Amity Shlaes: The Forgotten Man - Interview

I recenlty ordered "The Forgotten Man". Amity Shlaes, the author is an adjunct associate professor at NYU's Stern Business School.

Ascent of Money - Book Review

I finished reading this book last week. Niall Ferguson as always makes a very engaging read. Book covers a lot of ground in terms of monetary and banking history. Book tries to explain the role money, banking and finance has played in the development civilization. However, in the end, leaves the author with the impression that it has been put together too quickly, to get it to market before the current turmoil in the financial markets get too far ahead.

Book covers everything from the early history of money to the modern finance, from banking and it's italian origins to the rise of the Rothschild dynasty, and from Incas to the Chinese. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants read about the history of money & banking..

Personal disagreements aside about how he interpreted the history, and his solutions for the future, book leaves a lot to be desired in terms of organization. The last chapter on the "Descent of Money" was short and unconvincing to say the least. Mr. Ferguson has worked hard to remain unbiased, but his monetarist bias comes through every now and then.

Road to Serfdom - 2

BBC on Hayek

Road to Serfdom - 1

A BBC story on FA Hayek

The implications of peak oil and the shortcomings of alternatives

Crude is the tenth book related to oil that I’ve read and reviewed. As you can expect, a certain amount of material in these books is old hat to me by now; the names of some of the experts cited, and indeed the authors themselves, have become quite familiar; I’ve interviewed some of them myself. But each book has a “personality” of its own, so I keep reading.

Crash Proof - Peter Schiff.

Interesting analogy from Peter Schiff's new book - Crash Proof.

Let us suppose six castaways are stranded on a desert island, five Asians and one American. Their problem is hunger. So they sit down and divide labor as follows: One Asian will do the hunting, another will fish, the third will scrounge for vegetation, the fourth will cook dinner, and the fifth will gather firewood and tend the fire. The sixth, the American, is given the job of eating.

So five Asians work all day to feed one American, who spends his day sunning himself on the beach. The American is employed in the equivalent of the service sector, operating a tanning salon that has one customer: himself. At the end of the day, the five Asians present a painstakingly prepared feast to the American, who sits at the head of a special table built by the Asians specifically for this purpose.

Now the American is practical enough to know that if the Asians are going to continue providing banquets they must also be fed, so he allows them just enough scraps from his table to sustain them for the following day's labor.

Modern-day economists would have you look at the situation just described and believe that the American is the lone engine of growth driving the island's economy; that without the American and his ravenous appetite, the Asians on the island would all be unemployed.

THe reality, of course, is that the American is not the engine of growth, but the caboose, and the best thing the Asians could do would be to vote the American off the island--decoupling the caboose from the gravy train. Without the American to consume most of their food, they'd have a lot more to eat themselves. Then the Asians could spend less time working on food-related tasks and devote more time to leisure or to satisfying other needs that now go unfulfilled because so many of their scarce resource are devoted to feeding the American.

Ah, you say, but that analogy is flawed because in the real world the United STates does pay for its "food" and Asians do receive value in exchange for their effort.

Okay, then let's assume the American on the islands pays for his food the same way real-world Americans pay, by issuing IOUs. At the end of each meal, the Asians present the American with a bill, which pays by issuing IOUs claiming to represent payments of food.

The castaways all know that the IOUs can never be collected since the American not only produces no food to back them up, but also lacks the means and the intention of ever providing any. But the Asian accept them anyway, each day adding to the accumulation of worthless IOUs. Are the Asians any better off as a result of this accumulation? Are they any less hungry? Of course not.

Suppose an Asian Central Banker suddenly washes up onto the island and volunteers his services. Now each day the central banker taxes the other Asians on the island by confiscating a portion of the scraps of food the American throws them each day from his table. The central banker then agrees to return these morsels to the other Asians each day, in exchange for each Asian's daily accumulation of the American's IOUs, less a small percentage for himself because he, the central banker, also has to eat.

Does the existence of a central banker change anything? Do the Asians have any more to eat because their own central banker gives them back a portion of the food he took from them in the first place? Do the American IOUs have any more value because they can now be exchanged in this manner? Of course not.

The Asians will be better off without us

The real world lessnon is that if it doesn't make sense for the six make believe Asians to support millions of real-world Americans. The fact that they do so in exchange for worthless IOUs in no way alters this reality.

There is no question that in the short run, by allowing the U.S dollars to collapse (in effect, voting millions of Americans off the island), there will be some disruptions of Asian economies. Of course, there will be some initial losers, particularly among those Asians who currently profit from the present arrangement. However, these profits come only at the expense of greater losses borne by the entire Asian population.

In the end, the cessation of America's excess consumption, which is not a benefit Asians enjoy but rather a burden they now disproportionately bear, will be the best thing that can happen to them. Like the serfs being liberated from their lords, their scarce resources will be freed to satisfy their own needs and desires, and their standards of living will rise accordingly. As their savings finance increased capital investment, rather than being squandered on American consumption, their future standards of living will rise that much faster as well.

Jim Puplava Interviews Peter Schiff on Financial Sense.