Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Americans and Money

Americans are absolutely terrible with money.  Even the ones that do well for themselves are dumbfounded when they check their balance on the ATM.  What is frightening about this is that they actually have to check their balances to find out how much money they have.  This is detrimental to society.

How much money a person has should be something that can be recalled right from the top of their head.  The dollar amount in a person’s bank account should have even more importance than a phone or Social Security number.  Yet most Americans don’t have any idea how much money they currently hold and have no idea where their money went.

Americans will even spend their money before they get it.  With how easy it is to get a credit card these days, people are very quick to whip out that little piece of plastic when they find themselves a little short on cash.  People are also tempted to pull out their magic money card for large purchases that they didn’t save up for - in today’s society instant gratification is often the social norm.  Balances can rack up very quickly, and carrying a balance on a credit card is devastating to one’s disposable income.  When someone makes a large purchase on a credit and only pays the minimum payments each month, they wind up paying for their purchase over and over again.

This habit that Americans have reflects on their credit scores.  Right now (2010) in the United States the average credit scores by state range from 651 – 710 with Texas having the lowest credit score and South Dakota having the highest.[1]  With Americans freely spending along with their impulses, it’s no wonder that many cannot afford to pay all of their bills on time.

The single most important way to get a good handle on one’s personal finances is to simply keep track.  Keeping a written record of one’s finances is not the social norm.  People who follow this practice are looked down on and are considered by society to be “anal”, “tight-wads”, “cheap”, or even “OCD”.  The very notion that people would equate keeping accurate money records to a mental disorder should be an instant indicator of the general attitude of Americans when it comes to money; they take their wealth for granted.  In fact, this philosophy is downright absurd.  Contrary to this popular belief that the wisdom of keeping track of money (personal responsibility) is a mental disorder, it should be the exact opposite and considered necessary and an everyday practice for each household.  After all, it just makes good sense.

The inability to balance their checkbook is not where this bad habit ends.  Accounting concepts are usually not even offered to the general public until their college years.  Since only about one-third of Americans attain a college degree,[2] even the simplest of accounting concepts are unknown to the general population.  The evidence of these terrible record keeping habits can be seen just by making small cash purchases in today’s society.  Most of the time you will not even be given a receipt by the register clerk unless you ask for one.  This is an indicator that the general population does not care to know where they have been spending their money, or what they have been spending it on. 

Accounting tasks are made simple today by a lot of great pieces of software.  Most people do not even consider taking advantage of these money tracking tools that are offered to them.  There are many financial programs which are free[3] or inexpensive[4], and all are easily available to all people that own a computer.  For the people that do not own a computer, the time tested pencil and paper method is still available.  Keeping records is not a huge time consuming task.  It is very simple and only takes minutes a day.  There is no excuse for skipping this simple chore, as it is probably the most important one of all.

Budgeting and setting limits for one’s self is also something completely unknown to the general public.  In a normal office environment, one can see many of their coworkers sipping on donut shop coffee every morning; some even go out to buy their second cup during their lunch break.  While this may seem like a small expenditure, the numbers really do add up quickly.  For example if a cup of coffee costs a conservative $1.50, multiply that by 5 days a week for 52 weeks in one year (not taking into consideration holidays, vacation, and sick days) the true cost of this daily treat is actually $390 per year for just one person.  For many households, this is more than the cost of an entire month’s groceries.

Setting a budget that covers all of life’s necessities and needs as well as setting aside savings is critical in modern day America.  With the dollar at an all time low and the rise in unemployment, now is a more crucial time than ever to make sure that the dollar goes further.  This means that the individual needs to set a budget and follow it, as well as making regular deposits into savings and various retirement accounts.  As a general rule, 10% of a paycheck should always go into savings.  For home owners it would be wise to make sure that there is always $10,000 set aside for house repair emergencies at all times.  It would also be prudent to try to contribute the maximum amount allowed into retirement accounts, which are usually capped somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 per year per person.  And of course, do not carry a balance on any credit card.  Make sure that whatever is charged to credit accounts is paid in full at the end of each billing cycle.

The rules of money are actually simple, so why are Americans so inept at handling their finances?  The obvious answer is that they were never taught to keep accurate records or solve money problems.  But why aren’t they?  Surely the lessons of the Great Depression that this country experienced between 1929 and 1933 should have taught everyone to be more careful with their money.  However, it didn’t and this was largely due to the New Deal as well as the prosperity that was experienced after World War II.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s economic plan was called the “New Deal”.  It was a combination of many government programs that were heavily influenced by Socialism.  Using the Keynesian Theory of economics, Roosevelt’s administration thought that the Federal Government could repair the economy with the programs that were put into place and bring the country out of the Great Depression.  The Gold Standard was done away with and many welfare programs, including Social Security, were created.  The Keynesian Theory of economics focuses only on short term fixes, and since the New Deal did have positive short term effects, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Keynesian Theory of economics have been accredited with pulling the country out of the worst depression ever seen.  The negative effects such as a massive power-hungry Federal Government, loss of financial independence of the people, and hyperinflation due to the new fiat money system were not and to this day are still not taken into consideration.  

Shortly after the Second World War, President John F. Kennedy passed some of the largest tax cuts this nation has ever seen in 1964.  Economic growth was on the rise, individual consumption was up, and young Americans were experiencing prosperity and wealth like never before.  Prices were low and with a new surge in the money supply, inflation had not yet set in.  There was no longer a need to carefully monitor their finances.  To Americans, the worst was over and the “safety net” of social programs put into place by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal put everyone’s mind at ease.

Since the Baby Boomer generation experienced abundant wealth during their youth, in their short-sightedness they have lost whatever accounting practices their parents may have passed onto them.  They believed that the wealth they enjoyed in their youth would always be around for them so there was no need to set up savings for their retirement once they reached that age.  During the 1960s and 1970s labor unions were strong in numbers and managed to negotiate pension plans for many of their blue-collar members.  There was also a wide spread belief that their pensions would be supplemented through the Social Security program.    

Due to the belief that wealth would always be easily available, the Baby Boomers for the most part, did not set aside college savings for their children.  Since they were not trained to allocate their monetary resources or set up sinking funds (most are not familiar with the term sinking fund), they found it unnecessary to set aside money for their kid’s schooling.  For those who could not afford to pay for their kid’s college education were already condemning their children to suffer and choose one of three situations later in life.  The first one is to work throughout school.  The cost of education has risen dramatically in recent decades which would require more work in order to be able to pay high tuitions.  This makes life very difficult for the working student since untrained labor pays very little and the dedication to simultaneous schooling is very taxing.  The second option is to go into debt in order to pay for a higher education.  This dooms the student to a life of repaying large loans with a high interest rate.  The third common scenario is to not go to college.  It is still possible to become rich and prosper without an education in America, but it is getting more difficult every year.  Without a college education in modern day society, one has a much higher chance of being trapped into a life of mediocrity.  After all, it is not as easy to find work that pays a livable wage as it was prior to 1980.

With the attitude of society today it is expected that there would be a public outcry for a government mandated solution to the high cost of education.  There is a common belief, especially within the Democratic Party of the United States, that colleges that are funded through taxes should be created and made easily available to the public.  However, it should actually be the practice of every new parent to set up a college savings fund for their children instead.  There should be no dependence on government mandated public colleges that are paid for through taxes as this will only increase the already heavy tax burden on the American Tax Payer, and no doubt decrease the value of the education that would be provided by one of these facilities.  The assembly-line approach to education would be extended from the high schools to the colleges, and federal regulations of these publically funded schools would diminish the content of the education as we have seen with the unsuccessful No Child Left Behind program that was put into place during the administration of George W. Bush in 2002.          

The children of the Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y have even less of an idea on how to handle their money yet somehow have retained the massive sense of entitlement for wealth and material possessions that their parents have.   This is a recipe for disaster for the United States.  It is all too common for members of these two generations to go to their Baby Boomer parents for help, provided that their parents can afford it.  Simply put, a very large number of them are not able to stand on their own two feet.  Many of them routinely receive extravagant gifts from their parents in the form of houses, cars, furniture, and cash.  This gets them very used to living far above their own means.  Should something happen to their parent’s wealth, the members of Generation X and Y must turn to the same “safety net” that the children of non-wealthy parents must go to: the government, or by a less friendly name, the American tax payer.

With members of Generation X and Y often living above their means, they do not set any money aside for savings.  There is absolutely no planning for emergencies such as house repairs, car repairs, medical emergencies, job loss, etc…  Instead they turn to their parents or politicians when hard times hit.  For the members of Generation X and Y who do manage to do well in their youth, much like many of their parents they do not plan for their own retirement; instead they depend on the Great Government Retirement Pyramid Scheme, also known as Social Security.  Ironically, many believe that Social Security will not be around for them when they reach their retirement age, yet they still plan to depend on it.  Evidence of this can be seen by the fact that the age where people can claim Social Security benefits keeps periodically rising and by the low percentage of Generation X and Y who have personal retirement accounts.

In order for Social Security to work, there would always have to be more of the younger generation than the old.  This is purely speculation and can be wrong.  The disappointing fact is that it is wrong.  The tax payers, Generation X and Y combined number only in approximately 122.6 million.  That number may sound like a lot, but when all of the Baby Boomers retire and start collecting Social Security their numbers along with those that are in generations above still collecting social security will be approximately 198.2 million.  The post-millennium generation numbers in a mere 43.8 million. When they become old enough to shoulder some of the heavy tax burden, the number of tax payers will be approximately 166.4 million. [5]   The generations that are supposed to carry the bill for Social Security are still going to be outnumbered by the older generation who benefit from it.  It is estimated that by 2018 Generation Y will make up half of the working population.[6]

The best way to avoid the tragedies of the failing government Social Security program would be for the individual to assume the responsibility of a personal retirement account.  The most common of these come in the form of a 401k, IRA, and Roth IRA.  These are tools that are easily available to anyone with a bank account and would seriously reduce the number of people who would otherwise declare bankruptcy late into their own lives.  They also have various tax benefits which can be taken advantage of either earlier or later in life depending on which type of account is opened.  While it is possible to withdraw from the Social Security program by revoking one’s Social Security Number, it would make the people who chose to do this ineligible for employment in almost all companies and it was also result in the loss of any money that the individual has already paid into the Social Security program.  For these reasons many people who are opposed to Social Security choose to stay in it, in a sense most who are opposed to Social Security feel completely trapped by it.

Even though the American People may experience good times of economic growth and, it is still important to be savvy with money.  Becoming careless only makes one more vulnerable to times of economic recession.  It is imperative to plan for hard economic times even when things are going well as it is foolish to believe that the economy will always be experiencing growth.  The pendulum swings in both directions in a society that uses the Keynesian Theory of economics, which is the current model in the United States.  When the Keynesian practices are employed the economy is always moving between growth and a recession.  It becomes imperative for the individual citizen to make wise decisions and investments with money.  Being responsible with one’s money may be difficult, but it is overall better for the economy and future growth of the nation.  Being irresponsible with one’s money can make it far too easy to fall into the belief that it is the responsibility of the state to distribute the wealth among the citizens.



 


[1] http://www.creditreport.com/creditscores/creditratings/average-credit-scores.aspx
[2] http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2009/tables.html
[3] http://www.gnucash.org
[4] http://www.microsoft.com/Money/default.mspx
[5] http://www.nasrecruitment.com/docs/white_papers/Getting-to-Know-Generation-X.pdf
[6] http://biz.loudoun.gov/Portals/0/BEC%20Information%20Sheet.pdf

The Gold Standard

What is money?  To put it simply, money is the medium of exchange that a society has selected.  However, the money system of today is very complicated.  The money of the United States has changed its form several times since its birth.  It is now a system of credit and interest rates that are somewhat difficult to understand.  Unfortunately, most people don’t spend a lot of their time thinking about it.

The money supply of the United States is currently regulated by an organization called the Federal Reserve, or simply “The Fed”.  The Federal Reserve is the bank of banks and the only bank of that the Federal Government uses.  It was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act and began operating in 1914.  The purpose was to regulate the money supply, stabilize the economy, and create a uniform standard of currency throughout the states as there were many different kinds of currencies floating about before The Fed’s inception.  Note that the Federal Reserve is not a branch of the government.  It operates as a private company that is meant to sustain itself.  It is referred to by many as a “quasi government” organization and is run by a board of directors that are handpicked by the President of the United States.  There were many events in the history of the United States that led up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

After the original thirteen Colonies won their victory over British rule in the War for Independence, The Articles of the Confederation were drafted and then ratified in 1777. The Articles did not specify a standard of money that was to be used in the new country.  The decision to determine how the money supply was to operate was to be left up to Congress.   At first, the money issued by Congress at that time was backed by foreign money from European countries like France, Spain, and Holland.  Most of the European monies however were notes of credit, and the physical coinage was not in abundance on the Western Continent at that time.  Congress was forced to print money to pay off the debts of the colonies for the Revolutionary War and the new country experienced hyperinflation.  With the onset of hyperinflation hard economic times soon followed.   

The European countries that issued these notes of credit to the Colonies called in the debt shortly after the war and demanded payment in gold or silver.  The debt was passed on to the people of the new United States in the form of a heavy tax burden.  When these taxes could not be paid many people were thrown into debtor’s prison and had their property confiscated.  This is what led to Shay’s Rebellion in 1786.  Although the rebellion was quelled, it caused the Founding Fathers to rethink the Articles of Confederation.

Shortly after Shay’s Rebellion a new Constitution of the United States was authored and ratified in 1787. It stated that the legal tender of the United States was to be nothing but gold and silver: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; etc…”[1]  Paper currencies that have been printed were backed by those two commodities in the national treasury.  Clearly the Founding Fathers thought it would be better to have a hard currency that was backed by a precious metal than nothing at all.

Congress had the power to define weights and standards with the new Constitution[2], and defined what an American dollar was to be.  Precious metals were always weighed in Troy Ounces.  A troy ounce is 480 grains (31.1 grams), which is a little heavier than the avoirdupois (standard) ounce which is measured at 437.5 grains (28.35 grams).  In 1972 the dollar was defined as 24.75 grains of gold and also in 1794 the dollar was defined as 374.4 grains of silver, but was changed to 371.25 in 1795.  The change was believed to make the silver to gold ratio an even 15:1.  Later the definition of the dollar was changed again in 1837 to be 25.8 grains of 9/10 fine gold to make the ratio approximately 1 gold coin to 20 silver coins.


Money existed this way until 1861 when the Civil War between the states broke out.  Before the Civil War the paper money of the United States that was redeemable in gold or silver, but were not interest bearing.  In order to finance the Civil War the Federal Government printed non-interest bearing notes call Demand Notes, or as they were nicknamed, Greenbacks.  Even though the notes were redeemable, they were more printed than there was gold available.  This caused the dollar to suffer from printing press inflation.  After the war was over, deflation occurred and the US dollar’s value stabilized. 

Shortly into the 20th Century, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law.  The standard of gold remained unchanged until April 5th 1933.  On that day executive order 6102 was signed into law, the use of gold was suspended as currency, the possession of gold became illegal, and the property (gold) of individuals and corporation was confiscated.  At this point in American history, it is known that people attempted to hide their gold throughout the country.  There are gold treasures still hidden today.  Shortly after the signing of this infamous executive order, in January of 1934 the Gold Reserve Act was passed.  Citizens could still not trade physical gold, but the bullion was stored by the US treasury and they issued gold certificates against the gold that they stored.  Even though the certificates were backed by this gold, no one could redeem the certificates for the physical gold coinage.  The value of the American dollar was redefined to 15.715 grains fixing it to a price of $35 an ounce.  

The United States changed its currency to a complete fiat currency in 1971.  Author Roger A. Arnold states in one of his textbooks, “It is a myth that paper money has to be backed by some commodity (e.g., gold) before it can have value.  Today, our money is not backed by gold.  Our money has value because of its general acceptability.”[3]  That is absolutely a true statement.  Money does not have to be backed by gold.  But the question that should be asked is, “should our money be backed by gold?”

Historically, fiat currency has resulted in inflation.  Some economists would argue that inflation is a good thing.  It would allow people to pay off their debts faster, be easier to increase the money supply with a growing population, encourage foreign investment, and encourage exports.  It would be easier for the Federal Reserve to extend credit to the Federal Government and other banks which would increase the money supply and in turn encourage economic growth.  After all, many economists argue that the value of gold itself is arbitrary and not intrinsic anyway.  We assign value to gold; therefore we can assign value to fiat currency.

While this reasoning does make sense on the surface and is able to pacify most people questioning the practice, a fiat currency can never function as well as a commodity based (hard) currency.  The largest difference between the fiat currency and the commodity based currency is that the fiat currency comes from the government (or a private cartel of bankers as is the current situation in the United States) and gives them a lot of power over the economy.  As opposed to the commodity based currency that comes from the market and gives most of the control of the economy to the people.  Since the current Federal Reserve Note is credit extended to the person currently in possession of it, the consumer does not own their own money, it is owned by the Federal Reserve.  The fact that the money is no longer the property of the consumer is what takes the economic power out of the hands of the market and places it in the hands of a centralized power.

The argument that inflation is a good thing since it allows people to pay off their debts faster can easily be refuted.  It is only good for the lender if their income increases at the same or better rate than that of inflation and if the loan was taken out with a low fixed interest rate.  The people who benefit most from this model are the people who have purchased property and are paying off a large mortgage, farmers who have purchased and taken out large loans for their farm machinery, or businesses that are paying off capital equipment.  The people who rent or have little to no debt do not get to enjoy this benefit.  This argument also does not take into consideration those who are retired and living on a fixed income.  The value of their retirement savings decreases quickly which will decrease their standard in living, increase their stress, and will result in a loss of enjoyment of life.  There is evidence that this is currently happening in the United States as the rate of senior citizens that have recently declared bankruptcy has increased exponentially.

While a fiat system would make it easier to increase the money supply for a growing population, it becomes too easy to overestimate the amount to create and cause undesirable hyperinflation.    Speculation becomes a major part of planning an economy, as no one is capable of predicting the future.  Under the usage of a hard currency, the money supply can also be increased with mining operations of precious metals.  Not only would it keep inflation to a minimum, it would create and maintain jobs in many different parts of the country and in different industries in order to keep up with the demand of society.  Increasing the money supply can also be accomplished by redefining the dollar.  This has been done several times throughout American history.

Foreign investment in American business may decrease as a result of returning to a hard currency, but this not necessarily a bad thing.  It would mean the United States would no longer have to worry about other countries abandoning the dollar.  Trade would be easier with other countries as our currency would spend the same everywhere and it would not matter what the credibility of the United States government was at any given time.  It would also return America to a state of independence it once had which is key in maintaining a good foundation in the emerging Global Economy.

Many citizens of the United States believe that the Gold Standard is an outdated form of currency.  That it had its place in history, is not needed, and never will return.  Many younger Americans living in the United States have known nothing but the fiat currency that has been provided to them by the Federal Reserve.  Many of them believe that it works just fine and always will work.  This is just an example that the lessons of history were not taught to them.  The switch over from a hard currency to a fiat currency devalues a nation’s currency until the currency becomes worthless.  Unfortunately too many nations simply redefine their fiat currency, such as the case with Israel issuing the New Israeli Shekel.  This is only a temporary solution to the permanent problem of the fiat system.   

All of the great civilizations of the world were at their peak when they used a precious metal as their standard of currency.  Records can be traced that show that the Roman Empire didn’t start collapsing financially until they took the gold and silver out of their coins.  The same is with many European countries.  When Spain had issued the Doubloon during her peak in power, it became a standard coin in many countries throughout the world.  Whenever countries devalue their currency by taking the hard backing out of it economies crumble.  This is one of the ways in which Adolf Hitler was able to rise to power in Germany after the First World War.  In order to bring Germany once again into a powerful position, the new leadership issued the Reichsmark.  The 5 Reichsmark coin was 90% silver and the smaller 2 Reichsmark coin consisted of 62.5% silver.[4]

As is our money system today, the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air and loans it to banks and the Federal Government with interest.  This will result in hyperinflation (also known as printing press inflation) as was seen throughout American history as the precious metal backing was removed from the money supply.  While money can still experience inflation when it is backed by a precious metal, historically the inflation balanced itself out rather quickly.  The backing in the United States did not exist under the Article of Confederation.  After experimenting with the fiat currency system, the Founding Fathers of the United States made it a point to state that gold and silver was to be the new money this country.  The Federal Government also suspended or modified precious metal backing during most wars prior to World War II.[5]  The following graph (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard, 8/11/2008) shows that the value of the American Dollar was always at its highest when pegged to a precious metal and lowest when it was not.  It dipped the most when the dollar was removed from its physical backing until 1933 when the gold standard was officially done away with:



Notice on the graph above that the value of the dollar fell sharply during major wars that the US was involved in due to printing press inflation.  These include The War of 1812, the Spanish American War, and the United States Civil War.  Also notice that after the precious metal backing was reinstated was followed by a period of dramatic increase in the value of the American Dollar along with economic growth.  At right around the year 1900 the value was right on par with the value at 1776.

At one point in history the American Dollar was the most desirable currency on the Global Market.  Many nations had their currencies pegged to the United States dollar.  Since the fall of the gold standard in 1933, the US dollar has lost almost all of its purchasing power on the global market being surpassed by currencies such as the Euro, the British Pound, and even the Canadian dollar at one point.  Many countries that had their currencies pegged to the dollar have abandoned it in favor of the Euro.

A commodity based currency would be more stable on the growing Global Economy.  As Roger A. Arnold states in his textbook titled macroeconomics, gold is the same price in England as it is in the United States.  This means that it would be easy to spend anywhere on the global market, it does not matter who’s face is minted on the coin (or printed on the warehouse receipt).  In today’s Global Economy, the credibility of each government needs to be factored in the conversion rate.  With the return to the gold standard, the true value of the United States dollar will return and it might even regain its place as the world’s main currency.  If it does not happen, then the economic empire that America had established will only be remembered in the history books.

Some modern economists would argue that since gold is a limited resource, we would eventually run out.  Gold is not actually consumed permanently.  It does have industrial, artistic, and electronic uses but can be recovered.  Many companies today make their profits by extracting the precious metals from electronic circuitry after it can no longer be used. However if the gold supply could not be increased to keep up with the growing population and economy, the market would simply select another medium of exchange.  Silver has always been competing with gold.  Since 2001 silver has more than tripled in value, and many speculators believe that it may someday outperform gold in terms of value.  Now with the increase of the scarcity of copper due to industrialization of many nations, it has also appeared on the market as an investment metal.  Other metals which currently act as investment metals such as the platinum group metals and rhenium may appear on the market as a form of currency should the increase in the gold supply become unsustainable.

Since hard currencies hold their value while fiat ones do not, one can clearly see that the American dollar has lost about 96% of its purchasing power since the start of the Unites States in 1776.  Holding what is called the dollar today against the gold standard only has a value of $0.04.  One can also see that the same amount of goods can be purchased today with one ounce of gold that could be purchase with that same ounce a hundred years ago.  Hard currencies have the ability to protect wealth over the long term while the Federal Reserve note is only doomed to be depreciated with the passage of more time.  The Federal Reserve Note printed in 1975 could buy much more back in 1975 than it could now.

The issue is not a question of whether or not there should be a centralized bank such as the Federal Reserve, but rather it is whether or not there should actually be something of value in those reserves.  Not only should there be something of value in those reserves, the physical gold or silver coinage should be completely redeemable to the consumer.  While the American Dollar may still have some value on the Global Market today, it might only be a matter of time before other countries decide that there is no reason to accept credit from the American Government or banking system.  It’s not a matter of if but when the Federal Reserve Note loses its acceptability on the Global Market.  While money does not have to be backed by a precious metal, it may be in the best interest of the United States if it were. 


[1] Article I section 10 of the Constitution of the United States
[2] Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States
[3] macroeconomics edition 8e page 245
[4] http://luckylukeonline.com
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard