Fiscal Cliff

[Billy T]

After four years of quantitative easing programs, including QE3 just last fall, U.S. Federal Reserve officials have started voicing doubts about its effectiveness and concerns that it is distorting the markets. And it's not just the Fed's hawks, such as Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher and Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, speaking out against the bond-buying extravaganza.

Doves like Atlanta's Dennis Lockhart and moderates like Kansas City's Esther George have expressed concerns about QE3 as well. "I do think the growth of the Fed's balance sheet could have longer-term consequences that are worrisome. While I've supported these policy decisions to date, I acknowledge legitimate concerns," Lockhart said in a speech in Atlanta on Monday.

According to the minutes of the December Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, several members "thought that it would probably be appropriate to slow or to stop purchases well before the end of 2013, citing concerns about financial stability or the size of the balance sheet." If in fact sentiment within the FOMC is turning against QE3, then the easy money spigot that has helped fuel the stock market and other investments could be switched off sooner than most expected, which could have a sharp impact on the markets.

Fed members are worried that QE3 has distorted some markets. "Prices of assets such as bonds, agricultural land, and high-yield and leveraged loans are at historically high levels," George said in a speech last week. "We must not ignore the possibility that the low-interest rate policy may be creating incentives that lead to future financial imbalances."

Even QE3 champion Ben Bernanke, the Fed's chairman, has voiced reservations about QE3. He noted in a talk on Monday that the Federal Reserve needs to "pay very close attention to the costs and risks of its policies." ... Such a sea change in attitude among Fed members is long overdue, according to Money Morning Global Investing Strategist Martin Hutchinson. ... "They're running a very extreme monetary policy by any standards, and it's not surprising the costs are very high, much higher than a more conventional policy," Hutchinson said.
"The most surprising thing is that we haven't had a Weimar-like takeoff in inflation.

Be patient, run-away inflation is coming - probably by start of 2015, if Fed keeps creating more than a trillion thin-air dollars annually.
(85 billion per month times 12 months = 1.02 trillion)

Again I ask Joepistole* and everyone else: How can the Fed undo the creation (i.e. destroy) the flood of thin air money it has created? Attracting some funds into the Fed as "excess deposits" for X years is "kicking the can down the road" as when X years are up, the Fed not only returns their deposits but INCREASES the volume of thin air money is has made by the interest paid on the deposit. As usual, kicking the can down the road, just makes the eventual problem WORSE.

* He has several times in posts assured me that the Fed can destroy thin-air money as easily as it creates it, but never tells how. Can you help Joe out? - I.e. How can Fed destroy even one dollar of thin-air money, I or Citi bank own? - The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution protects us from having it just confiscated.

PS - Note the problem of excessive thin-air money created is unrelated to the problem of a dead locked Congress, which can send US into bond default before the needed revenues begin to come in with April´s tax collection. (In March 2013 only 9 billion of revenue is expected but 58 billion of bills must be paid and the Treasury admits it will have run out of accounting tricks to pay bills well before April fools day.)

 

[joepistole]

Be patient, run-away inflation is coming - probably by start of 2015, if Fed keeps creating more than a trillion thin-air dollars annually.
(85 billion per month times 12 months = 1.02 trillion)

Again I ask Joepistole* and everyone else: How can the Fed undo the creation (i.e. destroy) the flood of thin air money it has created? Attracting some funds into the Fed as "excess deposits" for X years is "kicking the can down the road" as when X years are up, the Fed not only returns their deposits but INCREASES the volume of thin air money is has made by the interest paid on the deposit. As usual, kicking the can down the road, just makes the eventual problem WORSE.

* He has several times in posts assured me that the Fed can destroy thin-air money as easily as it creates it, but never tells how. Can you help Joe out? - I.e. How can Fed destroy even one dollar of thin-air money, I or Citi bank own? - The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution protects us from having it just confiscated.

PS - Note the problem of excessive thin-air money created is unrelated to the problem of a dead locked Congress, which can send US into bond default before the needed revenues begin to come in with April´s tax collection. (In March 2013 only 9 billion of revenue is expected but 58 billion of bills must be paid and the Treasury admits it will have run out of accounting tricks to pay bills well before April fools day.)

Again, your questions have been answered. You just don’t like the answers. Pretending like they don’t exist won’t make them go away. Just as the Fed can expand the money supply it can shrink the money supply by reversing what t has been doing. Instead of purchasing assets, it sells assets.

It can also raise discount rates and bank reserve requirements.

 

[Billy T]

... Just as the Fed can expand the money supply it can shrink the money supply by reversing what t has been doing. Instead of purchasing assets, it sells assets....

True in principle, assuming the Fed had buyers, but Fed is now world´s largest BUYER of both Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities, MBS,* and plans to continue that (make more thin air money) until unemployment falls below 6.5%. The economy is being sustained by this buying. If it should stop in the foreseeable future, the US economy collapses. They are trapped - can´t stop the monetization presses, especially now that interest rates are rising and less long term bonds are rolled.

BofA's take: "We do not believe there will be “substantial” improvement in the labor market for the next 1.5-2 years and foresee the Fed buying Treasuries after the end of Operation Twist." What does this mean for total Fed purchases? Again, simple. Add $1 trillion to the Zero Hedge total of $4TRN. In other words, Bank of America just predicted at least 2 years and change of constant monetization, which would send the Fed's balance sheet to grand total of just over $5,000,000,000,000 as the Fed adds another $2.2 trillion MBS and Treasury notional to the current total of $2.8 trillion.

* The MBS includes a lot of the "toxic trash" - few customers for that. Like wise, the private buyers of Treasury bonds are a shrinking percentage of all buyers - the Fed itself is No.1 and it can not stop without triggering US economy collapse.

 

[joepistole]

True in principle, assuming the Fed had buyers, but Fed is now world´s largest BUYER of both Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities, MBS,* and plans to continue that (make more thin air money) until unemployment falls below 6.5%. The economy is being sustained by this buying. If it should stop in the foreseeable future, the US economy collapses. They are trapped - can´t stop the monetization presses, especially now that interest rates are rising and less long term bonds are rolled.

First, the economy is not being sustained by Fed purchases. Fed purchases are encouraging investment by keeping money plentiful and interest rates low. If the Fed were to stop purchasing debt; the economy wouldn’t go away. But it wouldn’t grow as fast and unemployment would remain at elevated levels. So your assumption that the present economy is wholly dependent on the Fed’s asset purchases is wrong, a few years ago that was not the case. Our economy was very dependent on the Federal Reserve’s interventions at that time. The Fed was the difference between a great recession and a great depression. Today the economy is much healthier and stronger than it was in 2008 and 2009. And in 2014 the Fed has stated its intent to begin asset sales (i.e. reversing what it has been doing) and letting interest rates rise.

Two, the US Treasury debt purchased by the Fed is only monetized if the Fed keeps it on its balance sheet (i.e. doesn’t sell it back into the open market). And three, there is nothing preventing the Fed from selling Treasuries. As long as the US government keeps paying its debt obligations (i.e. not default on the nation’s debt) the Feds inventory of Treasuries has value and there will always be a buyer. The only question is price. If the Treasury interest rate is lower than market, then the price of the Treasury will be less. If the rate on the Treasury is higher than the market, then the Treasury will sell at a premium.

So the bottom line here is your presumption that the Fed is trapped and the assets it has been purchasing for the last 3 years have no value is just incorrect. The Fed is doing what it is supposed to do. The economy has been growing now for 3 years at about 2% per year. And when employment reaches 6.5% which the Fed expects next year, the Fed has said it will start raising interest rates and tightening the money supply (i.e. selling the assets it has been purchasing for the last 3 years)..

* The MBS includes a lot of the "toxic trash" - few customers for that. Like wise, the private buyers of Treasury bonds are a shrinking percentage of all buyers - the Fed itself is No.1 and it can not stop without triggering US economy collapse.

A couple of things Billy T, first the “toxic assets” were identified and bundled into Maiden Lane and those assets were resold on the open market. They are not the assets now being purchased by the Fed. The MBS assets that the Fed has purchased were purchased by the Fed at a discount to reflect the risk adjusted expected present value of those assets. And the assets the Fed is purchasing are not “toxic”. Bonds are only toxic when they are incorrectly priced. When financial instruments are bought and sold they are priced based on the expected present value of those assets. I am guessing you are under the impression that bonds are sold based on face value, and that is not the case. They are always sold based on their risk adjusted present value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value

And I have already addressed your notion that the Fed is addicted to its asset purchases. That is simply incorrect. The Fed stepped in during The Great Recession to use monetary policy to ensure that the economic crisis didn’t become a liquidity crisis as occurred during The Great Recession. The Fed and the economy are not dependent on growing the money supply at accelerated rates into infinity. The Fed’s practices of the last few years are temporary and viewed as such by the Fed and business community.

 

[Billy T]

OK Joe:
In what year do you think the Fed can stop being a net buyer of US debt and become a seller to banks, etc. -removing thin air money? *

Also, I´m not sure but think say citi bank buying 100K of treasury bonds (with say 80K of dollars) from the Fed would INCREASE the assets on its books by 20K, and this would allow citi to lend out 18K more, some of which would get deposited in some other bank, that then would have a larger asset basis, so could lend out more too. I´s sure you know how the fractional reserve requirements allow the expansion of the money supply.

Summary: if Fed sells some of its assets, many acquired at a discount from face value as you noted, it seem that has the potential to further EXPAND the money supply not shrink it. Comment?

* PS I think the correct answer is "never" as more like China buy less on annual average and sell bonds (or just collect newly printed dollars when they mature instead of roll them). I.e. the Fed is the main financier of US debt already and will be more so in the future. Also as Germany has just illustrated, central banks are increasing their holdings of gold instead of dollars in their reserves. Almost all are net buyers of gold now- very different from just a few years ago when on average they were net sellers of gold.

 

[joepistole]

OK Joe:
In what year do you think the Fed can stop being a net buyer of US debt and become a seller to banks, etc. -removing thin air money? *

For starters, all currencies today are “thin air” currencies. There isn’t a single commodity backed currency in circulation today. Two, I don’t expect the Fed will ever be a “net seller of US debt”; because economic growth requires growth of the money supply. As long as the economy continues to grow, I expect the Fed will increase the money supply to support that growth. Growing economies need cash. I would only expect to see the Fed become a net seller of US debt if the Fed expected significant inflation. And I just don’t see that in the cards at this point. If inflation starts to move north, you can bet the Fed will start selling debt and selling it agressively if it is needed to contain inflation. As I pointed out previously, the Fed expects to tighten up the monetary supply next year. So it will reduce its US debt purchases at that time. The degree to which those purchases will be reduced will depend on a number of factors, but the most important will be the unemployment rate. The economy, like the weather, has many variables and unknowns, so as the weather service does not make detailed long range predictions, I don’t make detailed extended predictions either. They just are not meaningful.

Also, I´m not sure but think say citi bank buying 100K of treasury bonds (with say 80K of dollars) from the Fed would INCREASE the assets on its books by 20K, and this would allow citi to lend out 18K more, some of which would get deposited in some other bank, that then would have a larger asset basis, so could lend out more too. I´s sure you know how the fractional reserve requirements allow the expansion of the money supply.

Summary: if Fed sells some of its assets, many acquired at a discount from face value as you noted, it seem that has the potential to further EXPAND the money supply not shrink it. Comment?

If Citi purchased a 100k Treasury note for 80k, it would value that asset on its balance sheet at 80k. Because the asset is only worth 80K as of that moment in time, the note would be revalued each year to reflect the then current present value of the note. All US banks are required to mark their debt assets to market. This is one reason why the Fiscal Crisis of 2007-2009 was so devastating to banks. They found themselves sitting on a whole lot of overvalued assets. As the asset approach maturity, its present value will approach its face value and the difference between the price of the asset and the face value will be recorded as income.

So the bottom line is your premise is incorrect. Ceteris paribus, when the Fed sells the debt on its balance sheet it should do so at a profit, taking more money out of the economy than it put into the economy when it purchased the debt.

* PS I think the correct answer is "never" as more like China buy less on annual average and sell bonds (or just collect newly printed dollars when they mature instead of roll them). I.e. the Fed is the main financier of US debt already and will be more so in the future. Also as Germany has just illustrated, central banks are increasing their holdings of gold instead of dollars in their reserves. Almost all are net buyers of gold now- very different from just a few years ago when on average they were net sellers of gold.

The answer to your question is immaterial. It is like questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It just isn’t material. What is important; is the economy, economic growth, employment and inflation.

 

[Billy T]

For starters, all currencies today are “thin air” currencies. There isn’t a single commodity backed currency in circulation today. Two, I don’t expect the Fed will ever be a “net seller of US debt”; because economic growth requires growth of the money supply.

I agree, and have said so in posts, that modern economies need the ability to regulate of the money supply which gold backed currency lacks; however, excessive use of money printing presses, like adding more than one trillion dollars per year is the road to Zimbabwe currency. Responsible central banks / regulators control the growth of money supply mainly by the reserve deposit required. China has changes their requirement more than once per year for many years. Some like Brazil also modulate the growth of the economy by high interest rates that force people to defer purchases. (7.5% now is half what it was a couple of years ago, as Brazil´s economy is not growing like it did then, so lower interest rates are a way to stimulate.) US has tried this for at least four years (~1% or less rates) but with little benefit produced and great artificial inflation of equities markets - now at all time high, despite the economy being in terrible shape with corporate profits coming mainly from sales to foreigners and labor force participation rate (now 63,5%) at all time low and still falling.

I also agree that growing economies do need an increase in there money supply, approximately at their rate of growth (less than 2% annually for US now). Problem is the Fed is doubling the money supply ever two years with very little effect on the economy as the newly created money does not now circulate. – This is the road to Zimbabwe currency.

… All US banks are required to mark their debt assets to market. This is one reason why the Fiscal Crisis of 2007-2009 was so devastating to banks.

When did this change occur and by how is it enforced, if true now? (An impossibly large number of skilled asset examiners would be required.)What happens to bank with over-valued asset on its books – nothing, I bet.

You correctly imply it was not true before 2010:

Financial Accounting Standards Board is likely to propose that banks expand their use of market values for financial assets such as loans, according to people familiar with the matter. That departs from current practices in which banks hold loans at their original cost and create a reserve based on their own view of potential losses.

This Feb 2011 link indicates “Mark-to Market” MAY be required for large banks sometime in 2013 and all banks by 2017:

If the mark-to-market proposal by FASB is passed it could take effect as early as 2013 for banks with more than $1 billion in assets, and 2017 for banks with fewer assets (Dash, 2010).

Does the Fed “mark to market” too? If so, what discount was applied to the toxic trash gotten either directly of indirectly by Fanny & Freddy as assets on the Fed´s books?

… the Fed sells the debt on its balance sheet it should do so at a profit, taking more money out of the economy than it put into the economy when it purchased the debt.

That would be nice, but I don´t think it ever has happened. When the Fed took toxic trash from the banks, I believe they paid face value to help the banks. (If not, then why did the banks not go under if they ate that huge loss?) Can you give one example of when the Fed sold an asset at a profit (other than some gold if they had any)?

SUMMARY: It appears you make too many assertions, without references backing them up. Some in your post seem to be false if references I gave are correct.

 

[joepistole]

I agree, and have said so in posts, that modern economies need the ability to regulate of the money supply which gold backed currency lacks; however, excessive use of money printing presses, like adding more than one trillion dollars per year is the road to Zimbabwe currency. Responsible central banks / regulators control the growth of money supply mainly by the reserve deposit required. China has changes their requirement more than once per year for many years. Some like Brazil also modulate the growth of the economy by high interest rates that force people to defer purchases. (7.5% now is half what it was a couple of years ago, as Brazil´s economy is not growing like it did then, so lower interest rates are a way to stimulate.) US has tried this for at least four years (~1% or less rates) but with little benefit produced and great artificial inflation of equities markets - now at all time high, despite the economy being in terrible shape with corporate profits coming mainly from sales to foreigners and labor force participation rate (now 63,5%) at all time low and still falling.

Good, I am glad you agree “thin air” currencies are good. I would then expect that you stop using derogatory terms to describe them (i.e. thin air currencies).

What was the money supply in 2008? What is the money supply now? The money supply (M1) is now about 2.4 trillion dollars. Do the math, it has grown but not nearly as fast as you think it has grown (i.e. a trillion dollars per year) and it is certainly not growing Zimbabwe style. That is unfounded hyperbole. The US money supply is not growing at a trillion dollars per year.

Additionally, you cannot make legitimate comparisons between Brazil and the US. Brazil is still a developing nation. The US is a developed nation. The US went from shrinking at an annualized rate of 9% to steadily growing at a 2-3 percent rate for the last 3 years. That is an 11-12 percent increase in economic growth that is far better than what you are trying to portray.

As for the labor force participation rate, you are ignoring the fact that baby boomers are retiring. People are not sitting on their butts without income unless they are unemployed, in training, medically infirm or like living the life of Riley. In the coming years we are going to see a lot more people leave the work force for retirement. It is a matter of demographics, and it is not an indicator of economic malaise.

I also agree that growing economies do need an increase in there money supply, approximately at their rate of growth (less than 2% annually for US now). Problem is the Fed is doubling the money supply ever two years with very little effect on the economy as the newly created money does not now circulate. – This is the road to Zimbabwe currency. When did this change occur and by how is it enforced, if true now? (An impossibly large number of skilled asset examiners would be required.)What happens to bank with over-valued asset on its books – nothing, I bet.

Well for starters, the Fed is not doubling the money supply every two years - not even close. Neither the narrow measure (M1) nor the broad measure of money supply (M2) has doubled in two years.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/

Any comparison to Zimbabwe makes for great demagoguery but it just is not factual nor a valid comparison.

And, I am glad you agree a growing economy requires a growing money supply.

You correctly imply it was not true before 2010: This Feb 2011 link indicates “Mark-to Market” MAY be required for large banks sometime in 2013 and all banks by 2017: Does the Fed “mark to market” too? If so, what discount was applied to the toxic trash gotten either directly of indirectly by Fanny & Freddy as assets on the Fed´s books? That would be nice, but I don´t think it ever has happened. When the Fed took toxic trash from the banks, I believe they paid face value to help the banks. (If not, then why did the banks not go under if they ate that huge loss?) Can you give one example of when the Fed sold an asset at a profit (other than some gold if they had any)?

It was true for banks before 2010. The Financial Accounting Standards Board issued FAS 157 in 2006 and it went into effect in November of 2007. And even under historical cost accounting practices you cannot buy something at a lower cost (market) and arbitrarily mark it up on your balance sheet. That isn’t how accounting works either. If individuals did that, it would buy them a nice long government paid vacation in one of our fine institutions of higher remedial education (i.e. penitentiaries). Mark to Market says you have to revalue your financial assets every year based on market valuations. The Fed is FASB compliant and is audited every year by an independent private accounting firm to ensure compliance.

If you believe the Fed over paid for the debt it purchased, prove it. It is a violation of law for the Fed to over pay for the collateralized assets it purchases. There is no evidence the Fed over paid for the assets it purchased. If there were, it would be a huge scandal and would be identified during one of the Feds annual independent audits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market_accounting

 

[Billy T]

Good, I am glad you agree “thin air” currencies are good. I would then expect that you stop using derogatory terms to describe them (i.e. thin air currencies). What was the money supply in 2008? What is the money supply now? The money supply (M1) is now about 2.4 trillion dollars. Do the math, it has grown but not nearly as fast as you think it has grown (i.e. a trillion dollars per year) and it is certainly not growing Zimbabwe style. ...

If the money supply were increasing in proportion to the GDP* (the needs of commerce in the economy) I would not call that modest growth "thin air money" as I agree it is a "derogatory term;" However, "QE - infinity" (plan to print 85 billion per month) deserves a derogatory term.

Fortunately there are some indications in last released OMC minutes that nearly half the Fed´s OMC realizes this (A greater than 1 trillion dollar annual flood of thin air money) is the path to Zimbabwe currency. Probably, instead of being the foolish "QE - infinity" the Fed announced, "QE - infinity" probably will become "QE-3" and end in less than half a year, boosting the Fed´s balance sheet up to no more than 3.0 trillion.

If that becomes the case, and the Fed´s balance sheet grows less than twice the rate that the economy does, then I will not call that expansion of the money supply "thin-air money" but note (again) that the Fed is "pushing on a string" as the newly created money is not entering the economy, but mainly helping the Fed, in a now losing battle, to restrain the advance of Treasury interest rates (and the cost of servicing the still growing debt) by buying Treasury paper.

Unfortunately China and some others are annual average net sellers of US Treasury bonds, and there is a rapid acceleration of central banks, exchanging dollars for gold now. That is why 10 year bond interest rates have ceased their decline and increased >30% in the last 6 months. Fed is losing control of interest rates because it can not buy bonds at rate it had hope with "QE - infinity" - perhaps not even at a rate to off set the net selling as central bank buying gold and rolling maturing bonds less often.

I will be surprised if both the inflation rate and the 10 year bond interest rate are not both significantly above 2% before the end of 2013 (assuming that the government does not play more games with how CPI is calculated as that is the inflation rate I speak of) while the purchasing power of dollar drops at least 1% during 2013 and unemployment remains stubbornly well above 7% - never even gets close to Fed´s 6.5% target. I.e. the "bad times" will continue for most Americans not owning stocks. (Stocks and gold probably will continue rising in price as more and more people pull money out of Treasury bonds.)

* It is totally FALSE to call the newly printed money at this necessary for commerce rate "thin-air money" as it is backed by the growing economy - that is where all of the "full faith and credit" of the US actually comes from.

 

[joepistole]

If the money supply were increasing in proportion to the GDP* (the needs of commerce in the economy) I would not call that modest growth "thin air money" as I agree it is a "derogatory term;" However, "QE - infinity" (plan to print 85 billion per month) deserves a derogatory term.

Fortunately there are some indications in last released OMC minutes that nearly half the Fed´s OMC realizes this (A greater than 1 trillion dollar annual flood of thin air money) is the path to Zimbabwe currency. Probably, instead of being the foolish "QE - infinity" the Fed announced, "QE - infinity" probably will become "QE-3" and end in less than half a year, boosting the Fed´s balance sheet up to no more than 3.0 trillion.

If that becomes the case, and the Fed´s balance sheet grows less than twice the rate that the economy does, then I will not call that expansion of the money supply "thin-air money" but note (again) that the Fed is "pushing on a string" as the newly created money is not entering the economy, but mainly helping the Fed, in a now losing battle, to restrain the advance of Treasury interest rates (and the cost of servicing the still growing debt) by buying Treasury paper.

The Fed has always recognized the implications of its actions on the money supply. To infer otherwise, is just contra factual. And QE-Infinity is yet again another in a long series of derogatory terms used by Fed detractors to describe its most recent QE action. The Fed never intended this program to be an infinite or perpetual expansion of the money supply. It is a very modest program intended to run for one or two years….as long as necessary to accomplish the Feds targets. The Fed didn’t declare a definite end date for this program, because they didn’t and do not know when the need for this monetary expansion will end. But that doesn’t by any stretch make it QE Infinity. As you noted, the Fed is already discussing a possible termination date for the program. And per my previous post, your claims about growth of the US money supply are grossly over stated.

Unfortunately China and some others are annual average net sellers of US Treasury bonds, and there is a rapid acceleration of central banks, exchanging dollars for gold now. That is why 10 year bond interest rates have ceased their decline and increased >30% in the last 6 months. Fed is losing control of interest rates because it can not buy bonds at rate it had hope with "QE - infinity" - perhaps not even at a rate to off set the net selling as central bank buying gold and rolling maturing bonds less often.

I will be surprised if both the inflation rate and the 10 year bond interest rate are not both significantly above 2% before the end of 2013 (assuming that the government does not play more games with how CPI is calculated as that is the inflation rate I speak of) while the purchasing power of dollar drops at least 1% during 2013 and unemployment remains stubbornly well above 7% - never even gets close to Fed´s 6.5% target. I.e. the "bad times" will continue for most Americans not owning stocks. (Stocks and gold probably will continue rising in price as more and more people pull money out of Treasury bonds.)

I think you have been hanging around Michael a bit too long. You are buying into his conspiracy notions. There is no indication that the Fed is losing control of interest rates. Interest rates are still extraordinarily low. Additionally, there is no evidence the government is playing with or in some way changing way inflation is calculation, the method and the data are open to all for review and commentary. If you want government conspiracy, Area 51 might be a good place to start. But you certainly won’t find it in the CPI or the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The unemployment rate is not the stagnant monolith you want it to be Billy T. Point in fact; the unemployment rate has been steadily falling for the last 3 years. It is down significantly from over 10% in late 2009. And the Fed expects to hit its 6.5% target sometime next year. And given the history and what the Fed is doing, that is not an unreasonable expectation - assuming Republicans in the House don't put the nation into a state of default before then as they have been threatening to do.

When the Feds unemployment target (i.e. full employment) is achieved, I do expect interest rates to rise. That would be a normal and expected event. It would be a good thing because it is a byproduct of economic growth. As we approach full employment, it would be very natural for the demand for money to grow and for interest rates to rise.

As for central banks buying gold, it is primarily the central banks of developing nations like Russia, Brazil, India and China, who are and have been purchasing gold for their reserves. They have been doing so for a very long time. And with the price of gold depressed, now is a good time to be purchasing gold if you want gold. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it an alarming phenomenon. It is certainly not a harbinger of doom.

* It is totally FALSE to call the newly printed money at this necessary for commerce rate "thin-air money" as it is backed by the growing economy - that is where all of the "full faith and credit" of the US actually comes from.

I am glad to see you agree. So does this mean you will stop using the term?

 

[Michael]

I think you have been hanging around Michael a bit too long. You are buying into his conspiracy notions. There is no indication that the Fed is losing control of interest rates. Interest rates are still extraordinarily low. Additionally, there is no evidence the government is playing with or in some way changing way inflation is calculation, the method and the data are open to all for review and commentary. If you want government conspiracy, Area 51 might be a good place to start. But you certainly won’t find it in the CPI or the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

BillyT would fall closer to your POV Joe. He, like you (and Kant for that matter), thinks the whole concept of anarchy unachievable/not possible. At least Kant ranked it as a better form of Civil Society than Republic; only arguing that without threat of force from the State, Law becomes nearly a suggestion. I think he discounts the pain felt by social ostracism. Not to mention there are Private security at the mall and insurance. Try living life without access to the local grocery store.

Anyway, I have a question Joe. Some Founding Fathers (example: Alexander Hamilton) made the argument that Civil Rule under an elected autocrat for life would create an the economy that was extremely stable. Obviously without a Senate having to seek re-election time and time again, such a system WOULD allow from must more control over the economy and be much more 'Stable' when compared to a Democratic Republic. If 'Stability' is so important to you, then Autocratic Rule must be very compelling to you as well. If an unelected autocrat was, on average as good or better than an elected autocrat, and given the prime important you place on economic stability over civil liberty, wouldn't you therefor be in favor of autocracy?


From ZeroHedge

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold [in 1933]. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

-- Alan Greenspan (1966)

Look at the nice stable erosion of the value of money. Geee... how nice it's loss in value is so "stable".


See, for Joe, he doesn't seem to notice that what used to be achieved by a single father working a 40 hour work week (back when productivity was LOW), and being able to raise a family of 3-5 children, support a wife, own a middle class home, and buy all of the amenities of a middle class life including a family vacation. Now with massive GAINS in productivity it requires a BOTH the husband and wife working, forget having kids before mid-30s - early 40s at best. MAYBE this family will afford their mortgage IF they put their one child in daycare and both work day and night.

AND this is the really SICK thing. For the Federal Reserve ALL that matters is keeping housing prices high, equities high, commodities high, so that the banks they lent out TRILLIONS of dollars to cover their illegal fraud bets - are made 110% whole. This means a generation of Americans will never own a home. This generation of Americans graduating from University are moving back home with their parents (same happened in Japan, Europe and now even Australia). Many will never start families which is why we NEED immigration - to pay all the bonds that were sold and now can't be repaid back because there isn't enough children to suck the blood from. If they ever have a family it will be at most two children, whom they'll hand over to the State to 'care' for them from the age to two. Most of these Uni kids were educated NOT to be anything other than a worker-cog and most will be lucky if they can find employment at McDonalds (probably owned by an immigrant). None of that matters to Joe and others like Joe. They simply live so far far, far away and so removed from reality, that the bodies of the peons dying in the streets are barely discernible from their palace windows.



"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
-- George Washington, in letter to J. Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787

 

[iceaura]

See, for Joe, he doesn't seem to notice that what used to be achieved by a single father working a 40 hour work week (back when productivity was LOW), and being able to raise a family of 3-5 children, support a wife, own a middle class home, and buy all of the amenities of a middle class life including a family vacation.

That was when there were unions, before the Greenspan boys broke them under Reagan.

That was back when agricultural research was done at public expense and made available to the family farmer gratis.

That was when the incomes of the very wealthy were taxed at marginal rates of as much as 90% - which encouraged investment and retained earnings rather than profit taking, and boosted all those productivity improvements you celebrate.

That was before people had forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression, and allowed the Ayn Rand free-market wingnuts to get hold of political power again.

Those were better days, indeed.

 

[joepistole]

BillyT would fall closer to your POV Joe. He, like you (and Kant for that matter), thinks the whole concept of anarchy unachievable/not possible. At least Kant ranked it as a better form of Civil Society than Republic; only arguing that without threat of force from the State, Law becomes nearly a suggestion. I think he discounts the pain felt by social ostracism. Not to mention there are Private security at the mall and insurance. Try living life without access to the local grocery store.
Anyway, I have a question Joe. Some Founding Fathers (example: Alexander Hamilton) made the argument that Civil Rule under an elected autocrat for life would create an the economy that was extremely stable. Obviously without a Senate having to seek re-election time and time again, such a system WOULD allow from must more control over the economy and be much more 'Stable' when compared to a Democratic Republic. If 'Stability' is so important to you, then Autocratic Rule must be very compelling to you as well. If an unelected autocrat was, on average as good or better than an elected autocrat, and given the prime important you place on economic stability over civil liberty, wouldn't you therefor be in favor of autocracy?
-- Alan Greenspan (1966)
Look at the nice stable erosion of the value of money. Geee... how nice it's loss in value is so "stable".
See, for Joe, he doesn't seem to notice that what used to be achieved by a single father working a 40 hour work week (back when productivity was LOW), and being able to raise a family of 3-5 children, support a wife, own a middle class home, and buy all of the amenities of a middle class life including a family vacation. Now with massive GAINS in productivity it requires a BOTH the husband and wife working, forget having kids before mid-30s - early 40s at best. MAYBE this family will afford their mortgage IF they put their one child in daycare and both work day and night.
AND this is the really SICK thing. For the Federal Reserve ALL that matters is keeping housing prices high, equities high, commodities high, so that the banks they lent out TRILLIONS of dollars to cover their illegal fraud bets - are made 110% whole. This means a generation of Americans will never own a home. This generation of Americans graduating from University are moving back home with their parents (same happened in Japan, Europe and now even Australia). Many will never start families which is why we NEED immigration - to pay all the bonds that were sold and now can't be repaid back because there isn't enough children to suck the blood from. If they ever have a family it will be at most two children, whom they'll hand over to the State to 'care' for them from the age to two. Most of these Uni kids were educated NOT to be anything other than a worker-cog and most will be lucky if they can find employment at McDonalds (probably owned by an immigrant). None of that matters to Joe and others like Joe. They simply live so far far, far away and so removed from reality, that the bodies of the peons dying in the streets are barely discernible from their palace windows.
"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."
-- George Washington, in letter to J. Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787

And your Libertarian proselytizing continues, this is yet another exercise in throwing shit against the wall hoping beyond hope that something might stick. For starters, your charts aren’t worth squat as has been explained and proven to you umpteen times. While a dollar purchases less today than in previous years you have more dollars to spend. And contrary to your assertions, things are better now than in previous years. Medicine is better and more accessible. Life spans have been extended by more than 2 decades. And people have more disposable income. Things are getting better for the average Joe’s and Jane’s as has been repeatedly proven to you and repeatedly ignored by you.

The bottom line here is that your allegations are totally without merit. Your reference and quote of George Washington, is surprising. I don’t think you understand what Washington was saying or why he wrote it, either that or you are deliberately misusing it. At any rate, the quote is from a letter written by Washington to the Lt. Governor of Rhode Island referencing one of the many problems with the confederacy of states, the government that preceded the Constitution, where every state produced its own currency. Multiple currencies was a huge burden to commerce…coincidentally, that is what you have been advocating, multiple currencies, for everyone to be able to create their own money to “compete” with the US dollar. So I find it odd to now see you quote Washington noting the problem with multiple currencies that vexed the early government of this nation. That is one of the reasons the founding fathers created a stronger central government with the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution and a single currency. It’s kind of a strange argument for a guy who wants multiple currencies and a weak central government.

 

[joepistole]

It’s pretty damn crazy! First Republicans threatened the citizens of this country with a national default if the Republican House didn’t do its job. When President Obama stood up to them and explained what they were doing to the nation, Republicans decided they needed to threaten themselves and their fellows in congress instead. It’s crazy! They can’t do their jobs without threats? Why is it they need to threaten someone or group in order to do their job?

 

[Michael]

And your Libertarian proselytizing continues, this is yet another exercise in throwing shit against the wall hoping beyond hope that something might stick. For starters, your charts aren’t worth squat as has been explained and proven to you umpteen times. While a dollar purchases less today than in previous years you have more dollars to spend. And contrary to your assertions, things are better now than in previous years. Medicine is better and more accessible. Life spans have been extended by more than 2 decades. And people have more disposable income. Things are getting better for the average Joe’s and Jane’s as has been repeatedly proven to you and repeatedly ignored by you.

The bottom line here is that your allegations are totally without merit. Your reference and quote of George Washington, is surprising. I don’t think you understand what Washington was saying or why he wrote it, either that or you are deliberately misusing it. At any rate, the quote is from a letter written by Washington to the Lt. Governor of Rhode Island referencing one of the many problems with the confederacy of states, the government that preceded the Constitution, where every state produced its own currency. Multiple currencies was a huge burden to commerce…coincidentally, that is what you have been advocating, multiple currencies, for everyone to be able to create their own money to “compete” with the US dollar. So I find it odd to now see you quote Washington noting the problem with multiple currencies that vexed the early government of this nation. That is one of the reasons the founding fathers created a stronger central government with the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution and a single currency. It’s kind of a strange argument for a guy who wants multiple currencies and a weak central government.

Full quote:

George Washington -- in a letter to Jabez Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787

"Every lover of his country will therefore be solicitous to find out some speedy remedy for this alarming evil. There is no possible substitute for the loss of commerce. Our first grand object, therefore, is its restoration. I presume not to dictate or direct. It is a subject that will require the deepest deliberations and researches of the wisest and more experienced men in America to fully comprehend. It probably belongs to no one man existing to possess all the qualifications required to trace the course of American commerce through all intricate paths nor to those and only those that shall lead the United States to future glory and prosperity. I am sanguine in the belief of the possibility that we may one day become a great commercial and flourishing nation.

But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble again on unfunded paper money or any similar species of fraud, we shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its infancy. Paper money will invariably operate in the body of politics as spirit liquors on the human body. They prey on the vitals and ultimately destroy them."

"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."


He's talking about UNFUNDED PAPER acting as money. You know, the kind we have now. Oh, but it is funded through immoral debt sold on our children's future labor and collected in income tax. If you want to call Slavery a form of funding, then sure - there is SOMETHING of value backing the paper that poses as money in the US. With REAL currency competition SOME currencies may be unfunded, but, guess what? They'll come with a high interest rate. Others, like gold or silver, would have a low interest rate. Still other's like Bitcoin, would fluctuate on the market's demand. THAT is called freedom Joe. Something little paper-bugs like yourself fear like a vampire fears the light of the sun


It should also be noted Washington made clear NO ONE MAN can understand the economy well enough to direct it. AKA: Helicopter Ben couldn't find his own arse with both hands. He WILL destroy what's left of this nation's prosperity.

 

[Michael]

That was when there were unions, before the Greenspan boys broke them under Reagan.

That was back when agricultural research was done at public expense and made available to the family farmer gratis.

That was when the incomes of the very wealthy were taxed at marginal rates of as much as 90% - which encouraged investment and retained earnings rather than profit taking, and boosted all those productivity improvements you celebrate.

That was before people had forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression, and allowed the Ayn Rand free-market wingnuts to get hold of political power again.

Those were better days, indeed.

You're absolutely all over the place. America became the most wealthiest nation on earth beginning in the 1800s when, for most of the time, we had NO central bank, the Government was small and there was no Income Tax. Income tax wasn't generally applied until the mid-1940s. You DO understand it sometimes take a generation or two to blow through the preceding 5 generation's of wealth? Just ask the Japanese. They're ALMOST broke. They HAD a lot of money in savings, and, it's about gone. But, there is one thing I will say for the Japanese. They are WAY MORE Capitalistic (at least in Kansai) compared with the USA. It's still possible to open 5 seater bars. Beer vending machines are normal - even one's that pour the beer for you. You'll see grocery stores store their stock on the sidewalk. No one steals. There's no graffiti everywhere. The cities are safe and children as young as 5 will often be seen on trains alone or walking to school with friends. Their government is trying hard to destroy what's left of their prosperity, and will probably succeed. But thanks to their culture of free-market and capitalism, it's taking much longer than one would expect.

 

[Michael]

Joe, maybe you missed my question?

Some Founding Fathers (example: Alexander Hamilton) made the argument that Civil Rule under an elected autocrat for life would create an the economy that was extremely stable. Obviously without a Senate having to seek re-election time and time again, such a system WOULD allow from must more control over the economy and be much more 'Stable' when compared to a Democratic Republic. If 'Stability' is so important to you, then Autocratic Rule must be very compelling to you as well. If an unelected autocrat was, on average as good or better than an elected autocrat, and given the prime important you place on economic stability over civil liberty, wouldn't you therefor be in favor of autocracy?

 

[joepistole]

Transcription | Original

Full quote:
George Washington -- in a letter to Jabez Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787
"Every lover of his country will therefore be solicitous to find out some speedy remedy for this alarming evil. There is no possible substitute for the loss of commerce. Our first grand object, therefore, is its restoration. I presume not to dictate or direct. It is a subject that will require the deepest deliberations and researches of the wisest and more experienced men in America to fully comprehend. It probably belongs to no one man existing to possess all the qualifications required to trace the course of American commerce through all intricate paths nor to those and only those that shall lead the United States to future glory and prosperity. I am sanguine in the belief of the possibility that we may one day become a great commercial and flourishing nation.

But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble again on unfunded paper money or any similar species of fraud, we shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its infancy. Paper money will invariably operate in the body of politics as spirit liquors on the human body. They prey on the vitals and ultimately destroy them."

"Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice."

Wrong again Michael, per the University of Virginia, the correct and full text is:

Mount Vernon Jany 9. 178[7]

“Dear Sir,

I have received your letter of the 23d of Novr. [1] I should have been happy to have seen you at Mount Vernon agreeable to your intention had you proceeded as far as Annapolis. The Convention at that place would undoubtedly have been productive of some benefit to the Union had it taken place, but the tardiness of the Commissioners from several States rendered abortive every advantage that was expected from it. It is surprising to me that a due punctuality cannot be observed in meetings of this nature, the time is fixed and known, and every Gentleman when he accepts the appointment should consider the business of the meeting as depending upon him, and should determine not to retard its proceedings by a want of punctuality in his Attendance; it is a public duty to which every private consideration should give way.

I have been long since fully convinced of the necessaty of Granting to Congress more ample and extensive powers than they at present possess; the want of power an[d] energy in that Body has been severely felt in every part of the United States. The disturbances in new England, The declining state of our Commerce--and the general languor which seems to pervade the Union are in a great measure (if not entirely) owing to the want of proper Authority in the surpreme Council. The extreeme jealousy that is observed in vesting Congress with adequate powers has a tendency rather to distroy than confim our liberty's the wisest resolutions cannot produce any good unless they are supported with energy--they are only applauded, but never followed.

Paper money has had the effect in your State that it ever will have, to ruin commerce--oppress the honest, and open a door to every species of fraud and injustice.

I am entirely in sentiment with you Sir, of the necessity there is to adopt some measures for the support of our national peace & honor; the present situation of our public affairs demands the exertion and influence of every good and honest Citizen in the Union, to tranquilize disturbances, retrieve our Credit and place us upon a respectable footing with other Nations.

The Death of our worthy friend General Greene must be sincerely regreated by every friend to America, and peculiarly by those whose intimacy with him gave them a full knowledge of his Virtues and merits. I am dear Sir Yr most Obedt Hble Servant.

Go. Washington”

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/constitution/1787/bowen.html

He's talking about UNFUNDED PAPER acting as money. You know, the kind we have now. Oh, but it is funded through immoral debt sold on our children's future labor and collected in income tax. If you want to call Slavery a form of funding, then sure - there is SOMETHING of value backing the paper that poses as money in the US. With REAL currency competition SOME currencies may be unfunded, but, guess what? They'll come with a high interest rate. Others, like gold or silver, would have a low interest rate. Still other's like Bitcoin, would fluctuate on the market's demand. THAT is called freedom Joe. Something little paper-bugs like yourself fear like a vampire fears the light of the sun

It should also be noted Washington made clear NO ONE MAN can understand the economy well enough to direct it. AKA: Helicopter Ben couldn't find his own arse with both hands. He WILL destroy what's left of this nation's prosperity.

There are a couple of problems with your claims.

1) George Washington never wrote words you attribute to him, per my earlier note. The material you attribute to George Washington is not found in official records, it is only found on right wing nutcase web sites. Your unwillingness to provide your source indicates you knew your source for that quote was specious.

2) The letter was written prior to the drafting of the US Constitution and the creation of the US Dollar, when everyone could make a currency, just as you have advocated. George Washington was for a stronger central government. He was not a Libertarian in any way shape or form. They only way you can get him to look like a Libertarian is if you rewrite his words and burn his original works. Unfortunately for you, that isn't going to happen Michael. But you can, and I am sure you will, continue your efforts and attempts to fool the fools.

3) Continental currencies used before the US Constitution were in no way similar to the US dollar in use today. As I previously stated, there were multiple currencies in circulation. States issued currency as well as the Continental Congress making trade extremely difficult. So George Washington and the other founding fathers created our current Constitution and formed a stronger central government and created a single currency, the US Dollar – all the things you as a Libertarian are against, a stronger central government and only one currency.

 

[Billy T]

An optimistic view of current trends but with concern for what happens when QE3 ends (in early 2015?):

If Fed bond buying {85 billion} each month continues at its current rate, its balance sheet will swell to $3 trillion by the end of 2013, and $4 trillion in 2014. Mortgage rates are falling or stabilizing, in turn, which means more home building and more construction jobs. We, and the Fed, hope this ends in an economy with 6.5% unemployment. At this rate, the U.S. economy is knocking -0.5% a year in unemployment right now. That means we are a couple years away from getting there, since we are at 7.8% unemployment now.

What is supporting the housing and jobs recovery is Fed and ECB bond buying - This could lead to a hair trigger response, where the market dumps bonds very quickly once it stops.

Remember as you invest in these markets, the Fed's positions in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities are huge. There really isn't much of a competitive bond market. Concentration can counter worry on market price movement. In other words, the Fed is monopolizing these markets. New issuance is 80% to 90% Fed purchasing, and there is no limit to the balance sheet they can raise.

Does the Fed have the ability to pull back without disaster? We shall see. Our neutral view says two years out is where that tight moment could happen.

My long standing prediction is that the "tight moment" WILL happen but by late 2014. As they say: "We shall see."
The next OMC meeting is 29 & 30 January. When what was said there is public, then one can guess better when QE3 will be phased down.

 

[Michael]

1) George Washington never wrote words you attribute to him, per my earlier note. The material you attribute to George Washington is not found in official records, it is only found on right wing nutcase web sites. Your unwillingness to provide your source indicates you knew your source for that quote was specious.

2) The letter was written prior to the drafting of the US Constitution and the creation of the US Dollar, when everyone could make a currency, just as you have advocated. George Washington was for a stronger central government. He was not a Libertarian in any way shape or form. They only way you can get him to look like a Libertarian is if you rewrite his words and burn his original works. Unfortunately for you, that isn't going to happen Michael. But you can, and I am sure you will, continue your efforts and attempts to fool the fools.

3) Continental currencies used before the US Constitution were in no way similar to the US dollar in use today. As I previously stated, there were multiple currencies in circulation. States issued currency as well as the Continental Congress making trade extremely difficult. So George Washington and the other founding fathers created our current Constitution and formed a stronger central government and created a single currency, the US Dollar – all the things you as a Libertarian are against, a stronger central government and only one currency.

I will agree with you that Washington had a penchant for stronger central government and, under the influence of Hamilton, even attacked free-citizens not paying their taxes to the State. He murdered them, and later stated he greatly regretted it.

It's lucky for us the Government COULDN'T exert force over the People. Very very VERY few people born into this world can resist the temptation to use force against those around them when given half the chance. Which is why even a wonderfully insightful person like Thomas Jefferson - held Slaves.

It's not REALLY important what individuals said, as this is appealing to tradition, appealing to history and appealing to history - all of which are logically fallacies no different than appealing to the Gods.



Yes, us Libertarians are AGAINST the use of force. This is true Joe. I admit it. That's what you mean when you say "Stronger Government". What you mean, if we were to unpack that statement is: MORE legal force to use against so-called Free Citizens. When you say a "Single Currency", what you mean is to use even MORE FORCE AGAINST FREE PEOPLE so that they are not allowed to use their own currency. In short, at the end of the day, you're arguing for the use of force. You think peaceful free exchange is bad and violence and force is good.

It's a mental sickness that has afflicted humans generations after generation. Which is why you support a POTUS who called in a drone strike that murdered an innocent child. That's what you want. More of that.