eery time the government - and those who hold the power of government - give with one hand, they take with the other - EVERYTIME
the real question is (a) to what end, and (b) does achieving that end EQUIRE the government action
again the answer to (B) is nearly always NO, no matter benevolent ends the goverment says it’s action is intended to produce
it is not a question of whether or not the economy will recover; it will
but whether or not it is more helpful to recover on a political schedule - which is what the use of government power is actually for - or more helpful to recover without government intervention
history shows that recoveries engineered by government fiat are less stable, produce volatile markets, and take more agressive action for the government forces of stimulus to retreat, and actually counteract their stimulus, which eventully they must; they actual draw out the lenght of time natural recovery takes
when the government does not intervene, the “bottoms” are reached sooner, the market value adjustments - across the board - are reached sooner, stability returns sooner, and when the economny does return to growth that growth is more stable
the Fed, like an Obama-type presidency is another version of Americans believing in a “Wizard of Oz”, and both hide behind the curtain of public ignorance created by the media
> Among the biggest concerns about Fed action is the idea
> that low rates “screw savers.”
“Yep, that’s what we’re doing all right,” said Bernanke, “we intend to really stick it to people who have saved money, especially those on fixed income and retirement. They are just leeches, parasites, on our economy anyway.”
“Anyone foolish enough to have money in banks that we control, instead of in a safe at home, are obviously suckers who need to be taken for every penny. So screw ‘em”, he concluded.