Quanitative Easing
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406

    Quanitative Easing



    These two seem to get it. Why don't we?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Well thats the second time I've seen that and I still can't make it all the way through. Not because of what they are discussing, but the tone of the voices just makes my skin crawl.

    As for Quantative easing, would you rather have the money supply incresed and get raises or have the money supply reduced and have your wages cut.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890

    Here is an earlier explanation

    Home Blog The First U.S. Quantitative Easing: The 1930s
    The First U.S. Quantitative Easing: The 1930s
    August 27 2010
    The First U.S. Quantitative Easing: The 1930s

    The term “quantitative easing” became popular jargon in 2009. After setting the target for the federal funds rate at a range of zero to 25 basis points on December 28, 2008, the Federal Open Market Committee announced its intent to purchase up to approximately $1.7 trillion of agency debt, agency-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, and Treasury securities.

    The Treasury collaborated, buying for its own account approximately $220 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities during 2009. This policy was labeled quantitative easing.

    Few analysts recall, however, that this is the second, not the first, quantitative easing by U.S. monetary authorities.1 During 1932, with congressional support, the Fed purchased approximately $1 billion in Treasury securities (half, however, was offset by a decrease in Treasury bills discounted at the Reserve Banks). At the end of 1932, short-term market rates hovered at 50 basis points or less.



    Quantitative easing continued during 1933-36. In early April 1933, Congress sought to prod the Fed into further action by passing legislation that (i) permitted the Fed to purchase up to $3 billion in securities directly from the Treasury (direct purchases were not typically permitted) and, if the Fed did not, (ii) also authorized President Roosevelt to issue up to $3 billion in currency.2 The Fed began to purchase securities in the open market in April at the modest pace of $50 million per week.


    During the summer of 1933, as excess reserves reached $500 million, Fed officials’ reluctance increased. Nevertheless, as Meltzer (2003) reports, President Roosevelt wished purchases to continue. On October 10, 1933, hoping to avoid a political confrontation, Fed officials decided to continue purchases.

    Yet, on October 12, these officials unanimously approved a statement to the president noting that (i) the System’s holdings of government securities exceeded $2 billion, (ii) bank reserves had reached a record high, and (iii) short-term money rates had dipped to record lows. They halted purchases in November 1933. Quantitative easing did not end there, however: It instead shifted to the Treasury and the White House through gold purchases.

    The Fed’s reluctance could be overcome with gold. President Roosevelt controlled both the nation’s gold stock and monetary policy, so long as the Federal Reserve remained inactive. The president’s most effective tool was the Gold Reserve Act, passed January 30, 1934, which raised the value of gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. The mechanism by which the Treasury gained control was elegantly simple.

    On August 28, 1933, Roosevelt called all outstanding domestic gold into the Federal Reserve Banks; on January 30, ownership was transferred, before revaluation, to the Treasury from the Federal Reserve Banks in exchange for (paper) gold certificates. When gold’s price increased to $35 per ounce from $20.67, the Treasury realized a windfall profit of more than $2 billion.

    The Treasury, Meltzer (2003) reports, began purchasing gold “immediately” via the issuance of additional gold certificates—bank reserves and the monetary base expanded when the gold certificates later were received by the Federal Reserve Banks. During 1934-36, the Treasury purchased $4 billion in gold in international markets, sharply increasing bank reserves and the monetary base. The effect on bank reserves is displayed in the table. In 1936, as today, concern arose regarding inflation.

    Then, the Fed’s exit strategy was higher statutory reserve requirements, infeasible today. Today, the Fed’s exit strategy includes increasing the remuneration rate on deposits at the Fed, offering banks term deposits at the Fed, and the use of repurchase agreements.3

    1 This section draws on Meltzer, Alan H. A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

    2 The legislation also permitted the president to devalue the dollar relative to gold by up to 50 percent. President Roosevelt signed this legislation and the same day ordered all domestically held gold in the United States be sold to the Treasury (including gold held by the Federal Reserve Banks).

    3 See Bernanke, Ben. “Federal Reserve’s Exit Strategy.” Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 25, 2010.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source:
    The First U.S. Quantitative Easing: The 1930s
    Richard G. Anderson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Notice quanitative easing was started this time in December 2008, The Bush Administration

    What seems to be missing today is that a certaingroup of people do not understand the Term 'peaceful transfer of power'.

    When a new President is elected, Regardless of what he said while campainging, he continues the same policies that the outgoing president had.

    That's why we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    That's why the Fed has Bernake and quantitive easing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by acmanko View Post
    Well thats the second time I've seen that and I still can't make it all the way through. Not because of what they are discussing, but the tone of the voices just makes my skin crawl.

    As for Quantative easing, would you rather have the money supply incresed and get raises or have the money supply reduced and have your wages cut.
    I am a member if the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters. I haven't had a raise in 5 years

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonafan View Post
    I am a member if the United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters. I haven't had a raise in 5 years
    Well that's a shame, but at least you have a job. Would you like it if the cut your pay?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    Quote Originally Posted by acmanko View Post
    Well that's a shame, but at least you have a job. Would you like it if the cut your pay?
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...-it-again.aspx


    When you slam your finger in the car door do you walk around to the other side and do it again on purpose?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by acmanko View Post
    Notice quanitative easing was started this time in December 2008, The Bush Administration

    What seems to be missing today is that a certaingroup of people do not understand the Term 'peaceful transfer of power'.

    When a new President is elected, Regardless of what he said while campainging, he continues the same policies that the outgoing president had.

    That's why we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    That's why the Fed has Bernake and quantitive easing.
    I find that hard to believe.

    Former President George W. Bush chuckled when an interviewer told him that half of Americans believe President Obama created the bank bailouts.

    "Fifty percent of the people were wrong, 'cause it happened on my watch," Bush said.

    Exit polls from the midterm election showed that a significant number of voters wanted to punish Obama and Democratic candidates for the bailouts. That sentiment overlooks the timing of the government's emergency action - Bush initiated the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for Wall Street in September 2008.

    Voters' anger also ignores that Bush was right to take such unpopular steps as TARP and the auto bailouts. And lest anyone accuse this editorial page of writing positive things about Bush only after he left office, we credited him at the time with taking the necessary actions to avoid a broader economic meltdown.
    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/curre...ve_worked.html

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,876
    Much shorter than the you tube clip.

    The financial industry made a mess of the monetary system and needed billions and billions otherwise we would have no money to trade with each other and the economy would grind to a halt.

    The financial industry stuck the money in government bonds to make a safe return rather than invest in companies that would create wealth and jobs.

    Now the government is buying those bonds back (probably at a premium) from the financial institutions.



    Hopefully the financial institutions will do something creative with the money they were given now that they do not have it sitting tucked away in government bonds.

    Come to think about it, Greece and Ireland are paying pretty hefty returns for their bonds. Might be worth the risk.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonafan View Post
    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...-it-again.aspx


    When you slam your finger in the car door do you walk around to the other side and do it again on purpose?
    That article holds true only if you are an investor first and a home owner second.

    The article I copied and pasted clearly states quantitive easing began in 2008.

    If it did not bother you then, why are you so upset today?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,701
    the bottom line is the federal reserve bank is printing money to purchase outstanding treasury bonds. its a mild form of monetizing the debt, because they are trying to create mild inflation, because they are worried about deflation, because huge bailouts and "stimulus" spending and all other keynesian economics cause recessions to become depressions. this is true whether the keynesians are republican or democratic. blame hoover or blame roosevelt. its the same as blaming bush or obama. the end result is always the same when you try to tax and spend your way out of an economic downturn.
    "When the people find they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action"- George Washington

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Quote Originally Posted by smittyii View Post
    the bottom line is the federal reserve bank is printing money to purchase outstanding treasury bonds. its a mild form of monetizing the debt, because they are trying to create mild inflation, because they are worried about deflation, because huge bailouts and "stimulus" spending and all other keynesian economics cause recessions to become depressions. this is true whether the keynesians are republican or democratic. blame hoover or blame roosevelt. its the same as blaming bush or obama. the end result is always the same when you try to tax and spend your way out of an economic downturn.
    So what is this end result. Every recession or depression has been followed by economic growth or expansion.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by acmanko View Post
    So what is this end result. Every recession or depression has been followed by economic growth or expansion.
    usually spurred by spending CUTS, oh and tax cuts. the great depression never ended until ww2 was rollin. fdr never could spend his way out of that one.
    "When the people find they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action"- George Washington

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event