Huh? Yet again, what does the Fed have to do with any of this? The US Treasury issues debt and the US govt will be providing the funds to the IMF. What printing/monetization are you talking about? I am obviously referring to the subject of the article that the OP quoted. The article mentions $1.3trn of outright UST/agency debt/agency MBS purchases. The fact that these purchases involved creation of new bank reserves had been known for more than a year. If it is monetization, how is it not the same? GSEs are explicitly guaranteed by the US Treasury, no matter what Barney Frank says. Moreover, the Fed did purchase $300bn UST, along with a $1.25trn agency MBS and $200bn of agency debt.
Martinghoul let me ask you a legit question. Why are you such a loser ? You keep defending The FED and status quo in a way that only A PAID SHILL WOULD DO It bothers you that 80% + of people are starting to realize who and what FED is. You are fighting a tide you can't win Mr Shill.
This will be my last response to you, HiF trader, since I see no point in conversing with fools. As far as I am concerned, being a shill or any other fate is far, far better than being an ignorant, uninformed, puerile simpleton lacking all critical faculties and without a single original thought inside his/her impenetrable skull. So you see, HiF trader, you actually are a cause of much rejoicing to me. In the spirit of "There but for the grace of God go I..."
the Fed is acting the same way that central banks act in 3rd world countries . they are nothing but inflation engines acting on the behest of the central government..
by buying FED propaganda you are the biggest fool around and on ET that says a lot, considering number of fools you are the biggest fool
""Martinghoul Registered: Jan 2009 Posts: 2002 05-01-10 08:08 AM I believe that the Euro is a noble idea and I honestly hope that the European community figures out a way to deal with the crisis. To be fair, the issues and problems the crisis had exposed are extremely challenging." http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2823580&highlight=euro+noble#post2823580 http://snipurl.com/vyl6p" it is obvious what he is. no need to call him names.
Isn't it obvious?! Clearly there must be SOMETHING wrong with you if you don't want to outright abolish the Fed! LOL
As you probably already know, it's entirely pointless to discuss the Fed, monetary policy, fractional reserve banking, etc with the "anti-fed" crowd. For some reason, there is a segment of the public that has chosen the Fed as the boogeyman and the cause of all the ills in the world. They will accuse you of spewing propaganda, when in turn they just spout all of the rhetoric that they get from shadowstats, coast to coast am, glenn beck, etc.
Not entirely pointless. It's human nature to blame someone other than one's self. Scapegoating. Federal Reserve's original mandate was 1. Stable prices. 2. Full employment. To more or less buffer the booms and busts. 1907 and 1873 come to mind. Have "they" succeeded? I use the Hershey bar as an example. For roughly 40 years it remained a nickel (albeit the size changed on occasion). In 1969, it went to a dime. What's "it" today? Depict it graphically. Full employment is deemed to be 5%. What's the rate today? Officially acknowledged at what just under 10%? What's the genuine proportion unemployed? Under-employed? More importantly, will the jobs "return"? Blame it on the Fed? Naw, A combination of out-sourcing, technology replacing the human element and our schools minting gradutates with little job skills. Would you hire them? Then again, credit expansion, in effect shifting time forward and prompting spending played a role. Guess WHO is the root? All in all, transitions from agraian to industrial to service/information economies. Can't outsource a hair cut, but how much will one pay for a haircut? Multiplier effect of Fed open market operations buying Treasuries, from banks who maintain a reserve (sub-standard, doubtful, loss) and lend the rest can work in reverse. Loan demand is down. McChesney and Volcker were a good chairmen, Greenspan.............hmmm. Bernanke inherited the mess. Mess, too harsh a word? No, mess means too much typing to discuss all facets. Let's give "credit" where "credit" is due. The name calling on here is a reflection of what?