If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Fed officials debating on whether more easing, division by zero needed at this point   (reuters.com) divider line 10
    More: Followup, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago  
•       •       •

488 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:59 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



10 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-28 08:07:31 AM
I think the obvious answer is to give buttloads more money to "green" companies. That worked so well in the past.
 
2012-06-28 08:18:05 AM
advisorperspectives.com

Ah, the Invisible Hand at work.
 
2012-06-28 09:23:46 AM

Sybarite: [advisorperspectives.com image 640x465]

Ah, the Invisible Hand at work.


Not sure what conclusions we're meant to draw from those correlations.
 
2012-06-28 10:15:44 AM

vygramul: Sybarite: [advisorperspectives.com image 640x465]

Ah, the Invisible Hand at work.

Not sure what conclusions we're meant to draw from those correlations.



There used to be a debate about whether the Fed juicing the market. That debate it over. The fundamentals no longer matter. Stocks go up when the indication for government intervention is strong and down when it recedes. Bernake's regular liquidity boosts mean that stocks go higher even when the economic data is bad and they really ought to be on a downturn. But hey, as long as it keeps the investor class happy.
 
2012-06-28 11:22:41 AM
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7


If that number keeps trending down then they probably will. I didn't think the specter of deflation would hang around this long.
 
2012-06-28 11:50:21 AM

Rapmaster2000: 2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7

If that number keeps trending down then they probably will. I didn't think the specter of deflation would hang around this long.


They can issue all the money they want, but it's not going to make a lick of difference on inflation rates if none of it makes it into circulation.
 
2012-06-28 02:13:20 PM
Putting money in the hands of banks has not helped. At all.

We would be better served to print up a trillion dollars and send it directly to the poorest among us, where that money will be spent directly in the economy.
 
2012-06-28 04:06:50 PM

X-boxershorts: Putting money in the hands of banks has not helped. At all.

We would be better served to print up a trillion dollars and send it directly to the poorest among us, where that money will be spent directly in the economy.


I can tell you for a fact that I wouldn't be able to buy a home like i am right now, if no bank would finance me. So the housing market keeps slumping.

I can tell you for a fact my employer would have shuttered it's doors if it could not secure a short term loan in mid 2009. Business is doing fine two years since, and 120 employees are getting a consistent paycheck.

We can argue whether consumer spending would have put us on the right track, but let's not forget how effective the banks liquidity played a role during the worst of the crisis.
 
2012-06-28 05:04:15 PM
one thing that I am CERTAIN of, one of these people is completely right and the other one is completely wrong.
 
2012-06-28 07:10:25 PM

Starfly: X-boxershorts: Putting money in the hands of banks has not helped. At all.

We would be better served to print up a trillion dollars and send it directly to the poorest among us, where that money will be spent directly in the economy.

I can tell you for a fact that I wouldn't be able to buy a home like i am right now, if no bank would finance me. So the housing market keeps slumping.

I can tell you for a fact my employer would have shuttered it's doors if it could not secure a short term loan in mid 2009. Business is doing fine two years since, and 120 employees are getting a consistent paycheck.

We can argue whether consumer spending would have put us on the right track, but let's not forget how effective the banks liquidity played a role during the worst of the crisis.


I get your point, but...still....

2 rounds of quantitative easing along with the bailout made the banks whole and allowed them to pass the minimal stress tests for capitalization. But the total value of this effort is still not known. Relieving the banks of trillions of dollars worth of toxic assets whose real value may never be known was good for banking. And the banks tighter restrictions on LTV and higher credit score requirements are STILL in place making it still very difficult for main street to obtain credit.

All that money did next to nothing for main street. And the return that main street saw was no where near the trillions of dollars Americans have invested in making the banks appear solvent.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report