Let me tell you what puzzles me about this chart. We have had unprecedented government borrowing and stimulus, yet the money multiplier is as Dennis Gartman would say is "Moving from the upper left to the lower right" Wouldn't conventional wisdom tell us that for the economy to get going again the money multiplier would have to increase? The shaded bars depict the recessions we have seen during the given time period. Note that as we came out of the recession period the multiplier stabilized, but never really seemed to assume a bullish pattern. Yet didn't the economy resume bullish activity?
So the question is how did the economy begin churning again with the money multiplier stagnant.
What role did credit play with respect to the money multiplier? We know that the U.S. consumer relied heavily on credit during the time period. But wouldn't overly accessible credit have increased the money multiplier?
Would the dovish monetary policy of the Greenspan era have had any impact on the multiplier? Many would argue that the dovish policy would have increased the money multiplier--but did it? So if Greenspan was truly creating a "bubble" as many have argued then wouldn't the multiplier have increased?
Take a look at the steep drop in the multiplier recently. That is the point that many pundits, including many that appeared on our show argued that the credit was destroyed and deflation set in. I believe that assessment is right, but according to the experts we have fixed the financial system. So the money multiplier should be increasing? Right? But it is not.
Many would argue that this time is no different---we came out of recessions with no increase in the money supply before and we will do it again. I DISAGREE!!!! There are those who would argue that we have always used debt and that we are intelligently utilizing debt over the short run. I DISAGREE!!!! Why is this time different you ask? Let me make this point. Companies use debt because they believe that they can earn a greater return on the debt than they will have to pay. It is that simple. So why would the government borrow money? To get the economy going again? It is that simple. BUT THE MONEY MULTIPLIER IS NOW IN NEGATIVE TERRITORY. So what happens if a company borrows money--lots of it---for say 6% and then earns a NEGATIVE RETURN? They go bankrupt. And that is exactly where we are headed with our entire economy if we don't focus on being PRODUCTIVE. There is no free lunch and you can't get a multiplier effect on giveaways because it has to be paid for. It is not just a zero sum game where one pays and one receives. The giveaways are being financed and the ones paying are paying for the gift and the interest.
More inefficient government dollars will NOT get the system going again. Many have argued that we cannot see stagflation for a sustained period of time. I will in a coming post show why I think that we can. I will give you the fact that the markets looked like they did not seem to want to go lower today.
BUT IN THE LONG RUN, OUR LACK OF PRODUCTIVITY WILL SEND THE ECONOMY INTO A TAILSPIN. I AM STICKING WITH MY SHORTS AND MY INFLATION HEDGE----SOUNDS LIKE AN OXYMORON AND I WOULD HAVE NEVER BELIEVED THAT I WOULD BE WRITING THAT IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
MORE LATER
