4 ms·

How about direct cash payments to consumers instead of involving any private enterprise.

rmah 6y ago
Direct payments to consumers is a 100% loss on those funds. Buying Walmart (or other corporate debt) means the Fed gets the money back when those firms pay down that debt. So very very different.
- deleuze 6y ago
  No, that's incorrect. It's not 100% loss on those funds unless they take the money and bury it in a pit. The money will just return to the treasury, not the fed. The fed's balance sheet is imaginary anyway.
  - rmah 6y ago
    We were discussing the fed handing out money to consumers, not the US Treasury. Tax dollars (which is what I assume you meant by "the money will just return to the treasury") do not go to pay for fed operations. And the fed's balance sheet is distinct and separate from the US federal government's balance sheet. My point stands, a handout to consumers would be a 100% loss for the Fed.
- slg 6y ago
  A loss for whom? It is all taxpayer money. Does it matter if the Fed makes a profit or if the money is refunded back to the public? It is the equivalent of a stock dividend.
  - rmah 6y ago
    A loss for the Fed.
    - slg 6y ago
      And why do we care whether the Fed is profitable?
  - rlucas 6y ago
    A bit of a nit. Treasury money is taxpayer money. Fed money is ... not. It's seigniorage. But the point of this subthread remains; corporate loans are expected to be paid back (less some loss reserve, but plus some credit spread), whilst direct payments to individuals are not. [Edit: should speak of corporate bonds, not loans, for precision. There is a big difference though for this thread it's minor.]
    - slg 6y ago
      Any profit from the Fed goes back to the Treasury and seigniorage is basically a tax on all USD holders through inflation so it is largely a distinction without a difference. It is our money. Giving it back to us isn't a "loss".
      - deleuze 6y ago
        Exactly right. But I'd even take it a step further, if we use that money to create material things like infrastructure (rather than endless financial instruments) is that really a loss? The dollar could cease to hold any value and we'd still have bridges and roads afterwards.
        slg 6y ago
        I might not have said it in that comment, but I totally agree with you. It is one thing to talk about the efficiency of government spending, but it is almost always stupid for us to talk about government programs or projects in terms of profits and losses.
DevKoala 6y ago
Consumers don’t subsidize the revenue of even a 30% of existing industries. If the payments were made to individuals then all of the companies that have Walmart as a customer would go down along with Walmart.
- deleuze 6y ago
  Sure, but they do subsidize Walmart. As for other sectors, we should take national ownership in the company if they want us to buy their debt.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    Consumers are already buying as much as they can from Walmart. There are shortages on items that are not being produced. Walmart is incurring on new debt because the upstream actors failed. It is a healthy business that will come back the moment the situation stabilizes.
    - deleuze 6y ago
      > It is a healthy business that will come back the moment the situation stabilizes. Sure, then we don't need to finance their debt.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > we should take national ownership in the company if they want us to buy their debt. Equity is equity and debt is debt. The two things are different and serve different purposes. There is no reason to take equity in a company when all the company wants is a loan.
    - rlucas 6y ago
      True but also not true. In normal times with well-functioning markets and non-distressed players, that's so. But with distressed (or small or less creditworthy) players or at distressed times, it's extremely common for lenders to demand equity as a concession for making a loan. See PIKs, warrant coverage, convertible notes, etc.
dageshi 6y ago
The fed gets the money it loaned to wallmart back, it doesn't get the money back from consumers.
- deleuze 6y ago
  The fed might not, but the treasury does. The Fed balance sheet is imaginary anyway.
occamrazor 6y ago
Because these loans will be (mostly) paid back. And both the Treasury and the Fed are lending a lot of money to people, through mortgages, at extremely low rates.
- abeppu 6y ago
  Yeah, but in that form, to which portions of the population are the fed and treasury indirectly lending via mortgages? Are the people in a position to benefit from that lending the most important people to assist? Is their spending going to optimize some multiplier that gets the fed the most impact for each dollar lent? Or could they have a larger effect with an intervention that injects money to some other group?

rmah 6y ago

Direct payments to consumers is a 100% loss on those funds. Buying Walmart (or other corporate debt) means the Fed gets the money back when those firms pay down that debt. So very very different.

deleuze 6y ago
No, that's incorrect. It's not 100% loss on those funds unless they take the money and bury it in a pit. The money will just return to the treasury, not the fed. The fed's balance sheet is imaginary anyway.
- rmah 6y ago
  We were discussing the fed handing out money to consumers, not the US Treasury. Tax dollars (which is what I assume you meant by "the money will just return to the treasury") do not go to pay for fed operations. And the fed's balance sheet is distinct and separate from the US federal government's balance sheet. My point stands, a handout to consumers would be a 100% loss for the Fed.
slg 6y ago
A loss for whom? It is all taxpayer money. Does it matter if the Fed makes a profit or if the money is refunded back to the public? It is the equivalent of a stock dividend.
- rmah 6y ago
  A loss for the Fed.
  - slg 6y ago
    And why do we care whether the Fed is profitable?
- rlucas 6y ago
  A bit of a nit. Treasury money is taxpayer money. Fed money is ... not. It's seigniorage. But the point of this subthread remains; corporate loans are expected to be paid back (less some loss reserve, but plus some credit spread), whilst direct payments to individuals are not. [Edit: should speak of corporate bonds, not loans, for precision. There is a big difference though for this thread it's minor.]
  - slg 6y ago
    Any profit from the Fed goes back to the Treasury and seigniorage is basically a tax on all USD holders through inflation so it is largely a distinction without a difference. It is our money. Giving it back to us isn't a "loss".
    - deleuze 6y ago
      Exactly right. But I'd even take it a step further, if we use that money to create material things like infrastructure (rather than endless financial instruments) is that really a loss? The dollar could cease to hold any value and we'd still have bridges and roads afterwards.
      - slg 6y ago
        I might not have said it in that comment, but I totally agree with you. It is one thing to talk about the efficiency of government spending, but it is almost always stupid for us to talk about government programs or projects in terms of profits and losses.

DevKoala 6y ago

Consumers don’t subsidize the revenue of even a 30% of existing industries. If the payments were made to individuals then all of the companies that have Walmart as a customer would go down along with Walmart.

deleuze 6y ago
Sure, but they do subsidize Walmart. As for other sectors, we should take national ownership in the company if they want us to buy their debt.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  Consumers are already buying as much as they can from Walmart. There are shortages on items that are not being produced. Walmart is incurring on new debt because the upstream actors failed. It is a healthy business that will come back the moment the situation stabilizes.
  - deleuze 6y ago
    > It is a healthy business that will come back the moment the situation stabilizes. Sure, then we don't need to finance their debt.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > we should take national ownership in the company if they want us to buy their debt. Equity is equity and debt is debt. The two things are different and serve different purposes. There is no reason to take equity in a company when all the company wants is a loan.
  - rlucas 6y ago
    True but also not true. In normal times with well-functioning markets and non-distressed players, that's so. But with distressed (or small or less creditworthy) players or at distressed times, it's extremely common for lenders to demand equity as a concession for making a loan. See PIKs, warrant coverage, convertible notes, etc.

dageshi 6y ago

The fed gets the money it loaned to wallmart back, it doesn't get the money back from consumers.

deleuze 6y ago
The fed might not, but the treasury does. The Fed balance sheet is imaginary anyway.

occamrazor 6y ago

Because these loans will be (mostly) paid back. And both the Treasury and the Fed are lending a lot of money to people, through mortgages, at extremely low rates.

abeppu 6y ago
Yeah, but in that form, to which portions of the population are the fed and treasury indirectly lending via mortgages? Are the people in a position to benefit from that lending the most important people to assist? Is their spending going to optimize some multiplier that gets the fed the most impact for each dollar lent? Or could they have a larger effect with an intervention that injects money to some other group?