To put it mildly, the Federal Reserve has a dismal track record. It bears significant responsibility for almost every major economic upheaval of the past 100 years, including the Great Depression, the 1970s stagflation, and the recent financial crisis. Perhaps the most damning statistic is that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value since the central bank was created.
Notwithstanding its poor performance, the Federal Reserve seems to get more power over time. But rather than rewarding the central bank for debasing the currency and causing instability, perhaps it’s time to contemplate alternatives. This new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity dives into that issue, exposing the Fed’s poor track record, explaining how central banking evolved, and mentioning possible alternatives.
This video is the first installment of a multi-part series on monetary policy. Subsequent videos will examine possible alternatives to monopoly central banks, including a gold standard, free banking, and monetary rules to limit the Fed’s discretion.
One of the challenges in this field is that opponents of the Fed often are portrayed as cranks. Defenders of the status quo may not have a good defense of the Fed, but they are rather effect in marginalizing critics. Congressman Ron Paul and others are either summarily dismissed or completely ignored.
The implicit assumption in monetary circles is that there is no alternative to central banking and fiat money. Anybody who criticizes the current system therefore is a know-nothing who wants to create some sort of libertarian dystopia featuring banking panics and economic chaos.
To be fair, it certainly might be possible to create a monetary regime that is worse than the Fed. That is why the next videos in this series will offer a careful look at the costs and benefits of possible alternatives.
As they say, stay tuned.
[…] Needless to say, proponents of the Austrian School are not big fans of central banking. […]
[…] Needless to say, proponents of the Austrian School are not big fans of central banking. […]
[…] Needless to say, proponents of the Austrian School are not big fans of central banking. […]
[…] advocating for unconventional ideas such as private roads, private mail delivery, private pensions, private money, and private air traffic control. And, as captured by this Reason video, we also like the idea of […]
[…] P.P.S. But since sensible central bankers are a rare breed, maybe the best approach is to get government out of the business of money. […]
[…] P.P.S. But since sensible central bankers are a rare breed, maybe the best approach is to get government out of the business of money. […]
[…] Maybe his last thought will even be about a permanent solution. […]
[…] If you’re constrained for time, I recommend this five-minute video on alternatives to the Federal Reserve and this six-minute video on how people can protect […]
[…] If you’re constrained for time, I recommend this five-minute video on alternatives to the Federal Reserve and this six-minute video on how people can protect […]
[…] The report contains some very interesting economic history and the evolution of government finance, including the Bank of England being created and given a monopoly so the government would have a vehicle for borrowing money (as I observed in my video on central banking). […]
[…] Here’s my video on the Federal Reserve, which also explains that there might be a good […]
[…] The report contains some very interesting economic history and the evolution of government finance, including the Bank of England being created and given a monopoly so the government would have a vehicle for borrowing money (as I observed in my video on central banking). […]
[…] If you’re constrained for time, I recommend this five-minute video on alternatives to the Federal Reserve and this six-minute video on how people can protect […]
[…] If you’re constrained for time, I recommend this five-minute video on alternatives to the Federal Reserve and this six-minute video on how people can protect […]
[…] If you’re constrained for time, I recommend this five-minute video on alternatives to the Federal Reserve and this six-minute video on how people can protect […]
[…] the libertarian fantasy world, we would have competing private currencies. In the real world, we have a government central […]
[…] return to a classical gold standard is highly unlikely (and because the libertarian dream of “free banking” is even more improbable), the best we can hope for is a president who 1) makes good […]
[…] The report contains some very interesting economic history and the evolution of government finance, including the Bank of England being created and given a monopoly so the government would have a vehicle for borrowing money (as I observed in my video on central banking). […]
[…] Some people will point out that the dollar doesn’t have a great track record and the the Federal Reserve has behaved imprudently. I certainly won’t argue against those […]
[…] The above video focuses on the origin of metallic money. It’s also worth noting that paper money was developed by the private sector. […]
[…] More important, the wretched track record of Woodrow Wilson (creator of the income tax and Federal Reserve, as well as an odious racist) suggests he may deserve the prize for being the worst of the […]
[…] final points deserve emphasis. There are good reasons to reconsider the Federal Reserve, and we definitely should be angry about the perverse redistribution enabled by Fed […]
[…] final points deserve emphasis. There are good reasons to reconsider the Federal Reserve, and we definitely should be angry about the perverse redistribution enabled by Fed […]
[…] final points deserve emphasis. There are good reasons to reconsider the Federal Reserve, and we definitely should be angry about the perverse redistribution enabled by Fed […]
[…] Here’s a video I narrated on the Fed and central […]
[…] The report contains some very interesting economic history and the evolution of government finance, including the Bank of England being created and given a monopoly so the government would have a vehicle for borrowing money (as I observed in my video on central banking). […]
[…] P.P.S. Moreover, it’s a good idea to be skeptical about the Federal Reserve. […]
[…] P.P.S. Moreover, it’s a good idea to be skeptical about the Federal Reserve. […]
[…] not fully convinced that Alexander Hamilton is a libertarian hero (that would entail support for free banking rather than his version of central banking), but I’m looking at him much more favorably after […]
[…] I periodically gripe about the Federal Reserve, but I guess I should consider myself […]
[…] public goods actually can be handled by the market. I’ve written about private roads and private money, for instance, but the example that really caught my attention was the private, church-run […]
[…] public goods actually can be handled by the market. I’ve written about private roads and private money, for instance, but the example that really caught my attention was the private, church-run city in […]
[…] it makes me grateful to be in the United States. In my video on the history of central banking, I groused that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value since the Federal Reserve was created […]
[…] the poor track record of the Federal Reserve, the corruption of Washington insiders, and the brutality of the income tax and IRS, can we really […]
[…] wouldn’t mind getting rid of the government’s physical currency, but only if the result was a system that actually enhanced liberty and prosperity. Unfortunately, I don’t expect that to happen in the near […]
[…] mind getting rid of the government’s physical currency, but only if the result was a system that actually enhanced liberty and prosperity. Unfortunately, I don’t expect that to happen in the near […]
[…] by HSBC, Standard Chartered, or Bank of China. Unfortunately, this isn’t because Hong Kong has a market-driven system of competing currencies. But it does have a currency board, which – by standards of government-controlled monetary […]
[…] HSBC, Standard Chartered, or Bank of China. Unfortunately, this isn’t because Hong Kong has a market-driven system of competing currencies. But it does have a currency board, which – by standards of government-controlled monetary […]
[…] private money actually first evolved in the Italian city […]
[…] to reduce government’s control over money. That’s one of the arguments I made in this video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and […]
[…] but rather to reduce government’s control over money. That’s one of the arguments I made in this video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and […]
[…] rather to reduce government’s control over money. That’s one of the arguments I made in this video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and […]
[…] least not a monetary policy from government. This video explains the merits of this […]
[…] least not a monetary policy from government. This video explains the merits of this […]
[…] if that’s what Pennsylvania bureaucrats think, then I hope they don’t know about my video on the Federal Reserve. Between that and my seditious license plate, they’d probably arrest me just for simply […]
[…] more information on free banking, here’s a video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and […]
[…] Sort of makes you wonder whether the End-the-Fed people have a good point. […]
[…] Sort of makes you wonder whether the End-the-Fed people have a good point. […]
[…] Returning to the issue of monetary policy, don’t forget that there are very strong arguments for getting governments out of the business of […]
[…] It’s not just that I’m a libertarian who fantasizes about the denationalization of money. […]
[…] combinar los males del tercer pagador , dependencia del gobierno , el despilfarro fiscal y la política monetaria irresponsable en una […]
[…] historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing […]
[…] realize my fantasy of competitive currencies isn’t going to be realized anytime soon, and I’ve alreadyexplained why we should be very leery […]
[…] realize my fantasy of competitive currencies isn’t going to be realized anytime soon, and I’ve already explained why we should be […]
[…] historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing […]
[…] You may think that sounds crazy, but that’s the way it used to be, as explained in this short video. […]
[…] is quite a shame since paper money in the western world was a creation of the private sector and only became a vehicle for bad policy once it was monopolized by the […]
A century ago, a business man was famous for saying it’s tough to buy a good five-cent cigar. Nowadays, it’s tough to buy a good five dollar cigar. This means in the last hundred years or so, the dollar has lost 99% of its purchasing power. This is roughly since the link to gold was destroyed.
And yet @kazvorpal seems to put the blame on Gold? But isn’t General Inflation better understood as a general decrease in the purchasing power of the money? See:
http://www.lifestrategies.net/money
[…] is quite a shame since paper money in the western world was a creation of the private sector and only became a vehicle for bad policy once it was monopolized by the […]
[…] real problem, though, is that we’ve given government a monopoly over money. This video is a good introduction to how governments replaced market-based money with central bankin…. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] my video on the Fed. I focus more on how central banks developed, but you’ll see some common themes in the two […]
Edit: Which kind of DEFLATION is bad?
Kaz, if you are still there. What should we do instead? And which kind of inflation is bad, the kind that arises from an increase in the supply of something, or the kind that occurs when there is an increase in the supply of money, or are they always the same?
[…] but not least, this video is a good introduction to central banking. Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] also have a video, explaining how central banks arose and noting that private markets were responsible for money in the past and could fulfill that role in the future (John Stossel also has weighed in on that […]
>Petroleum has a fairly fixed value, like gold.both gold and peoutlerm can easily have a speculative premium. This it the total of the intrinsic value plus what the wisdom of the crowds thinks it’s going to be worth tomorrow. That means a Speculative Bubble that has before and can again suddenly burst.I remember paying $1.49/gallon just a few years ago around Christmas when the last oil bubble burst.>I don’t have anything against dollar coins .Any other size besides the ones that are the same exact weight as the Carter Quarter. I recommend withdrawing the penny and the nickel. make the new coin the size of the old nickel, punch the image of the twin towers on one side and punch a pentagon shaped hole in the center. That should make the coin stand out.
[…] historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing […]
[…] historical references are particularly important. As I explain in this video, many nations – including the United States – used to have competing […]
[…] I’ve linked before to Professor George Selgin’s masterful video on the Federal Reserve’s horrible track record, and I’ve done my own video on the origin of central banking. […]
[…] For those that like monetary policy, here’s my video that looks at the origin of central banking. […]
[…] managed to combine the ills of third-party payer, government dependency, fiscal profligacy, and irresponsible monetary policy in one […]
[…] skeptical of the Fed and other central banks, but I don’t want to play back-seat driver on monetary policy. Instead, I want to focus on […]
[…] A “Central World Bank” is bureaucrat-speak for a Federal Reserve on steroids. But it would be even worse than that. In the current system, at least investors have […]
> Your implication is that most of the time (outside of big new
> gold findings, e.g. the gold rush), the natural value of gold
> should not be decreasing but that it was kept artificially low
> by the lack of a free market.
No, if it were that predictable, then socialism might actually work. Instead, it’s that gold was detached from the price it would have in free market conditions. In 1973, we came closer to such conditions, so the price changed.
But the pricing mechanisms were atrophied, so that the price adjusted falsely, for perhaps eight years…especially because of the price bubble of the late seventies.
By 1982, the bubble had burst, and the natural price for our conditions had been found…but here’s what illustrates your error:
Starting at that point, the price of gold generally fell. This is normal for all commodities, but especially non-consumable ones like gold. Their price will fall as stock accumulates, and technology produces both better production and more alternatives.
Because of this, the natural price of gold normally declines.
> But this is exactly the indictment of central banking, and
> again it does not surprise me that they restricted
> freedom in such a way as to artificially lower the value of
> gold precisely because it was pegged to the value of the
> dollar.
Central banking has to fail…it’s inherently unable to emulate the efficiency of a free market, exactly like centrally planned food, cars, et cetera.
But, again, you are mistaken in the details…in this case, it was the US government and foreign governments, directly, that had struggled to keep the price of gold and the dollar in sync, and had either distorted or banned normal gold transactions in many conditions, that had left gold’s value distorted. The Fed only had a minority role in that.
That’s one big problem right now…thanks to the Rothbardian crackpotism, people blame the Fed for EVERYTHING, instead of the small part that is really its fault.
We would have the debt and deficit without the Fed. We would have wars without the Fed. We would have had the housing price bubble without the Fed. In fact the Fed only even impacted the last of those, and only by creating conditions that caused the bubble to burst more severely than was necessary.
I agree with your definition of inflation, although I wish it were not so popular to differentiate between inflation and deflation, both of which are a distortion of the supply/demand balance, and both of which are harmful.
If anything, deflation is worse…and yet the Rothbardians think only inflation is bad.
That the value of gold went down in the 1850s is no surprise because of the gold rush. I guess I take your point about the value of gold being volatile. However, you must admit there’s a basic inconsistency in your explanation. You say that the reason gold went up in value after 1973 was that it was finally placed in the free market. Your implication is that most of the time (outside of big new gold findings, e.g. the gold rush), the natural value of gold should not be decreasing but that it was kept artificially low by the lack of a free market. But this is exactly the indictment of central banking, and again it does not surprise me that they restricted freedom in such a way as to artificially lower the value of gold precisely because it was pegged to the value of the dollar. I don’t know if gold is the best choice of base money but I do know that the choice should be left to the free market. The Rothbardians you despise certainly assume that the market would choose gold, and there’s no denying its historic popularity. Finally, let me amend my definition of inflation. I got it perfect now, “inflation is an increase in the quantity supplied of money above the quantity demanded of money at a given purchasing power of money”.
ERICH:
> So, you’re telling me the 50% drop in the value of the dollar
> from 1913 to the 1920′s after the Fed was created had
> EVERYTHING to do with gold and nothing to do with the
> Fed? ESPECIALLY since the dollar had never, in its history,
> dropped that dramatically, in such a short period of time, in
> value before the inception of the Federal Reserve.
This is the kind of sheer ignorance of even the most basic monetary facts that just horrifies me about the typical Rothbardian.
The dollar was, from 1900-1933, defined as 23.22 grains of gold. It’s just that simple. There was NO OTHER VALUE for the dollar than that of gold. If the price of the dollar plunged, this means the price of 23.22 grains of gold plunged exactly the same amount, because THAT IS WHAT A DOLLAR WAS.
What’s more, you’re wrong; the dollar’s price plunged faster and worse in the 1850s, because the price of both silver and gold fell precipitously in that period.
Despite the Rothbardians’ ridiculous chant to the contrary, gold’s value normally vacillates erratically, as well as tending to decline overall.
EITAN:
> Ok, so let’s measure the affect of the Fed’s policy on the
> value of the dollar after it delinked from gold, assuming
> for the sake of argument that it was really solidly pegged
> to $35 an ounce until 1973. Gold today in 2011 is $1426
> an ounce, meaning that measured in gold, $1 in 1973 is
> today worth 2.5 cents. Now if the value of gold always
> goes down as you contend, that only makes the inflation
> since delinking worse, since we shouldn’t be comparing
> an ounce of gold in 1973 to an ounce of gold in 2011, we
> should be comparing it to more than an ounce in 2011.
The problem with your attempt at comparison is that what occurred in 1973 was a skyrocketing in the price of gold, far more than a plunge in the price of the dollar.
From 1933-1973, gold was effectively off of the marketplace in the US, and from 1948 through 1973 it was similarly controlled by governments around the world, in an attempt to implement the Breton Woods accord.
In fact, in 1973 gold was really on the free market for the first time in a century. The first thing that happened was that the price shot through the roof…not because of a change in the value of the dollar, but because speculators were attempting to find its natural price.
It went from $32/ounce to $1000 an ounce within 8 years. Does this mean that the dollar bought 1/30th the amount in that timespan? Did you need 30 times as many dollars to buy a loaf of bread?
Of course not. Gold was vacillating in price, not the dollar. The dollar did decline in value, gradually, up to 14% a year at its peak. But never the 400% per year that gold’s price shot up.
What’s more, the value of gold plummeted to 33% of its peak, in just a few months, in the early eighties. Are you saying that the value of the dollar tripled, in 1982?
> I’m not sure I like the definition of inflation being “an
> increase in the supply of money”. Do you mean an
> increase in the quantity supplied or the supply curve?
Because Rothbard appeared ignorant of this basic fact of monetary theory…that there is a supply/demand curve for money like every other thing in the universe…the Rothbardians take the ridiculous “quantity of money” definition as an article of faith, although clearly it cannot be correct.
I’m not sure I like the definition of inflation being “an increase in the supply of money”. Do you mean an increase in the quantity supplied or the supply curve? What about the demand for money; does it play a role? I think one should say that inflation is “an increase the the quantity supplied of money above the quantity demanded.” But even that begs the question of what do those terms mean? What do you count as money, reserves of the banks held at the Fed? What about checking accounts held by individuals at the banks? I can’t wait to hear Dan explain it with his usual clarity and aplomb!
So, you’re telling me the 50% drop in the value of the dollar from 1913 to the 1920’s after the Fed was created had EVERYTHING to do with gold and nothing to do with the Fed? ESPECIALLY since the dollar had never, in its history, dropped that dramatically, in such a short period of time, in value before the inception of the Federal Reserve.
I seriously hope you’re kidding…
“Nevertheless, I believe you are wrong to blame gold for inflation.”
Eitan,
It’s economic lunacy to blame inflation on Gold. I don’t really think the guy understands what inflation really is – which is an increase in the supply of money. Last time I checked, the Fed has a printing press, and has been abusing it since the dollar’s been delinked.
It is true that the Fed had less influence in 1913, than it does today. So it might be unfair to claim its lost over 90 percent of its value since then; but, still its clearly the Fed that’s been increasing the money supply ever since Bretton Woods ended.
That guy cannot be taken seriously.
Ok, so let’s measure the affect of the Fed’s policy on the value of the dollar after it delinked from gold, assuming for the sake of argument that it was really solidly pegged to $35 an ounce until 1973. Gold today in 2011 is $1426 an ounce, meaning that measured in gold, $1 in 1973 is today worth 2.5 cents. Now if the value of gold always goes down as you contend, that only makes the inflation since delinking worse, since we shouldn’t be comparing an ounce of gold in 1973 to an ounce of gold in 2011, we should be comparing it to more than an ounce in 2011.
Don’t worry, I’m not a Rothbardian. I believe in free banking which Rothbard did not. Nevertheless, I believe you are wrong to blame gold for inflation.
Ironically, Cheddar, your own response carried even less weight than the one you criticized for name calling, because you engaged in the meaningless fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam…appeal to authority.
You don’t have any way to refute my points, because they are simple, verifiable facts…so you appeal to an authority who agrees with you, ignoring the fact that every competent economist who is not a part of Rothbard’s clique, especially Austrians and other libertarians, disagrees with him.
FACT: The dollar was defined, from 1873-1933, by a weight in gold. ANY CHANGE in the value of the dollar, during that period, was driven by the price of gold.
FACT: The value of the dollar was no longer defined in gold, but was “pegged to” gold, dollars bought or sold to keep its price in gold stable, from 1948-1973. Again, therefore, any change in the value of the dollar was driven purely by the value of gold.
These are indisputable facts.
Rothbardians can blow smoke up their mirrors all they wish, but it won’t change what actually happened.
The Fed was the major cause of changes in the value of the dollar from 1933-1948, and from 1973-present.
The rest is caused by gold.
Please note, any attempt to make a valid point that contains the words, “…you dumbass.” is automatically scored a zero for effectiveness.
Come on. Name calling. Really?!
It’s tempting to respond to “…ignorant Rothbardians,” with the contempt such a reference deserves, but not constructive to do so.
Perhaps a reference to the Ludwig von Mises Institute would be more appropriate. Let the readers decide for themselves whether to believe Murray Rothbard or some anonymous commenter on Mr. Mitchell’s fine website. Look here: http://mises.org/about/3249
> We delinked and linked back to gold after two wars and the
> Bretton Woods was not a pure gold standard you dumbass.
First, we were only delinked for a short time during the Great Depression, during which we suffered DEFLATION, more than inflation. We did not delink for the first world war.
Second, Bretton Woods still kept the dollar in sync with gold for 25 years.
My point, therefore, is identical:
If you look at any chart of the price of gold from 1873-1973, you get a SINGLE change when we switched to Breton Woods…the rest is all stable pricing. Why? Because from 1873-1933 the value of the dollar was DEFINED as its weight in gold. All inflation during that period was due to the value of gold falling.
Likewise, the entire world kept the dollar in sync with gold from 1948-1973.
So ’tis your own ass that is dumb.
> When the country was on a pure gold standard before
> the existence of the Fed, the dollar INCREASED in value.
Only during the depressions that gold caused. Otherwise, the value of gold fell, ergo the value of the dollar fell. The value of gold NORMALLY falls, and has for at least the past 500 years.
> You really cannot be serious – the Fed is 100 percent
> responsible for the devaluation of the dollar.
You have no idea what you’re talking about…you sound like you watched a few videos made by ignorant Rothbardians, and distorted what you saw even more than they already had.
The Fed was unable to have ANY impact on the value of the dollar, until 1933. This is more a matter of physics than mere history.
“That means that ALL of the dollar’s lost value, from 1913-1973, was caused by the decline of the price of gold, NOT anything the Fed did.”
We delinked and linked back to gold after two wars and the Bretton Woods was not a pure gold standard you dumbass. When the country was on a pure gold standard before the existence of the Fed, the dollar INCREASED in value. You really cannot be serious – the Fed is 100 percent responsible for the devaluation of the dollar.
> Perhaps the most damning statistic is that the dollar has
> lost 95 percent of its value since the central bank was
> created.
This is a contextual lie, started by the Rothbardians, and anyone trying to explain Free Banking needs to avoid, or refute it.
The dollar and gold were directly linked from the Fed’s founding in 1913 through 1973, when the Breton Woods accord was invalidated by Nixon.
That means that ALL of the dollar’s lost value, from 1913-1973, was caused by the decline of the price of gold, NOT anything the Fed did.
Indeed, the Rothbardians who obsess with having the Federal government impose a fiat gold dollar like to claim that gold retains its value, when in fact gold steadily loses value most of the time, and always has.
Gold is a horrible investment, which is why it’s used as a hedge: 90% of the time, it declines in value…but when there is an economic crisis, it suffers a price bubble, that will burst whenever the economy stabilizes. This inverse behavior is why it’s used as a hedge.
So, once again, the dollar lost 95% of its value BECAUSE OF GOLD, more than from the Fed.
Dan, I’m so happy you’re going to make these videos. Free banking is definitely the way to go!