Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Under a gold standard the sovereign either issues money or borrows money from private hands. Because gold is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.

The sovereign borrows in order to free hoarded gold for circulation

Under fiat money there's no reason for the government to borrow from the markets. Jake has called sovereign bond yields a subsidy on fmoney hoarding.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 at 09:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have been thinking (and asking questions here as some might have noticed) if there is a point to state borrowing fiat currency.

An argument could be constructed that the government could control amount of money circulating by on one hand regulate the CB rate and the conditions it is borrowed out under, and on the other give the opportunity to park your money with the state to suck up money that is not invested. Then as a rule, the bond rate should be slightly below the CB rate (if it is over banks can borrow from CB and to government, which is just another bank subsidy, if it is far below you get a wide span where the profitability of investment does not depend on CB rate), and the amount that the government borrows should be irrelevant.

Can I have this argument chopped up now?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 at 09:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But at the Zero Interest Rate bound the span collapses, and, even at 2% it is pretty small.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 at 02:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An argument could be constructed that the government could control amount of money circulating by on one hand regulate the CB rate and the conditions it is borrowed out under, and on the other give the opportunity to park your money with the state to suck up money that is not invested.

Yes. That's what interest rate policy does. Buying and selling government bonds is one way to enforce an interest rate policy (but neither the only nor the best one). Note also that interest rate policy is inherently destructive of economic activity: The CB can't create profitable investment opportunities where there are none, due to the zero bound on nominal rates; but it can destroy profitable investment opportunities by giving the prospective investors a risk-free yield above the internal rate of return on the investment in question.

So an interest rate based stability policy will tend to underperform a fiscal stability policy, all other things being equal. (Historically, all other things were not equal, because fiscal policy is traditionally decided once a year, while interest rate policy is decided continuously, giving interest rate policy an advantage in responsiveness. But that is an institutional idiosyncrasy, not an operational necessity.)

Then as a rule, the bond rate should be slightly below the CB rate

It's almost always above the CB rate. Often quite some way.

(if it is over banks can borrow from CB and to government, which is just another bank subsidy,

Yes. That is one of the reasons I call it a subsidy.

if it is far below you get a wide span where the profitability of investment does not depend on CB rate), and the amount that the government borrows should be irrelevant.

The Treasury yield can't go materially below the rediscount rate (unless the T-bond market is so thin that it becomes difficult to distinguish its existence at all).

If the Treasury rate is materially below the rediscount rate, banks will either dump Treasury bonds and pay back their debts to the CB with the proceeds, or (what comes to the same thing) offer non-bank holders deposit accounts with the same term structure but an interest rate somewhere between the T-bond rate and the rediscount rate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Nov 23rd, 2011 at 03:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
M'kay, the market lands at central bank rate level anyway, through the banks taking advantage of cheaper sources. Looks right.

Yeah, then I see no other reason then subsidy for governments to borrow from anybody then their own central bank.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Nov 24th, 2011 at 02:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Won't that be inflationary? Magicking money from nowhere, which is not (like in Switzerland) consumed by hot money flows, but actually goes into the real economy?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Nov 24th, 2011 at 05:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Using a private intermediary who goes to the CB instead of the sovereign doesn't change that money is magicked into existence.
by generic on Thu Nov 24th, 2011 at 06:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point of subsidizing the intermediaries is to get them to release some of the money they're hoarding. If you don't want to do that, either you tax it or you inflate it away from them.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 02:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do we have to care about hoarded money once we stop treating the deficit as a goal in and of itself?
by generic on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 05:03:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ideally you want the hoarders to stop screwing around playing odd and arcane (and dangerous) "Financial Engineering" Games and invest the money in something worthwhile.

Could feed the world for a hundred years for the amount of money traded in the various markets in one day.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 05:15:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But they are not really hoarding it are they? And offering them a risk free return of a few percent won't stop them from trying to get twenty.
by generic on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 05:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They're not Scrooge McDuck, piling the stuff in their underground vault.

"Hoarding" is an elastic term, and perhaps not the best way to put it.  In my view, current government policy across the First World privileges debt over equity, the FIRE economy over the Real World© Economy and has done so for decades.  And, across the First World, we can see where this leads: micro- and meso-economic insanity.  

There's no way a firm actually making actual goods and/or services can approach the Return on Investment routinely made in the FIRE sector.  Financial firms, using the privileging of debt, can leverage their equity capital by hundreds of percent so they are, literally, making over 100% ROI per annum.  They can do that by "hoarding" - playing the futures, options, CMO, CDO, & so on markets - rather than investing in the less profitable business loan and business development.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 06:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The current policy is to protect at all costs the purchasing power of the net worth of money hoarders.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 07:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you're spending that money into an economy below full employment/capacity, it doesn't need to be inflationary.

To err is of course human. But to mess things up spectacularly, we need an elite — Yanis Varoufakis
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 02:37:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But note, at times, you want to feed-in money to reduce unemployment and kick-start the economy into a higher level of activity.

Despite a hundred years of Neo-Classical propaganda, inflation is not necessarily and always a Bad Thing.

(I know I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know.  I'm merely using your comment for my own nefarious purposes.  :-)


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 06:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Politicians realising that money is created out of thin air (either they pass by the banks or not) might create temptations, but is not really related to wheter the money pass by the bank. I would say that it is the constitutional and cultural constraints on how much deficit is accepted that is the real constraint here anyway.

And of course, if you create money and employ otherwise unemployed people that produce something of value, then the pool of goods and services that the money pool is related to also grows.

And also of course, the main source of inflation today appears to be from banks borrowing to private speculation.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Nov 25th, 2011 at 07:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series