What matters isn't the size of the Fed's balance sheet or what it contains. The Fed's balance sheet is "invisible" to the private-sector economy. This expansion of their balance sheet is simply a reflection of the stimulus we're doing. When the Fed expands their balance sheet, what they're doing is replacing private-sector assets with liquid cash. Given that the stimulus is appropriate for the economy, this is all fi…
This is a pretty naive take. You are suggesting that all these trillions are somehow ending up in the hands of people when the primary effect has been to prop up asset prices e.g. the stock, mortgage, and corporate bond markets. The second order consequences of a massive balance sheet will be felt not in the immediate future but at some point down the line when the Fed attempts to shrink the balance sheet. We have a…
Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
171–180 of 266 posts
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When the Fed expands their balance sheet, what they're doing is replacing private-sector assets with liquid cash. Given that the stimulus is appropriate for the economy, this is all fine. It's not anything that future generations have to "pay back." And it's not going to cause a collapse of the dollar. This is simply not true. The Fed is buying assets at a premium (otherwise counterparties wouldn't sell the assets t…
> The only way this ends is either a depression the scales of which we've never seen in history before (which would liquidate and clear out bad businesses), or a hyperinflationary collapse of the U.S. dollar whereby more and more money is injected to prop everything up. Uh, the latter is not a distinct option from the former. Also, you've left out: “the government continues as it has for generations, occasionally bai…
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#173With a sample size of 1 based on 2008 you'd probably never expect the total to be back below $5 trillion, in the same way it barely got back below $2 trillion after that first spike. Based just on the graph it's probably more likely to go above $10 trillion than below $5 trillion in the next few years. These numbers are completely ridiculous to think about, how would you interpret this in practice?
Think of it like share dilution. For example, without corresponding demand, Tesla can issue 20% more shares arbitrarily, and the price of a share will drop 20%, or Tesla can wait for excessive demand and issue 20% more shares and the price of a share will stay the same because the market clamored for them. Maybe the price of Tesla would have gone 20% higher if they didn't issue those additional shares? Or maybe interested buyers were waiting for a moment to purchase many at once without affecting the market.
Fiat currencies are in the same place. Forget about the cognitive dissonance where currencies are tied to your national identity and comparisons to private shares therefore cause trepidation. The functionality is similar, we just use different terms. Share dilution = inflation.
As long as the relative purchasing power of a dollar, compared only to other currencies, is managed, the Federal Reserve can purchase as much as it wants. When the Federal Reserve purchases things, each transaction creates new dollars. The recipient has dollars that didn't exist prior and are just as fungible, slightly diluting the value of all other dollars (causing inflation). The Federal Reserve is fully capable of selling assets on its balance sheet, for existing dollars. Just options and choices that other market participants don't typically have.
The wide latitude in the side of the Fed's balance sheet comes from the weakness of other currencies. Central Banks around the world are doing the same thing, weakening those currencies, simultaneously actual people are selling their currency for US dollars. This increases the strength of the US dollar, and means the Federal Reserve can dilute it to weaken it. The long-standing predilection of the Fed, the President and Congress has been to not have a strong dollar, so you can predict what the Fed will consider doing based on macroeconomic events.
As long as all currencies are being massively created, the Federal Reserve can do the same proportionally. The amounts don't matter in that regard. You just want to pay attention to the constraints on what it can buy, and if those constraints are being followed, and if there is enough things for it to buy to accomplish its goals (otherwise massive de-flation is likely, and harmful in our ability to predict our purchasing power or investment decisions)
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say the Fed calculated it. I did say they reference it to say their policies (or whoever's policies) aren't causing inflation. When a majority of leading economists subscribe to economic views that don't reflect the lived reality of an average person, it may not be a conspiracy, but the effect (groupthink) is similar.
Sorry, but it's at this point in the thread that I realize that talking to tech bros on hacker news about monetary policy is actually the seventh circle of hell. Glhf. Your claim, to be clear, is that inflation is occurring, but the BLS is hiding it, so that the Fed can hit their targets easier? Why stop there-maybe the board of governors also brings Beyonce in during their closed meetings for private concerts, and p…
Appealing to the authority of mainstream economists in a perpetual state of groupthink is not an argument. It is this kind of hostile and borderline elitist attitude that scares away people from discussing monetary policy and makes it seem more complex than what it really is, and I don't think that is productive at all. Ironically it is the same kind of elitism that caused the collapse of the planned economies of the 20th century (which grade-school students learn about today), despite being comprised of supposed "experts" in economic affairs who should never be questioned.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Fed is buying assets at a premium (otherwise counterparties wouldn't sell the assets to the Fed) That's not necessarily true, economic transactions aren't necessarily zero-sum. I would assume for most of the assets being sold to the Fed, the banks need liquid cash more than they need the asset and so would be willing to take a haircut. >The only way this ends is either a depression the scales of which we've nev…
The fed is buying junk corporate bonds that would otherwise plummet in value.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most economists also thought we had banished volatility, until 2008 happened. I wouldn’t put too much trust in that expert class given their track record.
"Most economists" never believed that. Lots of people in finance did, sure, but they're not economists.
https://mises.org/library/ben-bernanke-was-incredibly-uncann...
What I don't understand is how people find it very difficult to admit that economists can be wrong sometimes and that their word is not gospel.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#177So I'm hearing the " the dollar is over, throw everything into gold, fiat money is doomed" in other forums. Can anyone give some conterpoints to that narrative?
The wide latitude in the side of the Fed's balance sheet comes from the weakness of other currencies. Central Banks around the world are doing the same thing - creating currency - weakening those currencies, simultaneously actual people are selling their currency for US dollars. This increases the strength of the US dollar, and means the Federal Reserve can create more dollars to weaken it, avoiding deflation. Currencies based on scarce commodities have deflationary economies as the economy grows, which hampers liquidity and investment, the US has had that before and moved away from it because it wanted liquidity and investment. So you can predict that it will avoid deflationary environments.
All fiat currencies are in the same boat, but the dollar is not in that boat in isolation. Coordinated central bank accounts allow this to continue into perpetuity. Ie. If the European Central bank diluted their currency by creating trillions of Euros, the Euro might trade down to parity with the US dollars (at time of writing the 1 Euro can be traded for 1.09 US Dollar), instead of that happening in isolation, the Federal Reserve can also create an offsetting amount of dollars, weakening the dollar enough to force the Euro to still trade for 1.09 us dollars, while both banks have accomplished their goal of adding liquidity to their economy.
So for massive monetary unions, it is much harder to "fail" or enter into a hyperinflationary environment.
But yes, if that a lot of the newly created currency was being used to buy gold, then the price of gold would be expected to go up. It is just a much harder environment for the narrative of it becoming a replacement for the dollar to be there. Other fiat currencies outside of large monetary unions might have utility in switching to a commodity again.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#178The federal reserve owns half of all US debt. We are paying interest on interest to our own Fed that serves as the banking systems perpetual bailout fund with the ability to create unlimited amounts of money.
Is it true that the fed is privately owned and if so does it matter or not really
EDIT: The profit from the Fed's assets (after the small interest payments to the private banks) all goes to the government.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty naive take. You are suggesting that all these trillions are somehow ending up in the hands of people when the primary effect has been to prop up asset prices e.g. the stock, mortgage, and corporate bond markets. The second order consequences of a massive balance sheet will be felt not in the immediate future but at some point down the line when the Fed attempts to shrink the balance sheet. We have a…
Another way of putting it is that it took the Fed 10 years to even think about trying to extricate themselves, and they realized they couldn't. Now they have gotten their hands much deeper in.
Re: Federal Reserve balance sheet trends
#180What matters isn't the size of the Fed's balance sheet or what it contains. The Fed's balance sheet is "invisible" to the private-sector economy. This expansion of their balance sheet is simply a reflection of the stimulus we're doing. When the Fed expands their balance sheet, what they're doing is replacing private-sector assets with liquid cash. Given that the stimulus is appropriate for the economy, this is all fi…
> It's not anything that future generations have to "pay back." I really wish the term "debt" were not used in these contexts. This type of "debt" is fundamentally different from private sector debt or other ordinary forms of debt. In this context the term is being used to refer to an accounting construct that looks like debt, but the meaning of this particular accounting entry is completely different. Using this ter…
It depends. If you are Lebanon and borrowing USD it’s pretty much like a corporate debt and future generations are paying it back.
However, if you can print the world’s reserve currency while borrowing in it at the same time then there are different terms.