I for one believe Fox to be the most/only reliable news source. Obviously you do not. I therefore conclude you are a non-thinker and reading your comments on anything in the future will be a waste of time. ON IGNORE!
^That's some funny stuff right there. Too bad I'm ignore and he won't see me say that multiple studies have shown Fox news watchers to be the least informed among TV news shows watchers. In fact one study showed that Faux News watchers knew less than people who watched no news at all. He won't see me state that Roger Ailes, who runs Fox is a long-time stooge for the GOP and uses it for the Republican/Koch bros. propaganda machine resulting in Fox News being the most biased news source except for MSNBC, that one could watch. As we see here Fox News watchers like to be told what they think they know already and want to hear again and anything else is to be shunned. Echo-chamber thinking and ideologically determined reality.
Yeah, that describes shit-for-brains, and those who agree with him, which is at minimum enough to override a Presidential veto here on Extremist Trader.
So you're the male bitch I see with the Obama sticker on your hybrid, sipping your tea while driving 50 in a 65 zone as you listen to your "unbiased" National Proletariat Radio? I'm sure bussed-in-to-vote, gov't dole junkies and mindless Obamabots like yourself score even lower on IQ scores. No need for intelligence when the Democrat/Soros matrix supporting you.
Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true. Forgetting the rest of it, it's a real real real simple exercise to go out to Yahoo Finance - I assume you're familiar with the site? - and download the 10 year vs the 13 week, from say, 1990 on, put it in the same spreadsheet, and then do a diff on the rates. What you'll see is that in the period leading up to the crash of '08, the diff was either small or the two rates were inverted. In other words, short-term rates - you know, the ones the Fed has the most control over, to the extent they control rates at all - were either roughly equal to or actually above long-term rates. Inverted yield curves are known to precede, if not cause (Martinghoul takes issue with this, which gives me some pause) recessions. Either way, the Fed was keeping rates high, not low, prior to 2008. They were in stiff competition with that clueless fool Trichet to see who could keep rates the highest the longest in the face of mounting evidence that a deep recession, if not an actual depression, was on its way. Really, try using evidence, real evidence, rather than making baseless assertions that can be easily disproven. Question for extra credit: why did this happen at the same time as CDOs and CDOs squared and all the rest of the crap that was going on?
Really now. All that obfuscation just to miss the point? Let's recap the decade of "high" rates. The FFR was 6.25% at the end of 2000. The Fed then started to cut it. Not surprisingly, Paul Krugman was a big cheerleader, absurdly (and literally) proclaming "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble" in the summer of 2002. The Fed kept cutting and the FFR ended up at 1%. Krugman would get his beloved housing bubble, but not quite yet. After a bout with sanity, in which the rate went to a "too high" (but historically low) level just north of 5%, the Fed brought their hatchets back in 2007. A cuttin' again they went, and we've had ZIRP for over 3 years. It's been hell for savers, and done nothing but encourage asset bubbles. The burden of proof is on you for evidence. Tell me what happens if the Fed jacked the FFR to 6% tomorrow? How much longer could we service debt? The Fed, along with the actual govt's stimulus/bailouts, runaway spending and other ills, has us just as screwed as Europe. There's no way a market-based rate would ever go (and stay) as low as it has for the last 10 years. Short/long rate ratios and debates over causes/correlations of recessions are simply red herrings at this point. ZIRP (and even 1-2% rates in 2001-2003) have consequences and we probably haven't seen the worst of them yet.
Thank you for your evidence-less reply. Too lazy to do even five minutes of work. As for the rest, forget it. When you want to do some work to actually prove that any one assertion of yours is actually true, I'll answer. Until then, I couldn't care less what you say. None of it is going to make me a dime.
Heh, well your tired old chart certainly won't make you a dime. There are much better recession forecasting tools out there, though I don't use them for trading. So ZIRP doesn't penalize savers and encourage them to take on extra risks? If someone told you they were running a marathon with a scuba mask and 50-pound backpack, I suppose that's another unproven assertion?
ZIRP before 2008 is an unproven assertion. I keep underestimating your lack of reading comprehension. Is it above zero?