Since the outbreak of the so-called international-credit-market crisis, euphemisms have risen to great prominence. This holds true in particular for monetary-policy experts, who are at great pains to disguise what they are doing. FULL ARTICLE by Thorsten Polleit
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15348/the-many-euphemisms-for-money-creation/
The Many Euphemisms for Money Creation
Previous post: Faculty Spotlight Interview: Richard Vedder
Next post: The Bourgeoisie’s Favorite Form of Socialism
{ 17 comments }
My favorite is the critical term “monetary emissions” by Angela Merkel.
Kudos Professor Thorsten Polleit! I have watched to Federal Reserve Chairman “doublespeak” for as long as I can remember. Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment and defiantly Term Limits for both Houses.
Balanced budget amendment will just result in mandatory tax increases
I also commend Doctor Polleit. Thank you for a great read!
The article made me wonder how much Doublespeak in the Monetary Policy arena is unintentional, coming from ignorance or muddled thinking —— and how much is INTENDED.
That is, how much do today’s politicians, bureaucrats, central bankers and their fellow-travelers, REALLY understand (in the way that Austrian Economists understand) and thus appreciate how to make the Money System “work for them”? That is, don’t the ruling class people just choose, for purposes of promoting their own agenda, to pretend to not understand what all Austrians know?
After all, as the article illustrates, their abuse of the Money System serves their particular constituency extremely well. This abuse is convenient in surreptitiously extending control over all of us, perhaps even in Orwellian ways? Or is there something less sinister at work here?
This last phrase indicates that there is tension and conflict between those who understand the social ills from abusing the Money System (and fight against such malfeasance) and those who believe that such “abuse” of the Money System is FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. The former group includes Austrian thinkers and the latter includes Krugmanites and neo-Keynesians.
After all, people like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are not advocating what they believe in and doing what they do because they want to harm people (IMHO), right?
IMO such people often actually sincerely believe in a greater good coming about from “Greater Government” —— this is the continuing debate in America today (and indeed around the “developed” world). They also believe in GOOD coming from Economic “Stimulation”.
This site and others like it serve a good purpose —— which is so clearly exemplified by Doctor Polleit’s article.
We have continue to prove that far greater Societal HARM is engendered by this mistaken belief in “doing good” via Large Government and via Stimulating The Economy (through so-called Monetary Policy).
This last phrase just about says it all.
But if people like Ben Bernanke cannot understand the harm this causes, what hope is there for “regular folks” to understand?
After all, people like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke are not advocating what they believe in and doing what they do because they want to harm people (IMHO), right?
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
What the Krugman’s and the like do is more sinister than Stalin and the rest of the murderers. At least in Russia, China and Cambodia you knew that when they came for you it was toast time. 1984 gave you another side of the same coin. It is more sinister because you are killed very slowly and they want you to like it. They dumb down the populace so they can sell anything that keeps the same corruption going forward. They haven’t gotten control over the communication apparatus as of yet but look out. I have always contended that the Internet is a savior to the liberty of the masses. It has a lot of crap but it also dynamic and provides information that the main stream socialist media doesn’t report.
I put my vote with Horst.
Actually, they have pretty much controlled the information apparatus for nearly eighty years and only recently have they seen that control begin to slip away–due to the internet.
more lies than euphemisims
Joe
The same group which controls the money also controls the media. Even now they are going about the business of gaining control of the internet. How anyone could even think it’s something other than intentional is beyond me.
Lee,
I agree with you 100%. I do think it is intentional but I think the control of the internet will not be lost and even if it is there will be another forum created. Thank goodness technology works both ways.
I think the first Euphemism for money creation was the “elastic” money supply. This is a term that is really very appropriate, however, since in the beginning it can stretch and shrink. Of course, in no time at all, as all things elastic, it keeps stretching until finally it reaches the breaking point.
love it, love it, love it. Well said and very eloquent article.Thanks prof. Polleit.
It’s a mad scramble to keep the gravy train going. This system that was created to benefit the few is falling apart and they know it and will do anything, including lie, cheat and steal (as always) to save it.
Thank you to Horst Muhlmann and to you others for your views on this issue of Personal Culpability. I was fascinated by the responses (and educated by them).
I would like to know where the good Doctor Polleit comes down on this.
Clearly a lot of people do believe that the HARM that is being done by central bankers and others (whether in Government or on Wall Street for example) is INTENTIONAL harm.
In general I do not subscribe to such a view —— barring the obvious cheaters and criminals like Madoff etc. who clearly get their ill-gotten gains at the expense of their victims.
Instead I happen to believe that most of the harm is caused by the design flaws inherent in The Broken Fiat-Paper Money System, and in the Fractional Reserve Banking System, and in the mandates that Central Banks are asked to fulfill.
This does not mean that there aren’t those people who get to High Office who then proceed to act maliciously. But we are talking about the general case.
Sure, I do acknowledge that there will always be those who proceed to act only in their own personal interests, and who see no need and no duty to work for The People who elected them (or who appointed them, via their elected officials).
But I do not believe, for example, in a Conspiracy of the Illuminati, or in a Conspiracy of the Bilderbergers, or whatever.
So whether I am right or wrong on this question of Malfeasance, I do believe that it is an important question —— in fact IMHO it is CENTRAL to everything that this site happens to represent —— which IMO is an effort to improve the broken economic and financial system we live and labor in.
The reason this issue is vital is because the position one takes on this question will completely determine the direction that one takes to deal with the Economic Problems we face today —— in other words, it will determine how you think that you can improve the current situation.
If you believe that the evil is caused primarily by design flaws and ill-conceived mandates, in our Economic and Financial Institutions and in our Processes and Regulations, then you will likely recommend orienting our collective corrective efforts in those flawed arenas.
But if you believe that the problem is one that resides in the “evil” hearts of men and women —— that is, in the hearts of those public officials who are supposed to represent us —— then that will completely reorient the direction you will take to correct those particular flaws.
Or perhaps in the case of this latter belief that the problems are caused by “the evil that lurks in the hearts of men”, you may decide that nothing much can be done. In this case, you may give up on any reform, and just go off the grid, to become as independent as you can, from the trials and tribulations of dealing with such evil.
Another enlightening essay by Professor Polleit. Because I just finished reading Adam Fergusson’s When Money Dies, I was struck by this quote from Professor Polleit’s essay:
“Sooner or later the dependence of the people on government handouts reaches, and then surpasses, a critical level. People will then view a monetary policy of ever-greater increases in the money supply as being more favorable than government defaulting on its debt, which would wipe out any hope of receiving benefits from government in the future. In other words, a policy of inflation, even hyperinflation, will be seen as the policy of lesser evil.”
This is what happened during the Great German Inflation in 1923 Weimar Germany. The monetary authorities dare not stop the printing presses for fear of the deflationary effects. Professor George Reisman is right that monetary inflation is like a drug habit–it takes larger and larger doses to have the same effects until the host dies. That’s Weimar Germany’s experience exactly and it could be ours.
An excellent article, I would expect no less. You hit the head of the nail directly on the head with the term doublespeak. I run into this weekly with the definition of the word “inflation” when discussing the topic with some fairly well educated folks. I define the word as “an increase in the monetary stock in circulation”, while the majority wish to define it as simply “an increase in prices”. If people can clearly see the basic definitions, how on earth could they understand QE, and the myrid of other terms you used? Of course the media (TV/radio/newspapers) talk endlessly of the CPI defining inflation.
As far as opinion, for what little my own is worth except to me, I see todays problems as intentional. But not with evil intent and thinking they are advancing human society. We have elites, if you wish to use the term, that see world government as a good thing. In the 1930′s many US citizens saw communism as a good thing. Today a majority see socialism as a good thing just an extention of Social Security. Mises however wrote expressly why these systems must fail, history confirmed his ideas, yet like a drinking alcoholic, “Things will be different this time. Cheers!”
There is no “new physics”, “new math”, nor “new age in finance”. We will not see a “new economics” either. The Rules of Human Action are cast in stone as are the ideas of most closed minded folks.
Al Sledge
Big Pine Key, Fl
Comments on this entry are closed.