Comments 1 - 30 of 30 Search these comments
But if they are paying off debt with new money that they create out of nothing how is that debt being transferred to the people who didn't go to college? And thus the student loan relief haters disproved their own talking point by demonstrating the reality of MMT.
This is misleading. Anytime there isn't enough buyers for government bonds, the Fed buys them by printing the money. Stop trying to add integrity to banking!
It’s true, but it’s not printed. It is just created out of thin air in a computer.
Just one more set of cards in the ever growing house of cards. How tragic will it be when the cards start to drop. It could be the rapture that sets the collapse in motion.
They’re taking underwater low yielding long-term UST’s rotting in the guts of market makers (I would bet paying over market prices for them) so that the market makers can buy more UST’s. Yes, they are borrowing at a higher rate to retire bonds that pay a lower rate. It’s like you paying off a lower interest rate credit card balance with a higher interest rate credit card.
Such unrealized losses are fake
My guess on timing the dollar’s downfall is this:
On top of all this is the massive global derivatives market, estimated to be anywhere from $600 TRILLION to $ One QUADRILLION!
Are you beginning to understand why they called it the "Great Reset?" They know the entire global financial system as we know it is on life support and the prognosis is terminal.
They also know we won't accept CBDC's, so they have to force them on us. Maybe through the new WHO pandemic laws they illegally passed..?
The Biden minders/oligarchs want a war with Russia and perhaps China
....why had the USA, knowing as early as 2021 that Russia was making preparations for an invasion, not taken any preventive actions? After all, they had been able to do so. For example, if a pair of American ships came on a friendly mission to the seaport of Odesa a few days before the invasion, the Russian Federation probably would not have dared [to invade]," Mykhailo Honchar believes.
Until 2022, NATO regularly deployed its forces across the Black Sea. But, in early 2022, NATO’s presence there was de facto nullified. NATO ships were no longer deployed to the Black Sea. This suggests, the expert goes on to note, that the United States, at that time, had its own perception about Russia’s potential invasion of Ukraine.
"Hypothetically, proceeding from the assumption that the USA needs a potent ally to confront China, and Russia could well become such an ally (the Russian Federation shares an extended border with China, exceeding 4,000 kilometers in length, making China an existential threat for the Russian Federation), the U.S. was, let’s say so, not completely opposed to an invasion, but on the condition that it is carried out in some hybrid way, Mr. Honchar notes further. The Russian side, perhaps, had convinced the American side that the invasion would not involve a bloody massacre. They probably said that their troops would quickly enter Kyiv, remove the "junta" and - that's it... Now let's recall the days before the invasion, where it was not yet known for sure on which day of February 2022 the invasion would begin. But then Western diplomats began to be evacuated from the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv..."
Mr. Honchar also mentioned an article published by "Ukrainska Pravda", headlined "The Three Longest Days of February...", which, in particular, describes a visit to Washington by Ukraine’s top diplomat, Dmytro Kuleba, on February 23, 2022.
"On that day, Biden began asking Kuleba questions about the situation in Ukraine, gave some advice and was talking about support. The rhetoric of this conversation was reminiscent of saying goodbye to a child with cancer, rather than encouraging and empowering an ally ahead of a life-or-death battle. That day, Biden said goodbye to all of Ukraine in the person of Mr. Kuleba ," the article read.
In that context, the expert recalls how initial shipments of American weapons began to arrive in Ukraine in December 2021.
"It was important what kind of weapons were arriving – FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS, FGM-148 Javelin ATGMs – that is, the weapons more suited for use in guerrilla warfare... Perhaps, there was a request or wish expressed by the Russian side that the shipments should not be too big and, most importantly, should not include kinetic attack capabilities so that it would not carry a risk of damage to the Russian Federation’s territory. Moscow then drew a red line for Washington. However, this, in fact, did not happen as expected... The Kyiv-in-three-days blitzkrieg had never succeeded. Accordingly, all unofficial plans or agreements that might have existed between the Americans and Russians had collapsed as new realities were arising."
But even after that, the USA was in no hurry to provide our country with more capable weapons, such as artillery guns, in particular, HIMARS MLRS.
How the fuck you "threaten" a strategic nuclear power with a couple of hundred ATGMs given to a neighboring country? Use your brains, people, before you parrot a stupid cunt like McGregor or convicted pedo and stupid cunt like Scott Ritter. USSR has been completely safe all along and not "threatened" in any way. The only real threat for them is our ICBMs.
They would not lose half a mil people killled/wounded, the whole Black Sea fleet and 20+ thou armored vehicles if they simply stayed inside their GINORMOUS territory.
Jeezus!
USSR has been completely safe all along and not "threatened" in any way.
NATO kept moving east after the USSR fell. Putin tolerated even the former Soviet Baltic States joining NATO, but Ukraine being set up to join NATO was an intolerable threat.
not touch poor little USSR with any of our big sticks
The Treasury department on Wednesday said it would repurchase US government debt next year for the first time in decades, in an effort to boost liquidity in the $23tn government bond market.
The programme would allow the Treasury to buy back older bonds, which are typically harder to trade, from primary dealers — banks that act as market makers for the Federal Reserve — and help improve functioning in some corners of the market.
The buybacks are expected to help with cash management, allowing the department to issue more consistent levels of shorter-dated debt.
This would be the Treasury’s first buyback programme since the early 2000s, and comes after liquidity — the ability to easily buy and sell an asset at prevailing market prices — deteriorated late last year to its worst levels since March 2020.
“We think this will support Treasury market functioning because it provides market makers [with] certainty that there will be an end buyer that will come into the market that is willing to buy dislocated securities along the curve for a price,” said Mark Cabana, head of US interest rate strategy at Bank of America.
The rapid growth in the Treasury market, which has quadrupled since 2008, and changes in the make-up of participants in the market have made functioning worse in recent years. The increase in interest rates also hurt liquidity, as greater volatility made it harder and more expensive to buy and sell bonds.
Big banks have retreated from traditional market-making activity in recent years as capital requirements in the wake of the financial crisis have made it more expensive for them to hold government debt on their balance sheets. High-speed traders and hedge funds have stepped in, but the liquidity they provided has not been as consistent and the unwind of leveraged positions has contributed to liquidity problems.
The buybacks will support primary dealers, but are not expected to be big enough to change the dynamics of the post-2008 market. The supplemental details on buybacks also noted the programme would not be used to mitigate instances of acute market stress.
The Treasury department has been considering a buyback scheme since last year, when it first sought feedback on the topic from primary dealers. There were few details in the announcement, except that the programme was expected to start next year, and that it would initially be sized “conservatively”.
The programme is not expected to interfere with the Fed’s efforts to shrink its balance sheet as the Treasury’s bond repurchases would be comparatively small and ultimately offset by issuance over time.
“The idea behind buybacks is to clear this less liquid inventory off dealer balance sheet and replace it with more liquid inventory,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott. “It is a question of market functioning rather than stealth quantitative easing.”
The announcement was part of a broader release from the Treasury department detailing its borrowing plans for this quarter. It said it would maintain its auction size at $96bn in the second quarter, but added that it could boost borrowing as soon as August, to better manage the US government’s cash flow.
Though the bond repurchases had been under discussion since last year, some analysts and investors were surprised at the timing of the announcement as the White House and Republicans clash over the debt ceiling.
“I would have thought they would have waited until after the debt limit was increased,” said Matthew Scott, head of global rates trading at AllianceBernstein.
https://www.ft.com/content/808f8b31-61ac-4f8b-aec1-744ea9b4b6b3