Tag: economy

Stable Coins

Digitizing our bank deposits (digital dollars—stable coins) would (will) represent another step forward in the ease and efficiency with which we can make payments and will enhance bank stability. Most of the US supply of money (US dollars) is in the form of our dollar deposits at our banks and most of our payments these days are already made by electronically transferring bank deposits from me to you via my bank to yours. I have discussed all of this in more detail earlier: “Econ 101-Money”

Developing the rails for paying with stable coins is a further improvement on our existing payment options. It is not revolutionary. The payment of cash (currency) requires no infrastructure (e.g. Merchant contract with credit card issuer and card reader, etc.). You just hand it over and anyone can accept it (hopefully the person you intended to receive it). The electronic transfer of a bank deposit balance (e.g., Zelle, Venmo, e-wire) requires the enrollment of the recipient in that particular payment vehicle.  It took decades for credit cards to be widely accepted. Hundreds of companies now issue Visa cards (mine is issued by United Airlines) and all are accepted wherever any of them are accepted. But it took a lot of work to build that system.

What do stable coins issued by banks add that might be useful? From the bank side issuing stable coins from deposit balances simplifies the bank’s management of the assets that back them. When its customers withdraw cash these days, the bank must purchase it from the Federal Reserve in order to pass it on to you. It pays the Fed for the cash from its reserve deposits at the Fed, which reduces its ability to extend credit to businesses and households. If its reserves at the Fed are not sufficient, it will need to borrow from another bank or sell another asset.

The withdrawal of cash from bank deposits tends to follow seasonal patters. Thus the squeeze on its reserves at the Fed would tend to create seasonal fluctuations in bank credit hence in the money supply.  Thus the Fed attempts to offset the impact of currency fluctuations on bank reserves and thus credit with offsetting purchases and sales of government securities (so called open market operations) or with temporary loans to banks in its “lender of last resort” function. If a bank can issue its own currency (as they did in the old days) when a customer withdraws cash from its deposits, its asset backing (and reserve deposits at the Fed) will not be affected. Banks will now be able to do this by issuing their own stable coins. While the customer’s deposit balance will fall when withdrawing cash (or stable coins), its total of stable coins “cash” plus deposit balance will not change thus the bank assets backing them do not need to change. Thus, such fluctuations in the currency/deposit ratio would not product a fluctuation in the money supply.

From the customers side the stable coins are as good as traditional cash only to the extent that the infrastructure to accept them (e.g. phone wallets) has been designed and widely acquired/accepted. Just as it took many years for credit cards (Visa, Mastercard and American Express) to be widely adopted, the same will be true with stable coins. Just as you might now swap addresses via your respective mobile phones, you will be able to make payments.

If everyone can issue their own money it degenerates to barter, i.e. it would not be money at all. The essence of a successful means of payment is the certainty of its ultimate claim on the central bank’s official monetary liability (the dollar). When central banks were limited to issuing currency redeemable for “something” such as gold or silver, the amount they issued was limited by their holding of gold or silver, etc.  Today the Fed’s supply of money is limited by Congress’s mandate for price stability and full employment. And ultimately the government must accept such dollars in payment for our tax obligations stated in the same currency.

Econ 101: Interest Rates –Another Go

A month ago I reviewed the role of the Federal Reserve’s policy interest rate: https://wcoats.blog/2025/07/17/the-feds-policy-interest-rate/   The subject is so important and seemingly misunderstand by many that I am reviewing it again here.

Interest rates balance the supply and demand for financial assets. Households and firms that save some of their incomes demand financial assets. Households and firms that borrow to invest in productive capital or for whatever reason supply those assets (mortgages, bonds, etc.). Rates on longer term assets reflect the expected value of the short-term rates over that period. Thus the interest rate on a ten year bond reflects the expected value of one year bills over the ten year period plus a small risk premium because the string of short term loans are an alternative to the single fixed rate ten year loan.

The policy interest rate of the Federal Reserve is set by the Fed to pursue its objective of stable money (defined by the Fed as 2% inflation) and high employment (the Fed’s dual mandate imposed by Congress).

This note reviews the Fed’s policy rate. Since 2008 the Fed’s policy rate has been the rate it pays banks for the money they keep on deposit with a Federal Reserve Bank (of which there are twelve but that is unimportant for understanding the role of the policy rate), which on Aug 6 amounted to $3,332 billion. This rate is known as the Interest on Reserve Balances (IORB).

If the IORB matches comparable market rates for equally liquid funds (the so-called neutral rate), banks will maintain their existing Fed deposits. If it is set above that level, banks will have a financial incentive to place more money with the Fed, i.e. lend less in the market, thus creating fewer deposits and reducing the money supply. If the IORB is set lower than the neutral rate, banks will draw down their Fed deposits to lend more in the market thus increasing deposits and the money supply.

The IORB is currently (Aug 6) 4.5%, where it has remained since Dec 2024. At this rate broad money (M2=bank demand, time and savings deposits) has grown between 4% and 5% (from a year earlier) over the last three months. Given that inflation remains above the Fed’s target of 2% it would not seem wise to lower the policy rate and increase the rate of monetary growth especially as higher tariffs go into effect.

To repeat from earlier blogs (because it is so important), if markets anticipate higher inflation in the future (next few years), market interest rates on longer term debt will increase to preserve their real (inflation adjusted) value. Lowering the Fed’s policy rate prematurely would increase the market’s anticipation of higher inflation rates in the future. In other word, lowering the IORB now is likely to increase interest rates on longer term debt. Leave the Fed alone to do its job as best it can.

The Fed’s policy interest rate

Among the things our protectionist, isolationist President fails to understand correctly is the role of the Federal Reserve’s policy rate. He wants interest rates to be lower and thinks that the Fed can cause that by lowering its policy rate. That rate used to be the overnight money market rate. If the Fed lowered that target it would supply more money (bank deposits at one of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks) to banks and thus the interbank money market for managing bank liquidity by buying government securities from banks. If banks’ liquidity (“reserves”) is increased, their demand to borrow in the interbank money market will be reduced and thus the interest rate prevailing in that market will be reduced. Thus, raising or lowering the Fed’s policy rate (and the consequent change in base –Fed reserve—money) was the instrument by which the Fed controlled the money supply (its own base money and the more relevant boarder bank money—M1, M2, etc.)

If you are into this subject, you will already understand what money is and where it comes from. If you would like a refresher read this: https://wcoats.blog/2024/11/08/econ-101-money/  

The above description of the policy rate was applicable until 2008 when banks held minimal reserves (or excess reserves when there was still a minimum reserve requirement) at the Fed. But in response to the financial crisis in 2008 when the Fed purchased huge quantities of government debt (and mortgage-backed securities), the Fed began to pay banks interest on their now very large deposits at the Fed to keep them from lending them in the market and thus expanding the money supply excessively. So, the relevant Fed policy rate now is the rate it pays on banks’ reserves at the Fed, the so-called Interest on Reserve Balances (IORB).

As with the policy rate in the old regime, the IORB is the instrument by which the Fed now controls the growth in the money supply. When the IORB is reduced below prevailing overnight market rates banks will draw down their Fed deposits to lend at the higher market rate thus increasing money growth.

Interest rates in the market are determined in and by the supply and demand for credit in the market. If the Fed lowers its IORB it will increase the growth rate of dollars. The Fed will do so when it judges that appropriate for achieving its inflation rate target of 2.0 percent. The twelve-month inflation rate in May was 2.4% and rose to 2.7% in June. The Fed decided not to lower the rate further at this time. Doing so could well lead market participants to expect higher inflation in the future, which would raise (not lower) market rates for say 10 year Treasury bills.

Current Fed policy seems appropriate to me. It adheres to an inflation forecast targeting regime that has become popular in recent years in major central banks. But it reacted by raising rates too slowly in response to the surge in inflation in 2021-2 during the Covid pandemic. Inflation reached 9% in mid 2022. A better system is to return control of the money supply to the public that can buy and redeem dollars at a fixed price for a hard anchor (such as a gold standard). I laid this out in the following blog: https://wcoats.blog/2022/06/06/econ-101-the-value-of-money/

Econ 101: Government Budgets

Newspapers are full of articles about the deaths or other losses that will result from proposed budget cuts. Today’s Washington Post, for example, headlined a story on USAID cuts “USAID cuts may cause 14 million more deaths in next five years, study says”  “Washington post /2025/07/01/”

If the government’s spending on X is reduced (aside from any improvement in efficiency) the benefits of that spending will be lost. But our resources are limited. If we spend more on X we have less to spend on Y.  So when we lament the losses from reduced spending on X we should take account of the gain from the increased spending on other things.

To put a bit of flesh on this issue, consider the following: “The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it.”  “Rubio-pepfar-aids”

Evaluating whether this cut is “good or bad” is not easy because determining the likely alternative use of the money saved is not easy. If we stick to a fixed government budget total, the alternative use by the government of the money saved might save even more lives (or maybe not). But the saving could also be given to tax payers whose use of that money would reflect their own personal needs and priorities.  

The process used by Elon Musk’s DOGE to arrive at the spending and/or personnel cuts they proposed was not transparent thus is largely unknown to us. But I have serious doubts that it was appropriate. Semafor offers the following advice:

“A lot of US government work is highly inefficient, says the science reformer Stuart Buck. Federally funded scientists say they spend 44% of their research time on bureaucracy, federal procurement is “broken” and often results in the government buying products that don’t work, and “the Paperwork Reduction Act paradoxically results in endless paperwork.” “Many such cases,” says Buck. “We should have an official effort to address these issues… We could even call it a ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’” As you might be aware, there is one: It is “widely viewed as a failure,” but the basic idea is sound. How could we make it good?

“The first step, says Buck, would be taking a long time to deeply understand how each government agency works, so you don’t mistake routine human error or some statistical artifact for fraud. Second, it should focus on high-value reforms, like outdated data systems or software. Third, it should learn from previous attempts to cut red tape — because there have been many, not all of which worked. And importantly, a good DOGE would not mistake things we don’t use for “waste” — like an insurance policy, we hope pandemic preparedness infrastructure and fire departments are never used, but they’re in place in case we need them. The real-world DOGE is a failure, says Buck, because it ignored all of these strictures.”  “Semafor.com/newsletter/06/30/2025/”

I think some, if not many, government programs or activities should be reformed or eliminated. But those the public really want must be paid for by the public paying additional taxes or lending to the government (buying US bonds). U.S. debt is dangerously high (123% of US GDP) and continuing to grow.  So to the extend spending is not reduced, taxes should be raised.   

Looking for win-win

The essence of trade is that both the seller and buyer benefit (win-win). Without that feature the trade would not take place. The expansion of trade locally and then globally increased the output and thus incomes of the average person dramatically.

In 1820, about 80% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day in today’s terms). By 2019, this figure had fallen to roughly 10%. This decline is especially notable given that the global population increased more than sevenfold during this period.


The pace of poverty reduction accelerated in recent decades. From 1990 to 2019, the global extreme poverty rate dropped from 43% to below 10%, with the fastest declines occurring since the 1990s. This progress was driven largely by rapid economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India.

The increase in win-win gains in income from trade have been promoted by broad agreement on rules and norms for “fair trade” to maximize the increase in incomes that results. These have been developed over time through what is now called the World Trade Organization (WTO). Tragically, rather than further improving its rules, the U.S. has undermined the WTO by refusing to appoint new members to its dispute resolution body.

The benefits of such collaborative cooperation have been sought and gained in other areas as well. To take one, the climate benefits of nuclear energy also carries the risks of destruction from nuclear bombs. Agreements among the countries with such capacity to contain and minimize the associated risks are reflected in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1968 (extended in 1995). The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996), several bilateral agreements with the USSR/Russia and others have further reduced the risks.

The dramatic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs promises incredible increases in our incomes but also carries risks. As with nuclear energy, all would benefit from agreements that limit these risks. Cooperating in developing such guard rails is in everyone interest. The US is making a big mistake in attempting to stifle  China’s AI development rather than a win-win cooperation with them to maximize its promise while minimizing its risk.

The case for such cooperation with China is powerfully made by Alvin Graylin in a recent presentation to the Committee for the Republic (on whose board I serve) the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6brPvFJGw.

Tariffs

“Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said [Monday] that on the first day of his presidency he will charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. He added in a separate social-media post that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on all products that come into the U.S. from China,… That would come on top of existing tariffs the U.S. has already imposed on Chinese goods.

“’This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!’ Trump wrote.” WSJ: Trump pledges tariffs on Mexico Canada and China”

A tariff is a tax on an import. They are permitted by the World Trade Organization when leveed on goods receiving state subsidies in order to create a level playing field for trade. Such global trade has made an enormous contribution to the standard of living around the world.  “Ernie Tedeschi, former chief economist for President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the North American tariffs would cost the typical American household almost $1,000 per year.” WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

The normal expectation is that the tariff will reduce U.S. demand for the taxed import and encourage its domestic production. But the US labor force is fully employed and can only increase domestic production of the targeted goods by shifting workers from the production of goods the US has a comparative advantage in thus reducing our overall income. Though employment of manufacturing workers has declined in the US, manufacturing output has not because worker productivity has increased. In fact, our imports have not shipped American jobs overseas as increasing productivity has resulted in reduced manufacturing employment most everywhere in the world, including China, surely a good thing. WC: “Trade protection and corruption”

Immediately after Trump’s tariff announcement, the exchange rate of the dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar reduces the cost of imports (but increases the cost to foreigners of our exports), thus undoing to some extent the demand reducing impact of the tariff. But it hurts our exports because of their higher price to foreign purchaser and reduces our overall standard of living.

China and others hit with this tax are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs. “Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020, goods moving among the three North American nations cross borders on a duty-free basis. ‘Obviously, unilaterally imposing a 25 percent tariff on all trade blows up the agreement,’ said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington.”  WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

Should Trump actually impose these tariff’s he would (again) be violating the law, which only allows the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval for national security reasons: WC: “Tariff abuse”

Trump’s threatened tariffs are not even leveed on the goods he wants to restrict (drugs and illegal aliens). Thus, unlike traditional tariffs they would be leveed to pressure Mexico and Canada to take other actions Trump wants. They are bargaining ploys. So at the cost of raising prices and lowering incomes in the US, weakening the global trading rules from which we have benefited so much, and weakening the checks and balances limiting an over extended executive branch, Trump may be playing his bargaining game again. But in my opinion the cost to us and the world trading system is too high.

Republicans and the Fiscal Cliff: What are they thinking?

Our government, whether headed by a Republican or a Democrat, governs for all of us. The Republicans lost this time around, though they still control the House of Representatives. They are in the minority. The Democrats, who control the Senate and the Executive branch, rightly expect to introduce and oversee policies that are more aligned with their view of what is best for the country than the views of the party that lost. But if they are wise and have the best interests of the country at heart they will take into account the views of the rest of the country as well. Compromise is part of the art of governing a diverse people successfully. Limiting the scope of government is another. See my comments on this theme over four years ago: “The Death of the Right?”

Many Republicans, however, are behaving as if they think they should force their views on the majority.  Not only is this unwillingness to compromise unacceptable in our democracy, it is producing worse outcomes for those of us who would like to keep government smaller. These republicans rejected a deal last year tentatively agreed between House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama that would have increased tax revenue by $800 billion over the next ten years in exchange for spending cuts three times that.  Without some sort of agreement by the end of this week, falling over the “fiscal cliff” will increase tax revenue by around $5,000 billion over the same period. That won’t happen, of course, as both parties want to restore the existing income tax rates for all but the wealthy. The Democrat controlled Senate has already passed such a bill, which would increase tax revenue by $700 billion over the next ten years. That would become the base line from which Obama would bargain for more tax revenue in exchange for budget cuts.

I assume that some minimalist agreement will be reached in the next week that will eliminate the worst tax effects from going over the cliff, but that will only perpetuate and prolong uncertainty over how our currently unsustainable future spending commitments will be rained in and/or financed. This uncertainty is a major factor contributing to the slow recovery of investment and the economy in general. The current impasse will continue to do great damage to the county.

According to Ezra Klein: “If Boehner had taken the White House’s deal in 2011, he could’ve stopped the tax increase at $800 billion. If he took their most recent deal, he could stop it at $1.2 trillion. But if he insists on adding another round to the negotiations — one that will likely come after the White House pockets $700 billion in tax increases — then any deal in which he gets the entitlement cuts he wants is going to mean a deal in which he accepts even more tax increases than the White House is currently demanding.

“Today, Boehner wishes he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2011. A year from now, he might wish he’d taken the deal the president offered him in 2012.”[1] See also: “The GOPs worst cliff myth”[2]

For the sake of the country and for the sake of the principles in which many Republicans believe, they must recover (with the cooperation of Democrats) the art of governing.

[1] Ezra Klein, “Obamas small deal could lead to bigger tax increases” The Washington Post, Dec 22, 2012

[2] Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, Dec 24, 2012.