Comments on: Time for a Fed fire drill http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/ Option ARMageddon Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:06:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Mr Money http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-2633 Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:02:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-2633 http://moneyfinancetaxinvesting.blogspot .com/2009/10/monetary-policy.html

Basically what Rolfe is saying is that the Fed should mess with the markets expectations to build credibility. Usually when people mess with my expectations, their credibility decreases. I can understand how someone may want the Fed to take a more conservative approach with monetary policy, but I do not understand why it would build credibility if they did this when the market “least expects it.”

]]>
By: Ron http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-1941 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:55:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-1941 Join the Campaign To Cancel the Illegitimate Washington National Debt on Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group .php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

]]>
By: Michael Blomquist http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-1940 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:26:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-1940 I forgot to mention about opening the window to investment banks – would never have been necessary “but for” the rampant fraud in housing. CDOs, everything spun off or was derived from the rampant fraud in housing.

]]>
By: Michael Blomquist http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-1939 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:16:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-1939 Hey Rolfe,

Although no one will disagree that the FED, especially under Greenspan and Bernanke have been spiking the punch bowl, but most of their actions were within their legal authority.

The real problem was the FED’s failure to act instead of acting. Under HOEPA the FED was mandated to stop predatory lending practices.

Clearly, there is a huge difference between holding interest rates at historically low levels and allowing lenders, investment banks and credit rating agencies to conspire to securitize trillions in fraudulent loans as investment grade.

Providing 100% financing on stated income guidelines to wage earners whose income was easily documented on W-2s was nothing less than encouraging and blessing loan fraud. The rating agencies did nothing to verify the stated incomes even though IRS form 4506T was available in every single file.

]]>
By: John Merryman http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-1934 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:34:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-1934 Rolfe,

I’ve long had a problem with the assumption that Volcker cured inflation with higher rates. Inflation is surplus money in the economy, but the higher rates the Fed imposed reduced the ability to borrow, which led to a recession. In a recession, less money is necessary, so while he drew down the supply, he also reduced demand.
Of course, inflation was brought under control, but the government was ramping up deficit spending at the same time, to the point that by 1982, it was about 200 billion.
What’s the difference between the Fed selling debt it is holding and the Treasury issuing fresh debt? The Fed retires the money it gets, while the Treasury spends it on public works, which do serve to increase investment in the private sector. So not only does it directly draw down the supply of money, in exactly the same way as the Fed does, but it also increases demand in the private sector.

Back in the day, inflation was blamed on unions(re: air traffic controllers) driving up wages and prices, but when the Fed (and Treasury) sells debt, it doesn’t draw money out of wages, but savings. Obviously it would seem that if there is a surplus of money, it manifests in those with a surplus of money and thus can afford to loan it out. The problem is those with the most, have the most influence and so it’s easier to blame those who don’t have nearly as much.

The problem seems to be that the law of supply and demand applies to capital, as well as capitalism. Since supply is potentially infinite, it is the demand for capital which ultimately defines how much wealth can be saved. That is why we have a credit crunch, as the financial industry manufactures endless unsustainable and/or artificial demand for what is ultimately illusionary wealth.

Now the government is blowing up the last and largest bubble to maintain our collective delusion, but eventually it is going to pop and even the bankers are going to lose big.

]]>
By: gd http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/2009/09/25/time-for-a-fed-fire-drill/comment-page-1/#comment-1931 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:32:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkler/?p=3791#comment-1931 When you think about it why are we having a debate about who’s side the Fed is on. Are people who saved there money being rewarded for their safe behaviour with interest rates at 0%. Or are the idiots at the Fed rewarding and reinforcing the risk taking behaviour that got the US in such a mess.
If you need to ask why the Fed takes this action, look at where 90% of ex Fed employees are working. Surprise surprise at the risk taking investment bamks.
If we truely want the Fed to be independent then employees should be locked out of working for financial companies for 20 years.
Remember Greenspan the guy that caused a lot of these problems. Where is he working now. Get the point. The average US taxpayer is being taken for a ride.

]]>