Comments for The Fed Hands $47.4 Billion to the Treasury: If Only the Deficit Hawks Knew at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 18 May 2013 11:37:42 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-1783 It can simply print money. this is a very big problem, 'cause no one knows how much money in the hands of the population. This may lead to an economic explosion. The problem I described in more detail - custom essay. Maybe someone would be interested. - custom essay Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:44:31 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-267 OK so we print money so that mom and dad keep their job. Teachers work and give us a better educated populous in the future 9AND SO FASTER GROWTH). The down side. is, lets say inflation goes up by 2% into the 4-5% range. People will start becoming less "underwater" in their homes. Banks will howl like wounded hyenas because their profits will sag a little. - SteveBreeze Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:55:29 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-196 Dr Baker, could you please explain how stagflation can possibly exist? As I read your model we have just two market conditions inflation and contraction. That sure as hell seems to miss a bunch. Don't know if you noticed but inflation IS running up. Oh yeah, not in any measurable way, food and fuel are exempted from consideration. But this is another way that your metrics are not based in reality. While in reality inflation consumes our commodities dollars the gov't fails to increase our checks as it just doesn't show up. Further, as the stimulus from the Fed pumps money into the economy at less than 1/2% that money is again driving speculation in oil and commodities. This enriches the speculators at the expense of the masses--NONE of this shows up in Dr. Baker's metrics. Ignore the fact that we have the largest oil glut we've had since October '07. Never mind that the percentage of our national budget that goes to debt service increases every year, displacing money that used to fund budgets and services. No, these monies will be going to enrich the wealthy. We used to tax them, only today we pay them to loan us money. Never mind that money depreciates as it trickles down to us common folk. The effects of inflation are here even if 10yr T notes are under 4%, they won't be for long. When economies emerge from this downturn, ours will be the hot potato. Or, more likely there won't be a recovery, but STAGFLATION that will keep the world's economy waiting for recovery for a decade as if waiting for Godot. Finally, Dr. Baker doesn't mention the horrible inefficiency of gov't spending. I'm not a critic of gov't per se, but our dog and pony show gov't. We have dog and pony show medicare--a fully socialized system would be far more efficient. Our compromised system is horribly inefficient. Lastly, (sorry) Dr Baker would dismiss a bit of inflation. After all inflation would make our $12 trillion in foreign debt cheaper. Only there's a hitch here he ignores. For every dollar obligation inflation might ease, we owe 4 ($48tr.) times in obligations that will rise FASTER than inflation! But, other than that I think you've laid the issue to rest Dr. Baker. - scott Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:18:02 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-191 Hey Bubba, come 'ere and read this. He's saying it agin. The gubmint can just print more money to pay for the debt. What'd you do with that counterfeit printer we lived on when Carter was president? Let's modify it to do holograms and get rich again. They won't notice with the quantitative flooding and all. I already checked and as long as P and V are constant, increasing M just increases Q for MV=PQ, so we don't have to worry about causing inflation and drawing any attention from the Fed. - izzatzo Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:05:20 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-188 I've read the NYT article seven times now in an effort to understand enough to allay the fears of my deficit-hawk neighbors, but I still don't get it. I didn't know the Fed paid some or all of their profits to the Treasury. I think I need to study a primer on the Fed's relationship to the Treasury. Got any suggestions on where I should start? - Queen of Sheba Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:16:44 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-182 What exactly were the long-term consequences of the severe inflation of the 40's and early 50's? The 50's and 60's were prosperous; the GDP growth - and especially wage growth - of that period is a distant dream, so there were no major short-term damages. Those who feel the burden now and blame your parents and grandparents raise your hands. - skeptonomist Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:22:19 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-180 Andy, why do you blame the federal government? Why can't the state and local governments just cut other programs? Also, shouldn't you support the idea of federal legislation to mandate that states keep better budgets to begin with so they don't get into a mess again? Basically, if the states were responsible, they could borrow money or dip into savings to cover their deficits now. They should be required to become responsible starting now. - Aditya Savara Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:59:16 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-179 The New York Times just ran another article about how tens of thousands of teachers are slated to be laid off because of poor state and local government finances and the end of the first Federal stimulus package. Another Federal stimulus package could prevent these teacher layoffs, but all the media hysteria about the danger of the deficit to our children has made this politically impossible. So, now we are inflicting a definite harm on our children today in order to avoid a speculative risk to them from deficits in the future. That makes sense. - AndyfromTucson Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:46:21 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/the-fed-hands-474-billion-to-the-treasury-if-only-the-deficit-hawks-knew/#comment-173 "In fact, insofar as the spending provides their parents with jobs and income, it directly helps our children." Yes, the current spending is probably doing good overall. But it is still being done rather inefficiently -- in terms of which sectors it is being spent in and how -- so some of it is just hurting our children. If the NYT simply said "The current spending creates jobs", wouldn't you feel compelled to say that the news source should discuss how badly the spending is being allocated? I believe you have discussed this issue before, but I think you need to mention it here too. - Aditya Savara Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:22:17 +0100