ben bernanke and the federal reserve acted correctly. and that is no small measure due to the part tha bernanke's doctoral thesis had to do with the great depression and he worked out a new interpretation why the great depression was so severe. he talked about the credit influences and that you really have to rescue the financial system to make sure lending continues. so i give him a lot of credit for saving things. the bush administration pushed through a small stimulus package in 2008 and that probably helped a bit. but in terms of fiscal policy, tarp, which was the bank bailout was incredibly important. it reassured people that the banking system was going to continue. tarp was a recapitalization of the banking system. the banks had been holding lots of assets that suddenly were less valuable than they were originally thought. if that happened sufficient the banks are insolvent and shutdown or continue like zombie banks as they did in japan for a while. so you need somebody to come in to provide funds to make those banks solvent. that

this was during the ben bernanke era creating uncertainty. but the dollar maintained purchasing power and more so on world markets. really the reason the people have faith in the dollar really two reasons. it has friction power in the united states and because it is based in a country where the laws and legal systems are trusted and the transparency, for instance, some people suggested that the chinese currency will be the new reserve currency but no one knows how much chinese currency is out there and no one knows the debts of the banks are. they don't have that transparency. the dollars' strength rest on the strength of the american economy and system and the lack of the gold back hasn't affected that. class carter stegal separated banks from investment banks. that was eroded and done away with in the 1990s. dodd-frank doesn't really touch that. it is a series of regulations that try to restrict banks and tries to stop what happened and the mortgage crisis from happening again. dodd-frank was passed in 1910 very recently. >> thank you very

this was during the ben bernanke era creating uncertainty. but the dollar maintained purchasing power and more so on world markets. really the reason the people have faith in the dollar really two reasons. it has friction power in the united states and because it is based in a country where the laws and legal systems are trusted and the transparency, for instance, some people suggested that the chinese currency will be the new reserve currency but no one knows how much chinese currency is out there and no one knows the debts of the banks are. they don't have that transparency. the dollars' strength rest on the strength of the american economy and system and the lack of the gold back hasn't affected that. class carter stegal separated banks from investment banks. that was eroded and done away with in the 1990s. dodd-frank doesn't really touch that. it is a series of regulations that try to restrict banks and tries to stop what happened and the mortgage crisis from happening again. dodd-frank was passed in 1910 very recently. >> thank you very

. >> when we come back, ben bernanke in primetime.ore on that in a moment. [ beep ] but you'll be glad to see it here. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be. if only the signs were as obvious when you trade. fidelity's active trader pro can help you find smarter entry and exit points and can help protect your potential profits. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be. - omg. you are so funny. in the time it took me to type that, if i were driving 55 miles an hour, i'd have driven the length of a football field blindly. not funny at all. don't text and drive. the more you know. >>> it might be the oddest story of the day. former fed chair ben bernanke making a cameo on the big bank theory on cbs. he's an extra along with his wife in the background of one scene. apparently they're big fan of the show. people were trying to figure this out this morning. just from the picture and then teller of pen and teller was on set and tweeted a picture of the three of them hanging out. >> it's a perfect little easter egg. it'

this is work ben bernanke did in 2008. but there was no federal reserve in 1907. i thought we might join the action during the middle of the panic when it struck an institution that was a fairly large sized bank in new york. ben strong is sent to go over the books and make a report. >> the knickerbocker was housed on 34th street with a temple designed by stanford white. the sidewalk had people with satchels which they hoped to carry off cash. stocks of green currency was piled on the counters. as ben went over the books in the bank he could hear the people clamoring for their money. he wrote the faces of the people in that line millions of many i knew i shall never forget. on tuesday october 22nd, the knickerbocker paid out $8 million and suspended operation. he reported he could not drive there. jp morgan decided not to intervene and morgan knew there would be a frantic run on every other trust in the city. new york's trust over the matter of a couple weeks went through a remarkable and devastating 48% of their deposits. even worse, at the end of october the loca

. >> trish, ben bernanke used to say zero percent interest rates will not hurt savers because they'll in the economy. that is the most asinine statement i have ever heard in my lifetime. these savers do not make it up in the economy, and basically these zero percents have crowded them out. and for an administration that talks about how they're for the poor and the middle class, it directly affects and hurts, and that's been a bad -- trish: it's pushed everybody further and further and further out on the risk curve. you've got mom and pop suddenly buying puerto rican debt, right? [laughter] >> you got it. trish: they're searching for yield because they can't get any if they go to the local bank. >> and they can't get a loan. trish: when she says stuff like i don't think it's really -- is it a spin? is anybody going to believe her? >> i agree with gary, stop off at a hot dog stand every once in a while and find out -- >> you're right. >> when you start to talk about the selloff in the market, and this is her words, the cost was not mainly because of their policies -- the cause was not m

for those of you here in the room and are distinguished fellow panelists, jerry stern, chairman bernanke and our long predecessor as well. thank you for being here. i want to remind everyone that the views expressed today are my own and i'm not speaking on behalf of the federal open market committee or the board of governors which sets regulatory supervision policy on the federal reserve system. today i will offer my assessment in the eye (-left-paren and the problem of too big to fail bank spirit i combat this problem from the perspective of a policymaker on the front on the frontline responded to the financial crisis in 2008. when congress moved quickly to pass the.frank asked in 2010, i strongly supported the need for financial reform, but i wanted to see the act implemented before a true firm conclusions about whether or not it's all too big to fail. in the last six years, my colleagues across the system have worked diligently under the reform framework that congress established and are fully utilizing available tools under the act to address today to fail. while significant progress

our friend bernanke had his own hypothesis on why the stocks are following oil.lled it a short-term correlation. it is hard to argue with that. the reason why stocks are following oil, look, the recent news came out. they have massive loan exposure to these energy companies. oil keeps going lower. that is not a good thing for this. it is really almost as simple as that. >> also, a lot of people with jobs tied to the oil sector. generally, going forward. a good thing for equity market. trickling its way into the bottom line on companies. >> alternately, i agreed. here in southern california, i see gas prices in the ones. people are coming out more. they are more comfortable. making discretionary spending choices. oil cannot go too low. if it gets out low, i do not think it will, we will see some serious pain with these banks. eric: we will be right back. ♪ with creative new business incentives, and the lowest taxes in decades, attracting the talent and companies of tomorrow. like in buffalo, where the largest solar gigafactory in the western hemisphere will soon e

is amplifying all of this is we have janet yellen looking at the labor markets, rather than one bernanke did, which was look at it inflation expectations. she will be slow to react to this which means the market will cascade much more slower than the fed will take action. brendan: there is some evidence that she is looking at inflation expectations, but there is no sign anywhere that there is why wouldpressure, so she change her mind based on assumptions about inflation? >> compare janet yellen and mario draghi. they are looking at related sets of data but they have completely opposing interpretations. is the glass half full or empty for investors? for central banks, is inflation a problem? we are talking about longer-term inflation expectations. the fed says it is all transient, the markets will go through it. have basedw is, we this economic recovery on asset price inflation. so when the fed takes a step back and prices deflate once again, it will cause economic headwinds. it is that aspect that the fed is not recognizing. that is why we will have these headwinds, economic growth will

even ben bernanke admits they should have been more aggressive at that last meeting in september.rlet: is looking at the breakeven rate of good way to gauge what is going on, or has it been distorted by years of zero interest rate policy? are some risk premium issues in there but it does provide a good gauge of what's going to happen going forward in terms of aggregate demand growth. if it's due to the rising risk premium, it's the same story. however you look at the breakeven, i think they were telling the story beginning in june or july 2008 that something bad was about to happen. the fed just did not pay close enough at tension -- attention to it. david, thanks for joining us. some guidanceve now for the fiscal fourth quarter of yahoo!, right now. looking for adjusted operating loss anywhere from the million dollars to $30 million for the fiscal first quarter. analysts were looking for something in the neighborhood of $181 million. yahoo! shares have been somewhat higher but have since turned first --hese 2016 and first quarter forecast. missing the consensus estimate of $907 m

at the heart of the issue is recovering information from the iphone of one of the bernanke killers. >> we have one of the killer's phones that we have not been able to open. it's been over two months. we are still working on it. alison: the government trying to assess left 14 dead. they have been unable to crack the iphone losed by syed farook. their concern is that ten unsuccessful attempts to open the phone would cause it to automatically erase key data and make the phone inaccessible. apple says they don't have the ability to just unlock the one iphone. >> to offer the assistance that the government needs, they have to literally create a whole new system to backdoor these phones. apple is saying look, once we create this, it will get out. then everything we built in terms of protecting privacy is out the door. michelle: legal analysts say this case is not easily resolved. alison: it may be decided at the supreme court level. we want you to weigh in on this. this the suspect of the twitter poll. should apple help here? vote and leave us a response. we have a look at early voting in

ben bernanke just a couple weeks ago said we are seeing the end of the dollar rally. is that right? isi think that the dollar overbought. -- there isely definitely more logic or it to declined and to drop. it immediately starts becoming a orden for a growing recovering economy in the u.s. at the same time, francine, when you look at the gold price relative to the gdp growth, the s&p or dow indices, the u.s. equities indices, there has been in the last short while a massive disconnection -- a mass of disconnection. it doesn't make sense, where the dollar sits today. then, we've got to see -- only other thing is that everyone is trying to devalue their currency against the dollar, so this race to the bottom is still there, and for some reason, the u.s. federal reserve feels it's not necessary economynd keep the u.s. competitive. it's allowed the dollar to grow in strength. francine: mark, what's your outlook for m&a? you abandoned a joint venture with anglo gold, and a lot of investors say that means your growth potential, what you have in the pipeline, is limited. are you looking for

but the last time ben bernanke himself told you subprime isn't big enough to take us down. we never know whether something is big enough to take us down. is there something big enough to cause the threat to the global financial system that we don't know about right now? >> yeah. the -- i mean, joe, you certainly have risks in european banks system because they didn't clean the mess up. but vs having said that, the policymakers today as oppose dollars to seven years ago, five years ago have a mechanism to step in and resolve the issue. now, you know, the question about some of the cocoas, the contingent coupon bonds in europe, this was spoef to give us cushion so we could shut off interest payments. my view is if we stop paying the interest payments on the contingent debt of any bank, that bank is gone. so the then that the policy measures have invented to turnon us from a down turn might be the thing that causes the crisis. >> to david stock to know and just the idea that, you know, it's been all central banks for the last five years and we've paid failure a lot of prosperi

of people look to the fed to be the grownups in the room and despite what you might think of ben bernankeat he did post the meltdown, he was the only guy getting stuff done. now if the federal reserve, presumably the adult in the room, looks like it's scrambling-that can't be good. >> i heard from janet yellen today, she will let us know what is up when she finds out what is up, and by the time she finds out what's up, it's already down, and thin therein lies the issue. i have been talking about the day that the market starts ignoring central banks and you had japan go negative rates and announce more prisoning money and so did europe, and both timed the market crumbled. for years the markets loved. now they hate and it the markets recognize they have no control anymore. the central banks do not shut up and are out in force, saying something or doing something, and i'm afraid it's going to cause more cataclysmic moves in the market if they continue. >> they do not shut up. it's like, anchors. you cannot -- hello. charles payne, i'm listening to this and wondering, i know panic ensues when

i'm mindful of ben bernanke who did so much good, singled me out in "the courage to act" when i did my rant in the summer of 2007 about how they knew nothing and they had to take action before a lot of firms went belly up, and the, and i was, it kind of hurt my feelings, but i'm a big boy. i'm all right. so let me puts it in a more statesman like manner. those texts were written before amazon and walmart laid waste to higher-paying retail jobs, before of digitization and offshoring that behalf the way of our country. they were written before nafta, they were written before the shared economy made it so people have to scrape by on multiple shifts. lastly the new state and local -- the minimum wages being moving up wages, not a tight labor market. there's such a glut. millions of people would work for less than they do if it weren't for the minimum wages. however, if jan janet yellen stays on message, we only have a choice that the hope that somehow the aerospace, housing and auto cycles do top out to throw some people out of work. we won't get anywhere with her noticing where the credit

. >> tim geithner, treasury secretary, ben bernanke, they were like -- if you go talk to some of thekers, they say, listen, you are to raise capital. i don't need to raise capital. we don't care. you're not part of our -- >> this is what bothers me. this is what bothers me. i'm just -- i just got to say it. this is the market. every month or every three months there is a new acronym or new buzzword. now it is coco bonds. here's the thing. here's the thing, jim. if get rich carefully, okay. if you're at home, and you're investing timeline is ten year and invested in ibm or kimberly-clark or boeing -- >> tech is not for takers. >> but theoretically dow blue chip company and now worry about the convertible bonds in europe and mom and pop are sitting at home and going, i just want to do -- know what to do with my 401(k). >> what they want to do is they don't want to root against any bank and don't want to root against employment. but you have to sit there and say how come i didn't miss mcdonald's at 90 and suddenly there is -- there is a mcdonald's within a mile of the champs-elysees. th

that is what ben bernanke did. stephanie: i we holding hands to ? you're going to find out, tom.going to get the answer today. it jean is going to be sitting down with stanley fischer on the council on foreign relations. there is a lot to discuss. i know i am going to be watching. hopefully you will to at 1:00 p.m. guess what? we have a lot more to cover on the economics front. you all sitting at the table, how can i let you go? we are kicking off our new weekly series, taking a closer look at the week ahead. with all ofronment, this volatility, investors are data, we are going to start with today. personal income spending is out there less than an hour. what are you looking for? i am tired of talking while prices. you don't have to play -- pay to close of attention to that report. this is monthly data. all we are seeing is the intra- quarter of incoming spending. we will get the fed's corky seat of later -- core pce deflator. we will see if the manufacturing sector continues to be mired in contraction and we are very close to a manufacturing recession here. vehicle, we have moto

. >> ben bernanke said the same thing. fetches have been saying this since 2008. anytime you guys want to help out, we are right here and waiting for you to help out. i also think, mike, about the idea of negative rates and a rules-based policy. if the fed were to apply the during the great recession, it would have gone negative. understand want to from people who advocate a rules-based approach, do we go negative or are we stuck at that? i think we will hear a lot about that. betty: is the fed legally able? >> an amendment was drafted that allows them to pay on reserves. there is a question about whether they can charge interest or not. we do not know. that might end up in the supreme court. if it is permitted by law then yes, they can go negative, but it would be tremendous effects on the money market and the money markets are they part of the functioning of the financials from the united states p are for corporations in particular. that would be something that mitigates against it. you do not have the same problem as much in other countries. the issue of whethe

ben bernanke used to go in front of and think say you have to address long-run fiscal problems in this economy. if the long-run deficit issues have been addressed they might have been able to do stimulus through the tax cuts or spending. >> ideological blinders. >> that's one point i would make. the other point about low interest rates is this, a lot of the events, the forces that are driving interest rates down are actually -- though we talked about the fed and rates all the time are out of the fed's control. here's evidence, every other central bank that tried to raise interest rates since the financial crisis of 2007 and 2009 has failed. they had to turn around and cut them again because economies have not been able to withstand small increases in interest rates. and this is exactly what the fed is worried it's going through right now. tried to do one little move in december, and might have to reverse themselves. because there are larger economic forces pushing against efforts for the rates. charles: this is what peter was talking about, is it we have a country where the federal res

. >> the bigger question that we still haven't answered and ben bernanke weighed in on this at brookingsthe big question, what does big oil tell us. is it a supply issue or demand issue? i know there are very strong opinions on both sides of that. i don't think it's been resolved yet. and that's why you're seeing this high correlation between u.s. stocks and the price of oil. because these are questions about the viability of what we've done so far in terms of stimulus. whether or not it will continue. or we have no control anyway, because of deflationary issues in europe and asia. >> are you out buying stocks in your portfolio? >> i am. and i just came back from a consumer conference last week. and it was the most highly attended conference in four years. what that's telling you, people are so scared, and they're rushing to the procter & gambles and general mills of the world. i'm taking the other side. i think -- >> you're not going defensive. >> no. i think when you're trading at 20 times earnings as a sector, i think there are opportunities. i don't think the market is done with the

want the senate to work, that some senators are willing to hamper the functioning of yet another bernanke -- another branch of our federal government simply to play politics with the hope that those politics will benefit one party to maintain and possibly take control of the other two branches of government. i don't think anyone can dispute the facts. the supreme court considered some of the most critical issues facing our country and the american people deserve a fully functioning court. to insist that the court go through potentially two terms without a full slate of justices is an abdication of our responsibility as united states senators. that responsibility is to make sure that america has a fully functioning three branches of government. and now just yesterday we hear that my colleagues are not even going to entertain the thought of a hearing before the judiciary committee for any nominee that the president puts forward. i don't know how you can explain that decision. i don't know how you can say for the next ten months it doesn't matter. i don't know how to explain that to people b

want the senate to work, that some senators are willing to hamper the functioning of yet another bernanke -- another branch of our federal government simply to play politics with the hope that those politics will benefit one party to maintain and possibly take control of the other two branches of government. i don't think anyone can dispute the facts. the supreme court considered some of the most critical issues facing our country and the american people deserve a fully functioning court. to insist that the court go through potentially two terms without a full slate of justices is an abdication of our responsibility as united states senators. that responsibility is to make sure that america has a fully functioning three branches of government. and now just yesterday we hear that my colleagues are not even going to entertain the thought of a hearing before the judiciary committee for any nominee that the president puts forward. i don't know how you can explain that decision. i don't know how you can say for the next ten months it doesn't matter. i don't know how to explain that to people b

we're going from bernanke to yellen. this is almost expected, honestly. we're not in a 30% downturn. the stock market is still the place to be as it always will be for the long term. i think, only thing people should be is a little more defensive with utilities an alternatives. otherwise just sit tight. deirdre: sit tight. i heard what you said about utilities and alternatives, but, gary, we have market bulls saying maybe we're in a recession. what is your view on that. >> i think we're in recession for the simple fact, i go through every single indicate looking a chart as or fundamentals or looking at earnings, gdp, some of the things charles talked about, where are the positive things? i can't really find anything. charles talked about gold going up. that's surely a sign that people are worried. you have the s&p earnings forecasted to be what, minus 5, minus 6%? you have oil, i mean there is no demand for oil out there. just across the board, whether it's level three reports as charles said or level one reports like jobs report i don't see any good news

what bernanke would have called the core loan growth, loans to the real economy, are all expanding and you. >> thank you. >> drew matus with a positive, upbeat view on the u.s. economy. we'll be watching that claims number at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. we want to highlight a few things we're watching today. >> walmart, for sure. speaking to drew's point about the consumer. walmart the biggest retailer out there, the biggest private employer out there. how are they going to deal with the current conditions? maybe it's the beginning of a turnaround. >> i'm going to be watching oil. that remains a focus for the market. we have seen gains in oil. continuing to build on those gains today after a 17% rise in the last three days. wti crude higher. the results of our facebook twitter poll, we asked you if political risk around this election should be something to worry about for investors. very interesting. almost 60% of you so far say yes. they're scared of this. 42% say no. keep voting. we have hundreds of votes heading into this election. thanks for watching. "squawk box" is next. we were born

are bettingone, you planners and basically on greenspan, bernanke, you get what i'm saying.you are bidding on natural markets, price areovery, that free markets adaptive, complex, homeostatic systems. i think the disparity has never been greater. you know in poker that you have even got the best hand or the worst. are made and you want to avoid the area. this is where we are as investors today. the big problem is there is cognitive dissonance here. it teaches all of us that door number two is the right one to choose. are all piled into choosing door number one. fort ever reason. it clearly feels the best in the short run. let me forget about today until tomorrow, that kind of thing. door will behe cracked open. it may be slammed open. we will see when that happens. the dreaded black swan monster. this is what used to happen with cognitive dissonance we had. beit does not all have to philosophical or theoretical. if you had listened and done it was said,ple, at the dawn of qe, do what bank is telling you to do, by risk assets, make a lot of money. you may love money even with

that is followed by after words with ben bernanke interviewed by sharon brown. >> and now on to tonight's guest. roger lowenstein has reported for "the wall street journal" for more than a decade including his stock market

francine: so ben bernanke says we are at the end of the dollar run?have only been able to lose money playing currency, presume to survive, i would probably not keep doing that. the markets around the world right now are saying, why do they even bother spending taxpayer money in all these countries? they did absolutely nothing. more than that, they did some damage because their credibility -- they said at least one of the things, we are not going to do competitive devaluations back to currency. what we are going to do is, before anyone can lower the currency, we are going to get the permission of the other people here. the first thing that happens is china devalues its currency a little more. vonnie: but the g-20 went easy on china. or this a response to that, did the g-20 already know that china needed to do so? i am hoping so, but china said we need to do more. this is caps off any. shannon, brief us on what emerging markets means to you. -- how do you petition emerging markets for financial stability and rule of law? shannon: there is a lot of diffe

bernanke you said we need to start this back up again.ears after the crisis, the economy is stronger than it was, we need to take this action now before we completely let it go by. >> should the government getting out of the lending business? neel: i agree. the government should not be making lending decisions. we do want the private market to jobhat, but do a better than the government. we need to make sure there is not some which concentration that it becomes a systemic risk for the old economy. that's the whole economy. why is this your job at the minneapolis fed? neel: the minneapolis fed has a long history of thought on too big to fail. one of my colleagues and predecessors wrote the original book "too big to fail" in 2004 arguing that large banks were a problem. they were exactly right. the congress created federal reserve system, they created a central bank to have a diversity of opinions at the table. i'm speaking out on behalf of my colleagues in minneapolis. >> would goldman sachs benefit? that would affect bank of america and j

that is what ben bernanke would call a right-angle move.on big figures on sterling over to euro? start there. blows through parity, 0.82? chris: i think parity is in play here. i do not think that is out of the question over the next 18 months. the story here is differentials on the rate side. you,i will go for differentials on the rate-sided chart. cameron or way anyone after him will allow a 134 sterling. what will they do to defend? gary: they will do their best to fight it, but again, virtually all these countries would rather have a weaker than a stronger currency fundamentally. they get into a big fight over this in the eurozone. how'd -- a 130ow do they fight sterling? chris: at the end of the day, it is all about price. we have seen it with aussie. it has gone lower than anticipated. tom: stunning. francine on fortress dimon -- what do you have? francine: we are getting a little bit of news from the web presentation jamie dimon will be talking to investors a little bit later on. they are talking about cost cuts. they are certainly t

chairman bernanke he said it was fairly contained, and that he had the spill to mortgages, to housing, to the entire country, to the entire world. is oil that asset class? to actuallyough affect the u.s. manufacturing sector? i believe it is. is it because to affect the sector, which is 75% of the economy. that all the data we see is someone shellacked, and -- isil is much worse ed, and oil is much worse. alix: they say that oil is the problem, but couldn't we make the argument that a company producing oil out of it well is nuch more influential to a economy than me buying an iphone? >> certain sectors get hit much more. if you look in the u.s. the services are 70% of the economy. might be saving $25 a week, you don't spend that on an iphone right away. you build that up, and then you go and spend it. you could cut right away. in a short-term basis, oil is a negative. i think that is the reason that all of the manufacturing data is extremely negative. it is the oil effect. not reallymately that much of an energy producer. so i would argue that the data will show that maybe we are not

when you look at ben bernanke, five or six weeks ago, saying it is probably the end of the dollar rallyen that not to be true. we talk about currency wars. let's get back to our guest host, kit juckes from societe generale. where does euro-dollar go from here? kit: right now, it goes higher. eventually, the winter ends. the spring comes back. we get back to phillips curves, falling unemployment, and stuff like that. it all feels terribly far away this morning. right now, in this low yield, risk-averse, money that wants to invest in german securities, right now, the euro and the yen are the winners. i wouldn't be surprised if euro-dollar makes its move toward 1.15. francine: what does mario draghi have left in his toolbox? he surprised the markets, but it seems that everything has been priced in. he will do whatever it takes. kit: i think he will find ways. you can go more negative. once we've got used to it, you can come in and buy more assets. that will make a difference. you get diminishing returns. we saw from japan that the jump into negative territory from the ecb a year ago really

two months after the terror attack that left 14 dead in bernanke burn san bernardino the iphone is setting off a debate over privacy and security. >> i see the fbi's point, but view. >> reporter: with fbi investigators unable to unlock the federal judge ordered apple to create new software to unlock the iphone so it can be scoured for evidence. >> justice has to be served. people's lives were lost y. feel that is the moral thing to do. >> reporter: apple says they plans to fight the judge's order. in an open letter tim cook says creating a back door to by pass encryption is something he says they donot have and something we consider too dangerous to create. privacy advocates say building the master key to by pass security will be exploited and puts your privacy at risk. google ceo also weighed in on the issue wednesday tweeting we give law enforcement access to database on valid legal orders but that is different from enabling hacking to devices and data. the fbi believes they will lose the phone data permanently after ten failed attempts to open it. for family members of the victims there

charles: on occasion, bernanke has been more. it is not our fault. we did everything we could.from the same liberal progressive ideology. you cannot really blame them. policies are one that we do not get. allowing the government to borrow money at zero interest rates. of course they will borrow like crazy. because of the fact that they can borrow money with no consequence. all the millions of savers are paying for that. u.s. policies. no consequence. great for big government. great for a lot of the big corporations that love cheap money. it is wellesley for main street. wall street should not be advantage by main street. the fed was created for wall street. you do not buy the notion. >> the official orders. i think the market, the world marketplace itself. the terms of the effect on interest rates. it was rambling. all over the place. almost incoherent. the fed was surprised how strong it got. it is almost amazing. getting feedback from within the fed. essentially taking a swipe that janet yellen by saying he was premature to talk about negative interest rates. she did not say

anybody read ben bernanke's blog? they started discussing negative rates in 2010. an institution controlling 4$4. trillion of money without anybody sitting there elected by the public is telling us that not only don't they have a plan b, but the plan b they're discussing, they're not sure if it's legal. i was just floored by that, almost as much as steve liesman saying the market is screaming for lower rates. a, if it wasn't so crazy and true, why did the fed brings us to the martial orbit in the first place, a. b. we know the answer, if they let go of the balance sheets, which makes hindsight a little clear, but maybe the biggest answer of all is, low growth, less filling. that's what they've been paying attention to the last five years. >> i want to be back to sarge in a second, but keith, i was struck. you're one of our more level-headed analysts we bring you on the exchange here. >> thank you. >> i was struck by your market comments. you really are feeling very exasperated about the impact that monetary policy has had on your ability to put client money to work

ben bernanke. even greenspan was a problem all of this. you cannot push problems away.ou need to address them. you will continue to have those problems and they will get a lot worse as we go forward. >> this notion that we overdo it. i do not want to tie the two together. really handle it. it seems very disproportionate to what is actually going on. >> i would agree with that. we tend to overdo it. i think you have a tendency for people to overdo it. they do have some serious issues here. they need to be solved. we need free markets and prices. the market. not have the fed worried about price in the market. >> we have mentioned once or twice this campaign that is going on this year. just back from new hampshire. joined by meghan mccain. she has become a real donald trump fan. good to see you. >> he is on fire. i think that they had eaten each other alive. right now he will go on to south carolina with a lot of momentum and energy. >> chris christie may have added to it. unintentionally. that guy going after rubio. he just took out a shot. the party seems to be rallying.

if ben bernanke has hope for winning.nie sanders has momentum but to win he has to do better. bill: he closed pretty well in new hampshire. can he do the same thing in nevada. reminder, it is a caucus there? >> right. and the caucus ages situation like iowa can play to bernie sanders. clinton camp was touting a fact they had 25-point lead. you can see video. this is sanders folks. organized labor events, veterans events yesterday. his volunteers going out there trying to hit the ground, doing what they did in iowa, do what they did in new hampshire. bottom line, the john ralston, the best political prognosticator on the ground in nevada, non-partisan, says the clinton camp is in panic mode right now. they were up 25 points a month ago. right now this is very tight race. sanders is hoping to shock the world yet again on saturday. bill: we'll see if he does. ed henry, live in las vegas. see you real soon. ten minutes past. martha: senator marco rubio attacking rival ted cruz saying the texas senator he believes is lying. >>

martha: but ben bernanke is trying to make this -- bernie sanders is trying to make this about, i understand about one part of our economy. i guess the question that pops up in my mind when i watch this discussion, about what the role the government played in the wall street debacle? what about fannie mae, what about freddie mac? what about people who never got fired in those organizations? why is it they never talk about that, julie, as if just all wall street and government had nothing to do with this debacle? >> you're not audience they're appealing to, right? martha: i'm just interested in the truth. >> they're appealing to primary democratic voters not all of whom, majority of whom are vastly disgusted way things happen on wall street. martha: all their fault. >> rich are get be richer, poor are get poorer. income inequality is top issue among democratic primary voters. bernie sanders capturing imagination of democratic electorate. katherine is right, with she took the money from wall street she should have known it would eventually bite her. you can't take money and criticize them down

we hear from janet yellen and her predecessor ben bernanke that they're doing these experiments withnomy because congress is not addressing the issue. whether that's right or not. in the final 30 seconds here, everything you said makes sense, but how is congress going to grab back the power it seems to have almost voluntarily since the crisis relinquished? >> well, the congress, of course, can be criticized easily, when people are unhappy, they want to blame congress. it's very difficult when you try to put together a majority of people, particularly if you have a president who is fighting every inch of the way. so, i think the congress deserves some blame, but i think there's plenty of blame to go around. unfortunately the people themselves want something all the time for nothing. and put that pressure on the congress. i think it's very troubling to look at the future for this country when you got an electorate that is on the take. >> i agree. listen, bill, our time has ended there. i guess the definition of free should be modified in webster's dictionary. you get it today for free,

think when you see these kinds of numbers, you hear 5, goes to 4.9, you always think about what bernankeaid, when we get to 5 we have to tighten. we are in a bear market. whatever number comes down is regarded as bad with the exception of oil going higher which is why the president's plan seems out of sync with where the weakest part of the market is. >> one is interesting. something you said just caught my attention. we're in a bear market. what does that mean to you? why did you say it? >> we'll talk about tabloid data today, and linkedin, we're out of areas where there's genuine growth. people are saying give me something so low and so cheap i can't get hurt. anything that i buy that has more than a 25 price to earnings multiple, we'll crush. this is multiple compression. people may not get it, but we're paying far less for earnings than we were willing to pay a couple months ago. this is the sign that the market attacks one area after another after another. pharmaceutical, then the internet, then back to the industrials, then the banks this is a rolling bear market. if you owned alco

and artist in which fellow panelists, gary stern, don cohen, chairman bernanke, and bruce. thank you all for being here. i want to remind everybody that the views and exposing today are my own and i not speaking on behalf of the federal open market committee or the bird of governors which sets regulatory and supervision policy on behalf of the federal reserve system. today, i will offer my assessment of the current status and outlook for ending the problem of too big to fail banks. i come at this problem from the perspective of a policymaker who is on the front line, responding to the financial crisis in 2008. when congress moved quickly to pass the dodd frank act, in 2010, i strongly supported the need for financial reform. but, i wanted to see the act implemented, before i drew firm conclusions about whether or not it solved too big to fail. in the last six years, my colleagues across the federal reserve system have worked diligently, under the reform framework that congress established, and are fully utilizing the available tools under the act to address too big to fail.