|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Wrong...an extremely superficial statement full or more holes than you
can imagine.
Saying
intervention is the problem is like saying guns are bad.....and we all know
how<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> silly that is.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Adrian
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
<FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----From: Code 2
[mailto:Code2@xxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, 20 November 2003 3:50
AMTo: Realtraders ListSubject: Re: [RT] Re: Fed
supporting marketThe Austrian school economists would
respond thatproviding liquidity *is* intervention, and that
anyintervention in the markets contributes to boom and
bustcycles. Intervention is the problem, not the solution
;)----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry B. Rhodes"
<trhodes3@xxxxxxxxx>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Sent:
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:16 PMSubject: [RT] Re: Fed supporting
marketAs others have pointed out, providing liquidity is not
thesame as intervening directly to support the market. I haveconfirmed
as fact that the FED is legally capable ofintervening directly, but know
of no confirmed incidentwhere this has happened. This is the question i am
askingProviding liquidity is the standard FED response to
anyfinancial crisis, real or imagined. 1987, Y2K and 9/11 area few
examples of this.regards,tbr> The fact is it
did happen in 1987. The fed told the banks to> give unlimited
credit.To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|