Eric Hanneken's Library tagged → View Popular
Fed's approach to regulation left banks exposed to crisis
-
Regulatory agencies exist to lean against the wind. But rather than looking for warning signs, the Fed had joined -- and at times defined -- the mainstream consensus among policymakers that financial innovations had made banking safer. Bernanke said the economy had entered an era of smaller and less frequent downturns, which he and others called "the great moderation."
The consequences of this miscalculation can be seen in the stories of three large banks the government ultimately rescued from collapse.
Corruption, Panic and Incompetence Fueled Geithner's Backstairs Intrigue
-
Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for
the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program, has now
issued a harshly critical report on Geithner's handling of
the AIG bailout. -
Barofsky's report [pdf]
details how the bailout vehicle "Maiden Lane III" was created,
and why Geithner quickly decided to pay 100 cents on the dollar
to AIG counterparties -- including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank,
and others. (Go to page 23 for the full list.) The deal ended up
costing taxpayers at least $13 billion. - 1 more annotations...
Where’s That Inflation? The monetary base has ballooned, yet inflation remains far off. Or does it?
-
So while the standard CPI shows deflation over the past year,
that stems from a few anomalous sectors, such as energy, where
prices have dipped significantly since 2008. The median CPI, on
the other hand, shows an inflation rate that does not look very
unusual. -
Besides placing undue faith in the Fed’s ability to time
perfectly any necessary anti-inflationary measures, the consensus
suggests that the nation’s central bank now has the heretofore
undiscovered ability to increase the money supply without
creating inflation. If true, this would be an important new
development, since inflation has long been rightly vilified for
destroying entrepreneurship and long-term economic growth. But if
false, this conceit could prove dangerous indeed. And it’s
probably false. - 3 more annotations...
New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for Swaps Hits Taxpayers
The Federal Reserve, after conferring in secret with investment banks, agreed to cover all of their losses with taxpayer money. This is how government works in the real world.
-
Habayeb, 37, was chief financial officer for the AIG
division that oversaw AIG Financial Products, the unit that had
sold the swaps to the banks. One of his goals was to persuade
the banks to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the
dollar, according to people familiar with the matter. -
After less than a week of private negotiations
with the banks, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay them par,
or 100 cents on the dollar. The content of its deliberations has
never been made public.
The New York Fed’s decision to pay the banks in full cost
AIG -- and thus American taxpayers -- at least $13 billion.
That’s 40 percent of the $32.5 billion AIG paid to retire the
swaps. Under the agreement, the government and its taxpayers
became owners of the dubious CDOs, whose face value was $62
billion and for which AIG paid the market price of $29.6
billion. The CDOs were shunted into a Fed-run entity called
Maiden Lane III. - 1 more annotations...
Why do we need a central bank?
-
The historical myth is that the Fed was created because laissez-faire in banking produced the periodic panics and crises of the late 19th century. In fact, banking during that period was heavily regulated, particuarly with respect to the production of currency.
-
The Fed is better seen as a typical creature of the Progressive Era. Reformers' beliefs in the power of state-sponsored experts meshed with the self-interest of big bankers who saw a closer relationship with the federal government as a way to enhance their profits, with a central bank as an agreed-upon technocratic solution.
End the Fed? A not-so-crazy idea.
George Selgin attacks centralized banking, and defends decentralized banking.
-
The Fed's apologists suggest otherwise, of course. They note that the US spent nearly half the years between 1854 to 1913
in recession, as opposed to just 21 percent of the time since the Fed's establishment in 1913. Who would want to go back to
those bad old days?
But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 than it did before. And inflation has been much worse,
despite both the Civil War, which featured the nation's worst inflation, and the Great Depression, which featured its severest
deflation!
What's more, the frequent downturns before 1914 were due, not to the lack of a central bank, but to foolish government regulations.
Topping the list were bans on branch banking, initiated by state governments and then incorporated into federal banking law.
The bans propped up thousands of undercapitalized and under-diversified banks – banks unfit to survive major local shocks,
let alone macroeconomics ones. They also caused bank notes – competitively supplied counterparts of today's Federal Reserve
notes – to trade at discounts whenever they traveled far from the solitary offices of banks that issued them.
The Re-Election Campaign of Ben Bernanke: The Federal Reserve chief fights for his future. Why is he bothering?
-
But allowing the economy to naturally experience pain—one of the supposed benefits of the independent Fed that Bernanke touts—is exactly what he's been unwilling to do. He tries to scare Congress away from Ron Paul's audit bill with fears of the dire economic effects of lost independence, even as he demonstrates over and over that he is clearly just one more member of the Obama economic team.
-
He shows no signs that he is willing to make any decision that could pin bad economic news on the administration. If he does anything now other than exactly what the administration wants and needs him to do, he'd be out of a job early next year, and he knows it. And his current wave of self- and institution-justifying public appearances proves that keeping the job matters a great deal to him.
- 1 more annotations...
U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says
-
U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook
for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail
out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector
general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program
represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the
U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by
the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today. -
Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the U.S. has spent
less than $2 trillion so far and that Barofsky’s estimates are
flawed because they don’t take into account assets that back
those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered
by taxpayers. - 1 more annotations...
At the Fed, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure
-
What use has the Fed made of past extensions of its powers? Is it reasonable, given the Fed's record, to expect it to use new powers responsibly?
-
During World War I it abandoned penalty rates for "easy" money, and then began buying Liberty Bonds to support the government's war effort. Those actions helped hoist the inflation rate from close to zero in 1915 to almost 20 percent in 1920
- 3 more annotations...
Was Money Really Easy Under Greenspan?
David Henderson and Jeff Hummel argue no.
-
Rather than demonstrating that monetarist rules are obsolete and free banking unnecessary, Greenspan’s policies suggest that the more thoroughly either of those two objectives is implemented, the greater the macroeconomic stability our economy will enjoy.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo
