Posted on 09/19/2016 5:48:18 AM PDT by expat_panama
The betting is that the Federal Reserve won't raise interest rates at this week's meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, its key policymaking body. There are already complaints that the Fed, which cut short-term rates to near zero in late 2008, is waiting too long to reverse low rates. Last December, the Fed increased rates by a quarter of a percentage point. It hasn't done anything since.
"The Fed will make a major mistake if it doesn't raise rates," says economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. "The job market is strong and very close to full employment. Inflation is close to target (2% annually) and financial markets are in good shape."
Yet, Zandi doubts the Fed will raise rates by another quarter percentage...
...One idea tried in Europe and Japan is "negative interest rates."...
... "Instead of receiving interest on the reserves they hold with the central bank, (commercial) banks are charged a fee...
...negative rates would be used only as a last resort.
The old Fed is dead. The notion that it could orchestrate economic growth within narrow bounds was excessively optimistic and unrealistic. It may be, as economist Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University has long argued, that basic problems burdening the economy can't be solved by increasingly large doses of easy money and credit. If too many rules and requirements thwart business startups, easy money is not a solution.
But the public may think it is. The Fed is now a prisoner of exaggerated expectations created in a friendlier era. If it fails to live up to those expectations, it may become the target of the public's wrath. There are already signs of this. It will do no one any good to be angry at the Fed for things it can't do.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
They have to keep the economy on life support until the passing of the presidential baton.
What happens to the US debt if the Fed declares bankruptcy?
Let’s start with a thorough, microscopic audit and all info made pubic via the internet.
Now, people when I say that look at me and say, What are you talking about, Joe? Youre telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? Biden said. The answer is yes, that’s what Im telling you.
As it always has been, since its inception...
the infowarrior
What are these guys smoking? Maybe for illegals and H1B visa holders.
As soon as the market believes the Fed will raise interest rates, the bubble will deflate, perhaps precipitously.
Everyone in the market understands that the Fed will do everything it can to keep the bubble from popping before the election no matter how much damage they are setting up for down the road.
The Fed today is an arm of the corrupt globalist Uniparty.
When one’s chosen economic theory includes something called a “liquidity trap” [meaning that sometimes, for no apparent reason, the theory just doesn’t work], one might begin to reason that the theory is wrong.
The Reps with Gingrich had a Contract with America and finally we got a balanced budget plus our debts paid. All the liberal policies the left demanded for votes namely they promised everyone should be able to buy a house. We ended up with the CRA and then they started with the biggest banks and demanded X # of loans to minorities with less then acceptable credit. They finally got to smaller banks and of course NINJA loans. Then after the bail outs to include Buffett’s AIG and Iraq, we owed 8 trillion. Next Obama and everyone gets a phone etc. These handouts to even illegals has us to almost 20 trillion. This has to end.
The Fed is not “owned by the World Bank”.
The closest it comes to being owned by anything is the United States Treasury. Any and all income above salaries, rent and other basic expenses goes directly to the Treasury.
“What happens to the US debt if the Fed declares bankruptcy?”
1) The Fed can’t go bankrupt. It can be dissolved.
2) The national debt will still be there, just like it was in the 150 yrs prior to the Fed. Congress authorizes the debt, the Treasury sells the bonds to the public. They don’t need the Fed to do it, they will just use a big money center bank.
“The Fed is a private bank with a chairman approved by CONgress if I remember right.”
The Fed is comprised of private banks that are required to join. Prior to the Fed its role was performed by the largest bank in the country, JP Morgan. The Fed does have government oversight, which JP Morgan lacked. If anything the Fed is more accountable to the public than when JP Morgan did whatever they wanted.
“They have even admitted that they caused the Great Depression.”
No, they didn’t admit anything of the sort. Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz blamed the 1930s Fed for failing to act to halt the collapse of the banking system which was the primary cause of the Great Depression. But they didn’t blame the Fed for causing it. The Bernanke Fed appears to have agreed with Friedman and Schwartz since they provided massive liquidity to banks as the 2008 crisis unfolded.
“What they do is the will of the globalists not We the People.”
That’s the usual conspiracy nonsense. The Fed is in charge of American monetary policy and its primary role is to adjust the money supply and to make sure that the banking system doesn’t collapse. When we had a gold standard their role was also to defend the dollar, something which became difficult if not impossible due to the Triffin dilemma.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/datatrends/usfd/
You can get this stuff weekly already. Better than Ambien.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/ Bernanke did say the fed caused the great depression.
Read the book “Creature form Jekyll Island” by Edward Griffin for the background of the take over of the banking system.
Ron Paul I think it was who said without the fed we would have 17% more in our pockets. I do not trust the globalists and the fed is one reason why.
Kupelian tosses in his own spin here in his WND piece:
"After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Feds continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction "
but Friedman and Schwartz do not say that the Fed contracted the money supply, continually or otherwise. Contractions are the natural result of accumulated bad loans made by individual banks during booms, they are part of the business cycle.
What Friedman and Schwartz do fault the 1930s Fed for is having failed to halt the failure of small non-Fed banks and the resulting vicious cycle of contraction once it got started. This is unlike what the Fed had done earlier in the 1920s.
Why the Fed failed to act is their issue. The final section of their chapter addresses 'Why Was Monetary Policy So Inept?' and they conclude that it had to do with changes in personnel, the death of Benjamin Strong, infighting over who would control Fed policy, and not fully understanding what was happening to the banking system. Some Fed officials held to a laissez-faire belief that allowing banks to fail would weed out bad banks so they weren't inclined to do anything to save them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.