All the QE's are already biting Bernanke on the butt. Maybe he will soon be hoping for an economic crash to get rates back down. All he has to do is stop printing and it will happen. Good Job Obama Pawn. ---- At the end of July, the Federal Reserve held $1.98 trillion in U.S. Treasuries. That figure represents just over half of the Fed's $3.6 trillion balance sheet. Scott Minerd, the Global Chief Investment Officer at Guggenheim Partners notes: "Our estimate shows that the spike in bond yields since the first quarter of this year has caused a mark-to-market loss of $192 billion on the Fedâs holding assets, equivalent to approximately all of the unrealized gains that the Fed had accumulated since it began to implement quantitative easing in late 2008. Although in keeping with their own accounting principles the Fed does not record mark-to-market losses, a continued increase in bond yields would incur actual losses should the central bank decide to sell assets." http://www.etfguide.com/commentary/1095/Bond-Losses-at-Federal-Reserve-Top-$192-Billion/
Bernanke is an Obama Pawn? How do you figure that? He was nominated by George W Bush and Obama "fired" him this year... Surely, he's much more of a Bush Pawn, if anything.
He's the only one propping the economy up while Obama is on the other side trying to destroy it. He's creating a huge problem down the road by trying to prop things up now. Let the damn thing crash. If Bernanke had done that Obama wouldn't be there now to keep screwing things up. Maybe unwillingly, but Bernanke is Obama's pawn. Obama didn't fire him. Bernanke's had enough and is retiring.
So Ben is a puppet on a string dangled by Bush? Really? News Flash: Bush hasn't been in the White house since early 2009.
Very well, if you say so... No, shirley, you must be joking? Bush, not in the White House? I had no idea... And no, I didn't say that Bernanke is a puppet on a string dangled by Bush.
Agreed... My point was that, according to most commentators, Obama, basically, fired Bernanke (see here, for instance: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3044087/posts). In light of that, it's hard to see how Bernanke as Obama's pawn is a more accurate description than Bush's pawn.
Because Bush is gone and Bernanke is still here at the discretion of Obama. That makes him Obama's pawn now. Why are you so tied up on the semantics of one word when you obviously understand what I am saying? Is it that you are SOO argumentative that you can't let the smallest thing go? I think you need to work on your "perspective," martin.