Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Journalists pretending to be experts in monetary policy



Here are some of the things I heard on Fox today.

In one instance a guest who is a regular on Fox and sometime anchor said of the Fed's decision today:

"What the Fed does is buy bonds from banks, which puts more money in the banking system in the hopes that the banks will then lend that money out."

This is a totally misinformed view of monetary operations, the Fed, rate setting and banking, among other things.

The Fed buys securities largely from the public, not the banks. Those purchases result in the addition of reserves to the banking system. The Fed adds reserves when it wants to bring interest rates down--usually the overnight rate, however, the Fed has the prerogative of setting rates all along the term structure, so buying bonds means they are targeting long-term rates lower.

It is NOT to give more money to banks so that they can lend it out. That's ridiculous.

Banks do not make loans with their reserves. Loans are merely accounting entries on the books of the banks and the very creation of a loan also creates reserves. This means banks are NEVER lending constrained due to reserves. Banks have the same ability to lend whether there is $1 dollar of excess reserves in the system or $1 trillion. THE SAME!

The guy totally didn't know what he was talking about, but how would anyone watching that know? He's seen as a guy on TV talking, so people think he must know what he's talking about.

In another instance a host said, "The Fed perhaps is buying bonds to show approval of the Government's fiscal policy and because of that it has decided to give the government some more funding."

This is wrong, wrong, wrong!

However, it is thought to be true because it plays into the widely held belief that the Fed "monetizes the government's debt."

Again, the Fed buys or sells securities to manipulate the level of reserves in the banking system. That's the mechanism by which it sets interest rates, which is the Fed's only real function--that and regulatory oversight.

The government does not need the Fed to buy its bonds (nor anybody else, for that matter) to get money to pay for whatever it needs if it is paying in its own currency. Moreover, the bonds purchased from the public by the Fed HAVE ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT by the public with money provided by government spending itself. Only by spending more than it takes in can the government provide the public with the funds to purchase bonds, or pay taxes for that matter.

Again, rididculously misinformed, but stated with authority as if it were absolute fact.

4 comments:

googleheim said...

Great post, Mike.

Spending is about getting the game started and creating ricochets and multiplicative activities - not simply a pinch hit where A hits B and that's it.

Sure it's a self-looping process, but what fractal process is not ?

It's our feeble attempt to match nature or maybe what Tom says as "an exogeneous expression of our society to create an economy" ...

Ryan Harris said...

While operationally it is true that the Banks create loans with a simple entry into an account ledger regardless of reserve levels in the bank, Banks *are* constrained to lending up to a ratio of their capital by regulators. The regulators take a quite dim view of new loans unless banks replenish working capital to offset losses. So when system wide banking losses occur during a period of real estate deflation, it does constrain lending because of a lack of capital.

mike norman said...

TB:

Yes, they are constrained by capital. You are right.

Matt Franko said...

Mike,
Now Im starting to lose respect for Neil.

If he had any sense, he would have YOU put together a "primer" or short course on how the monetary and fiscal policies work and make it mandatory attendance for the broadcast crew.

They are embarrassing themselves and the network. The gal from the RT who did your first interview over there seemed sharper on this than all the Fox anchor people combined.