OMG! Yes, Maude, it's true. This raises the most dire spectre of all!!! The USA itself could run out of fiat! If that were to happen, who would be left to bail us out? Who and what would they have to defraud next, to make it look real? The US Constitution? Please, let's not take the idiocy that far.
As stimulus tab rises for Fed, worries grow it may require a bailout
Just when you thought the level of discussion could not sink further.
LA Times: "The Fed's bond-buying binge could put the central bank's finances at risk if interest rates were to rise sharply, critics warn."
Seriously? In a prominent US newspaper? With a straight face?
You couldn't make this stuff up! What's next? Bail needs an out? In case systemic fraud were to rise sharply? Coupled with an increase in ignorance about fiat currency operations? It could happen, you know.
So who are the geniuses espousing this view?
James D. Hamilton, an economics professor at UC San Diego."It's really pretty cut-and-dried as far as the arithmetic goes: If you buy bonds and interest rates go up, you're going to take a capital loss on those bonds. The more they buy, the bigger their balance sheet, the bigger the loss they're going to face."
Sounds like the organ responsible for generating his logic DID dry up! No intellectual capital left.
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-SC. "The Fed stands to lose a lot of money, and by a lot of money, I mean hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not hyperbole to suggest the next big bailout could be of the Federal Reserve."
Ooh! He means it. There's a lot of fiat involved in denominating Public Initiative. Somebody get his train of thought a track to run on. It's chugging, but obviously derailed.
Et tu, Ben Bernanke? "The bottom line is that for any reasonable interest rate path, this is going to end up being a profitable policy for the taxpayer" says spineless, pandering Ben, as he sinks further into the political quicksand.
Sounds like Ben Bernanke is the one bailing out! Seems he pines for his cushy job at Princeton, where he can just go back to writing his little papers, not responsible for even pretending to counter the Erble Logic that is leading his nation astray. Ben prefers to sit in a comfortable deck chair and play his violin, as the ship goes down? With a stiff drink? Anyone noticed if he's been drinking more lately? Maybe he's planning to move to Switzerland too, or the Cayman Islands.
Marvin Goodfriend, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. [Finally! Surely we can expect a bit more from people grounded in business, not just nominal economics?]
"In the short term, it's a money-maker. The borrowing cost is cheap right now. Those borrowing costs are going to rise."
Ok, guess not. Another hope dashed. Move along folks, no situational awareness to see here.
The last word goes to the venerable LA Times. "When interest rates begin rising, the Fed will have to pay a higher rate on bank excess reserves. That will eat into the Fed's bottom line."
Let me get this straight. The Federal Reserve, accountant to the Treasury of the USA, denominator of a growing nation's purely nominal records of Public Initiative ... has a bottom line of nominal? Perhaps in nom only? Where'd this come from? How do we turn out citizens like this with no remaining connection to reality? Is our education system now completely nominal as well? Real situational awareness is considered purely nominal?
The article goes on to quote the least authority of recent times, Peter Schiff. I won't bother dipping into his meandering path, as his skiff sails further beyond the bounds of reason. Maybe he'll drop off his imagined horizon someday.
Too bad the US electorate doesn't set a bottom line in situational awareness. We could use a threshold defining a minimal, survivable level for an informed electorate right about now. Our economists are advising us to tighten the nominal noose we've placed around our own economy's real neck. Even if this is just some eco-erotic game for economists, please stop now, before it's too late for everyone?
Since assisted suicide is illegal, surely citizens could plausibly arrest all orthodox economists, for promoting and abetting economist_assisted_national_suicide?
Marvin Goodfriend, an economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. [Finally! Surely we can expect a bit more from people grounded in business, not just nominal economics?]
"In the short term, it's a money-maker. The borrowing cost is cheap right now. Those borrowing costs are going to rise."
Ok, guess not. Another hope dashed. Move along folks, no situational awareness to see here.
The last word goes to the venerable LA Times. "When interest rates begin rising, the Fed will have to pay a higher rate on bank excess reserves. That will eat into the Fed's bottom line."
Let me get this straight. The Federal Reserve, accountant to the Treasury of the USA, denominator of a growing nation's purely nominal records of Public Initiative ... has a bottom line of nominal? Perhaps in nom only? Where'd this come from? How do we turn out citizens like this with no remaining connection to reality? Is our education system now completely nominal as well? Real situational awareness is considered purely nominal?
The article goes on to quote the least authority of recent times, Peter Schiff. I won't bother dipping into his meandering path, as his skiff sails further beyond the bounds of reason. Maybe he'll drop off his imagined horizon someday.
Too bad the US electorate doesn't set a bottom line in situational awareness. We could use a threshold defining a minimal, survivable level for an informed electorate right about now. Our economists are advising us to tighten the nominal noose we've placed around our own economy's real neck. Even if this is just some eco-erotic game for economists, please stop now, before it's too late for everyone?
Since assisted suicide is illegal, surely citizens could plausibly arrest all orthodox economists, for promoting and abetting economist_assisted_national_suicide?
