Thursday morning in the Washington Post. In it, Bernanke suggested that QE2 would help the economy essentially by propping up the stock market, corporate bonds, and other types of risky securities, resulting in a "virtuous circle" of economic activity. Conspicuously absent was any suggestion that the banking system was even an object of the Fed's policy at all. The problem isn't only that the Fed... [more]
Thursday morning in the Washington Post. In it, Bernanke suggested that QE2 would help the economy essentially by propping up the stock market, corporate bonds, and other types of risky securities, resulting in a "virtuous circle" of economic activity. Conspicuously absent was any suggestion that the banking system was even an object of the Fed's policy at all.
The problem isn't only that the Fed is treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Rather, by irresponsibly promoting reckless speculation, misallocation of capital, moral hazard (careless lending without repercussions), and illusory "wealth effects," the Fed has become the disease.
Alan Greenspan contributed to the late-1990's market bubble by his embrace of the notion that 100 million lemmings leaping off of a cliff into the ocean can't be wrong. Beyond a single bit of rhetorical lip service to the effect of "how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values," Greenspan aggressively accommodated that bubble. Once it crashed, the Fed sat on short-term interest rates in a way that directly contributed to the housing bubble.
http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc101108.htm[less]
Response by stevejhx
over 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
RS - why don't you just get your own blogsite, where you can post whatever drivel you want?
You obviously know nothing about finance (MBS hedges - HAHAHAHA!), nothing about banking (money is made in stars, banks don't create money - HAHAHAHA!), and nothing about economics (inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon - HAHAHAHA!), yet you drone on.
I think there might be some adult learning courses you can take at the Bronx Community College that might straighten you out, learn you a thing or two.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LICComment
over 15 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
Interesting comments from steve, the man who thinks you report income paid in 2011 on your 2010 tax returns, and who thinks mutual funds are derivatives.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
over 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
special olympics, I tell you, special olympics
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by stevejhx
over 15 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Ignorance, LICC, seems to have gotten you to, well, Long Island City....
Any dividend or bonus declared in one year is taxable in that year even if not paid until the following year. Sorry!
And under the broadest definition of "derivative," mutual funds are, in fact, derivative instruments.
HAHAHAHA!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by urnfna
over 15 years ago
Posts: 174
Member since: Jul 2008
Si now we have to "broaden the definition" of derivatives. No, mutual funds are not derivatives.
Income and dividends are taxable to the recipient when received by the recipient.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Apt_Boy
over 15 years ago
Posts: 675
Member since: Apr 2008
Stevie, you got to stop with the "bonus declared in one year is taxable in that year even if not paid until the following year"
It just makes everything you say suspect
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by rb345
over 15 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
Riversider:
You're obviously a very well-educated and thoughtful person. What line of
work are you in?
RS - why don't you just get your own blogsite, where you can post whatever drivel you want?
You obviously know nothing about finance (MBS hedges - HAHAHAHA!), nothing about banking (money is made in stars, banks don't create money - HAHAHAHA!), and nothing about economics (inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon - HAHAHAHA!), yet you drone on.
I think there might be some adult learning courses you can take at the Bronx Community College that might straighten you out, learn you a thing or two.
Interesting comments from steve, the man who thinks you report income paid in 2011 on your 2010 tax returns, and who thinks mutual funds are derivatives.
special olympics, I tell you, special olympics
Ignorance, LICC, seems to have gotten you to, well, Long Island City....
Any dividend or bonus declared in one year is taxable in that year even if not paid until the following year. Sorry!
And under the broadest definition of "derivative," mutual funds are, in fact, derivative instruments.
HAHAHAHA!
Si now we have to "broaden the definition" of derivatives. No, mutual funds are not derivatives.
Income and dividends are taxable to the recipient when received by the recipient.
Stevie, you got to stop with the "bonus declared in one year is taxable in that year even if not paid until the following year"
It just makes everything you say suspect
Riversider:
You're obviously a very well-educated and thoughtful person. What line of
work are you in?