The Shuffle

Right, and as others have pointed out these central banks are running out of places to stash their made-up money:

Does the Federal Reserve Print Money?

JULY 15, 2014 BY JOHN LAWRENCE

The Federal Reserve is America’s Central Bank

By John Lawrence

The Fed doesn’t actually “print” money in the sense of ink on paper hundred dollar bills. But what it can do is create money with a few keystrokes on a computer.

Money so created is called “fiat money” since it’s not backed by gold or anything else. The Fed currently prints the money to purchase $40 billion in mortgage backed securities and $45 billion in government bonds each month. The rationale for doing this is that it keeps interest rates low which is thought to be necessary to keep the economy humming.

Before the financial crisis of 2008-09, the Fed managed to keep interest rates low by adjusting the interest rate at which banks borrow overnight. But after the financial crisis, the Fed needed a more robust policy which is called Quantitative Easing or QE. This policy is mainly a giveaway to the big Wall Street banks to augment their reserves. The lack of sufficient reserves is thought to have been the problem that caused the financial crisis.

The Fed’s massive QE program was ostensibly designed to lower mortgage interest rates, stimulating the economy. And rates have indeed been lowered – for banks. But the form of QE the Fed has engaged in – creating money on a computer screen and trading it for assets on bank balance sheets – has not delivered money where it needs to go: into the pockets of consumers, who create the demand that drives the real economy.

Low interest rates will certainly stimulate the economy in the sense that they will encourage the sale of cars and houses, both of which are usually done by borrowing money at interest. So the Fed’s policies are all about generating economic activity by creating more debt for average Americans and this results in bigger profits for Wall Street.

The Fed’s QE policy means that the Fed buys government bonds and mortgage-backed securities from private investors – mainly the big Wall Street banks – and then credits the accounts of those banks with the cash. In return the Fed takes possession of the bond or security it has just bought which is just added to the Fed’s balance sheet.

Now if the Fed sells that bond back into the market or redeems it from the government, it would get the cash that it had created back and could just extinguish it by a few more keystrokes on the computer. At that point the money that had previously been created will have been destroyed and would be subtracted from the Fed’s balance sheet. So in that long run scenario the Fed would not have “printed” or created any money at all except on a temporaray basis.

The rub is that the Fed may never remove that money from its balance sheet. It certainly hasn’t done so thus far. The Fed has been buying bonds since early 2009. During that time its balance sheet has increased from $900 billion to over $4 trillion today.

A secondary effect of keeping interest rates low is that it lowers the Federal government’s interest payments on its gargantuan Federal debt.

That tends to neutralize the issue of government spending and deficits as a political issue. The Fed has also been buying the bonds being sold by the US government to finance its deficit. This is considered a Ponzi scheme by some writers as the Fed buys up government deficits and in effect disappears them making sure that bond redeemers always get paid. Bernie Madoff went to jail for doing the same thing except Bernie could not create money with a few keystrokes on a computer like the Fed can.

The negative side of low interest rates is that it hurts savers. Saving accounts produce hardly any interest so there is not much incentive to save. There is, therefore, an incentive to invest in the stock market which has risen dramatically and basically has become a bubble similar to the rapid increase in home values prior to the Great Recession of 2008. When that bubble burst, home values fell precipitously.

The same thing could happen to the stock market if the Fed eases off its policy of QE and interest rates rise. Then the stock market could deflate like a punctured balloon.

So what is the other negative aspect of the Fed’s QE policy? All that money the Fed is creating or printing, if you will, is pooling in the financial system mainly among rich investors. It is not going into the real economy or into the average person’s pocket. If that money were injected into the real economy, it could be used for rebuilding, repairing and building new infrastructure, for example, which would create jobs.

Instead the Fed’s idea of creating jobs is to keep interest rates low so that more cars and houses will be built and sold. The jobs created will be mainly for car salesmen and real estate salespersons as well as construction crews and assembly line workers.

Money pooling in the financial system and not entering the real economy has only an indirect effect on economic growth, and has the primary purpose of making rich people, especially bankers, richer. This is thought to be a good thing in that it shores up bank reserves which were drastically depleted due to the casino operations leading up to the Great Recession when the banks collapsed not essentially because they had little in the way of reserves but primarily because they had run up their gambling debts to excessive levels with nothing to back them up.

So what will the Fed do now? It may never be able to reduce its balance sheet by either redeeming government bonds or selling them into the market because that would raise interest rates and drive up the amount the Federal government would have to pay in interest on its debt. At that point paying interest on the debt might take up the entire or almost the entire Federal budget.

In addition raising interest rates would put a damper on economic activity in the form of discouraging people from purchasing cars, houses and other consumer items. Since consumption is 70% of GDP, this could lead to a recession. This would again place the big banks in jeopardy because, as economic activity diminishes, interest payments to the banks – a big part of their income – will go down, and this will add to the downward spiral which could produce Great Recession, Part 2.

Therefore, the government bonds and mortgage-backed securities that the Fed is taking on its balance sheet via their money printing operations may never be redeemed or sold and may have effectively disappeared into a black hole as the Fed’s balance sheet continues to increase. The Fed may be stuck printing money ad infinitum and subsidizing the banks at the expense of the average American in perpetuity.

The Wall Street banks, it should be pointed out, make money every time the Fed purchases a government bond or mortgage backed security from them. Since the Fed is prohibited by law from buying government bonds from the government directly, Wall Street banks effectively act as middle men and they do so for a price, a price the Fed gladly pays, and for no risk on the part of the banks.

As the Fed continues to subsidize the big banks with money pooling at the upper end of the income spectrum, inequality increases in American society. The Fed policy of QE is a policy designed to increase inequality as the price to be paid to keep the economy rolling. The price of increased economic activity and rising GDP is the further indebtedness of the American people as they buy cars, houses and other consumer items with borrowed money.

The Fed, which is not publicly owned, functions to improve the financial prospects of the Wall Street banks which are its real owners. (They actually own most of the stock in the Federal Reserve.) Is it any wonder then that the Fed’s policies primarily serve the interests of its owners – the big Wall Street banks? A truly public central bank, one owned by the people of the US, could have the same function of increasing the money supply as needed, but it might do so by using the fiat money so created to more directly benefit the American people.

Germany tried “abnormal” money printing in the early 1920s after WW 1 and the result was hyperinflation, collapse of the German economy, and the rise of Hitler. The same might happen in the US if hyperinflation were to start taking place while the Fed is stuck in handing out money to the big banks in order to keep them afloat.

To fight hyperinflation the Fed would have to raise interest rates and this might bring the US economy to a grinding halt. The policy of reducing the amount of QE on a monthly basis is called “tapering.” This doesn’t mean that the Fed is selling off the government bonds or mortgage backed securities on its balance sheet, just buying less of them than they had previously. The Fed will still be adding billions to its balance sheet every month. Inflation is the only thing that will force the Fed to reduce its balance sheet. Otherwise, it could disappear government deficits and bank owned mortgage backed securities into its black hole indefinitely.

If the Fed starts to taper, the big boys at the Big Banks might take this as a signal to short the stock market, and this might cause the stock market bubble to burst as stock values are driven down. The average non sophisticated 401k investor would probably panic and sell on the dip losing the value of his or her retirement savings as the Wall Street guys make a killing.

When the market reaches its lowest ebb, the Big Guys will start buying again driving the market back up. After the market rallies sufficiently, the average guy will work up the courage to get back in with his 401k, having lost a ton of money selling on the dip and buying on the rally, just the opposite of what sophisticated investors do.

Concomitantly, the Fed will probably reintroduce its policy of QE in order to stabilize the economy, and it might have to admit that this policy will continue indefinitely or even ad infinitum. The denouement is that the rich will have gotten richer while the middle class will have been reduced to penury, just the same tendency as happened after the recession of 2008.

This debt-based, Wall Street centric, unstable economy known as US capitalism could be changed by replacing the privately owned Federal Reserve with a publicly owned central bank that created and extinguished fiat money. This would more directly benefit the American people, and serve the needs of the real economy rather than being an effort to stabilize and profit Wall Street banks. Rather than providing jobs indirectly only if more debt for the American people is created, a public central bank could inject money as needed directly into the real economy creating jobs in the process and building wealth for the average American while reducing inequality.

sandiegofreepress.org/2014/07/d … int-money/

Basically things like quantitative easing is where central banks syphon money off the population at large to fund their corporate debt holdings and more importantly keeps their doors open or lights on. This of course is systematic financial parasitism and even more the host these financial parasites or vultures are feeding on is dying where once again this desperate measure of a last ditch effort to keep the west financially solvent will backfire tremendously. The question of course becomes when all of this will occur. For the United States at least there is chatter or rumors by banks and corporations to initiate some kind of QE4 next year as the United States economy has become anemic. There’s just one problem, there is no money or pound of flesh to extract left. Next year around April things are going to get very interesting. The western Ptomekin village is dying.

It’s sad but true. A massive scam, the largest in history, that has transferred pretty much all of the US, Canadian and European wealth out of the hands of the people and into the hands of elites. A scam perpetrated by traitors and subhuman garbage and defended by pseudo-intellectual, sycophantic useful idiots and hoards of virtue signaling people everywhere, none of whom with even an ounce of reasoning in their brains.

And as others have noted, when the coffers are empty and there is no pound of flesh, the last resort for such a society is to go to war. Indeed, war is coming.

The only problem with that is war requires funding, you can’t go to war if your country is bankrupted. If they’re going to start a huge new war time is running out for them.

They’re already in that war, in the Middle East and trying to wrap Russia in too. But I was talking about civil war.

Yes. Historically said: it would have been quite alright, if they had stopped their debt policy in the 1960s (and not later!); but what they did was just the opposite and more, which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy.

Yes, or they start or let others start a war, so that they can say after that war: “we need to start with a new economy, a new currency, a new law of this and of that” and so on (blablabla - always the same).

[/quote]
K: I was in fact researching this exact same thing for a post pretty much along
these lines… beat me to it…

Kropotkin

The United States started going downhill when the boomers elected Ronald Reagan. Wallstreet loved old Ronnie and the banks did also.

double post

And in spite of the fact that the debt proponents do not like it.

This subject is just too important.

True. But here too method and madness brew credibility. Debt and inflation are circular, but never really meet at the middle.

How it goes down as an asset, rather then a debit, is that longer term debt eats itself, because, the longer the term of the debt, the less it really costs and it becomes easier to digest, because, especially if fixed, it looses inflationary value. This is why at the very top of the US real estate bubble, they introduced variable rates, to put a brake on long term fixed effects. Variable adjustment was supposed to slow down the inflation, but it came way too late.

Normally, the need for inflation as an incentive to borrowing is a must, without that incentive a cash only, or a barter type economy would reappear, necessitating a return to the silver and gold standard, which are impossibly unaffordable to most economies, except to those, who manipulate currencies, like the Chinese.

I would be in favor of a program like this. A lot of people live the majority of their lives in just a few places. When you spend some time living in another place (not just vacationing/sightseeing) you can’t help but gain perspective from the experience. It’s cliché, but it really does broaden the horizon of experience. Some colleges have scholarship programs that require students to spend at least one semester abroad. The amount received for scholarship at the student’s home university is applied towards the tuition/room/board at the international school of their choice. Course credit earned abroad can be applied toward the student’s major program(s) if the course matches up close enough to what is offered at the home university.

Apart from funding, I can’t really see a downside to a similar domestic program for young people.

By all means, familiarize me. But given that you think that defaulting on US sovereign debt is anything like a good long term policy move, I’m not going to hold my breath.

I basically agree with you here, Peter. While I personally value travel, I think as a society we should value it for the other things it ties into, including the willingness to move in response to changes in opportunity and need.

My policy thinking recently has been focused on small changes that are likely to have slow-building fundamental effects. Creating a generation of Americans who have seen significant parts of the country, who have lived and worked with people from different backgrounds and have learned that they can get by outside their comfort zone – increasing the resiliency and openness and risk-taking of a generation will have many small positive changes that together should significantly improve things.

One of my other motivations for this proposal was the increasing polarization of the country. My thinking was that having people go elsewhere, and having people form elsewhere come to them, will help everyone be more understanding. The progression of this conversation makes me think that an inter-generational exchange program will also be necessary :slight_smile:

Arminius, if I borrow $100, and give you both the debt and the $100 in stock, I have not made you worse off. Do you agree?

Sure, but government debt is also often good. The easiest case is if it were to go to a sovereign wealth fund, but it’s also true if it goes to infrastructure that benefits the local economy, or to education spending that makes society more productive, or even to military spending if it makes it cheaper and easier to export goods to and from the US. Even “just keep[ing] things afloat” can be a good investment, if that means keeping society functioning in a way that produces more tax dividends than the government puts in.

We can argue about what produces returns, but it’s ultimately an empirical question not governed by politics or even morality. My point is only that the claim that national debt is prima facie evidence of government wrongdoing and generational injustice is clearly incorrect, and many ways of borrowing and investing are the best way to provide a functioning society for future generations.

I certainly don’t mean to. I just think that, even if true, most of what you say about US “petrodollars” is irrelevant and at odds with the complaints voiced on behalf of millennials in this thread.

And I think that there is a strong economics-based argument that policies like the ones you describe are bad for everyone in the long run, even for the US beneficiaries.

Void, I’m not defending the current situation in the US, I’m defending the use of national debt to invest in a society and produce a net positive sum.

But in response to the claims you present, I think they undervalue liquidity in an economic system. I’m sure you’re aware of the parable of the $100 bill that:

A stranger comes to a small town one day and stops in at the hotel. He asks if he can see a room before he commits to staying there. The hotel manager says that he needs to put down a $100 deposit. The stranger does, and the manager hands him a key. Once the stranger is upstairs, the manager rushes out to the catering company, and pays them the $100 bill to pay off the hotel’s debts for the catering service. The owner of the catering company then goes to the farmer, and pays her $100 to pay of the catering company’s debts for the farmer’s produce. The farmer then goes to the mechanic, and pays off the farmer’s $100 debt for the mechanic’s services. The mechanic goes to the prostitute, to pay off his debt for her services. And the prostitute goes to the hotel, and pays off her debt for the use of the hotel’s rooms. The hotel now has the same $100 bill it started with, and the stranger comes back down from the room, says it’s not to his liking, takes his $100, and leaves.

The point of this story is to show that everyone has been made better off, each person has paid of his or her debts, and yet no new money entered the town’s economy. But the stranger’s money still introduced liquidity, which allowed the townspeople to take the debt off their books.

In a similar way, governments lending to each other, and banks being more able to lend to individuals, add liquidity in the market, which produces value. Liquidity tends to lower prices, benefiting consumers. And my understanding of what the Fed is doing isn’t trying to put money into peoples hands, but to introduce liquidity into the system. The banks provide a service of distributing the liquidity down through their branches to individuals and businesses that use the credit infusion to become more productive. That seems like a good investment.

The other thing I’ll say is that, assuming you’re right that there’s $300,000 of government debt per person (this article puts it around half that, but maybe they’re under-counting or it’s really changed that much in 2 years), that is a bargain relative to the value of being born an American. Being an American gives near frictionless access to the strongest economy in the world, free public education, incredible cultural capital, amazing infrastructure and legal systems (by global standards). The return on that access is huge, and a lot of it has been purchased by taking on debt. I would argue that the ROI is significantly positive.

Even though your post is largely positive, after the discussion of debt I can’t help but reading that “apart from funding” as a pretty serious indictment!

[EDIT: misspellings, including someone’s name (my apologies, Arminius)]

Carleas, if your parable of the $100 was anything like real life then the debt would be going down as we print (or rather, digitize) more money, and yet it is precisely the opposite. As the article I posted mentions, the new made up money isn’t going into the American economy, people aren’t getting it to pay off their debts; rather it is going to purchase more debt, as the invented money is used to buy government treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities. Do you know how QE works? And the money that is entering the economy is mostly pooling in the upper echelons of the largest financial institutions, it isn’t entering the broader economy, certainly isn’t being used so regular people can run around paying off their debts.

Also, your parable is stupid because if it didn’t magically make the $100 come back to the hotel owner in the end, then it wouldn’t have worked, because the hotel owner would have had to cough up his own $100 when the prospective tenant returned and wanted his deposit back.

Money is merely a symbolic stand-in for value created. If you make money without having also made value, then that is irrational.

You didn’t address my comments about the federal reserve. And our comments about how it is literally impossible to pay back $20 trillion of debt, or about how the US is propping up the global economy by being the consumer of last resort which requires an influx of a billion dollars a day into the US from outside (annual trade deficit). These are real problems. They require to be really addressed, beyond quaint parables that obviously aren’t how things work in reality.

Scenario:

A couple take out a $600,000 loan on a house. They were duped. The house is actually worth $300,000. The u.s. middle class has been gutted. Higher wages become scarcer and scarcer. The couple must work more hours, for lower wages, to pay off that $600,000 loan. If they ever hope to retire they can get $300,000 max for the house. Nobody will pay higher, anymore. Meanwhile the couple wastes a lifetime, perhaps, paying off the imaginary, fraudulent $300,000 difference.

Many people, stuck in similar holes, will never climb out of debt. And the national debt does not represent wealth, not when there’s fraud and false values. If the assets are worth half of what the loan was made for, then there is no future. Previously you’ve talked about retaining the value of loans. If a couple cannot pay their loans then the house is repo’d. Bankruptcy becomes the only method of “cancelling” the debt, with many subsequent negative results and consequences.

U.s. wealth is only a fraction of the debt. The real value is less than the perceived value.

Furthermore, using this logic, people are implying that u.s. can or will be, bought and sold to the highest bidders. That when debts default, and they will eventually, that the future of u.s. is at stake. And it is.

Real value is the key. And when you default on loans, cancel debts, then real value can drop even lower when people become desperate.

The banks will reap the leftovers. The u.s. has no future, at this rate. Everything needs to change, and the sooner, the better. I shouldn’t even say “better” because that implies a semblance of hope and positivity. The sooner, the less catastrophic.

What alternatives are there other than defaulting on sovereign debt at this point? Please indulge us with your ideas.

What is the value of a $50,000 car…when it can’t drive, when it’s broken?

It’s $0

Values are relative to function and utility. There are so many false values floating around society now, that people believe the u.s. national debt is backed by wealth? What wealth? Child sex slaves? No…

If the u.s. national debt is back by anything, then it is the threat of all out nuclear warfare. Maybe, just maybe, that is worth the trillions dollar price tag. Other than that, can you think of anything worth $1,000,000,000,000.00 ?

You can’t, can you???

An aircraft carrier costs: $13,000,000,000.00.

The u.s. debt is: $20,000,000,000,000.00.

Let me get my calculator…

The united states is worth 1,540 aircraft carriers.

We only have 19.

(And most of those cost less than 13 billion)