Peter Schiff on the Federal Reserve

The Fed Unreserved


Peter Schiff
Jun 21, 2008


Throughout history, governments have always used crises to justify blatant power grabs. Often the crisis subsides, but the expanded government powers remain. In America this week, the tendency came into sharp focus. Congress signaled that it is preparing to perpetuate the Bush Administration's domestic wiretapping program, and has even abandoned the pretense that warrantless surveillance be confined to terrorism. Similarly, even though our financial crisis has yet to reach full flower, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced plans to give the Federal Reserve new and explicit powers to oversee and regulate the financial services industry. However, a sober look at his plan reveals that it is tantamount to giving the fox complete autonomy to guard the henhouse.

What few economic leaders have acknowledged is that the Federal Reserve itself is responsible for the real estate and credit bubbles, which are the source of our current troubles. By keeping interest rates too low for too long, the Fed ignited a speculative fever and engendered a disregard for risk management that pushed asset prices above rational levels. Should we blame the private sector for taking advantage of all the cheap credit, or the Federal Reserve for supplying it? If a kindergarten teacher passes out handfuls of Pixie Sticks, and then leaves her classroom unattended for several hours, should we blame the five year olds for the hysteria that ensues?

The reality is that we should be restricting, rather than expanding, the powers given to the Federal Reserve. Since Greenspan, Bernanke and company have already inflicted so much damage with the weapons already in their arsenal, why provide them with heavier artillery? Only in Washington do those who screw up get rewarded for doing so.

Since the Fed has demonstrated complete incompetence at setting interest rates, why not return that function to the market? Instead of allowing the Fed to inflict unbridled havoc on our economy, why not re-impose some discipline? Instead of looking for new ways to regulate Wall Street, why not find an old way to regulate the Fed? Actually there is a simple answer to all of these questions; it's called the gold standard.

In his speech outlining these proposals, Paulson stated that during the past fifty years the performance of the U.S. economy has been second to none. I do not know what planet Paulson has been living on these past fifty years, but it is certainly not Earth. If Paulson were referring to the prior fifty year period, from 1908-1958, his statement would have been correct. But from 1958 to 2008, the U.S. economy has blown a lead even greater than the one the Lakers enjoyed over the Celtics in game four of the just concluded NBA Finals. In fact, it may well qualify as the biggest economic choke in history.

In 1958 the U.S. enjoyed a standard of living so unmatched that the rest of the world still lived in the Stone Age by comparison. Our per capita income was so far ahead of our nearest rival that it seemed impossible that any other nation would ever catch up. Today not only is per capita income in the U.S. barely in the top ten, but we are being rapidly overtaken by countries that up until a few years ago were barely discernable in our rear-view mirrors. When it comes to economic performance during the past 150 years, the U.S. is the Big Brown of economies. 1858-1908 was the Kentucky Derby, 1908-1958 was the Preakness, and 1958-2008 was the Belmont Stakes.

Not only did the U.S. surrender a substantial lead, but in many respects our current standard of living is lower than the one our grandparents enjoyed. Sure we have a few more gadgets, larger televisions and more prevalent air conditioning, but the quality of life has actually declined. In the 1950's, the average man earned enough money to fully support a wife and four kids, all while saving for retirement and paying off his mortgage. Today the average man can barely support himself. It takes two bread winners in most families to make ends meet, and that is assuming only two children. Even with both parents working, the typical mortgage on the family home will never be paid off and retirement is now a pipe dream. Flush with high pay, low debt, and a strong currency, the Ugly American in the 1950's could vacation in Europe like a king. Now we can now barely afford the gas for a day trip to a Six Flags theme park.

If Paulson can be so completely clueless regarding the Fed's role in the current debacle and in America's economic stumbles over the past two generations, why would anyone place any faith in his proposed remedies? In fact, an unaccountable and unelected Federal Reserve, which nonetheless has lately proven to be as politically craven as any two-bit politician, does not hold the keys to our economic revival. However, with its increased willingness to rescue the big financial firms from their own excesses, perhaps Paulson sees an expanded Fed as the best way to ensure the continued prosperity of his former pals on Wall Street.


Jun 20, 2008
Peter Schiff
www.europac.net

Peter Schiff and Food Inflation

Peter Shciff's article this morning continues on the theme of inflation he has been concerned about for several years. Peter Schiff, dubbed "Doctor Doom" by the likes of CNBC and Fox News, has been incorrectly considered a perma-bear with the likes of Stephen Roach. I disagree with this assessment as Mr. Schiff has seen solid returns from investments in precious metals and equities outside North America which haven't eroded due to the currency devaluation occurring in The United States.

Food inflation is a page 1 story at the moment, but consider analysts like Peter Schiff, Don Coxe and Nouriel Roubini have been calling for this since wheat and rice prices were less than half of their current value only a few years ago.

J


Why Not Let the Market Set Prices?

Peter Schiff
Apr 25, 2008

Those unfamiliar with marketplace dynamics may not recognize how government activity has created price distortions across our economy. But when these chains fail to restrain the market, the underlying forces become easier to see.

Much as government mandated easy credit propelled home prices to bubble levels, similar forces pushed college tuition's up to the stratosphere. Both systems are currently breaking down along similar lines.

In light of the staggering cost of college education today, it may seem unbelievable that my father in the early 1950s was able to finance his own education with a summer job waiting tables. Like most in his generation, eight weeks of work per year allowed him to graduate debt free. In contrast, the debt burden now heaped on today's college graduates is so oppressive that the financial challenges are becoming a palpable psychological strain on an entire generation.

The irony is that without easy access to student loans, which have been touted as a means to ease college affordability, tuition's never could have risen so high in the first place. Sadly, it is not students who have benefited, but the educational establishment that receives the proceeds. Colleges collect huge sums of money up front while students get saddled with staggering balances.

Now that repaying loans has become increasingly difficult for home buyers and students (especially since the home equity well has run dry and the employment market has cooled), more debtors are defaulting. As a result, the market for securitized loans, which has completely dried up in the mortgage market, is now equally desolate for student loans. Here again, the government is being asked to pick up the slack by buying existing student loans and issuing new loans directly to students.

In so doing, the government is helping to sustain high tuition's just as similar actions are working to prop up real estate prices. If the government stayed out of the student loan market, students would not be denied educations. Colleges and universities would simply be forced to offer affordable tuition's or go out of business --just the way they used to back in my father's day. Similarly, if the government allowed real estate prices to collapse, Americans would not have to take on so much debt to buy houses.

To buy up all of these loans, the Fed is running the printing presses non-stop. As a result, prices of other goods, such as food and energy, are spiraling out of control.

Of course, mainstream Wall Street firms and the conventional financial media do not see this obvious connection. While CNBC searches the world for clues to this "mystery", no one sees the evidence "hiding" in plain sight. Higher prices simply result from all the money printing, both by the Fed and foreign central banks trying to maintain currency pegs to a sinking dollar.

It is amazing how those who were completely blindsided by the surge in food prices are now so quick to come up with ridiculous reasons to explain the phenomenon. However, for those of us who actually understand what inflation is, predicting the current surge in food prices was a no brainer. Read one of my commentaries from Oct. of 2006 and see for yourself.

Similarly, analysts are blaming $120 oil on the hidden machinations of greedy speculators. They buttress these claims by noting that absent a bona fide oil shortage, current prices are not justified by fundamentals. This overlooks that while there is no shortage, there is also no surplus. The market is in perfect equilibrium at today's price, and recent spikes merely reflect the substantial increase in global money supply. If today's prices really were artificially high, like house prices, they would be a glut of oil in storage facilities while users, priced out of an inflated market, cut back on their consumption (This is precisely what is happening in the real estate market).

As consumers are getting wise to inflation, they are beginning to stock up on those products showing the most rapid price increases. This week, Cosco and Sam's Club began to limit bulk purchases of rice. After all, if you have the cash why not by the things you know you will need in the future now, before the prices go any higher. My guess is that if home storage were possible, consumers would be buying as much gasoline and home heating oil as they could currently afford...they might even load up their credit cards to do so. After airfares (which unfortunately cannot be stockpiled), apparel may be next major category of goods that will experience rapid price increases. Why not buy a few extra pairs of socks while they are still cheap?

As the government creates more inflation, and prices for all sorts of consumer goods spiral upward, the authorities, as they always have, will institute price controls and other forms of rationing of consumer staples. My advice is to stock up now, before you end up having to spend hours waiting in line.

Peter Schiff aka Dr. Doom keeps it simple

This piece from Peter Schiff (courtesy of 321gold.com) is a short but sweet take on the blow-back Federal bailouts for failing investment banks will have on the American public and foreigners who joined in on the ABCP debacle.

Anyone who follows his writings or appearances on CBNC and Fox News will know, Peter Schiff has been calling for a global financial calamity for some time . I respect Mr. Schiff's conviction in the face of so much opposition. During the August 2007 plunge in markets Peter Schiff was dismissed by the mainstream media and other financial pundits for being too bearish.

Here is a clip of Mr. Schiff appearing on Fox News in November of 2007, classic stuff:




Now that many of his prognostications have come to fruition, his ongoing concerns for the future of American capital markets are still being disregarded by the mainstream, under the false assumption that the worst is done with and current stock prices already have discounted the possibility of a recession.

Bail me out Bennie

Peter Schiff
Mar 28, 2008

Now that the Fed and the Treasury Department have clumsily come to the rescue of the financial titans of Wall Street, it is now politically dangerous to resist similar pleas from just about everybody else. Populism is emerging as a dominant theme is this election year, and with so much largesse showered on Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase, politicians are demanding even more generous terms for consumers. In Washington, it seems that two wrongs apparently make a right. Another downside to corporate bailouts is that they provide the critics of free market capitalism with plenty of excuses to weigh down American economic vitality with even more unnecessary regulation.

In the first place, the current mess did not result from a failure of the free market, but from too much government interference. The real estate bubble, and the shaky securitized products it spawned, resulted from the Fed artificially setting interest rates too low. Had interest rates been allowed to find their market levels, rather than be set by government decree, the real estate bubble never would have been inflated in the first place.

In a nation short on savings and heavy with debt, the free market would naturally set interest rates quite high. With lots of demand for credit, but a limited supply of savings, the risk of lending and therefore the price of credit (interest rates) would be high. Although onerous to borrowers, high rates would have both encouraged saving and discouraged borrowing. In the end, these market forces would reduce interest rates and produce a more stable balance between savings and consumption. However, the Fed did not want American consumers to be subjected to free market discipline that might otherwise reign in their non-stop spending. After all, reckless consumption was falsely believed to be the engine of our prosperity.

So the Fed fixed the price of credit (interest rates) well below the rate that would have been set by the free market. This sent false economic signals to the market that more savings were available than actually existed, leading to an over-investment in housing. Also, by keeping the rate of interest below the rate of inflation, rampant speculation was encouraged, and the foundation was laid for the very type of mortgage financing that has now come back to bite us.

In the second place, no one on Wall Street should be bailed out. The effects of the bursting of the housing bubble should be dealt with by the market, despite the fact that the underlying bubble itself was a byproduct of government intervention.

Apart from the problems created by interfering with the market's attempts to restore balance and reallocate resources, bailouts create all sorts of moral hazards. After all, why should bailouts be limited to investment banks or overstretched homeowners? What about renters who also borrowed too much money? What about those behind on their credit cards, auto or student loans? Why shouldn't they get bailed out? How about small entrepreneurs whose start-up businesses failed -- should they get bailed out as well?

In market economies all sorts of people lose money, sometimes as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control. While this is clearly not the case for most homeowners and mortgage lenders, some would obviously fall within that category. However, it is not up to government to rescue them. Even if some borrowers and lenders were lead astray by the false economic signals sent by the Fed, they are never-the-less responsible for any losses they might have incurred as a result of following them. The real danger is that while government interference is actually at fault, it's the free-market that ends up taking the blame.

Peter Schiff