• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Danger of worsening recession drove Fed action

Joined
3 March 2004
Messages
264
Location
Sarasota Florida
This is a response to those complaining about the Fed spending.


By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve's decision last month to plow $1.2 trillion into the economy reflected growing concerns about a vicious economic cycle in which rising unemployment will curtail consumer spending, potentially into 2010.
Documents released Wednesday provided insights into the Fed's decision to revive the economy by buying long-term government debt and boosting purchases of mortgage-backed securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Projections for economic activity in the second half of 2009 and in 2010 "were revised down" by the Fed's staff, who did not provide updated forecasts.
"Most participants viewed downside risks as predominating in the near term," according to minutes of the Fed's closed-door meeting on March 17-18.
And with the economy likely to stay fragile, the unemployment rate — now at a quarter-century high of 8.5 percent — will probably "rise more steeply into early next year before flattening out at a high level over the rest of the year," the minutes said.
The bleak outlook stems mainly from a cycle where rising joblessness prompted cutbacks by consumers, which in turn led to more layoffs and reduced production by businesses. Such forces would weaken the economy even more, triggering further credit tightening and additional losses at financial institutions, the Fed explained.
Against that backdrop, the central bank decided to hold its key lending rate at a record low of between zero and 0.25 percent. Economists predict the Fed will hold the rate in that zone for the rest of this year and for most — if not all of — next year.
In addition, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues turned to other unconventional tools to revive the economy. The Fed said it would spend up to $300 billion to buy long-term government bonds and would buy an additional $750 billion in Fannie and Freddie securities.
The economy had deteriorated more than Fed policymakers expected from their previous meeting in January. Of particular concern was the sharp drop in demand overseas, which was hurting sales of U.S. exports, the Fed said. That meant exports wouldn't likely be a source of support for economic activity in the near term.
The Fed minutes said that gross domestic product was "expected to flatten out gradually over the second half of this year and then to expand slowly next year as the stresses of the financial markets ease, the effects of fiscal stimulus take hold, inventory adjustments are worked through and the correction in housing activity comes to and end."
GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the U.S. and is the broadest measure of the country's economic health. It contracted at a 6.3 percent pace in the final quarter of last year, the worst showing in a quarter-century. Many economists expect the economy performed nearly as poorly in the first three months of this year.
The government will release its estimate of first-quarter GDP later this month. Many analysts believe the economy is shrinking in the current quarter, but probably not as much as in the fourth quarter.
Still, Fed policymakers believed that policies in place would eventually lead to an economic recovery, although an exact time table wasn't offered. President Barack Obama's $787 billion package of increased government spending and tax cuts, along with the administration's bank-rescue efforts and a program to reduce home foreclosures will provide some level of relief.
However, Fed officials expressed "a variety of views about the strength and the timing of the recovery."
Some believed the "natural resilience of market forces" would become evident later this year. Others saw a recovery as "delayed and potentially weak" because consumers would stay very cautious.
The Fed's decision to launch the $1.2 trillion program was viewed as helping to address "the very weak economic outlook" and thwart the prospect of deflation, a dangerous bout of falling prices. The Fed spoke the need to "reduce the risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster longer-term economic growth and price stability."
Some Fed officials talked about some challenges faced by a program, created by the Fed and the Treasury Department, aimed at jump-starting loans to consumers and small businesses.
The program — called the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility — which launched last month, has gotten off to a slow start.
Some investors were worried about "potential future changes in government policies" as a reason for investor hesitation, the minutes said. The Fed on Tuesday said just $1.7 billion in loans were requested for the second-round of funding in April. That was down from $4.7 billion requested in the first operation last month.
Related Searches:
 
as a point of interest, the head of the AP announced several days ago that they were about to begin taking action against the unpaid for use of their content.

in consideration of lud, it might be better if we began posting links to articles.
 
Here's the way I see it. Someone please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

1. Houses have a historical average price. Adjusted for inflation, it's around $100,000.
2. All of the current mess is the result of houses falling ONLY from their peak of $200,000 or so, to around $170,000(AKA, we're 1/3rd through the process). In that period the fed has used up their tool of lowering interest rates. The only tool left is borrowing or printing money.
3. China is not lending us any more money, so our only remaining tool is printing money.
4. China and Russia are threatning to make a new world currency, and drop the dollar if we keep printing.
5. So now we have a catch22. If we stop printing, and no one will lend us more money, the banks WILL fail, and we'll probably go into a great depression. Many people will die. If we keep printing money, and china, russia, etc drop the dollar, then we'll probably have a collapse of he dollar, and we'll go into a great depression anyway.

I don't see a way around it????
The ONLY option out I see for the US Government is to start a massive war.
 
Here's the way I see it. Someone please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

1. Houses have a historical average price. Adjusted for inflation, it's around $100,000.
2. All of the current mess is the result of houses falling ONLY from their peak of $200,000 or so, to around $170,000(AKA, we're 1/3rd through the process). In that period the fed has used up their tool of lowering interest rates. The only tool left is borrowing or printing money.
3. China is not lending us any more money, so our only remaining tool is printing money.
4. China and Russia are threatning to make a new world currency, and drop the dollar if we keep printing.
5. So now we have a catch22. If we stop printing, and no one will lend us more money, the banks WILL fail, and we'll probably go into a great depression. Many people will die. If we keep printing money, and china, russia, etc drop the dollar, then we'll probably have a collapse of he dollar, and we'll go into a great depression anyway.

I don't see a way around it????
The ONLY option out I see for the US Government is to start a massive war.

Thanks for your insight. Have a nice day.:frown:
 
Thanks for your insight. Have a nice day.:frown:

Sorry.... Didn't mean to bum you out.
I'm just hoping someone can point to the flaw in what I see.

There HAS to be a reason why houses will stay way above their 100+ year historic averages. I dont know if land is running out, wood is running out, labor is more expensive, the average home size is up, or the average plot size is up. There HAS to be a reason. I'm hoping someone can point it out. If not, stock up on some food.
 
Sorry.... Didn't mean to bum you out.
I'm just hoping someone can point to the flaw in what I see.

There HAS to be a reason why houses will stay way above their 100+ year historic averages. I dont know if land is running out, wood is running out, labor is more expensive, the average home size is up, or the average plot size is up. There HAS to be a reason. I'm hoping someone can point it out. If not, stock up on some food.

Median home price -to- Median household income is a very very good metric, overall, but it misses one key point: Interest rates. Since we're at historically low interest rates (now and for the last few years), this metric should be higher than normal. BUT, it doesn't leave any room for future appreciation either (rates can only stay the same or go up from here).

I don't think average-sized house prices will *fall* much more, as long as the gov't continues its current policies, but I don't think they will go up either for many many years. High end homes, over $1M, will continue to get crushed as wealth is destroyed.
 
Median home price -to- Median household income is a very very good metric, overall, but it misses one key point: Interest rates. Since we're at historically low interest rates (now and for the last few years), this metric should be higher than normal. BUT, it doesn't leave any room for future appreciation either (rates can only stay the same or go up from here).

Ahhhh. Very good point. So basically, looking at the affordability, the average monthly mortgage payment, THAT might be in line with historic levels. But you raise another interesting point. What happens when interest rates go back up?
For example, on a $200,000 house, at 5%, you have a $1070 payment. At 10% interest, you have a $1755 payment. Big difference....
For someone to have that same $1070 payment at 10%, they would have to be in a $120,000 house.

And second, just as the housing bubble was created by low interest rates, what bubble is being created now with 0% interest rates? SOMETHING has to be blowing up. Is it the USD?
 
Last edited:
The ONLY option out I see for the US Government is to start a massive war.

even if we start an all out war, by the end, IF we win, we wouldn't be gaining anything since we would be paying reparations to all the other countries. how is it going to help us out if our government is giving money out to the countries that opposed us to rebuild, when they can't even rebuild the financial crisis here?
 
Median home price -to- Median household income is a very very good metric, overall, but it misses one key point: Interest rates. Since we're at historically low interest rates (now and for the last few years), this metric should be higher than normal. BUT, it doesn't leave any room for future appreciation either (rates can only stay the same or go up from here).

I don't think average-sized house prices will *fall* much more, as long as the gov't continues its current policies, but I don't think they will go up either for many many years. High end homes, over $1M, will continue to get crushed as wealth is destroyed.

Correct. And people's concern regarding the dollar (many of jbond's comments i.e.) are mostly unfounded. China does not want a world currency, they want the exact opposite. They want the dollar to remain strong; they own all our debt. By ridiculing the dollar they are hoping to push the government into strong dollar policies instead of mass "printing".

China has placed the biggest financial bet in history on the ability of us as U.S. tax payers to remain solvent and retain the ability to pay federal taxes.

They are printing money because they are getting what they want and a nod from those who fear deflation greater than any alternative.
 
Median home price -to- Median household income is a very very good metric, overall, but it misses one key point: Interest rates. Since we're at historically low interest rates (now and for the last few years), this metric should be higher than normal. BUT, it doesn't leave any room for future appreciation either (rates can only stay the same or go up from here).

I don't think average-sized house prices will *fall* much more, as long as the gov't continues its current policies, but I don't think they will go up either for many many years. High end homes, over $1M, will continue to get crushed as wealth is destroyed.
this link speaks to local high-end home sales last year: http://www.mercurynews.com/realestatenews/ci_12095136?nclick_check=1
 
even if we start an all out war, by the end, IF we win, we wouldn't be gaining anything since we would be paying reparations to all the other countries. how is it going to help us out if our government is giving money out to the countries that opposed us to rebuild, when they can't even rebuild the financial crisis here?

That's the conventional wisdom but what actually happens is that war is a huge treasury raid that takes tax dollars and increases the money supply and diverts it/gives it to certain industries thereby stimulating the economy since so many industries and local economies are tied to defense contracting. Come on now, war has never been about winning.

Remember, money spent on war doesn't go to where the war is. The money stays here and equipment and supplies go there. It's the domestic manufacturers of said equipment and supplies who get the money. When they get contracts people get hired. Soldiers' pay also gets spent domestically as well. Not to mention all the training excercises that get conducted domestically during wartime which cost as much or more money as it would if it were real combat in the actual theater. And then there's the medical care for the wounded, the majority of which happens domestically upon return.

War is the biggest kind of "economic stimulus plan" and is and always has been the most effective and thorough way to for a government to raid the public purse and/or inflate the currency. If politicians were to attempt to raid the treasury without war they may not be re-elected but war gives them justification and public approval to do so.

Once the economy is stimulated enough it begins to grow again, confidence is restored and China keeps buying bonds.
 
Once the economy is stimulated enough it begins to grow again, confidence is restored and China keeps buying bonds.

I would argue that defense fiscal spending is only part of post-war economic recoveries (WWI, WWII, Desert Storm), and that an equally important part is the psychological boost gained by winning a war. Nobody really knows how much or when, however. That's why I believe that this economic stimulus package, and the next one to come, will not -alone- get us back on track, as the Keynesians would argue. It's possible that Obama's god-like popularity will provide a similar boost to confidence. Time will tell on that one and I wouldn't bank on it based on what I've seen so far.
 
Here's the way I see it. Someone please correct me if you think I'm wrong.

1. Houses have a historical average price. Adjusted for inflation, it's around $100,000.
2. All of the current mess is the result of houses falling ONLY from their peak of $200,000 or so, to around $170,000(AKA, we're 1/3rd through the process). In that period the fed has used up their tool of lowering interest rates. The only tool left is borrowing or printing money.
3. China is not lending us any more money, so our only remaining tool is printing money.
4. China and Russia are threatning to make a new world currency, and drop the dollar if we keep printing.
5. So now we have a catch22. If we stop printing, and no one will lend us more money, the banks WILL fail, and we'll probably go into a great depression. Many people will die. If we keep printing money, and china, russia, etc drop the dollar, then we'll probably have a collapse of he dollar, and we'll go into a great depression anyway.

I don't see a way around it????
The ONLY option out I see for the US Government is to start a massive war.



Are we paying China in us dollars? Maybe we should just send China some newly printed bills?
 
I would argue that defense fiscal spending is only part of post-war economic recoveries (WWI, WWII, Desert Storm), and that an equally important part is the psychological boost gained by winning a war. Nobody really knows how much or when, however. That's why I believe that this economic stimulus package, and the next one to come, will not -alone- get us back on track, as the Keynesians would argue. It's possible that Obama's god-like popularity will provide a similar boost to confidence. Time will tell on that one and I wouldn't bank on it based on what I've seen so far.

I agree the post-victory psychological boost is significant but less so after drawn-out campaigns that had less immediacy and/or posed less of a direct threat to the victors.

The US's involvement in WWI was short but the perceived threat was smaller and victory less meaningful. The post WWI boom was as much a function of manipulating the new fiat currency, interest rates and bankers' whims as any psychological boost.

WWII does fit the mold. Direct US involvement was short and the perceived threat was great. DS was less of a threat but US involvement was short and swift and felt like a decisive victory.

Iraq/Afghanistan is a long, drawn-out campaign where victory is subjective and the direct threat is small. Very similar to Vietnam and there was certainly no boom after that war. And interestingly both wars were essentially military campaigns against ideologies. That approach doesn't seem to work very well...:rolleyes:

I also agree that these stimulus packages, as they've been presented, will not substantially mitigate the effects of the economy. Wars do operate like a stimulus package and enough stimulus packages will do the job but of course spending never gets cut, the wars end, defense-related economies grind to a halt, currency gets inflated more and the cycle is essentially reset.
 
Back
Top