I don't understand this... like... at all. At least for the BoE situation. So BoE has a load of bonds on it's balance sheet. These bonds are going down in value, so the bank is making a loss. This presumably goes on the UK deficit? If that's the case we're in trouble right? Because the UK is already at 143% Debt:GDP, interest rates are only now starting to go up, and the government's entire plan is to deficit spend t…
What's your source for that Debt:GDP figure? From these sources it seems to be closer to 100% currently [1][2][3] [1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxe... [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/04/now-britain...
Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
141–150 of 241 posts
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
"lay people": It looks a lot like you're printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. "experts": This matter is too complex and jargon-filled for you to take part in the debate. "lay people": Explain again why we have an institution that alternates between handouts to asset owners and crashing the economy? I think prices going up exponentially with time might be bad for my welfare! "experts": Those craz…
> printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. So much confusion is caused by the inability to distinguish between "gift" and "loan". The problem with allowing banks to hard-fail is that imposes real, huge costs on customers even if the deposits are 100% covered, because the failover is not instant and you end up with money locked up for a period and are unable to make your own payments. > prices going…
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#143This thread shows a phenomenon that I've noticed a lot of lately: that many smart people turn absolutely loopy when it comes to the topic of central banking. There's nothing quite like it, and I'm not sure how to explain it. The topic seems to make conspiracy theorists out of otherwise very reasonable people. Good to see the highest voted comments are sane, but the sanity ratio is pretty low compared to other topics.
Like, what book(s) or curriculum do I need to study?
Genuine question.
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#144This thread shows a phenomenon that I've noticed a lot of lately: that many smart people turn absolutely loopy when it comes to the topic of central banking. There's nothing quite like it, and I'm not sure how to explain it. The topic seems to make conspiracy theorists out of otherwise very reasonable people. Good to see the highest voted comments are sane, but the sanity ratio is pretty low compared to other topics.
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#145This thread shows a phenomenon that I've noticed a lot of lately: that many smart people turn absolutely loopy when it comes to the topic of central banking. There's nothing quite like it, and I'm not sure how to explain it. The topic seems to make conspiracy theorists out of otherwise very reasonable people. Good to see the highest voted comments are sane, but the sanity ratio is pretty low compared to other topics.
So where can I read up on how modern central banking actually works? Like, what book(s) or curriculum do I need to study? Genuine question.
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#146This thread shows a phenomenon that I've noticed a lot of lately: that many smart people turn absolutely loopy when it comes to the topic of central banking. There's nothing quite like it, and I'm not sure how to explain it. The topic seems to make conspiracy theorists out of otherwise very reasonable people. Good to see the highest voted comments are sane, but the sanity ratio is pretty low compared to other topics.
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#147I don't understand this... like... at all. At least for the BoE situation. So BoE has a load of bonds on it's balance sheet. These bonds are going down in value, so the bank is making a loss. This presumably goes on the UK deficit? If that's the case we're in trouble right? Because the UK is already at 143% Debt:GDP, interest rates are only now starting to go up, and the government's entire plan is to deficit spend t…
The BoE is independent (in theory) from the government. If the bonds that BoE own go to zero, their entries are effectively just deleted from the database. In the same way that an increase in the number of £ in the database doesn't increase the government's deficit. It's a very simple concept but can have psychological hurdle to overcome, given the simplicity of it and implications once internalised. Analogy .. BoE h…
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
"lay people": It looks a lot like you're printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. "experts": This matter is too complex and jargon-filled for you to take part in the debate. "lay people": Explain again why we have an institution that alternates between handouts to asset owners and crashing the economy? I think prices going up exponentially with time might be bad for my welfare! "experts": Those craz…
> printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. So much confusion is caused by the inability to distinguish between "gift" and "loan". The problem with allowing banks to hard-fail is that imposes real, huge costs on customers even if the deposits are 100% covered, because the failover is not instant and you end up with money locked up for a period and are unable to make your own payments. > prices going…
What the difference between a gift and a loan that costs nothing?
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
"lay people": It looks a lot like you're printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. "experts": This matter is too complex and jargon-filled for you to take part in the debate. "lay people": Explain again why we have an institution that alternates between handouts to asset owners and crashing the economy? I think prices going up exponentially with time might be bad for my welfare! "experts": Those craz…
> printing money and handing it out to your wealthy buddies. So much confusion is caused by the inability to distinguish between "gift" and "loan". The problem with allowing banks to hard-fail is that imposes real, huge costs on customers even if the deposits are 100% covered, because the failover is not instant and you end up with money locked up for a period and are unable to make your own payments. > prices going…
QE4 was the better part of a trillion dollars. That much money moves through a system that is too complex and jargon filled for the layman to understand, and you want them to believe that there is nothing to see here?
1. The people on the other side of the bad loan, who aren't expected to pay back the money, are making bank by taking on silly levels of risk and then benefiting from the bailouts.
2. These loans aren't available to ordinary people or businesses because the terms would obviously put any individual far too far ahead. We can tell they are unfair just from that.
3. There isn't any reason to believe the loans are being paid back. Every time it looks like debts might get called in on aggregate, people claim financial crisis and there is another big round of lending.
> The problem with allowing banks to hard-fail is that imposes real, huge costs on customers even if the deposits are 100% covered
Yeah. People can't funnel their savings to incompetents and expect a good outcome. They should be very picky and reserved in deciding who to trust with their money, and there should not be coordinated giving of massive funds to a small pool of institutions who are regularly discovered to be wasting the resources they are entrusted with. This is one of the reasons we put up with the economy, it is supposed to keep power away from those sort of fools.
They need to be sent broke when they screw up badly. And people shouldn't be punished for saying "they're all untrustworthy, so I'm keeping money under my mattress".
> And prices going down exponentially is bad for investment, and precisely keeping prices the same forever is impossible
You've missed a bunch of options here though, namely the infinite number of functions that aren't exponential. Prices could be a random walk around an average, for example.
> Pension funds are more or less obliged to buy the safest assets they can?
I'm not following the story too closely, but the word I heard was the UK pension funds were getting margin called on their safe assets.
Re: Do central banks’ mounting losses actually matter?
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> NATO and the US will likely not respond if Putin uses a small nuke in Ukraine. There’s too much to lose. They’ll just let it happen, as they should. Which is obviously terrible and devastating for Ukrainians, but probably best for the rest of the world. It's actually the opposite, everyone should be hoping that someone delivers a devastating strike against the Russians for using any size of nuke in Ukraine. Unless…
I think that the nuclear proliferation cat is out of the box. I wouldn't be surprised if even European countries are already looking to acquire nuclear capabilities.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/if-gaddafi-had-the-bomb_b_846...
A very good article.