Time to Nationalize the Stock Market, Too?

October 28, 2008 RSS Feed Print

"Why didn't the feds bail out my tech fund back in 2001?" I've heard plenty of comments like that during the past month or so. Well, a new piece of analysis over at the fine VoxEU site explores the possibility of Uncle Sam's buying stocks to shore up a plunging market. Economist Frank Heinemann posits that if the market should fall below a level that is "clearly below the present value of expected future revenues," the Federal Reserve could theoretically "temporarily guarantee a lower [limit] for the S&P 500 through targeted purchases of market portfolios via open-market operations and financed by injecting cash." Yet Heinemann does admit that this would create a smidgen of a moral hazard problem:

This action would continue to create a moral hazard problem in the future, as market participants would expect that the systemic risk in future crises would be borne by the Fed. On the other hand, current actions aimed at refinancing and recapitalizing banks have the same effect—but even more, because they are directly aimed at helping those institutions that created systemic risk. The latter creates a bailout arbitrage in which institutions have an additional incentive to magnify systemic risk.

Tags:
government intervention,
Federal Reserve,
stock market,
Wall Street

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It is time to cease the argument regarding Socialism versus Capitalism and begin the movement towards Peace and Prosperity

10 years ago, we were fighting the Asian financial crisis, faced strong objections from the USA, and were criticized as having departed from the capitalist free economy competition principle. Now that a financial crisis has swept the USA, government has taken completely different actions, prompted criticism from academia along with the media. However, these accusations were utterly disregarded, resulting in absolutely no influence on the government’s decisions.

It is obvious that when it comes down to it, no one is willing to sacrifice their current success and own wellbeing to make a statement in the esoteric war against the hundred year old definition of socialism. More.... http://fengbozhang.blogspot.com/

A very interesting article, based on his true China, Japan and USA experience.

Source: USA TODAY, WashingtonPost

Mmcley of NJ 10:41PM November 11, 2008

This economic crash is proof enough - This knucklehead Republican economics ain't working, anyway you try to sugarcoat it. All the psychobabble of dishonest GOPs stand for spreading the wealth to the richest only, and oh ya the taxpayers can cover any losses of risk incurred by the same rich folks. This is not capitalism - its just like playing a rigged one-armed bandit in a republican casino economy.

Bush and McCain policies have been courting disaster and we get stuck with their mess. The country just can not afford anymore more of the same garbage pseudo-economics McCain is selling.

These repugnuts have ruined the economy, and should be held to account.

Bush/Mcain's Bailout Economics = Privatize the Profits and Socialize the Losses.

Paul of WA 2:22AM October 29, 2008

Paul, you are terribly misinformed when it comes to socialist tendencies. Republicans are nowhere near socialist, especially you refer to Palin windfall profits tax...this is the same as a public company issuing a dividend to shareholders. Sharing profits is not associated with socialism for in a socialist society, there is no profit. You do what you are good at and give it to those that need it and in return you get what others are good at...it's like a giant barter system, nobody gets ahead so profit is never realized...No, profit sharing, that is pure capitalism. Socialism is about sharing wealth.

And then you talk about debt financing being over??? Wow, that's Obama's entire platform. A trillion in new spending? Get the printing presses ready cuz he can't raise taxes enough to fund that...get informed, you are clearly unaware of what this election is all about or you only watch CNN.

bman of AZ 12:30AM October 29, 2008

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement