Display:
No, in the worst case it will buy Treasury bonds. It will only hold the minimum required reserves to follow the rules and a fraction of a percent for operations.

That "worst case" is part of the present demand for Treasury bonds, since banks have more reserves to lend than they have credit-worthy borrowers applying for loans.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 11:06:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
banks have more reserves to lend than they have credit-worthy borrowers applying for loans.

Which is why anything that reduces private sector debt, up to and including direct deposits from Treasury into private accounts, will help the economy recover. The quicker they get out of debt the quicker they can again become credit worthy.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 03:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is not simply debt, its primarily income. Getting people out of debt will ease spending up a bit, but it will not persuade the prudent to borrow again, and for the imprudent, they can only be lent to if they have the income to pay it back.

This is all rediscovering what we've known for three quarters of a century but deliberately forgot because of the inconvenient side-effects for wealth people: fiscal policy is far more effective in a severe downturn and its aftermath than monetary policy.

We need lots of spending, and monetary policy to accommodate it. Trying to gimmick the fiscal policy so its "debt free" is just pandering to the witch doctor chanting over the canoe to ensure that it won't sink when launched.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 04:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, much of my comment was about those who still have jobs. Without an adequate job no sane person is going to spend anything they don't have to spend.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 06:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But for the last two decades, we in the US have been basing economic growth on increase lending to stagnant incomes, which means increased debt burdens. Far better to increased lending for productive investment, such as we would get from investment in Electricity Superhighways and permission for states to institute feed-in tariffs at the average annual cost of electricity.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 10:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed! Let them build Electricity Super Highways and pay them in Greenback Dollars if need be. But also let them build wind parks and solar parks. But the best federal lands for those purposes are being sat upon by leeches, such as Goldman.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Sep 7th, 2010 at 11:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Eminent domain.
Energy security.
Use it or lose it.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Sep 9th, 2010 at 07:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Governmental capture.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Sep 9th, 2010 at 10:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series