4 ms·

The Fed's reasons for existing have nothing to do with making money, nor with having assets (bond holdings) that exceed its liabilities (monetary obligations).

by cs702 4y ago

The Fed's reasons for existing have nothing to do with making money, nor with having assets (bond holdings) that exceed its liabilities (monetary obligations). Profits and positive equity are not even goals of the Fed. If you read the Fed board minutes, you'll find that board members don't even discuss profits. The Fed's actual goals are: (1) to maximize employment as much as possible, while (2) keeping prices reasonably stable (i.e., not rising too much each year), and (3) promoting the stability of the financial system as much as possible. If they conclude that they have to raise rates much higher and continue to withdraw liquidity from financial markets to bring inflation under control, they will do it -- even if it means inflicting a painful recession.

RangerScience 4y ago
> maximize employment Huh. Do you know if they consider quality of employment in there as well? 'Cuz if not, that plus Goodhart's law would, uh, explain some things. Saw a meme today or yesterday, something like: Them, celebrating: We've created thousands of jobs! Me: And I need three of them to pay my bills!
- wonder_er 4y ago
  > if they consider quality of employment in there as well? I think it's of sufficient quality (for the fed) if that employment leads to state coffers being sufficiently filled, without the wheels coming off the bus during their tenure or their immediate successor's tenure. As you said - needing/having three jobs isn't really legible to the people at the Fed, so there's no visible problem!
- OscarCunningham 4y ago
  The Fed only really has one lever; it's already a bit much to want them to control both inflation and employment.
  - rhelz 4y ago
    >>it's already a bit much to want them to control both inflation and employment. They have to have two counter-acting goals in order to not become a paperclip maximization machine.
    - OscarCunningham 4y ago
      Countries with only an inflation target seem to do fine. To be fair, they don't want to undershoot or overshoot the target, which is sort of like having two goals.
    - RangerScience 4y ago
      Yup yup. Balance comes from opposing forces. Nowadays, when I see something unbalanced, I first look for missing forces (and then look for outsized forces).
    - pastdiscovery 4y ago
      Counterpoint: A paperclip maximizer is a good thing. Paperclips are very useful. In conjunction with most surfaces, they can be used as musical instruments, akin to drumsticks or fingerpicks. Being much cheaper than recorders, they would serve as an excellent way to instill a sense of rhythm into children. If you bend them in a certain way, they make quite satisfying and very stable hangers. Who among us has not needed to hang something in place before? If you put one in the back of a TV, you can pick up plenty of ASTV channels, most likely including your local news. This is deeply good for public education and awareness. If you put one in a radio, you can pick up radio channels. Without too much effort, they could also be used to replace the tuners and volume knobs on one. They work very well as stands for all sorts of things if slightly deformed, which can be deeply useful. You can use sufficiently large ones (known in most markets by the affectionate moniker of "jumbo" paper clips) to teach people how to tie knots, in a manner that requires less mechanical dexterity than most rope. If you peel the end of one out, it makes a delightful pinhole puncher, which is very useful for certain styles of photography. This isn't even getting into all of the remarkable ways you can use them with paper! And if you're paperless, it would be hard to think of a more efficient way of making the perfect-sized USB stick keychain for precisely your amount of USB sticks. Please do not slander paperclips; we need a paperclip maximizer for the good of society, and little would be a better short-term goal for AI research.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > Do you know if they consider quality of employment in there as well? Only around the property of income, seeking a state of stagnation. If your boss is now whipping you to keep you in line where he previously wasn't, that would be beyond their purview. There are supposed to be other organizations to control for those concerns.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bun_at_work 4y ago
To be clear, the article does not argue that the fed exists to make money, or anything like that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  "Went broke" applied to the Fed is still a category error.
rybosworld 4y ago
These are the stated goals of the Fed, yes. In practice, does it matter? The Fed operates with impunity and can effectively do what ever it's members prefer.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Absolutely not, it's beholden to Congress.
  - landemva 4y ago
    This Fed bank Pres was trading $M on non-public inside info before Fed market-moving actions. Will Congress do anything? https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robert-kaplan-stock-trades-apple-tesla-federal-reserve-president-2021-9 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robert-kapla... "Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan made million-dollar stock trades in Tesla, Amazon"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
spinchange 4y ago
The historical raison d'etre for the Federal Reserve act was principally point 3. Points 1 and 2 have become the central focus or modern Fed "mandate" and generally thought to be beneficent outcomes of a successful #3, besides. If the Fed inflicts too painful of a recession it fails at points 1 and 2, as well.

by cs702 4y ago

RangerScience 4y ago

> maximize employment Huh. Do you know if they consider quality of employment in there as well? 'Cuz if not, that plus Goodhart's law would, uh, explain some things. Saw a meme today or yesterday, something like: Them, celebrating: We've created thousands of jobs! Me: And I need three of them to pay my bills!

wonder_er 4y ago
> if they consider quality of employment in there as well? I think it's of sufficient quality (for the fed) if that employment leads to state coffers being sufficiently filled, without the wheels coming off the bus during their tenure or their immediate successor's tenure. As you said - needing/having three jobs isn't really legible to the people at the Fed, so there's no visible problem!
OscarCunningham 4y ago
The Fed only really has one lever; it's already a bit much to want them to control both inflation and employment.
- rhelz 4y ago
  >>it's already a bit much to want them to control both inflation and employment. They have to have two counter-acting goals in order to not become a paperclip maximization machine.
  - OscarCunningham 4y ago
    Countries with only an inflation target seem to do fine. To be fair, they don't want to undershoot or overshoot the target, which is sort of like having two goals.
  - RangerScience 4y ago
    Yup yup. Balance comes from opposing forces. Nowadays, when I see something unbalanced, I first look for missing forces (and then look for outsized forces).
  - pastdiscovery 4y ago
    Counterpoint: A paperclip maximizer is a good thing. Paperclips are very useful. In conjunction with most surfaces, they can be used as musical instruments, akin to drumsticks or fingerpicks. Being much cheaper than recorders, they would serve as an excellent way to instill a sense of rhythm into children. If you bend them in a certain way, they make quite satisfying and very stable hangers. Who among us has not needed to hang something in place before? If you put one in the back of a TV, you can pick up plenty of ASTV channels, most likely including your local news. This is deeply good for public education and awareness. If you put one in a radio, you can pick up radio channels. Without too much effort, they could also be used to replace the tuners and volume knobs on one. They work very well as stands for all sorts of things if slightly deformed, which can be deeply useful. You can use sufficiently large ones (known in most markets by the affectionate moniker of "jumbo" paper clips) to teach people how to tie knots, in a manner that requires less mechanical dexterity than most rope. If you peel the end of one out, it makes a delightful pinhole puncher, which is very useful for certain styles of photography. This isn't even getting into all of the remarkable ways you can use them with paper! And if you're paperless, it would be hard to think of a more efficient way of making the perfect-sized USB stick keychain for precisely your amount of USB sticks. Please do not slander paperclips; we need a paperclip maximizer for the good of society, and little would be a better short-term goal for AI research.
randomdata 4y ago
> Do you know if they consider quality of employment in there as well? Only around the property of income, seeking a state of stagnation. If your boss is now whipping you to keep you in line where he previously wasn't, that would be beyond their purview. There are supposed to be other organizations to control for those concerns.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bun_at_work 4y ago

To be clear, the article does not argue that the fed exists to make money, or anything like that.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
"Went broke" applied to the Fed is still a category error.

rybosworld 4y ago

These are the stated goals of the Fed, yes. In practice, does it matter? The Fed operates with impunity and can effectively do what ever it's members prefer.

arcticbull 4y ago
Absolutely not, it's beholden to Congress.
- landemva 4y ago
  This Fed bank Pres was trading $M on non-public inside info before Fed market-moving actions. Will Congress do anything? https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robert-kaplan-stock-trades-apple-tesla-federal-reserve-president-2021-9 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robert-kapla... "Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan made million-dollar stock trades in Tesla, Amazon"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

spinchange 4y ago

The historical raison d'etre for the Federal Reserve act was principally point 3. Points 1 and 2 have become the central focus or modern Fed "mandate" and generally thought to be beneficent outcomes of a successful #3, besides. If the Fed inflicts too painful of a recession it fails at points 1 and 2, as well.