TLT looking really bad right now

[Kshartle]

The whole concept of a "natural interest rate" seems sort of fishy to me, as if it's like trees, or the wind, or the tides. The interest rate is a human creation, and as such, it's either set by the market of by fiat. Or by an interplay of both, which is what we've got today. I have a hard time arguing that what it is at any particular point in time is unnatural. "Too high" or "too low" according to a subjective determination of what one believes it ought to be, sure. But it's really hard for me to see any "natural" value for it.

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

[Mdraf]

I think some are confusing the idea of interest with something else, I don't know what. Interest is paid on a loan.

They don't accept the idea of a difference between currency and debt (yeah, yeah in a fiat currency system blah blah)  . That's the crux of all our discussions.

[moda0306]

Kshartle,

It may appear to be "borrowed" money, but you're loaning to the entity whose job is to issue it.  This is not a real market.  There is no real need for them to do that.  The bond is essentially money that also serves as a tool to set an interest rate floor.

But I take it that you're of the opinion that even though the government prints money as part of its job, it should have to approach the market to borrow it if they want to spend it in excess of taxation?

This is a policy decision.  There is no natural need for an entity that creates money by legal fiat to borrow it.  And the fact that they borrow it in the way that they do makes our T-bills essentially confetti just like our dollars, which means that trading one for the other is a non-event.  One is nominally no more able to "stoke the fires of inflation" by holding dollars than T-bills.

[Kshartle]

Because I've never said the interest rate can't fall that low. You're only ever providing a fragment. I've said it can't fall that low absent a massive bond buying program that causing inflation, or an economic collapse that threatens the governments ability to service it's debt.

Well, let's stop insulting each other and just stick to this point then, because I would love to have this conversation.

Have you ever been able to prove that a massive bond buying program causes inflation?

When you say inflation do you mean a rising general price level?

[Pointedstick]

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

I agree with you regarding the desirability of less violent arrangements. But it would appear that your distinctions, while principled, are not regarded as consequential by the markets. Whether or not people would use fiat currency in the absence of government doesn't really enter into the matter. We do have government and we do have fiat currency.

[Kshartle]

To suggest that interest rates should naturally be zero is to suggest that money has no value.

Sorry, but that's not what a 0% interest suggests. If I trade you $1000 in cash for $1000 in 0% 30-day T-Bills, neither of us is any richer or poorer than before the trade. The bonds aren't worthless. The cash isn't worthless. They still both equal $1000.

Negative interest rates have existed on US government debt before. In fact, the last time it happened was right before the debt-ceiling crisis. When a credit instrument has a 0% interest rate, it doesn't make money worthless. It simply tells us that the credit instrument is no perceived risk.

And he isn't saying that all debts would have no interest — just the liabilities of the government. Private credit spreads would be adjusted based on their perceived risk. A fiat government has absolutely no problem paying its debts, so there is no perceived risk in lending money to a currency issuer.

You can dismiss this as "hogwash" but I am providing logic and reason in my response — even if you think it's flawed.

How long would you or anyone else be willing to loan the government money at zero percent? a day? a year? Ten years?

Why don't all currency issuing governments just borrow at zero percent. Ohh that's right, they can't. I forgot. The purchasing power of the currency has utility value today and even absent inflation it has more value today then it does in the future. Creditors require compensation for the use of their purchasing power.

[moda0306]

The whole concept of a "natural interest rate" seems sort of fishy to me, as if it's like trees, or the wind, or the tides. The interest rate is a human creation, and as such, it's either set by the market of by fiat. Or by an interplay of both, which is what we've got today. I have a hard time arguing that what it is at any particular point in time is unnatural. "Too high" or "too low" according to a subjective determination of what one believes it ought to be, sure. But it's really hard for me to see any "natural" value for it.

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

Exactly Kshartle!

But the "gun to our head" happened when we had to pay tax in dollars, not when the federal government traded dollars (liabilities to them, assets to us) for T-bills (liabilities to them, assets to us).

Any time the government assumes a role, whether it's roads, welfare, or military, there's a gun to someones head.

Assuming the role of fiat currency issuer, which demands that they tax as a demand-creation mechanism, is the gun to our head.

"Manipulating the interest rate" to the government of the currency they can print is practically irrelevent.  It's like saying that after being drafted and put into a trench during WWI, the government "manipulated the price of food" by giving it to me for free, or "manipulated the cost of the gun" when they only let me have one.

Does anybody.... ANYBODY... who loans money to the government REALLY see it as an arms-length transaction?  Or do they really see it as an uber-safe (nominal) floor interest rate that they can get that's better than stuffing their dollars under a mattress?

I mean this is why we all hold gold in our portfolio... we know or bonds will do their crazy fiat thing based on government control, and that gold will dance circles around those bonds when they fall on their face.  We don't actually see us as sitting down to the table with uncle sam and haggling over price.  We accept the manipulated price as the downside of all the cool advantages they have.

[Gumby]

When you say inflation do you mean a rising general price level?

Yes.

[moda0306]

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

I agree with you regarding the desirability of less violent arrangements. But it would appear that your distinctions, while principled, are not regarded as consequential by the markets. Whether or not people would use fiat currency in the absence of government doesn't really enter into the matter. We do have government and we do have fiat currency.

I think we can all agree that if the government, whether it's the fed, treasury, or the executive branch, just decided to "not show up to work," or do things in just ridiculous or inconsistent ways, or refused to grow the money supply, that the economy and dollar would collapse.

[Kshartle]

Why would there be an interest rate on printed money. Interest is paid on what is borrowed, not what is created.

Wait, I think you just agreed with moda and gumby. If the government creates money out of thin air, but ties it to an archaic debt issuance process that I think we all agree doesn't really need to exist, then it's really printing and not borrowing, and therefore its "natural" rate (ugh) is 0%, right?

It's not really an interest rate then if it hasn't actually borrowed. I mean guys, all the bonds that are sold to the FED are basically zero interest cost to the government. This isn't really interest. It's fundamentally the same as the government just printing.

Unless you think the FED is going to unload them on the public and spike interest rates. Then it would have the effect of forcing the government to pay interest because people would only send back the interest that was stolen from them in taxes.

[Gumby]

How long would you or anyone else be willing to loan the government money at zero percent? a day? a year? Ten years?

Well, as I said before, the government could simply choose to no longer issue debt longer than 90 days and keep that interest rate at zero if it wanted to.

Why don't all currency issuing governments just borrow at zero percent. Ohh that's right, they can't. I forgot. The purchasing power of the currency has utility value today and even absent inflation it has more value today then it does in the future. Creditors require compensation for the use of their purchasing power.

If you were only offered short term loans by the government, you really wouldn't have much of a choice to demand more compensation. And as I said before, most government debt is short term anyway.

[Kshartle]

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

I agree with you regarding the desirability of less violent arrangements. But it would appear that your distinctions, while principled, are not regarded as consequential by the markets. Whether or not people would use fiat currency in the absence of government doesn't really enter into the matter. We do have government and we do have fiat currency.

Yeah I know. You asked how can we say if rates are abnormally low or high. I just gave you my take on how. Guys with guns are trying to keep them lower than would be otherwise. That seems like the situation to me. So I would say they are abnormally low. Now if you want to counter with "Its normal to have guys with guns determining what we use as money and what interest rates should be.........." well, that's a whole other discussion on the concept of what is normal. If you said that you might have a point. We'd need to make sure we agreed on the definition of normal.

[Gumby]

It's not really an interest rate then if it hasn't actually borrowed. I mean guys, all the bonds that are sold to the FED are basically zero interest cost to the government. This isn't really interest. It's fundamentally the same as the government just printing.

Bingo. Though, the "printing" really comes from Congress issuing the debt and spending money (as instructed by the Congressional budget). If the debt did not exist in the first place, the Fed would not be able to monetize it.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah I know. You asked how can we say if rates are abnormally low or high. I just gave you my take on how. Guys with guns are trying to keep them lower than would be otherwise. That seems like the situation to me. So I would say they are abnormally low. Now if you want to counter with "Its normal to have guys with guns determining what we use as money and what interest rates should be.........." well, that's a whole other discussion on the concept of what is normal. If you said that you might have a point. We'd need to make sure we agreed on the definition of normal.

Fair enough.

Unfortunately, I would indeed say, as much as it pains me, that it's normal to have guys with guns determining what we use as money and what interest rates should be.  I wish it were not so, but human history seems like it tends toward government. So my definition of "normal" would in this case mean "present throughout the majority of the history of human civilization".

[moda0306]

Here's the way you determine it.....is it driven by violence or is it voluntary. Are some humans using the guns of the state to lower it or raise it. It's obvious they are lowering it because they are the borrowers. Honestly, no one would use paper as money if society wasn't controlled through violence. They would use it as a conveinent money substitue I'm sure.

I agree with you regarding the desirability of less violent arrangements. But it would appear that your distinctions, while principled, are not regarded as consequential by the markets. Whether or not people would use fiat currency in the absence of government doesn't really enter into the matter. We do have government and we do have fiat currency.

Yeah I know. You asked how can we say if rates are abnormally low or high. I just gave you my take on how. Guys with guns are trying to keep them lower than would be otherwise. That seems like the situation to me. So I would say they are abnormally low. Now if you want to counter with "Its normal to have guys with guns determining what we use as money and what interest rates should be.........." well, that's a whole other discussion on the concept of what is normal. If you said that you might have a point. We'd need to make sure we agreed on the definition of normal.

Let's not forget that when these guys with guns determine "what interest rates should be," they're deciding "what interest rates should be to themselves, but nobody else, and you don't have to borrow to them if you don't want to."

It's the first part that is the real "gun-to-the-head."  That's the part where if you go out and provide value to people and make $200,000 in income (even if it's in barter) in a year, that you have to somehow come up with $80,000 in USD's and pay that to the federal government.

But that happens well-before any "interest rate manipulation."  That's a required piece of making any fiat currency valuable to the public.

And really, they've manipulated things so far at that point, that the idea that the government would actually come to me with hat-in-hand and I'd expect a good negotiation on interest rates on a currency that they can print is absolutely laughable. 

Like I said, it's like saying that the military that put me in a trench is "manipulating the price of food" by rationing how much I can get, but giving it to me for free.

I don't care about the G-D rationed food, I care about being stuck in a trench with mustard gas floating above me and Germans shooting at me!  The "market manipulation" was getting drafted in the first place.  Not the government controlling the environment in which I shake in fear.

[Mdraf]

I hope it's blazingly obvious to everyone that with that little sentence the idea of a natural interest rate of zero is complete and utter hogwash.

So I do not feel completely alone in the world, anyone who agrees with my last sentece....please chime in.

I'll chime in of course but when it comes to your disdain for my pretty charts - you're on your own 

[moda0306]

Can we all agree that:

1) The government issuing currency is, on its face, massive market manipulation (for good or bad).

2) That in the face of this massive, gross manipulation, "national debt" is essentially "money" with an interest-rate floor setting mechanism attached to it, and shouldn't in any way be looked at as "me loaning the government money," but simply accepting what interest rate they're willing to give me on a currency they control anyway?


Is there any snowflake's chance we could agree on that?


I think this is something as simple as us looking at 1 ounce of manipulation, and forgetting about the 12 lbs of manipulation next to it that make the 1 ounce almost irrelevant to talk about because we have to look at it within the context of much, much bigger guns being pointed to our head.

[Kshartle]

Does anybody.... ANYBODY... who loans money to the government REALLY see it as an arms-length transaction?  Or do they really see it as an uber-safe (nominal) floor interest rate that they can get that's better than stuffing their dollars under a mattress?

I think almost everyone everywhere sees it as the latter. My point this entire time is it's not that safe and you're not going to get a real return LONG TERM in it at these rates and debt levels, they require too much inflation.

Stocks are safer imo
Gold is safer imo
Cash is safer imo

I'm not saying you won't get your interest payments and principle back. I'm saying it will require more than 4% annual inflation over the next 30 years for the government to do it. And you can't say "Well I'll sell it in a few years so I have nothing to be concerned about". If the risk is not apparent to the market today it could become apparent at any time and the result will be plunging bond prices and rising yields to offset that risk.

And just for the record guys....that is not hyperflation, not a hyperinflation prediction, not and end of the world scenario, not a raging against the machine rant, not a whacko theory easily disproven by 2008 or whenever. It's a very reasoned (imo) case for the future REAL returns of an asset class in the HBPP.

And it's not a claim that there's no reason to own them either. There are many reasons as I've always agreed, over and over.

[Kshartle]

I hope it's blazingly obvious to everyone that with that little sentence the idea of a natural interest rate of zero is complete and utter hogwash.

So I do not feel completely alone in the world, anyone who agrees with my last sentece....please chime in.

I'll chime in of course but when it comes to your disdain for my pretty charts - you're on your own 

Sorry about that.......I've looked through all the idicators and concluded to my own satisfaction that they have no predictive power. To my own satisfaction. I'm unable to completely prove it. Support and Resistance make sense logically though, to me.

[Kshartle]

Have you ever been able to prove that a massive bond buying program causesinflation a rising price level?

I provided an equation earlier:

General Price level = Money Supply/Total supply of Goods and services

or for a specific good....

Specifc Good price = Money Supply/(Supply of good/Demand for good)

When the money supply goes up, absent other factors, the general price level goes up. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

I realize the bond-buying only affects base money which is only a fraction of the total supply. However, A massive (or tiny, or medium bond-buying program, ABSENT other factors will result in an increased money supply.

When you claim that a massive bond-buying program won't result in an increased money supply you have to jump to the conclusion that something else is certain to prevent it. Again, you need to hold some things constant if you want to understand how changing just one variable (bond-buying by the central bank) affects the others.

I have never said that the central bank must lead to higher prices. Only that absent other factors it will.

This stuff is not my opinion. But here is my opinion:

1. The money supply is going to continue to grow at an increasing rate.
2. Even if it slows down temporarily they are going to double-down at some point.
3. The general price level will rise at an increasing rate, with no resultant growth in the economy.
4. Standards of living in the country are going to fall.

Those points are my best guess. I could be wrong. It could go another way.

1. The money supply could stop expanding.
2. Banks will fail, Munis, debt-laden corporations.
3. Tax revenues will fall significantly
4. The government will have to default on a portion of it's debt payments, or it's obligations to it's dependants. The first one seems more likely because it's easier to tell chinese bondholders or hedge funds or banks they aren't getting theri money back than it is to tell Grandma she won't get her SS or whoever they won't get their welfare. Grandma and the welfare folks are much more likely to vote.

[Kshartle]

Can we all agree that:

1) The government issuing currency is, on its face, massive market manipulation (for good or bad).

2) That in the face of this massive, gross manipulation, "national debt" is essentially "money" with an interest-rate floor setting mechanism attached to it, and shouldn't in any way be looked at as "me loaning the government money," but simply accepting what interest rate they're willing to give me on a currency they control anyway?


Is there any snowflake's chance we could agree on that?


I think this is something as simple as us looking at 1 ounce of manipulation, and forgetting about the 12 lbs of manipulation next to it that make the 1 ounce almost irrelevant to talk about because we have to look at it within the context of much, much bigger guns being pointed to our head.

1. I agree
2. I disagree. The government is borrowing purchasing power and people are demanding compensation. Otherwise the government wouldn't pay any interest. It could just print, it could just tax but for the moment it is doing both and supplementing with borrowing. However yes, when you decide to buy a bond you are accepting a rate. The government would prefer it to be zero though. Both sides in the transaction are agreeing on the rate.

[moda0306]

Have you ever been able to prove that a massive bond buying program causesinflation a rising price level?

I provided an equation earlier:

General Price level = Money Supply/Total supply of Goods and services

or for a specific good....

Specifc Good price = Money Supply/(Supply of good/Demand for good)

When the money supply goes up, absent other factors, the general price level goes up. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

I realize the bond-buying only affects base money which is only a fraction of the total supply. However, A massive (or tiny, or medium bond-buying program, ABSENT other factors will result in an increased money supply.

When you claim that a massive bond-buying program won't result in an increased money supply you have to jump to the conclusion that something else is certain to prevent it. Again, you need to hold some things constant if you want to understand how changing just one variable (bond-buying by the central bank) affects the others.

I have never said that the central bank must lead to higher prices. Only that absent other factors it will.

This stuff is not my opinion. But here is my opinion:

1. The money supply is going to continue to grow at an increasing rate.
2. Even if it slows down temporarily they are going to double-down at some point.
3. The general price level will rise at an increasing rate, with no resultant growth in the economy.
4. Standards of living in the country are going to fall.

Those points are my best guess. I could be wrong. It could go another way.

1. The money supply could stop expanding.
2. Banks will fail, Munis, debt-laden corporations.
3. Tax revenues will fall significantly
4. The government will have to default on a portion of it's debt payments, or it's obligations to it's dependants. The first one seems more likely because it's easier to tell chinese bondholders or hedge funds or banks they aren't getting theri money back than it is to tell Grandma she won't get her SS or whoever they won't get their welfare. Grandma and the welfare folks are much more likely to vote.

Kshartle,

Two things:

1) if the government prints base money to buy back tbills, arguably just a different form of money, is it really increasing the money supply?  The fed doesn't go out and use those treasury securities to buy stuff. They might as well not exist anymore.

2) even if that is an increase of the money supply, it takes velocity to make money lose its value in a real, productive economy.

[Gumby]

What moda said. When the Fed swaps bonds for cash, it doesn't change broad liquidity. "Broad liquidity" already includes T-Bills.

See: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/broadliquidity.asp

Definition of 'Broad Liquidity'
A category of the money supply which includes: all funds in M3, individual holdings in accounts, savings bonds, T-bills with maturity of less than one year, commercial papers, and banker's acceptances.

Investopedia explains 'Broad Liquidity'
This is the widest measure of money supply. Broad liquidity can be generalized as the total amount of money issued by a central bank plus any new money created by commercial banks through lending. This is one of the economic measures that policy-makers and investors use to track and forecast inflation.


Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/broadliquidity.asp

Swapping one form of broad liquidity for another form of broad liquidity is basically a non-event. Most of the US debt is held as shorter-term debt, so I don't see how the Fed swapping bonds for cash does much to increase broad liquidity.

[Kshartle]

Have you ever been able to prove that a massive bond buying program causesinflation a rising price level?

I provided an equation earlier:

General Price level = Money Supply/Total supply of Goods and services

or for a specific good....

Specifc Good price = Money Supply/(Supply of good/Demand for good)

When the money supply goes up, absent other factors, the general price level goes up. I'm sure we can all agree on this.

I realize the bond-buying only affects base money which is only a fraction of the total supply. However, A massive (or tiny, or medium bond-buying program, ABSENT other factors will result in an increased money supply.

When you claim that a massive bond-buying program won't result in an increased money supply you have to jump to the conclusion that something else is certain to prevent it. Again, you need to hold some things constant if you want to understand how changing just one variable (bond-buying by the central bank) affects the others.

I have never said that the central bank must lead to higher prices. Only that absent other factors it will.

This stuff is not my opinion. But here is my opinion:

1. The money supply is going to continue to grow at an increasing rate.
2. Even if it slows down temporarily they are going to double-down at some point.
3. The general price level will rise at an increasing rate, with no resultant growth in the economy.
4. Standards of living in the country are going to fall.

Those points are my best guess. I could be wrong. It could go another way.

1. The money supply could stop expanding.
2. Banks will fail, Munis, debt-laden corporations.
3. Tax revenues will fall significantly
4. The government will have to default on a portion of it's debt payments, or it's obligations to it's dependants. The first one seems more likely because it's easier to tell chinese bondholders or hedge funds or banks they aren't getting theri money back than it is to tell Grandma she won't get her SS or whoever they won't get their welfare. Grandma and the welfare folks are much more likely to vote.

Kshartle,

Two things:

1) if the government prints base money to buy back tbills, arguably just a different form of money, is it really increasing the money supply?  The fed doesn't go out and use those treasury securities to buy stuff. They might as well not exist anymore.

2) even if that is an increase of the money supply, it takes velocity to make money lose its value in a real, productive economy.

1. We don't bid for goods & services with Tbills, we use dollars. More dollars + same amount of goods and services = higher general price level.

2. Not true. More dollars + same amount of goods and services = higher general price level. If the money supply (M3) doubled tomorrow then so would the general price level.

Now you might be tempted to say the central bank doesn't have control of M3. Ok, it doesn't have complete control, but it has control of a component. The central bank can double the M3 with it's component alone. Absent any other changes they could print whatver 50 trillion dollar amount is needed and add it to M1. It would also be added to M2 and M3. Now is this going to happen? I don't think so.

It's not correct to say that velocity needs to increase to cause money to lose value. Yes, that will cause it to lose value but it is not neccessary. Printing alone will do it.

That being said guys I've got to go. Listen I appreciate the mental sharpening and I hope no one's feelings are hurt. I really mean that. it sucks when things get personal but I think we should strive for high standards when it comes to our positions.

This from the guy who called Mosler a dummy or a liar. That's just my opinion of course, although I'm certain if I put in the time I could prove it. Not interested at the moment.

[Gumby]

1. We don't bid for goods & services with Tbills, we use dollars. More dollars + same amount of goods and services = higher general price level.

We don't use commercial paper or agency debt to bid on goods and services either, but they are included in MMFs that are part of M3 and broad liquidity.

If the money supply (M3) doubled tomorrow then so would the general price level.

So, in one breath only cash counts towards inflation. In the next breath M3 (which is overwhelmingly non-cash) counts toward inflation. Which is it? You can't have it both ways!

In any case, economists prefer Broad Liquidity over M3 these days when trying to gauge inflation. And T-Bills are already included in Broad Liquidity. The Fed swapping one kind of Broad Liquidity for another kind of Broad Liquidity is basically a non-event. It doesn't cause any meaningful inflation.

This from the guy who called Mosler a dummy or a liar. That's just my opinion of course, although I'm certain if I put in the time I could prove it.

By all means, go for it. Harder than you think.