You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bubble ben bernanke says "LOW RATES "WON'T" STOKE INFLATION"
- Thread starter S2007S
- Start date
Quote from Kassz007:
Exactly. People need someone to blame for their misfortunes. Unfortunately they don't realize the reason they blame the Fed...they just do.
Many of the starkest critics of the FED have positioned themselves against the USD a long time ago and have been reaping the benefits ever since.
It's strange indeed how one can actually become 'richer' day after day and still frown upon the force behind the apreciation of ones capital but I guess many of them would like to give up their personal gains in exchange for a more leveled playfield to everyone.
Or so they claim.
Quote from Martinghoul:
Huh? How does this make any sense? Also, who owns the Banks?
For the last question, people have good sense, and can easily find out if they do not.
For the first, I am not sure it is that you really do not know or pretend not to. The fed owned by private banks only need to enter a number and use that to buy the bonds. The money is created in thin air, but is credited to the FED.
Huh? You're still making zero sense, dude...Quote from adadadog:
For the last question, people have good sense, and can easily find out if they do not.
For the first, I am not sure it is that you really do not know or pretend not to. The fed owned by private banks only need to enter a number and use that to buy the bonds. The money is created in thin air, but is credited to the FED.
Quote from Martinghoul:
I don't quite understand why you people are frothing at the mouth here, to be honest. At the very least, you're barking up the wrong tree, the way I see it.
The Fed has an explicit mandate, according to which they're acting. This mandate doesn't mention the USD exchange rate or oil prices or anything else like this. The mandate is, however, explicitly defined through "price stability (as defined by CPI-U or timmed-mean PCE or another BLS measure) AND full employment".
If you want the FOMC to stop doing all these "harmful" things, get the politicians to change the Fed mandate. Either way I don't really see why all this anger is directed at the Fed, rather than Congress. But, then again, I have said it before and nobody had a coherent explanation.
Is this (taken from Bernanke's op-ed piece) part of the Fed's mandate:
"Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action."
As bad as Greenspan was, he used to at least say the Fed wasn't concerned with the stock market. If all the Fed did was play useless academic games trying to balance unemployment and inflation, you may have a point. However, they've taken on many roles beyond their original mandate. If they can brag about juicing stock prices, they surely should own up to rising commodity prices and a falling Dollar.
Quote from Martinghoul:
Huh? You're still making zero sense, dude...
The money will become profits for the banks, and small portion of it may go to place such as xxxxxx Jewish Education Foundation. Your kids may get free "scholarship" from it for college, someday. Is that what is holding you back from understanding the sense.
Quote from MKTrader:
Is this (taken from Bernanke's op-ed piece) part of the Fed's mandate:
"Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action."
As bad as Greenspan was, he used to at least say the Fed wasn't concerned with the stock market. If all the Fed did was play useless academic games trying to balance unemployment and inflation, you may have a point. However, they've taken on many roles beyond their original mandate. If they can brag about juicing stock prices, they surely should own up to rising commodity prices and a falling Dollar.
Link please? Context here is crucial.
Quote from Kassz007:
Link please? Context here is crucial.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110307372.html
"This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion."
Bernanke, don't forget. Weimar Republic collapsed within two years of buying its own debt with printed money. We're about there now.
Well, the snippet from Bernanke's op-ed that you quote was in the context of explaining the impact the Fed's actions had on financial conditions. The Fed isn't by any means alone in using stock prices and rates in gauging the state of the economy, so I don't see, on the face of it, anything that shocking about what Bernanke said. For example, the Conference Board's LEI uses the S&P 500 and FF-ZN spread.Quote from MKTrader:
Is this (taken from Bernanke's op-ed piece) part of the Fed's mandate:
"Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action."
As bad as Greenspan was, he used to at least say the Fed wasn't concerned with the stock market. If all the Fed did was play useless academic games trying to balance unemployment and inflation, you may have a point. However, they've taken on many roles beyond their original mandate. If they can brag about juicing stock prices, they surely should own up to rising commodity prices and a falling Dollar.