Helicopter Ben: Printing Money

"Helicopter Ben is still throwing money out there," said conservative businessman and Forbes editor Steve Forbes in his August 7, 2008, speech to The Commonwealth Club.

Forbes was referring to Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and one of the two key figures in the government's response to the credit crisis and the please-don't-call-it-a-depression recession (the other figure is the Treasury secretary). Forbes (see video below) also said, "Ben Bernanke once wrote academic papers saying the way you deal with a crisis is you print more money, throw money at it. He even made the analogy that Milton Friedman did to throwing money out of helicopters, which is why his name inside the Fed is Helicopter Ben."

Forbes was speaking back in August, when the full extent of our economic troubles was not yet known. Now comes news that Bernanke announced plans for increasing Fed Treasury purchases and mortgage-backed-securities purchases to the tune of more than $1.2 trillion. The Fed basically makes its own money, so it's printing the money and pumping it into the economy to try to unfreeze credit markets and improve the health of the financial system (which Bernanke told "60 Minutes" this past Sunday was key to recovery this year).


Forbes isn't the only person who raises an eyebrow at efforts to vastly increase the money supply. The same concern is behind the growing criticisms from the governments of Germany (a country that has strong memories of the disaster wrought by runaway inflation during the Weimar Republic) and France.

Put simply, the fear is that printing lots of money right now might bring an earlier end to the recession, but it will be nearly impossible to shrink the supply at just the right amount at just the right time at just the right speed during the recovery to prevent runaway inflation.

Is it a case of the lesser of two evils? Can Bernanke -- an expert on the Great Depression -- successfully manage the transition to recovery? Will the $1.2 trillion be enough to make a difference? Leave a comment and join the discussion.

Economic Forecast: An Interesting Year Ahead

Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich gave the annual Bank of America-Walter E. Hoadley Economic Forecast speech last month to a sold-out crowd of people curious about what's going to happen in 2009. Reich tried to allay the audience's worst fears, but he did not sugar-coat the basic message, that he believes we are in for a rough recession -- he mostly avoided the "d-word" -- but that effective action by Washington could shorten the pain.
Watch the excerpt above to see his message. And Commonwealth Club members should keep an eye out for their March magazine in a few weeks, which will feature a Reich forecast cover story, as well as some valuable looks-back at previous economic times of trials in 1980 and 1933.

Fighting Deflation By Printing More Money

Investors in Treasury bills today did the equivalent of betting on the thoroughbred running at even money in every race.

The interest rate in T-bills fell to -.01 percent and the government came away with a no-interest $30 billion loan.

Aaron Pressman at BusinessWeek says that T-bills, regardless of their worth, are still the safest bet in these chaotic financial times, yet the reason for the seemingly poor investments is the padding of year-end quarterly reports.

It implies that investors are so worried about the safety and possible decline in value of most investments that they’re willing to lend merely on the assurance of getting their principal back intact. While some analysts fear runaway inflation from all the government bailouts and borrowing, the T-bill market at least is giving a pretty clear signal that’s not what is on big investors’ minds. They’re worried about the opposite, widespread deflation from the ongoing credit crisis, like the falling prices that occurred during the Great Depression.

The specter of deflation, the reduction of the money supply and credit, is forcing some to urge the U.S. Treasury to alter its monetary policies to deliberately jolt the prices, namely by simply printing more money.

Michael Kinsley, who spoke tonight at The Commonwealth Club of California, espouses this idea in the current issue of Time, though it rests on former Fed chair and Obama adviser Paul Volcker reversing course on the idea of tamping down inflation.

It would seem one of the problems with merely stoking the economy with new money in addition to a robust stimulus package is the issue of timing, along with pinpointing how much is enough. As many economists believe, adding too much money just as the economy begins to heal could lead to inflation when the economic caffeine of the stimulus finally kicks in. Conversely, not enough of a stimulus could further prolong the doldrums.

Conservative voices on the issue understandably believe in a more hands-off way of fixing the economy. John McManus at the New American faults Obama for choosing Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers for this economic team, writing, "Each strongly supports another stimulus package that will have government print or borrow some more money to dispense to the American people. Each will seek to manage the economy when what is clearly needed is for government to get out of the way."

Thomas Mayer, writing in the notoriously conservative opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, is denying that deflation is around the corner but says little to assuage feelings that a deep recession is likely.

Economics is a tricky, multi-headed Hydra where the monster could easily be slain by one method at one time, while utterly invincible later to the same plan. If that's true, some critics may worry that so many of our economic leaders are wedded to the textbook response to fighting deflation that they may overlooking something better.

FDR Called for the Rights of the Individual; Will Obama Do the Same?

FDR'S FAMOUS COMMONWEALTH CLUB SPEECH REVERBERATES TODAY

President-elect Barack Obama has not saved the economy yet, but his victory last month is going a long way toward saving the publishing industry.

Doris Kearns Goodwin's two-year-old book Team of Rivals has becoming a bestseller on the heels of countless references to it and Obama's desire to create the same open-ended discussion in his own cabinet. (Listen to Kearns Goodwin discuss the book at The Commonwealth Club.) Of course, newspapers and magazines around the country couldn't keep enough copies on newsstands with the visage of Obama during the days after the election.

Now, it's all about making the link between the Depression-era beginning of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and Obama's today.

One of the better and most specific books concerning our current period of economic upheaval and presidential transition is Jonathan Alter's The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.

Alter posits that FDR's common jibe of being a "traitor to his class" was born out of his battle with polio. This debilitating illness forced him to gain an understanding with those less fortunate. It could be said that Obama's background and his fight with race in America would allow for the same empathy.

One interesting chapter in the book details how FDR broke convention tradition by accepting the nomination the day after. Though flying by aircraft was not particularly safe in 1932, FDR flew to Chicago for the mere spectacle of such arrival. Recall how Obama, on short notice, chose to accept the nomination in an 80,000-seat football stadium instead of at the convention hall and packed nearly 100,000 into Chicago's Grant Park on election night.

But it is one of FDR's most famous speeches that reveals a plausible connection between the two leaders.

On September 23, 1932, he gave what Alter calls "a dividing line in his political evolution." during a speech at The Commonwealth Club of California. The speech ranks as one of the club's most famous moments. (Read the entire speech here.)

The address has been characterized as un-Roosevelt-like in its clarity and bluntness. Alter says this was because the speech was barely read over beforehand by FDR; therefore, the candidate was unable to "sand the edges and apply his usual caution."

The Commonwealth Club speech is now seen as the first clear rationale behind the New Deal and, more important, redefined the idea of the individual. Some of FDR's rhetoric seems pedestrian today, yet it was revolutionary to a country set in an economic free fall and wallowing in self-doubt.

Every man has a right to life; and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living. He may by sloth or crime decline to exercise that right; but it may not be denied him. We have no actual famine or death; our industrial and agricultural mechanism can produce enough and to spare. Our government formal and informal, political and economic, owes to every one an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work.

University of Chicago professors Jane Dailey and David Nirenberg bring the speech and the current state of our financial atmosphere into perspective in an article in Dissent magazine from last September.

As we watch (at current estimates) more than a trillion dollars in collective savings disappear into the whirlpool that was once Wall Street, we are already hearing calls for such restrictions and regulations. These calls are not misplaced, but they are not enough. We also need what Roosevelt provided three-quarters of a century ago: a politically convincing and principled way of imagining a relationship between the economic and political rights of the individual and those of the collective, which he called the “economic constitutional order.”

They go on to urge this simple bit of advice: "In order to know what we want to regulate or whom we have to bailout, we first need to know what and whom we want to protect."