Here is the Republican solution to student debt, as brought to you by the Libertarian Reason.com
Can Republicans Fix Student Debt?Unlike Democrats, Senate and House Republicans have released proposals that would actually tackle the root causes of increasing student loan debt.Emma Camp | 6.16.2023
As a long-awaited Supreme Court decision on President Joe Biden’s massive student loan forgiveness plan looms, Senate Republicans have unveiled a plan of their own to address the nation’s climbing student loan debt burden.
However, instead of promising blanket forgiveness, the Senate Republicans’ plan aims to reform how student loans are given out in the first place—seeking to direct students toward high-quality programs and limit access to schools that provide a poor return on students’ investment.
As you will see later in this “plan,” the Republicans believe the only purpose of attending college is to make more money. They measure “return on students’ investment” solely by the salaries students will receive after graduation.
The plan is composed of five separate bills. Three of the bills focus on ensuring that prospective borrowers are aware of the financial tradeoffs of taking out student loans and the financial outcomes for alumni of specific institutions.
The last two tackle the federal student loan system itself, cutting down the number of repayment plans and limiting the circumstances in which federal student loans can be given out.
The first bill in the package focuses on increasing transparency from colleges.
The bill seeks to require colleges and universities to provide a wide range of data on student outcomes and enrollment trends to the National Center for Education Statistics, which would create a database of this information aimed at helping prospective students make informed educational decisions.
Transparency is a good thing.
“Student outcomes” might have to do with graduation rates, dropout rates, advanced degrees, and employment after graduation. But they wouldn’t measure what students learn.
And most importantly, it doesn’t address the student loan indebtedness problem.
Can anyone tell me why a nation whose competitiveness relies on its young people to being educated wants to “limit the circumstances in which federal student loans can be given out?”
If the Republicans ran a company, would they want to limit the circumstances in which the company could profit?
It’s absolutely nuts, especially since the U.S. federal government has infinite dollars.
The proposal’s second bill would require colleges and universities to use a standardized financial aid offer form to maximize transparency around the true cost of attending a given institution.
The third bill in the proposal has similar aims, requiring that students applying for federal student loans receive information detailing sample payments for their loans, as well as how long they would expect to be paying off their student loans and what income they can expect to make after graduating from a given school.
These two “solutions” are reasonable in that they provide borrowing information. But they still fall far short of solving the student loan indebtedness problem.
They merely say, “Here’s what it will cost you, and if you can’t afford it, don’t go to college or take out a loan.”
But the purpose of the student loan program is to enable more children to attend college, not to winnow down the number that can afford it.
The fourth bill cuts down on the number of repayment plans available to borrowers.
The bill would consolidate the host of current repayment options down to two—a standard 10-year repayment plan and a Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan with minor changes.
The REPAYE plan is an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, which currently allows borrowers to pay a monthly amount fixed to their income, achieving forgiveness after at least 20 years of payments.
Importantly, the fourth bill also cuts off access to federal student loans for students attending programs that do not result in median earnings higher than those of adults who only have a high school diploma—or a bachelor’s degree, in the case of a graduate program.
To Republican minds, the purpose of attending college is to make more money. Otherwise, it supposedly is a waste of time and money.
The right-wing mentality says that the arts — music, dance, painting, theater, writing, sculpture, etc., — should be measured by how much money you can make from them.
History and philosophy also should be measured by the money you can make, not by their contributions to human culture. Mathematics, too. And teaching. And physics.
To the right-wingers, if your education doesn’t pay you more money, the government shouldn’t help you, no matter how valuable to America it might be. WHY?
Most importantly, the Republicans assume college has no social benefits. But, the 18 through 24 age period is a maturation time, a time to go from childhood to adulthood.
College provides the non-financial benefits of learning about the world along with other young people of like age.
Again, the Republicans measure everything by dollars, while falsely claiming the government doesn’t have enough dollars.
The final bill in the package would eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans—a type of federal student loan whose borrowing cap was removed in 2006.
The removal of this cap has been directly connected to a rapid increase in graduate school tuition, as—unlike for undergraduate programs—graduate students were able to borrow an unlimited amount from the federal government, incentivizing universities to jack up prices.
The function of the student loan program is to help more students afford college. So, of course, colleges have more room to “jack up” prices with more students able to pay. That is a fundamental result of affordability.
The government must pump more growth dollars into the economy when colleges increase prices. That benefits the economy.
Capping loans merely means that fewer students will be able to afford advanced degrees.How does that benefit America? It doesn’t. It simply reduces the number of highly educated Americans and widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
Notably, House Republicans have also introduced their own legislation aiming to reform federal student loans.
Their proposal would provide “targeted” student debt relief to those who have consistently made payments but have seen their debt increase anyway.
The GOP (aka, “the party of the rich”) wants to give “targeted” relief to those who were able to afford debt payments, conveniently leaving out those who were financially weaker and unable to make payments.
The proposal would also reform existing income-driven repayment plans and mandate considerable warnings for borrowers before student loan payments resume in October.
“Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) in a Wednesday statement.
No, Sen. Cassidy, the government has left students drowning in debt by lending them money that should have been given.
Grades K-12 have been government supported for centuries. Grades 13+ also should be government-funded, not just at community schools, but top schools, too.
The more kids who decide to go for advanced degrees, the better off America will be.
“Unlike President Biden’s student loan schemes, this plan addresses the root causes of the student debt crisis. It puts downward pressure on tuition and empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed.”
No, it cleverly disempowers poorer students and widens the education gap between the rich and the rest. It does nothing about the “root causes of the student debt crisis.”
The Republicans’ plans offer a constructive solution to the problems that plague the federal student loan system. Rather than focusing on short-term solutions—like Biden’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness boondoggle—Republicans’ plans target the sloppy government policies which directly cause rising student debt.
In particular, the Senate’s attempt to eliminate Graduate PLUS Loans and both plans’ proposals to reform income-driven repayment plans take direct aim at some of the most fiscally irresponsible federal student loan policies.
To Republicans, “fiscally irresponsible” means money going to the poor and middle classes. Notably, it does not mean the tax loopholes given to the rich.
While both bills face an unlikely path toward actually becoming law, they provide a clear template for what a sensible response to the student loan crisis looks like—and policies that are actually likely to lower the cost of college, not raise it.
Except, the bills ignore the fundamental purpose of education in America: To improve America.
The original Colonists understood that. Sadly, today’s inferior crop of politicians is so taken with what’s in it for them that they completely ignore the question, “What’s in it for America.”
THE ROOT CAUSES OF THE STUDENT DEBT CRISIS
Educating young people benefits America. That is why the American colonies mandated free education for our children.
And that came when reading, writing, and arithmetic were much less important to our agrarian society than they are today.
Yet, taxpayers willingly bore the cost of education.
Today, primary education and especially advanced education are far more critical. The world has advanced, and to remain competitive, America must rely on its educated young people.
There are three root causes of the student debt crisis:
Attending college is expensive. Many families find tuition, food and lodging, books, and materials unaffordable.
Not having a job is expensive. Many children can’t afford college because their families need them to stay home and work full-time. Even with a free ride that includes everything in point #1, some kids can’t afford not to work full time.
The federal government, which has infinite dollars, lends rather than giving money to the students.
The latter point is an extension of the false belief that our Monetarily Sovereign government’s finances are like personal finances.
The ignorant idea that the federal government spends too much contradicts the simple formula: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.
GDP is the measure of our economy, so by formula, increased Federal Spending grows our economy, and decreased Federal Spending shrinks our economy. Simple algebra.
Thus, the Federal Government never should lend to Americans; it only should give to Americans.
The student debt crisis results from requiring students to borrow from the government rather than receiving dollars with no payback requirement.
The government neither needs nor even uses the dollars that are paid back. The solution to the student debt crisis is straightforward. Just as local governments fund local schools, the federal government should fund colleges and universities.
In fact, the federal government can do it more easily than can local governments because the federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign; it cannot run short of dollars.
The federal government even should pay students a salary for attending college, so the students’ college attendance does not penalize the student’s family monetarily.
It is beyond stupid for the U.S. government to take dollars from students when America’s competitive position depends on our young people being educated, and the government has infinite money to pay for their education.
Of course, a government that refuses to recognize Monetary Sovereignty and the formula GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exportsis already beyond stupid, so the extra stupidity is to be expected.
TS, the link demonstrates another sort of stupidity, too. It’s the stupidity of not wanting people to receive a benefit because, at an earlier time, other people didn’t get the benefit.
Taken to its logical conclusion, no new benefits ever would be given.
A history of the university of Delaware yields Biden’s cost: “In 1950 the general fees amounted to $240 a year, plus $450 for room and board; out-of-state students paid an extra $250 tuition. Small as this seems, Perkins declared it was high for a state university–the fourth highest charge in the country, he said. Though these figures all advanced, they did so at a slower rate than in other states; in 1961 Perkins reported that Delaware was only the fourteenth most expensive state university. By 1966 the general fee had risen to $315; room and board to $805; and out-of-state tuition to $750.”
The GOP is the party of money and the Democratic party is the party of People. Free education could find, say, 1 in 100,000 will return with a good idea everyone can use and be mass-produced. How many people now can’t afford school, but given an opportunity could make a difference for everyone? How many Edisons and Fords have been denied? Even without a contribution, they’re at least off the street (and out of trouble, which We end up paying for). How much have we hurt ourselves over the years by denying the mass potential that is out there waiting to be discovered and nurtured forward?
We could be so much further along in our development and evolution instead of playing Scrooge, concerned only with profit, but not profiting from the collective mind.
Ford’s proposal was that the government should finance the dam’s construction by simply creating the money needed. His argument here — that currency and government bonds are effectively just different forms of government-created money — is very similar to the argument that Stephanie Kelton makes today, that bonds and currency are just different forms of government-created money. https://www.themintmagazine.com/just-because-you-know-how-to-make-money-that-doesnt-mean-you-know-how-to-make-money/
I believe it was Warren Mosler who first said, “A government that can create bonds can create dollars.”
However, the concept has existed essentially forever. In the 1780’s, the US government created dollars and bonds from thin air, and it has retained that right ever since.
The US dollar is simply a result of laws that Congress and the President have passed. The dollar is whatever they want it to be. So long as Congress and the President retain the right to pass laws, they retain the right to create dollars — as many as they wish, any time they wish.
That is why the debt limit is a farce played for the benefit of the financially ignorant. There are zero reasons for the government to tie its own hands by some artificial limit. It is neither prudent nor sensible.
It is, may I say this, a stupid act of self-immolation.
Take, for example, this recent New York Times column by former US Treasury official Steve Rattner. After calling President Biden’s inflation story “misleading” and overly “simplistic,” Rattner offered his own simplistic take. “It’s a classic economic case of ‘too much money chasing too few goods’.” Whereas Biden emphasized the too few goods part of the story, saying, “The reason for the inflation is the supply chains were cut off,” Rattner declared it a too much money problem, blaming Congress for dishing out too much cash to too many people. Rattner doesn’t deny that the pandemic put some kinks in the global supply-chain, but he argues that “the bulk of our supply problems are the product of an overstimulated economy.” Since fiscal deficits are the main villain in his inflation story, Rattner ends his piece by calling on the Biden administration to “make deficit reduction” an urgent priority.
Rattner isn’t alone. Larry Summers and Jason Furman have a similar diagnosis, although they’re primarily calling for monetary tightening (i.e. interest rate hikes) rather than urging Democrats to raise taxes and slash government spending to bring down inflation. Like Rattner, Summers and Furman have attributed the run-up in inflation to excessive stimulus, especially from the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) passed by Congress last March. That’s the package that re-upped federal unemployment assistance, sent out those $1,400 checks, and delivered monthly cash assistance to families with kids under the age of 18 (child tax credit). While admitting that pandemic-induced disruptions were also a factor, Summers doubts we’d have inflation running this hot “without the overwhelming stimulus that was applied well into the recovery.” Even progressive economists, like Dean Baker, who tend to focus on the upside of doing several large fiscal packages, concede that “the current inflation rate would almost certainly be lower” if Congress hadn’t passed the ARPA last March.
But how much lower?
Furman says he believes that “90 percent of inflation is the result of excess demand driven by fiscal and monetary policy.” It’s not that he dismisses supply-chain disruptions, bottlenecks in shipping and trucking, or even the massive shift in consumer demand that aggravated these logjams. It’s just that he attributes most of our supply-side woes to excessive demand-side stimulus—a too much money problem.
Does government spending increase driving? Does government spending increase eating? The whole “overstimulated economy” trope is a farce. Inflation is caused by shortages, mainly shortages of oil and food. Oil is scarce when the Saudis want it to be scarce. Food is scarce due to weather, disease and other related factors.
Government spending does not cause oil and food to become scarce. Government spending was enormous for many years without inflation. Then came COVID and suddenly we had scarcities of oil, food, shipping, labor, trees, computer chips, etc.
Economics is the only “science” that has massive data to which it pays no attention.
How did ‘scientific’ economics ever come up with that ludicrous money multiplier BS or the outright obfuscation that banks are merely intermediaries that don’t really do anything special.
“Despite the importance of this question, so far only one empirical test of the three theories has been reported in learned journals. This paper presents a second empirical test, using an alternative methodology, which allows control for all other factors. The financial intermediation and the fractional reserve theories of banking are rejected by the evidence.” https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/384540/ Do you see anything fundamentally wrong there in Werner’s arcticle A lost century in economics: three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 46, 361-379 ?
Does Larry Summers have the slightest clue what it is that banks do and how they do it? Mosler stated somewhere about cornering him in a room somewhere once years ago at realizing the man was confused by simple double entry accounting
What chicken little the sky is falling doom and gloom outcome would Summers and Rattner dream up if the government simply (deficit) spent leaving any resulting reserve balances inside the system, rather than draining them out via bond sales? Given the present set of operational realities with the role of reserves for clearing and settling transactions between private banks there are only 3 choices to of which involve fictional “borrowing” through bonds: http://heteconomist.com/overt-monetary-financing-in-terms-of-simplicity-and-transparency/
For better or for worse those are the choices. Your thing with the federal government owning all banks I do not believe would ever be possible as long as there are 50 states doing things 50 different ways. I mean how long now has half of Congress tried to kill off their own federally owned Import-Export Bank every couple of years
Typo [left out 2]: Given the present set of operational realities with the role of reserves for clearing and settling transactions between private banks there are only 3 choices of which 2 involve fictional “borrowing” through bonds:
In this paragraph B is the convoluted status quo and A is what I see many of the MMTs apparently settling on: “This is the case whether the central bank is (A) permitted to purchase government bonds directly from the fiscal authority (‘overt monetary financing’) or instead (B) is required to buy them from the private sector (currently the procedure under “normal” circumstances in many countries). It is also true if (C) the government simply spends without issuing bonds and pays its policy rate (which can be zero) on reserve balances.”
What is wrong with the simplest option of all C? The one that entirely eliminates the “borrowing” charade.
In Japan the policy rate is still 0.00% and the IORB is -0.10% with inflation around 3.5% and falling – maybe riding it out doing nothing was the right choice for ‘transitory’ inflation that was going to transit out following the pandemic
No administration is going to put MS into effect because of the fear it would WORK. Then everyone in economic history who thought otherwise, especially the Laureates, would look stupid. Can’t have that. Can’t have success. Can’t have freedom. Better to wait until the crime rate is triple and the L.A. tent people are really a small city with a governing body.
If the Republicans ran a company, would they want to limit the circumstances in which the company could profit?
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Right on, Rodger!
LikeLike
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/09/06/fact-check-ppp-loans-forgiven-republicans-matt-gaetz-marjorie-taylor-greene/65470173007/ How were PPP loans different? Am I missing something about how the federal government can arbitrarily choose to forgive one variety of loan but insist on full repayment of another?
LikeLike
right…money is money.
LikeLike
TS, the link demonstrates another sort of stupidity, too. It’s the stupidity of not wanting people to receive a benefit because, at an earlier time, other people didn’t get the benefit.
Taken to its logical conclusion, no new benefits ever would be given.
LikeLike
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart So unfair that minimum wage was only $1.oo/hour when swamp captain Mitch was in high school in Kentuckistan.
How much was your tuition in the fifties?
LikeLike
University of Illinois, 1952: $50 per semester.
LikeLike
Ivy League: https://archives.upenn.edu/exhibits/penn-history/tuition/tuition-1950-1959/
A history of the university of Delaware yields Biden’s cost: “In 1950 the general fees amounted to $240 a year, plus $450 for room and board; out-of-state students paid an extra $250 tuition. Small as this seems, Perkins declared it was high for a state university–the fourth highest charge in the country, he said. Though these figures all advanced, they did so at a slower rate than in other states; in 1961 Perkins reported that Delaware was only the fourteenth most expensive state university. By 1966 the general fee had risen to $315; room and board to $805; and out-of-state tuition to $750.”
Minneapolis Fed says your $50 in 1952 is equivalent to $583 in 2023 https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator
LikeLike
The GOP is the party of money and the Democratic party is the party of People. Free education could find, say, 1 in 100,000 will return with a good idea everyone can use and be mass-produced. How many people now can’t afford school, but given an opportunity could make a difference for everyone? How many Edisons and Fords have been denied? Even without a contribution, they’re at least off the street (and out of trouble, which We end up paying for). How much have we hurt ourselves over the years by denying the mass potential that is out there waiting to be discovered and nurtured forward?
We could be so much further along in our development and evolution instead of playing Scrooge, concerned only with profit, but not profiting from the collective mind.
LikeLike
Edison and Ford were together in Alabama talking about fiat currency and monetary sovereignty in the summer of 1922. https://urbanutopias.net/2019/02/01/henry-ford-muscle-shoals/
LikeLike
As usual with great minds, they were way ahead of their time.
LikeLike
Ford’s proposal was that the government should finance the dam’s construction by simply creating the money needed. His argument here — that currency and government bonds are effectively just different forms of government-created money — is very similar to the argument that Stephanie Kelton makes today, that bonds and currency are just different forms of government-created money. https://www.themintmagazine.com/just-because-you-know-how-to-make-money-that-doesnt-mean-you-know-how-to-make-money/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe it was Warren Mosler who first said, “A government that can create bonds can create dollars.”
However, the concept has existed essentially forever. In the 1780’s, the US government created dollars and bonds from thin air, and it has retained that right ever since.
The US dollar is simply a result of laws that Congress and the President have passed. The dollar is whatever they want it to be. So long as Congress and the President retain the right to pass laws, they retain the right to create dollars — as many as they wish, any time they wish.
That is why the debt limit is a farce played for the benefit of the financially ignorant. There are zero reasons for the government to tie its own hands by some artificial limit. It is neither prudent nor sensible.
It is, may I say this, a stupid act of self-immolation.
LikeLike
…the federal government owning all banks is like the slave owning the master. That’ll be the day when things get so damn bad it’ll have to be done.
LikeLike
“That is why the debt limit is a farce played for the benefit of the financially ignorant”
Like Biden and Obummer listening to these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner#/media/File:P053109PS-0025_(3647639023).jpg
Take, for example, this recent New York Times column by former US Treasury official Steve Rattner. After calling President Biden’s inflation story “misleading” and overly “simplistic,” Rattner offered his own simplistic take. “It’s a classic economic case of ‘too much money chasing too few goods’.” Whereas Biden emphasized the too few goods part of the story, saying, “The reason for the inflation is the supply chains were cut off,” Rattner declared it a too much money problem, blaming Congress for dishing out too much cash to too many people. Rattner doesn’t deny that the pandemic put some kinks in the global supply-chain, but he argues that “the bulk of our supply problems are the product of an overstimulated economy.” Since fiscal deficits are the main villain in his inflation story, Rattner ends his piece by calling on the Biden administration to “make deficit reduction” an urgent priority.
Rattner isn’t alone. Larry Summers and Jason Furman have a similar diagnosis, although they’re primarily calling for monetary tightening (i.e. interest rate hikes) rather than urging Democrats to raise taxes and slash government spending to bring down inflation. Like Rattner, Summers and Furman have attributed the run-up in inflation to excessive stimulus, especially from the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) passed by Congress last March. That’s the package that re-upped federal unemployment assistance, sent out those $1,400 checks, and delivered monthly cash assistance to families with kids under the age of 18 (child tax credit). While admitting that pandemic-induced disruptions were also a factor, Summers doubts we’d have inflation running this hot “without the overwhelming stimulus that was applied well into the recovery.” Even progressive economists, like Dean Baker, who tend to focus on the upside of doing several large fiscal packages, concede that “the current inflation rate would almost certainly be lower” if Congress hadn’t passed the ARPA last March.
But how much lower?
Furman says he believes that “90 percent of inflation is the result of excess demand driven by fiscal and monetary policy.” It’s not that he dismisses supply-chain disruptions, bottlenecks in shipping and trucking, or even the massive shift in consumer demand that aggravated these logjams. It’s just that he attributes most of our supply-side woes to excessive demand-side stimulus—a too much money problem.
From: https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/z-inflation-problem
LikeLike
You will notice that these characters never provide evidence for their beliefs. The reason” There is zero evidence that federal spending causes inflation. See: https://mythfighter.com/2023/03/24/why-interest-rate-increases-dont-cure-inflation/
Does government spending increase driving? Does government spending increase eating? The whole “overstimulated economy” trope is a farce. Inflation is caused by shortages, mainly shortages of oil and food. Oil is scarce when the Saudis want it to be scarce. Food is scarce due to weather, disease and other related factors.
Government spending does not cause oil and food to become scarce. Government spending was enormous for many years without inflation. Then came COVID and suddenly we had scarcities of oil, food, shipping, labor, trees, computer chips, etc.
Economics is the only “science” that has massive data to which it pays no attention.
LikeLike
How did ‘scientific’ economics ever come up with that ludicrous money multiplier BS or the outright obfuscation that banks are merely intermediaries that don’t really do anything special.
“Despite the importance of this question, so far only one empirical test of the three theories has been reported in learned journals. This paper presents a second empirical test, using an alternative methodology, which allows control for all other factors. The financial intermediation and the fractional reserve theories of banking are rejected by the evidence.” https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/384540/ Do you see anything fundamentally wrong there in Werner’s arcticle A lost century in economics: three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 46, 361-379 ?
Does Larry Summers have the slightest clue what it is that banks do and how they do it? Mosler stated somewhere about cornering him in a room somewhere once years ago at realizing the man was confused by simple double entry accounting
LikeLike
There is zero evidence that federal spending causes inflation. See: https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1164963477947080704 & http://heteconomist.com/?s=overt+monetary+financing&submit=Search [top 2]
What chicken little the sky is falling doom and gloom outcome would Summers and Rattner dream up if the government simply (deficit) spent leaving any resulting reserve balances inside the system, rather than draining them out via bond sales? Given the present set of operational realities with the role of reserves for clearing and settling transactions between private banks there are only 3 choices to of which involve fictional “borrowing” through bonds: http://heteconomist.com/overt-monetary-financing-in-terms-of-simplicity-and-transparency/
For better or for worse those are the choices. Your thing with the federal government owning all banks I do not believe would ever be possible as long as there are 50 states doing things 50 different ways. I mean how long now has half of Congress tried to kill off their own federally owned Import-Export Bank every couple of years
LikeLike
Typo [left out 2]: Given the present set of operational realities with the role of reserves for clearing and settling transactions between private banks there are only 3 choices of which 2 involve fictional “borrowing” through bonds:
In this paragraph B is the convoluted status quo and A is what I see many of the MMTs apparently settling on: “This is the case whether the central bank is (A) permitted to purchase government bonds directly from the fiscal authority (‘overt monetary financing’) or instead (B) is required to buy them from the private sector (currently the procedure under “normal” circumstances in many countries). It is also true if (C) the government simply spends without issuing bonds and pays its policy rate (which can be zero) on reserve balances.”
What is wrong with the simplest option of all C? The one that entirely eliminates the “borrowing” charade.
IORB is presently 5.15% 0.10% below the policy rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IORB#
In Japan the policy rate is still 0.00% and the IORB is -0.10% with inflation around 3.5% and falling – maybe riding it out doing nothing was the right choice for ‘transitory’ inflation that was going to transit out following the pandemic
LikeLike
No administration is going to put MS into effect because of the fear it would WORK. Then everyone in economic history who thought otherwise, especially the Laureates, would look stupid. Can’t have that. Can’t have success. Can’t have freedom. Better to wait until the crime rate is triple and the L.A. tent people are really a small city with a governing body.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AARP solution to senior poverty: https://foundation.aarp.org/site/donor-advised-fund-giving?cmp=KNC-DSO-FOUNDATION-Foundation-Fundraising-DonorAdvisedFunds
LikeLike