patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
736,908 comments in 75,804 posts by 10,911 registered users, 6 online now: BayAreaObserver, Ceffer, curious2, lebowski522, P N Dr Lo R, Patrick

new post

Fed Says Bond Buying May Exceed $600 Billion

By Patrick   2012 Nov 6, 1:53pm   1,102 views   7 comments   watch (0)   quote      

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/fed-s-williams-says-bond-buying-may-exceed-600-billion.html?source=Patrick.net

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President John Williams said the central bank may buy more than $600 billion in bonds by extending its third round of quantitative easing well into next year. The Federal Open Market Committee last month affirmed its decision in September to buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities each month without specifying the total size or duration of the purchases. Williams, who holds a vote on policy this year, was among the first Fed officials to advocate open- ended bond buying. It should be at least that big but I would think it would probably be...

#housing

Comments 1-7 of 7     Last »

1   bmwman91     2012 Nov 6, 2:26pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

More insanity. I wish that people understood that a society that requires constant growth to maintain a quality of life is 100%, certifiably unsustainable. Growth is an exponential function, and we live on a finite planet. Our leadership, if you can call the Fed that, is an utter failure in that they insist on telling people the same sorry fairy tales to maintain this temporary status quo rather than addressing long-term solutions.

It is particularly unsurprising that a Fed official that lives in an area with some of the most overpriced real estate wants to take measures to blow it up further.

I think that the US's housing bears and analysts have grossly underestimated the lengths that the central banking nexus can and will go to to blow up real estate (I certainly did!). It has certainly taken me by surprise. So, it looks like Roberto & Iwog made the right choice for now, and probably into the next 5+ years. With tonight's Obama victory, I think that housing will only continue to inflate relative to mean incomes as new debt-enslavement products are introduced in the further perversion of the word, "affordability". At this point I would be happy if everyone just stopped calling it a housing "market" and started calling it what it is, the "housing autocracy."

2   Goran_K   146/146 = 100% civil   2012 Nov 6, 11:26pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Terrorist.

3   taxee     2012 Nov 7, 12:45am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

bmwman91 says

More insanity. I wish that people understood that a society that requires constant growth to maintain a quality of life is 100%, certifiably unsustainable. Growth is an exponential function, and we live on a finite planet.

With further extraction of resources less viable. And the real industrial production shifted to slave plantations overseas. The new push for the script printers is clearly control of the place where you do the one thing that you can't not do: lie down to sleep.

4   mell   63/63 = 100% civil   2012 Nov 7, 12:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

SFace says

I guess with Obama reelected, the biggest takeaway is more bernanke.

Unfortunately so.

5   Bellingham Bill   74/74 = 100% civil   2012 Nov 7, 1:18am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Fed's providing some mitigation for the damage the House is doing now.

Here's a chart of real gov't spending:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=czc

annual % expansion, since 1970:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=czd

1980s were pretty good, with 5%+ spending expansion

2000s, same thing.

Both those decades had massive consumer credit expansions, too, which made things pretty happy for everyone (until the bubbles burst in 1989 and 2008).

We need to cut spending $500B/yr, raise taxes $500B/yr, and pray for $500B/yr in "a bigger economy" to cover the rest.

And this doesn't even count how we need to increase taxes a lot more to cover the baby boom retirement's cost. We can't borrow that, we're borrowing enough to keep afloat as it is. We can print it, but that way lies Zimbabwe eventually, I think.

But as mentioned above, real estate doesn't appear to be a horrible hedge against continued insanity. Chances are we're going to print and not 'eat our peas'.

6   bubblesitter     2012 Nov 7, 2:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

bmwman91 says

certifiably unsustainable

Life will really suck, like a third world country - like it or not.

bmwman91 says

At this point I would be happy if everyone just stopped calling it a housing "market" and started calling it what it is, the "housing autocracy."

Debt nation. It is has become a culture for generations.

7   taxee     2012 Nov 7, 12:36pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Our present Washington/real estate/banking/wall street crowd is like having doctors and paying them to treat a minor ailment. Then realizing they took life insurance out on you and infected you with an incurable disease.

Comments 1-7 of 7     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home