I am now fully used to U.S. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's extraordinary self-regard.
However, I have to admit that even I was surprised by last Friday's CBS Marketwatch headline: "We Saved the World From Disaster, Bernanke Says." Although that's an extraordinarily cheeky claim, it seems to have persuaded U.S. President Barack Obama, who yesterday (Tuesday) recommended reappointing the central bank chief to a second, four-year term.
From the investor's point of view, this is not good news.
Bernanke's claim that the world's central bankers rescued the global economy from collapse – even if true – fails to recognize the role they played in actually creating the disaster in the first place.
Excess money expansion throughout the world (a problem that dates all the way back to 1995 in the United States, although it really ramped up after the 2001 stock-market crash) – led to an asset bubble and a situation of over-leverage that left the global financial system in a highly vulnerable situation.
Yes, greedy bankers were part of the problem, but they got greedy because there was too much money sloshing around. History has shown time and again that excessive money always leads to a burst of bad banker behavior.
Bernanke didn't head the Fed until January 2006. For several years before that time, however, Bernanke had been an active voice encouraging his predecessor, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, to keep printing money.
In a now-infamous speech in November 2002, Bernanke declared that the U.S. economy was in severe danger of deflation, and that the Fed should "drop money from helicopters" to avert the possibility. In reality, deflation was not close at that time and the low interest rates that Bernanke encouraged produced a housing bubble that became the center of collapse.
After 2006, Bernanke was fully responsible for any disasters. He continued Greenspan's policy of raising interest rates only very slowly, allowing asset prices to continue inflating.
In October 2007, when the first cracks began to appear in the financial sector – but before the economy itself began feeling the fallout – Bernanke began aggressively dropping interest rates. The result: Oil prices doubled in less than a year, which sent the U.S. and global economies into a tailspin, even as it further destabilized the financial system.
The September 2008 near-collapse of the U.S. financial system – which either badly wounded or took down such U.S. heavyweights as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ), Merrill Lynch, American International Group Inc. (NYSE: AIG), and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) – was more Bernanke's fault than anyone else's. The greedy bankers and hedge funds were just reacting to market signals, as they should do.
Since September 2008, the short-term economic pain has been somewhat lessened by Bernanke and his colleagues' aggressive monetary easing and massive bailouts of the financial sector. But it also created two problems.
The first one is that the economic bottom – if it's been reached – is being accompanied by unprecedented budget deficits, stretching several years into the future. This means that there will be a huge financing problem as the economy begins to recover.
Second, the huge monetary expansion will cause inflation. We can already see this effect in an oil price of $75 per barrel in the middle of a global recession. Those who tell you that you can't have inflation and recession simultaneously are wrong. It's called "stagflation," and we've seen its ugly effects before. To take just one example, think back to Britain circa 1975, a period that combined a nasty recession with 10% unemployment, and an inflation rate of better than 25%.
In an ideal world, the next Fed chairman would be Paul A. Volcker, to work his deflationary magic as he did in 1979-87. There is a strong case for re-writing the Fed statutes to ensure that Volcker-style monetary policies are mandatory and Greenspan/Bernanke sloppiness impossible. Given Volcker's age, a second choice could have been Lawrence H. "Larry" Summers, a person who is clearly tough enough to act quickly when inflationary problems appeared – as the most assuredly will.
Bernanke's reappointment means that the "Bernanke's Worldview" will remain dominant at the Fed. This is not good news for U.S. investors, savers, or anyone else whose assets will suffer badly when virulent inflation is at hand.
The last meeting of the policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), held two weeks ago, promised to end Fed purchases of government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. At the time, I wrote that this seemed a bid by Bernanke to assist his reappointment by deflecting the wrath of the more moderate sound money types (Intransigent ones like me were little mollified by this belated action). With little opposition, Bernanke's reappointment would thus be assured by an administration that doesn't seem to care much about sound-money management, anyway.
Now Bernanke has been reappointed, the next FOMC meeting – set for Sept. 22-23 – will be very interesting. If the FOMC remains mildly restrictive, we will get inflation and higher interest rates, but the problem will remain containable, at the cost of some very unpleasant budget medicine by about 2011, probably in the form of higher taxes.
But if Bernanke's worst instincts are allowed to dominate, the next FOMC meeting will announce a renewed program of Fed purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed debt. That will mean that, over the long term, the Fed will print money to fund a large part of the budget deficit.
That was the policy of the German Weimar Republic in 1919-23, which led to 1 trillion percent inflation, at the end of which you needed a wheelbarrow full of money for daily food shopping. A full-fledged Bernanke policy – "dropping money from helicopters," primarily on Wall Street – would have the same effect.
Either way, Bernanke's reappointment means that we, as investors, should have some gold, to protect the purchasing power of our savings. If the FOMC meeting next month goes the wrong way, we should probably invest in a wheelbarrow, as well.
[Editor's Note: Money Morning Contributing Editor Martin Hutchinson - a veteran investment and merchant banker with nearly 30 years' experience in the world markets - is a firm believer in sound financial management.
But Hutchinson is also an opportunistic investor, who is better than almost anyone at ferreting out the high-return profit plays that market problems usually create. As the editor of the Permanent Wealth Investor trading service, Hutchinson says that gold and "Alpha Bulldog" stocks - those with high dividend yields and the likelihood of explosive capital returns - are the way to pounce on the profit opportunities current government policies are creating.
In a new video - which is available for viewing free of charge - Hutchinson details his strategy, and talks about three new Alpha Bulldog stocks that he's identified for his readers. To watch the video, please click here.]
News and Related Story Links:
-
Money Morning Special Report:
Why Dividends and Gold Are the Keys to Permanent Wealth. -
MarketWatch.com:
We saved the world from disaster, Fed's Bernanke says. -
Federal Reserve Board:
Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke (Nov. 21, 2002). -
Money Morning Special Report:
The Secret to Building a Portfolio that Pays – in Good Markets and in Bad. -
Wikipedia:
Stagflation. -
Money Morning Market Commentary:
With His Flawed 'Exit Strategy,' Bernanke Has Set the Stage for Stagflation
Tags: Martin Hutchinson







I've reviewed the history of the Weimar Republic;The reference is well deserved. If the Obama administration contines down this road, stagflation will occur, the administration will seek more power, create more scapegoats and claim to be protectors of us all.
I agree the present administration seems to have no interest in sound money management. We have developed a society that doesn't understand what Zig Ziglar said about positive thinking. He said "Positive thinking will not enable me to do anything, but it will enable me to do everything better than negative thinking."
Positive thinking does not make things happen. It just permits us to try harder. Positive belief will never make basd decisions produce good results. We have fallen prey as a society, typefied by the administration, that if we believe something strongly enough, it will happen. It is not true. Not every problem is the result of "stinking thinking." There are certain principles, laws, if you will, which govern the result of actions. They cannot be successfully ignored, despite our desires. Bernanke, and many others are trying to ignore them.
IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATE PROFESSOR.
Thank you,
Harry Oliveto
Anybody can talk and but only a handful can do.
Where is Mr. Volcker when we need him?
Since being appointed chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, the venerable Mr. Volcker has kept an unusually low profile. I can't recall a single instance of him making clear-cut public statements about what the Administration should do to set this dangerously-wrong economic situation right.
As far as B. S. Bernanke's re-appointment is concerned, it's not hard to imagine the unsavory jockeying behind the scenes. (BTW, who else would want to be in his shoes now?)
If Mr. Volcker is the President's leading economic advisor, then he must be in at least one, of four circumstances:
1) His title is essentially titular
2) His stature and experience is not highly regarded in both the White House and the Administration
3) He has lost his guts for doing the right thing
4) The current mess is too complex for even him to grapple with
… Long live B. S.!!
Very good article. I think it is particularly important to note the Fed's large role in creating the mess that Bernanke supposedly cleaned up. And I think it's way too early in the process to declare an all clear sign. The only reason the economy has stabilized is because of the huge increase in the money supply, but that comes with severe longer term consequences that will create a huge inflation problem in 2010 and beyond. That is why I agree that investing in gold related assets is a very good idea now, given the potential large rise in the gold price. Here is a further discussion on these issues: http://www.goldalert.com
Once again, (attempted) credit inflation is being mistaken for currency inflation. Currency inflation is what the Weimar republic did, with printing up massive amounts of actual, tangible currency. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, has been inflating the amount of credit, not currency. Pulling that off depends on people being in the mood to take on debt. And right now, we're in a cycle where people are rightly fearful that they won't be able to pay back any more debt, and it's highly questionable if they can even pay off all the existing debt. (Some would say there is no chance.) There is no escaping deflation with a credit-based money supply. Most of the $50+ trillion of credit is going to go *POOF* back into the thin air it was created out of, greatly shrinking the supply of (money + credit). The Fed, if it has any credibility left, and still exists at the bottom, might ignite hyperinflation AFTER deflation has run its course. "Helicopter Ben" got the verb tense wrong when he said "I was not going to be the Fed chairman that oversees the next Great Depression." By not retiring now, his statement isn't even going to be true with the correct verb tense, which replaces "was" with "am".
Dear Mr. Hutchison,
I would like to comment on the quote ´That will mean that, over the long term, the Fed will print money to fund a large part of the budget deficit.
That was the policy of the German Weimar Republic in 1919-23, which led to 1 trillion percent inflation, at the end of which you needed a wheelbarrow full of money for daily food shopping.'
Few Americans seem to know what really caused the Weimar inflation. After WWI Germany was declared to be the only nation guilty of having started the war and forced by the allied victors to pay huge reparations. In part to ensure that Germany could not become an industrial power again. I do not want to go in all the historical facts, like the occupation of the Rhineland by allied troops that began in 1918 (and lasted until 1930). But one aspect is crucial: Despite the fact that Germany made all efforts to come up with these unbearable reparations, the French and Belgian armies invaded and occupied the Ruhr-area, the industrial heartland of Germany, in Jan. 1923, to enforce the reparation payments.
In that situation the government decided to support the workers, who for a large part refused to work for the invaders, and began to pay them their wages in full, while in essence they were not working any more. We are talking about 15% of the whole workforce here! So in that situation, and only then, the inflation began to accelerate to levels unseen before and consequently destroyed any German wealth that was left after the war.
It should be quite easy to see that the current American situation has nothing to do with such circumstance. Todays problems are way different and, in a way, much less severe, at least in the short term.
In the long run, I believe, another wealth-destroyer is looming on the horizon: Currency reform. That´s what happenend in Germany last time in 1949, and that is something we should all brace for, because it is the only way out for a government that can´t meet its payment obligations any more.
If you are interested in the facts, write me a short note.
Kind regards,
Peter Frenz
[...] The slam-dunk reappointment of central bank Chairman Ben S. Bernanke makes me worry even more about U.S. inflation, because he [...]
Martin: I agree almost totally with your analysis of the coming Bernanke Inflation. On the other hand, I think that as bad as Bernanke's ideas have been, he is at least a known quantity. Larry Summers would qualify for the title of Biggest Fool if that title weren't already owned by Paul Krugman. I think Summers would have been a horrific choice. He seems to want to blame everything that happened on the lack of government intervention. Paul Volcker would have been the best choice, with the second-best choice being a disciple of him. Unfortunately, I don't know where we find that person. And I know that Obama did not consider me for the job.