Skip to main content

Is the Fed really "pumping money"?

There's an interesting exchange on the issue of Fed induced liquidity over at Mish's blog.

Author Mish seems to think the idea that the Fed is able to pump money and liquidity into the system is a bit of a misconception. He decided to contact one of the writers at the Minyanville website and voice his objections to a statement about the "Fed pumping money" that appeared in the writer's article.

In Mish's view, "pumping money" is not exactly what is going on here. He makes his case clear to the writer in question, who decides that Mish has made an interesting argument that merits further study and added insight from his community members.

Here is a small excerpt from that debate, starting with Mish's point of view:

Here is how I look at things:

This Fed has chosen to defend an interest rate target. The Fed must supply all demand for credit at that target. If the Fed failed to do so the interest rate target would not be hit and interest rates would either rise or drop accordingly.

Now I am a big fan of abolishing the Fed and letting the market set rates, but as long as the Fed has an interest rate target (as opposed to a money supply target) the Fed is not pumping money per se, the Fed is defending an arbitrary target that it has established, no more no less. Thus it is not the Fed initiating anything, the Fed is merely meeting demand for money at the arbitrary target they set.

The last sentence of Mish's excerpted comments are key to my understanding of his position. In his view, with regards to money/liquidity creation, the Fed is not "initiating anything", they are simply "meeting demand for money at the arbitrary target they set".

Now here's the key rebuttal point that I got from one of the Minyanville members (quote from "Professor Succo"):

The Fed has set an artificially low interest rate. The market wants higher rates because it sees the problems these low rates are causing: that money is getting into speculation and very low grade credit. The Fed must supply enough new credit (repo) in order to keep rates from rising. The recent steepening of the yield curve is telling us that this is hard to do: they are doing too many repos trying to keep rates low.

If the Fed wants to stop pumping money they would admit that rates are too low and would raise them.

In fact the recent steepening is very alarming. It is due to defaults/foreclosures where lenders are saying they cannot continue to pass on to speculators/low quality borrowers all that new credit the fed is trying to force into the market.

In the Professor's view, the Fed is not "merely meeting demand" for money and credit; they are actively supplying it by force to the market.

Which view is correct? Beats me. I can say one thing, though. There is some interesting debate here, and this exchange will expose a few more people to some of the lesser-known mechanics of money creation and banking.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance, I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart.

So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like. 

Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ$BCORpic.twitter.com/xjsMk433H7
— David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015
For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan, turned to rubble.

As detailed in our post, "Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months. 

In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the stock soon peaked and began a…

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL! 

Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com

Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner.  



Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead!

As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter. You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter). 

Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter.

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers. To get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter.

The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series titleof the 21st century this week.

Having won their first Series in 86 years back in 2004, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it?

Quick background: in late 2002, team owner and hedge fund manager,John W. Henry(with his partners)bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $695 million.

Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship.

This brings us to one of my favorite scenes from the 2011 film, Moneyball, in which John W. Henry (played by Arliss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) over to Boston with an excellent job off…