Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 367 posts

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#201

Post by lbotos »

cryptica wrote: post #184
ipnon wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key distinction is that the Fed is trading the new money for high-quality collateral. The original owners of the collateral will return the Fed's money within weeks of months in exchange for the return of the collateral.

No matter how you look at it, somebody who is not the Fed benefits from this. If market participants didn't think that they will benefit financially from this, they would not participate. This kind of "zero-sum temporary money" theory doesn't add up. The situation is exactly as kylebenzle inferred; the Fed is injecting new fiat money into the economy and it's going straight into the pockets of rich financial institut…

> the Fed is injecting new fiat money into the economy and it's going straight into the pockets of rich financial institutions which add no value whatsoever to the economy or society.

Financial institutions control who gets levered money (loans). They provide a huge value to an economy and society in a fractional reserve banking system.

You are upset about the Fed, when you should be upset about the government who controls fiscal policy. The government can provide tax holidays and other benefits more directly to people, as is their role, not the Fed.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#202

Post by troyvit »

zaroth wrote: post #173
gdubs wrote: post #13

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time in the world. I remember sitting in an airport when news of Lehman Brothers collapse was flashing on the TV screens. I'm reminded of that time. We learned later about how Hank Paulson got down on one knee and begged Nancy Pelosi to go along with is plan to save…

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't be contained, and worldwide spread is inevitable, approximately how many new cases per day do you want to see for the next 6 months? I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. There are way too many vectors, and it is way too virulent.…

> I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable.

The WHO disagrees: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

> "Test everyone!" To what end? You don't need to test people in order to know if they need an ICU. The ICUs are not full - and you don't need more testing to tell you that. The main benefit to more testing would be that people who are self-quarantining due to potential exposure could maybe stop self-quarantining earlier. That's a fairly marginal benefit.

Germany was ahead of the curve testing people and as a result (so far) they are weathering the virus much better than most other countries (including the US):

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-10/german...

It's not all about the testing for them but in the article they do count it as a key reason why they are doing well so far.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#203

Post by mamon »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #175
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you allowed yourself to become overwhelmed with emotions. Both groups, and that is despite news that some of their own are infected, are playing games. It is silly to pretend it is just GOP. edit: spelling

I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. My experience in large enterprises are that there are two kinds of "politics" that get played. In one form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but also help the company. Often that is called out as "leadership." In the other form, the leadership makes moves or take actions that benefit themselves but hurts the company. That form is called "po…

>> For example a CEO that buys another company, the result of which is hitting a milestone that triggers a big bonus for them but saddles the company with a bunch of debt and expense that drags down its productivity. That is bad. Versus the same example where the CEO buys another company and the combination results both in them getting a bonus as well as the combined company doing better than the sum of the individual companies. That is good.

Mergers are always risky. CEO can do all the analysis possible but can't know for sure if combined company will do better or worse than individual parts. That part of the job is called "taking calculated risks".

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#205

Post by hef19898 »

kylebenzle wrote: post #136
hef19898 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lack of testing will maybe turn out to be one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime. If I had to choose one thing that should change right now, it is this. Aggressive testing of everyone, starting with contact persons, persons travelling from high risk areas and then basically everyone. Would allow a much better understanding of the situation and make any measures way more effective. Other than that, the measu…

What is the argument against testing everyone? If it lasts 2 days on surfaces, it seems like a matter of when not if you get it. Best we can do is "flatten the curve" by isolating people as much as possible. Realistically, all the hand washing and testing does next to nothing in terms of modifying behaviour.

Testing would allow to be way more aggressive where it matters. Also reaction time could be quicker.

Could be so, that once a certain number of people are infected, full quarantine measures will be taken anyway. So on could just jump to these measures right away. Which would leave increased transparency as the main benefit. Would still be worth it, even if actual countermeasures don't necessarily change.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#206

Post by eigenvector »

zaroth wrote: post #173
gdubs wrote: post #13

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time in the world. I remember sitting in an airport when news of Lehman Brothers collapse was flashing on the TV screens. I'm reminded of that time. We learned later about how Hank Paulson got down on one knee and begged Nancy Pelosi to go along with is plan to save…

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand the thought process here... Question 1) Is the spread inevitable, or can we achieve containment? Question 2) If it can't be contained, and worldwide spread is inevitable, approximately how many new cases per day do you want to see for the next 6 months? I would say the answer to #1 is that spread is absolutely inevitable. There are way too many vectors, and it is way too virulent.…

You need testing to provide political capital to do all the other things that are actually necessary to respond to and treat the virus.

Otherwise politicians can hide behind relatively low numbers of confirmed cases as an excuse for inaction.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#207

Post by sequoia »

gdubs wrote: post #13

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time in the world. I remember sitting in an airport when news of Lehman Brothers collapse was flashing on the TV screens. I'm reminded of that time. We learned later about how Hank Paulson got down on one knee and begged Nancy Pelosi to go along with is plan to save…

- We need to unite and overcome tribalist instincts

- The GOP (the current ruling party) bears a majority of the blame for the recent screw ups (though _both_ parties are to blame for the decades-long problems with the healthcare system)

Both things are true.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#208

Post by so_tobeclear »

malandrew wrote: post #196
tw04 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Case in point? Media reports that bill forcing employers to provide sick leave failed to pass because of evil Republicans. What you won't see on the news is the nuance that such a bill can't be passed without possibly bankrupting small businesses. The bill literally includes the funding to pay for sick leave. That's why it's a FUNDING bill - I think you're confused about who is being mislead by propaganda. Meanwhile…

The full text has not yet been published on congress.gov to verify who is paying and I can't find the full text elsewhere. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/341... https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6150... However, the press release from Murray and DeLauro makes it sound like businesses are paying: https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/coronavir... If you have…

Cheers

And all I could think was 'it's a PATRIOT act...'

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#209

Post by roenxi »

tw04 wrote: post #69
gdubs wrote: post #13

As the joke goes, a trillion here a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about some real money! But in seriousness, the next week is a critical time in the world. I remember sitting in an airport when news of Lehman Brothers collapse was flashing on the TV screens. I'm reminded of that time. We learned later about how Hank Paulson got down on one knee and begged Nancy Pelosi to go along with is plan to save…

>But if there were ever a time for us not to be partisan and tribal, it's now. You say that like both parties are trying to deny testing and are refusing to provide the social safety net for workers to stay home when they're sick. This is very much not a "both sides" discussion. This is: the GOP needs to stop trying to pretend like nothing is wrong and actually DO SOMETHING to prevent this from becoming an even bigge…

If the system is reliant on the legislative branch to respond to a crisis then there is no doubt that it will fail. Large voting bodies are no good at all in times of crisis.

Re: Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets

#210

Post by anthony_doan »

We could prevent this by actually have universal healthcare, better funding to CDC, and better sick leave.

Yes, unfortunately, it have to be political. There is no escaping it, when it comes to healthcare.

It is much more urgent when country keeps on creating new viruses and we become more globally connected.

Post reply on HN