The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The U.S. could have established a public bank to provide loans with the bailout money instead. A "public option" to the bailout, if you will.
The new bank cost could have been less expensive than the $700 billion bailout since the "public" banks could have done what private banks do using the fractional-reserve system to "create" money out of nothing.
The $700 billion was borrowed. Can anyone explain why should a government have to borrow its own fiat money?
conundrum of the millennium?
bankstas gotta make an indecent living somehow? 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
the printing press?
as long as money moves, even virtual money, it pays a slice to someone. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
However, the conventional wisdom of central bankers is that this is inflationary. So, what they force governments to do is to issue debt to foreign or domestic creditors. If the government sells debt to domestic creditors it drains money away from the economy. Which is why a "fiscal stimulus" package funded by selling bonds domestically is taking money away with one hand to return it with the other. Unfortunately this is what some governments are doing. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I mean, a government can always create its own fiat currency without borrowing it. The conventional mechanism is to issue bonds and have the central bank create new currency to buy them off the treasury. There is "debt" on paper only.
wouldn't that look bad?
is it a buck-stopping-elsewhere thing?
why go the bother making two stages out of one deal, ass-covering, deniability issues?
whom, exactly do they think they're fooling?
if enough of the public understood, would they be able to call it honest? 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Which is why a "fiscal stimulus" package funded by selling bonds domestically is taking money away with one hand to return it with the other.
But presumably money that is available to be put into bonds is of low stimulus multiplier value, whereas direct public spending on - say - railways (to pick a totally random example) has a high multiplier effect.
Besides, if the central bank is maintaining a bond rate target, then the bonds that the state sells will just be bought back by the central bank. Selling bonds depresses prices, which drives up interest rates. Central banks, wanting to lower interest rates during a recession, will buy up bonds (which raises the price of bonds, i.e. lowers the interest rate). (Assuming perfect, efficient markets, perfect, symmetrical information, yadda, yadda.)
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 30
by Oui - Nov 3010 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8