Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Deciphering Bernanke’s comments
- This topic has 50 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
Deal Hunter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM #11951
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM #161837
kewp
ParticipantAt least subprime is contained, right?
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM #161860
cr
ParticipantSure, there have been no spillover effects whatsoever, like higher energy prices, a faltering stock market, record low home sales, price drops and foreclosures, stagflation, shrinking GDP, rising unemployment, non-existant middle class, or a weak dollar.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM #161922
JWM in SD
ParticipantJWM in SD
Notice that he never wants to use the “D” word…ever. Also notice that he never talks about the source of the issue (monetary policy) only the symptoms (cpi, commodities, oil, lending).
This all a big ruse to fool J6P and the idiot politicians who still don’t understand what RP is talking about. Why? Probably because he doesn’t want to start a panic in the markets if said what he was really thinking:
Oh shit…DEFLATION…….
-
February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM #161998
HereWeGo
ParticipantThe personal income/spending numbers tomorrow will be interesting, as will the reaction to the numbers.
-
February 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM #162186Participant
Phew….. I feel better. What a cute couple.
“Bush, Fed Chief See No Recession Ahead”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080228/bush_bernanke.html
“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” Bush said.
Maybe Bush thought they mean recess.
“I realize that my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today … but I do very much believe that the U.S. economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking… right before he promised to slash rates furthe just to spite RP for making a fool out of him.
“I don’t anticipate stagflation,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s.” Bernanke said he expects inflation to calm down… as he loads the printing presses up for another all nighter.
(…comments added.:)
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM #162206
barnaby33Participantcooprider14, I’ve tried telling you this several times with subtlety, it doesn’t seem to work. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. THE FED CREATES CREDIT, AGAINST COLLATERAL. Printing money is the purview of the treasury. There are a couple of big reasons why that is important.
1)The FED cannot print us out of this mess. The credit has already been created and spent, the inflation has already occurred. If the treasury does authorize printing the bond market will take immediate notice. 160B “stimulus” plan, hmm we’ll just demand higher interest rates for TBills.
2)If under the normal course of events someone pays the fed back the loan, the credit created is destroyed. That in itself isn’t deflationary, but the interest paid on the debt can be.
3)As debtors default the credit is destroyed and that is deflationary. It is so for two reasons, one the bank that made the loan has to take a hit on its books meaning it has to raise capital to cover the loss and two it is less willing to loan out money to others, thus slowing velocity.
4)The FED didn’t really create the problem, lots of non-bank entities did (New Century for example). What the FED did fail to do, was stop the banks from buying the bad debts, which is a regulatory failure, not a monetary one.
5)If you want to blame the FED, fine blame Greenspan, he was at the helm during the historic lowering of interest rates that led to all the crap loans in the first place.
Josh
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM #162503barnaby33Participant
cooprider14, I’ve tried telling you this several times with subtlety, it doesn’t seem to work. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. THE FED CREATES CREDIT, AGAINST COLLATERAL. Printing money is the purview of the treasury. There are a couple of big reasons why that is important.
1)The FED cannot print us out of this mess. The credit has already been created and spent, the inflation has already occurred. If the treasury does authorize printing the bond market will take immediate notice. 160B “stimulus” plan, hmm we’ll just demand higher interest rates for TBills.
2)If under the normal course of events someone pays the fed back the loan, the credit created is destroyed. That in itself isn’t deflationary, but the interest paid on the debt can be.
3)As debtors default the credit is destroyed and that is deflationary. It is so for two reasons, one the bank that made the loan has to take a hit on its books meaning it has to raise capital to cover the loss and two it is less willing to loan out money to others, thus slowing velocity.
4)The FED didn’t really create the problem, lots of non-bank entities did (New Century for example). What the FED did fail to do, was stop the banks from buying the bad debts, which is a regulatory failure, not a monetary one.
5)If you want to blame the FED, fine blame Greenspan, he was at the helm during the historic lowering of interest rates that led to all the crap loans in the first place.
Josh
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM #162517barnaby33Participant
cooprider14, I’ve tried telling you this several times with subtlety, it doesn’t seem to work. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. THE FED CREATES CREDIT, AGAINST COLLATERAL. Printing money is the purview of the treasury. There are a couple of big reasons why that is important.
1)The FED cannot print us out of this mess. The credit has already been created and spent, the inflation has already occurred. If the treasury does authorize printing the bond market will take immediate notice. 160B “stimulus” plan, hmm we’ll just demand higher interest rates for TBills.
2)If under the normal course of events someone pays the fed back the loan, the credit created is destroyed. That in itself isn’t deflationary, but the interest paid on the debt can be.
3)As debtors default the credit is destroyed and that is deflationary. It is so for two reasons, one the bank that made the loan has to take a hit on its books meaning it has to raise capital to cover the loss and two it is less willing to loan out money to others, thus slowing velocity.
4)The FED didn’t really create the problem, lots of non-bank entities did (New Century for example). What the FED did fail to do, was stop the banks from buying the bad debts, which is a regulatory failure, not a monetary one.
5)If you want to blame the FED, fine blame Greenspan, he was at the helm during the historic lowering of interest rates that led to all the crap loans in the first place.
Josh
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM #162536barnaby33Participant
cooprider14, I’ve tried telling you this several times with subtlety, it doesn’t seem to work. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. THE FED CREATES CREDIT, AGAINST COLLATERAL. Printing money is the purview of the treasury. There are a couple of big reasons why that is important.
1)The FED cannot print us out of this mess. The credit has already been created and spent, the inflation has already occurred. If the treasury does authorize printing the bond market will take immediate notice. 160B “stimulus” plan, hmm we’ll just demand higher interest rates for TBills.
2)If under the normal course of events someone pays the fed back the loan, the credit created is destroyed. That in itself isn’t deflationary, but the interest paid on the debt can be.
3)As debtors default the credit is destroyed and that is deflationary. It is so for two reasons, one the bank that made the loan has to take a hit on its books meaning it has to raise capital to cover the loss and two it is less willing to loan out money to others, thus slowing velocity.
4)The FED didn’t really create the problem, lots of non-bank entities did (New Century for example). What the FED did fail to do, was stop the banks from buying the bad debts, which is a regulatory failure, not a monetary one.
5)If you want to blame the FED, fine blame Greenspan, he was at the helm during the historic lowering of interest rates that led to all the crap loans in the first place.
Josh
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:18 PM #162604barnaby33Participant
cooprider14, I’ve tried telling you this several times with subtlety, it doesn’t seem to work. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY. THE FED CREATES CREDIT, AGAINST COLLATERAL. Printing money is the purview of the treasury. There are a couple of big reasons why that is important.
1)The FED cannot print us out of this mess. The credit has already been created and spent, the inflation has already occurred. If the treasury does authorize printing the bond market will take immediate notice. 160B “stimulus” plan, hmm we’ll just demand higher interest rates for TBills.
2)If under the normal course of events someone pays the fed back the loan, the credit created is destroyed. That in itself isn’t deflationary, but the interest paid on the debt can be.
3)As debtors default the credit is destroyed and that is deflationary. It is so for two reasons, one the bank that made the loan has to take a hit on its books meaning it has to raise capital to cover the loss and two it is less willing to loan out money to others, thus slowing velocity.
4)The FED didn’t really create the problem, lots of non-bank entities did (New Century for example). What the FED did fail to do, was stop the banks from buying the bad debts, which is a regulatory failure, not a monetary one.
5)If you want to blame the FED, fine blame Greenspan, he was at the helm during the historic lowering of interest rates that led to all the crap loans in the first place.
Josh
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM #162211
Deal Hunter
ParticipantIgnore the Harvard Professor behind the curtain! The great OZ has spoken!
-
February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM #162306
bsrsharma
ParticipantThough I think highly of BB, I think this assessment was purely political. All indicators seem to be worse than in the ’70s. If we can get away with a repeat of 1974-82, we should count ourselves lucky!
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 PM #162366Participant
You're right, barsharma.
BB said, "I don't think we're anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s."
Then, he added, under his breath, "…it's more like the situation that prevailed after 1929."
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 PM #162662Participant
You're right, barsharma.
BB said, "I don't think we're anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s."
Then, he added, under his breath, "…it's more like the situation that prevailed after 1929."
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 PM #162678Participant
You're right, barsharma.
BB said, "I don't think we're anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s."
Then, he added, under his breath, "…it's more like the situation that prevailed after 1929."
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 PM #162695Participant
You're right, barsharma.
BB said, "I don't think we're anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s."
Then, he added, under his breath, "…it's more like the situation that prevailed after 1929."
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:35 PM #162766Participant
You're right, barsharma.
BB said, "I don't think we're anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s."
Then, he added, under his breath, "…it's more like the situation that prevailed after 1929."
-
February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM #162602Participant
Though I think highly of BB, I think this assessment was purely political. All indicators seem to be worse than in the ’70s. If we can get away with a repeat of 1974-82, we should count ourselves lucky!
-
February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM #162617Participant
Though I think highly of BB, I think this assessment was purely political. All indicators seem to be worse than in the ’70s. If we can get away with a repeat of 1974-82, we should count ourselves lucky!
-
February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM #162636Participant
Though I think highly of BB, I think this assessment was purely political. All indicators seem to be worse than in the ’70s. If we can get away with a repeat of 1974-82, we should count ourselves lucky!
-
February 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM #162706Participant
Though I think highly of BB, I think this assessment was purely political. All indicators seem to be worse than in the ’70s. If we can get away with a repeat of 1974-82, we should count ourselves lucky!
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM #162508Participant
Ignore the Harvard Professor behind the curtain! The great OZ has spoken!
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM #162522Participant
Ignore the Harvard Professor behind the curtain! The great OZ has spoken!
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM #162541Participant
Ignore the Harvard Professor behind the curtain! The great OZ has spoken!
-
February 28, 2008 at 5:30 PM #162609Participant
Ignore the Harvard Professor behind the curtain! The great OZ has spoken!
-
February 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM #162483Participant
Phew….. I feel better. What a cute couple.
“Bush, Fed Chief See No Recession Ahead”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080228/bush_bernanke.html
“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” Bush said.
Maybe Bush thought they mean recess.
“I realize that my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today … but I do very much believe that the U.S. economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking… right before he promised to slash rates furthe just to spite RP for making a fool out of him.
“I don’t anticipate stagflation,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s.” Bernanke said he expects inflation to calm down… as he loads the printing presses up for another all nighter.
(…comments added.:)
-
February 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM #162497Participant
Phew….. I feel better. What a cute couple.
“Bush, Fed Chief See No Recession Ahead”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080228/bush_bernanke.html
“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” Bush said.
Maybe Bush thought they mean recess.
“I realize that my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today … but I do very much believe that the U.S. economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking… right before he promised to slash rates furthe just to spite RP for making a fool out of him.
“I don’t anticipate stagflation,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s.” Bernanke said he expects inflation to calm down… as he loads the printing presses up for another all nighter.
(…comments added.:)
-
February 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM #162516Participant
Phew….. I feel better. What a cute couple.
“Bush, Fed Chief See No Recession Ahead”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080228/bush_bernanke.html
“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” Bush said.
Maybe Bush thought they mean recess.
“I realize that my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today … but I do very much believe that the U.S. economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking… right before he promised to slash rates furthe just to spite RP for making a fool out of him.
“I don’t anticipate stagflation,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s.” Bernanke said he expects inflation to calm down… as he loads the printing presses up for another all nighter.
(…comments added.:)
-
February 28, 2008 at 4:58 PM #162584Participant
Phew….. I feel better. What a cute couple.
“Bush, Fed Chief See No Recession Ahead”
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080228/bush_bernanke.html
“I don’t think we’re headed to a recession, but no question we’re in a slowdown,” Bush said.
Maybe Bush thought they mean recess.
“I realize that my testimony wasn’t the most cheerful thing you’ll hear today … but I do very much believe that the U.S. economy will return to a strong growth path with price stability,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking… right before he promised to slash rates furthe just to spite RP for making a fool out of him.
“I don’t anticipate stagflation,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we’re anywhere near the situation that prevailed in the 1970s.” Bernanke said he expects inflation to calm down… as he loads the printing presses up for another all nighter.
(…comments added.:)
-
February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM #162290Participant
The personal income/spending numbers tomorrow will be interesting, as will the reaction to the numbers.
-
February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM #162308Participant
The personal income/spending numbers tomorrow will be interesting, as will the reaction to the numbers.
-
February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM #162326Participant
The personal income/spending numbers tomorrow will be interesting, as will the reaction to the numbers.
-
February 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM #162394Participant
The personal income/spending numbers tomorrow will be interesting, as will the reaction to the numbers.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM #162218Participant
JWM in SD
Notice that he never wants to use the “D” word…ever. Also notice that he never talks about the source of the issue (monetary policy) only the symptoms (cpi, commodities, oil, lending).
This all a big ruse to fool J6P and the idiot politicians who still don’t understand what RP is talking about. Why? Probably because he doesn’t want to start a panic in the markets if said what he was really thinking:
Oh shit…DEFLATION…….
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM #162232Participant
JWM in SD
Notice that he never wants to use the “D” word…ever. Also notice that he never talks about the source of the issue (monetary policy) only the symptoms (cpi, commodities, oil, lending).
This all a big ruse to fool J6P and the idiot politicians who still don’t understand what RP is talking about. Why? Probably because he doesn’t want to start a panic in the markets if said what he was really thinking:
Oh shit…DEFLATION…….
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM #162252Participant
JWM in SD
Notice that he never wants to use the “D” word…ever. Also notice that he never talks about the source of the issue (monetary policy) only the symptoms (cpi, commodities, oil, lending).
This all a big ruse to fool J6P and the idiot politicians who still don’t understand what RP is talking about. Why? Probably because he doesn’t want to start a panic in the markets if said what he was really thinking:
Oh shit…DEFLATION…….
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM #162319Participant
JWM in SD
Notice that he never wants to use the “D” word…ever. Also notice that he never talks about the source of the issue (monetary policy) only the symptoms (cpi, commodities, oil, lending).
This all a big ruse to fool J6P and the idiot politicians who still don’t understand what RP is talking about. Why? Probably because he doesn’t want to start a panic in the markets if said what he was really thinking:
Oh shit…DEFLATION…….
-
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM #162156Participant
Sure, there have been no spillover effects whatsoever, like higher energy prices, a faltering stock market, record low home sales, price drops and foreclosures, stagflation, shrinking GDP, rising unemployment, non-existant middle class, or a weak dollar.
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM #162173Participant
Sure, there have been no spillover effects whatsoever, like higher energy prices, a faltering stock market, record low home sales, price drops and foreclosures, stagflation, shrinking GDP, rising unemployment, non-existant middle class, or a weak dollar.
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM #162190Participant
Sure, there have been no spillover effects whatsoever, like higher energy prices, a faltering stock market, record low home sales, price drops and foreclosures, stagflation, shrinking GDP, rising unemployment, non-existant middle class, or a weak dollar.
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM #162259Participant
Sure, there have been no spillover effects whatsoever, like higher energy prices, a faltering stock market, record low home sales, price drops and foreclosures, stagflation, shrinking GDP, rising unemployment, non-existant middle class, or a weak dollar.
-
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM #162131Participant
At least subprime is contained, right?
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM #162148Participant
At least subprime is contained, right?
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM #162165Participant
At least subprime is contained, right?
-
February 28, 2008 at 10:42 AM #162234Participant
At least subprime is contained, right?
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM #161912Participant
BB is pathetic. Forget that he’s not comfortable in public; he can’t even answer questions about his role as the single most influential financial player in the world.
IF Oil prices come down PPi will be contained… and how exactly does lowering rates help that?
He clumsily dodged every question relevant to his role, and basically said I don’t know what I’m doing, but I’m going to act like I did because I studied the Great Depression at an Ivy league school.
too bad this time really is different or Ben might not be worthless.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM #162207Participant
BB is pathetic. Forget that he’s not comfortable in public; he can’t even answer questions about his role as the single most influential financial player in the world.
IF Oil prices come down PPi will be contained… and how exactly does lowering rates help that?
He clumsily dodged every question relevant to his role, and basically said I don’t know what I’m doing, but I’m going to act like I did because I studied the Great Depression at an Ivy league school.
too bad this time really is different or Ben might not be worthless.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM #162222Participant
BB is pathetic. Forget that he’s not comfortable in public; he can’t even answer questions about his role as the single most influential financial player in the world.
IF Oil prices come down PPi will be contained… and how exactly does lowering rates help that?
He clumsily dodged every question relevant to his role, and basically said I don’t know what I’m doing, but I’m going to act like I did because I studied the Great Depression at an Ivy league school.
too bad this time really is different or Ben might not be worthless.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM #162241Participant
BB is pathetic. Forget that he’s not comfortable in public; he can’t even answer questions about his role as the single most influential financial player in the world.
IF Oil prices come down PPi will be contained… and how exactly does lowering rates help that?
He clumsily dodged every question relevant to his role, and basically said I don’t know what I’m doing, but I’m going to act like I did because I studied the Great Depression at an Ivy league school.
too bad this time really is different or Ben might not be worthless.
-
February 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM #162309Participant
BB is pathetic. Forget that he’s not comfortable in public; he can’t even answer questions about his role as the single most influential financial player in the world.
IF Oil prices come down PPi will be contained… and how exactly does lowering rates help that?
He clumsily dodged every question relevant to his role, and basically said I don’t know what I’m doing, but I’m going to act like I did because I studied the Great Depression at an Ivy league school.
too bad this time really is different or Ben might not be worthless.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.