With a modicum of hindsight now available, do governments and central banks deserve credit for preventing catastrophe? The early verdict from most scholars, executives and government insiders is yes.
On the question of which of dozens of extraordinary interventions -- rock-bottom interest rates, surging government spending, billions of taxpayer dollars injected into banks, sweeping government guarantees -- made the biggest difference, there's less agreement.
In my opinion, the actions of the federal government that gave the most bang for the buck were those that were intended to prevent panic and fear. A good example was the money market fund guarantee program. It helped ease worries of investors, and according to news reports, it actually made money for the government.
Submitted: Sep 15, 2009
Views: 197
Comments: 0
Likes: 1
View Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125288495316307191.html
Sponsor Updates and Offers
Related Articles:
Is Cheap Money Era Coming to an End? by PhilR - Jun 20, 2007 Summer Vacation for the Fed by PhilR - Jun 23, 2007 Weak Retail Sales Could Convince Fed to Cut Rates by PhilR - Sep 15, 2007 Protectionism - 2008-2009 Style by JRodgers - Dec 20, 2008 Fed Chairman Summary of Bernanke's Speech to the Economic Club of New York by PhilR - Oct 15, 2007 Fed Getting Desperate Appeals Directly to Homeowners by PhilR - Mar 16, 2008 Could Fed and ECB Policy Differences Lead to Catastrophic event? by soczie - Jun 18, 2008 Banco Santander Brazil IPO Raises over $8 Billion by soczie - Oct 07, 2009 Morgan Stanley and Fifth-Third Disappoint - Virtually no Banks are immune by AronLiv - Jun 18, 2008 Bank Savoy Offers 2.60% on Savings Until April 15, 2010 by AronLiv - Jan 09, 2010.
Email to someone |
Print Content |
Add to reading list