Posted on 11/14/2016 9:51:10 AM PST by Olog-hai
Donald Trump’s surprise election victory has helped solidify expectations for an interest rate increase next month by the U.S. Federal Reserve — but may have complicated a decision for the European Central Bank, which faces a difficult choice over more stimulus.
For the ECB, the issue is what to do about its bond-buying program, which pumps new money into Europe’s struggling economy each month to try to accelerate growth and inflation.
The Fed and the ECB — two of the world’s most important central banks — will be making its policy decisions before Trump is inaugurated Jan. 20, while still weighing what he might do as president. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
They’re having meetings to discuss- “What policy would harm Trump’s presidency most?”
There may be a reason but why do I care about the ECB?
Odds they raise interest rates in an attempt to tank the economy?
Accelerating inflation? Wow, whatta PLAN!
The Federal Reserve is the source and sustenance of America’s elite, its massive progressive-left government, and all its crony capitalists and community organizers.
Nothing will change until it is eliminated.
Yeah, this is like saying what the FBI did complicates the decision as to what to do about her galatic-scale criminality.
Excuse me!
We have eight years of, “It’s Obama’s fault!” due to us.
Screw you AP.
You won’t find any advanced economy without a central bank. It has been a dead issue since the founding of the Bank of England over two hundred years ago.
Trump has little influence over the Fed’s interest rate decision or the way it is implemented. Yellin need say nothing about rate increases but slow down the bond purchasing program partially responsible for low interest rates.
Utter rot. We will never again be without a central bank for very good reasons.
There are no good reasons. If you want to use the "they smooth out economic cycles" argument - that's already debunked. Central banks give soviet-style central planning control over the most important commodity of all - to a select few private bankers. You probably oppose enlightened and virtuous central planners controlling our entire food or medical supply - why do you accept it for money?
Please tell me what your good reasons are. No one has given me one in the past 3 decades.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.Not a dead issue by any stretch, especially since the creation of the Fed was in response to “crises” perpetrated by left-leaning politicians and their businessmen in arms.
“bond-buying program”?
I assume they print money and buy bonds with it. Am I wrong? If I’m right, do they admit they are printing money? Or are they trying to hide that fact by calling it “bond-buying”.
A central bank is not a Marxist invention any more than the Division of Labor is. It was established here as a Reserve Bank in other to ameliorate the panics and destruction of the economies of the western states. It was bitterly fought by the big Eastern banks which set the conditions for credit throughout the nation. When financial panics took place these banks called in their loans and regularly put well-operated and profitable farms out of business because of the credit crunch.
So a Reserve Bank was demanded by those farmers and small manufacturers. The call was put off for at least three decades but after JP Morgan died the banking class realized that there was no one else with the clout to stop panics and agreed to the Reserve.
This bank is owned by the reserve banks. All profits are paid into the US treasury. It owns about a third of the federal debt and performs many functions critical to government.
The Bank of England’s policies inadvertently provoked the Revolution but that was not the important issue. Hamilton had argued pre-war that England could not afford to fight us. Yet, it did. After further examination he discovered that the Bank actually provided the government with the means to war. Establishing the First National Bank was a remarkable achievement by a remarkable man. Of course, it is always good when knowledge defeats ignorance.
Marx understood that the fundamental tools of capitalism must be developed to the maximum extent before socialism was possible and that a critical part of a developed capitalism was the existence of a national bank. Hence, the comment about the bank only established what the landscape would look like on a communist takeover, not what a communist takeover should do. There is nothing Marxist about a Central bank.
Bankers on the Federal Reserve board are appointed by presidents and approved by the Senate. And they are not dictators or even real planners, their decisions are broad, general goals, and bear little resemblance to planning.
Its failures do not reflect on its necessity any more than the failures of the Congress reflect on it. It is part of capitalist development not easily served by other features or these banks would have never succeeded to the extent they have.
Servicing the national debt is a major reason it exists. It owns about one third of our national debt. All profits are turned over to the US Treasury, about 35 billion a year.
Loans to member banks do stabilize the economy by nipping runs in the bud and stopping those which have started.
One of the characteristics of a capitalistic economy is its transformation and evolution to higher stages. This is the reason there is a federal reserve. Not a vague conspiracy theory which doesn’t even make sense on its face.
The Bank attempts to maintain a certain value for the dollar and inflation represents a failure of that intention. We need all the weapons possible to address multiple economic issues.
Now it is true that some of the Fed’s powers were not foreseen by its creators and some revision might be necessary but I don’t know it there are any people intelligent enough to try.
Bankers on the Federal Reserve board are appointed by presidents and approved by the Senate. And they are not dictators or even real planners, their decisions are broad, general goals, and bear little resemblance to planning.
Its failures do not reflect on its necessity any more than the failures of the Congress reflect on it. It is part of capitalist development not easily served by other features or these banks would have never succeeded to the extent they have.
Servicing the national debt is a major reason it exists. It owns about one third of our national debt. All profits are turned over to the US Treasury, about 35 billion a year.
Loans to member banks do stabilize the economy by nipping runs in the bud and stopping those which have started.
One of the characteristics of a capitalistic economy is its transformation and evolution to higher stages. This is the reason there is a federal reserve. Not a vague conspiracy theory which doesn’t even make sense on its face.
The Bank attempts to maintain a certain value for the dollar and inflation represents a failure of that intention. We need all the weapons possible to address multiple economic issues.
Now it is true that some of the Fed’s powers were not foreseen by its creators and some revision might be necessary but I don’t know it there are any people intelligent enough to try.
Nope, you are right.
I did not say central banks were a Marxist invention. Notwithstanding, they are part and parcel of Marxism just as other things that Marx incorporated but did not invent are part of his socioeconomic system (socialism, atheism et al) and those that use such things today have the same goals as Marx just as others prior to Marx pursued such goals, all with statism in mind.
Take note that financial panics are a means to an end, towards creating a centralized bank as a false solution. The 1907 panic was the one that allowed the progressives, who had finally taken power, to push the central bank idea once more.
And actually, a Department of Labor is Marxist. As is any such centralized executive department that the Founding Fathers were very careful to exclude from the Constitution.
Since the economy would continue its crash under Clinton.
Almost every one of your comments is what I have heard referred to as a “though-terminating cliche.” In sum: central banks are necessary because they are so important, and because they are so important they are successful.
You’ve proven nothing IMHO
“their decisions are broad, general goals, and bear little resemblance to planning” - they don’t target inflation? “Maximum employment?” They don’t try to manage long and short term rates?
“Servicing the national debt is a major reason it exists. It owns about one third of our national debt.” In fact, the Fed was established in 1913 to provide short-term liquidity, at punitive rates, on high quality bills of credit to member banks. Nothing about buying Federal debt. In fact, the Fed was once prohibited from doing so. Who gave it the mandate to print money to buy up $trillions in Government debt? That’s quite a difference. Can you tell me the long-term effects of that?
When the Fed starts buying stocks in the next “crisis” - which Yellen has said is within her “toolbox” - can you tell me which stocks they should buy? How much? And when they become the largest shareholders in most industrial companies (as has happened in Japan with their central bank) what then?
“Loans to member banks do stabilize the economy by nipping runs in the bud and stopping those which have started.” Oh really? $2 Trillion in excess reserves on bank balance sheets is the requirement for stability? Did the Fed have any responsibility for actually causing these excesses in the 1920’s, or the tech bubble? In the 2000’s housing bubble?
“One of the characteristics of a capitalistic economy is its transformation and evolution to higher stages. This is the reason there is a federal reserve.” I have no idea what you are talking about. Marx talked about historical materialism and the teleological ends of history - is that what you mean?
“Now it is true that some of the Fed’s powers were not foreseen by its creators and some revision might be necessary but I don’t know it there are any people intelligent enough to try.” Here you’ve fully contradicted yourself. The many roles of the present Fed were not foreseen by its creators - and we can’t revise it, because no one is intelligent enough to do so. BUT - the present group Board of Governors and FOMC ARE intelligent enough to know exactly what their present role is, how much QE to do, what the proper level of bank reserves are, or exactly what the prime rate should be?
The Fed, in the last 8 years, has simply succeeded in propping up its member banks and their extreme excesses, as well has Fed.gov spending, through thievery of workers wages and savings.
Central Banks aren’t needed in a truly free-market economy and the USA didn’t have one for much of its existence as a nation. The present power of global central banks is unprecedented. Even simple check clearing can be conducted among banks themselves.
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.