Why, when the financial sector was in a liquidity crisis, did BB withdraw 125b of liquidity? That is to say, why did he deliberately cause banks to fail and the crisis to get worse?
I'll tell you. His owners rightly assumed that they could take down the competition (Bear, LB) via naked-shorting and emerge with trillions in bailouts stronger. Benny just helped them along by giving the market a little 125b push.
Ok, this is all above the head of most (business journalist) peasants. So we get Time (the mag of record for falsely empowered proletariat across America) declaring Benny as the person of the year.
The Federal Reserve's mandiate is to:
1) protect the value of the currency 2) faciliate full employment
The currency is down 98%+ since 1914. Unemployment is at 18% (U6). Benny the person of the year. Yeah. Obama receives a peace prize. Historians are going to laugh at us.
We will suffer for this. We deserve it. Then, the banksters will suffer. And I'll smile.
A huge amount has been written, mostly on the blogs, along the lines by Svend. What is becoming clear is that while it may be possible to use all available fiscal and monetary tools, including manipulating capital markets, and avert a Depression, it is not possible to revive an economy that makes very little of value. The absence of job creation in this economy is not just on account of dwindling demand, after a financial market collapse, but more to the point of having evacuated our manufacturing capacity and supply chains to low cost labor nations. So we can bump along for a while-- who knows how long, we've never been here, exactly, before-- at the end of the day we will continue needing massive stimulus inputs to keep up with the Joneses. Or Changs, as the case may be. Who will fund those deficits, though, when the Changs decide it is more in their interest to invest in their own economies than to use poor Americans and their weak dollar as hosts?
3 comments:
We're doomed. We deserve it.
I'll go further.
Why, when the financial sector was in a liquidity crisis, did BB withdraw 125b of liquidity? That is to say, why did he deliberately cause banks to fail and the crisis to get worse?
I'll tell you. His owners rightly assumed that they could take down the competition (Bear, LB) via naked-shorting and emerge with trillions in bailouts stronger. Benny just helped them along by giving the market a little 125b push.
Ok, this is all above the head of most (business journalist) peasants. So we get Time (the mag of record for falsely empowered proletariat across America) declaring Benny as the person of the year.
The Federal Reserve's mandiate is to:
1) protect the value of the currency
2) faciliate full employment
The currency is down 98%+ since 1914. Unemployment is at 18% (U6). Benny the person of the year. Yeah. Obama receives a peace prize. Historians are going to laugh at us.
We will suffer for this. We deserve it. Then, the banksters will suffer. And I'll smile.
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1108-Congress-MUST-EXCISE-The-Bernanke-CANCER.html
A huge amount has been written, mostly on the blogs, along the lines by Svend. What is becoming clear is that while it may be possible to use all available fiscal and monetary tools, including manipulating capital markets, and avert a Depression, it is not possible to revive an economy that makes very little of value. The absence of job creation in this economy is not just on account of dwindling demand, after a financial market collapse, but more to the point of having evacuated our manufacturing capacity and supply chains to low cost labor nations. So we can bump along for a while-- who knows how long, we've never been here, exactly, before-- at the end of the day we will continue needing massive stimulus inputs to keep up with the Joneses. Or Changs, as the case may be. Who will fund those deficits, though, when the Changs decide it is more in their interest to invest in their own economies than to use poor Americans and their weak dollar as hosts?
Post a Comment