The government inject $250 billion into the market. Thus the market becomes OVER-VALUED by 250 billion (or whatever amount they inject) They also get to choose the winning/losing companies. Potential for corruption and efficiencies are ripe…
It’s bad for taxpayers but it’s good for the market. I got my firesale anyway so I’m pretty psyched. I’ll gladly take another firesale (but give a few weeks to recover from the last!).
I honestly don’t know. It seems wrong to me, but I am not smart enough to figure this all out.
How is it good for the market if the market is thrown out of whack by government intervention… Short term maybe… Long term I think this will lead to bad things… IF THE GOVERNMENT COULD AVOID RECESSIONS AT WILL BY PUTTING MONEY INTO THE STOCK MARKET, DON’T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE DONE ALL THE TIME?
It’s terrible. This whole thing is BS and it comes to no good.
So the 10% gain yesterday was just the Fed putting in 250 billion?
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government inject $250 billion into the > market. > > Thus the market becomes OVER-VALUED by 250 billion > (or whatever amount they inject) > > They also get to choose the winning/losing > companies. Potential for corruption and > efficiencies are ripe… yo man dont be such a Debbie Downer all the time. view the glass as half full! even its it is full of government milk. your still gonna drink it and quench your thirst aint you? just like people are gonna take their gains… i think this analogy is is the Level III books somewhere. very advanced theory. i dont wanna get too far into it so ill stop now
Not a downer. Just facing reality… Recessions are good in that they expose in-efficent waste. You correct the behavior and the economy will boom. If you keep the behavior you muddle along…
Agreed. Isn’t that how we got to this point in the first place?
I think the government is taking a chance on preventing a downturn and saving some jobs/companies/confidence in the financial markets. It is taking this chance on the assumption that the moral hazard in the future created by its current actions can be avoided by putting appropriate regulations and laws in place so that people cannot do this to the markets again.
If the government intervening means I get to keep my job then I can’t complain.
So they have spent 250 of the 700 billion already?
Who cares (?) I am so busy remitting and repatriating my dollar’s to India (converting them to Rs at an hilarious exchange rate of ‘Rs 48 = 1 USD’). Wealth effect in action, baby! I had my share of bad times to when I did a remmitance at Rs 36 
Anybody else enjoying the currency market?
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not a downer. Just facing reality… > > Recessions are good in that they expose > in-efficent waste. You correct the behavior and > the economy will boom. > > If you keep the behavior you muddle along… i disagree. the economy will never fully boom in the sense that you mean. you say you correct the behavior by letting people lose their jobs and you say “oh well, its what i think is best for the markets”.to me that is wishing for a perfect world. there was greed involved in the collapse. unethical lending to unqualified borrowers and a comptroller who said the lending was regulated and didnt need to be remedied. in my opinion it was a few that ruined it for many and not necessarily inefficient markets and companies with full fledged corruption. if the govt injected not even 5% of the problem does this for markets, i say let em. 700 billion is NOT a lot of money compared to the trillions involved. a drop in the bucket to save face. im not saying i agree with it 100%, you make some very good points, but i wouldnt be as pessimistic as you seem to be. just about all your posts are downers. relax!!!
Chuckrox8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the government intervening means I get to keep > my job then I can’t complain. Just remember that’s what happened with companies like GM. The government keeps them propped up… The problem with keeping an inefficient job is it kills further growth.
So PtrainerNY u dont like gov funding anything, since companies should just sort out everything by themselves?
Yes. The government funding things = bureaucracy I can funding some essential things likes roads, food stamps, etc. But funding something to manipulate the market and alter reality has reprucussions. Ex: Not letting Bear Stearns go bankrupt made things worst then they were… Why? Bear Stearns goes BK. Others see it. Lehman would of accepted a takeover. Others would realize no govt help and did the same. INSTEAD lehman held on waiting for their bailout… This led to a bigger player going under… and so forth…
Not to get philosophical here, but we’ve had a mixed economy for many years, and this is all a consequence of having a mixed economy to begin with. If you were to speak to Karl Marx today, he would say what we are witnessing today is inevitable, as capitalism will always eventually lead to socialism, as its internal struggles will destroy. Well, I don’t agree with him there, but would say that when you add a “free market”, with government deciding who wins and loses, there will gross unfairness. Fannie and Freddie. Quasi-public. Under the “umbrella” of government safety, had a leverage ratio of over 100:1. This is higher than any hedge fund today! They went far above and beyond what a prudent complete private company would do, as they knew they would be “bailed out.” Take Bear and AIG. They became too big to fail as they knew the gummit would have to step in to avoid their counterparty risk. They let Lehman go, and now, they probably wish they didn’t. So when the next Lehman comes, guess what will happen to them… At any rate, my point is, to argue whether what they are doing today with the banks is immoral, or manipulating the market, or great or needed. It really is moot, as the government has had a giant hand in our “free market” for decades upon decades, and each decade it becomes more.
IMHO is in the US Government’s best interest to have the most successful capitalist society it can have without too much intervention. We seem to go in phases of being unregulated and then regulated. The regulation kicks in again, there are financial innovations that jump through the loopholes, the economy kicks up into high gear, then is regulated again. I don’t think that will ever change, but think that over the years the government will become more skilled with easing the recessions and slowing down unsustainable growth to (help to) prevent unpredictable swings. ______________________________________________________________________ “Nowhere does history indulge in repetitions so often or so uniformly as in Wall Street. When you read contemporary accounts of booms or panics, the one thing that strikes you most forcibly is how little either stock speculation or stock speculators today differ from yesterday. The game does not change and neither does human nature.” - Edwin Lefèvre, 1923
It is bad but what can we do? Many people called our representatives to voice their views already but it didn’t work. Should we all take up arms and overthrow the government?