Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:26:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: FED should buy stocks instead of government bonds  (Read 1787 times)
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2011, 07:11:32 PM
 #21

The biggest criticism about austrian economists is that they described lots of problem, but solved none (Just wait until the worst happens and then it will correct itself? What if the worst really happened and it does not correct itself?)

Yes, they solve a few problems. For example, they solve all the problems associated with central banking by removing central banking.

It's difficult to discuss economic without numbers.  10% income debt and 1000% income debt are totally different thing. Without numbers any kind of talk is just pure talk and not convincing at all

I disagree. Numbers can be helpful to explain economic concepts in a simpler way, through examples. But economic statements must be true for any numbers (or you have to specify the ranges).

A simple view: FED is the biggest end customer, if they start to buy, everyone will make money, if they buy too fast - inflation, if they buy too slow - deflation

The fed is the biggest end consumer? What is it suppose to consume? Bad investments?
The fed only buys debt. What resources do they need to run a printing press? C'mon.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 21, 2011, 11:16:34 PM
 #22


The fed is the biggest end consumer? What is it suppose to consume? Bad investments?
The fed only buys debt. What resources do they need to run a printing press? C'mon.


Unfortunately, as long as we have "ownership" concept, FED will be the owner of newly produced money (And they can destroy money too)

The bond is the debt for US government, but you can not buy them if you do not own the money

A gold miner own the gold that he mined, so does FED. The reason they do not buy other things is because government bond is most secure investment. But if government bond can not hold its AAA rating, some of the companies might appear more attractive

Bond buying is just a way to raise the total investment, as suggested by Keynesian economics

jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 06:49:37 AM
 #23


The fed is the biggest end consumer? What is it suppose to consume? Bad investments?
The fed only buys debt. What resources do they need to run a printing press? C'mon.


Unfortunately, as long as we have "ownership" concept, FED will be the owner of newly produced money (And they can destroy money too)

But what gives value to the dollar is people using it, not some magic property that the feds puts in it.

The bond is the debt for US government, but you can not buy them if you do not own the money

Yes, I can sell my bond for whatever I want: euros, gold, cows, ...whatever I accept for them from the buyer.

A gold miner own the gold that he mined, so does FED. The reason they do not buy other things is because government bond is most secure investment. But if government bond can not hold its AAA rating, some of the companies might appear more attractive

But why the fed is worried about secure investments? No mather how much they lose, they can print more. Why did they bought the toxic assets then? I think the reason the fed is buying treasuries is because no one else wants them at that interest.
Bonds are pretty risky right now. Not because the risk of default, but because of the inflation risk. Sure they can print a ton of usd and pay all the debts, but if you pay your debts with hyperinflated dollars, your lenders are going to feel scammed the same.

Bond buying is just a way to raise the total investment, as suggested by Keynesian economics

But we prefer the private sector to invest rather than the public one. The public sector doesn't have the same incentive to invest wisely: if the investment is bad, the whole country will pay through taxes/ inflation.
We know who Keynes is, but I suggest you to not use an appeal to authority with him here.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 08:30:31 PM
 #24

But why the fed is worried about secure investments? No mather how much they lose, they can print more. Why did they bought the toxic assets then? I think the reason the fed is buying treasuries is because no one else wants them at that interest.
Bonds are pretty risky right now. Not because the risk of default, but because of the inflation risk. Sure they can print a ton of usd and pay all the debts, but if you pay your debts with hyperinflated dollars, your lenders are going to feel scammed the same.
But what gives value to the dollar is people using it, not some magic property that the feds puts in it.

It's the credability give dollar value, and that credability depends on how good FED is at creating/spending dollars

If you are the FED chairman, you want each dollar you create (and spend) will corresponding to the increase of goods/services traded in the whole economy. In this way, you can avoid inflation

And FED can not consume anything directly (Actually, they do not have the right to consume since they are just money printers), so they have to sell what they bought to others to get the money back, thus complete a cycle of the money flow

But we prefer the private sector to invest rather than the public one. The public sector doesn't have the same incentive to invest wisely: if the investment is bad, the whole country will pay through taxes/ inflation.
We know who Keynes is, but I suggest you to not use an appeal to authority with him here.

I mentioned Keynes since he have a very good description of "effective demand is not enough because of saving action", which I also proved after a number based analysis of a simple economy model

I agree that in general private sector have higher efficiency than government. But in a post-recession era, private sector tends to save more and invest less (due to uncertain economy conditions/dropping demand/lack of cash reserve, etc...). At such a time, only government can do investment without hesitation (backed by the FED), even those investments are bad, it will stop the downward spiral, and will buy private sector some time to accumulate enough cash and restore confidence to invest again

But if in such situation government can not get the enough money from the FED to drive those spendings, the total recession could be longer, since even in a very easy business condition like low interest rate and low tax, cash reserve is still low for many private companies, they will continue cost cutting and save until they had enough cash

jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2011, 09:04:26 PM
 #25

But why the fed is worried about secure investments? No mather how much they lose, they can print more. Why did they bought the toxic assets then? I think the reason the fed is buying treasuries is because no one else wants them at that interest.
Bonds are pretty risky right now. Not because the risk of default, but because of the inflation risk. Sure they can print a ton of usd and pay all the debts, but if you pay your debts with hyperinflated dollars, your lenders are going to feel scammed the same.
But what gives value to the dollar is people using it, not some magic property that the feds puts in it.

It's the credability give dollar value, and that credability depends on how good FED is at creating/spending dollars

What gives value to the dollar is the goods and services you can purchase with it. If the dollar is not "credible", less people would will it.

If you are the FED chairman, you want each dollar you create (and spend) will corresponding to the increase of goods/services traded in the whole economy. In this way, you can avoid inflation
Well, it seems to me that Bernanke has no interest in avoiding inflation, on the contrary he's avoiding deflation at all costs, even the risk of hyperinflation.
Whatever quantity of debt the market destroys to burst bubbles, it is equaled with M0 to avoid deflation. But the banks can multiply the base 10 times. They're not doing it now, but they can.

And FED can not consume anything directly (Actually, they do not have the right to consume since they are just money printers), so they have to sell what they bought to others to get the money back, thus complete a cycle of the money flow

That's why I cannot understand how it should demand something specific from the market.

But we prefer the private sector to invest rather than the public one. The public sector doesn't have the same incentive to invest wisely: if the investment is bad, the whole country will pay through taxes/ inflation.
We know who Keynes is, but I suggest you to not use an appeal to authority with him here.

I mentioned Keynes since he have a very good description of "effective demand is not enough because of saving action", which I also proved after a number based analysis of a simple economy model
I don't remember any prove of that quote nor I heard a definition of "effective demand" but I don't think that many people in this forum think the statement is true.
Also, what kind of saving are you talking about? Only hoarding or also lending/leave your money in your bank account so it can be lent?
Are the banks the ones who are "saving"?

I agree that in general private sector have higher efficiency than government. But in a post-recession era, private sector tends to save more and invest less (due to uncertain economy conditions/dropping demand/lack of cash reserve, etc...). At such a time, only government can do investment without hesitation (backed by the FED), even those investments are bad, it will stop the downward spiral, and will buy private sector some time to accumulate enough cash and restore confidence to invest again
Since it doesn't matter where the resources are put, we just need to move them, maybe you agree with Paul Krugman.

But if in such situation government can not get the enough money from the FED to drive those spendings, the total recession could be longer, since even in a very easy business condition like low interest rate and low tax, cash reserve is still low for many private companies, they will continue cost cutting and save until they had enough cash

If they want to rise taxes and cut spending is precisely to pay the interest on the debt they acquired to "stimulate the economy".
And if businesses don't have cash revenue, I wonder where all the printed money is and why they rise prices.
Why the bread is more expensive each day if the baker is so desperate for cash? Isn't he supposed to offer more bread for less cash?

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 10:19:01 PM
 #26

But why the fed is worried about secure investments? No mather how much they lose, they can print more. Why did they bought the toxic assets then? I think the reason the fed is buying treasuries is because no one else wants them at that interest.
Bonds are pretty risky right now. Not because the risk of default, but because of the inflation risk. Sure they can print a ton of usd and pay all the debts, but if you pay your debts with hyperinflated dollars, your lenders are going to feel scammed the same.
But what gives value to the dollar is people using it, not some magic property that the feds puts in it.

It's the credability give dollar value, and that credability depends on how good FED is at creating/spending dollars

What gives value to the dollar is the goods and services you can purchase with it. If the dollar is not "credible", less people would will it.

If you are the FED chairman, you want each dollar you create (and spend) will corresponding to the increase of goods/services traded in the whole economy. In this way, you can avoid inflation
Well, it seems to me that Bernanke has no interest in avoiding inflation, on the contrary he's avoiding deflation at all costs, even the risk of hyperinflation.
Whatever quantity of debt the market destroys to burst bubbles, it is equaled with M0 to avoid deflation. But the banks can multiply the base 10 times. They're not doing it now, but they can.

And FED can not consume anything directly (Actually, they do not have the right to consume since they are just money printers), so they have to sell what they bought to others to get the money back, thus complete a cycle of the money flow

That's why I cannot understand how it should demand something specific from the market.

But we prefer the private sector to invest rather than the public one. The public sector doesn't have the same incentive to invest wisely: if the investment is bad, the whole country will pay through taxes/ inflation.
We know who Keynes is, but I suggest you to not use an appeal to authority with him here.

I mentioned Keynes since he have a very good description of "effective demand is not enough because of saving action", which I also proved after a number based analysis of a simple economy model
I don't remember any prove of that quote nor I heard a definition of "effective demand" but I don't think that many people in this forum think the statement is true.
Also, what kind of saving are you talking about? Only hoarding or also lending/leave your money in your bank account so it can be lent?
Are the banks the ones who are "saving"?

I agree that in general private sector have higher efficiency than government. But in a post-recession era, private sector tends to save more and invest less (due to uncertain economy conditions/dropping demand/lack of cash reserve, etc...). At such a time, only government can do investment without hesitation (backed by the FED), even those investments are bad, it will stop the downward spiral, and will buy private sector some time to accumulate enough cash and restore confidence to invest again
Since it doesn't matter where the resources are put, we just need to move them, maybe you agree with Paul Krugman.

But if in such situation government can not get the enough money from the FED to drive those spendings, the total recession could be longer, since even in a very easy business condition like low interest rate and low tax, cash reserve is still low for many private companies, they will continue cost cutting and save until they had enough cash

If they want to rise taxes and cut spending is precisely to pay the interest on the debt they acquired to "stimulate the economy".
And if businesses don't have cash revenue, I wonder where all the printed money is and why they rise prices.
Why the bread is more expensive each day if the baker is so desperate for cash? Isn't he supposed to offer more bread for less cash?


Too many aspects I don't know which one to discuss first, but it is very interesting to be a bitcoin miner and looking at all these problems from a money provider point of view

In general FED do not want to provide more money (inflation thus destroy the currency credibility), but in a recession they would more care about the deflation (the total money supply never reduced, but the money in circulating dramatically reduced due to panic saving and tougher loaning condition). But since all the monetary action have a delaied effect, they are also careful to prevent the inflation before it worsens (in the latest FED meeting, 3 of them already started to worry about the inflation)

Saving's effect illustrated:
In mystisland, A catch 2kg fish per day and exchange for 2 shells at market, B pick 2kg fruits per day and exchange for 2 shells at market, and both of them using 2 shells to buy 1kg fish and 1kg fruit from market

As long as they are doing this, the total demand for currency is 4 shells (maximum 4 shells are needed to faciliate all the trades everyday)

Now A start to save, he save 1 of the shell of his income and use only 1 shell to buy 0.5kg fish and 0.5kg fruit, the market will accumulate 0.5kg fish and 0.5 fruit and lose 1 shell

The second day after A started to save, A and B come back to market to sell their 2kg fish and 2kg fruits, just find that market now have only 3 shells... Then the market (central bank) have to create 1 more shell to facilitate the trading

If A continously to save 100 days, then market will create 100 shell and accumulate 50kg fish and 50kg fruit (Of course these fish and fruits are not consumable after 1 day, so they were trashed)

So, with saving in action for 100 days, the total money supply of the island will be 104 shells, magnitudes higher than it normally requires (4 shells)

And later, when A start to spend these 100 shells, he will bid up the price of everything on the island

twobits
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336

Firstbits: 1a6taw


View Profile
August 22, 2011, 10:25:54 PM
 #27

In this way, the stimulus money will have much better effect

I hope they even buy my used car for 1 billion$, because I can guarantee I will spend all those income, not like those big corporations sitting on tons of cash and doing cost cutting which bring down the total demand of the whole society  Angry



Stock ownership  is company ownership.   There is a name for they types of  governments that own businesses and it is not   supposed to be the system the US uses.   In fact I think allowing the government pensions to buy up voting stock already perverts this too much and should be banned  instead.   The whole bailout of GM and such was just insane the way it was done.

HappyFunnyFoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile
September 03, 2011, 03:56:03 AM
 #28

The Fed DID buy stocks - the $1.3 trillion 'given' to banks was mostly just preferred stock purchases. LiberDumbs/GoldLover/FEDHater ignorami tend to forget or ignore this fact about the stimulus package.  Most government stock holdings have been sold now at a net profit to American taxpayers.  Stock purchases aren't necessary right now, since the financial system is stable and it's really only a tactic of last resort.  Many companies are posting record profits, but there won't be much demand for equity from the average investor for a couple of years, since a lot of people got burned super heavily in 2009 by selling@bottom.

-Foo
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!