Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> On the paper. But the recent history shows that in practice it plays a bit differently

What history? When did the Fed ever lower rates because of the deficit?

> Japan where BoJ effectively owns almost all of the Japanese government debt.

Help me understand why a large holder of debt would want it to pay less? (Also, Japan is a bad model for America.)

> not naive enough to believe into the soft and no-landing scenarios

That's fine. That's reasonable. What's not is thinking we'll have deficits cause lower rates and then inflation. If we have a hard landing, which is the historically-suggested outcome, we get lower rates and a recession. Not inflation.

> it becomes another form of QE.

No, because new money isn't being created. Existing money is not being removed. That's different.

> If you set the penalty rate on the level of the current Fed rate, eventually banks will fail

How?

> If you set the penalty rate on the level of the current Fed rate

It already is. This is how it works.

> since they can give enough loans at such rates and deposits actively flee into treasures and MMFs

How does the discount rate cause deposits to flee?

Also, what?! The discount rate is 5.5% [1]. Banks can borrow against the market value of their Treasuries at that. So for a dollar of face value, they can borrow ~60¢ at 5.5%. If we penalty that for face-value borrowing, they can borrow 100¢ at e.g. 8.5%. Help me understand how this additional liquidity causes whatever you're predicting?

[1] https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org

>What history?

The one where several trillions of deficit spending were fully financed by the Fed.

>Help me understand why a large holder of debt would want it to pay less?

Because the Fed is not a commercial organization and it's heavily influenced by politics. I will not be surprised, if in the following years financing of fiscal deficits by the Fed will be painted as a way "to save the economy" and to "fight unemployment".

>If we have a hard landing, which is the historically-suggested outcome, we get lower rates and a recession. Not inflation.

Yes, in the short term we will see deflation. But I predict that the hard lending will be painful enough for the Fed and the government to start stimulation of the economy fueled by bailouts and massive deficit spending. And this in turn will cause resurgence of inflation down the road.

>No, because new money isn't being created. Existing money is not being removed. That's different.

So taking a paper which costs $600 on the mark-to-market basis and giving in exchange $1000 is not a form of QE? Yes, those $1000 is technically a loan, but if you delay its repayment indefinitely, it becomes equivalent to creation of base money.

>How does the discount rate cause deposits to flee?

It's not the discount rate per se, but the Fed rate. If you can get 5.5% in a MMF (i.e. in RRP and short-term bills), why the hell would you keep your money in a bank's deposit for 1-2% together with risks associated with potential bank failure?

To attract deposits banks would have to provide competitive deposit rates, after that they would have to find someone trustworthy enough to give a loan at 10-15% rate. So the banks get squeezed from 3 sides:

- Either raise deposit rates or get money fleeing into MMFs.

- Not enough business is able to work with 10-15% loans in the face of worsening economic situation (especially after the recent near 0% environment).

- You still have to pay 4-5% on BTFP funds, which you had to take to offset fleeing deposits.

> one where several trillions of deficit spending were fully financed by the Fed

This isn't the Fed reacting to the deficit. Also, the Fed literally cannot directly fund the Treasury [1].

> I will not be surprised, if in the following years financing of fiscal deficits by the Fed

So ahistoric supposition.

> I predict that the hard lending will be painful enough for the Fed and the government to start stimulation of the economy fueled by bailouts and massive deficit spending. And this in turn will cause resurgence of inflation down the road.

See above.

> taking a paper which costs $600 on the mark-to-market basis and giving in exchange $1000 is not a form of QE

Do you consider any money creation QE? (This is incorrect.)

QE means starting with an amount of money to be created and then purchasing assets, including but not limited to government bonds, to create it. Central banks have always lent at the discount window. That's just money creation.

So yes, discount-window lending--whether at market or face value--is money creation. That's the point. It's used when a bank is in trouble, i.e. people want their deposits. So when a bank taps the discount window, it's turning a Treasury into a deposit at the Fed, but it's also typically destroying deposits on its own book. No net new money. Usually in a case of crashing money velocity. And certainly not QE.

> If you can get 5.5% in a MMF (i.e. in RRP and short-term bills), why the hell would you keep your money in a bank's deposit for 1-2%

Because I use my bank account to transact, not store value.

Also, interest rates are rising alongside bank deposits [2]? They've risen before? What you're describing has literally never happened.

> banks get squeezed from 3 sides

Bank margins go up when interest rates rise. Again, you're treating this like a novel situation. It's happened a lot of times in a lot of countries. What you're describing literally never happens.

This isn't even about making unprecedented predictions that have no theoretical basis. It's about misunderstanding the present state of the world. There are resources you can find at the Fed's website, if you're interested, as well as at the Bank of England.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12851.htm

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPSACBW027SBOG

Reply on news.ycombinator.com