PDA

View Full Version : The Debt Ceiling Deadline Approaches




r3volution 3.0
08-20-2017, 01:48 PM
Treasury is currently fiddling with the accounts to keep the debt below the limit. By early October, these "extraordinary measures" should be exhausted. So another debt ceiling fight is coming up soon. A few Freedom Caucus members, along with Rand (http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/government-run-amok/rand-paul-dont-raise-the-debt-ceiling-without-reform/), are already on record demanding spending cuts, as you might expect. The remainder appear to be drifting toward a "clean" bill: i.e. raising the ceiling without any meaningful reforms. Congress will be back in session in a couple weeks, and the media will soon start winding up the old "Ohmahgah we're gonna default!" propaganda machine, so brace yourself and get your dialing fingers ready to flood those DC switchboards.

Zippyjuan
08-20-2017, 08:59 PM
October is still a bit off. Nothing will probably happen until the last minute when Congress will pass a bill raising the debt ceiling. Congress is on vacation until September.

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2017, 03:57 PM
October is still a bit off. Nothing will probably happen until the last minute when Congress will pass a bill raising the debt ceiling. Congress is on vacation until September.

Until the 5th, which will give them about a month.

Madison320
08-21-2017, 06:26 PM
Treasury is currently fiddling with the accounts to keep the debt below the limit. By early October, these "extraordinary measures" should be exhausted. So another debt ceiling fight is coming up soon. A few Freedom Caucus members, along with Rand (http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues/government-run-amok/rand-paul-dont-raise-the-debt-ceiling-without-reform/), are already on record demanding spending cuts, as you might expect. The remainder appear to be drifting toward a "clean" bill: i.e. raising the ceiling without any meaningful reforms. Congress will be back in session in a couple weeks, and the media will soon start winding up the old "Ohmahgah we're gonna default!" propaganda machine, so brace yourself and get your dialing fingers ready to flood those DC switchboards.

We have to borrow money so we can pay our bills!

As Peter Schiff says, "When you're running a ponzi scheme you're not supposed to tell everyone."

P3ter_Griffin
08-21-2017, 07:36 PM
Is Rand's requested reforms just the balanced budget amendment or the balanced budget amendment and a budget that balances within 5 years? It seems like a good occasion to attempt to coalesce support for some specific reforms by asking reps to oppose it without reforms x,y,z.

Zippyjuan
08-21-2017, 07:58 PM
Is Rand's requested reforms just the balanced budget amendment or the balanced budget amendment and a budget that balances within 5 years? It seems like a good occasion to attempt to coalesce support for some specific reforms by asking reps to oppose it without reforms x,y,z.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/324885054287210


I will not vote to raise the debt ceiling unless we get a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution because so far I've seen no objective evidence to trust the Obama administration. They set spending limits but always go beyond them. They're not trustworthy with money or very good with it. We shouldn't give them anymore. We should cut spending and make government smaller.

(That was in 2013- but there will never be a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution).

This week:


I encourage my fellow senators to join me in calling for an end to this counter-productive, devastating status quo.

I urge legislators in the U.S. House to support the House Freedom Caucus’ push to change how government operates, which would allow us to avoid hitting the debt ceiling in the future while still meeting our obligations.

May this be the time we look back on as the moment Republicans kept their commitments to deliver change and be the party of limited government.

Let us take our case for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the American people and finally get it done.

Let us provide stability and better keep the guarantees we’ve already made by reforming our entitlement programs, and let us start on the road to fiscal sanity right away by passing a budget that balances within five years.

And through it all, may we make our voices heard loudly and clearly: “No Debt Ceiling increase without Reforms!”

(not specific on what "reforms" here).

r3volution 3.0
08-21-2017, 08:02 PM
Is Rand's requested reforms just the balanced budget amendment or the balanced budget amendment and a budget that balances within 5 years?

The latter

Chester Copperpot
08-21-2017, 08:11 PM
all we gotta do is get rid of the federal reserve and then we dont need any balanced budget amendment.

Swordsmyth
08-21-2017, 08:16 PM
all we gotta do is get rid of the federal reserve and then we dont need any balanced budget amendment.

Yes we do, we still don't want the government going into debt.

Zippyjuan
08-21-2017, 08:40 PM
all we gotta do is get rid of the federal reserve and then we dont need any balanced budget amendment.

Not having a central bank doesn't prevent them from spending more money then they have. As long as the are able to borrow money from someplace.....

Chester Copperpot
08-22-2017, 06:46 AM
Not having a central bank doesn't prevent them from spending more money then they have. As long as the are able to borrow money from someplace.....

without a federal reserve interest rates would be 25% right now.. that will stop the spending and encourage savings.

Madison320
08-22-2017, 08:03 AM
Yes we do, we still don't want the government going into debt.

The debt ceiling does the same thing as the balanced budget amendment. I think if they passed a balanced budget amendment they would ignore it, just like the debt ceiling.

I think the problem will eventually solve itself when the dollar crashes and rates skyrocket. We'll have a balanced budget because no one will lend us money!

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 11:55 AM
The debt ceiling does the same thing as the balanced budget amendment. I think if they passed a balanced budget amendment they would ignore it, just like the debt ceiling.

I think the problem will eventually solve itself when the dollar crashes and rates skyrocket. We'll have a balanced budget because no one will lend us money!

We derive benefit from the 2nd amendment even though they don't follow it either, it helps to limit how much they abuse us.

In the end what really matters is who is in office but a balanced budget amendment would still be a good thing.

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 12:47 PM
without a federal reserve interest rates would be 25% right now.. that will stop the spending and encourage savings.

Why would interest rates be 25%? Interest rates banks charge or pay their depositors depends on the rate of inflation. If the rate of inflation was 20%, that may be the case (interest rates did hit 20% in 1980). Inflation is below 2% today- that does not justify interest rates of 25%.


that will stop the spending and encourage savings

Do we need more savings? Is there a shortage of money for companies to borrow? (banks currently hold about $2 trillion in excess reserves- money they haven't lent out)

What would happen if people stopped spending? How would that impact business? Would they increase borrowing (which would cost them much, much more money) to expand output capacity? If people stopped buying, demand for their goods would plummet and they would be cutting- not expanding- production. They would be laying off workers causing high unemployment (those 20% interest rates in 1980 were quickly followed by 10% unemployment).

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 12:50 PM
Why would interest rates be 25%? Interest rates banks charge or pay their depositors depends on the rate of inflation. If the rate of inflation was 20%, that may be the case (interest rates did hit 20% in 1980).



Do we need more savings? Is there a shortage of money for companies to borrow? (banks currently hold about $2 trillion in excess reserves- money they haven't lent out)

What would happen if people stopped spending? How would that impact business? Would they increase borrowing (which now costs them much, much more money) to expand output capacity? If people stopped buying, demand for their goods would plummet and they would be cutting- not expanding- production. They would be laying off workers causing high unemployment (those 20% interest rates in 1980 were quickly followed by 10% unemployment).

The new zippy is being possessed by the ghost of John Maynard Keynes.

nobody's_hero
08-22-2017, 01:14 PM
The new zippy is being possessed by the ghost of John Maynard Keynes.

Lol. It's almost like he's never listened to a minute of Ron's economic speeches.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 01:18 PM
Lol. It's almost like he's never listened to a minute of Ron's economic speeches.

You would think they would require him do study the forum he was assigned to before starting to post there.

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 01:18 PM
So interest rates should be 25% and if they are, the economy will be amazing. Ok. What is the mechanism for how that works?

(if interest rates are 25%, the rate of inflation would be around 20%).

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 01:20 PM
So interest rates should be 25% and if they are, the economy will be amazing. Ok. What is the mechanism for how that works?

(if interest rates are 25%, the rate of inflation would be around 20%).

LOL

devil21
08-22-2017, 01:20 PM
The new zippy is being possessed by the ghost of John Maynard Keynes.

Zippy just applied Keynesian econ to a specifically non-Keynesian quoted post. New Zippy is either very skilled or floundering with utter bs. I can't decide which yet.


Why would interest rates be 25%? Interest rates banks charge or pay their depositors depends on the rate of inflation. If the rate of inflation was 20%, that may be the case (interest rates did hit 20% in 1980). Inflation is below 2% today- that does not justify interest rates of 25%.

Does not compute. Quoted post was about no central bank targeting rates.

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 01:28 PM
Zippy just applied Keynesian econ to a specifically non-Keynesian quoted post. New Zippy is either very skilled or floundering with utter bs. I can't decide which yet.



Does not compute. Quoted post was about no central bank targeting rates.

Without a central bank targeting interest rates, interest rates would still be about where they are today. Why? Because the rate of inflation is so low. A lender uses three things to determine what interest rate they are willing to agree to. First is the expected rate of return on their loan. If they are happy with a one percent rate of return, they start with one percent. Then they want a real return- after inflation. So they add in the expected price inflation during the course of the loan. Today, about two percent. Then you add in a risk factor- how likely do you think the borrower is to pay back the loan. Now we are looking in this example at about 3.5%. Mortgages and car loans and business loans are all within ranges expected based on the current rate of inflation.

TheTexan
08-22-2017, 01:28 PM
The Debt Ceiling Deadline Approaches

https://media2.giphy.com/media/KupdfnqWwV7J6/giphy.gif

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 01:34 PM
Without a central bank targeting interest rates, interest rates would still be about where they are today. Why? Because the rate of inflation is so low. A lender uses three things to determine what interest rate they are willing to agree to. First is the expected rate of return on their loan. If they are happy with a one percent rate of return, they start with one percent. Then they want a real return- after inflation. So they add in the expected price inflation during the course of the loan. Today, about two percent. Then you add in a risk factor- how likely do you think the borrower is to pay back the loan. Now we are looking in this example at about 3.5%. Mortgages and car loans and business loans are all within ranges expected based on the current rate of inflation.

LOL

Central banks cause inflation.

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 01:36 PM
LOL

Central banks cause inflation.

What sort of financial systems have experienced zero price inflation?

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 01:40 PM
What sort of financial systems have experienced zero price inflation?
Those that don't debase their currency experience DEFLATION (a good thing) from wealth production which almost always outstrips the mining of gold or silver.

devil21
08-22-2017, 01:41 PM
Without a central bank targeting interest rates, interest rates would still be about where they are today. Why? Because the rate of inflation is so low.

Doubling down on same illogical argument, I see. Inflation is controlled by the central bank through open market operations, including rate targeting and QE.


A lender uses three things to determine what interest rate they are willing to agree to. First is the expected rate of return on their loan. If they are happy with a one percent rate of return, they start with one percent. Then they want a real return- after inflation. So they add in the expected price inflation during the course of the loan. Today, about two percent. Then you add in a risk factor- how likely do you think the borrower is to pay back the loan. Now we are looking in this example at about 3.5%. Mortgages and car loans and business loans are all within ranges expected based on the current rate of inflation.

I won't postulate what inflation or interest rates (or if there would even be a such thing as usury) could be without a central bank but do you realize how ridiculous your post is?

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 01:46 PM
Doubling down on same illogical argument, I see. Inflation is controlled by the central bank through open market operations, including rate targeting and QE.



I won't postulate what inflation or interest rates (or if there would even be a such thing as usury) could be without a central bank but do you realize how ridiculous your post is?

I see. You have no idea what they should be yet are certain that they are wrong. They could be too high, they could be too low, they could be just right.

Yes, you did not suggest a rate but Chester Copperpot did and he is who I responded to.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 01:50 PM
I see. You have no idea what they should be yet are certain that they are wrong. They could be too high, they could be too low, they could be just right.

Yes, you did not suggest a rate but Chester Copperpot did and he is who I responded to.

When somebody picks the rate instead of letting it happen naturally the odds that they get it right are almost non-existent.

CC made a guess that is probably wrong as well but since he was just guessing and wants the market to decide it doesn't make much difference.

devil21
08-22-2017, 01:52 PM
I see. You have no idea what they should be yet are certain that they are wrong. They could be too high, they could be too low, they could be just right.

Yes, you did not suggest a rate but Chester Copperpot did and he is who I responded to.

I'm only certain that your post is illogical, misapplied crap.

jllundqu
08-22-2017, 02:00 PM
Who cares? Does ANYONE think that congress will do ANYTHING about the debt EVARRRRR? No. They will increase the debt. THey may bitch and moan about 'fiscal responsibility!' or they may even have a token government shutdown, only to pass a debt increase and keep right on marching over the cliff.

THEY WILL NEVER STOP THE DEBT.

Chester Copperpot
08-22-2017, 02:54 PM
I see. You have no idea what they should be yet are certain that they are wrong. They could be too high, they could be too low, they could be just right.

Yes, you did not suggest a rate but Chester Copperpot did and he is who I responded to.

The market will get to decide what the rates should be.. It is my estimate that they would initlally go up somewhere between 20%-25% as they are being kept artificially low...

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 06:51 PM
The market will get to decide what the rates should be.. It is my estimate that they would initlally go up somewhere between 20%-25% as they are being kept artificially low...

Markets do set interest rates. The Fed only sets very short term (overnight) rates at which banks can borrow money from the Fed. Things like mortgage rates are tied to longer term US Treasuries (usually 15 years) and car loans tend to follow shorter term Treasuries (five years). The rates for US Treasuries are determined by the market via auctions where buyers make offers on what the are willing to pay to buy them for- supply and demand. When the demand for Treasuries is high, the price tends to be high and the interest rate the pay lower. The Fed did try to target such rates when they were purchasing US Treasuries but stopped that in 2014.

How did you arrive at a 20%- 25% figure (and what interest rates are you talking about- short term, long term, mortgages, savings accounts)? There is a wide spectrum of interest rates. Thank you for your input.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 06:59 PM
Markets do set interest rates. The Fed only sets very short term (overnight) rates at which banks can borrow money from the Fed. Things like mortgage rates are tied to longer term US Treasuries (usually 15 years) and car loans tend to follow shorter term Treasuries (five years). The rates for US Treasuries are determined by the market via auctions where buyers make offers on what the are willing to pay to buy them for- supply and demand. When the demand for Treasuries is high, the price tends to be high and the interest rate the pay lower. The Fed did try to target such rates when they were purchasing US Treasuries but stopped that in 2014.

And banks don't borrow money from the Fed to buy T-Bills/Private Bonds?
The Fed doesn't buy T-Bills/Private Bonds?

Zippyjuan
08-22-2017, 07:08 PM
And banks don't borrow money from the Fed to buy T-Bills/Private Bonds?
The Fed doesn't buy T-Bills/Private Bonds?

No, banks don't borrow money from the Fed to buy T-bills or any other investments. Banks look weak when they have to borrow money from the Fed so they don't unless they have to (Fed loans are only supposed to be over-night anyways). Current outstanding loans from the Fed to member banks stands at $166 million (not $billion). They do sometimes borrow to cover cash flows when they have to balance their reserve requirements (if loans get too large relative to their deposits) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BORROW

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?width=880&height=440&id=DISCBORR

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 07:12 PM
No, banks don't borrow money from the Fed to buy T-bills or any other investments. Banks look weak when they have to borrow money from the Fed so they don't unless they have to (Fed loans are only supposed to be over-night anyways). Current outstanding loans from the Fed to member banks stands at $166 million (not $billion). They do sometimes borrow to cover cash flows when they have to balance their reserve requirements (if loans get too large relative to their deposits) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BORROW

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?width=880&height=440&id=DISCBORR

Yeah I believe you The Fed doesn't affect the economy

Get lost.
You are not worth debating.

r3volution 3.0
08-22-2017, 07:53 PM
https://media2.giphy.com/media/KupdfnqWwV7J6/giphy.gif

You Sir might want to consider the impact on roads before you embarrass yourself again.

TheCount
08-22-2017, 10:58 PM
without a federal reserve interest rates would be 25% right now.. that will stop the spending and encourage savings.The size of the money supply wasn't fixed before the federal reserve. The treasury could take over the job of affecting interest rates if the fed vanished tomorrow.

TheCount
08-22-2017, 11:00 PM
Yeah I believe you The Fed doesn't affect the economy

Get lost.
You are not worth debating.
Got a bit touchy when he proved you wrong about banks using the fed's overnight loans, huh.

Swordsmyth
08-22-2017, 11:05 PM
Got a bit touchy when he proved you wrong about banks using the fed's overnight loans, huh.

No, I just don't feel like letting a Pro-Fed Troll waste my time.

devil21
08-22-2017, 11:07 PM
Got a bit touchy when he proved you wrong about banks using the fed's overnight loans, huh.

Come on, you know that Zippyjuan(tm) uses very particularly chosen words to create distinctions without differences. Sure, the Fed itself doesn't loan money generally (except for trillions to overseas banks and corporations that aren't divulged without legislation, that pesky FOMC secrecy thing). The member banks that make up the Federal Reserve System do, however, "loan" money.

TheCount
08-22-2017, 11:27 PM
Come on, you know that Zippyjuan(tm) uses very particularly chosen words to create distinctions without differences. Sure, the Fed itself doesn't loan money generally (except for trillions to overseas banks and corporations that aren't divulged without legislation, that pesky FOMC secrecy thing). The member banks that make up the Federal Reserve System do, however, "loan" money.
I can't speak for Zippy and how he approaches the issue of central banking, but from my point of view I think that it's important to understand how the system works. There's entirely too much misinformation and flat out myth out there regarding how the fed and the American banking system as a whole operates. In my opinion, this is counterproductive, as it tends to distract from the real argument regarding fiscal policy, just like what happened in this thread.

As I'm sure you know, the member banks do loan using money that is produced by the fed, but that money is not loaned to them, it's produced when the fed purchases assets from them.

devil21
08-23-2017, 03:34 AM
Speaking of debt ceiling, Trump said earlier that he will shut down the government over the Wall issue.

Madison320
08-23-2017, 08:33 AM
As I'm sure you know, the member banks do loan using money that is produced by the fed, but that money is not loaned to them, it's produced when the fed purchases assets from them.

You're right. The money is not loaned to them by the Fed it's GIVEN to them. The Fed massively overpays for the assets it buys (that's the whole point).

Madison320
08-23-2017, 08:37 AM
The size of the money supply wasn't fixed before the federal reserve. The treasury could take over the job of affecting interest rates if the fed vanished tomorrow.

The money supply was relatively fixed when we were on a gold standard. I think we were basically on a true gold standard from the late 1800s until 1913. That's when we had the industrial revolution and I'm pretty sure we had falling prices.

Mr.NoSmile
08-23-2017, 10:14 AM
They'll quarrel and debate and say 'mean' things to each other until the very last second when a deal has been met, as always. These folks don't have the stones to let the government shut down again.

r3volution 3.0
08-23-2017, 12:20 PM
Speaking of debt ceiling, Trump said earlier that he will shut down the government over the Wall issue.

Yea, one of the more under-reported stories of the day.

Shows clearly where his priorities lie, and it's not with fiscal conservatism.

TheCount
08-23-2017, 12:23 PM
You're right. The money is not loaned to them by the Fed it's GIVEN to them. The Fed massively overpays for the assets it buys (that's the whole point).
Because they're creating money at the moment of purchase, it doesn't matter how much they pay. It still increases the money supply.

Madison320
08-23-2017, 12:41 PM
Because they're creating money at the moment of purchase, it doesn't matter how much they pay. It still increases the money supply.

I agree, I thought you were defending Zippy who keeps telling me that QE is not the money supply.

r3volution 3.0
08-23-2017, 01:51 PM
Markets do set interest rates.

Buying trillions of dollars of an asset doesn't affect its price? Amazing!

Is that magic generally applicable, or just when the Fed's the buyer?


Not having a central bank doesn't prevent them from spending more money then they have. As long as the are able to borrow money from someplace.....

Having a central bank allows them to borrow more cheaply, and hence encourages more borrowing than there'd otherwise be.


I see. You have no idea what they should be yet are certain that they are wrong. They could be too high, they could be too low, they could be just right.

It's impossible to know what the price of anything (including money) should be, which is precisely why markets are superior to central planning. It's certain that interest rates would be higher absent the Fed's activities, since the only effect of those activities is to suppress interest rates. Nothing they do encourages interest rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. How much higher rates would be absent the Fed is impossible to say. In the same way, if the state were buying millions of tons of corn every year, we could say that corn prices are higher than they ought to be, though we don't know exactly what they ought to be.


Do we need more savings? Is there a shortage of money for companies to borrow?

Money =/= savings

Savings = deferred consumption

By not building that house, and saving that money instead (whether one puts it in a bank, buys an equity share in a company, puts in under the mattress, or sets it on fire) the resources which otherwise would have been consumed building the house are now available for other purposes, such as investment in capital goods, which will ultimately increase total output and raise standards of living. Economic growth requires deferred consumption (savings); a society which consumes everything it produces will regress, as it consumes capital, until it hits subsistence. Money creation discourages savings via lower interest rates, and thus retards capital accumulation and economic growth.

Now, on the other hand, money creation is sometimes called "forced savings," in the sense that it redistributes resources (via Cantillon effects) to the earlier recipients of the new money (usually large corporations), from the later recipients (everyone else). In other words, the later recipients of the new money are forced to defer consumption, so that the resources which they otherwise would have consumed can be redirected toward the early recipients of the new money. It's true that this is investment: this can increase the supply of capital goods, etc. But economic growth isn't just a matter of taking savings and investing them in anything. It's not enough that people defer consumption; the resources thus freed must be invested in productive enterprises (if the labor, wood, etc, saved from not building the house go into digging ditches and filling them in, nothing is gained). And so the problem with "forced saving" via money creation is that it distributes savings in a relatively inefficient manner,; the market distributes savings to enterprises in proportion to their productivity; money creation causes savings to be distributed to enterprises in proportion to their proximity to the money-tap, which, in practice, usually means their political connections. Imagine the government directly taxing people and then handing the proceeds to politically connected companies: more or less the same thing.


What would happen if people stopped spending? How would that impact business? Would they increase borrowing (which would cost them much, much more money) to expand output capacity? If people stopped buying, demand for their goods would plummet and they would be cutting- not expanding- production. They would be laying off workers causing high unemployment (those 20% interest rates in 1980 were quickly followed by 10% unemployment).

If there is a decline in the production of consumer goods, because people are choosing to consume less, the prices of labor, land, and other resources drop until they reach a point at which it would be profitable for the producers of capital goods to employ them. In money term, interest rates fall and companies borrow more, to expand future production. Again, saving isn't the cause of depression; it's the reason there's any growth at all.

devil21
08-23-2017, 02:15 PM
Yea, one of the more under-reported stories of the day.

Shows clearly where his priorities lie, and it's not with fiscal conservatism.

I've been warning about an imminent shutdown for a while on RPF.

I still 99% think the shutdown will happen but because of the bigger economic reset/reordering under way, petrodollar death. The Trump Wall shit is just a smoke screen for bigger banker agendas. The important part will be to pay attention to what Congress does during the uproar and confusion since history shows they change things when no one is looking (see Federal Reserve Act passage). Gonna get interestin' very, very soon methinks. A whole lotta crap rolling down hill at once...

Zippyjuan
08-23-2017, 03:06 PM
The money supply was relatively fixed when we were on a gold standard. I think we were basically on a true gold standard from the late 1800s until 1913. That's when we had the industrial revolution and I'm pretty sure we had falling prices.

http://www.econdataus.com/cpi_m21.jpg

Zippyjuan
08-23-2017, 03:21 PM
Speaking of debt ceiling, Trump said earlier that he will shut down the government over the Wall issue.

Doubt he would follow though on that. Not a big enough issue to shut everything down over. Just a promise made at a political rally to get the crowd going.

Chester Copperpot
08-23-2017, 03:58 PM
Markets do set interest rates. The Fed only sets very short term (overnight) rates at which banks can borrow money from the Fed. Things like mortgage rates are tied to longer term US Treasuries (usually 15 years) and car loans tend to follow shorter term Treasuries (five years). The rates for US Treasuries are determined by the market via auctions where buyers make offers on what the are willing to pay to buy them for- supply and demand. When the demand for Treasuries is high, the price tends to be high and the interest rate the pay lower. The Fed did try to target such rates when they were purchasing US Treasuries but stopped that in 2014.

How did you arrive at a 20%- 25% figure (and what interest rates are you talking about- short term, long term, mortgages, savings accounts)? There is a wide spectrum of interest rates. Thank you for your input.

zip, cmon man. who pays you do spread all the fud? its been 10 years.. just tell us already. the fed shouldnt even exist. dont act like the fed doesnt do anything.. ron paul supporters might as well be called anti-federal reserve supporters..

Chester Copperpot
08-23-2017, 04:00 PM
The size of the money supply wasn't fixed before the federal reserve. The treasury could take over the job of affecting interest rates if the fed vanished tomorrow.

govt has no power to control interest rates.. all its supposed to do is coin money. its not allowed to emit bills of credit but id rather take a govt-issued bill of credit than a privately funded fed-issues bill backed with debt.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-23-2017, 05:06 PM
zip, cmon man. who pays you do spread all the fud?


Soros' Open Society Foundation Projects.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-23-2017, 05:19 PM
I can't speak for Zippy and how he approaches the issue of central banking, but from my point of view I think that it's important to understand how the system works. There's entirely too much misinformation and flat out myth out there regarding how the fed and the American banking system as a whole operates.


Really? What is the basis of your claim?

Zip studied political science in college. You appear to be even less qualified and informed than Zip. Why would someone listen to you?

TheCount
08-23-2017, 10:22 PM
govt has no power to control interest rates.. all its supposed to do is coin money. its not allowed to emit bills of credit but id rather take a govt-issued bill of credit than a privately funded fed-issues bill backed with debt.
The power to create money is also the power to affect interest rates, as the interest rate is just a reflection of the supply and demand for money.

Also, generally speaking, independent central banks create less inflation than those that are directly part of the government. If it were part of the Treasury department or whatever, it would need to be completely insulated from politics and politicians, or else the "fix" might be worse than the current situation.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-23-2017, 10:40 PM
If it were part of the Treasury department or whatever, it would need to be completely insulated from politics and politicians, or else the "fix" might be worse than the current situation.

Nothing in this world is insulated from politics. Getting two people together means politics. You like all these "whatever" departments because you like big government and favor centralization.

Chester Copperpot
08-24-2017, 06:16 AM
The power to create money is also the power to affect interest rates, as the interest rate is just a reflection of the supply and demand for money.

Also, generally speaking, independent central banks create less inflation than those that are directly part of the government. If it were part of the Treasury department or whatever, it would need to be completely insulated from politics and politicians, or else the "fix" might be worse than the current situation.

if you work your butt off and literally strike gold and want to get it coined by the govt then you deserve it for all your hard work.

but the govt cant print money it can only print currency and it has no power to do that constitutionally.

TheCount
08-24-2017, 07:26 AM
but the govt cant print money it can only print currency and it has no power to do that constitutionally. I disagree on that. However, even with regards to gold, the government would have the power to decide how much to purchase in order to mint currency. That would affect interest rates for dollar-denominated accounts.

Swordsmyth
08-24-2017, 11:47 AM
I disagree on that. However, even with regards to gold, the government would have the power to decide how much to purchase in order to mint currency. That would affect interest rates for dollar-denominated accounts.

The government should be required to mint any gold or silver submitted to it.
Private parties should be able to get certified to mint coins to government standards.

Zippyjuan
08-24-2017, 02:21 PM
Just a couple days ago Trump was proclaiming how great he was getting along with Ryan and McConnell.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-idUSKCN1B41RT


Trump blames fellow Republican leaders for debt ceiling 'mess'

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump picked a new fight on Thursday with fellow Republicans whose support he needs to advance his policy agenda, saying congressional leaders could have avoided a "mess" over raising the U.S. debt ceiling if they had heeded his advice.

In the latest in what have become regular criticisms of party leaders, Trump sought to assign blame if Congress fails to reach agreement on raising the cap on the amount the federal government may borrow, with a deadline to do so just weeks away.

Trump said he had advised Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan to link passage of legislation raising the debt ceiling to a measure on veterans affairs that he signed on Aug. 12.

"They ... didn't do it so now we have a big deal with Dems holding them up (as usual) on Debt Ceiling approval. Could have been so easy-now a mess!" he said in Twitter posts.

The Treasury Department, already using "extraordinary measures" to remain current on its obligations, has said the debt ceiling must be raised by Sept. 29. If it is not, the government would not be able to borrow more money or pay its bills, including payments on its debts, which could hurt the U.S. credit rating.

A spokesman for McConnell noted the Senate majority leader had said earlier this week, in an appearance with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, that the debt ceiling would be raised.

McConnell was "unequivocal" about it, said spokesman Don Stewart. He said McConnell also mentioned it again on Wednesday in a statement the Senate leader issued about his "shared goals" with Trump.

Ryan, speaking at a town hall meeting on tax reform at a Boeing plant in Washington state, also said Congress would pass legislation to raise the ceiling in time to ensure debt payment. He said many options were available for increasing the limit.

In a later interview with CNBC, Ryan said he had considered attaching debt ceiling legislation to the measure on funding veterans' programs, but a deadline on that measure came up and "we weren’t able to do that then."

The funding measure passed the House in late July and the Senate on Aug. 1 without the additional language attached.

DEADLINES LOOM

The debt ceiling raise is one of the must-pass measures Congress will take up when it returns on Sept. 5 from recess.

Congress also will have about 12 working days from when it returns to approve spending measures to keep the government open. While the budget and debt cap are separate, they are likely to become entangled, with Republican opponents of a debt ceiling increase expected to demand federal spending cuts.




Both the spending and debt ceiling bills could pass the Republican-led House by a simple majority vote, but will need 60 votes to pass the Senate, where Republicans hold 52 of 100 seats, meaning they will need some Democratic support.

A respected think tank said in a report on Thursday the government might not have enough money to pay all its bills on Oct. 2 if Washington does not raise the debt cap. The Treasury might not have enough money on that day to make a roughly $80 billion payment that will be due to a military retirement fund, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.


Trump has often expressed frustration that Congress has not passed significant legislation since he took office in January. His renewed jab at Republican leaders came a day after the White House and McConnell issued separate statements saying they were continuing to work together on shared priorities, seeking to counter news reports that their relationship was disintegrating.

goldenequity
09-03-2017, 08:13 AM
So... to recap... Trump wanted debt ceiling raise
tied to VA Bill to avoid the Sept. 29th 'crunch'... McConnell/Ryan didn't get it done. sad. :p

Munchin just called for it to be tied to Harvey Aid.


Mnuchin Says Raising Debt Limit Should Be Linked to Harvey Aid
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-03/mnuchin-says-raising-debt-limit-should-be-linked-to-harvey-aid

Mnuchin: Debt limit should be tied to the Harvey funding
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/349043-mnuchin-debt-limit-should-be-tied-to-the-harvey-funding

Madison320
09-03-2017, 08:26 AM
So... to recap... Trump wanted debt ceiling raise
tied to VA Bill to avoid the Sept. 29th 'crunch'... McConnell/Ryan didn't get it done. sad. :p

Munchin just called for it to be tied to Harvey Aid.


Mnuchin Says Raising Debt Limit Should Be Linked to Harvey Aid
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-03/mnuchin-says-raising-debt-limit-should-be-linked-to-harvey-aid

Mnuchin: Debt limit should be tied to the Harvey funding
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/349043-mnuchin-debt-limit-should-be-tied-to-the-harvey-funding

The annoying thing is that they're just making empty threats. None of them want to actually enforce the debt ceiling and they openly admit it.

r3volution 3.0
09-04-2017, 09:22 AM
So... to recap... Trump wanted debt ceiling raise
tied to VA Bill to avoid the Sept. 29th 'crunch'... McConnell/Ryan didn't get it done. sad. :p

Munchin just called for it to be tied to Harvey Aid.

Yup

He wants a debt ceiling hike, without any reforms, and is willing to use veterans/Harvey victims as props to get it.

Cruz (of TX) will probably fold now. Rand won't. I don't about Lee. Hopefully it gets killed in the House anyway.

Anti Federalist
09-04-2017, 11:41 AM
Bunch of horseshit smoke and mirrors.

They'll kick the can down the road and tack another trillion of debt on our backs, without fail, and nobody will give a fuck.

Just another day in the Empire.

tod evans
09-04-2017, 12:26 PM
Bunch of horseshit smoke and mirrors.

They'll kick the can down the road and tack another trillion of debt on our backs, without fail, and nobody will give a fuck.

Just another day in the Empire.

Doesn't matter which puppet is at the helm, the techniques and methodology don't change..

Madison320
09-04-2017, 03:53 PM
I thought the debt ceiling was to keep the debt from rising not a bargaining tool to make the debt rise faster.

enhanced_deficit
09-05-2017, 09:58 AM
Munchin just called for it to be tied to Harvey Aid.


Mnuchin Says Raising Debt Limit Should Be Linked to Harvey Aid
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-03/mnuchin-says-raising-debt-limit-should-be-linked-to-harvey-aid

Mnuchin: Debt limit should be tied to the Harvey funding
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/349043-mnuchin-debt-limit-should-be-tied-to-the-harvey-funding

It has been un-tied to Harvey aid according to latest reports.

goldenequity
09-05-2017, 10:06 AM
It has been un-tied to Harvey aid according to latest reports.
The suspense is killing me.
/s