101
submitted 3 weeks ago by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/news@hexbear.net

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5429645

The Federal Reserve is implementing a 'soft landing' strategy that prioritizes big businesses and financial interests over the working majority, in contrast to 2008 when the market crashed and bailouts favored large corporations at the expense of taxpayers. The current approach involves protecting these interests upfront, ensuring their stability during this economic downturn.

Fed “losses” are banks “gains” in terms of revenues, that ultimately become net income and turn into capital. The fed bought up overpriced bonds from financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, which wasn't a significant issue when interest rates were under their control between 2008 and 2022. However, the loss of credibility on inflation led to rate hikes, causing accumulated losses.

The Fed chairman has stated that small businesses will suffer while big businesses remain strong due to their cash reserves. This strategy comes at a significant cost for average individuals who may face unemployment and potential loss of homes as they bear the brunt of the economic fallout.

Rate hikes and macro-management of money markets are designed to make borrowing expensive, protect big banks, and reduce demand by pushing small and mid-cap stocks into bankruptcy. This approach seems poised to result in further consolidation and monopolization of capital.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SacredExcrement@hexbear.net 38 points 3 weeks ago

And everyone says they didn't learn from 2008

They learned they need to hide everything a little bit more effectively

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago

Gee that "federal" reserve that can act independently of all branches of govt and isn't controlled by capital interests sure is working great! America!! Ahhh the freedom is overwhelmin' me

liberalism

Thank you! Thank you JesusGod for my liberty!

[-] miz@hexbear.net 27 points 3 weeks ago

The Fed chairman has stated that small businesses will suffer while big businesses remain strong due to their cash reserves.

the boater kulaks are not going to like this

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 3 weeks ago

Marx talks about this in Das Kapital incidentally where he points out how large capitalists ultimately devour the small ones.

[-] SchillMenaker@hexbear.net 28 points 3 weeks ago

To be fair I also pointed this out in like middle school

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 3 weeks ago

It's kind of an obvious thing, but shockingly a lot of people still can't understand how capitalist competition directly leads to formation of monopolies.

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 19 points 3 weeks ago

They refuse to understand, it's willing ignorance

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago
[-] SchillMenaker@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago

I disagree, I think Americans are actually brainwashed. The amount that they think people in the DPRK are brainwashed that Kim Jong Un doesn't have an asshole because he doesn't need to shit, that's how much they're brainwashed that capitalism doesn't have an asshole because it doesn't need to shit. The ideology is ever present and all consuming.

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

I agree, most americans are brainwashed, however this mostly by directed ignorance and keeping working people too tired and desperate to care, the people who have the time and energy to fail to "understand how capitalist competition directly leads to formation of monopolies" are willfully ignorant, most people don't think about this and if they do they know it's bullshit, is what I mean

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 3 weeks ago

A bit longer explanation of the graph. The US Treasury is effectively the owner of the Federal Reserve’s entire balance sheet. Any profit or loss resulting from the Fed’s monetary policy actions flows back to the Treasury.

For a long time, the Fed’s income from holding Treasury debt and fees from financial institutions outweighed its expenses (like interest paid on reserves and operational costs).

However, when the Fed raised interest rates on reserves from near 0% to around 5% in 2021-2022, its expenses surged. This was because the Fed had trillions of dollars in reserve liabilities after years of Quantitative Easing (QE) – buying Treasury bonds and Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) to stimulate the economy.

Reserves are liabilities with variable interest rates, so the Fed’s expenses rose immediately. Meanwhile, its assets (mainly Treasury securities and MBS) pay fixed interest, so their income didn’t increase.

Here’s the problem: the value of the Fed’s assets fell when it raised interest rates. This normally wouldn’t be a major issue, as the Fed could just hold those assets until maturity and receive their full value. However, the Fed has been shrinking its balance sheet via Quantitative Tightening (QT) - selling these securities back into the market at a loss.

The overall impact is that the non-government sector now has more claims on the government than before. Essentially, the government spent money into the economy, exchanged that spending for Treasury bonds, the Fed bought those bonds, and is now selling them back at a loss

The key takeaway is that the Fed’s decisions to raise interest rates and conduct QT have increased the government’s overall interest expenses. This leaves less room for non-inflationary public spending on vital areas like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and so on.

[-] Teapot@hexbear.net 9 points 3 weeks ago

Another quibble, QT is when the Fed does not reinvest the principal of maturing assets. As far as I know, they are not selling any assets (unless they started selling MBS?). So they do not have to book the loss of value, but their expenses are now higher than their interest income

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago

sure that's fair

[-] Bloobish@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago

So pretty much a doom spiral that can't end or else the market collapses as all the cocaine will run out?

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

pretty much yeah

[-] Teapot@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This graph does not show all remittances. It shows the negative remittances that are held on the balance sheet as a liability, meaning that the Fed will pay back the government when they start making a profit again. Positive remittances are not held on balance sheet, they are paid to the Treasury immediately. The positive values in your graph is "capital", which is basically unrelated

This document shows Fed remittances over time, which have been substantial. See figure 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2023/nov/fed-remittances-treasury-explaining-deferred-asset

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

When they start making a profit again is doing a lot of work here. It's not at all clear this will actually happen in the foreseeable future. In the mean time, the operating budget is tightened because of ever increasing share of debt payments.

[-] Teapot@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The Fed controls when they make a profit again, since they set the federal funds rate. When they lower that rate below a level that is straightforward to calculate, they will make a profit. It is incredibly easy for the Fed to earn a (long-term) profit since they issue the currency and earn seigniorage

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

The ultimate purpose of the financial games the Fed plays is to protect the interests of large financial institutions. The only way that can be achieved within the context of the current system is by fucking over everyone else. That's what the Fed is doing right now.

[-] Teapot@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

I agree. I am mainly critiquing your graph. You are showing the losses, which are large and look scary. But you're not showing the context of how large the past profits have been.

And even in a world where the Fed is making profits by exchanging short duration for long, they are still providing a huge subsidy to the financial system. So it's not accurate to say these recent losses are a measure of the subsidy to financial institutions. It just feels like the dumb RRP graphs you see on superstonk

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

yeah that makes sense

[-] shath@hexbear.net 17 points 3 weeks ago

shhhh you'll give the game away

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The Federal Reserve is implementing a 'soft landing' strategy that prioritizes big businesses and financial interests over the working majority, in contrast to 2008 when the market crashed and bailouts favored large corporations at the expense of taxpayers. The current approach involves protecting these interests upfront, ensuring their stability during this economic downturn.

The Federal Reserve is implementing a 'soft landing' strategy that prioritizes big businesses and financial interests over the working majority, just as it did in 2008 when the market crashed and bailouts prioritized big businesses and financial interests over the working majority.

There, fixed it for em, they said the same sentence twice but added the words in contrast and rephrased it slightly, making it sounds like two different reactions instead of the only thing capital ever does!

[-] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah I could feel the glasses-on sliding themselves up my face of their own volition reading that one

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah that's better worded thanks, what I was trying to say there was that the contrast is between doing a bailout after a crash vs pumping money into large financial institutions ahead of time. It's the same net effect, but dressed up differently.

[-] Abracadaniel@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

the data in the link show this value staying at ~0 since 2011. This is even more abnormal that the embedded image shows.

[-] Tomorrow_Farewell@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

The Federal Reserve is implementing a 'soft landing' strategy that prioritizes big businesses and financial interests over the working majority, in contrast to 2008 when the market crashed and bailouts favored large corporations at the expense of taxpayers

'In contrast'? What's the difference?

[-] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

Back in 2008 they bailed them out after the bubble popped, this time they're pumping money in ahead of time. Same outcome, but dressed up differently.

[-] HexcraftDirtFarmer@hexbear.net 5 points 3 weeks ago

I failed to come up with something pithy, imagine an atonal cry of frustration instead.

[-] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

$190 billion? Am i missing something? This seems like a small amount to lose considering half of this is given as military aid every few months.

[-] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, it's not actually a small amount. That's close to China's entire military budget, or the cost of getting 5 stitches in a us hospital.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
101 points (100.0% liked)

news

23396 readers
775 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS