Fed to inject $1.5T to prevent ‘unusual disruptions’ in markets • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by neurocline » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #250

ceejayoz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taiwan and Singapore appear to be containing it thus far. China, too, if you can trust their numbers, and South Korea's look positive after a big starting spike. Each of these countries took early (except for China, but they shut down Wuhan with fewer cases than the US has now), aggressive steps that should be considered a model for others.

South Korea has 8,000 active cases, over 114 today alone. Singapore has a population of 5.8M. They've got 178 cases. The U.S. has a population of 320M with 1338 cases. That means their infection rate is nearly 10x higher than the U.S. Meanwhile, we are taking action. Shutting down European travel, Chinese travel, cancelling schools, cancelling NBA season, NHL season, etc, etc...We are taking aggressive steps.

We had 1300 cases. Now it's over 2000. It will be well over 5000 by next week. It does not look like other countries have higher infection rates than the U.S., but nearly similar.

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

#362

Post by jonahbenton » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

OGWhales wrote: post #348

jonahbenton wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There are all kinds of discontinuities in money but this narrative is just an exhibition of ignorance. Even when "money backed by gold" was a slightly less completely inaccurate fiction than it is now, what people "knew" to be money was many, many, many different things, depending on where they were and what they did for work. Stories like this are like religious narratives, and "money backed by gold" is like the…

What are you talking about? I’d love to see you actually expand on this and explain what you mean instead of just pooping on it and saying people believe in fairy tails.

I'm sorry- I am happy to respond to specific questions from the above but nearly every single sentence is a factual/historical misrepresentation, and the language/terminology ("fiat-based", "backed by gold", "yet everyone legally obliged to accept it") is that of someone who has a particular religious view of money (maybe a "goldbug") that may have its own philosophical consistency but...is...just...completely...ahistorical.

Money is a much more interesting topic that goldbugs give it...um...credit for.

There is another recent discussion on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22573204

that has a lot of pointers to good resources from which to begin the discovery process.

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

#363

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 14, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #311

tropdrop wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!" A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps . Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?

To be fair, a test with high false-negative rate would be problematic. 10 people released into the wild, who think they don't have it, is worse than 10 people released into the wild who are uncertain about their status. Not saying that's what happened here (perfect is the enemy of the good!), just that it could be worse. It could always be worse.

[deleted]

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

#364

Post by FlyMoreRockets » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

OGWhales wrote: post #350

imtringued wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always forget that the bank bailout is ultimately about people protecting their own bank accounts. If you dislike the incompetent banks then take your business to a bank you trust.

There aren’t any

Credit unions are generally trustworthy.

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

#365

Post by Jommi » Sun, Mar 15, 2020, 1:42 AM UTC

tropdrop wrote: post #299

Jommi wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which test? What kind of distribution did that test have? What kind of distribution capacity did that test have? What kind of false positive rate?

Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!" A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps . Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?

I would rather anyone with symptoms and ability to self quarantine instead of burdening the economy and healthcare system.

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

#366

Post by strbean » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 8:25 PM UTC

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #240

strbean wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving Person A a "good deal" on loans so they can loan that money to Person B at a great profit isn't so different from just giving money to Person A.

Yes it is, because they have to pay the money back... The money they make isn't "fake" in some sense, like you're making it out to be. It's real utility that they have generated by providing liquidity. Loaning money is not a get rich quick scheme. There is risk involved.

Fair point that the interest accrued is coming out of the pre-existing money supply. Doesn't really change the thrust of my comment that you quoted though - they are being handed the ability to accrue capital.

Also, this is getting a little into the weeds philosophically, but injecting large amounts of capital in this way increases the money supply (and by much more than the amount of capital injected). In a sense, this is a tax on everyone who was not a recipient of that capital via a reduction in the purchasing power of their capital. Generally, consumer prices aren't going to go up in this case... but tons of people who had no investments have been looking at this crash as an opportunity to get in the game, and these efforts to prop up the markets with monetary policy in the face of an honest-to-goodness crisis can feel a little gatekeeper-ish.

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

#367

Post by chonitoe » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 4:43 AM UTC

OGWhales wrote: post #350

imtringued wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always forget that the bank bailout is ultimately about people protecting their own bank accounts. If you dislike the incompetent banks then take your business to a bank you trust.

There aren’t any

I trust my BTC wallet.