SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hightechhooper who wrote (124287)1/5/2001 1:18:52 PM
From: Robert Douglas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Hightech,

Sorry if my original post sounded too harsh.

There's an economic point that I think should be made here. It's a common misperception about the role of a central bank. Take your comment:

The fed blew it big time IMO with all the
liquidity they added to the system to avert a non-existent Y2K problem. All that money had
to go somewhere,


The perception is that the Federal Reserve can CREATE money. This is a word you often hear, even in economic textbooks. But it ain't true!

What the Fed can do is supply reserves to the banking system. That enables banks to make loans. If there isn't a party on the other end of the loan there is no "money" created. There will be no borrower if there isn't a perception that this money can be taken and invested at a higher rate than that which it was borrowed.

This is where my blame on the speculators comes in. They were willing to step in, create the money and spend it on some high risk security. Without them there isn't anything the Fed can do. You may have heard the expression "pushing on a string." This is a good description of what happens when a central bank supplies reserves to the banking system and nobody takes them up on the offer.

So that money didn't have to go somewhere, as you put it. That money wouldn't have existed if not for some starry-eyed speculators who got carried away by their greed.