"If the bond has been issued in the last week, we will steer clear of that bond," Dr Lowe said, "We are doing this partly because we want to avoid any possibility that people see us as financing the government."
How stupid do you have to be to find this remotely credible?
--
"Dr Lowe drew a distinction between "providing finance" and "affecting the cost of that finance".
"The RBA is not providing finance to the government, but our actions are lowering the cost of government finance.""
I can think of, oh, I dunno, one pretty big difference in what happens to those payments.
--
"He said the bonds purchased by the RBA will have to be repaid by the government at maturity "in exactly the same way as would occur if the bonds were held by others".
I get that it's the RBA's job to pretend they aren't doing the-thing-they-are-clearly-doing, but making such transparently false and unconvincing arguments doesn't help their cause.
If you can't do better than this, just don't say anything.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After thinking more about @TheStalwart's argument that Microsoft should pay a fee to govt to offset the undue benefits it gets from a govt-induced acquisition, I've decided I think it's a bad idea (no shade at Joe, the motivation is sound). The reason is that the real benefit to
Microsoft long term is not in acquiring a specific product or business but in expanding its already vast data empire. The problem is that the social harms and risks posed by that kind of expansion can't be offset by "paying money". Once the data is collected and consolidated the
Damage is done. In this sense, making Microsoft pay a fee is the firm-level equivalent to trying to impose a tax on data-gathering as a solution to the threat of surveillance capitalism. It's a category error to think this risk can be stripped from larger social context, priced
One of the bait-and-switches that JG opponents make, in addition to pretending a JG and UI are competing rather than complementary policies, is to claim in one breath that unconditional income is necessary to recognize and reward all the forms of informal labor not captured by a
JG, and then in the next claim that there simply cannot be enough productive work for everyone to be employed. It allows them to claim that they are truly committed to remunerating labor, even as they are, regrettably, concluding some people are just too unproductive and useless
To ever work. And of course, hidden underneath it all is a theory of "productivity" that has no problem with the private sector employing people in all sorts of socially handful jobs, and no problem with the human costs of unemployment beyond merely the lack of income. Ultimately
), the Fed is ultimately responsible for determining the distribution of long vs short-term govt liabilities in circulation, regardless of what Treasury issues in the first instance.
@jasonfurman@NathanTankus So financing deficits by issuing long-term bonds does not “lock in” low long-term rates for Tsy, since the Fed can and will always ‘sterilize’ that action by purchasing those bonds and replacing them with short-term reserves to meet its preferred maturity distribution curve,
@jasonfurman@NathanTankus which leaves us back in the exact same position from a consolidated govt perspective.
2) This also ignores the significant psychological and practical effects of transitioning from the current budget process to using overt monetary financing. Presently huge swaths of the public