Re:Federal Reserve lent $300B in emergency funds to banks in...
by antibasilisk on Monday March 20, 2023 @05:33AM
(#35229174)
The 'something' here being bonds 99% of the time, so... a funky loan.
Re:Federal Reserve lent $300B in emergency funds to banks in...
by Retric on Monday March 20, 2023 @08:58AM
(#35230818)
The loan was compared to QE, not what was being purchased.
> No QE is purchasing something [generally a debt], not making a new loan.
Re:Federal Reserve lent $300B in emergency funds to banks in...
by antibasilisk on Monday March 20, 2023 @11:04AM
(#35232548)
Purchasing a bond is effectively just loaning money. I don't know why your distinction would have any relevency
Re:Federal Reserve lent $300B in emergency funds to banks in...
by Retric on Monday March 20, 2023 @11:52AM
(#35233407)
It make a huge difference if the bond fails.
Bob the bank buys a bond from Alice. Criss at the central bank in charge of QE buys if from Bob. Alice goes bankrupt and Bob doesn’t care.
Bob the bank buys a bond from Alice. Criss at the central bank loans Bob money. Alice goes bankrupt and Bob’s bank fails.
Re:Federal Reserve lent $300B in emergency funds to banks in...
by antibasilisk on Monday March 20, 2023 @01:40PM
(#35235449)
Except that Alice here is the government, and in both scenarios Adam The Average Guy loses purchasing power, which is the whole point. The distinction here is purely nitpicking.
QE creates money from thin air when distressed assets fail. This doesn’t because the asset is still on the banks balance sheet and can thus cause the bank to fail. Which is a critical distinction.