Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fed considered emergency measures to save economy
FT.com ^ | March 24 2002 | Peronet Despeignes

Posted on 03/26/2002 6:36:59 PM PST by sell_propaganda

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
[T]he Fed "could theoretically buy anything to pump money into the system" including "state and local debt, real estate and gold mines - any asset". Hmmm.
1 posted on 03/26/2002 6:36:59 PM PST by sell_propaganda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
This should really scare the bejesus out of all of us. There was something vastley deeper than a little old recession going on or the feds would never have even considered such extreme measures.
2 posted on 03/26/2002 6:57:38 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
So, does Financial Times have a different set of minutes than your link?
3 posted on 03/26/2002 7:10:24 PM PST by DeaconBenjamin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
There was something vastley deeper than a little old recession going on or the feds would never have even considered such extreme measures.

Was? The nuclear threat from Al Qaeda or the Axis of Evil is quite sufficient. As I have said before: one nuclear weapon goes off anywhere in the world for any reason, and we will have a major market meltdown.

4 posted on 03/26/2002 7:19:51 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin
they have an "official, who asked not to be named"
the minutes are here, it's one tiny paragraph:

At this meeting, members discussed staff background analyses of the implications for the conduct of policy if the economy were to deteriorate substantially in a period when nominal short-term interest rates were already at very low levels. Under such conditions, while unconventional policy measures might be available, their efficacy was uncertain, and it might be impossible to ease monetary policy sufficiently through the usual interest rate process to achieve System objectives. The members agreed that the potential for such an economic and policy scenario seemed highly remote, but it could not be dismissed altogether. If in the future such circumstances appeared to be in the process of materializing, a case could be made at that point for taking preemptive easing actions to help guard against the potential development of economic weakness and price declines that could be associated with the so-called "zero bound" policy constraint.

5 posted on 03/26/2002 7:30:40 PM PST by sell_propaganda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
This is called the excahnge stabilization fund, and was a slush fund (basically) used by Rubin as well. If you can search the FR archives you should see this pop up.

Rubin illegally used the ESF to bail out his buddies at Goldman Sachs when Mexico went down the toilet in 1994 (I think).

The report was that S&P 500 contracts were bought at more than market rates to signal to the market that they should not bet on the market going down. No one in his right mind of course would pay more than market price for S&P 500 futures, so the behavior is suspicious, and the amount of financial leverage brought to bear on the market indicated the govt or someone else with huge amounts of capital.

Heaven forbid they should consider say, backing the US dollar with gold. That would be too logical.

6 posted on 03/26/2002 7:44:30 PM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
I totally support this direction by the government. Their primary responsibility is to ensure our economic status within and without our borders.

I have no concerns that anytime that the Federal Reserve Notes (not money but debt) begin to loose value, they can inflate the value of the debt by buying up and gaining more and more control over private and public enterprises.

On a side note, I am now selling some beach front property on the SUN!
7 posted on 03/26/2002 8:07:24 PM PST by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Blood of Tyrants
Can anybody tell me why we Americans borrow money from the Fed to cover our debt and deficits....and then pay interest to the tune of hundreds of billions of $ per year? Wouldn't that money be better left in the pockets of Americans? Didn't the founding Fathers design our system so that the government handled the creation of money? Why are we paying obscene interest to private bankers? It doesn't make any sense. Please...somebody explain this to me!
9 posted on 03/26/2002 9:43:14 PM PST by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hove
Actually, Congress was granted the power to coin money, not to create it. There's a subtle, yet important difference between the two.

The 535 chuckleheads in Congress could declare tomorrow that the leaves of deciduous trees were 'legal tender for all debts, public and private' if they decided to. One could make the argument that they already have come to think of it.

L

10 posted on 03/26/2002 9:52:24 PM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"One could make the argument that they already have come to think of it."

Thank you for my last smile of the day.

Your British class Understatement had me chuckling.

11 posted on 03/26/2002 10:06:16 PM PST by d4now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: d4now
I'll take your last comment to me as a compliment.

Good night.

L

12 posted on 03/26/2002 10:12:08 PM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
"Actually, Congress was granted the power to coin money, not to create it. There's a subtle, yet important difference between the two."

Thanx for the response. So maybe my complaint is with Congress for spending more money than they generate in revenues....requiring the loans from the bankers...which result in wasted money on interest payments. And to add insult to injury, they let that debt ride which means we are paying interest on interest. Like someone who is incapable of managing their credit cards. I just can't believe that Americans are fine with that absolute waste of 100's of billions of $ on interest every year! This is a crime!!!

13 posted on 03/26/2002 10:42:32 PM PST by hove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
My dentist is raising prices. Saw him just today. I don't get it.

Is the medical sector immune to recession so far? It seems the party is still going on for them.

14 posted on 03/26/2002 10:47:54 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
They could buy my tax bills.....
15 posted on 03/27/2002 1:35:51 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hove
the followig is from a newsletter:

The trade deficit is running roughly at $400 billion per year. That means that foreign investors must buy $400 billion of our "stuff" to keep the current account balance all square. Morgan Stanley estimates that the US trade deficit will grow to over $600 billion in 2003, less than one year from now. Will foreigners want $600 billion of US stocks and bonds and real estate and companies? There are serious warning signs they will not.

In the period 1990-95 average annual European dollar flows from mergers and acquisitions (M&A) was only $10 billion. In 2000, Europeans invested over $600 billion in the US. Taking away US investments in Europe it was a net $214 BILLION to the advantage of the US. If I have the calculations right, that alone financed half of the trade deficit. Further, you are beginning to see investor flows to international stocks, many of which are more reasonably valued. The huge flow of net dollars into the US stock market seems to be the weakest link.

A $600 billion current account would require about $2B per day to finance. A lower dollar would be good for the debt since it could be paid off in cheaper dollars, but it could cause interest rates to rise. The price of foreign goods would increase helping our exporters. Right now the world economy appears to be entirely dependent on the American consumer and his credit card. What's curious is that the unnamed source in the article should mention gold mines since they would be the last asset in need of liquification and owners of gold mining shares would be furious and the gold conspiracy theory would be furthered. This could be the decade of real assets (as opposed to paper assets).

16 posted on 03/27/2002 4:34:28 AM PST by sell_propaganda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Recession? What recession? Health care is generally considered recession-resistant, as are food and tobacco. The only recession appears to have been in corporate profits. Actually it seems largely isolated in the bust of the debt-fueled over-investment in technology. Of course the rest of the economy has been driven by the debt-fueled consumer and that bust may yet come (although the tv talking heads are all saying recovery is a foregone conclusion). If you susbscribe to the Austrian school of economics, busts are natural and necessary to correct the excesses of the previous boom. Some would argue that the Fed has been too successful in attentuating the downturn and many of the excesses remain, including marginal companies that will continue to pressure corporate profits and growth (although I think 2001 was a record year for bankruptcies).
17 posted on 03/27/2002 4:49:39 AM PST by sell_propaganda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
One could make the argument that they already have come to think of it.

Well, they are pretty much the same color(in season) which is close enough for government work.

---max

18 posted on 03/27/2002 4:58:17 AM PST by max61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sell_propaganda
Some would argue that the Fed has been too successful in attentuating the downturn and many of the excesses remain, including marginal companies that will continue to pressure corporate profits and growth (although I think 2001 was a record year for bankruptcies).

That sounds an awful lot like the quasi Social Darwinistic attitude that fueled the beginning of the Great Depression.

The factor that will continue to pressure the economy is the demand management policies of the Bush Administration and Alan Greenspan. Considering that we are in a deflationary environment, your theory that economic under performance is being caused by marginal companies doesn't make any sense.

19 posted on 03/27/2002 5:13:19 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
My dentist is raising prices. Saw him just today. I don't get it. Is the medical sector immune to recession so far? It seems the party is still going on for them.

I don't know how it is for dentists, but liability insurance for obstetricians in my area has gone up about 600% in the past year.

20 posted on 03/27/2002 5:18:54 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson