Yes it is open ended; they will buy bonds from now on until YOU PEOPLE restore the economy.

They don't print money btw

they order banks to give it to them. 

See in order for the FDIC to guarantee 100% of deposits it requires banks to keep a set % of deposits on hand as cash.  Like, maybe, 20%.  They work to calculate how much.  Too much, and the banks will lend 90% of the deposits and the taxpayer has to make that up if it goes sour.  Too few, and the economy slows down as credit dries up.

So what the Fed is doing, after figuring out what's safe and necessary for the bank to keep in the vault...they take it out of the vault, and give the bank an IOU.

It can only go wrong if all the banks fail at once or something, and that can only happen 1 in a 1000 years.  Well ok maybe 3x in a 100 years, as recently as 4 years ago. But what are the odds?

'this proves that the Federal Reserve is no longer an independent agency.'

it never was... wake up.

i don't think it's a pro democrat move

i think he's decided 15% of the workforce can't be allowed to camp out on unemployment/disability instead of changing careers, so he's creating pressure to make solving unemployment a priority

actually the stock market == the economy,
when a company has stocks bought (banks mainly) and it loses its value, they have to book off those losses, dropping their profit, forcing to sack people and/or hold off on handing out loans, either way the companys who rely on the banks wil have to sack people else the profit of their own stockholders wont be high enuf. those sacked people wont be able to buy the products them companys make, they earn even less, profit goes down even more, stocks drop....

result crisis!

Paininside....

Your wrong

Stocks are supposed to be about reflecting how the economy is. Black Friday happened because people realized the stocks did not reflect reality.

in other words speculation.

what i said stil stands, u just dont get what im saying einstein.

>.Paininside, you are factually incorrect in pretty much everything you said regarding the stock market. The notion that the stock market is even remotely an indicator of the health of an entire economy is laughable. Essentially you're saying that, as long as those investing have significant capital invested, everybody is inherently doing peachy!<

So? Short Petroleum futures and win, and then come back 

lol @ shorting petroleum. Oh man. If only I had the time, I'd love to learn to day-trade oil.

I want to share with you a wise quote from the first seminar I ever attended on stocks/markets/trading/etc: "I love shorting. I make more money from shorting. People don't panic and buy; people panic and sell."

I just manage a few grand (;)) worth of stocks, occaaasionally some options, while I maintain my normal day job. I get significantly better returns than I'd get with a 401k, mutual fund(s), or otherwise letting someone else manage my money.

It's true that certain computerized systems can cause problems for people/organizations. As someone who only uses stop-loss orders, I really don't care. That's their freedom, their choice.

Nobody forces anyone to invest, nor to use any particular software. Regardless of errors and glitches, free markets correct for these things better than any authority ever cold. Free markets are still a huuuuuuge net gain for all. If errors are made by market employees, there's always lawsuits to rectify the situation.

If you think that's noteworthy commentary regarding the Federal Reserve, I suggest reading G. Edward Griffin: "The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve."

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Paininside, you are factually incorrect in pretty much everything you said regarding the stock market. The notion that the stock market is even remotely an indicator of the health of an entire economy is laughable. Essentially you're saying that, as long as those investing have significant capital invested, everybody is inherently doing peachy!

Yet investment of the stock market is independent of employment rates and wages. It says nothing of the average person, many of whom aren't invested at all but would like to have the money to be. It's a good thing when the markets are up, but it's certainly not an indicator of the health of an entire economy--_especially_ when government printing presses are inflating currency.

People often invest in these times to protect their wealth from the inflation of the dollar, not because they have tons of faith in the market or wealth to spare investing in it. Sometimes rises in the stock market are an indication of negative factors in the economy driving people to protect their wealth from their currency's devaluation.

The Yell is pretty much correct, but there are natural market levels, measures of valuation, market trends, local and world events, and innovation. If a stock is undervalued, it's bound to rise as people realize it's got a lot more profit (sometimes dividend) potential than it's currently priced for. A key to investing in stocks is doing your research and identifying companies positioned to rise significantly.

I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't sound like you've ever traded on any market. I'm confused as to what you're basing all of these weird statements on.

While neither the economy or the stock market are clear indicators of one anothers health, they are both effected by the same market trends, wages, taxes, world events etc proir mentioned. If in a consumer economy (like the US)  consumers arent spending then people aren't investing.  I'm on my phone atm but will elaborate a bit later.. I love discusions of this nature ;l

Sometimes the stock value of a closing company goes up due to a sudden find of value in the sell off.

Sometimes a company selling off assets will get a bump since this will increase their dividend for the year.