zlacker

[return to "Ask HN: What scientific phenomenon do you wish someone would explain better?"]
1. rsp198+im1[view] [source] 2020-04-27 10:15:56
>>qqqqqu+(OP)
Macroeconomics. Central banks are "creating" a trillion here, a trillion there, like nobody's business. But what are the consequences? What is the thought process that central bankers have gone through to make these decisions?

Also why, exactly, are they buying the exact assets that they are buying (govt. debt, high-yield bonds, etc..) and why not others (e.g. stocks or put money into startups)? And then, what happens if a debtor pays back its debt? Is that money consequently getting "erased" again (just like it's been created)? What happens if a debtor defaults on its debt? Does that money then just stay in the economy, impossible to drain out? What is the general expectation of the central banks? What percentage of the debt is expected to default and how much is expected to be paid back?

And specifically in the case of central banks buying govt. debt: Are central banks considered "easier" creditors than the public? What would happen if a country defaults on a loan given by a central bank? Would the central bank then go ahead and seize and liquidate assets of the country under a bankruptcy procedure to pay off the debt (like it would be standard procedure for individuals and companies)?

◧◩
2. rawgab+VK2[view] [source] 2020-04-27 20:49:39
>>rsp198+im1
- Consequences of creating a trillion? Economic policy is largely driven by political necessity. During the Great Depression, FDR's policy was based on Keynesian economics. Keynes aside, FDR tried everything to alleviate the suffering of the people, because the danger was not in implementing the wrong policy, instead the danger was in doing nothing. Later, the "Austrian" school of Monetary theory was popular where it prescribed increasing the money supply to pump up a troubled economy. During the last financial crisis, Obama's administration prescribed "Quantitative Easing" where the government bought the junk to keep the big banks solvent. The big banks were "too big to fail" and had to be rescued. The consensus of the last ten years is that "Quantitative Easing" restored the financial health of the elite and the corporations, but the middle class is still left behind.

- Assets that they are buy? The idea is to keep the banking system solvent and to prevent a domino effect where the liquidation of one big bank will result in a run on other banks. The big banks got into trouble because they took depositors money and invested in junk which went belly-up. The federal government insures everyone's bank deposits; if the banks went bellied up the FDIC would have to pay out. Better that the banks stay solvent.

- There are cases like Greece defaulting on its international loans. The EU forced Greece to agree to an austerity plan lowering Greece's payments if Greece changed its national spending which is deeply unpopular in EU and Greece. But there is no other alternative. Well the alternative is what happened to Weimar Germany after WWI: hyperinflation, economic destruction, and the longing for a savior.

[go to top]