›

Fed lending chart over time

gettohomesgettohomes
edited August 2008 in The Economy
we're gonna need a bigger boat.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW

can anyone explain to me why this isn't as bad as it looks...or is it really that bad?

Comments

  • bilirubenbiliruben
    Banks borrowing directly from the fed was taboo until recently. It made people think you might be insolvent.

    Of course now that we already know they are insolvent, it's all good. ;)
  • rose-colored-coolaidrose-colored-coolaid
    gettohomes wrote:
    we're gonna need a bigger boat.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW

    can anyone explain to me why this isn't as bad as it looks...or is it really that bad?

    The only argument I could make is 1985. Since most of this chart is at 0, if you were to do the same graph in 1985, you'd see a similar looking uptick (straight up when almost all previous lending had been flat).

    Obviously $0 is good, but it's impossible to know when a number greater than $0 goes from being bad to worst based on this chart.

    That's all I got.
  • perfectfireperfectfire
    It's a good try, but the uptick in '85 is at most 4 times the size of the previous peak around '72. This one is around 20 times the size of '85.
  • rose-colored-coolaidrose-colored-coolaid
    perfectfire wrote:
    It's a good try, but the uptick in '85 is at most 4 times the size of the previous peak around '72. This one is around 20 times the size of '85.

    Yeah, but 85-72 = 13
    2008-1985 = 23

    23/13 = 2 (approximately)

    Twice the time has passed, so we would expect perhaps an 8x uptick comparing 2008 with 1985. It's still 2.5x as bad as it should be though.

    Isn't it fun playing with numbers in fundamentally invalid ways?
  • perfectfireperfectfire
    rose-colored-coolaid wrote:
    Yeah, but 85-72 = 13
    2008-1985 = 23

    23 and 13 are both prime numbers. If you subtract 13 from 23 you get 10 which just happens to be 1 away from both 9 and 11. 9/11!! Coincidence? I think not. Wake up sheeple!
  • lamontlamont
    edited August 2008
    try it with a log graph:

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=BORROW&s[1][transformation]=log

    and if you map -5 to a 0 on the richter scale and 5 to a 10 on the richter scale, it looks like 1987 was about a 7.0 while we're currently hitting a 10.0
  • SeattleMooseSeattleMoose
    One time I saw a Sasquatch..... :mrgreen:
  • rose-colored-coolaidrose-colored-coolaid
    perfectfire wrote:
    23 and 13 are both prime numbers. If you subtract 13 from 23 you get 10 which just happens to be 1 away from both 9 and 11. 9/11!! Coincidence? I think not. Wake up sheeple!

    Ah, but 22 and 12 are both subprime numbers. 12 is remarkable in that it is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6 meanwhile 22 is divisible by 2 and 11. Remove any powers of 2 and you are left with 3, 6, 11 => 3 + 6/11 => 9/11.

    So, this information links both prime and subprime housing to 9/11.
  • TJ_98370TJ_98370
    Do you guys talk with David Losh much?
  • rose-colored-coolaidrose-colored-coolaid
    TJ_98370 wrote:
    Do you guys talk with David Losh much?

    You mean King David right?
Sign In or Register to comment.