The economy is neither independent nor dependent on the POTUS. POTUS administration has tremendous influence on the economy, just like every major country and fund.
You leftists love fact checks, don't you? https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/bidens-job-growth-chart-ignores-impact-of-pandemic/ https://budget.house.gov/press-release/fact-check-biden-misleads-on-job-creation-statistics https://www.iwf.org/2023/09/06/fact...create-13-5-million-jobs-since-taking-office/
The global economy has become exponentially more complicated over the last 150+ years, largely since we started laying underwater wires across oceans. Global books that would take months to balance could be done in days, which led to significant arbitrage. Once radio came into existence in the early 1900's, it sped up significantly. Now we have quants and AI making trades. I say all of that because global trading has become so complicated nobody can truly understand it. We now have videos games who have their own in-game trading economies that rival tiny countries. Never mind trying to pretend anyone knows what is happening behind these massive hedge funds. All governments can do is ebb and flow capital, they certainly can't control it. The issue with the BTC/Dollar comparison ... is the comparison in itself. They are two totally different assets and I no longer engage in conversations that try to compare the two. Its no more useful than trying to convince people to convert the global reserve currency to tulips. BTC in itself is a new asset that is taking on its own unique form, for better or for worse. My personal opinion is that Bitcoin will become one of several global reserve assets, much like a UST. Nobody is buying coffee and mcdonalds with treasury notes and nobody is advocating UST's should be pegged to a global accounting system. What Bitcoin does, we shall see. Having a transparent bag/wallet/account/whatever you want to call it, is very useful.
ATW, you need to stop cut n paste lies. there is still a shortage of minimum wage workers. attributable to an economic movement backed up by statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Great Resignation, most of the new jobs were created the result of bills signed by Biden Build Back Better, https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/ The Infrastructure bill, one that Trump had campaigned for but failed to come up with a plan chip and science act, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...s-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/
Vol all the way until elections. Anyone who tells you where the market will be in three months is lying.
Can you right wingers at least pretend you're not giddy about having a potential recession? We get it, you want your guy to win no matter what happens to other people.
A recession is technically defined as 2 consecutive quarters (6 months) of negative economic growth (along with other considerations such as employment). I’m sure some of you still remember the 'what is a recession' debate. Since there are 3 months before the election and the economy is still growing, it’s not possible for the US to enter a recession before the election. For those hoping for one, your best bet is to change the definition of what constitutes a recession. (or just lie about it)
Their cult leader was sour about the prisoner exchange with a Russia and complimented Putin on his "great deal." Can't be happy Americans are coming home to their families. Politics aside, what American does that? And then they rejoice in joy when the stock market dipped yesterday (we made up most of the losses back today). Incredible
Oh right, you're The Expert peddling MMT and who thinks China could helicopter drop away their problems with "QE". For so much bluster, you should behoove yourself to take your own advice. 100B/year losses with 7.4T left to swallow. Higher for Longer is wrecking their balance sheet. The Yen Carry Trade might not be the only reason for the current vol spike, but it highlights how Central Banks tip the scales and create distortions, then over correct and create distortions, then... https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2022/q3_federal_reserve Why Shrink the Balance Sheet? Given the uncertainties surrounding the effects of QT and the potential for market disruptions as the Fed tries to zero in on the right level of reserves, why shrink the balance sheet at all? Most policymakers and economists expect that QT will provide some additional monetary tightening, which should help the Fed achieve its goal of getting inflation back down to its 2 percent target. But in principle, the Fed could achieve such tightening through interest rate policy alone. Unlike in the case of lowering rates during a downturn, the Fed faces no limit on how high it can raise rates. At first glance, then, using balance sheet policy to tighten seems unnecessary. But there are other rationales for engaging in QT besides monetary tightening. One motivation relates to the "Odyssean" signaling theory of how QE works. By purchasing longer-term assets, the Fed opens itself up to interest rate risk. When it raises the interest it pays on reserves as part of tightening monetary policy, the Fed risks having to pay out more on its liabilities than it earns on its assets because rates on its liabilities will be rising while rates on its assets remain largely fixed. (See chart below.) "In the old days, the Fed operated with a balance sheet that was pretty small and its main liability was currency, which it pays no interest on at all," says William English, a professor of finance at Yale University and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs and secretary to the Federal Open Market Committee at the Fed Board. "So, the Fed made money no matter what. Now there is more of a risk that if the Fed has to raise rates fast during a tightening cycle, it will end up having a loss." As English and Donald Kohn of the Brookings Institution noted in a recent Brookings blog post, balance sheet losses don't affect the Fed in the same way they would a commercial bank. The Fed cannot default or go bankrupt because it can always create reserves to cover its losses. Most of the time, the Fed's earnings on its balance sheet are positive, and it remits any profits above its operating costs back to the Treasury. In the case of a loss, the Fed would halt its remittances to the Treasury until it had offset its losses with subsequent profits. As long as the Fed's future earnings remain positive, temporary losses pose no issue for its operations, though if the Fed were to suffer protracted and large enough losses, it could require fiscal support from the Treasury to continue implementing monetary policy. Even short of that worst-case scenario, English and Kohn note that temporary losses could still raise political scrutiny from Congress that the Fed might prefer to avoid. Shrinking the balance sheet reduces the Fed's exposure to those kinds of losses. A 2019 International Journal of Central Banking article by economists from across the Federal Reserve System and Barclays estimated that reducing the amount of reserves on the Fed's balance sheet from $2.3 trillion (roughly the amount it held at the start of the first QT in 2017) to $1 trillion would reduce the chances of recording a quarterly loss from 30 percent to less than 5 percent. Another reason for shrinking the balance sheet has to do with the composition of the Fed's assets. The Fed has $2.7 trillion in MBS, but in its plan for reducing the balance sheet, released in January, it expressed a desire to hold primarily Treasuries in the long run. Buying non-Treasuries affects the allocation of credit to different sectors of the economy, and several policymakers and economists have argued such policy decisions should be made by Congress or the Treasury Department, not the Fed. Getting to a Treasuries-only balance sheet on the Fed's current plan could be a long road, however. As mortgage rates rise, fewer homeowners will refinance their loans, slowing the rate at which MBS held by the Fed mature and roll off its balance sheet. In a May speech, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester noted that the Fed could speed up this process by actively selling some of its MBS, but that might also open the central bank up to greater losses. Reloading for the Next Crisis A final reason for engaging in QT is to free up capacity for a future QE. If the Fed's balance sheet were to continue to grow, it could, in theory, run out of Treasuries or other acceptable assets to purchase to conduct QE in the future. Former Richmond Fed President J. Alfred Broaddus Jr. and policy advisor Marvin Goodfriend confronted this issue under very different circumstances in a 2001 Richmond Fed Economic Quarterly article. At that time, the federal government was enjoying a budget surplus, and Broaddus and Goodfriend were concerned that the Treasuries market could dry up if the United States were to pay down its debt. While that didn't come to pass (and indeed seems difficult to imagine today), the Fed could still face the same problem if its asset purchases were to outpace the supply of Treasuries. Additionally, an ever-increasing balance sheet would expose the Fed to even larger losses in a tightening cycle. "The Fed would rather not have this ratchet effect where the balance sheet just keeps getting bigger, because at some point, you have a problem," says English. "I think they want to be clear that this is a counter-cyclical policy that they'll engage in to provide support when it's necessary, and they'll unwind when it's appropriate to do so."
stop lying. far from being an expert, and have never claimed to be one, i just happen to understand more than you. i notice that you had cut n paste this link, "Why Shrink the Balance Sheet?", unable to use your own words to draw any cogent analysis. if only you had "average" reading comprehension, you would have understood this concluding statement from this article, but, then again, it is above your head !
Blah blah blah, I've gone over it every other time you've brought it up. Now I posted something from the Fed, you're shooting the messenger again. The last line you mentioned gives the them the right to retain their independence but it's really on everyone else for calling out their mistakes (the large runup beyond post-lockdown) rather than your slavish and blind devotion. Own up to your incompetence.
