5 ms·

The value of money is completely determined by fed actions and allowing it to drift in detrimental value paths would be the farthest thing from respecting the m

The value of money is completely determined by fed actions and allowing it to drift in detrimental value paths would be the farthest thing from respecting the markets. Economy wide "malinvestment" is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It's nonsense. Although money should be just an intermediary tool for trade and negotiation, an artificial asset that is neutral, in the short run this intrinsically valueless paper can distort the markets, even if it has predictable value, but only if it is manipulated into being a store of value that has a better risk adjusted return than private market stores of value. Paper money has no intrinsic value in itself. If the fed keeps it predictably devaluing fast enough, always moving it towards its intrinsic value, it acts as a very useful enabler of trade by creating a unit of measurement for value and medium of exchange. But unfortunately, for fiat to enable trade, it also has to artificially be made into a store of value. If this paper is made into a store of value that retains value better than private stores of value (such as stocks, bonds, or just stockpiles of stuff), it jams the markets for private stores of value. It turns savers into accumulators of pieces of paper or numbers in accounts instead of being holders of things that are backed by economic activity and wealth creation. It becomes a subsidy from investors, entrepreneur, job creators and workers to holders of pieces of paper. It is the worst kind of subsidy because it blocks wealth and welfare creation. The only way for central banks to allow private markets to function properly, is to get money out of the way by making sure it always devalues fast enough that it doesn't overly displace private stores of value that are backed by real economic activity.

caf 11y ago
Isn't the value of bonds, which are essentially debt denominated in the fiat currency, intrinsically linked to the value of that currency? Debt isn't an independent store of value in the same way that equity or real property is.
- Ankaios 11y ago
  Not necessarily. See inflation-adjusted bonds, for instance.
marcosdumay 11y ago
> Economy wide "malinvestment" is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It's nonsense. At microeconomics malinvestiment happens all the time, and you do want it to fail. Otherwise we'd be still sending typewriter created letters though horsemail. Now, you are proposing that at the macro-level it does not exist? How is it so? Is malinvestiment one of those things that cancel-out at the macro level? If so, that would be huge, it would be the first real (not nominal) value ever to cancel-out at the macro-level. So, I'll have to ask for your references.
- BenoitEssiambre 11y ago
  It's because at the micro level, investments can be sub-optimal when they could be replaced by better more productive investments. At the aggregate level, the alternative to investment is just economic inactivity. At this level, turning investment into fiat means stopping economic value creation and preventing economy value retention. Unless you really believe that the unemployed would be destroying more than 100% of the value of the investment they need to work, it's an incorrect assumption. I think the erroneous assumption that Austrians make is that they think investments are not worth it in the private markets if they have negative returns. That is incorrect, stores of value can be useful as long as they retain part of their value, that is unless their returns are above -100%. You don't throw out a bag of apple because one of them may rot early. Idle fiat has a return of -100% to the aggregate economy over the time that it is made idle. On the aggregate, it's just paper it doesn't actually carry value forward. It is a claim on value created by others who have not promised to create anything. If you had instead invested the money into stock or a bond, something that enables production, even if you would only have generated -50% returns, you would have added much more value to the aggregate than if the savings would have been kept as idle fiat reserves. It is crucial that fiat does not price good short term investments out of the market every time the risk adjusted market rates go below -2%. -2% can be an artificially high rate that puts the private market in a gridlock. Negative returns may well be the natural state for stores of value. Before financial systems existed, almost all investments, had negative returns if you didn’t put work and energy into them. The only way you had to store value was to accumulate stuff, buildings or land. All options either had high maintenance costs, were subject to risk of damage from natural causes and theft, were very volatile or required hard labor to get production out of. Even in societies with good financial systems, getting risk free, hassle free, positive real returns has been difficult for most of history. This probably reflects the laws of thermodynamics that tell us that things tend to decay without work and energy put into them. The 20th century was probably the most notable exception. Because of unprecedented demographic and technological growth, positive risk free returns were easy to find. This however, may not continue forever, particularly amidst a aging and retiring population. Money should not be made an artificial government backstop for stores of value as this destroys the total amount of real wealth in the economy and replaces it with pieces of paper or numbers in accounts. The saving vehicle of last resort should be for people to stockpile stuff they will need in the future (which incidentally creates job because this stuff needs to be produced) not accumulation of fiat.

caf 11y ago

Isn't the value of bonds, which are essentially debt denominated in the fiat currency, intrinsically linked to the value of that currency? Debt isn't an independent store of value in the same way that equity or real property is.

Ankaios 11y ago
Not necessarily. See inflation-adjusted bonds, for instance.

marcosdumay 11y ago

> Economy wide "malinvestment" is not a thing. It entails that a person living off of others is more productive than a person working. It's nonsense. At microeconomics malinvestiment happens all the time, and you do want it to fail. Otherwise we'd be still sending typewriter created letters though horsemail. Now, you are proposing that at the macro-level it does not exist? How is it so? Is malinvestiment one of those things that cancel-out at the macro level? If so, that would be huge, it would be the first real (not nominal) value ever to cancel-out at the macro-level. So, I'll have to ask for your references.

BenoitEssiambre 11y ago
It's because at the micro level, investments can be sub-optimal when they could be replaced by better more productive investments. At the aggregate level, the alternative to investment is just economic inactivity. At this level, turning investment into fiat means stopping economic value creation and preventing economy value retention. Unless you really believe that the unemployed would be destroying more than 100% of the value of the investment they need to work, it's an incorrect assumption. I think the erroneous assumption that Austrians make is that they think investments are not worth it in the private markets if they have negative returns. That is incorrect, stores of value can be useful as long as they retain part of their value, that is unless their returns are above -100%. You don't throw out a bag of apple because one of them may rot early. Idle fiat has a return of -100% to the aggregate economy over the time that it is made idle. On the aggregate, it's just paper it doesn't actually carry value forward. It is a claim on value created by others who have not promised to create anything. If you had instead invested the money into stock or a bond, something that enables production, even if you would only have generated -50% returns, you would have added much more value to the aggregate than if the savings would have been kept as idle fiat reserves. It is crucial that fiat does not price good short term investments out of the market every time the risk adjusted market rates go below -2%. -2% can be an artificially high rate that puts the private market in a gridlock. Negative returns may well be the natural state for stores of value. Before financial systems existed, almost all investments, had negative returns if you didn’t put work and energy into them. The only way you had to store value was to accumulate stuff, buildings or land. All options either had high maintenance costs, were subject to risk of damage from natural causes and theft, were very volatile or required hard labor to get production out of. Even in societies with good financial systems, getting risk free, hassle free, positive real returns has been difficult for most of history. This probably reflects the laws of thermodynamics that tell us that things tend to decay without work and energy put into them. The 20th century was probably the most notable exception. Because of unprecedented demographic and technological growth, positive risk free returns were easy to find. This however, may not continue forever, particularly amidst a aging and retiring population. Money should not be made an artificial government backstop for stores of value as this destroys the total amount of real wealth in the economy and replaces it with pieces of paper or numbers in accounts. The saving vehicle of last resort should be for people to stockpile stuff they will need in the future (which incidentally creates job because this stuff needs to be produced) not accumulation of fiat.