[whb07]

So idk how deep you want to go into “basic” common sense economics and not this trashy thing they call it now, but the divide between fiscal/monetary is by name only. Let me explain:

There used to be the real divide between both, but now every action by the fiscal side is effectively done by the monetary side. Congress writes some laws, the treasury calls up the FED the night before the day of selling new bonds and just like magic, the bonds get sold at a superb price.

The fed is very much aware of the inflation, but is on the awkward position that were they to raise the rates even a tiny bit, it would bankrupt the federal government. Going from 0-1% to 4-5% interest rates, would lead to default as just the interest on the money owed is at $hundreds-billions yearly. Now double or tripe that cost…

So what’s the FED to do?

Why are living expenses going up faster than real wages?

Why do you think theres a godly group of supremely moral and righteous humans sitting at the FED?

[imtringued]

>The fed is very much aware of the inflation, but is on the awkward position that were they to raise the rates even a tiny bit, it would bankrupt the federal government. Going from 0-1% to 4-5% interest rates, would lead to default as just the interest on the money owed is at $hundreds-billions yearly. Now double or tripe that cost…

Sure but this is "boring". An economy that can only support a negative interest rate can obviously not support a 4-5% interest rate. I don't see any surprise or any malice or trickery. The economy wants negative interest rates, the interest rates are at 0% so people hold onto their deposits and prevent the repayment of the debt. An economy that doesn't want to give up its deposits will obviously die if you give it even more reasons to hold onto deposits.

There is no gotcha. No criminal to catch. Interest rates want to be low, raising them for no reason will destroy the market because it wants the interest rates to be low. If there was sufficient inflation i.e. the market demanded higher interest rates you could raise interest rates with no ill effect. Before that happens you'll have to let the current inflation be here for a year. If you kill it prematurely you'll actually have to do more unconventional monetary policy.

>Why do you think theres a godly group of supremely moral and righteous humans sitting at the FED?

Because you don't want something like turkey to happen where the democratically elected president messes with monetary policy and causes double digit inflation.

[whb07]

There is a criminal to catch. There is no free lunch. This isn’t a “grow the pie” idea when it comes to money printing.

Imagine you had:

1/10 of all dollars.

Next year they printed 20% of money supply, so now you own:

1/12 of all dollars.

Your own wealth got siphoned off indirectly without you being cognizant of it. That’s exactly whats happening here. Every year they’ve been siphoning off 2-5% (maybe more) and now they have to ramp up further just to stay ahead of the game.

This isn’t by accident, it’s by design. So yes, there is a criminal here.

Most of the printed $100 USD bills are abroad in someone’s cabinet or mattress being used as a store of value vs their own trash currency. Most of these people still hold faith that the USD is a sound currency, and the FED takes that faith and abuses it by quietly eroding their savings.

[talentedcoin]

Just because the Fed is the originator of US Dollars (which it isn’t directly — banks do that by lending, but whatever), that doesn’t imply that fiscal and monetary policy are the same thing. They are decisions by different people for different goals. I think the Fed would be surprised to learn that they are responsible for fiscal policy as you assert.

Also, selling Treasuries isn’t “magic”. US Treasuries act as reserves in the banking system, that’s how modern banking works. You would be right to say that the Fed and the Treasury do indeed work together — after all, the US government is unlikely to default on any US-denominated obligation issued by itself — but the level of coordination you’re implying is a fiction.

[lumost]

There doesn’t need to be explicit coordination if incentives are set up as they are.

The fed has a dual mandate to provide full employment and economic stability. If the Fed’s policy caused mass bankruptcies.. then the Fed would be failing part of its mandate.

IMO the scary part of this for the fed is housing. Housing is appreciating to substantial multiples of incomes due to low interest rates and restricted supply. If the FED raised rates and crushed the housing market the majority of Americans will feel the pain.

[imtringued]

The problem with housing is that people don't want to pay land value taxes. They actually love buying a house to live in, speculate with that house and then never actually sell it because they realize they don't want to speculate on housing and just live in it. So you have this hybrid speculator/owner occupation thing going on where the speculator is draining money from everyone else but not actually benefiting from it. That person will then argue for lower property taxes because he cannot afford them which will make it easier for real speculators to make money off of real estate.

[dragonwriter]

> The fed is very much aware of the inflation, but is on the awkward position that were they to raise the rates even a tiny bit, it would bankrupt the federal government. Going from 0-1% to 4-5% interest rates

400 basis basis points, back to the level of late 2005-early 2007, is a “tiny” increase in rates? That's an enormous increase...

> just the interest on the money owed is at $hundreds-billions yearly. Now double or tripe that cost…

If you look at history of Treasury interest rates and Fed Funds rates, the relationship you imply where even that giant increase to the Fed Funds target would do that... doesn't exist.

[talentedcoin]

For what it’s worth, the unusually large increase in inflation as measured by CPI seems to be at least partially due to base effects:

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0513

Long story short, we are comparing year-on-year when last year was itself almost as unusual as can be.

[imtringued]

It's kinda like the 3.5% GDP growth in Germany being celebrated by politicians. Guys... we had -5% growth last year...

[whb07]

Going from 0-1% to 4-5% is massive I agree on that. But in the absolute, it’s still tiny and even a negative real interest rate.

The other stuff about the fed activities not influencing treasury rates is about as true as inflation being 2% avg for the last couple years.

[dragonwriter]

> But in the absolute, it’s still tiny

No, it's not; its from the global minimum to, while not the historic global maximum, a level clear on the other side of average.

> The other stuff about the fed activities not influencing treasury rates

No one said that. The relation historically is not such that going to a 4-5% fed funds target would double or triple debt service costs.