California Currency? A taste of things to come unless Percora II helps us leave discredited economic dogma behind
Tuesday, 07/14/2009 - 2:02 pm by Marshall Auerback | 10 Comments
As California’s IOUs signal desperation, Roosevelt Braintruster Marshall Auerback suggests that a Pecora-style Commission could help the public recognize the folly of past economic dogmas that led us into this mess.
At first glance, there would appear to be little connection between California’s mounting fiscal crisis and the renewed calls for a new Pecora Commission. But just as the original Pecora Commission created the conditions for a final discrediting of the prevailing ideology that had led to the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression, so too does California’s innovative response to its impending solvency crisis potentially provide a breakthrough which may indeed end the hegemony of today’s bankrupt economics, which helped to engender our current financial crisis. The two are also related insofar as that it is only by holding wrongheaded ideas up to public scrutiny that one can create the political momentum to sweep them away once and for all. In both the 1920s and the earlier part of this decade, cozy little deals made outside the public spotlight amongst a group of privileged insiders created a climate which facilitated corporate predation and political corruption.
So let’s look at California today within the context of a political climate calling for a Pecora Commission II. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Republicans and Democrats alike embraced legislation last Friday that would make California IOUs legal tender for all taxes, fees and other payments owed to the state - an action that effectively would mean that California is entering the currency business . . .
While it might appear that the new law seems merely to allow California to deficit spend just like the Federal Government - in actuality, the effect is far more profound than that. Allowing the IOUs to be an acceptable payment method for state taxes, instantly imparts value to them - in effect, what you have is a state creating a sovereign currency right under the noses of the Treasury. They are stumbling their way into it, and as they do so, some of the true nature of contemporary money is being revealed. It will be viewed as a stop gap measure at first, and then could very well become entrenched as states realize they have a way to escape balanced budget requirements.
The legislation is below:
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 1, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 29, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 14, 2009
california legislature-2009-10 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1506
Introduced by Assembly Member Anderson
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Adams, Bill Berryhill, Tom
Berryhill, Duvall, Fletcher, Gaines, Garrick, Hagman, Harkey,
Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, and Villines)
February 27, 2009
An act to add Section 17203.6 to the Government Code, relating to
state funds, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1506, as amended, Anderson. State funds: registered warrants.
Existing law prescribes procedures for the issuance of registered
warrants and provides that a registered warrant is acceptable and may
be used as security for the performance of any public or private trust
or obligation.
This bill would require a state agency to accept, from any person or
entity, a registered warrant or other similar evidence of indebtedness
issued by the Controller endorsed by that payee, at full face value, for
the payment of any obligations owed by that payee to that state agency.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
Contrary to most conventional economic thought, whereby people think we pay taxes to create revenue, in fact, it works the other way around under a fiat currency system (where paper money is declared by the government to be legal tender, rather than being backed by gold or silver). The government doesn’t need money to spend, but in fact uses tax to manipulate aggregate demand, not raise funds to “pay” for government. The tax is what gives the currency its value insofar as taxes function to create the demand for federal expenditures of fiat money, not to raise revenue per se. Value has been given to the money by requiring it to be used to fulfil a tax obligation, but the money is already in existence, not “created” by the revenue.
Most significantly, the Federal government retains this monopoly under our existing monetary arrangements. If California is successful here in allowing its IOUs to pay tax, it has profound constitutional ramifications. It certainly means considerably less muni bond issuance in the first instance, if the proposal passes constitutional muster.
It will be interesting to see what the exchange rate is between California IOU and US currency - the IOUs do offer a yield, so should be less than par by design. I wonder if NY is next.
This is like some sort of return to the 13 colonies with all kinds of ersatz currency floating about. It’s hard to believe the Rubinite wing of the Democrats will just let it be, given the threat it represents to Wall Street’s prevailing economic interests, but it is an understandable response to a federal government which continues to champion the interests of the rentier class above the vast majority of Americans by emphasising “fiscal sustainability” and destroying aggregate demand in the process.
There are political benefits for Obama to rid himself of the shackles of conventional (and wrongheaded) economic thinking: If the Federal government allows this proposal of the state of California to go unchallenged, it would relieve the President of a major political quandary, which is, does he help California and then open himself to aid requests from other states? (Which his advisor, David Axelrod doesn’t want), or, does he let California go and lose 56 electoral votes in the next election?
By allowing Californians to “solve” their own problem in the manner proposed by the legislation he avoids the quandary. And given that, from a money paradigm at least, he and his team probably don’t know how destabilizing (to the current system) this is, they just might let them do it until the import is fully understood.
It is true that this legislation represents a profound break from all federal laws. It is almost bound to incur some sort of constitutional challenge, representing as it does, a profound threat to the Federal government’s currency monopoly powers. But this is another instance where Obama’s inattentiveness to the ramifications of the states’ respective fiscal crises has come back to haunt him. This situation would not have arisen had Obama embraced a simple revenue sharing plan with the states (so that the states’ respective fiscal policies would be working in harmony with his proposals, rather than mitigating the impact of the Federal fiscal stimulus), as recommended by any number of prominent economists, such as James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. As California goes, will the nation follow? Will we ultimately be confronted with the spectacle of “President Schwarzenegger” trying to legalize the drug output of the Emerald Triangle so he can tax it, thereby enabling us to shut the borders on the rest of this mess? Arnold always wanted to be President, but the Constitution would need to be changed. Maybe this is his path to President of the 8th largest nation?
So how does this relate to the Pecora Commission? California is moving, albeit tentatively, to embrace much more radical measures than we have hitherto seen from an administration which came into office promising “change we can believe in”. Yet as Kevin Baker noted in his recent Harper’s magazine piece, “Barack Hoover Obama; The Best and the Brightest Blow It Again“:
“The most appalling aspect of the present crisis has been the utter fecklessness of the American elite in failing to confront it. From both the private and public sectors, across the entire political spectrum, the lack of both will and new ideas has been stunning…Much like Herbert Hoover, Barack Obama is a man attempting to realize a stirring new vision of his society without cutting himself free from the dogmas of the past–without accepting the inevitable conflict. Like Hoover, he is bound to fail..”
And fail he will unless Obama begins to understand that the economic dogmas of the past 25 years have been fully discredited. That is the message from California, even if it is not seen as such by most of our feckless leadership. A properly constituted Pecora Commission would help to uncover this and provide the political impetus for our President to adopt a more radical course, which is what the times demand, but which he has hitherto been reluctant to embrace. The original Pecora Committee’s findings helped change the political mood, and laid the groundwork for the sweeping reforms of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Assuming this is not a whitewash, a properly constituted “Pecora Commission II” could have the same sort of dramatic effect. The alternative will be significantly more social unrest and many more radical initiatives from states like California, where reform is embraced from the bottom up and forced on the plates of these windy, politically-compromised satraps who still operate with discredited economic dogma which should be discarded into the dust bin of history.
Perhaps the courage it takes to make great leaps into the unknown is quite rare, and Obama would rather reconcile than radicalize. The Rubinites clearly got to him before the likes of James Galbraith and crew could, and the state of misinformation or ideology in the understanding of economic and financial systems of American citizens is such that Obama would have needed to be convinced and of a clear mind about functional finance and third ways before he took office if he was going to play a lightning rod role in shifting popular misconception at the pace required to confront the debt deflation challenge head on. In the meantime, crumble and decay look ready to rule the day for this old empire. A Pecora Commission could facilitate the education process.
Or maybe California’s IOU experiment points to a different way: a devolution of power to the city, state and regional level, with the more adventurous regions willing to take their own futures in the their hands, leading the way. Maybe out of all of this comes a cultural shift from money maximization to something more civic minded, or at least more aware of our interdependence. That is the hopeful outcome, but something far worse could easily occur as well. The escalation of desperation is tangible in California and many other parts of the country, and soon the police forces will be smaller, as a consequence of state budget cuts. Let’s hope Pecora II leads us in a different direction.
Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator.





























































Fascinating article. I suspect things are beyond fixing, however. In the ’30’s the people with brains actually believed the country was worth fixing. Now, the people with brains are planning on moving to New Zealand, leaving the teaming-masses of peasant dumbasses to rip themselves to pieces - as they’ve been wanting to do since the civil-rights era.
Posted by NOTaREALmerican | July 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
It’s fascinating that so many of us wrote on this very topic within a 24 period. My blog has been doing alot of work on California the past 2+ months, from an energy and economics perspective. It’s funny, when I broached the topic of Devolution in my post yesterday, I thought I was being a bit radical. I wake this AM to find many others taking about the same topic.
Nicely done here, btw. I always enjoy your work.
Carl Jung smiles.
Posted by Gregor | July 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Thank you Gregor. In retrospect, I probably should have dropped the word “sovereign” in the analysis, since what I envisage is a “currency” that operates in parallel with the dollar, is still dollar denominated and in fact will be used for the purposes of extinguishing state liabilities. So to that extent, I guess it passes constitutional muster. But it would allow CA to function by spending first and then collecting taxes which could mean higher levels of employment and public services and/or lower taxes necessary to support the same level of services, etc, and avoid state budgetary constraints. In this way, it wouldn’t offset the positive impact of the Federal government’s stimulus package. Now, does anybody want to come up with a name for this new “currency”? James Galbraith suggested “Caiou” (French, for pebble). My own idea was to call them “terminators” on the grounds that they extinguish (terminate?) state liabilities as well as paying homage to Arnold. Any other ideas gratefully welcome.
Posted by Marshall Auerback | July 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hello Marshall,
The notion that government does not need to raise revenue in order to pay for its activities will be tested shortly. The bills for FDR’s and LBJ’s grand designs are coming due. If you believe that you can print an extra $50 trillion to deal with the situation you are certainly welcome to try. But we’ve been down the hyperinflationary road before and we ought to know where it leads.
Bye for now — Harry
Posted by Harry E. Smith | July 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
money owed to who… it’s never been anything but a fantasy…
Posted by cobo | July 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Harry,
Explain to me the mechanism by which we get to hyperinflation. Money created has to be spent on goods and services to get higher product prices. Professional investors are working with very simple quantity theory approaches. They are not thinking about transmission mechanisms from money to prices. There is no auction market for M1 and the CPI that automatically settles at the end of each day. The only auction market is spending by public and private sectors on produced goods and services each day, week, month, quarter or year.
Government is the only one increasing spending. The fact that nominal GDP is still falling tells us that the private sector is trying to save more than government is deficit spending, which is deflationary, not inflationary. Even arch monetarists such as Milton Friedman conceded that the path to inflation from money creation was through nominal GDP.
In an inflation, people are eager to trade money holdings for produced goods and services or tangible assets. In a hyperinflation, even more so.
That is not what we have today. Banks are hoarding $1 trillion of cash on their balance sheets. Companies are in cash conservation mode and stripping down inventories, headcounts, and reducing capital spending. Households are saving and building exposure to near cash instruments.
When an economy experiences sharp and sustained shifts in private liquidity preferences, the policy response must be to create money and additional aggregate demand via government fiscal stimulus, or let debt deflation rip. The latter tends not to be terribly acceptable to democracies for the obvious reasons which Fisher had to learn first hand.
Posted by Marshall Auerback | July 14th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I first heard about your article on Mark Thoma’s Economist’s View. And then I read Gregor MacDonald’s piece via Seeking Alpha. What an interconnected world this is becoming!
In a few short days California has gone from this IOU bill to an announcement that an agreement could be reached tonight on the budget. That fills me with dread. I cannot imagine the Republicans and the Governor agreeing to anything that will be good for the State’s general population. The Governor has insisted on “changes in the structure” of the State government. Whatever he has in mind, I have no doubt that acceding to his demands - in such haste - will end up being a mistake.
The benefits you see will be less likely to come to pass, and California will continue in its divided nightmare. The suffering has already begun. Cuts in aid programs are leaving recipients unable to pay their rent. Letters have gone out warning other recipients that they may lose their subsidy for child care so that they can work. Whether they cope by scrimping on other expenses to pay it themselves (if that is even possible) or they are forced to leave their jobs, they could be the next to come up short on the rent. And then, where will all these impending homeless parents and children turn?
I enjoyed reading this. Fascinating - and almost (ALMOST) encouraging. Despite the fact that you say, “They are stumbling their way into it…” I think you’ve given our Governor and our Legislature too much credit. The only intent was stopgap. If a budget comes out today or tomorrow, I expect it will be the end of the issue, and Californians in general will then return to suffering invisibly while the stock market is busying rewarding and congratulating Goldman Sachs and their ilk, and the Federal government continues to talk about “recovery” being just around the corner.
Posted by Linda R. | July 16th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Linda R.,
Do you really believe that any politician is going to do anything that is harmful to their General Population? While you have concerns about anything the Republicans and the Governor would agree to, the Democrat representatives had to agree to it also; they are as much a part of the agreement as they are.
I suggest that you read:
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/172169
From that article: “Big government or small government, the revenues need to equal the expenditures. It really is that simple.”
The sad fact is that California specifically and the United States as a whole is spending more than what is brought in and the day of reckoning is arriving.
Jeff
Posted by Jeff Andre | July 18th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Hello Marshall,
The best discussion on the connection between money supply and inflation that I have come across is to be found in Milton Friedman’s Money Mischief. I remember Jimmy Carter’s Whip Inflation Now (WIN) campaign during which we were all advised to clip coupons and watch for sales. If President Carter had consulted Friedman’s Monetary History of the United States he would have learned that he had the ability to whip inflation any time he chose to do so because “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomonon.” His successor did so and our runaway inflation of the 1970s was shortly arrested.
In Mark Skousen’s The Making of Modern Economics you can read the story of those who approached Ludwig von Mises in 1921 and asked, “Professor, can you tell us how to get this inflation under control.” Mises replied, “I can if you will meet me at this address at midnight.” At the appointed hour and in the appointed place, Mises said,”Do you hear that noise? Turn it off.” He had directed his audience to assemble outside one of the many government printing offices that had been running the money presses around the clock producing high denomination banknotes. They did as Mises suggested and the inflation ended shortly thereafter.
I would suggest that too often we get so tangled up in our complicated and abstract economic models that we lose sight of fundamental economic truths. Here is one: No one can consume that which has not been produced, no matter how great his need. When we fund government programs by creating new money, we risk decreasing the incentives of the producers to create the goods and services that we need. The intention of the program may be honorable but the manner of its implementation is its undoing.
Bye for now — Harry
Posted by Harry E. Smith | July 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The Rubinites clearly got to him before the likes of James Galbraith and crew could.
I remember a talk by Galbraith where he said that Freidman had set up the monetary system for the newly freed Russia after the fall of the USSR, and that he had advised the Chinese in setting up their capitalist system. The question posed ” where would you rather live?”
Posted by billfurnback | July 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm