Posted on 01/22/2008 7:21:02 AM PST by jdm
That’s what Reagan and Volcker did in 1981-82. Reagan was willing to take the heat for nearly 10% unemployment and lose 50 seats in the House in 1982 to get the economic house in order. Too bad Bush does not have the stones to do the same thing — and he isn’t even running this year!
Time to buy low—to sell HIGH, series
I dunno how true that is...you could be a saver and have your cash in equity markets and be happy about anything that could stall the panic setting in...
There should be a media blackout...it’s the news services that are driving it...
With this congress repub or dem, ha dont make me laugh
Amen, Amen, Amen. Rewarding borrowers rather than savers is no way to run a successful economy.
“Amen, Amen, Amen. Rewarding borrowers rather than savers is no way to run a successful economy.”.....giving out home loans like candy comes to mind.
“The war on savers and the responsible continues..”
Amen, Amen, Amen. Rewarding borrowers rather than savers is no way to run a successful economy.
That’s because there are more borrowers than savers, (i.e.) the responsible are becoming a minority.
Gotta admit that we are seeing some awesome PPT action this morning, not that the PPT is anything other than a figment of the imagination of some conspiracy theorists.
Pumping air into a popped tire.
You didn't read your doublespeak lessons. For the last 20 years debt is good and saving is bad. Only a fool didn't mortgage himself to the hilt to buy a house, live off the equity and pyramid his debt into a real estate empire. Donal Trump is our national hero.
Savings? Greenspan showed you don't need no stinkin' savings. The banks need money, well, he just sent them over a note saying he put some extra ones and zeros in their reserve account and off they are lending it out for more real estate boondoggles.
We don't have savers because the guys who run the financial system don't want savings. In order to have savings you have to pay people a few percent above inflation. It is a lot cheaper when the federal reserve generates enough credit to keep interest rates below the rate of inflation. The financial system wants debts. You make money off of debts, both a fee for handing it out, another fee for selling it and another fee for managing it. Debt is an asset, savings is a liability.
You gotta admire it. It is one helluva pump.
Looks like they threw another $10B to Wall Street today.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/omo/dmm/temp.cfm?SHOWMORE=TRUE
it’s the news services that are driving it.
Yep, and the rich will need even bigger tax cuts. News services need to call to outlaw double digit tax rates.
If they lose some of it running up the market do they have to pay it back, or is it written off like a blowed up tank in the great patriotic war on financial negativism?
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
~~Ludwig von Mises
Much as I hate to admit it, Volcker was a Carter appointment and a wise one at that. Volcker also may have lost Carter the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.