Wall Street bailout aid questioned at Fed event

Saturday August 23, 3:38 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

Fed conference speakers say US central bank too responsive to Wall Street on bailout issues

JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) -- Do Washington policymakers listen too much to Wall Street? A possible bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on the heels of similar action involving investment firm Bear Stearns, seems to send a loud signal to financial companies that the government will clean up their messes.

That's the feeling of some analysts and academics here Saturday, the final day of a high-profile economics conference. The Federal Reserve's handling of the worst financial crisis to hit the country in decades spurred much debate.

"The Fed listens to Wall Street," said Willem Buiter, professor of European political economy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "Throughout the 12 months of the crisis, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Fed is too close to the financial markets and leading financial institutions, and too responsive to their special pleadings, to make the right decisions for the economy as a whole," he wrote in a paper presented to the conference.

Critics like Buiter worry that the Fed's unprecedented actions -- including financial backing for JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s takeover of Bear Stearns Cos. -- are putting taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars of potential losses. They also say it encourages "moral hazard," that is, allowing financial companies to gamble more recklessly in the future.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, who spoke to the conference on Friday, defended the Fed's actions, saying they were "necessary and justified" to avert a meltdown of the entire financial system, which would have devastated the U.S. economy.


The important thing many people don't seem to understand is that the Fed is not a part of the government. The Federal Reserve is made up of the world's largest banks, so is it any surprise that they come running to Wall Street and the financial industry? When you see what the Fed is made up of, it really isn't. It's pretty easy to throw other people's money away with bailouts and it sure isn't difficult to turn on the printing presses and churn out billions of dollars of new bills at the expense of the value of the currency. As long as this connection is ignored by the public the bailouts and printing of the money will continue. The Fed does not control interest rates for the individuals in the country but rather for the banking institutions in the country. Whether it's Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke, the end aim of interest rate manipulation has been to protect and strengthen the banking institutions. With a fiat monetary policy, this is doable for a bit. Heck, many people enjoy the bubbles while they last and even accept that a bubble economy is created from the free market. As long as there is a central bank in control of money and credit the economy is not free. Even Alan Greenspan admitted this.

Until people understand the connection of the Fed to Wall Street it will be difficult to have a meaningful debate on this subject. But, it is good to see some economists in the above article are questioning the Fed's actions. What's funny to me is why people don't see Freddie and Fannie's unlimited line of credit to the Treasury as a bailout. If that's not a bailout, what is?

Subscribe to this blog

US food prices to post biggest rise since 1990

21 Aug 6:33pm
Read original blog entry
US food prices to post biggest rise since '90: USDA

Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:26pm EDT

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - U.S. consumers should brace for the biggest increase in food prices in nearly 20 years in 2008 and even more pain next year due to surging meat and produce prices, the Agriculture Department said on Wednesday.

Food prices are forecast to rise by 5 percent to 6 percent this year, making it the largest annual increase since 1990. Just last month, USDA forecast food prices would climb between 4.5 and 5.5 percent in 2008.

"It's a little bit of a surprise how strong some of the numbers were in July," USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, who prepared the forecast, said in an interview.

"We've been waiting for some moderation, but especially with some of the meat prices and how much has come through relatively recently (at the retail level) leads me to believe the overall number may be a little bit higher for the year," he added.

..

Prices are expected to rise by 4 percent to 5 percent in 2009, lead by red meat and poultry. The forecast, if correct, would be the third straight year where food prices have surged at least 4 percent.


Short-term, the biggest factor contributing to higher food prices is most likely the federal corn E85 subsidy. This isn't a whopping realization as its been discussed often over the past year, but it's important to follow and understand what drives up prices both in the short-term and long-term. Globally corn is a vital food and the U.S. is the leading producer and exporter of the grain, so it doesn't take too much common sense to understand that when the U.S. starts throwing a large portion of that corn to ethanol it's going to drive up prices. E85 is a whole other topic that I've gotten into before so I won't go into it too much, but this is the basic overview. Essentially, the government feels it knows which energy sources are the best and most "environmentally friendly" when in fact E85 has been a failure both economically and environmentally.

The other main driver behind higher food prices, I absolutely believe, is monetary inflation. It's more of a long-term factor but a vital one nonetheless that very few people understand or even think about. It's pretty simple when you use a supply and demand perspective: if all of a sudden there are billions of new bills in the marketplace, of course the purchasing power of the dollar will increase. More dollars = less value (purchasing power, and higher prices are the consequence. My feeling is that the impacts of monetary inflation on food and energy prices (both of which are very much connected especially in the global economy) won't be ignorable if we continue down this path of reckless and unchecked money printing. Higher prices over the long run should be no surprise with a fiat monetary policy. Certainly there are other factors like a growing global economy, but an economy is not stable when it is built on the foundation of a fiat money system controlled by powerful central banks. Free market economics teaches this and just going back in history proves this point. The bottom line is that government intervention and centralized economies have been tried in all shapes and forms yet none of them have survived or been sustainable in the long run. Yikes...

Comments

Back to top

Post comment

Back to top

Post a comment

Please login to post a comment