"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:zQIBj.70785$6i4.57260@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Econotron" <njmfis-1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:KNHBj.6273$e52.6256@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:StHBj.82348$ng7.41418@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Econotron" <njmfis-1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:jmHBj.6270$e52.6175@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:IiHBj.68839$Gv.41834@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Econotron" <njmfis-1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:COGBj.7587$y83.7323@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:16DBj.70348$6i4.24471@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> John Galt:
>>>>>>> "Christopher Helms" <Chrishelms132@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
news:1a1d7aef-1c8c-49d4-bee5-e5b506ff87c9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On Mar 11, 3:46 pm, stuff_st...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:30:17 -0700 (PDT), perrie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <perryneh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >We'll see if it continues tomorrow, won't we?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080311/wall_street.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dow Jumps More Than 400 Points After Fed, Other Central Banks
Move
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Ease Credit Crisis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street finally found a reason for a huge
>>>>>>>> rally>Tuesday, after the Federal Reserve said it plans to pump
$200
>>>>>>>> billion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> into the financial markets to help ease the strain from the
credit
>>>>>>>> crisis. The Dow Jones industrial average shot up more than 416
>>>>>>>> points,
>>>>>>>> its biggest one-day point gain since July 24, 2002.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Fed's program is part of a worldwide effort to help
struggling
>>>>>>>> banks and mortgage providers. The Fed -- acting in concert with
the
>>>>>>>> European Central Bank, the Bank of Canada and the Swiss National
>>>>>>>> Bank
>>>>>>>> -- agreed to loan investment banks money in exchange for debt,
>>>>>>>> including slumping mortgage-backed securities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The move is meant to essentially create a market for assets that
>>>>>>>> investors have been too scared to buy. That freeze-up in demand
had
>>>>>>>> sent asset values plunging and caused huge losses for some of the
>>>>>>>> world's biggest banks.
>>>>>>>> .. .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It's not just a rate cut. I think it's a very creative way to do
>>>>>>>> financing," Conroy said. "It shows the Fed is willing to do
things
>>>>>>>> that are a little out-of-the-box to shore up credit issues. I
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> think they went to the heart of the issue."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **** - a $200 billion bailout? Who's going to get the tab for
this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why is the fed saving the markets? It's charter is to manage
>>>>>>>> employment and inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Fed isn't saving the markets. It is saving the banks, or
trying
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> by continuing to flood the banking system with extremely cheap,
>>>>>>> inflationary dollars. The idea is to get the banks to start
loaning
>>>>>>> money again. The banks who the Bush administration has been taking
a
>>>>>>> 1920s, Calvin Coolidge style approach to. Like in the 1920s, the
>>>>>>> Bush
>>>>>>> administration allowed the banks to run free, free, free. They
>>>>>>> encouraged the Fed to pursue a loose money/ cheap credit policy
just
>>>>>>> like in the 1920s. Hell, they even wanted the banks to be allowed
to
>>>>>>> start playing the stock market again. Then, just like in the
1920s,
>>>>>>> the banks went overboard, over extended themselves and got into
>>>>>>> trouble. In the 1920s it was loaning easy money to stupid people
so
>>>>>>> they could buy stocks they couldn't afford on huge margins. You
were
>>>>>>> fine as long as your stock kept going up, which it failed to do
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> October of 1929. The loans went bad and the banks got stuck when
the
>>>>>>> market corrected and suckers-I mean investors- suddenly couldn't
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> margin calls. This time it was loaning money to stupid people to
buy
>>>>>>> houses that they couldn't afford. The loans were fine as long as
the
>>>>>>> housing market kept going up, which it failed to do. People
suddenly
>>>>>>> owed more on their houses then the houses were worth. Then, just
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> in the 1920s, the banks went almost overnight from a loose, easy
>>>>>>> credit stance to an almost no credit stance. They got stuck with
all
>>>>>>> sorts of bad debt and the proud, mature, independent, lassais
faire
>>>>>>> banks went crying to the government to bail them out as though the
>>>>>>> taxpayers had some fiduciary responsibility for the well being of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> banking industry. **** the banking industry. They got themselves
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> this mess, they can get themselves out. That's the position an
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>> conservative would take. "Oh, the government must help or some of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> nations biggest banks will fail." Good. Let them fail. It will be
a
>>>>>>> lesson to the others the next time they start getting all tingly
in
>>>>>>> the crotch about giving credit to morons just because some brain
>>>>>>> dead
>>>>>>> administration thinks it's the right, conservative thing to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>> In 1929, the Fed attempted a TIGHT money policy after the October
>>>>>>> correction, an action which is generally considered to (along with
>>>>>>> some other poorly thought out goverment policies) have turned a
>>>>>>> necessary correction into a full blown Depression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the Fed is doing now and what they did then could not be more
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is according to the self-serving monetarist fairy tail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that the Fed did *not* tighten money supply in 1929?
>>>>>
>>>> I am saying that they did, and it was the right thing to do.
>>>
>>> Apparently we agree, since they did in fact tighten, and it did in
fact
>>> lead into Depression.
>>>
>> We certainly do, up to that point. But I suspect that our opinions may
>> diverge, when dealing with desirability of the depression.:-)
>
> Not surprising, since I was raised by people who lived through it.
>
Ditto, as I was raised by people who lived through the WW2 destruction of
Europe.
e.
|
