<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Right Reform for the Fed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/</link>
	<description>Helping Institutions and Ordinary People Invest Better by Focusing on Risk Control</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:21:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: But What do I Know?</title>
		<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-23806</link>
		<dc:creator>But What do I Know?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:46:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2175#comment-23806</guid>
		<description>Good stuff, David.  

@andrew:  It&#039;s a great idea, this and Yves Smith&#039;s comments might do a world of good. . .  Now, if someone would just invite them to sit down with some Treasury officials. . . :&gt;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff, David.  </p>
<p>@andrew:  It&#8217;s a great idea, this and Yves Smith&#8217;s comments might do a world of good. . .  Now, if someone would just invite them to sit down with some Treasury officials. . . :&gt;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: carol</title>
		<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-23805</link>
		<dc:creator>carol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:33:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2175#comment-23805</guid>
		<description>¨Make the Fed tighten policy when Debt/GDP goes above 200%.  We’re over 350% on that ratio now.  We need to save to bring down debt.¨

David, I fully agree (as with your other points).
However, I do not see it happening.

Why would we save when others electronically ´print´ money to buy our debt?

See todays Bloomberg News:
¨Indirect bidders, a group of investors that includes foreign central banks, purchased 45 percent of the $1.917 trillion in U.S. notes and bonds sold this year through Nov. 25, compared with 29 percent a year ago, according to Fed auction data compiled by Bloomberg News.¨ 

Please note that last year the amount auctioned was much lower (so foreign central banks bought a much lower percentage of a much lower total).

Please also note that all of a sudden, earlier this year, the definition of ´indirect bidders´ was changed, making it more complicated to follow this stuff. What is clear however, is that almost half of the incredible amount of $ 2 trillion, i.e. $ 1000 billion (!!), is being ´purchased´ by the printing presses of foreign central banks. 

This could explain both the record amount of debt issued and the record low yields. 

As the CBO has projected huge deficits PLUS huge debt roll-overs (average maturity down from 7 years to 4 years) up to at least 2019, do you think we could extend the ´printing´ by foreign central banks  -- CB´s ´buying´ each others debt -- for at least 10 more years? 
That would free us from saving, enabling us to ´consume´ our way to reflation of the economy (as is FEDs/Treasuries attempt imo).

I´d appreciate your, and other readers´, take on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>¨Make the Fed tighten policy when Debt/GDP goes above 200%.  We’re over 350% on that ratio now.  We need to save to bring down debt.¨</p>
<p>David, I fully agree (as with your other points).<br />
However, I do not see it happening.</p>
<p>Why would we save when others electronically ´print´ money to buy our debt?</p>
<p>See todays Bloomberg News:<br />
¨Indirect bidders, a group of investors that includes foreign central banks, purchased 45 percent of the $1.917 trillion in U.S. notes and bonds sold this year through Nov. 25, compared with 29 percent a year ago, according to Fed auction data compiled by Bloomberg News.¨ </p>
<p>Please note that last year the amount auctioned was much lower (so foreign central banks bought a much lower percentage of a much lower total).</p>
<p>Please also note that all of a sudden, earlier this year, the definition of ´indirect bidders´ was changed, making it more complicated to follow this stuff. What is clear however, is that almost half of the incredible amount of $ 2 trillion, i.e. $ 1000 billion (!!), is being ´purchased´ by the printing presses of foreign central banks. </p>
<p>This could explain both the record amount of debt issued and the record low yields. </p>
<p>As the CBO has projected huge deficits PLUS huge debt roll-overs (average maturity down from 7 years to 4 years) up to at least 2019, do you think we could extend the ´printing´ by foreign central banks  &#8212; CB´s ´buying´ each others debt &#8212; for at least 10 more years?<br />
That would free us from saving, enabling us to ´consume´ our way to reflation of the economy (as is FEDs/Treasuries attempt imo).</p>
<p>I´d appreciate your, and other readers´, take on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-23804</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2175#comment-23804</guid>
		<description>&quot;Away from that, since Volcker and Martin, when has the Fed truly been independent?  When has it done something politically unpopular?  When has it done something that angered politicians?&quot;

I think that this is generally correct, but would add that Alan Greenspan, of all people, incurred the wrath of George H. W. Bush by tightening into an election.  That was probably his last &quot;independent&quot; act.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Away from that, since Volcker and Martin, when has the Fed truly been independent?  When has it done something politically unpopular?  When has it done something that angered politicians?&#8221;</p>
<p>I think that this is generally correct, but would add that Alan Greenspan, of all people, incurred the wrath of George H. W. Bush by tightening into an election.  That was probably his last &#8220;independent&#8221; act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andrew</title>
		<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-23797</link>
		<dc:creator>andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2175#comment-23797</guid>
		<description>Dave, please tell me you are forwarding thios to the members of the Banking Committee to help them prepare for Ben&#039;s upcomming hearing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, please tell me you are forwarding thios to the members of the Banking Committee to help them prepare for Ben&#8217;s upcomming hearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: matt wilbert</title>
		<link>http://alephblog.com/2009/11/28/the-right-reform-for-the-fed/comment-page-1/#comment-23796</link>
		<dc:creator>matt wilbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alephblog.com/?p=2175#comment-23796</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Fed has been anything but independent.  An independent Fed would have said that they have to preserve the value of the dollar, and refused to do any bailouts.&quot;

This seems completely wrong to me.  First, the Fed&#039;s mandate is not to preserve the value of the dollar, but to &quot;&quot;to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.&quot;  I don&#039;t see that bailouts are antithetical to those goals. Second, I don&#039;t see how the Fed&#039;s actions in 2008-2009 have particularly hurt the value of the dollar, at least not in terms of purchasing power.  Perhaps they will in the future, but it is a bit early to assert that, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Fed has been anything but independent.  An independent Fed would have said that they have to preserve the value of the dollar, and refused to do any bailouts.&#8221;</p>
<p>This seems completely wrong to me.  First, the Fed&#8217;s mandate is not to preserve the value of the dollar, but to &#8220;&#8221;to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.&#8221;  I don&#8217;t see that bailouts are antithetical to those goals. Second, I don&#8217;t see how the Fed&#8217;s actions in 2008-2009 have particularly hurt the value of the dollar, at least not in terms of purchasing power.  Perhaps they will in the future, but it is a bit early to assert that, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
