In the summer of 1694, 1,268 investors pledged £1.2 million in under a fortnight. The king needed money to fight a war. They lent it to him and received, in return, a Royal Charter for a private bank of their own, which at its very first board meeting decided to issue paper notes on the strength of the debt they’d just bought. The government got its war funding. The shareholders got an 8% annuity and a bank that could issue money on the strength of a government IOU.
We now call the institution that emerged from that deal the Bank of England, and we describe it as independent.
The clean version
The textbook account runs roughly like this. Central banks exist to manage the money supply, maintain price stability, and act as lender of last resort to the financial system — all at arm’s length from political pressure. They are technical institutions staffed by economists, not politicians. When they work well, inflation stays low, credit flows, and panics are contained before they become collapses. What the account leaves out is where these institutions came from.
The account presents the public mandate (price stability, financial stability, lender of last resort) as the founding purpose, with the institutional design having evolved toward it over time. What happened was closer to the reverse: a private bargain in 1694, with the public mandate retrofitted over it. Christine Desan argues that the Bank of England invented a new kind of money as a direct consequence of the 1694 deal: public debt made to circulate as currency. The break was driven by the fiscal emergency of a specific war.
The standard account also presents central bank independence as a structural feature, something that arises naturally from the function itself. The Bank manages money; political interference corrupts money management; therefore independence follows from competence. But independence wasn’t in the 1694 charter. It arrived in May 1997, when Gordon Brown, in his first week as Chancellor, handed interest-rate decisions to a new Monetary Policy Committee; Parliament wrote it into law in the Bank of England Act 1998. The institution held up globally as the model of central bank independence operated for more than three centuries before that statutory independence existed.
Origin matters because the founding political bargain is still embedded in these institutions. Three centuries of additions have been built on top of it without burying it.
The transaction — anatomy of 1694
William III was, in the summer of 1694, having a miserable war. For five years a coalition of European powers had been fighting the War of the Grand Alliance to contain Louis XIV’s expansion, and England’s finances were in serious trouble.
The crown was selling life annuities that paid out 14% a year, a sign of how dearly it had to pay for credit. Standard government debt instruments weren’t working, and earlier expedients such as lottery loans, tontines and assorted short-term credit mechanisms had not been enough to plug the gap. What William needed was a large lump sum, reliably delivered, from creditors willing to accept the government’s promise of repayment.
William Paterson, a Scottish financier, proposed pairing a large government loan with a bank charter. The subscribers who lent the king £1.2 million would not merely be creditors; they’d be shareholders in a new institution that could issue paper banknotes on the strength of the same government debt they’d just purchased. The notes would circulate as money. The bank would earn seigniorage, the profit that comes from issuing money, on top of the 8% annuity on the original loan. The government would get its cash. The shareholders would get a private money-creation franchise underwritten by public debt.
Charles Montagu, a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury who became Chancellor of the Exchequer days later, brought it through Parliament via the Tonnage Act of 1694. The Act paid the subscribers’ interest from new duties on the tonnage of merchant ships, steepest on vessels returning from the East Indies, and on beer, ale and other liquors. The revenue foundation of the whole arrangement leaned heavily on Britain’s seaborne trade.
The subscription filled in eleven days, with 1,268 investors drawn heavily from London’s merchant and financial community. On July 27, 1694, the Bank of England received its Royal Charter.
What this transaction produced, Desan argues, was a new kind of money as well as a new bank. Before 1694, English money meant coin minted by the Crown, supplemented by goldsmiths’ notes that circulated among London merchants. What was new was that the government now shared its monopoly over money creation with private investors. The Bank’s notes were receipts that could be cashed for gold or silver at the Bank, but the Bank’s capital was tied up in its loan to the state. Each note was a claim on the bank, and the bank’s largest asset was a claim on the state.
The chain ran: state promises to pay → bank holds that promise → bank issues notes → notes circulate as money. Behind the promise of coin, money in this arrangement rested on the government’s debt obligation, passed through a private institution’s balance sheet.
The 1694 Charter and the 1708 monopoly
The 1694 charter said almost nothing about banknotes; the Bank started issuing them anyway. Nor did it grant a monopoly, which came in stages. The Bank of England Act of 1708 renewed the Bank's charter and barred any bank with more than six partners from issuing notes in England, leaving the field to small private partnerships that could never rival the Bank in size. The full monopoly took far longer: only the Bank Charter Act of 1844 froze rival note issues, and the last private banknotes in England disappeared in 1921. The monopoly wasn't in the original deal; it was extracted through later political bargaining as the Bank demonstrated its value to the state. Each renewal of the charter became a negotiation. The Bank had leverage, since the government owed it money and needed it to hold the debt, and it used that leverage.Patrick O’Brien and Nuno Palma argue that the Bank worked as a public institution from its founding, well before Bagehot’s later theorizing, and that the ties between Bank, state and economy grew tighter from 1793, until the Bank’s lending became part of how Britain projected military and commercial power over the following century.
The colonial dimension isn’t incidental to this. The War of the Grand Alliance had a North American theater, King William’s War (1689–97), in which England and France contested control of the fur trade and the Newfoundland fisheries, while the wider war also reached the Caribbean plantation islands. The Tonnage Act’s shipping duties, the commercial interests of the merchant-subscriber community and the war itself were all entangled with Atlantic imperial competition.
The founding created a mutual dependency. The Bank needed the government to remain solvent: if the state defaulted, the Bank’s largest asset went bad, and confidence in its notes with it. The government needed the Bank to hold its debt and maintain market confidence. Neither could survive the other’s failure, and the arrangement was built that way: the Bank was a machine for converting the state’s debt into money, and the state was the guarantor of the Bank’s money. Separating them, conceptually or practically, has always been more complicated than the later doctrine of independence has let on.
What was not in the agreement
The Bank of England was not designed to be a lender of last resort. That function accreted through crises, slowly and reluctantly.
Walter Bagehot’s 1873 book Lombard Street is usually cited as the founding text of lender-of-last-resort doctrine: in a crisis, the central bank should lend freely, at penalty rates, against good collateral. Bagehot was prescribing a reform he believed necessary. He did not ask the Bank to start rescuing the market; he asked it to promise in advance to do so. The backdrop was a run of crises in which the Bank had acted late, reluctantly or inconsistently. In 1797 it suspended gold payments under wartime pressure. In 1825 its own tightening helped precipitate the collapse it was then called upon to arrest. Then came the aftermath of the 1847 railway mania, and in 1866 the collapse of Overend, Gurney & Co., the largest discount house in the City of London, which the Bank let fail before lending on an unprecedented scale to stop the panic. Bagehot watched it unfold, and it informed Lombard Street directly.
Henry Thornton had set out the same principle in 1802, in An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain. Thornton understood that the Bank’s notes were the system’s ultimate liquidity anchor, and that in a panic the Bank had a responsibility to issue them freely to sound borrowers. The phrase itself is older still: in 1797 Sir Francis Baring had called the Bank the “dernier resort”.
Thornton before Bagehot
Bagehot refined and popularized the doctrine in 1873, but the intellectual groundwork was Thornton's, and the concept had been available for decades before the Bank began consistently acting on it. Bagehot gets the credit because his version arrived when the Bank was finally willing to commit.Looked at across the centuries since medieval banking, the modern arrangement, the central bank as an independent public agency, is recent and potentially fragile, Stefano Ugolini argues: one of several possible settlements ranging from full government control to full private provision. Each crisis reopened the question of who would provide those functions, and on what terms, and each time the public mandate expanded to cover what the founding documents had left out.
When a central bank today balances its inflation mandate against financial stability, a tension that has run through policy since 2008, the second duty is the one that binds it most closely to the banks and markets that grew out of the 1694 arrangement. When the Bank of England stepped into the gilt market in September 2022, its aim was to keep that financial system from seizing up, while Bank Rate kept rising to fight inflation.
The template travels
The 1694 structure turned out to be reproducible. Sometimes it was consciously exported as a model, but it didn’t need to be, because the political logic was available to any government facing the same problem: a large financing need, inadequate fiscal revenue, a merchant-commercial class capable of supplying credit, and a need to give those creditors something more durable than a promise.
France got there through catastrophe. In the 1790s the Revolutionary government printed assignats, paper money issued against confiscated church land, and kept printing until hyperinflation had destroyed confidence in paper currency. Napoleon, as First Consul, needed to rebuild the monetary system fast. On January 18, 1800, a group of Parisian bankers founded the Banque de France at his instigation, and Napoleon himself was the first of its private shareholders. The bank issued notes against discounted commercial bills rather than against a founding loan to the state, but like its London model it was a private institution with a public mandate: the 1694 template in French dress, minus the war loan. It secured the note issuance privilege for Paris in 1803, and the monopoly was extended nationwide in 1848.
The American case is the most self-conscious borrowing. The Panic of 1907 had made clear that the United States’ decentralized, nationally chartered banking system had no lender of last resort for the system as a whole. When trust companies began failing in New York, the contagion spread through correspondent banking. The New York Clearing House could support its member banks, but most trust companies were outside it, and the panic ran on until J.P. Morgan personally organized the private response, buying time through a financial authority that no private citizen could reasonably be expected to provide again. Congress responded by establishing the National Monetary Commission in 1908, with Senator Nelson Aldrich leading a systematic study of European central banking.
Jekyll Island
In November 1910, six men traveled by private railroad car to the Jekyll Island Club, a private hunting resort off the coast of Georgia: Senator Aldrich; A. Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the Treasury; Henry Davison of J.P. Morgan & Co.; Arthur Shelton, Aldrich's secretary; Frank Vanderlip of National City Bank; and Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. They kept their identities hidden. Once aboard Aldrich's private car, they used first names only, so that staff could not identify them; the trip itself was passed off as a duck hunt. Their real business was drafting the Aldrich Plan: a privately controlled "National Reserve Association" that would function as a central bank.
The secrecy was Aldrich's attempt to keep the plan from being labeled a bankers' bill, which it was. The plan was not enacted in that form. Congressional Democrats, led by Carter Glass and Robert Owen, rewrote it significantly. The Federal Reserve Act, signed by Wilson on December 23, 1913, created a system of up to 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, whose stock was held by member commercial banks, each run by its own board, and overseen by a Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President. In the Jekyll Island version, the banks would have run the money. The Glass-Owen version was a hybrid: private ownership of the regional banks, public oversight from a board in Washington.What the private banks received in the Federal Reserve Act was a formal claim on the system’s liquidity: stock in the regional Fed banks, access to the discount window, membership benefits that made the system’s resources available in a crisis. What the federal government received was a lender of last resort that didn’t appear on the federal budget. No founding loan to the government changed hands, but the mix of private ownership and public privilege was the 1694 template adapted for a republic suspicious of both central authority and private banking power.
What “independence” means
Brown’s May 1997 handover of operational independence, with statutory independence the following year, was treated globally as a culmination, a demonstration that central bank independence was the mature, modern arrangement. Yet for half a century before that, the nationalized Bank had been legally subject to Treasury direction, and for two and a half centuries before that it had been a private company living off its loans to the state.
The Bundesbank’s independence has a different origin entirely. The Bank deutscher Länder, the Bundesbank’s predecessor, was established in 1948 by Allied occupation authorities, and German central bank independence was not purely an expression of German democratic preference for sound money. The design was deliberate: the new central bank was built so that a German government could never again use it to fund its own spending, as the Nazi regime had done to pay for rearmament and war. Until 1951 it took instructions not from Bonn but from an Allied Bank Commission. German central bank independence began as a choice by occupying powers, written into the institutions of a defeated state; when the Bundestag passed the Bundesbank Act in 1957, it kept that independence, over the objections of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who had publicly attacked the central bank’s tight policy the year before. The famous German commitment to price stability, the institutional culture and the reputation are all real, but the independence itself was transplanted under occupation and only afterwards adopted.
The ECB’s independence is written into Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which bars the ECB and the national central banks of the euro area, and the members of their decision-making bodies, from taking or seeking instructions from any EU or national government. The Treaty is a political document, negotiated by heads of government, and it can be amended only with the agreement of every member government and approval in every member state. That makes the ECB’s independence among the hardest in the world to undo, but it remains a political settlement that governments chose and could, together, rewrite. The euro crisis showed what happens when that settlement comes under strain. Mario Draghi’s July 2012 pledge that, “within our mandate”, the ECB would do “whatever it takes to preserve the euro”, followed in September by the Outright Monetary Transactions program, tested the limits of its mandate and of the Treaty’s ban on financing governments. German plaintiffs fought it all the way to the EU’s highest court, which ruled in 2015 that OMT was lawful. The program was never even used: the promise alone calmed the markets.
The Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord of March 1951 is the most clarifying American example. During World War II the Fed had pegged Treasury yields, agreeing to buy whatever bonds were needed to keep long-term rates at 2.5%, and this fiscal accommodation continued into the postwar period. By early 1951, with the Korean War pushing inflation to an annualized 21%, the Fed wanted to let rates rise; Governor Marriner Eccles was its most outspoken voice. Truman and his Treasury Secretary, John Snyder, wanted to keep the peg. The Fed’s statutory mandate would have settled nothing, and the conflict was resolved by explicit bilateral negotiation. The Treasury’s negotiator, Assistant Secretary William McChesney Martin, agreed the Accord announced on March 4, 1951, which freed the Fed from the peg; Martin then crossed over to run the Fed himself.
The fiscal theory of the price level
The economists Christopher Sims, a Nobel laureate, and John Cochrane argue that the price level is determined not by monetary policy alone but by the government's fiscal position. If public debt exceeds what investors expect future budget surpluses to cover, prices rise until the real value of the debt matches them; monetary policy can shape the timing and path of that rise more easily than prevent it. The implication is that central bank independence is contingent on fiscal space. A central bank in a country with an unsustainable debt trajectory keeps its statute, but it administers a monetary policy whose scope is bounded by the government's fiscal arithmetic. Its independence then depends on the government's willingness to maintain fiscal credibility, which is a political condition rather than a structural one.The Bank of England, the Bundesbank, the ECB and the Fed are the institutions most frequently cited as models of central bank independence. In each case, the independence is dateable, contingent on specific political decisions made by specific people, and revocable by political processes: an act of Parliament or Congress, or, for the ECB and now the Bundesbank too, a change to the Treaty that protects them both. The same tension shows up at the operational level: the crisis operations that rescued markets after 2007 swelled central bank balance sheets and loaded them with risk. A central bank holding large amounts of government debt has a direct financial interest in sovereign solvency, and that interest shapes its room for maneuver.
The bargain, live
The Federal Reserve holds Treasuries, the Bank of England holds gilts, the ECB holds euro-area sovereign bonds. For the big three, government debt is the core asset, as it was for the Bank of England in 1694; Treasuries alone make up about two-thirds of the Fed’s $6.7 trillion balance sheet.
Quantitative easing since 2008 made the structure visible in ways it hadn’t been before. The Fed’s balance sheet grew from roughly $900 billion going into the 2008 crisis to nearly $9 trillion by April 2022. The Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility had completed £895 billion of purchases, nearly all of them gilts, by December 2021. The Eurosystem’s consolidated balance sheet peaked at about €8.8 trillion in June 2022. In each case the central bank buys government debt, the government enjoys cheaper financing, and the central bank pays with newly created reserves, money conjured onto its own balance sheet.
Fiscal dominance occurs when the government’s debt position is large enough that the central bank cannot raise interest rates without threatening sovereign solvency. Monetary policy decisions are then effectively subordinated to the government’s financing needs, even while the central bank’s formal independence stays on the books.
American net interest payments on federal debt rose from about $345 billion in fiscal 2020 to $970 billion in fiscal 2025, nearly tripling in five years. The Congressional Budget Office projects net interest of about $2.1 trillion a year by 2036, nearly a fifth of all federal spending. At that scale, every rate decision by the Federal Open Market Committee feeds straight into the cost of servicing the federal debt. The FOMC’s statutory independence remains intact, but the fiscal arithmetic raises the stakes of every choice it makes.
The UK showed a sharper version of the pressure in September 2022. The Truss government’s mini-budget, with unfunded tax cuts worth roughly £45 billion, triggered a gilt market crisis that put pension funds using liability-driven investment strategies on the edge of forced liquidation. The Bank of England responded by intervening in the gilt market, buying long-dated gilts to suppress yields. This happened six days after the Bank had raised interest rates to fight inflation. In the same fortnight it was tightening monetary policy, postponing its planned bond sales, and buying gilts by the billion to stop a fire sale, while insisting that the purchases were not monetary policy at all. The Monetary Policy Committee kept setting rates and the Financial Policy Committee kept to its own responsibilities, but it was the government’s budget that had created the emergency the Bank was answering. The operation was temporary: the Bank had sold the last of those gilts by January 2023.
The ECB’s decade of near-zero rates had a side effect: it kept Italian debt affordable. The bank’s stated reason was inflation stuck below target, and it set policy to meet that mandate. With much higher yields, Italy’s debt service costs would have been far heavier, so the mandate and the fiscal reality pointed in the same direction until they stopped, and the ECB had to improvise.
Former Treasury Secretary and Fed chair Janet Yellen, speaking on an American Economic Association panel in Philadelphia on January 4, 2026, put the American dynamic plainly: “The preconditions for fiscal dominance are clearly strengthening.” She doubted the US would end up on that course, but warned that “the dangers are real and should be monitored”, and she pointed to President Trump’s public calls for the Fed to cut rates to ease the government’s debt-servicing burden. The White House presented that pressure as a policy difference, but the mechanism is the one Yellen was describing.
Mark Sobel of OMFIF warned in August 2025 that if fiscal pressures intensified, central banks could find themselves “under the gun to absolve governments of their responsibilities,” with yield curve control or quantitative easing to follow “under the guise of financial stability – not monetary policy – concerns.” In that scenario the government debt central banks already hold becomes the instrument through which independence is worn away while its legal form remains.
The image and the argument
There’s a substitution at the center of how we talk about central banks. In 1694, the vocabulary was: loan, charter, banknotes, interest, war finance. In 2026, the vocabulary is: independence, technical institution, monetary policy mandate, price stability, lender of last resort. The original terms describe what happened, a political deal between a government and a commercial class that gave the latter a money-creation franchise in exchange for war funding. The later terms describe something that was retrofitted onto that deal over three centuries of crisis management, Bagehot, Thornton, congressional compromise, treaty negotiation, and political imposition.
The second vocabulary hides the first. Statutory independence was never in the original design; it was added late, through different political processes in different countries, each shaped by the power relations of its moment.
The subscribers of 1694 financed a king’s war, got a bank charter in return, and almost by accident created a template that the most influential central banks still build on. They made the deal for a particular war and with particular interests of their own. Since then the institution has been nationalized, staffed by economists with doctorates and given statutory mandates about price stability. The open question is what it would take to renegotiate the bargain itself: who would have to give what up, who has a stake in the current arrangement, and what a central bank would look like if it were designed now, with different objectives and different beneficiaries.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
View of the Bank of England building in July 2022 – Wikipedia
Key Sources and References
Christine Desan, Making Money: Coin, Currency, and the Coming of Capitalism (Oxford University Press, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709572.001.0001
Patrick K. O’Brien and Nuno Palma, “Not an ordinary bank but a great engine of state: the Bank of England and the British economy, 1694–1844,” Economic History Review, vol. 76, issue 1, 2023, pp. 305–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.13191
Bank of England Museum, “Why was the Bank of England founded?” https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/online-collections/blog/why-was-the-bank-of-england-founded
Bank of England, “Our history.” https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/history
Tonnage Act 1694 (5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20), Statutes of the Realm, vol. 6, pp. 483–495 (British History Online). https://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol6/pp483-495
Bank of England, “The Bank of England note: a short history,” Quarterly Bulletin, 1969. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/1969/the-boe-note-a-short-history
Bank of England, “The Bank of England Act,” Quarterly Bulletin, May 1998. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/1998/the-boe-act
Walter Bagehot, Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market (Henry S. King, 1873). Project Gutenberg edition. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4359
Henry Thornton, An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain (J. Hatchard, 1802). Scan of the 1802 edition, Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/enquiryintonatur06thor
Thomas M. Humphrey, “Lender of Last Resort: The Concept in History,” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Review, March/April 1989. https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/economic_review/1989/pdf/er750202.pdf
Bank of England, “The demise of Overend Gurney,” Quarterly Bulletin, 2016 Q2. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2016/the-demise-of-overend-gurney.pdf
Stefano Ugolini, The Evolution of Central Banking: Theory and History (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-48525-0
Banque de France, “The founding history of the Banque de France.” https://www.banque-france.fr/en/banque-de-france/institution-rooted-history/founding-history-banque-de-france
Gary Richardson and Jessie Romero, “The Meeting at Jekyll Island,” Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference
Jon R. Moen and Ellis W. Tallman, “The Panic of 1907,” Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/panic-of-1907
Federal Reserve History, “Federal Reserve Act Signed into Law.” https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-act-signed
Deutsche Bundesbank, “The economic and currency reform of 1948: the basis for stable money” (2023). https://www.bundesbank.de/en/press/contributions/the-economic-and-currency-reform-of-1948-the-basis-for-stable-money-915302
Mario Draghi, speech at the Global Investment Conference, London, 26 July 2012 (ECB). https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120726.en.html
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 130 (independence of the ECB and national central banks), consolidated version (EUR-Lex). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016E130
Treaty on European Union, Article 48 (amendment procedures), consolidated version, Official Journal of the European Union, C 326, 26 October 2012 (EUR-Lex). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M048
Court of Justice of the EU, Press Release No 70/15, Case C‑62/14 Gauweiler (16 June 2015). https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-06/cp150070en.pdf
Federal Reserve History, “The Treasury-Fed Accord.” https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/treasury-fed-accord
Ulrich Bindseil, Monetary Policy Operations and the Financial System (Oxford University Press, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716907.001.0001
John Cochrane, The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (Princeton University Press, 2023). https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691242248/the-fiscal-theory-of-the-price-level
Christopher Sims, “Origins of US Inflation,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, vol. 114, 2024, pp. 90–94. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20241052
Federal Reserve, H.4.1 statistical release — total assets (FRED series WALCL). Peak $8.97 trillion, 13 April 2022; Treasury holdings (FRED series TREAST). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL · https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TREAST
Bank of England, Report on the Bank’s official market operations 2021–22. Asset Purchase Facility purchases completed at £895 billion (December 2021); see also “Quantitative easing.” https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/sterling-monetary-framework/report-2021-22 · https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing
European Central Bank, Eurosystem consolidated balance sheet, weekly total assets (ECB Data Portal). Peak about €8.84 trillion, June 2022. https://data.ecb.europa.eu/data/datasets/ILM/ILM.W.U2.C.T000000.Z5.Z01
Office of Management and Budget, Federal Outlays: Interest (FRED series FYOINT). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOINT
Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 (2026). Net interest data and projections. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
Bank of England, “Bank of England announces gilt market operation,” 28 September 2022. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2022/september/bank-of-england-announces-gilt-market-operation
Bank of England, “Bank of England completes unwind of recent financial stability gilt purchases,” 12 January 2023. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2023/january/boe-completes-unwind-of-recent-financial-stability-gilt-purchases
Janet Yellen, remarks on a panel at the American Economic Association annual meeting, Philadelphia, January 4, 2026 (reported by Bloomberg Law, Fortune and The Standard). https://news.bloomberglaw.com/capital-markets/yellen-warns-of-growing-fiscal-dominance-threat-to-us-economy · https://fortune.com/2026/01/05/janet-yellen-warns-38-trillion-national-debt-fiscal-dominance-eric-leeper-heather-long/ · https://www.thestandard.com.hk/finance/article/320786/Yellen-warns-of-rising-US-fiscal-dominance-risks
Mark Sobel, “Fiscal chickens are coming home to roost,” OMFIF, 21 August 2025. https://www.omfif.org/2025/08/fiscal-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost/
