The Fed's 'hidden agenda' behind money-printing
Published: Wednesday, 25 Sep 2013 | 12:04
PM ET
By: Peter J. Tanous
|
|
|
|
|
Getty
Images
The markets were surprised
when the Federal Reserve did not announce a tapering of the quantitative easing
bond buying program at its September meeting. Indeed, its signal to the market
that it was keeping interest rates low was welcome, but there may be a hidden agenda.
Since it began in late 2008,
QE has spurred a vigorous debate about its merits, both positive and negative.
On the positive side, the
easy money and low interest rates resulting from quantitative easing have been
a shot in the arm to the economy, fueling the stock market and helping the
housing recovery. On the negative side, The Fed accomplished QE by
"printing money" to buy Treasurys, and through the massive power of
its purchases drove interest rates to
record lows.
But in the
process, the Fed accumulated an unprecedented balance sheet of more than $3.6
trillion which needs to go somewhere, someday.
But we know all this.
I believe that one
of the most important reasons the Fed is determined to keep interest rates low
is one that is rarely talked about, and which comprises a dark economic
foreboding that should frighten us all.
Play
Video
Gartman: Leave tapering to
next Fed group
The economy is stronger than
it looks, said Dennis Gartman, The Gartman Letter, sharing his outlook on gold,
the next Fed chairman and the fate of Treasury rates.
(Read more: Fed assertion of 'tight'
conditions looks shaky)
Let me start with a question:
How would you feel if you knew that almost
all of the money you pay in personal income tax went to pay just one bill, the
interest on the debt? Chances are, you and millions of Americans
would find that completely unacceptable and indeed they should.
But that is where we may be
heading.
Thanks to the Fed, the
interest rate paid on our national debt is at an historic low of 2.4 percent,
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Given the U.S.'s huge
accumulated deficit, this low interest rate is important to keep
debt servicing costs down.
But isn't it fair to ask what
the interest cost of our debt would be if interest rates returned to a more
normal level? What's a normal level? How about the average interest rate the
Treasury paid on U.S. debt over the last 20 years?
(Read more: Fed in 'monetary roach motel,'
won't taper: Schiff)
That rate is 5.7percent, not
extravagantly high at all by historic standards.
So here's where it gets
scary: U.S. debt held by the public today is about $12 trillion. The budget
deficit projections are going down, true, but the
United States is still incurring an annual budget deficit by spending more than
we take in in taxes and revenue.
The CBO estimates that by
2020 total debt held by the public will be $16.6 trillion as a result of the
rising accumulated debt.
Do the math: If we were to
pay an average interest rate on our debt of 5.7 percent, rather than the 2.4
percent we pay today, in 2020 our debt service cost will be about $930 billion.
Now compare that to the
amount the Internal Revenue Service collects from us in personal income taxes.
In 2012, that amount was
$1.1 trillion, meaning that if interest rates went back to a more normal level
of, say, 5.7 percent, 85 percent of all personal income taxes collected would
go to servicing the debt. No wonder the Fed is worried.
Some economists will also
suggest that interest rates may go much higher than 5.7 percent largely as a
result of the massive QE exercise of printing money at an unprecedented rate.
We just don't know what the effect of all this will be but many economists warn
that it can only result in inflation down
the road.
(Read more: Did the Fed just pop the stock
market bubble?)
As of today, interest rates
are rising, and if this is a turning point, it is a major one.
Rates in the U.S. peaked in
1980 (remember the 14 percent Treasury bonds?) so if we are at the point of
reversing a 33-year downward trend, who wants to predict how this will affect
the economy?
One thing is clear: Based on
CBO projections, if interest rates just
rise to their 20-year average, we will have an untenable, unacceptable interest
rate bill whose beneficiaries are China, Japan, and others who own our bonds.
And if
Americans find out that the lion's share of their income tax payments are going
to service the debt, prepare for a new American revolution.
Peter J. Tanous is president
of Lepercq Lynx Investment Advisory in Washington D.C. He is the co-author
(with Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore) of The End of Prosperity
(2008), and co-author (with CNBC.com's Jeff Cox) of Debt, Deficits, and the
Demise of the American Economy (2011).
2 comments:
QUANTITATIVE EASING OR QUANTITIVE SQUEEZING? ......
It utterly boggles the mind that bankers, high council leaders and their co-horts consider this a correct economic policy of "We know what's best for you, so don't worry about us breaking some eggs." !!! When all they do is the opposite of what they should do, we know the entire economic policy is the culprit for this fraud.
Post a Comment