- This topic has 25 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM #18276December 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM #637763
Anonymous
GuestThe “textbook” answer to government is keeping rates low is to encourage investment in general (including housing.)
If the return from interest payments was anywhere near enough to cover the loss of principal from bad loans, we really wouldn’t have problem to solve. No Economics degree necessary – just basic math.
As for the other line of questions, correct answers will vary based upon your personal degree of paranoia and/or cynicism.
December 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM #637836Anonymous
GuestThe “textbook” answer to government is keeping rates low is to encourage investment in general (including housing.)
If the return from interest payments was anywhere near enough to cover the loss of principal from bad loans, we really wouldn’t have problem to solve. No Economics degree necessary – just basic math.
As for the other line of questions, correct answers will vary based upon your personal degree of paranoia and/or cynicism.
December 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM #638417Anonymous
GuestThe “textbook” answer to government is keeping rates low is to encourage investment in general (including housing.)
If the return from interest payments was anywhere near enough to cover the loss of principal from bad loans, we really wouldn’t have problem to solve. No Economics degree necessary – just basic math.
As for the other line of questions, correct answers will vary based upon your personal degree of paranoia and/or cynicism.
December 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM #638549Anonymous
GuestThe “textbook” answer to government is keeping rates low is to encourage investment in general (including housing.)
If the return from interest payments was anywhere near enough to cover the loss of principal from bad loans, we really wouldn’t have problem to solve. No Economics degree necessary – just basic math.
As for the other line of questions, correct answers will vary based upon your personal degree of paranoia and/or cynicism.
December 9, 2010 at 1:51 PM #638866Anonymous
GuestThe “textbook” answer to government is keeping rates low is to encourage investment in general (including housing.)
If the return from interest payments was anywhere near enough to cover the loss of principal from bad loans, we really wouldn’t have problem to solve. No Economics degree necessary – just basic math.
As for the other line of questions, correct answers will vary based upon your personal degree of paranoia and/or cynicism.
December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM #637798JBurkett19
ParticipantThanks for this. I appreciate your explanation. It makes sense that the interest earned from bank deposits at the FED wouldn’t be enough to cover the losses. But, since banks are being demonized because they’re not putting more money to work, this may be a way to get some back and put it work for real?
I sensed that my last question was a bit cynical. Thanks for your brilliant way in answering, however, isn’t cynicism sometimes the “…unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM #637871JBurkett19
ParticipantThanks for this. I appreciate your explanation. It makes sense that the interest earned from bank deposits at the FED wouldn’t be enough to cover the losses. But, since banks are being demonized because they’re not putting more money to work, this may be a way to get some back and put it work for real?
I sensed that my last question was a bit cynical. Thanks for your brilliant way in answering, however, isn’t cynicism sometimes the “…unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM #638452JBurkett19
ParticipantThanks for this. I appreciate your explanation. It makes sense that the interest earned from bank deposits at the FED wouldn’t be enough to cover the losses. But, since banks are being demonized because they’re not putting more money to work, this may be a way to get some back and put it work for real?
I sensed that my last question was a bit cynical. Thanks for your brilliant way in answering, however, isn’t cynicism sometimes the “…unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM #638584JBurkett19
ParticipantThanks for this. I appreciate your explanation. It makes sense that the interest earned from bank deposits at the FED wouldn’t be enough to cover the losses. But, since banks are being demonized because they’re not putting more money to work, this may be a way to get some back and put it work for real?
I sensed that my last question was a bit cynical. Thanks for your brilliant way in answering, however, isn’t cynicism sometimes the “…unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM #638901JBurkett19
ParticipantThanks for this. I appreciate your explanation. It makes sense that the interest earned from bank deposits at the FED wouldn’t be enough to cover the losses. But, since banks are being demonized because they’re not putting more money to work, this may be a way to get some back and put it work for real?
I sensed that my last question was a bit cynical. Thanks for your brilliant way in answering, however, isn’t cynicism sometimes the “…unpleasant way of saying the truth.”
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM #637953Diego Mamani
ParticipantIt’s not FED. The correct name, an abbreviation really, is Fed. It’s short for Federal Reserve Board, or FRB.
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM #638026Diego Mamani
ParticipantIt’s not FED. The correct name, an abbreviation really, is Fed. It’s short for Federal Reserve Board, or FRB.
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM #638607Diego Mamani
ParticipantIt’s not FED. The correct name, an abbreviation really, is Fed. It’s short for Federal Reserve Board, or FRB.
December 9, 2010 at 7:01 PM #638740Diego Mamani
ParticipantIt’s not FED. The correct name, an abbreviation really, is Fed. It’s short for Federal Reserve Board, or FRB.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.