Qe 3??

[iamwhatiseem]

And here you have it friends.....

I could swear I read an article where in 80% was the danger zone and 100 above is seriously dangerous, Greece crossed the 100 mark 4 years ago, and they now stand at 138.........with another 6.7 trillion as it stands now scheduled to be added by 2020, where does that leave our %?

sometimes, sometimes, I think the left really does want to see anarchy here...a G-20 style anarchists romp fest thru downtown's across several states. ( Has it occurred to them that these will be the large urban democratic cities......?)

If you back out the "Trust Funds", it's closer to 70% of GDP.

yeah...and...your sayin' what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I could swear I read an article where in 80% was the danger zone and 100 above is seriously dangerous, Greece crossed the 100 mark 4 years ago, and they now stand at 138.........with another 6.7 trillion as it stands now scheduled to be added by 2020, where does that leave our %?

sometimes, sometimes, I think the left really does want to see anarchy here...a G-20 style anarchists romp fest thru downtown's across several states. ( Has it occurred to them that these will be the large urban democratic cities......?)

If you back out the "Trust Funds", it's closer to 70% of GDP.

yeah...and...your sayin' what?

They already spent the Social Security receipts, the Trust Fund does no good for recipients.
You heard Obama say he couldn't guarantee Soc Sec checks would go out.

 

[Toro]

Or ...

Maybe not.

That the system is so broken, it doesn’t matter how much liquidity the Fed creates because it won’t be able to get any further than the immediate banking community. And that’s because banks still can’t find enough credit worthy people to lend to. That the majority of loans still have a greater default risk than the banks are prepared to weather. That loans equal capital deterioration. And only loans to the most credit worthy people (of which there are not enough) are worthwhile.

If banks do indeed perceive that capital deterioration risk from lending is much greater than a self-imposed haircut on the most liquid and safe security, they’re prepared to take that haircut — especially in a world with no alternative — because it guarantees some sort of remaining capital preservation. The haircut, of course, is the negative interest rate.

If that is the case, the worse thing the Fed could do is more asset purchases. It would only take out more supply of quality collateral out of the market, heightening the pressure to take a self-imposed haircut just in order to get your hands on the security. A fact echoed by the number of above par bids at this week’s 30-year Treasury auction.

As we’ve already noted, Ben Bernanke discussed that the Great Depression was arguably catlaysed by a move towards voluntary capital destruction via a frenzied fight for the remaining quality collateral.

Back then, the Fed also deployed so-called quantitative easing to flood the system with liquidity. It only made the situation worse.

FT Alphaville » The Fed’s secret QE equivalent

 

[Brutus]

Ben Bernanke discussed that the Great Depression was arguably catlaysed by a move towards voluntary capital destruction via a frenzied fight for the remaining quality collateral.

what he said was the Fed caused the crisis by not stopping the bank runs. Thats why we had TARP

Back then, the Fed also deployed so-called quantitative easing to flood the system with liquidity. It only made the situation worse.

Quantatative easing is exactly what is necessary until interest rates are near 0 and while inflation stays low