Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 61

Thread: What's the Trump/Fed relationship going to be like?

  1. #1

    What's the Trump/Fed relationship going to be like?

    There's 2 things I'm really wondering about Trump. Govt spending and interest rates. I'm guessing we get a big stimulus package, but I have no idea what will happen with rates. I think Yellen term is for 2 more years. Will Trump push the Fed to raise rates? Or will he chicken out and tell them to keep them at 0.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    A smart man would "End the Fed"

  4. #3
    Trump already said he is for low interest rates. There will be no change whatsoever in current Fed policy, except that conditions will get even worse.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Trump already said he is for low interest rates. There will be no change whatsoever in current Fed policy, except that conditions will get even worse.
    But later he said his business personally benefited from low rates, but the country as a whole would benefit from higher rates.

  6. #5
    'King of debt' Donald Trump: 'Now is the time to borrow'
    Trump sees the climate as a ripe time for the U.S. to take advantage of almost-free money.

    The U.S. is nearly $20 trillion in debt, a number that has almost doubled under President Barack Obama. If Donald Trump is elected president, the nation's massive pile of IOUs will keep on growing and then some.

    Already the self-proclaimed "king of debt" — a declaration the Republican nominee made on CNBC in May — Trump promised Thursday to use the low-interest environment as a means to rebuild the national infrastructure.

    "This is a time to borrow and borrow long term," he told CNBC during a discussion on how he would finance the many projects he wants to undertake, such as rebuilding airports and bridges and upgrading the military.

    Absent from Trump's myriad criticisms of Obama has been anything about debt. The president entered office with the U.S. owing the world $10.6 trillion, and that has swelled to $19.4 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.

    While the debt load has gone from 87 percent to 104 percent compared to gross domestic product during the Obama administration, it has remained largely manageable thanks to rock-bottom interest rates courtesy of the Fed.

    By way of comparison, the U.S. paid $383 billion in interest on that debt in 2009; in 2015 that number grew to $402 billion, just a 5 percent increase despite an 83 percent surge in total debt, Treasury figures show.

    During that time, the Fed had kept its interest rate target anchored near zero, a policy that began during the 2008 financial crisis and didn't move during the recovery until the central bank hiked a quarter-point in December.



    Trump sees the climate as a ripe time for the U.S. to take advantage of almost-free money. He wants to use it to rebuild American infrastructure, including airports that "are like third-world countries." (The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs New York metro-area facilities, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

    "Normally you would say you want to reduce your debt, and I like to reduce debt as much as anybody," he said. "The problem is, you have a military problem, you have an infrastructure problem — a tremendous infrastructure problem — and you have other problems. The asset is your rates are so low."

    During his "king of debt" discussion, Trump said he likely would replace current Fed Chair Janet Yellen, whose term runs to 2018, a year after Trump would take office.

    However, judging by his pro-debt comments, he would be likely to appoint someone just as dovish when it comes to rates.

    "What's going to happen when the rates eventually go up and you can't borrow, you absolutely can't borrow, because it's too expensive?" he said. "It would destroy our balance sheet, totally destroy the balance sheet."

    Trump also hit back against an analysis from Moody's Analytics, which said his plans would cause a "lengthy recession," run up $11 trillion in debt and cost 3.5 million jobs.

    In addition to taking advantage of the opportune interest rate climate, Trump's economic plan calls for slashing income and business taxes. Moody's economist Mark Zandi, who has supported Hillary Clinton for president, has said her plan would make the economy "stronger" than Trump's proposals.

    "It's a ridiculous statement," Trump said. "My plan's going to lead to growth. We're going to have the jobs not her. ... I think they were looking at an old plan."
    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/king-...to-borrow.html
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  7. #6
    Trump would probably push harder for negative interest rates than Hillary would have. If you voted for the $#@! with hopes of better monetary policy, sorry to burst your bubble. When the market busts in the next year or two, he will have the printing press running non stop. That's when he would build his cage on the southern border, when he can claim he is doing it for jobs.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    "This is a time to borrow and borrow long term," he told CNBC during a discussion on how he would finance the many projects he wants to undertake, such as rebuilding airports and bridges and upgrading the military.
    The problem is it won't work. There's no private demand for 30 year treasuries at 3%. Long term rates would skyrocket if they tried that. Unless they got the Fed to monetize it.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Trump would probably push harder for negative interest rates than Hillary would have. If you voted for the $#@! with hopes of better monetary policy, sorry to burst your bubble. When the market busts in the next year or two, he will have the printing press running non stop. That's when he would build his cage on the southern border, when he can claim he is doing it for jobs.
    I voted for Johnson. You're probably right but who knows with Trump? I don't mind if he does the wrong thing, my investment strategy benefits from it.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    But later he said his business personally benefited from low rates, but the country as a whole would benefit from higher rates.
    How do higher interest rates benefit the country as a whole? Higher rates discourage business from borrowing to expand. It adds to the costs of doing business for those who need to borrow. Higher costs leads to higher prices. Yes, savers get a bit more but is there a shortage of savings to lend out? Though the Fed could very well raise rates by a quarter of a point in December.

    Yellen's term is through the end of January, 2018.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-09-2016 at 12:38 PM.

  12. #10

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How do higher interest rates benefit the country as a whole? Higher rates discourage business from borrowing to expand. It adds to the costs of doing business for those who need to borrow. Higher costs leads to higher prices. Yes, savers get a bit more but is there a shortage of savings to lend out? Though the Fed could very well raise rates by a quarter of a point in December.

    Yellen's term is through the end of January, 2018.

    There has to be a shortage of savings to loan out right now. No one is saving. Rates have to be high enough to encourage a pool of savings but low enough that businesses can afford to borrow it. The free market figures that out.

  14. #12
    Nothing rings more hollow than a post by CPUd.

    MAGA, bee.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    There has to be a shortage of savings to loan out right now. No one is saving. Rates have to be high enough to encourage a pool of savings but low enough that businesses can afford to borrow it. The free market figures that out.
    There is plenty of money available to lend- not a shortage of savings (in terms of funding borrowing- there may be a shortage of savings for individuals to cover their retirement or even emergencies). This chart shows the growing gap between deposits and outstanding loans- deposits are growing faster than loans. Loan demand has been weak compared to savings. That suggests interest rates on loans may be too high- not too low.

    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-09-2016 at 02:43 PM.

  16. #14
    Trump will make the FED Great again.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Trump will make the FED Great again.

    But the real question:


    What will ZippyJuan do to make hisself great again?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  18. #16
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...of course i could be wrong but,....trump like virtually EVERY stinking republican and democrat has no honest understanding of our hideous monetary order....i can find nothing in his words, writing, etc. that leads me to believe he is anything but a typical republican monetary ignoramus...

    ...trump would be smart to tap ron paul for trea$ury...at least ron paul would give us transparency..[i would hope]

    ...trump fans, i'd bet BIG that your guy will be a pu$$Ycat...certainly no threat to the hideous exi$ting order!..btw, i hope/pray for a miracle...but i expect the $ame old $ame old republicrap...

    [perhaps one of you republican trumpswabs could merely copy and paste trump's best thinking on 'our' [hideous] monetary order...after all, he's been working his hole for nearly 70 years..surely trump has said/written $omething of value...but i won't hold my breath..]



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    There is plenty of money available to lend- not a shortage of savings (in terms of funding borrowing- there may be a shortage of savings for individuals to cover their retirement or even emergencies). This chart shows the growing gap between deposits and outstanding loans- deposits are growing faster than loans. Loan demand has been weak compared to savings. That suggests interest rates on loans may be too high- not too low.

    That just isn't how the system works. The federal government creates the money that it "borrows". There is no crowding out effect!

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...of course i could be wrong but,....trump like virtually EVERY stinking republican and democrat has no honest understanding of our hideous monetary order....i can find nothing in his words, writing, etc. that leads me to believe he is anything but a typical republican monetary ignoramus...

    ...trump would be smart to tap ron paul for trea$ury...at least ron paul would give us transparency..[i would hope]

    ...trump fans, i'd bet BIG that your guy will be a pu$$Ycat...certainly no threat to the hideous exi$ting order!..btw, i hope/pray for a miracle...but i expect the $ame old $ame old republicrap...

    [perhaps one of you republican trumpswabs could merely copy and paste trump's best thinking on 'our' [hideous] monetary order...after all, he's been working his hole for nearly 70 years..surely trump has said/written $omething of value...but i won't hold my breath..]
    As much as I love Ron Paul, he is one of the many who doesn't understand how the monetary system works. That is why his predictions of hyperinflation, crowding out, debt crises, etc. haven't panned out. He subscribes to the fractional reserve theory of banking (which I think pretty much every economist, Keynesian, Austrian, and Chicago school does), even though it has been thoroughly disproven....you know, by numbers and policy. All you have to do is read banking policy and Alan Greenspan on money created to know that it simply doesn't work that way.

    I would put Ron Paul up for Department of Defense or the Supreme Court...though he doesn't have a JD so that could be a problem. Or, maybe put him in charge of fixing the healthcare system...I'm guessing even the kowtowing Republicans would make it hard, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    There has to be a shortage of savings to loan out right now. No one is saving. Rates have to be high enough to encourage a pool of savings but low enough that businesses can afford to borrow it. The free market figures that out.
    The Federal Government doesn't really "borrow" from the market. Haven't you ever wondered why, despite record US debt levels, the rate on bonds gets lower and lower? Despite all the predictions of people like Schiff, Paul, and others, I should add. People are scooping them up like hot cakes...there is no shortage of savings because government creates the savings. That is how a fiat money system works....the US federal government instructs the treasury, who instructs the federal reserve, to credit bank accounts. Poof, savings created! They then issue government debt in order to drain the reserves from the system, in order to keep interest rates higher.

  21. #18
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    As much as I love Ron Paul, he is one of the many who doesn't understand how the monetary system works. That is why his predictions of hyperinflation, crowding out, debt crises, etc. haven't panned out. He subscribes to the fractional reserve theory of banking (which I think pretty much every economist, Keynesian, Austrian, and Chicago school does), even though it has been thoroughly disproven....you know, by numbers and policy. All you have to do is read banking policy and Alan Greenspan on money created to know that it simply doesn't work that way.

    I would put Ron Paul up for Department of Defense or the Supreme Court...though he doesn't have a JD so that could be a problem. Or, maybe put him in charge of fixing the healthcare system...I'm guessing even the kowtowing Republicans would make it hard, though.




    ...you make a lot of sense, dr. no...and you may be 100% correct...but i don't think ron paul 'subscribes to the fractional reserve theory' so much as he doesn't truly understand it...just like EVERY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT politician i'm aware of... (please inform me of any republicrats who do 'get it')

    ..but i trust that complete transparency could be our best friend here, dr. no....and i 'believe' [yeah, i know] dr. paul to be maybe the best person [republican or democrat] to work towards pulling the hideou$ curtain away...don't we have to start there?


    ...of course, your idea of tapping him for 'defense,'
    the supreme court, etc. would make me happy...

    ...i would truly be interested in your opinion of who [which current federal politician(s)] has the be$t monetary idea$, what are the be$t idea$, etc..i see none...absolutely zero...(it seems the puppetma$ter$ won't allow anyone with any hone$t under$tanding$ to get anywhere near a public office, a microphone, etc..]

    ...the ludwiggers and gold-buggers have some interesting theories...but their ideas are impractical and do not get at the root of the rot...(i.e. the fraudulent nature of 'money issuance' etc...)

    ...btw brushfire, bill hicks [carlin too toward the end of his life] was !the best...vicious to the goddamned cretins who deserved it and more...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 11-10-2016 at 08:34 AM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    There is plenty of money available to lend- not a shortage of savings (in terms of funding borrowing- there may be a shortage of savings for individuals to cover their retirement or even emergencies). This chart shows the growing gap between deposits and outstanding loans- deposits are growing faster than loans. Loan demand has been weak compared to savings. That suggests interest rates on loans may be too high- not too low.
    Where did those deposits come from? If they are true savings then you're right, but I seriously doubt that. Who's saving money at .5% when inflation is officially running at 2% and probably unofficially much higher? I don't know anyone who has money in a saving account.

    My guess is that a lot of that money was printed out of thin air.

  23. #20
    What's the Trump/Fed relationship going to be like?
    It's complicated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.No. View Post
    That just isn't how the system works. The federal government creates the money that it "borrows". There is no crowding out effect!



    As much as I love Ron Paul, he is one of the many who doesn't understand how the monetary system works. That is why his predictions of hyperinflation, crowding out, debt crises, etc. haven't panned out. He subscribes to the fractional reserve theory of banking (which I think pretty much every economist, Keynesian, Austrian, and Chicago school does), even though it has been thoroughly disproven....you know, by numbers and policy. All you have to do is read banking policy and Alan Greenspan on money created to know that it simply doesn't work that way.

    .
    How does the government borrow money? By selling US Treasury notes. Who buys those notes? Banks, investment funds, individuals, foreign governments. The government doesn't "just print up that money". During QE the Federal Reserve did print up money to buy US Treasuries but normally they don't do that.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Where did those deposits come from? If they are true savings then you're right, but I seriously doubt that. Who's saving money at .5% when inflation is officially running at 2% and probably unofficially much higher? I don't know anyone who has money in a saving account.

    My guess is that a lot of that money was printed out of thin air.
    Deposits are not just a person's savings account. Deposits also include money a business has but hasn't spent. They have deposits too. If the deposit money was made up out of thin air whose account did they put it into and how do I get one of those accounts?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    As much as I love Ron Paul, he is one of the many who doesn't understand how the monetary system works. That is why his predictions of hyperinflation, crowding out, debt crises, etc. haven't panned out. He subscribes to the fractional reserve theory of banking (which I think pretty much every economist, Keynesian, Austrian, and Chicago school does), even though it has been thoroughly disproven....you know, by numbers and policy. All you have to do is read banking policy and Alan Greenspan on money created to know that it simply doesn't work that way.

    I would put Ron Paul up for Department of Defense or the Supreme Court...though he doesn't have a JD so that could be a problem. Or, maybe put him in charge of fixing the healthcare system...I'm guessing even the kowtowing Republicans would make it hard, though.




    ...you make a lot of sense, dr. no...and you may be 100% correct...but i don't think ron paul 'subscribes to the fractional reserve theory' so much as he doesn't truly understand it...just like EVERY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT politician i'm aware of... (please inform me of any republicrats who do 'get it')
    Thanks for that. I think a lot of people on this forum don't take any criticism of RP very well, even when it is merited, so I appreciate you hearing me out. I don't think there is anyone in Congress who really understands how it works...or at least, they don't publically admit that they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ..but i trust that complete transparency could be our best friend here, dr. no....and i 'believe' [yeah, i know] dr. paul to be maybe the best person [republican or democrat] to work towards pulling the hideou$ curtain away...don't we have to start there?


    It depends on what you mean by transparency. The Fed has been audited...their balance sheets are open to anyone. All that we don't know is what is or was going on in the heads of the Fed chairmen. If you mean transparency in that we need to know how the system works, again, no one is hiding that. It is there for you to find...the massive ignorance is because economists, congressmen, and media personnel who don't understand how the system works keep on perpetuating the myth...this trickles through all the way to the educational system. Heck, you have some schools that still teach that your dollar is redeemable in gold!

    What we need is someone who can debunk that myth. In reality, the Federal Reserve doesn't have much power...it can influence short-term interest rates. That's really all that it can do. The biggest effects of monetary policy are the scares/jubilations is causes, and then the subsequent overcorrections that happen when people calm down.

    But that's never going to happen when the media, every Congressmen, etc. constantly looks at what the Fed is doing. They constantly worry about that instead of focusing on fiscal policy, on regulatory policy, on trade policy. Even those who hate the Fed, like Ron Paul, give it way, way, way too much credit.


    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...i would truly be interested in your opinion of who [which current federal politician(s)] has the be$t monetary idea$, what are the be$t idea$, etc..i see none...absolutely zero...(it seems the puppetma$ter$ won't allow anyone with any hone$t under$tanding$ to get anywhere near a public office, a microphone, etc..]
    At one time, Newt Gingrich talked about it, and he was shot down emphatically. Being the craven that he is, he bowed his head and returned to the narrative.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How does the government borrow money? By selling US Treasury notes. Who buys those notes? Banks, investment funds, individuals, foreign governments. The government doesn't "just print up that money". During QE the Federal Reserve did print up money to buy US Treasuries but normally they don't do that.
    The government doesn't "borrow money" like you think it does. The government just prints the money out of thin air. They credit accounts of member banks at the Fed, who debit customer accounts as a result. The Fed then issues bonds to soak up those credits from the system, in order to maintain interest rates. During QE, the Federal Reserve printed up money, created the accompanying bonds, and then exchanged that money for assets held by the banks. When they want to remove that money from the system, they will exchange the government bonds for that money.

    Another way to think about it...what happens when private individuals, banks, investment funds, etc. buy debt from the government? They get the asset (bonds) from the government, and pay money to the government. How do banks fulfill this transaction? If you are the buyer, they would debit your account by X amount, and then transfer X amount of dollars from their account at the Federal Reserve to the Treasury's account at the Federal Reserve.

    But how would they get that "X" amount of dollars? Prior to QE, we know that banks held very little money in their accounts at the Fed. They get that money because the government puts it (in the system), and then offers up the bond for sale. When you buy it, the process happens, and the banking system will end up transferring that "X' amount of money to the Treasury account.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Your theory of how it works is incorrect. Biggest error is that the Fed does not issue any bonds. The US Treasury issues them and they are sold to a list of dealers who make bids on them. If the Fed wants to acquire any of them, they can create money out of thin air and purchase them from anybody else who owns them (they don't buy them from the Treasury) again in an auction method.

  30. #26
    US spends more money than they are taking in in taxes. That means they have a deficit. They need to get money to make up that deficit so the Congress notifies the US Treasury how much money they need to borrow. The Treasury puts together a package of US Treasury notes of varying maturity dates and announces how much they intend to sell on a given date to raise the funds. They authorized dealers decide individually how many US Treasury notes they are willing to buy and how much they are willing to pay for they- say $10 million worth for $9000 each (they have a face value of $10,000 at maturity- if they get them at $9,000 their return or "yield" is ten percent or $1,000 each). The Treasury ranks the bids from the highest price to the lowest priced bids. They then go down the list adding up the amounts of Treasuries each wants to buy until they reach the amount they want to unload- say $10 billion. The bid price at that point is becomes the selling price. All of that batch of Treasuries is sold at the highest price which allows them to sell the entire lot- all bidders get the same price- even if they initially offered a lower one. Now the government has its money and if they want to the authorized dealers can resell any or all of them to other customers. Note the absence of the Federal Reserve.

    If they are engaging in QE and buying securities, the Fed does the same thing but in reverse. They too go to the authorized dealers and tell them how many they would like to purchase and the dealers make offers of how many they would be willing to sell and at what price. They too make a list of amounts and prices. They look at the lowest price they can get on all the ones they want to purchase and again all sellers get the same price. The Fed then prints up the money (digitally- the Treasury prints physical notes) from "thin air" and gives the money to the dealers in exchange for the securities.

  31. #27
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...dr. no, i've been an avid 'monetary realist' for 25 years now and maybe i'm missing your thrust but i'm pretty sure zippy is MUCH closer in describing the reality of 'money creation' than you...no offense...maybe i'm wrong...do you have any evidence to bolster your assertion$?

    http://www.mindcontagion.org/fed/createmoney.html

    How the Federal Reserve Creates Money

    You can find pages and pages of explanations for the creation of money by the Federal Reserve. By the time you are done wading through it all you will be just as confused and in the dark as when you started. However if you start with the basic premise that,
    • it isn't rocket science.
    • it's created out of thin air.
    • it's not done to protect the wealth or security of the common citizen.

    Then it gets pretty simple pretty quickly.The typical way money is created by the FOMC – The short form

    It's a simple four-step process.
    1. The FOMC first approves the purchase of US government bonds on the 'open market'. [When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to independent bond dealers, which auction them off.]
    2. When the FED wants to "expand the money supply'"i.e. create money the New York Fed bank buys these government bonds from the independent securities dealers (financial markets always have an equal number of buyers and sellers).
    3. The Fed [panqui note: 'the fed' is LARGELY a falsely-labelled PRIVATE 'bank'] pays for its purchases with electronic credits to the sellers' banks, which, in turn, credit the sellers' bank accounts. These credits are literally created out of nothing.
    4. The banks receiving the credits use them as reserves and loan out several times the amount of the money held in reserve due to the magic of fractional reserve banking. If their reserve requirement is 10% then 10 times the money put into reserve can be loaned out. The banks can create new loans because of these increased reserves. As the money is loaned the money supply in the U.S. increases.

    Or a short and simple way to look at it is:"The Federal Reserve uses open-market operations to either increase or decrease reserves. To increase reserves, the Federal Reserve buys U.S. Treasury securities by writing a check drawn on itself. The seller of the Treasury security deposits the check in a bank, increasing the seller's deposit. The bank, in turn, deposits the Federal Reserve check at its district Federal Reserve bank, thus increasing its reserves" [ 1 ] When a bank increases it's reserves it can loan more money due to the magic of fractional reserve banking."When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check." [ 2 ].....
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 11-11-2016 at 01:39 AM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Your theory of how it works is incorrect. Biggest error is that the Fed does not issue any bonds. The US Treasury issues them and they are sold to a list of dealers who make bids on them. If the Fed wants to acquire any of them, they can create money out of thin air and purchase them from anybody else who owns them (they don't buy them from the Treasury) again in an auction method.
    Yes, my bad; I sometimes use "Fed" to mean "The Feds".

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    US spends more money than they are taking in in taxes. That means they have a deficit. They need to get money to make up that deficit so the Congress notifies the US Treasury how much money they need to borrow.
    Why? Why would they need to borrow funds? The Treasury prints the money. They control the currency; think about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Treasury puts together a package of US Treasury notes of varying maturity dates and announces how much they intend to sell on a given date to raise the funds. They authorized dealers decide individually how many US Treasury notes they are willing to buy and how much they are willing to pay for they- say $10 million worth for $9000 each (they have a face value of $10,000 at maturity- if they get them at $9,000 their return or "yield" is ten percent or $1,000 each). The Treasury ranks the bids from the highest price to the lowest priced bids. They then go down the list adding up the amounts of Treasuries each wants to buy until they reach the amount they want to unload- say $10 billion. The bid price at that point is becomes the selling price. All of that batch of Treasuries is sold at the highest price which allows them to sell the entire lot- all bidders get the same price- even if they initially offered a lower one. Now the government has its money and if they want to the authorized dealers can resell any or all of them to other customers. Note the absence of the Federal Reserve.

    If they are engaging in QE and buying securities, the Fed does the same thing but in reverse. They too go to the authorized dealers and tell them how many they would like to purchase and the dealers make offers of how many they would be willing to sell and at what price. They too make a list of amounts and prices. They look at the lowest price they can get on all the ones they want to purchase and again all sellers get the same price. The Fed then prints up the money (digitally- the Treasury prints physical notes) from "thin air" and gives the money to the dealers in exchange for the securities.

    *Takes a deep breath*

    A government’s finances are nothing like those of households and firms. A sovereign, currency-issuing government operates on a different level. Since it issues its own currency, it cannot become insolvent.

    Indeed, if government spends currency into existence, it clearly does not need tax revenue before it can spend. Further, if taxpayers pay their taxes using currency, then government must first spend before taxes can be paid. Again, all of this was obvious two hundred years ago when kings literally stamped coins in order to spend, and then received their own coins in tax payment. Another shocking truth is that a sovereign government does not need to “borrow” its own currency in order to spend. Indeed, it cannot borrow currency that it has not already spent!


    When government sells bonds, banks buy them by offering reserves they hold at the central bank. The central bank debits the buying bank’s reserve deposits and credits the bank’s account with treasury securities. Rather than seeing this as borrowing by treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits out of a checking account and into a saving account in order to earn more interest. And, indeed, treasury securities really are nothing more than a saving account at the Fed that pay more interest than do reserve deposits (bank “checking accounts”) at the Fed.


    While this gets a bit technical, the operational purpose of such bond sales is to help the central bank hit its overnight interest rate target (called the fed funds rate in the US). Sales of treasury bonds reduce bank reserves and are used to remove excess reserves that would place downward pressure on overnight rates. Purchases of bonds (called an open market purchase) by the Fed add reserves to the banking system, prevent overnight rates from rising. Hence, the Fed and Treasury cooperate using bond sales/bond purchases to enable the Fed to keep the fed funds rate on target.


    You don’t need to understand all of that to get the main point: sovereign governments don’t need to borrow their own currency in order to spend! They offer interest-paying treasury securities as an instrument on which banks, firms, households, and foreigners can earn interest. This is a policy choice, not a necessity. Government never needs to sell bonds before spending, and indeed cannot sell bonds unless it has first provided the currency and reserves that banks need to buy the bonds.

    So, much like the relation between taxes and spending—with tax collection coming after spending–we should think of bond sales as occurring after government has already spent the currency and reserves.

    It surprises most people to hear that banks operate in a similar manner. They lend their own IOUs into existence and accept them in payment. A hundred years ago, a bank would issue its own banknotes when it made a loan. The debtor would repay loans by delivering bank notes. Banks had to create the notes before debtors could pay down debts using banknotes.


    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...dr. no, i've been an avid 'monetary realist' for 25 years now and maybe i'm missing your thrust but i'm pretty sure zippy is MUCH closer in describing the reality of 'money creation' than you...no offense...maybe i'm wrong...do you have any evidence to bolster your assertion$?

    http://www.mindcontagion.org/fed/createmoney.html

    How the Federal Reserve Creates Money

    You can find pages and pages of explanations for the creation of money by the Federal Reserve. By the time you are done wading through it all you will be just as confused and in the dark as when you started. However if you start with the basic premise that,
    • it isn't rocket science.
    • it's created out of thin air.
    • it's not done to protect the wealth or security of the common citizen.

    Then it gets pretty simple pretty quickly.The typical way money is created by the FOMC – The short form

    It's a simple four-step process.
    1. The FOMC first approves the purchase of US government bonds on the 'open market'. [When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to independent bond dealers, which auction them off.]
    2. When the FED wants to "expand the money supply'"i.e. create money the New York Fed bank buys these government bonds from the independent securities dealers (financial markets always have an equal number of buyers and sellers).
    3. The Fed [panqui note: 'the fed' is LARGELY a falsely-labelled PRIVATE 'bank'] pays for its purchases with electronic credits to the sellers' banks, which, in turn, credit the sellers' bank accounts. These credits are literally created out of nothing.
    4. The banks receiving the credits use them as reserves and loan out several times the amount of the money held in reserve due to the magic of fractional reserve banking. If their reserve requirement is 10% then 10 times the money put into reserve can be loaned out. The banks can create new loans because of these increased reserves. As the money is loaned the money supply in the U.S. increases.

    Or a short and simple way to look at it is:"The Federal Reserve uses open-market operations to either increase or decrease reserves. To increase reserves, the Federal Reserve buys U.S. Treasury securities by writing a check drawn on itself. The seller of the Treasury security deposits the check in a bank, increasing the seller's deposit. The bank, in turn, deposits the Federal Reserve check at its district Federal Reserve bank, thus increasing its reserves" [ 1 ] When a bank increases it's reserves it can loan more money due to the magic of fractional reserve banking."When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check." [ 2 ].....


    So I feel like I have addressed many of these points about, but will go into further detail here, with abbreviations in brackets. What you’ve talked about is the “fractional-reserve banking[FRB]" theory of credit creation. The idea is that under FRB banks have to hold a fraction of their deposits (a liability for them) as deposits at the central bank[CB] ,called reserves, but they can "lend out" the remainder. Given these reserve requirements[RR], set by government policy, and the cash demand, there arises fixed "money multiplier" (the ratio of broad money to CB reserves)[MM], such that a given amount of reserves multiplies into higher-fold level of bank lending; the source you mentioned says 10% since that is the RR on certain net time accounts in the modern age. So, the CB supplies reserves to the banking system via OMO or discount window lending, so when it increases reserves, given the MM, bank lending and deposits (and the money supply) should increase as well.

    If true, then QE, by massively increasing the monetary base, would lead to an explosion of bank credit. Because QE and credit creation do not work this way, it has not. Many commentators and policymakers who are schooled in the theory respond to this by observing that "the money multiplier has collapsed," with the espousing that this collapse is temporary. Banks are just "parking" their reserves in excess of the RR at the CB, but, when demand for funds picks up, they might start "lending them out," and, because the amount of excess reserves is so massive, there may be a burst of inflation--perhaps uncontrollable inflation.



    But the money multiplier has not collapsed because it was never there in a meaningful sense to begin with. I couldn’t paste in a graph that shows the lack of a connection going back to the 70s, but you can see here that an arbitrary ratio of numbers has never stayed constant as the theory implies that it should.

    So how does it really work?

    There are two pieces to the puzzle: one, how are reserves created on a bank’s balance sheet; two, how credit creation happens--that is, how banks lend. Bear in mind is between individual
    banks and the system in aggregate. Neither individual banks nor banks as a whole can "lend out" reserves, but individual banks can and do offload their reserves (particularly excess reserves) by lending them to other banks or by buying assets (from those banks or the government); but the banks in aggregate cannot do this--in such cases, the reserves that leave one bank's balance sheet just pop up on another, remaining on the CB's balance sheet all the while.





    To understand the first issue, let us look at what makes a CB's balance sheet and note an identity linking the two sides. Abstracting from the CB's capital and some other possible minor items, the CB balance sheet identity is:

    Assets[A] = Reserves[R] + Banknotes in circulation[BK] + Government deposits[GD].


    Or, phrased differently:


    R = A-BK-GD


    There you have it. This being a mathematical identity and reserves being a liability of the CB, their aggregate level can only change in three ways. Reserves go up (or down) when:

    (1) The CB increases (decreases) its assets;
    (2) The public decreases (increases) the amount of cash (banknotes) it wants to hold;
    (3) The government reduces (increases) its deposits at the CB because it makes net transfers to (from) the private sector.

    Critically, banks cannot cause the amount of reserves at the CB to fall by "lending them out" to customers. Assuming a fixed public demand for cash and a government that does not make any net payments to the private sector (two things that are both beyond the direct control of the banks and the CB), bank reserves have to remain "parked" at the CB. To express wonder that banks don't lend out their reserves is to fundamentally misunderstand the balance-sheet mechanics of credit creation.

    So where does bank lending fit it? Think about a bank balance sheet, which can be thought of as the aggregate balance sheet of the private banks in the banking system. Again, there is an identity linking the two sides of the simplified balance sheet:

    Reserves[R] + Loans[L] + Bond holdings[B] = Deposits[D] + Equity[E]

    At the point of conception, with R, B, and E not changing, loan creation looks like this:

    ΔL = ΔD

    Banks lend by simultaneously creating a loan asset and a deposit liability on their balance sheet. That is why it is called credit "creation"--credit is created literally out of thin air, electronically or on paper. The loan is not created out of reserves; nor is it out of deposits: Loans create deposits, not the other way around. Then the deposits might need a certain amount of reserves to be held against them, and the CB supplies them


    If you are particularly mathematically inclined, you may notice that if everything else is fixed:

    ΔL = -ΔR; that banks can "lend out" reserves--loans going up when reserves go down. But for reserves (an item on the CB's balance sheet) to go down, the CB's assets have to shrink or BK/GD have to go up. These result from actions of the CB, the public, and the government, respectively. None directly involve the bank making a loan.

    So how do reserves enter into the credit creation process? Borrowers borrow in order to spend the money, so the borrower will likely do just that. The money "circulates" in the economy, so to speak. In aggregate terms, that means one of two things: the deposit money either moves into cash in circulation (banknotes) or stays on deposit somewhere in the banking system (typically it is some combination of both). To the extent that the deposit ends up being converted into cash, reserves go down because that is where banknotes come from. From the CB balance sheet equation:

    ΔR = -ΔBK when ΔA=ΔGD=0

    Reserves go down when banknotes increase. Banknotes increase when borrowers take the money they borrowed out as cash and don’t put it back into the banking system. For sure, individual banks can try to "get rid of" their excess reserves by making new loans, and, to the extent that the deposits so created leave their bank and, importantly, do not return as new deposits (the bigger the bank the less likely this condition is to hold), this will work for them. But for banks as a whole, new lending leads to a reduction in reserves only to the extent that the deposits created move into cash in circulation. Take an extreme case where the deposits created by the new loan just move from one deposit account to another; then there is no reduction in reserves. This is a far cry from the notion that, at will, individual banks can extinguish their reserves by initiating new lending, let alone that banks in aggregate can do so.

    So, now, where do deposits originate? Conventionally, it is suggested that banks "collect" deposits and then "lend them out." That is not the way it happens at all. In a closed economy (or the world as a whole), deposits fundamentally come from only two places: new bank lending and government deficits. Banks create deposits when they create loans, as afore-explained. Government deficits also create deposits since they represent a net flow of money to private bank accounts. This net flow creates new deposits in the banking system, which has its counterpart on the bank's balance sheet as an increase in reserves:

    When ΔL=ΔB=ΔE=0, ΔD=ΔR, and on the CB’s balance sheet, ΔR=-ΔGD, when ΔA=ΔBK=0.

    Banks don't lend out of deposits; nor do they lend out of reserves. They lend by creating deposits. And deposits are also created by government deficits.

    Back to reserves. The MM view of the world envisages the CB creating reserves and the reserves multiplying into new lending. That is, reserves constrain bank lending. That would seem compelling. If banks are subject to RR (requiring them to hold reserves in a certain proportion to their deposits, the balance-sheet counterpart to loans at the point of credit creation), then, by restricting the amount of reserves that the CB supplies, it should be able to control the amount of credit.

    But modern central banking doesn't work this way. First, keep in mind that RR do not apply to many types of accounts: CDs, savings account, money market accounts, investment accounts, etc. On top of that, individual checking accounts under certain balances are also exempt. Then, consider that CBs don't constrain the amount of bank reserves they supply. Rather, they supply whatever amount of reserves that the banking system demands given the RR and the amount of deposits that have been created.


    Why is this? Because modern CBs, in normal times; before the crisis and the experiments (like QE) target a short-term (usually overnight) interest rate in the interbank money market (the market in which banks lend and borrow CB reserves). By adjusting the amount of reserves on their balance sheet they can ensure that the interest rate is in line with their announced policy rate (the federal funds rate in the case of the Federal Reserve).

    They want to ensure that there are neither too few reserves (which would put upward pressure on the interest rate) nor too many (which would put downward pressure on it, assuming that the CB does not negate that by paying interest on excess reserves). If the CB wants to hit its interest-rate target, it has to supply the amount of reserves consistent with that, and that amount (normally) corresponds to the amount of reserves given by minimum reserve requirements.

    If bank lending increases and the associated increase in bank deposits leads, as it will, to a higher level of minimum required reserves, the CB will naturally supply those reserves. Otherwise there will be a shortage of reserves, and the overnight interest rate will go up, meaning that the CB will not be hitting its interest-rate target. You might remember from before, that government deficits also increase reserves and deposits. This is why the Treasury issues bonds (to be fair, in the US, they are legally required to do so, but this is just a legal restraint and not a practical restraint)…they want to soak up those reserves from the system. When individuals, corporations, and banks buy that debt, they need to make payments to the government. Their banking institution will debit their account, and moves reserves from their account at the CB to the government’s account at the CB, thereby removing them from the system and allowing the CB to maintain its target interest rate.
    Last edited by Dr.No.; 11-11-2016 at 03:42 AM.

  33. #29
    Why? Why would they need to borrow funds? The Treasury prints the money. They control the currency; think about this.
    Treasury prints physical money- paper currency and coins. How much paper money is out there- enough to pay off all $19 trillion in government debt? If they (the Treasury) just prints money and don't need to borrow, there should be at least $19 trillion in cash out there. Is there that much? (I don't have time to go through everything else in the post- too many errors to go over them all).

    https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

    How much U.S. currency is in circulation?

    There was approximately $1.48 trillion in circulation as of October 20, 2016, of which $1.43 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
    If they government does not need to borrow what is the purpose of US Treasury notes?

    You don’t need to understand all of that to get the main point: sovereign governments don’t need to borrow their own currency in order to spend! They offer interest-paying treasury securities as an instrument on which banks, firms, households, and foreigners can earn interest.
    Offering interest bearing securities is HOW they borrow.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-11-2016 at 01:27 PM.

  34. #30

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-05-2016, 06:25 PM
  2. The relationship God desires with man
    By jmdrake in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-08-2013, 01:26 PM
  3. Trump: "I Have A Great Relationship With The Blacks"
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 08:58 PM
  4. Relationship Status
    By Natalie in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 05:21 PM
  5. Relationship between PAC's and campaign?
    By zmall88 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 01:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •