If money printing can create
prosperity then why are all the poor nations still poor?
On Wednesday December 12, 2012
Fed policy makers announced that they will boost their main stimulus tool by
adding $45 billion of monthly Treasury purchases to an existing program to buy
$40 billion of mortgage debt a month.
This decision is likely to
boost the Fed’s balance sheet from the present $2.86 trillion to $4 trillion by
the end of next year. Policy makers also announced that an almost zero interest
rate policy will stay intact as long as the unemployment rate is above 6.5% and
the rate of inflation doesn’t exceed the 2.5% figure.
Most commentators are of the
view that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are absolutely committed
to averting the mistakes of the Japanese in 1990’s and the US central bank
during the Great Depression. On this Bernanke said that,
A return to broad based
prosperity will require sustained improvement in the job market, which in turn requires
stronger economic growth.
Furthermore he added that,
The Fed plans to maintain
accommodation as long as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery in the
context of price of stability.
But why should another
expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet i.e. more money pumping, revive the
economy? What is the logic behind this way of thinking?
Bernanke is of the view that
monetary pumping, whilst price inflation remains subdued, is going to
strengthen purchasing power in the hands of individuals.
Consequently, this will give a
boost to consumer spending and via the famous Keynesian multiplier the rest of
the economy will follow suit.
Bernanke, however, confuses
here the means of exchange i.e. money, with the means of payments which are
goods and services.
In a market economy every
individual exchanges what he has produced for money (the medium of exchange)
and then exchanges money for other goods. This means that he funds the purchase
of other goods by means of goods he has produced.
Paraphrasing Jean Baptiste Say
Mises argued that,
Commodities, says Say, are
ultimately paid for not by money, but by other commodities. Money is merely the
commonly used medium of exchange; it plays only an intermediary role. What the
seller wants ultimately to receive in exchange for the commodities sold is
other commodities. [1]
Printing more money is not
going to bring prosperity i.e. more goods and services. Money as such produces
nothing,
According to Rothbard,
Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly
as a producers' good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock
and produces nothing.[2].
Contrary to popular thinking
there is no need for more money to keep the economy going. On this Mises
argued,
The services which money
renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money. …
The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to
secure for everybody all that money does and can do.[3]