The US Treasury’s banker

I think we do well to take bites of MMT every now and then.
I don’t know about you, but I am almost thinking that the fog is clearing.
Special thanks to ~Z~ for helping this time.

I am going to quote from a John Carney (senior editor CNBC) article, `Can the treasury department really run out of money`, written at the time of last `debt ceiling` fiasco.

It starts -

The White House insists the U.S. government will not be able to stay current on all of its obligations as of Aug. 2 unless the debt ceiling is raised.

But can the government of the United States ever really run out of money?

The question is a bit more complex than it might seem. In some ways the government really is like every ordinary American family. It has a bank account. Every day the funds in that account grow by the amount of deposits that are made and shrink by the amount of withdrawals.

At the start of the day last Friday, the bank account of the United States government at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had $83 billion in it. That day the bank received $7 billion in deposits, and saw around $13 billion in withdrawals. So by the end of the day we were down around $6 billion, to $77 billion.

Deposits come from tax receipts, air transport security fees, the postal service, Medicare premiums, and earnings from the Federal Reserve itself. Withdrawals go to pay for everything the government does: federal employee salaries, income tax refunds, NASA, interest on our debt, unemployment insurance benefits and paying defense contracts.

A big source of deposits for the government is usually the government selling bonds. And that’s where the debt ceiling comes in: if the government cannot sell any more bonds because it’s hit the debt ceiling, it won’t have the funds to pay for all those things it makes withdrawals for. That includes social security checks and interest payments on the debt.

So, now we know more about the plumbing of treasury monies.
Later he writes -

In truth, the Obama administration is either fibbing or misunderstanding the financial system. The United States almost certainly enjoys unlimited overdraft protection from the Federal Reserve because there is almost zero chance the Federal Reserve would ever bounce a check written by the U.S. government.

Think about it. The check comes into the Federal Reserve. It looks at the U.S. government balance and discovers that we’re at zero. What does the Federal Reserve do?

I’m pretty sure the Federal Reserve would go ahead and credit the bank submitting the check with the deposit to account for the fund transfer.

Legally, this is a bit murky. It’s not clear that the Federal Reserve would be required to clear a check that exceeded the amount on deposit. It may be within its authority to reject the check.

But rejecting a check written by the government of the United States would probably violate the dual mandate of the Fed to pursue maximum employment and price stability. A U.S. government that bounced checks would just introduce so much chaos the Fed would likely be obligated by its core mandates to credit the check.

So now we get to a position of the Treasury running an overdraft at the Fed ….. Carney continues -

The law is not exactly clear on this point. The debt ceiling applies to the face amount of obligations issued under Chapter 31 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code—basically, Treasury notes and bills and the other standard kinds of government debt—and the “face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government.” But overdrafts on the Federal Reserve wouldn’t be Treasurys and they aren’t explicitly guaranteed by the U.S. government.

They’re more like unilateral gifts from the Fed.

And guess what? The Treasury is allowed to accept gifts that “reduce the public debt.” Since these overdraft gifts from the Fed would allow the government to spend without incurring additional debt, it seems very plausible to argue that this kind of extension of U.S. credit would be permitted under the debt ceiling.

Notice that this would do something very odd. It would give the U.S. Treasury Department control of the money supply—something usually credited to the Fed. But by writing checks on an empty bank account, the Treasury would be inflating the money supply. It would be printing money to pay its bills, more or less. Monetizing its obligations, rather than borrowing or taxing to pay them.

In order to keep inflation under control, the Fed would have to intervene to soak up the extra dollars by selling securities.

…… and, at the moment, it has a lot to sell~!

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

    It seems to me that the speculation about what happens when the Treasury overdrafts is just that, “speculation”. I never tire of pointing out the fact that from 1862 until 1971 the US Treasury issued United States Notes as currency and estimates that $230 million in United States Notes are in circulation. I don’t know of any legal reason why the Treasury could not issue more if they they needed too.

    The magic keyboard has never been tested, but I’m pretty sure that it would work just fine. Some of that new credit (money) being established by the Treasury would be used to retire credit established as debt and replace it with what is essentially permanent money that could only be reduced from the money supply taxing or borrowing until the government ran a surplus.

    The expansion of currency caused by government printing would be at least partially offset by contraction in debt, deleveraging the money supply. 

    • CSArichardo

      Oh is the magic keyboard not just the power of issuing new government bonds (digits !) so that a government can deficit spend ???

      • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

        When you or I sign a promissory note (IOU) we are providing the bank with a form of security that the bank uses to establish new money. We are NOT borrowing the savings of depositors or the capital invested in the bank by owners. The bank uses that IOU as security to establish NEW money. It could be said that we are the creators of money or at least cocreators.

        But that is NOT what happens when the US Treasury issues a security (IOU). The money that is transferred to the US Treasury account was already created by others; it is OLD money. 

        OK, I know that some of it comes from commercial banks who use their magic keyboards, but believe it or not commercial banks don’t hold that large a position in US Treasuries, or at least they didn’t when I did my research on this.

        It could be argued that the Federal Reserve Banks use their magic keyboards when they buy Treasury securities, but the money they create stays in the reserves where it is used as interbank settlement money.

        I’m sure some NEW money gets created by the magic keyboards against US Treasuries and some of it leaks out of the reserves into circulation, but let’s just be honest about this and say that the Treasury is NOT using its magic keyboard to load its accounts AND the sales of Treasuries does NOT create NEW money in any substantial way.

        The creation of NEW money is entirely a function of the banks.

    • snedmeister1

      Hi Z…

      That is the sort of information we need…!!
      An insight into the numbers in accounts at the time of Gov’t spending…

      I think we both agree that the Gov’t is more than capable of going into overdraft with no problems at all ( We have discussed that before ), I wonder if there is a longer timeline available for people to see..??

      eg, a graph of monies in the Treasury at any one time…??

      It would indicate if the US has ever gone into overdraft ( if only briefly )…

      • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

        I think we would both like to know the answer to those questions. I don’t mind admitting that I am not geek enough and I don’t have any real-world experience on the inside the system to know the intimate details beyond the publicly published data.

        I don’t think it would change my narrative to discover that there was this day that the Treasury had a negative balance of $79.95. The policy of the Treasury is to have a positive balance and to achieve that they tax and borrow. I see no evidence that they use a magic keyboard to adjust the balance.

        Another thing I would like to understand is what happens to Treasury securities held by the Federal Reserve if they mature. Does the Treasury pony up only to have the Fed return the money to the Treasury? I know that most of the coupon payments made to the Fed by the Treasury are returned after withholding a statutory amount for operational expenses.

        • snedmeister1

          I have no idea what happens to Treasuries held by the Fed that mature….
          I presume it would be as you say…
          The Treasury coughs up, the FED return it minus 6%…???
          ( daft, but it is what it is )

          Sorry to jump topics now, but something you wrote caught my eye…
          I have been so time constrained, that I didn’t notice a comment you wrote until today about rich people investing their money in productive things, if there were no bonds etc…

          I would suggest, they will only invest if they see `value` and confidence in that investment….
          Unlike now, where there is zero confidence….

          Take now for example, the interest rates are so low on treasuries, historically low, yet still the investors pile in and take a measly return, rather than investing in the economy…
          Why..???

          They do this because the future is uncertain, and they are happy in the knowledge that they will take the small yield, but at least the `risk` on their money is next to nothing ( opinion )…..

          I would like to ask, what would be different with no treasuries..???

          I would argue that if there was anything worth investing in, the rich would do it in a blink now anyway, as they are getting royally screwed on rates at the moment, wouldn’t you agree..?? 

          I think the argument that the rich will take a gamble with their cash, just because there are no treasuries, is a flawed one….

          If the economy looks shite, it looks shite, whether there are treasuries or not, doesn’t it..??

          • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

            No problem. Let them park it in a safe savings account at a bank and the bank will have something to lend in a full-reserve banking system.

            Or, maybe they can use some of it to pay their property taxes? Either way, I see it as better than forcing taxpayers to pay them interest on loans to the government.

            • Snedmeister1

              Ok.

              Would those savers require a return on their savings as well ….??

              And if there is nothing safe to invest in, where do the banks put the savings to make a bigger percentage than they pay the savers….???

              What we have is poor, but a change must be significantly better, wouldn’t you agree…??

              • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

                WARNING: Profanity will be used in this reply.

                Here is what I read into you questions:

                There are all these rich bastards that call themselves “Job Creators”. They got all their money by gambling in the various markets, created it through the banks, swindled it from taxpayers through cronyism, and generally haven’t the tiniest portion of it by producing goods and services unless they magnified their earnings many times by underpaying the employees and externalizing the true costs of production.

                Now they have boatloads of money and no idea how to use it or to do anything with it that benefits anyone but themselves. They have no idea how to use it to produce more goods and services or make the goods and services already produced more affordable or how to help people who actually do the work to be able to afford the stuff they produce.

                Somehow, I and rest of the the 85% of the people that have been fucked over, so they could accumulate all of the money, are supposed to give a shit that they can’t figure out what to do with now that they have it?

                What I hear you saying is that IF they couldn’t loan it to our government in lieu of paying taxes they would be utterly distressed at the thought of actually rolling up their sleeves and engaging in productive investment. The only thing they would know how to do would be put in a bank savings account.

                Now, since they own the banks, that too would distress them, because with all of the money in savings accounts, the bank owners and managers who call themselves job creators would have no idea how to lend or invest the money for productive purposes. In fact, they are so inept that they would not be able to figure out how to put the money in sacks and send it off to the Federal Reserve where it would be kept safe while they worked out how to do something more constructive with it.

                It would so distress them that their money was not earning interest, even though it was quite safe, that We the People should invent some clever scheme for them to make sure that they get paid money just for being rich fuckers with lots of money?

                If the buying power of money was stable (ie. a bag of groceries costs the same twenty year from now as it does today), then it should be enough that We the People put an institution in place that permits the stinking rich cock suckers to hide their filthy lucre so they can go play in the fucking sand and eat lobster while the rest of the people work their asses off and live on frozen pizza.

                They can burn their God damned money to keep the house warm for all I care! Let them chop it up and mixing it with their salad if they want! I don’t give one shit what the money hoarding pricks do with their cash!

                So long as We the People are able to establish and manage a medium of exchange that We the People can use to buy and sell the goods and services that We produce at a price We can afford, I wouldn’t waste my piss watering the flowers of the people who accumulated so much money that they have no idea what to do with it while the rest of us where left to beg, borrow and do without.

                In the mortal word of Charlton Heston, “Damn them! Damn them all to Hell!”

                I’ve spent to much time in the pub, I think I will go home and kick the dog!

                • snedmeister1

                  LOL…

                  Sorry for the late reply Z, I have spent a much needed few days on a little break….

                  But back to your comment, I suppose you read too much into what I wrote…!!??

                  All I asked was, if the `rich` won’t invest now, how will taking the Bond option away make them invest..??

                  That was my question, because I imagine if there were something worthwhile investing in, they would do it, wouldn’t they..??

                  And making `the rich` put the money in banks, for the bankers to invest, follows the same problem, does it not..??

                  ie, they have no confidence to invest in anything at the moment….

                  How’s the dog..?? :)

                  • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

                    I guess, I was being to reserved … to tactful … I don’t care if the rich do or do not do anything with the accumulated credit so long as We the People are not borrowing it from them.

                    I think you are approaching this backward. I asked what the rich would do and you are are supposed to guess. The monkey is really on your back because I don’t care.

                    I’m guessing that the rich will not take my suggestion that they burn it to keep the mansion warm or toss it with their salads. I don’t imagine they will be shoving it up their ass as I also suggest. So what will they do with it?

                    Please quit telling me how all those rich people will become so depressed and apathetic that they will just do nothing with their accumulated credit if they can’t earn a profit renting it to us either by lending it to our government or lending it through savings.

                    Even doing nothing means that it will be in an account someplace … it sure won’t be in a sack under their mattress. 

                    All the while that money sets earning nothing, they will be paying property tax and sales tax and buying food and paying for maintenance costs on the big boats and houses and fast cars.

                    Please tell me what you think they will really do if the easy, safe profits from lending are no longer available.

                    • snedmeister1

                      You don’t care…??
                      And I HAVE to provide an answer Z..?? 

                      I asked a question, a valid one…

                      You seem to want to provide the answer, that having no Bond market would solve the problem…
                      I ask you to prove that statement, that is all….

                      If you want me to answer for you, what the rich would do with their money, I assume they will invest it in assets…
                      Property, land, Oil etc… ( This is an educated guess )

                      The things we all need, and have a finite supply of, but will not actually improve the lot of the rest of us….

                      Like I say, I don’t know for sure what will happen, I want to know what makes you so sure, that your solution will work…

                      If that is too difficult, and you find your blood pressure rising, I suggest you don’t reply…
                      I am happy to admit I don’t have the answers Z, but asking a question should not get you so wound up…. 
                      ( Especially if you are confident with your own position )

                    • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

                      You are utterly, totally and completely missing the point. I don’t care because it does not matter. The rich can do anything they want with the money. This is MATH 101 not morality 101.

                      Lending at interest is a MATH problem. Managing the money supply so that there will be stable buying power is a MATH problem.

                      Here is why YOU and not ME need to answer the question, it is because YOU and not ME are concerned about it.

                      I’m not predicting anything, I don’t even care. But others keep asserting that rich people will take their money and go home with it. I don’t care because We the People can print more.

                      You really are not helping the discussion by alluding to the possibility that rich people will take their money and go home with it and then refusing to speculate what rich people might do with the money.

                      As far as I can tell, if you can’t lend money, then you have to use it for something else and rather than me trying to tell others, I would like others to tell me.

                      Is that to much? That I ask others to think about it and share their thoughts?

                      Honestly, I do not care what the rich do with it, I just want someone other than me to take a shot at what might actually happen if the rich had money and couldn’t lend it to the We the People.

                      The resistance to answering that question says something …

                    • snedmeister1

                      I did answer Z…

                      I suggest the rich will buy up assets and resources…
                      Things we need, that will provide a return for them….

                      ( Oddly, you have gone from scrapping the Bond market, to 100%reserve banks, and now `we the people` printing money, which is not really what you initially said, was it..??
                      Why not just say, “If we print our own money, do this and that etc etc… This is all I am trying to get from you..!!! )

                      My answer is not a definite answer, of course I don’t know for sure…
                      BUT
                      Given that `we the people` ( I hate that phrase ) are so loaded with debt, no-one wants to take a risk on loans, as they might not see their money back…

                      This is what I am highlighting…. 
                      Take the Bonds away, make banks 100% reserve level institutions etc etc, doesn’t change that the rest of us still have all this debt….

                      I ask you, because in my opinion, the problems run deeper than Treasuries, and issuance of credit by banks…
                      ( Unless you are suggesting we get rid of the debt as well, that `we the people` owe, but that leads to problems of it’s own )

                      I am suggesting, that if you squeeze the balloon, the lump comes up somewhere else, unless we have a total re-think….
                      And that isn’t likely at the moment, is it..??? ( You tell me..!! )

                      My position is from an MMT perspective, where a Gov’t spends money in, to offset the large debt held by us… Whether they do it now or not, I don’t know 100%, but I would love to know…
                      All I ask, is what you imagine would solve the problems we see….
                      ( Is that too much to ask…?? )

  • CSArichardo

    Does the Fed not need to cash manage the bond market?  My guess is that US bonds are actually sold into the market on a regular basis after the government spending has already occured.

    • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

      I used to think that was true but my research indicates that it is not. For example, the day last summer when the debt limit was increased the demand for US Treasuries was so high that the US Treasury deliberately oversold and loaded its accounts with far more money than they needed.

      Again, the US Treasury releases number daily showing revenue, expenditures and balances. Even if there is some tricky path the Treasuries follow, there is still no magic keyboard. My fundamental objection to the mistaken belief that the government (the US Treasury) is establishing new money through spending.

      • CSArichardo

        World governments have come around to the idea that all money they spend into the economy has to be funded through bond issues.  They fell one by one to this bank controlled mechanism.   It was not always so. Even in Canada until the 1960s the government spent some of the money into existence … but that got stopped as our new world order came into being. 

      • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

        That they haven’t spent money into existence does not exclude the possibility that they could do so.

        • CSArichardo

          I think a key point from where I come from is that the “real” economy to grow needs some growth in money supply.  This money suppy growth can be MMTed into existence i guess technically without a pricing impact ?  I was going to say inflationary impact but inflation is a monetary event so spending money into existence is technically inflationary to the money supply but maybe not prices. 

          • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

              CSArichardo I agree as the alternative seems totally undesirable. As for possible price impact at some future point, I would rather have to deal with that than the current malaise for it is at least dynamic and it could also be beneficial over a period of a few years.

          • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

            I note the emphasis on “real”.

            For a “real” economy to grow, there needs to be expansion in the supply of goods and services being produced and consumed.

            Money is NOT “real”, it is abstract. Money is monitoring; they have the same Latin root. It is how we establish who has credit and who has obligations.

            The paper notes and metal coins are real enough, but they are only money when they are used as such. The “real” purpose of an economy is to produce and exchange goods and services.

            The way you monitored who owed you for the eggs you produced and exchanged was to keep a tab (journal), then you could add as many lines to your journal as you needed for the purpose of track who got your eggs and who owed you for having done so.

            In this regards, money could expand infinitely to meet your need, even though there is obviously a finite quantity of eggs you could produce.

            Imagine thinking that purchasing a big new journal to track your production and sales of eggs, the economy would magically grow to fill your journal? It is laughable! But that is how we think money works, we think if we have more money that goods and services will follow.

            What we should be thinking is that the goods and services are what we want and need and we need enough money to make sure that they can be produced and exchanged; no more and no less!

            The irony is that 40% of our money is for the purpose of renting money and there isn’t enough money left over after that for the production and exchange of goods and services. Call it what you want, but I call it fraud.

            • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

              With regards ………… we need enough money to make sure that we create goods and services, no more, no less 

              It is more problematic, because what we do with our money is conditioned by how we perceive the economy at any given time? When we are in manic euphoria, all things are possible and money circulates fast, but in deepest depression the opposite. Currently we are almost suicidal. Would money supply needed then not only be dictated by the amount of goods and services but collective mood. Indeed it is probably more complicated as the likelihood of purchases being made is also dictated by who has credit to spend.

              If it is the poor they need to feed and cloth the children and it is spent. If it is the rich, the prudent etc then financial constipation is possible, because they do not need to spend in the real economy. We could also add in factors like the ability to risk loss.

              • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

                Hi Alan, 

                That sounds just like praxeology. We need what we need, but whether we will do what we should with it is another question.

                Those whiney poor people people think they need food; and they do. Those pompous rich people think they need more money; and they don’t. 

                The goal of any monetary authority should be to establish “sound” money. Sound money has stable purchasing power. That doesn’t mean that it will be fairly distributed, but that might be important too.

                Idle money should be repurposed for production and consumption. If you establish the right amount of money to produce and consume what society wants and needs and then some people hoard their money … ooops, the polite is “save” … then you have problems. 

                The problems are NOT solved by establishing more money by lending it to the people who don’t have enough. This is going to sound awful, but if some people have excess and they hoard it, then one of the functions of any wise ruler is to take it away from them and redistribute it. That is one of the real functions of taxation.

                Just as we do not borrow to pay for government, we do not tax to pay for government.

                More sage wisdom later,

                Z…

                • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk/ Alan

                   Thanks ZarathustraHow do you arrive at a the right amount of money? Taxing the hoarders and the money sitting below the water line, lending to those who haven’t enough, sounds good to me, but many are max-ed out on loans. Totally agree we need to establish sound money, but from where we are now where do we start? Somehow we have to reduce the debt burden and at the same time stimulate the economy or it risks implosion. I am not trying to score points, don’t know enough about this subject to start, and not that sort anyway. I am trying to get some idea of likely ways forward and their consequence.

                  • ZarathustraSpeaksAgain

                    I’m really an amateur at this, I think smarter people who are professional develop the math models and algorithms for determining what the right amount of money is and for establishing and maintaining it.

                    There is a pretty bright guy by the name of Kaoru Yamaguchi who works with these models and has modeled the transition from our current system of money on loan from private banks to a system of money issued by the Treasury.

                    Frankly, my I hear words, my eyes glaze over and I go looking for something else to do. He has some charts, graphs and text too, but when I see it all I see black squiggly stuff on a white background and my mind goes elsewhere.

                    Some of lgrinaker’s remarks really apply to this when she describes my approach to high school science. I’m still working on valance shells which are sufficient for the discussion we are having but real scientists with advanced degrees have moved beyond that.

                    The path out is outlined in the American Monetary Act proposed by the Monetary Institute. The proposed changed leave investors/lenders whole but close the door on future lending except from savings or investments. If banks have good, productive loans to make but no capital, the door is open for the bank to borrow from the Treasury so the money supply can expand beyond savings if there is a strong demand for more money. This act takes away all the privately held magic keyboards and forces banks to lend from savings. It would also force people with HUGE positions to do something with them other than lend them to the government. Finally, if doesn’t just create money for the Federal level of government, it creates money for state and local levels and apportions it to them AND it gives money to the bottom for a period of time to help them retire debt. Remember, this kind of debt reduction replace debt created money with more or less permanent money so the banks will have a positive balance to make future loans from.

                    The pub isn’t really the place to work all of these details out, but I hope I shared enough to stimulate curiosity which could lead to a more serious investigation.

  • pw

    Hi Folks, 
    Two questions here about comparing the effect of printing new money with credit created money!With this in mind, it would appear that all the post 2007 intervention policies were funded using “credit” derrived (horizontal and vertical). QE is credit based,Bank interest rates suppression via credit based ZIRP,Government borrowing via bonds to surpress the cost of foreign borrowing.1.What would be the effect on the “value” of a sovreign currency when printing new money compared with creating long term credit? bear in mind we had rapid price inflation of non-durable goods and equity markets when QE was passed even though QE was funded using credit.

    2.Scott Fullweiser’s chart maps the level of gov vs. private borrowing and Kelton used it to demonstrate the correlation between drops in private borrowing and recessions. The money system changed at Bretton Woods from asset backed to pure fiat; Why did this correlation maintain its self over these two distinctly different periods (there is something wrong here but I cant see what at the moment).

    Rant… The owners of the banks really do own the fucking world in this system. Silly me for ever thinking otherwise.

    • pw

      All the formatting screwed up after hitting Post, must be something to do with the android browser. Apologies if its unreadable i’ll do it again from a PC later .

    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

       I don’t know if you are not clear on the facts, or not clear in expressing the facts.

      Just one question may sort this out – You say that `QE is credit based`.
      Please explain more expansively what you mean by that~?

      • pw

        The way I read it is;
        The (bad) assets that QE bought still exist at the Central bank, the advertised benefit of QE is that they can sell these (bad) assets back in to the market at a later date.

        This arrangement is no different to normal credit based banking, just this time the central bank owns the assets.

        This is where Im struggling with the difference between new money used to write off debt which in theory  reduces the value of a soveriegn currency.
         
        hope the formatting works

        • pw

          A few more things to add whilst the brain is running…
           the other asset a central bank owns is gold, so in my picture the central bank holds gold plus assets from QE. Did the amount of gold held at bretton woods decide what price a soveriegn currency was fixed at. Do we know if these valuations ever changed since? Sounds like I need to find out how the dollar index works and how revaluations are made.

          • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

             I would rather recommend going for a walk~!

        • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

           QE is when a central bank prints money to buy assets.
          Please tell me what part of normal banking, is this no different to~?

          • pw

            in terms of; a credit is raised against an asset with the expectation that this credits will be paid back in the future. i.e. the asset is not written off?

            • pw

              just checked and in Bernanke’s own words he describes QE as “altering the duration of the debt and nothing more”. Prag Cap 11/6/2010 is worth a read.

              • CSArichardo

                Sure the asset swap involved debt of different duration (liquidity) but assumed they were of the same quality (default risk) which we know is not probable.

            • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

               No, sorry.  I just can’t understand you.

              • pw

                Ok Im not helping so Ill go away but before I finish here is an article that tells you why you are mistaken to believe that QE is new printed money.

                http://pragcap.com/ben-bernanke-explains-fed-qe 

                • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

                   I remember the article well.
                  We talked about it a lot at the time.

                  It is very rare that I find that I cannot get on someone else’s wavelength, but your writing is a mystery to me.  I just don’t understand what you are trying to say.

                  Sorry about that.

                  • pw

                    have you changed your mind on QE if not would you mind sharing your thoughts..Thanks

                    • http://overthepeak.com/wordpress/ Mystic

                       I have not changed my mind on QE.
                      ….and again, I don’t know what you think my mind was, or now think it is…..So how do you expect me to know what you want me to share my thoughts on~?

        • snedmeister1

          Hi PW.

          The best way, IMO, to view this is when banks create credit, there is the creation of an asset and a liability together to balance it….

          QE does not do this…

          Under QE, the CB prints the money ( asset with no liability ), and buys / swaps it for an existing asset held by a bank…

          From this you can see QE is not like normal credit based banking…