You doubt? Listen to a CNBC illiterate airhead.
Kyla - In the fed minutes last week, there was some signal that the members of the fed were thinking about lowering another key interest rate. That's the rate it pays banks.
?
We put money into the bank and they lend money back out. Because loans have been harder to get, they've been keeping the excess money with the fed to the tune of $2.47 trillion.
Totally misleading and false perspective. What "we" put in the bank and the connection between it and FED created reserves is far, far, apart.
The banks make a 0.25%, so that's $600 billion a year in interest.
Not only did this bonehead fail arithmetic, but also she did it on the casting couch, the hallmark of today's modern upwardly moving woman.
The fed would do this to signal it would be committed to keeping long-term rates low.
If this sentence could be coherently interpreted, it's false.
Also, it could save a little money because that increase there in those reserves there. So, they could be lowering that.
? How did this broad make it on CNBC? Must be why Maria has got out.
The banks are saying, we need that income. We need that $600 billion($6 billion) because we have to pay the fdic insurance on these accounts.
That won't cover it.
I looked at fdic data, they only paid $11 billion in the last four quarters. something about these numbers doesn't add up.
The problem here is that you can't add or do other 6th grade math.
I don't believe this should be a cost that should be passed onto the consumer or really that you could even make that argument looking at the gross disparity in those numbers.
How does that get "passed onto the consumer"?
Sure. What's interesting, though, is it puts into stark contrast exactly what the federal reserve's policy is aimed to do anyway, which is to kind of push people out of cash, into riskier investments, rebalancing the portfolio, and ultimately kind of lifting the tide more broadly and hoping that helps the economy recover.
She must have got her spiel from Yellen.
This would be a more draconian form but still taking place. it's interesting thinking about janet yellen's confirmation hearing and so much focus on asset bubbles and risk inherent in some strategis, pushing consumers, pushing corporations into some of these riskier assets and what exactly happens there.
Yep. a Yellen airhead. According to Yahoos, she's "hot".
I don't think this will end up happening for two reasons. In the minutes it said one of the big downsides of doing something like this, it's a hard policy to actually explain to the public.
! Embarrassingly stupid.
Even harder for the banks because, you know, they don't need another pr nightmare. Bank of New york-mellon tried to do this on institutional clients two years ago.
No.
They had to pull back on the strategy because they got so much bad press.
No.
I don't think this is something you could roll out, get away with and explain to people what it is and why it works. and that's not even getting...
Is that what you pay for? |
