The original design of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was PERFECT.

The Fed Relies Indirectly on the Banks & Cannot Stimulate the Economy Directly

Posted Dec 21, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Hello,
Since the Fed ‘created’ ‘money’ after 2008 that was then deposited back at the Fed by the recipient banks ( say,75% of it), it is not easy to see why the Fed is to blame for the credit explosion since 2008- nor for the very slow ( like a paralytic centipede) hike in Fed Funds that seems already as I write to be seen as a problem.
Surely it is the banks who truly created the money ( out of nothing as usual) by financing the purchase of EXISTING assets at ever-rising prices (and also consumer spending) rather than new business expansion?
In other words, the fault is at the bottom to be laid at the door of the banks. They created the wrong kind of credit bubble ( not that any such is ever a good idea).
What say you, Sir?
Many thanks
B.

ANSWER: There is a deeper problem that nobody addresses. The entire Keynesian philosophy of increasing the money supply was based upon the practice whereby private money was being created during each crash since 1857. It worked perfectly. Here is a Depression Scrip for $1 to supplement the money supply during a crisis. There was nothing wrong with this concept.

The original design of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was PERFECT!!!!!! It “stimulated” by purchasing corporate short-term paper which created an elastic money supply. The paper naturally matured and thus the money supply contracted. When Congress usurped the Fed in World War I and ordered it to buy only government bonds to fund the war, they NEVER returned the Fed to its original design.

Changing the structure of the Federal Reserve has altered everything. Now the Fed “stimulates” buying government debt EXCLUSIVELY! It buys in that debt it THINKS from the banks, but foreign governments were selling it to them as well – particularly China. Therefore, the money NEVER made it directly into the economy. The banks complained to the Fed so it then created excess reserves DEFEATING the very Quantitative Easing.

Therefore, the structural alteration of the Federal Reserve for World War I transformed the theory of Quantitative Easing into an INDIRECT stimulus rather than DIRECT. They “hoped” the banks would lend but NEVER did. Interest rates did not decline on credit cards and consumer loans in proportion to what the Fed was doing. The entire stimulation theory fails BECAUSE the Fed does not act directly with the economy and relies on the banks

Gold – Dollar -Trade Deficits All Mixed Up

Posted Oct 6, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty; I get these emails about gold and have to wonder how people can keep preaching the same thing for decades and never be correct once. Not they say in a very simplistic manner that  Politicians argued that endless trade deficits were immaterial because U.S. exceptionalism allowed America to do what it wanted. If foreign leaders refused to accept dollars for commerce as Saddam and Gaddafi did, the U.S. used its military might and CIA for regime changes. Even the strongest adversaries like China and Russia cannot compete against U.S. weapons of mass destruction, so they are increasingly engaging in currency wars of their own to protect their national sovereignty. Is the dollar in trouble as a result?

They seem to advocate the collapse of the USA is necessary so they can make money on gold. Like you said on Global Warming, they want to reduce the population so a good thing would be to stop having children without thinking the birth rate is down so pension are collapsing.

What you have shown is none of this nonsense is necessary for gold to rise and that trade is a tiny fraction of capital flows. Are these people just mindless? The dollar is the lynch pin holding everything together. Here in Europe we have a lot more problems than the USA. BitCoin crashed because the Chinese were fleeing to dollars trying to get their money out of China.

REPLY: This is the classic problem in analysis. You fit the fact to your predetermined conclusion. They keep praying for the collapse of the dollar to make gold go up. The problem is then, if everything collapses, what good is gold if you cannot spend it because nothing has survived?

Very strange theory. BTW, Saddam and Gaddafi did not reject dollars. I even managed money for Muammar Gaddafi TWICE. He had no problem pouring millions of dollars into accounts to trade. I also knew Milton Friedman who advised that a floating exchange rate would provide a check and balance on the system where fixed exchange rates . The trade deficit is offset by the capital account reflecting investment. In fact, if a foreign entity BUYS American debt, that inflow goes into the capital account – not trade account. However, the interest payments go out in the Current Account commonly called the Trade Account. There do not even understand the accounting.

The more foreign investors come into America and the repatriate their profits, the “trade deficit” will appear to get worse and it has NOTHING to do with trade.