- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
Letters to the Editor
Question of the Day
Misguided foreign policy
The article “Olmert, Abbas confer in Jericho” (Foreign, Tuesday) covering the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Jericho — a town controlled by the Palestinian Authority, but of tremendous historical and religious significance to Jews — describes the surrender of Mr. Olmert to the demands not only of Mr. Abbas but a misdirected State Department foreign policy. The discussions included the surrender of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority with the removal of 250,000 Israelis from that area, the subdividing of Jerusalem with the Arab section including a Jewish majority and the right of return of the descendants of Arabs displaced during the Arab wars to destroy Israel.
Only fleeting mention is made of the obligations of the Palestinian Authority under the proposed settlement, with the main themes being opening checkpoints to allow Arab terrorists to enter Israel, the transfer of funds to Mr. Abbas and a momentary discussion of security. The State Department continues its flawed policy in this region.
The Fed’s priorities
Thank you for the informative editorial (“No Fed bailout,” Tuesday) regarding the current credit crisis and its subsequent impact on financial markets. The smart editorial balances all the contradictory attributes from weak growth to an accelerated consumer price index. My concern is that while the economic analysis is sound the editorial failed to acknowledge the structural changes our economy has produced as a result of the U.S. Federal Reserve establishing a 2002-2003 sustained low-interest-rate policy.
The editorial fails to recognize how sustained low interest rates in 2002 2003 became the catalyst for the explosive growth of hedge funds. PerTrac Analytical Platform survey in March 2007 identified well over 4,000 hedge funds with single fund managers accounting for over $1.41 trillion under management with 250 funds surpassing $1 billion mark alone.
From the stock-market crash in 1987 to the bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan often assured global markets that the Fed would provide enough money to keep financial markets functioning. As a result, interest rates edged lower, markets recovered and corrections became but a pause in a bull market.
In 1998, during the Long Term Capital debacle, there were approximately 400 500 hedge funds with over 40 U.S. primary broker dealers prepared to buy back securities in the event of a selloff. It only took one heavily leveraged hedge fund liquidating $130 billion of securities to seize Wall Street’s primary broker dealer community. Today, as a result of several large mergers, there are only 21 U.S. primary broker dealers servicing thousands of hedge funds while the Fed has raised the Fed Funds rate 17 consecutive times.
Thus Steven Rattner’s concerns are not misplaced. The coming market dislocation will not be relegated to the housing market alone. The Federal Reserve’s singular focus on inflation at the expense ofrecognizing new structural imbalances could quite possibly tip the technical balance that supports the sensitive relationship between hedge funds and the global financial service, creating a severe market dislocation.
I also challenge The Times’ assertion that the Fed can only maintain its credibility by maintaining current interest-rate levels. By deciding to leave current interest rates unchanged on Tuesday, the Federal Reserve set two new precedents. First, it signalled that it bails out exclusive hedge funds when they err, but not the overextended taxpaying homeowner. Second, the Federal Reserve failed to understand how its low-interest-rate policies from 2002 2003 resulted in the explosive growth of hedge funds and the unintended structural imbalances they fostered in the global financial markets.
How do The Washington Times and the Federal Reserve define “moral hazard”?
MICHAEL P. MULHALL
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Pentagon wants extra $19M to equip, train Ukrainian troops
- Ted Nugent slams 'lying freaks' at liberal media: I'm 'doing God's work'
- Houston mayor: Sorry that police put man's blind dog on road to die
Top 10 U.S. military helicopters
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors