Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Was the money spent without approval?

Recs

9

September 30, 2008 – Comments (6)

Not sure what I'm reading on Market Ticker...

Just a little piece...

"The Fed threw $630 billion into the market before the vote, and yet the S&P 500 was down 40 handles anyway, and in fact tanked after the vote.

Note carefully - Paulson's plan was $700 billion, and Bernanke spent $630 billion - almost the entire amount proposed - but failed to fix the problem."

 

6 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 30, 2008 at 1:03 AM, dwot (43.46) wrote:

In all this mess it seems the crash in base metal prices went unnoticed.

http://www.kitcometals.com/

Copper - $2.89

Nickel - $7.00 (ouch!)

Zinc -$0.74

Report this comment
#2) On September 30, 2008 at 1:43 AM, pjani06 (29.00) wrote:

See the link below for the FULL list of representatives with first name, last name, and state represented, & indicates if they voted for the bailout or against the bailout with CLICKABLE LINKS for their contact information!!!

see this here :

Now its personal, full names & links to all the Representvs. who voted YES or NO to the BAILOUT

this is far from over! 

do something, pat them on the back or convert them or...vote them OUT!

enjoy. Report this comment
#3) On September 30, 2008 at 2:41 AM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Report this comment
#4) On September 30, 2008 at 8:43 AM, rd80 (98.25) wrote:

The Federal Reserve Act gives the Fed all the approval they needed to do this.

Section 13 (3) basically says  the rules are whatever five of the Fed Governors say they are.

The Federal Reserve showed us how well the $700 billion would have worked.  

Report this comment
#5) On September 30, 2008 at 12:04 PM, DnGoFnBk (98.84) wrote:

They are two different things. The 630 billion is for lending to banks trying to encourage banks to free up cash they have been hoarding, this is a tool the Feds can use at their discretion. The 700 billion vote was/is for buying troubled MBS, not for lending to banks. Two different items altogether.

Report this comment
#6) On September 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM, ikkyu2 (99.27) wrote:

I am not sure you can argue that Bernanke "failed to fix the problem."  He was trying to fix a different problem than the one that Congress is trying to fix.  The loans (repos, swaps, whatever you call them) that Bernanke provided with his injection do much for liquidity but they do not strengthen the receiving bank's balance sheet because they are current liabilities, not assets.

What if Bernanke hadn't done this and every bank worldwide had failed to meet its current liabilities from lack of confidence about liquidity and counterparty risks?   Then we'd really be saying Bernanke's intervention had failed.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement