Wilson's Destiny, Part I

The 16th and 17th constitutional amendments…the Federal Reserve…would it surprise anyone to learn that these "tools" were instrumental in shaping the past century? Below, our friend Byron King takes a look at the man who first wielded them – the 28th President of the United States.

At any given time in the life of a nation, events and circumstances offer its leader the opportunity to articulate and clarify key ideas that define its substance and govern its destiny. Woodrow Wilson (b.1856, d.1924) was such a figure, on both a national and international scale. During his two terms as President of the United States, Wilson inalterably changed the face of not just the United States, but of the world. The community of nations of today represents a world still spinning on a Wilsonian axis.

When Wilson took office in March of 1913, the U.S. was a gold-standard nation, developing inwardly and filling its own continent with people, industry and capital. Since Colonial times, U.S. development had focused on westward expansion across the continent. The U.S. in 1913 had few historical precedents or cultural proclivities for international adventurism, and in fact was experiencing a bad case of indigestion of the modest fruits of the Spanish American War, a sore spot with the voters.

When Wilson left office in 1921, he had involved the nation in Europe’s Great War, and was in no small personal measure attempting to dictate the world’s peace. Under Wilson’s stewardship, the federal government was large and getting larger, the U.S. currency was beginning a long slide into debasement, and no American could even buy a legal drink at a bar.

President Woodrow Wilson: Wilson’s World

No one can truly understand the issues of the modern era without knowledge of the man who mid-wifed it into existence. It is not too much to say that the 20th Century was Wilson’s Century, and that we live in Wilson’s World.

Woodrow Wilson was the son of a preacher, born and raised in Virginia, and certainly a Son of the South. He pursued a career as an academic, making a name for himself as an Anglophile scholar of government theory. Wilson taught at several schools, Pennsylvania’s Bryn Mawr College and Connecticut’s Wesleyan University among them, eventually taking a position at Princeton, in New Jersey. He rose through the ranks of college teaching and academic politics to serve as president of Princeton University between 1902 and 1910.

Somewhat late in his career, at age 53, Wilson leveraged his prestigious socio-academic position at Princeton into a very short tenure as Governor of New Jersey (1911-1912). Then, being the top political figure in an important state, Wilson toured the country, and ran for and won the U.S. Presidency in 1912.

The election of 1912 was a close, three-way race, with about 43% of the votes cast for Wilson. The race was, in reality, Wilson’s to lose because it was marked by a seismic fault line in the Republican Party. But while many viewed the election as a reflection of internecine Republican politics, Wilson saw the election results in a somewhat different light. He is quoted as having told a key supporter, after the ballots were counted, "Remember that God ordained that I should be the next president of the United States. Neither you nor any other mortal or mortals could have prevented that." Certainly, that should have settled things.

Historian Paul Johnson has described Wilson as having "…A self-regarding arrogance and smugness, masquerading as righteousness, which was always there and which grew with the exercise of power." After all, how could one argue with a man "ordained" by no less than God to hold the nation’s executive power?

President Woodrow Wilson: Ordained by God to Lead America

Historian Robert Nisbet wrote that Wilson was, if not ordained by God to lead the nation, "an ardent prophet of the state, the state indeed as it was known to European scholars and statesmen…(Wilson) preached it…" Thus, according to Nisbet, from Wilson has come the politicization, the centralization, and the commitment to bureaucracy of American society during the 20th Century.

Historian Donald Miller has concluded that Wilson intended from his first day in office to transform America as well as the other nations. "From a domestic and economic standpoint, as with his foreign policy, (Wilson) wanted to expand the power of government to effect a revolution in society. He sought to increase both the size and scope of government. He said that he wanted to put government ‘at the service of humanity.’"

In March of 1913, when Wilson took his oath of office, the nation, if not humanity at large, was in the process of handing him the necessary tools that he would soon be using. Wilson’s ambitious political goals, refined during his hard years of labor in the academic library stacks and teaching in the sweat mills of Princeton, could not have been accomplished without key changes in the power system defined by the U.S. Constitution.

The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," had been passed by Congress in 1909. After several years of bitter political infighting, ratification by three-fourths of the states was completed on February 3, 1913, just in time for Wilson to put it to the test.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which called for the direct election of Senators, had been passed by Congress in 1912. Ratification by three-fourths of the states was completed on April 8, 1913. Again, only a true scholar of governmental powers could discern the import of this new enactment.

Both of these Amendments changed the fundamental power structure of the nation, certainly altering the relationship between individual citizens and their national government. That they occurred in such close sequence of time was the equivalent of another American Revolution.

The direct election of U.S. Senators diminished greatly the republican form of governance envisioned by the Founding Fathers, in which "the several states" had a semblance of influence and control over half of the legislative branch. That is, previously Senators were directly beholden to the interests of their electors in state legislatures. This system of selection insulated Senators, at least to some degree, from the day-to-day whims and caprices of popular will. Up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the Senate had been traditionally focused on the interests of the states, vis à vis the federal government, as opposed to reflecting the will of, and acting like, a popular assembly. With direct election becoming the law of the land, Senators began to become simply another form of populist politician.

The Sixteenth Amendment led directly to the enactment of a national income tax in Wilson’s first year in office, albeit only on the wealthy. These "rich people" were defined then as those earning over $4,000 per year, or the modern equivalent of a household today earning about $80,000. But wealthy or not, the power to tax incomes was the breach in the dam holding back federal power and influence based on spending by the central government. Before Wilson was elected president, federal government spending had never exceeded three percent of the Gross Domestic Product, except during the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

Federal revenues were derived primarily from customs levies, import duties, and various other excises and tariffs. During Wilson’s two terms as president, the dam burst and federal spending rose to more than twenty percent of GDP.

President Woodrow Wilson: The Federal Reserve Act

With interests of "the several states" on the wane in the Senate, and the prospect of federal revenues being raised via a national income tax, Wilson’s next alteration of the structures of governance came with his support of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913. Note the date. This statute to create a federal central bank was signed into law, with little fanfare, by Wilson at a time when Washington, D.C. was all but deserted for the holidays.

Financial panics had plagued the nation throughout much of the 19th Century. With its economy based for the most part on a hard-money system of gold and silver coinage, and paper currency backed by monetary metals, the nation had gone through numerous cycles of boom and bust. Few people complained during the boom times. But the busts were another story entirely. Many critics viewed bank failures, business bankruptcies, and economic downturns and accompanying personal hardships as being caused by a poorly integrated, unregulated banking system and the lack of a flexible money supply.

A particularly severe financial crisis in 1907, in which the national solvency was preserved only through the intervention of New York banker J.P. Morgan, led Congress to establish the National Monetary Commission. This Commission was chartered to propose a solution that could deal with banking issues and other monetary problems.

After considerable debate, the Commission proposed remedies that were written into law as the Federal Reserve Act. The Act stated that its purposes were to "provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." (Yes, it says that, "for other purposes.") But, to pose an issue that has governed national history ever since, was this new federal entity a cure for the economic problem of "busts"? Or, by furnishing "an elastic currency" and thus mitigating the effects of the busts, did the Federal Reserve serve to push the booms along, such that they would grow into bubbles? In all fairness, who could have even asked such a question back in 1913?

Wilson’s new organization, the Federal Reserve (FED), was comprised of a Board of Governors in Washington D.C., and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks. The statutory responsibilities of these entities are to:

* Conduct the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the money and credit conditions in the economy.
* Supervise and regulate banking institutions to ensure safety and soundness of the nation’s banking and financial system.
* Maintain the stability of the financial system.
* Provide certain financial services to the U.S. government, financial institutions, the public, and foreign official institutions, including a major role in operating the nation’s payments system.

Then as now, the FED conducts monetary policy using three major tools: (1) open market operations to control the level of reserves in the depository system; (2) setting reserve requirements for depository institutions, and (3) setting the discount rate for lending reserves.

President Woodrow Wilson: The FOMC

Policy regarding open market operations is the responsibility of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) comprising the seven members of the Board, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the presidents of four other reserve banks on a rotating basis. However, the Board has sole authority over changes in reserve requirements and the discount rate.

Since its inception, the Federal Reserve System was considered an "independent central bank" – a European concept reflecting the need to provide banking services to the sovereign. But the Federal Reserve is "independent" only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the president or anyone else in the executive branch of government. It is more accurate to say that the Federal Reserve is "independent within the government." But still, it is a creature of government.

The Federal Reserve is, of course, subject to the oversight of Congress, on the legal basis that the Constitution gives to Congress the power to coin money and set its value. In 1913, with the assistance of Wilson, Congress delegated that power to the Federal Reserve. Congress could, in theory, reclaim its power at any time, but would it dare to do so? Throughout its existence, the Federal Reserve has tended to act within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by Congress.

Statutory provisions and lofty goals of monetary management aside, the Federal Reserve is fundamentally a European-style central bank that can create, on its own account and subject only to indirect oversight of Congress, credit denominated in U.S. dollars. In the world of 1913, these dollar-denominated credits would enter the economic flow to compete with the more traditional currency, or gold, as money.

Thus Wilson was able, in his first year in office, to establish an embryonic form of credit-backed U.S. fiat currency – a currency in direct competition with traditional gold money. Coupled with the ability of the federal government to raise revenue via a direct tax on "incomes, from whatever source derived," this was the seed of an enlargement of central government based on spending financed by taxes, borrowing against national credit, and the resultant national debt.

If, as historian Donald Miller concluded, Wilson intended from his first day in office to transform America, and to increase both the size and scope of government, here were Wilson’s tools.

More to come on how Wilson wielded these tools, tomorrow…

Regards,

Byron King
for The Daily Reckoning
April 6, 2004

Editor’s Note: Byron King has been engaged in the private practice of law for 14 years and currently serves as an attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1981 and is a cum laude graduate of Harvard University.

Are we really on the ‘Road to Ruin?’

You wouldn’t think so from reading yesterday’s news:

Business confidence is at a 20-year high.

The dollar rose.

Gold fell.

Stocks rose.

It is April…and Beck and Posh are still in love.

American readers may not know who Beck and Posh are. From our years of doing business in Britain, we couldn’t help but know; we just didn’t care.

But we’re happy for them.

And we wish all our Daily Reckoning sufferers the same joy that Beck and Posh have found: that is, may you become filthy rich…and may beautiful women throw themselves at you when your wife is out of town.

(Every Sunday, we Christians ask that we may be delivered from temptation. We ask it sincerely…but hope our prayers are answered slowly. We wouldn’t mind if temptation toyed with us a little bit first.)

And one other wish: may you never have to hear about Beck and Posh again.

The celebrity couple, Beck and Posh, are happily vacationing in the Alps, say the front-page reports, after denying reports of marital infidelity. Meanwhile, the Queen is visiting the French, with whom the British have always had a tempestuous love/hate relationship.

"I love you," say the French. "Me neither," say the English.

Yesterday, French drivers cursed at the royal entourage, which snarled traffic all over Paris. "Where did she get that hat," a young French woman remarked to the press.

"They’re our hereditary enemies," explained a Frenchman last week.

Back in Britain…"The wogs start at Calais," Prince Philip is said to have muttered to himself as he boarded the train for the trip under the water.

We saw the Queen (on TV) emerge from the first-class compartment of the Eurostar. We immediately felt sorry for her. For all her money, power and fame, she had to sit on the same awful seats we do. Had she asked our advice, we would have suggested a switch to second class, where the seats are, inexplicably, more comfortable.

Readers may not see any immediate connection between these little observations and their personal financial interests. We couldn’t think of any, either…but that didn’t stop us. Springtime is the season for all manner of foolishness; like soccer stars away from home, people do things they will later regret: lovers stroll arm in arm along the Seine…stocks rise…"America opens second front" in Iraq, says the Times.

But what do we know. The news tells us that everything is getting better. The ‘recovery’ is finally here – the jobs are showing up along with the first birds of spring.

But what’s this?

Greg Weldon tells us that the new jobs are a scam:

"DESPITE all the self-gratuitous knee-slapping in the pop-media as relates to 1Q job ‘creation’…LESS of the U.S. Population has a job now than three months ago, AND more people are working part-time just to make ends meet.

"Further:

* Aggregate Weekly Payrolls grew only +0.1% for the month, LESS than the +0.2% rise in February, and FAR LESS than the +1.0% rise in January.
* Aggregate Weekly Payrolls, Retail…down for the second month in a row.
* Aggregate Weekly Payrolls…down in Transportation, down in Warehousing, down in Information, down in Business Services, down in Durable Goods, down in Non-Durable Goods. Moreover, against the ‘Seasonally Adjusted’ rise in Service Payrolls (+230,000,) we note that Aggregate Weekly Payroll figure for Service Providing Industries was UNCHANGED, after rising each of the last two months.

"This measure clearly indicates that a surge in weekly hiring has ENDED already.

"And how about hours, and income???…Note:

* Weekly Average Earnings…FELL to $523.70 from February’s $524.58.
* Weekly Average Hourly Earnings…posted their third sub-2% yr-yr rate in the last four months, with outright declines posted in several industries, including Construction and Retail, the two ‘surprise-stars’ in terms of headline job growth.
* Total Aggregate Hours…DOWN (-) 0.1% for the month, leaving it down over the last two months combined, and unchanged over the last four months on a cumulative basis.
* A VAST and BROAD-BASED MAJORITY of industries reported LESS Hours being worked, including:
* Wood Products
* Primary Metals
* Machinery
* Computers
* Electronic Products
* Appliances
* Transportation Equipment
* Food
* Beverages
* Textiles
* Apparel
* Printing and Paper
* Petroleum and Coal
* Chemicals
* Plastics and Rubber
* Transportation
* Warehousing
* Information
* Professional and Business Services
* Private Service Producing

"ALL THOSE industries are working LESS Hours.

"Sorry, we just do NOT see labor-market strength within this data series."

Oh darn.

Well, here’s Eric with more news:

———————————————————————————————————————-

Eric Fry in New York City…

– Another good day for "paper"…another bad day for "stuff." The lumpeninvestoriat clamored for paper yesterday – especially stock certificates and dollar bills – while scorning stuff like gold, copper, gasoline and almost everything else that makes the world go round.

– The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 88 points to 10,558.37, while the Nasdaq Composite tacked on more than 1% to 2,079.12. The dollar followed the stock market’s lead by soaring 1% versus the euro to $1.2015 – the greenback’s highest price against the European currency in four months.

– Meanwhile, the price of the things that hurt when they fall on your head dropped yesterday. Gold fell $6.20 to $416.30 an ounce, copper tumbled 2.8% to $1.31 per pound and platinum slipped $12.80 to $884 an ounce.

– Hmmm…why is it that the very same economic recovery that inspires investors to buy stocks also prompts them to dump the things that a recovering economy needs?…One explanation might be that investors are – temporarily – off base. Perhaps economic growth is neither strong enough to justify recent stock market gains, nor weak enough to justify recent commodity price weakness. Perhaps "counter-trend" corrections are underway, which would mean that the principal trends – stocks down, commodities up – will reassert themselves…eventually.

– But near term, stocks show no sign of fatigue and commodities give no hint of renewed vigor. This counter-trend phase – if that’s what is it – might last a while…

– Yesterday, the stock-buying lumps gained a bit of confidence from a jump in the Institute for Supply Management non-manufacturing index in March. The ISM’s so-called service index jumped to 65.8% from 60.8% in February, indicating improving conditions in the services sector. The upbeat report corroborates last week’s strong employment data…Maybe this ol’ supertanker of an economy is genuinely turning around. And if the economy really is recovering, shouldn’t interest rates begin to rise? Now that employment is recovering and the stock market is booming and the dollar is rebounding, is a 1% fed funds rate really necessary?

– Unlikely, says James Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. "Since the first administration of Andrew Jackson," Grant notes, "short-term [interest] rates have averaged 5.12%…Treasury bill rates sank to less than zero in the Great Depression, and were quoted in the neighborhood of zero to 1% through-out the 1940s and 1950s. But at no time before the 1913 enactment of the Federal Reserve System were money rates so low as the ones quoted today. It behooves us to ask why.

– "1% is an emergency rate." Grant continues. "Yet…there is no emergency. Is there, then, a latent emergency? The Federal Reserve believes so. It has repeatedly warned against an ‘unwelcome fall in inflation.’ We judge that the Fed is more likely to bring about an unwelcome rise in inflation than an unwelcome fall, or perhaps, an unwelcome fall in the dollar or an unwelcome event we haven’t thought of. What 1% fundamentally means is that something is wrong."

– But what, exactly, might be wrong?

– "Could it be," wonders Northern Trust economist Paul Kasriel, "that despite all the rhetoric…about households being in good shape, the FOMC really suspects that a rise in interest rates would bring down the U.S. house of credit cards?"

– "Yes," Grant replies. "For example, the ratio of household liabilities to household assets is at a postwar high, and consumers’ monthly payment obligations in relation to their take-home pay have ‘remained at elevated levels despite the lowest interest rates in over 30 years.’ On top of which is the arresting fact that, without low rates, ‘homeowners would not have been able to maintain their consumer spending [by] extracting a record $277 billion of equity from their houses last year, which reduced their relative equity to a postwar low.’"

– Hmmm…Where did that money go? Did the consumer swap home equity for Intel shares, or did the consumer swap home equity for Escalades and Beyonce CDs? More importantly, if interest rates rise, where will the next $277 billion of disposable cash come from?

———————————————————————————————————————-

And now, Bill Bonner, back in London…

*** "Steel," said a well-placed friend last week. "The world’s running out of steel and doesn’t know it yet. The real problem is that China is using so much…and there’s a shortage of coke…which you need to make steel. Buy steel companies."

*** China is hoping to export $100 billion worth of autos by 2010. That’s a lot of steel. And a lot of cars. Sell auto stocks.

*** Gold was down another $6.20 yesterday. The dollar rose. Stocks were up. The good news tests our resolve. Maybe the rally has not topped out yet. Maybe there’s more ruin in the nation that we thought it would stand for.

But we will stick with our guess – that the rally that began in October of 2002 has now topped out – for a while longer…at least until our colleagues begin laughing at us.

*** The French newspaper, Le Monde, is appalled by Wal-Mart. The retail giant is described as though it were the Black Death – wiping out whole communities…threatening the social order…destroying lives. Wal-Mart has more higher revenues than the GDP of Sweden, the paper notes. It employs 1.4 million people, whom it paid an average of $13,861 in 2001…below the official poverty line of $14,630 for a family of three. Yet, the company is thought to have saved American consumers $120 billion in 2003, by forcing down prices even among its competitors.

*** Yet is a Swede, not a Walton, who is the richest man in the world. Ingvar Kamprad, creator of Ikea, is said to be the world’s richest man, with a fortune of $29 billion. Kamprad’s breakthrough came when he realized he could sell more furniture, more cheaply if customers had to put it together themselves. Ikea beds are so ubiquitous that one in 10 Europeans are said to be conceived on them.

*** And finally, below, our unpaid correspondent gives us a lesson in U.S. history…and his vote for the person most responsible for shaping the course of 20th century.