I've been told numerous times that "creating money out of thin air" is a good thing. And when I argued against it, the "conscience of the liberal" told me I was ignorant.
Then, when I pointed out that the money went straight into companies that didn't deserve it, they said "too big to fail".
And when I pointed out that the printed money merely steals wealth from everyone holding paper money to give to the companies that 'needed' to be bailed out, they demanded that I don't understand economics.
But now I have a question to the same liberally minded people: You back OWS, which hates bank bailouts just as much as I do, yet you agree that the federal reserve must be allowed to do its job.
What about now that the Federal Reserve is spending upwards of 7 trillion undisclosed to bailout failing banks?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/e … d-bailouts
Oh well, can't wait to hear about the "kool-aid" I've been drinking and the tin-foil hats that I need to be wearing.
Anyway, enjoy the obvious hypocrisy of your views!
I truly resent that bailout money has allowed banks "to big to fail" to consequently grow even bigger. The banking executives responsible for the Great Recession have suffered the least and the institutions they lead are now bigger than ever.
However, the distortion of fact in the OP statement reflects badly on the basic message. The Federal Reserve did not spend upwards of 7 trillion to bail out failing banks
To arrive at the truth you have to follow the link above. It leads to nothing more than a three paragraph piece by Brent Budowsky that weakly promotes Ron Paul's name in the headline and compliments fellow writer Vicki Needham for an article she published two hours earlier on the same web site. (1) Even his spin does not claim "the Federal Reserve is spending upwards of 7 trillion to bailout failing banks."
You must move on and read Ms. Needham's article about 'a report that the central bank secretly committed more than $7 trillion to save banks during the financial crisis." It does not mention Ron Paul at all. It does point to the real story written by Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun, and Phil Kuntz in Bloomberg Markets Magazine and published on the Internet the previous night. (2)
The OP statement should have directed us to this article right away. It focuses on the secrecy and the lack of transparency surrounding the Federal Reserve. While I am not convinced the Fed should be dissolved, I am still not comfortable with the lack of oversight. David Jones, a former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and author of four books about the central bank has said, "The Fed is the second-most-important appointed body in the U.S., next to the Supreme Court." Regarding the secrecy surrounding undisclosed loans to member banks, Jones added, "Our representatives in Congress deserve to have this kind of information so they can oversee the Fed."
Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee had this to say, "I believe that the Fed should have independence in conducting highly technical monetary policy, but when they are putting taxpayer resources at risk, we need transparency and accountability."
If you care about facts, ignore the exaggerations in the OP statement and follow the links to ultimately find the truth in the Bloomberg article. You will read how undisclosed lending practices at the Fed benefited borrowing banks a lot more than did the $700 Billion in TARP funds. You may be surprised to discover, as I was, that Judd Gregg, the former New Hampshire senator who was a lead Republican negotiator on TARP, is now an adviser to Goldman Sachs.
In addition, you will learn that the hyperbole about spending $7 trillion is a gross error that can not be attributed to Kool-Aid and tin foil hats. "Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009 to rescuing the financial system" In real terms, loans were never greater than the "combined $1.2 trillion" reported as outstanding on only one day in December of 2008.
(1) http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/b … bank-loans
(2) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2 … ncome.html
+++ Your comment, as usual, is correct. Doing away with the Fed would be a colossal mistake and, fortunately, not likely to happen. Moreover, in the Fed's defense wrt the secrecy of the bank bailout, I suspect that it's an indication of the fear on the part of the Federal Reseerve of a huge run on banks. The CEOs of Bank of America and other banks coming out with public statements to the effect that they were in a strong position was no doubt part of the scenario designed to prevent a loss of public faith in the security of their funds in the banks. The part of the Bloomberg expose that irks me is the hypocrisy of the banks who took the huge loans reverting to some of the practices that led to the meltdown and spending millions to prevent needed reforms. I have, to the extent possible, stopped dealing with any of the big six banks.
All the money you own was immediately worth less than it was when that money entered the economy.
I'm amazed you can still think so highly of the institute that is robbing you blind.
On a different note, Deeds, if you think so highly of Krugman and other Keynesians, why haven't you maxed out your credit cards?
I'll grant that I should have linked to the Bloomburg report right away, but the fact remains that almost $8 Trillion was given to banks.
Here's the link:
The information comes from a Bloomburg report using information gained from the FOIA.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2 … ncome.html
However, you go on to claim that I exaggerated XY and Z. This is nonsense.
In fact, the "facts" that you point out to discredit what I said were nothing more than opinions of other people.
You also ignore the ACTUAL fact that "generating $7 trillion out of thin air to bailout banks damages the purchasing power of every dollar in the economy".
Don't call opinions facts and expect me to agree with you.
Printing money out of thin air is theft - when supply increases (to the tune of trillions of dollars) the money in my pocket, my bank account, and my other funds is worth less. THIS is a fact.
Hey there, Evan. I trust you appreciate that I have no desire to put you down or to insult your intelligence. There is nothing in my previous comment that discredits your opinion of the Fed. I merely pointed out to the readers of this thread that one statement was not factual and, further, its inaccuracy has nothing to do with my opinions or yours.
Readers of the Bloomberg article will see that you did indeed exaggerate. In the original OP statement, you said, “the Federal Reserve is spending upwards of 7 trillion.” In your comment quoted above you said, “almost $8 Trillion was given to banks.” And the Bloomberg article said, “Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009.” What is the difference between these three sentences? The verbs “to spend” and “to give” distort and exaggerate what actually happened because they are not the same as “to commit.”
For example, a bank guarantees Evan Rogers a $300,000 limit Home Equity Line of Credit secured by the value of your house and you immediately borrow $15,000 to buy a car. To say the bank spent or gave you $300,000 is to distort and exaggerate what actually happened. The bank made a commitment to you for $300,000 but it only “gave” you $15,000. You can not say the bank “gave” you $300,000 unless you actually borrow $300,000.
In the case of the Fed’s emergency lending programs, the article clearly said, “Add up guarantees and lending limits, and the Fed had committed $7.77 trillion as of March 2009.” Can you see that the Fed committed $7.77 trillion but did not “give” or “spend” that amount? Follow the link attached to the anchor “loans” in the second paragraph and read the observation “The U.S. Federal Reserve mounted an unprecedented campaign to head off a depression by providing as much as $1.2 trillion in public money to banks and other companies from August 2007 through April 2010.” (1) This is not my opinion but a fact stated in the article. The Fed committed nearly $8 trillion but “gave” banks no more than $1.2 trillion in outstanding emergency loans on any one day between August 2007 and April 2010. While you may continue to claim the Fed gave more than $7 trillion in loans, the article says that that is untrue.
Even greater exaggeration results when you accuse me of ignoring a “fact” that you never mentioned. Who said the words you placed between the quotation marks when writing this?
Since my comment was about another subject, it was not ignoring inflation. The link in your OP statement leads to an article about the secrecy of lending programs at the Fed and it does not touch on inflation at all. A claim my remarks ignore the issue of inflation is no more than an attempt to ignore the OP statement contains a mistake.
Right now, I am hoping you and yours are enjoying the best life has to offer.
(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/data-visualiza … mp;search=
Evan, two points to help you:
1. creating liquidity for banks to continue operations is a good thing.
2. failing to stop speculation on commodities which is killing main street is a VERY BAD THING.
Unless the cartel, and it is an international cartel, refuses to stop speculation then we need to speak out. Problem is, the libertarians want to give speculation free rein, and will stifle liquidity.
Your personal attack on Evan has been reported.
Shame on you Evan.
You know, it's an odd thread, but I like it! I think everyone should both state their point and attack themselves for it in the same post. It saves the rest of us so much time.
Kudos Evan! Ron Paul in 2082!
Now when I told you that you were a fool I got banned for a week - now here you go admitting I was right and therefore I am claiming foul, as telling you the truth (as you admit) cannot be a personal attack now - can it
You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, money has gone from the Fed to places and in ways that never should have happened and yes, Evan, that makes me angry.
That does NOT mean that the ability to exert some control on our money supply is unneeded.
I have no intention of entering into a longer argument about this. This is all I intend to say.
The Fed is wonderful, if you are Timothy Franz Geithner or Deutsche Bank.
The banks f'd up. plain and simple. They were doing shady dealings and ultimately backfired. The government stepped in to ensure that because of this, banks across the nation didn't close it's doors. Imagine the implications if banks didn't get bailed out. It would be pure chaos. The domino affect occurs. Banks sink, the American people go down with them. The government whether you think it is good or bad is ensuring this doesn't happen. Everyone needs money of course but there isn't enough to go around for everybody, if there was we wouldn't be in this mess now would we? So, gotta pick from the lesser of the many evils. Banks are essential to the economic branches of our entire system as we know it, why would you want them to fail? Funny how people got upset when the banks began to start that debit card charge as a way to make up their losses on their own but then get upset that they are getting bailed out by the government. Banks are a business just like a circle k is. Profits are everything, that's business. If the company you work for doesn't make a profit to pay you, you and everyone else is out of a job correct? If banks loose profits, the same applies but in a much wider and detrimental scale!
If the banks didn't get bailed out - with your money and mine - then they would have gone bankrupt like all other companies that mismanage their finances.
Yeah. And would you like to give us your account of what would have followed that?
And I ask you why in the world would you like to see that happen? Banks are much more than your saving and checking accounts. If they go bankrupt the entire banking and business infrastructure would be at risk of complete and utter disaster. You think it's bad now, think how devastating it would be for everyone in the world who is attached to a bank one way or another? Im sorry but bailing out banks is money well spent in my book. When I hear how the government spends millions and millions on potato research, now that it a true waste of our money, not ensuring the foundation of our business and personal financial structure from literally crumbling into pieces in which affects so many other important things that are attached to it. Banks are not just some retail store that can go under, ok.. damn..can't buy clothes from there anymore. No.. it's far more important than just a mismanaged business.
by James Smith 6 years ago
http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-f … t-bailouts"What was revealed in the audit was startling: $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010,...
by Gary Anderson 9 years ago
This guy is or was high up in the Fed. The fed is a PRIVATE bank, despite the lie on their website. The fed is owned by private stock and the US government owns none of that private stock. http://www.frbatlanta.org/publica/eco-r … hriszt.pdf
by GA Anderson 3 years ago
Here is what the Federal Reserve describes as its charter:" The Federal Reserve System, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more...
by fishskinfreak2008 7 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201002 … UtY2xhc3M-More evidence that the worst recession since World War II is still NOT over and won't be until we see some spending and there is a TRUE drop in unemployment (i.e. when the decrease ISN'T because SOME PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN UP...
by Marketing Path 5 years ago
What do you think of the federal reserve?Do you think the Federal reserve [a private banking institution] should be able to loan the U.S Government, at interest it's own money? Or should we get rid of the reserve and print our own money without interest.
by Wesman Todd Shaw 6 years ago
It's all so simple, really, and a wicked man stated long, long ago that it never mattered who a king was - so long as he controlled the currency - he was lord and master.http://auditthefedphonebomb.com/bailout … rillion-2/
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|