On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:14:55 -0600, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> A criticism of your rhetoric as moralizing isn't a criticism of you.
> It is if you're a performance artist.
I guess this is the sort of 'nit,' Jordan is warning about. So, I'll take his advise and not respond to it and simply rely on the honesty and intellectual self-respect of others to draw the obvious conclusions regarding Thornton, as no doubt most have long ago, and not fall for his plainly ostracizing behaviour.
Instead, I'll ask a question for John or others.
If, as has been claimed, a component of the crisis is an unwillingness of Banks to lend, especially to each other, doesn't lowering interest rates compound this problem?
Lower interest rates immediately reduce Bank revenues from tracker mortgages, and thereby reduce the return to lending of any kind. If this is really, as often claimed, a crisis of banks refusing to lend, rather than being unable to find borrowers, shouldn't interest rates have gone up? If banks are failing, why reduce their revenue?
Another interesting claim, particularly in the £500 UK "rescue", is the that the treasury is making "an investment," and further, that the rescue will be partially borrowed money. A) If hungry borrowers are suffering because sulky banks are reluctant to lend, then doesn't the government borrowing a bunch of money crowd them out of the a scarce market for available funds? Where does the government plan to borrow money from? Foreign sources? Further, if these really are "investments," why are other investors not after them? In particular, why not the sources who are funding the government borrowing?
By the way, if they lay off enough traders in London, is possible to get the cute red and yellow phones with the floppy black antennas they shout into?? My Daughter would love one.
-- Dmytri Kleiner editing text files since 1981
http://www.telekommunisten.net