biography.

Introduction to the Collector’s Edition

In the four years since we wrote the first edition of How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, we have had countless conversations with readers about how the book has been brought into their backyard discussions about our country and its shaky economy. That is what we hoped it would accomplish. But we do believe that we have some unfinished business.

The original book was certainly long on humor, content, and fish puns, but unfortunately it was a bit short on production quality. That was somewhat intentional. We wanted to keep the price low so that the book could find a large audience that had never been exposed to its simple lessons. But now we believe that many of our loyal devotees would appreciate a version with higher attention to visual detail. In particular, if the book is to be gifted, or to be placed upon coffee tables as a statement, then we wanted to make it a gift worth giving, and an object worth displaying.

And so we decided to put together a Collector’s Edition that is bigger and more colorful than the original. We spiffed up the title pages, added a bunch of new graphics, and upgraded the paper stock from rough pulp to smooth and glossy. Basically, we switched to the storybook format that we always thought was consistent with the book’s spirit. But that is just the packaging; we also added important content.

The original book was written just about one year after the economy almost completely collapsed. Since that time, things have apparently turned around. We are no longer reporting negative GDP growth, the housing market has rebounded (with prices in some markets rising at record pace), the stock market is hitting record highs, inflation appears to be under control, and unemployment has drifted steadily downward. But at the same time, most Americans aren’t feeling particularly good about the so-called recovery.

Adjusted for inflation, median household income in August 2013 is lower than it was before the Great Recession began in 2008. More people are dropping out of the labor force or taking only part-time jobs when they really want full-time work. And the full-time jobs that are being created are more likely to be low-paying retail or service-sector jobs rather than the good middle-class jobs that are being lost. Today’s college graduates are facing the bleakest employment prospects on record, even while they are leaving school with record amounts of debt.

As a society, we are traveling and vacationing less and spending more of our take-home pay on the basic necessities of life (food and energy). It is no accident that the cars currently on American roads are the oldest fleet on record, and that Detroit, a city that once represented the pinnacle of America’s economic might, is now bankrupt.

There is a clear disconnect between the recovering economy that we are told we have and the disappointing prospects we are actually facing. That’s because, in an effort to prevent further pain after the crash of 2008, the federal government began spending trillions of dollars that we didn’t have, and the Federal Reserve began implementing a new policy called quantitative easing (QE). These policies have become a substitute for a real economy.

A decade ago, hardly anyone outside of university economics departments had heard of the phrase quantitative easing. Today this policy has become the most important driver of the economy. Investors and financial journalists follow the Fed’s statements about QE as obsessively as 14-year-old schoolgirls follow the tweets of their favorite boy bands. It’s as if Ben Bernanke has become Justin Bieber.

But QE is just a fancy euphemism for printing money. Since 2010, the Fed has simply been creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and using them to buy assets like government- and mortgage-backed bonds. These actions have helped to push up prices in those markets and to lower long-term interest rates. The Fed is using the power of the printing press to create the illusion of recovery. But the economy it has created is only as real as the printing-press money propping it up. Beneath the thin facade of health lies an economy that’s even sicker than it was before the Fed began administering its cure.

For instance, at the time we are preparing this new edition of How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, the Fed is buying $45 billion per month of Treasury debt, which is a majority of all the bonds that the government issues. This keeps long-term interest rates low, which then gooses the economy in a number of ways. It encourages business and individuals to borrow, and discourages them from saving. Ultra-low interest rates are also a primary reason that the stock market has taken off in recent years. If the Fed were to stop buying bonds, interest rates would immediately spike upwards, stocks would fall, and our apparent economic health would disappear.

QE has also made a direct impact on the housing renaissance. Through its purchases of $40 billion per month of mortgage-backed bonds, the Fed has essentially underwritten the housing market. But it is buying mortgages that private buyers, for good reason, don’t want to touch. Housing prices are still too high relative to incomes, and most home buyers don’t have enough saved for significant down payments. But government guarantors only require minimal down payments, and extremely low interest rates, supplied by the Fed, are keeping payments affordable. If these props were removed, the housing market would crumble as surely as it did in 2008.

As a result, it’s not too much of a stretch to say that QE has become the lifeblood of our economy. The problem is that it is addictive and ultimately toxic. Rather than laying the foundation for a real recovery, we have achieved a QE-based artificial recovery that can only last as long as the QE does.

Currently, mainstream economists debate when and how the Fed will succeed in stopping the QE without damaging the economy (known as the exit strategy ). While most concede that pulling off the exit strategy will be a difficult maneuver, they are confident that a highly skilled practitioner can pull it off with extreme dexterity and precision. This is like the old magician’s trick of yanking a tablecloth from underneath a fully set table without upsetting the china. But that is not the trick the Fed is going to have to perform. In reality, it’s not the tablecloth the Fed must yank away . . . but the table itself. They hope to do this without letting the cloth, and the dishes, crash to the floor.

That’s why we believe our economy is now stuck in a trap. We are addicted to QE but we don’t realize it. The QE exit strategy that economists are waiting for will never arrive. This is a one-way street that can only lead to more economic pain.

Given these new developments we have added two new chapters—17 and 18—that seek to demystify QE (as well as the more recent developments in the European debt crisis). We have also made a few edits throughout the book, and added some bonus content as well. We hope that they make the story even more relevant to our world as it exists in the fall of 2013.

So enjoy the book and share it with those in need of a dose of sanity.

—Peter and Andrew Schiff, September 2013

Over the past century or so, academics have presented mankind with spectacular scientific advancements in just about all fields of study . . . except one.

Armed with a mastery of mathematics and physics, scientists sent a spacecraft hundreds of millions of miles to parachute to the surface of one of Saturn’s moons. But the practitioners of the dismal science of economics can’t point to a similar record of achievement.

If NASA engineers had shown the same level of forecasting skill as our top economists, the Cassini mission would have had a very different outcome. Not only would the satellite have missed its orbit of Saturn, but in all likelihood the rocket would have turned downward on lift-off, bored though the Earth’s crust, and exploded somewhere deep in the magma.

In 2007 when the world was staring into the teeth of the biggest economic catastrophe in three generations, very few economists had any idea that there was any trouble lurking on the horizon. Years after the mess began economists continue to offer remedies that strike most people as frankly ridiculous. We are told that we must go deeper into debt to fix our debt crisis, and that we must spend in order to prosper. The reason their vision was so poor then, and their solutions so counterintuitive now, is that few have any idea how their science actually works.

The disconnect results from the nearly universal acceptance of the theories of John Maynard Keynes, a very smart early-twentieth century English academic who developed some very stupid ideas about what makes economies grow. Essentially Keynes managed to pull off one the neatest tricks imaginable: he made something simple seem to be hopelessly complex.

In Keynes’s time, physicists were first grappling with the concept of quantum mechanics, which, among other things, imagined a cosmos governed by two entirely different sets of physical laws: one for very small particles, like protons and electrons, and another for everything else. Perhaps sensing that the boring study of economics needed a fresh shot in the arm, Keynes proposed a similar world view in which one set of economic laws came in to play at the micro level (concerning the realm of individuals and families) and another set at the macro level (concerning nations and governments).

Keynes’s work came at the tail end of the most expansive economic period in the history of the world. Economically speaking, the nineteenth and early twentieth century produced unprecedented growth of productive capacity and living standards in the Western world. The epicenter of this boom was the freewheeling capitalism of the United States, a country notable in its preference for individual rights and limited government.

But the decentralizing elements inherent in free market capitalism threatened the rigid power structures still in place throughout much of the world. In addition, capitalistic expansion did come with some visible extremes of wealth and poverty, causing some social scientists and progressives to seek what they believed was a more equitable alternative. In his quest to bring the guidance of modern science to the seemingly unfair marketplace, Keynes unwittingly gave cover to central authorities and social utopians who believed that economic activity could be better if planned from above.

At the core of his view was the idea that governments could smooth out the volatility of free markets by expanding the supply of money and running large budget deficits when times were tough.

When they first burst onto the scene in the 1920s and 1930s, the disciples of Keynes (called Keynesians), came into conflict with the Austrian School which followed the views of economists such as Ludwig von Mises. The Austrians argued that recessions are necessary to compensate for unwise decisions made during the booms that always precede the busts. Austrians believe that the booms are created in the first place by the false signals sent to businesses when governments stimulate economies with low interest rates.

So whereas the Keynesians look to mitigate the busts, Austrians look to prevent artificial booms. In the economic showdown that followed, the Keynesians had a key advantage.

Because it offers the hope of pain-free solutions, Keynesianism was an instant hit with politicians. By promising to increase employment and boost growth without raising taxes or cutting government services, the policies advocated by Keynes were the economic equivalent of miracle weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. While irrational, such hopes are nevertheless soothing, and are a definite attraction on the campaign trail.

Keynesianism permits governments to pretend that they have the power to raise living standards with the whir of a printing press. As a consequence of their pro-government bias, Keynesians were much more likely than Austrians to receive the highest government economic appointments. Universities that produced finance ministers and Treasury secretaries obviously acquired more prestige than universities that did not. Inevitably economics departments began to favor professors who supported those ideas. Austrians were increasingly relegated to the margins.

Similarly, large financial institutions, the other major employers of economists, have an equal affinity for Keynesian dogma. Large banks and investment firms are more profitable in the Keynesian environment of easy money and loose credit. The belief that government policy should backstop investments also helps financial firms pry open the pocketbooks of skittish investors. As a result, they are more likely to hire those economists who support such a worldview.

With such glaring advantages over their stuffy rivals, a self-fulfilling mutual admiration society soon produced a corps of top economists inbred with a loyalty to Keynesian principles.

These analysts take it as gospel that Keynesian policies were responsible for ending the Great Depression. Many have argued that