Skip to content

The Black and Blue Division

150424074028-01-baltimore-protests-0424-super-169

Sorry if you thought this might be a blog post about footballs NFC’s North division.  This one is a different black and blue, and that is Black Lives Matter and Cops supporting Blue Lives Matter.  It is a very touchy subject for me as I have many family members that are police, and myself considered applying for the FBI at one point in my life, and so I am empathetic to their safety and concerns.  On the other hand I went to a university that had a high black population and took a racism class that really opened my eyes as to how important the BLM movement is for proper a justice system for black Americans (almost every kid in the class lost someone to gun violence).  The idea to be presented is that both cops and BLM are going about this issue in ways that won’t help any of them obtain their cause: police safety and a proper justice system for black Americans.   So please be warned before reading on, both groups will be critiqued here, as this is not an anti-police or anti-BLM piece but an anti-violence piece.

When it comes to Black Lives Matter, they have a very valid reason for being upset, statistics overwhelmingly show that the justice system works against them in disproportionate numbers, and I have written about this in the past so you can read about it here.  When it comes to cops and them supporting Blue Lives Matter, they have a valid concern as well, as their profession is very dangerous and split second decisions is what separates them from being shot and killed, or coming home to their families at the end of a shift.  The problem that comes from this is that both sides tend to view one another as being against them, when in fact both are fighting for lesser violence.

In the 1960’s the Civil Rights Movement fought against obvious and overt racism from the justice system, and were able to get laws passed that helped the issue in a variety of ways.  What both sides need to realize is that things have changed, but in a much more hidden way (overt racism has been replaced by implicit racism, read about this difference here), and both sides are trying to fight this issue with old antiquated methods (disruptive protests, and adding more diversity).  These methods aren’t going to bring cops and BLM together, they are just going to provide more reason to divide and avoid understanding.   We have politicians and media that do that for us, there is no reason why we should help them accomplish this.

Implicit racism is something social scientists refer to as the inherent stereotype in each and every one of us.  It is a phenomena that actually makes us human, the ability to stereotype, the ability to decipher what is safe and what is dangerous based on appearances.  We all do this with races, with dangerous objects, with people from a specific country or religion, so on and so on.  No one is immune from this because it is how our brains work and partly how we learn.   What we can do to help reduce its effects is become aware of it and to recondition ourselves to not see other races, and such as inherently dangerous to us.  Because in those split second life altering decisions that cops have to make, that inherent stereotype is going to come to effect one’s decision making, it is unavoidable.

When it comes to disruptive protests by BLM, it is the story of a desperate and impassioned people doing what they think will help them accomplish their goals.  Instead what it does do is bring frustration and annoyance to those they are trying to make aware of the issue, and more importantly it causes police to strengthen an us vs. them mentality, strengthening group identity and favoritism towards in-group members.  I am in no way against protesting to make people aware of your cause, and I have done it in the past with Occupy Wall St., and what morphed from that, was a movement that resulted in people getting elected, that was empathetic to their causes. The protests need to evolve into an organized political movement (like OWS), otherwise they will end up alienating police and people like me sympathetic to police.  They also need to stop demonizing cops, the large majority of cops are excellent people and heroic in what they do, and by being violent or aggressive towards them, isn’t going to garner sympathy, especially from police, the group they need to gain sympathy from.  

As for police, the response to promote Blue Lives Matter is one that makes sense to them, as many of the instances BLM protests against, occur when cops feel it is reasonable to respond with deadly force, which they are trained to do (like I said above strengthening us vs. them mentalities).  But what this movement does is only try to tell BLM that blue lives matter more than black lives, while all lives matter and we should always be promoting that, the reason why BLM is a movement is because statistics show us something wrong is occurring here.  When people promote breast cancer awareness does one think it is wise to counter it with ovarian cancer awareness?  What normally happens is that people recognize that breast cancer awareness is important and that something should be done about it, they don’t ignore it and counter it with another movement.  That is what the BLM movement is trying to tell people, not that all lives don’t matter, but that black lives are statistically disproportionate to others when it comes to police killings (actually Native Americans have it worse).  It is very similar to a triage situation, you treat the people that are most prone to this happening and try to fix that issue.

Without trying to pretend to know all the answers I felt it would be prudent to mention that I think are possible first steps in helping bridge this divide.  What both sides need to do is attack the issues that are causing this and not attack each other by dismissing their causes.  For BLM they need to address poverty, and support candidates that will help reduce inequality on the federal level, the typical democratic and republican candidates typically don’t address this aggressively enough, or can’t address it because of an inability to gain popular support for it.  This can be addressed with becoming more organized at the local level and building this political support from the bottom up.  For police they need to hold fellow officers more accountable and have the state use specially assigned prosecutors to handle grand jury cases to avoid conflict of interest while using local prosecutors.  There are some other “hot button” policies that can address this issue as well but I wanted to avoid those and focus on ones that both sides could accomplish quite easily with a little bit of organization and cooperation, and not jump into things that could cause a further divide on this.

Bernie Sanders is like the Iphone7.

Funny-Feel-the-Bern-Bernie-Sanders-T-Shirts

There is a lot to digest from the rhetoric and the attacks being thrown at Bernie Sanders.  And for the most part most of it is based on mud slinging trying to paint democratic socialism as socialism, and anti-capitalist.  But what it is, is the new invention that should replace the unabated capitalism the United States has seen the past 40 years.

When it comes to economic systems like capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, communism, feudalism, etc.  People need to recognize that all they are, are inventions, they are the latest technologies, sometimes they fail, sometimes they thrive and become game changers, sometimes the become obsolete.  When an economy is immature and needs to develop fast, capitalism seems to be the most effective way to mature that economy and put it into hyper drive.  But at some point hyper drive could cause you to crash and burn, and capitalism has shown to have that effect on more mature economies (frequent recessions and depressions).

Capitalism deserves its fair share of credit for transitioning from merchantilism to the major reason for bringing people out of poverty, although some may argue it was due to Industrial Revolutions (hard to determine causality there).  But I will digress and give capitalism the due credit it may or may not deserve.

The point I am trying to make here is that we should start to consider that capitalism, in it’s current form, is perhaps not the invention and tool we should be reliant upon.  We make and control our economy, and always have, there is no reason to rely on an invention to form it for us.  We would never allow another technology to run amok on us, but when it comes to economic inventions we seem to allow it.

What I am trying to say in laymen terms is that it is time to upgrade our Iphones.  It seems that democratic socialism could be capitalism 2.0.  When one understands what democratic socialism is they understand that it actually enhances economic freedom and helps capitalism, as evidence by the libertarian minded think tank Heritage, who lists their economic freedom index, almost all of them being some form of democratic socialism.

And what countries are on top of that list?  Hong Kong is number 1 (universal health care, education reliant on vocational schools paid for by government), Singapore number 2 (Essentially universal mandatory HSA’s, 20% of government spending on education), and if you look at the remaining on this list you will see similar set ups.  A high reliance on spending for health care and education, a massive investment on future generations.  All of these countries also have higher taxes to pay for these (although I would argue that is not necessary for the U.S.).

So when it comes to attacks on Bernies Sanders about giving things away for free (which is false, considering he is raising taxes), one can only imagine that these statements are made from a complete lack of understanding of what exists outside of the U.S.  It is like using the first issue of an Iphone from a decade ago and not being aware that Iphone 6s does a lot more and is a much better technology.

People need to stop looking at economics ideologically and start looking at it as a technology and a tool to better serve you and humanity, because democratic socialism does exactly that.  And like all breakthrough technologies, eventually they change the world to create a better standard of living.

T Accounts of monetary operations

Put together by Nathan Cedric Tankus

Scenario one: Federal Reserve purchases a government bond from Individual investor

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+ government bond +Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account
Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account + deposit owed to  Individual investor
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ deposit owed to Individual investor

– government bond

 

 

 

Scenario two: Federal Reserve sells a Treasury Security to a Primary dealer

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
-Treasury Security -Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account
Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account – Deposit owed to Primary Dealer
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
– Deposit owed to Primary Dealer

+Treasury Security

 

 

 

 

Scenario three: Individual investor purchases a Treasury Note at a Treasury Auction

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+ Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account

-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
+ Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account + Treasury Note
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
–Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account -Deposit owed to individual investor
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Treasury Note

– Deposit owed to individual investor

 

 

Scenario four : Treasury Pays interest on a particular Treasury note held by an individual investor

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account

+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account + Deposit owed to individual investor
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Deposit owed to individual investor

 

Scenario five: Individual worker pays Social Security payroll tax

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account

-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account [Social Security Trust fund memo:  Individual worker owed additional x amount of retirement benefits]
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account – Deposit owed to individual worker
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
– Deposit owed to individual worker

 

 

Scenario six: Treasury deposits monthly payment in an Individual Retiree’s Commercial bank checking account

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account

+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s Reserve account [Social Security Trust fund memo:  Individual  retiree owed x amount of monthly payments]
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account + Deposit owed to individual retiree
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Deposit owed to individual retiree

 

Scenario seven: Commercial bank A makes a loan to Commercial bank B on the Fed Funds market.

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Commercial bank A’s reserve account

+Reserves held in Commercial bank B’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial bank A (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

+Loan to Commercial bank B

Commercial bank B (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account +Loan to Commercial bank B
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities

Scenario eight: The Federal Reserve invests excess funds in Treasury’s reserve account at a commercial bank

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s reserve account

+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Treasury’s reserve account

+Deposit owed to Treasury

Commercial bank (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account +Deposit owed to Treasury
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities

Scenario nine: The Federal Reserve withdraws Treasury deposit at a commercial bank

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Treasury’s reserve account

-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Treasury’s reserve account

-Deposit owed to Treasury

Commercial bank (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
-Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account -Deposit owed to Treasury
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities

Scenario eleven: The Federal Reserve raises Fed Funds rate

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
[Memo: owes more future interest on floating rate liabilities]

Δ market value of fixed rate liabilities

[Memo: owes more future interest on floating rate liabilities]

Δ market value of fixed rate liabilities

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
[Memo:owed more future interest on floating rate assets]

Δ market value of fixed rate assets

[Memo: owes more future interest on floating rate liabilities]

Δ market value of fixed rate liabilities

Commercial bank (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
[Memo:owed more future interest on floating rate assets]

Δ market value of fixed rate assets

[Memo: owes more future interest on floating rate liabilities]

Δ market value of fixed rate liabilities

Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
[Memo:owed more future interest on floating rate assets]

Δ market value of fixed rate assets

[Memo: owes more future interest on floating rate liabilities]

Δ market value of fixed rate liabilities

Scenario twelve: The Federal Reserve lowers the Fed Funds rate

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
[Memo: owed less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

[Memo: owes less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

Treasury
Assets Liabilities
[Memo: owed less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

[Memo: owes less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

Commercial bank (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
[Memo: owed less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

[Memo: owes less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
[Memo: owed less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

[Memo: owes less future interest on floating rate liabilities]

market value of fixed rate liabilities

Scenario thirteen : Federal Reserve Pays interest on a particular Reserve account held by a Commercial bank.

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account
Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Reserves held in Commercial bank’s reserve account
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities

Scenario fourteen: Individual worker borrows money from Commercial bank

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Individual worker’s  promise to pay principal and interest + Deposit owed to individual worker
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Deposit owed to individual worker +Individual worker’s  promise to pay principal and interest

 

Scenario fifteen: Individual worker A borrows money from Commercial bank A and purchases House from individual worker B with checking account at Commercial Bank A

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
Treasury
Assets Liabilities
Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Individual worker A’s  promise to pay principal and interest + Deposit owed to individual worker B
Non-Commercial bank (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Deposit owed to individual worker B +Individual worker A’s  promise to pay principal and interest

Scenario fifteen: Individual worker A borrows money from Commercial bank A and purchases House from individual worker B with checking account at Commercial Bank B

Federal Reserve
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank B’s reserve account

-Reserves held in Commercial bank A’s reserve account

Commercial bank A (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Individual worker A’s promise to pay principal and interest

-Reserves held in Commercial bank A’s reserve account

Commercial bank B (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+Reserves held in Commercial bank B’s reserve account + Deposit owed to individual worker B
Non-Commercial banks (private sector)
Assets Liabilities
+ Deposit owed to individual worker B +Individual worker A’s  promise to pay principal and interest

Solution one: Solve Social Security alleged “potential bankruptcy” by making the Treasury legally responsible to pay all Social Security benefits. This is already done with Medicare Part B and D

 

“Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed in to the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs”

 

– A summary of the 2011 annual Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund reports

 

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/tr11summary.pdf

NFL and Concussions

otl_e_concussion_ill_b1_576

There seems to be two camps of fear that are pitted against each other when discussing the growing concern over concussions and CTE that occur while playing in the NFL.  Both seem to be based on a fear of some sort, whether rational or irrational.  On one side you have the fear of the NFL losing popularity or being lost as a sport altogether, and the other side is the fear that most athletes playing football will turn people into walking vegetables.  Both of these camps seem to be taking extreme stances here, which is often what is represented in the media at times as those who are most extreme seem to be given the headlines over the more moderate voices out there.

What needs to be done in this debate is to realize what arguments are based on a rational fear and what aren’t.  We can probably say with 100% certainty that the NFL’s popularity is safe from the CTE issue because of it’s rising popularity today, in spite of the criticisms they receive.  We also can’t say with 100% certainty that if you play in the NFL (or even college or high school) that you are going to suffer long term effects from the damage you take on hits to ones head.

In the case of the NFL losing popularity or suffering a negative image to tarnish the league one has to look no further than it’s t.v. ratings and overall revenue.  In a year in which two high profile running backs were arrested and missed playing in the 2014 season the NFL enjoyed its highest Super Bowl rating, and continues to enjoy increasing revenues from it.  If two high profile players that have beaten their kid and girlfriend can’t turn people away from the sport then can people really rationalize a fear of the NFL losing popularity because of the risks of CTE?

As for the case of people in fear of more football players suffering from CTE the evidence is mounting that the problem is a more rational fear than an irrational one.  For former football players in their 50’s the odds of them having alzheimers and dementia are as high as 23 times higher than the non-football players and for those in their 60’s as high as 35 times higher.  As much as 3 in 10 NFL players will develop neurocognitive problems.

So while some fears can be categorized as irrational because of a lack of evidence that the fear will be realized or the lack of trends that it will one day occur, other fears are realized and show a trend that it may one day occur.  One has to ask themselves which side is arguing through rational fear and which one is arguing through an irrational fear?

As a huge football fan I know the sport will likely not suffer in any statistically significant way from more awareness of CTE and for the NFL to be in full force in trying to prepare better for these injuries, which includes small investments into highschools to make kids aware where socioeconomic conditions may lead them to forego these risks whether they are aware of them or not.  It could be a poster in a lock room or a video shown during the first practices of the season, local governments do this for kids who get speeding tickets to instill a fear of driving too fast (so the precedence is there).  With the NFL poised to pay out millions and perhaps billions in medical bills and donations to research on this issue it would be wise for them to also get ahead of the awareness game as it would only help them in any future liability cases.

It is time to stop pretending that this will negatively effect the NFL in a popularity standpoint, it is still the modern gladiator games and people like me love seeing huge hits and a physical game, but that shouldn’t mean we should root under a veil of cognitive dissonance.  It is ok to be a hypocrite that supports awareness and funding for the high levels of risk that comes with football and still support the violent nature of it and enjoy watching that violence.

Are Corporate Income Taxes Passed onto Consumers?

Corporate-tax-color-e1303130022237

I would like for this post to be a place to debate this topic.  There was a time where I thought that passing on taxation to consumers made sense to me.  As I made the assumption that taxes were a cost associated in overhead.  But is it really overhead?  Or is it exactly what corporate income taxes are supposed to be?  And that is an “after profit tax”.  It is important to understand that distinction.

Would it be wise for a company to add expected tax payments into a cost of a good?  If another company doesn’t care about “after profit taxation” then they could easily undercut a company that attempts to add that expected cost into their product or service cost structure.  That would then allow the competition to obtain more valuable market share and stronger revenues to capture more ad revenue and market penetration.  Most executives would fire their accounting staffs if they made the blunder of adding that cost into their pricing.

Let’s also take into consideration the fact that many businesses only pay taxes via individual tax rates as sole proprietors or partnerships and other corporation set ups.  I don’t have the percentage of businesses who pay taxes in this way but I do recall it being the majority of small businesses in this country, please correct me if I am wrong.  So if corporations that pay “after profit incomes taxes” have to compete with people who pay no corporate income tax, then it would be disastrous for them to include that tax in their cost structure as it would price them out of the market.

Now I am not arguing that corporations should pay higher taxes, as I believe that taxation for revenue purposes are obsolete.  But I can’t stand when this argument is made because it makes zero economic or logical sense.  What seems more illogical is that we are so quick to tax individuals who are the consumers of products and services that the companies provide and yet not quick to tax corporations who are now hoarding trillions in profits that could be used to increase wages and hiring.  So maybe the burden of taxation should shift from individuals to corporations?

As most who read this blog can attest to, I think taxation should be used as a redistribution tool and a punitive tool to help the consuming portion of our economic base consume more, so don’t let this be an argument for government revenues but an argument to reverse the tax structure to benefit business, by increasing their consumer base, and benefiting the lower classes to save and pay off debt more.

Recessions under “demand side” versus those under “supply side”.

Which is better for the economy? The golden era of economics practiced more “demand side” theory in the 50’s and 60’s. And in the late 60’s and early 70’s our economy started to shift to “supply side” theory, where neo-liberal policy took hold (neo-liberals consist of democrats and republicans).

Here is a list of recessions in those two eras of differing economic theories.

Demand side era:

1960 a 1.6% drop in GDP and a peak of 7.1 UE. 10 months

1969 1 .9% dip in GDP and a peak of 6.1 UE. 11 months.

Supply Side era:

1973 recession a near 7% decline in GDP and a peak of 9% UE. 2 years, and UE never fully recovered to its pre recession levels until 1997!

1980s recession had a dip in GDP of 4% and a peak UE of over 10%, it lasted 2 years as well.

2008 recession is called the GReat Recession for a reason because only the Great Depression dwarfed it in size. 4.9% dip in GDP and 10% plus in UE, still haven’t recovered 5 years later.

Demand side recessions averaged a 1.75% dip in GDP and a 6.6 UE rate and average of 10.5 months.

Supply side recessions averaged 5% dip in GDP and 9.75% UE average.

And since we entered into the post Keynes era we have never reached the levels of 4% UE (for a brief time in the late 1990’s).

I realize that comparing the two era’s may seem rather specious, but the two eras represent two completely different eras of economic practices.  From the pro-labor era where unions were strong and the middle class heavily bolstered from WW2 era government spending programs, to today’s era of anti-labor with shifting jobs overseas, dismantling unions, and government policy geared towards supply side thinking.

The Endless Demand for US Treasuries

1450092_407876576053462_288206547633937265_n

Guest post by Laura Elizabeth Teller

I hear people’s worries that, one day, nobody will want to buy Treasury debt – that “other opportunities” will be more attractive, and Treasuries will be left sitting on the shelf at Fed auctions, with no interested buyers.

That, basically, is impossible. Here’s why:

When the federal government spends money in deficit, it (simplistically) writes a check without having money in any bank account anywhere.

The recipient of that check deposits it into a bank account. The depositor’s bank then creates a liability balance for itself by increasing the depositor’s bank balance (if you haven’t ridden in this rodeo before, a bank deposit is a liability of the bank – the bank’s promise to pay the depositor cash, or to make any ATM or check payments the depositor may want to make with that balance).

The bank now needs an asset which it can use to honor its promise to its depositor. It presents the check to the Fed which, as fiscal agent for the Treasury, it has to honor. The Fed then creates a liability for itself, a deposit balance in the depositor’s bank’s reserve account with the Fed.

The balance in the reserve account is now an asset of the depositor’s bank, and can be used to make any interbank check or ATM payments that the bank needs to make on the depositor’s behalf.

The bank has a little problem, though. The Fed requires that the bank maintain reserve balances as a percentage of the demand deposits (like checking deposits) it has on hand. That requirement is between 0% and 10% of deposits, depending on the total value of the bank’s demand deposit liabilities.

So the bank has all of these reserves on hand, the vast majority of which it doesn’t need in order to meet reserve requirements, which pay a meager 0.25% interest, which is less than the bank’s cost of maintaining and administering the depositor’s money. The bank is losing money by accepting the depositor’s deposit. No, the bank can’t lend the deposit. It’s a bank liability. You can’t lend out your liabilities, or promises, to other people. That deposit has to stay on the bank’s books, right where it is.

The bank can’t do anything with these reserves. It has no “investment opportunities”. It can’t turn them into cash, it can’t buy stocks or derivatives with them, and it can’t lend them to customers. Reserves are purely an interbank scrip used to settle interbank payments. They aren’t accepted anywhere else in the economy, and the Fed does not allow them to be removed from their books.

But Congress gives the bank an option to make a little more money: it issues Treasury securities, which pay a little better interest rate. The bank would definitely rather have Treasury securities which pay a little interest than reserves, which pay virtually none. So it is guaranteed that the bank will buy Treasuries when they are offered by the Fed.

Treasuries are issued in quantities matching deficit spending – this assures that, as they are issued, there will be banks who suddenly find themselves with excess reserves from that deficit spending which they would prefer to trade for something with a higher interest rate – and the ONLY thing they can buy with them is Treasuries.

There is ZERO possibility that the Fed cannot find buyers for all Treasuries issued by the government, because the banks who cash government checks have no other opportunities to invest the reserves they receive in trade for government checks.

Fret not. There will always be buyers for as many Treasuries as government cares to issue.