News Journal: Number 33, November 9, 2010: Tea Party Movement Expects Republican Party To Balance The Budget By Cutting Spending Now!

Posted on November 9, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Balanced Budgets, Banking, Budget, Communications, Debt, Deficits, Democratic Party, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Issues, Mass Media, Monetary Policy, Money, News, Newspapers, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Republican Party, Society, Taxes, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Economics 101 – It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes!

Deficits are Bad, but the Real Problem is Spending

Meltzer Says U.S. Economic Programs Have Been `Foolish’

Ron Paul – Dr. Allan Meltzer

No Compromise: Issa, Ryan and Cantor Will Cut Runaway Federal Spending

Eric Cantor Discusses Tax Rates, Ending Earmarks & Cutting Spending On Fox News Sunday

Rand Paul: GOP must consider military spending cuts

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

The tea party movement is expecting the Republican Party to balance the Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012 budgets or face the consequences or fate in 2012 of the big spending Democrats in this past election.

Instead the Republican Party is talking about a Fiscal Year 2008 level of total outlays of about $3 trillion dollars.

This is definitely an improvement over President Obama’s estimated budget deficits exceeding over $1,000 billion in FY 2010 and FY 2011.

However, it still would not come close to balancing the budget in FY 2011 where tax revenues are expected to be about $2,567 billion.

Unfortunately the deficit would be about $400 billion for the total combined on-budget and off-budget.

Refer to the following receipts and outlay estimates at:

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

The total estimated tax revenues for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $2,567 billion and $2,926 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated outlays for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $3,834 billion and $3,755 billion respectively for the combined on-budget and off-budget.

The total estimated deficits for FY 2011 and FY 2012 are $1,267 billion and $828 billion respectively for combined on-budget and off-budget.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2011 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2005 of $2,472 billion.

To balance the combined on-budget and off-budget the FY 2012 outlays would need to about the level of Fiscal Year 2008 of $2,983 billion.

Either balance the budget or face the consequences in 2012.

Stop dithering.

Start shutting down entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Pass the FairTax and limit future outlays or expenditures for the total on-budget and off-budget to 80% of previous year’s tax revenue from the FairTax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The remaining 20% of FairTax revenues would go to pay down the debt.

Time for some real change and hope.

Stop spending our future and balance the budget.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Background Articles and Videos

 

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

“…The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover – falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics – urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.”2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

It is instructive to compare the American response in this period to that of Japan. In 1920, the Japanese government introduced the fundamentals of a planned economy, with the aim of keeping prices artificially high. According to economist Benjamin Anderson, “The great banks, the concentrated industries, and the government got together, destroyed the freedom of the markets, arrested the decline in commodity prices, and held the Japanese price level high above the receding world level for seven years. During these years Japan endured chronic industrial stagnation and at the end, in 1927, she had a banking crisis of such severity that many great branch bank systems went down, as well as many industries. It was a stupid policy. In the effort to avert losses on inventory representing one year’s production, Japan lost seven years.”3

The U.S., by contrast, allowed its economy to readjust. “In 1920–21,” writes Anderson, “we took our losses, we readjusted our financial structure, we endured our depression, and in August 1921 we started up again. . . . The rally in business production and employment that started in August 1921 was soundly based on a drastic cleaning up of credit weakness, a drastic reduction in the costs of production, and on the free play of private enterprise. It was not based on governmental policy designed to make business good.” The federal government did not do what Keynesian economists ever since have urged it to do: run unbalanced budgets and prime the pump through increased expenditures. Rather, there prevailed the old-fashioned view that government should keep spending and taxation low and reduce the public debt.4 …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods125.html

Historical Tables

Historical Tables provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2011 or 2015.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−): 1789–2015

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

High Taxes and High Budget Deficits
The Hoover–Roosevelt Tax Increases of the 1930s
by Veronique de Rugy, Fiscal Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

“…Conclusion
The tax increases of the 1930s coincided with large
deficits and economic stagnation. While the monetary and
trade policy mistakes of the 1930s are now widely
understood, the tax policy mistakes are less appreciated.
As Congress grapples with today’s budget deficit and
mediocre economic growth, it should look to the tax cuts
of the 1920s for inspiration rather than the failed “budget
balancing with high taxes” approach of the 1930s.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0303-14.pdf

 

Can GOP Shrink Government Spending?

Ron Paul in San Francisco – Amazing Speech!

Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman–Capitalism and Freedom–Videos

Milton Friedman On Business–Videos

Milton Friedman On Education–Videos

Milton Friedman On Monetary Policy–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–A History of Money and Banking in The United States–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The Case Against The Fed–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Calamity of Anti-Capitalism: A Brief American History–Video

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 32, November 3, 2010:Federal Reserve Monetizes U.S. Government Treasury Debt By Printing Money–Quantitative Easing (QE2)–Devalues U.S Currency–Banks Steal American People’s Purchasing Power!

Posted on November 4, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.captainscomments.com/comment/812

The FED’s magic with money

Fed to Buy Extra $600 Billion of Treasuries; Interest Rates to Stay Low

Peter Schiff on FOX Business News 11-04-10

Peter Schiff – Republican Win, QE2 – Nov 3rd 2010

Quantitative Easing 2: US economy continues to sink (03Nov10)

CNBC: Fed’s Big Gamble–What Could Go Wrong?

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke-speech- Disaster in the making

Jim Rickards Discusses Deflation, Hyperinflation and Velocity

 

MUFJ’s Brown Says U.S. Recovery Shows QE Is Not Needed

 

Greenspan: U.S. Playing `Dangerous Game’ on Stimulus

 

MSNBC w/ Cenk: Matt Taibi – Magic Money Printing Machine at The Fed

 

Grossman Says Fed QE May Cause Commodity Prices to Rise

Glenn Beck-11/03/10-A

 

Glenn Beck-11/03/10-B

 

Glenn Beck-11/03/10-C

Ron Paul to Bernanke : Continue Down Path of Socializing Our Entire Economy 5-5-09

Fall Of The Republic 6/14: The Presidency Of Barack H Obama

On October 15, 2010 Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, presented a speech entitled Monetary Policy Objectives and Tools in a Low-Inflation Environment at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s Conference on Revisiting Monetary Policy in a Low-Inflation Environment.

This speech pointed out that the Federal Opening Market Committee (FOMC) was about to embark on the purchase of Treasury securities with the objectives of reducing the continuing high unemployment rate and maintaining price stability:

“…the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our duel objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. Of course, in considering possible further actions, the FOMC will take account of the potential costs and risks of nonconventional policies, and, as always, the Committee’s actions are contingent on incoming information about the economic outlook and financial conditions.”

On November 3, 2010, the Federal Reserve provided more details as the amount and duration its unconventional monetary policy that is commonly called the money printing or “quantitative easing”:

“…To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability. …”

The Federal Reserve’s cover story is simply not being bought by many economists and investment analysts that follow closely the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.

The United States government is running massive budgetary deficits of over $1,000 billion for the past two years that will continue into Fiscal Year 2011 and 2012 and over $900 billion in 2013

There is a strong suspicion that the United States Treasury is having increasing trouble selling it securities at Treasury bond and note auctions.

Rather than go to Congress for another stimulus package that would not be approved by the new Republican House majority, the U.S. Treasury Department could simply issue more Treasury bonds and notes to finance the budgetary deficits.

The Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policy better known as quantitative easing 2 would mean the Federal Reserve is an investor of last resort for Treasury bond and note auctions when there is a shortage of other investors at the auctions.

The Federal Reserve will buy Treasuries not directly from the Treasury but from a third-party government security dealer or from a foreign country central bank who will act as a middle man or go between to get around the prohibition of the Federal Reserve buying Treasury securities directly from the Treasury Department.

The Federal Reserve would be monetizing Treasury debt by “printing money” in exchange of Treasury bonds and notes.

The economic effect is the decline in the purchasing power or value of the U.S. dollar.

This is a hidden tax on all Americans holding U.S. dollars.

The purchasing power of their dollar currency holdings will buy less goods and service especially imports.

The prices of all goods and services would rise–inflation.

Once this becomes apparent, the Federal Reserve’s dangerous unconventional monetary policy would have to be terminated and the Fed would have to revert back to a conventional tight monetary policy exit strategy to stop inflation by rising both the Federal Funds rate target and the sale of Treasury securities.

December 23, 2013 marks the 100 anniversary of the Federal Reserve.

By then I full expect that $1 in 1913 will be worth less than 1 cent.

The Federal Reserve System has been an abject failure in maintaining the price stability of the dollar.

The time has arrived for Congress to stop he Federal Reserve bank cartel from stealing from the American people by devaluing the U.S. dollar.

What needs to done?

First, end the Fed.

Second, cut Federal spending

Third, close permanently entire Federal Departments.

Fourth, balance the budget!

Do none of the above and the American people will throw both Democrats and Republicans out of office in 2012, 2014 and 2016.

 

Dr. Ron Paul says Rand and I will introduce legislation to End the Fed! First day!

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Press Release

Federal Reserve Press Release

Release Date: November 3, 2010

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in September confirms that the pace of recovery in output and employment continues to be slow. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising, though less rapidly than earlier in the year, while investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak. Employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts continue to be depressed. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable, but measures of underlying inflation have trended lower in recent quarters.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. Currently, the unemployment rate is elevated, and measures of underlying inflation are somewhat low, relative to levels that the Committee judges to be consistent, over the longer run, with its dual mandate. Although the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, progress toward its objectives has been disappointingly slow.

To promote a stronger pace of economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate, the Committee decided today to expand its holdings of securities. The Committee will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings. In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability.

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period.

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to support the economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at levels consistent with its mandate.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Sandra Pianalto; Sarah Bloom Raskin; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; Kevin M. Warsh; and Janet L. Yellen.

Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig. Mr. Hoenig believed the risks of additional securities purchases outweighed the benefits. Mr. Hoenig also was concerned that this continued high level of monetary accommodation increased the risks of future financial imbalances and, over time, would cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations that could destabilize the economy.

http://federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101103a.htm

U.S. Treasury to Sell $72 Billion in Long-Term Debt

By Rebecca Christie – // Nov 3, 2010

“…The Treasury has been scaling back auction sizes, after expanding debt sales to finance annual budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion for the past two years. Bond dealers predict deficits of $1.214 trillion in fiscal 2011, $1.023 trillion in 2012 and $906 billion in 2013, according to a survey provided to the Treasury before this week’s announcements. …”

“…The question arose whether the Fed and the Treasury were working at cross-purposes,” the minutes said. One member said that “from an economic perspective, the Fed’s purchase of longer-dated coupons via increasing reserves was economically equivalent to Treasury reducing longer-dated coupons and issuing more bills.”

In a presentation to the Treasury, one of the committee members said that Fed easing “would force Treasury yields lower and would likely lead the curve to flatten in the five- to 10- year sector” over the next one to two years. The presenter said 30-year interest rates would likely command a higher risk premium because of concerns about inflation and the value of the U.S. dollar. …”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-03/u-s-treasury-to-sell-72-billion-in-long-term-debt-update1-.html

Monetizing Debt

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/10/ES1014.pdf

The Shell Game – How the Federal Reserve is Monetizing Debt

“…Executive Summary

  • The Federal Reserve and the federal government are attempting to “plug the gap” caused by a slowdown of private credit/debt creation.
  • Non-US demand for the dollar must remain high, or the dollar will fall.
  • Demand for US assets is in negative territory for 2009
  • The TIC report and Federal Reserve Custody Account are reviewed and compared
  • The Federal Reserve has effectively been monetizing US government debt by cleverly enabling foreign central banks to swap their Agency debt for Treasury debt.
  • The shell game that the Fed is currently playing obscures the fact that money is being printed out of thin air and used to buy US government debt.

The Federal Reserve is monetizing US Treasury debt and is doing so openly, both through its $300 billion commitment to buy Treasuries and by engaging in a sleight of hand maneuver that would make a street hustler from Brooklyn blush. …”

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/shell-game-how-federal-reserve-monetizing-debt/25806

Bernanke on Deflation Risk Part one

Bernanke on Deflation Risk Part Two

Ron Paul advisor Peter Schiff’s economic forecast

Bernanke in Denial 2005-2007

The Federal Reserve is going bankrupt

Roger E. A. Farmer: Quantitative Easing

Quantitative Easing Bernanke — History & Objectives of QE

Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Obama Depression Deepens–Federal Reserve Executes–QE II Plan–”Operation Pawnshop”–$2,500 Billion In Quantitative Easing–Money Printing–Will It Be Enough?

The Ruling Establishment’s Robbery Of The American People–Deflation–Inflation–Hyperinflation–Bust–Bailout–Boom–Bubble–The Fall Of The American Republic–The Rise of One World Government and Currency–Videos

The American People Paid Off The Bets (Credit Default Swaps) Of Wall Street Investment Banks–Videos

The Massive Fraud In Mortgages Continues–Crooks and Corrupt Politicians In Charge–Videos

Quantitative Easing–Videos

Deflation, Inflation and Uncertainty–Videos

The Trillion Dollar Bet–Videos

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 28, October 16, 2010: The Obama Depression Deepens–Federal Reserve Executes–QE II Plan–“Operation Pawnshop”–$2,500 Billion In Quantitative Easing–Money Printing–Will It Be Enough?

Posted on October 16, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Globalization, International Trade, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Non-conventional vs. Traditional Federal Reserve System Building

“Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.”

“The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Peter Schiff – It’s Scary How Clueless Bernanke Is

The Gold Dollar | Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Fed’s Next Move: What Will Boost the Economy?

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 1

Helicopter Ben Bernanke 10/15/10 Part 2

Swonk Says Bernanke Laid Out Rationale for Fed QE: Video

Currencies, Phillips curve, inflation target, Ramsey, SchiffRadio.com

Bernanke Says Fed Stimulus Move Coming, Amount Unknown

Tyson Says Quantitative Easing ‘Only Policy Option Left’

Jim Grant on Bloomberg 10/8/10: Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing

Mandelbrot (Chaos Theory) Taleb (Black Swan) on markets

End the Fed | Ron Paul

The primary goal of the Federal Reserve System is price stability or the avoidance of inflation for the U.S. economy.

However, unlike other central banks, the Federal Reserve also was given several other goals by Congress:

“The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_2.pdf

Since the Fed already has a zero interest rate policy or ZIRP with the Federal Funds rate target range of between 0.0% – .25% and a low inflation rate for the time being under 2%, the Federal Reserve now turns it monetary policy tools on the persistent high unemployment rates, now at 9.6% and headed once again to 10% or more.

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, communicated in an October 15, 2010 speech in Boston what the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unconventional monetary policy was targeting– maximum employment–by printing more money and purchasing Treasuries and other bonds:

“…In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. …”

Translation, the Fed will be printing more money starting in November to expand the money and credit supply by purchasing Treasury securities including bills, notes and bonds in the market as well other assets such as bonds with the objective of lowering the unemployment rate.

http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

The Fed will be attempting to “inflate” the economy out of the current “jobless recovery” into another economic boom.

Call it quantitative easing, credit easing or “nonconventional” monetary policy, I call it overdosing on interventionism.

Quantitative Easing–Videos

What is the size, scope and duration of the “quantitative easing” or overdosing on interventionism ?

How big will the Fed’s weekly habit be?

My guess it will start “small” with $2 to $5 billion per week and gradually increase to about $15 billion per week?

How long will the Fed persist in this habit before going cold turkey?

At least twelve to forty-eight months or until the unemployment rate is below 6% and core inflation is over 2%.

This will require another massive expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet.

How much will it take?

My guess is a 1% reduction in the U-3 official unemployment rate would take a minimum of $600 billion per year ($200,000 money or credit expansion times 3,000,000 new jobs in one year)

A 4% reduction in the unemployment rate from 10% to 5% or the creation of about 12,000,000 new jobs would require a minimum of $2,500 billion dollars over four years.

The U.S. official unemployment rate as measured by U-3 is again headed towards 10% with over 15,000,000 Americans unemployed.

The private sector needs to create between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month to reduce the official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Currently the private sector is creating less than 100,000 jobs per month.

The United States needs between 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to absorb new entrants into the labor market due to the population growth. There are currently over 1.1 million unemployed new entrants that have not found their first job.

Another 150,000 to 200,000 jobs is are needed to reduce the unemployment by .1%.

Unfortunately, the persistent unemployment problem is even worse.

The U-6 total unemployment rate increased from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in October 2010.

With a total civilian labor force of about 155 million, a 17.1% unemployment rate means that over 26,500,000 Americans are looking for full-time jobs.

This represents over twice the number of unemployed Americans, about 13 million, during the worse month of the Great Depression, March 1933.

Assume it takes a minimum of $200,000 increase in the money and credit supply to create one new job.

Assume it takes 250,000 new jobs per month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1% or 3,000,000 jobs per year to reduce the unemployment rate by 1.2%.

Then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $600 billion per year.

If the objective is to reduce the unemployment rate official unemployment rate U-3 from about 10% to 5% then the Federal Reserve would need to expand the money and credit supply by about $2,500 billion over a forty-eight month period.

I fully expect both the U-3 and U-6 unemployment rates to rise by at least .1 to .2% per month for next three to six months.

This would bring the official unemployment rate or U-3 over 10% during the first quarter of 2011 and the total unemployment rate or U-6 over 18% by the start of the second quarter of 2011.

This would represent over 15 million Americans unemployed and over 28 million seeking full-time unemployment.

This in turn will mean the U.S. economy is entering a “new” recession or a “double dip recession” with declining and most likely negative growth rates in the second and third quarter of 2011 and an increased probability of deflation or a declining general price level for goods and services.

Therefore the case for an expansionary monetary policy is still strong and increasing.

With the Federal Funds rate essentially zero, the Federal Reserve will be purchasing assets such as Treasury securities and agency mortgage-backed securities starting in November and continuing for a least six months until the U.S. unemployment rates are down by at least 1% to 2% or more and growth in production or the gross national product is at least above 3% to 4%.

Assuming the Federal Reserve purchases $12 billion in assets or securities each week, the total amount of the quantitative easing will be about $2,500 billion over the next forty-eight months to bring the official unemployment rate U-3 to about 5%.

The Federal Reserve cannot count upon the central bank of Communist China, the People’s Bank of China, to appreciate the Yuan by more than 5% to 10% per year relative to the U.S. dollar to encourage U.S. exports and reduce Chinese imports to the United States.

The real problem is Federal government spending that should be drastically cut until a balanced or even surplus budget is the result.

The Bush tax rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 need to be made permanent as well.

Until such fiscal economic policies are actually implemented, the only monetary policy “bullets” that the Federal Reserve has left is quantitative easing or money printing to purchase assets by expanding their balance sheet.

The Federal Government has for the last two years run deficits exceeding 1,000 billion each year and totaling over $2,500 billion not counting interest and this is likely to continue for at least one or two years until the U.S. economy fully recovers and the unemployment rates are well below 7%.

These budgetary deficits need to be financed by the Treasury Department issuing Treasury bills, notes and bonds.

The Federal Reserve will monetize some of these Treasury debts as part of its quantitative easing operations to the extent other buyers of Treasuries cannot be found.

What is the size or quantity of the quantitative easing?

I do not expect this to be announced, but at least $2,500 billion may be needed in the next forty-eight months to avoid another recession, significantly reduce unemployment to under 6%, and increase the growth of the economy above 4%.

Will such a “nonconventional” monetary policy work?

Only if the Congress and the President drastically cut the Federal Budget so it balances, do not increase taxes, and repeal Obama care.

In other words,this “nonconventional” monetary policy strategy of asset purchases or quantitative easing is not very likely to work any time soon.

The problem with government intervention into the economy is it always requires even more government intervention to correct past mistakes.

Both fiscal and monetary policy are generating massive uncertainty and a lack of confidence by consumers and businesses results in the deferral of consumption and investment expenditures and the hiring of new employees.

Bernanke understands this for he wrote in his Ph.D. dissertation at M.I.T.:

“…increase uncertainty provides an incentive to defer investments in order to wait for new information.”

Massive increases in the size and scope of the Federal government has resulted in huge budgetary deficits and proposed tax increase during a “jobless recovery”.

These deficits must be financed and the Federal Reserve will make sure that Treasury debt in the form of bills, notes and bonds will be purchased by printing more money as needed.

The Federal Reserve “nonconventional” monetary policy of printing more money is essentially government intervention into the economy to accommodate the U.S. Government’s Department of the Treasury need in financing massive government deficits

The Federal Open Market Committee will purchase Treasuries, mostly short-term Treasury bills but some notes and bonds in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes or money.

While the Fed’s cover story may be that this is needed to reduce unemployment, the real objective is financing massive Federal government spending and deficits. This is similar to what was done from 1942 to 1951 where Treasury long-term government bond yields were fixed at very low levels to finance World War II.

In fact, the Federal Reserve will be debasing the U.S. dollar by reducing the purchasing power of the dollar.

End the Fed | Ron Paul

This is a hidden tax paid by all the American people.

The cost of exports will rise as the U.S. dollar depreciates relative to other foreign currencies.

The price of petroleum will significantly rise and Americans will be paying over $3 a gallon in 2011 and over $4 a gallon in 2012.

The increases in petroleum and gasoline prices will in turn impact food prices.

The Federal Reserve uses a core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index approach in measuring and setting inflation targets, which excludes food and energy. The core personal consumption is a less volatile inflation or price measure than a change in total personal consumption expenditures which includes energy and food.

However, the American people need to eat and use gasoline to power their cars and heating oil to warm their homes.

The American people do not tolerate fools, even educated fools of the ruling class, for very long when they are losing their jobs, homes, health care and retirement plans and their children and grandchildren cannot find jobs or complete their college education.

The Second American Revolution has started.

On Tuesday November 2, 2010, election day, a shot will be heard around the world that even the world’s central bankers will be able to hear, if not fully comprehend.

During which the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC will meet to decide when and how much quantitative easing or credit easing is needed to create jobs, avoid another recession and finance the U.S. government massive deficits.

The U.S. economy is in a liquidity trap where conventional monetary policy is ineffective and “nonconventional” monetary policy cannot work effectively until the appropriate fiscal policies are a reality and working.

The U.S. economy is slowly drowning in a flood of government intervention that has simply failed in generating jobs and high rates of economic growth and wealth creation.

The American people are paying the price for our ruling class’s continuing failures.

After quantitative easing or “operation pawn shop” fails and the value of the U.S. dollars is further debased, a period of inflation will follow and the Obama Depression will become an inflationary depression–a black swan.

“To be told that the Fed did what it could isn’t much comfort to a family who loses its house to foreclosure, a businessman forced into bankruptcy, a sixty-five-year-old whose retirement fund is devastated, a would-be borrower turned away by a beleaguered bank, a new college grad who can’t find a job, any job. For those victims and all the others, a final verdict on the Fed’s response to the Great Panic must await the health of the U.S. economy in 2010 and 2011 and beyond.”

~David Wessle, In Fed We Trust, Ben Bernanke’s War On the Great Panic, page 266.

“It is indeed one of the principal drawbacks of every kind of interventionism that it is so difficult to reverse the process.”

“Economics does not say that isolated government interference with the prices of only one commodity or a few commodities is unfair, bad, or unfeasible. It says that such interference produces results contrary to its purpose, that it makes conditions worse, not better, from the point of view of the government and those backing its interference.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Roubini: U.S. Running Out of Options to Stimulate Economy

Roubini On Double Dip

Nassim Nicholas Taleb – What is a “Black Swan?”

Background Articles and Videos

Peter Schiff “We Should Save ‘Person Of The Year’ For People Who Do Good!

Ron Paul: Allow The Free Market, Not The Fed, To Set Interest Rates

Maynard Keynes Inventor of Quantitative Easing

The Financial Crisis and the Death of Macroeconomics | Joseph T. Salerno

Government’s Response to the Crisis: A Fantastic Success, for Government | Robert Higgs

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Our Wise Overlords Are Just Here to Serve Us | Thomas E. Woods. Jr.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Angry

16. The Evolution and Perfection of Monetary Policy

Crisis and Capitalism

Understanding the Financial Crisis

The Psychology of the Financial Crisis

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve

How to Abolish the Federal Reserve

Speech

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

At the Revisiting Monetary Policy in a Low-Inflation Environment Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts

October 15, 2010

Monetary Policy Objectives and Tools in a Low-Inflation Environment”…

“…However, possible costs must be weighed against the potential benefits of nonconventional policies. One disadvantage of asset purchases relative to conventional monetary policy is that we have much less experience in judging the economic effects of this policy instrument, which makes it challenging to determine the appropriate quantity and pace of purchases and to communicate this policy response to the public. These factors have dictated that the FOMC proceed with some caution in deciding whether to engage in further purchases of longer-term securities.

Another concern associated with additional securities purchases is that substantial further expansion of the balance sheet could reduce public confidence in the Fed’s ability to execute a smooth exit from its accommodative policies at the appropriate time. Even if unjustified, such a reduction in confidence might lead to an undesired increase in inflation expectations, to a level above the Committee’s inflation objective. To address such concerns and to ensure that it can withdraw monetary accommodation smoothly at the appropriate time, the Federal Reserve has developed an array of new tools.7 With these tools in hand, I am confident that the FOMC will be able to tighten monetary conditions when warranted, even if the balance sheet remains considerably larger than normal at that time.

Central bank communication provides additional means of increasing the degree of policy accommodation when short-term nominal interest rates are near zero. For example, FOMC postmeeting statements have included forward policy guidance since December 2008, and the most recent statements have reflected the FOMC’s anticipation that exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate are likely to be warranted “for an extended period,” contingent on economic conditions. A step the Committee could consider, if conditions called for it, would be to modify the language of the statement in some way that indicates that the Committee expects to keep the target for the federal funds rate low for longer than markets expect. Such a change would presumably lower longer-term rates by an amount related to the revision in policy expectations. A potential drawback of using the FOMC’s statement in this way is that, at least without a more comprehensive framework in place, it may be difficult to convey the Committee’s policy intentions with sufficient precision and conditionality. The Committee will continue to actively review its communications strategy with the goal of providing as much clarity as possible about its outlook, policy objectives, and policy strategies.

Conclusion
In short, there are clearly many challenges in communicating and conducting monetary policy in a low-inflation environment, including the uncertainties associated with the use of nonconventional policy tools. Despite these challenges, the Federal Reserve remains committed to pursuing policies that promote our dual objectives of maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the FOMC is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation over time to levels consistent with our mandate. Of course, in considering possible further actions, the FOMC will take account of the potential costs and risks of nonconventional policies, and, as always, the Committee’s actions are contingent on incoming information about the economic outlook and financial conditions. ..”

Bernanke sees case for more Federal Reserve easing

“… Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday offered his most explicit signal yet that the U.S. central bank was set to ease monetary policy further, but provided no details on how aggressively it might act.

Bernanke warned a prolonged period of high unemployment could choke off the U.S. recovery and that the low level of inflation presented an uncomfortable risk of deflation, a dangerous downward slide in prices.

“There would appear — all else being equal — to be a case for further action,” Bernanke said at a conference sponsored by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.

With overnight interest rates already close to zero, many economists expect the Fed to launch a fresh round of bond purchases, perhaps on the order of $500 billion, to push borrowing costs lower at its next policy meeting on November 2-3.

Prices for longer-dated U.S. government debt fell after Bernanke’s remarks as investors bet the Fed would be successful in generating more inflation. Stocks were mixed while the dollar briefly hit an eight-month low against the euro.

Bernanke said the central bank could bolster its economy and inflation-lifting efforts by indicating a willingness to hold interest rates low for longer than currently expected.

The Fed pushed overnight rates to zero in December 2008 and then bought $1.7 trillion in U.S. government and mortgage-linked bonds to offer more support for the economy.

Officials have said further asset buying, or quantitative easing, would be the course they would most likely pursue to spur a stronger recovery.

Bernanke indicated Fed policymakers were still weighing how aggressive they should be, leaving markets to guess as to the details of any operation. …”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernanke-says-sees-case-for-rb-4235164349.html?x=0&.v=3

Personal consumption expenditures price index

“…he PCE price index (PCEPI) (or PCE deflator, PCE price deflator, Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures (IPD for PCE) (by the BEA), Chain-type Price Index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (CTPIPCE) (by the FOMC )) is a United States-wide indicator of the average increase in prices for all domestic personal consumption. It is indexed to a base of 100 in 2005. Using a variety of data including U.S. Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index prices, it is derived from the largest component of the Gross Domestic Product in the BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts, personal consumption expenditures.

The less volatile measure of the PCE price index is the core PCE price index which excludes the more volatile and seasonal food and energy prices.

In comparison to the headline United States Consumer Price Index, which uses one set of expenditure weights for several years, this index uses a Fisher Price Index, which uses expenditure data from both the current period and the preceding period. Also, the PCEPI uses a chained index which compares one quarter’s price to the last quarter’s instead of choosing a fixed base. This price index method assumes that the consumer has made allowances for changes in relative prices. That is to say, they have substituted from goods whose prices are rising to goods whose prices are stable or falling.

The PCE rises about one-third percent less than the CPI, a trend that dates back to 1992. This may be due to the failure of CPI to take into account substitution. Alternatively, an unpublished report on this difference by the BLS suggests that most of it is from different ways of calculating hospital expenses and airfares.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_consumption_expenditures_price_index

Black Swan Theory

“…The Black Swan Theory or “Theory of Black Swan Events” was developed by Nassim Nicholas Taleb to explain: 1) the disproportionate role of high-impact, hard to predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance and technology, 2) the non-computability of the probability of the consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to their very nature of small probabilities) and 3) the psychological biases that make people individually and collectively blind to uncertainty and unaware of the massive role of the rare event in historical affairs. Unlike the earlier philosophical “black swan problem”, the “Black Swan Theory” (capitalized) refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.

Black Swan Events were characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book (revised and completed in 2010), The Black Swan. Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as “black swans” — undirected and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, and the September 11 attacks as examples of Black Swan Events.

The term black swan was a Latin expression — its oldest known reference comes from the poet Juvenal’s characterization of something being “rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno” (6.165).[1] In English, this Latin phrase means “a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan.” When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the simile lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproven. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the phrase’s underlying logic, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal’s phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers.[2] In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After a Dutch expedition led by explorer Willem de Vlamingh on the Swan River in 1697, discovered black swans in Western Australia[3], the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.

Specifically, Taleb asserts[4] in the New York Times:

What we call here a Black Swan (and capitalize it) is an event with the following three attributes.

First, it is an outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.

I stop and summarize the triplet: rarity, extreme impact, and retrospective (though not prospective) predictability. A small number of Black Swans explains almost everything in our world, from the success of ideas and religions, to the dynamics of historical events, to elements of our own personal lives.

Coping with black swan events

The main idea in Taleb’s book is not to attempt to predict Black Swan Events, but to build robustness against negative ones that occur and being able to exploit positive ones. Taleb contends that banks and trading firms are very vulnerable to hazardous Black Swan Events and are exposed to losses beyond that predicted by their defective models.

Taleb states that a Black Swan Event depends on the observer—using a simple example, what may be a Black Swan surprise for a turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for its butcher—hence the objective should be to “avoid being the turkey” by identifying areas of vulnerability in order to “turn the Black Swans white”.

Identifying a black swan event

Based on the author’s criteria:

  1. The event is a surprise (to the observer).
  2. The event has a major impact.
  3. After the fact, the event is rationalized by hindsight, as if it had been expected.

Taleb’s ten principles for a black swan robust world

Taleb enumerates ten principles for building systems that are robust to Black Swan Events:[10]

  1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become Too Big to Fail.
  2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains.
  3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus.
  4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks.
  5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity.
  6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning.
  7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”.
  8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains.
  9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement.
  10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs.

In addition to these ten principles, Taleb also recommends employing both physical and functional redundancy in the design of systems. These two steps can be found in the principles of resilience architecting. (Reference: Jackson, S. Architecting Resilient Systems: John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ: 2010.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_complete.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Quantitative Easing–Videos

Cracking Communist Chinese Currency–Float The Yuan/RBN or Devalue Your Currency Via U.S. Dollar 10% Per Year For Next Five Years Or Face U.S. Import Ban–No Pressure–Your Choice–Videos

Chinese Communist State Company–China National Offshore Oil Corp.(CNOOC)–Invests In Texas Oil–Videos

Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

The Monetarization of The Debt and Quantitative Easing: The Federal Reserve is printing $1,000,000,000,000!–Run-Away Inflation Coming Soon!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 27, October 16, 2010: Cracking Communist Chinese Currency–Float The Yuan/RBN or Devalue Your Currency Via U.S. Dollar 10% Per Year For Next Five Years Or Face U.S. Import Ban–No Pressure–Your Choice–Videos

Posted on October 16, 2010. Filed under: Globalization, International Trade, Issues, News, Politics, Print Media, Speech | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“The valuation of the monetary unit depends not upon the wealth of the country, but upon the ratio between the quantity of money and the demand for it, so that even the richest country may have a bad currency and the poorest country a good one.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, page 278.

“The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate “given” resources—if “given” is taken to mean given to a single mind which deliberately solves the problem set by these “data.” It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

September, 1945, American Economic Review. XXXV, No. 4. pp. 519-30. American Economic Association

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Capitalism in China: Should We Trade With Them? – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Dr. Milton Friedman speaking about Free Trade

The looming China-U.S. showdown

Battling over the Yuan – F24 101001

China’s Wen Jiabao: ‘Dont pressure us to raise RMB rates’

Lee Says China Will Appreciate Yuan to Prevent Trade War: Video

Eurozone troika urges ‘broad-based’ currency appreciation in China

Inside Look: China Currency Controversy

China Currency and Trade Wars

Peter Schiff – June 21 2010 – Appreciation Of The Chinese Currency Means The Implosion Of The Dollar

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Niall Ferguson Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, C. Fred Bergsten Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Clyde Prestowitz Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Philip Levy Opening Statement

The U.S. and China (Ted Galen Carpenter)

Government intervention into markets always requires even more government intervention to correct past mistakes.

The central bank of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would be well advised to just let their currency freely float against the currencies of the world.

This would mean the PRC’s official currency the renminbi or RMB and its unit of currency the yuan would rise in value against both the U.S. dollar and the Euro.

Yes, this would mean the PRC’s export goods would be more expensive for both Americans and Europeans and conversely American and European goods and services would be cheaper to purchase for the PRC.

The result would be a decline in the growth of exports to the United States and Europe.

The Chinese people need to be able to increase their level of consumption and reduce their savings rate to absorb the production that currently goes almost entirely abroad as exports.

Should the PRC implement such a strategy, it would be advised to stop purchasing United States Treasury debt and as the U.S Treasury obligations mature use the dollar payments to purchase natural resource assets in the United States.

In other words diversify your portfolio out foreign government obligations into natural resources that your economy needs to manufacture goods.

As a second best solution, gradually appreciate the renminbi against the U.S. dollar at 10% per year for five years and then freely float the yuan.

Since the U.S unemployment rate is expected to exceed 8% for at least the next three years, the appreciation of the renminbi at 10% a year for five years would lead to a decline in U.S. unemployment due to increase in U.S. exports and and a rise in the demand for Chinese exports as the U.S economy recovers from the recession.

Absence an improvement in the U.S. employment situation, demand for Chinese exports would be flat or even decline.

Therefore, it is in the interest of both countries governments to have an appreciation of the renminbi.

The U.S. Federal Reserve should also abandon its practice of intervening in the U.S money market by attempting to set target Federal fund rates to expand the money supply and in turn credit.

Will any of the above actually happen?

Not likely.

The ruling classes of United States and the People’s Republic of China actually believe they are have the intelligence and knowledge exceeding that of free markets.

Both ruling classes are only fooling themselves.

Both are wrong.

Let the currency wars begin.

Let the ruling class of both parties demonstrate they care less for the welfare of their people.

Let the American and Chinese people determine the fates of their ruling class.

Increasing unemployment in both countries will lead to a revolution and the overthrow of both ruling classes.

The free market will over time prevail and the ruling class control freaks with their failed government interventionist economic policies will be replaced.

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 1

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 2

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 3

“We shall not grow wiser before we learn that much that we have done was very foolish. “

~Friedrich A. Hayek

“Perpetual vigilance on the part of the citizens can achieve what a thousand laws and dozens of alphabetical bureaus with hordes of employees never have and never will achieve: the preservation of a sound currency.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, page 495

Background Articles and Videos

China’s Economy in the Post-Crisis World

Obama Pressed On New Global Currency At Presidential News Conference

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Chinese Communist State Company–China National Offshore Oil Corp.(CNOOC)–Invests In Texas Oil–Videos

Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

The Monetarization of The Debt and Quantitative Easing: The Federal Reserve is printing $1,000,000,000,000!–Run-Away Inflation Coming Soon!

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 26, October 15, 2010: Printing More Money (Quantitative Easing) and The Coming Currency War and Decline In The Purchasing Power of The U.S. Dollar–Robbing The American People–Videos

Posted on October 15, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Books, Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Recordings, Society, Sound, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression.”

“The gold standard alone makes the determination of moneys purchasing power independent of the ambitions and machinations of governments, of dictators, of political parties, and of pressure groups.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Jim Rogers Currency Wars

“IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War”

Grant Says Quantitative Easing Is Just Money Printing: Video

Global Currency War Brewing

Is The World On The Verge Of A Currency War?

Daniel Rosen: Currency War

IMF Meeting Stokes Fear of Currency War

Webster Tarpley: “There’s a currency war!”

Heller Says `Very Difficult’ for Fed to Boost Growth: Video

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

Japan cooperates with US on international currency issues – NHK 101010

US House committee approves China currency bill – NHK 100925

US criticizes China, Japan over currency interventions – NHK 100917

Clyde Prestowitz discusses valuation of Chinese currency

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, C. Fred Bergsten Opening Statement

Mar 24 10 Hearing on China’s Exchange Rate Policy, Clyde Prestowitz Opening Statement

The Truth About The Economy: Total Collapse

Ron Paul in September 14, 2007

The Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel that benefits the large banks at the expense of the American people.

Cartel economists and so-called experts cannot replace the market by attempting to fix the price of money or the dollar.

Abolish the Federal Reserve System.

Abolish fiat paper currency.

Establish a new United States currency backed by gold.

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 1/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 2/3

Milton Friedman on Monetary Policy – 3/3

This is necessary to stop the financing of massive Federal Government deficits by the Federal Reserve that is purchasing U. S. Treasury bills and notes with Federal Reserve Notes by printing money or the monetarization of government debt.

Money printing or quantitative easing decreases the purchasing power of the money supply–debasing of the currency– robbing the American people.

Will the Federal Reserve System and fiat paper money be abolished?

Not any time soon.

The result will first be a longer and deeper recession lasting well into 2013.

In 2013 the Federal Reserve System will be 100 years old.

The Federal Reserves System will celebrate by achieving by then the devaluation of the dollar by 99%.

In other words one dollar in 1913 will be worth 1 cent in 2013.

If this is monetary stability, one wonders what inflation really is.

Time to do away the Federal Reserve System for incompetence.

I do not expect the unemployment rate to fall below 8% for U-3 until 2013 at the earliest.

As unemployment slowly declines in 2011 and 2012, there will be at first a gradual increase in the general price level that will accelerate in 2013.

This will be due the inability of the Federal Reserve to reverse quickly enough its very aggressive expansive monetary policy.

In 2011 and 2012 import prices will rise as the Federal Reserve attempts to devalue the dollar compared with other national currencies in an attempt to expand exports by making them cheaper.

The price of a gallon gasoline in the United States will first rise above $3 in 2011 and $4 in 2012 mainly due to the devaluation of the U.S. dollar.

As Communist China gradually lets the value of its currency rise in value relative to the U.S. dollar, exports from China will rise in price. This means higher prices for goods imported into the U.S. from China.

The decline in the value or purchasing power of the dollar in 2011 and 2012 combined with unemployment rates exceeding 8% will mean further losses for the Democratic Party in 2012 including the Presidency.

The American people are rightfully mad as hell at the ruling class and political elites in Washington D.C.

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 1

 

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 2

 

Power of the Market – How to Cure Inflation 3

 

Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve and Government Deficit Spending

The Gold Standard in Theory and Myth by Joseph Salerno

“The gold standard has one tremendous virtue: the quantity of the money supply, under the gold standard, is independent of the policies of governments and political parties. This is its advantage. It is a form of protection against spendthrift governments.”

“Inflationism, however, is not an isolated phenomenon. It is only one piece in the total framework of politico-economic and socio-philosophical ideas of our time. Just as the sound money policy of gold standard advocates went hand in hand with liberalism, free trade, capitalism and peace, so is inflationism part and parcel of imperialism, militarism, protectionism, statism and socialism.”

~Ludwig von Mises

9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation
Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010
Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010
Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Assets  
Gold certificate account   11,037 0 0
Special drawing rights certificate account   5,200 0 0
Coin   2,114 + 3 + 124
Securities, repurchase agreements, term auction
credit, and other loans
  2,101,199 + 7,113 + 216,329
Securities held outright 1   2,051,716 + 7,403 + 456,429
U.S. Treasury securities   819,072 + 7,403 + 49,887
Bills 2   18,423 0 0
Notes and bonds, nominal 2   752,832 + 7,390 + 52,364
Notes and bonds, inflation-indexed 2   42,318 0 – 2,270
Inflation compensation 3   5,499 + 13 – 207
Federal agency debt securities 2   154,105 0 + 20,294
Mortgage-backed securities 4   1,078,539 0 + 386,248
Repurchase agreements 5   0 0 0
Term auction credit   0 0 – 178,379
Other loans   49,483 – 290 – 61,721
Net portfolio holdings of Commercial Paper
Funding Facility LLC 6
  0 0 – 41,059
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane LLC 7   28,510 + 40 + 2,206
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane II LLC 8   15,674 – 201 + 1,213
Net portfolio holdings of Maiden Lane III LLC 9   22,782 – 258 + 2,616
Net portfolio holdings of TALF LLC 10   601 0 + 601
Preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO
Holdings LLC 11
  26,057 + 324 + 26,057
Items in process of collection (84) 463 + 98 + 310
Bank premises   2,222 – 7 + 1
Central bank liquidity swaps 12   61 0 – 49,770
Other assets 13   95,313 + 2,248 + 11,389
 
Total assets (84) 2,311,231 + 9,358 + 170,016

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Footnotes appear at the end of the table. 9. Consolidated Statement of Condition of All Federal Reserve Banks (continued)

Millions of dollars
Assets, liabilities, and capital Eliminations from
consolidation
Wednesday
Oct 6, 2010
Change since
Wednesday
Sep 29, 2010
Wednesday
Oct 7, 2009
Liabilities
Federal Reserve notes, net of F.R. Bank holdings 918,609 + 4,849 + 42,489
Reverse repurchase agreements 14 64,440 – 2,930 + 1,540
Deposits (0) 1,253,413 + 6,593 + 113,645
Term deposits held by depository institutions 2,119 0 + 2,119
Other deposits held by depository institutions 1,000,014 + 15,875 + 33,477
U.S. Treasury, general account 49,530 – 8,299 + 18,525
U.S. Treasury, supplementary financing account 199,962 + 1 + 70,006
Foreign official 1,345 – 1,066 – 540
Other (0) 444 + 84 – 9,940
Deferred availability cash items (84) 2,598 + 410 – 182
Other liabilities and accrued dividends 15 15,029 + 91 + 6,468
Total liabilities (84) 2,254,089 + 9,014 + 163,961
Capital accounts
Capital paid in 26,687 + 1 + 1,798
Surplus 25,881 + 6 + 4,500
Other capital accounts 4,575 + 338 – 242
Total capital 57,142 + 344 + 6,055

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1. Includes securities lent to dealers under the overnight and term securities lending facilities; refer to table 1A.

2.Face value of the securities.

3. Compensation that adjusts for the effect of inflation on the original face value of inflation-indexed securities.

4. Guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae. Current face value of the securities, which is the remaining principal balance of the underlying mortgages.

5.Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities.

6. Includes the book value of the commercial paper, net of amortized costs and related fees, and other investments held by the Commercial Paper Funding Facility LLC.

7. Refer to table 4 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

8. Refer to table 5 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

9. Refer to table 6 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

10. Refer to table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

11. Refer to table 8.

12. Dollar value of foreign currency held under these agreements valued at the exchange rate to be used when the foreign currency is returned to the foreign central bank. This exchange rate equals the market exchange rate used when the foreign currency was acquired from the foreign central bank.

13. Includes other assets denominated in foreign currencies, which are revalued daily at market exchange rates, accrued dividends on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s (FRBNY) preferred interests in AIA Aurora LLC and ALICO Holdings LLC, and the fair value adjustment to credit extended by the FRBNY to eligible borrowers through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility.

14. Cash value of agreements, which are collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency debt securities, and mortgage-backed securities.

15. Includes the liabilities of Maiden Lane LLC, Maiden Lane II LLC, Maiden Lane III LLC, and TALF LLC to entities other than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, including liabilities that have recourse only to the portfolio holdings of these LLCs. Refer to table 4 through table 7 and the note on consolidation accompanying table 10.

Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee September 21, 2010″…At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to authorize and direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, until it was instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the System Account in accordance with the following domestic policy directive:

“The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to 1/4 percent. The Committee directs the Desk to maintain the total face value of domestic securities held in the System Open Market Account at approximately $2 trillion by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities. The System Open Market Account Manager and the Secretary will keep the Committee informed of ongoing developments regarding the System’s balance sheet that could affect the attainment over time of the Committee’s objectives of maximum employment and price stability.”

The vote encompassed approval of the statement below to be released at 2:15 p.m.:

“Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising, though less rapidly than earlier in the year, while investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak. Employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts are at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract, but at a reduced rate in recent months. The Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be modest in the near term.Measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time before rising to levels the Committee considers consistent with its mandate.The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period. The Committee also will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings.The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.”

Voting for this action: Ben Bernanke, William C. Dudley, James Bullard, Elizabeth Duke, Sandra Pianalto, Eric Rosengren, Daniel K. Tarullo, and Kevin Warsh.Voting against this action: Thomas M. Hoenig.Mr. Hoenig dissented, emphasizing that the economy was entering the second year of moderate recovery and that, while the zero interest rate policy and “extended period” language were appropriate during the crisis and its immediate aftermath, they were no longer appropriate with the recovery under way. Mr. Hoenig also emphasized that, in his view, the current high levels of unemployment were not caused by high interest rates but by an extended period of exceptionally low rates earlier in the decade that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent collapse and recession. He believed that holding rates artificially low would invite the development of new imbalances and undermine long-run growth. He would prefer removing the “extended period” language and thereafter moving the federal funds rate upward, consistent with his views at past meetings that it approach 1 percent, before pausing to determine what further policy actions were needed. Also, given current economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that continuing to reinvest principal payments from SOMA securities holdings was required to support the Committee’s policy objectives.It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday-Wednesday, November 2-3, 2010. The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m. on September 21, 2010. …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20100921.htm

Background Articles and Videos

Marc-Faber– FedsPrinting to Create Final Crisis 8-3-2010

Quantitative easing

Marc Faber Sees Fed Introducing `Massive’ Quantitative Easing

Ron Paul: If You Care About The Poor You Have To Look At Monetary Policy

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Monetary Policy, Deflation, And Quantitative Easing

“…Aren’t the excess bank reserves inflationary?

Potentially yes, but currently no. Even though banks are earning a meager 25 basis points on their reserves, that is not sufficient incentive to keep large quantities of excess reserves uninvested or unloaned. As they were in the mid-1930s, massive excess reserves are the result of banker fear and uncertainty. The banking system has been saved, but it hasn’t been made whole yet. Bankers continue to worry about reserve levels and liquidity levels and capital levels. They are willing to lend, but only very conservatively to credit-worthy borrowers. Also, much of the slowdown in bank lending comes from low demand for loans by highly qualified borrowers.

The idea that the excess reserves held on banks’ balance sheets should be “mopped up” to prevent them being used in inflationary ways later is a very dangerous idea. They are there voluntarily because bankers feel they are needed. To remove them would cause further bank retrenchment, as it did in the 1930s when the Fed decided to “mop up” the excess reserves of that time.

As the economy and confidence improves, banks will begin using their excess reserves more aggressively. At that point, the Fed will have to be very careful not to stifle that desirable activity on the one hand or let it get out of hand and become inflationary on the other hand. Since they have lots of good, two-handed economists, I think they can pull it off. ..”

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/30/monetary-policy-deflation-and-quantitative-easing/

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

If you work to earn money you need to watch this

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

Concept

Ordinarily, the central bank uses its control of interest rates, or sometimes reserve requirements, to indirectly influence the supply of money.[1] In some situations, such as very low inflation or deflation, setting a low interest rate is not enough to maintain the level of money supply desired by the central bank, and so quantitative easing is employed to further boost the amount of money in the financial system.[1] This is often considered a “last resort” to increase the money supply.[4][5] The first step is for the bank to create more money ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) by crediting its own account. It can then use these funds to buy investments like government bonds from financial firms such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds,[1] in a process known as “monetising the debt“.

For example, in introducing its QE programme, the Bank of England bought gilts from financial institutions, along with a smaller amount of relatively high-quality debt issued by private companies.[6] The banks, insurance companies and pension funds can then use the money they have received for lending or even to buy back more bonds from the bank. The central bank can also lend the new money to private banks or buy assets from banks in exchange for currency.[citation needed] These have the effect of depressing interest yields on government bonds and similar investments, making it cheaper for business to raise capital.[7] Another side effect is that investors will switch to other investments, such as shares, boosting their price and thus creating the illusion of increasing wealth in the economy.[6] QE can reduce interbank overnight interest rates, and thereby encourage banks to loan money to higher interest-paying and financially weaker bodies.

More specifically, the lending undertaken by commercial banks is subject to fractional-reserve banking: they are subject to a regulatory reserve requirement, which requires them to keep a percentage of deposits in “reserve”,[citation needed]: these can only be used to settle transactions between them and the central bank.[7] The remainder, called “excess reserves”, can (but does not have to be) be used as a basis for lending. When, under QE, a central bank buys from an institution, the institution’s bank account is credited directly and their bank gains reserves.[6] The increase in deposits from the quantitative easing process causes an excess in reserves and private banks can then, if they wish, create even more new money out of “thin air” by increasing debt (lending) through a process known as deposit multiplication and thus increase the country’s money supply. The reserve requirement limits the amount of new money. For example a 10% reserve requirement means that for every $10,000 created by quantitative easing the total new money created is potentially $100,000. The US Federal Reserve‘s now out-of-print booklet Modern Money Mechanics explains the process.

A state must be in control of its own currency and monetary policy if it is to unilaterally employ quantitative easing. Countries in the eurozone (for example) cannot unilaterally use this policy tool, but must rely on the European Central Bank to implement it.[citation needed] There may also be other policy considerations. For example, under Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[7] and later the Maastricht Treaty, EU member states are not allowed to finance their public deficits (debts) by simply printing the money required to fill the hole, as happened, for example, in Weimar Germany and more recently in Zimbabwe.[1] Banks using QE, such as the Bank of England, have argued that they are increasing the supply of money not to fund government debt but to prevent deflation, and will choose the financial products they buy accordingly, for example, by buying government bonds not straight from the government, but in secondary markets.[1][7]

HistoryQuantitative easing was used unsuccessfully[8] by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to fight domestic deflation in the early 2000s.[9] During the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, policies announced by the US Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke to counter the effects of the crisis are a form of quantitative easing. Its balance sheet expanded dramatically by adding new assets and new liabilities without “sterilizing” these by corresponding subtractions. In the same period the United Kingdom used quantitative easing as an additional arm of its monetary policy in order to alleviate its financial crisis.[10][11][12]

The European Central Bank (ECB) has used 12-month long-term refinancing operations (a form of quantitative easing without referring to it as such) through a process of expanding the assets that banks can use as collateral that can be posted to the ECB in return for Euros. This process has led to bonds being “structured for the ECB”[13]. By comparison the other central banks were very restrictive in terms of the collateral they accept: the US Federal Reserve used to accept primarily treasuries (in the first half of 2009 it bought almost any relatively safe dollar-denominated securities); the Bank of England applied a large haircut.

In Japan’s case, the BOJ had been maintaining short-term interest rates at close to their minimum attainable zero values since 1999. With quantitative easing, it flooded commercial banks with excess liquidity to promote private lending, leaving them with large stocks of excess reserves, and therefore little risk of a liquidity shortage.[14] The BOJ accomplished this by buying more government bonds than would be required to set the interest rate to zero. It also bought asset-backed securities and equities, and extended the terms of its commercial paper purchasing operation.[15]

RisksQuantitative easing is seen as a risky strategy that could trigger higher inflation than desired or even hyperinflation if it is improperly used and too much money is created.

Quantitative easing runs the risk of going too far. An increase in money supply to a system has an inflationary effect by diluting the value of a unit of currency. People who have saved money will find it is devalued by inflation; this combined with the associated low interest rates will put people who rely on their savings in difficulty. If devaluation of a currency is seen externally to the country it can affect the international credit rating of the country which in turn can lower the likelihood of foreign investment. Like old-fashioned money printing, Zimbabwe suffered an extreme case of a process that has the same risks as quantitative easing, printing money, making its currency virtually worthless.[1]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Federal Open Market Committee

“…About the FOMCThe term “monetary policy” refers to the actions undertaken by a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, to influence the availability and cost of money and credit to help promote national economic goals. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave the Federal Reserve responsibility for setting monetary policy.The Federal Reserve controls the three tools of monetary policy–open market operations, the discount rate, and reserve requirements. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is responsible for the discount rate and reserve requirements, and the Federal Open Market Committee is responsible for open market operations. Using the three tools, the Federal Reserve influences the demand for, and supply of, balances that depository institutions hold at Federal Reserve Banks and in this way alters the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.Changes in the federal funds rate trigger a chain of events that affect other short-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, long-term interest rates, the amount of money and credit, and, ultimately, a range of economic variables, including employment, output, and prices of goods and services.

Structure of the FOMC

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) consists of twelve members–the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. The rotating seats are filled from the following four groups of Banks, one Bank president from each group: Boston, Philadelphia, and Richmond; Cleveland and Chicago; Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas; and Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San Francisco. Nonvoting Reserve Bank presidents attend the meetings of the Committee, participate in the discussions, and contribute to the Committee’s assessment of the economy and policy options.The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings per year. At these meetings, the Committee reviews economic and financial conditions, determines the appropriate stance of monetary policy, and assesses the risks to its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth.For more detail on the FOMC and monetary policy, see section 2 of the brochure on the structure of the Federal Reserve System and chapter 2 of Purposes & Functions of the Federal Reserve System.

2010 Members of the FOMC

  • Members
    • Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
    • William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
    • James Bullard, St. Louis
    • Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
    • Thomas M. Hoenig, Kansas City
    • Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
    • Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
    • Eric S. Rosengren, Boston
    • Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
    • Kevin M. Warsh, Board of Governors
    • Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors …”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm

FEDERAL RESERVE statistical release
H.4.1
Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions and
Condition Statement of Federal Reserve Banks

Why Chinese Currency Manipulation Is America’s Fault by: Ian Fletcher April 15, 2010

“…Unfortunately, the token appreciation that is probably now in store won’t help very much. For one thing, Beijing has played this game before. China first started diversifying its currency reserves away from the dollar (which weakens currency manipulation) in July 2005, and from then until July 2008 allowed the yuan to rise from 8.28 to the dollar to 6.83, where it has since been held nearly steady. But this appreciation, while showcased by China, was purely nominal; after adjusting for inflation, the change was far smaller: about two percent.

How does China manipulate its currency? Mainly by preventing its exporters from using the dollars they earn as they wish. Instead, they are required to swap them for domestic currency at China’s central bank, which then “sterilizes” them by spending them on U.S. Treasury securities (and increasingly other, higher-yielding, investments) rather than U.S. goods. As a result, the price of dollars is propped up — which means the price of yuan is pushed down — by a demand for dollars which doesn’t involve buying American exports.

The amounts involved are astronomical: as of 2008, China’s accumulated dollar-denominated holdings amounted to $1.7 trillion, an astonishing 40 percent of China’s GDP. The China Currency Coalition estimated in 2005 that the yuan was undervalued by 40 percent; past scholarly estimates have ranged from 10 to 75 percent.

Why is this America’s fault? Because China’s currency is manipulated relative to our own only because we permit it, as there is no law requiring us to sell China our bonds and other assets. We could, in fact, end this manipulation at will. All we would need to do is bar China’s purchases, or just tax them to death.

This would be neither an extreme nor an unprecedented move. It is roughly what the Swiss did in 1972, when economic troubles elsewhere in the world generated an excessive flow of money seeking refuge in Swiss franc-denominated assets. This drove up the value of the franc and threatened to make Swiss manufacturing internationally uncompetitive. To prevent this, the Swiss government imposed a number of measures to dampen foreign investment demand for francs, including a ban on the sale of franc-denominated bonds, securities, and real estate to foreigners. Problem solved. (It did not even damage Switzerland’s standing as an international financial center, a key worry at the time.) …”

“…So the real underlying problem is that America doesn’t generate enough savings on its own to meet its voracious appetite for borrowing. China’s savings rate, thanks to deliberate suppression by the Chinese government of its people’s opportunities to spend what they earn, is an astonishing 50 percent. Ours was negative four percent in the last Federal Reserve report on the subject. We are—Oh, how Mao would have loved this!—decadent. …”

http://seekingalpha.com/article/198825-why-chinese-currency-manipulation-is-americas-fault


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 10, August 10, 2010: Pushing On A G-String–No Job Recovery And Declining Prices Results In Federal Reserve Buying Govenment Debt To Spur Economic Growth By Expanding Money Supply–Videos

Posted on August 10, 2010. Filed under: Issues, Magazines, News, Newspapers, Politics, Radio, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“…Pushing on a string is a metaphor for influence that is more effective in moving things in one direction than another – you can pull, but not push.      

If something is connected to you by a string, you can move it toward you by pulling on the string, but you can’t move it away from you by pushing on the string. It is often used in the context of economic policy, specifically the view that “Monetary policy [is] asymmetric; it being easier to stop an expansion than to end a severe contraction.”[1]
…”      

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_on_a_string      

G-string humor

      

      

http://www.shadowstats.com/      

      

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts      

      

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts      

      

      

      

http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

    

   

   http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/10/news/economy/fed_decision/index.htm   

 

Fed To Buy More Government Debt; Rates Remain Low

Federal Reserve to buy long-term Treasury debt, keeps target rate unchanged

      

Bob McTeer – FOMC Meeting

Bob McTeer – Deflation

Quantitative Easing Only Tool Left for Fed

Paulsen Says Tech, Consumer Stocks May Be Poised to Rise: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vdnZ5GNMnY  

    

Fed Looks to Spur Growth by Buying Government Debt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-10/fed-to-reinvest-principal-on-mortgage-proceeds-into-long-term-treasuries.html  

    

O’Sullivan Sees Pressure on Fed to Signal Policy Easing: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4hMc8QTY8     

 

Reinhart Sees New Round of Quantitative Easing by Fed: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECF9B3zQIv8   

   

David Rovelli Discusses Investment Strategy, Fed Policy: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFTXR7WHa0Y  

    

Jim Rogers on The Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve recognizes that a jobless recovery is not a recovery at all and the Bush Obama Depression is only continuing and getting worse.   

The Federal Reserve statement is misleading when it comes to the state of the economy and future prospects:   

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.   

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm   

Fully expect unemployment rates measured by U-3, the official unemployment rate, to exceed 9% and by U-6, the real unemployment rate, to exceed 15% for the next two to three years.  

 This means that between 14 and 24 million Americans will be unemployed over the next two years. 

During the worst months of the Great Depression in 1933, the number of unemployed Americans was about 13 million. 

This would indeed be a very modest recovery in the near term.   

Actually it means the Bush Obama Depression will last well into 2014.   

Yes there will be positive economic growth in terms of output or production.   

No there will not be a recovery in terms of jobs for the “near term”–two or three years!

Disregard all the nonsense about a double dip recession, we are in a depression with over 20% of the American work force looking for full time work. 

The Federal Reserve bears much of the responsibility for creating this mess or financial crisis by having an expansionary or easy money policy to promote the profits of the commercial banks during the real estate “boom” or “bubble.” 

Bernanke: Why are we still listening to this guy?

 

Peter Schiff on Ben Bernanke Confirmation

The Federal Reserve will leave the Federal Funds rate at a target rate of between 0% to .25% for the foreseeable future.   

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.   

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm   

 This statement only confirms that the Federal Reserve fully expects the Bush Obama Depression to last another two years or more.   

The Federal Reserve will gradually expand the money supply by engaging in open market operations by buying Government Treasury Notes with Federal Reserve Notes on the interest earned from its existing portfolio of assets.    

To help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities.1 The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature.   

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm   

Over the last two years the Federal Reserve purchased over $1 trillion in debt securities backed by mortgages and government-sponsored mortgages from such firms as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   

Debt and Deficits

 

On Tuesday the Federal Reserve announced it would reinvest principle payments from these maturing securities into long-term Treasurys by purchasing 2-year and 10-year Treasury Notes. The amount purchased over the next year will amount to about $100 billion in additional purchasers of Treasurys.

Unfortunately, this expansionary monetary policy is not going to work.     

The Fed is pushing on a string, the G-string of Giant Government.     

The real problem is the uncertainty being generated by the Obama Administration in the form of government intervention into the U.S. economy including mandated health care plans, financial regulation, energy regulation, and  proposed new taxes on energy and higher tax rates by letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire at the end of 2010.   

Both small and medium size businesses see that the Obama Administration  is expanding the size and scope of government.     

The only conclusion is this can only lead to more and higher taxes that will largely come from small and medium size businesses that create the jobs and wealth.   

As a result most small and medium size businesses are simply not hiring and many are still laying-off employees as business declines.     

What will it take for an expansionary monetary policy to work.     

Fundamental changes in fiscal policy on both the spending and tax revenue side.     

A major reduction in Federal expenditures would require the shutting down of ten Federal Departments.     

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

      

President Obama simply will not cut spending by closing down entire Federal Departments.    

President Obama wants to do the exact opposite by expanding or increasing the budgets of most Federal Departments.  

Obama lacks both a constrained vision and courage to even attempt such a fiscal policy.     

The only thing left then is tax reform.This would require the replacement of all existing income and payroll taxes with a broad based national consumption sales tax such as the FairTax.        

The FairTax: It’s Time

Again President Obama simply does not have the courage to take on the base of the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party.      

Instead President Obama wants to add new taxes, either a cap-and-trade energy tax and/or a value added tax on top of all existing taxes.     

These taxes if passed would only make the Bush Obama Depression last well into 2014.     

This is much like what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s by increasing income tax rates and expanding consumption taxes on certain goods and service.     

As a result the U.S. economy did not recover from the Great Depression until 1946.    

Robert Higgs on Economic Prospects for 2010 

    

To summarize, the Obama Administration’s fiscal policies will only make the recession last much longer.     

Thus Obama’s fiscal policy dooms to failure the Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy.     

Until the current political regime is changed, expect no recovery and little confidence by businesses and consumers.     

More taxes and more government spending is not a plan, it is an economic catastrophe.     

The result will be an inflationary depression–The Bush Obama Depression!   

Time to end the banking cartel of the Federal Reserve System whose only function is protect banking profits and pass along banking losses to the American people.  

Gary North, an economist, knows and understands that the Federal Reserve System is a banking cartel and really does love to push the string while over 30 million Americans look for a full time job:

“…The FED knows it is pushing on a string. It loves that string. Why? Because that limp string – no commercial bank lending – delays the advent of price inflation. This has enabled the FED to achieve the following by doubling the monetary base (the FED’s balance sheet):

1. Bail out the big banks (asset swaps)
2. Keep the banking system from imploding
3. Bail out the Federal government
4. Bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
5. Keep real estate from collapsing
6. Slow price inflation to close to zero
7. Keep T-bill rates under 0.5%

At what cost? Unemployed workers. That is a small price to pay if you are a high-salary central banker with a fully funded pension.

The FED’s policies have not failed. They have succeeded beyond Bernanke’s wildest expectations. Greenspan’s bubbles are all popped. Price inflation is gone. There is no price deflation, either. For the first time since 1955, the FED has attained its mandate from Congress: price stability. …”

End The Fed Now!

The Cash Drop

     

Background Articles and Videos

Pushing on a String

by Gary North

“…The FED knows it is pushing on a string. It loves that string. Why? Because that limp string – no commercial bank lending – delays the advent of price inflation. This has enabled the FED to achieve the following by doubling the monetary base (the FED’s balance sheet):

1. Bail out the big banks (asset swaps)
2. Keep the banking system from imploding
3. Bail out the Federal government
4. Bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
5. Keep real estate from collapsing
6. Slow price inflation to close to zero
7. Keep T-bill rates under 0.5%

At what cost? Unemployed workers. That is a small price to pay if you are a high-salary central banker with a fully funded pension.

The FED’s policies have not failed. They have succeeded beyond Bernanke’s wildest expectations. Greenspan’s bubbles are all popped. Price inflation is gone. There is no price deflation, either. For the first time since 1955, the FED has attained its mandate from Congress: price stability.

Greenspan’s FED never attained the power over the economy that Bernanke’s FED now possesses. The FED has been given almost complete regulatory control over the financial system. Congress buckled. Bernanke has been given a free ride. The Federal government now owns General Motors. Keynesianism is having its greatest revival in 30 years.

So far, the FED has won. Yet deflationists argue that the economy is in a deflationary spiral that the FED cannot prevent. They do not know what they are talking about. They never have.

CONCLUSION

The Federal Reserve can re-ignite monetary inflation at any time by charging banks a fee to keep excess reserves with the FED.

Anyone who predicts an inevitable price deflation does not understand that the present scenario is the product of legitimately terrified bankers and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. At any time, the FED can get all of the banks’ money lent. But the FED knows that this will double the money supply within weeks. This will create mass price inflation.

This is the central fact in the inflation vs. deflation debate. Until the deflationists answer it with a unified voice, they will remain, as their predecessors remained, people with neither a theoretical nor a practical case for their position.

So, the FED waits. Meanwhile, the Federal government’s share of the economy rises relentlessly because of the deficits. This is not going to change in the next few years.

We are seeing Keynesianism’s last stand. When it fails, the FED will force the banks to lend. Then we will see mass inflation.

Mass deflation? Forget about it. …”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north722.html

Federal Reserve System Crisis 

  

End The Fed! – Why the Federal Reserve Must Be Abolished!

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 1 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 2 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 3 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 4 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 5 of 6

Fiat Empire – Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution 6 of 6

“…Release Date: August 10, 2010   

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months. Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit. Business spending on equipment and software is rising; however, investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak and employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls. Housing starts remain at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract. Nonetheless, the Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be more modest in the near term than had been anticipated.   

Measures of underlying inflation have trended lower in recent quarters and, with substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to be subdued for some time.   

The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.   

To help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities.1 The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature.   

The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and will employ its policy tools as necessary to promote economic recovery and price stability.   

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Donald L. Kohn; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh.   

Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig, who judges that the economy is recovering modestly, as projected. Accordingly, he believed that continuing to express the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted and limits the Committee’s ability to adjust policy when needed. In addition, given economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that keeping constant the size of the Federal Reserve’s holdings of longer-term securities at their current level was required to support a return to the Committee’s policy objectives. …”   

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20100810a.htm

 

Quantitative easing

E5. Introduction to Monetary Policy

Quantitative Easing  

     

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a form of monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money in an economy when the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.[citation needed] A central bank does this by first crediting its own account with money it has created ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system. The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]     

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States and United Kingdom during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009. …”     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing     

  Open Market Operations

“…Open market operations–purchases and sales of U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities–are the Federal Reserve’s principal tool for implementing monetary policy. The short-term objective for open market operations is specified by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). This objective can be a desired quantity of reserves or a desired price (the federal funds rate). The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions overnight.      

The Federal Reserve’s objective for open market operations has varied over the years. During the 1980s, the focus gradually shifted toward attaining a specified level of the federal funds rate, a process that was largely complete by the end of the decade. Beginning in 1994, the FOMC began announcing changes in its policy stance, and in 1995 it began to explicitly state its target level for the federal funds rate. Since February 2000, the statement issued by the FOMC shortly after each of its meetings usually has included the Committee’s assessment of the risks to the attainment of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth. …”      

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm      

The Discount Rate

     

“…The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank’s lending facility–the discount window. The Federal Reserve Banks offer three discount window programs to depository institutions: primary credit, secondary credit, and seasonal credit, each with its own interest rate. All discount window loans are fully secured.      

Under the primary credit program, loans are extended for a very short-term (usually overnight) to depository institutions in generally sound financial condition. Depository institutions that are not eligible for primary credit may apply for secondary credit to meet short-term liquidity needs or to resolve severe financial difficulties. Seasonal credit is extended to relatively small depository institutions that have recurring intra-year fluctuations in funding needs, such as banks in agricultural or seasonal resort communities.      

The discount rate charged for primary credit (the primary credit rate) is set above the usual level of short-term market interest rates. (Because primary credit is the Federal Reserve’s main discount window program, the Federal Reserve at times uses the term “discount rate” to mean the primary credit rate.) The discount rate on secondary credit is above the rate on primary credit. The discount rate for seasonal credit is an average of selected market rates. Discount rates are established by each Reserve Bank’s board of directors, subject to the review and determination of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The discount rates for the three lending programs are the same across all Reserve Banks except on days around a change in the rate. …”      

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/discountrate.htm      

Federal Funds Rate

“…In the United States, the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions (mostly banks) lend balances (federal funds) at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions, usually overnight.[1] It is the interest rate banks charge each other for loans.[2]      

The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal funds effective rate.      

The federal funds target rate is determined by a meeting of the members of the Federal Open Market Committee which normally occurs eight times a year about seven weeks apart. The committee may also hold additional meetings and implement target rate changes outside of its normal schedule.      

The Federal Reserve uses Open market operations to influence the supply of money in the U.S. economy[3] to make the federal funds effective rate follow the federal funds target rate. The target value is known as the neutral federal funds rate[4]. At this rate, growth rate of real GDP is stable in relation to Long Run Aggregate Supply at the expected inflation rate.      

U.S. banks and thrift institutions are obligated by law to maintain certain levels of reserves, either as reserves with the Fed or as vault cash. The level of these reserves is determined by the outstanding assets and liabilities of each depository institution, as well as by the Fed itself, but is typically 10%[5] of the total value of the bank’s demand accounts (depending on bank size). In the range of $9.3 million to $43.9 million, for transaction deposits (checking accounts, NOWs, and other deposits that can be used to make payments) the reserve requirement in 2007-2008 was 3 percent of the end-of-the-day daily average amount held over a two-week period. Transaction deposits over $43.9 million held at the same depository institution carried a 10 percent reserve requirement.      

For example, assume a particular U.S. depository institution, in the normal course of business, issues a loan. This dispenses money and decreases the ratio of bank reserves to money loaned. If its reserve ratio drops below the legally required minimum, it must add to its reserves to remain compliant with Federal Reserve regulations. The bank can borrow the requisite funds from another bank that has a surplus in its account with the Fed. The interest rate that the borrowing bank pays to the lending bank to borrow the funds is negotiated between the two banks, and the weighted average of this rate across all such transactions is the federal funds effective rate.      

The nominal rate is a target set by the governors of the Federal Reserve, which they enforce primarily by open market operations. That nominal rate is almost always what is meant by the media referring to the Federal Reserve “changing interest rates.” The actual Fed funds rate generally lies within a range of that target rate, as the Federal Reserve cannot set an exact value through open market operations.      

Another way banks can borrow funds to keep up their required reserves is by taking a loan from the Federal Reserve itself at the discount window. These loans are subject to audit by the Fed, and the discount rate is usually higher than the federal funds rate. Confusion between these two kinds of loans often leads to confusion between the federal funds rate and the discount rate. Another difference is that while the Fed cannot set an exact federal funds rate, it can set a specific discount rate.      

The federal funds rate target is decided by the governors at Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. The FOMC members will either increase, decrease, or leave the rate unchanged depending on the meeting’s agenda and the economic conditions of the U.S. It is possible to infer the market expectations of the FOMC decisions at future meetings from the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Fed Funds futures contracts, and these probabilities are widely reported in the financial media. …”      

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate      

Money Supply

“…In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of money available in an economy at a particular point in time.[1] There are several ways to define “money,” but standard measures usually include currency in circulation and demand deposits (depositors’ easily-accessed assets on the books of financial institutions).[2][3]      

Money supply data are recorded and published, usually by the government or the central bank of the country. Public and private sector analysts have long monitored changes in money supply because of its possible effects on the price level, inflation and the business cycle.[4]      

That relation between money and prices is historically associated with the quantity theory of money. There is strong empirical evidence of a direct relation between long-term price inflation and money-supply growth, at least for rapid increases in the amount of money in the economy. That is, a country such as Zimbabwe which saw rapid increases in its money supply also saw rapid increases in prices (hyperinflation). This is one reason for the reliance on monetary policy as a means of controlling inflation in the U.S.[5][6] This causal chain is contentious, however: some heterodox economists argue that the money supply is endogenous (determined by the workings of the economy, not by the central bank) and that the sources of inflation must be found in the distributional structure of the economy.[7] In addition to some economists’ seeing the central bank’s control over the money supply as feeble, many would also say that there are two weak links between the growth of the money supply and the inflation rate: first, an increase in the money supply can cause a sustained increase in real production instead of inflation in the aftermath of a recession, when many resources are underutilized. Second, if the velocity of money, i.e., the ratio between nominal GDP and money supply changes, an increase in the money supply could have either no effect, an exaggerated effect, or an unpredictable effect on the growth of nominal GDP. …”      

“…Money is used as a medium of exchange, in final settlement of a debt, and as a ready store of value. Its different functions are associated with different empirical measures of the money supply. There is no single “correct” measure of the money supply: instead, there are several measures, classified along a spectrum or continuum between narrow and broad monetary aggregates. Narrow measures include only the most liquid assets, the ones most easily used to spend (currency, checkable deposits). Broader measures add less liquid types of assets (certificates of deposit, etc.)      

This continuum corresponds to the way that different types of money are more or less controlled by monetary policy. Narrow measures include those more directly affected and controlled by monetary policy, whereas broader measures are less closely related to monetary-policy actions.[6] It is a matter of perennial debate as to whether narrower or broader versions of the money supply have a more predictable link to nominal GDP.      

The different types of money are typically classified as “M”s. The “M”s usually range from M0 (narrowest) to M3 (broadest) but which “M”s are actually used depends on the country’s central bank. The typical layout for each of the “M”s is as follows:      

Type of money M0 MB M1 M2 M3 MZM
Notes and coins (currency) in circulation (outside Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions) V[8] V V V V V
Notes and coins (currency) in bank vaults V[8] V
Federal Reserve Bank credit (minimum reserves and excess reserves) V
traveler’s checks of non-bank issuers V V V V
demand deposits V V V V
other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. V[9] V V V
savings deposits V V V
time deposits less than $100,000 and money-market deposit accounts for individuals V V
large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase and other larger liquid assets[10] V
all money market funds V      

M0: In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, M0 includes bank reserves, so M0 is referred to as the monetary base, or narrow money.[11]
MB: is referred to as the monetary base or total currency.[8] This is the base from which other forms of money (like checking deposits, listed below) are created and is traditionally the most liquid measure of the money supply.[12]
M1: Bank reserves are not included in M1.
M2: represents money and “close substitutes” for money.[13] M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation.[14]
M3: Since 2006, M3 is no longer published or revealed to the public by the US central bank.[15] However, there are still estimates produced by various private institutions.
MZM: Money with zero maturity. It measures the supply of financial assets redeemable at par on demand.
The ratio of a pair of these measures, most often M2/M0, is called an (actual, empirical) money multiplier. …”      

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply      

“Ben Bernanke Has Never Gotten Anything Right,” Peter Schiff Says: Fed Officials Respond

The Dollar Bubble

Peter Schiff Calls Fed Reserve Chief Ben Bernanke A Liar

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...