Bernanke’s First Blog Post

By now it has probably made the rounds that Ben Bernanke has joined the “blogosphere” by beginning to write his own blog at the Brookings Institute. After reading his first post there, we couldn’t resist to comment. The article is entitled “Why are interest rates so low?”. Perhaps not surprisingly, it turns out that it is essentially a long-winded apologia for the Fed’s interventionist policies.

At one point Bernanke e.g. deems it necessary to once again defend himself against a complaint voiced by a legislator, namely that the FOMC has “thrown seniors under the bus” by cutting rates to zero. Bernanke is assuring us that “I was concerned about those seniors as well”. It could be that seniors will be happy to hear it. However, the return they get on their savings remains zilch to this day, so we doubt it will be much of a consolation to them that Bernanke professes to have been concerned. He also tries to refute the fact that the Fed’s interventions are distorting markets (i.e., he refuses to admit that it is blowing one bubble after another).

It is interesting that Bernanke is launching into a justification of Fed policies in his very first post already. Reading it, we felt reminded of one of his previous attempts to exonerate the Fed, when he argued that the housing bubble was the result of “too lax regulations”, and had definitely nothing to do with the Fed’s interest rate policies. Among other things, he neglected to mention in that particular speech that the housing bubble was actually concentrated in one of the most highly regulated sectors of the economy.

 

130226145301-ben-bernanke-hearing-620xaBen Bernanke: honest injun, we’re completely innocent! We only do good manipulations! The markets do the bad stuff all by themselves.

Photo credit: Getty Images

 

The Natural Interest Rate

Bernanke tries to explain why interest rates are currently so low, and discusses the natural interest rate in this context:

 

“Except in the short run, real interest rates are determined by a wide range of economic factors, including prospects for economic growth—not by the Fed.

To understand why this is so, it helps to introduce the concept of the equilibrium real interest rate (sometimes called the Wicksellian interest rate, after the late-nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Swedish economist Knut Wicksell). The equilibrium interest rate is the real interest rate consistent with full employment of labor and capital resources, perhaps after some period of adjustment. Many factors affect the equilibrium rate, which can and does change over time. In a rapidly growing, dynamic economy, we would expect the equilibrium interest rate to be high, all else equal, reflecting the high prospective return on capital investments. In a slowly growing or recessionary economy, the equilibrium real rate is likely to be low, since investment opportunities are limited and relatively unprofitable.”

 

It seems a bit unfortunate that economists are calling it the “equilibrium interest rate”. What Wicksell described was the fact that there exists a time discount, a “natural” or “originary” interest rate, that is independent of the height of market interest rates. Wicksell’s work has been incorporated and refined in the interest theories of later economists, inter alia in the work of Frank Fetter in the US and Ludwig von Mises in Austria (whom we quote at length below).

Human beings have a limited life span, and time only moves in one direction for them. Time is an extremely important factor influencing their choices and actions. All action is future-oriented and aims at attaining satisfaction, or “removing uneasiness” as Mises put it, at some point in the future. Human action is purposive and achieving a goal sooner is always preferred to achieving the same goal later. This is not a philosophical or psychological concept, but rather an essential, inviolable category of action, i.e., it is a praxeological theorem. As Mises explains:

 

“If any role at all is played by the time element in human life, there cannot be any question of equal valuation of nearer and remoter periods of the same length. Such an equal valuation would mean that people do not care whether success is attained sooner or later. It would be tantamount to a complete elimination of the time element from the process of valuation.

“[…A]cting man does not appraise time periods merely with regard to their dimension. His choices regarding the removal of future uneasiness are directed by the categories sooner and later. Time for man is not a homogeneous substance of which only length counts. It is not a more or a less in dimension. It is an irreversible flux the fractions of which appear in different perspective according to whether they are nearer to or remoter from the instant of valuation and decision. Satisfaction of a want in the nearer future is, other things being equal, preferred to that in the farther distant future. Present goods are more valuable than future goods.

Time preference is a categorial requisite of human action. No mode of action can be thought of in which satisfaction within a nearer period of the future is not – other things being equal- preferred to that in a later period. The very act of gratifying a desire implies that gratification at the present instant is preferred to that at a later instant. He who consumes a nonperishable good instead of postponing consumption for an indefinite later moment thereby reveals a higher valuation of present satisfaction as compared with later satisfaction. If he were not to prefer satisfaction in a nearer period of the future to that in a remoter period, he would never consume and so satisfy wants. He would always accumulate, he would never consume and enjoy. He would not consume today, but he would not consume tomorrow either, as the morrow would confront him with the same alternative.”

 

(emphasis added; non-bolded italics in original)

What this in effect means is: The natural interest rate is at its root a non-monetary phenomenon. It describes the discount people apply to future goods (or goals/satisfactions) vs. present ones. These value judgments regarding future in comparison to present satisfaction (called time preference) differ from person to person, depending on individual circumstances. In the market they find expression in the time market for money, i.e., in the interest rate on money loans, but they are actually present in the entire market economy. For instance, if one considers an unchanging economy in equilibrium (which can never exist in real life, but an evenly rotating economy is useful as a mental tool to help with the explanation of economic laws), the rate earned by capitalists in the various stages of production would be exactly equal to the natural interest rate determined by time preferences.

Different people will be either suppliers or demanders of present goods on the market at varying heights of interest, depending on their subjective value scales. Someone holding $30,000 in cash may be prepared to lend out $10,000 for a year at a rate of 4%, and another $10,000 at a rate of 5% (or higher), but he may not wish to lend out the remaining amount regardless of the rate prevailing on the market, because he prefers to hold on to this part of his money stock no matter what. This value judgment depends on the marginal utility these units of money have for him (money serves as the stand-in for present goods, because it can be exchanged immediately for all other goods traded on the market).

One thing should be clear: it is unthinkable that this value judgment will ever reverse, i.e., it is categorically impossible that future goods of the same type and quantity are valued more highly than present ones. As Mises points out above, if that were the case, one would never consume, but instead postpone consumption indefinitely. The moment one does consume something – even if one merely eats a sandwich – this action by itself already reveals the existence of positive time preference, because it was not postponed further.

The exact height of the natural interest rate is not measurable. Gross market interest rates contain additional components, namely a price premium which expresses expectations of the future decline in money’s purchasing power, and a risk premium, which reflects an assessment of the creditworthiness of borrowers and other risks attending a loan (this is also called an entrepreneurial premium, since it produces an entrepreneurial profit for lenders who have estimated and priced this risk correctly). Nevertheless, these components of the gross market rate can of course be differentiated analytically. As an aside, this can also at least partly explain the existence of negative yields-to-maturity on some government bonds: essentially, their risk premium has turned negative – they are believed to be safer than cash deposits held at banks (there is more to it than that, but this aspect plays definitely a role).

 

1-FF rateThe Federal Funds rate these days requires a microscope to become visible – click to enlarge.

 

Keeping the foregoing in mind, imagine an economy in which there is neither a central bank, nor any credit expansion ex nihilo due to fractional reserve banking. It should be immediately obvious that society-wide time preferences will not only determine the height of interest rates, but at the same time the amount of savings made available for lending in the time market. The lower time preferences, the greater the allocation to savings will be. The interest rate is therefore a signal that so to speak tells entrepreneurs which types of investments can be profitably chosen. Longer production processes that involve additional stages of production will tend to increase output, but can only be undertaken if the required savings are sufficiently large to actually complete the necessary investments. It follows from this, as Mises states:

 

“Originary interest is not a price determined on the market by the interplay of the demand for and the supply of capital or capital goods. Its height does not depend on the extent of this demand and supply. It is rather the rate of originary interest that determines both the demand for and the supply of capital and capital goods. It determines how much of the available supply of goods is to be devoted to consumption in the immediate future and how much to provision for remoter periods of the future.

 

It follows also that contrary to what Bernanke states above, a decline in the natural interest rate is actually the precondition for a progressing, growing economy. If time preferences decline, more savings will be available and can be devoted to investment, which is the sine qua non precondition for growth in future output. High time preferences by contrast mean that relatively more will be consumed rather than saved and invested. The economy’s production structure will accordingly have to be shortened, and hence will become less productive – even though the rate of monetary profit between the stages of production that remain will increase (see also: “The Production Structure”).

Bernanke also asserts (when referring to the savers he has waged war on, especially the contingent of retirees, widows and orphans and the like, all of whom depend on fixed income):

 

“But if the goal was for retirees to enjoy sustainably higher real returns, then the Fed’s raising interest rates prematurely would have been exactly the wrong thing to do. In the weak (but recovering) economy of the past few years, all indications are that the equilibrium real interest rate has been exceptionally low, probably negative.”

 

(emphasis added)

The idea that the natural rate of interest is or was “probably negative” has to our knowledge been first propagated by Larry Summers and was then enthusiastically embraced by Paul Krugman, i.e., the usual Keynesian suspects. Hopefully it was made convincingly clear above why this is actually a literal impossibility. If the natural interest rate had indeed turned negative, we would all have starved to death by now, because all consumption would have ceased. We are happy to report that most people in the developed world continue to look quite well fed, arguably even too well fed in many cases, so we can be sure that this logical impossibility has not magically occurred.

 

Central Planners Not to Blame for Distorting Markets?

We live in a world in which the supply of credit and money is literally expanded from thin air, and the central bank is at the center of this process (even though in a “normal boom” it will only accommodate the expansion of fiduciary media by commercial banks, whereas in recent years it has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy directly). Obviously, expanding the supply of money will not alter the amount of real capital and resources in the economy. Unfortunately, it does have other effects though, and none of them are good. This brings us to Bernanke’s attempt to deflect blame from the Fed for what it does best, namely distort markets:

 

“A similarly confused criticism often heard is that the Fed is somehow distorting financial markets and investment decisions by keeping interest rates “artificially low.” Contrary to what sometimes seems to be alleged, the Fed cannot somehow withdraw and leave interest rates to be determined by “the markets.” The Fed’s actions determine the money supply and thus short-term interest rates; it has no choice but to set the short-term interest rate somewhere. So where should that be? The best strategy for the Fed I can think of is to set rates at a level consistent with the healthy operation of the economy over the medium term, that is, at the (today, low) equilibrium rate. There is absolutely nothing artificial about that! Of course, it’s legitimate to argue about where the equilibrium rate actually is at a given time, a debate that Fed policymakers engage in at their every meeting. But that doesn’t seem to be the source of the criticism.”

 

(emphasis added)

What can we say, except: wrong on all counts! The first sentence we have highlighted above is an example of circular reasoning; the Fed, or rather its members, may well feel they have “no choice” but to overrule markets, but that presupposes that the institution as such is not surplus to requirements. What Bernanke is implying in this sentence is that the existence of a central planning institution that manipulates the size of the money supply and the price of credit should simply be accepted as a given. Apparently he thinks no further debate on this point is required.

However, if one accepts this premise, then why shouldn’t the government control the price of eggs, or the price of cars as well? If government bureaucrats are wise enough to plan and control the most important price ratio in the economy, then why wouldn’t it be best if they controlled all prices? Similar to most economists, Bernanke would probably agree that it wouldn’t be a good thing if government bureaucrats were indeed controlling all prices. So why exactly should the price of credit be an exception to this rule?

 

2-TMS-2Broad US money supply TMS-2, with the Bernanke era (approx.) highlighted. Even if we didn’t know anything about the theoretical arguments, it would be nigh impossible to believe that markets have not been distorted by this flood of money – click to enlarge.

 

In the second sentence Bernanke restates something that he already admits further above in his post, namely that it is not possible to actually determine the height of the natural interest rate. He alleges that this is not where critics of the Fed are coming from, but he is wrong about this as well. In fact, this is precisely the essence of the critique. We already discussed this point in some detail in “Central Banks and the Socialist Calculation Problem”. We quoted Jesus Huerta de Soto on the topic, who trenchantly summarizes the problem faced by a central economic planning institution like the Fed:

 

“Sooner or later the system will inevitably run up against the impossibility of socialist economic calculation, the theorem of which maintains it is impossible to coordinate any sphere of society, especially the financial sphere, via dictatorial mandates, given that the governing body (in this case the central bank) is incapable of obtaining the necessary and relevant information required to do so.”

 

Even Bernanke essentially admits that it is impossible for the Fed to “obtain the necessary and relevant information” to set the interest rate at the “correct” level. His excuse essentially boils down to: “We have little idea what we are doing, but we must do something; besides, we’re trying to do our best”. So the economy is so-to-speak planned on a best effort basis. We’d rather see no such planning at all.

The problem is that trying to do one’s best simply won’t cut it when attempting to do what is literally impossible. As a result, the rates set by the Fed will always be either too high or too low, and at best coincide with the natural rate for fleeting moments by sheer coincidence. The Fed’s activities are therefore most definitely distorting prices and markets – which is precisely what Bernanke denies.

Given that the Fed per experience tends to err on the side of easy money, we experience asset price bubbles and distortions in relative prices that cause malinvestment and capital consumption (as they make capital investment in long-lived projects in the higher stages of the production structure appear to be feasible although they are not). Thus the central bank is directly responsible for the boom-bust cycle. If what Bernanke writes were actually true, we couldn’t possibly have suffered any boom-bust cycles on the Fed’s watch – but we most assuredly have. Since there exist no tenable non-monetary explanations of the business cycle, where else are we supposed to look for its cause?

 

Conclusion:

In his first blog outing, Bernanke attempts to paint the Fed as a benevolent institution that cannot be held responsible for market distortions and economic cycles. It is true that the central bank has no control over the natural interest rate, but its interventions most assuredly do influence market interest rates and with that relative prices in the economy. The attempt to exonerate the Fed therefore fails – regardless of how well-intentioned its members may be, their actions in concert with the fractionally reserved banking [corr. 040115, Ed.] cartel are the root cause of the boom-bust cycles that continue to bedevil the economy.

 

3-SPXBubbles and busts in asset prices, as reflected in the US stock market. Guess what comes next.

 

Charts by: BigCharts, Saint Louis Federal Reserve Research

 

 
 

Emigrate While You Can... Learn More

 
 

 
 

Dear Readers!

It is that time of the year again – our semi-annual funding drive begins today. Give us a little hand in offsetting the costs of running this blog, as advertising revenue alone is insufficient. You can help us reach our modest funding goal by donating either via paypal or bitcoin. Those of you who have made a ton of money based on some of the things we have said in these pages (we actually made a few good calls lately!), please feel free to up your donations accordingly (we are sorry if you have followed one of our bad calls. This is of course your own fault). Other than that, we can only repeat that donations to this site are apt to secure many benefits. These range from sound sleep, to children including you in their songs, to the potential of obtaining privileges in the afterlife (the latter cannot be guaranteed, but it seems highly likely). As always, we are greatly honored by your readership and hope that our special mixture of entertainment and education is adding a little value to your life!

   

Bitcoin address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke

   
 

13 Responses to “Ben Bernanke’s Apologia for the Fed”

  • FelixAM:

    “Human action is purposive and achieving a goal sooner is always preferred to achieving the same goal later.”

    That doesn’t sound right.

    I put off dessert for after the “healthy” food. Maybe long after. Maybe forever. Certainly for when its not as preferred as right now.

    Doesn’t any deferred gratification falsify that “always preferred” statement?

    Then, too, you may prefer the goal at a later time when it’s better to reach the goal. Timing, as they say, is everything. You wouldn’t want to introduce a product before the market is ready for it, for instance.

  • JohnnyZ:

    “If what Bernanke writes were actually true, we couldn’t possibly have suffered any boom-bust cycles on the Fed’s watch – but we most assuredly have. Since there exist no tenable non-monetary explanations of the business cycle, where else are we supposed to look for its cause?”

    Well, are we sure that there are no other explanations of the business cycle? My impression is that the Fed over amplifies them and may cause them / trigger them, but is not the only factor. Others are herding and extrapolation – human psychological factors so to speak.

    Pater, can you please comment on that?

    P.S.: The latest Hussman weekly gives a good summary of what is wrong with the economy. Maybe a comment on his post would also be interesting?

    • rodney:

      Hey Johnny, I see where you are coming from. The sentence you picked sounds like a blanket statement without arguments (there exist no tenable ….).

      The point he was trying to make, though, is that monetary theories of the business cycle have been around since at least the 18th century, with classical economists like David Ricardo. These theories were complemented by Austrian School Economists starting with Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, and even today, research is intense in this area. Thus, more than 200 years of thinking have gone into developing these ideas.

      Contrast that with today’s mainstream economists, who derive all their knowledge from a phantasy known as “The New Economics” (See Henry Hazlitt’s book for a line by line rebuttal of Keynes’ theory). The essence of this absurd notion is that economic crises are intrinsic to the market economy (an unsubstantiated assumption), and the government must step in to correct them. What this means, basically, is that they *don’t have* a theory of the business cycle. They simply brush the issue aside.

      That’s why what seemed like a blanket statement is actually true.

      To be honest, I have never heard of the “herding and extrapolation – human psychological factors” theory of the business cycle. Can you elaborate on that?

  • BrotherJohnF:

    Welcome to the blogosphere Benny Bubbles. Unfortunately for you we don’t just let spout some nonsense without being challenged to defend your arguments. It doesn’t appear you are up to the task. I predict a quiet exit from this new endeavor for you ;-)

    Thanks Pater

  • Ooops! Thanks for catching the “baking cartel” :) ! This is an error the spell-checker overlooks, has happened a few times to me already. We will transform this evil cake and bread oligopoly back into the money printing collective as originally intended.

  • No6:

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

  • rodney:

    The Bernank’s first blog post is as lame, ridiculous and shameless as one could expect knowing the guy. I couldn’t possibly write a reply to this creep without launching into expletives in the very first paragraph, and you get credits for shutting this buffoon’s mouth with nothing but powerful arguments and elegant, 100% logical theories.

    His standard excuse that it is all done in the name of economic growth, after six years of growth rates at the frontier of recession, is sickening.

    • I must warn you, Sir, this is an ad – hominem – attack !

      : )

      • rodney:

        Dear moderator, this is not really true. It does not qualify as an ad-hominem-attack if the credibility of the person is doubtful (see Wikipedia). Is the ex-Chairman-turned-blogger credible? You be the judge.

        I find the expressions used perfectly accurate, and no foul language was used. But I see your point and I will refrain in future from commenting on the person’s character.

        • ATexasLibertarian:

          An ad hominem attack is “attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument” according to dictionary.com. I don’t think it has anything to do with whether this person’s credibility, at least, this is the definition that I’ve come to know.

          I agree with your judgments of Bernanke wholeheartedly, but it is a logical fallacy (one that I’ve also committed many times by the way) to attack the character and not the argument.

          Rothbard’s opinion of ad hominem, was that it was perfectly fine, AS LONG AS after the logically fallacious attack, you then go on to attack the person’s argument. I think I heard him say something like this in a video where he gave a lecture on Keynes. I tend to agree with that fat little Jewish guy on most things. =)

        • Your presence here is highly appreciated, Rodney, be assured, thank you for your insightful comments.

          kind regards

  • ATexasLibertarian:

    “The attempt to exonerate the Fed therefore fails – regardless of how well-intentioned its members may be, their actions in concert with the fractionally reserved baking cartel are the root cause of the boom-bust cycles that continue to bedevil the economy” – Did you catch that???

    “…fractionally reserved baking cartel…”

    Man I had no idea. Not only does a baking cartel exist, but it has aligned itself with the Fed, AND performs fractional reserve baking! I’m only guessing this means they dilute their flour to devalue the pies that customers are forced to enjoy, and since these bakesters enjoy cartelistic privileges, the customers have no legal options to enjoy real pie elsewhere!

    Sorry couldn’t resist.

    Awesome typo and even better article. I had heard Bernanke was going to start blogging, and I thought to myself that this is the kind of drool that would find its way into the info-sphere as a result. Well at least he is going to give us Austrians some easy material to tee-off on for laughs, at least as long as the whole central banking mythos maintains popular, if resigned, approval in America and abroad. His contention that real interest rates are “probably” negative is absurd, and I think this article properly lampoons him for it.

    His assertion that high interest rates are good for the economy is somewhat baffling. Is he admitting that his purposeful actions to lower interest rates was part of a subversive effort to destroy the U.S. economy? Interesting… I was under the assumption that Keynesians believed low interest rates create prosperity and that this is why they attempt to artificially lower them, in a third-gradian attempt to dupe the market into thinking it is prosperous without the necessary effort; sort of like pushing up your bicep from behind while flexing to give others the false appearance of strength, rather than actually working out and gaining the muscle.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • factoryA Striking Chart
      The Economy and the Stock Market As long time readers know, we are always paying close attention to the manufacturing sector, which is far more important to the US economy than is generally believed. In terms of gross output it is the largest sector of the economy, and it should of course be obvious that saving, investment and production are the only ways to create wealth.   What's left of the Brooklyn Domino Sugar Refinery. Photo credit: Paul Raphaelson   Contrary...
  • trump-putin-1024Trump and Putin Narrowly Escape Assassination Attempt
      The Gloves are Coming Off First a little bit of recent history. Readers are probably aware that some questions about the occasionally malfunctioning Deep State android... no, wait, we'll start again. Questions have recently been raised about the health of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton by various “alt-right” tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists, such as this one.   The monsters are normally hiding under Hillary's bed, but lately they have come out into the open...
  • historical-photos-pt9-pepsi-factory-baltimore-1956-aUS Economy - Curious Pattern in ISM Readings
      Head Fake Theory Confirmed? This is a brief update on our last overview of economic data. Although we briefly discussed employment as well, the overview was as usual mainly focused on manufacturing, which is the largest sector of the economy by gross output.   Pepsi factory in Baltimore, 1956 Photo via pinterest.com   Readers may recall that we have pointed out for some time that there was quite a large gap between the data reported in regional Fed manufacturing...
  • escobarA Convocation of Interventionists, Part 2
      Pleas for More Deficit Spending We continue with our Jackson Hole post mortem – including remarks that were made by economists and monetary bureaucrats shortly before and after the pow-wow and seem to be connected to the discussions there.   Assembled central planners (we're not sure if this picture was taken at the conference, but most of the people in it were there). Photo credit: Getty Images   We should preface the following with a Mises quote, as the...
  • swing-voterWhy the Fed Destroyed the Market Economy
      What Have You Done for Me Lately? Swing voters are a fickle bunch.  One election they vote Democrat.  The next they vote Republican. For they have no particular ideology or political philosophy to base their judgment upon.   The primacy of the wallet.   They don’t give a rip about questions of small government or big government.  Nor do they have any druthers about the welfare or warfare state. In effect, they really don’t care.  What’s important to the...
  • time-wastersHow is Real Wealth Created?
      An Abrupt Drop Let’s turn back to our regular beat: the U.S. economy and its capital markets. We’ve been warning that the Fed would never make any substantial increase to interest rates. Not willingly, at least.   Groping in the dark, Yellen-style   Each time Fed chief Janet Yellen opens her mouth, out comes a hint that more rate hikes might be coming. But each time, it turns out that the economy is not as robust as she had believed... and that a rate hike isn’t...
  • wallet-367975_960_720Janet Yellen’s Shame
      Playing Politics In honest capitalism, you do what you can to get other people to voluntarily give you money. This usually involves providing goods or services they think are worth the price. You may get a little wild and crazy from time to time, but you are always called to order by your customers.   In the market economy, consumers reign supreme. There is no such thing as a “lost” vote in the marketplace; every penny spent affects production. Mises noted: “Consumers...
  • warren-buffett-gold-coinGet Ready for a New Crisis – in Corporate Debt
      Imposter Dollar OUZILLY, France – We’re going back to basics here at the Diary. We’re getting everyone on the same page... learning together... connecting the dots... trying to figure out what is going on.   The new three dollar bill issued by the Apprehensive States of America.   We made a breakthrough when we identified the source of so many of today’s bizarre and grotesque trends. It’s the money – the new post-1971 dollar. This new dollar is green. You...
  • central bank HQs 2A Convocation of Interventionists – Part 1
      Modern Economics -  It's All About Central Planning We are hereby delivering a somewhat belated comment on the meeting of monetary central planners and their courtier economists at Jackson Hole. Luckily timing is not really an issue in this context.   Central bank headquarters: the Fed's Eccles building, the ECB's hideously expensive new tower in Frankfurt, and the BOJ's Tokyo HQ (judging from the people in the foreground, it may be a source of noxious fumes).   When...
  • silkroadHanjin Marooning in San Pedro Bay
      Global Trade Reversal Expansions and contractions in global trade have played out over long secular trends for thousands of years.  The Silk Road, for example, was established by the Han Dynasty of China in 130 BC, and allowed for continuous trade between East and West for nearly 1,600 years.  In addition to economic trade, the Silk Road was also a conduit for culture and knowledge among its network of civilizations.   A map of the main ancient Silk Road - click to...
  • SamuelsonJohn Maynard Keynes’ General Theory Eighty Years Later
      The “Scientific” Fig Leaf for Statism and Interventionism To the economic and political detriment of the Western world and those economies beyond which have adopted its precepts, 2016 marks the eightieth anniversary of the publication of one of, if not, the most influential economics books ever penned, John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.   The mere fact that the book is lauded by TIME magazine on the cover should give everyone...
  • 4-ip-and-non-def-capital-goods-ordersThe Economy, the Stock Market and the Fed
      John Hussman on Recent Developments We always look forward to John Hussman's weekly missive on the markets. Some people say that he is a “permabear”, but we don't think that is a fair characterization. He is rightly wary of the stock market's historically extremely high valuation and the loose monetary policy driving the surge in asset prices.   The S&P 500 Index and the NYSE advance-decline line. Most market internals weakened steadily until early February 2016, but...

Austrian Theory and Investment

Support Acting Man

Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Archive

j9TJzzN

350x200

Realtime Charts

 

Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

 


 

USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]

 

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

 
Buy Silver Now!
 
Buy Gold Now!
 

Oilprice.com