Skip to main content

Econ 101: How Central Banks Wreck Economies Through Business Cycles

Business cycles ("booms" and "busts") inevitably occur when central banks try to manipulate economies. When central banks use such manipulation, it is not fair to call such an economy a free-market economy. This article will explain what booms and busts are, and how they are caused.

The free market is not responsible for the current economic crisis, because we do not really have a free market economy. In a true free market, government does not manipulate the price of goods and services, but rather allows those prices to be set by supply and demand.

The most important good in the market is money, which the government, through its private arm called the Federal reserve, maniuplates regularly. This, in turn, has a marked effect on all of the other goods and services that we use that money to purchase.

The price of money is the amount of interest that is charged to borrow it, so that price (the interest rate) should be set based on supply and demand of money.

In a truly free market economy, a banker who wished to have a greater supply of money to lend out would offer higher interest rates on savings accounts, so that more people would deposit money is his bank. When the bank has a lot of money to lend, it lowers interest rates on its loans so that more people will want to borrow the bank's money.

Under real free-market conditions, low interest rates indicate that people are saving a lot of money. But in an economy manipulated by a central bank, it doesn't often mean that. Rather, it usually means that the federal reserve has flooded the economy with extra currency (or allowed the banks to reduce their reserve requirements and offer new loans), giving people the mistaken idea that now is a good time to take out a loan on something that they cannot really afford.

An economy is healthy when companies that choose to borrow for expansion of their businesses do so because consumers have saved a lot of money. That is the way they can be more confident that consumers will have money in the future to purchase new products that business expansion will allow.

The Federal Reserve (or any other central bank) negatively affects the health of an economy by introducing additional currency into it. This gives banks the idea that they can loan more, so they reduce their interest rates to entice more people to take out loans. But because the money they have to lend is not by way of saving, consumers will not have the ability to purchase the new products that are provided as a result of business expansion.

Because of the manipulation (increase in the money supply) by the central bank (and the false signals that such manipulation sends to the economy), businesses expand and hire many new employees who are put to work making things that consumers either will not want or will not be able to afford. This is what is called the business cycle--the "boom" created by unwise expansion of the money supply by the central bank, followed by a "bust" when the mania of production during the boom cannot be satisfied by consumer demand.

Thus, not only is the central bank's manipulation of the money supply responsible for businesses making things that consumers will not purchase, it is also responsible for the increase in unemployment that always occurs during the "bust" phase of the business cycle.

Businesses would have been better off not expanding, but rather waiting for consumers to start saving more money. But this introduces yet another problem: because the interest rates were kept low by the central bank, consumers were discouraged from saving.

Central banks cause booms and busts. Central banks, ironically, have never solved the problems that they were ostensibly designed to fix.  Rather, in every case where they have been tried, they have eventually enslaved the bulk of the population in poverty while lining the pockets of the rich.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...