"He builds elaborate Keynesian models that treat consumer spending as the engine of prosperity..."

Paul Krugman: "He builds elaborate Keynesian models that treat consumer
spending as the engine of prosperity, ignores the capital structure of
the economy, and then acts surprised when manipulating
aggregate demand produces distortions in real production. 

"Paul Krugman has spent three decades telling you that government spending cures recessions, that deficits don't matter when interest rates are low, and that anyone who warns about inflation is a crank.* 

"Then 2021 happened. 

"The Biden administration pumped $1.9 trillion through the American Rescue Plan in March 2021. Krugman called inflation fears overblown. By June 2022, CPI hit 9.1 percent, the highest since 1981. Krugman's response was to move the goalposts and call it a soft landing when the Fed started hiking rates. [Similarly, here in New Zealand, CPI hit 7.3% in June 2022, a 32-year high, after Grant Robertson's own 'rescue plan' pumped $70 billion into our own small pond.]

"This is the pattern. He builds elaborate Keynesian models that treat consumer spending as the engine of prosperity, ignores the capital structure of the economy, and then acts surprised when manipulating aggregate demand produces distortions in real production. 

"The villain is IS-LM thinking that strips out time, entrepreneurship, and the price signals that actually coordinate economic activity. When you flatten the economy into aggregate demand curves, you produce policy advice that consistently mis-prices risk and encourages central banks to suppress interest rates well below what voluntary savers would accept. 

"Krugman won a Nobel in 2008 for trade theory work that genuinely mattered. But he abandoned rigorous analysis for political performance years before that prize arrived. His New York Times column became a vehicle for justifying whatever the Democratic Party needed justified, with the academic credentials attached as decoration. 

"Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek built their entire framework on the impossibility of central planners processing dispersed local knowledge. Krugman's worldview requires exactly that kind of central management. The [central bank] sets the price of credit for the entire economy, guided in part by intellectual cover that Krugman provides. 

"You pay for that cover every time your purchasing power erodes. But the man with the Nobel told you it was fine."

~ Handre

* Bernard Hickey put on a similar performance here, but without even the pretence of economic acumen. At least people have the excuse of a Nobel Prize and good work in the past for taking Krugman seriously. Galt knows what Hickey has done to deserve attention.

Alan Greenspan, 1926-2026: 'The Undertaker' passes away

Alan Greenspan, dubbed by Ayn Rand as "The Undertaker."  
Ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused: economic dictator

"Alan Greenspan died [earlier this week], and the man who spent two decades inflating bubbles will be eulogised as a maestro. Fitting, because he understood exactly what he was doing. 

"In 1966 a younger Greenspan wrote an essay called 'Gold and Economic Freedom.' [In it, he states that the gold standard is essential for economic freedom.] He laid out the case with precision. The gold standard protected savers from confiscation by inflation. Welfare statists hated gold because it stood in the way of their deficits. He wrote that the abandonment of gold made deficit spending a "scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth." He was right. He knew it. Then he took the job running the printing press.

"From August 1987 to January 2006 Greenspan sat atop the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything that essay defended. After the 1987 crash he flooded the banks with liquidity and taught a generation of traders that the central bank would catch them every time they fell. They named the reflex after him: the 'Greenspan put.' He cut the federal funds rate to 1 percent by June 2003 and held it there, and you watched housing prices detach from any sane relationship to income. Mortgage credit gushed. He went on television in February 2004 and suggested Americans consider adjustable-rate mortgages, roughly eighteen months before he started hiking rates into those very borrowers. The man who warned in 1966 about the hidden confiscation of wealth engineered the largest credit distortion in postwar history. 

"Then came the apology that wasn't one. In October 2008, sitting before Congress as the wreckage smoked, Greenspan confessed he had found 'a flaw' in his model of how the world worked. He was 'shocked' that lenders [licensed to print money] had not policed themselves. You don't get to spend twenty years pricing risk at zero and then act surprised when men respond to the incentives you built. Any committee of economists cannot set the price of money better than a market can. 

"Greenspan knew the answer at 40 and spent the next half century pretending he'd forgotten it. The savers he warned about in 1966 paid for that performance. ..."

"Every Fed chair since Greenspan has discovered this truth the hard way. Bernanke cranked rates to zero after 2008, then Yellen kept them pinned there, then Powell printed $4 trillion more during COVID. Each crisis demanded bigger interventions than the last."

~ Handre

 

"Greenspan was the Dr. Robert Stadler of our age: the brilliant man who knew the right principles and betrayed them, certain his own genius could control the evil he agreed to serve. 

"He was a member of Rand's inner circle. His essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" appeared in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. He argued, correctly, that the gold standard protected savers from confiscation, that statists hated gold because it blocked their deficits, and that abandoning it turned deficit spending into a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. 

"He even understood that Social Security was a Ponzi fraud that would help bankrupt the nation. He knew all of it. Then he took command of the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything he had written. 

"The 'Greenspan put,' rates held at one percent, the housing bubble, the very confiscation he had warned of, engineered by his own hand. 

"Here is the irony. Greenspan knew 'Atlas Shrugged' intimately. He watched Rand create Stadler, the genius who lent his mind to the looters' Institute believing he could outwit them, and who lived to see his knowledge weaponised as Project X. Greenspan studied that warning at the source, from the author herself. He understood the character completely. Then he walked the identical road and became the man the novel was written to expose. 

"When the wreckage came in 2008, he told Congress he had found 'a flaw' in his model. There was no flaw in the model. The flaw was in the choice to abandon what he knew. Some men meet the virus and are consumed by it. Greenspan had the answer at forty and spent the next fifty years pretending he had forgotten."

~ The Rational Animal

"Q: Alan Greenspan passed away [this week]. Alan Greenspan was a close associate of Ayn Rand for a while, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve … these things did not overlap, as people familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas wouldn’t be surprised to hear. So, Keith, I’m sure you’ve read [Greenspan’s essay] ‘Gold & Economic Freedom’ many times; so let’s get your thoughts on Greenspan’s passing…

"A: For anyone who’s read that essay, which was published in 1966 as part of [Ayn Rand’s] book 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,' and therefore endorsed by Ayn Rand, he had to evade everything he knew in 1966 in order to take the job at the Fed. And ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused, which was economic dictator.

"Now … everybody is confused about capitalism … but … there is no greater area of confusion than the concepts around money. Both the critics of capitalism and of gold, and the FANS of capitalism and gold will tell you that he was 'a Maestro' — and if you ask “a master of what?’ you’ll be told he was a master of central planning of our economy, and of managing our little lives for us. …

"They’ll say ... ‘he managed a sound money regime’— and the problem with the concept of sound money they use is an anti-concept, that is, [it’s a notion] that destroys and obliterates a legitimate concept in order to smuggle something else in. And what they mean by ’sound money’ is an irredeemable fiat currency jammed down our throats by the government forcing us to use it as if it WERE money, but ‘sound’ because it’s somehow managed to avoid consumer prices going up [by no too much].

"So I’d like people to think about a simple fact, that in every industry seeking greater efficiency, that is, they want to produce more with less — with less cost, with fewer inputs, with less labour, land, physical commodities etc. — and of course that’s happening relentlessly across the entire economy in every sector (unless regulation prevents it…).

"So suppose the average across the entire [economy] is a 2 percent gain in efficiency every year, all else being equal, you’d expect consumer prices therefore to be falling comparatively across industries, as costs are falling. SO your expect consumer prices tl be falling roughly 2 percent per year.

"So imagine it it were possible as the manager of the currency to debase the currency at a matching rate. Now, this is pure fantasy [hoho!]; this is only interesting as a thought experiment … but suppose it were possible to debase the currency at a matching rate so that every company from Intel to US Steel to Rolls Royce making aircraft engines is cutting costs at 2 percent, [while] you are debasing the currency at a matching 2 percent, and the nett result is CPI = zero. Would anybody call that SOUND?

"I wrote an article called ‘Sound Money is Not What You Think It Is,’ and I had a picture that I took from Norman Rockwell [above, with customer and butcher both cheating] … and I asked if that would be considered a sound measurement of the weight of the chicken, and therefore a sound price to pay … And at best, that’s what Greenspan did."

~ Keith Weiner from Monetary Metals, interviewed on the 'Daily Objective'

"Of course you can 'speak ill of the dead' ...  After all, wrote Shakespeare, 'The evil that men do lives after them; / The good is oft interred with their bones.'

"Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve System, just died at age 100. The general public wants to blame the United States president for the health of the U.S. economy, but the Fed chairman has much more influence over economic conditions. 

"Greenspan spent some time early in his career as an Ayn Rand acolyte, and in fact three chapters of Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, were written by the future Fed chairman.... Greenspan's opponents on the left therefore interpreted his whole career through a Randian lens, which serves to remind us how stubbornly they refuse to understand the world. 

"Had Greenspan wanted to run the Federal Reserve in such a way as to approximate a gold standard as much as possible, he could certainly have done so. Instead, he used it as an instrument for central planning, with disastrous results.

"Initially, Greenspan could do no wrong. He became known as 'The Maestro' ....  Meanwhile, Greenspan's contempt for the public was legendary: he confessed to Lesley Stahl of CBS that before congressional committees he would speak gibberish -- a tactic he called 'syntax destruction.' The next day the headlines would report two different things about what he had said, and for Greenspan that meant he had succeeded. Greenspan's policy moves (like arranging for a bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998) gave rise to the belief in a 'Greenspan put,' according to which investors could be assured that the Fed chairman was prepared to use the tools at his disposal to backstop the market if it should ever fall below a certain level. 

"And of course his monetary stimulus after the dot-com bust in 2000-2001, which looked to some observers at the time as a brilliant move, only delayed the reckoning, and transformed that bust into a real estate bubble (and eventual bust). When the lights of the economy should have turned red, Greenspan made them all green. That was the only recession on record in which housing starts rose rather than fell. 

"The Federal Reserve, like the government itself, has no real goods at its disposal, so while its various tricks can redistribute resources and simulate prosperity, it cannot generate real wealth. It simply arranges the economy into an unsustainable configuration that has to come apart. 

"Because of Greenspan's earlier association with Ayn Rand, and because the general public knows so little about the Fed, when the 2008 crash occurred, people generally went along with blaming 'capitalism' -- even though the Federal Reserve is a non-market institution created by act of Congress and enjoying a government-granted monopoly, and even though Greenspan's manipulations overrode what the market was trying to say. 

"Greenspan's legacy is 2008, and the undeserved reputational damage that the market economy suffered as a result."

~ Tom Woods

JIM GRANT: 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

 

"Q:We heard a stat recently that if you combine SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic potential IPOs, inflation adjusted, these are so large, they're as big as all the IPOs in the nineties combined. What do you think about that?

"A: I think that the excitement surrounding the potentialities of artificial intelligence dwarf the excitement generated by the worldwide web and by the internet and by fibre-optic cables. And I think the dollars, of course, even when adjusted for inflation are larger today. And I think that the role of the Fed[eral Reserve Bank] is more intrusive, more problematical than it was then. And I think that a great deal is riding on the efficacy of the technology on which the world's hopes are hanging. And a great deal is also contingent on whether we collectively have correctly calculated (or miscalculated) the demand for tokens, for data centres, and for the rest of the capital that goes into artificial intelligence.

"So you know, you'd think that any technology with 'intelligence' in the very word would be up to date [on the] supply and demand [for it]. But I think there's reason to doubt that. I think there's a great deal of overbuilding, double ordering, just like there was in the late 1990s [with the Dot.Com bubble]. People thought, well, such is the high degree of organisation of all the information relevant to the marketplace that there will be nothing like the macro miscalculations of yesteryear. But it turns out that the human speculative spirit is a pretty wild thing and is not necessarily grounded by better technology.

"On the contrary, sometimes that can only incite it. So I think that [this] today is one of the greatest bubbles of all time. ...

"A guy from Uber, a COO of Uber, a CFO, was quoted the other day as saying, well, it's it's certainly a wondrous technology. We don't see it in our profit and loss. We can't really rationalise the expense just now. This is all kind of the jury's still out on this. It's wonderful -- it's not wonderful; it is hallucinating -- it is smarter than you ever dreamt ...

"What we do know is that the capital draw on AI is as great as it was on the [nineteenth-century] railroad [boom]. And the value proposition of railroads is very simple ...Now it is what? AI, augmenting human intelligence, planning it?

"We don't know. But the capital draw is immense, and there are dollars that are riding on the success of this and on the correct calculation of supply and demand for semiconductors, for data centres and the like. All this is terrifically important and also unknowable at the moment. So this makes it a time well worth living in."

~ Jim Grant interviewed on the Meb Faber Podcast on 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

RELATED: 

 

What Defines an Asset Bubble? What Got Us Out of the Depression? - ROBERT MURPHY SHOW

"... some notion of irrationality or mania intrinsic to it is ... a required ingredient [of an asset bubble]. Because if you don't have that, it's not a bubble. And and that's how I use the term. 

"So, for example, as opposed to a boom. ...  like if they got rid of the IRS ... and we're sure it's not coming back. I think that would lead to an economic boom, but that wouldn't be a bubble. Okay, there might be a bubble involved if it overshoots ... I wouldn't call that a bubble because a bubble's going to pop. Like that's the whole point. That's why they call it that ...

"I would say for it to be a bubble where it unmoored from the fundamentals, and people kind of know it is. ...[that] at some point, this is going to crash hard, but as long as you think you can get out, it can keep going. And so, to me that's clearly a bubble. And again, I think a necessary ingredient of that is there some element that people know this is unmoored from reality.  ... 

" I'm going to say I don't think loose money or government interference or whatever is a part of the definition. ... [T]here could be a bubble even in An-Capistan if there could just be a mania. That could happen, but I think it would be relatively modest, other things being equal, for the same amount of irrationality and willingness to take a gamble or whatever ...

[H]aving a Federal Reserve Bank thrown into the mix is only going to allow that irrationality to get multiplied... So, the biggest bubbles are necessarily going to go along with a central bank."

"There is simply no such a thing as a 'cost-push' inflation."

"[I]n the strict sense, there is simply no such a thing as a 'cost-push' inflation. Neither higher wages nor higher prices of oil, or perhaps of imports generally, can drive up the aggregate price of all goods unless the purchasers are given more money to buy them."

~ Friedrich Hayek from his 1976 book Denationalisation of Money

"Welcome to the most insidious form of inflation: when newly printed dollars bypass consumer prices and flow directly into financial assets."

"The [US] Federal Reserve created $4 trillion in new money [in the GFC, and another $4 trillion over Covid] yet your grocery bill barely budges while Nvidia stock doubles in six months. [Over Covid, from March 2020 to mid-2021] the NZ Reserve Bank created NZD $50 billion in new money, and here again groceries barely budged over that period compared to bonds, shares and housing.]

"Welcome to the most insidious form of inflation: when newly printed dollars bypass consumer prices and flow directly into financial assets.

"You won't see this wealth transfer reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The CPI measures bread and gasoline, not Bitcoin and Berkshire Hathaway. Meanwhile, the [central banks'] money printing operation sends fresh liquidity straight to primary dealers, who park those dollars in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Asset owners get richer. Wage earners watch their purchasing power erode in real terms, even as official inflation statistics claim everything is fine.

"This creates a vicious feedback loop that sound-money advocates have warned about for decades. Cheap credit inflates asset bubbles, which [govts and central banks] then feels compelled to support with even more money printing. Each cycle makes the wealth gap wider. The Tesla shareholder benefits from artificially suppressed interest rates. The school teacher saving in a current account gets destroyed by financial repression. ... 

"Expanding the money supply faster than real economic growth means that new money has to go somewhere. Since 2008, it has systematically flowed into assets that wealthy people own rather than goods that working people buy. 

"Your [portfolio] might look healthy, but you're watching monetary debasement in real time. The stock market is booming because dollars are dramatically less scarce, not because companies are dramatically more productive. 

"If you can, buy stocks, bitcoin, property, or gold. This makes you a beneficiary of this phenomenon, not a victim."

~ Handre

Bloomberg has things back to front.

Bloomberg just called New Zealand one of the world's clearest housing cautionary tales.

In a piece titled The World’s Most Extreme Housing Boom Is Now Roiling an Entire Economy, global business news leader Bloomberg has analysed what’s happening here and what other countries can learn.

The piece said New Zealand was once home to the “world’s biggest housing booms,” but is now in the grip of a prolonged downturn, “exposing how deeply the country’s economy depends on ever-rising home values.”

Well, they're right about that last. But they're wrong about how we should react to the leaking of that housing bubble. Cambridge developer John Kenel makes the counter-argument:

Prices down 16% from the peak. Wellington down 27%. The economy stuck in the mud.They are not wrong about the numbers.
    But I think they have got the story wrong.
    Bloomberg is treating falling house prices as the tragedy. I do not think that is the real tragedy. The real tragedy is what falling house prices revealed.
    We did not just build a country with expensive houses. We built a country where housing became the economy. And councils worked that out pretty quickly.
    Every new house became a chance to clip the ticket. Development contributions. Consent fees. Inspection fees. Infrastructure charges. Rates. More reports. More consultants. More delays.
    Somewhere along the way, councils stopped seeing new housing as something to enable and started treating it like a funding machine. Not just for the direct cost of growth. For everything.
    Then they act shocked that new homes cost too much.
    You cannot load cost after cost after cost onto new housing, and then complain houses are unaffordable.
    That is the bit nobody wants to say out loud.
    And now politicians and commentators want to blame mum and dad investors for the mess. The couple who saved hard, took a risk, and bought 1 or 2 rentals.
    Come on.
    Blaming them for the housing crisis is like blaming punters at the pub for the price of beer.
    They did not write the rules. They responded to the rules the system gave them. Just like everyone else.
    We do not have a housing problem.
    We have a country that decided housing was the economy.

A "country" that decided that? Or politicians who determined that, with planning and building rules restricting supply while central bankers gave us near-zero interest rates and pandemic-era stimulus. 

So house prices have fallen. Good. But fallen only to what they were only a half-dozen years ago.

The fall is not the tragedy. 

The fall is the correction. 

Or (if supply is allowed to increase) perhaps the beginning of one. 

Does Demand Create Supply?

Amongst the first reactions when Nicola Willis announced a coming cut in Wellington's bureaucrats came the outcry that the reduced consumer spending by those unemployed grey ones will keep Wellington "at the bottom of the pack in terms of things like economic activity," their reduced demand leading (so it's said) to a downward spiral.

The most cited author of that premise is alleged economist Nick Brunsdon, who seems to labour under the illusion that economic causality can be reversed, that demand induced by govt deficits somehow creates its own productive supply -- that if government keeps on over- spending and injecting new money into the economy, then productive wealth will follow. Fortunately, Frank Shostak is here in this Guest Post to dispel that destructive illusion ...

Does Demand Create Supply?

by Frank Shostak

By popular thinking, increases in demand cause economic growth. According to such thought, whenever the economy falls into a recession what is required is to strengthen demand. Since government is seen as an important part of total demand, what is then required is to increase government outlays, thereby lifting overall demand and hence increasing economic growth.

According to the popular view, it is also possible to strengthen overall demand through the inflationary increases in money supply. With more money in their possession, and for given prices, the so-called real balances will increase and this, in turn, will strengthen individuals’ expenditure on goods and services. This allegedly will strengthen the economy’s overall demand and will strengthen economic growth. A decline in the prices for a given money supply will also boost the real balances and thus the economic growth. 

But does it make sense that demand is the key driver of the economy?

In the free market economy, wealth-generators do not produce everything for their own consumption. Part of their production is used to exchange for the products of other producers. Hence, in the free market economy, production precedes consumption. This means that something is exchanged for something else. This also means that an increase in the production of goods and services sets in motion an increase in the demand for goods and services. According to David Ricardo,

No man produces but with a view to consume or sell, and he never sells but with an intention to purchase some other commodity, which may be immediately useful to him, or which may contribute to future production. By producing, then, he necessarily becomes either the consumer of his own goods, or the purchaser and consumer of the goods of some other person.

An individual’s demand is constrained by his ability to produce goods demanded by others. The more goods that an individual can produce, the more goods he can demand.

Expanding Private Savings: Key to Economic Growth

Without the expansion and the enhancement of the production structure, it is difficult to increase the supply of goods and services. The expansion and enhancement of the production structure hinges on the expansion of production, private saving, and capital investment. Saving supports individuals in the various stages of production. It supports individuals that are employed in the enhancement and the expansion of the production structure. Hence, what matters for economic growth is not just tools, machinery, and labour, but saving and investment in capital goods.

Government Is Not a Wealth-Generator

Contrary to popular thinking, the government does not produce any wealth. Increases in government spending cannot grow the economy. By nature, the government must take from the private, productive economy to facilitate any of its actions. By doing this, the government weakens the wealth-generating process and undermines prospects for economic recovery during a downturn. According to Murray Rothbard,

Since genuine demand only comes from the supply of products, and since the government is not productive, it follows that government spending cannot truly increase demand.

Likewise, an increase in money supply only sets in motion an exchange of nothing for something. This means a weakening in the process of wealth formation and leads to economic impoverishment.

An important factor that makes the fiscal and monetary stimulus appear to “work” is if the amount of private savings is large enough to support non-wealth generating activities while still permitting a growth rate in the activities of wealth generators. It also gives the appearance of wealth as new sectors are stimulated. Additionally, if funded by inflation, the benefits of inflation appear early and are only realised later.

If, however, voluntary saving is declining, then, regardless of any increase in government spending and inflation by the central bank, overall economic activity cannot be revived. In this case, the more the government spends, and the more the central bank inflates, the more will be taken from wealth-generators, thereby weakening any prospect for a recovery. Additionally, these measures will further distort the economy.

As one can see, not only does the increase in the expansionary fiscal and monetary policies not raise overall output, but, on the contrary, it leads to a weakening in the process of wealth generation in general. According to Jean Baptiste Say,

. . .the only real consumers are those who produce on their part, because they alone can buy the produce of others, [while]. . .barren consumers can buy nothing except by the means of value created by [actual] producers.

Conclusion

By popular thinking, increases in government spending and central bank inflation strengthens the economy’s overall demand. This, in turn, sets in motion increases in the production of goods and services. What we have here is a claim that “demand creates supply.” However, to be able to exchange something for goods and services, individuals must first have something that others want. This means that, in order to demand goods and services, individuals must produce something useful first. Hence, supply drives demand and not the other way around. Governments, by nature, must take from the private, productive sector in order to fund their activities. Increases in government spending and the money supply growth rate results in the diversion of savings from the wealth-generators to non-wealth-generators, thus undermining the wealth generating process.

* * * * 

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University and has taught at the University of Pretoria and the Graduate Business School at Witwatersrand University. Frank’s publishes frequent posts on economics and the markets on his Substack page.

His post first appeared at the Mises Wire.

Deregulation in Argentina: Milei Takes “Deep Chainsaw” to Bureaucracy and Red Tape

Argentine President Javier Milei has lowered inflation, drastically reduced government spending, and dismantled large parts of the federal bureaucracy. But as Ian Vásquez points out in his guest post, one of the most far-reaching efforts by his administration has been its deregulation push, with officials implementing about two deregulations per day on average since he took office, and using ingenious ways to discover where most needs deregulation. It's an Example for the World, if only New Zealand were not too sclerotic to learn from it ...

Deregulation in Argentina: Milei Takes “Deep Chainsaw” to Bureaucracy and Red Tape

by Ian Vásquez
At the heart of Argentina’s chronically crisis-prone economy is a political system that encourages unconstrained public spending and overregulation in the extreme. It is the system set up by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1940s that strengthened in subsequent decades, and that President Javier Milei promised to cut down with a chainsaw and replace with classical-liberal policies of the kind that made his country one of the most prosperous in the world a century ago.

Since assuming power in December 2023, Milei has been slashing government to that end. His priorities have been to get spending under control and to deregulate. Milei cut the budget by about 30 percent and balanced it one month into his term. That facilitated more disciplined monetary policy and the reduction of inflation from 25 percent per month when the president came to office to 2.2 percent in January 2025.

The success that Milei’s economic stabilisation has had so far is now widely acknowledged. The president took an economy from crisis to recovery much faster than most people expected: Growth returned in the second half of 2024, wages have increased, and the poverty rate, after having initially risen, has fallen below the 40 percent range that the previous government left as part of its legacy.

How much Milei has been deregulating, however, and the role that deregulation plays in Argentina’s success, is less widely appreciated—yet it is every bit as important as cutting spending. To understand why, it helps to know something about what makes Argentina’s politics different from that of most countries.

Argentina’s Peronist System

For more than seven decades, Argentina has had a corporatist system that Perón set up using Mussolini’s fascist Italy as a model. Under that system, the state organises society into groups—trade unions, business guilds, public employees, and so on—with which it negotiates to set national policies and balance interests. It’s a kind of collectivism that erases the individual, centralises power in the state, and incentivizes interest groups to compete for government favoritism through public spending and regulation.

This system gave rise to a proliferation of rules intended to protect and promote particular sectors through price controls, licensing schemes, differential exchange rates depending on type of economic activity, capital controls, preferential borrowing rates, compulsory membership in (and support of) guilds, and other interventions.

The system that the Peronist party set up discouraged free exchange, competition, and productivity but became deeply entrenched. Privileges accorded by regulation were politically difficult to lift. Legal scholar Jorge Bustamante, moreover, notes that regulation plays a more significant role in redistributing wealth in Argentina than fiscal policy does. He adds that “the waste of scarce resources caused by regulations is more serious than the direct activity of the state in the economy itself [fiscal policy], which is known to be in deficit.”

Unions in particular gained immense political power. Such was the case that Bustamante describes the Argentine system as one that “converts the unions into organs of the state when the party to which they belong [the Peronist party] is in power or converts the state into a prisoner of the unions when the party is in the opposition.”

Federico Sturzenegger, Argentina’s minister of deregulation and state transformation, made a similar point at the Cato conference we held in Buenos Aires in June 2024 with President Milei and other leading classical liberals. “The Peronist party,” Sturzenegger said, “is the manager of the status quo.… It is the manager of the vested interests; it is the conservative party of Argentina.”

The Peronists may want to conserve the system, but Milei is right in cutting it down. According to Cato's Human Freedom Index, the Argentina that the president inherited is one of the most regulated countries in the world, ranking 146 out of 165 countries in terms of the regulatory burden. As of last year, it ranked 81st.

Milei’s Cuts in One Year

Since coming to power, Milei has made wide-ranging cuts to Argentina’s bureaucracy. In his first year, he reduced the number of ministries from 18 to 8 (eliminating some and merging others), fired 37,000 public employees, and abolished about 100 secretariats and subsecretariats in addition to more than 200 lower-level bureaucratic departments.

The president has also aggressively pursued deregulation. Using a conservative methodology, my colleague Guillermina Sutter Schneider and I calculated that during Milei’s first year in office, he implemented about two deregulations per day. Roughly half of the measures eliminated regulations altogether, while the rest modified existing regulations in a generally market-oriented direction.

Milei has implemented these reforms legally and constitutionally, and they have resulted mainly from two broad measures. First, Milei began his administration by issuing an emergency “megadecree” that consisted of 366 articles. Emergency decrees are consistent with Argentine law if they meet certain conditions. They are also reviewable by Congress, which has the right to reject the orders within a specified period of time. Since the legislature did not object, most of the deregulations in the megadecree went into effect.

Second, Congress approved a massive bill (“Ley Bases”) last June that allows the government to issue further deregulatory decrees for one year. Most of Argentina’s deregulations are taking place under that authority and have been led by the new Ministry of Deregulation that began operating the following month.

The ministry is literally in a race against time, and its sense of urgency is palpable. When I visited Minister Sturzenegger and his team in November, they showed me a countdown sign outside his office that read “237 days left,” indicating the time remaining for the government to continue issuing deregulatory decrees. Sturzenegger’s team—made up of legal experts and accomplished economists—also has a clear sense of mission: to increase freedom rather than make the government more efficient. When reviewing a regulation, therefore, they first question whether the government should be involved in that area at all.

Following that approach, the government implemented deregulations in sectors of the economy ranging from agriculture and energy to transportation and housing. 

Looking at Prices

To help prioritise those reforms, the ministry looks at prices. If the cost of a good or service is significantly higher in Argentina than internationally, the regulatory burden often explains the price differential. Sturzenegger reports that deregulation in Argentina has tended to make prices fall by about 30 percent. The ministry has also set up a web portal called Report the Bureaucracy that takes recommendations from businesses and the public, resulting in numerous reforms.

Some of the reforms have been procedural. For example, government inspections are now sometimes conducted after a firm begins engaging in business (on the assumption that it is following the law and may be subject to inspection), rather than before any business is allowed to even go forward. This “ex-post” inspection of the labeling of imported textiles, for instance, led the price of textiles to fall by 29 percent. 

The government has also instituted a “positive administrative silence” rule affecting several activities by which requested permission is considered approved if the government bureaucracy does not respond within a fixed period of time. In yet another example, Milei prohibited legally sanctioned hereditary positions that had become normal practice at numerous government agencies.

Much of the impact of the deregulations has not yet been measured, but the hard or anecdotal evidence that does exist suggests that the reforms are making a significant difference. The following are some accomplishments from Milei’s first year:

• The end of Argentina’s extensive rent controls has resulted in a tripling of the supply of rental apartments in Buenos Aires and a 30 percent drop in price.
• The new open-skies policy and the permission for small airplane owners to provide transportation services within Argentina has led to an increase in the number of airline services and routes operating within (and to and from) the country.
• Permitting Starlink and other companies to provide satellite internet services has given connectivity to large swaths of Argentina that had no such connection previously. Anecdotal evidence from a town in the remote northwestern province of Jujuy implies a 90 percent drop in the price of connectivity.
• The government repealed the “Buy Argentina” law similar to “Buy American” laws, and it repealed laws that required stores to stock their shelves according to specific rules governing which products, by which companies and which nationalities, could be displayed in which order and in which proportions.
• Over-the-counter medicines can now be sold not just by pharmacies but by other businesses as well. This has resulted in online sales and price drops.
• The elimination of an import-licensing scheme has led to a 
• 20 percent drop in the price of clothing items and a 35 percent drop in the price of home appliances.
• The government ended the requirement that public employees purchase flights on the more expensive state airline and that other airlines cannot park their airplanes overnight at one of the main airports in Buenos Aires.

Many more examples could be given, but there’s no doubt that Argentines are beginning to feel the results of the reforms. Those results also help explain Milei’s approval rating of 50 to 55 percent, according to recent polls.

Year Two of Milei: The “Deep Chainsaw” Begins

In his address to the nation on his one-year anniversary as president, Milei explained that the cuts he’s made so far are only a beginning. “We will continue to eliminate agencies, secretariats, subsecretariats, public companies and any other State entity that should not exist,” he promised, and then went further: “Every attribution or task that does not correspond to what the federal state is supposed to do will be eliminated. Because as the state gets smaller, liberty grows larger.” Milei declared that he would now begin applying the “deep chainsaw.”

Minister Sturzenegger is leading the charge. A decree in February instructed all ministers to review all laws and regulations under their purview and recommend comprehensive deregulations within 30 days. In a country with nearly 300,000 laws, decrees, or resolutions, that is no small task. But according to Sturzenegger, the government has cut or modified 20 percent of the country’s laws; his goal is to reach 70 percent. He adds that the pace of firing public employees will increase.

Regulatory reforms have already picked up pace. In January, Sturzenegger announced a “revolutionary deregulation” of the export and import of food. All food that has been certified by countries with high sanitary standards can now be imported without further approval from, or registration with, the Argentine state. Food exports must now comply only with the regulations of the destination country and are unencumbered by domestic regulations.

That innovative reform, which outsources regulation, is intended to generate “cheaper food for Argentines and more Argentine food for the world.” But it is also an example of how the ministry takes input from Argentine citizens about the need to change nonsensical regulations. As Sturzenegger explained: “Countless companies have told us of the incredible hardships they had to go through to meet local requirements that were not required by the destination market. A producer who needed to certify a sample to see if he could enter the US market was asked to set up a factory first.”

In another case, Argentina required a watermelon exporter to package his product in a way that was different from what the recipient country required. So, in practice, the exporter would load the ship in compliance with Argentine law and, once the cargo left port, the watermelons would immediately be repacked.

Other examples abound. A decree in February facilitated farmers’ use of new seeds by eliminating the requirement to conduct extensive testing of those seeds. As Sturzenegger observed, in a country where agriculture plays a significant economic role, those restrictions were especially perverse: “Brazil has tripled its soybean production, largely with seeds made by Argentine researchers, working in Argentine companies but based in Brazil. The dramatic thing is that the increase in production in Brazil sinks the price of the grain while we are relatively stagnant because we cannot access our own technology!”

Another decree reduces the cost of warehousing imported containers awaiting customs inspections by an estimated 80 percent because it allows importers to keep their goods in competing locations during that time rather than solely in places run by the customs service. That cost reduction, like countless others that result from accelerated regulatory reforms, will be passed on to Argentine consumers. And to the extent that the chainsaw really does go deeper and faster in year two, the benefits will be even more pronounced.

An Example for the World

Milei’s task of turning Argentina once again into one of the freest and most prosperous countries in the world is herculean. But deregulation plays a key role in achieving that goal, and despite the reform agenda being far from complete, Milei has already exceeded most people’s expectations. 

His deregulations are cutting costs, increasing economic freedom, reducing opportunities for corruption, stimulating growth, and helping to overturn a failed and corrupt political system. Because of the scope, method, and extent of its deregulations, Argentina is setting an example for an overregulated world.

* * * * 

Ian Vásquez is Ian Vásquez is vice president for international studies at the Cato Institute, holds the David Boaz Chair, and is director of Cato’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. He is a weekly columnist at El Comercio (Peru), and his articles have appeared in newspapers throughout the United States and Latin America.

His post first appeared at the Cato at Liberty blog.

Treasury's Chief Strategist doesn't understand inflation

Sadly, it seems the NZ Treasury's Chief Strategist Struan Little doesn't understand inflation.

Speaking to the NZ Capital Markets Forum, he gave the audience a helpful rule of thumb for fuel price rises here: 

[E]very US$10 increase per barrel of oil roughly translates to 10 cents a litre extra for New Zealanders at the petrol pump. Therefore, prices at around US$100 a barrel mean a 40 cents a litre increase in New Zealand.

That's helpful. The conclusion he drew from that however is not:

In that scenario [he said] ... the impact on CPI [i.e., of the official inflation figure] would be around 0.5 percentage points – that is around 3.1 – 3.2% instead of 2.7% in the baseline in the year to June 2026.

This is nonsense.

Yes, there will be a rise in the specific price level of oil. But unless there is a concomitant rise in the local money supply, there is no way that can cause a rise in the general price level, which is what the CPI is supposed to measure.

In fact, in the absence of a concomitant rise in money supply, the impact on the general price level will be precisely zero because to spend more on fuel means having to spend less on other things. 

Yes, the price rise for oil does affect almost every thing in the economic system. Which makes a problem for all of us. But the only way for all those other things to rise in price as well is for there to be an across-the-board increase in monetary demand. And the only way that can be possible is for there to be an increase in the supply of money available -- the most likely cause of that in the present environment being governments continuing to borrow too heavily.

Little's error is an example of what economist George Reisman calls the myth of Crisis-Push Inflation -- a subset of the myth of so-called Cost-Push Inflation. It's usually a way for politicians to deflect attention for  their profligacy in borrowing.

At least Little does call that out, even if he falls prey to that other error. 

'The Blithering Economic Crackpottery Of Donald J. Trump'

"Just when you thought that the Donald had already won the derby for economic crackpottery, he comes up with another even more fakakta entry. This one spilled forth when asked whether the President should have a say in monetary policy:

".... It should be done,” Trump said....”I don’t think he should do exactly what we say. But certainly we’re — I’m a smart voice and should be listened to.”

Asked how low he would like to see interest rates go, Trump made it clear he wants the new Fed chief to be aggressive. Rates should be “1% and maybe lower than that,” Trump said. “We should have the lowest rate in the world.”

"Well, actually, it was only a matter of time until we got a domineering dufus in the Oval Office who has no compunction about loudly displaying his barking economic ignorance. To our knowledge there has never been an economist—-left, right, or centre—–and possessing intellectual faculties—brilliant, feeble or in-between—- who has claimed that the 'lowest rate in the world' has anything to do with anything when it comes to monetary policy.

"The Donald’s quip here is just sui generis humbug—a word salad, if you will, on a very crucial matter that makes Kamala Harris sound like a deep thinker. After all, who in their right mind would think that having a lower rate then the likes of Zimbabwe, Venezuela (or the Wiemar Republic for that matter) or dozens of other inflaters that dot the world economy even today provides any kind of monetary standard? 
...

"Interest rates are the price of money and debt and provide the benchmark for the valuation of all financial assets and real estate. They are, accordingly, the most important price in the entire capitalist economy and they should therefore be set by the free market, not the FOMC, the POTUS or any other arm or agency of the state.

"However, once the government apparatchiks who comprise the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) seized the power to set interest rates decades ago it was foreordained that some unhinged know-it-all would end up in the Oval Office claiming a piece of the action. ...

"[W]here in the hell does the Donald think inflation comes from—-failure of the Peruvian anchovies schools ... ? The Hunt brothers cornering the silver market ...? OPEC meetings ...? The beef processors cartel ...? 

"The fact is, the guy is 79 years old and has been pontificating on how to fuel prosperity and remedy inflation and other economic ills for decades, and most especially since he came down the escalator in June 2015. Yet has it ever once occurred to him that the easy money and ever lower interest rates at the central bank that he has ceaselessly advocated is actually the one and only cause of 'inflation,' and that’s the case with respect to both goods and services and financial asset prices, too?

"As it has happened, since the turn of the century the real Fed funds rate on overnight money 

(blue line, below) has been below the zero bound 75% of the time ... [meaning that s]hort-term money for gambling and speculation on Wall Street and main street alike has been free after inflation for the entirety of this century to date.

"So is there any mystery as to why the purchasing power of the consumer’s dollar earned or saved in the year 2000 has already lost 50% of it value? ... [Yet] the Donald has endlessly denounced [those responsible] for not running the printing presses even faster and hotter....

"Once upon a time, the GOP knew that inflation comes everywhere and always from the printing presses of the central bank. But as of December 2025 it has turned into such a sheepish herd of partisan hacks that it has the audacity to claim that it’s all Sleepy Joe’s fault.

"And yet and yet. The Donald is now demanding the very same 1% interest rates and another central bank printing spree that caused the last inflationary flare-up. And he is doing so while falsely claiming that he has single-handedly ended the inflation that he actually fostered during his first go round in the Oval Office. ...

"At the end of the day, the Donald has made no impact on [lowering] the inflation rate to date, but is fixing to push it materially higher owing to his out-of-this-world TariffPalooza and his utterly insensible demand that the Fed undertake another plunge into 1.0% money.

Then again, easy money, big spending and high tariff-taxes amount to the blithering crackpottery that is the essence of Trump-O-Nomics. And that surely ain’t no recipe for a new Golden Age of Prosperity."

~ David Stockman from his post 'On The Blithering Economic Crackpottery Of Donald J. Trump'

Real Fed Funds Rate Versus Purchasing Power Of The Consumer Dollar, 2000-2025

"High house prices are nature’s most reliable contraceptive"

"[A]dvanced economies are halving their populations every generation ... Naturally, everyone blames 'fertility.' As though biology suddenly went on strike sometime around 1992.

"But neither ovaries nor sperm unionised. The culprit is more prosaic—house prices. ... A new study confirmed what few were willing to admit. Housing costs explain more than half the baby drought. If housing had been more affordable in recent decades, decline in fertility would have been smaller by 51%. ...

"High house prices, it seems, are nature’s most reliable contraceptive."

~ Benno Blaschke from his post 'House prices are the new birth control'

Should we end capitalism? Or embrace it.

"Capitalism ... has been, blamed for various ills, from poverty and income inequality to pollution, inflation, child labour, and war. ... Capitalism is misunderstood because it is often confused with today’s mixed economy that combines varying degrees of economic freedom and statism. Statism gives the government unlimited power that it uses to tax, regulate, and subsidize individuals and businesses and to hand out favors (government contracts, lower tax rates, subsidies) to companies that make political contributions and do the government’s bidding.

"Because of this confusion, people blame capitalism for problems caused by the mixed economy and statism in particular.

"Consider poverty and income equality. Poverty is most persistent in countries where the government deters wealth creation through high levels of market controls, taxation, and corruption that constrain economic growth, entrepreneurship, job opportunities, and people’s ability to work themselves out of poverty and improve their incomes. The same can be said of child labour (a consequence of poverty), inflation (caused by government manipulation of the money supply, not by business seeking to maximise profits in a free market), and war (caused by government invasion of another country).

"Capitalism does not cause the problems it is blamed for but provides solutions by safeguarding freedom. ...

"In Ayn Rand’s definition, “capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” In such a system, the government’s role is limited to protecting individual freedom ... by deterring and punishing the initiation of physical force against others ... Under capitalism, the only way to get others to collaborate is through persuasion and voluntary trade.

"Although pure laissez-faire capitalism has never fully existed ... some historical periods and countries have approximated capitalism ... [Northern] America during the 19th century (the longest uninterrupted period of peace); England, France, and other European countries during the Enlightenment (that brought about the Industrial Revolution); Hong Kong (before China’s takeover); and smaller countries like Estonia (that liberalised their economies after the collapse of the Soviet Union).

"Capitalism is good for people and their environment because it produces and protects freedom, the social condition that human flourishing requires. ... [C]apitalism did not create today’s problems but has helped solve or reduce them. ...

"If we want human flourishing to increase, we must not reject and banish capitalism but embrace and defend it ... "

~ Jaana Woiceshyn from her post 'Should we end capitalism?'

Pay no attention to the (mad) men behind the curtain [updated]

Readers here might remember I got some stick for calling John Key a fucking moron a while back. A fucking moron, specifically, for repeated calls for the Reserve Bank to juice up house prices again, just so home-owning voters will feel better again. Feel better again, and then vote National.

"The guts of what’s wrong," explained the moron, "is that the housing market is going down, not up" — and "then you have a negative wealth effect," and voters feel bad. And when they feel bad, they vote for the other team.

Classic short-termism.  Stuff rocket fuel into the economy, and then all things will be jake for the governing political parties. This, by the way, was Key's "one simple trick" while Prime Minister: ensure massive house-price inflation, no matter the economic and social dislocation, and then sit back and watch home-owners fooled into feeling better off, and borrowing and consuming more, regardless of the economic consequences. (Consequences for which we're all still paying, by the way.)

In the US, the discredited "wealth effect" — "a gussied-up version of Keynesian stimulus, only targeted at the prosperous classes rather than the government’s client classes" — is generally felt in the stock market. Pundits there are starting to get nervous about a soaring stock market with anaemic growth in the economic system itself, with "important implications for the path of America’s stockmarket boom and its economy."

The good times could continue, at least for a bit longer [says 'The Economist']. ... [But] might a wealthier society also take a harder fall? Bears would point to the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000, when a brutal stockmarket slump pushed America into recession. ... The stockmarket might be more of the economy. It still is not all of it.

It's not. And nor is the housing market. We can't get rich just by selling each other houses. (And kudos to one National minister at least who understands that.)

Yet David Stockman is concerned that nothing has been learned from the last major crash. 

Roughly 15 years ago it was reasonably well understood that the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009 had been case of speculation run amuck on both Wall Street and main street alike. These credit and housing bubbles, in turn, had been fuelled by the massive money-printing sprees of the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed.

It might have been presumed, therefore, that the mad money-printers [at the US central bank] would have had second thoughts about the underlying cause of these great economic disasters—that is, the dubious Greenspan policy known as the “wealth effects” doctrine. In simple terms the latter held that if people felt richer owing to soaring home prices and their stock market winnings, they would spend more freely and fulsomely, thereby goosing the Keynesian cycle of ever more spending-sales-production-income-and spending, which was to be rinsed and repeated in an endless round of rising prosperity.

At the end of the day, of course, Greenspan and his heirs and assigns at the Fed turned out to be unreconstructed Keynesians and the wealth effects doctrine a monumental economic con job. The latter did not make society richer; it just made the rich richer. Or stated more directly, main street got inflation at the grocery store, gas pump and doctor’s office—even as the asset-holding class experienced unspeakable windfalls in their brokerage accounts.

Let's not repeat the same mistake again here — especially when local interest rates are already below our trading partners, with no noticeable effect on genuine economic progress. Please: pay no attention to the mad men behind the curtain.

UPDATE:

"The advocates of annual increases in the quantity of money never mention the fact that for all those who do not get a share of the newly created additional quantity of money, the government's action means a drop in their purchasing power which forces them to restrict their consumption. It is ignorance of this fundamental fact that induces various authors of economic books and articles to suggest a yearly increase of money without realising that such a measure necessarily brings about an undesirable impoverishment of a great part, even the majority, of the population."

~ Ludwig von Mises from an interview 'On Current Monetary Problems'