Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's hard to say exactly. Admittedly, many of the names that I'm positive are benefitting the most are shrouded in conspiracy theory.
The wealthiest families, the ones who have had a stake in the Fed since day 1. The Morgans, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers...You start there.
And then there's all the lackies who've been mere peons compared to those families, but are still extremely wealthy. They would be whoever has held a high position within the entity. For a recent, more known name, how about Tim Geithner?
Have you read Creature from Jekyll Island, yet? If not, I recommend it. It's required reading if you're really interested in understanding just what exactly the Fed Reserve is all about.
I certainly agree that CRA was not the cause of the housing bust (the Fed was the root cause). Fannie and Freddie, for example, hold very few sub-prime mortgages. Alt-A is their big problem. And it is the private mortgage/investment banks that accumulated the really toxic debt. I do not know whether the CRA even contributed to the problem (it may have in some small degree). But all of this does not mean that the CRA is or is not a good thing either (this is a separate question).
I do get irritated when folks use the CRA in the blame game as it distracts people from the real root cause. Which dooms us to create the same mistakes again.
Brian
Guess I'll have to read that next but I don't need to read it to know we were fucking screwed by these assholes. Greedy world family clans. Americans should be screaming for the truth.
The Fed is no more the cause of the problem than CRA. Sure they created a climate conducive to make the problem even worse. But at the end of the day, it was the combination of mostly private investment banks loaning money to individuals who had no business getting the loans and then the banks repackaging those loans into investment instruments. Those institutions would have done what they did, and the borrowers done what they did, even without the Fed, just to a lesser degree.Yup.
Its going to be fascinating when the dust settles and we stop being busy trying to save the world how the intellectual argument shapes up regarding the causes of this implosion. There are very powerful interests that want to perpetuate the money machine.
I've been a bit disappointed with the Obama administration so far. They seem to be appointing many of the same characters that got us into this mess in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody who worked on Wall Street - and especially anyone from fucking Goldman Sachs - should not be allowed even within the Beltway.
The Fed is no more the cause of the problem than CRA. Sure they created a climate conducive to make the problem even worse. But at the end of the day, it was the combination of mostly private investment banks loaning money to individuals who had no business getting the loans and then the banks repackaging those loans into investment instruments. Those institutions would have done what they did, and the borrowers done what they did, even without the Fed, just to a lesser degree.
This assumes that the economy does not respond to supply and demand, however. If something that is dear is made cheap, then demand will rise. In this case, the Fed made credit cheap and demand for credit skyrocketed. Credit is money and money flowed into the asset markets, driving asset prices far higher than their intrinsic value. This is a big reason why we have bubbles. It is very difficult to have asset bubbles without cheap money. The Fed created cheap money. We had asset bubbles. Its a story that has repeated itself over the centuries.
You can't reason with Zoomie. In one breath he says government serves no purpose, and in another breath he chastizes libertarians. As if that even makes any sense. Not to mention, he publicly supports abolishing the nation-state.
This assumes that the economy does not respond to supply and demand, however. If something that is dear is made cheap, then demand will rise. In this case, the Fed made credit cheap and demand for credit skyrocketed. Credit is money and money flowed into the asset markets, driving asset prices far higher than their intrinsic value. This is a big reason why we have bubbles. It is very difficult to have asset bubbles without cheap money. The Fed created cheap money. We had asset bubbles. Its a story that has repeated itself over the centuries.
We would have asset bubbles without a federal reserve. Interest rates would fluctuate and we would have periods of cheap money creating asset bubbles without any interference at all from a government bank.
The economy is a psychological human phenomena more than anything else. About the only economic indicator I pay any attention to is the one that attempts to quantify the public psychology....consumer confidence. And my general disposition is usually inversely proportional to that. When it's low I start getting very confident and when it's high I start to get skeptical and cautious.
We would have asset bubbles without a federal reserve. Interest rates would fluctuate and we would have periods of cheap money creating asset bubbles without any interference at all from a government bank.
This is correct. However, we do not live in a world without a central bank. We have one, and it is the transmission mechanism for the creation of money in the economy. What it does has an enormous effect on the economy because it effects the supply and demand for credit.
If you don't think all these new lending facilities the Fed has invented the past 2 years will have no effect on the economy, you're insane.It has had virtually NO effect for quite some time, because the basic psychology of the marketplace is completely inundating and overwhelming anything the Fed does.
Yeah, when they raise rates back up during a low rate boom period it has no effect on the economy at allSame thing happen during booms. Every effort by the Fed to slow growth down during these bubble creations is mostly ignored.
If you don't think all these new lending facilities the Fed has invented the past 2 years will have no effect on the economy, you're insane.
Besides that, they control the money supply and the movement of credit markets. How you could POSSIBLY think that has no effect on an economy is simply BEYOND me.
Yeah, when they raise rates back up during a low rate boom period it has no effect on the economy at all
You live in a fantasy world, Zoomie.
Zero, zip, nada. NO impact whatsoever. And we continue to completely IGNORE Fed action.
I work for an investment organization that is responsible for more zeros than one has fingers. I can tell you unequivocally that what the Fed does effects how we allocate capital in the credit markets. I can also say that every single trading desk we talk to on the credit side also takes into account Fed actions.
Given that the Fed keeps dropping interest rates with no apparent change in bank lending you could be right.Still has no effect at all on main street. The moves by the Fed are having virtually NO impact, whatsoever, on overall credit markets, housing, or employment out in the "real" world. And they have not since day one, nor will they.
Given that the Fed keeps dropping interest rates with no apparent change in bank lending you could be right.
Still has no effect at all on main street. The moves by the Fed are having virtually NO impact, whatsoever, on overall credit markets, housing, or employment out in the "real" world. And they have not since day one, nor will they.
Given that the Fed keeps dropping interest rates with no apparent change in bank lending you could be right.
