Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 11 (11 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   23 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Monetize This! A better way to fund the stimulus package

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 6   Valuable 4   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 2/21/09

Become a Fan
  (173 fans)

"Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliances relieved, or not at all."  – Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

Moody's credit rating agency is warning that the U.S. government's AAA credit rating is at risk, because it has taken on so much debt that there are few creditors left to underwrite it.  Foreigners have bought as much as two-thirds of U.S. debt in recent years, but they could be doing much less purchasing of U.S. Treasury securities in the future, not so much out of a desire to chastise America as simply because they won't have the funds to do it.  Oil prices have fallen off a cliff and the U.S. purchase of foreign exports has dried up, slashing the surpluses that those countries previously recycled back into U.S. Treasuries.  And domestic buyers of securities, to the extent that they can be found, will no doubt demand substantially higher returns than the rock-bottom interest rates at which Treasuries are available now.1 

Who, then, is left to buy the government's debt and fund President Obama's $900 billion stimulus package?  The taxpayers are obviously tapped out, so the money will have to be borrowed; but borrowed from whom?  The pool of available lenders is shrinking fast.  Morever, servicing the federal debt through private lenders imposes a crippling interest burden on the U.S. Treasury.  The interest tab was $412 billion in fiscal year 2008, or about one-third of the federal government's total income from personal income taxes ($1,220 billion in 2008).  The taxpayers not only cannot afford the $900 billion; they cannot afford to increase their interest payments.  But what is the alternative?

How about turning to the lender of last resort, the Federal Reserve itself?  The advantage for the government of borrowing from its own central bank is that this money is virtually free.  This is because the Federal Reserve rebates any interest it receives to the Treasury after deducting its costs, and the federal debt is never actually paid off but is just rolled over from year to year.  Interest-free loans that are never paid off are basically free money.  In 2008, 85% of the interest collected by the Federal Reserve (or "Fed") was returned to the Treasury.  The average interest rate on Treasury securities today is only about 3%; 15% of 3% is less than ½% – such a negligible interest as to make the money nearly free.

The Fed does not have to worry about interest, because it does not actually have to acquire the money before lending it, and it knows the government will not default.  The Fed originates the money it lends, either on a printing press or with accounting entries.  It can purchase Treasury debt simply by writing credits into the "reserve account" of the seller's bank, which then credits the seller's account.  The Fed's ability to write numbers into an account is obviously unlimited; but it has normally restricted its purchase of government securities to only so much as is necessary to provide the liquidity needed for banks to cash and clear checks.  Funding the government's budget shortfall has usually been left to private lenders; but those loans are drying up, and servicing them is proving expensive.  Both this interest burden and the need to continually attract new lenders could be avoided by tapping into the government's credit line at its own central bank. 

But wouldn't that be dangerously inflationary?  Not in today's economic climate, as will be shown.  And if the notion of funding the government through its own central bank seems too radical and unprecedented to be entertained, consider the radical moves the Fed has already been taking in the last year.  Without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, the Fed just "monetized" $1.2 trillion in private debt, turning commercial loans into money.  If private banks and private corporations now have multi-billion dollar credit lines with the Federal Reserve, then Congress should have one too.  In fact Congress, which gave the Fed its charter to create the national money supply, should have been the first in line.

If the Fed Can "Monetize" Private Debt, It Can Monetize Public Debt.

The Fed has been a hotbed of radical, experimental activity in the past year.  Ben Gisin is a former banker who has long been tracking the Fed's statistical releases.  He says he has never seen anything like it.  Assets have been magically appearing on the Fed's balance sheet, and they are not coming from any traditional source.2 

In May 2007, the Fed reported assets of about $850 billion, and 92% of them were the usual federal securities (government I.O.U.s).  A year later, the Fed's stash of federal securities had dropped to $500 billion, but its total assets remained substantially unchanged.  The federal securities had just been swapped for other forms of debt.  In January of 2009, however, the Fed reported assets of $2.1 trillion, an increase of $1.2 trillion from a year earlier.3  Where did this new money come from?  The Fed's liabilities also went up by $1.2 trillion, indicating that it was creating "credit" simply by double-entry bookkeeping.  Loans were being created by entering them as assets on one side of the Fed's books and as corresponding liabilities on the other.

Creating money by double-entry bookkeeping is not actually unique to the central bank.  It is how all commercial banks come up with the money they lend, as many authorities have attested.  In a revealing booklet called Modern Money Mechanics, the Chicago Federal Reserve explained how banks expand the money supply (or create money) using double-entry bookkeeping.  The booklet stated:

"Of course, [banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits.  If they did this, no additional money would be created.  What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts.  Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise [by the same amount]."4

Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained how monetary expansion is built on the 10% reserve requirement imposed by the Fed:

"[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people – or the government – deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up."5

That means that if the Federal Reserve were operating like a commercial bank, it could take its $500 billion in U.S. securities and fan them into $5 trillion in loans; and that appears to be exactly what it has been doing.  What is extraordinary is that the money is being used to make commercial loans.  If the Fed can come up with $1.2 trillion to "monetize" private promissory notes, argues Ben Gisin, there is no reason it could not come up with $900 billion to monetize Obama's stimulus package.  In fact, Congress could mandate its captive central bank to buy the bonds needed to fund the stimulus package. 

The Advantage of Borrowing from the Federal Reserve

For the government, the difference between borrowing credit created with accounting entries from a private bank and borrowing the same sort of credit from the Federal Reserve is that borrowing from the Fed is nearly interest-free.  That is true today, but it has not always been true.  Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, wrote in a 1964 treatise called A Primer on Money:

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling WEB OF DEBT. In THE PUBLIC BANK SOLUTION, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

It's the Derivatives, Stupid! Why Fannie, Freddie and AIG Had to Be Bailed Out

Mysterious Prison Buses in the Desert

LANDMARK DECISION PROMISES MASSIVE RELIEF FOR HOMEOWNERS AND TROUBLE FOR BANKS

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?

Borrowing from Peter to Pay Paul: The Wall Street Ponzi Scheme Called Fractional Reserve Banking

"Oops, We Meant $7 TRILLION!" What Hank and Ben Are Up to and How They Plan to Pay for It All

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
11 people are discussing this page, with 23 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I posted a comment to this article that Opednews c... by wraft on Saturday, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:00:25 PM
That's why it will never happen.  Adam Sm... by wraft on Saturday, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:29:47 PM
A number of problems here:1- "Federal Reserve... by Jim Eldon on Saturday, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:37:48 PM
As for that nefarious arrangement, and it IS nefar... by Matthew T. on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:24:57 AM
I think everyone should learn to setup a blog and ... by tim brendel on Saturday, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:41:59 PM
Leaving Central banks in the hands of private bank... by Visionary on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:52:14 AM
And your solution is?  The cause of the curre... by Ellen Brown on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:01:36 PM
... talking about. And I can understand the pragma... by Mr M on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:23:41 PM
The cost of pragmatism, a.k.a political expediency... by Jim Eldon on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:54:25 PM
I'm not a great supporter of a gold based syst... by Visionary on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:35:38 PM
....but the Fed has been the problem all along.&nb... by mary sunshine on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:57:05 PM
Oh sure, I agree with that; I'm just saying th... by Ellen Brown on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:34:07 PM
... public servants, and members of our financial ... by Mr M on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:43:01 PM
They're definitely doing something to keep goi... by wagelaborer on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:07:32 PM
       Examine ... by mary sunshine on Sunday, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:39:06 PM
Cynthia McKinney is my good friend.  We were ... by Ellen Brown on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:53:44 AM
 I liked the article very much.  It is s... by John Bessa on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:01:22 AM
The Fed's 10% rule is a control measure. ... by Matthew T. on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:17:06 AM
To quote "StatsGuy" at BaselineScenario.... by Jim Pivonka on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:58:44 PM
I am in awe. Not that I totally understand or agre... by Jim Pivonka on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:48:23 PM
Today's joint statement by Treasury, the FDIC,... by Jim Pivonka on Monday, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:53:10 PM
Thanks!  Yes, very interesting website! ... by Ellen Brown on Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:28:21 AM
Jim says & Ellen agrees that:"Now really,... by Matthew T. on Thursday, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:33:08 AM