Inflation pain allegedly caused by Biden’s spending demands transparency, Republican says

Published in Fox Business.

But Alex Pollock, a distinguished senior fellow for finance, insurance and trade at the libertarian R Street Institute, told FOX Business that despite the other factors, he “certainly” thinks the president’s policies are playing a large role in the current inflation.

Pollock said the biggest contributor is massive government spending that’s financed by monetizing the debt. And the inflation, Pollock emphasized, is reducing Americans’ “real wages” and cutting the value of their savings.

Read the rest here.

Video: Is inflation back?

Hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

The recent increase in US inflation numbers has shocked the stock market and begun a debate about whether an inflationary period is starting. This surge comes while the Joe Biden administration engages in the country’s largest peacetime fiscal stimulus, monetary policy remains highly accommodative, and demand has been pent-up due to social distancing and COVID-19 restrictions.

Join AEI and a distinguished panel of economists for an event evaluating whether there is an immediate inflationary risk to the US economy, the longer-run inflation outlook in light of anticipated demographic changes in China and elsewhere, and what the implications might be for future monetary and fiscal policy.

Letter to the editor: Fed’s Inflation Genie May Deliver More Than Wanted

Published in The Wall Street Journal.

For the first four months of this year, the seasonally-adjusted consumer-price index is rising at an annualized rate of 6.2%. Without the seasonal adjustments, it is rising at 7.8%.

“The consumer-price index rose at a remarkable 4.2%,” says your editorial, “Powell Gets His Inflation Wish” (May 13). Remarkable, yes, but our current inflation problem is far worse than that 4.2%, which is bad enough. The real issue is what is happening in 2021. We need to realize that for the first four months of this year, the seasonally-adjusted consumer-price index is rising at an annual rate of 6.2%. Without the seasonal adjustments, it is rising at 7.8%. Meanwhile, house prices are inflating at 12%.

We are paying the inevitable price for the Federal Reserve’s monetization of government debt and mortgages. As for whether this is “transitory,” we may paraphrase J.M. Keynes: In the long run, everything is transitory. But now it is high time for the Fed to begin reducing its debt purchases, and to stop buying mortgages.

Letters to the Editor of Barron’s: Fed Distortion

Published in Barron’s.

Randall W. Forsyth’s column, “The Fed Might Start to Act Sooner to Head Off Housing Boom and Bust. What Could Happen,” (Up & Down Wall Street, May 21), is excellent, but he is too diplomatic when it comes to the Federal Reserve continuing to buy mortgages. Specifically, I’d rewrite two sentences.

1) “There seems little justification to stoke housing demand” should be, “There is no justification to stoke housing demand;” and 2) “The Fed might be exacerbating those problems” should be, “The Fed is exacerbating those problems.”

With the Fed’s postcrisis mortgage portfolio at $2.3 trillion (plus a lot of unamortized premium) and heading up, its distorting effects as the world’s biggest savings and loan are clear.

The New Monetary Regime – Debt and The Inflation Crisis: A Special Panel Presented by The Liberty Fund and The RealClear Foundation

Hosted by Real Clear Politics.

The roundtable is moderated by Alex J. Pollock of the R Street Institute, and the panelists included Law & Liberty senior writer David P. Goldman of the Claremont Institute, Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, and Christopher DeMuth of the Hudson Institute.

A New Inflationary Era

Published in Law & Liberty.

In this provocative but calmly argued book, The Great Demographic Reversal, Charles Goodhart and Manoj Pradhan predict a new era of widespread and lasting inflation. Goodhart, who has been a respected expert in financial, monetary, and central banking issues for decades, and Pradhan, a macroeconomist who studies global financial markets, express as their “highest conviction view” that “the world will increasingly shift from a deflationary bias to one in which there is a major inflationary bias.”

This conviction reflects their “main thesis” that “demographic and globalization factors were largely responsible for the deflationary pressures of the last three decades, but that such forces are now reversing, so the world’s main economies will, once again, face inflationary pressures over the next three or so, decades.”

The demographic factors include the end of the “positive supply shock” to the global supply of labor provided by China over the previous decades. That is because “China’s working age population has been shrinking, a reflection of its rapidly aging population,” and “the surplus rural labor supply no longer provides a net economic benefit through [internal] migration.” Thus, “China will no longer be a global disinflationary force” and it “no longer stands in the way of global inflation.”

A second key factor is that birth rates around the world continue to decline and longevity to increase, furthering the aging of society and increasing dependency ratios. In this context, the authors point out that the average fertility rate in advanced economies has fallen to well below replacement. This includes the U.S. For the foreseeable future, there will be an ever-lower ratio of active workers to the dependent elderly, with the huge expense of support and health care for the elderly stressing government budgets. They add this striking thought: “Our societies today are still relatively young compared to what is to come.”

These are longer-term, not short-term movements. The implication is that we may envision a slow, great cycling over decades of inflationary and disinflationary or deflationary periods. The 2020s swing to inflation would mark a great cycle reversal, with perhaps a book like The Death of Inflation of 1996 symbolizing the previous reversal.

In a different estimate of the duration of the coming inflationary era, Goodhart and Pradhan make it somewhat shorter: “The coronavirus pandemic… will mark the dividing line between the deflationary forces of the last 30-40 years, and the resurgent inflation of the next two decades.” But whether it’s two or three decades, the authors expect two or three decades, not two or three years, of significantly higher inflation.

The effects of such an inflation would be, they write, “pervasive across finance, health care, pension systems and both monetary and fiscal policies,” and they surely would be. For example, they suggest, “It will no longer be possible to protect the real value of pensions from the ravages of inflation.” Nominal interest rates will be higher, but “Inflation will rise considerably above the level of nominal interest rates that our political masters can tolerate,” so “negative real interest rates… will happen.” Here they should have written, “will continue,” since we already have negative real interest rates, the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note now falling short of the year-over-year inflation rate.

Further, “The excessive debt amongst non-financial corporates and governments will get inflated away.” In other words, governments will implicitly default on their bloated debt through inflation, a classic strategy. Of the three alternatives the book cites for reducing excess debt, “inflation, renegotiation and default,” inflation is the easiest for a government with debt in its own currency.

As the authors say, “neither financial markets nor policymakers are prepared” for such an inflationary future world.

In a final chapter written in 2020, Goodhart and Pradhan conclude that the government deficits and debt created in response to the coronavirus pandemic have reinforced and accelerated the coming inflationary era. Government-mandated quarantines and lock-downs were “a self-imposed [negative] supply shock of immense magnitude.” To finance it, “the authorities quite rightly opened the floodgates of direct fiscal expenditures,” in turn financed by escalating debt and monetization.

“But,” they logically ask, “what then will happen as the lock-down gets lifted and recovery ensues”—as is now well under way—“following a period of massive fiscal and monetary expansion?” To this question, “The answer, as in the aftermaths of many wars, will be a surge in inflation.”

Directionally, I think this is a very good forecast. We are already seeing it play out in the first months of 2021.

How much inflation might there be? They suggest the inflation numbers will be high: “quite likely more than 5%, or even on the order of 10% in 2021.”

Is 5% inflation possible? Well, the U.S. Consumer Price Index rose from December 2020 to April 2021 at the annualized rate of 6.2% when seasonally adjusted, and 7.8% when not seasonally adjusted. Signs of increasing inflation are widespread.

It seems to me that it does fit naturally with the world’s current system of pure fiat currencies, and the burning urge of many politicians to spend and borrow, especially when they are supplied with expansive central bankers. That the official forecasts and public relations statements of those central bankers are so much to the contrary of the theory makes me more inclined to believe it.

How about that 10%? Could we really go to a 10% inflation? It has happened before. The U.S. has been at 10% inflation or more in 1917-20, 1947, 1974, and 1979-81. Most of these followed inflationary financing of wars, but the fiscal deficits and money printing of late are as great as during a war.

The authors proceed to the question of “What will the response of the authorities then be?” and offer this prediction—made in 2020: “First and foremost, they will claim that this a temporary and one-for-all blip.” We already know that this prediction was correct.

Overall, is this theory of a new inflationary era plausible? It seems to me that it does fit naturally with the world’s current system of pure fiat currencies, and the burning urge of many politicians to spend and borrow, especially when they are supplied with expansive central bankers. That the official forecasts and public relations statements of those central bankers are so much to the contrary of the theory makes me more inclined to believe it.

Speaking of the central bankers, Goodhart and Pradhan observe something important: “In recent decades Central Banks have been the best friends of Ministers of Finance [and Secretaries of the Treasury], lowering interest rates to ease fiscal pressures and to stabilize debt service ratios.” But what will happen “when inflationary pressures resume, as we expect”? Will the relationship become more tense or even hostile? To put it another way, might the disputes of 1951 between the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve be re-played and the celebrated “Accord” between them come out in the opposite way: with the central banks more subservient? “Inevitably,” the authors rightly say, “central banks have to be politically agile.”

The book interestingly comments on an implied cycle in the standing of macroeconomics and macroeconomists. How credible are their pronouncements and forecasts? “From the Korean War until about 1973 was a transient golden age for macroeconomics.” The 1960s featured the misplaced confidence of macroeconomists that they could “fine tune the economy,” and control inflation and employment using the “Phillips Curve” they believed in. Sic transit gloria: “It all then went horribly wrong in the 1970s,” when they got runaway inflation and high unemployment combined. And “the second golden period for macroeconomics (1992-2008) [also] went horribly wrong.” That time the announcements of the “Great Moderation,” which central bankers gave themselves credit for, turned into a Great Bubble and collapse. The golden macroeconomic ideas of one era may seem follies to the next.

If the new inflationary era predicted by Goodhart and Pradhan becomes reality, the follies of the present will seem blatant. Should we adopt their “highest conviction” that this inflationary era is on the way? In my view, the economic and financial future is always wrapped in fog, but their argument is well worth pondering and entering into our considerations of the biggest economic risks ahead.

Financial pain in the behemoth assets

Published in The Australian:

“Are banks too big to fail? Of course they are, as much as ever and probably even more so,” says Alex Pollock, who was deputy director of financial research at the US Treasury until February.

...

The US Federal Reserve banks have become the biggest player in the commercial banking system. “They are now huge home lenders; their $US2.2 trillion of mortgage loans is bigger on an inflation-adjusted basis than the entire savings and loans industry before its collapse in the 1980s,” Pollock says.

Governments and regulators quite like a big, concentrated financial system, which explains why little real reform was achieved in the wake of the financial crisis. What did happen was a huge increase in complexity that benefits large incumbents and regulators themselves. Regulators can “manage the system” more easily and treasurers can enjoy lower interest rates. And activist central banks can ensure governments enjoy much lower borrowing costs than otherwise.

“Banking everywhere has been, is and will be a deal between bankers and politicians,” Pollock says.

Inflation Is Here

Published by Barron’s.

Randall W. Forsyth (“Flood of Liquidity Is Sweetening Retirement for Stock Owners and Home Sellers,” Up & Down Wall Street, April 30) points out the rapid first-quarter growth in gross domestic product, final sales, and personal income, but oddly fails to mention that the consumer price index increased from December to March at an annualized rate of 6.8%. Inflation isn’t coming; it’s here.

It is intensely here in house prices, as he says, up in double digits (about 12%). Forsyth writes forthrightly: “The Fed keeps inflating that bubble by buying $40 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities…every month.” Yup. But why is the Federal Reserve still buying? Why is the Fed still monetizing mortgages when house prices are in runaway inflation? The answer is simple: It needs to stop.

Video: The New Monetary Regime: An Expert Panel Discusses Government Debt and Inflation

Hosted by Law & Liberty.

For decades, the U.S. Government has been charging a credit card with no limit, running up previously unimaginable trillions of dollars on the balance sheet at the Federal Reserve, leaving future generations as the guarantor—and the bill may be coming due sooner rather than later. What will be the effects of this Fed/Treasury alliance on our economy and our society?

Law & Liberty and the Real Clear Foundation hosted a distinguished panel of experts who discussed the growing crisis of inflation and debt in our government.

The discussion was moderated by Alex J. Pollock of the R Street Institute, and the panelists included Law & Liberty Senior Writer David P. Goldman of the Claremont Institute, Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, and Christopher DeMuth of the Hudson Institute.

Another Bad Idea: Fannie and Freddie as Utilities

Published by the American Enterprise Institute with Patrick Lawler and Edward J. Pinto.

In the more than twelve years since their 2008 failure, nobody has been able to figure out how to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being wards of the state, as their continued existence is wholly dependent on the generosity of the taxpayer by way of the U.S. Treasury’s credit.  Many proposals, legislative and otherwise, for restructuring or replacing these behemoths have come and gone. Now, arguments are increasingly being made to retread these government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) as privately owned, public utilities.  While this idea has its promoters, we believe it is fundamentally a bad idea.  How the Government Mortgage Complex does love to propose rent-seeking solutions that operate with the largest possible government guarantee.

In March 2020, the Center for Responsible Lending published a paper by Eric Stein and Bob Ryan urging that a utility approach to regulation of the GSEs be implemented post-conservatorship, which they asserted was essentially how they were being regulated in conservatorship.  In December, 2020 the National Association of Realtors in a paper by Richard Cooperstein, Ken Fears, and Susan Wachter, reiterated and updated their earlier position that made the public utility model the centerpiece of their “enduring vision of housing finance reform.”  They recommend that the GSEs should be prevented from excessive competition for market share in good times and from hiking fees in bad times to an extent that would undermine their public missions.  In January 2021, the former CEO of Freddie Mac, Don Layton, now at the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, continued to argue for utility style regulation of GSE guarantee fees, the amount they change lenders for assuming mortgage credit risk.

Also in January 2021, the Treasury Department released a blueprint for GSE reform that called for continued regulatory oversight of GSE pricing post-conservatorship in a way that would simultaneously protect the safety and soundness of the GSEs while seeking to channel the benefits of federal support to homebuyers and renters rather than shareholders and managers.  The blueprint builds on its earlier housing reform plan that appeared to endorse giving greatly enhanced regulatory authorities, such as a utility regulator might have, to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) with regard to permissible activities and products.  And in February 2021, the Brookings institution published a paper by Michael Calhoun (president of the Center for Responsible Lending) and Lewis Ranieri calling for utility oversight focusing on increased transfers to affordable housing and racial equity programs.  These proposals build on previous ideas going back more than 20 years, but are now achieving greater visibility and wider mention.

These encomiums ignore the all too foreseeable consequences of a public utility structure, especially when applied to these national financial giants that have little in common with a local water company. The combination of political clout and a greatly expanded cookie jar of fees and cross subsidies would repeat, and in some respects worsen, the ills of the GSE structure that failed so spectacularly in 2008.  Their insolvencies were critical precipitating events of the financial chaos in the fall of that year.  In the early post-crisis years, there was general agreement that reliance on these giant institutions as the foundation of that market had revealed manifold problems that required a major change in approach.  Fannie and Freddie:

• Were intended for public purposes, but controlled by private investors; they earned outsized returns for their owners during most of their existence, but in 2008 needed massive taxpayer bailouts exceeding all their previous profits;

• Used the advantages of their special status to expand their franchises into new activities, crowd out competitors, and dominate less favored firms;

• Concentrated mortgage risks in two entities with extraordinary leverage;

• In response to congressional low-income affordable housing mandates, used a portion of the subsidy provided by the taxpayer’s implicit guarantee to increase debt, and subsidize the cost of that debt, rather than making homes more affordable and building wealth for low-income buyers.

• Failed to durably raise homeownership rates, but did contribute to significantly bigger houses for the all classes of homebuyers; and

• Wielded powerful economic and political clout to bully customers, suppliers, regulators, executive branch agencies, and Congress for their own benefit.

Please click here to view the PDF

Government policies reshape the banking industry: Changes, consequences, and policy issues

Hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

On April 12, AEI’s Paul H. Kupiec hosted a panel discussion on recent changes in the banking industry and their consequences for the wider economy. He reviewed how the industry has consolidated, is lending less to the private sector, and is relying more on federal guarantees.

Richard E. Sylla of New York University summarized the history of the banking industry. Aside from a 50-year period of stability, US banking has trended toward a system characterized by a few large banks with extensive branch systems, branch systems that are now in decline themselves.

Charles Calomiris of Columbia University summarized more recent trends in the banking industry as a “three-legged stool”: extreme consolidation, extreme dependency on government support, and reliance on real estate lending. Alex J. Pollock of the R Street Institute added that the greater “banking credit system” is increasingly influenced by the Federal Reserve and government-sponsored enterprises.

Bert Ely of Ely & Company enumerated the industry risks. Depository institutions are intermediating deposits into government debt. Low interest rates have also squeezed bank margins and reduced the cushion to absorb losses that may arise from the pandemic.

— John Kearns

Event Description

The federal government response to the 2008 financial crisis, including new laws, prudential regulations, and Federal Reserve monetary policies, has left a lasting impact on the banking industry. Not only has the number of independent depository institutions almost halved since 2000, but the industry has also become much more concentrated in a few large “systemically important” institutions. Moreover, the characteristics of the largest banks have changed dramatically according to incentives established by heightened prudential regulatory requirements and the Federal Reserve’s long-lived zero interest rate environment.

Join AEI as a panel of banking experts discusses postcrisis changes in the banking industry and their consequences for the wider economy.

Event Materials

• Paul H. Kupiec: “20 years of banking history in 67 charts and tables”

• Richard Sylla: “From exceptional to normal: Changes in the structure of US banking since 1920”

• Alex J. Pollock, Hashim Hamandi, and Ruth Leung: “Banking credit system, 1970–2020”

• Charles W. Calomiris: “Introduction: Assessing banking regulation during the Obama era”

Agenda

10:00 AM
Introduction and opening remarks:
Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, AEI

10:15 AM
Panel discussion

Panelists:
Charles Calomiris, Henry Kaufman Professor of Financial Institutions, Columbia University
Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company
Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Richard E. Sylla, Professor Emeritus of Economics, New York University

Moderator:
Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, AEI

11:30 AM
Q&A

12:00 PM
Adjournment

Inflation Risk

Published in Barron’s.

To the Editor:

Regarding “Why—and How—Investors Should Gird for Inflation Risk” (The Economy, March 26), what the Federal Reserve says always reflects politics and its attempts to manipulate expectations. But being prepared for the risk of higher inflation, as Lisa Beilfuss suggests, is perfectly aligned with what the Fed is doing, namely printing money. As for the Fed’s forecasts, they are as unreliable as anybody else’s guesses about the future.

The Many Faces of Government Default

Published in Law & Liberty.

Although government debt is a favored investment class all over the world, it has a colorful history of over 200 defaults in the last two centuries, which continue right up to the present time.

This record reflects a perpetual political temptation, memorably described by the sardonic observer of sovereign defaults, Max Winkler in 1933. Of “the politicians in the borrowing countries,” he wrote, “from Abyssinia to Zanzibar”—which we may update to Argentina to Zambia, both governments having defaulted again in 2020—“Tomorrow they may be swept out of office. Today they can live only by yielding to the multiple undertaking of expenditures . . . and exchange favors by the misuse of the public treasury. In order to enjoy the present, they cheerfully mortgage the future.” Of course, we can’t read this without thinking of the Biden $1.9 trillion project to spend, borrow, and print.

Often enough, historically speaking, booming government debt has resulted in “national bankruptcy and default” around the world. Winkler chronicled the long list of government defaults up to the 1930s. He predicted that future investors would again be “gazing sadly” on unpaid government promises to pay. He was so right. Since then, the list of sovereign defaults has grown much longer.

A Short Quiz: Here are six sets of years. What do they represent?

1. 1827, 1890, 1951, 1956, 1982, 1989, 2001, 2014, 2020

2. 1828, 1898, 1902, 1914, 1931, 1937, 1961, 1964, 1983, 1986, 1990

3. 1826, 1843, 1860, 1894, 1932, 2012

4. 1876, 1915, 1931, 1940, 1959, 1965, 1978, 1982

5. 1826, 1848, 1860, 1865, 1892, 1898, 1982, 1990, 1995, 1998, 2004, 2017

6. 1862, 1933, 1968, 1971

All these are years of defaults by a sample of governments. They are, respectively, the governments of:

1. Argentina

2. Brazil

3. Greece

4. Turkey

5. Venezuela

6. The United States.

In the case of the United States, the defaults consisted of the refusal to redeem demand notes for gold or silver, as promised, in 1862; the refusal to redeem gold bonds for gold, as promised, in 1933; the refusal to redeem silver certificates for silver, as promised, in 1968; and the refusal to redeem the dollar claims of foreign governments for gold, as promised, in 1971.

With the onset of the Civil War in 1861, the war effort proved vastly more costly than previously imagined. To pay expenses, Congress authorized a circulating currency in the form of “demand notes,” which were redeemable in precious metal coins on the bearer’s demand and promised so on their face. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase declared that “being at all times convertible into coin at the option of the holder . . . they must always be equivalent to gold.” But soon after, by the beginning of 1862, the U.S. government was no longer able to honor such redemptions, so stopped doing so. To support the use of the notes anyway, Congress declared them to be legal tender which had to be accepted in payment of debts. About issuing pure paper money, President Lincoln quoted the Bible: “Silver and gold have I none.”

In 1933, outstanding U.S. Treasury bonds included “gold bonds,” which unambiguously promised that the investor could choose to be paid in gold coin. However, President Roosevelt and Congress decided that paying as promised was “against public policy” and refused. Bondholders sued and got to the Supreme Court, which held 5-4 that the government can exercise its sovereign power in this fashion. Shortly before, when running for office in 1932, Roosevelt had said, “no responsible government would have sold to the country securities payable in gold if it knew that the promise—yes, the covenant—embodied in these securities was . . . dubious.” A recent history of this failure to pay as agreed concludes it was an “excusable default.”

In the 1960s, the U.S. still had coins made out of real silver and dollar bills which were “silver certificates.” These dollars promised on their face that they could be redeemed from the U.S. Treasury for one silver dollar on demand. But when inflation and the increasing value of silver induced people to ask for redemptions as promised, the government decided to stop honoring them. If today you have a silver certificate still bearing the government’s unambiguous promise, this promise will not be kept—no silver dollar for you. The silver in that unpaid silver dollar is currently worth about $20 in paper money.

An underlying idea in the 1944 Bretton Woods international monetary agreement was that “the United States dollar and gold are synonymous,” but in 1971 the U.S. reneged on its Bretton Woods agreement to redeem dollars held by foreign governments for gold. This historic default moved the world to the pure fiat money regime which continues today, although it has experienced numerous financial and currency crises, as well as endemic inflation. Since 1971, the U.S. government has stopped promising to redeem its money for anything else, and the U.S. Treasury has stopped promising to pay its debt with anything except the government’s own fiat currency. This prevents explicit defaults in nominal terms, but does not prevent creating high inflation and depreciation of both the currency and the government debt, which are implicit defaults.

Winkler related a pointed story to give us an archetype of government debt from ancient Greek times. Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, was hard up and couldn’t pay his debts to his subjects, the tale goes. So he issued a decree requiring that all silver coins had to be turned in to the government, on pain of death. When he had the coins, reminted them, “Stamping at two drachmae each one-drachma coin.” Brilliant! With these, he paid off his nominal debt, becoming, Winkler said, “the Father of Currency Devaluation” and thereby expropriating real wealth from his subjects.

Observe that Dionysius’s stratagem was, in essence, the same as that of the United States in its defaults of 1862, 1933, 1968, and 1971. In all cases, like Dionysius, the U.S. government broke a promise, depreciated its currency, and reduced its obligations at the expense of its creditors. Default can have many faces.

So convenient it is to be a sovereign when you can’t pay as promised.

Financial Triangle

Published in Barron’s.

Henry Kaufman, as quoted by Randall W. Forsyth in “Where Wall Street’s ‘Dr. Doom’ Sees Danger Now” (Up & Down Wall Street, March 12), is so right that we have a “dangerous dependency on the Fed” and that “the central bank and the Treasury are ‘joined at the hip.’ ” Of course, a core mandate of every central bank is to finance, as needed, the government of which it is a part, although you won’t find this in the Federal Reserve’s public-relations materials. The close link of the Fed and the Treasury goes back to the Fed’s 1913 chartering act, which originally made the secretary of the Treasury automatically the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

But now, the joining at the hip is even tighter than Kaufman suggests, because it includes the mortgage market, too. With its $2.1 trillion and growing mortgage portfolio, the Fed owns about 20% of all residential mortgages. It buys mortgage securities with the guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; but with virtually no capital of their own, the value of Fannie and Freddie’s guarantees is completely dependent on the Treasury. Moreover, the Treasury is their principal owner.

Thus, the real joining at the hip is not only the Fed and the Treasury, but also the Fed and the Treasury and Fannie/Freddie—a gigantic government financial triangle.

The Oversight Board Keeps Working On Puerto Rico’s Record Insolvency

Published in Real Clear Markets.

The government of Puerto Rico continues to hold the all-time record for a municipal insolvency, having gone broke with over $120 billion in total debt, six times as much as the second-place holder, the City of Detroit.

Faced with this huge, complex, and highly politicized financial mess, and with normal Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy legally not available, the Congress wisely enacted a special law to govern the reorganization of Puerto Rico’s debts. “PROMESA,” or the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, provided for a formal process supervised by the federal courts, in effect a bankruptcy proceeding.  It also created an Oversight Board (formally, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico) to coordinate, propose and develop debt settlements and financial reform.  These two legislative actions were correct and essential. However, the Oversight Board was given less power than had been given to other such organizations.  The relevant models are notably the financial control boards of Washington DC and New York City and the Emergency Manager of Detroit, all successfully called in to address historic municipal insolvencies and deep financial management problems.

It was clear from the outset that the work of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board was bound to be highly contentious, full of complicated negotiations, long debates about who should suffer how much loss, political and personal attacks on the Board and its members, and heated, politicized rhetoric.  And so it proved to be.  Since the members of the Oversight Board are uncompensated, carrying out this demanding responsibility requires of them a lot of public spirit.

An inevitable complaint about all such organizations, and for the Puerto Rico Oversight Board once again, is that they are undemocratic.  Well, of course they are, of necessity, for a time. The democratically elected politicians who borrowed beyond their government’s means, spent the money, broke their promises, and steered the financial ship of state on the rocks should not remain in financial control.  After the required period of straightening out the mess and re-launching a financial ship that will float, normal democracy returns.

It is now almost five years since PROMESA became law in June, 2016.   It has been, as it was clear it would be, a difficult slog, but substantial progress has been made.  On February 23, the Oversight Board announced a tentative agreement to settle Puerto Rico’s general obligation bonds, in principle the highest ranking unsecured debt, for on average 73 cents on the dollar.  This is interestingly close to the 74 cents on the dollar which Detroit’s general obligation bonds paid in its bankruptcy settlement.   If unpaid interest on these bonds is taken into account, this settlement results in an average of 63 cents on the dollar.  In addition, the bondholders would get a “contingent value” claim, dependent on Puerto Rico’s future economic success—this can be considered equivalent to bondholders getting equity in a corporate reorganization–very logical.

The Oversight Board has just filed (March 8) its formal plan of adjustment.  It is thought that an overall debt reorganization plan might be approved by the end of this year and that the government of Puerto Rico could emerge from its bankrupt state.  Let us hope this happens.  If it does, or whenever it ultimately does, Puerto Rico will owe a debt of gratitude to the Oversight Board.

We can draw two key lessons.  First, the Oversight Board was a really good and a necessary idea.  Second, it should have been made stronger, on the model of previous successes.  In particular, and for all future such occasions, the legislation should have provided for an Office of the Chief Financial Officer independent of the debtor government, as was the case with the Washington DC reform.  This was highly controversial, but effective. Any such board needs the numbers on a thorough and precise basis.  Puerto Rico still is unable to get its audited annual reports done on time.

A very large and unresolved element of the insolvency of the Puerto Rican government remains subject to a debate which is important to the entire municipal bond market.  This is whether the final debt adjustments should include some reduction in the almost completely unfunded government pension plans.  Puerto Rico has government pension plans with about $50 billion in debt and a mere $1 billion or so in assets.

There is a natural conflict between bondholders and unfunded pension claims in all municipal finance, since not funding pensions is a back door deficit financing scheme.  General obligation bonds are theoretically the highest ranking unsecured credit claims, and senior to unfunded pensions.  But the reality is different.  De facto, reflecting powerful political forces, pensions are the senior claim.  Pensions did take a haircut in the Detroit bankruptcy, but a significantly smaller one than did the most senior bonds.  In other municipal bankruptcies, unfunded pensions have come through intact.

What should happen in Puerto Rico?  The Oversight Board has recommended modest reductions in larger pensions, reflecting the utter insolvency of the pension plans.  Puerto Rican politicians have opposed any adjustment at all.  Bondholders of Illinois: take note of this debate.

I suggest a final lesson:  the triple-tax exemption of interest on Puerto Rican bonds importantly contributed to its ability to run up excess and unpayable debts.  Maybe there was a rationale for this exemption a hundred years ago.  Now Puerto Rico’s bonds should be put on the same tax basis as all other municipal bonds.

The Coming Bailout of State Pension Plans

Published in The Wall Street Journal.

In “Prelude to a State Pension Bailout” (op-ed, March 1), Andrew C. Biggs is doubtless right that the coming bailout of hopelessly insolvent multiemployer pension plans will lead to further bailouts of other broke pension plans. These will be justified with the argument that the pensions were “promised”—but by whom? They weren’t promised by the taxpayers, only by the defaulting plans and a government insurance program that is itself insolvent. How very clever it was to set up the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and promise it would never call on the taxpayers: This very same illusion created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their subsequent bailout. The multiemployer pension plans are deeply in need of structural reform, and so are many public-employee pension plans, and so is the PBGC. If indeed, as Mr. Biggs argues, the political urge to bail them out is irresistible, the opportunity for reform thereby created should not be missed. The unquestionable governing principle must be that bailouts require reform: No reform, no bailout.

Inflation Comes for the Profligate

Published in Law & Liberty.

Printing money to finance wars with resulting inflation is the most time-honored monetary policy. It can also be used for other crises thought of as analogies to wars, like to finance the massive expense of bridging the Covid 19-triggered bust of 2020.

In these situations, the central bank necessarily becomes the Treasury’s partner and servant, stuffing its balance sheet with government debt and correspondingly inflating the supply of money. This captures an essential mandate of every central bank, though it is not one you will find in the Federal Reserve’s public relations materials, namely lending money to the government of which it is a part.

Now, as the economic recovery from the Covid bust strengthens, soaring government debt is still being heavily monetized in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, which has now expanded to a previously unimagined $7.6 trillion, in a classic Treasury-Fed cooperation. The printing (literal and metaphorical) continues and the new administration wants to expand it even more. Isn’t accelerating inflation on the way?

The distinguished former Secretary of the Treasury, economist Larry Summers, recently suggested that it may be. “There is a chance,” he wrote, that government actions “on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” I believe this is correct.

If we agree that there is such “a chance,” how big a chance is it? With political delicacy, Summers’ essay does not address this question. Instead, he carefully points out the “enormous uncertainties” involved. While the fog of uncertainty always obscures the economic future, it looks to me like the answer is that the chance is substantial. It would not be at all surprising to see inflation move significantly higher.

“There is the risk,” Summers writes, “of inflation expectations rising sharply.” Well, inflation expectations are already rising among bond investors and analysts, giving rise to such commentaries as these:

“According to the Bank of America’s January fund manager survey, some 92% of respondents expect rising inflation.” (Almost Daily Grant’s Newsletter, February 10, 2021)

“Bonds Send Message that Inflation is Coming” (Barron’s, February 5, 2021)

“For those of us not inclined to believe in free lunches, the funding of large deficits with printed money is another source of inflation and financial stability concerns” (Barron’s, February 12, 2021)

“A new worry now is whether the tremendous spending plans…can really be done without prompting a historic inflation.” (Don Shackelford, Proceedings newsletter)

“With growth in unit labor costs surging and a range of survey indicators also pointing to rising price pressures, we think inflation will be much stronger over the rest of this year.” (Andrew Hunter in Capital Economics)

“Inflation Worries Drive Platinum Up” (Wall Street Journal)

“The rat the Treasury market is smelling is consumer price inflation.” (Wolf Street, February 13, 2021).

Reflecting these concerns, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note, while still low, has risen meaningfully of late, to about 1.4 percent from 0.7 percent six months ago. This move has imposed serious losses on anybody who bought long-term Treasuries last summer and held them. The price of the iShares Treasury Bond ETF, for example, is down about 18 percent since the beginning of August.

In contrast to the views just quoted, Summers observes “administration officials’ dismissal of even the possibility of inflation.” Who is right, the investors or the politicians? Whose assessments of inflation risk do you believe? Politicians may be expected to deny an economic result that would get in the way of their intense desire to spend newly printed money.

As has frequently been discussed, a notable inflation has already been running for some time—the inflation in asset prices. Monetary expansion, needing to go somewhere, has gone into the prices of equities, bonds, houses, gold, and Bitcoin. The “Everything Bubble” stoked by the Federal Reserve and the other principal central banks has taken asset prices to historically extreme, and in the case of Bitcoin, amazing, valuations. Financial history presents an essential recurring question: How much can the price of an asset change? It also provides the answer: More than you think.

U.S. house prices have been and are inflating rapidly. They are substantially over their Housing Bubble peak of 2006. According to December’s Case-Shiller index, they are rising at an annualized rate of 10 percent, and AEI’s December Home Price Appreciation Index shows a year-over-year increase of 11 percent. This is abetted by the Fed’s monetization of long-term mortgages, of which it owns, including unamortized premiums, a striking $2.3 trillion—a sum 2.6 times its total assets in 2007—and which it continues to buy in size. This huge monetization of mortgages by the institution they created would greatly surprise the founders of the Federal Reserve, could they see it, and displease them. Instead of taking away the punch bowl as the party warms up, the Fed is now pouring monetary vodka into the housing finance punch. Reflecting on this inversion of the famous metaphor, Ed Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute has reasonably asked if they couldn’t at least stop buying mortgages. But it appears this will not happen anytime soon.

Of course, as a base line, we have endemic inflation of goods and services prices. The Federal Reserve has moreover formally committed itself to perpetual inflation. The Covid bust notwithstanding, the Consumer Price Index increased 1.4 percent year-over-year in January, 2021, and over the two months of December-January at an annualized rate of 3.1 percent. We are told frequently by the Fed about its “2% target” and hear it endlessly repeated by a sycophantic chorus of journalists. Since the Constitution unambiguously gives the power of regulating the value of money to the Congress, I believe the Federal Reserve acted unconstitutionally in announcing on its own, and carrying out without the approval of the Congress, a commitment to perpetual depreciation of the purchasing power of the U.S. currency.

Last year it formally added a new willingness to let inflation go higher than 2 percent for a while. How much higher and for how long nobody knows, including the Fed itself, but this willingness is consistent with a greater chance of accelerating inflation.

How much inflation is a sustained 2 percent? At that rate, average prices quintuple in a lifetime. The global movement among central banks, including the Fed, to trying for 2 percent inflation is a notable example of the changing intellectual fashions of central bankers. When serving as Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan suggested the right inflation target was zero, correctly measured, and an inflation rate of zero was the long-term goal of the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. The distinguished economist, Arthur Burns wrote in 1957 that “our economy is faced with a threat of gradual or creeping inflation over the coming years.” He was right about that, except that gradual unexpectedly became galloping in the 1970s (ironically, when he was Fed Chairman).

“It is highly important that we try to…stop the upward drift of the price level,” Burns argued. Over time, “even a price trend that rises no more than 1 percent a year will cut the purchasing power of the dollar”—so much the more would 2 percent, he added. How ideas have changed. . Since the 1970s, we never are told about “creeping inflation” anymore. While Burns in the 1950s attacked 1 or 2 percent inflation, our current monetary mandarins strive for 2 percent forever and more than 2 percent for now. This increases the risk, consistent with Summers’ observations, that they will get more than they are bargaining for.

Economics is so little a science that economists can always be found on both sides of any question. This is certainly true of the debate about escalating debt, monetization, and the risk of accelerating inflation.

At 3 percent inflation, prices would multiply by 11 times in the course of a lifetime. We are always a little surprised at the result over time of relatively small changes in a compound growth rate like the average rate of inflation.

One of the key Keynesian arguments for inflation was that wages are sticky downwards, so that if real wages economically need to fall, you can make then go down by inflation instead. Over the decade prior to the Covid crisis, average U.S. hourly earnings for all employees were rising first at about 2 percent and later 3 or 3.5% percent a year. So a 2 or 3 percent inflation would sharply cut or wipe out real wage gains, at the same time as it imposes negative real returns on savers. Other items you will never see in the Federal Reserve’s public relations materials are its potent abilities to reduce real wages and punish savers.

“Throughout history, there’s absolutely no currency in the world that has maintained its value,” international fund manager Mark Mobius pronounced. The U.S. dollar certainly has not, losing 96 percent of its purchasing power since the creation of the Federal Reserve and losing 98 percent of its value in terms of gold since 1971. (That was when the U.S reneged on its Bretton Woods commitments and led the world into a pure fiat currency regime.) Increasing inflation going forward from here would be consistent with history.

Economics is so little a science that economists can always be found on both sides of any question. This is certainly true of the debate about escalating debt, monetization, and the risk of accelerating inflation.

With the opinion farthest from mine, we have the cheerleaders for monetizing a lot more debt and practicing “What, me worry?”—these are the proponents of “MMT” or Modern Monetary Theory. Of course, it should be written “M”MT, or “Modern” Monetary Theory, since solving your problems by printing up money and forcing the people to accept the depreciating currency is a very old financial idea. The City of Venice used it in 1630, for example, to spend with inflationary result during an attack of bubonic plague. Alternately, we could consider calling it “WMT” or “ZMT” for Weimar Monetary Theory or Zimbabwe Monetary Theory. Even better would be “JLMT” for John Law Monetary Theory.

John Law was the creative, persuasive theorist of risk and paper money, “secretary to the King of France and controller general of His Majesty’s finances,” who presided over first the inflation and then the panicked collapse of the Mississippi Bubble of 1720. A main theme, then as now, was how to produce paper assets to cover the government’s debts, but his history also provides a precedent for our house price discussion: “Thanks to Law’s money-printing, land and houses were expensive.”

Like the close ties of John Law to the French monarchy, the question of debt monetization and its inflationary risks is closely tied to the question of what kind of government we want. Should the federal government’s power be limited or expansive and dominant? What the proponents of “M”MT really long for is a vastly expanded and more powerful government, with themselves in charge. If debt can be indefinitely expanded by bloating the central bank, then you don’t have to tax much in order to spend forever. Thus one of the most important limits on the power of Leviathan to dominate the society can be removed. We see that much more is involved than a monetary theory.

Are those desiring to wield the expanded power willing to cause much higher inflation to get it? This is the political meaning of the monetary question.

What Drove Five Decades of Big Changes in Banking?

Published by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

A new post authored by Alex J. Pollock, Hashim Hamandi, and Ruth Leung (2021) on the Office of Financial Research (OFR) website helps answer that question, and it focuses specifically on the changes in U.S. banking that occurred from 1970 to 2020. The analysis includes chartered state and national banks, other depository institutions, and some specialized banking intermediaries, such as the 12 Federal Reserve Banks, and what the authors label the government mortgage complex, which consists of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. It also considers subgroups of banks—in particular, the ten largest commercial banking enterprises.

…

Much of this is well known. What is less understood is how the expansion in the generosity of deposit insurance has fueled real estate lending by deposit-financed intermediaries. A typical U.S. bank today has about three-quarters of its lending devoted to real estate loans of some kind. As observed by Pollock (2019), “We still use the term ‘commercial banks,’ but a more accurate title for their current business would be ‘real estate banks.’” This is a far cry from the prohibition on real estate lending for national banks prior to 1913. How does increased deposit insurance generosity affect banks’ mortgage lending?

…

Alex J. Pollock (2019), “Bigger, Fewer, Riskier: The Evolution of U.S. Banking since 1950,” The American Interest , February 25.

Alex J. Pollock. Hashim Hamandi, Ruth Leung (2021). “Fifty-Year Changes in the Banking Credit System, 1970-2020.” Post, Office of Financial Research.

Banking Credit System, 1970-2020

Published by the Office of Financial Research, U.S. Department of Treasury.

BY Alex J. Pollock, Hashim Hamandi, Ruth Leung, OFR*

This essay puts the depository institutions industry into broad historical perspective, looking at the fifty year changes from 1970 to 2020.

For this analysis, we aggregate the Banking Credit System, defined as the government-chartered depositories and their principal chartered support entities. We define the relevant components as:

• The largest ten bank holding companies (BHCs)

• All other insured depository institutions

• The Government Mortgage Complex (Fannie Mae + Freddie Mac + Ginnie Mae)

• The Federal Reserve Banks.

As the following five tables demonstrate, the changes in this system and its components over this period with respect to asset size, relative size, share, size relative to nominal GDP, and long-term growth rates are dramatic.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, there has been dramatic expansion in the scale of the institutions involved. Table 1 measures this in nominal dollars. Table 2 adjusts these numbers for inflation, using constant 2020 dollars. The increase in size in both nominal and real terms is remarkable.

Over the same period, the number of insured depositories has dropped dramatically: from over 19,800 in 1970 to about 5,000 in 2020—a reduction of 75% since one co-author (Alex Pollock) was a bank management trainee.

Meanwhile, the huge residential mortgage sector has become dominated by the Government Mortgage Complex, which was in 1970 relatively small, almost a rounding error, but has grown very big indeed. In nominal terms, it is now almost 260 times as big as it was in 1970, compared to the depository institutions asset growth of 28 times.

Table 1.

(1)Our goal is to understand the banking sector. If we expanded to non-bank companies, the size and growth would be even larger. Some of these companies’ activity is reflected in the Government Mortgage Complex, where they have a dominant share of mortgage servicing, and also in auto loans, credit cards and other consumer lending.

(2)1971

Of course, a lot of the growth when expressed in nominal dollars represents the endemic inflation of the post-1970 monetary regime. Table 2 shows the system’s still remarkable growth after adjusting for inflation.

Table 2.

(1)Values for 1970 are expressed in constant 2020 dollars using CPI values for June 2020 and December 1970.

Equally remarkable is the shift in the composition of the system, as shown in Table 3.

The ten largest BHCs in 1970 together equaled only 16% of the Banking Credit System, equal to about one-quarter of the aggregate size of all the other insured depositories. By 2020, the top ten have become 34% of the total system and have 1.3 times the assets of all the rest of the banks put together. Alternately stated, over these decades the consolidation of the historically highly fragmented American banking business has proceeded very far.

The big winners of share of the system over 50 years are the largest ten banks, the Government Mortgage Complex, and the Fed. The big losers of share are all the other depository institutions.

Table 3.

(1)Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

As shown in Table 4, the Banking Credit System over 50 years grew enormously relative to the economy as a whole—from 89% to 182% of GDP.

Table 4.

(1)Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

The assets of the biggest ten banks grew much faster than the other banks, increasing from 14% to 62% of GDP. All the other banks put together, now numbering about 5,000, fell from 63% to 47% of GDP.

The Government Mortgage Complex hugely inflated from 3% of GDP to 40%, by far the biggest change.

Table 5 shows the 50-year compound average rates of growth, both nominal and real, for the Banking Credit System, and GDP growth rates as a baseline comparison.

Table 5.

The Banking Credit System as a whole grew substantially faster than GDP over 50 years.

The Federal Reserve, now by far the biggest bank of all, grew much faster than GDP.

The Government Mortgage Complex grew fastest of all by far, at 11.8% per year in nominal terms, almost double the 6.1% for nominal GDP.

In Sum

Over the last 50 years, the Banking Credit System grew vastly bigger relative to the economy, much more consolidated, and much more dependent on both the government mortgage complex and the government’s central bank, greatly increasing its dependence on explicit and implicit government guarantees. This history exemplifies the maxim of Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber (1) that every banking system is a deal between the bankers and the politicians.

(1)Fragile by Design (2014)

*Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions or policy of the OFR or Treasury. All the data used in this paper are from public sources, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Congress Must Take Control of Money Back From the Fed

Published in Real Clear Markets.

The question of Money is always political.  What is the definition of “money,” what is its nature, how is it created, and how are debts settled—these are questions that have been much debated over time, sometimes very hotly.  Recall, for example, William Jennings Bryan’s famous, burning rhetoric of 1896:

“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns—you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold”!

He was addressing the definition of money.

What the U.S. Constitution says about the definition of money is succinct.  Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the express power:

“To coin money [and] to regulate the value thereof.”

As writers on the subject have pointed out innumerable times, to “coin” is obviously not the same as to “print.”

How then does it come about that the American government issues irredeemable, fiat, paper money, and this is the only kind of money we have today?

The Constitution expressly prohibits the states from issuing such paper money, but is silent about the national government on this point.

Considering original intent through the Constitutional debates, the founding fathers were nearly unanimous in their strong opposition to paper money, as the Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention make completely clear.  In general, they shared the view later expressed by James Madison about:

“The rage for paper money…or any other improper or wicked project.”

Although this was the dominant opinion of the members of the convention, and although they debated an express prohibition of national paper money, they decided not to include it.  Of course, neither was there an authorization.

In the discussion, George Mason explained:

“Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet…he could not foresee all the emergencies” of the future and was “unwilling to tie the hands of the legislature.”

Paper money in this view is a matter only for emergencies.

The Constitutional result was the express power “to coin” and silence on “to print.”  Should one conclude that there is an implied power for the government to print pure paper money?  Further, is there an implied power to make it a legal tender in payment of debts, even if those debts had been previously contracted for and explicitly required payment in gold coin?

A lot of supreme judicial ink would later be devoted to debating and ultimately deciding this question.
In the Constitutional Convention debates, Gouverneur Morris:

“Recited the history of paper emissions and the perseverance of the legislative assemblies in repeating them, with all the distressing effects.”

He further predicted:

“If a war was now to break out, this ruinous expedient would again be resorted to.”

This prediction was proved right when the Civil War did break out, and the Lincoln administration soon turned to paper money to pay the costs of the Union Army.

In 1861, faced with the staggering expenses of the war, Congress authorized the issuance of paper money, or “greenbacks,” as they were called.  In 1862, it made them a legal tender.  Predictably, the greenbacks went to a large discount against gold—their value fluctuated with the military fortunes of the ultimately victorious Union.

As another war measure, national bank notes were created by the National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864, which we now know as the National Bank Act.  The main point was to use the new national banks to monetize the Treasury’s debt.  Governments always like the power to monetize their deficits.

After the Civil War, the expedient of paper money as legal tender resulted in a series of Supreme Court cases in which:

First, making paper money a legal tender for debts previously contracted in gold was found unconstitutional in a 4-3 decision.

Then, soon afterwards, the Court reversed itself 5-4, after the addition of two new justices, finding that it was constitutional, after all.  The new majority stressed the sovereign right of a government to do what was necessary to preserve itself.

About the legal tender cases it has been said:

“Measured by the intensity of the public debate at the time, it was one of the leading constitutional controversies in American history.”

Yet they are now largely forgotten.

In one of the series of legal tender decisions, one later overruled, the Court wrote:

“Express contracts to pay in coined dollars can only be satisfied by the payment of coined dollars…not by tender of United States notes.”

That this decision did not stand was handy for the United States government later—in 1933, when it defaulted on its express promise to pay Treasury gold bonds in gold.  Instead it paid in paper money.

This action the Supreme Court upheld in 1935 by 5-4, although no one doubted the clarity of the promise to pay that was broken.  Among the majority’s arguments were the sovereign right of the government to default if it wanted to and the sovereign right of the national government to regulate money.

Coming to today: We have a pure fiat money system of the paper Federal Reserve notes in your wallet and bookkeeping entries on the books of the Fed.

This paper currency, the Federal Reserve on its own has committed to depreciate by 2% per year forever, in spite of the fact that the Federal Reserve Act instructs it to pursue “stable prices.”

By promising perpetual 2% inflation, the Fed keeps promising to make average prices quintuple in a normal lifetime.  (That is simply the math of compound interest.)

The Fed made this momentous, inherently political, decision on its own, without the approval of the Congress.  It did not ask Congress for legislative approval and no hearings on this debatable proposal about the nature of money were held.

Where, under the Constitution, did the Fed get this right to proceed without Congress?  That the Fed presumed to do this on its own authority was a highly questionable action of the administrative state.

I believe one could correctly argue that this was an unconstitutional violation of Article I, Section 8. Unfortunately, we have no lawsuit about it, so we can only observe it.

One scholar of the legal tender cases concluded:

“There remains the intriguing question of the Constitutional basis for today’s legal tender paper… today’s fiat money.”

Indeed there does.  But the political basis rules and life goes on.