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 fromquantitative 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 Fedaccomplished 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. 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.
Gartman: Leave tapering to next Fed group
(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).
Interesting !! Appears to be no way out. 10 year rates have started to move upward,regardless of the Fed.
ReplyDeleteThe quantitative easing bond buying program does not depend upon increasing the money supply. No new money has been printed.
ReplyDeleteMick,
DeleteWho's on the hook to the FED for the bonds?
Jean
Jean, the central bank buys bonds from member banks (commercial paper) at par. The banks repay the bonds at maturity at face value, thus resulting in a net profit for the central bank. This increases the liquidity of the member banks allowing them to give loans at reduced interest rates. The parties who take out those bank loans are the ones "on the hook" as long as said loans are repaid. If the banks or their customers default, then the central bank has to eat the difference. Having said this, the central bank (commonly called "The Fed") has repaid the Federal Government all monies plus interest, resulting in billions of dollars profit for the Federal Government, ie. us the taxpayers.
ReplyDeleteSo I (member bank) borrow $10 from you (central bank) and I will owe you $11 at maturity.
DeleteHow do you think that $1 was not lent into existence? What is on the Fed's books? How can anyone who is not privvy intelligently discuss what is?
I can't copy and paste from another window on andriod for some reason.
DeleteBut Chris Martensen explains it better than I can in his "Exponential Money in a Finite World"
I know it's old. But it is exactly what is at the root of what your are describing as perfectly acceptable central banking behavior.
I can't copy and paste from another window on andriod for some reason.
DeleteBut Chris Martensen explains it better than I can in his "Exponential Money in a Finite World"
I know it's old. But it is exactly what is at the root of what your are describing as perfectly acceptable central banking behavior.
The down side is that this policy results in a decrease in all interest rates, thus degrading the interest paid by financial institutions to us holders IRA's and other bank issued investments, like certificates of deposit and interest on savings accounts. The up side is that the central bank can stimulate the economy without introducing inflation. You may recall that many who don't understand the process were screaming about runaway inflation a few years ago, predicting the demise of the U.S. economy. Part of this was due to the failure of the central bank to explain the process to the people, and part was due to politicians trying to spread panic among their supporters.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to spread panic seems to be a prerequisite for politicians entering national politics. However, the facts of our fractured economy remain. We continue to pile on more debt in an effort to increase the living standards of all of our citizens. Many of the opportunities to contribute positively to society for our less skilled work force continue to go overseas. We cannot seem to stimulate the economy to stand on it's own. The Fed must continue with the "easing". The economy crashed in 2008 for very similar reasons it did in 1929. Our government and the Fed are not good keepers of the interests of the common folk. They are great at supporting their banker buddies.
DeleteStormcloud, you have hit the nail on the head! One big difference, in the great depression there was no FDIC so depositors lost all their money, no recourse, bye bye... Also Hoover administration and the central bank refused to use quantitative easing, which may have eased the impact, although we will never know. Finally, the author of this piece is an "investment advisor" who makes a living selling questionable products, like gold backed securities, so he has a personal financial interest in panicking his customers concerning the stock markets and the central bank. I don't blame him, that's how he got rich. I just don't believe him.
DeleteThe FED and the central planners in D.C. can never help us out of a depression/recession. They simply ease the pain, prolong the problem, and create the next bubble. Let the free market figure it out.
ReplyDeleteSanctions: 10Sanctions: 10Sanctions: 10
We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!
Henry Morgenthau
Treasury Secretary under FDR, after 2 terms of FDR's "New Deal"