayers' money, either directly (through taxation) or indirectly (through inflation). In this case, the Fed is cranking up the printing presses and diluting all of our savings, investments, salaries, and retirement funds to purchase investments that are known to be bad before they buy them. If any corporate CFO were to behave that way, knowing what we all know today, they would be fired.
And, to add insult to injury, they think we're stupid enough to believe it isn't costing us anything because they aren't raising our taxes -- yet. But the biggest irony of all is that the purpose used to justify this devious machination is to perpetuate the very circumstances (loose credit and easy availability of mortgages) that got us into this economic crisis in the first place.
Just how stupid do they think we are? Just how stupid are we?
Related Tags: government, taxes, conservative, political, economics, inflation, federal reserve, stimulus, free market, mortgage-backed securities, toxic assets
NotYourDaddy is a conservative libertarian who believes in free will and the free market. NYD thinks the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. Stop there. NYD's attitude toward ever-expanding government can best be summed up by snarling "Get your hand out of my pocket and leave me alone!"Visit NotYourDaddy's blog at Government is Not Your Daddy. Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles
Recent articles in this category:
- Sarah Palin - Too Good For Us
Sarah Palin has obviously struck a chord with a large swath of the American people, and the obvious - Snoopy, The Peanut Sunday Comics, And Our Skyrocketing $13 Trillion Federal Budget
Recent news stories remind me of an old Sunday Peanuts comic strip. Snoopy is out jogging one day wh - U.s. Manufacturing Jobs Move From Hostile To Friendly Environments
I worked in the electronics industry in various management positions expanding over 35 years. The la - Commitment Vs.involvement: In An Egg And Ham Sandwich, The Chicken Is Involved, The Pig Is Committed
A recent article in the St. Petersburg Times by Robert Trigaux reminded me of this grand old saying: - Get Hot With Athleanx
Remember that song, "Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me"? Catchy tune, funny lyrics, sun - "change" To What?
When the boys got together in the 1700's to put America together, they looked back at the littered l - You're Working Too Fast!
"Very often the idler is but a man to whom it is repugnant to make all his life the eighteenth part - Unionize And Strike!
"The worker cannot rise as a worker without joining in unity with other workers and helping all. Thi - Foxophobia, Triskaidekaphobia - Fickle Phantasms From The White House?
President Obama's persistence in singling Fox News out for scoffing and scolding has generated more - What Is Your Relationship With Work?
"If society be held desirable, it surely must be free, equal, and reciprocal society, where benefits
Most viewed articles in this category:
- U.s. Interests Are Imprisoned By Guantanamo
As a Vietnam veteran with 26 years in uniform, I have no sympathy for terrorists. But I am dismayed - The Rule Of Law, Discrimination, And Morality
In an article titled "Places Far Away, Places Very near - Mauthausen, the Camps of the Shoah, and th - The Weeping Of The Earth For Her Children: A Planetary Prayer For Light
"Four years after the US-led invasion, the ICRC says the conflict is inflicting immense suffering, a - I Dislike Bush & Co. More Than Lyndon Johnson Or Richard Nixon
On the evening Lyndon Johnson dropped out of the 1968 Presidential it was a celebration. We could no - Anhydrous Ammonia Spill Day
It looks like someone declared June 8, 2007 to be the day for serious Anhydrous Ammonia spills from - You Can't Eat That - The Great War For Your Body
Surprise, surprise; our government/media complex is at it again. In their constant drive to control - "addiction To Big Government" Is It A Necessary Evil?
I was deeply concerned this morning when I received my regular AFA (American Family Association) ema - Uae's Imbalanced Demography Poses Concerns
Even as Dubai's rising expatriate population is being projected as a measure of its association with - From First Lady To President Of The United States
It absolutely drives me crazy every time I hear people say, "Oh she was such a controversial first l - Exclusionary Ideas Of Progress
Communism, Fascism, Nazism, and Religious Fundamentalism are as utopian as the classical Idea of Pro