Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Fed: Money For Nothing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Fed: Money For Nothing

    ...but I doubt the checks will be free.

    Way back here, I worried that the only way the government could pay for this mess would be to print money, with all the related unpleasentness that implies.

    We're there.

    Fed to pump another $1 trillion into U.S. economy
    By Edmund L. Andrews Published: March 18, 2009


    WASHINGTON: The Federal Reserve sharply stepped up its efforts to bolster the economy on Wednesday, announcing that it would pump an extra $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities.

    Having already reduced the key interest rate it controls nearly to zero, the central bank has increasingly turned to alternatives like buying securities as a way of getting more dollars into the economy, a tactic that amounts to creating vast new sums of money out of thin air. But the moves on Wednesday were its biggest yet, almost doubling all of the Fed's measures in the last year.

    The action makes the Fed a buyer of long-term government bonds rather than the short-term debt that it typically buys and sells to help control the money supply.

    The idea was to encourage more economic activity by lowering interest rates, including those on home loans, and to help the financial system as it struggles under the crushing weight of bad loans and poor investments.

    Investors responded with surprise and enthusiasm. The Dow Jones industrial average, which had been down about 50 points just before the announcement, jumped immediately and ended the day up almost 91 points at 7,486.58. Yields on long-term Treasury bonds dropped markedly, and analysts predicted that interest rates on fixed-rate mortgages would soon drop below 5 percent.

    But there were also clear indications that the Fed was taking risks that could dilute the value of the dollar and set the stage for future inflation. Gold prices rose $26.60 an ounce, hitting $942, a sign of declining confidence in the dollar. The dollar, which had been losing value in recent weeks to the euro and the yen, dropped sharply again on Wednesday.

    In its announcement, the central bank said that the United States remained in a severe recession and listed its continuing woes, from job losses and lost housing wealth to falling exports as a result of the worldwide economic slowdown.

    "In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability," the central bank said.

    As expected, policy makers decided to keep the Fed's benchmark interest rate on overnight loans in a range between zero and 0.25 percent.

    But to the surprise of investors and analysts, the committee said it had decided to purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities on top of the $500 billion that the Fed is already in the process of buying.

    In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. That would tend to push down longer-term interest rates on all types of loans.

    All these measures would come in addition to what has already been an unprecedented expansion of lending by the Fed. The central bank also said it would probably expand the scope of a new program to finance consumer and business lending, which gets under way this week.

    In effect, the central bank has been lending money to a wider and wider array of borrowers, and it has financed that lending by using its authority to create new money at will.

    Since last September, the Fed's lending programs have roughly doubled the size of its balance sheet, to about $1.8 trillion, from $900 billion. The actions announced on Wednesday are likely to expand that to well over $3 trillion over the next year.

    Despite a trickle of encouraging data in the last few weeks, Fed officials were clearly still worried and in no mood to cut back on their emergency efforts.

    Fed policy makers sharply reduced their economic forecasts in January, predicting that the economy would continue to experience steep contractions for the first half of 2009, that unemployment could approach 9 percent by the end of the year and that there was at least a small risk of a drop in consumer prices like those that Japan experienced for nearly a decade.

    The Fed rarely buys long-term government bonds. The last occasion was nearly 50 years ago under different economic circumstances when it tried to reduce long-term interest rates while allowing short term rates to rise.

    Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, has been extremely cautious in recent weeks about predicting an end to the recession, saying that he hoped to see the start of a recovery later this year but warning that unemployment, a lagging indicator, would probably keep climbing until some time in 2010.

    In contrast to several recent Fed decisions, with the presidents of some regional Fed banks dissenting, the decision at Wednesday's meeting of the 10 members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank's policy making group, was unanimous.

    Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, said the Fed had adopted a "kitchen sink" strategy of throwing everything it had to jolt the economy out of its downward spiral.

    But while Mr. Hatzius applauded the decision, he cautioned that the central bank could not solve the economy's problems by expanding cheap money.

    "Even if the Fed could make interest rates negative, that wouldn't necessarily help," Mr. Hatzius said. "We're in a deep recession mainly because the private sector, for a variety of reasons, has decided to save a lot more. You can have a zero interest rate, but if you just offer more money on top of the money that is already available, it doesn't do that much."

    Fed officials have been wrestling for months with the fact that lenders remain unwilling to lend and borrowers are unwilling or unable to borrow. Even though the Fed has been creating money at the fastest rate in its history, much of that money has remained dormant.

    The Fed's action is an expansion of its effort to bypass the private banking system and act as a lender in its own right.

    The Fed and the Treasury are starting a joint venture this week called the Consumer and Business Lending Initiative in their latest effort to thaw the still-frozen credit markets. The program will start out with $200 billion in financing for consumer loans, small-business loans and some corporate purposes.

    Fed officials have said they hope to expand the program next month, possibly to include the huge market for commercial mortgages, and both the Fed and Treasury hope the program will eventually provide up to $1 trillion in total financing.

    Multimedia

    Interactive graphic: U.S. government's total bailout tab
    » View




    Gold has jumped 7% today.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

  • #2
    I'm pretty sure they're printing money because they want to not because they have to.

    I'm not terribly sure it's a good idea though
    "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
    -Joan Robinson

    Comment


    • #3
      The Fed can hike interest rates if inflation becomes a problem. It's probably better to err in favor of playing around with too much money than too little.
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment


      • #4
        It doesn't really matter if they lend it or just print it. Either way it's a **** load of money that they will have to take out of the economy if the economy ever builds up a head of steam again, but I doubt it ever will come to that. I don't expect any paper money inflation.
        I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
        - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ramo View Post
          The Fed can hike interest rates if inflation becomes a problem. It's probably better to err in favor of playing around with too much money than too little.
          This can only be the first installment. how much is too much?
          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's Obama's fault, isn't it?
            I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"

            Comment


            • #7
              Whenever inflation looks like a bigger threat than deflation.
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment


              • #8
                The central banks will raise the interest rates to fight inflation. The real question is whether the economy will ever grow enough again.
                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                Comment


                • #9
                  We're probably going to have one hell of an inflation hangover from all of this.
                  I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    U.N. panel says world should ditch dollar
                    Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:16am EDT Email | Print |
                    Share
                    | Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
                    By Jeremy Gaunt, European Investment Correspondent

                    LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - A U.N. panel will next week recommend that the world ditch the dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies, a member of the panel said on Wednesday, adding to pressure on the dollar.

                    Currency specialist Avinash Persaud, a member of the panel of experts, told a Reuters Funds Summit in Luxembourg that the proposal was to create something like the old Ecu, or European currency unit, that was a hard-traded, weighted basket.

                    Persaud, chairman of consultants Intelligence Capital and a former currency chief at JPMorgan, said the recommendation would be one of a number delivered to the United Nations on March 25 by the U.N. Commission of Experts on International Financial Reform.

                    "It is a good moment to move to a shared reserve currency," he said.

                    Central banks hold their reserves in a variety of currencies and gold, but the dollar has dominated as the most convincing store of value -- though its rate has wavered in recent years as the United States ran up huge twin budget and external deficits.

                    Some analysts said news of the U.N. panel's recommendation extended dollar losses because it fed into concerns about the future of the greenback as the main global reserve currency, raising the chances of central bank sales of dollar holdings.

                    "Speculation that major central banks would begin rebalancing their FX reserves has risen since the intensification of the dollar's slide between 2002 and mid-2008," CMC Markets said in a note.

                    Russia is also planning to propose the creation of a new reserve currency, to be issued by international financial institutions, at the April G20 meeting, according to the text of its proposals published on Monday.

                    It has significantly reduced the dollar's share in its own reserves in recent years.

                    GOOD TIME

                    Persaud said that the United States was concerned that holding the reserve currency made it impossible to run policy, while the rest of world was also unhappy with the generally declining dollar.

                    "There is a moment that can be grasped for change," he said.

                    "Today the Americans complain that when the world wants to save, it means a deficit. A shared (reserve) would reduce the possibility of global imbalances."

                    Persaud said the panel had been looking at using something like an expanded Special Drawing Right, originally created by the International Monetary Fund in 1969 but now used mainly as an accounting unit within similar organizations.

                    The SDR and the old Ecu are essentially combinations of currencies, weighted to a constituent's economic clout, which can be valued against other currencies and indeed against those inside the basket.




                    I believe a lot of people have been counting on the dollar's status as a reserve currency to keep things under control in spite of our shenanigans; this, plus calls for a world currency, suggest that their faith has been misplaced.
                    Last edited by The Mad Monk; March 19, 2009, 13:42.
                    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Shockingly enough, I'm not actually in favour of a gold standard. It had its own problems as any student of history well knows.

                      But I do think that a 'tangibly backed currency' is a good thing as it promotes trust, stability, and most importantly reigns in government spending.

                      Perhaps a basket of metals, oil, kilowatt hours (energy), and some agricultural commodities.

                      So you could take your dollar, and theoretically exchange it for a certain set amount of any of those things.

                      Spreading out the backing would be less constrictive then gold alone and having a 'wide field' would greatly reduce the prospect of manipulation or wild swings based on any given commodities underlying value.

                      Tentatively, you could also introduce a nationally standardized 'man-hour', and make the currency, in addition to commodities and energy, be backed directly by a contractually-obligated amount of labour, which could be redeemed by the bearer from the government if desired.

                      I think this would reintroduce stability and trust, greatly reduce manipulation, and constrain interest rates to a narrow band.
                      "Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
                      "...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
                      "sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                        Perhaps a basket of metals, oil, kilowatt hours (energy), and some agricultural commodities.
                        You've just taken the products with the highest price volatility and made them your currency. Congratulations.
                        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Pointed this out when ImpalerWTG proposed it...
                          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                          Stadtluft Macht Frei
                          Killing it is the new killing it
                          Ultima Ratio Regum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Electrical energy: My cost per kilowatt has remained virtually the same for years, and in Canada only fluctuated a little after deregulation, so 'no'...

                            Labour: The cost of labour, inflation adjusted per man-hour, is ALSO quite stable.

                            So reading skills.

                            The mixture of commodities and their weightings would have to be determined on a case by case basis.
                            "Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
                            "...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
                            "sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                              Electrical energy: My cost per kilowatt has remained virtually the same for years, and in Canada only fluctuated a little after deregulation, so 'no'...
                              a) What province do you live in? According to my recollection either BC or Ont. Both of those are provided electricity by provincial Crown corps, AFAIK. In this case, the market cost of electricity probably bears little resemblance to the price you pay.

                              b) Most Canadian power prices are pretty special in that they're not dependent on other commodity prices (fossil fuels, fissile ores) nor are they fully integrated into a global market. This is because the generation is highly site-specific and transmission costs get fairly high for longer distances. All of these come from Canadian reliance on hydro power

                              c) Consumer electrical prices are much more stable than wholesale prices in most instances because rates are set for fairly long periods of time in advance
                              12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                              Stadtluft Macht Frei
                              Killing it is the new killing it
                              Ultima Ratio Regum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X