The Fed will extend as much money to banks and other financial institutions to make sure they don’t go under as it has to. Bernanke has made that real clear.

Is that the Libertarian or Conservative Economic model of non-intervention?

When will they let an entity fail and what defines when they don’t think they can afford to do that?

Is this just a crazy scheme on a massive scale to wipe out billions, hundreds of billions of dollars so the switch to Petro-Euros can proceed? What would we do with all those dollars chasing few good anyway? Oh, that’s the inflation we’re already seeing.

Is isproper to say to gas/oil companies, “Hold on, now. Your profits are indecent. Accept lower profits or we’ll do — .” What would we do? Nationalize them?!

Lower profit rate, invest excess profit in ‘green’ energies or get taxed to remove the huge profits which are partly to blame for inspiring speculation.

Take away much of the profits and the speculators have a lot less reason to manipulate the markets.

Take away the excess speculation (read as larger demand for oil than usual) and the price will decrease to more normal levels.

Government is talking a lot lately, but they need to get with the program or we’ll all be bankrupt before their legislation has any effect.

Sorry, don’t agree. I knew what was coming down the line in 2003. Wrote about it then, and there are people who can confirm it

i’m pretty sure i can at least confirm 2004 – was reading your posts at bopnews then.

Hyman Minsky knew this well and developed a model to predict, and help prevent “bubbles” in the future based on 7 stages. Nice rundown here:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/s…..hp?t=24601

We basically know what people are going to do now, and what they’ll do in the future in regard to financial behavior. That’s why we need government regulation designed to stop us from destroying ourselves. More here:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/…..lk_cassidy

It’s all really quite simple.

Ideas that may or may not hold a basis in fact but are accepted on well Faith is as a good a word as any despite evidence to the contrary is an idea to explore further.
Are we with less illusions because several years of GOP rule have forced us to abandon anything that really does not work?
Is Bush so bad because he has never been told No?
Is Ideology just bad code that got into the system even if it turns out to be right. Is the problem ideas accepted as true for some reason without facts?
Do our desires form reasons for what we wish were to be?

Jundge in Ohio? did that with a bunch of Mortages the Deutsche Bank claimed they owned, but could not proove. Those were, I believe, Judicial Foreclosures.

Non-Judicial foreclosures – don’t seen to require the same level of proof.

Anyone with knowledge?

I was referring to the aftermath, not the anticipation. G apparently never thought Fed should make bubbles the object of monetary policy. (I disagree with him & agree with you, but that’s another subject.) What he always thought was that the Fed should intervene after bubble burst, which is why he kept interest rates so low for so long after the tech bubble burst. Ditto the slow recovery in the 1990s.

G’s attitude about Fed having no business in bubble prevention is apparently documented Fed Gov Laurence Meyers’ book, but I got it out of his mouth after a meeting in about 2005.

My prediction record on this stuff has been just fine. And I have predicted based on the thesis that Greenspan was a libertarian Republican ideologue. It predicted his actions just fine. He REFUSED act on what was blindingly obvious to many of us who were outside of the system, and who had no ideological axe to grind about, say, how wonderful home ownership is because home owners support capitalism.

As for Bernanke, using the thesis “he’s a Republican inflationist” has predicted his actions damn near 100%.

Everyone’s a “real person” and real people have ideologies. Those who think they don’t are just acting out someone else’s ideology without being aware of it.