It’s amazing how CNBC allows Rick Santelli to rant on and on each and every day achieving levels of cluelessness that have never been seen before. If I were running the network I’d be really embarrassed.
Earlier today Santelli was ranting about a Treasury proposal that is being considered whereby the U.S. would start issuing floating rate notes.
For those not familiar with floating rate notes, the interest rate paid “floats.” That means if interest rates go up, the interest paid on the notes increases.
Santelli was sounding the fire alarm as usual, saying, “If interest rates rise, then the government will have to pay more interest. It will be horrible, terrible, the end of the world, etc. blah, blah, blah.”
The one thing Santelli seems to forget (as he often does) is that the government (the Fed) sets rates. So, why would the rates necessarily rise? The Fed could easily decide to keep rates low like its doing now and the whole question of interest rate risk is moot. Anyway, the whole question of interest rate risk for a sovereign, currency issuing nation like the U.S. is moot anyway because it has a monopoly on rate setting.
But let’s say rates do rise because the Fed raised them. Why would that be so terrible? Since the government is a net payer of interest, a rate increase (which, again, could only happen via the Fed) would be equivalent to a rise in transfer payments (government payments to people) to the private sector. What’s so bad about that? It’s giving people money, and just another form of deficit spending. By the way…the largest component of the Reagan deficits was interest on the debt and…you guessed it…we had an ECONOMIC BOOM largely because of that.
Santelli is totally clueless. He’s ranting about things he doesn’t understand. On the other hand, my 11 year old son can understand this stuff.
By the way, if you think Santelli is clueless, what about Geithner? Presumably, he’s the guy proposing floating rate notes? Can somebody please tell Timmy that the government sets the rate it pays, so floating or non-floating, it’s all the same thing.
I often allow these comments to drive me crazy as you can see. Then I calm down and realize that it's all about television ratings, and it has nothing to do with real information of any kind. Many people don't realize that. They don't realize that it's ALL about ratings. They think it's real information. If it were about real information then people like Rick Santelli wouldn't have a career on television.
Then it hits me...if it's all about ratings, why are we allowing a stupid, ratings-driven business to affect our policy, our country and our lives?
Then I get crazy again.
6 comments:
This one drove ME crazy this morning:
Macke and Nesto have it all figured out:
"In reality, the government isn't going to give lenders a better deal unless it feels like it doesn't have a choice.
Yet another subtle game of debt-chicken being played by the U.S. while our paper is still regarded as something close to the best in the world."
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/decision-floating-rate-notes-come-later-date-says-145021486.html
Oh ok, the US is worried that their "credit line" will get cut off! So they are considering offering a variable rate...LOL!....
and these types of people are the ones who get to be all over the media!
Same among the political commentators. They are entertainers playing to an audience, the size of which determines their paychecks. Facts are irrelevant. It's all emotion.
Mike,
Kind of like the joke, "I was wondering why the frisbee kept getting bigger and bigger. Then it hit me."
There is one scenario where Santelli would be right (or not 100% wrong), as follows.
Government can cut rates as much as it likes just now because the economy is not at capacity. But suppose the debt relative to GDP continues to rise and the economy is at capacity in a year or two.
Also suppose that in a year or two the private sector just doesn’t want any more net financial assets and/or the private sector becomes suspicious of government’s intention to repay the debt. In that circumstance, rates would rise and it would not be possible to lower them because the result would be inflation.
That inflationary tendency COULD BE dealt with by a tax increase, but Congress might not be willing. So in that particular scenario, Santelli would be right.
The moral is: don’t let economically illiterate politicians (forgive the tautology) have any say in determining aggregate demand. They’re already pretty well barred from influencing it anyway, in that central banks change interest rates without consulting politicians.
Ralph,
Help me out here. Why can't the fed just buy up the notes?
Or at least some to lower the interest?
Jonf, By “buy up the notes” I assume you mean “buy up government debt”.
If government / central bank did that, it would cut interest rates (plus there is the quantitative effect or “quantitative easing” effect, even if there was little price effect). And on the assumption I made above, i.e. that the economy is at capacity, cutting rates is not on, else inflation would ensue.
Post a Comment