Kaj Grussner, a tax-adviser in Finland, has a piece at the Mises blog that responds to Stephen Zarlenga. Zarlenga is the director of the American Monetary Institute and the author of “The Lost Science of Money.” He had previously criticized the Austrian position at Gnostic Media.

The critique is important because Zarlenga’s ideas have been adopted by Dennis Kucinich and they may very well bear fruit in policies (the American Monetary Act) that could make things worse (if you can imagine that). Here’s Grussner:

“Zarlenga criticizes economists for many things. One of these is that economists have taken morality out of the science of economics. He also says that economists have tried to hide this exclusion of morality, because if people were told about this atrocity they would be outraged.

Of course, morality has no place in the science of economics.

[Lila: I see where Grussner is coming from, but actually he’s mistaken, mainly because economics isn’t a science, but also for other reasons].

Science is, by its very nature, value-free.

[Lila: Actually, this too isn’t quite right. Science has a different set of values, but I take his point].

When you try to explain why action A had consequence B, you should examine theory and fact. It is only when you start too advocate certain actions or programs, such as the 100-percent-reserve solution, that morality comes into play. Let us therefore examine the moral aspects of Zarlenga’s monetary reform.

From the very outset, printing dollars out of thin air, declaring them legal tender, and purchasing goods and services with them is tantamount to theft. The printer acquires property without giving anything of real value in return. After all, the money is merely ink on paper with no value of its own except what it derives from the violent force of the government.

In addition, it is always those who get the new money first who benefit the most. In this instance, it would be the government. But those who are second in line will benefit too, while the new money still has most of its value. The recipients of the new money can turn around and again acquire something for nothing. The amount that can be acquired diminishes over time, so those who get the money last are the ones who pay for the early recipients’ gains.

Zarlenga explicitly mentions healthcare and education as being areas of government spending, as this would benefit the masses, who otherwise couldn’t afford such services. What he fails to understand is that it isn’t the students and patients who benefit, but the hospitals and universities. It is the medical professionals and academics who are the true recipients of the money. It is to them that the money is paid for the services they provide, and the constant influx of new money into these sectors will of course raise prices significantly over time.

[Lila: All this is true, and, in addition, cheapening will actually strengthen big business, because it is big business that takes on the most debt. This is an act that will win the approval of the underclass that doesn’t pay taxes; debtors, who get to see their debts diluted;  the governing class and all its clients, who live on public money; and the corporate class that pays taxes, but extracts much more back from the government in the form of subsidies and the use of infrastructure].

Every bout of new money will draw value from the existing amount of money, which means that after the initial theft of property by the government and its preferred interest groups, the debasement of the currency will continue at an ever-increasing rate; the more devalued the dollar gets every year, the more dollars must be printed every year to pay for the same things. For people far away from the printing press, this means that the value of their savings and income is transferred to the money printers and first recipients of the new money, much as it is today.

Another obvious problem with having the government print money is that it creates rent-seeking behavior. With fresh supplies of money coming from the government at an increasing rate, it becomes more and more reasonable for private corporations to lobby for a part of the public-spending cake than to appeal to consumers. In the long run, this means that an ever-increasing part of the private sector will become dependent on the influx of new government money.

From a moral point of view, it makes no difference who counterfeits the money and acquires property for nothing. It is still fraud and theft.
Conclusion

There is no point in making the Austrian case for commodity money here. There are many easily read books that do that. The purpose of this article is to explain that no matter how bad a system is, it can always get worse. Not all reforms are improvements. As we have seen, the 100-percent-reserve solution is ripe with unintended consequences.

When this economic crisis evolves into a currency crisis, which it most probably will, reform will become inevitable. The question then is what ideas for reform are lying around for the people and the politicians to choose from.

The reform advocated by Zarlenga and introduced to the Congress by Dennis Kucinich may very well appeal to politicians and bureaucrats. Also, the increasing animosity toward both the Fed and the banking establishment as a whole will likely encourage ordinary Americans to support Zarlenga and Kucinich’s initiative. On the face of it, the solution sounds rather reasonable and has the support of a very popular congressman.

Just think about it. It would strip the banks of their privileges and put the money power back into the hands of the people through their elected representatives; it would break the bankers’ secretive monopoly racket, which enables them to pay out billions in bonuses while ordinary people suffer. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Isn’t that how the Federal Reserve system was sold to the American public following the Panic of 1907?

For Austrians, it is easy to dismiss Zarlenga as a crank, which, based on the ridiculous claims he makes, he undoubtedly is. So why should we pay attention to someone like him? Because if we don’t, we increase the risk of him being successful in making the American Monetary Act become law. After all, similar monetary systems have been tried before.

This is why Austrians need to expose the real dangers of such a system. It would be a mistake to simply assume that that everyone will recognize its inherent problems and reject it. If the government can pass a constitutional amendment to sign the Federal Reserve Act into law and thus create a private central bank, they can certainly do this too.

So in addition to making the case for the free-market solution in money and banking, Austrians need to take up the debate with all their intellectual opponents. Zarlenga is one of them, and he should not be taken lightly.”

I’m posting a response to Grussner I saw  here.

I can’t say I was impressed by Zarlenga’s original criticism of the Austrians or the response to Grussner. The monetarists seem completely mistaken on fundamental economic principles, and I’m appalled that they are being taken so seriously.

In the first place, Zarlenga does not seem to understand that both money and debt represent claims to real goods. But while debt is a claim to real goods not yet produced, money is a claim to those goods in the present. That is, money represents production.

If a bank (either private or public) issues money without sufficient real goods to back that, the money is essentially “funny money” and it represents a theft from people who have savings based on real production. That’s what’s happened already. Savers have lost the high interest rate they ought to have received for the past two decades, and have subsidized an orgy of debt and spending by other people. Now the “other people” are using the force of the law (the gun, really) to make the savers give up more, so that the debtors can walk away from their debts. If the debts were fraudulently contracted, the defrauders should pay, not innocent savers who had nothing to do with the fraud. And if the debts were fairly contracted, the debtors should pay up.

Invoking imaginary golden ages where “the people” simply gave themselves whatever they wanted doesn’t cut it. Ain’t no such thing. Proof? Look at countries where there is “public” money. Inflation runs even higher in India than in the US. Corruption is rampant. A resource-laden, skilled and manpower-rich country has a per capita income no better than some of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

The banking mafia is a symptom, not the root cause of our problems. The root cause is the state, and the philosophy that allows the state to set aside natural law because it is “the lawgiver.”

Peter Schiff said it in a nice way:

“We Americans also must be honest with ourselves and recognize that we have been living beyond our means and that our lifestyle has been largely financed by austerity in China.”

And here, Peter Gorenstein (who, amazingly, seems to approve) states the obvious – the Fed wants to inflate away debt because it believes it will grow the economy (I kid you not):

“The Fed can’t admit that one reason it wants high inflation is to reduce the real burden of our debt, but you can bet that that’s one of its objectives.  What’s more, says Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman, inflation should be one of the Fed’s objectives.  Because that’s how we’ve gotten out from under debt burdens in the past.

Here’s Krugman:

So how did the U.S. government manage to pay off its [World War 2] wartime debt? Actually, it didn’t. At the end of 1946, the federal government owed $271 billion; by the end of 1956 that figure had risen slightly, to $274 billion. The ratio of debt to G.D.P. fell not because debt went down, but because G.D.P. went up, roughly doubling in dollar terms over the course of a decade.

In other words, after World War 2, we didn’t “pay down” our debt.  We grew into it.

And, importantly, this growth came from a combination of real growth AND inflation:

The rise in G.D.P. in dollar terms was almost equally the result of economic growth and inflation, with both real G.D.P. and the overall level of prices rising about 40 percent from 1946 to 1956.

So inflation is an important tool in getting us out of this mess.  It’s painful and unfair–those who have been responsible and saved money will pay the price for those who borrowed money, racked up huge debts, and spent more than they could afford.  But it’s what the Fed is (quietly) aiming for.”

Someone might say that the system where I do the borrowing and spending, and you do the saving and working is a version of slavery.

[That isn’t an anti-American statement either. It was made by a rather plain-speaking CEO of an American company…]

Debtors are demanding that savers work for them, through foregoing their own consumption and the market- price of money. Monetarists are demanding that people walk away from the obligations of their government with a slow-motion dilution of the currency. People on fixed income will be destroyed. People dependent on wages in industries where wages are not rising (nearly every industry) will find prices rising beyond them. Responsible workers and savers, here and around the world, will get stiffed. Future borrowing costs will soar. The US will suffer retaliatory treatment from foreign countries. Other countries will default on their debt or renege on their contracts. So will citizens everywhere. Corruption will rise. Gamblers in the stock market will benefit, as their portfolios of cash now get plumped up.  That is banana-republicanism.