Friday, March 11, 2016

Short Tract pp 0 - 53 Edn 12 - 2 11 03 16

FRONT COVER

A Short Tract on Financial Stability
By Edward C D Ingram
A financially stable economy would be much safer for everyone. Economics is complicated but it does not have to be. In fact, a financially stable economy would be remarkably simple.
This book takes a science-based approach to the reforms needed, using long accepted norms and principles, and two key observations made by one of the world’s most influential economists, Lord J M Keynes, in his landmark paper 'A Tract on Monetary Reform', published in 1923. This book is expected to have a significant impact on macro-economic thinking. 



REVIEWS - more are promised
Andrew Pampallis, Retired Head of Banking at the University of Johannesburg wrote, “When people realize what you have done all hell will break loose.”

Alan Gray, Editor-in-Chief, NewsBlaze, writes, “The Macro-economic Design group’s elegant solution is so simple that it has eluded the big economic thinkers of our time, because everyone was looking for a complex solution to a complex problem.”

Professor Evelyn Chiloane-Tsoka from the University of South Africa, says “These ideas will become prescribed reading at universities.”

Dr Rabi N. Mishra, Economist, and a Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India writes: “This book will inspire rethinking on the perimeters of economic thought and theory, and their practical use in policy making. A ‘should-read’ for budding researchers in Financial Economics to expand its horizon.” 

Dr. Azam Ali ex Senior Economist Bank of Pakistan writes, “Dear Edward, I am following your endeavours of rewriting the economic framework with great interest and am on the same page with you on almost all the issues you raise from time to time.”
The damage done to the world's political and social welfare by the financial instability of nations is immeasurable, even if it takes place in slow motion. It results in large losses to savings and pensions, lost homes and destroyed families, poverty, extreme political movements, international trade wars, cross-border economic frictions, high unemployment in large cycles, massive social discontent, and even civil wars. Because of the magnitude of the damage, the political fall-out makes good governments vulnerable to extreme opposition movements which can make matters even worse.
Since the days of Lord Keynes, universities and policy-makers around the world all aim to manage the rate of devaluation of money but that has only served to increase financial instability. This book explains why that is so and how to address the real problems.
It explains how we can remove around 95% of all the financial instability mentioned above. Everyone should be protected from the kind of financial storms and the associated insecurity which we have come expect. People’s savings and their homes should be safe from interest rate turmoil; and the value of currencies should be safer and more predictable for traders. Borrowing for housing, businesses, and governments should be based on financially stable contracts. Central banks should manage the supply of money directly and accurately instead of remotely and loosely. This will bring stabilty to the rate of inflation, an end to asset price bubbles and bursts, and except in the most dire circumstances, it will end major recessions. In the distant future, when robots are the work slaves, and the people are free, a new order will be needed to provide finance for everyone. That is another exciting story which may be unfolding right now.
This is the short version of the full academic book to be entitled, ‘A Tract on Financial Stability’. It is named after Lord Keynes’ ‘A Tract on Monetary Reform’ because it starts from the same place but takes the other route forward: first create financial stability, then reform monetary policy.
RELATED WEBSITE









DEDICATION


TO ALL OUR FUTURES




Contents





PREFACE


This book is written as simply as possible for all interested people.
Besides offering an interesting and motivational read for people in government and government departments, for academics, and for non academics alike, the main intention is to provide a clear and practical list of financial stability concepts and guidelines which are soundly based for all time. Once the list has been applied, this can lead on to the creation of a simple, more effective, and stable, framework and management system (and monetary policy) for the economies of all nations. Hopefully, should significant financial instability recur this list will explain why it has happened.
This book should be treated, not as a finished academic book, full of tried and tested solutions, but as a reference book which provides those basic guidelines. As in Einstein's case, he provided his theory but he was unable to provide the tested proofs. But when tested, his theory was well grounded and it proved to be sound. It is expected that much the same will happen with this book because the ideas look to be soundly based but most are untested.
Certainly, the writer is aware, and has been told, that after reading this book, people will never look at economics in the same way again.
A number of principles, customary choices and guidelines, which appear in text books and financial regulations are demonstrably wrong. They conflict with other long-established principles which have been ignored or set aside. Possibly, this was because economies were not working in financially stable ways and people were only addressing the symptoms, not the origins of the problem. The result has been layer upon layer of complexity added to the macro-economic framework and management system. It is concluded that financial planning and macro-economic management should be fairly simple.
Explaining how things should be done is the easy part. The complicated part is explaining why many alternative ideas have been tried and failed; why text books and practices have strayed off course. At least some of the most senior people in economic policy today have admitted that their remedies are not working well and that there are things which they do not yet understand. There is room for hope.
Most people are aware of the fall-out when things go horribly wrong, the intensely complex discussions heard in the media, and the lost businesses and other plans, and the political fall-out. This book cannot be complete without demonstrating where all that complexity comes from and why it may be surprisingly easy to remove it.
IMPLEMENTATION
However, when it comes to implementing the necessary changes to achieve greater financial stability the task is not simple. Economies cannot be stopped, changed, and started again in good working order like a clock on the wall. They are living organisations. Great care needs to be taken when making changes. A panel of experts and maybe many published papers will be needed in each nation in advance. These may throw up unexpected costs and complications during the transformation process.

Some aspects have international effects, particularly in the matter of currency reforms. An international panel of experts may be very useful, so that the best choices can be made, and misinterpretations of the reform plans do not lead to flights of capital during the change-over, and other unwanted consequences.

To minimise the chances of disruption, before each change is made, and not all at once, a period has to be set aside for educating the entire community so that everyone knows what to do and what the expected costs and benefits of making the change will be. This was done when VAT was first introduced. Thought must be given to what can be done to help those who may be hit too hard in the process of change. For many people, reading this some of this book may be a good place to start.

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1 - PRICES AND CURRENCIES


DEFINING FINANCIAL STABILITY

In his 'A Tract on Monetary Reform', 1923, John Maynard Keynes (now Lord Keynes, deceased), saw financial instability in the face of the changing value of money as inevitable. But in fact, most of this instability is avoidable. Implicitly, Keynes defined financial stability as a state in which, if money halved in value, a man might both earn twice as much and spend twice as much on the same things, and thus be basically unaffected.
WHAT THIS MEANS
If set free, (they are not all free), all prices are able to adjust, and they would do so naturally. All prices, costs, values, and earnings,(earnings are a price because there is price for hiring skills), can be classified as prices; and if a state of financial stability were to be achieved, then all such prices should either be able to adjust, or to be adjusted, to offset the falling value of money. Explaining why this can and should happen, why market forces will normally make it happen, comes later. It largely goes back to what Adam Smith, often referred to as the father of economics, wrote about how and why prices can adjust without help.  But modern economists, including Lord Keynes, have rejected this idea, believing that this does not work. They got that wrong. They wrongly assumed that prices are free to adjust and then they said that the economy is financially unstable, which it is, and they began adding layer upon layer of interventions and regulations leading to enormous complexity. The instability remained. In many ways it got worse. They were dealing with the symptoms, not the sources of the problem.

THEME

In accordance with Adam Smith's writing, we should expect prices to adjust to changing supply and demand and they do. We should also expect prices to adjust to the falling value of money. But they do not. They cannot. We deliberately prevent that from happening. For example:

FIXED INTEREST

When a borrower signs a fixed interest contract with a lender, the contract specifies that the money will be repaid with interest. Why does it not say that the value will be repaid with interest? That way there would not be unwanted confusion. There would not be unexpected winners and losers. There would be financial stability. The contract would adjust the capital value of the debt so as to offset the falling value of money. People, governments, and businesses, would repay and receive what was intended. They would all be basically unaffected by the falling value of money. A lot of uncertainty and confusion would end, eliminating a host of complex and damaging knock-on effects around the rest of the economy which complicate everything. This has recently tempted the authorities in the USA and elsewhere to intervene and buy them up with printed (free to them) money. This has removed some quantity of that source of instability, but as with all interventions there are knock-on effects. There are complications. Any intervention adds complexity and breeds new winners and losers. We need to remove the source of the problem, not just address the symptoms.
Before we look for answers, we need a reasonably accurate and very practical definition of how fast money does fall in value. It is not in the text books. If anything, economists have tried and got it wrong. They mostly say that keeping pace with prices inflation preserves the value of money. It does not. It preserves purchasing power which is not the same thing. We will examine that very soon - below.

HOUSING FINANCE

The cost of housing finance, those monthly repayments, does not adjust as money falls in value either. In fact the cost of monthly repayments leaps up and down, taking the value of properties up and down like a yoyo. It has a different agenda. This causes confusion and financial instability in key areas of the economy. The knock-on effects are widespread, damaging many plans and families and businesses, leading to more interventions and more complexity; these interventions include the provision of subsidies and low interest rates, and other ideas. The overall result of ignoring the source problem is that of turning what should have been simple decisions into complex and confusing onesfor the majority of people almost everywhere as well as causing significant damage to the entire economy. One economist known to the writer says that in some nations one third of all economic activity is dependent upon the property sector and its finances. When there is trouble there, there is trouble everywhere.
Readers will be shown that there is a better way to arrange these finances, a financially stable way in which the value to be repaid every year is defined and managed by the contract, keeping everything under control. That includes the cost of monthly repayments and the price of property. The yoyo disappears and property values become relatively stable.
With these two changes made for bond structures and for housing and commercial finance, basic and simple financial plans for the majority of people on planet earth can start to work. It really is not very complicated.

MEASURING THE FALLING VALUE OF MONEY

Here is the next big mistake in text books. People everywhere are taught that a savings account has to rise as fast as prices inflation in order to keep itspurchasing power. That is correct. But it is not what they mean. The rate of prices’ inflation is not necessarily the rate at whichaccounts have to rise in order to offset thefalling value of money. That is something else altogether.
Even if money never rose or fell in value, rising efficiency or other things, are likely to reduce or change the level of prices in the prices index. In that case, in order to maintain the value of an account, e.g. for a savings or a loan account, most of the time the interest rate needed to do that would have to be greater than the rate needed to maintain its purchasing power, i.e. greater than the rate of inflation of prices. Maybe one day it will be the other way around, but whichever way things go, the two measures are not the same.

GOLDEN RULE

When it comes to finding solutions, if you don’t use the right measuring rod you cannot develop the science. It is this more correct measuring rod which has been suggested herein to solve the above two problems.
How did it happen that everyone uses the wrong measuring rod - why do they adjust everything for prices inflation? It may have been the tradition in those days, but it is clear from reading his book that this mistake was made by Lord Keynes in his tract on monetary reform in 1923. The mistake has also been made by his followers, and for that matter, by everyone else ever since.It was a simple mistake. When Keynes wrote about money halving in value he forgot to say that this takes time and that the price of goods and services are changing during that period for many other reasons. Prices need to adjust to all kinds of market forces.
The correct statement to make is:
"When money falls in value prices will rise to be correspondingly higher than they would otherwise have been." Not that when the value of money halves, prices should double.
Prices will rise to offset or to neutralise the reduced value of money. The problem is that, as just pointed out, we prevent this from happening in every form of finance that there is.
Many people were very impressed by Keynes' book and his subsequent books. His assumptions and ideas have formed the basis of much of university courses in economics since those times. But he was addressing the wrong problem. Reforming monetary policy comes after creation of a stable financial framework, not before doing that. A simpler mechanism, a faster and more precise mechanism, a more balanced mechanism, can be used for that once the financial framework is stable. We will come to that.
To test what top academics are being taught, the writer had the opportunity to talk to the head of a famous business school. Sure enough, when asked if there was an index which measured the falling value of money the prices index was quoted. When the mistake was pointed out, it was admitted by the professor. Yet today, whenever the media talks of adjusting for inflation they talk of adjusting for prices inflation. They present the wrong figures. And these wrong figures are sometimes used in decision making.[1]
IN SUMMARY
In summary, a savings account which rises as fast as inflation does not maintain its value. It maintainsits purchasing power. Here is a made-up story to illustrate how 95% of the value of a fund can be lost by making that mistake.

GRANDPA'S MONEY

Grandpa was wealthy. He set aside 20 National Average Earnings, 20 NAE, into a fund for the benefit of his heirs in 100 years' time. It was something like half a lifetime's income for an average person. The interest earned was not re-invested, but was given to his children and their offspring in the meantime. Because the capital growth was tied to (we say index-linked to) prices inflation and because prices rose 3% p.a. more slowly than NAE over that 100 years, the fund ended with a value of just 1 NAE. Instead of inheriting a substantial sum to be used as a deposit for a home or an investment, each of his twenty great grand children inherited a small share of one year's national average earnings: one twentieth of 1 NAE.

 What happened to the other 19 NAE?

People were borrowing that 20 NAE, and were investing it in assets which rose at about the same pace as NAE, places where rising efficiency was slow or not happening at all. That is, 3% p.a. faster. When it was time to repay the capital, between all of them over that 100 years, they only had to repay 1 NAE. The income which they earned from rents and dividends more or less paid the interest at first. But over time, as the value of their investments rose faster than prices inflation, so their income from rentals and dividends also rose faster. The basket of goods and services which economists use to measure inflation does not include NAE, or property values, or other investments all of which are somewhat more likely to keep pace with the falling value of money. Some investors used the extra (faster rising) income to pay off their debt. Collectively, (between them), they borrowed 20 NAE and repaid 1 NAE in capital plus interest and got some extra unearned income as well. They gained 19 NAE plus some extra income from investing that gift of cheap money.

IMPROVING OUR LOT

Once we start to use something much closer to the right measuring rod for the rate of devaluation of money, it becomes possible to devise a whole range of significantly better and more financially stable models / contracts for all kinds of finance. The measuring rod chosen does not have to be precisely right - it does not have to exactly offset the falling value of money from moment to moment or even from year to year. That is not possible: there are too many unknowns; but using NAE in the contract as the measuring rod to use for the capital adjustment needed to offset the falling value of money is better than nothing. It is better than using the prices' inflation index or, as in the case of fixed interest bonds, not compensating for the falling value of money at all. There is a cost for too much sophistication (detailed accuracy). It is called complexity. The idea is to reduce the total amount of uncertainty and financial instability, not to eliminate it no matter at what cost. We need to find a measure which is simple and practical - easily usable, and easy to understand. That way, it becomes easy to sell financially safe ways of doing things which save costs and make people basically unaffected by the falling value of money - or something so close to that that they no longer worry.

USES AND BENEFITS
·        We can remove this much financial instability from all kinds of lending, savings, and borrowing contracts, reducing costs and capital employed by lenders and ensuring that the problem of balancing their books and their cash flows, incoming and outgoing, becomes much easier for them.
·        The greater stability of property values will mean lower deposits are needed. The reduced risk of arrears and defaults as repayments levels come under control will also reduce interest and other costs. It will enable more to be lent.
·        The removal of financial instability from the greater part of the economy will reduce unemployment worries, increase confidence, and boost borrowing to invest, boosting the whole economy.
·        When people are not confused they invest more. Such statements in this tract are typical of what the writer has not proved but which comply with what he has observed. Hopefully it will be confirmed or perhaps it has been confirmed already in some academic paper.
Proof readers can help here if they have a citation for any of the above. At one time or another the writer has seen such papers or he knows that they exist, but finding them is a problem.

AN IMMEDIATE APPLICATION

It is the instability currently inbuilt into these parts of the economy which is preventing central banks from restoring interest rates to their proper level. Every price, cost and value mentioned above in the property and bond sectors responds far too fast to interest rate changes. Some, like property values and bond values even go off in the opposite direction to what is needed for financial stability, falling instead of rising as the economy recovers. If these financial instabilities are first removed from savings and loans, from bond and property values, and from the cost of monthly repayments, then restoring normality to interest rates will be much easier and much faster. It will be simple.

ANOTHER MISTAKE

In today's real world economic model,[2] it is the privilege of central banks to set how low interest rates can go. The model which gives them this privilege is wrong to do so. Interest rates are a price and all prices need to be free to adjust if we are really serious about gaining financial stability.

But for now let us look at the problem which central banks have created and which they are now facing in some of the world's largest economies as the result of reducing interest rates much too far. Some central banks are still reducing interest rates even into negative figures! That makes the recovery more difficult.

Here is an illustration of how difficult it is for central banks to raise interest rates when all of that financial instability, (with too rapid pricing and costing responses, and sometimes in the wrong direction), remains in place as it is today:

INSERT



What goes in the wrong direction? The Federal Reserve Bank (the American central bank) has waited for National Average Earnings to start to rise so as to make space for interest rates to rise. But when they raise interest rates alongside rising earnings raising the price of credit alongside everything else for financial stability, property and bond values both fall creating instability. This is going in the wrong direction for financial stability. Remember the criterion for achieving financial stability? When NAE rises, everything else is supposed to rise together, at least for a time, at least until NAE stops rising for some very good reason, which is something that we will deal with much later in this tract. If that kind of financial harmony cannot happen because the financial contracts for bonds and housing finance, for example, prevent this from happening, then people will be basically affected. There will be and there actually is, real financial instability across most of the economy.

The wording at the top of this chart is saying that the American Central Bank's Committee on Monetary Policy, or Federal Open Market Committee, (monetary policy basically means setting interest rates in this case), is having to raise interest rates very slowly. They wish to avoid a hasty retreat, lowering rates again sharply, as has happened to these other central banks (see the coloured lines). When those other central banks raised interest rates too fast they created far too much financial instability - more than the economy could cope with. Then these other central banks hastily reduced interest rates again, as shown. It was not the central banks which created the most instability, (by managing interest rates), it is the way the financial contracts have been written and applied. Remember what has been written above on bonds and housing finance for example. They are  both creating financial instability in abundance.

LOW INFLATION TRAP

The financial instability built into these economies was simply too much. The responses of prices and asset values was much too fast. Later, it will be explained that the lower interest rates go, the greater this instability becomes. So those central banks which are still reducing interest rates are not moving forward. The writer calls it the 'LOW INFLATION TRAP' because the main part of the trap, but not the only part, is caused by the low rate of inflation combined with the financial instability in the cost of monthly repayments. The time taken for borrowers with leaping home loan repayment costs to adjust their earnings to these higher costs gets longer and longer. When the cost of repayments jumps up by 10% - 25% in response to a 1% to 2% rise in interest rates, the lower the rate of inflation of earnings, of NAE, the longer it takes for borrowers' earnings to rise by the same (up to 25%) percentage so that they can spend normally again. At zero NAE this takes forever.

Borrowers enter a new world with much higher borrowing costs and there is little earnings growth with which to cope with that. Even if most borrowers have used fixed interest rates, new borrowers will have to pay much more in monthly payments, and property values will consequently fall a long way. To get back to normality the writer estimates that the cost of monthly repayments in these nations may have to increase by over 50% - or more if interest rates keep falling. Then there are the falling bond values and many knock-on effects on all kinds of things including the value of the currency, a slowing economic growth rate and maybe a falling stock market.

HARM DONE BY CHEAP MONEY

The currently low interest rates in many of the advanced economies are at a level at which people with the position and power to do so can borrow too cheaply for the good of the economy and they can easily make a profit at the expense of everyone else. At least, that is, while interest rates remain low. Interest rates are at a level which does not maintain the value of the funds being lent. That is really low. That means that borrowed money is cheap money. It is like what borrowers did in the 'Grandpa' story. Big borrowers can make a fortune. They can even take over ownership of good companies by borrowing cheaply in this way and then use the profits made by those companies, which they then own, to pay off the debt they incurred when buying the companies.

"Here Sir, please take ownership my company - it is a free gift made at the expense of savings and pension funds which  are lending their money to everyone very cheaply (because they have to - interest rates have been managed by central banks and they are now far too low). You don't need to earn money to  pay off your debt - the company profits to which you will be entitled as the new owner will do that for you".

The fact that the new owner does not know anything about how to run that business is not a consideration. In fact the new owner has the power to direct the management of the company and may easily convince him/herself that he/she is expert enough to do so. "After all - look how much money I have been making already compared to what these 'ignorant' (or less well off) people are earning!"

KNOCK-ON EFFECTS ON THE CURRENCY PRICE
In the meantime there are knock-on effects on the exchange rate - currencies with low interest rates are undervalued by low interest rates. That means that a nation may feel the need to raise interest rates to protect the value of its currency and to limit the rise in prices of imported goods and services. Raising interest rates has knock-on effects on the national economy. The knock-on effects are many as already mentioned, and they can be horrendous in some circumstances. It is always painful for some.

Yes, economics as currently practiced is very scary and it is complicated! So many basic free pricing rules have been broken.

CURRENCY PRICING ERROR

This currency price effect when interest rates change is the consequence of yet another text book error. This should not be the case. We will come to that later and show how to disentangle those international (external) interest rate and capital forces from having an effect upon the value and interest rates of local currencies. Currencies are not free to adjust to the balance of trade and the falling value of money. They should be adjusting to both.

Currencies should fall to offset the falling value of money and they should also help to ensure a balance of trade - the same or similar value then being imported as is exported. There is a third force which is in play and it should not be there on the same playing field.

Every economy has its own best rates of interest. Those interest rates have nothing much to do with the interest rates in other nations. But because of the way things are arranged, they are not given that privilege - interest rates are not as independent of other nations as they should be, or need to be for the health of the businesses and business plans which drive a nation's economy. It is not good for a struggling economy to be forced to raise interest rates because of what another nation did with their own interest rates; but it happens.

We will come to that in chapter xxx.

As stated, this is another case of following wrong principles laid down in text books. Plus managing interest rates in order to offset this currency problem is preventing interest rates from adjusting correctly anyway. Two wrongs, a wrong currency pricing model, and a wrong interest rate pricing model, do not make a right! More on that later.





INTRODUCTION

SECTION 2 - THE MEASURING ROD AND UNIT OF VALUE


MANAGING THE DEMAND IN THE ECONOMY

Once all of the above has been done, allowing financial stability to take hold, allowing all prices their freedom to adjust as Adam Smith wanted, we will find that there are better ways and better instruments which can be used to manage the level of demand on, and the amount of money needed by, the entire economy. There are ways to do that without losing control. There are ways that do not overshoot and undershoot the level of demand, and which are fair to everyone. They would act fast and with precision, giving every spender an immediate boost, and they are highly effective. We will come to the details of that in chapter xxx when we discuss money, how it is valued, how its value changes and why, and we will look at its two main forms and their separate roles.

There is temporary money created by banks and there is printed and permanent money created by central banks. Central banks are not ordinary banks. They do not lend to people, only to other banks.

The need to create more printed money to stabilise the economy will be news to many academics because most people think that the printed form of money is dangerous whereas the opposite is the case, especially when the financial framework is right so that people are basically unaffected by the changing value of money. Then it becomes very sweet indeed like a gift from heaven. Everyone gets some free printed money! The economy booms...but not too much, and they get enough new money to keep everything moving. Too little money - people have to wait to be paid. Too much and prices all have to adjust and there may be an unwanted increase on imports and an unwanted too high rate of inflation. But there is enough margin for error in the quantity of money needed to be created to cause any major problem. There is no real need to worry, provided that the rules of the process are clearly understood and enforced. No one can control a government, so it is up to them. If they want financial stability they can have it. The exception usually comes in time of war when suddenly governments need more money than they can obtain through taxation. At least if the rest of the economy is financially stable, it will right itself more quickly than the enemy's economy, helping to win the war. This is one reason not to have one world currency - as a part of the national defence strategy. And there are other good reasons. And it is a very good reason for creating a financially stable and therefore a very strong and resilient economy.

UNMANAGEABLE THINGS

No matter what is done to improve the management of demand in an economy, the aggregate (total) demand (level of spending) in the economy of a nation will always vary. This will always be so. And this will affect the value of money no matter how hard we try to stabilise it.

When spending levels rise the value of money falls. And the other way around (vice versa). People are free to save more, import more, borrow more, or do less of all of these things whenever they wish. For this reason, the earnings which they have will not translate into 100% spending into the national economy.  When savings rise and spending on imports rise and borrowing levels fall, spending in the national economy will slow down. At other times, some or all of these things will reverse and spending will increase. The level of spending will rise and fall, over time. It will undulate. That will never stop. For this reason using NAE as our measuring rod only measures the likely rate of devaluation of money over time, not from month to month. These undulations will alter that rate of devaluation of money as they occur compared to the changing level of NAE - people's earnings. There may also be some other thing coming into play which the writer is not aware of, but NAE is most likely to be a good approximation to the measuring rod for the rate at which money is falling in value which is needed. On average, over time, it should be about right. Here is something for academics to test. The theory looks sound and it is better than nothing.

And it should be noted that the managers of the economy must stand aside and not intervene to try to prevent these undulations from taking place. They self-correct and they are only undulations - at least most of the time. It is possible for an economy to get into a downwards spiral in certain circumstance, but it is easy to rescue it - to prevent that - if the new economic and financially stable and well managed model has been created. We will discuss this in more detail later.

FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBT
Without earnings there is no spending. Only if people were to constantly save and never either spend nor lend their savings, or if they were to export and never spend their export earnings, would all earnings not be spent over the longer term. If earnings did not all get spent eventually there would be some hidden place, maybe on the moon, where a mountain of unspent money was forever accumulating. No such hidden treasure has been found. Not even on earth.

If there is any small such pile of money lying around idle and always growing it is there in people's pockets as cash, or in their deposit accounts, where it can provide safety and savings which can be spent quickly. As the value of money falls, this idle, 'parked' part of the money stock, will be rising in quantity over time. Otherwise all money, or almost all of it, will eventually be spent.

THE NAE BENCHMARK

It is these observations, that NAE will be steadier than spending and that it will be close to the long-run average level of spending (a theory for academics to prove or disprove at their leisure), which has helped to persuade the writer to use NAE as a main benchmark. Anything which rises in price at a different rate from NAE must do so for a reason.

BETTER VISION - MORE UNDERSTANDING

Having this NAE benchmark or reference point, enables us to ask this question, "Why is such and such a price rising or falling at a pace which is different from the rate of growth of NAE? Is it something seasonal about spending in that sector, or in the case of a person's property, is it the location of this particular property, or are people now saving more and spending less, etc." If we understand the forces at work and how to measure their effects, we can get to understand much better what is going on around us and we get to see why. This is something that the writer did very early on, even starting in the late 1960's and certainly by the mid 1970's. It gave him a lead over other fund managers at that time. See the background story.

If you know which are problems and which are not, if you understand the forces at work, you are becoming a good observer and a good scientist. Science starts with clear observations. You will be able to see what needs to be corrected.

UNIT OF VALUE

There are other good and very practical reasons for adopting NAE both as a unit of value, as was the case in the 'Grandpa story', and as a benchmark. For example, if we calculate wealth in units of NAE, as was the case in the 'Grandpa' illustration, we are getting close to using the correct metric, the correct measuring rod, for something (the unit of NAE) which does not lose value over time. It only wobbles a bit. You invest 1 NAE and if it grows as fast as NAE you always have 1 NAE. You have offset the expected average rate of the falling value of money.

Counting the NAE invested by Grandpa made his story of savings and borrowing easy to follow. It makes for a clearly understood contract whereby the value lent keeps its number of NAE. The money in people's savings and loan accounts rises by contract between the parties, at the same pace as NAE rises. It is stated in black and white - on paper, in an agreement for both lender and borrower to sign.

It can also happen, somewhat less precisely, but naturally, provided that interest rates are free to adjust.  Market forces will ensure that - but with more wobbles.



INTRODUCTION

SECTION 3 - MONEY CREATION AND MANAGING THE ECONOMY


WHAT COMES FIRST - PRICE RISES OR EARNINGS RISES?

The concept is that spending drives prices and it comes from earnings. Earnings are also a price, so how can all of these prices increase all of the time? It happens. Which comes first and how and why does this happen?Where does all of the extra money come from? If every price doubles including what people are paid, the economy will need twice as much money as before this happened.

FAULTS IN THE MONEY CREATION AND MANAGEMENT MODEL

The answer to that comes down to understanding the total amount of borrowing and the total amount of money which is created as a consequence. We live in an economic model,[3] or structure, in which money is very easily created when people want to borrow money.

A LOOSE SYSTEM
Today, and for decades past, most money creation, and maybe around 95% of all money  creation has been done by banks acting as lenders. The system is unsafe and unstable. It is not precise like the speed control or the steering control system on a vehicle. It is what is called a loose control system. In fact it is a very loose control system. If applied to a motor vehicle, the speed would not be under good control and / or the motor vehicle would not be able to steer a steady course. Not even nearly. The driver would not know either when the car would start to change course or how fast that would happen. Such systems are not in line with the theory of good (tight) management systems. They overshoot and undershoot their intended target and sometimes by a very long way. This on its own is enough to explain why economies boom making everyone exuberant, and then they crash making most people miserable or even panic, even in some cases destroyed financially. The level of demand is very loosely managed. Too loosely managed.

HOW IT WORKS
Suppose a lender has too little in deposits to be able to lend new money. What then? After signing the lending / borrowing contract, new money is created. It is simply 'printed' (added electronically) into a newly created account in the name of the borrower and given to the borrower to spend. In days gone by it would have been written into a ledger. After being spent it has to be repaid with interest. In the meantime when that money is spent, the recipients of the money do not know whether it is original, printed money, or temporary money lent to the borrower. They may not even know that he/she borrowed the money. There is no difference between the two kinds of money, money created by printing it, and money created by lending it. As far as people can tell when using it, there is absolutely no difference. The money is just created by the lender and it looks the same as all other money. But if it is not repaid it leaves a hole in the lender's accounts. Again that is no different. Lenders are allowed to create up to ten times the amount of money that they hold as deposits, or some other such multiple depending on the particular nation. This multiple, this ratio, this ratio of ten to one or some other number, whatever the number, is called the 'reserve ratio'. It is set by the central bank.

If the money is repaid then the account is closed and the money used to repay that debt vanishes. It no longer exists. It may not be the exact same money but nevertheless that quantity of money gets destroyed. What happens is that the borrower provides goods and services and gets paid by the people and is then able to repay the loan. Which kind of money and where it came from makes no difference. As the loan reduces that amount of money gets deleted from the records. As far as the quantity of money in circulation is concerned, everything goes back to how it was before the loan was granted. This is temporary money - it can disappear. Some people call it 'fiat' money. 'Fiat' implies that it depends upon people trusting it, yet it is not something which has any value in its own right. All money is like that, it all depends upon people trusting that they can use it as a medium of exchange for goods and services; but for lack of any other definitive term, they use the term 'fiat' to describe temporary money of this particular kind.

If enough of it disappears, there will not be enough money around and that creates what is called a 'liquidity crisis'. Oil is a liquid. Money is like oil - it oils the economy so that people can pay one another using money instead of something else which would be much more difficult to do. The big advantage of money is that it can be exchanged for so many things - almost anything in fact. Nothing else compares to having money when a person goes to buy something. But when there is not enough money, it can be a problem. When that happens there is a shortage of liquidity - a shortage of money.

This money creation method is new information for most readers as well as a number of text books, but not all. It is well understood by the top economists and bankers. Most people believe that interest rates have to rise when there is a shortage of money, just like the price of goods in the shops. If that were true then the system would not be such a loosely managed one. The stock of money for the whole nation would be a tightly controlled, and interest rates would find their own level. We need tight control over the quantity of money and we need to set interest rates free to perform their proper role of balancing the supply of money made available for lending, with the demand for it. The question is how to manage the supply as tightly as possible. Enough is needed to keep the economy moving, and what there is needs to be bid for by those people who have a good use for it. Then savings will be safe, and the economy's resources of capital will be used properly to the advantage of the entire nation, not to the advantage of some lucky rick guy who can borrow cheaply and even destroy a good company by taking it over.

The interest payable is a fee. It does not become new money. It is paid from existing money from the borrower's account to the lenders account like any other fee.

THE QUESTION WAS - WHICH COMES FIRST - PRICES OR EARNINGS INCREASES?
When enough new money is created and then spent in this loosely managed way, it raises the total level of spending and the total amount of money stock in circulation so that people can pay one another for the services and goods provided. It provides liquidity. As soon as too much demand (lending/spending/money) is created, this raises the price of everything, including NAE, (the cost of hiring people). This raised level of NAE increases borrowing demand (with more income, people can now borrow more than they could borrow previously), and this increases lending and spending, which increases the money stock and prices (both) including NAE. This becomes a continuously rising loop of prices rises, more borrowing, more new money creation, inflation of earnings, NAE, and more new money creation. The whole process creates new money and increases the total stock of money so that people have enough money to spend and with which to pay one another at the resulting higher prices. This is fine as long as the process never reverses. It is one way to get an economy in a recession fully employed. But it is a very loose control system. It is also a way to get it over-employed, which means that there may be 110 jobs for every 100 people. The result is imports and a rapidly falling currency value along with rising inflation. It does not create extra output fast enough to prevent all this from happening.[4]

The process only stops rising if interest rates are raised, and people start to repay their debts faster than new loans are created. When they repay these debts the temporary 'fiat' money disappears because the whole process in the lender's accounts has reversed. But prices do not necessarily fall. More money is still needed. The money disappears as if it had never been created. The accounts are closed as the loans get repaid. It is as if the new money and the new account had never existed. Without having enough money the economy will slow down. It will slow down anyway because people are spending less and in some cases a whole lot more of what they are spending is going into repaying their debts - the higher cost of those monthly repayments.

Lending new money is only one way to create money. The other way is to print it. That kind of money never disappears unless it is accidentally or deliberately destroyed or lost. We will come to that later because it is important to stabilising the whole economy. It helps to prevent a liquidity crisis. But printing money may not be enough on its own as will be explained in chapter xxx where a new way of managing the demand and the money stock in economies is explained.

THE HOTELIER
There is a story going the rounds which illustrates the point about liquidity very crudely but very nicely. It is intended to be a riddle - a confusing story without a clear explanation. But when you think about it in the right way it is quite clear to understand what is going on.

Mr A, the hotel owner, owed Mr B $20. Mr B owed Mr C $20. Mr C owed Mr D $20...you get the picture... Finally, Mr G owed Mr A,the hotelier, $20. Full circle. There was not enough money in the system and no one got paid. Then Mr N booked a room at the hotel and Mr A got a $20 deposit. Mr A used the deposit to pay Mr B, who paid Mr C, who paid Mr D...and finally, Mr G paid Mr A. Then Mr N cancelled his booking and withdrew the $20 deposit.
This was fine until someone in the group again owed someone else in the group some money. But this group did not have any money unless it was let or given to them. The lesson is that without enough money in circulation you get this kind of 'liquidity crisis'. The economy slows down while everyone waits to be paid. The $20, in effect lent to the system by Mr N, disappeared when it was repaid to Mr N. If there had been enough printed money permanently available to this group, the problem would not have arisen. Let's not go into the imaginary reason why this particular group had no money!
Clearly, temporary (lent / fiat) money can be a problem if its quantity reduces because it will be needed to keep the economy going at the higher prices now being paid for everything. Without enough money in circulation people will have to wait to be paid. The speed of everything will slow down and jobs will be lost. On the other hand if too much new money is created in this way then inflation can spiral upwards.

As already explained, this liquidity shortage is only one of the ways that economies are forced to slow down. The other is simply the slower rate of spending as people save more and borrow less. They probably spend more money paying their debts because interest rates have driven repayment costs very high. The lost confidence also has a significant effect on the level of spending.

BACK TO THE LOOSE CONTROL SYSTEM
In more detail, interest rates are being used to encourage and discourage borrowing. The result is that momentum builds up as people want to borrow in order to do as others have done and climb on the bandwagon of rapidly rising property prices and so forth. 'Going with the herd', as economists say. The banks are in a competition to lend more money so they do. Then when interest rates filter through to much higher monthly repayments, and start to 'yoyo the price of property downwards' and as bonds crash in value at the same time, the 'herd' panics and we get headed for a recession. People are now scared of their suddenly much more costly loans and they spend money paying them down and saving money in case they are made redundant. Even if the loans were fixed interest and fixed cost, new loans will be at higher cost. People will think again before borrowing. The economy slows and jobs are lost. The stock of money declines. Government revenues fall and more people apply for state hand-outs. The government's budget of income and expenditure goes wrong. Governments have less in revenues and more expenditure because they have to provide help for the needy.

The problem is that the management system cannot directly manage the aggregate (total) level of borrowing, the aggregate level of spending, or the amount of money circulating in the economy.

As stated, this is what an engineer would call a loose system, like having a steering wheel that responds eventually but you are not quite sure when or how fast it will change the direction of the vehicle.

COMPLEXITY AND KNOCK-ON EFFECTS

When deciding what to do about interest rates, when and by how much they should be raised or lowered, we hear people saying that economics is more of an art than a science. The subject of what interest rates will be made to do next gets debated endlessly in the media. This is because there are so many knock-on effects when rates are changed. The most obvious ones happen when rates are raised:

·        The cost of borrowing leaps upwards
·        The value of bonds and property falls
·        The things upon which people were spending changes
·        Jobs are fewer as loans get repaid.
·        People save more and spend less
·        The value of the currency rises
·        People spend more on imports; and exported goods and services cost more
·        There are fewer jobs in exports
·        People's business plans get put on hold
·        There is less liquidity in the system
·        Confidence falls
·        People lose their homes
·        Lenders get into difficulties and some of them need to be rescued or allowed to fail. There is a danger of a 'run on the banks' which would destroy the banks and huge amounts of people's savings.
END OF ROUND ONE
ROUND TWO
·        In the worst case scenario, governments rescue banks to protect people's savings and to prevent a collapse of the financial system.
·        Government borrowing goes skywards as they try to rescue people, provide unemployment benefits, and subsidise their borrowing.
·        People who borrowed too much get help. Those who were sensible and did not enter the casino get no help. They pay higher taxes as does everyone else.
·        Economic recovery is difficult - paying more taxes is bad for growth. More government borrowing to avoid more taxation is getting too expensive.
·        No one wants to see more money printed - they say it is inflationary. But it might provide a solution...and remember, prices adjust - it's just a question of how they adjust and when and why. It will take a lot of printed money to create a real problem if prices are made free to adjust. The printed money will be permanent - it will not disappear when needed after prices of all kinds, including the price of hiring people (NAE) have risen.
ROUND THREE
·        There is a review of the whole system. In future people have to pay larger deposits on homes that they want to buy to protect the banks, when they have to repossess a home or other property. This is in case property values fall as repossessions rise. This is not to protect the borrowers. 'Buyer beware' is the cry - not 'lender beware and ensure that borrowers can afford the repayments and are not harmed'.
·        Confidence is at a low level, people do not want to borrow and they do not want to invest in a new business or to expand the one they have.
·        The government tries printing some money to buy up those crashed bond assets and so to protect their owners from further losses and they use this free money to buy mortgages which cannot be repaid so as to protect the lenders from further losses. They print new money to pay for this and so as to add more to the stock of money so that people can pay one another. At least they got that part right.
·        People say this is bad - too much money is being created and that will be a disaster. They do not understand that more printed money is needed to reduce dependence upon the other kind of temporary money.
·        Confidence is so low that people still do not want to borrow or to spend.
·        The text books say that to get the economy moving more people have to spend, create jobs, and increase government revenues and reduce unemployment claims. The text books say that the way to do that is to lower interest rates so that more people can afford to borrow. But everyone knows that interest rates will one day rise again. They have had enough of that...And readers know that the lower interest rates go the harder it is to raise them again. Remember the LOW INFLATION TRAP. Now there are some nations indulging in negative interest rates. The Bank of England is contemplating up to around -5%. How big do they want the low inflation trap to be? This time it is more a question of how high the cost of loans will have to climb when interest rates resume normal levels. But who can guarantee that earnings will start rising? That depends upon people having confidence - in who? In what? And why? In everything actually.
·        People are not borrowing enough and nothing on the table as presented to them by policy makers, including negative rates of interest, can give them the confidence needed to change that. They know about all the financial instability.
ROUND FOUR
·        The resulting loss of savings and pensions causes problems later on when people are unable to afford their old age. They become dependent upon their families for support and upon government hand-outs.

This is four generations of knock-on effects, each one spawning the next.

Now people rightly say that managing economies is more of an art than a science. There are things which the policy makers do not understand. They do not have precise control over the things which matter.
It all comes down to the system breaking all the basic rules.

ANOTHER BROKEN RULE

The problem is that interest rates are a price. Interest is the price of credit. Managing interest rates is the wrong way to manage the level of demand (overall spending) in the economy. But the text books all say that is the way things are done. That does not mean it is right.

WHAT ADAM SMITH WROTE

Adam Smith, widely regarded as the 'Father of economics' since his time in the 1700's, explained how prices adjust to market forces to create a balance between supply and demand. He famously said that to manage prices would be to take on a responsibility which no man could carry out competently. His exact words were:

The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II paragraph 10.

Directing prices is a way to direct the overall population of people in what way they should employ their capital and their earnings. Directing prices (in this case interest rates), which should find their own level, is wrong. Adam Smith was right. But to enable this to happen a whole lot of things need to change. We will come to that in chapter xxx.

THE ROLE OF FREE PRICES

As Adam Smith pointed out, free prices constantly adjust in a way that tends to balance supplies with demands.

When there is a wrong price there is either too much of something or too little. It wastes national resources, either creating things which are not wanted or are not affordable so that they are not sold, or forcing people to wait before delivery can be achieved. Time is wasted either way, making unwanted things or waiting for things. And those prices which are wrongly set due to human interventions have a nasty habit of correcting themselves quite fast and in ways which cause a lot of damage. They can even lock an economy into a low confidence, low growth era. Wrong prices always create financial instability.

For example, we know that the cost of monthly payments can rise much too fast or fall much too far. As a result we sometimes see lots of unsold houses with too few buyers, and at other times there are simply not enough houses for sale to meet the demand.

THE RIGHT WAY

What the managers should be doing is to directly manage money creation (of both kinds) and find a way to allow interest rates to balance the supply of credit which they have created with the demand for it. There needs to be a market in credit and a supplier of credit. In this way, the right amount of spending will be able to absorb the whole national output and those who have a good use for borrowed money will be able to afford it whereas those who were going to waste the money or to get a free ride off other people's savings will not be able to afford to borrow. The interest rates will not be so low. The national resources of capital will be properly utilised, just as Adam Smith said. This is why prices must be able to adjust. It is not the only reason - distorted prices in the way that we as people distort them also create financial stability so that people are basically affected by the falling value of money.

THERE ARE LIMITS
Even so, as already explained, the authorities cannot control how much people save, want to borrow, or how much they want to import or export. It is not possible to control everything.  As these undulations in spending take place the value of money will vary and prices of everything will have to adjust. When prices change, the value of money, the amount which is needed for an exchange of money for goods or services, will change. This is one reason why the value of money can never be fixed.

The best that can be done is to get control over the total stock of money in circulation and when there is not enough money to borrow because savings are being spent, some temporary credit (fiat) money can be created to fill the gap in the meantime. But the quantity of it has to be under good management. There have to be guidelines and boundaries.

WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING

A number of movements have developed using the same or similar themes. In the case of the Chicago Plan, first put forward in the 1930's, it is been suggested that lenders must only be allowed to lend the money which is deposited with them. There will be no reserve ratio, not ten to one multiple.

Others want to try to fix the value of money, but that is not possible. Besides, there is no accurate measure which could be used as a benchmark for that. Maybe NAE could be tried, but how do you manage the level of NAE? Can that be fixed? You cannot fix the quantity of money needed for liquidity because the size of the working and spending population changes and how fast they are spending always varies.

The best we can do is to allow all prices to adjust so that people are basically unaffected by the changing value of money.

It is commonly believed by economists that some inflation of NAE and of prices is healthy for an economy because people are reluctant to take wage cuts or to make price cuts; and if prices were always falling then cash would be a good investment. Economists think that too much cash lying idle in that way and not being spent slows demand. Their case is not proved because new money can always be created / printed.[5] But in an economic model where inflation rates are negative, it is believed that this limits how far interest rates can be lowered to boost borrowing. They cannot go far below zero.

That said, it is worth reminding readers that managing interest rates is wrong. In order to boost demand all that is needed is to create more money and spread it around so as to boost spending on all fronts at the same time. It has an immediate impact, something very similar has been tried and it worked: Japan reduced VAT and the UK reduced VAT. In both cases people had more money to spend. It was done for a limited period and the effects were immediate. When VAT was restored to a higher value the effect was also immediate. The rule was that the money borrowed to reduce VAT had to be repaid. Why? Why not print it?

It boosts almost all sectors at the same time. It is very easy to do and we will come to how that can work in more detail later.

There is no need to use Keynes' most commonly quoted 'monetary reform' method. This entails either reducing interest rates or having the government borrow money and spend it. Keynes also suggested printing money, but hardly anyone seriously considers that option because the economy is so financially unstable that they are afraid of inflation as a result of that process. They have not thought it through. Keynes once said that governments must do whatever it takes to get an economy which is in recession into a more healthy state. He even suggested printing money and burying it so that people could be employed digging it up. Others have suggested dropping it by helicopter. Both of these ideas can work but...

...first create a financially stable economic framework and then devise the monetary instruments needed to keep the economy moving. When people are no longer afraid of a little inflation, when we have financial stability and prices can freely adjust so that people are basically unaffected by the falling value of money, (slight falling, and not too fast), they will 'press the button' and they will change the whole system.

One school of thought which looks to be moving in the right direction is the Positive Money Group, sponsored in the UK parliament by Steve Baker MP who is currently on the Treasury Select Committee. He needs to read this book because those ideas which are very similar, have some loose ends which can undermine the effectiveness of their solution. It will work much better if the economic framework is financially stable and the influence of currency issues does not undermine some of the management control efforts. And they have not considered the moral hazard or the unbalancing effect on spending and employment of giving the money which their system creates to governments to spend. That gets us into election cycles where money gets created to help to win the next election, and it means that time is taken for the spending they to 'trickle down' to everyone else. The trickle down idea is that those who spend the money and so give it to others who then spend it on others who then spend it on others...It takes a long time to reach everyone. If you want a garden to grow you water all of it. Governments are not known for buying hairdos by the million, or cars, or ice-cream, or nights out, or holidays abroad, buying new clothes, or setting up a thousands of small enterprises...When more money or more liquidity is needed every spender needs to get that free money. When everyone spends, they spend money so as to keep people producing the goods and services which everyone wants others to provide. All jobs get support. As already stated, the method has been tried and it works brilliantly. When VAT is reduced people get extra spending money - it is the money that is left over in their bank or cash reserves at the end of the month. The only problem was that the money provided to reduce VAT was borrowed money. It was not printed. Then the process was reversed and an equally fast slowdown was the result. When an economy needs more money to keep going it needs more money. It has to be created, and not by borrowing and providing temporary fiat money.

THE REMEDY

If all of the financial contracts for savings / lending and debts are able to adjust the capital values to offset the falling value of money, and if the currency can do the same without interference from other sources, then everyone can be basically unaffected if a little extra money is created and spent to keep the economy moving. No one's mortgage costs will leap up or down. Bonds will have a stable value. The currency value will be fairly dependable, national interest rates will be what they should be and all financial assets will be employed to best use. In terms of borrowing, people with little productive use for money will not borrow. It will cost too much. All prices including the cost of hiring people will rise over time to feed demand and the additional liquidity needed will be created, and any extra money in excess of what is needed will be absorbed and people will be basically unaffected. When more money is needed, it can be created. We will go over that in detail in chapter xxx.

THE BIG PICTURE

To have financial uncertainty like we have now in all our savings and loans, our pension funds, our savings, our mortgages, our business loans, our government's debt costs, is bad enough, but there are two more areas of concern which affect everyone:

1.     Currency pricing: currency prices are much too unstable for businesses and people alike - they are not free to adjust to balance trade and offset the falling value of money (both), and
2.     The management system for the whole economy: currently this does not follow well understood rules which are essential for the success and stability of the entire economy. It cannot perform properly because it is based upon the wrong foundations.

THIS IS THE BOOK

First we need to get the pricing mechanisms right for lending and borrowing as well as for currency pricing. These are essential parts of the foundations upon which everything else is built. Then we need to chose the management system, its instruments and its targets. If the foundations are right, everyone will be basically unaffected by the falling value of money. That means that to prevent a recession, more money can be created and given to everyone to spend as they wish. It is really that simple.

THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

One of the main things which disorganisation and confusion through the creation of imbalances causes is uncertainty. What to do? Where to invest? Everyone gets stressed. No one feels confident in making a plan.
Here we are at the beginning of March 2016, with some central banks lowering interest rates into negative territory and others planning to raise interest rates. They have inflated asset values which are too high to trust and they have created borrowing costs which are too low to trust. There is too much debt and not enough productive activity. Pensions and savings are melting or are at risk. The central banks do not know what to do and neither does anyone else. No one can make a financial plan which will definitely do what they hope it will do. The whole system is just too entangled and too complicated. The outcome is nicely recorded by this article published online by Business Insider on 3rd March 2016:

It's been a volatile start to 2016 for the markets and the only thing we seem to know for sure is that no one knows anything.  

In a note to clients, UBS' Julian Emanuel highlighted the following the chart which shows the increase in the number of stories on Bloomberg that contain the word "uncertain." 

Whether its currency moves out of China or the Federal Reserve's next interest rate decision, the overriding narrative in the market has been the certainty of uncertainty about what happens next. 

Emanuel writes that, "the media have fed the uncertainty beast vigorously," leaving with views like those expressed by Horseman Capital's Russell Clark, who wrote in a recent letter to investors, "The future for me is now more uncertain than at any time I can remember." 
The graph shows the number of stories containing the word 'uncertain'each month.



ABOUT THE REST OF THIS BOOK


Firstly readers are invited to read about the background, the story of how the researches came to be done and all the major things which steered the researches along the way. That makes interesting reading and helps readers to understand that many issues have been raised by others and addressed in a proper and approved way in finding the solutions.
Next there is a chapter about the investigative methods used to determine where the problems lie and how all of the major ones could have been discovered by almost anyone.
Then there is the need to dissect interest rates so that readers can know what part of the interest rate transfers value from borrowers to lenders. The term 'True Interest' has had to be invented to make the mathematicsof management simple and to make the understanding of the composition of interest rates clear.
From there finding solutions that create financial stability is a short step and a range of financially stable contracts for borrowing / lending / savings are described and explained.The basic mathematics has been done by the writer and somewhat assisted by W J Waghorn, a mathematician in London, UK.
Next we move on to currency stability and management systems to complete the whole section on solutions.
All of this leaves some nagging doubts in the minds of people who think about things deep down at the fundamental level. That is something which the writer loves to do and so there is a section on that - on how money is valued, and a fairy tale story called 'Money Island' which helps readers to see how everything could have developed into a financially stable and well managed economy. It takes place in a fictitious island economy where each problem was discovered one at a time. Each one is addressed in the same way as it has been addressed in this book. The storyworks particularly well when it comes to addressing and explaining the need for solving the currency stability issue.
Finally there are the acknowledgements which run to several pages and again tell some of the story of who helped out with which pertinent questions and who helped in other ways, including some who made positive suggestions which steered the writer's presentations into clearer territory. Gilberto was particularly helpful in that way.



WRITER'S BACKGROUND

This section has been left till here because it is now easier for readers to understand the difficulties which were confronted in completing the process of writing and editing this tract.
It is intended to assist readers in understanding the process through which the discoveries were made, and so to give them greater confidence in the findings and suggestions made.
It is a copy of the same part to be included in the longer book for academics to be called 'A Tract on Financial Stability'.
I, Edward C D Ingram,[6] the author of this book, have been asked to write in the third person as if someone else had been writing the script after consultations with me. That may appeal to academics and to a large extent I have done that until now - until this section. And incidentally many consultations have taken place with many academics as well as with practitioners. I hope I have published what they have agreed is correct and not let any of them down in that respect.
However, when it comes to writing this section, it is very personal and no one should be expected to know enough to be able to write it on my behalf. My feeling in general is that writing in the third person, when in fact it was I who wrote it all, is a bordering on the dishonest. That said, I have complied with academic preferences in the rest of the book.
In the longer book which at the time of writing is still in draft mode, I chose to refer to one named 'Arthur' as a fictional character who would be basically unaffected by the devaluation of money if financial stability was achieved.
---------------------------------


For those who are curious - I decided to refer to Keynes' basically unaffected man as Arthur. I do not know why I chose that name but I happen to be a fan of the story, 'A hitchhikers' guide to the galaxy' in which Arthur Dent gets to see an entirely different view of the order of things. Secondly, my father's first name, though seldom used, was Arthur. He had a strong influence on me because he saw clearly what many others failed to see, especially in economics. He was also very impatient with anyone who could not think or speak clearly. This meant that I had to be very careful in what I said if I was to avoid my father'sfury. When it came to investing, my father did as Warren Buffet does - as far as I am aware, he never sold his investments. He did very well. I had a great respect for my father's common sense approach, and also by the way, for my mother. She told me a few times, after noting my incessant hunt for new ideas and suggested ways to improve things, that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. So I learned not to expect worthwhile results to come easily. Easy things are easily done and almost anyone can do them. I learned that difficult problems are left to those who persist and who do not get put off by the complexity or difficulties in the way.

This has encouraged me to spend decades trying to prove my point. Like my father, I have studiously kept to scientific and established principles, and I have appointed review committees and had hundreds of consultations with others in the field so as to make sure that I 'got it right' to the best of my ability. Despite this, Imust admit to finding an almost constant stream of new observations that need to be addressed in full detail. Some of the minor ones still remain to be addressed to this day. The most obvious gaps have been indicated in this tract. I have made it a challenge to readers to do further researches, suggesting that they should help by adding their own expertise and so refining the subject and if they can, testing the postulates made.

THE LONG ROAD TO FREEDOM FOR ECONOMIES

It took more than 27 years to identify the issues and to write this tract.[7] When I was first invited to take on a mortgage in 1967 I was quite horrified to be told that no one could tell me how much the monthly payments might cost in the following years. Instinctively I felt that there was something wrong. I was used to science and its absolute certainties. In this tract I have proved that my instinct was right. There is something wrong and it runs deep. But at that time I had no choice and accepted the contract in the hope that, as I was told, interest rates, then around 8%, had never been higher and would be unlikely to go higher or to worry me. Interest rates then proceeded to rise to 15% over the next few years, and that was net of tax relief.

The new ideas began to flow in 1974 when I had started a new business in offering to help people to arrange mortgages and to assist them with their investments. For most such established businesses the environment was very tough. For me, as a new entrant with fixed overheads, it looked like a disaster. But my business survived. I became very angry with lenders for the way in which they manipulated the cost of mortgage finance so that it completely ignored what I considered by then to be obvious common sense: keep the repayment costs affordable and collect value every year from borrowers even if it meant steadily increasing the repayments. That way interest rates could rise to preserve value and to avoid cash inflow shortages for lenders. The higher and market-related interest rates would attract more deposits and they would preserve existing ones. I pointed out that tax on deposit interest used to preserve the value of deposits would need to be removed. And tax relief on the same would not be needed. Net tax revenues would rise. As interest rates rose, lenders were jacking up the cost of monthly payments far faster than incomes were rising and many of my clients were big losers. When clients gave up and cancelled their contracts my own business income came under pressure. At the same time, my own mortgage costs continued to rise. What ultimately saved the business was my investment management service. I had the sense to move my clients' investment portfolios to cash and so I side-stepped the 75% drop in the UK stock market. From the start, I was determined to expose my clients to investments when it seemed more probable than not that they would be able to make a profit.

The graph below was published as a part of the company brochure 11 years after commencing.

This sample investment portfolio was independently monitored by the media from day one using records provided by insurance companies through whose managed fundsI was investing. After around 4-5 years the Financial Times interviewed me and I became famous. Lots of press cuttings followed. My sample portfolio made a profit every year for the two decades during which I was in charge. Contrary to what academics were then teaching: that markets are efficient and it is impossible to out-perform I regularly did out-perform. This regularly made headlines in both the national and the local media.

I had asked enough questions and had observed enough by then to understand how prices got distorted and therefore what was likely to happen next. I carried a model of the economy in my head. But nothing was ever certain. The main surprise I got, because much of the data that I wanted was not available, was that I was almost always right. It was probably because I worked almost till midnight on a daily basis and I became much faster than mainstream at understanding what was going on at the fundamental level. Often, questions that I wanted answers to in telephone discussions with Roger Nightingale, a city stockbroker's economist, came up a day or two later in radio and television discussions but without my name being mentioned. I was able to move my clients’ investments in and out of markets faster than the big institutions, even if they had the mandate to do so, which mostly they did not. This was because I was not managing billions. My funds were not big enough to move the markets, and unlike most of the institutional managers I had no mandate to beat an index or to stay invested. As stated earlier and as reported in one newspaper article, my aim was to protect my clients and to make a profit. If in doubt, I invested their money in cash deposit managed funds.

To cut a long story short, I wrote an outline of how lenders should manage their loan portfolios, published an outline, and impressed a lot of people.  Both Mrs Thatcher and Ted Heath, then in the shadow cabinet, wrote to me asking to be kept informed.



The cabinet did not respond. A Cambridge economist was asked to say which of the proffered solutions to the crisis in housing finance provided the best hope. A letter of mine had already been published in the Guardian outlining what needed to be done. My idea was nominated, but I was not named. I formed a review committee called the Housing from Income committee. The Editor of the Building Societies Gazette, Eric Holmes, was also impressed. He was visibly furious that I had not been given credit for the ideas. The upshot was one of the most influential and lengthy series of articles ever published by that magazine, commencing in October 1974.

A number of the ideas, but not all, were adopted by the industry, as confirmed by Steve Short in this letter:


It was not until the 1990's that the key idea was put to the test in Turkey.[8] The outline which my team had given was aimed specifically at addressing a situation of high inflation, and the same conditions were present in Turkey at that time. Inflation had long since subsided in the UK.

Nevertheless I was not satisfied and wrote accordingly, a letter which was published in The Times on 11th April 1975, asking for funding to finish the work. No funding came. I knew instinctively that the ideas contained in that original series could be modified so as to create a model for mortgage finance which would be better adjusted to all rates of inflation. After retiring in the early 1990's due to new regulations which forced me out of business, I took a rest and after a few years I managed to solve the outstanding problem mathematically. A new committee of experts was formed which included the most senior people in the land outside of government, in my new home of Zimbabwe; and some also from the region. There was one mathematician, W J Waghorn, from the UK. His computations and all of the mathematics are included in the main book for academics and practitioners, possibly in volume 2 of two or three volumes planned. Again, the review team were impressed.

The implications of this more advanced solution were profound. The review team were nervous about their professional standing. They wanted an explanation - why did the solution to one problem solve so many other problems? It seemed to be too good to be true, and so they were unprepared to endorse the ideas because ‘there had to be some snag.’

But there was no snag. I had simply applied some well known and basic laws of economics which no one else had applied. I had gone to the source of the instability problem, removed the problem, and all the knock-on effects disappeared like magic.

They also said that this new mortgage model was so powerful that it would dominate the lending and savings market, making it hard even for the government to compete. What was I going to do about government and business finance? I came back with an answer a couple of weeks later: adopt the same basic principles, adapted for fixed interest bonds. Let the value of the capital rise to counter the falling value of money. I exempted that part of the capital adjustment from taxation and removed the rules imposed upon lenders who were not supposed to roll up (defer the collection of) any part of the interest.

At that time we were not talking about the falling value of money nor fixed interest bonds. We were talking of matching the level of payments to the rising or falling level of National Average Earnings, NAE, so that everyone was not embarrassed by the changing cost of finance and so that savings would be protected, with the interest rate risk largely removed.

In the end, I asked the review committee to say which of them could find any fault in the theory. No one spoke up. That is when they endorsed the ideas. But it was a long way from being written up and published as the way forward. The actuary from South Africa, Newton Mugabe, was so impressed that I cannot repeat his (clearly over-excited) exact words. What he said came down to saying that it heralded a new era for the whole financial world. Unfortunately, he is reportedly now deceased. Newton, if that is an exaggeration please let me know!

The main reason why I failed to write it all up in a convincing way was the complexity of the subject, including the difficulty of explaining how so many knock-on effects just disappeared. How was I going to explain that? Readers can now see how I have managed to do that. It is explained in the next chapter immediately after this. It took me until a year or two back, around 2013 to explain it.

The failure to establish a link between the value of money and the rate of change of National Average Earnings, NAE, also left a gap in the theory which I have only managed to close to my own satisfaction in 2015. And for this reason, although there were many admirers of the theory and its profound effects on the entire economy, until then, there remained this nagging gap. I was not happy. My readers would be skeptics.

By 2008 I had reported to the local university in a lecture, which their lecturers and students loved, that there were also other faults in modern economic theory, which I wanted to address. There is a poor quality short video with extracts, published on YouTube here.[9] It explains how unstable and how inevitable the boom and bust cycle was and it explained that monetary policy should manage the stock of money, not the rate of interest.

One of the questioners asked if I had assumed a closed economy in my presentation. I had to admit that I had. This was embarrassing and made me determined to check that out as well. Now I have found a way to isolate an economy from international contamination of unwanted kinds. Problem solved. It is good to have embarrassing questions and to have oversights pointed out. There have been a few such occasions. Embarrassing but enormously helpful.

In short, the idea that interest rates are an instrument of monetary policy was clearly a mistake. Not my mistake this time, but that of almost everyone else. And the way in which currencies were priced was also making trouble. I asked myself if there was a common theme - something which explained why everything was going wrong in economies. I found it - it was mis-pricing. When a price is not right it creates an imbalance. Almost all of the world's troubles seemed be imbalances, hence they must originate from mis-pricing. Managed interest rates cannot adjust on their own because they are managed. And currency prices cannot adjust on their own. They get disturbed by international capital.

Since making that observation I have been able to knit everything together. It was a huge amount of work, and this book is the outcome. There remain many points of detail to examine, not the least of which is the validity and application of NAE to mortgage finance where people's earnings tend to rise faster than average when they are young and they may rise at a slower than average rate later. There is the nagging issue caused by the top 1% rportedly having earnings which are rising faster than everyone else, opening up a gap between average and median earnings increases. And then there is the issue of the definition of NAE as a benchmark which relates to the changing value of money. Is there a better benchmark? Are two benchmarks needed, one for mortgages and another for the rate of devaluation of money? These are questions which are to be addressed in Volume 2 of the main tract. The imperfections in real economies which this highlights will limit the extent to which all of the Arthurs can remain basically unaffected. But even an improvement of a ‘barometric measurement’ for financial stability from say, 35% currently to say, 90%, is a great step forward for mankind.

I think that, when it comes to practical applications of the NAE benchmark, which must address the marketability of any new financial products which incorporate it, the answer to that question is that NAE has significant attractions. As a benchmark for the falling value of money it has many practical and marketable applications.

The value of money does change differently from the inverse rate of change in NAE: the rate of devaluation of money undulates compared to that index. However, on average, the value of money ends up being driven by what people spend and how fast they spend. Over the long term, what they spend is driven by what they earn. An NAE benchmark averages out the variations in the speed of spending, and the quantity of spending, which devalues / revalues money. And on the practical side NAE provides a conceptually easily handled unit of value for savers, lenders, and borrowers and it makes the mathematics of lending very simple. Using any index with that adjustment idea in mind will transform the lending and savings industry. Using a conceptually easy unit / index is necessary to achieve practical outcomes.

However, this may not be the whole story. Some undulations may be trends – an apparently endless trend towards the most well paid getting increasingly more income than the average may need to be addressed. Both Professor Thomas Picketty and Professor Batra and his follower Mr Apekshit, have explained that this trend can slow the entire economy, and ultimately, if it ends with all the work being done by robots, then reduction ad absurdum, there will not be anyone with an income to buy the robots. Maybe taxation will intervene. Readers are welcome to elaborate on this. It is an interesting and challenging issue.

Now, in this first volume, I am trying to write out the logic of what I know as if it had all been obvious from the start. Mathematics is logic written in shorthand. Writing this tract feels like a mathematical exercise. One already thinks that he knows the answers as a result of years of drafting and discussions, but it is a tortuous struggle to write a convincing and easy-to-follow logical proof. That drafting process always throws up a lot of minor but critically important issues which were not previously seen and which then have to be included. I hope it all makes sense.



FINDING SOLUTIONS

Chapter 1 - Analysis, skills, and methods used


·        The writer spent six decades observing the evolving economic theories of the last century as well as acknowledging the working of free market prices as laid down by Adam Smith, who is often referred to as the 'father, or the founder, of economics'. Adam Smith laid down one of the main principles which has been adopted in this book: that of pricing behaviour: how prices adjust to keep supply and demand in approximate balance.
Today there are huge imbalances around the world and this principle has been trampled upon by bonds, housing finance, by other forms of finance, by currency pricing mechanisms and by central banks who manage interest rates. There is a very clear cause and effect: get the price wrong, or the pricing mechanism wrong, and you cannot achieve a balance or a near balance.
As Keynes, observed in his 'A tract on Monetary Reform', when prices are left to adjust, they don't. Economies do uncomfortable things. He concluded that some intervention is necessary. But all interventions create their own problems. They reward some and punish others, as happens for example when interest rates are managed. What he overlooked was that prices are not free to adjust to the falling value of money and that this is why everything goes haywire. The problem is that no one has questioned this analysis. Keynes even cited fixed interest bonds as an example of that but he did nothing about it. And that is where the writer and Keynes part company. If you don't build the foundations right you cannot get the management (Keynes' monetary policy reform) right either.
·        The writer also spent time acquiring the skills of a practicing investment manager and a practicing financial adviser.
·        He observed the behaviour of economies and policy-making from his own viewpoint as a past student of systems stability engineering. He learned how to design electrical management systems to ensure that machines do what their designers expect them to do, both efficiently and fast, without overshooting the target and with tight control, using the right management inputs in the right places at the right time and in the right amounts. Not too much and not too little. The same principles apply in macro-economics - in the management of the 'big' (macro) economy.
When looking at the macro-economic money-management system, also referred to as monetary policy, (when given the right instruments of policy), it was amazing. The instruments were wrong and so were the targets. Nothing has yet changed, except that new untried experiments are in progress confusing everyone.
Finally, if you don’t know what the problem is you won’t find the solution. When it came to solving all of these problems, the writer applied his earlier training as an investigative engineer and as a systems management / control engineer to determine what is going wrong. This method is extremely powerful as explained below.

INVESTIGATIVE METHOD

Like doctors and social workers, investigative engineers are taught the same thing:
If any one thing is not going by the book in a complex system, a generation of ‘children’ knock-on effects is born along with their ‘grand children’ knock-on effects, and even their ‘great grand children’, each generation spawning the next. Everything gets complicated very fast.
The more sources of financial instability which are created in this way, the more the knock-on effects entangle with one another. Everything gets exponentially more complicated, like a rocket launch. At first it rises slowly but as more fuel is added and burnt, it can even reach orbital speed.
There is a story of the bus full of experts in everything from space shuttles to biology, including medicine, and economics.
All of the passengers were sick, were jolted around, and they had backache and headaches. Some were dizzy. None enjoyed the journey. All kinds of treatments were prescribed by the medics. Others provided interventionist theories about how to redesign the bus so as to smooth the ride. Then the driver got out and saw that the wheels were square instead of round. As soon as new wheels were fitted all of the symptoms vanished. The experts on board were shocked. Why had they not thought of this?
The first task of an investigator is not to administer medicines or to intervene or to redesign everything, but to find out what it is that is not 'going by the book.'The writer was told to adopt this approach when investigating a high level of rejected products coming off a production line. It worked.
Every reform which goes 'by the book' removes dozens of knock-on effects which are sometimes major and highly destructive symptoms like high rates of home repossessions, unstable currencies, banks which are too big to fail, and high levels of unemployment. To the casual observer, and to politicians, these symptoms, are like the sickness of people in the bus. Theyare easily confused with the source problem. New legislation gets passed (a knock-on effect), and subsidies are granted.
After identifying which is the source problem, what is not being done by the book, the main challenge is deciding on the reforms needed; and then when, and how, to implement them.
In our case, among other things, this means finding out what is not adjusting smoothly to the falling value of money. And finding out why.
Besides having unstable financial contracts, there are fundamental problems with the currency pricing mechanism; and with the management of the economy, called monetary policy.
Currently the management instruments, and the targets laid down for monetary policy, do not conform to modern systems-management principles. These principles work: they are tested every time passengers travel safely in a plane, and also when railways run efficiently, and when motor vehicles do what they are expected to do. And these principles are also tested when things go wrong and the reason for that is found to be that the principles were not correctly applied or even not applied at all. The consequences are not nice. Readers will see why failing to apply those easily understood principles to currency pricing and to monetary policy causes a lot of problems. It is basically common sense. But finding the better alternative and convincing everyone is not easy. You have to drill down and find all of the expected benefits, all the main problems during transition, and the consequences during and after that transition period.

ART OR SCIENCE

In economics, as in any other complex system, and as in the bus story, nothing can remove more problems at a single stroke than finding and removing the source of the problem. Having found that there are at least fivemain inbuilt sources of instability, creating five families of knock-on effects, and not having the right management instruments, readers can easily see why economics is regarded as more of an art than a science.
To identify what is, and what is nota core price adjustment, or even the right instrument, it is not necessary to have some sophisticated measuring rod to see how prices should be adjusting to the rate of devaluation of money, any more than it is necessary to use a magnifying glass to see that someone's fingers are poking you in the eye. The truth is reasonably well explained in this short fairy tale:
Think of prices as a flock of sheep. The prices said to the leader, "You lead, we will follow". The leader led, injecting a small amount of demand and some liquidity (new money) into the economy. Basically, that is all it was required to do. The prices tried to adjust. But the wicked witch said, "No you don't" and cast her spells. The outcome was that the price of bonds was frozen, unable to adjust to anything. The price of monthly payments for housing finance got springs forcing them to leap around instead of just following along behind; and the price of currencies found that international capital was pushing them off course. What should have been a peaceful scenario of hill climbing over a pretty countryside of gentle hills and valleys became chaotic, full of arguments about which prices should do what, each one getting in the way of others and some getting pushed around on different sides by other prices. The farmers had no idea what to do to keep order. They simply did not have enough instruments; and the instrument which they mostly chose to use was the interest rate price which was supposed to be following like the rest of the herd. They shoved that price around instead of just leading the herd and allowing all prices to follow along behind. Each price disturbance affected some other prices. The knock-on effects as each price bumped into others and shifted their courses, all intermingled and chaos ensued. There were celebrations that day in the witches’ coven.
Add to that chaotic scenario the fact that, when trying to understand and improve things, economists are using the wrong measuring rod.

WE CAN

YES WE CAN - change things for the better. We can so easily eliminate dozens of knock-on effects which complicate everything. We can create a whole lot of financial stability if we want to.




[1]For example: A discounted cash flow (DCF) is a valuation method used to estimate the attractiveness of an investment opportunity. The analysis uses future free cash flow projections and discounts them to arrive at a present value estimate, which is used to evaluate the potential for investment. If the value arrived at through DCF analysis is higher than the current cost of the investment, the opportunity may be a good one.

[2]Most economists refer to an economic model as being a simplified mathematical model used to test a theory. In this case the economic model being referred to is the current structure and mechanisms of the entire real economy. There is no word for that or it would have been used.
[3]When an economists talks of an economic model, it is usually assumed that this is a mathematical representation of some particular part of the economy designed to test some postulate. It can also, as in this case, be used to mean the entire economy as it is currently constructed or as it might otherwise be constructed.
[4]Leigh Harkness has published some very convincing papers on this relationship on his website. http://www.buoyanteconomies.com/
[5]There are two ways to 'print' money. One is cash and coins. The other is by electronically adding a higher number to an account. This is permitted if it is done by an authorised entity such as a central bank, for example, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the Reserve Bank of South Africa, and the Federal Reserve Bank of America, to name just four. Every nation or currency has a central bank.
[6]If the reader Google-searches the name 'Edward Ingram' there are thousands of them. Hence I use my full name so as to assist that search process.
[7] A reference to Nelson Mandela’s 27 year ‘Long Road to Freedom.’
[8]Isil Erol and Kanak Patel, ‘Housing Policy and Mortgage Finance in Turkey during the Late 1990s Inflationary Period.’

No comments:

Post a Comment