Not that this is prob the right time for the blame game, but this is every bit as much Greenspan’s fault as GWB’s…
How so?
He was avoiding the problem for a long time, while Ron Paul is crazy and should learn some economics. Some of what he says about how Greesnspan avoided the root of the problem, and now bernane is doing the same is true.
Exactly, Bush (and Congress perhaps even more so) over-fed the fiscal side of the economy, but Greenspan did the same on monetary policy, while also endorsing the earlier tax cuts and turning a blind eye to some of the derivatives/mortgage products being sold (I’m not saying I disagree with these, just stating a fact)
The war certainly wasn’t Greenspan’s fault, or maybe the Fed Chairman has powers I don’t know about. Life in stagflationary times is likely to be brutal. At least we don’t have the commies to worry about… or do we?
Fu&^& Chavez
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The war certainly wasn’t Greenspan’s fault, or > maybe the Fed Chairman has powers I don’t know > about. > > Life in stagflationary times is likely to be > brutal. At least we don’t have the commies to > worry about… or do we? I found worrying about the commies last time to be a useful diversion. Anyway, we worry about terrorist Arabs now.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The war certainly wasn’t Greenspan’s fault, or > maybe the Fed Chairman has powers I don’t know > about. > > Life in stagflationary times is likely to be > brutal. At least we don’t have the commies to > worry about… or do we? I found worrying about the commies last time to be a useful diversion. Anyway, we worry about terrorist Arabs now.
tobias Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > shark777 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 100% 50 bps cut??? > > > > > > BBG says 55.7% for 50 and 42.1% for 75. The > last > > 2.2% is for 25bps. > > > > 42.1% for a 75 bps is pretty up there. I doubt > the > > Fed would go that far. > > Not sure where you are seeing that other 2.2% but > your numbers suggest 97.8% chance of 50bps or > more. How is that so different than the 100% I > quoted? The key words (which perhaps you didn’t > read) are “or more”. You are right, I overlooked the “or more” part. And I am getting my numbers from BBG. The current probability that FOMC will cut 25 bpts is down to 1%. So, 99% chance for 50 or more.
OK, I got the fed movement wrong, my bad. I really though we might see something today, my bad