Immediately after the recession took a dramatic dive in
September 2008, the Bernanke Fed implemented a policy that continues to
further damage the incentive for banks to lend to businesses. On
October 6, 2008 the Fed's Board of Governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke,
announced it would begin paying interest on the reserve balances of
the nation's banks, major lenders to medium and small size businesses.
You don't need a Ph.D. economist to know that if you pay
banks ¼ percent risk free interest to hold reserves that they can obtain
at near zero interest, that would be an incentive to hold the
reserves. The Fed pumped out huge amounts of money, with the base of
the money supply more than doubling from August 2008 to August 2010,
reaching $1.99 trillion. Guess who has over half of this money parked
in cold storage? The banks have $1.085 trillion on reserves drawing
interest, The Fed records show they were paid $2.18 billion interest on
these reserves in 2009.
A number of people spoke
about the disincentive for bank lending embedded in this policy
including Chairman Bernanke.
***
Jim McTague, Washington Editor of Barrons,
wrote in his February 2, 2009 column, "Where's the Stimulus:"
"Increasing the supply of credit might help pump up spending, too.
University of Texas Professor Robert Auerbach an economist who studied
under the late Milton Friedman, thinks he has the makings of a
malpractice suit against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as the
Fed is holding a record number of reserves: $901 billion in January as
opposed to $44 billion in September, when the Fed began paying interest
on money commercial banks parked at the central bank. The banks prefer
the sure rate of return they get by sitting in cash, not making loans.
Fed, stop paying, he says."
Shortly after this article appeared
Fed Chairman Bernanke explained: "Because banks should be unwilling to
lend reserves at a rate lower than they can receive from the Fed, the
interest rate the Fed pays on bank reserves should help to set a floor
on the overnight interest rate." (National Press Club, February 18,
2009) That was an admission that the Fed's payment of interest on
reserves did impair bank lending. Bernanke's rationale for interest
payments on reserves included preventing banks from lending at lower
interest rates. That is illogical at a time when the Fed's target
interest rate for federal funds, the small market for interbank loans,
was zero to a quarter of one percent. The banks would be unlikely to
lend at negative rates of interest -- paying people to take their money
-- even without the Fed paying the banks to hold reserves.
The next month William T. Gavin, an excellent economist at the St.
Louis Federal Reserve, wrote in its MarchApril 2009 publication:
"first, for the individual bank, the risk-free rate of ¼ percent must
be the bank's perception of its best investment opportunity."
The Bernanke Fed's policy was a repetition of what the Fed did in
1936 and 1937 which helped drive the country into a second depression.
Why does Chairman Bernanke, who has studied the Great Depression of
the 1930's and has surely read the classic 1963 account of improper
actions by the Fed on bank reserves described by Milton Friedman and
Anna Schwartz, repeat the mistaken policy?
As the
economy pulled out of the deep recession in 1936 the Fed Board thought
the U.S. banks had too much excess reserves, so they began to raise the
reserves banks were required to hold. In three steps from August 1936
to May 1937 they doubled the reserve requirements for the large banks
(13 percent to 26 percent of checkable deposits) and the country banks
(7 percent to 14 percent of checkable deposits).
Friedman and Schwartz ask: "why seek to immobilize reserves at that
time?" The economy went back into a deep depression. The Bernanke Fed's
2008 to 2010 policy also immobilizes the banking system's reserves
reducing the banks' incentive to make loans.
This is a bad policy even if the banks approve. The
correct policy now should be to slowly reduce the interest paid on
bank reserves to zero and simultaneously maintain a moderate increase
in the money supply by slowly raising the short term market interest
rate targeted by the Fed. Keeping the short term target
interest rate at zero causes many problems, not the least of which is
allowing banks to borrow at a zero interest rate and sit on their
reserves so they can receive billions in interest from the taxpayers
via the Fed. Business loans from banks are vital to the nations'
recovery.
The fact that the Fed is suppressing lending
and inflation at a time when it says it is trying to encourage both
shows that the Fed is saying one thing and doing something else
entirely.
I have previously pointed out numerous other ways in which the Fed is working against its stated goals, such as:
- Reinforcing cyclical trends (when one of the Fed's main justifications is providing a counter-cyclical balance);
- Increasing unemployment (when the Fed is mandated by law to maximize employment); and
- Encouraging financial companies to make even riskier gambles in the future (when it is supposed to stabilize the financial system).
And see this.
Postscript: If the Fed really wants to stimulate the economy, it should try Steve Keen's idea.
About a third of the top grossing apps in the Apple App Store are now making their money through the sale of virtual goods within the application after being free to download, according to research done by tech blog GigaOm.
The free-to-play model has so far served as a good way to entice users with free apps and then make money off the sale of virtual goods. Apple finally caved to developers and created a system to allow iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users to make purchases from within apps last fall. The design allows developers to create a free app and then get the user to purchase a very cheap virtual good, such as a better weapon in a game. It then becomes much easier to convert a non-paying user into a paying one.
Freemium applications are making a good bit of money. In January, mobile analytics firm Flurry said that the freemium games it tracked generated revenues of $9 per user per year, on average. In June, that number had risen to $14.66 per user per year. Previously, these games were generating around 99 cents to $1.99 per user per year. 34 of the top 100 apps are free, but make their money through in-app purchases of mostly virtual currencies as well as other premium features, according to GigaOm’s report.
Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all purchases made within applications. That’s the same amount that Facebook, another large host of social games (including Zynga’s Farmville), charges its game partners.
Apple’s App Store now has around 300,000 apps for sale and for free download. And the App Store is growing by around 1,000 apps every day. The Android marketplace, which has applications for phones running on Google’s Android operating system, only has around 113,000 applications according to some metrics.
Score another one for social games developer Zynga, which first brought the freemium model to the forefront as a significant source of revenue for games and other applications. Its games have become insanely popular, and the company is now worth as much as Electronic Arts — one of the largest publishers in the world — by some metrics from its virtual good sales alone.
Next Story: Microsoft and Cisco throw down the gauntlet for living room teleconferencing Previous Story: Nintendo: the gaming landscape has changed forever, but console’s are doing just fine
Sun <b>News</b> Gets Green Light: 'Fox <b>News</b> North' Secures Broadcast <b>...</b>
Canada is to get a conservative all-news TV channel after the CRTC on Friday granted Quebecor Media a license to launch Sun TV News nationwide. The upstart cable channel, dubbed Fox News North by liberal critics, has the go-ahead to ...
<b>News</b> - Jennifer Aniston, Chelsea Handler Flaunt Bikini Bods in <b>...</b>
The new BFFs show off their curves while celebrating Thanksgiving abroad.
Game of the Week PlayStation 3 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our PlayStation 3 news of Game of the Week. ... Gran Turismo 4 vs. Gran Turismo 5 Today 10:56. Gran Turismo 5: Special Stage 720p/1080/3D analysis Today 10:56. Latest News. GT5 update confirmed for Saturday ...
bench craft company reviews
Sun <b>News</b> Gets Green Light: 'Fox <b>News</b> North' Secures Broadcast <b>...</b>
Canada is to get a conservative all-news TV channel after the CRTC on Friday granted Quebecor Media a license to launch Sun TV News nationwide. The upstart cable channel, dubbed Fox News North by liberal critics, has the go-ahead to ...
<b>News</b> - Jennifer Aniston, Chelsea Handler Flaunt Bikini Bods in <b>...</b>
The new BFFs show off their curves while celebrating Thanksgiving abroad.
Game of the Week PlayStation 3 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our PlayStation 3 news of Game of the Week. ... Gran Turismo 4 vs. Gran Turismo 5 Today 10:56. Gran Turismo 5: Special Stage 720p/1080/3D analysis Today 10:56. Latest News. GT5 update confirmed for Saturday ...
bench craft company reviews
Immediately after the recession took a dramatic dive in
September 2008, the Bernanke Fed implemented a policy that continues to
further damage the incentive for banks to lend to businesses. On
October 6, 2008 the Fed's Board of Governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke,
announced it would begin paying interest on the reserve balances of
the nation's banks, major lenders to medium and small size businesses.
You don't need a Ph.D. economist to know that if you pay
banks ¼ percent risk free interest to hold reserves that they can obtain
at near zero interest, that would be an incentive to hold the
reserves. The Fed pumped out huge amounts of money, with the base of
the money supply more than doubling from August 2008 to August 2010,
reaching $1.99 trillion. Guess who has over half of this money parked
in cold storage? The banks have $1.085 trillion on reserves drawing
interest, The Fed records show they were paid $2.18 billion interest on
these reserves in 2009.
A number of people spoke
about the disincentive for bank lending embedded in this policy
including Chairman Bernanke.
***
Jim McTague, Washington Editor of Barrons,
wrote in his February 2, 2009 column, "Where's the Stimulus:"
"Increasing the supply of credit might help pump up spending, too.
University of Texas Professor Robert Auerbach an economist who studied
under the late Milton Friedman, thinks he has the makings of a
malpractice suit against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as the
Fed is holding a record number of reserves: $901 billion in January as
opposed to $44 billion in September, when the Fed began paying interest
on money commercial banks parked at the central bank. The banks prefer
the sure rate of return they get by sitting in cash, not making loans.
Fed, stop paying, he says."
Shortly after this article appeared
Fed Chairman Bernanke explained: "Because banks should be unwilling to
lend reserves at a rate lower than they can receive from the Fed, the
interest rate the Fed pays on bank reserves should help to set a floor
on the overnight interest rate." (National Press Club, February 18,
2009) That was an admission that the Fed's payment of interest on
reserves did impair bank lending. Bernanke's rationale for interest
payments on reserves included preventing banks from lending at lower
interest rates. That is illogical at a time when the Fed's target
interest rate for federal funds, the small market for interbank loans,
was zero to a quarter of one percent. The banks would be unlikely to
lend at negative rates of interest -- paying people to take their money
-- even without the Fed paying the banks to hold reserves.
The next month William T. Gavin, an excellent economist at the St.
Louis Federal Reserve, wrote in its MarchApril 2009 publication:
"first, for the individual bank, the risk-free rate of ¼ percent must
be the bank's perception of its best investment opportunity."
The Bernanke Fed's policy was a repetition of what the Fed did in
1936 and 1937 which helped drive the country into a second depression.
Why does Chairman Bernanke, who has studied the Great Depression of
the 1930's and has surely read the classic 1963 account of improper
actions by the Fed on bank reserves described by Milton Friedman and
Anna Schwartz, repeat the mistaken policy?
As the
economy pulled out of the deep recession in 1936 the Fed Board thought
the U.S. banks had too much excess reserves, so they began to raise the
reserves banks were required to hold. In three steps from August 1936
to May 1937 they doubled the reserve requirements for the large banks
(13 percent to 26 percent of checkable deposits) and the country banks
(7 percent to 14 percent of checkable deposits).
Friedman and Schwartz ask: "why seek to immobilize reserves at that
time?" The economy went back into a deep depression. The Bernanke Fed's
2008 to 2010 policy also immobilizes the banking system's reserves
reducing the banks' incentive to make loans.
This is a bad policy even if the banks approve. The
correct policy now should be to slowly reduce the interest paid on
bank reserves to zero and simultaneously maintain a moderate increase
in the money supply by slowly raising the short term market interest
rate targeted by the Fed. Keeping the short term target
interest rate at zero causes many problems, not the least of which is
allowing banks to borrow at a zero interest rate and sit on their
reserves so they can receive billions in interest from the taxpayers
via the Fed. Business loans from banks are vital to the nations'
recovery.
The fact that the Fed is suppressing lending
and inflation at a time when it says it is trying to encourage both
shows that the Fed is saying one thing and doing something else
entirely.
I have previously pointed out numerous other ways in which the Fed is working against its stated goals, such as:
- Reinforcing cyclical trends (when one of the Fed's main justifications is providing a counter-cyclical balance);
- Increasing unemployment (when the Fed is mandated by law to maximize employment); and
- Encouraging financial companies to make even riskier gambles in the future (when it is supposed to stabilize the financial system).
And see this.
Postscript: If the Fed really wants to stimulate the economy, it should try Steve Keen's idea.
About a third of the top grossing apps in the Apple App Store are now making their money through the sale of virtual goods within the application after being free to download, according to research done by tech blog GigaOm.
The free-to-play model has so far served as a good way to entice users with free apps and then make money off the sale of virtual goods. Apple finally caved to developers and created a system to allow iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users to make purchases from within apps last fall. The design allows developers to create a free app and then get the user to purchase a very cheap virtual good, such as a better weapon in a game. It then becomes much easier to convert a non-paying user into a paying one.
Freemium applications are making a good bit of money. In January, mobile analytics firm Flurry said that the freemium games it tracked generated revenues of $9 per user per year, on average. In June, that number had risen to $14.66 per user per year. Previously, these games were generating around 99 cents to $1.99 per user per year. 34 of the top 100 apps are free, but make their money through in-app purchases of mostly virtual currencies as well as other premium features, according to GigaOm’s report.
Apple takes a 30 percent cut of all purchases made within applications. That’s the same amount that Facebook, another large host of social games (including Zynga’s Farmville), charges its game partners.
Apple’s App Store now has around 300,000 apps for sale and for free download. And the App Store is growing by around 1,000 apps every day. The Android marketplace, which has applications for phones running on Google’s Android operating system, only has around 113,000 applications according to some metrics.
Score another one for social games developer Zynga, which first brought the freemium model to the forefront as a significant source of revenue for games and other applications. Its games have become insanely popular, and the company is now worth as much as Electronic Arts — one of the largest publishers in the world — by some metrics from its virtual good sales alone.
Next Story: Microsoft and Cisco throw down the gauntlet for living room teleconferencing Previous Story: Nintendo: the gaming landscape has changed forever, but console’s are doing just fine
Sun <b>News</b> Gets Green Light: 'Fox <b>News</b> North' Secures Broadcast <b>...</b>
Canada is to get a conservative all-news TV channel after the CRTC on Friday granted Quebecor Media a license to launch Sun TV News nationwide. The upstart cable channel, dubbed Fox News North by liberal critics, has the go-ahead to ...
<b>News</b> - Jennifer Aniston, Chelsea Handler Flaunt Bikini Bods in <b>...</b>
The new BFFs show off their curves while celebrating Thanksgiving abroad.
Game of the Week PlayStation 3 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our PlayStation 3 news of Game of the Week. ... Gran Turismo 4 vs. Gran Turismo 5 Today 10:56. Gran Turismo 5: Special Stage 720p/1080/3D analysis Today 10:56. Latest News. GT5 update confirmed for Saturday ...
bench craft company reviews
Sun <b>News</b> Gets Green Light: 'Fox <b>News</b> North' Secures Broadcast <b>...</b>
Canada is to get a conservative all-news TV channel after the CRTC on Friday granted Quebecor Media a license to launch Sun TV News nationwide. The upstart cable channel, dubbed Fox News North by liberal critics, has the go-ahead to ...
<b>News</b> - Jennifer Aniston, Chelsea Handler Flaunt Bikini Bods in <b>...</b>
The new BFFs show off their curves while celebrating Thanksgiving abroad.
Game of the Week PlayStation 3 <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our PlayStation 3 news of Game of the Week. ... Gran Turismo 4 vs. Gran Turismo 5 Today 10:56. Gran Turismo 5: Special Stage 720p/1080/3D analysis Today 10:56. Latest News. GT5 update confirmed for Saturday ...
bench craft company reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment