The Fed Is Swimming Dangerously In Uncharted Waters by Scott Minerd
Many people from all walks of life are terrified about what is happening at The Federal Reserve. The Fed’s balance sheet has dramatically increased over the last several years. The reason this has happened was because we have learned our lesson from the Great Depression — do nothing and things will get MUCH worse.
The author is right these are uncharted waters. Janet Yellen and the other central bank leaders have to be cautious about shrinking their respective balance sheets. The problem is that we don’t have an example to go by. With the Great Depression we learned that an influx of capital can help stabilize the economy – even if just a little. We have not seen either a successful or unsuccessful reduction of capital. Therefore, all the concern is warranted.
With that in mind, you can’t live in fear. We might now have the direct experience to learn from, but we still have other lessons. Such as, care for the masses. Now granted our politicians don’t really do that for the most part, but … luckily not all of our officials are politicians. Keep that in mind. Some of our leaders do actually care and have morals.
Congress to Eliminate Billions in Wall Street Subsidies to Fund Repair of Nation’s Highways by C Robert Gibson a Contributor of US Uncut
Lawmakers Weigh Cut in Fed Payout to Banks by Ryan Tracy a Reporter for The Wall Street Journal
A US Uncut article popped up on my Facebook discussing Congress possibly defunding banks to pay for the repair of US highways. This tickled my suspicious nerves. Of course, I had to look deeper into it. Then I found The Wall Street Journal’s article. This could actually be a thing.
Here is the problem with cutting the Fed dividend rate from 6% to 1.5%: Banks are counting on that 3.5% difference when creating short term (yearly) and long term budgets. So Janet Yellen is right, this does have unforeseen consequences. For many of them, Congress members are just diverting their eyes away. Some of the bigger banks could make up for the difference by not paying their execs HUGE bonuses, but not only will that not happen, the smaller banks don’t have that leeway.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I am all for requiring the rich to help keep this country great — or make it great again — by financing infrastructure directly and indirectly. On the other hand, a 3.5% drop in expected revenue/income/etc is a BIG drop to makeup.
As stated previously, the “big” banks have areas they could cut that would not affect their customers, clients, or the “average” American. These include: not remodeling the million dollar exec offices, lowering exec bonus, reducing “marketing” budgets for their largest clients (businesses spend money winning and dinning their clients, especially their big client. It is reasonable to assume banks do too), and much more. However, we can all assume that these reasonable adjustments will not be implemented. Instead, overage charges will increase, and loan terms will become less favorable and the “perks” will be reduced for the smaller clients.
Banks will react to this, they can’t not react. In the end, someone is going to be hurt, and I doubt it will be the wealthy.
First off, classical economics in a nut is laissez-fair or “leave it alone and it will be fine.”
Up until the 1920s, recessions were more or less manageable. Perhaps not for those greatly affected, but society at large. Of course, the infrastructure of our society at the time could not have supported large government interference.
At the time, small communities were “thriving.” Everybody new their neighbor and few people moved far off from home upon reaching adulthood. Mothers made clothes for their family. If yoy hit hard times you could count on your community to lend a helping hand or at least provide small jobs so you could support your self.
At the turn of the century, society began to change. More and more people were moving to the city. We new fewer and fewer of our neighbors. It is my belief that this is where our roots of “support yourself you lazy bumb” really started to take root.
That’s why classical economics failed. People wanted more and more of the economic pie. Since people of power had the power to take what of the pie they wanted, they did. Since there was less pie to go around, the less powerful people had to borrow money in order to participate in the economic (false) boom of the time.
People of power no longer felt that they were accountable for the wellbeing of others because they weren’t around those of a “lesser” status. Had we continued to have the tight knit community we had before, powerful people would have been held more accountable.
Observations of society will show you that people of a higher social standing do not hold themselves accountable to those of a lower social standing. Bell hops for the most expensive apartments in Manhattan will tell you that most of the residents will only tip a few dollars (if that) because the residents know that amount is what would be expected at the lowest apartment buildings that still have bell hops.
Studies have shown that people who begin with an adherently better position believe they earned what wealth follows amd that those who started in a disadvantaged position deserve what poverty follows. Don’t believe me?
Check this link out: monopoly study
I am not saying that before the 20th century there were not greedy people. I am saying that there have always been greedy people and that as our society expands it becomes more and more difficult to hold (greedy) people of power accountable for taking care of their share of society. That is why classical economics has failed and why we now need keynesian economics. That is why we need a minimum wage. That is why we need regulations. Too many people will only give the bare minimum they are required to for society and they will take the rest.