Bernake's back asking "Please sir, can I have some more?"

Joined
18 April 2004
Messages
1,336
Location
Omaha, NE
Go figure... 850 billion down the drain and he wants more because they haven't "solved the crisis yet". I swear to god most college undergrads understand more about the economic crisis than these bafoons...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aa5U320Oqnl8&refer=home

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke endorsed additional fiscal stimulus, saying the credit crunch is ``hitting home'' as Americans find it harder to get loans, threatening a prolonged economic slump.

Lawmakers ``should consider including measures to help improve access to credit by consumers, homebuyers, businesses and other borrowers,'' Bernanke said in testimony to the House Budget Committee. ``Such actions might be particularly effective at promoting economic growth and job creation,'' he said, calling consideration of a stimulus ``appropriate.''

Bernanke's support may give momentum in Congress to legislation helping the economy after the impact of a $168 billion package in February faded. The Fed chief's remarks also put him in front of the Bush administration, which until after his testimony had refrained from backing a new effort.

Within an hour of the conclusion of Bernanke's testimony, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said officials are ``open'' to the idea of a new plan and would ``look carefully'' at suggestions. She said on Oct. 16 that, after discussions about a second stimulus that took place last month, ``we didn't think'' the proposals put forward ``would help bring money into the economy.''

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed an initiative of as much as $150 billion after the credit crunch deepened in recent months and the effect of the first stimulus package wore off.

Budget Deficit

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, the budget panel's ranking Republican, said in the hearing that the Democratic plan is ``bloated'' and may balloon the budget deficit to $1 trillion. ``Throwing more money out the door may help for a quarter, but it won't help to create jobs,'' Ryan said afterward.

Bernanke, under questioning, declined to recommend a size for the package. He said the current ``large'' deficit is ``not totally inappropriate given the nature of the emergency that we're facing and not totally avoidable given the loss of tax revenues.''

Possible items that would help include further aid for borrowers to refinance loans, support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funding, loan guarantees, direct lending and tax credits, Bernanke said.

``He wants to minimize the human toll of the crisis,'' said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial Inc. in Chicago. ``He is falling in step with the likes of Alan Blinder and Larry Summers,'' appointees under Democratic President Bill Clinton and ``has shown a remarkable ability to learn from past mistakes, even his own,'' Swonk said.

Pelosi Plan

The plan floated by Pelosi, a California Democrat, includes increased federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps, highway-construction projects and aid to cash-strapped state governments. No vote has been set.

``Any fiscal action inevitably involves tradeoffs'' that may ``burden future generations,'' Bernanke said. Yet ``with the economy likely to be weak for several quarters, and with some risk of a protracted slowdown, consideration of a fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture seems appropriate.''

Evidence of a recession increased last week, as confidence among Americans fell by the most on record and single-family housing starts hit a 26-year low. Industrial output fell 6 percent in the third quarter, the most since 1991, and a factory index for the Philadelphia region hit an 18-year low this month.

Below Potential

``The pace of economic activity is likely to be below that of its longer-run potential for several quarters,'' Bernanke said in today's testimony. ``The slowing in spending and activity spans most major sectors.''

The Fed lowered its benchmark interest rate a half point on Oct. 8 to 1.5 percent in an unprecedented coordinated action with other central banks. Traders see about a 46 percent chance of a half-point cut at or before the Federal Open Market Committee's Oct. 28-29 meeting, futures prices show. The contracts indicate 100 percent probability of a quarter-point move.

As the credit crisis intensified into a freeze in early September, the Fed took unprecedented actions: rescuing insurer American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion loan, later supplemented by $38 billion of additional credit; backing legislation to spend up to $700 billion on recapitalizing banks and buying distressed assets; and setting up a short-term funding backstop for U.S. companies through commercial-paper purchases.

Commercial Paper

Bernanke indicated he's inclined against widening the commercial-paper backstop to include companies with lower credit ratings, saying it would be ``much more difficult'' to secure ``stronger guarantees'' from issuers.

The Fed chief's approach is winning favor with some of the Democratic lawmakers who control Congress. South Carolina Representative John Spratt, chair of the budget panel, said he'd recommend Bernanke for another four-year term in 2010. ``We couldn't have a better hand at the helm,'' Spratt, whose district includes where Bernanke grew up, said in a Bloomberg Television interview.

U.S. regulators last week announced fresh efforts to jump- start lending. The Treasury committed $250 billion in taxpayer funds to private banks and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. extended its insurance to include new debt sold by banks.

``These measures were announced less than a week ago, and, although there have been some encouraging signs, it is too early to assess their full effects,'' Bernanke said.

`Rebuild Confidence'

Still, the actions ``should help rebuild confidence in the financial system,'' Bernanke said. While the rescue legislation was ``critical'' for helping to contain ``damage to the broader economy,'' stabilizing the financial system ``will not quickly eliminate the challenges still faced by the broader economy,'' he said.

``I suspect more people are recognizing that the credit constraints really are hitting home, that people can't get auto loans, that there are plenty of firms small and large that can't get ordinary credit, that housing mortgage credit is harder to get,'' the Fed chief said.

Business spending may decline further in coming months, and homebuilding may keep contracting into 2009, Bernanke said. Lower commodity prices and the slowing economy ``should bring inflation down to levels consistent with price stability,'' he said.

Today's comments echo Bernanke's warning last week that the economy may be in for a prolonged period of sub-par growth. ``A broader economic recovery will not happen right away,'' and ``economic activity will fall short of potential for a time,'' he said in an Oct. 15 speech.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said today that the capital-injection program has enough funds to support every financial company that qualifies.

So to recap...

Fed Report Card thus far:

Stimulus checks: F-
Short Selling Ban: F-
Bailout: F-
Bailout 2.0: And i'm just guessing here... but F--

When is the idiocy going to end folks?! :mad:
 
You probably want a catchy or amusing answer but I'll just give it to you straight.

It will end when deflation is off the table. Until then, get your wallet ready.
 
So to recap...

Fed Report Card thus far:

Stimulus checks: F-
Short Selling Ban: F-
Bailout: F-
Bailout 2.0: And i'm just guessing here... but F--

When is the idiocy going to end folks?! :mad:

Your comment cracked me up!! but anyways we're screwed and there probably isn't a real fix as if you tell people what the fix is they will react to it (try to capitalize on it) and break it. If I got a check in the mail randomly from the government I would more than likely spend it on some popcorn and a movie. But If i got a check telling me to go buy something with it, I definitely wouldn't. The only fix I see is some super secret thing no-one knows about so they can try and profit from it. but then again I don't know isht about financial stuff and totally lost my a?# this year on everything.
 
Last edited:
GOAL: DESTROY THE UNITED STATES TO HELP BRING ABOUT A NORTH AMERICAN UNION WITH CANADA AND MEXICO, AND NWO

Henry Paulson is on the Board of Trustees of the NADB.
That is the North American Development Bank.
It is a multi-national bank that THE USA co-owns with Mexico.
http://www.nadb.org/board.html#USsectreas

He is also on the Board of Directors of the BECC.
This stands for the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission.
This is the sister organization to the NADB.
http://www.cocef.org/bd.htm

These two agencies work to build infrastructure on the USA/Mexico border.
They work with Fannie May and Freddie Mac, these organizations are wasting millions upon millions of dollars on the border.
Paulson is about to be given 700 billion dollars with no oversight and no court repercussions.
He could do anything he wants with that money including further bail out and funding of the NADB.

Worldwide Currency System to be Presented to U.S.A. by EU Leaders
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFs99zBTRO0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFs99zBTRO0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Barney Frank Talks Everyone Listens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

I'd say unbelievable but unfortunately it's oh so believable.

Does anyone really believe Obama's $250K number (which we don't even know for sure if it's gross or net).
 
GOAL: DESTROY THE UNITED STATES TO HELP BRING ABOUT A NORTH AMERICAN UNION WITH CANADA AND MEXICO, AND NWO

+1. I see all of this happening with our country's finances and currency and the only thing its going to bring about is the demolishing of the dollar to the point where there will be rioting and Marshall law. And just when things get bad we'll be thrust upon with the NAU and it will be rushed through congress with all of the fear mongering and more they used to get the bailout passed.

It will give people a stable currency and quell the riots... But only after we've given up everything that made us a great nation.

And welcome the NAU and Amero.

F THIS.
 
I say let them crash and burn. Let nature take it course. Why do I have to pay for someone else's screw up?
 
Exactly. Every intelligent person whos studied the first great depression came to the same conclusion... why is it so hard not to take a history lesson?

Are you really sure? Here's what an expert says: Maury Klein is professor emeritus of history at the University of Rhode Island

Some differences between the eras are worth noting. Prior to 1933, the federal government played virtually no active role in relieving the banking crisis of the 1920s. The stock market did not have giant institutional buyers moving huge blocks of stock. Nor did it operate on a global scale, though it was deeply influenced by international events.

After the crash, the banks had plenty of money to lend but no takers, the opposite of today's situation. Deflation became the mortal enemy as people removed their cash from banks and hoarded it.

A familiar pattern emerged from these events. Business and the Republican Party in the 1920s demanded and got a "free" market unrestrained by government. Neither Wall Street nor the New York Stock Exchange was regulated by the government.

The resulting disaster prompted outraged demands that Washington "do something." Regulation was then forthcoming. Later, as prosperity returned and the market began soaring, the restraints were gradually removed and the pattern of excess began anew until it collapsed once again in our own time. With the fall comes renewed pleas for government to "do something."
Sure it's easy to say do nothing and let the market suffer a meltdown. Are you really sure you'd be better off, or would we be stuck in a financial wasteland like what happened in the first great depression?
 
Are you really sure? Here's what an expert says: Maury Klein is professor emeritus of history at the University of Rhode Island


Sure it's easy to say do nothing and let the market suffer a meltdown. Are you really sure you'd be better off, or would we be stuck in a financial wasteland like what happened in the first great depression?

I wasn't really going to respond but I agree and assure you.. every intelligent person that studied the GD does not consider "crash and burn" the best policy. I don't know anyone who believes that actually given the constraint they studied the GD academically. There are only 4-6 circumstances when government intervention is recommended in even neoclassical economics (before someone attempts to "outwit" me no one takes the neoclassical ideas of the 1800's seriously anymore policy model wise), and market failure is one of them. The shut down of the credit markets and obscure status financially of hundreds of firms around the world, among them some of the biggest/most critical internationally, dictates government intervention.

Unless you know what 25% unemployment really* means and a decade of flat at best growth truly embodies, I'd hesitate to tell your congress/senator "let them burn", because you my friend are tied to the stake! If you don't think China (as the poster boy, not incriminating them in any way) wouldn't pick invasion over civil war in order to get the resources they need when the export market froze up completely, you are living with unicorns. The export markets SHUT DOWN for several days before they were able to rehabilitate the credit markets. It was almost impossible to receive the credit needed in order to ship overseas and that sort of situation literally cannot be sustained for more than a week or two with commodities rotting on the ports.

I consider myself mildly educated on the matter and I read some of the books boom boom bernanke wrote on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Are you really sure? Here's what an expert says: Maury Klein is professor emeritus of history at the University of Rhode Island


Sure it's easy to say do nothing and let the market suffer a meltdown. Are you really sure you'd be better off, or would we be stuck in a financial wasteland like what happened in the first great depression?

The meltdown is happening whether or not we prop it up. The thing is... propping it up just serves to extrapolate and extend the situation as it were rather than purge the economy of the bad debt. Trying to provide worth to worthless assets is like trying to nail jello to the wall. It takes a long time and nothing productive is accomplished.

In response to the fed intervention causing the first depression... There was an interesting article in the WSJ from Ms. Anna Schwartz, a 92 year old economist and historian of the depression who actually lived through it and knows more about the banking systems than most anyone alive. She co-authored "Monetary History", a book that Ben Bernake referred to as "the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American History."

Yet I don't think our chairman has read it because the confidence issue in the credit markets has yet to be addressed which is why I think the rates haven't contracted.

Ms. Schwartz said in the WSJ today...

"We now hear almost every day that banks will not lend to each other, or will do so only at punitive interest rates. Credit spreads -- the difference between what it costs the government to borrow and what private-sector borrowers must pay -- are at historic highs.

This is not due to a lack of money available to lend, Ms. Schwartz says, but to a lack of faith in the ability of borrowers to repay their debts. "The Fed," she argues, "has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible."

So even though the Fed has flooded the credit markets with cash, spreads haven't budged because banks don't know who is still solvent and who is not. This uncertainty, says Ms. Schwartz, is "the basic problem in the credit market. Lending freezes up when lenders are uncertain that would-be borrowers have the resources to repay them. So to assume that the whole problem is inadequate liquidity bypasses the real issue."

The Weekend Interview - WSJ.com

Its a great article and it pinpoints what I believe is THE issue that undermines our entire credit crisis. One that the bailout failed to take into account, one that no plan currently before congress, the treasury, or the fed attempts to fix. And until it does i'm not expecting a huge change in the credit markets.

"Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, of all people, should understand this, Ms. Schwartz says. In 2002, Mr. Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve Board governor, said in a speech in honor of Mr. Friedman's 90th birthday, "I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.""
 
Are you really sure? Here's what an expert says: Maury Klein is professor emeritus of history at the University of Rhode Island


Sure it's easy to say do nothing and let the market suffer a meltdown. Are you really sure you'd be better off, or would we be stuck in a financial wasteland like what happened in the first great depression?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

This video shows Ben Bernanke himself agreeing that government intervention was the reason that the great depression was so long and drawn out. It's at around 5 minutes in. However he also states that it was the Federal Government, and not the Federal Reserve who acted during the depression. This time might be different, who knows.

There was also a stock market crash in from 1919 to 1921 where the market lost 46% of its value, but the government didn't intervene and the markets quickly recovered.

You can't hold housing prices up by flooding the market with cheap credit, all you'll do is make another bubble and the next crash will be worse.
 
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

This video shows Ben Bernanke himself agreeing that government intervention was the reason that the great depression was so long and drawn out. It's at around 5 minutes in. However he also states that it was the Federal Government, and not the Federal Reserve who acted during the depression. This time might be different, who knows.

There was also a stock market crash in from 1919 to 1921 where the market lost 46% of its value, but the government didn't intervene and the markets quickly recovered.

You can't hold housing prices up by flooding the market with cheap credit, all you'll do is make another bubble and the next crash will be worse.

True to a certain extent. The housing market cannot be propped up without distorting a multitude of economic factors. For instance, if the government attempts to "stop" forclosures, a higher than natural portion of income, through taxes, will go torwards housing than is socially optimal. Without a real increase in wages, real housing values should not increase beyond inflation and population growth. Without real wages increasing (they have been falling or flat for the entire duration fo this massive housing increase by the way), the housing market cannot be sustained without resorting to massive government assistance and therefore higher taxes. There is no other way.

However, that doesn't mean that the fed can't perform a valuable role in the crisis.
 
Back
Top