4 ms·

"we live in a world of massive asset bubbles created by government fiscal policies" Do we? Or have we lived in a world where asset prices were suppressed due t

"we live in a world of massive asset bubbles created by government fiscal policies" Do we? Or have we lived in a world where asset prices were suppressed due to artificial intervention by central banks. Interest rate setting is a market intervention. If left to its own devices the market rate would be driven down towards zero.

flurben 6y ago
> If left to its own devices the market rate would be driven down towards zero. How do you figure?
- neilwilson 6y ago
  Banks can't get rid of reserves at the central bank in aggregate. They can only get rid of them to other banks. So there is no need for the central bank to pay them. Since there are always more reserves than required, and no alternative source of interest, the inter bank rate would be driven to zero by supply and demand. That's then the 'market rate'. You can't hold reserves so the bank can charge you extra for borrowing money. Only banks can get zero. How do you think central bank rates bind? It gives banks an alternative source of interest other than lending them to each other.
  - flurben 6y ago
    ok. it seems our differences here are more in definitions and semantics I interpret the phrase 'left to their own devices' to mean that there is no central bank and therefore reserves are as a concept are null and void, which then also nullify the concept of a federal funds rate, which would upend the concept of the federal funds rate being 'the market rate' in the first place. I'll take your word for it about the mechanics of what happens to inter-bank rates under different reserve mechanisms, perhaps they would be driven to zero for the reasons you outlined. However I'm unclear on what the macroeconomic ramifications would be of letting a small group of banks dictate the federal funds rate; I believe the purpose of this system is to achieve a congressional directive regarding price stability and labor utilization.
lolsal 6y ago
Being driven down to zero I think means people would lend at 0% interest - I would think thousands of years of anecdotal evidence would speak to the contrary - how would it ever get to zero? Who would lend like that? What would their motivation be?
- neilwilson 6y ago
  "Being driven down to zero I think means people would lend at 0% interest " Banks can't get rid of reserves at the central bank in aggregate. They can only get rid of them to other banks. So there is no need for the central bank to pay them. You can't hold reserves so the bank can charge you for borrowing money. Since there are more reserves than required, and no alternative source of interest, the inter bank rate would be driven to zero. How do you think central bank rates bind? It gives banks an alternative source of interest other than lending them to each other.
  - lolsal 6y ago
    You went way over my head I'm afraid. I don't know how banks/reserves/etc work.
    - spiralx 6y ago
      I keep these bookmarked as they're about the simplest and clearest introductions to how economies work that I've found - and the Bank of England should know what they're talking about :) https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-in-the-modern-economy-an-introduction.pdf https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... Bank reserves aren't an important factor in the financial systems, they're there to ensure customers have access to money if they want to withdraw it and to allow banks to move money between each other. More importantly banks don't lend money out of their reserves (so-called "fractional reserve banking"), they simply add the loan amount to the customer's account and also to their own liabilities i.e. they "create" money.

flurben 6y ago

> If left to its own devices the market rate would be driven down towards zero. How do you figure?

neilwilson 6y ago
Banks can't get rid of reserves at the central bank in aggregate. They can only get rid of them to other banks. So there is no need for the central bank to pay them. Since there are always more reserves than required, and no alternative source of interest, the inter bank rate would be driven to zero by supply and demand. That's then the 'market rate'. You can't hold reserves so the bank can charge you extra for borrowing money. Only banks can get zero. How do you think central bank rates bind? It gives banks an alternative source of interest other than lending them to each other.
- flurben 6y ago
  ok. it seems our differences here are more in definitions and semantics I interpret the phrase 'left to their own devices' to mean that there is no central bank and therefore reserves are as a concept are null and void, which then also nullify the concept of a federal funds rate, which would upend the concept of the federal funds rate being 'the market rate' in the first place. I'll take your word for it about the mechanics of what happens to inter-bank rates under different reserve mechanisms, perhaps they would be driven to zero for the reasons you outlined. However I'm unclear on what the macroeconomic ramifications would be of letting a small group of banks dictate the federal funds rate; I believe the purpose of this system is to achieve a congressional directive regarding price stability and labor utilization.

lolsal 6y ago

Being driven down to zero I think means people would lend at 0% interest - I would think thousands of years of anecdotal evidence would speak to the contrary - how would it ever get to zero? Who would lend like that? What would their motivation be?

neilwilson 6y ago
"Being driven down to zero I think means people would lend at 0% interest " Banks can't get rid of reserves at the central bank in aggregate. They can only get rid of them to other banks. So there is no need for the central bank to pay them. You can't hold reserves so the bank can charge you for borrowing money. Since there are more reserves than required, and no alternative source of interest, the inter bank rate would be driven to zero. How do you think central bank rates bind? It gives banks an alternative source of interest other than lending them to each other.
- lolsal 6y ago
  You went way over my head I'm afraid. I don't know how banks/reserves/etc work.
  - spiralx 6y ago
    I keep these bookmarked as they're about the simplest and clearest introductions to how economies work that I've found - and the Bank of England should know what they're talking about :) https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-in-the-modern-economy-an-introduction.pdf https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... Bank reserves aren't an important factor in the financial systems, they're there to ensure customers have access to money if they want to withdraw it and to allow banks to move money between each other. More importantly banks don't lend money out of their reserves (so-called "fractional reserve banking"), they simply add the loan amount to the customer's account and also to their own liabilities i.e. they "create" money.