Search Archives:

Custom Search

Monday, January 31, 2011

No, the Government Doesn't "Just Print Money"

Printing moneyIt's not often that I blog about a letter to the editor in my local paper. Generally, one person's misinformed opinion isn't worth worrying about. But sometimes, the opinion expressed is so wrong, yet so widespread, that it must be addressed. I'll quote the whole thing here, so you can get the full impact.

Wisconsin State Journal:

It amazes me how supposedly intelligent folks can claim that the stimulus, bailout, bribery money is an actual benefit to those receiving it. You read about brain drain out of Wisconsin when it comes to jobs, but what about brain drain when it comes to intellect?

It's not hard to understand the simple concept of currency value. Print more money and the existing money becomes worth less. Print even more and it continues to drop. At some point it will become worthless. Read about Germany's Weimar government of the 1920s to get a glimpse of what it could be like here.




So when I hear professed intellectuals say that not taking $810 million in deflated dollars is insanity, I question their sanity. For every time you accept debt as a benefit, you widen the hole in the hull of the ship. That is true no matter what the new job scheme is. In the end it will still be debt, and people will be poorer than before or out of work because the stimulus jobs have run out.

We have joined the frogs in the pan, never realizing we are actually being boiled for dinner while thinking we are in our new swimming pool.


The $810 million referred to is stimulus money for high speed rail that our new -- and mostly brainless -- governor turned down. It may be the stupidest move a Wisconsin governor has ever made.

But my larger point is that the writer -- who I won't name here because I'm about to say unpleasant things about his intellect -- is factually wrong on just about every point. If you want an example of how badly our media is failing us, consider that someone can write something so ignorant without any fear of becoming the target of public ridicule.

For example, the government doesn't just print money. I've had to shoot this idea down more than once in conversation. And it's not just the right, I've had to address it in speaking to people about the Bush administration.

The government issues bonds. It's kind of like selling a loan. People buy those bonds and this covers the debt. In fact, most money is created by debt, since banks create money out of thin air when they give loans. No bank has cash reserves equal to the money it's loaned out. Money is created by debt and most of that money is speculative.

What the writer describes would result in a massive wave of inflation. In fact, he says, "Print more money and the existing money becomes worth less. Print even more and it continues to drop. At some point it will become worthless." And, even as he writes it, he fails to notice that it simply isn't happening. Currently, inflation is all but nonexistent, at an average of 1.64% last year. In 2009, when the stimulus was passed and the government was supposedly printing up all this worthless money and driving down the value of the dollar, inflation was actually a negative -- -0.34%. In other words, the value of a dollar went up.

Further, even if the government were simply printing money, how would that create debt? It'd be like cutting smaller pieces of pie; whether you slice it six ways or twelve, you don't wind up "owing" pie. It's impossible to cut it small enough that you wind up with a negative number of slices.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that, when it comes to economics, a lot of people are just dumb. It's only partially their fault -- we don't teach this stuff in school and we should. People are casting votes based on the economic mumbo-jumbo and that's an extremely serious problem. If we don't do something to raise the level of economic literacy in this country, we're heading for some terrible problems. Already, people who subscribe to this crap are being elected to office, where they're poised -- as Governor Walker is -- to wreak havoc on the economy, by virtue of their complete misunderstanding of the most very basic economic principles.

Until we make sure that our kids are learning how to be informed citizens by teaching civics and economics in high school, we're going to have to do this ourselves. If you hear someone making this argument -- and sooner or later, you will -- don't bite your tongue. Set them straight. Facts matter.

Because when people start making decisions based on this level of ignorance, we are really, really screwed.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter Amplify
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments (12)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Helicopter's avatar

Helicopter · 739 weeks ago

"The government issues bonds. It's kind of like selling a loan. People buy those bonds and this covers the debt. "

Yes, and who buys that debt? Until recently China was the main buyer. They are now trying to unload it. Can you guess who is buying most of those US bonds now?
"But my larger point is that the writer -- who I won't name here because I'm about to say unpleasant things about his intellect -- is factually wrong on just about every point."

Wow... this coming from someone who obviously has no clue what they are talking about.
1 reply · active 739 weeks ago
What a compelling and cogent argument...

Oh wait, on second look, I see there's absolutely no argument at all.
Who buys the bonds? Actually, just lately, the Federal Reserve has been buying an awful lot of them.

So what do you call it when the Federal Reserve - the agency of the government charged with issuing currency - "buys" government debt? How is that not "printing money"?

Incidentally, every time the Fed does this, the British pound falls on international markets, because (a) the pound tends to hover between the US dollar and the Euro, and (b) speculators think it's more likely that the British gov't, faced with its own cash crisis, will do the same thing. And every time that happens, it costs me money, because a lot of my money is still held in pounds. So a part of that money the Fed is stimulating your economy with - is mine.

You're welcome. Hey, your need is greater than mine right now.
8 replies · active 739 weeks ago
The Federal Reserve is not an agency of the government. It's only quasi-governmental.
Helicopter's avatar

Helicopter · 739 weeks ago

The point of me asking who buys the bonds was not about whether the Fed was private,public, or a hybrid. The point of me asking who buys the bonds now was a way to point out that, indeed, it is "just printing money."

Where does the fed get the money to buy the bonds? Why, it asks the Treasury Department to print the money! What a merry-go-round of fun!

GriperBlade, if constantly issuing bonds to be bought by the Fed were not a bad thing and did not increase the US debt, then why has Moody's recently warned that it may have to place a negative outlook on the US' credit rating if things don't change soon with the budget?
Two points; one, I was replying to vet, not you. Two, where is the inflation? If the government is just printing money willynilly, driving down the value of the dollar, how is it that the value of the dollar isn't actually being driven down?

And Moody's says it could downgrade the rating of bonds, but that it won't. S&P calls bonds "stable" and will likewise keep them at a AAA rating. http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Moodys-SPWarn...
Helicopter's avatar

Helicopter · 739 weeks ago

GriperBlade, if you want inflation, you should look at the price of food and energy this past year. The US government conveniently leaves out the prices of food and energy when it calculates inflation. Keep in mind that energy and food are probably the two biggest expenditures for most of the people in the world. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article25867.html
Here is one about wheat prices surging to a two year high http://tinyurl.com/6l986ou
Two year high with corn as well http://tinyurl.com/4rbp79l
Moody's again! This time they predict an oil price high for 2011 since Barclay's is predicting $100 a barrel soon http://tinyurl.com/64eae4k
And in case you hadn't heard, precious metal prices have been going to the moon and the US Mint had a record sale of silver eagles http://tinyurl.com/6jldwev
And here's an article from Reuters that says China, a country who pegs its currency to the US dollar, is instituting price controls for food due to rampant inflation! http://tinyurl.com/4ok5c7x
Oh and here is another article from TIME magazine that directly links "high food prices" to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt http://tinyurl.com/4pvfuzd
And you haven't even acknowledged the problem with the Federal Reserve recently becoming the major buyer of treasury bonds.
Prices rising on just two commodities is not inflation. In fact, rising food prices are linked to rising oil prices. This could trigger inflation, but you're confusing cause and effect. The Economist puts the blame for oil prices on "popular unrest and uncertainty around north Africa and the Middle East."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02...

In fact, looking around, I can't find ANYONE who thinks the price of oil is linked to the US "just printing money." Ditto for food prices.

I know it helps your argument to link the oil and food prices to bonds, but your convenience is the only link that exists.
Helicopter's avatar

Helicopter · 739 weeks ago

The Economist is only speaking on Oil's recent rise to over $100 a barrel. It was hovering in the low $90s long before Egypt and Tunisia went crazy, which is still really high.

The fact that you can't find "ANYONE" who thinks that inflation of price on oil and energy is linked to the issuance of more debt is nothing other than an admission of failure on your part.

Here is an article that points out that rice has traded "limit up" for two days in a row now, and they directly implicate Quantitative Easing. http://tinyurl.com/4ca8hvm

Here is one from Business Insider way back in October of 2010 that predicts massive inflation and commodity price increases due precisely to the explosion of the monetary base, aka money printing, aka the federal reserve buying treasuries with FRNs created by the treasury. http://tinyurl.com/29834jk

Here is an article from Bloomberg that has an entire section in the article titled "Money Supply" and directly says that if China contracted its monetary base (ie stop inflating the yuan by pegging it to the also-inflating dollar) then it could easily slow the food price problem.

There is plenty of linkage to a global rise in commodity prices, aka inflation, as a direct consequence of an increase in the money supply, aka buying bonds, by numerous prominent information sources. So far, I've provided more links to back up my arguments than you have. I found this blog entry though Reddit, and over there, as in this comment section, nobody agrees with you. I don't know why you are throwing around a logical fallacy like argumentum ad populum when you don't even have the popularity to back it up.
Helicopter's avatar

Helicopter · 739 weeks ago

Frogot to link the Bloomberg article, here is the link http://tinyurl.com/34rftym
The first two links are an anonymous blog post and an economic alarmist who's basically predicting the end of civilization. Not extremely compelling stuff.

The Bloomberg piece put the reason for rising food prices as "floods in Canada, Pakistan and China and drought in Russia and across Europe," as well as "Water scarcity, increasing global temperatures and the potential for dry weather." This is a better argument for dealing with global warming than it is to stop issuing treasury bonds. As far as the "money supply" section goes, it recommends raising interest rates on bonds, which is a lot different than not issuing any at all.

Post a new comment

Comments by