3 ms·

The fed actually has more tools than the ones it currently uses, some of which have been used in the past. Robert Hockett has written a lot about productive in

The fed actually has more tools than the ones it currently uses, some of which have been used in the past. Robert Hockett has written a lot about productive investments via the federal reserve banks, and how that could be used to transform the economy. Here's one recent paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4023614 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4023614 He wrote a short book about it as well: https://www.amazon.com/Financing-Green-New-Deal-Renewal/dp/3030484491 https://www.amazon.com/Financing-Green-New-Deal-Renewal/dp/3...

im_down_w_otp 4y ago
Thanks for the links. I'll pick up that book. One thing I've been a long-time advocate for is States setting up their own banks akin to that of North Dakota's. If for no other reason than to have a way to leverage national monetary policy for regional aims, so that when the Federal government rushes to the aid of Wall Street (e.g. by flooding it with cheap liquidity) there's a way for State governments to more directly interact with those mechanisms themselves for their benefit. I strongly suspect significant challenges in setting up effective and responsive governance and incentive structures to keep such things from not becoming their own instruments of abuse, but ever since watching 2008 unfold it's bothered me how easy it is to leave States twisting in the wind while the balance sheets of financial institutions are made whole by feeding at the Fed liquidity trough. One of the basic premises of "States rights", as it were, is that it's supposed to offer lots of little "laboratories of democracy", but as it stands right now there's no good way to actually finance those laboratories to invest in ambitious things. So, what we mostly end up with instead is only the downside of using "States rights" in the only way that it's cheap to do so, which is usually by restricting or denying things. It's much harder to get the upside of investing in things without all the latitude that the Federal government enjoys financially.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  If only someone reminded S Dakota of the rule against perpetuities at the same time.
thoms_a 4y ago
Indeed, and since it is a privately owned entity [1] with a figurehead appointed by a politician to give the illusion of public accountability, the Fed has very little incentive to do anything but enrich its shareholders: private banks. "Liberal Democracy" is all theatre, all the time. It is a plutocracy with an extremely advanced propaganda arm designed to fool even the most intelligent observer, as can be seen by the high degree of trust placed in the system by my esteemed colleagues here at HN. Alas, we get the rulers we deserve. 1. https://publicbankinginstitute.org/money-banking-basics/ https://publicbankinginstitute.org/money-banking-basics/
- pas 4y ago
  central banks all around the world, including the US Federal Reserve System are all public institutions. completely controlled by presidential appointees. (they have the majority of the seats)

im_down_w_otp 4y ago

Thanks for the links. I'll pick up that book. One thing I've been a long-time advocate for is States setting up their own banks akin to that of North Dakota's. If for no other reason than to have a way to leverage national monetary policy for regional aims, so that when the Federal government rushes to the aid of Wall Street (e.g. by flooding it with cheap liquidity) there's a way for State governments to more directly interact with those mechanisms themselves for their benefit. I strongly suspect significant challenges in setting up effective and responsive governance and incentive structures to keep such things from not becoming their own instruments of abuse, but ever since watching 2008 unfold it's bothered me how easy it is to leave States twisting in the wind while the balance sheets of financial institutions are made whole by feeding at the Fed liquidity trough. One of the basic premises of "States rights", as it were, is that it's supposed to offer lots of little "laboratories of democracy", but as it stands right now there's no good way to actually finance those laboratories to invest in ambitious things. So, what we mostly end up with instead is only the downside of using "States rights" in the only way that it's cheap to do so, which is usually by restricting or denying things. It's much harder to get the upside of investing in things without all the latitude that the Federal government enjoys financially.

selimthegrim 4y ago
If only someone reminded S Dakota of the rule against perpetuities at the same time.

thoms_a 4y ago

Indeed, and since it is a privately owned entity [1] with a figurehead appointed by a politician to give the illusion of public accountability, the Fed has very little incentive to do anything but enrich its shareholders: private banks. "Liberal Democracy" is all theatre, all the time. It is a plutocracy with an extremely advanced propaganda arm designed to fool even the most intelligent observer, as can be seen by the high degree of trust placed in the system by my esteemed colleagues here at HN. Alas, we get the rulers we deserve. 1. https://publicbankinginstitute.org/money-banking-basics/ https://publicbankinginstitute.org/money-banking-basics/

pas 4y ago
central banks all around the world, including the US Federal Reserve System are all public institutions. completely controlled by presidential appointees. (they have the majority of the seats)