Talk:Monetary policy of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Piece[edit]

A fundamental question needs to be answered here, to be included in this article and the other related articles on money creation. I did what I could to look around, but finding anything clear about this topic is daunting, so I figured I'd ask openly here...

Does the Federal Reserve (and central banks in general) hold some permanent debt in order for there to be a net gain in money supply? From what I understand, if the Fed, say, bought a security for $1000, it would remove the same amount of money as if it had sold the security. Now, when a security is created, and in the process money is created, if that same security is sold by the Fed, the same amount of money would be destroyed. The Fed would have to hold some securities and collect payments in order for there to be a net gain in the money supply.

What am I missing?

NittyG (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fed's open market operations do not change the total amount of money and near money in the private sector. They change the liquidity by replacing near money (mostly treasury securities) with money or vice versa. And they change the amount of bank reserves (since near money does not count as reserves) which affects the banks' ability to lend money (and thus create money from private IOUs) because of the reserve requirement. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These technicalities are not the issue that I am facing. Money is at its root created from the backing of this "near money" (which is only near-money because it is so liquid in secondary markets that use money). Once again, if, say, $1000 of securities are bought by the Fed, it might perhaps create $10,000, from what I understand, if it sold $1000 of the same securities in the same circumstance, it would reduce the money supply by $10,000. If this is true, then the Fed would have to hold onto some securities and collect payments on them for there to be a net gain in the money supply. What am I missing?
NittyG (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being clear. Why do you thing you are missing something? Certainly the Fed's balance sheet changes over time. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are my assumptions about how the current monetary system works:
  • Money creation originates through the creation of securities
  • After this initial creation, much more is created through the banking system through fractional reserve
  • When the Fed buys and sells securities, it increases or decreases the money supply
  • Say in a particular scenario, when the Fed creates $1000, $10,000 is created through fractional reserve
  • If $1000 is taken out of the system, the money supply likewise reduces by $10,000
  • Assuming all of the above are correct, the only way there can be a net increase in the money supply is if some security is held by the Fed, which it is collecting payments for.
- in this case, if all things were constant (interest rates, etc), and supposing the entire money supply was $10,000, that would mean that the Fed would have to hold $1000 in securities, that it is collecting payments for.
- my question is: is this true, that the only way for there there to be a money supply, the Fed must hold some securities it is collecting payments for? If this is not true, my assumptions above must be incorrect - if that is the case, what is incorrect?
Unless I am mistaken in the above assumptions, this would be the only way the system could logically work.
I did find this[1](the fifth fact, about the Fed holding 7% of the Federal debt). So this does confirm that the Fed does hold some securities that it collects payments for.
What I am wondering is, with all of the assumptions above, is this the only way that the system can necessarily work?
NittyG (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Fed (actually its twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks) does hold a lot of Treasury securities, and obligations of member banks. It also has: gold certificates (representing gold held by the U.S.Treasury department), special drawing rights (SDRs) which are obligations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and various other financial assets. The Fed earns interest on these securities which is uses to pay its expenses and increase its capital (when necessary). Any excess after that is paid to the U.S.Treasury. I suggest that you go to the Fed website and read their explanations of their business. I gave a link in my last message.
There are other conceivable ways that a Monetary Authority could work. Or you could have a system without any Monetary Authority. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But my underlying question remains, which I have made bold above. NittyG (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, again:
  • Is it that the only way for there to be a money supply is if the Fed holds some securities?
or, asked differently,
  • Can there be a money supply without the Fed holding some securities?
NittyG (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on what you mean by "money" and what you mean by "can there be". There are several different definitions of the money supply, including: M0, M1, M2 and M3. Most generally, money is anything which can be freely exchanged for goods and services.

The kind of money which is directly controlled by the Fed is the monetary base which is the cash (Federal Reserve Notes and coins) in circulation plus deposits in the Federal Reserve Banks. These are the dollar-denominated obligations of the Fed. The Fed is required by law to back the monetary base 100% by various kinds of collateral (i.e. the securities mentioned above). However, absent that law or in defiance of it, it could issue (but has not issued) additional uncollateralized currency or expend its collateral.

Other forms of money are constrained differently. M1 includes the monetary base and also includes money created by banks lending using private IOUs as collateral. This is constrained by reserve requirements and capital requirements imposed on the banks. Credit card debt is still another form of money. It is backed by the expectation that the consumer will pay off his credit cards eventually.

If people disregard various state and federal laws, then they could use: gold, silver, copper, cigarettes, silk stockings or other goods as money. Some island tribes have even used token ownership of large (immovable) rocks as money. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenspan once approached a similar question about the necessity of using US debt securities, and stated that he was "confident" that other tools could be used because (something to the effect that) "the US has the most innovative financial markets in the world. [paraphrased from memory]" BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I personally have advocated using a different kind of collateral for the monetary base. In User:JRSpriggs/Optimal monetary policy, I suggest using: mutual fund shares, stock index futures, warrants, call options, commodity futures, and options to exchange dollars for foreign currency (e.g. call options on Yen). JRSpriggs (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bookmarked. Looks like a pretty interesting read. Thanks for the link BigK HeX (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that there are infinite different kinds of money, and it is in fact not illegal - people can trade gold and silver, frequent flyer miles, and local currencies such as the Ithaca HOUR, which is officially tax-exempt by the IRS. The example of the Yap Islanders you mentioned is a particularly interesting example of the diversity of money. Your idea sounds interesting, and I am looking forward to reading it.
Lets please focus on answering my question, which has assumptions that I have laid out both explicitly (clearly in the points above) and implicitly (I am obviously only referring to the American Dollar). I am only talking about the current paradigm, not any other theory that is not in practice by the Federal Reserve System. In any case, you did go one step closer in addressing the question, and I really appreciate that (as well as the other information and ideas you provided). If you can, please go through my points again (the assumptions I have boxed, and the questions in bold), and try not to get caught up in the technicalities of what I am saying, and address the problem according to my intentions one can infer. I think I have made myself completely clear, but, of course, if there is any further clarification needed, please ask.
NittyG (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this talk page is really the proper venue to pose such fact-finding questions.....
In any case, if you're asking whether the Fed could switch to using other assets as the crucial instrument in conducting monetary policy, then the answer is "yes .... but only in theory." I don't really see that covering this part of the theory is "a missing piece." Basic theories on how the Fed could function, seem to be a subset of information on monetary policy in general, and, IMO, best addressed there. BigK HeX (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To NittyG: I still do not understand your question. You seem to be asking <<if the system works the way it works, is that the only way it can work?>>. Duh?
Please say why you want to know the answer. Perhaps that will help me figure out what your question is. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. My question is whether that is the way the system works. I am asking because if it is true, then that is an essential part of explaining how the system works, and that needs to be included in this article and related ones. I rephrased the question, in bold above. NittyG (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as how the system does work now, you are correct.
But even with a Monetary Authority (i.e. a central bank like the Fed), there are other ways it could work. The Fed could back the monetary base solely with gold which earns no interest or dividends. Whether this would be better or worse than the current system is a matter of some debate.
Worse, it could have no collateral at all and rely on using the legal tender laws to force people to use its money and no other kind. This creates a major risk of hyper-inflation and eliminates the Fed's ability to shrink the money supply by monetary means, although shrinking it by running a budget surplus (fiscal means) is still possible (but politically unbelievable).
Does this answer your question? JRSpriggs (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just need to make sure... You mentioned earlier that it is required by law for the Fed to back the monetary base with some kind of collateral, via securities. Are you saying it is only the law that requires this, or is it a given? Without the law, given the assumption that the monetary base can only be created through securities, under the current regime (again, with my assumptions above), wouldn't the Fed have to keep some securities it collects payments for anyway, since that would destroy the money supply that rests on the monetary base? If it had no securities under the current regime, with or without a law, since the monetary supply is created through securities, having no securities would mean that there would be no monetary base, and therefore no money supply (again, regarding the money supply I'm implicitly referring to, under the current monetary regime).
If it is only the requirement by law that makes the Fed back the monetary base with securities, that is, the Fed can create money even without holding securities under the monetary regime without that law, then something about my assumptions is wrong, and we need to figure out what that is. NittyG (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at this from another perspective. Regardless of what the government wants, something cannot be money unless most people are willing to accept it in trade for valuable goods and services. Thus historically money has always originated as a commodity which is widely desired by people. Once money exists, banks and governments can create other forms of money by establishing a linkage to an existing form, e.g. promising to exchange paper money for gold. After such a fiat currency has become the main medium of exchange, the banks or governments often cheat by withdrawing their promise, embezzling the collateral, or replacing some of the collateral with other securities which are nominally but not actually equivalent. In the case of the United States, gold (a commodity with real value) has been mostly replaced as collateral by U.S.Treasury securities (which are based on nothing but the unreliable promise to tax people to raise the means to buy the currency back). Thus money becomes a kind of confidence game or Ponzi scheme. The game can continue as long as the trickster (bank or government) does not get too greedy and no better alternative form of money is available to the public. Otherwise hyper-inflation will occur and destroy the currency. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, again, I knew all of that, and it does not in any way address the previous entry I made. Lets please focus on the issue I brought up in this discussion :) NittyG (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT aside, a basic problem is that neither of us here seems to understand your question. You ask "Is it that the only way for there to be a money supply is if the Fed holds some securities?" but then simultaneously say "I am only talking about the current paradigm, not any other theory that is not in practice by the Federal Reserve System." JSpriggs has already summed this up pretty succinctly above when he wrote,

To NittyG: I still do not understand your question. You seem to be asking <<if the system works the way it works, is that the only way it can work?>>

Your basic questions have already been answered.
  • Is it that the only way for there to be a money supply is if the Fed holds some securities?
Answer: No that is not the only way for there to be a money supply, but the Fed currently only holds US Treasury securities to effect monetary policy (for good reason).
  • Can there be a money supply without the Fed holding some securities?
Answer: Yes there can be a money supply, but currently the Fed chooses (for good reason) to only utilize a holding of US Treasury securities.
If you're trying to get at something else, you may have to clarify. BigK HeX (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one, perhaps obvious, point which none of us has yet mentioned explicitly. The use of a medium of exchange is much more efficient than barter. Thus transactions using money make a profit relative to barter. This profit is divided between the users of money (ordinary people who buy and sell) and the Monetary Authority which takes a cut by inflating the currency and through seigniorage. If the Monetary Authority takes too much, then the users cannot make enough profit to sustain the system and it collapses. This is another way of expressing the last point in my previous message. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BigK HeX - you must not have really read our conversation. My question has actually not been answered definitively.

  • First I was told, yes, money can be a wide variety of things, to which I responded that I am implicitly implying the American Dollar.
  • Next, I was told that yes, by law this is the case, to which I responded that my question is whether this is a necessity of the system.
  • I am not asking "if the system works the way it works, is that the only way it can work?" - I am asking is this the way the system works?

- the "assumptions" I noted above are not assumptions I am holding for the sake of a theoretical experiment - they are assumptions that I am holding about how the monetary system works, and whether they are wrong (I just wrote that out a bit further).

  • And this is not WP:NOT. As I said twice, the answer to my question needs to be explicated in this article and articles related to it, because it is essential in understanding how the current monetary paradigm functions. I have been entirely on topic, not related to a forum.

Please, go through what I have put between the lines. What I wrote there is very, very clear. NittyG (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the key assumption above is the fifth (If $1000 is taken out of the system, the money supply likewise reduces by $10,000). It has been said everywhere I have read that if a certain amount of money (X) is put into the system, and subsequently the money supply multiplies through fractional reserve, the same situation would "run in reverse" if the same amount (X) was taken out of the system. If this is true, then somewhere there has to be a permanent amount of debt, which is what I am trying to figure out. And once again, I am only talking about the system today, which I am assuming (the first assumption) money only originates through securities, which may also be incorrect. I hope this clarifies things a bit more :) NittyG (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think we have already answered you more than once. Your assumptions listed are correct generally.
If the Fed wants to contract the money supply, the main method used is to sell some of its collateral. Suppose XYZ buys a Treasury bill from the Fed for $1000. To do so, XYZ writes a check on its account at ABC national bank. When the check clears, that $1000 is deducted from XYZ's account at ABC national bank, and $1000 is also deducted from ABC's account at the New York (or other) Federal Reserve Bank. Thus the reserves belonging to ABC are reduced by $1000. So ABC must reduce the demand deposits for which it is liable by $10,000 in order to comply with the reserve requirement. Since its obligation to XYZ has already been reduced by $1000, it must reduce its lending or call in loans amounting to $9000 (unless it has excess reserves to spare).
ABC national bank also must make sure that it has enough capital to remain solvent (not be seized by the FDIC). So even if there were no legal reserve requirement, it would need to maintain a certain amount of reserves to protect itself from runs on the bank and normal fluctuations of withdrawals.
Ultimately, the payment of any debt that is denominated in U.S. dollars must be convertible to base money (money that is part of the monetary base, i.e. Federal Reserve Notes, U.S. coins, and deposits at the twelve Federal Reserve Banks). This is what makes the monetary base controlling of the much larger amount of other kinds of dollars. If the amount of non-base dollars becomes too large, there will be a run on it, i.e. those who hold non-base money risk losing the value of their money (through default of the entity that created the money) or experiencing a delay in being able to use it.
Every financial asset is also an obligation of another party. Every dollar you have is owed to you by someone. So yes, there is an enormous amount of debt in the system. Every bank account is an asset for the owner of the account and also a liability of the bank. Every share of stock is an asset for the owner of the share and an obligation (equity) of the company of which it is a share. Every coin in your pocket is an asset for you and a liability of the United States. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I feel that we have not been able to help each other. I have not been able to explain my question clearly, and you feel that you have already answered it. Perhaps someone can come along and answer my question.
To respond - Again, you said that my assumptions are correct generally. I am asking whether they are necessarily correct within the current monetary practice. Besides this, I have written clearly above my question, and clearly written how my question hasn't been answered.
In any case, I'll take another stab at it.
The possible answers I am looking for are simple:
(1)"Yes, the Fed must hold some securities it is collecting payments for"
(2)"No, there is a circumstance where the Fed can hold no securities, and still have a money supply"
- if #2 is the case, which of the above assumptions do not hold true?
Building on your scenario above, where XYZ purchases a security for $1000, and the money supply decreases by $10,000 - in the same circumstance, if XYZ instead sold the same security to the Fed, under my assumptions, the money supply would likewise increase by $10,000. If the Fed then simultaneously sold the security, the money supply would again reduce by $10,000. If this is is how the money system works in general, then there would be no net money supply, so the Fed must always keep some securities it collects payment for.
If my question can't be answered to our mutual satisfaction, then I think that we should just hold off. Thanks for your help - I appreciate your time and consideration. NittyG (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say, The possible answers I am looking for are simple:
(1)"Yes, the Fed must hold some securities it is collecting payments for"
(2)"No, there is a circumstance where the Fed can hold no securities, and still have a money supply"
You already received this answer. From above:
  • Is it that the only way for there to be a money supply is if the Fed holds some securities?
  • Answer: No that is not the only way for there to be a money supply, but the Fed currently only holds US securities.
Unfortunately, it seems the possibly "missing piece" from the article is not really missing, a conclusion which would suggest that this article's talk page has served its purpose for this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To BigK Hex: Your statement that "the Fed currently only holds US securities" is false. It has many different kinds of assets as part of its collateral. Its collateral includes Special Drawing Rights which are obligations of the International Monetary Fund (not a part of U.S.) and it has swap arrangements with Canada, U.K., Europe, and Switzerland under which it may hold their currencies. It also holds: Agency debt, Mortgage Backed Securities, Repurchase agreements, etc.. See the list of asset types. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I shouldn't phrase it as such ... too lazy to qualify it more thoroughly as a reference to collateral for the "bulk of the money supply." Nitty's question seems to regard the general operation of the Fed, and of the assets that the Fed could use to generally support the majority of the money supply. Of course, recent events have prompted all of the quantitative easing and auction facility efforts, making the current definition of "normal" for the Fed's operation difficult to pin down. It may not be wise for me to assume that the Fed will go back to carrying-out business as it did 3 years ago. BigK HeX (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that it is bad for the Fed to use U.S. Treasuries (and other government securities) as collateral. They are not backed by real wealth. Using them enables and encourages the Congress to spend money which it does not really have, a very bad habit. And they are debt rather than equity which makes control of inflation more difficult as I explained at User:JRSpriggs/Optimal monetary policy. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monetary policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Monetary policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Monetary policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monetary policy of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fed's change in conducting its monetary policy (ample reserves regime) should be reflected in article[edit]

The Federal Reserve has changed the way it conducts monetary policy considerably in recent years (formally from 2019) as explained e.g. here [2] and here [3]. I think this should be reflected in the article, implying that the article's present emphasis on controlling the money supply be replaced by an explanation of the way the Fed's administratively set interest rates (IOR and ON RRP) are key to determining the Federal Funds Rate and consequently influencing economy-wide activity. Økonom (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monetary_policy_of_the_United_States&oldid=1201717857"