• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Fed Considering Raising Interest Rates

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/economy/fed-interest-rates.html?_r=0

Yes, please do. Wouldn't want those lowly working people finally make a little headway in the economy.
Certainly raising interest rates would benefit those with cash savings. How would it benefit "lowly working people?"

They're saying the economy is moving too fast, too many jobs being created raising fears of inflation. Who suffers when they slow the economy? Those who lose their jobs or don't get a job that might have otherwise been created.
 
Certainly raising interest rates would benefit those with cash savings. How would it benefit "lowly working people?"

They're saying the economy is moving too fast, too many jobs being created raising fears of inflation. Who suffers when they slow the economy? Those who lose their jobs or don't get a job that might have otherwise been created.

When the Fed tampers and drops the interest rate to zero it is not serving anything but the big banks. This policy is very negative to people who have retirement accounts and unfair to pension plans. The interest big banks charge credit card users is 170 times as much as they pay their non fed savers. The fed is helping old people go hungry. The fed in bailing out the banks helped them take peoples' homes away from them. This is one issue I agree with Hillary on...let the fuckers fail then liquidate and replace them. It might be easier to find a few slots in prison for the big bank prime offenders if they were not being constantly bailed out.

The difference (interest) between what banks must pay the fed for money and what people must pay the banks must be limited or the wealth disparity in this country will just get worse, even if the Fed raises the prime. It is really a problem of a dictatorship of the Bankers and what they have accomplished at the end of the 20th century...financialiazation of human life on earth. That means the financial institutions and their bosses actually are the bosses of society and the country itself. That gives us what we have...a broken system that does not utilize its people and at the same time sustain its people. The new wealth transfer goes by the name of quantitative easing. I agree merely raising the prime is not enough but hopefully that will spark some government activity to deal with this monopolistic and inadequate financial system.
 
They're saying the economy is moving too fast, too many jobs being created raising fears of inflation. Who suffers when they slow the economy? Those who lose their jobs or don't get a job that might have otherwise been created.

When the Fed tampers and drops the interest rate to zero it is not serving anything but the big banks. This policy is very negative to people who have retirement accounts and unfair to pension plans. The interest big banks charge credit card users is 170 times as much as they pay their non fed savers. The fed is helping old people go hungry. The fed in bailing out the banks helped them take peoples' homes away from them. This is one issue I agree with Hillary on...let the fuckers fail then liquidate and replace them. It might be easier to find a few slots in prison for the big bank prime offenders if they were not being constantly bailed out.

Incorrect. Lower rates hurts banks because it lowers the spread. Banks make money when the spread (ie the rate) is higher.
 
When the Fed tampers and drops the interest rate to zero it is not serving anything but the big banks. This policy is very negative to people who have retirement accounts and unfair to pension plans. The interest big banks charge credit card users is 170 times as much as they pay their non fed savers. The fed is helping old people go hungry. The fed in bailing out the banks helped them take peoples' homes away from them. This is one issue I agree with Hillary on...let the fuckers fail then liquidate and replace them. It might be easier to find a few slots in prison for the big bank prime offenders if they were not being constantly bailed out.

Incorrect. Lower rates hurts banks because it lowers the spread. Banks make money when the spread (ie the rate) is higher.

This money injection is all funny money. It actually needs to be shut down and the banks need to function in the public interest. All the rate hike does is cut off or slow the funny money to the banks. It does nothing to limit the interest the banks can charge. Your judgment doesn't count for much in my book. The actual spread (difference between what the banks pay and what they charge is about maximum today. There need to be usury laws. That is a separate issue.
 
Incorrect. Lower rates hurts banks because it lowers the spread. Banks make money when the spread (ie the rate) is higher.

This money injection is all funny money. .
Yes

Andrew Huszar: Confessions of a Quantitative Easer

I can only say: I'm sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed's first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I've come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.
 
Incorrect. Lower rates hurts banks because it lowers the spread. Banks make money when the spread (ie the rate) is higher.
Higher interest rates would be bad for banks ATM because of the increase in bad debts. Can you imagine how many bad debts banks would have if interest rates normalised?


How much debt has been funneled into projects that were only possible because of such low interest rates. Wall street has benefited by getting fees from these deals.
With WTI oil now at $35 a barrel what is going to happen to the many shale oil projects that have been debt funded if interest rates go up?
http://shalebubble.org/
 
Incorrect. Lower rates hurts banks because it lowers the spread. Banks make money when the spread (ie the rate) is higher.
Higher interest rates would be bad for banks ATM because of the increase in bad debts. Can you imagine how many bad debts banks would have if interest rates normalised?


How much debt has been funneled into projects that were only possible because of such low interest rates. Wall street has benefited by getting fees from these deals.
With WTI oil now at $35 a barrel what is going to happen to the many shale oil projects that have been debt funded if interest rates go up?
http://shalebubble.org/

That's pretty funny! Lower interest rates are bad for banks. The higher the rate (ie difference between what banks pay depositers and the rate on the loans) the better for the banks. You and Arkirk favor policies that benefits banks and you didn't even realize it!

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-11-14/2014-outlook-banks-want-higher-interest-rates
 
Higher interest rates would be bad for banks ATM because of the increase in bad debts. Can you imagine how many bad debts banks would have if interest rates normalised?


How much debt has been funneled into projects that were only possible because of such low interest rates. Wall street has benefited by getting fees from these deals.
With WTI oil now at $35 a barrel what is going to happen to the many shale oil projects that have been debt funded if interest rates go up?
http://shalebubble.org/

That's pretty funny! Lower interest rates are bad for banks. The higher the rate (ie difference between what banks pay depositers and the rate on the loans) the better for the banks. You and Arkirk favor policies that benefits banks and you didn't even realize it!

I didn't say what I favor so I'm not sure why you thought you needed to say that.
I just pointed out that if interest rates were either set by the market today or normalised, banks would have enormous amounts of bad debts the impact of which would dwarf any increased margins they made on loans.

added in edit:
And this doesn't even look at the gargantuan interest rate derivative books of the investment banks. I don't know if anyone can quantify what could happen to these if interest rates went up, but I think we can be confident that bank executives are probably not looking past their next bonus cheque.


The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just published its latest quarterly report on bank trading in derivatives, and disclosed that the exposure of US banks to them now totals $US237 trillion.

Of that, the big four - JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America - account for US$219.7 trillion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/kohler-controlling-derivatives/5515666
 
That's pretty funny! Lower interest rates are bad for banks. The higher the rate (ie difference between what banks pay depositers and the rate on the loans) the better for the banks. You and Arkirk favor policies that benefits banks and you didn't even realize it!

I didn't say what I favor so I'm not sure why you thought you needed to say that.
I just pointed out that if interest rates were either set by the market today or normalised, banks would have enormous amounts of bad debts the impact of which would dwarf any increased margins they made on loans.

added in edit:
And this doesn't even look at the gargantuan interest rate derivative books of the investment banks. I don't know if anyone can quantify what could happen to these if interest rates went up, but I think we can be confident that bank executives are probably not looking past their next bonus cheque.


The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just published its latest quarterly report on bank trading in derivatives, and disclosed that the exposure of US banks to them now totals $US237 trillion.

Of that, the big four - JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America - account for US$219.7 trillion.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/kohler-controlling-derivatives/5515666

Since 2008, most banks "stress" their business loans. They test them, if rates were to increase to X, the rate of default would be.... When rates go up, the spread (the amount that banks pay consumers for their deposits, which is zero today, and the amount they charge for their loans) increases. However, I will say that I don't follow the derivative market, and you could be right there.
 
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday (December 16) that it would raise policy interest rates by ¼ to ½ of 1 percent end the seven year policy of keeping Fed interest rates near zero, and would embark on a path of “gradual” interest rate increases in order to “normalize” interest rates. This announcement had been long expected by pundits, economists and the financial markets, and, more to the point, had long been pushed by Wall Street and their supporters.

It was telling that the first question asked by a reporter in Fed Chair’s Janet Yellen’s press conference following the announcement was not a question at all. The reporter blurted out a sigh of relief: “Finally!” he exalted. The Financial Times’ Lex Column headline: “U.S. Monetary Policy At Last”. In fact the financial media have been huge cheerleaders for a rate hike. In the months leading up to this announcement, much of the business press had been pushing for an increase. In September, when the Fed did not raise rates, much of the financial press ran headlines like the this Wall Street Journal headline: “The FED Blinks”. The Journal was not alone with phrases like: “the open market committee sat on its hands.”. Blinking and hands sitting: these suggest lack of courage, weakness and worse. Neil Irwin of the New York Times, personalized it to Janet Yellen with a headline on September 17: “Why Yellen Blinked on Interest Rates”

Well, yesterday, Yellen did not blink and the financial press and many economists and pundits were clearly pleased. Yet, as the thoughtful members of the press and economists pointed out, economic conditions are not much better, and in some ways are worse, in December, than they had been in September. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) wrote almost immediately after the decision multiple reasons why data do not support a decision to raise rates: He points out that while the official unemployment of 5% is not particularly high, “most other measures of the labor market are near recession levels”. The percentage of the workforce working part time but who really want full time jobs is near the highs reached after the 2001 recession. The percentage of workers willing to quit their jobs to look for a better job is also at near recession highs. “If we look at employment rates, the percentage of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) with jobs is still down by almost three full percentage points from the pre-recession peak.” Finally, wages stagnation is still significant, even despite some recent low gains.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015...ofits-at-the-expense-of-the-real-economy.html
 
The Federal Reserve announced on Wednesday (December 16) that it would raise policy interest rates by ¼ to ½ of 1 percent end the seven year policy of keeping Fed interest rates near zero, and would embark on a path of “gradual” interest rate increases in order to “normalize” interest rates. This announcement had been long expected by pundits, economists and the financial markets, and, more to the point, had long been pushed by Wall Street and their supporters.

It was telling that the first question asked by a reporter in Fed Chair’s Janet Yellen’s press conference following the announcement was not a question at all. The reporter blurted out a sigh of relief: “Finally!” he exalted. The Financial Times’ Lex Column headline: “U.S. Monetary Policy At Last”. In fact the financial media have been huge cheerleaders for a rate hike. In the months leading up to this announcement, much of the business press had been pushing for an increase. In September, when the Fed did not raise rates, much of the financial press ran headlines like the this Wall Street Journal headline: “The FED Blinks”. The Journal was not alone with phrases like: “the open market committee sat on its hands.”. Blinking and hands sitting: these suggest lack of courage, weakness and worse. Neil Irwin of the New York Times, personalized it to Janet Yellen with a headline on September 17: “Why Yellen Blinked on Interest Rates”

Well, yesterday, Yellen did not blink and the financial press and many economists and pundits were clearly pleased. Yet, as the thoughtful members of the press and economists pointed out, economic conditions are not much better, and in some ways are worse, in December, than they had been in September. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) wrote almost immediately after the decision multiple reasons why data do not support a decision to raise rates: He points out that while the official unemployment of 5% is not particularly high, “most other measures of the labor market are near recession levels”. The percentage of the workforce working part time but who really want full time jobs is near the highs reached after the 2001 recession. The percentage of workers willing to quit their jobs to look for a better job is also at near recession highs. “If we look at employment rates, the percentage of prime-age workers (ages 25-54) with jobs is still down by almost three full percentage points from the pre-recession peak.” Finally, wages stagnation is still significant, even despite some recent low gains.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015...ofits-at-the-expense-of-the-real-economy.html

More sucking of Wall street's dick to the detriment of the rest of society.
 
That's pretty funny! Lower interest rates are bad for banks.

Maybe lower rates that banks charge consumers is bad for banks but low fed rates at which banks borrow from the fed is good for banks. Raising that rate isn't particularly good for them. But it's good for people sitting on piles of cash . . . hmmm, I wonder who's been sitting on piles of cash lately?
 
That's pretty funny! Lower interest rates are bad for banks.

Maybe lower rates that banks charge consumers is bad for banks but low fed rates at which banks borrow from the fed is good for banks. Raising that rate isn't particularly good for them. But it's good for people sitting on piles of cash . . . hmmm, I wonder who's been sitting on piles of cash lately?

From your own article...pointing out that corporate debt has grown even faster than the 'piles of cash'.
Outstripping even the cash growth, however, was the growth of outstanding debts.

"The $1.8 trillion in cash is dwarfed by the $5.8 trillion in total debt outstanding, which increased 6x to that of cash during 2014 as borrowers of all stripes took advantage of the low borrowing cost and investors' thirst for yield," Chang said.

But the ZIPR policies have made sure that far too many people feel compelled to put their savings into riskier investments trying to get some return for their money. Lots of retired boomers are out there (like my parents) that have seen their safe income dwindle with ZIPR rates.

There are many things the govt and Federal Reserve could have done to help people more so than WS. Keeping ZIPR rates for years on end isn't one of them. Congress could have allowed the FR to buy up all the student loan debt with their created money instead/in-addition-to of MBSs and treasury notes. Then they could have reset the loan interest to 1%. Nope....need to stick to the half dozen ways of funneling money at WS...
 
Yeah, weird how all of these government policies end up sending cash only to wall street. :angryfist:
 
Back
Top Bottom