Skip to main content

Greed and Potato Chips: The Fed's Role in the Current Credit Crisis

There is no doubt that a lot of greed is going on in America. Most people's greed rises or falls in relation to what is available to them. To illustrate this concept, let me use a food example. Assuming that I love salt and vinegar potato chips (I do), when am I the most greedy--when they're put away on the shelf, or when they're sitting in front of me?

As a lead up to the current credit crisis, the Federal Reserve has been the banking industry's bag of salt and vinegar chips. Hardly anyone is talking about this.

Business Week has talked about it, as recently as March of this year.
One measure of the size of monetary stimulus is the expansion of M3, a broad measure of the money supply that includes institutional money funds. Capital Economics calculates that M3 is up 15% from a year ago, the biggest increase in 37 years.
All I've heard recently, however, is about the greedy banks who offered subprime salt and vinegar chips to

If you love potato chips, when are you the most greedy--when they're put away on the shelf, or when they're sitting in front of you?

As a lead up to the current credit crisis, the Federal Reserve has been the banking industry's bag of potato chips.

unsuspecting mortgagees. It's much more important to figure out where the banks got the chips from in the first place.

Imagine that banks suddenly have 15% more money (just in the year 2008) to lend out. What are they going to do? They're going to eat the chips. Notably, Business Week doesn't even talk about how many bags of chips the Fed put in front of the banks in the last several years before

The Federal Reserve was the architect not only of the 1929 stock market crash, but also the prolonged depression of the 1930's. They also caused the current crisis, yet they're fully content to let the bankers take all the blame.

2008 (although they were worried about too much M2 and M3 back in 1997).

The Federal Reserve was the architect not only of the 1929 stock market crash, but also the prolonged depression of the 1930's. Their actions recently, at least so far, are eerily similar to what they did 80 years ago. Will the result be any different? Ha! It would be nice if we could vote these rascals out of office, but we can't because they're a private corporation.

Is the Fed really worth it? No. They caused this crisis, yet they're fully content to let the bankers take all the blame.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...