It's a strange market given that the federal government is on both sides of the equation.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/other/2015010...
I.e., they are paying the Treasury with money they received from the Treasury, or from bonds guaranteed by the Treasury.
The bank presents itself as part of the US government to the public and many make the mistake of thinking that it is. The only perview the US government has over the Fed is a presidential appointee in the form of the Chairman. Try doing a freedom of information request on the Fed and you will be refused on the basis that it is not a federal agency! Hardly what I would call full transparency and accountability.
Today's Fed didn't just come about. Several times over history bankers used their power and influence to create this system but faced opposition from great patriot politicians.
Consider this quote:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)
Another example is President Andrew Jackson, who considered 'killing' the 2nd Bank of the US (an earlier type of the Federal Reserve System) his most important legacy.
And finally, Woodrow Wilson the man who damned us all by signing the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, a few years later wrote:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
The fact that the most recent sale of bills was at 0% doesn't actually mean that there is no risk of the government defaulting on existing debt. Because the cost of borrowing is so low, one might think it should mean that, but the nature of the legal rules -- particularly, the debt ceiling -- means that a politically-driven default with no need is still a real possibility.
I'm willing to listen to anyone who thinks they have a solution for getting us out of this "rolling debt" system, but unless you can solve both problems simultaneously, it will be better to just raise the debt ceiling and then start fixing the issue.
At that point masterleep's comment is not quite so far out as you claim it is. On the surface, it's wrong, and yet in terms of the long-term dynamics that never actually get addressed, there's a definite point there.
Republicans have had control of the House since 2012, and a majority of the Senate since 2014. They haven't even passed a real budget (not this Continuing Resolution crap).
"Starve The Beast" has already been tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
All that happens, is that more debt gets borrowed. How about actually passing a budget and telling the American people what services get cut? How about raising taxes for once? The US got out of its last major debt (ie: World War 2) by raising taxes on the highest bracket to 91%, and holding it there from 1940s through 1964.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/...
If you don't got the courage to cut programs, then raise taxes. If you don't got the courage to do anything, then GTFO out Congress so that real decision makers can get in and actually try and solve the issue.
How do you solve the budget issue? You do it by cutting spending, or raising revenue. Or a combination of both. Period. There's no way around it.
The Debt Ceiling itself doesn't do jack diddly. And it has lost its effectiveness as a bargaining point in this new do-nothing Congress. Its time we get rid of the Debt Ceiling and just focus our debates on actually making the first actual budget for the Federal Government since 2012.
Look, I understand how the House and Senate being split from 2012 through 2014 caused the continuing resolutions of 2013 and 2014 to happen. However, with an entire year with BOTH houses under control of the Repubs, you'd expect them to actually get a budget to Obama by now.
This is misleading. The effective tax rates were roughly the same then as now - very, very few people paid those high rates. Instead a lot of effort went into hiding income, getting tax deductions made into law, getting compensation in forms other than taxable income, etc . (For example, this is why employer paid for health insurance came about.) There were people who weren't able to avoid the high rates, but it was a tiny percentage of revenue. These high rates distorted economic activity (and surely stopped some economic activity that would have happened).
The reason the US got out of WW II debt is that federal spending dropped dramatically after WW II and the US had the advantage of being the major industrialized country that wasn't attacked in WW II.
An intro to the topic: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_19.htm#.VhShIIShb...
Preventing the government from increasing its total quantity of debt when such is necessary in the short-term to meet debt service payments is, absolutely, creating default.
It may be motivated by desire to avoid a speculative potential future default on a larger debt, but its still a default now.
In any case, it'd be yet another time that the Republican-led Congress ceded power voluntarily to the President. If Congress wants to lead this country, they better start leading. (IE: Writing laws and getting us out of these self-made problems)
It could actively decide to default, but hitting the debt cap would likely just force a government shutdown due to cash flow issues unless the cash flow problems got insanely bad.
For years now people have been alleging that the Fed via the FOMC and other mechanisms has been propping up the treasury market by buying them directly... an effective strategy to keep interest rates low, which will work really well... until it doesn't.
When the market signals are distorted to such a degree, the damage to the economy is cumulative. It may not cause an impact now, but it will eventually.
This is a lot like the causes of the housing bubble (which were in part due to artificially low interest rates.)
Quantitative easing is economic heroin... it makes things feel great for awhile, but the price to be paid on the downside gets heavier every year.
We should have let the banks fail, and the economy work out the repercussions and get healthy.
This is probably a really good time to invest in developing world junk bonds.
Developing is a risky bet. Commodities are down across the board and most of these developing nations depend on them for revenue.
Also the bonds either has to be in USD or you could get screwed due to the strength of the dollar.
FYI bank deposits are insured by the FDIC up to 250k.
See: Trying to treat municipal bonds as high quality liquid assets (vs. illiquid for holding purposes).
I agree that there are required levels of prudence in banking and investment management more generally, but don't pretend there's a well-defined brightline between "gambling", "speculation" and "investment".
As an alternative to buying treasuries, you could use a bank, but keep in mind that FDIC only covers accounts up to $250k and beyond that, you're exposed to the bank's credit risk, admittedly small, but a very large concern for an individual/company with millions in cash. Banks don't work the same way for big accounts as small ones, you actually have to weigh things like "will my money be available" and "will the bank default".
If the situation gets bad enough, people will start warehousing cash in bunkers, but that's expensive and I highly doubt it could be done for less than 0.05%/year or whatever slightly negative rate the yield is on these things.
Banks provide a valuable service by offering depository safekeeping of funds. If we stay in this zero-interest environment much longer, expect to see more fees on checking accounts as net interest margin (what the banks earn between their borrowing costs and their lending prices) continues to fall.
Unfathomable to me having so much money that you need literal warehouses for it, but even more amazing is that there was no alternative besides a 10% year over year loss on your stored capital. When you're talking about a cartel that was bringing in roughly $22Bn a year (also Wikipedia) that amounts to roughly $2.2Bn a year sunk to rats.
So, in retrospect, if you can do it legally, the Fed's bills seem like a great deal compared to stockpiling cash. And I'm sure you're paying far less to secure those, although I'm not exactly sure how these treasuries work and if you could just purchase one worth $22Bn and put it in a safe somewhere. Seems like it'd be just about impossible to steal something like that and pass it off as your own.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar#cite_note-accoun...
10% annual loss on the warehouse-stored amount does not mean 10% loss of annual income. Some of that annual income is getting turned into non-cash assets, after all.
Its talked about in Europe with the ECB using negative interest rates to (unsuccessfully) stoke their economies.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21644203...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/negative-i...
If you don't want to give the money to the treasury where else do you put it? Your options are probably under your mattress or in a bank. Any bank has higher default percentage than the treasury.
I'm not sure what is distorted or artificial about what the FED does. They try to stabilize the growth of the money supply so that we have near constant inflation, and full unemployment. If the Fed were to keep rates artificially low we would see inflation, if they kept them artificially high we would see unemployment. Right now because of the zero lower bound we are seeing much more of the latter than the former.
I just don't see a currency working as a unit of account or store of wealth with such oscillation in value. Maybe as a medium of exchange, but then you're making every transaction cross an FX exchange (btc/usd) and I doubt that's possible at scale for less than what a scaled payment network (e.g. Visa) charges.
Bitcoin is already cheaper as a medium of exchange than credit cards and pretty much all international remittance providers.
Coinbase Exchange has a $0.01-$0.02 spread and charges 0.25% for removing liquidity.
Stripe costs 3% + $0.30 and Western Union / Wire Transfers are multiples of that.
Disclosure: I work for Coinbase
Stripe is an expensive acquirer. I'm working with Heartland and we're getting a hair over 2.1%. I suspect this is going to fall even farther as EMV gains wide acceptance and skimming/other forms of fraud become a thing of the past.
I'll admit, that's a tighter market than I thought (CB exchange) but I'm still having a hard time seeing how those economics work long-term without tons of VC. You'd have to get below 2% on an ongoing basis and with all the fraud/rewards/other stuff cards provide, 2% still seems cheap.
2.1% isn't your whole acquisition cost. You will have to eat the inevitable chargebacks and associated fees too (which is not an issue with Bitcoin).
> You'd have to get below 2% on an ongoing basis
I'm not sure what you mean by this. We've never charged more than 1% for merchant processing and I doubt we ever will.
> with all the fraud/rewards/other stuff cards provide, 2% still seems cheap.
Why would I use my 1% cashback credit card at a trusted merchant when I can get a 2% rebate from the merchant instead? I'm not alone in this thinking, many Americans choose the 'cash price' when pumping gas every day.
You make some good points about cash back and gas, but you can't deny there's value in the extra layer of protection between you and the merchant provided by the credit card. I don't know whether it's worth 1%, but it's not worth zero. BTC payment is more like handing a stack of notes, not payment via card.
That's how transaction costs are so low.
I bought and sold bitcoin and paid for things with bitcoin, but the associated paperwork to account for the gains and losses incurred by the inherently fluctuating price was onerous.
I believe in the premise of bitcoin, and still own some, but it's way easier to pull out my credit card to buy a cheeseburger than it is to use bitcoin and then compute the capital gains tax owed on my cheeseburger the following spring.
You can already hold USD at Coinbase and send USD to BTC addresses with an on-the-fly conversion (although it will run you 1% today). Or conversely, generate a BTC address for your USD wallet and have all incoming BTC converted on-the-fly (also 1%).
For a local cheeseburger in your own country it's never going to make sense to use Bitcoin but there are plenty of other applications where it already makes a lot of sense (remittances, online purchases, goods and services with a high risk of payment fraud, etc.)
And very few people have the size mattress necessary to store the kind of money that anyone making noticeable investment in T-bills is trying to store.
It seems disingenuous of the government to continue their claim of low inflation. I understand that their basket of goods used for measurement can't be perfect, but it appears that it is gamed quite a bit.
Substituting ground chuck for steak, or using technological increases (e.g. CPU speeds) as criteria is blatantly misleading. But the biggies aren't even taken into account. Rent and home prices have gone exponential in many areas, health care and tuition prices go up about 10% / year, property tax rates are pushed up, road tolls added, red light cameras installed, etc.
So I guess if you're a 65 year old on medicare and social security, with a long-ago paid off mortgage tied to a legally fixed property tax (e.g California) and no commuting and child-care expenses, the fact that the price of eggs or Frosted Flakes hasn't increased in the last year might support an argument for low inflation.
Not so much if you're of working age and still dealing with school loans, rent / home prices, commuting, etc.
What do you think could be driving the acceleration of inflation you mention? The mainstream story is inflation is driven by wage gains when the economy starts to overheat. This increase in wages is then passed onto the consumer, who to afford the increased prices asks for a wage increase and the cycle continues. I don't know think there is currently a general overabundance of jobs in the U.S. economy driving large wage increases.
With the fall of the Soviet Union as a guide for crumbling monetary systems/empires, guns and food are nice to have around, but the best currencies by far are vodka, cigarettes, and other drugs. The are portable, liquid (heh) assets that are useful in barter and also (crucially) prized as bribes by the groups of armed men, in or out of uniform, who will make or break your survival strategy. You can always trade drugs for food but hardly ever the other way around.
My favorite Vietnam-era strongman, General Tuan Shi-Wen, said it best:
"... an army must have guns, and to buy guns you must have money. In these mountains, the only money is opium." [0]
If the Treasury default risk is smaller than the alternative expected costs for alternative storage of the same dollars (either bank failure risk or, for instance, cost to store and risk of loss of physical bills), then there can be an advantage to 0-interest treasury securities. There is no risk and cost free way to store dollars.
For individuals, treasuries offer better yields than CDs and treasurydirect.gov makes it very easy to buy and sell them.
Also governments rarely default on bills (1 year or less maturity) only on longer dated bonds (over a year), for slightly unclear reasons.