I've been wrestling with a moral question. Would it have been better to allow the bear market of 2008-09 to continue down to its ultimate and natural conclusion -- or would it have been preferable to "step in" (as the Bernanke Fed did) and attempt to halt the bear market in its tracks? Of course, we know that Ben Bernanke chose the latter course, which meant attempting to halt the bear market.
Personally, I've voted against the Bernanke way. The reason is that I never thought it was possible to halt and then reverse the primary trend of the stock market or the economy -- any more than I think we can halt the dawn and thus hold back the night.
One of the basic theorems of Dow Theory is that the primary trend of the market cannot be reversed. Once a bull or bear market is under way, one way or ... Log in or subscribe to continue reading.
Premium Content Notification
A subscription is necessary to access premium content.
Please use the button below to subscribe in order to access all premium articles