Fed cuts interest rates to 3.5%(news.bbc.co.uk)
news.bbc.co.uk
Fed cuts interest rates to 3.5%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7202645.stm
45 comments
I don't agree. I think the Fed should have lowered rates earlier. Lower rates lead to a better lending environment which leads to economic growth. If the Fed had cut more drastically earlier, we wouldn't be worried about a recession right now. And I'll bet the dollar would be even higher, since the world likes investing in currencies that are backed by a strong economy.
There is no need to go through a recession just to make the 'organizations that were investing poorly' pay. The market won't discriminate to that degree (ie, good investments that have nothing to do with housing and have wonderful balance sheets like Apple will also go down).
If you're going to use medical analogies, I'd say that avoiding a rate cut to punish the 'bad' companies is like committing suicide to alleviate an upset stomach....
Anyways, the problems weren't caused by lower rates alone - banks weren't very good at evaluating the risk profile of the people they were loaning money to. And repackaging mortgages to sell them to the 'bigger fool' gave them little incentive to be more vigilant - in fact, it rewarded aggressive lending practices .
I think lenders are now more aware of the problems with this line of thought, which is why they are so reticent to lend now.
Hopefully the Fed will cut again at their next meeting.
There is no need to go through a recession just to make the 'organizations that were investing poorly' pay. The market won't discriminate to that degree (ie, good investments that have nothing to do with housing and have wonderful balance sheets like Apple will also go down).
If you're going to use medical analogies, I'd say that avoiding a rate cut to punish the 'bad' companies is like committing suicide to alleviate an upset stomach....
Anyways, the problems weren't caused by lower rates alone - banks weren't very good at evaluating the risk profile of the people they were loaning money to. And repackaging mortgages to sell them to the 'bigger fool' gave them little incentive to be more vigilant - in fact, it rewarded aggressive lending practices .
I think lenders are now more aware of the problems with this line of thought, which is why they are so reticent to lend now.
Hopefully the Fed will cut again at their next meeting.
You clearly don't know what hyperinflation does to an economy. It's not like lowering rates is a silver bullet to economic growth. Lowering rates compromises long term growth for short term growth.
"Hopefully the Fed will cut again at their next meeting." ... ahhh, forget about it.
You're clearly assuming that lowering interest rates will cause hyperinflation. Back that up instead of talking down to me.
Explain how hyperinflation will occur when what is typically a person's most valuable asset (home) decreases in price. Explain how hyperinflation will occur if we're in for a recession and the associated job losses.
Lowering rates does not sacrifice long term growth. Rates were drastically lowered in 91 and 82 (83?) as well, and that didn't exactly negatively impact long term growth.
I'm serious, and I'd appreciate something concrete to help me understand why my viewpoint is incorrect.
Explain how hyperinflation will occur when what is typically a person's most valuable asset (home) decreases in price. Explain how hyperinflation will occur if we're in for a recession and the associated job losses.
Lowering rates does not sacrifice long term growth. Rates were drastically lowered in 91 and 82 (83?) as well, and that didn't exactly negatively impact long term growth.
I'm serious, and I'd appreciate something concrete to help me understand why my viewpoint is incorrect.
By lowering the prime interest rate, they are making it easier to borrow dollars, which lowers the dollar's value, which causes price inflation.
If you have a strong dollar, you can lower rates. But the dollar is at an all-time low, so then to have a 75bps drop hit it, the result is essentially pushing it towards hyperinflation.
If you have a strong dollar, you can lower rates. But the dollar is at an all-time low, so then to have a 75bps drop hit it, the result is essentially pushing it towards hyperinflation.
Actually in classical macro theory, lower interest rates (which amounts to the Fed increasing the money supply) leads to greater investment due to cheaper credit, leading to higher output growth in the short run and subsequently lower unemployment. With higher demand for their labour, workers will ask for more cash leading to wage inflation. And because wages are a major input into goods and services, higher wages will cause firms to raise prices - hence price inflation.
That's the theory anyway. There's been alot of criticism on it, but macroeconomists in reserve banks around the world tend to subscribe to this theory when using interest rates to control growth and inflation.
The relationship between interest rates and the dollar is via the interest rate parity condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity), which is a feature of open markets (to take into account arbitrage opportunities). Lowering the value of the dollar doesn't cause inflation directly. I suppose it does so indirectly by stimulating exports and raising output growth, which leads to lower unemployment and so on.
Lowering interest rates will likely increase inflation, but hyperinflation is a bit rich. Current US inflation is 4%, which is high, but a long way from hyperinflation (see zimbabwe - 1000%+).
That's the theory anyway. There's been alot of criticism on it, but macroeconomists in reserve banks around the world tend to subscribe to this theory when using interest rates to control growth and inflation.
The relationship between interest rates and the dollar is via the interest rate parity condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate_parity), which is a feature of open markets (to take into account arbitrage opportunities). Lowering the value of the dollar doesn't cause inflation directly. I suppose it does so indirectly by stimulating exports and raising output growth, which leads to lower unemployment and so on.
Lowering interest rates will likely increase inflation, but hyperinflation is a bit rich. Current US inflation is 4%, which is high, but a long way from hyperinflation (see zimbabwe - 1000%+).
You could have just said:
> Actually in classical macro theory, lower interest rates (which amounts to the Fed increasing the money supply) ... hence price inflation.
If the money supply is increased (more dollar bills are printed), you'll need more to pay for the same thing: and that is directly price inflation. You can ignore the expected effects in the middle. (In fact, there's no direct correlation to cheaper credit and greater investment.)
4% is stated core inflation. The true inflation number is much higher, but it's hard to know because there's a lot of effort put into diminishing it, for obvious reasons. Sure we're not in hyperinflation yet, but the idea is that it could get there quickly. While it seems impossible from the comfort of growing up in the second half of the 20th century, America is in much more trouble than it realizes.
> Actually in classical macro theory, lower interest rates (which amounts to the Fed increasing the money supply) ... hence price inflation.
If the money supply is increased (more dollar bills are printed), you'll need more to pay for the same thing: and that is directly price inflation. You can ignore the expected effects in the middle. (In fact, there's no direct correlation to cheaper credit and greater investment.)
4% is stated core inflation. The true inflation number is much higher, but it's hard to know because there's a lot of effort put into diminishing it, for obvious reasons. Sure we're not in hyperinflation yet, but the idea is that it could get there quickly. While it seems impossible from the comfort of growing up in the second half of the 20th century, America is in much more trouble than it realizes.
Right - I understand this part. But I think this is more than balanced by the positive effects of rate cuts on our economy. Rate cuts make it smarter to borrow than to save (for businesses and individuals), and the spending of this money means more growth. Economic growth is what will make the US dollar a more attractive investment.
I guess that given the huge drops in housing values, combined with the layoffs that will (and have) occurred in the banking and housing industries, I am more worried about deflation than inflation. $100 oil and a lower dollar don't matter as much as banks going under and people walking away from their houses.
I guess that given the huge drops in housing values, combined with the layoffs that will (and have) occurred in the banking and housing industries, I am more worried about deflation than inflation. $100 oil and a lower dollar don't matter as much as banks going under and people walking away from their houses.
I think you mean the 'potential' positive effects of a rate drop, because if you remember, Japan dropped their prime rate to 0% for years and it did nothing. It only makes it easier to borrow and therefore easier to finance growth and restructuring if you want it. But if the climate is negative and no one is buying, then there's no reason to grow, etc.
Deflation is also bad. Bernanke thinks that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated if monetary inflation would have offset the deflation that was occurring. And I think that what he's doing here. Unfortunately, he's about to find out why that doesn't work.
Deflation is also bad. Bernanke thinks that the effects of the Great Depression could have been mitigated if monetary inflation would have offset the deflation that was occurring. And I think that what he's doing here. Unfortunately, he's about to find out why that doesn't work.
Good point - thanks.
"Lowering rates does not sacrifice long term growth. Rates were drastically lowered in 91 and 82 (83?) as well, and that didn't exactly negatively impact long term growth."
The federal funds rate controls indirectly the inflation so if you had them very high (which hurts the economy a lot but you have to do it if you want to lower the inflation) of course you can lower it back to normal (around 5%) when inflation is back to normal (around 2%). But lowering it below the normal rate increases exponentially the yearly inflation gain because banks borrow from the FED and using fractional-reserve banking they flood the market with new money, lowering the value of the dollar. Meaning that "typically a person's most valuable asset (home)" increases in price, and decreases in value. The purchasing power of the people goes down, together with the GDP. The dollars becomes internationally unattractive (I'm looking at China's Reserve Bank for example, or just having dollars) as its annual inflation rate makes any saving to lose value. One dollar will buy $1 worth of goods and services this year, but only 95c the next year with an inflation at 5%; this has the same effect as a 5% annual tax on cash holdings.
Do you ever think that maybe politicians are missing the boat here? With most Americans paying about 75% in total taxes (when you count sales tax, gas tax, property tax, etc etc) it seems we are always just a tiny downturn away from disaster.
If you want your people to spend money and buoy the economy, perhaps instead of making it easy to borrow what they don't have you should try NOT TAKING SO DAMN MUCH from them in the first place. Listen carefully: Money you take from the people and spend in Iraq is gone, mmkayy?
Constantly trying to balance on the razors edge of economic collapse and then issuing even MORE credit (and measly tax rebates) when you've gone too far can't possibly be the optimal implementation.
Ok, sorry, rant over.
If you want your people to spend money and buoy the economy, perhaps instead of making it easy to borrow what they don't have you should try NOT TAKING SO DAMN MUCH from them in the first place. Listen carefully: Money you take from the people and spend in Iraq is gone, mmkayy?
Constantly trying to balance on the razors edge of economic collapse and then issuing even MORE credit (and measly tax rebates) when you've gone too far can't possibly be the optimal implementation.
Ok, sorry, rant over.
75% in taxes? Get a grip man... taxes are quite high, but definitely not that high. Check out this report by the tax foundation, which breaks down federal and state taxes by the average household:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
Good link. Yes, in fact I did pull that number out of my... well, you know.
It was merely to illustrate that such a point exists. After a certain absolute percent, raising taxes will REDUCE tax receipts and wreck your economy at the same time. I'm certain were all the way down the back side of that curve near the "wreck your economy" shoulder. Yes, even though our absolute tax is lower than some smaller countries whos economies have evolved to operate at a greatly reduced rate.
It does also miss many of the 'hidden' taxes we still pay. For example, everyone in this state has to get a silly sticker on their car every year so the mechanic can pretend to look at the breaks and then try to charge you $35 for a $5 light bulb. The sticker costs $25 but I've never made it thru in less than an hour. The price of the silly sticker AND the wasted hour is a tax. There's one $25 fee and at least one wasted hour for every car in the state. This kind of thing is particularly noxious because they could have just had a little courage and added the $25 to the regular car tax, but instead wasted 100's of thousands of man hours a year on what is almost always a fictitious "inspection".
You should see what it takes to be able to build a shed in the back yard for your lawnmower...
Inflation is usually a tax as well. If a government needs money, can't borrow it, and its not politically expedient to raise taxes again, it can simply print up some money and steal a little from each of the other dollars that people already have.
There's also start of and end of life taxes that have to be amortized over the years of the life of a person. If you make a little money or live in a place that sees real estate rise, this is non-trivial.
Even the tax code ITSELF is a tax. The ever increasing burden of compliance is nothing but dead weight for individuals and businesses.
Finally, there's a stack of extra tax and extra man-hour-wasting hassle headed your way if you have the audacity to try to work for yourself and not simply settle into a nice job in an industry with lobbyists and get your w2 like everyone else. This is probably the one that interests the readers of this forum the most.
One slightly other off subject comment on the article. The government using taxation as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is a recipe for economic disaster. Ever dollar "robin hooded" is a dollar sucked directly and completely from economic growth. Its a near perfect disincentive for innovators to innovate.
Sorry to slasdot/troll the issue but I am passionate about this particular area! The point of all this is, there are better ways to fix the economy than an interest rate cut!
It was merely to illustrate that such a point exists. After a certain absolute percent, raising taxes will REDUCE tax receipts and wreck your economy at the same time. I'm certain were all the way down the back side of that curve near the "wreck your economy" shoulder. Yes, even though our absolute tax is lower than some smaller countries whos economies have evolved to operate at a greatly reduced rate.
It does also miss many of the 'hidden' taxes we still pay. For example, everyone in this state has to get a silly sticker on their car every year so the mechanic can pretend to look at the breaks and then try to charge you $35 for a $5 light bulb. The sticker costs $25 but I've never made it thru in less than an hour. The price of the silly sticker AND the wasted hour is a tax. There's one $25 fee and at least one wasted hour for every car in the state. This kind of thing is particularly noxious because they could have just had a little courage and added the $25 to the regular car tax, but instead wasted 100's of thousands of man hours a year on what is almost always a fictitious "inspection".
You should see what it takes to be able to build a shed in the back yard for your lawnmower...
Inflation is usually a tax as well. If a government needs money, can't borrow it, and its not politically expedient to raise taxes again, it can simply print up some money and steal a little from each of the other dollars that people already have.
There's also start of and end of life taxes that have to be amortized over the years of the life of a person. If you make a little money or live in a place that sees real estate rise, this is non-trivial.
Even the tax code ITSELF is a tax. The ever increasing burden of compliance is nothing but dead weight for individuals and businesses.
Finally, there's a stack of extra tax and extra man-hour-wasting hassle headed your way if you have the audacity to try to work for yourself and not simply settle into a nice job in an industry with lobbyists and get your w2 like everyone else. This is probably the one that interests the readers of this forum the most.
One slightly other off subject comment on the article. The government using taxation as a vehicle to transfer wealth from the "rich" to the "poor" is a recipe for economic disaster. Ever dollar "robin hooded" is a dollar sucked directly and completely from economic growth. Its a near perfect disincentive for innovators to innovate.
Sorry to slasdot/troll the issue but I am passionate about this particular area! The point of all this is, there are better ways to fix the economy than an interest rate cut!
I basically agree with all you say, except the idea that all this constitutes being on the verge of massive disaster.
One reason is that, on the whole, a wide variety of things are getting better over time. Including our wealth -- we are getting richer, despite all our taxes.
Another issue is that if we are on the verge, then, for example, the UK is already too far gone. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. Civilization is very resilient.
One reason is that, on the whole, a wide variety of things are getting better over time. Including our wealth -- we are getting richer, despite all our taxes.
Another issue is that if we are on the verge, then, for example, the UK is already too far gone. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. Civilization is very resilient.
I guess that depends on the magnitude of disaster meant by "massive". A 1930's style depression is unlikely at this point because so much of the worlds wealth and means of producing wealth is now located outside of the USA.
The USA is still a major player in the world economy but it is no longer the center. That said this downturn may bust us Americans down a notch or two on the world stage, perhaps even enough that we have to make some serious lifestyle changes. So the question emerges: If I can't drive my hummer down to Mickey-D's and supersize that please... is it a disaster or what?
The USA is still a major player in the world economy but it is no longer the center. That said this downturn may bust us Americans down a notch or two on the world stage, perhaps even enough that we have to make some serious lifestyle changes. So the question emerges: If I can't drive my hummer down to Mickey-D's and supersize that please... is it a disaster or what?
We're going to have a disaster relative to the rest of the world? I thought most countries had even worse taxes.
The wrist bleeding is a poor analogy, but you're right the Fed is pretty ckufing stupid.
The Forest Service used to do the same thing with forest fires. They were considered an anathema and each fire was put out the second it started until the fuel (dry brush, etc.) would accumulate to the point that a single match would give you an unprecedented, unnatural, monstrous firestorm.
We've become so afraid of an economic downturn that rates are slashed at the first chance, etc. At some point, it won't work anymore -- there's just too much fuel waiting to burn.
Put on your asbestos, kids. This one's going to get hot.
The Forest Service used to do the same thing with forest fires. They were considered an anathema and each fire was put out the second it started until the fuel (dry brush, etc.) would accumulate to the point that a single match would give you an unprecedented, unnatural, monstrous firestorm.
We've become so afraid of an economic downturn that rates are slashed at the first chance, etc. At some point, it won't work anymore -- there's just too much fuel waiting to burn.
Put on your asbestos, kids. This one's going to get hot.
The problem is that credit assets (all those mortgage-backed SIVs & CDOs) aren't trading.
So the Fed is doing what (little) it can to encourage the market in those assets to function again.
Ultimately, though, it cannot force people to take on risks they don't want, so even a large rate cut like this one may not make a difference in this climate.
So the Fed is doing what (little) it can to encourage the market in those assets to function again.
Ultimately, though, it cannot force people to take on risks they don't want, so even a large rate cut like this one may not make a difference in this climate.
They expect that now when everyone is scared to st, that they will start spending like crazy? Well I somehow doubt that, especially as they didn't fix any of the problems that created the recession. Those people should be sent to jail, the dollar will soon be worthless.
But if you agree with the FED, it should be easier now to get money for your startup... even though 1 million dollars will value about 1000 euros.
But if you agree with the FED, it should be easier now to get money for your startup... even though 1 million dollars will value about 1000 euros.
It's you.
Ok, call me stupid. I am a coder, not an accountant. Besides, I am Brazilian so I don't even know how american economy works exactly. Can someone explain what's this fuss is all about in good layman terms?
I'm a coder non-economist also, but have been look at this
for a few months and will take a shot at explaining it.
The way the fed aim to control interest rates is via the amount of money that they issue into circulation. The problem is that when the government puts more money into circulation it waters down the value of the money already in circulation, thereby encouraging consumption and some types of investment, and punishes saving by putting money in the bank. You buy goods so that you have physicals and not money which is losing value. Thus, it's quite controversial when a government institution participates in this way in that it is effectively directing the market.
"Austrians School" economists get particularly upset by this sort of practice where a government manipulates the market in order to steer to an outcome because one of the tenants of that way of looking at the world is that free markets lead to better outcomes than when governments try to manage economies. Frederick Hayek labelled the confidence of being able to second guess the market and manage it towards a desirable outcome "the fatal conceit" and there's a great book about it. Hence the way that Ron Paul (also an Austrian) gets stuck into the federal reserve at each opportunity, particularly over stuff like rate rises.
The other aspect, and the reason that the current instability is unsettling and that governments and institutions are doing a lot more than usual to prop things up is structural.
First - let's look at an example of a crash that isn't structural. Back when the dot come crash happened it was pretty simple: a whole lot of people had invested in stock, the market changed its confidence in that stock, a whole lot of people lost money. The banks took money in and paid it out and everything was fine. The market functioned. September 11 was the same even though trading floors had been taken out. None of these things changed the nature of market dynamics.
Now one that has been structural: Friedman blames the depression on the US Federal Reserve for failing to honour its responsibility to supply liquidity to banks who were short of it (as the UK government have recently done to try and get Northern Rock through).
The problem with the sub-prime situation though is that the rot is to do with the core responsibility of banks: managing risk. Banks take money in and loan it out, and make judgements about repayment risk to make sure that they make a net profit. But the change to banking culture that led to the sub-prime crisis was this: it became popular to package debts in certain combinations and sell them off to a far greater extent than had ever been done before. So you could buy certain packages of debt that had been guaranteed to fit a certain level of exposure. Basically this represents large scale outsourcing of bank's core business. (That's a nasty way to put it though, because in fact when you loan money in any sense you're outsourcing risk to some extent and this has always happened, just not to the same extent.)
The sub-prime crisis over the last year has given everyone in the banks the jitters because they've lost some confidence in the risk assessments made by banks they have previously exchanged risk with. Worse, they're not so sure about how much other banks know about their own risk and whether they're being entirely square with the market about it. Thus they start getting very more edgy than usual about short-term loans because the other party might not know what its position is or it might become susceptible to slight changes in the economy. And now the US (where most of the bad exposure was) is slipping into recession... meaning more people will fail on their home loans...
The real problem from subprime is that if the banks stop dealing with one another, you can be certain that economic activity will decline further. This will cause less people will be able to pay their mortgages. This will cause banks who are currently on the edge to slip. In other words - ouch. If there is a crash resulting from lack of confidence it will eclipse the actual value of money lost due to dodgy loans.
Thus, from a certain perspective there is some sense in 'the people' via their elected institutions throwing money at this problem, because even though we're not individually responsible for causing it, it's possible we may be able to buy our way out of it and come out ahead of where we'd be if we had to suffer the consequences of a banking collapse. The problem is - if it is inevitable, then we will have spent a whole lot of money for no good cause.
I can't help but think that monetarists have become too clever by half, and that it would be preferable if we were to all just resign ourselves to having ten year economic cycles. Things are much more highly geared now as a result of a prolonged period of good times and if it gets really nasty there will be a lasting effect in people's psyches that actually limits our ability to get out of it (much as there was in the depression where people saved money even when it was in their interest to participate in some consumption). But time will tell. :)
The way the fed aim to control interest rates is via the amount of money that they issue into circulation. The problem is that when the government puts more money into circulation it waters down the value of the money already in circulation, thereby encouraging consumption and some types of investment, and punishes saving by putting money in the bank. You buy goods so that you have physicals and not money which is losing value. Thus, it's quite controversial when a government institution participates in this way in that it is effectively directing the market.
"Austrians School" economists get particularly upset by this sort of practice where a government manipulates the market in order to steer to an outcome because one of the tenants of that way of looking at the world is that free markets lead to better outcomes than when governments try to manage economies. Frederick Hayek labelled the confidence of being able to second guess the market and manage it towards a desirable outcome "the fatal conceit" and there's a great book about it. Hence the way that Ron Paul (also an Austrian) gets stuck into the federal reserve at each opportunity, particularly over stuff like rate rises.
The other aspect, and the reason that the current instability is unsettling and that governments and institutions are doing a lot more than usual to prop things up is structural.
First - let's look at an example of a crash that isn't structural. Back when the dot come crash happened it was pretty simple: a whole lot of people had invested in stock, the market changed its confidence in that stock, a whole lot of people lost money. The banks took money in and paid it out and everything was fine. The market functioned. September 11 was the same even though trading floors had been taken out. None of these things changed the nature of market dynamics.
Now one that has been structural: Friedman blames the depression on the US Federal Reserve for failing to honour its responsibility to supply liquidity to banks who were short of it (as the UK government have recently done to try and get Northern Rock through).
The problem with the sub-prime situation though is that the rot is to do with the core responsibility of banks: managing risk. Banks take money in and loan it out, and make judgements about repayment risk to make sure that they make a net profit. But the change to banking culture that led to the sub-prime crisis was this: it became popular to package debts in certain combinations and sell them off to a far greater extent than had ever been done before. So you could buy certain packages of debt that had been guaranteed to fit a certain level of exposure. Basically this represents large scale outsourcing of bank's core business. (That's a nasty way to put it though, because in fact when you loan money in any sense you're outsourcing risk to some extent and this has always happened, just not to the same extent.)
The sub-prime crisis over the last year has given everyone in the banks the jitters because they've lost some confidence in the risk assessments made by banks they have previously exchanged risk with. Worse, they're not so sure about how much other banks know about their own risk and whether they're being entirely square with the market about it. Thus they start getting very more edgy than usual about short-term loans because the other party might not know what its position is or it might become susceptible to slight changes in the economy. And now the US (where most of the bad exposure was) is slipping into recession... meaning more people will fail on their home loans...
The real problem from subprime is that if the banks stop dealing with one another, you can be certain that economic activity will decline further. This will cause less people will be able to pay their mortgages. This will cause banks who are currently on the edge to slip. In other words - ouch. If there is a crash resulting from lack of confidence it will eclipse the actual value of money lost due to dodgy loans.
Thus, from a certain perspective there is some sense in 'the people' via their elected institutions throwing money at this problem, because even though we're not individually responsible for causing it, it's possible we may be able to buy our way out of it and come out ahead of where we'd be if we had to suffer the consequences of a banking collapse. The problem is - if it is inevitable, then we will have spent a whole lot of money for no good cause.
I can't help but think that monetarists have become too clever by half, and that it would be preferable if we were to all just resign ourselves to having ten year economic cycles. Things are much more highly geared now as a result of a prolonged period of good times and if it gets really nasty there will be a lasting effect in people's psyches that actually limits our ability to get out of it (much as there was in the depression where people saved money even when it was in their interest to participate in some consumption). But time will tell. :)
This is a pretty good explanation of the situation. At least as far as I can tell, being a coder who's recently tried to learn a lot about macroeconomics.
One detail that could use correction:
"The way the fed aim to control interest rates is via the amount of money that they issue into circulation."
It's kinda the opposite, actually. When you hear that the Fed's cut its interest rate, that means they've reduced what's called the Discount Rate -- the rate at which the Fed makes overnight loans to major banks. If you're a major bank, and you need some cash, you can get these overnight loans from the Fed or you can take money from other places, and your decision is probably based on whatever's cheapest. Since the Fed is always there as a last resort lender for banks, interest rates for other loans between banks and from banks to businesses will generally reflect changes to the Fed Discount rate. That's how the Fed rate has a rippling influence on liquidity supply throughout the banking industry.
Of course, the thing that's special about the Fed is that, unlike typical banks, it's not loaning out assets it has on deposit. It's creating new money when someone takes out a Fed loan, and it's destroying that money when the loan is repaid. Since this increases the money supply, it risks creating inflation if the economy isn't growing proportionately. High inflation is bad because it encourages spending your money now rather than investing it, and long-term growth depends on a lot of investments -- education, equipment, research, etc.
One detail that could use correction:
"The way the fed aim to control interest rates is via the amount of money that they issue into circulation."
It's kinda the opposite, actually. When you hear that the Fed's cut its interest rate, that means they've reduced what's called the Discount Rate -- the rate at which the Fed makes overnight loans to major banks. If you're a major bank, and you need some cash, you can get these overnight loans from the Fed or you can take money from other places, and your decision is probably based on whatever's cheapest. Since the Fed is always there as a last resort lender for banks, interest rates for other loans between banks and from banks to businesses will generally reflect changes to the Fed Discount rate. That's how the Fed rate has a rippling influence on liquidity supply throughout the banking industry.
Of course, the thing that's special about the Fed is that, unlike typical banks, it's not loaning out assets it has on deposit. It's creating new money when someone takes out a Fed loan, and it's destroying that money when the loan is repaid. Since this increases the money supply, it risks creating inflation if the economy isn't growing proportionately. High inflation is bad because it encourages spending your money now rather than investing it, and long-term growth depends on a lot of investments -- education, equipment, research, etc.
"Banking industry" is an insult to those who actually produce goods. Banks should be known as "facilitators", when doing their job properly, and all sorts of bad words when they don't -which is frequently, unfortunately.
> "Banking industry" is an insult to those who actually
> produce goods.
What do you think should be a use of industry? Is it OK to say "transport industry" despite the fact that what they do is a service?
Banks produce value through strategic use of risk calculation. They take in $100 and then lend out $90 for further wealth creation, and keep $10 on hand as liquidity so that if any of the owners of the $100 want any back they can get it. Thus, you have $190 of value passing around from a base of $100. You've just got to be careful not to loan too much out or you run out of liquidity and then the system stalls.
> which is frequently, unfortunately
Frequently by what measure?
What do you think should be a use of industry? Is it OK to say "transport industry" despite the fact that what they do is a service?
Banks produce value through strategic use of risk calculation. They take in $100 and then lend out $90 for further wealth creation, and keep $10 on hand as liquidity so that if any of the owners of the $100 want any back they can get it. Thus, you have $190 of value passing around from a base of $100. You've just got to be careful not to loan too much out or you run out of liquidity and then the system stalls.
> which is frequently, unfortunately
Frequently by what measure?
Interesting chart that shows the market may be worse off than expected:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/BCStud31/99problems_g...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/BCStud31/99problems_g...
Funny, but problems should be on the vertical axis (99 problems...) Something like "Type of problem" should be on the bottom.
I'm kinda sad you got buried for that... I laughed to no end... even if it is off topic.
I minored in economics and had an amazing prof for monetary economics.
Long story short, he worked for the Bank of Canada doing basically what your Federal Reserve chairman does.
The amount of analysis and study that goes into interest rate adjustment is mind blowing. They have 4 teams of experts running amazing models each in a specific technique, and then each team independently reports their results to the board which then decides what action to take. There is literally a mountain of data and factors that come into play.
Anyways, the gross oversimplification of the entire process across the news world today resulted in me posting a dumb (I am glad you also found it funny) picture.
edit: I feel like I am hedging my karma here against people that do not enjoy the odd bit of humour.
edit2: I just remembered a whole lecture that discussed the reason that for interest rate adjustment to work well, everyone has to have full confidence in the federal reserve. So, since confidence levels impact the effectiveness of adjustments, they were probably sitting on this rate hike hoping to do it at the standard time (which was actually bumped up), but to slow the plummeting they took action a bit earlier which may hurt their credibility and the change might not help very much.
The amount of analysis and study that goes into interest rate adjustment is mind blowing. They have 4 teams of experts running amazing models each in a specific technique, and then each team independently reports their results to the board which then decides what action to take. There is literally a mountain of data and factors that come into play.
Anyways, the gross oversimplification of the entire process across the news world today resulted in me posting a dumb (I am glad you also found it funny) picture.
edit: I feel like I am hedging my karma here against people that do not enjoy the odd bit of humour.
edit2: I just remembered a whole lecture that discussed the reason that for interest rate adjustment to work well, everyone has to have full confidence in the federal reserve. So, since confidence levels impact the effectiveness of adjustments, they were probably sitting on this rate hike hoping to do it at the standard time (which was actually bumped up), but to slow the plummeting they took action a bit earlier which may hurt their credibility and the change might not help very much.
75 basis points wreaks of desperation.
Banks can lend out 10 times their assets.
When they have to do a write-down, they are reducing their asset base (and the amount they can loan) Does reducing the interest rate help banks (because the way the Fed does it with T-bill purchases)?
You are slightly confusing the issues at hand here.
Most of the write-downs banks were doing were related to mortgage trading they were doing, not mortgage issuing. There was not _that_ many banks involved in the sub-prime business and losing a lot directly.
Banks are quite well hedged against interest rate flux fundamentally ...since they make prime + x on loans, and pay out prime - x on balances.
Most of the write-downs banks were doing were related to mortgage trading they were doing, not mortgage issuing. There was not _that_ many banks involved in the sub-prime business and losing a lot directly.
Banks are quite well hedged against interest rate flux fundamentally ...since they make prime + x on loans, and pay out prime - x on balances.
I keep hearing the word "recession," but no one has exactly defined what that is, or if we're "in a recession" yet. Are there values that define when you can say we're in a recession?
A recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth.
A decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters.
Recommended reading for anyone interested in what's going on in the world economy. These are just starting points.
http://www.marketthoughts.com/z20060921.html (yen carry trade)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency (fiat currency)
http://www.marketthoughts.com/z20060921.html (yen carry trade)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_currency (fiat currency)
Wait for it:
...
HYPERINFLATION!
...
HYPERINFLATION!
I don't think we're gonna see hyperinflation.
In fact, I'll bet you a million bucks we don't!
In fact, I'll bet you a million bucks we don't!
Eh, main drivers of inflation right now are food and oil, neither of which is affected a whole lot by fed funds rate. Food prices are high for a variety of policy/trade/weather reasons (corn has skyrocketed due to US ethanol policy), and oil prices are high because, well, it's oil.
"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." - Milton Friedman
Oil does not cause inflation. Genuine shortages could inch up prices, but there really are no shortages right now. The usual cause of inflation (and the only cause of hyperinflation) is always the same...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Components_of_the_United_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Components_of_the_United_...
>Oil does not cause inflation
But increased demand often increases prices. You're talking about monetary inflation, but remember there's also price inflation. If some good, x, is more sought after and the supply doesn't increase, as with oil, the price will go up. Oil was $20/barrel five years ago and hit $100 recently.
As david927 pointed out, I should clarify that I was talking about price inflation.
Now that I think about it though, Dauntless' comment about hyperinflation was probably talking about what you say... monetary inflation (where monetary unit has less value)... so just ignore my comment.
Now that I think about it though, Dauntless' comment about hyperinflation was probably talking about what you say... monetary inflation (where monetary unit has less value)... so just ignore my comment.
The reckless mortgage boom and the ensuing crisis was caused when the Fed cut rates to avoid recession and made borrowing so easy. Now to fix the mess caused by lowering interest rates, they're trying to lower interest rates?
If you're bleeding from your wrists because you slashed your wrist with a knife, you don't slash your arm higher up to stop the bleeding from the wrists. Well true, it does stop you from bleeding from the wrists but now you're bleeding from the upper arm! Of course, you can stop the bleeding there by slitting your biceps. Pretty soon you're going to have to cut off your arm to "stop" the bleeding.
How about they just let there be a recession so the organizations that were investing poorly lose money and go out of business while the investors who were smart and focussed stay in the game?