so you're saying they should have let the banks fall, no QE and we would be better off now? lol. that was a joke, right? of course is printing money creating inflation, that's a well known side affect. that's the risk they were willing to take. or I should say had to take. just like the japanese and the english did before. maybe the destruction of the usd would not be as bad if the government would stop some of the ridiculous spending.
why do I think raising interest rates would have been a bad action? actually pretty simple. unemployment was rising. the economy was heading down hill rather fast. not really a good moment to raise interest rates, wouldn't you agree?
but here's the irony. of course it would have been better under all circumstances to stop that real estate bubble, including raising interest rates. but be honest now. lets say by raising interest rates and other actions they were able to stop that bubble, but the economy went straight into recession. guess what? sources like zerohedge or zerocoke or whatever would hammer bernanke for being so stupid to let us slide into another recession because of these actions. of course nobody would have a clue how severe that real estate bubble would have affected us. no hindsight.
I'm not saying bernanke is a genius. but I'm saying it's always easy to criticize after the fact.
Declaring MBS null and void and replacing them with T-Bills might have been a good option.
Better than the FHA taking over guaranteeing mortgages, at as low as 3% down, with capital reserves that don’t come close to covering. Between that Fannie and Freddie the taxpayer is covering almost half of the 11 trillion housing market. What about Blanchard of the fed recommending that everyone with a liar loan be knocked down to current interest rates?
I'd be more than willing to endorse the pains of deleveraging if it was a step in ending compliance to multinational corporate demand derived from their creation of these credit derivative products.
Long term the only solution I have for the US is to readjust the imf holdings, wipe the slate clean - and have a global currency be issued with no interest based on GDP and population of each country. Even if this idea was floated how quickly would it be modified once in place…
I like that you question what the alternatives could have been silvester. But saying there probably wouldn’t have been a better solution – when I’d put up the six digits made over the last two weeks that you haven’t researched the issue well – makes no sense.
Would you rather laugh at the people who say there is government manipulation in currency than accept that it’s common knowledge among some that the fed paid out double issued bonds in the 70’s to soak up some of the inflation? Sorry to the wonderful futures.io (formerly BMT) members around the global, but I’m not a “global citizen”; there are forms of sustainable/effective manipulation that would have been good for America since then (tariffs, ect.) and I’m all for it.
One former member of ZH, whose opinions I valued, felt that we would have gone into hyperinflation if not for the bailouts. I didn’t buy this at first because I think we will because of it. He agrees.
It took me a while to realize that since the USD is issued by a cartel of private banks – those banks going into bankruptcy - would kill our currency. It is that those banks took away from US T-Bill dependence with unstable MBS’s, exacerbated the problem more than other banks towards the end, had a plan to bail themselves out in place and have effectively gained regulatory capture – that gives me pause.
The years of me digging up statements, laws and events to put in a timeline and share with the most “important” people I could find - are over.
Getting E-mails intercepted is freaky.
Watching files being extracted from your computer remotely is freaky.
Seeing them remotely open up chat rooms and post in my name is freaky.
Watching two guys open my backyard gate (because I have a dog and was up at 3:30am) and cut the connecter to open my phone box is freaky.
Not being able to access my bank account without providing information of my family and vehicle, because either the bank or a federal agency wanted to know (the bank rep reluctantly said after being pressed) - is freaky.
Death threats are freaky.
After receiving death threats and calling my father overseas to come home – but more importantly getting the contact information of a lawyer he mentored for three years and is ranked in the top 100 in the US who will rep me for free – then having the phone volume go down at that time so I had to keep calling back - is freaky.
Having a LOCAL police car waiting at my corner and the late 20’s early 30’s Italian looking “officer” turn his head away from me then press something that was right over his driver side window – which made the RPM’s of my engine go way up and pressing on the gas do nothing – was devastating. Not just because I didn’t have the balls to turn it around and get his info – but that I love the PD in my town – that asshole was the result of “fusion centers”.
I can’t help any of the problems the US is facing and if I could I’d die for it. I attempted suicide 6 months ago over it. When you fail at that you go to mental institution. I told them why I tried and the SOB’s wouldn’t fact check anything I laid out for them and said I was skitzo effective and wouldn’t let me out for two months. Personal enough for you? I made more since getting out than any of those fucking "doctors" will in two years.
Why I don’t like you Sylvester is you don’t seem to know much – but will pound down on those you disagree with over the shit. I don’t need to still be curling 4x10 sets of 55# and squat pressing 4x12 sets of 850# to put the fear of god in you – with your sweetheart puppy dog avatar – if you tried any of this on me.
But slap a badge on your chest, with the same mentality, and that’s not playing fair is it.
Broker/Data: Advantage, Trading Technologies, OptionsCity, IQ Feed
Favorite Futures: CL, NG
Posts: 1,040 since Jul 2010
Thanks: 1,713 given,
Thanks for your response. My thoughts were to have had the big banks broken up before they were to fail. It's pretty clear you aren't very savvy on this topic and have turned this into more of a who's right argument so, I'll leave it at that respectfully.
The following 3 users say Thank You to Private Banker for this post:
"That view mirrors Greenspan's. He and Bernanke have both said it is unrealistic to expect the Fed to identify a bubble in stock or real estate prices as it is inflating, or to be able to pop it without hurting the economy. Instead, the Fed should stand ready to mop up the economic aftermath of a bubble.
Greenspan, for example, has rejected suggestions that the Fed should have raised interest rates in the late 1990s sooner or higher to slow soaring stock prices. He says the Fed got it right after that boom by cutting its benchmark rate deeply in 2001, in response to falling stock prices, the recession and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
I find it amazing that Greenspan won't acknowledge the mess "he" created. First with not raising rates during the techboom, and then keeping rates unnecessarily low after 9/11.
As for Bernanke, I guess you have to remember that fundamentals were strong:
I am happy we have such trustworthy and competent people in charge. Some people called it though, I remember Jim Rogers saying Citi would be a buy at $5:
"Technically, it's bankrupt, with gigantic off-balance-sheet derivatives positions whose value it cannot possibly know," he says. Though he believes some large banks can and will go under in the next year or two under the weight of billions of dollars worth of bad loans and blown-up derivatives positions, he doubts the government will allow Citi or Fannie to fail. "They'll nationalize them in some way. It's wrong, but they can't let the two largest lenders in the nation go down."
The fund manager, who has traveled extensively in emerging markets and lives part of the year in Asia, says sovereign wealth funds in Abu Dhabi and Singapore that recently made large investments in Citigroup and UBS AG (UBS, news, msgs) are likely to lose a lot of money on their ploys. "They're making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share."
It looks like his call for Gold at $2000 is on its way too:
Nouriel Roubini, the economist who predicted the global economic crisis, said a forecast by investor Jim Rogers that gold will double to at least $2,000 an ounce is “utter nonsense.”
There is no inflation or “near-depression” to drive gold prices that high, Roubini said today at the Inside Commodities Conference in New York. If a severe depression came to pass, with investors buying canned goods and hiding out in log cabins, “maybe you want some gold in that scenario,” Roubini said.
“Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense,” Roubini said.
Sometimes trading/investing is so easy it's difficult. It's not that I have followed Rogers advice, but in times of weakness I have revisited some of his interviews to gain confidence enough to still "hold". To quote Livermore: "It never was my thinking that made the big money for me. It always was my sitting. Got that? My sitting tight!"
With QE3 on the horizon it appears to still be the way to go....
I completely agree with your post, and I think it's shameful how everything transpired. It's too bad the general population don't have a basic understanding of economics, otherwise maybe things could've been different.
Last edited by Lornz; April 26th, 2011 at 07:34 PM.
The following 2 users say Thank You to Lornz for this post: