Fed's Forward Guidance Amounts to a "Considerable (Waste of) Time"
To the list of reasons, I'd offer one more: Stanley Fischer. Fischer joined the Fed as vice chairman in May, and I've been waiting to see can sway his colleagues with his atypical —for a central banker, at least—views on forward guidance. At a September 2013 conference in Hong Kong, Fischer said the Fed can't spell out what it is going to do "because it doesn't know."
The Fed is not raising rates, the market raises them. Even if the fed would rase rates, it would turn a profit and turn the profit over to the Treasury which then lowers rates by borrowing less! Here is a clue to the dumbshits who try to decipher the nonsense. Rates on the Treasury curve are denominated in Treasury notes for one simple reason, it is the Treasury who is doing the borrowing! Anybody have a clue?
The Fed borrows from the member banks by paying rates on the excess reserves. But not one economist, with the exception of John Cochrane and Tim Taylor has noticed that lending rates and deposit rates are opposite things!
Here is a clue to economists reading from the worn out recipe book. Paying higher rates on deposits is a flow of new money from the printing press to the economy, that is inflationary. Maybe not by much, it is only 10 billion a year, but it is not deflationary and some day economists will quit reading from the recipe book and actually think.
Lowering lending rates, if the Fed would ever lend money, mostly increases the gains by the Fed. That is an increase in flow from the economy to the Fed, that is deflationary! Get a friggen clue, economists, try playing with a mud puddle with a flow in and a flow out, you might get the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment