Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 November 9

= November 9 =

Why isn't US national debt refinanced by the Fed?
What would be the disadvantages for the US Congress, if they legislated to require the Federal Reserve to refinance at the interbank lending rate all parts of the national debt, and the federally-guaranteed debts of states and local governments, on which doing so would save the taxpayers money? Neon Merlin  01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * States' debts are not federally guaranteed as such, nor territories (Puerto Rico) nor municipalities, for which see "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.". Given the Federal Reserve is basically a polite fiction, you are asking in effect why the Fed doesn't refinance its own debt. This would mean either taking a loss, or lowering the value of bonds, neither of which would be good for the treasury or the economy.  The Fed has to seek stability.  If it starts printing money to pay for its debts then we are on the swift road to hyperinflation, for which see Venezuelan debt crisis. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The U.S. national debt panic is also largely a polite fiction. The U.S. national debt itself isn't some great evil that is weighing down the federal government, it is mostly a political tool used by certain factions to justify refusing to be useful to people groups in the U.S. that they want to punish for various reasons.  The debt may be a real thing, but the U.S. economy is not particularly hampered by it.  Sovereign debt financed under a fiat currency, which is simultaneously the world's most important reserve currency is basically a lisence to print money.  Yes, there are consequences for if the debt grows too large compared to the overall size of the world economy, but the U.S. national debt is no where near those limits, and the debt itself is an a net good, providing stable investment vehicles for much of the world economy.  The capacity of the U.S. Federal Government to support such debt is not infinite, but it's also not like we've ever come close to it being a problem.  As noted here, "Debt is an issue only if you can't repay it or if other people believe you can't repay it. "  And the U.S. isn't having any problems with either of those issues.  This and this explain some of the nuts and bolts.  Could the U.S. screw up really bad with the debt?  Sure.  Has it, is it, or is there any sign that it will?  No.  -- Jayron 32 12:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Jayron, the problem with the debt is [not "panic", a word which you iterjected into this thread, but] the cost of servicing it. I don't have the actual statistics for the current debt, but if we are paying 2-3% on $20,000,000,000,000.00 annually, that's $600 billion (about $2,000 per citizen) that can't be spent on whatever you favorite cause is.  US national debt shows a $433 billion debt service cost in 2014.  To phrase this as a political problem for just one ideology is disingenuous to say the least.  Whether for Obamacare, a Tax Cut, or a Border Wall that money is just not there. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Subtract from that the ~$124 billion the US would be paying even at the interbank rate. But then add back the compound interest that would be saved in future years by still cutting the deficit almost in half (an ultimately unbounded savings as long as there is a deficit, assuming the US is never going to default). Neon  Merlin  23:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am slightly confused, Merlin. Subtract that from what, the cost of the service?  I assume the $433B figure from our article re 2014 already reflects any discounts.


 * There's also the separate issue that many people say "oh, don't worry, half the US debt is privately held". But this almost exclusively means by potentates and well-connected Americans.  And the value of such bonds is not actually employed capital--only the interest is available as capital (money available for investment in new industry).  So this debt (now greater than a year's GDP since the last quarter of 2015 (National debt of the United States), often considered a tipping point for less robust economies) is a huge problem. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Macro-economist here, so trust me when I say this is based on original research: (1) Re-fi would require the Fed to borrow sufficient funds at a lower rate so as to be able to pay off higher-cost debt. That borrowing would send interest rates soaring, negating the entire exercise. (2) The debt-service for US debt (principle + repayment of debt maturing this year) is about 10-20% higher than in the 1990s, when the economy was less than half the size it is today. In other words, it isn't a real problem for anyone but so-called fiscal conservatives.DOR (HK) (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Been writing a longer response, which will follow eventually, but (1) is not true (while (2), that the debt is a complete non-problem, is very true.) Not only would the Fed not have to borrow & raise interest rates, interest rates would drop under NeonMerlin's main idea; that is the essential content of the idea. The original question mixes together many questions in a short space, requiring different answers, not all given above, and also contains some implicit but common assumptions, some also followed by others here, which are not correct. But decisive proof of my statement is the fact that many nations have actually accomplished NeonMerlin's primary proposal. The period of USA WWII finance before the 1951 Accord is an example: "During World War II, the Federal Reserve pledged to keep the interest rate on Treasury bills fixed at 0.375 percent." The Fed would buy bonds (as NeonMerlin suggests) if their prices fell below (meaning their interest rate went above) this limit. Many other countries like the UK, France, Australia used what some called a "tap system", selling variable quantities at a fixed price/yield. (The name may be due to William Beveridge :-) ).John Z (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was working on the assumption that a market-based economy was still viable. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Storing Fruits & Vegetables
I have to store 1 kg of mixed fruits and 1 kg of mixed vegetables - seperately of course, or together if possible - for at least 10 (minimum) to 30 (maximum) days. Basically they need to stay fresh as long as possible without a Fridge/Freezer as it is not available. What could/should I do? 119.30.45.9 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This would depend significantly on the type of fruits and vegetables. In some case it may not even make sense to store the fruit all together. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you google the phrase "Storing fruits and vegetables without refrigeration " it leads you to various things to read like this and this and this. I that gets you started on your research.  -- Jayron 32 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Beware the effects of ethylene, a gas given off by some ripe and most overripe fruits. The expression "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" comes from the fact that an overripe apple will cause the remaining apples to ripen and hence rot much more quickly.  In most cases, fruit like bananas last longer if you separate them and space them apart, rather than putting them in a basket as a bunch.


 * Each fruit also has it best temperature conditions, with refrigerating bananas also being a bad idea. Not knowing what you are storing, we can't give a blanket answer, but how long is a mere kilo of fruit going to last you anyways?  There's always preservation, and my favorite, making compote.


 * μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read Root cellar for a description of what people did before refrigerators, and what some still do today. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Given the indent, Cullen, are you advising me to read the article, or suggesting that the OP dig a root cellar before his sabbatical? μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)