Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

281–290 of 367 posts

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

#281
post #88

Really love how people are on Twitter and other outlets blaming this action on Trump already when it literally has absolutely nothing to do with him and he has opposed almost all action the Fed has taken so far. Social media and the hive mind read the title and not the information mentality is really getting tiring for me..

yep, the best part is the white house streams a ton of stuff and you can go in the youtube and watch it all anytime you want. that's how i get my info.

of course twits love to read sources that already follow their own personal narrative.

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

#282
post #31

How much more effective would it be to put this purchasing power toward simply combating the virus? Probably a lot...

You have to read between the lines here. They did this because there was not enough liquidity to cover the institutional sell off in the bond market. In other words, had they not done this, there very well could have been a run on the banks. That would be very very bad. You can’t fight the virus if hospitals can’t pay doctors.

It's like 99% of the population have no idea why the reserve banking system exists.

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

#283
post #61

Nobody is asking anything about funds now. But so many seems to be angry about healthcare for all. A universal health care can survive this pandemic and also others. This is unbelievable

But don't worry! Joe Biden has guaranteed he'd veto such an act even if it got through the house and senate.

Good, because it's a bad plan that won't work.

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

#284
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…

It's honestly mindblowing that hacker news has reached the point where a comment asking for primary sources and evidence is downvoted.

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

#285
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lamar Alexander was not against providing this support. He blocked it based on how it was going to be paid for. It's very much a partisan issue because the Democrats want companies to foot the bill. The GOP thinks that if Washington DC thinks companies should do something then Washington DC should foot the bill. Neither side disagrees that people should have this support. All the Democrats had to do is introduce the…

Companies can pay from their CEO's paychecks. Are you telling me Walmart and McDonald's are hurting? What's the net worth of their founders' families again?

You think Walmart and MacDonalds are the only companies out there? Those are the ones that are going to survive regardless. What about the 32.5 million other businesses in the US?

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

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-American that's somewhat ignorant of the current states of the US legislative houses on this matter, could someone provide some context as to why the comment directly parent to $self is being maligned?

I downvoted because I disagree with the way they are arguing. The gp's(grandposter) comment uses the word companies. Which companies? Well we're talking about the US and health care so it has gotta be the health insurance companies? No, the bill Lamar disagreed with was to make employer's provide sick time to their employees. Also, pp(parentposter) is what I use. OP is reserved for poster of the content.

"Companies" in my comment refers to the 32.5 million businesses in the US since the proposal is that employers pay sick leave. I'm not sure why you're referring to health insurance companies. Yes they have employees that may need sick leave, but they are not the only ones.

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

#287
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fed isn't printing 1.5 trillion greenbacks and handing out fat sacks on Wall St. They are providing short-term loans to increase the amount of money in circulation (liquidity). The intent is to increase the total amount of trading occurring so that the market can return to equilibrium sooner than later. The Fed wants to prevent firms from not making trades solely for lack of liquidity in the market. edit: "from m…

There is huge amount of cash sloshing around as it is. Folks like Mark Cuban have already been mostly cash. Big tech have $100B cash lying around. I think it would be disgenuous to say there is no cash available for trading but perhaps right thing to say that I rather not trad with my own cash. I presume if you trad with fed money and go on loss over long term then you can simply declare bankrupcy of your shell compa…

Literally printing money and pushing up inflation would effectively claw back these dollars, yeah? So long as you send rebates to everyone else.

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

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion is that it is because I wrote "I honestly don't understand why the Democrats are so consistently anti-business in so many things they do", which I will admit is a tad bit flamebait-y on a forum that leans heavily Democrat. Non-Democrat positions are heavily downvoted across Hacker News.

I dont understand one thing though in my life time I am in my late 30s. Us has done well economically under Democrats compared to Republicans. But Republicans are considered pro business and Democrats anti business. Republicans talk about fiscal conservation but run up huge bills. Democrats talk about spending on healthcare etc but actually improve the deficit.

Republicans haven't been about fiscal conservation in a while.

It's also a mistake to just look at who controls the White House to figure out which party is in control when the economy does well economically. Both the executive and legislative branches matter and for the legislative, you need to control both houses. Even if one party controls the excutive and both houses of congress, it's hard to attribute the success of the economy to the current controlling party. Somethings the economy might be doing better because of current policies and sometimes it might be doing better because of policies enacted by the previous administration and congress, but the effects were latent.

In general, you can't take a macro look to determine which party is better for business. Instead you've got to look at things on a policy by policy basis and look at the first and second order economic impacts of specific policies.

Also, while Republicans haven't been very fiscally conservative in many years, most of the "huge bills being run up" are only sometimes from new spending. Most of the time, running up the bills is just from tax cuts. The democrats pass spending bills with accompanying taxes and the republicans are unable to undo both the spending and the taxes at the same time, so they negotiate for at least cutting taxes to help the economy, but the spending gets left in place.

The truth is that both parties are generally drunken spenders, but that one party has no issue taking more money from productive Americans to pay for their drunken spending.

FWIW, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat. Both parties are awful, but at least the Republicans try to let people keep money they've earned and rarely try to raise new taxes.

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

#289
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, the way this works is this (as I understand it): I'm a bank, I need some cash to operate (people withdrawing money, trading, making payments, etc.), but I have no cash. I have $10B in US Treasury bonds, but - well, they're notionally worth $10B, but nobody want to exchange them for money, because noone else has money to spare (i.e. liquidity crisis ). So here comes the Fed, takes my $10B in bonds, gives me $10B o…

Genuine question here. Any data on the typical duration of these loans? How long typically the Fed holds collateral?

I remember 2 years ago the market throwing a tantrum because of the fed unwinding it balance sheet. Doesn’t that mean that typical loans are never repaid and the Fed just let the bonds mature?

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

#290

So here's the thing: 80% of the population doesn't own stock. When fed pumps such massive money to prep the stocks, where does that money end up? I guess the idea is that then we pump the stock so companies continue to hire people so unemployment remains low. Considering the vast majority of jobs are low paying, if not outright minimum wage jobs, this means these trillions of dollars of fed charity is basically meant…

The fed doesn't pump stocks. It buys bonds and gives good deals on loans. It merely increases liquidity. It doesn't just give money to people.

I suspect that it won’t be too long until the Fed starts to buy stock the same way the BoJ has been buying stock for nearly 30 years.
Post reply on HN