柏南克任期屆滿,                    

正在努力想要連任時,

1.聯準會想要獲得更多的權利

2.歐巴瑪想要對憤怒的民眾有所交代

3.雙方達成共識:「維持現狀,有條件公布資訊」

他們都獲得了勝利,

但是苦了全球跟美元有關的百姓。

美國國會仍然沈醉在

聯準會的酒水之中


Congress Is the Drunk at the Fed’s Punch Bowl: Roger Lowenstein

Commentary by Roger Lowenstein

 

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress wants to ride herd over the Federal Reserve. It wants the power to scrutinize the Fed’s interest-rate decisions. It wants to look into how the Fed decides to lend to individual banks.

Like a lot of their constituents, legislators are angry at the Fed’s handling of the financial crisis. They want to know why the Fed permitted such a huge financial bubble to develop -- and why, when it burst, it bailed out so many banks.

Many of the criticisms of the Fed are valid. Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, who oversaw the economy during the boom years, has admitted he placed too much faith in the ability of bankers to monitor their risks. Ben Bernanke, the current chairman, has been overhauling regulatory policy in the hope of preventing a repeat.

But here’s the thing. The changes that Congress is urging would make things worse. If anything, the Fed has been too sensitive to public opinion. And in the recent past, it was too eager to satisfy the public with an easy-interest-rate and easy- mortgage policy.

Last week, when Bernanke testified before the Senate Banking Committee, which is deliberating whether to confirm him for a second term, senators let him have it. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, more famous for throwing a perfect game in his baseball career than for his central banking expertise, called Bernanke “the definition of a moral hazard.” Bernard Sanders of Vermont, a state with fewer bankers than cows, is vowing to block Bernanke’s reconfirmation.

Serious Threat

Bernanke will surely be approved. But the threat to rein in the Fed’s power is serious. The Fed was created as an independent agency precisely so it could make politically unpopular decisions. A Bernie Sanders is unlikely to push for higher interest rates when they are needed. And history shows that political meddling in the Fed has led to serious problems for the nation’s economy.

 

原文連結:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=asvyl3kHiJpQ

 


美國和花旗銀行協調抒困時

放棄徵收花旗百億美元的稅收

由於花旗銀行今年因為抒困案而「免稅」

所以當花旗銀行宣稱今年虧損$380億美元

因此將來可以隱瞞並坐收$380億美元的利潤

U.S. gave up billions in tax money in deal for Citigroup's bailout repayment

Deal made to recover bailout Firms exempted from rule when U.S. sells its stake

Citigroup says it has built up $38 billion in losses. With the tax exemption, it will be able to shelter up to $38 billion in future profits. (Richard Drew/associated Press)

By Binyamin AppelbaumWashington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The federal government quietly agreed to forgo billions of dollars in potential tax payments from Citigroup as part of the deal announced this week to wean the company from the massive taxpayer bailout that helped it survive the financial crisis.

This Story

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday issued an exception to long-standing tax rules for the benefit of Citigroup and a few other companies partially owned by the government. As a result, Citigroup will be allowed to retain billions of dollars worth of tax breaks that otherwise would decline in value when the government sells its stake to private investors.

While the Obama administration has said taxpayers are likely to profit from the sale of the Citigroup shares, accounting experts said the lost tax revenue could easily outstrip those profits.

原文(全)連結:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534.html?hpid=topnews


FrederickWang 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(2) 人氣()


留言列表 (2)

發表留言
  • 誌哲
  • 美股歷史上最糟的十年2000~2009

    自己心得分享:
    1.過去不代表未來,但現在卻用過去的數據來衡量未來。
    2.利基點不同,數據就會被美化了,這部份很容易動手腳的,取樣區間取的漂亮就好。
    3.大蕭條時代平均每年下跌0.5%,看似最近這十年還比較好,但實際上加了通膨及
    減少了20世紀前的高股息因素下,這十年平均每年下跌3.3%。
    我們早就深陷大蕭條的環境中了。
    http://cn.wsj.com/big5/20091221/stk103325.asp?source=newsletter
    節錄一些我看到的重點~
    1.不管投資哪裡﹐從債券到黃金﹐甚至是只把現金藏在被褥下﹐幾乎都比投資股市要好。
    股票每年平均下跌0.5%。
    2.對於利用股市作為存錢養老首要投資途徑的普通美國人來講﹐
    這段時期為他們上了一堂課。
    3.80~90年代。90年代平均每年增長17.6%。過90年代之後﹐股市市值變得過高﹐
    企業也削減股息﹐降低了投資者回報。2008年金融危機﹐
    股市成了一個特別糟糕的投資領地。
    4.這種跌勢超過了20世紀30年代的 “大蕭條”時期。
    30年代股市以0.2%的跌幅﹐成了21世紀以前股市表現最差的十年。
    5.雖然整個市場趨勢是穩步向上的﹐但過去的十年提醒人們﹐股市可能會經歷長期下跌。
    這些統計數據在一定程度上存在因為時間計算的問題而產生的『失真』,
    考慮到通貨膨脹的影響後﹐過去這個十年股市的表現顯得更差。
    6.00~09持有債券的話,各種類別的債券漲幅達到5.6%~超過8%。
    『黃金』是表現最佳的資產﹐繼20世紀90年代每年下跌3%以後﹐
    這個十年的年均漲幅達到15%。
    7.最重要的一點~~美國股市什麼地方出錯了?首先﹐是原來的估價規則出了問題。
    (1)美國大盤股高估了約30% (2)上世紀80年代後期的股息下降。
  • FrederickWang
  • 誌哲說得沒錯沒錯,
    很多政府或商人的宣傳口號都沒有在「說謊」
    但是很可能有「未盡告知的義務」或「特定狀況下所計算出來的數據」
    (現在20年的「房貸利率」就是如此。
    自己算一下20年後一共繳給銀行的本利和後
    再拿來和貸款額比較就知道)

    2000~2009股市有漲有跌,
    但是還要考慮通貨膨脹與幣值匯率的問題
    才不會「賺了指數賠了購買力」

    今天我的岳父告訴我說
    1953年一個上尉每個月的薪水是$330新台幣
    現在2009年已經膨脹了「一百倍」以上;
    如果以現在各國印鈔票的速度來看
    以後退休時可能又是百、千倍不止。

    趕快培養自己的財務智商,
    千萬別再用「鈔票金額」來看財富
    才不會中了有錢人(或政府)的陰謀。