And the Nobel in Economics Goes To.....

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Use those billions ( trillions really if we consider QE) to form new small banks.

dear, the billions were paid back so it cost nothing. You want to raise taxes to form new banking industry after you have caused huge world wide depression??
100% radical, stupid, and indicitive of your liberal IQ..

 

[CultureCitizen]

100% stupid and liberal as always. It would cause instant worldwide depression!!

No , not really . You wouldn't have a liquidity problem because, as I said, the 800 B would have been used to create new banks.

Use those billions ( trillions really if we consider QE) to form new small banks.

dear, the billions were paid back so it cost nothing. You want to raise taxes to form new banking industry after you have caused huge world wide depression??
100% radical, stupid, and indicitive of your liberal IQ..

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

100% stupid and liberal as always. It would cause instant worldwide depression!!

No , not really . You wouldn't have a liquidity problem because, as I said, the 800 B would have been used to create new banks.

Use those billions ( trillions really if we consider QE) to form new small banks.

dear, the billions were paid back so it cost nothing. You want to raise taxes to form new banking industry after you have caused huge world wide depression??
100% radical, stupid, and indicitive of your liberal IQ..

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

No , not really .

Yes, really.

You wouldn't have a liquidity problem because....

Because, you have no clue.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Really, next time you go to the store to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk try paying with bonds.

reserves.......cash
Not bonds.

OK, try reserves instead then. Either way I think you'd come home empty handed.

My debit card and checkbook both involve reserves.
Mmmmm....toast and milk.

One could also use the same logic with dollar bills. Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Hmmm... still hungry and thirsty

Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Bank reserves, not personal reserves.

A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position.

Controversy arises because those assets—including the MBS frequently referred to as “toxic” assets—have not simply disappeared. As seen on Chart 1, these assets are now on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Put differently, the Fed now holds trillions of dollars in debt of two insolvent companies as well as the same securities that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

great, and if they didn't pay it back in the middle of a worldwide depression?? We could have soviet bureaucrats running our financial industry forever!! Slow???

 

[oldernwiser]

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

great, and if they didn't pay it back in the middle of a worldwide depression?? We could have soviet bureaucrats running gour financial industry forever!! Slow???

Dearest Ed.... Do you never read what you type before you hit the "Post Reply" button? If we were in the middle of a worldwide depression, how would even the always clever and mighty Soviets have the means to take over our financial industry? And if they could - again, in the middle of a worldwide depression - why would you ever want to stop them?

I see you have become far more amusing over time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

reserves.......cash
Not bonds.

OK, try reserves instead then. Either way I think you'd come home empty handed.

My debit card and checkbook both involve reserves.
Mmmmm....toast and milk.

One could also use the same logic with dollar bills. Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Hmmm... still hungry and thirsty

Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Bank reserves, not personal reserves.

A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position.

Controversy arises because those assets—including the MBS frequently referred to as “toxic” assets—have not simply disappeared. As seen on Chart 1, these assets are now on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Put differently, the Fed now holds trillions of dollars in debt of two insolvent companies as well as the same securities that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—

Nope. Those securities were already guaranteed by the US Treasury, before the Fed bought them. That means they were the safest securities.

Controversy arises because those assets—including the MBS frequently referred to as “toxic” assets—have not simply disappeared.

Frequently and incorrectly referred to as toxic assets.

Put differently, the Fed now holds trillions of dollars in debt of two insolvent companies

They haven't been insolvent for quite some time now.
They've been returning tens of billions in profit to the US Treasury.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

great, and if they didn't pay it back in the middle of a worldwide depression?? We could have soviet bureaucrats running gour financial industry forever!! Slow???

Dearest Ed.... Do you never read what you type before you hit the "Post Reply" button? If we were in the middle of a worldwide depression, how would even the always clever and mighty Soviets have the means to take over our financial industry? And if they could - again, in the middle of a worldwide depression - why would you ever want to stop them?

I see you have become far more amusing over time.

dear, Culturefreak wanted to let our banks go bankrupt, cause a worldwide depression, then have the govt start a new banking industry managed by exsoviet bureaucrats. Catching on now??

 

[oldernwiser]

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

great, and if they didn't pay it back in the middle of a worldwide depression?? We could have soviet bureaucrats running gour financial industry forever!! Slow???

Dearest Ed.... Do you never read what you type before you hit the "Post Reply" button? If we were in the middle of a worldwide depression, how would even the always clever and mighty Soviets have the means to take over our financial industry? And if they could - again, in the middle of a worldwide depression - why would you ever want to stop them?

I see you have become far more amusing over time.

dear, Culturefreak wanted to let our banks go bankrupt, cause a worldwide depression, then have the govt start a new banking industry managed by exsoviet bureaucrats. Catching on now??

But sweetest Ed, I understand your mortification at the idea but you still haven't explained how even ex-Soviet bureaucrats could have the means to take over the financial industry - especially in the middle of a worldwide depression. You can admit you were being silly. I think it's safe to say that was assumed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

OK, try reserves instead then. Either way I think you'd come home empty handed.

My debit card and checkbook both involve reserves.
Mmmmm....toast and milk.

One could also use the same logic with dollar bills. Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Hmmm... still hungry and thirsty

Personal "reserves" isn't quite the same thing.

Bank reserves, not personal reserves.

A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—from commercial banks’ balance sheets. This fact has led some to argue that the Fed designed the QE programs as a way to bail out banks, not merely as a new form of expansionary monetary policy.[10] Regardless of the true intent, the QE programs have been so controversial because they effectively exchanged cash—created out of thin air—for bank assets that had dramatically declined in value. From the perspective of banks, the QEs could be judged a success because the purchases strengthened their financial position.

Controversy arises because those assets—including the MBS frequently referred to as “toxic” assets—have not simply disappeared. As seen on Chart 1, these assets are now on the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Put differently, the Fed now holds trillions of dollars in debt of two insolvent companies as well as the same securities that led to the 2008 financial crisis.

A large portion of these QE purchases, however, removed some of the riskiest assets—Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt and MBS—

Nope. Those securities were already guaranteed by the US Treasury, before the Fed bought them. That means they were the safest securities.

Controversy arises because those assets—including the MBS frequently referred to as “toxic” assets—have not simply disappeared.

Frequently and incorrectly referred to as toxic assets.

Put differently, the Fed now holds trillions of dollars in debt of two insolvent companies

They haven't been insolvent for quite some time now.
They've been returning tens of billions in profit to the US Treasury.

Technically the banks would be owned by SOE ( just as citibank was) until the banks paid back the equity.
No big deal there.

great, and if they didn't pay it back in the middle of a worldwide depression?? We could have soviet bureaucrats running gour financial industry forever!! Slow???

Dearest Ed.... Do you never read what you type before you hit the "Post Reply" button? If we were in the middle of a worldwide depression, how would even the always clever and mighty Soviets have the means to take over our financial industry? And if they could - again, in the middle of a worldwide depression - why would you ever want to stop them?

I see you have become far more amusing over time.

dear, Culturefreak wanted to let our banks go bankrupt, cause a worldwide depression, then have the govt start a new banking industry managed by exsoviet bureaucrats. Catching on now??

But sweetest Ed, I understand your mortification at the idea but you still haven't explained how even ex-Soviet bureaucrats could have the means to take over the financial industry - especially in the middle of a worldwide depression. You can admit you were being silly. I think it's safe to say that was assumed.

dear, Culturefreak wanted to let our banks go bankrupt, cause a worldwide depression, then have the govt start a new banking industry managed by soviet libturd bureaucrats. Catching on now?

 

[bripat9643]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Maybe... maybe not.

 

[bripat9643]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Maybe... maybe not.

Paul Krugman is a moron.

 

[Pksimon2007]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Maybe... maybe not.

Paul Krugman is a moron.

- None of these people are stupid, even if one disagrees with them.

I do think these two are woefully bad speakers.

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Maybe... maybe not.

Paul Krugman is a moron.

I'm sure that hurt his feelings. A lot. Try all caps next time - I know he hates that too.

 

[oldernwiser]

"uh, so what's happening with the US economy? Er, that would take a lot of research to know, and we haven't done any actual research. We're just here for the swag bag."

So they get the prize for their work on how to measure the economy, and fail to answer the question of what's wrong with it. That wasn't a stupid response, in context that was just a stupid question. Everyone knows that if you really want to know what's wrong with the economy you just ask Paul Krugman.

I'm hoping that's sarcasm.

Maybe... maybe not.

Paul Krugman is a moron.

- None of these people are stupid, even if one disagrees with them.

I do think these two are woefully bad speakers.

I still think it was just an amazingly stupid question to ask. Like asking the guy who changes your tires what he thinks might be wrong with your engine.

 

[Mac1958]

Economists have value if and when they stay in their professional lane.

Once they become a "pundit", they become absolutely worthless, because they have to play to the crowd.

Worse than worthless, actually, they become dangerous.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once they become a "pundit",

an economist must use his knowledge to determine if he is communist or capitalist so is naturally a pundit.