GoofyGoose
25d ago
This was the old rate maintenance regime, but unfortunately you're almost 20 years out of date here.
You should be more charitable than this. How do you think the level of reserves changes over time, simply from the payment of interest on reserves? How do they go down then? You can check the NY Fed for this; there is also data.
The amount of money in real terms that a central bank can supply is limited by the assets that they hold because otherwise the bank cannot maintain the real value of money in the face of demand shocks.
I can't exactly tell, but it kind of sounds like you're describing some kind of conception of banking like they're storing real objects. Like you 'deposit' some gold bars and your jewelry, and they issue you an account balance and/or a paper money receipt for it? In that kind of idea, I can see how you would be talking about the bank's assets and how they 'back' the value of the credit money. And that kind of story is like where the 'fractional reserve -> money multiplier' ideas came from.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The point is that the amount of money in nominal terms is not economically relevant. (If you search for the "most valuable currencies," you will encounter articles like this one in Forbes that are completely useless). The economically relevant quantity is the "real value" of the stock of money or the market(!) value of money in terms of other goods and services. You can do this without 'backing' as in Bitcoin or monetary models where money is inherently useless and the aggregate nominal stock of money is held constant; so it is a separate concept from backing. As a follow-up point, I mentioned that if you want to increase the real value of the total stock of money, you need more backing.
Does a government want their currency to be more valuable than less, like a company wants their stock price to be higher rather than lower (because look at our great cash flow this quarter)? Yeah, but those are categorically different than an IOU that promises some redemption value like gold or PS5s. Now if a company has a standing offer to buy back any existing stock at some price, that is more of a real backing.
Here we have a strong disagreement. In my view (which I believe is in line with theoretical models of money), a key component of money is simply asset pricing with a 'convenience yield' or non-dividend uses. Of course, there is more to it, but understanding that gets you a long way. The 'convenience yield', which is the spread in return between money and the risk-adjusted market portfolio, is like a (rental) price for money (in real terms) and it is lower when the central bank supplies more money (in real terms) as the central bank simply works its way down a demand curve. So money is just a security, a very special one for sure, so the same ideas of 'backing' for stocks and bonds apply to it.
Your argument proves too much: if it were true, there would be no issues with the monetary crises in the late 20th century. Taxes are set in nominal terms, but they are set with a delay so the government will lose in real terms with inflation (after we are all bumped up to higher brackets).
I didn't follow this part, can you mention the crises you're referring to?
I was referring to episodes like the ones explored in The Monetary and Fiscal History of Latin America. I might be able to understand your argument better if you tell me how it is consistent with these episodes.
GoofyGoose
27d ago
There is no promised future real 'value', it is what it is, and if there's inflation, so be it (other than the inflation-indexed bonds).
Yes, there is. It made somewhat explicit by inflation targets. I don't understand at all what you mean by "if there is inflation, so be it."
If the federal reserve has no assets, then it cannot react to a lower demand for money by withdrawing the money from circulation so the value of money would be lower.
They are the monopoly issuer of the currency, and thus can either control price or quantity.
Sure, they set a price but how is that implemented? It is implemented by changes in the quantities. Yes, the rule says adjust the quantity as much as needed to get to the price. But to do that quantity adjustment sometimes you need to reduce the quantity in the market (OMOs sometimes require 'buying back' money) and for that you need assets that the market values.
This is my point about budget constraints. The central bank supplies money which, to think clearly, we should measure in real terms. The amount of money in real terms that a central bank can supply is limited by the assets that they hold because otherwise the bank cannot maintain the real value of money in the face of demand shocks. Demand matters because it is obviously easier to maintain the value of your currency when its demand is growing than when its demand is declining. I don't see how this point is hard to understand, but it is easy to show in a very simple model.
Whose concern? The government doesn't care. And no one else's opinion matters. They are not beholden to the market. If inflation ticks up, that is definitely not the same as defaulting on the debt. We still need the government's IOUs to pay taxes, so they will perpetually be valuable to that extent.
The difference between defaulting on debt and defaulting on money (inflation) is who gets to bear the losses of the default. This is easy to see if you think of money as an infinite-maturity bond with zero coupon (for currency) or some coupon (for reserves). Your argument proves too much: if it were true, there would be no issues with the monetary crises in the late 20th century. Taxes are set in nominal terms, but they are set with a delay so the government will lose in real terms with inflation (after we are all bumped up to higher brackets).
Bitcoin has no issuer offering a redemption value, and thus is a commodity rather than money. As an economic instrument, the fair value is $0. Any valuation above that might be a small amount for the utility of making transactions (would work if each btc were 1 cent or something), and otherwise just speculative (don't get caught holding the bag).
If you're saying that bitcoin has no 'backing', but US dollars have 'backing', maybe you're using that term for what I'm calling IOU 'redemption'? (returning an IOU to its issuer, to get what is 'owed')
In monetary economics, commodity money means an asset or durable good that has intrinsic value. That is, value for non-monetary uses. In this sense, Bitcoin is not commodity money. Backing need not be about redemption. Think of stock buybacks, stocks are backed by the companies cash flows. You can't show up with one share and demand a payment from the company, but there is an implicit expected future value of the stock and the buybacks help maintain it. Bitcoin doesn't have that and the dollar could work without that, but it would mean a low aggregate stock of money in real terms which is bad because we need money valuable in real terms to make transactions.
GoofyGoose
27d ago
When the government issues treasuries and receives money, it can spend that money. When the federal reserve “issues securities” (more accurately, the ON RRP), it withdraws that money from circulation.
If the government were to just take the money from the issued bonds and just sit on it, then there would be no effects (except those via the relative supply of money and treasuries). But it issues debt to get money to spend, so after issuance, the amount of things the government can afford at that moment has increased.
The point is that issuing debt gives you resources now that you have to repay later. Money or nominal versus real does not change that.
My thinking is not confused because I admit that money and treasuries are (consolidated) government liabilities, both of which need backing and ability to repay. People get confused with “fiat money” and think that it doesn’t require any backing. But the value of fiat money today depends on the expectations of its value in the future; that value depends on the demand and supply of money then. If the federal reserve has no assets, then it cannot react to a lower demand for money by withdrawing the money from circulation so the value of money would be lower. Therefore, if you don’t have “ability to repay”, your currency in aggregate and in real terms cannot be too valuable.
The usefulness of money allows you to get some value without any backing (for a different example of that look at Bitcoin). But at the margin, if you want an economy with enough money in real terms you must have backing.
Finally, repayment in real terms is the concern. Inflation is default. No serious monetary economist will ever tell you that a central bank has no meaningful budget constraint (but you might read that in a paper in the AER).
GoofyGoose
28d ago
The problem is never the amount of debt, but the backing of that debt. It is true that government debt is useful: money is a government liability (zero coupon, infinite maturity for cash) and treasuries are a safe security (until we default) in a world where safe securities are scarce. In the 90s, people were worried that by lowering deficits we would create a shortage of government debt and safe assets. This was completely misguided because we can always issue more debt and use the proceeds to buy valuable assets to finance the repayment.
When people say that they are worried about government debt, they mean relative to the ability to repay. Since we see that increases in debt don’t go towards increasing our ability to repay it but rather decrease it, it is natural to say that we want government debt to stop increasing.
I actually think that there is not enough Treasuries around as we can see by the convenience yield that they have. This convenience yield says that we could profit by issuing debt and investing in real assets, turning the federal government into a massive bank (which it kind of is). Yet issuing more Treasuries and then wasting the proceeds is not sustainable.
GoofyGoose
11mo ago
I recently read the one by David Friedman. Curious to know what more knowledgeable mottizens think.
Here is the conclusion statement from the article
Project 2025 is neither a Trumpist document — it contains arguments against as well as for some of his positions and a good deal of advice that I do not expect him to take — nor a sinister plan to destroy democracy. It contains a good deal of libertarian rhetoric and advocates at least a few libertarian policies but is by no means a libertarian document. It is a battle plan for conservatives, for, as it repeatedly says, a conservative president. It contains a good many things I agree with, a good many I do not. If fully implemented the result would be far from my ideal but perhaps a little closer than we are likely to get from either a Trump or a Biden administration.
Wait, you have never been struck by the thunderbolt?
We should have a poll. I thought it happened to everyone, although not too frequently.
More options
Context Copy link