At what point will Bernanke give up? Or Paulson? Or get fired?

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like coming in to P & N and watch people play pin the tail on the donkey. Why do people insist on making order out of what is too complex for them to understand. Is somebody going to whip you if you don't know anything?

I know nothing. I hear the problem is trust. I hear that everyday normally huge sums are borrowed and lent short term between companies against future earnings for vitals and at a small percent and that no borrowing, blammo, companies start going under. No lending is a mater of trust, is what I'm told, so the government is stepping in to restore confidence and supply, short term, the money for those loans.

You get stung by a bee and your folks try to assure you it's going to be all right so you don't hide in your bedroom for the rest of your life. Confidence can be lost in a second but it never returns so easily as it is lost. The government is trying to fill in during the bedroom phase, it seems to me. And it seems if everybody takes their ball and goes home at the same moment, we're screwed, no?

And long term we're all dead.

So beyond warming the joints of your knuckles with that post, I'm not sure whether you agree or not.

 

[Thump553]

Paulson doesn't worry me a whole lot-I'm reasonably sure he means well at least, and he will be pounding the pavement in January if the Dems come in.

Bernanke probably woudl be a great professor, but he absolutely sucks at inspiring confidence. I lay at least half of this afternoon's substantial decline to the abysmal speech he gave in the early afternoon (summary of the speech-gee the economy sure looks like it's tanking, I was fighting inflation but now I'm not sure if that's the number one priority-maybe when the Fed meets at the end of the month we might possibly lower interest rates).

At least Greenspan sounded profound because he was so obscure.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: techs
It all goes back to Greenspan, who was supposedly "independent".
He signed on to the Bush economic plan. He said at the time that its up to the President to make economic policy. From that point on, Greenspan was Bushes lackey, and Bernanke was chosen because he subscribed to Greenspans philosophy.
Greenspan kept the fed rate incredibly low, and Bernanke continued that policy.
Free money for all.
That's why we need a new administration in Washington.

p.s. Bush fire someonone for incompetancy? Never happened.

Give me a break. Greenspan started as Chairman in 1987 and successfully led us through the stock market crash of 1987, the economic expansion of the 90's and minimized the recession of 92. He has his failings in that (IMO) allowed the Internet bubble which then moved to housing.

The housing debacle is the root cause of our current problem and that can be traced back to the CRA under Carter and subsequent expansion by Clinton - all well meaning, but coupled with additional regulatory requirements that forced banks to loan to what should have been unqualified borrowers - all in the name of getting poor people into owning their own homes.

Well, it has come back to bite us and those of us who are responsible will be bailing out the dirtbags who got us here, both Wall Street and those who bought homes they could never pay for.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: techs
It all goes back to Greenspan, who was supposedly "independent".
He signed on to the Bush economic plan. He said at the time that its up to the President to make economic policy. From that point on, Greenspan was Bushes lackey, and Bernanke was chosen because he subscribed to Greenspans philosophy.
Greenspan kept the fed rate incredibly low, and Bernanke continued that policy.
Free money for all.
That's why we need a new administration in Washington.

p.s. Bush fire someonone for incompetancy? Never happened.

Give me a break. Greenspan started as Chairman in 1987 and successfully led us through the stock market crash of 1987, the economic expansion of the 90's and minimized the recession of 92. He has his failings in that (IMO) allowed the Internet bubble which then moved to housing.

The housing debacle is the root cause of our current problem and that can be traced back to the CRA under Carter and subsequent expansion by Clinton - all well meaning, but coupled with additional regulatory requirements that forced banks to loan to what should have been unqualified borrowers - all in the name of getting poor people into owning their own homes.

Well, it has come back to bite us and those of us who are responsible will be bailing out the dirtbags who got us here, both Wall Street and those who bought homes they could never pay for.

Successfully led us through a recession? How, by lowering rates? A chimp could have done that. Well maybe not Bush, but a smart chimp could.

He also set us up for catastrophe. You can't keep lowering rates forever, now we're seeing why.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like coming in to P & N and watch people play pin the tail on the donkey. Why do people insist on making order out of what is too complex for them to understand. Is somebody going to whip you if you don't know anything?

I know nothing. I hear the problem is trust. I hear that everyday normally huge sums are borrowed and lent short term between companies against future earnings for vitals and at a small percent and that no borrowing, blammo, companies start going under. No lending is a mater of trust, is what I'm told, so the government is stepping in to restore confidence and supply, short term, the money for those loans.

You get stung by a bee and your folks try to assure you it's going to be all right so you don't hide in your bedroom for the rest of your life. Confidence can be lost in a second but it never returns so easily as it is lost. The government is trying to fill in during the bedroom phase, it seems to me. And it seems if everybody takes their ball and goes home at the same moment, we're screwed, no?

And long term we're all dead.

So beyond warming the joints of your knuckles with that post, I'm not sure whether you agree or not.

I said what I heard and think is relevant. I know nothing or even the meaning of what I hear. I don't have an opinion of any worth.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: techs
It all goes back to Greenspan, who was supposedly "independent".
He signed on to the Bush economic plan. He said at the time that its up to the President to make economic policy. From that point on, Greenspan was Bushes lackey, and Bernanke was chosen because he subscribed to Greenspans philosophy.
Greenspan kept the fed rate incredibly low, and Bernanke continued that policy.
Free money for all.
That's why we need a new administration in Washington.

p.s. Bush fire someonone for incompetancy? Never happened.

Give me a break. Greenspan started as Chairman in 1987 and successfully led us through the stock market crash of 1987, the economic expansion of the 90's and minimized the recession of 92. He has his failings in that (IMO) allowed the Internet bubble which then moved to housing.

The housing debacle is the root cause of our current problem and that can be traced back to the CRA under Carter and subsequent expansion by Clinton - all well meaning, but coupled with additional regulatory requirements that forced banks to loan to what should have been unqualified borrowers - all in the name of getting poor people into owning their own homes.

Well, it has come back to bite us and those of us who are responsible will be bailing out the dirtbags who got us here, both Wall Street and those who bought homes they could never pay for.

Try reading my post. Greenspan followed the Presidential leads. Unfortunately we now have a President moron, and that's why we have problems.
Does "deficits don't matter" ring a bell?