Quote of the Day, Economic Recovery Edition II
David Wessel goes to a familiar source:
One big reason is that his efforts have made borrowing easy for big companies, those that can sell bonds, but not for consumers or smaller firms that rely on banks to borrow. “If you’re a large corporation relying on capital markets, the Fed and Treasury saved you,” says Charles Calomiris, a Columbia University economist. “In the other economy, the real engine of job creation, the banks aren’t lending and bank capital is still very scarce.”
Stuffing pension funds with GE Commercial Paper has never been easier. Creating the next GE (a working model this time?): a lot more difficult.
“Those wicked bankers–refusing to lend to small businesses! So say the pols. The reality is something else.”
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0301/opinions-banks-lending-business-credit-crunch.html
This is a veritable drama, because with “imperial overstretch” and bailing out every Tom Dick and Harry/Hank they now themselves face sovereign bankruptcy. Thanks for the links.
A commenter (jay) provided a study recently that showed weakening demand for loans going back more than 20 quarters. I tried to find that study but could not. I did find this:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/02/demand-for-loans-weakens-again-in-fed_01.htmly
I am driven to ask – what’s your point? This comment seems to do little more than point to something that is generally known and say, in a snippy tone, “that’s a bad thing”.
Not much to talk about, if that’s all you’ve got. What do you suggest we do about it?
kharris,
Your comment seems aimed at you comment more than any of the others? Are you talking to yourself?
kharris,
Your comment seems to be aimed — at your comment (the “snippy” provides something of a boom-a-rang effect). Perhaps you should try naming who it is that you are trying to insult? And don’t forget those self-imposed standards from your comment yesterday — one boom-a-rang at a time is difficult enough to dodge.