Has the Fed realized QE isn't working?

[intradaybill]

Quote from jem:

Was not the effect of the last year of debasement and cheap money, to save their member banks?

So what do you see wrong with saving banks? Would you rather see banks collapse? Are you nuts?

The dollar was not debased. This is media propaganda. You are probably to young to know the history of exchange rates. There was a time in the 1980's when 1 DM = $2. Nobody screamed then that the dollar was debased.

If the EU problems continue the dollar will skyrocket. It will be perfect time for QE4.

 

[Norman_Shey]

Quote from intradaybill:

So what do you see wrong with saving banks? Would you rather see banks collapse? Are you nuts?

Sir, you are the nutty one. I (and many others) don't believe the government's job is to support failed business models and it doesn't matter what the business is. If one business goes bankrupt someone else will acquire the assets and hopefully make better decisions. That is why they call them free markets. If you can't succeed then your competitor will. If you don't let them die then the system never improves.

But I guess we shouldn't expect that much out of the failed business model that is the government itself.

 

[Eight]

I don't believe the Fed wants QE to work. They are using the crisis to impoverish us all. They are adding to the crisis with the QE, it never has worked anywhere in reality in the past, it only extends the crisis over a longer period of time...

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Norman_Shey:

Sir, you are the nutty one. I (and many others) don't believe the government's job is to support failed business models and it doesn't matter what the business is. If one business goes bankrupt someone else will acquire the assets and hopefully make better decisions. That is why they call them free markets. If you can't succeed then your competitor will. If you don't let them die then the system never improves.

But I guess we shouldn't expect that much out of the failed business model that is the government itself.

The very first too big to fail bank, in Europe at least, was il gran tavola (the big table; banco meaning bench, so this was the big table in front of the bench), a bank in Siena, Italy that actually predated the Florentine bankers. The Florentines became dominant because this bank failed.
That bank was given years to collect on the loans it had outstanding so as to pay off its depositors. This was because even way back then it was recognized that it was completely unrealistic to let a really big bank go down all at once; spreading the pain over a few years helped smooth things out a bit.
There is, as most engineers are aware, a big difference between designing a bridge on the order of the Golden Gate and designing a bridge to go over a babbling brook. If the latter fails a few people might get dunked and suffer a broken bone or two, and a few hikers a day are inconvenienced. If the former fails, people will get killed, and an entire metro area suddenly finds itself with a huge hole in its transportation network.
At some point a change in quantity becomes a qualitative change. Some people know this, others never get it.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from AKUMATOTENSHI:

Another round of QE would determine who is right or wrong.

LOL. So go the claims of the Keynesians. No matter how much money we've spent, we just need to spend a little more to get over the hump. Obvious lunacy.

They said that at the end of QE1. They said that at the end of QE2. They'll say it again at the end of QE3. And QE4.

QE1 failed. How do we know? `Cuz we immediately needed QE2. And now QE2 has failed. How do we know? (why do you keep asking the easy questions?) Cuz now all clamor for QE3.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from TGregg:

LOL. So go the claims of the Keynesians. No matter how much money we've spent, we just need to spend a little more to get over the hump. Obvious lunacy.

They said that at the end of QE1. They said that at the end of QE2. They'll say it again at the end of QE3. And QE4.

QE1 failed. How do we know? `Cuz we immediately needed QE2. And now QE2 has failed. How do we know? (why do you keep asking the easy questions?) Cuz now all clamor for QE3.

Oooo! Oooo! Why for do we need QE4? (bonus Q for the masses)

 

[intradaybill]

Quote from Norman_Shey:

Sir, you are the nutty one. I (and many others) don't believe the government's job is to support failed business models and it doesn't matter what the business is. If one business goes bankrupt someone else will acquire the assets and hopefully make better decisions. That is why they call them free markets. If you can't succeed then your competitor will. If you don't let them die then the system never improves.

But I guess we shouldn't expect that much out of the failed business model that is the government itself.

No Sir, you exhibit a major misunderstanding of how the financial system works. The FED did not save a business. The FED with its actions preserved the stability of the system and that involved rescue of banks. Your suggestion for other banks to aquire the failed banks is wrong because you do not understand how banking works. Some banks are too big to let fail or get aquired. If that happens, the problem is transferred to the other bank.

The job of a government is to preserve the stability of financial and social system. If this requires saving a bank or insurance company the government should ddo it. You are too dogmatic and extremist in your views. Your views are dangerous. The social system is too fragile in the 21st century. Look at what happened in Engand over the past week. Unless this is what you were hoping for the US. Then, I can understand you but I cannot endorse your one-sided/extemist views.

 

[denner]

Quote from intradaybill:

No Sir, you exhibit a major misunderstanding of how the financial system works. The FED did not save a business. The FED with its actions preserved the stability of the system and that involved rescue of banks. Your suggestion for other banks to aquire the failed banks is wrong because you do not understand how banking works. Some banks are too big to let fail or get aquired. If that happens, the problem is transferred to the other bank.

The job of a government is to preserve the stability of financial and social system. If this requires saving a bank or insurance company the government should ddo it. You are too dogmatic and extremist in your views. Your views are dangerous. The social system is too fragile in the 21st century. Look at what happened in Engand over the past week. Unless this is what you were hoping for the US. Then, I can understand you but I cannot endorse your one-sided/extemist views.

And how did these "Too Big To Fail" banks reach critical mass in the first place? You don't think that the major consolidation of many regional banks combined with the repeal of Glass-Steagall played a major part in this whole episode?

Everything that you continue to support will simply encourage this "moral hazard" into perpetuity. If the TBTF institutions are never taken to task for their reckless and opportunistic behavior, then we will simply repeat the bailout and bust cycle over and over again.

All of your hysterical tirades concern the "symptoms" but never the "cause". Many of us are well aware that both the arsonist and the firefighter are one in the same...

 

[adadadog]

QE is not just not working; it is a dumb and destructive to every countries in the world, including U.S.A. The only beneficiary is the FED and some financial firms. QE is a suicide act as far as dollar reserve status is concerned; it raked havoc to the world.
As a country or a firm, it needs financial planning. when dollar faces the possibility of QE, it introduces uncertainty to the planning process and rendering it impossible. Nations, no matter their attitude toward U.S.A, are ditching U.S. dollar. Dollar's reserve status is ending. e.g. China/Russia trades, China/Brazil trades, ASEAN+China+Japan+Aus+NZ trades are preferring not using u.s. dollar.

The Riots and news wars are pretty much caused by QE, commodity prices, and inflation around world.

U.S.'s international status is severely curtailed by it, no matter how the vulgar woman Clinton running around lecturing about what ever BS rhetoric; the world responded with overt silence and covert despise.

 

[JamesVU2000]

Whats so insane is the only episode of deflation that was really bad was the great depression, however there many more brutal inflations that occured in the last 100 years. Hungry, Zimbabwe, Russia (1917), Chile (Allende), Wiemar, Austria. The Fed doesnt acknowledge that they could make a mistake with money printing that would cause an even worse outcome. Bernanke does not have any sense of prudence or wisdom. Neither does Summers with all his silly faith in models.