What does the Fed do with the extra money it is printing?
"First of all, just for the sake of clarity, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually ""print"" money - that's the job of the BEP. What they do is they buy US Treasury bonds - i.e., loan money to the US government. The money they do it with are created ""from thin air"" - just by adding some numbers in certain accounts, thus it is described as ""printing money"". The US government then spends the money however it wishes to. The idea is that this money is injected into the economy - since the only way the US government can use the money from these loans is to spend them on buying something or give it to some people that would spend them.  As it is a loan, sometime in the future the US government would pay these loans back, and in this moment the Fed would decide - if they want to ""contract"" the supply of money back, they just ""destroy"" the money they've got, by erasing the numbers they created before. They could also do it by selling the bonds they hold on the open market and then again ""destroy"" the money they got as proceeds, thus lowering the amount of money existing in the economy. This way the Fed can control how much money is out there and thus supposedly influence inflation and economic activity.  The Fed could also inject money in the economy by buying any assets after creating the money - for example, right now they own about a trillion dollars worth of various mortgage-based securities. But since buying specific security would probably give unfair advantage to the issuers and owners of this security, usually US treasury bonds if what they buy. The side effect of increased supply of money denominated in dollars would be, as you noted, devaluation of dollars compared to other currencies." "Usually the FED uses newly printed money to buy US treasuries from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc..  These banks then lend out the new cash which expands the money supply. During the height of the crisis the FED printed over $1.0 Trillion and bought....well...almost anything the banks couldn't offload elsewhere.  Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, you name it - they bought it.  Must be nice to always have a customer to sell your junk investments to.  They also bought these securities at face value - not at market value.  Chart from here.  The FED announced in early November, 2010 that they will print another $600 billion and buy US Treasuries.  They will be buying ALL the debt that will be sold by the US government for the next 8 months.  This was admitted by the Dallas FED chairman in this article: For the next eight months, the   nation’s central bank will be   monetizing the federal debt. ""Monetizing"" is a fancy word for printing money. I think this was done because the US government ran out of customers for its debt.  China has reduced its purchases of US debt and the Social Security Trust Fund is no longer buying US debt since it is running a deficit."
&gt; Europe is a temporary problem.  Lol..  The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed?  I see no way at all of the Euro surviving.  Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt.  They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out.  Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind.  They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will.  They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse.  Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate.  This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants.  If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen? Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt.  Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all  that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ?  I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years.  That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it.    Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2?  It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction.  The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities.  I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong.  Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision.    Please be kind to my grammar. "So ""Operation Twist"" is actually a pretty simple concept. Here's the break down: The Fed sells short-term treasury bonds that it already holds on its books. Short-term treasury bonds refer to - bonds that mature in less than three years. Then: Uses that money to buy long term treasury bonds. Long-term treasury bonds refer to -  bonds that mature in six to 30 years The reason: The fed buys these longer-term treasuries to lower longer-term interest rates and encourage more borrowing and spending. Diving deeper into how it works: So the Fed can easily determine short-term rates by using the Federal funds rate this rate has a direct effect on the following: However this does not play a direct role in influencing the rate of long-term loans (what you might pay on a 30-year fixed mortgage). Instead, long-term rates are determined by investors who buy and sell bonds in the bond market, which changes daily. These bond yields fluctuate depending on the health of the economy and inflation. However, the Fed funds rate does play an indirect role in these rates. So now that we know a little more about what effects what rate, why does lower long-term rates in treasuries influence my 30yr fixed mortgage? Well when you are looking for a loan you are entering a market and competing against other people, by people I mean anyone looking for money (e.g: my grandmother, companies, or the US government). The bank that lends you money has to decide weather the deal you are offering them is better then another deal on the market. If the risk of lending to one person is the same as the risk of lending to another, the bank will make whichever loan yields the higher interest rate. The U.S. government is considered a very safe borrower, so much so that government bonds are considered almost “risk free”, but because of the lower risk the rate of return is lower. So now the bank has to factor in this risk and make its decision weather to lend you money, or the government. So, if the government were to go to the market and buy its own long-term bonds it is adding demand in the market causing the price of the bond to rise in effect lowering the interest rate (when price goes up, yield goes down). So when you go back and ask for a loan it has to re-evaluate and decide ""Is it worth giving this money to Joe McFreeBeer instead and collecting a higher yield?"" (After all, Joe McFreeBeer is a nice guy). Here's an example: Lets say the US has a rating of 10 out of 10 and its bonds pay a 2% yield. Now lets say for each lower mark in rating the bank will lend at a minimum of 1% higher and your rating is 8 of 10. So if you go to market, the lowest rate you can get will be 4%. Now lets say price rises on the US treasury and causes the rate to go down by 1%. In this scenario you will now be able to get a loan for 3% and someone with a rating of 7 of 10 would be able to get that 4% loan. Here's some more info and explinations: Why is the Government Buying Long-Term Bonds? What Is 'Operation Twist'? A Q&A on US Fed Program Federal Reserve for Beginners Federal Open Market Committee" What a silly question?  They took all the Tax payer money and bought all the bad loans that the banks had on their books. They put all the bad loans as assets on the Feds books.  But because it was bad and was not really worth anything, they created a further $1 Trillion, and loaned it out to all the Banks to show as tier I capital, and paid an interest of 2.5%, while the Fed rate was effectively 0%, on the understanding that this money could never leave the Fed, and was only for display purposes, hence they could over leverage that $1 Trillion many times over.  The Banks then seem capitally adequate and required no further activity in the lending market as they generated 2.5% of fucking hot air, and the rest of the funny money could be played with in the ever buoyant Fed Stimulus supported equity markets.  So no real money ever entered the real economy, no real organic growth occurred, so the Fed started to fudge the figures to show a employment and growth, but because there was no liquidity, there was no inflation.  In short, all that grew since 2008 is the Size of the bubble between the Fed and the banks, and our paychecks went to the bankers bonuses for  a job well done. QE is really interesting. I don't think there were ever any negative repercussions. We basically found a way to print money and use it in a way that doesn't cause massive inflation (i.e. Swapping assets out for cash, resulting in zero net value added into the economy). Is it ridiculous to assume we will just do this everytime there's a massive toxic asset bust? The Swiss franc has appreciated quite a bit recently against the Euro as the European Central Bank (ECB) continues to print money to buy government bonds issues by Greek, Portugal, Spain and now Italy.  Some euro holders have flocked to the Swiss franc in an effort to preserve the savings from the massive Euro money printing.  This has increased the value of the Swiss franc.  In response, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) has tried to intervene multiple times in the currency market to keep the value of the Swiss franc low.  It does this by printing Swiss francs and using the newly printed francs to buy Euros.  The SNB interventions have failed to suppress the Swiss franc and its value has continued to rise.  The SNB has finally said they will print whatever it takes to maintain a desired peg to the Euro.  This had the desired effect of driving down the value of the franc. Which effect will this have long term for the euro zone? It is now clear that all major central bankers are in a currency devaluation war in which they are all trying to outprint each other.  The SNB was the last central bank to join the printing party.  I think this will lead to major inflation in all currencies as we have not seen the end of money printing.  Will this worsen the European financial crisis or is this not an important factor? I'm not sure this will have much affect on the ongoing European crisis since most of the European government debt is in euros. Should this announcement trigger any actions from common European people concerning their wealth? If a European is concerned with preserving their wealth I would think they would begin to start diverting some of their savings into a harder currency.  Europeans have experienced rapidly depreciating currencies more than people on any other continent.  I would think they would be the most experienced at preserving wealth from central bank shenanigans. "If the Federal Reserve were to pay banks to hold money, they would need to get the money from somewhere to do so.  They would have three options: Go to Congress, and request and authorization of funds. As an quasi-independent entity, however, it would be both highly unorthodox for an institution to diminish its own authority by requesting funding, and politically difficult for the Congress to appropriate it. Transfer held-assets  After QE & QE2, the Fed is now the holder of several assets (mortgages and the like) that are already unorthodox for it to hold. It acquired these assets in the first place to soak up excess demand.  If these assets were transferred back to banks, it would have exactly the opposite effect - increasing supply and further suppressing the value of the assets they would be trying to shore up by lowering the interest rate. ""Print money""  The fed could raise the money supply by issuing new bonds. This is inherently inflationary, and while pretty much everyone agrees this isn't bad in the short run, there is already widespread fear that in the long run, QE by itself is going to unleash massive inflation once growth returns anyway.  To keep ""pushing on this string"" would only excerabate these fears, and quite likely turn it into a self-fufilling prophecy. In short, the Fed ""could"" pay banks to hold money, but the political and economic consequences of raising the needed funds to do so would all undermine the institution or the desired effect."