Skip to main content

Mortgage rates, Fed spending, and that unfortunate law of unintended consequences....

... or, how spending $1.2 Trillion didn't quite have the result that the government was looking for:

NEW YORK (June 6) - The Federal Reserve announced a $1.2 trillion plan three months ago designed to push down mortgage rates and breathe life into the housing market.

But this and other big government spending programs are turning out to have the opposite effect. Rates for mortgages and U.S. Treasury debt are now marching higher as nervous bond investors fret about a resurgence of inflation.

That's the Catch-22 threatening to make an awful housing market potentially worse and keep the economy stuck in a funk. Kick-starting the economy requires higher spending, but rising rates mean fewer Americans will be able to refinance their home loans. And some potential buyers will be shut out of the market by higher monthly payments they won't be able to afford.


Which kind of makes you wonder--where'd all the money go, anyway?

Since the Federal Reserve is still immune to audit, I guess we'll never know.

Comments

Miko said…
I don't know; these consequences were so obvious I have trouble believing that they were unintended.

Note that this will tend to hamper efforts by the lower classes to save up capital (while the rich will simultaneously protect existing capital through inflation-hedged investments and collect agio from the newly-printed money they borrow at pre-inflation rates and pay back at post-inflation rates) both through higher costs for housing and staples and through the depreciation of savings, all of which will make unemployment a much more dangerous prospect, in turn leading to lower wages, nominally through the market forces of supply-and-demand but in fact from the debasement of the currency by legislative fiat.

While terrible for the overall economy, this will prove quite profitable for a select group of large business interests; coincidentally, there is a large intersection between this group and those who worked with the Fed to draft the policy that had these "unintended" consequences.
Anonymous said…
Miko, interesting point!

It may be that the wealth distribution in this country has become so skewed toward an extremely wealthy handful, that no matter what the government does short of grabbing assets, nothing significant will change for the better for the common man. Grabbing assets? Perish the thought!

I am beginning to think that there is no way that elections really matter that much, because the wealthy powerful will twist successfully to control either partisan majority and any President.

Obama is getting to look more like Bush as the days tick by, in my view. Obama's one asset is that his rhetoric covers it up better in spite of his increased transparency. Yes, that does not make sense, meaning that I am confused by this man. And yes also, it is still to early to judge his effectiveness. Impatience may the operative word. I hope that's all it is!

Perry

Yes, disappointment and cynicism are emerging for me wrt Obama & Co.
Must I be more patient?

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...