Live data from Hacker News

US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

theguardian.com

441–450 of 693 posts

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#441
Wait, am I missing something here?

The ONLY way for any government to escape their massive debt is inflation. The US is no different from other countries that used the pandemic as an excuse to prop all kind of businesses.

This is no different that real estate. If you have bought property at a fixed rate, then high inflation (= higher salaries) will make your loan look smaller year after year.

Of course the collateral damage is a weaker US$. But what is the alternative to the US$? Crypto? Yuan (see the recent move of the oil producing countries to accept non US $ payments).

The US knows that there is NO alternative to the US $, hence their reckless borrowing strategy (= issue more Treasuries).

But wait! Isn't what the HN is used to hear? "There is no alternative to the dominant position of Microsoft Explorer, Blackberry or anything else. Until THERE IS a replacement and a newcomer replaces the incumbant.

I am really worried over the long term about the so-called invicible US $ as a store of value.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but that's an overall lowering of debt servicing as a percent of disposable income. The only part that hasn't dropped much is consumer debt. Plus while reverse amortization might be less common, ARMs generally are still very popular and you'll see a hike in overall debt service associated with rising interest rates. I don't know what's gonna happen with the housing market and I don't think it'll crash either but…

Consumer debt is also low; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CDSP And metrics like credit card delinquencies are at historic lows: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRCCLACBS ARMs actually aren't very popular - fewer than 15% of new mortgages are ARM. > BlackRock bought what, 10-15% of the houses sold in 2020? People vastly overestimate how large players like Blackrock are. There are something like 80 million singl…

Of the 80 million single family homes in the US, how many are sold each year? For your math to work (80,000 as 1%) it would have to be 8,000,000 or 10% of the overall supply.

I can actually answer for you - roughly 820,000 single family homes were sold in 2020.

So if BlackRock bought 80,000 homes then, that'd be about 10%.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#443

An interesting aspect of this is that the endless printing of money in the last few years was a sort of stress test of modern monetary theory, which has been seeing lots of discussion in those same years. I never quite understood how this theory would work while avoiding inflation, and what's happening now seems to at least be related - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/business/economy/modern-m... Conceptually the…

MMT has all the same problems as Communism: nice in theory, but terrible in practice.

MMT proponents will argue that no one has ever properly implemented it.

However, an economic theory that is not effective in practice, given the realistic constraints of human nature and politics, is useless.

In theory the only way MMT works is to arbitrarily raise taxes to counter inflation. The Fed does not have the power to raise taxes, Congress does. But such a floating, variable tax rate is ripe for abuse of power and I don't know anyone who would not revolt under such a system.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT isn't a thing to try or be tried: it's not an ideology or set of policies or even policy goals (there is a very loose correlation between adherence to MMT and certain progressive policy goals, but they aren't the same thing.) MMT is an understanding of factual nature of the environment in which government operates . Reduced to one sentence it is “the entire concept of fiscal balance is play-acting as if the gover…

Your definition is circular. What proves MMT is in any way ‘factual’. MMT is an old lie, oft repeated, and only discovered as a lie after it is far too late.

> Your definition is circular.

No, it's not.

> What proves MMT is in any way ‘factual’.

Factual is class of statements, opposed to normative statements.

> MMT is an old lie

It can't be that old, since it only describes the constraints on sovereign finance of entities functioning in their own pure-fiat currencies, which isn't a subject that has been of interest for very long.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#445
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government printed money to send unemployed people to uninhabited farmland to start cultivating it (in complete isolation from the rest of the economy) would it cause inflation for the rest of us who aren't connected? First, this never happens, and certainly is not what's been happening for decades now in the US with the Fed printing money, so it's not a very relevant thought experiment. Second, taking your…

The "uninhabited farmland" is just an analogy for some area of the economic landscape that when you spend money on it, can absorb labor and return a tangible benefit that is equal or more than what you spend. Maybe for example repairing worn out infrastructure or creating new infrastructure. >The vast majority of the money the Fed prints goes to financial institutions You maybe thinking of Quantitative Easing. In whi…

> The "uninhabited farmland" is just an analogy for some area of the economic landscape that when you spend money on it, can absorb labor and return a tangible benefit that is equal or more than what you spend.

Such areas aren't doled out by the government. They're invented by entrepreneurs. Your "uninhabited land" analogy obscures that vital point since uninhabited land is not invented, it's already there.

> Maybe for example repairing worn out infrastructure or creating new infrastructure.

As I already pointed out, if there are things like this that are worth doing, and there are unemployed people who can do them, the government can just use tax revenue to pay them to do it. There's no need to print new money.

> You maybe thinking of Quantitative Easing.

That's one way of doing it, which has been common in recent years, yes. But it's not the only way.

> The Government doesn't just print a whole lot of money and give it away to someone.

The government goes to great lengths to try to convince people that it's not doing that. But economically speaking, that is what it's doing.

When someone "cashes in" a government bond under "quantitative easing", the money they get is not taken from currently existing dollars. The dollars are newly printed money; they are newly created purchasing power that is given to whoever is "cashing in" the bond. That purchasing power doesn't come from nowhere: the purchasing power of a dollar is not fixed, it's determined by the total number of dollars in circulation. So printing new dollars and giving them to someone, even if it's in exchange for a "government bond", is still increasing the total number of dollars in circulation, and that means the purchasing power represented by the new dollars is taken from everyone else who holds dollars.

For a simple example, if there are a thousand dollars currently in circulation, and I "cash in" my government bond for 100 dollars of "quantitative easing", there are now 1100 total dollars in circulation, and I now have 100 dollars of purchasing power that was obtained by reducing the purchasing power of all other dollars by 10 percent. It's economically equivalent to taking 10 cents in tax for each dollar of the 1000 dollars that existed before, and giving it to me. Calling it by some other name doesn't make it something else. It just obfuscates what is actually going on.

(The Fed can in principle also destroy money, by selling securities and retiring the dollars that it gets for them, but historically it has almost never done this.)

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#446
post #387

We have an inflation which is about 8% while mortage rates on 30 year fixed are just 4.7% (15 year fixed are just 3.8%). So I really do not understand logic here: how can bank give me money at rate 2x times lower than inflation. Seems like free money (and it is no surprise that home prices are going thru the roof). But I’m probably naiive here and do not understand how banking works.

My 30y is 2.5%. Amazing.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#447
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that we rarely raise interest rates Not really true; there was a long period of near-zero rates not moving during and after the Great Recession, but that was a unique event; from 2015-2018 there was a fairly consistent notching up of rates typical of an expansion with inflationary signals, then an ease back from 2019 until COVID hit at rates were cut sharply. Looking at history there's a long run up…

Throughout these time periods there was a dramatic increase in the money supply (from my view of FRED stats it doesn’t look like there’s ever been a contraction of the monetary supply), so we’re rate increases just offset by enough monetary growth to offset?

> Throughout these time periods there was a dramatic increase in the money supply

well, yeah, a hot economy means that borrowing even at high interest is attractive, which is why you are trying to constrain lending (money creation) with higher interest in the first place to prevent inflation.

What would you expect to see?

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current Fed chair has basically the same idea on economics as Yellen. Likely not much would have changed if she'd stayed in office.

True -- but note that Yellen was appointed by the same president.

Not true. Yellen was appointed by Obama, Powell was appointed by Trump.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#449
post #255

Got my mortgage at 2.75% late last year. Woooooo.....

What do you think is going to happen to your home price is interest rates go up to 5% and then people can’t afford huge mortgages anymore?

Probably not much. The only time the US had a major home price adjustment was 2008 and that was because the housing market was the problem. Currently the housing market is up but not a problem. There aren't crazy foreclosures and there aren't any expected. Tho that can change if we have a big recession absolutely.

Also home prices did not take a very long time to recover all things considered.

Re: US Federal Reserve raises interest rates for first time since 2018

#450
post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct, but I think the problem is that a lot of people who advocate for MMT, don't actually understand it, because many of the pro-MMT people I've talked to really do think you can print money forever . It's not unique to MMT, the same thing happens with plenty of other subjects too.

I think people conflate what MMTers were saying post-2008, which was we had WAAAAAAAAAAAY more capacity to print money, especially from 2008-2014 or so, with we can spend literally infinite money. And so you get all of these people saying "MMT was wrong" with the pandemic inflation, when it's the exact opposite. We started running into real resource constraints (due to lockdowns, supply chain issues, etc) and inflati…

Where in the world would raising taxes on a dime be perfectly acceptable? Imagine you have a rent or mortgage payment, but inflation hits 10% so your taxes go up 10% month over month to counter it. Your costs were fixed, the inflation affected other things besides your long term agreements, and yet, you would default on your payments because you got 10% less that month after taxes. Who would not want to burn the whole system down after experiencing that?
Post reply on HN