Re: The Repo Market Time Bomb <37123862.C3CB1FC5@interport.net> <37125436.870F5B91@mindspring.com> <v0401171bb3381110ba23@[166.84.250.86]> <v04011721b3381726287e@[166.84.250.86]>

[stan jonas <joco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

im sure there are other reasons as well
i didn't see an empirical question.. usually those entail
a means for determining their veracity or not.. oops.. but that
would mean referring to a 20th century theory.. a la Popper

Doug Henwood wrote:

> stan jonas wrote:
>
> >silly question..
>
> Sillier answer.
>
> >you should go back to your Marshall..
>
> Oh, best place to go to answer an empirical question about the late 20th
> century is to return to a theoretical text from the late 19th. Gosh, why
> didn't I think of that? That must be why you're on CNBC regularly and I'm
> not.
>
> >even if one accepts your initial premise..
> >imagine how much worse it could be if there was not efficient fixed income
> >market
> >place..
>
> That's a neat counterfactual! So much faith in theory that you just *know*
> things would be worse if it weren't for the repo market.
>
> >for a starter look at whats happened to mortgage rates and the number of
> >people
> >that have even if they can't afford private housing.
>
> I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean - not that I'm some
> old-fashioned believer in the stability of meaning, of course - but if
> you're touting the virtues of deeper mortgage markets, then I know one
> advantage: more mortgage debt. According to the Fed's balance sheets, home
> mortgages outstanding were around 30% of the value of underlying real
> estate, and now they're 45%. A measurable increase in human welfare, I'm
> sure you & Marshall would agree.
>
> Doug