Why Benny the B must not be reconfirmed

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
This guy has been wrong on everything and will go down as biggest crook in history. Bernie doesn't have shit in Benny when it comes to fraud and financial terrorism.

Snip from here: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1894-A-Message-To-Our-Senate-Defeat-Bernanke.html
And finally, he has argued for and fostered a ridiculously unsustainable spending binge by Congress which has destroyed The Federal Government's ability to effectively intervene when, not if, the next market crisis comes.

The facts are simple:

Bernanke intentionally allowed the growth of credit aggregates at rates of 50% to 100% faster than GDP over the last decade, a direct violation of the law governing The Federal Reserve and the underlying and necessary predicate for the bubble to occur. Bernanke was, in fact, the loudest Federal Reserve advocate of Greenspan's "easy money" policies after the 2000 Nasdaq market collapse.

Bernanke has willfully and intentionally ignored basic mathematical facts related to the growth in credit aggregates - specifically, that permitting credit aggregates to grow faster than GDP always must eventually, if maintained, lead to a massive credit bust. This is a function of basic mathematics - specifically, exponents. All the fancy "econometric models" in the world cannot violate the basic laws of mathematics.

Bernanke refused to regulate lending and securitization by the banks during the housing bubble despite the fact that the FBI issued a formal warning of massive fraud in 2004 and both HUD and Corelogic issued studies in 2005 and 2006 showing nine of ten borrowers in "ALT-A" loans had lied about their incomes. Without suckers to buy these worthless securities this irresponsible lending could not have taken place.

Bernanke's willful refusal to both conform with the law and regulate the banks fostered the environment in which they have and continue to asset-strip the citizens of this nation. Bluntly put the big banks are paying out 1% of GDP to a few thousand people not due to hard work, industry and innovation but rather due to rank exploitation and deliberate mispricing of risk with the costs of these outrageous and intentional acts shifted to the citizens of this nation.

Bernanke has intentionally concealed the terms and beneficiaries of bailouts and handouts despite multiple requests from Congress and The Press, has fought FOIA requests, has ignored Congress outright and just recently failed to fully comply, in the opinion of Representative Darrell Issa, with the Congressional subpoena issued by the committee on which he sits.

Bernanke has in fact been dead wrong on virtually every pronouncement he has made over the last ten years on economic matters, including claims that there was no housing bubble as late as 2006, that subprime was contained, that we would not experience a recession, that his policy prescriptions would stabilize the economy and job market and that if EESA/TARP was passed the stock market would not collapse. Each and every one of those claims was in fact wrong. A weatherman would be fired for a predictive record far better than Bernanke's.

Bernanke claimed, in sworn testimony, that he would not monetize the debt. While he was speaking - almost literally to the hour - The Federal Reserve was in fact monetizing $300 billion in Treasury debt and $1.2 trillion in Fannie and Freddie Securities - securities we now know are stuffed full of fraudulent mortgages that Fannie and Freddie bought during the bubble years.

Bernanke has refused to accept responsibility for his policies. He gave a major speech in January in which he defended not only his record but also the willful and intentional misapplication of his favored policy "pointer", known as The Taylor Rule. The author of that rule, a highly-respected academic professor, responded with a scathing (in academic terms) reply pointing out that "as written" Bernanke and Greenspan had held interest rates far too low for too long and thus fueled the speculative frenzy that led to this collapse.

Bernanke claims to have a plan to exit his "extraordinary measures" but has refused to explain that plan. This is likely because he has not supported the mortgage-backed security market, he is, in fact, the market, having now bought literally more than the entire net issuance in 2009! The reason Bernanke has not explained his exit strategy is simple: he doesn't have one.

Bernanke has willfully and intentionally ignored obvious and clear indications of front-running in the bond market while he has been running his "quantitative easing." There have been inexplicable pricing moves in the Treasury Market in the very specific issues that were then bought by The Fed just hours or days later. While there is no "smoking gun" proving that The Fed has communicated to certain market participants what would be bought, and then intentionally overpaid for those very same securities, it is impossible to look at this market's performance in an objective, statistical fashion over the last year and not reach the inescapable conclusion that someone, or a handful of someones, have been cheating.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Focusing on the ticker for economic health is like focusing on an EKG to treat a patient with Pancreatic Cancer.

That has been their status quo operating procedure though. Ben to Congress "Give us a trillion bucks or we detonate the economy/market/credit/etc..". The problem is Congress has dug itself into a nice hole. Ben allows them to keep on spending like mad and is the reason we have been able to float these insane bond auctions at the rates they are going for. Guess what, we have a shitton more record bond auctions to hold over the next few years so do you really think Congress or the Admin is going to take a risk that the next guy won't support their massive bond sales which would immediately tack on 100's of billions to our national budget and seriously limit their ability to borrow and spend cheap money?

Can someone tell me whose bright idea it was to move almost all of our debt to the short end of the curve? Short as in almost all of our bonds (money we actually owe) will have to be turned over, (we have to basically resell all of those bonds PLUS any new borrowing) in the next 4 years? Sure it saved us a few bucks over a few years but its like getting an adjustable rate mortgage on a house you can't afford when the rates are near record lows, eventually the rates are gonna go up and you are royally fucked.

Not to worry though, with the dollar holding its value there will be a flood of people/nations wanting to purchase all of those bonds or roll the current short term bonds into new long term bonds, right?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
That has been their status quo operating procedure though. Ben to Congress "Give us a trillion bucks or we detonate the economy/market/credit/etc..". The problem is Congress has dug itself into a nice hole. Ben allows them to keep on spending like mad and is the reason we have been able to float these insane bond auctions at the rates they are going for. Guess what, we have a shitton more record bond auctions to hold over the next few years so do you really think Congress or the Admin is going to take a risk that the next guy won't support their massive bond sales which would immediately tack on 100's of billions to our national budget and seriously limit their ability to borrow and spend cheap money?

Can someone tell me whose bright idea it was to move almost all of our debt to the short end of the curve? Short as in almost all of our bonds (money we actually owe) will have to be turned over, (we have to basically resell all of those bonds PLUS any new borrowing) in the next 4 years? Sure it saved us a few bucks over a few years but its like getting an adjustable rate mortgage on a house you can't afford when the rates are near record lows, eventually the rates are gonna go up and you are royally fucked.

Not to worry though, with the dollar holding its value there will be a flood of people/nations wanting to purchase all of those bonds or roll the current short term bonds into new long term bonds, right?

You think short terms were by choice? No one in their right mind would buy a 30+ year t-bill with USA at the precipice of collapse and/or FED simply monetizes payments to bond holders zeroing out any profit due to subsequent inflation. Much better to wait until USA is paying 50% instead of 4%, no? Mr. Denninger covers the auctions all the time and everyone only wants short term.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You think short terms were by choice? No one in their right mind would buy a 30+ year t-bill with USA at the precipice of collapse and/or FED simply monetizes payments to bond holders zeroing out any profit due to subsequent inflation. Much better to wait until USA is paying 50% instead of 4%, no? Mr. Denninger covers the auctions all the time and everyone only wants short term.

NOW they do but we moved a ton of debt to the short end well before the flight out of long term debt because the rates where extremely low and it made our balance sheet look a bit better for a few years.

Now we are, as I said, royally fucked because we can't move the debt back to the long end at these rates which means we have to continue to sell an insane amount of bonds and hope like hell the rates stay low forever and the apatite (as well as the actual money being available to lend) continues to grow while we do stuff that devalues that investment. Brilliant!
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
I hope you're being facetious. Ron Paul makes a great representative, and I think would be a good president, but I don't want him running the Fed.

Ron Paul's idea of "running" the Fed wouldn't fit many people's definitions of it.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
RP's views on monetary policy would send us back centuries.

Well, the case could be made that centuries ago, dollars were worth a lot more than they are now (and going UP in value, not down).

It wouldn't kill us to have higher interest rates.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Well, the case could be made that centuries ago, dollars were worth a lot more than they are now (and going UP in value, not down).

It wouldn't kill us to have higher interest rates.

I certainly don't agree with loose monetary policy but going back to the gold standard like RP wants is something a retarded person wouldn't even do.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
so what you're saying is he should be up for prosecution instead of reconfirmation?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,592
6,715
126
Well, the case could be made that centuries ago, dollars were worth a lot more than they are now (and going UP in value, not down).

It wouldn't kill us to have higher interest rates.

Like what?