Socialism rejects human action and economic calculation and sells a false image of a government that can create wealth at will by issuing more units of fiat currency. Obviously, when inflation arrives, the socialist government will use its two favorite tools: propaganda and repression. Propaganda, which accuses stores and businesses of driving up prices, and repression, which occurs when social unrest intensifies and citizens legitimately hold governments accountable for scarcity and high prices, are the two main strategies.

If you want lower prices, you need to give less economic power to the government, not more. Only free markets, competition, and open economies help decrease consumer prices. Many readers might think that we currently have a free market with competitive and open economies, but the reality is that we live in increasingly intervened and overregulated nations where central banks and governments work to perpetuate unsustainable public deficits and debt. Therefore, they continue to print more money, leading many to question why it is getting harder for families to make ends meet, buy a home, or for small businesses to prosper. The government is slowly eating away the currency it issues. They call it “social use of money.”

What is “social use of money”? In essence, it means abandoning one of the main characteristics of money, the reserve of value, to give the government preferential access to credit to finance its commitments. Therefore, the state can announce larger entitlement programs and increase the size of the public sector relative to the economy, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The state issues more currency, which makes people’s money less valuable. Citizens become more dependent on the state, and they will demand more subsidies paid in the currency the state issues. It is, in essence, a process of control through debt and currency depreciation.

When governments and central banks talk about price stability, it means a two percent annual depreciation of the currency. Aggregate prices rising an average of two percent is hardly price stability because it is measured by the consumer price index, which is a carefully crafted basket of goods and services weighted by the same people who print the money. That is why governments love CPI as a measure of inflation. It fails to fully reflect the erosion of the currency’s purchasing power. This is why the CPI’s basket calculation fluctuates so frequently. Even if it accurately measures, it will underestimate the rise in prices of non-replaceable goods and services by adding them to a basket of things we consume maybe once or twice a year at best. When you put together shelter, food, health, and energy with technology and entertainment, there will always be distortions.

Thus, governments and central banks are never going to defend price stability. If aggregate prices fell, competition soared, and citizens saw their real wages rise and their deposit savings increase in real value, their jobs would disappear.

When a central bank like the Fed cuts rates and increases the money supply after an accumulated 20.4% inflation in four years, it is not defending price stability; it is defending price increases. This strategy serves to conceal the government’s financial insolvency. A currency with a declining value.

Governments are the ones that create inflation by spending a currency that is constantly losing purchasing power because the state issues more than what the private sector demands. No corporation or allegedly evil oil producer can make aggregate prices rise and continue increasing annually at a lower pace. Only the one that prints the money, and central banks don’t print money because they want to; they increase the money supply to absorb rising public deficit spending.

Inflation is a hidden tax, a slow process of nationalization of the economy, and the perfect way to increase taxes without angering voters and blaming private businesses in the meantime. The consumer will likely blame the store or business for higher prices, not the issuer of a currency that loses purchasing power.

Why would governments want higher prices? Because it gives them more power. Destroying the currency they issue is a perfect form of control. That is why they need more debt and higher taxes. High taxes are not a tool to reduce debt, but rather to justify rising public indebtedness.

You may have read numerous times that the government has unlimited borrowing power and can manage inflation to allow you to live comfortably. It is false. The government cannot issue all the debt it wants. It has an inflationary, economic, and fiscal limit.

Inflation is a warning sign of declining currency confidence and a loss of purchasing power. The economic limit is evidenced by lower growth, lower employment, weaker real wages, secular stagnation, and declining foreign demand for public debt.

The fiscal limit is evidenced by soaring interest expenses even with low rates, weaker receipts every time they hike taxes, and citizens and businesses leaving the country to more friendly tax systems, all of which add to the poor or negative multiplier effect of government spending.

If you want lower prices, you should give less economic power to governments, not more.

A government that tells you it will borrow $2 trillion per annum in a growth and record receipt economy and will continue to increase debt and borrow well into 2033 with the most optimistic assumptions of GDP and receipt is telling you it will make you poorer.

When a politician promises that he or she will cut prices, they are always lying. A weaker currency is a tool to increase government power in the economy. By the time you find out, it may be too late.

Money is credit, and government debt is fiat currency. Currency depreciation is inflation, and inflation is equivalent to an implicit default. No interventionist government or central bank wants lower prices because inflation allows the government to increase its power while slowly breaching its monetary commitments.

Since then, we have seen a chain of fresh stimulus policies implemented by developed economies, adding to the large fiscal packages already in place. Multi-trillion-dollar investment packages like the EU Next Generation Fund now include massive deficit spending plans. However, money velocity is not rising. All these programs only lead to secular stagnation. Government projects and current expenditures are consuming money at an unprecedented rate.

Developed economies cannot live without new and larger spending plans. The result is more debt, weaker productivity growth, and declining real wages.

In a recent report, Bank of America showed that the rise of unproductive debt has created a significant problem for the United States economy. For every dollar of new government debt, the gross domestic product impact has slumped to less than fifty cents. The United States is drowning in unproductive debt. However, at least the United States has some productivity growth. If we look at the euro area, the negative multiplier effect of new government debt is extremely evident. Despite enormous stimulus plans and negative nominal rates, the euro area has been stagnating for years.

Many of you may believe that bad policies and careless government spending are to blame, but I think this is intentional. It is a slow process of nationalizing the economy. Slowly depleting the middle class’s savings due to consistently declining real wages, the government expands its influence in the economy, garnering support from a substantial portion of the populace.

Market participants love this. A new stimulus plan means more money printing, which will bring more liquidity to markets and fuel multiple expansions regardless of weak economic figures. However, my esteemed colleagues should be wiser when hailing the next stage of financial repression. Discontent is rising among citizens, and one way or another, this will end badly.

Debt crises may not appear the same way as they used to. It is not a cataclysmic event but a slow boiling that leads to the same impoverishment.

Neo-Keynesians look at the past four years of the United States economy and claim victory. However, for many in the United States middle class, their impoverishment over the past four years has been like that of Greek citizens in 2009.

When central banks think of a soft landing, they are looking at a gradual erosion of the purchasing power of salaries and deposits. This is precisely what we are experiencing, compounded by the additional burden of higher taxes. There is no such thing as a soft landing. Only government bureaucrats and those who can conceal their wealth from money destruction can benefit from a soft landing.

This new increase in money supply may not bring a fresh burst of inflation because money velocity is not rising as well. However, that means lower investment, lower growth, and lower productivity. Market prices, multiple expansions, and bubbles may appear again, while families and small businesses find themselves in a tougher spot.

The back-to-back chain of stimulus plans shows the failure of Keynesian policies. We used to witness the introduction of a new spending and rate-cutting program a few years after the previous one. Now, governments simply add new programs on top of each other and claim that the economy is about to turn the corner.

Government spending consumes the majority of newly created money, leaving the productive economy with decreasing access to credit, declining currency purchasing power, and wealth confiscation through taxes and currency printing.

According to the most recent OECD report, inflation will be 3.5% with a global growth rate of 3.3% in 2025. The introduction of massive new spending and financial repression programs has resulted in 80% of OECD countries experiencing annual inflation that exceeds their central banks’ target. There is a global policy of absorbing productive and private sector wealth. A few years ago, someone dared to say, “You will not have anything, but you will be happy,” and most people understood the dangers of that promise. Nowadays, no one says it anymore. They’re just implementing it slowly. You will be poorer. Protect yourself from inflation and financial repression, or you will be a dependent subclass.

If the current administration remains in power, the Treasury’s own estimates predict an additional $16 trillion increase in debt by 2034, without accounting for any recession or slowdown in tax receipts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic plan would add another $1.9 trillion to $2.2 trillion to the national debt.

The Harris campaign has not even bothered to discuss a plan to balance the budget. She just said that “efficiency” and the old fallacy of higher taxes on the rich would pay for the increase in spending—two things that have proven to do nothing to the ballooning debt and that do not even start to scratch the already unsustainable $2 trillion annual deficit.

This reckless increase in debt is happening in an economic growth period. However, if we adjust for government debt accumulation, 2021 to 2024 were the worst years of growth, adjusted for debt, since the 1930s.

In a recent article, economist Claudia Sahm stated that we shouldn’t worry about debt. “Debt is neither inherently good nor bad,” she wrote in an opinion column for Bloomberg back in January. “As such, the question is not what’s the right level of borrowing, but rather what’s the economic return on the borrowing or the societal goals it advances.”

She went on to say that “the government can easily service its debt because of its unlimited taxing authority and ability to issue more U.S. Treasury securities to repay maturing securities.”

Now you must worry. A lot.

Unproductive Borrowing ‘Inherently’ Bad

Let us start with the benign idea of “economic return on borrowing and societal goals.” The evidence from the United States indicates that the economic return is extremely low. Entitlement spending has not strengthened the economic growth path, and debt continues to rise faster than gross domestic product.

It’s true that debt is not inherently bad, but unproductive borrowing is. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from the productive sector to the bloated bureaucratic state.

Furthermore, the societal goals cannot be unlimited. The government must administer and not just add expenditures to previous expenditures, particularly when there is no realistic analysis of the success or failure of government programs.

The idea that a particular government program is beneficial is not enough to add it to the budget without reducing other expenses. Not even a benign view of government spending as Sahm’s can justify that every government expenditure item today is essential.

Furthermore, we must always understand that governments do not give money for free. They tax the productive sector and borrow, which means printing a currency that is constantly losing purchasing power. Therefore, the government is not advancing societal goals by borrowing without control. It is implementing a profoundly regressive policy that creates a dependent subclass and makes it increasingly difficult for the middle class to thrive.

Economic, Fiscal, and Inflationary Limits

It’s false that the government has “unlimited” taxing authority and the ability to issue more debt, i.e., print money.

The government has economic, fiscal, and inflationary limits: Economic, because constantly increasing taxation leads to stagnation and more debt; fiscal, because expenditures are consolidated and annualized, while tax receipts are cyclical; and inflationary, because the constant issuance of new currency, which is what happens when more debt is issued, leads to the loss of confidence in the currency and the erosion of its purchasing power.

If what Sahm states were true, the euro area and Japan would be examples of high growth and economic strength, but they are examples of stagnation, high debt, and rising social discontent.

The government does not set taxes to fund its incessant spending habits. Taxes should be set according to the economic reality of an economy. The fallacy of taxes on the rich and corporations does not even address the ballooning deficit and erodes economic growth and productive investment.

When someone tells you not to worry about record debt, you should be extremely concerned. When they say that the government has unlimited resources, they mean that you will pay by becoming poorer with more taxes, more inflation, lower growth, or all three at the same time.

When they tell you that $35 trillion of debt is peanuts compared with $142 trillion of American wealth, they are saying that the government will be pleased to absorb the wealth of the economy. You will pay.

Private Sector Isn’t an ATM

When they tell you that tax cuts are the problem, it comes from the perspective that the private sector is an ATM at the disposal of governments.

Tax cuts do not reduce revenues, just as tax hikes do not raise them forever. Tax cuts adjust the taxable base to the real economy in order to encourage more investment and growth.

Tax cuts are not a loss for the government. They are a win for the economy. It is simply a return of funds to those who have earned them. The idea that funds are better in the hands of the government than in the pockets of those who earned them is confiscatory.

It’s ludicrous to think that the government knows better than the private sector where and how to spend money. Additionally, it’s insane to believe that the government will not squander the funds and bloat the administrative costs.

Furthermore, it’s foolish to assume that corporations and the affluent will hoard unused funds. There’s no such thing as idle money. Capital markets and the private banking sector invest all of their earnings in a productive economy.

If Sahm is concerned about economic returns and social advancements, she should advocate for the private sector to retain a larger portion of the earned money, as it will allocate it to the most advantageous investments.

Inflation Is Regressive Form of Taxation

Inflation is a form of default, in which the government transfers its imbalances to those who receive their salaries in currency. This is the most regressive form of taxation, primarily affecting the poorest. When governments ignore the real demand for the money they issue, confidence in the currency disappears.

Developing countries do not issue debt in foreign currency because they are stupid, but because there is no international demand for their local currency.

Economists such as Sahm assume that the U.S. dollar will have eternal and unlimited demand, and, as such, the U.S. government can export inflation to the rest of the world through the loss of the purchasing power of the currency it issues.

However, global central banks are reducing their holdings of U.S. dollars (U.S. treasuries). International demand is declining, and the limits I mentioned before are already evident.

The U.S. is showing its economic limits, as evidenced by the significant slowdown despite a record deficit and government so-called stimulus. The U.S. is also demonstrating its fiscal limits as the government persists in raising taxes, resulting in significantly lower tax receipts than anticipated and an interest expense bill that has escalated to $3 billion daily.

Declining Purchasing Power of Dollar

Furthermore, the inflationary limit is evident due to a 20% increase in inflation over the past four years, a 30% increase in the cost of basic groceries, and persistent inflation, which is exemplified by the constant decline in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar.

What Harris is doing as vice president and intends to continue doing if she becomes president is to continuously test the patience of the world and U.S. citizens when it comes to accepting a constantly depreciated purchasing power of the currency.

Saying that nothing will happen if debt continues to rise and deficits continue to drive government policy is, literally, like saying that an alcoholic should drink more vodka because cirrhosis has not killed him yet.

The dollar is the credit of the U.S. economy. If the U.S. government loses its credibility, domestic agents will begin to reduce their use of the dollar, while international agents will decline the currency due to its constant fiscal excess and its tendency to push the limits of global patience.

Thinking that the U.S. dollar will never lose its reserve currency status is simply reckless and ignores history.

Harris is threatening the dollar, and you should be very concerned when someone says that the government has unlimited taxation and printing resources. That means it has unlimited ways of making you poorer.

However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published the latest CPI at 2.9%, despite annual inflation being 1.4% when she took office. Inflation is a disguised tax and accumulated inflation since January 2021, when the Biden-Harris administration started, has increased more than 20%.

Of course, Democrats blame inflation on the war, the pandemic, and the science-fantasy concept of “supply chain disruptions.” No one believed it, because most commodities have declined and supply tensions disappeared back to normality, but prices continued to rise.

As a result, Harris invented the concept of greedy grocery stores and evil corporations to blame for inflation and justify price controls. Is it not ironic? She blames grocery stores and corporations for inflation, but when price inflation drops, she proudly takes credit.

The reality is that the Kamala Harris plan, like all interventionist governments, creates and strives for inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax. Governments love it and perpetuate it by printing money through deficit spending and imposing regulations that harm trade, competition, and technological creative destruction. Big government is big inflation.

Inflation is the way in which the government tricks citizens into believing that administrations can provide for anything. It disguises the accumulated debt, quietly transfers wealth from the private sector to the government and condemns citizens to being dependent hostages of government subsidies. It is the only way in which they can continue to spend a constantly depreciated currency and present themselves as the solution. Furthermore, it is the perfect excuse to blame businesses and anyone else who sells in the currency that the government creates.

Kamala Harris will do nothing to cut inflation because she wants inflation to disguise the monster deficit and debt accumulation. In the latest figures, the deficit has soared to $1.5 trillion in the first ten months of the fiscal year. Public debt has soared to $35 trillion, and in the administration’s own forecasts, they will add a $16.3 trillion deficit from 2025 to 2034. It is worse. The previously mentioned figure does not include the $2 trillion in additional debt coming from Kamala’s economic plan.

Harris is aware that her proposals to impose an unrealized capital gains tax, an economic aberration, and other tax hikes will not generate the $2 trillion in additional taxes she seeks. So, she needs the Fed to monetize as much as possible, eroding the US dollar’s purchasing power and making all Americans poorer in the process, only to blame corporations and grocery stores later. Furthermore, it is a way to present the government as the solution to the problem they create, promising the lunacy of price controls and enormous subsidies in a constantly depreciated currency.

It is a perfect plan to nationalize the economy in the style of Peronist socialism in Argentina.

Increase spending, deficits, and debt, making the size of government larger on the way in. Monetize as much debt as possible and cut rates to make it easier for the bankrupt government to borrow. When deficits balloon and inflation soars, increase taxes to the private sector and hike rates, which increases further the size of government in the economy. And you blame corporations?

Governments do not reduce prices. Governments create and perpetuate inflation by printing currency that loses value every year.

Corporations, landlords, and grocery stores do not create or increase inflation; they reduce it through competition and efficiency. Even if all corporations, grocery stores, and landlords were evil and stupid at the same time, they would not make aggregate prices rise and consolidate a constant trend of increases. For the same quantity of money, even a monopoly would not be able to increase aggregate prices. The only one that can make aggregate prices rise, consolidate, and continue increasing, although at a slower pace, is the government issuing and printing more currency than the private sector demands.

By admitting that the deficit will soar by $16.3 trillion in ten years in a budget that expects record revenues, no recession, and continued employment growth, the Harris team is conceding that they will strive for inflation to dilute the currency in which that debt is issued… and make you poorer.

Interventionists argue that the government does not have a budget constraint, only an inflation constraint, and can always tax the excess money in the system. Beautiful. This implies an increase in the size of the government during periods of economic expansion and further government expansion during periods of perceived normalcy. The government receives an enormous transfer of wealth from the productive sector, resulting in the creation of a dependent citizen class.

High taxes are not a tool to reduce debt. High debt and high taxes are tools to confiscate the productive sector’s wealth and create a subclass of dependent citizens.

Socialism redistributes middle-class wealth to bureaucrats, not rich to poor.

Massive government spending, constantly increasing taxes, and printing money. A plan to reduce the economy to serfdom.

Harris’ economic plan is not aiming to reduce inflation but to perpetuate it. Indeed, this economic policy mirrors Argentina’s 21st-century socialism, and it threatens the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The government does not determine the level of confidence in a currency. When confidence in a currency declines, it does so quickly. Saying it will not happen in the US because it has not occurred yet is the equivalent of driving at 200mph and saying, “We have not killed ourselves yet; accelerate.”.

About the Author

Daniel Lacalle (Madrid, 1967). PhD Economist and Fund Manager. Author of bestsellers “Life In The Financial Markets” and “The Energy World Is Flat” as well as “Escape From the Central Bank Trap”. Daniel Lacalle (Madrid, 1967). PhD Economist and Fund Manager. Frequent collaborator with CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Hedgeye, Epoch Times, Mises Institute, BBN Times, Wall Street Journal, El Español, A3 Media and 13TV. Holds the CIIA (Certified International Investment Analyst) and masters in Economic Investigation and IESE.

Investors are turning to utilities and real estate stocks, but these sectors need more than low rates; they need a buoyant economy and strong consumer demand, so interest rate decisions may be insufficient.

If we look at the long-term trend, the market remains in a cyclical bullish mode, but we need to understand why and be aware of the rise in volatility.

Markets have been rising, discounting an ever-increasing money supply and future currency debasement. However, the next wave of central bank easing may not come until 2025.

Fundamentals may have been weak and earnings not as robust as required by demanding valuations, but investors understand that the fiscal challenges posed by rising government expenditure and public debt will ultimately mean ultra-loose monetary policies, which make sovereign bonds more expensive, erode currency purchasing power and, by comparison, make equities and risky assets more attractive.

Investors may continue to accept higher valuations for equities and risky assets because they fear monetary and fiscal insanity more than they are concerned about a recession.

It is not that markets like fiscal imprudence. Extreme monetary policies erode the currency’s purchasing power, and equities and risky assets become protection for real inflation. Murray Rothbard calculated the true money supply (TMS), which is the most realistic indicator of inflation. As Professor Joseph Salerno explains, “three items which are not included in any Fed measure of the money supply (Ml, M2, M3) or even of overall “liquidity” (L) find a place in the TMS.”. These are the demand and other deposits held by the U.S. government, foreign official institutions, and foreign commercial banks at “U.S. commercial and Fed banks.”.

When we look at True Money Supply, we can understand what market participants really look at for a bullish market trend, even if they may not be calculating it in the Rothbard way. The available money for market transactions. The quantity of money that is put to work to generate a return that offsets inflation. “Liquidity,” as most market participants call it.

Mike Shedlock, a great macroeconomic analyst and investor, discusses these important differences when analyzing money growth because they basically give us an idea of the buying or selling pressure in a market. The True Money Supply (TMS) includes the currency component of M1, total checkable and savings deposits, as well as U.S. government deposits, note balances, and demand deposits from foreign banks and public institutions. Any market trader understands this when they are talking of “cash on the sides,” “high liquidity,” and “bullish sentiment.”. All these money measures, when rising, indicate stronger demand for risky assets looking for a return. Alternatively, Professor Frank Shostak’s definition of total money supply includes cash plus demand deposits with commercial banks and institutions plus government deposits with banks and the central bank.

Why are these measures more important than the traditional M2 and M3 money aggregates? Because they show us the level of buying pressure in the market.

Many Keynesian economists see deposits and savings accounts as idle money and invented the ludicrous “excessive savings” concept. There is no such thing as excessive savings or idle money. The reason they see those savings as negative is because their political view of economics perceives that any money not spent by the government is not productive. Far from it. Those savings and deposits are invested in the capital markets and are the key to originating lending, investment, and growth in the real economy. Keynesians tend to think of the “social use of money,” which means more printing of currency through deficit spending, because they mostly perceive that the government is the only one making a real social use of currency issued. However, inflationism is not a social policy but a tool for serfdom that creates hostage clients of citizens by destroying the purchasing power of their wages and deposit savings. It is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the government.

Once we understand that what matters for market participants is the elusive “liquidity” and “sentiment” perception and that bullish sentiment and liquidity come from a rising true money supply, while bearish signals arise from a decline in this measure of liquidity, then we can understand that the allegedly hawkish messages of central banks disguise a much looser policy than headlines suggest. Furthermore, using any of the different measures of true money supply previously mentioned, we can understand why market participants try to defend their clients from the current and future loss of purchasing power of the currency by taking more risk and accepting higher valuations for growth assets.

Most market participants are aware that higher liquidity injections will mask the current fiscal imbalances. Unsustainable deficit spending is money printing, which creates strong long-term pressure on the purchasing power of fiat currencies. Thus, market corrections are always an opportunity to buy stocks and risky assets that will always rise in value in fiat currency terms because the unit of measure, money, loses purchasing power.

Once it is established that fiscal insanity will make currencies fall in value and, consequently, markets denominated in that currency rise, investors need to understand the timing and where to invest.

The difficulty this time is that now we have persistent inflation and central bank losses in their bond portfolio. Thus, timing is essential. The lag effect of a market correction and its subsequent bounce may be longer. It will happen, but we need to guess when.

After the Fed decided to hold rates steady at its two-day meeting, equities slumped, even though Powell seemed to signal that rate cuts could be coming as soon as September. Markets discounted a slump in liquidity, therefore lowering buying pressure. Hence, multiple compressions. Rate cuts do not signal a healthy economy but a slowing one, so equities slump despite the promise of a rate cut because investors continue to see lower buying pressure.

Even with the bounce after Black Monday, most indices remain significantly below the level when markets started to weaken on July 22. The lag effect of the true money supply started to show its effect on March 13. The Nasdaq and the S&P 500 were leading markets that had begun to slow down and pointed to lower highs and deeper lows.

What can we learn ahead of the next bullish wave of money growth? First, pay attention to the components mentioned above and their trends. Second, analyze when the Fed may start a true easing path, being realistic. The trend now signals liquidity drying up. There may not be a recession, but monetary buying pressure is slowing down markedly. The tap is not closed, but the flow is slow.

The Fed may cut rates in September, but that is only realizing that the economy is weaker than headlines suggest. A rate cut of 25 or 50 basis points is unlikely to generate an immediate burst in credit demand or rising deposits. Hence, the truly bullish signal would come when the Fed returns to purchasing mortgage-backed securities and treasuries. However, that may not happen until elections have passed and there is clarity about the next chairman of the Fed. We may be talking about March 2025.

Before that money growth bounces abruptly and leads to the next multiple expansion phase, we must remember the lessons of this correction. So-called defensive indices do not protect investors. Japan and Europe remain bad options in a liquidity drought. Cryptocurrencies do not show defensive qualities and their correlation to US tech stocks remains elevated. Gold is a better defense against a market correction than most risky assets, and commodities do not perform well in a slowing economy with diminishing liquidity.

Most investors will look at the recent slump with prudence, knowing they need to leave some dry powder (less liquidity, less buying pressure) to take advantage of opportunities.

In this era of monetary insanity, ignoring the macroeconomic, geopolitical, and earnings’ realities may lead to excessive risk-taking and significant losses in a correction. We must consider the fundamentals when looking at buying opportunities and pay attention to when liquidity will flow back to capture the currency debasement trend that leads to the next bull market. It’s not easy. Risks accumulate slowly but manifest quickly, and we tend to blame one catalyst instead of the complacency built after years of fiscal and monetary excess.

The next wave of monetary excess will be more aggressive than the past one, that is guaranteed. That means markets will soar again. However, timing is key… and it may take a few painful months to arrive.

We must begin by clarifying the question. It is true that inflation is slowly decreasing, but we cannot say that it is under control. Let us remember that the latest CPI data in the United States was 3% annualized and that in the eurozone it is 2.6%, with eight countries publishing data above 3%, including Spain.

This is why central banks need to give the impression of hawkishness and maintain rates or lower them very cautiously. However, monetary policy is far from being restrictive. Money supply growth is picking up, the ECB maintains its “anti-fragmentation mechanism,” and the Federal Reserve continues to inject money through the liquidity window. We can say, without a doubt, that monetary policy is beyond accommodative.

At the end of this article, the price of gold is above $2,400 an ounce, up 16.5% between January and July 19, 2024. In the same period, gold has performed better than the S&P 500, the Stoxx 600 in Europe, and the MSCI Global. In fact, over the past five years, gold has outperformed not only the European and global stock markets, but also the S&P 500, with only the Nasdaq surpassing the precious metal. This is a period of alleged recovery and strong expansion of the stock markets. On the one hand, the market is discounting the central banks’ continued accommodative and expansionary policies, even possible high debt monetization, given the unsustainable deficits in the United States and developed countries. That is, the market assumes that the Federal Reserve and the ECB will not be able to maintain the reduction of their balance sheets in the face of rising debt and public spending in many economies. As a result, gold protects many investors against the erosion of the currency’s purchasing power, i.e., inflation, without the extreme volatility of Bitcoin. If the market discounts further monetary expansion to cover the accumulated deficits, it is normal for the investor to seek protection with gold, which has centuries of history as an alternative to fiduciary money and offers a low-volatility hedge against currency debasement.

Another important factor is the central bank’s purchase of gold. JP Morgan is credited with the phrase “gold is money and everything else is credit.” All the world’s central banks include treasury bonds from countries that serve as global reserve currencies in their asset base. This allows central banks around the world to try to stabilize their currencies. When we read that a central bank buys or sells dollars or euros, it is not making transactions with physical currency but with government bonds. Hence, as the market price of government bonds has fallen 7% between 2019 and 2024, many of these central banks are facing latent losses from a slump in the value of their assets. What is the best way to strengthen a central bank’s balance sheet, thereby diversifying and reducing exposure to fiat currencies? Purchase gold.

The rising purchases of gold by central banks are an essential factor justifying the recent increase in demand for the precious metal. Central banks, especially in China and India, are trying to reduce their dependence on the dollar or the euro to diversify their reserves. However, this does not mean full de-dollarization. Far from it.

According to the World Gold Council, central banks have accelerated their gold purchases to more than 1,000 tonnes per year in 2022 and 2023. This means that monetary authorities account for almost a quarter of the annual demand for gold during a period when supply and production have not grown significantly. The ratio of output to demand stands at 0.9 in June 2024, according to Morgan Stanley.

Global official gold reserves have increased by 290 net tonnes in the first quarter of 2024, the highest since 2000, according to the World Gold Council, 69% higher than the five-year quarterly average (171 metric tonnes).

The People’s Bank of China and the Central Bank of India are the biggest buyers as they aim to balance their reserves, adding more gold to reduce loss-making exposure to government securities. According to Metals Focus, Refinitiv GFMS, and the World Gold Council, China has been increasing its gold purchases for seventeen months, and since 2022, it has shot up its reserves by 16%, coinciding with the increase in global polarization and the trade wars.

That does not mean full de-dollarization, as the People’s Bank of China has 4.6% of its total reserves in gold. US Treasury bonds are the most important asset, accounting for more than 50% of the Chinese central bank’s assets. However, its goal is to raise gold reserves to at least 14%, according to local media. Thus, it would imply a significant annual purchase of gold for years.

India’s central bank increased its gold reserves by 19 metric tonnes during the first quarter. Other central banks that are diversifying and buying more gold than ever are the National Bank of Kazakhstan, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Central Bank of Qatar, the Central Bank of Turkey, and the Central Bank of Oman, according to the sources cited above. During this period, both the Czech National Bank and the National Bank of Poland increased their gold reserves in Europe, reaching the highest level since 2021. In these cases, the aim is to balance the exposure in the asset base with more gold and less eurozone government bonds.

The goal of this central bank trend is to increase the weight of an asset that does not fluctuate with the price of government bonds. It is not about de-dollarization but about balancing the balance sheet from the volatility created by their own misguided expansionary policies. For years, the policy of central banks has been to reduce their gold holdings, and now they must come back to logic and rebalance after suffering years of latent losses on their government bond holdings. In fact, one could say that the world’s central banks anticipate their own widespread erosion of the purchasing power of reserve currencies due to the saturation of fiscal and monetary policies, and for that reason, they need more gold.

After years of thinking that money can be printed without limits and without creating inflation, monetary authorities are trying to return to logic and have more gold on their balance sheets. At the same time, many expected that the trade war between China and the United States and global polarisation would be reversed in the Biden years, and the opposite has happened. It has accelerated. Now, the latent losses in the sovereign bond asset portfolio are leading all these central banks to buy more gold and try to protect themselves from new bursts of inflationary pressures.

In an era of high correlation between assets and perpetual monetary destruction, gold serves as a low volatility, low correlation, and strong long-term return addition to any prudent portfolio.

Readers ask me why the government would be interested in eroding the purchasing power of the currency they issue. It is remarkably simple.

Monetary inflation is the equivalent of an implicit default. It is a manifestation of the lack of solvency and credibility of the currency issuer.

Governments know that they can disguise their fiscal imbalances through the gradual reduction of the purchasing power of the currency and with this policy, they achieve two things: Inflation is a hidden transfer of wealth from deposit savers and real wages to the government; it is a disguised tax. Additionally, the government expropriates wealth from the private sector, making the productive part of the economy assume the default of the currency issuer by imposing the utilization of its currency by law as well as forcing economic agents to purchase its bonds via regulation. The entire financial system’s regulation is built on the false premise that the lowest-risk asset is the sovereign bond. This forces banks to accumulate currency—sovereign bonds—and regulation incentivizes state intervention and crowding out of the private sector by forcing through regulation to use zero to little capital to finance government entities and the public sector.

Once we understand that inflation is a policy and that it is an implicit default of the issuer, we can comprehend why the traditional sixty-forty portfolio does not work.

Currency is debt and sovereign bonds are currency. When governments have exhausted their fiscal space, the crowding-out effect of the state on credit adds to the rising taxation levels to cripple the potential of the productive economy, the private sector, in favor of constantly rising government unfunded liabilities.

Economists warn of rising debt, which is correct, but we sometimes ignore the impact on currency purchasing power of unfunded liabilities. The United States’s debt is enormous at $34 trillion, and the public deficit is intolerable at nearly $2 trillion per year, but that is a drop in the bucket compared with the unfunded liabilities that will cripple the economy and erode the currency in the future.

The estimated unfunded Social Security and Medicare liability is $175.3 trillion (Financial Report of the United States Government, February 2024). Yes, that is 6.4 times the GDP of the United States. If you think that will be financed with taxes “on the rich,” you have a problem with mathematics.

The situation in the United States is not an exception. In countries like Spain, unfunded public pension liabilities exceed 500% of GDP. In the European Union, according to Eurostat, the average is close to 200% of GDP. And that is only unfunded pension liabilities. Eurostat does not analyze unfunded entitlement program liabilities.

This means that governments will continue to use the “tax the rich” false narrative to increase taxation on the middle class and impose the most regressive tax of all, inflation.

It is not a coincidence that central banks want to implement digital currencies as quickly as possible. Central Bank Digital currencies are surveillance disguised as money and a means of eliminating the limitations of the inflationary policies of the current quantitative easing programs. Central bankers are increasingly frustrated because the transmission mechanisms of monetary policy are not fully under their control. By eliminating the banking channel and thus the inflation backstop of credit demand, central banks and governments can try to eliminate the competition of independent forms of money through coercion and debase the currency at will to maintain and increase the size of the state in the economy.

Gold vs. bonds shows this perfectly. Gold has risen 89% in the past five years, compared to 85% for the S&P 500 and a disappointing 0.7% for the US aggregate bond index (as of May 17, 2024, according to Bloomberg).

Financial assets are reflecting the evidence of currency destruction. Equities and gold soar; bonds do nothing. It is the picture of governments using the fiat currency to disguise the credit solvency of the issuer.

Considering all this, gold is not expensive at all. It is exceedingly cheap. Central banks and policymakers know that there will be only one way to square the public accounts with trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. Repay those obligations with a worthless currency. Staying in cash is dangerous; accumulating government bonds is reckless; but rejecting gold is denying the reality of money.

Oil prices are not a cause of inflation but a consequence. Prices increase as more units of the currency used to denominate the commodity shift to relatively scarce assets. Therefore, oil prices do not cause inflation; they are one of the signals of currency debasement. Furthermore, if oil prices caused inflation, we would go from inflation to deflation quickly, not from elevated inflation to slower price increases.

The same goes for all the causes that governments and their agents try to use as an excuse for rising prices. Most are just manifestations, not causes of inflation. Even if the global economy were dominated by three evil and stupid oligopolistic businesses, they would not be able to increase aggregate prices and maintain an annual increase if the quantity of currency in the system were to remain equal. Why? Two things would happen. First, those three monopolistic evil corporations would see their working capital soar because citizens would not have enough units of currency to pay for all they produce. Two, the rest of the prices would decline as there would be a significantly lower number of units of currency to purchase other goods and services.

Even a group of quasi-monopolistic corporations cannot make all prices rise in unison and consolidate the annual level, only to continue rising. However, the monopolistic issuer of the currency, the government, can make all prices rise while at the same time diminishing the purchasing power of the units of state debt that they issue.

It is surprising to see how some so-called experts say that a few large corporations make all prices rise but deny that the state that monopolizes the creation of money is the cause of price inflation.

Governments are at the root of rising prices. While banks can generate money—credit—through lending, they rely on projects and investments to support these loans. Banks cannot create money to bail themselves out. No financial entity would go bankrupt then. In fact, banks’ largest asset imbalance comes from lending at rates below the cost of risk and having government loans and bonds as “no-risk” investments, two things that are imposed by regulation, law, and central bank planning. Meanwhile, the state does issue more currency to disguise its fiscal imbalances and bail itself out, using regulation, legislation, and coercion to impose the use of its own form of money.

Monopolies cannot simply drive up prices unless they are able to force consumers to use their products without any decline in demand. We also must understand that destructive and inefficient monopolies can only exist if the state imposes them. In any other situation, those monopolies disappear due to competition, technology, and cheaper imports from other nations. So, which is the only monopoly that can force consumers to use their product regardless of the real demand for it? Government fiat money.

The government is the largest economic agent and therefore the most important driver of aggregate demand, as well as the issuer of currency. The government can end today’s high price-inflation rates any time by eliminating the unnecessary spending that causes the deficit, which is the same as money printing. Taxing the private sector to cut price inflation is like starving the children to make the fat parent lose weight.

If Senator Warren and President Biden were right and corporations were to blame for rising inflation, competition, cheaper imports, and a decline in demand, they would have taken care of their unjustified prices. Only the government can cause and perpetuate inflation, using the central bank as its financial arm and regulation as the imposition of the state’s IOU (currency) as the “lowest-risk asset” in banks’ assets. The government creates the currency and imposes it, and when its purchasing power declines, it blames the economic agents that are forced to use its form of money.

MMT defenders and neo-Keynesians say that the government can issue all the currency that they need and that their limit is not fiscal (deficit and debt) but price inflation. It makes no sense because price inflation is the manifestation of an unsustainable fiscal problem, reflected in the vanishing confidence in the currency issuer. It is, literally, like a giant corporation issuing debt endlessly and thinking nothing matters. It is a subterfuge to implement the constant increase in size of government in the economy, knowing that once it controls a large part, it is virtually impossible to stop the state.

Stephanie Kelton and others say the government should spend all it wants and, if price inflation rises, tax the excessive money away. This is funny. So, the government increases size on the way in, spending and diluting the purchasing power of the private sector’s earnings and savings, and then taxes the private sector, thus increasing the size of government on the way out. Furthermore, there is no government that would recognize that price inflation comes from spending too much, so the destruction of the private sector continues and the diminishing confidence in the currency extends, as history has proven numerous times.

Governments cannot tax away the price inflation they have created by bloating spending. They can only weaken the private productive sector further and worsen the economic situation and the price inflation outlook.

There is no such thing as perennial monetary sovereignty. Like any form of debt, currency demand disappears with the government’s solvency and the economic weakness of the private sector consumed by taxes. Once the government destroys confidence in the currency as a reserve of value, the private sector will find some other way to make transactions outside of the imposition of a state-issued currency.

When governments present themselves as the solution to price inflation with large spending programs and subsidies, they are only printing more money, like putting out a fire with gasoline.

Biden says the government has a plan to cut price inflation, but all they have done is perpetuate it, making citizens poorer and the productive sector weaker.

If Biden wants to cut price inflation, all he must do is eliminate the deficit by cutting expenditures. The reason why governments should never oversee monetary policy and be allowed to monetize all deficits is because no administration will cut its size to defend citizens’ wages because nationalization by monetary inflation and taxes is the goal of interventionism: to create a dependent and hostage economy.

Central banks are raising interest rates and enacting restrictive monetary policies as quickly as governmental regulations allow because they are aware that monetary factors are the primary cause of inflation. Central banks have recently lost credibility by initially disregarding the inflation danger, then attributing it to transitory factors, and finally responding belatedly and gradually.

In a world where there is an excess in money supply growth, there are mechanisms in place to prevent a significant rise in consumer prices caused by the destruction of the purchasing power of the issued currency. Quantitative easing is subject to some constraints that partially prevent inflationary forces. As the banking channel serves as the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, credit demand acts as a constraint on inflationary pressures.

Now, consider if the transmission mechanism was direct and utilizing only one channel, the central bank. It is not the same to have a police officer walking down your street than to have a police officer in your kitchen watching your every move.

A central bank digital currency would be directly issued to your account held at the central bank. At best, it is surveillance masquerading as currency. The central bank would have precise information of your currency usage, savings, borrowing, spending, and transactions. It can enhance the fungibility of money to prevent the common but unfounded problem of “excess savings.”

Moreover, as central banks become more politically involved, they might impose penalties on individuals who spend in a manner they consider unsuitable, while rewarding those who follow their recommendations. The entire privacy system and monetary limit mechanism would be removed. Moreover, if the central bank makes a mistake and creates an excess of money supply, as shown in 2020, it would immediately make consumer prices rocket. If the money supply increases dramatically in a year, we would experience massive inflation levels as the existing constraints of the transmission mechanism are eliminated.

Consider a scenario where you have a single account, a central bank, and the government. Guess what would happen? Full monetary financing of government spending leading to elevated inflation within a few years and the destruction of the private sector. Central bank digital currencies are likely to be a computerized rendition of the French Assignats. High inflation, complete government control, and financial repression.

Central bank digital currencies are unnecessary and dangerous. You cannot initiate an experiment pf such magnitude when the autonomy of central banks has been questioned for years and there is abundant evidence of mistakes made with policy measures that do not acknowledge the danger of increased inflation and economic stagnation. Central banks have never successfully prevented bubbles, high levels of risk-taking, excessive debt, or identified inflationary pressures.

Given such history, no one should support a proposal that would grant them complete authority and control over the financial and monetary system. What do central banks mean when they discuss a novel digital currency? It is a further advancement in the ongoing process of eroding the purchasing power of the currency, disguised under the objective of enhancing oversight of payments and facilitating the tracking of specific payment methods.

The primary arguments for considering a central bank digital currency are efficiency and enhancing the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. However, none of them make sense. Central banks often claim the need to enhance the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, but many of their statements are founded on an inaccurate belief that there is an excess of savings that requires a change in behaviour.

By manipulating the cost and quantity of the currency issued, central banks aim to correct what they perceive as imbalances. However, monetary policy rarely addresses the largest imbalances, which are the ones created by government deficits and debt accumulation. Disguising risk in sovereign debt leads to more imprudent fiscal policies and adds to the risk of bubbles in financial markets as perceptions of risk are clouded by low rates and high liquidity.

A digital currency does not enhance the transmission mechanism of monetary policy unless the word “enhance” is used to hide a desire to boost the size of government in the economy through the erosion of the purchasing power of the currency and the constant monetary financing of public deficits. Another aspect to consider is efficiency. Central banks appear to prioritize the regulation of monetary transactions and encourage spending regardless of the risks involved. Creating a central bank digital money system is not more efficient. It is another form of financial control. If negative interest rates are ineffective in stimulating economic agents, some believe that implementing negative rates and devaluing the currency faster using a digital currency may be more successful. They are wrong.

The economy does not strengthen by making the currency a disappearing reserve of value. Introducing a central bank digital currency is unlikely to reduce economic risks or stimulate productive investment but will encourage short-term malinvestment. Central banks are unable to compel economic agents to spend and invest, especially when their strategies continually focus on encouraging debt and prolonging government imbalances. The process of any asset becoming a widely used currency is highly democratic.

It is beyond the jurisdiction of governments and cannot be enforced. When governments and central banks implement financial repression and devalue their currency, citizens may turn to other forms of payment that are considered genuine money. Cryptocurrencies have emerged due to a lack of trust in fiat currencies and the ongoing efforts of central banks and governments to devalue currencies in order to conceal underlying fiscal imbalances.

A central bank digital currency is a contradiction in terms—an oxymoron. Citizens demand cryptocurrencies because they are not controlled by central banks that seek to grow the money supply and induce currency depreciation through inflation. Central banks should prioritize safeguarding the purchasing power of savings and salaries rather than seeking to destroy them. Using new means of financial repression may lead to a loss of confidence in the local currency. Once central banks acknowledge that they have exceeded the appropriate limits of their policy, it will already be too late.

Central bank digital currencies are unnecessary and dangerous.

The benefits of technology, digitalization and ease of transactions are already there. There is no need to create a currency issued directly to an account at the central bank. They are unnecessary as well because there is absolutely no need to compete with a digital yuan or bitcoin. China is moving closer to sound monetary policy and its central bank is purchasing more gold, not the opposite.

If central banks want to compete with other currencies or cryptocurrencies there is only one way: Make it absolutely clear that you will defend the reserve of value status of your currency. There is no need for the euro or the US dollar to compete with bitcoin or a digital yuan if the Fed and the ECB truly defend their reserve of value and purchasing power.

However, it looks like central banks want to behave like a monopoly that sells bad quality products but demands to remain the main supplier by eliminating the competition. The Fed and the ECB do not need to compete against cryptocurrencies if they show the world that they will defend the purchasing power of the US dollar and the euro.

The world’s financial challenges are not solved by imposing total control implemented by a monetary monopoly whose independence is seriously questioned, but by increasing competition and independence.

The most interventionist politicians are really attacking the 2030 Agenda because, despite their pretenses to the contrary, their policies invariably have the opposite effect of what they seem to support. The socialists in all parties have taken over the 2030 Agenda, which does not advance industry, growth, equality, or the fight against poverty or hunger.

This exploitation of the 2030 Agenda’s objectives is exactly like the Trojan Horse that conceals people who will destroy the city beneath the guise of an impressive and lovely gift.

The number of farms in the European Union has drastically decreased in recent years. According to Eurostat, there were 9.1 million farms in 2020, a projected 37 percent decrease, or roughly 5.3 million fewer than in 2005. This trend has only worsened since 2020.

According to the European Commission itself, the EU’s agricultural land is predicted to shrink by 1.1 percent between 2015 and 2030, primarily due to the declines of the two main groupings (agricultural land and farming), which are forecast to decline by 4.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively. This implies ruining our future and increasing Europe’s dependence and poverty.

It is not acceptable for the industrial fabric to be destroyed. According to the International Energy Agency, businesses are now paying twice as much for electricity and natural gas as they would in China or the United States due to an energy strategy that is incorrect and enforced by activists who lack industry knowledge. And how is it justified by the bureaucracy? “The breakdown analysis reveals that the lower economic growth in the EU in relation to the world had the greatest negative impact on the contribution of its manufacturing sector,” according to a study published by the European Commission. It’s not that they are destroying industry, so don’t worry. It is just that the EU is growing far less than before. Fascinating (note the irony). As if the decline in competitiveness isn’t already a contributing factor in stagnation.

A report from the European Round Table for Industry (Vision Paper 2024–2029) states that the market share of European Union industry in the globe has plummeted from 21 percent in 2001 to a pitiful 14.5 percent. The paper also offers positive remedies. The U.S. proportion, which had a 21 percent share during the same period, decreased less significantly, to 16.5 percent. They reaffirm that “business is the lifeblood of a robust economy.” “The EU’s industrial sector contributes 16 percent of its GDP. It creates millions of jobs indirectly and 25 percent of direct employment. It is essential for advancing innovation and enhancing the capabilities of the labor force in addition to creating income and jobs. Its potential to promote growth and prosperity is enormous, given the correct conditions. These factors make it clear that Europe needs to increase its appeal to foreign investors.” Furthermore, what has been accomplished? Taxes, restrictions, and bureaucracy are increased, destroying the very thing they claim to safeguard.

Why do people accept the 17 goals of the 2030 Agenda which are redundant as free-market capitalism would achieve all of them without the need for propaganda? Interventionism has denigrated capitalism and free markets while positioning itself as the answer to the mistakes brought about by extensive intervention. The only ways that any of those goals will actually be met are through increased capitalism and economic freedom. Socialism not only falls short of all these goals, but it also adds a secret number 18: the cancelation and persecution of complainants.

It is not anti-European to criticize this agenda’s incorrect imposition. It is in favor of Europe.

Many of us were labeled anti-Europeans years ago for supporting nuclear energy. The EU made agreements recently to create new reactors in large quantities. When we criticized the fiscal plunder and bureaucracy placed on farming, agriculture, and industry years ago, we were labeled anti-Europeans. Many governments are realizing now how grave a mistake they made. Similarly, criticizing the digital euro does not mean attacking the euro; rather, it means arguing that it should continue to be a store of value and maintain its purchasing power.

Being pro-European does not mean accepting every interventionist policy put out by a committee of bureaucrats. We must reject socialism and central planning if we are to protect Europe. Despite decades of financial support, East Germany is still struggling to recover from the devastation caused by central planning.

Centralized planning does not work. It was never successful. However, there are always those who believe that if they put it into practice, it will work because they do not have to pay for the repercussions.

What is the ruse behind this latest attack on liberty? The usual “good intentions” to target and penalize those who produce and create jobs, using goals that appear innocent and that we all defend. Thus, if you disagree, some may claim that you are opposed to ending poverty, hunger, and inequality if you publish a piece like this one or warn against the risks of central planning. Can you spot the ruse? In actuality, it employs the same tactic as Leninism, which is to create an oppressive government while hiding behind a cause that everyone supports.

The people who have stocked this Trojan Horse with warriors ready to mercilessly slaughter the city’s populace once they are behind the wall are well aware that their scheme will fail so they must enforce objective number 18, which establishes the only connection between reality and the fallacy of central planning. What does objective number 18 mean? Suppression and annihilation of personal autonomy, impoverishment, and elimination of demand. It’s not even a hidden target. This set of self-proclaimed European saviors is aware that imposing a contraction in demand is the only way to make the equation of corporate destruction and declining supply square, rendering us less free and poorer.

The first thing we should do is give up on socialism and stand up for the promotion of individual freedom if we want to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals without the covert eighteenth of poverty and elimination of individuals’ rights.

The only way to accomplish the goals that the 2030 Agenda purports to support is to take these policies out of the hands of socialist and extortionate interventionism and give Europe greater economic freedom, more robust businesses, and regulations that are straightforward, predictable, and conducive to investment. There should be less poverty redistributors and more manufacturing, farming, and agriculture.