Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

This isn't really about Cascadia, unless you wish to talk about how Cascadia will run it's money and economy.

This is real bad.

They’re running out of treasury notes to buy and hitting physical limits on QE.

In an attempt to stave off the inevitable implosion that will occur if QE is suddenly stopped, they’ve resorted to buying crappy corporate debt.

This is an extremely bad sign. It means that the FED is stuck, and it can’t get itself unstuck.

It means we are balls deep in a liquidity trap...

This is exactly what happened in Japan... they also tried doing this in an attempt to escape their liquidity trap.

And it didn’t work.

Just like in Japan, this is likely going to result in deflation and the creation of numerous “zombie” corporations.

The bailout of Corporations continue, while help for actual workers and family get no assistance.

Literally not a free market anymore

Can someone ELI5? So they are buying corporate debt to keep companies afloat for a while longer? I feel like there is more to this that I don't understand

Calcium can come from egg shells. I would consider chickens a necessary part of a permaculture farm, they lay eggs for food, you can use shells to fertilize or as insect repellent. Chickens also will eat kitchen scraps and most anything else you put in front of them producing rich compost/fertilizer.

Rock dust also provides trace mineral content. I’m not sure about the specifics of runoff within soil but I doubt you’d have to worry about mineral deficiencies anyway, it’s not like plants are using up all the mineral content in the ground.

A way to think about plant growth is not so much feeding the plant as feeding the soil. Remember, soil is alive and the farmers job is to help that soil life thrive. The microbes in the soil and the plant work together in a nutrient exchange, one cannot survive without the other. Most of the sugars a plant makes through photosynthesis are traded out to soil microbes in exchange for what the plant needs not used directly within the plant.

‘Conventional’ farming works by essentially sterilizing the field and then inputting everything manually and in such a way that you are not over contributing to the plant. It’s honestly more like hydroponics than true soil management. Permaculture celebrates ‘no till’ since roots, mycelium, insects and microbes are all creating a structure within the soil that works to keep both soil and plant alive.

Can someone ELI5? So they are buying corporate debt to keep companies afloat for a while longer? I feel like there is more to this that I don't understand

Plot twist: The GOP bring socialism to America.

How is this different than the current situation? I was under the impression they are already buying corporate bonds...

Is there anything the Fed wouldn't buy these days??? Surely there must be guidelines / limits written down on paper. Perhaps some % of student debt, which I imagine would have a more direct first order benefit to a citizens purchasing power. Just a thought bubble

Thanks jpow

Issuers must have been rated BBB- or /Baa3, depending on the agency, as of March 22, just before the Fed announced its credit facilities.

Looking up past reddit posts about this, 2 months ago...

• https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/fr9gnn/bbbrated_corporate_bonds_are_the_achilles_heel_of/

BBB-rated corporate bonds are the Achilles' heel of the global economy

This is gonna end well...

What does this mean?

The word "bailout" appears a whopping zero times in this article.

I am ignorant of many things regarding the financial market, and I read heaps of jargon therein. If the Federal Reserve isn't actually federal, how is this a bailout?

Why won't the Fed buy my corporate bonds? Oh, I bet it because I am the sole shareholder of my corporation and I am not already a billionaire.

Isn't this exactly what caused Japan's "lost decade," propping up insolvent corporations instead of allowing them to go bankrupt and be liquidated?

They own debt of bankrupt Hertz already. Federal Reserve = bad bank

The Federal Reserve can keep unprofitable corporations alive as long as they can afford the paper to print the notes. This is the end of capitalism!

Where in the FED charter does it say the FED can do this? It’s illegal.

When my Trump supporting dad talks about how the left wants socialism, and oh how terrible it will be, and how everyone is too young to know about it....yeah i will refer to this program.

So.... Just giving taxpayer money away too billionaires then? Tis the season a guess, fuck it

It's the last supper, get it! hilarious

What we are seeing is the last archaic relics of the 18th century understanding of money (what it is, how it works) crumble.

This is a process that's been going on since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, accelerating with the various reforms of the system of international exchange (Bretton Woods, etc).

The problem is that we persist in this conception of money as a commodity. Money is not a commodity. It's not an asset. The fact that you can trade it as such doesn't mean that it is actually that.

Money is an abstraction layer for trade - it enables to to communicate between resources (goods or services) without one knowing what the other is doing.

The purpose of money is to facilitate this transaction, and account for (read: preserve) the value of the resources between each transaction.

So the Fed's interest is in making that happen.

It turns out that a lot of the conventional monetary policy (particularly Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan's dogmatic but empirically worthless ideas) actually harms one or both of these objectives - particularly anything that conceives of money as having an intrinsic value that is influence by the Fed (put simply: inflation has very little (if any) relationship to the volume of money in the financial system).

So what Powell is doing is applying the evidence Bernanke/Yellen developed during the Great Recession; namely that the money supply doesn't effect inflation. The serve the first (and primary) purpose of money, money must be available to transact. This means that economic agents (in this case, corporations) must have very easy access to money. It's not a question of borrowing or debt, that's irrelevant to monetary theory and money supply - the question is whether the money exists in the system (this means not that there "is money" but rather than there's money that is being actively lent ie non-reserve money).

By buying commercial paper, the Fed is providing that money (usually called "liquidity" in this context though I personally think this terminology is archaic because it again conceives of money as an asset rather that a construct (something artificial and arbitrary)) to the system.

The whole point of all this is to facilitate transactions - to make sure that economic agents who want to transact can and do. Buying bonds ensures that one class of agents (blue chips) can do that.

The biggest problem the Fed has right now is that there's no established mechanism for the Fed to push money into the hands of Tier 1 and Tier 2 consumers (middle and working class - ie, 75% of the economy). These consumers are the ones that are choking off growth because of lack of access to cash.

The prevailing system assumes that this is Congress's bailiwick. Unfortunately, Congress is Congress and so that's essentially a non-starter (I'm still shocked Nancy was able to get the $600 through; presumably it was while the Senate leadership was cowering in a bunker).

The obvious solution would be the Fed buying consumer paper (which they are already doing indirectly by buying paper from financial institutions) - but this creates a big debt problem that has a dramatic and negative effect on consumption going forward; consumer paper is also the most lossy form of lending and so I think the Fed is naturally going to be averse to this.

This is really the last bastion of the old guard of "let's go back to the gold standard" (which is an ideology that really needs to die, 10 years ago - no prediction it has ever made has come true, and it sticks around basically because its adherents are too stupid to study the failed predictions of the past) approach to monetary policy.

There is a valid question to be asked about Fed-backed lending to consumers. There's no question that it will stimulate growth, but what happens when the defaults roll in? This could very well be UBI by the back door, and on the face of it there's no obvious reason it wouldn't work. When consumers were all given $1,200 they didn't go out and bid up the price of milk to $200, e.g.

I'm in favor of moving forward, not as a test but because the economic evidence shows that the 'money' functions (facilitate, account) do not depend on the money having intrinsic value. There's no reason to expect that it would, we just cling to this notion for historical reasons that again have no basis in reality (they're literally just stories we tell ourselves to help us get over our discomfort with our own limited understanding of economic systems).

Who decides which companys bonds get to get pumped?

The US government has signaled that no matter what the stock market is going up even if it has to take the whole house of cards with it.

Usually the banks don't go belly up until the 2nd term of a Republican President (both Reagan and Bush 43) but its a long hard slog between now and November. Wall Street on super welfare instead of the regular welfare they been on since 2009.

Not a good sign. I wouldn't have more than enough money in the bank to pay my bills if I were you.