Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Fed’s Balance Sheet Exceeds $7T for First Time in History (thesoundingline.com)
40 points by baronmunchausen 13 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 90 comments





In the wake of the Great Depression the US government made it illegal to own gold (jewelry notwithstanding). At this time, US$1 was convertible to 1/20th of an ounce of gold. People sold their gold back to the government.

In the 1930s the US government had spiraling debt so how did it solve this problem? Simple. It simply made US$1 worth 1/35th of an ounce of gold instead.

What this amounted to was a devaluation of US government debt in real terms but not in nominal terms.

Post-WWI Germany had to pay war reparations denominated in deutschmarks. About 10 years later Germany got into a situation of hyperinflation. This essentially wiped out any outstanding reparations.

So if you wonder what the end result of all this is, it's probably that: an effective devaluation of bonds rather than a sovereign default, which is unlikely in any system where the debt is denominated in the currency you can literally print.

Interestingly this would also devalue the US government's entitlement obligations (eg Social Security) too.


For the record, inflation is currently negative in the US.

They have said inflation has been in check for a long while. Going to the grocery store and looking at prices shows otherwise. I’m not sure what they are measuring.

They're literally measuring prices at grocery stores, as well as a basket of other goods and services.

https://www.bls.gov/cpi/questions-and-answers.htm


> Post-WWI Germany had to pay war reparations denominated in deutschmarks. About 10 years later Germany got into a situation of hyperinflation. This essentially wiped out any outstanding reparations.

The reparations were the cause of the hyperinflation, as they were required to be paid not in German currency, so they printed lots of currency to exchange for the required hard currencies on the markets, at ever-increasing rates.

Of course this did nothing to wipe out outstanding reparations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...


Making something illegal causes it to be more expensive. Look at cocaine and marijuana (minus taxes). This is not a fair comparison. The U.S. gov. practically confiscated gold at way below market prices and instilled fear to those who held it.

Fortunately gold is a global market that can’t be manipulated long term.


How come you never hear the last bit from the MMT crowd

It's a core central thesis of MMT. Government spending should be constrained by the inflation it causes rather than the debt or deficit.

Alternatively, “The government ought debase the currency right up until people start to notice.”

> deutschmarks

reichmarks


I've done this before in a few video games, hopefully things work better here than when I try it

> I've done this before in a few video games, hopefully things work better here than when I try it

I don't know why I found this so funny, given how prevalent seeing hyper-inflated currencies and countries get destroyed has become in my Lifetime. Its like I saw a 4 year old hitting the print trillions button on a Sim-City like game only to see a Game Over appear right away.


Prevalent? I've seen Zimbabwe and Venezuela, but maybe I'm too young. Certainly debt deflation is more prevalent in recent history.

The US Fed has tripled the MB to fix last decade's financial crisis and inflation went down, not up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MB,_M1_and_M2_aggregates_...


Yes, prevalent, I do/did fintech and I'm now in my mid 30s.

Here is just a number the one's off the top of my head spanning just the 8.5 years I've been doing it or been involved in that space.

Libya, Somalia, Tunisia, Egypt, Venezuela, Ukraine, Argentina (several times), Brazil.

I vaguely recall the days before the transition of the modern MX peso, because my family had property in Baja as a kid and I still remember seeing the obscene amount of zeros on their currency/prices and how much you'd get for just $50 USD, which to me was a lot of money back then. I remember being able to spend all day at an arcade in a mall or a corner shop for $10 and still be able buy chips and soda inside or a fried rice and an ice cream in the food court while my family got haircuts, massages, manicures, medical treatments or whatever took so long to do.

The same with the peseta or lira in comparison to the Deutschmark, which was often used in a certain part of Spain, but I was a child and had no real grasp of economics beyond 'wow, that's a lot of numbers!' I incidentally had the same feeling vicariously when I was in the non Euro zone part of E. Europe and I paid someone with a child in CHF or EUR. Its odd how evocative those short encounters can be.

Debt based deflation is merely a short term symptom, often of a reserve currency/SDR currency, but just look at how bad even some Western nations have gotten destroyed from the capital controls and other restrictions into the local economy after the Market and currency collapses as result of increasing the monetary base.

Hell, even the Eurozone has its own perverse localized form of it, look at what happened to Greece in 2008--they were debating going back to the Drachma for a while and ultimately issued their own form of script/currency in the interim [1]because EUR became scarcer and austerity kept claiming victims after defaulting on the IMF loans. Or the rest of the PIIGS nations for that matter. Slovenia is another example of what happens to an economy that cannot maintain with the EUR inflationary practices by the ECB and distorts the local economy and market dynamics and abandons previously held practices that made them be able to adequately transition after the fall of Yugoslavia, as opposed to its other satellite nations which in the case of Croatia and Serbia led to war.

It's really a matter of how deep you want to look at this, and to be honest, I sometimes wonder if I did some irreversible harm to myself and my psyche by living it and breathing for so long. But the truth is you see the best, and subsequently the worst, of Humanity in those situations and conditions so I have no real regrets as I lived a very rich Life so far as a result.

1: https://www.businessinsider.com/greece-local-currency-networ...


For all of the pearl clutching about the fear of inflation or the devaluation of bonds, I don't see enough consideration of what happened the last time the money printer went brrr for TARP.

CPI stayed relatively stable, the bond market recovered, the money got (mostly) repaid. TARP ended up being a really smart move, even though it would have been better structured if it included a small business / consumer package.

It'd be interesting if this crisis taught us that the harmful effects of monetary creation aren't as harmful as we thought. Looks like it's time to see if this Modern Monetary Theory thing might hold water. It's terrifying but also kind of exciting.


I think it's important to note that while there were a very high number of repayments, the purpose of that bailout was to transfer asset risk to the larger taxpayer body. Regardless if the initial payment price was repaid, the risk profile still is sitting somewhere.

- You value a car on your sales lot on your books: $10,000

- Real value is probably, $5,500, the spoiler and crappy tint doesn't 2x the value

- Your car is currently on fire (act of god) so value is scrap

- Buddy who runs a bank (you pay on the side because, o this ins't the first on fire car you tried to sell trash for cash) offers you $9,500, a bargin

- You are in

- 2 years later, pay off bank buddy (maybe political donation) b/c you are the one of the 9 people who can sell cars

- Throw press conference because you saved tax payers 10k + horrible risk if I failed

- Bank share holders (Tax payers) own pile of scrap

he incentives are mismanaged because the calculated risk of a bank failing is evaluated purely on the chaos induced, not the existing status quo which for joe schmoe is crazy but HFT guy can make bank off of (so sold as all upside if you are smart, but is restricted in apparent but fog like ways). Maybe said bank is actually terrible, but we won't know because they are a rise together, never fall together cartel (malicious or not, fact of reality)


And all the people that fucked us labor class underlings keep their advantages. They're preferential placements to the best schools, the best jobs, helping their friend's kid get a start. It's wonderful. Really fucking wonderful. I love being stuck, being denied the opportunity of advancement because those that are already there were hoodwinked by another black fucking swan.

The rage is barely below the surface. Good fucking luck.


Any <dollar_amount> "first time in history" event is not very interesting news because of inflation.

It's more the headline than the news. The news is pretty big too. $4.5 -> $7 trillion almost overnight.

Calendar shows highest date in history

It wasn't the year 1298 two months ago.

Did you read the article or look at any of the graphs? The amount of money used has nearly doubled in 2020.

No, I didn't. I can imagine what it's going to say (covid covid, government action).

The headline wreaks of sensationalism (assuming the writers are indeed educated and bother to think through what they're writing). Not looking to encourage such headlines with clicks.


That's not a very interesting observation due to everyone being able to work that out.

The point here is the previously assumed additional round of quantitative easing now going to be so hot on the heels of the last in January the US may as well be a command economy.


What is the point of a privatised economy, when all these inefficient businesses are still subsidized by the state?

COVID19 represents an extraordinary circumstance where otherwise perfectly healthy businesses would fail due to revenue, quite literally, dropping to zero due to an external shock.

When businesses fail and employees are fired real value is destroyed: working relationships are severed & institutional knowledge lost.

It is in all of our interests to do what we can to preserve these businesses until the external shock ends.


Is it still an external shock if these supposedly healthy and rational businesses took on large amounts of debt to buy their own stock, and are now in trouble because they can't pay their bills?

The coronavirus was not caused by rampant buy backs and borrowing. So yes

Ahh, but the buy backs and borrowing is what put over leveraged businesses into a precarious position where they were extremely vulnerable to economic shock. It didn't have to be a pandemic, it could've been any number of other events that caused a credit and demand shock.

Strip the equity, give the assets to someone who can properly manage the business.


Why should that matter? It's not like the businesses will evaporate. Equity will lose their shirts and we should let them.

Why don't they sell that stock back to the public to raise money for operating expenses? Because they'd have to sell it for much less than they paid a year ago?

I hate this idea that the taxpayer needs to subsidize risk for corporations. It creates a huge moral hazard where companies are incentivized to act as irresponsibly as possible. There are no consequences.


[flagged]


You'd make your point more effectively using logic and reasoning rather than an emotional outburst. Otherwise, as a genuinely curious reader looking to learn from "both sides," your side comes across as motivated more by emotion than reasonable argument. Which is fine for preaching to the choir… but that's about it.

Both sides? Do you make the same argument for hearing from literal Nazis? You just need to weigh the arguments for and against the final solution? I'm not directly calling Libertarians Nazis but the analogy holds, I find very little of value from their point of view. Generally Ayn Rand type libertarians are cash worshiping dragons of the Smaug variety. Their only real contribution to discourse is about the power of markets and I think we can discard them because belief in markets is not unique to them.

What do libertarians have to do with a central bank executing a massive increase in its balance sheet to execute a nearly unprecedented intervention into the national economy?

There are many words I might use to describe this policy. Libertarian is not one of them.


Yes.

They should have had an emergency fund of 6 Months of expenses for emergencies. Maybe they should stop eating so much avocado toast.

Brilliant analysis. Thank you for your insightful words.

In reality, there are very few economists who believe that a company should have 6 months of expenses in the bank for emergencies. I realize you are probably about to explain to me how those economists are wrong and companies are wasteful and whatnot. Frankly, they have their reasons and their reasons aren't do bad.

More importantly, most companies are not spending their money on frivolous things, like avocado toast. This isn't an HBO shocking sitcom/drama. Do companies make mistakes with their money, of course. But in my experience working with VC's, most companies are using all of their money on either marketing and sales, or R&D. Period. Maybe a bit on parties and morale but by percentage, 99% goes to sales and marketing or R&D. Large companies, on the other hand, spend their cash on all sorts of other things. Huge amounts of cash have still gone into sales and marketing, R&D, but also stock buy back, and investment.


> there are very few economists who believe that a company should have 6 months of expenses in the bank for emergencies

Economics is largely a study of game theory. When The Federal Reserve and Congress throw money at all companies, no matter the risk, doesn't this erode the future incentive for companies to be self-reliant and increase the expectation of similar monetary policy in the future?

Also, I read your comment's parent as if it was on The Colbert Report, dripping with sarcasm.


It's not at all clear that we would want most companies to be self-reliant enough to weather a coronavirus level storm. That self reliance would come with a very high cost that probably isn't worth it.

Was the avocado toast bit above your head or are you just generally oblivious to sarcasm?

Would you please stop using HN for flamewar and ideological battle? It's tedious, predictable, and not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


While everyone (biz or not) should have an emergency fund, this is not always possible. For example, restaurants - they already operate on razor thin margins, creating a 6 month emergency fund might not be that easy.

Plus, this virus is likely going to last more than six months - even if some businesses did have 6 month savings, what happens after?


None of those small, low-profit businesses are receiving benefit from this Federal reserve money.

Where do you think the money for PPP loans is coming from?

The money may be coming from the Fed, but very little of it is going to small businesses. [1] What's more, PPP makes up a tiny fraction of the Fed's current coronavirus response.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com./2020/04/26/business/coronavirus-sma...


Most companies could never afford to do this. They wouldn't cover their capital costs with their income for cash hoards of that size.

>>They should have had an emergency fund of 6 Months of expenses for emergencies.

Well, many /most don't. Now what do we do?


Not sure I agree that every business needs 6 months of expenses, but what you do is let them fail, or raise capital from investors on terms that may not be so favorable to them (would dilute existing shareholders).

This would incentivize future companies to operate a bit more conservatively. The pattern of corporate irresponsibility followed by taxpayer-funded bailouts is a moral hazard.


what about their employees?

Also, should we let people that have no 6-months reserve starve? Others will learn


The employees should get unemployment benefits. We should take some of the money we use for corporate welfare and shift it to individual welfare until jobs come back.

On your second point, no we should not. Do you think it's hypocritical to give humans government benefits that companies don't get?


Big business: It's not actually good for the economy to have untold trillions in rainy-day payroll costs locked up in bonds or other safe funds. That money is best reinvested into the economy, through wages, growth, or whatever. Apples $200B or whatever cash stockpile wasn't doing useful work in safe bank.

Small business: Have you ever actually run a small business, or even known anyone who did? Do you understand how ridiculous it is to tell a local coffeeshop "Oh, just have six months of payroll and rent in a safe"? These business contribute a lot to communities, and telling them "oh, you don't deserve to exist unless you are capable of withstanding once-in-a-lifetime pandemics" is asinine.


Yet this is the advice politicians, businesspeople, and landlords dole out to ordinary citizens in the face of not only threats like eviction but just their day-to-day immiseration...

Yes, ordinary citizens are different. What is your point? Are you suggesting companies really should keep 6 months of operating capital in the bank? Can you even imagine what would happen to the economy at that point.

The US GDP last year was $21 Trillion dollars. The gross revenue was about $2.1 Trillion dollars. This is all back of the envelope math but imagine if 50% of the difference between those numbers was the operating cost in the US of 6 months, or about $9.5 Trillion dollars. If we take that money out of the market and put it into a bank for a rain day fund, imagine all of the people not receiving that money. Imagine how many consumers would go down. This is all just an estimation but we are talking huge amounts of money not being put into the economy and frankly, our economy runs on consumption. Consumption doesn't happen without capital.

People should definitely safe. Have a 6 month personal supply. But companies need to spend.


> Are you suggesting companies really should keep 6 months of operating capital in the bank?

That's exactly what we're suggesting. Rather than going through this whole song and dance at least once a decade where the public has to bail out private business ventures, those private businesses should be able to fend for themselves against regular economic disruptions. This bailout and QE money isn't free and it comes with costs of its own. It would be better for the stability of the whole system if these companies could fund their own operations the next time there is a disruption.


What makes you think that the costs that trcollinson describes would be worth the benefit of "the stability of the whole system if these companies could fund their own operations the next time there is a disruption"?

You're right, the better solution is use taxpayer to bail out shitty companies that can't survive temporary economic slowdowns.

You seem like you are trolling and trolls aren't well loved here but I will attempt to answer your rather flippant and not useful comment with something somewhat useful.

Companies and the economy cannot handle having a 6 month reserve of cash, that is the assumption and there are plenty of economic theories that show that doesn't work.

Bailing out with taxpayer dollars is one solution and it's the easiest dial to turn. It will bail out a lot of companies that aren't "shitty" and are just handling a time that is unprecedented and needs to be handled. As with most things, it will also bail out some "shitty" companies. We don't have a great metric for "shitty" vs "non-shitty". Those taxpayer dollars to companies are not free (though with inflation they basically are free). They have to be paid back with a minor amount of interest over a 2 year period. Will everyone pay it back? Nope. But many will.

The point to remember here is this is unprecedented and we are attempting to solve a future problem. Let's imagine we don't bail anyone out with very cheap loans. A bunch of "shitty" companies go out of business. A WHOLE bunch of "non-shitty" businesses go out of business. When the world opens up again the people who have lost their job have no where to go. There are no "shitty" or "non-shitty" companies to go back to. They went out of business. Unemployment stays at record highs for as long as is necessary for new companies, both "shitty" and "non-shitty" to come back and start hiring. A bailout allows companies to hang on and then bring back employees ASAP after the virus situation stabilizes.

Are there better ways? Probably. Will be find them? Probably. We can learn from this situation and become better. It will require a set of new methods and economic tools to get through in the future.


Your argument is founded on the idea that this is an extraordinary event, but this is clearly becoming a recurring pattern due to the increasingly risky and fragile way businesses are operated. If this were 2008, I might agree with you, but we are starting to form a trend here. We'll have yet another round of public-private wealth transfers for the "absolutely unprecedented" 2031 US earthquake.

I think this is important. You are right this has happened before. 2008/09, 2000, 1987, twice in the 1970's. And history will no doubt repeat itself.

But my point is the way our economy currently works doesn't handle a 6 month reserve well. We don't incentive companies to hold on to cash like that. We need to come up with the incentive to do something different, whether it is save cash or "something else". But right now, the incentive is to spend cash and allow for a bailout.

Additionally, we don't think in the future very much. We think about this quarters earnings. So again, we need to incentive long term thinking and resiliency as you suggest. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to do that.


> We don't incentive companies to hold on to cash like that. We need to come up with the incentive to do something different

This isn't some novel problem that we don't understand, but rather the direct result of decades of economic policy. The solution is called raising interest rates.


First off, I don't disagree. But I unfortunately think a lot of people will disagree, especially right now. If we increase the interest rate we know exactly what will happen. We will see a decrease in economic growth and spending. Stocks will slow down. Obviously at the same time inflation decreases.

The problem is we do know we need to increase the interest rate. But no one wants to do that now. "We're in a bad economic time and we need rapid growth! We'll raise it later." Later comes and we say "We can't do it now! We're growing! That will slow things down. We'll raise it later." No one wants to bite the bullet and do that. Again, we need to think long term and not so short term. I don't know how to solve that.


I agree that it's currently a terrible time to raise interest rates, although any time over the past decade would have been nice. A year ago they even started to go up a little, but were nipped in the bud well before COVID. Had to keep that Line going up!

Politically what needs to happen is that everybody who is not Wall Street or the 1% needs to realize that ZIRP is a direct attack on their economic power, to benefit the central government/bankers who dole out the piles of the newly printed money. Obviously discussion of this remains well outside the Overton Window of mass media.

Given how ever-increasing government debt itself discourages rates going up, the buy in of the middle class (retirement number gets bigger, so it is good), and how deftly the fake political duopoly divides the plebs even as they know they're being had (here we go again with dueling "presidential" dumpster fires!) I doubt this will happen any time soon. And so what will happen is eventual societal and currency collapse, either when the foreign markets route around USD or when the People finally reach our breaking point. I just hope it happens slow enough to be less of a catastrophe.


Low interest rates helped produce one of the best labor markets in living memory before covid19 hit. This was a huge boon to lots and lots of people outside of the 1%.

That's another piece of the mistaken middle class buy in - labor is not an end unto itself. At the same time we have massive technological progress focused on the goal of reducing human effort, the Federal Reserve is optimizing to keep everyone working full time. The entirely predictable result is a load of meaningless bullshit jobs, especially concentrated in the sectors that receive the new money.

What companies are getting bailed out besides the airlines and even that was half loans and the other half for payroll so just a roundabout way of keeping people employed? I guess you could call the small business loans a bailout but that was mainly forgivable for payroll also so another way of keeping people employed. Any that I am missing?

Businesses optimize to produce goods and services and sell them to the world.

People optimize for health, happiness, and personal utility.

(1) It's reasonable for us to guide society towards different financial goals for people vs businesses. Business failure is part of life (not that we should try to make it happen). Personal failure is catastrophic. The risk/reward tradeoff is different.

(2) You'll notice I'm also not advocating for letting people starve in the streets, if they don't have savings. Help people. Help businesses. We're adults, we can do both.


Businesses and people are different entities. There is little reason to expect that good advice for one would be good advice for the other.

Given your reasoning I should setup “Burrows Household Ltd.” to hold my assets. Then when the economy goes tits up I’ll say, “I don’t have 6 months savings, but that’s okay because I’m a business not a household.”

When businesses fail they can declare bankruptcy. The business still exists and the jobs can still exist. They don't necessarily need a handout from the government.

Social Safety nets are designed for "extraordinary" circumstances too, but those are always on the chopping block.

Yeah but the beauty in this approach lies is this: While Social Safety will level out the social inequalities in the long run, meaning that someday your wealth runs out and you are on food stamps like everyone else. This system freezes you social status. Management will still earn 100x more while others earn next to nothing. It might also cost more, maybe a lot more, but it stabilizes society. True there might be a shift downwards but this is inevitable; most people will be staying on their social stage or at least the distance will be the same to the guy above and under you. This seems to be very important. Always wondered why some guys are passing you just to stand in front of you at the same traffic light? Same same.

Isn't it healthy to frequently re-evaluate which government services should be expanded or contracted?

That's not what we see in practice. In practice, we see that any program that is deemed to benefit the "wrong" group is thrown onto the chopping block regardless of need and efficacy.

I don't think anything makes these businesses inefficient, just unlucky that they are disproportionately affected by shelter-in-place orders. Since the state is basically shutting down the business for the good of the populace, it seems more analogous to eminent domain. The government has taken something of value (the ability to have their business open) and should compensate these businesses partially for their losses.

This is my view as well. The government (fed and states) hit the big pause button on the economy for public safety. They then help out the people and the corporations get through it with unemployment checks and loans to businesses so that the intangible value (relationships and expertise) is not lost.

I generally agree that we should guard against privatizing profit and socializing losses, but I don't think it applies here. The point is to get all businesses and people back to the point they were before.


So the capitalists that get massively rewarded for taking risks now get bailed out when those risks turned out bad? Sounds like BS to me.

How is the fed subsidizing inefficient businesses? If you are referring to their corporate bond purchases, they have bought a mere 1.8 billion dollars worth [0] representing a minuscule 0.025% of their balance sheet and it's not like the corporations get free money from that, they still have to pay off the bonds. They are by far mainly buying our own government's debt through US treasury securities and the mortgages on US citizens houses through Mortgage-backed Securities as stated in the article. You can see their balance sheet right here [1].

[0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-balance-sheet-tops-7-...

[1]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#...


So that the profits can be privatised and losses subsidised.

It's crypto-"State ownership of production".

Ray Dalio thinks we are approaching the end of Bretton Woods monetary system https://youtu.be/yrxYhv2O3wU

It's likely that this or subsequent rounds of QE with already 0 interest rates will blow some unexpected fuse, but the exact scenario will come as a surprise.


Bretton Woods monetary system ended in 1971 when the US dollar ended convertibility to gold and became a fiat currency. Whatever system we have today, Bretton Woods isn't it no matter how historic and conspiratorial the name sounds.

When people talk about the Bretton Woods system they are talking about the dollar dominate system of international trade and finance. It began with the Bretton Woods agreement. The end of gold convertibility was a change to that system not the end of the paradigm.

By people I'm assuming you're referring to people that have never picked up a history book and are cargo culting the name Bretton Woods. Don't feed an idea that is factually wrong.

> will blow some unexpected fuse

It's easy to stoke fear of an ambiguous and nonspecific threat, or contribute to a general feeling of ambient dread. This kind of thinking doesn't help me much.

It's a lot harder to work through a rigorous model of how the economy actually works, that's consistent with historical and geographic precedent. That kind of thinking would help me a lot, but I'm not sure where to find it.

I've heard people crying wolf about hyperinflation for the 30 years that I can remember, and it keeps not happening.

Instead, we have contemporary examples like Japan, which has been at zero interest rates with high levels QE for literally decades, and there's no hint of collapse there.

Is this time any different for some reason?


That's a multitrillion dollar question. One difference is that the US is printing the global currency, while Japan was creating local convertible currency. We are also seeing the stock market decoupling from the underlying economic reality. The dynamics could be different. I am personally becoming worried about the USD cash (large) part of my portfolio.

I agree with your assessment, the yen is a small fraction of the global reserve currency pool compared to the USD, dollar denominated debts destroy the competitiveness of other economies which can be seen when you graph the DXY against emerging market etfs. There is no alternative to the dollar right now but there is also no real alternative to the manufacturing and materials base in China. Domestically alone China can source a significant amount of material and in many sectors they supply the majority of mining output for the world, next after them is usually Russia. The US's purchasing power and GDP only exists because the world trades using dollars. It amazes me that more people that post on hacker news aren't as concerned as I feel about the current situation. Whether you own crypto or not you would be crazy to hold bonds or debt as an investment over precious metals with the state of the world being what it is.

Let's see. Are you holding these "precious metals" in your hardened safe or it's just numbers in any of these brokers?

I personally purchase and hold precious metals at home and then play miner stocks and precious metal etf options for more exposure.

Fair enough.

> It's a lot harder to work through a rigorous model of how the economy actually works, that's consistent with historical and geographic precedent. That kind of thinking would help me a lot, but I'm not sure where to find it.

Even though it's not quantitative models, I can only recommend "Navigating big debt crisis" by Ray Dalio. Also, he published some chapters of his new book -- The changing world order -- online recently: https://www.principles.com/the-changing-world-order/#introdu...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: