Gary North on the Fed

Gary North writes:

"If the central institution of an economy is the monetary system, and this institution is controlled by a government-created cartel, and this cartel is independent of the government, then what possible opportunity does the general public have to reclaim freedom for monetary affairs? The answer is obvious: none."

read the article

Inflation

Charles Kaldec writes:

To see more clearly how the price of the dollar has changed, it helps to
view price changes over a 10 year period. Since 2002, the price of a barrel of
oil has increased four-fold, to $107 last Friday from $26 in 2002. To suggest
that oil companies had enough power to impose such a price increase, or that
speculators are responsible for a quadrupling of the price of oil is, on its
face, preposterous. Instead, the price of oil and gasoline are up because the
Federal Reserve has driven the value of the dollar down.

For example, if the dollar since 2002 had been as good as the:

Chinese yuan, the price of oil today would be $82 and a gallon of
regular gas would cost about $3.10;

Euro, the price of oil today would be $77 and regular gas would cost
about $2.90;

Japanese yen, the price of oil today would be $71 and regular gas would
cost about $2.75;

Swiss Franc, the price of oil today would be $63 and regular gas would
cost about $2.50.

Thanks Mr. Bernanke!

source

Problems with Fiat Currency

1. There Is No Spoon

2. Coercion

3. Rent Seeking

4. Immorality

5. Central Planning

6. Price Instability

7. Economic Volatility

8. Currency Debasement

9. Wealth Redistribution

10. Concentration of Wealth

11. Moral Hazard

12. Corruption and Cronyism

13. Confidence Failure

14. Counterparty Risk

15. Transaction Settlement

read the essay

David Stockman on the Fed

I blame it on the Fed. I blame it on the 1971 decision by Nixon to close the gold window and let the dollar float. Because out of that has evolved -- or morphed -- a central banking policy in the world that absorbs unlimited amounts of government debt. And so we went on what I call the "T-bill standard" or the "federal debt standard." And the other central banks of the emerging mercantilist Asian economies -- Japan, Korea, and now, especially, the People’s Printing Press of China -- have absorbed this massive emission of debt that otherwise would’ve created powerful negative consequences that would’ve forced politicians to act long ago. In other words, higher interest rates, pressure for inflationary monetary policy, and the actual appearance of price inflation. But because all the bonds on the margin were being absorbed by the central banks, we got away for twenty or twenty-five years with “deficits without tears.”

David Stockman

Inflation

source

Ben Bernanke, Hero? No.

According to Roger Lowenstein:

The left hates him. The right hates him even more. But Ben Bernanke saved the economy—and has navigated masterfully through the most trying of times.

source

The Federal Funds Rate

The Fed acknowledged an improving labor market and rising oil prices while also downplaying the threat of spillover effects from Europe, that is, now that the European Central Bank has finally seen fit to print up more than a trillion dollars for the greater good.

source

Sterilized’ Bond Buying

Federal Reserve officials are considering a new type of bond-buying program designed to subdue worries about future inflation if they decide to take new steps to boost the economy in the months ahead.

Under the new approach, the Fed would print new money to buy long-term mortgage or Treasury bonds but effectively tie up that money by borrowing it back for short periods at low rates. The aim of such an approach would be to relieve anxieties that money printing could fuel inflation later, a fear widely expressed by critics of the Fed's previous efforts to aid the recovery.

source

Interest Rates and Fed Chairmen

source

Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis

Ron Paul writes:

To know what is wrong with the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the nature of money. Money is like any other good in our economy that emerges from the market to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers. Its particular usefulness is that it helps facilitate indirect exchange, making it easier for us to buy and sell goods because there is a common way of measuring their value. Money is not a government phenomenon, and it need not and should not be managed by government. When central banks like the Fed manage money they are engaging in price fixing, which leads not to prosperity but to disaster.

The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913...

What the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek victoriously asserted in the socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s—the notion that the marketplace, where people freely decide what they need and want to pay for, is the only effective way to allocate resources—may be obvious to many ordinary Americans. But it has not influenced government leaders today, who do not seem to see the importance of prices to the functioning of a market economy...

What exactly the Fed will do is anyone's guess, and it is no surprise that markets continue to founder as anticipation mounts. If the Fed would stop intervening and distorting the market, and would allow the functioning of a truly free market that deals with profit and loss, our economy could recover. The continued existence of an organization that can create trillions of dollars out of thin air to purchase financial assets and prop up a fundamentally insolvent banking system is a black mark on an economy that professes to be free.

read the entire WSJ essay

Operation Twist

The WSJ writes:

The Federal Reserve-as-economic-savior school took a beating yesterday, after the Fed's Open Market Committee announced its latest policy gambit to avoid a recession. Stocks promptly sold off on the Fed's comments that it now sees "significant downside risks" to the economy, and perhaps also as reality dawned that the reprise of 1961's Operation Twist is more gesture than salvation.

The Fed announced that through June 2012 it will buy $400 billion in Treasury bonds at the long end of the market—with six- to 30-year maturities—and sell an equal amount of securities of three years' duration or less. The point, said the FOMC statement, is to put further "downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more accommodative."...

The larger point is that the economy's problems aren't rooted in the supply and price of money. They result from the damage done to business confidence and investment by fiscal and regulatory policy, and that's where the solutions must come. Investors on Wall Street and politicians in Washington want to believe that the Fed can make up for years of policy mistakes. The sooner they realize it can't, the sooner they'll have no choice but to correct the mistakes.

read the entire essay

The Fed's Secret Loans

Secret loans from the Fed to Wall Street totaled $1.2 trillion at the height of the 2008 panic.

That’s the conclusion of Bloomberg after analyzing 29,346 pages of documents released by the Fed only because Bloomberg went all the way to the US Supreme Court to obtain them.

The top 10 recipients alone account for 56% of the total. The $669 billion these 10 borrowed is, um, rather larger than the “official bailout figure” of $160 billion represented by the TARP program.

source

Barry Ritholtz writes:

Imagine if the government and the Federal Reserve were run not by knaves and fools and Wall Street sycophants, but instead, were run honestly for the benefit of the taxpaying voter. Imagine the goal was saving the banking system (not the banks), and the financial rescue was for the benefit of the taxpayers, not the bondholders. Naive thoughts, I totally understand, but hear me out.

A person who truly understood what had happened and why would have considered the following actions. Note these are not ideas come about with the benefit of hindsight, but what a small band of insightful people were saying at the time.

An honest broker of the situation would have:

1. Fire the senior management of the banks (see this)

2. Banned all lobbying activity as a condition of any aid (see this)

3. Forced a Swedish style prepackaged bankruptcy (see this and this)

Instead, we bailed out the bondholders and management, choking off hope for a robust recovery. We are in fact slowly turning Japanese, awaiting the next recession (and the next and the next).

source

Lew Rockwell on the Gold Standard, the Fed, and Economic Recovery

Marc Faber on the Economy

Marc Faber the Swiss fund manager and Gloom Boom & Doom editor spoke Tuesday about the Fed's decision to keep interest rates low for a prolonged period of time and the prospects of QE3. He says the Treasury market is a gigantic bubble and long-dated T-bonds are the short of the century. Faber suggests that sometimes the best the Fed can do for markets is to do nothing!...

Faber, who predicted the stock market crash in 1987, turned bearish shortly before the 2007-2009 bear market and called the 2009 lows, believes the markets will now test the July 2010 lows for the S&P 500 at 1,010 and "after that we'll get a QE3 announcement."...

What can the Fed do to support the economy?

"The best they could do for markets would be to collectively resign," Faber suggested.

"Everybody in the world has become a Keynesian, everybody thinks the government should do this and that, the Fed should do this, the Treasury should do that.....I think sometimes the best is to do...nothing!

Reiterating his views on the prospects for another asset purchase program, Faber asked: "What has QE1 and QE2 done for the labor market? Nothing at all, and nothing for the housing market."

"It [QE] has lifted stocks and it created wider wealth inequality in the sense that people who own assets have done well and people who are in the lower income recipient groups are getting hurt from rising energy and food prices," he added.

read the entire article

Fed Holds Rates Steady

Well, it looks like it’s one down, three to go for the Federal Reserve as, today, they promised to keep short-term interest rates freakishly low for at least the next two years (and possibly much longer) while holding in reserve three other options – changing their mix of assets to lower long term rates (which doesn’t appear to be necessary at the moment), spurring banks to lend by paying less on excess reserves, and, of course, the big kahuna of about a trillion dollars more in Treasury purchases, otherwise known as “QE3″.

By promising to keep rates low “at least through mid-2013″ in the policy statement released earlier today, the central bank assured the nation’s big banks of continuing to make big profits for the next two years on the interest rate spreads.

Of course, this will continue to punish the nation’s savers who, for the foreseeable future, will be looking at rates of one percent or less for certificates of deposit.

source

The S & P 500 and Federal Reserve Intervention

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this chart needs little additional explanation — except perhaps for those who are puzzled by the Jackson Hole callout. The reference is to Chairman Bernanke's speech at the Fed's 2010 annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Bernanke strongly hinted about the forthcoming Federal Reserve intervention that was subsequently initiated in November, namely, the second round of quantitative easing, aka QE2.

source

Ron Paul v. The Fed

Bernanke's Speech on the Economy

Here is the transcript.

At the same time, the longer-run health of the economy requires that the Federal Reserve be vigilant in preserving its hard-won credibility for maintaining price stability.

My thoughts: Ha!! Credibility for maintaining price stability? The dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since the Fed was created. That is called failure!!


Mish Shedlock provides some usefully commentary.

Bernanke did everything possible to mitigate his role and the Fed's role in this crisis. His unmitigated gall comes through loud and clear with this bald-faced lie:

"The Federal Reserve's actions in recent years have doubtless helped stabilize the financial system, ease credit and financial conditions, guard against deflation, and promote economic recovery. All of this has been accomplished, I should note, at no net cost to the federal budget or to the U.S. taxpayer."

For starters, were it not for the complete ineptitude of the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed the US would not be in this mess in the first place. Second, there most assuredly is a cost to the Fed's policies.

Prices are higher, wages are not. Banks were bailed out at taxpayer expense. The Fed pays interest on reserves. That interest comes from taxpayers. The Fed's balance sheet is loaded to the gills with garbage from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed is not at risk on that garbage because Congress approved unlimited backing for GSE debt. That unlimited backing is over $300 billion and counting. Those losses are not all on the Fed's balance sheet of course. However let's not ignore the Fed's role in getting Congress to pass that blatantly stupid bill.

Let's also not forget the Fed cheerleading fiscal stupidity in Congress, not wanting Congress to do anything about monstrous deficits now. Keynesian and Monetarist clowns never want to do anything now. They always want to do it at the "appropriate" time, which in practice means never.

Most importantly I would like to point out the very real cost of those on fixed income, attempting to get by with higher food prices, higher gasoline prices, etc. I dare Ben Bernanke to face senior citizens and tell them there is no cost associated with interest rates at 0%.

In case you missed it please read Hello Ben Bernanke, Meet "Stephanie". That post is about the plight of those on fixed incomes struggling to get by with rising costs and CD rates at 1%.

Finally, there is an unseen cost to the stupidity of Bernanke's policies. That unseen cost is the cost associated with fostering still more speculation in the financial markets. There is another bubble in the stock market, another bubble in junk bonds, and another bubble in commodities.

We have yet to feel the ramifications when those bubble pop, and they will. Bernanke cannot see those bubbles for the same reason he could not see the bubble in housing, the bubble in credit, the rapidly rising unemployment rate, and countless other things he missed.

Bernanke is a complete fool, trapped in academic wonderland, completely oblivious as to how the real world works. To top it off, Bernanke has the gall to knowingly lie about the real world effects of his blatant stupidity.

Ben Bernanke, you are disgusting.

source

The Recession and the Fed Interventions

source

The Fed and Money Expansion

To understand how the receipt of new reserves influences a bank's behavior, the place to start is to ask whether the bank is willing to hold the reserves overnight. Prior to 2008, a bank could earn no interest on reserves, and could get some extra revenue by investing any excess reserves, for example, by lending the reserves overnight to another bank on the federal funds market. In that system, most banks would be actively monitoring reserve inflows and outflows in order to maximize profits. The overall level of excess reserves at the end of each day was pretty small (a tiny sliver in the above diagram), since nobody wanted to be stuck with idle reserves at the end of the day. When the Fed created new reserves in that system, the result was a series of new interbank transactions that eventually ended in the reserves being withdrawn as currency.

All that changed dramatically in the fall of 2008, because (1) the Fed started paying interest on excess reserves, and (2) banks earned practically no interest on safe overnight loans. In the current system, new reserves that the Fed creates just sit there on banks' accounts with the Fed. None of these banks have the slightest desire to make cash withdrawals from these accounts, and the Fed has no intention whatever of trying to print the dollar bills associated with these huge balances in deposits with the Fed.

source