Category Archives: ABOLISH THE FED

Dallas Observer Reports On Occupy the Fed Rally


 

Alex Jones: Infowars Host and His Followers Occupy the Dallas Fed Friday

Leslie Minora
Dallas Observer
Saturday, October 8, 2011

Comment: This is a fair article, but the numbers who attended are closer to 400 for the Infowars Occupy the Fed rally and another 100 Occupy Wall Street protesters who joined to demonstrate, so 500 in total. The rally was a huge success – on to Houston tonight!

Friday evening, two groups of protesters, Occupy Dallas and Occupy the Federal Reserve, lined opposite side of N. Pearl Street at Woodall Rodgers in front of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. “We got sold out, Feds got bailed out!” Occupy Dallas protesters shouted in unison on the west side of Pearl. And, all around them, the Occupy the Federal Reserve crowd — consisting of fans and followers of Dallas-born, Austin-based radio-show hostAlex Jones – had their own mantra: “End the Fed, End the Fed!”

It’s tough to say whose crowd was bigger — probably around 200 on both sides. Police said the protesters had been peaceful; only one person’s been arrested since the Occupy Dallas folks began their demonstrating Thursday morning. “They’re well-behaved, so that helps a lot,” said Sergeant Thomas Fry, scanning the crowd.

Jones — the 9/11 truther, a man who recently called the Gates Foundation “obviously a eugenics operation,” the street preacher in Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly and, to a few, a resurrected Bill Hicks — grabbed a megaphone a little after 6 p.m. “A hundred years of these scumbag bankers is a hundred years too long,” he yelled.

“I love you, Alex!” a voice carried over the crowd.

“I love you guys. You’re the only prayer we’ve got,” Jones yelled back.

Full story here.

 

The Revolution Against the Federal Reserve Starts Now


 

 

Infowars Press Release
Infowars.com
October 6, 2011

Public sentiment has shifted– against the trends of Washington and Wall Street– and now, against the private Federal Reserve bank which controls or influences so much of the world’s finances. Where as only a few years ago many Americans were unaware of the true nature of the shadowy organization, recent polls confirm that the public overwhelmingly wants to audit and even abolish the Federal Reserve bank.

The momentum for a second American revolution is stirring, but the establishment is working overtime to steer the public’s anger into easy controlled avenues and big government solutions. Instead, by striking at the root of the true problems, we can attempt to reign in the predatory banking powers that plague our nation and begin to restore the Republic.

The Federal Reserve banking system is at the root of that problem and a perpetual impediment towards ending the global economic crisis that continues to grow. Join Alex Jones to “occupy” the Dallas Federal Reserve, or take the message to a Fed branch near you [see dates and times below]. We must start now by focusing media and political attention on this issue, and through our presence at these banks, start brushfires in the minds of men that will tip the momentum in favor of liberty and independence for all.

Economist Stiglitz: Federal Reserve failures ‘almost unforgivable’


 

 

 

 

Luke Rudkowski
WeAreChange.org
October 5, 2011

Prominent economist Joseph Stiglitz says that the Federal Reserve failed as a regulator in seeing the economic crisis coming, yet claims ignorance on the influence of groups like Bilderberg.

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls “free market fundamentalists”) and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

Federal Reserve monetary statement may stabilise market


Taiwan Sun
Tuesday 9th August, 2011  

  •  Dow Jones industrial average, S&P 500 and Nasdaq suffering volatility
  •  US Federal Reserve monetary policy anticipated by investors
  •  Fears growing of a double-dip recession

 

US markets were set for potentially volatile trading Tuesday ahead of a monetary policy statement by the US Federal Reserve following Monday’s single worst day of trading since the 2008 crash.

Futures on major indexes swung dramatically between positive and negative territory ahead of the opening of trade on the New York Stock Exchange with the Dow Jones industrial average, S&P 500 and Nasdaq suffering volatility.

On Monday alone, around US $1 trillion was wiped from the value of US markets, while over the past two weeks, stocks have dropped around 15% on the back of growing fears that the US economy is slipping back into recession.

The Federal Reserve was due to make a statement on monetary policy Tuesday afternoon and that will likely have an immense impact on the market as investors will be hoping for a signal from the reserve that it will take steps to stabilise the markets and revitalise the slowing economic recovery.

As stock markets around the world plunge, the Federal Reserve will need to reassure investors that the world economy is not heading into a US-led double-dip recession.

@ColonelSixx

Roubini: QE3 Is Coming, But Bernanke Will Be Too Late


“We will get QE3, then QE4 & then QE5”

Aug. 4 2011

Nouriel Roubini, the much heralded NYU economist who has gotten much attention – and the nickname Dr. Doom – for his gloomy predictions in the past few years, isn’t exactly confident in Ben Bernanke or the US economy. Over the past few days he has taken to Twitter to voice his concerns on the recent market free fall, the potential for a double dip and the ongoing crisis in Europe. Today, on the heels of currency market intervention by Japan and Switzerland, Roubini predicted that a third round of quantitative easing here in the United States, tweeting, “QE3 started in Japan & Switzerland via fx action &/or monetary easing. Fed will eventually get to QE3 but it will be too little too late.”

Japan and Switzerland have both gotten involved in currency markets over the past two days, stepping in to prevent outsized appreciation in the yen and the Swiss franc. Switzerland cut interest rates on Wednesday in an attempt to weaken the franc, while the Japanese government and the Bank of Japan collaborated on moves today in an attempt stifle similar appreciation in the yen.

Roubini has previously said that he thinks future rounds of quantitative easing are on the way. As he pointed out in another tweet today, “I argued last year we will get QE3, then QE4 & then QE5 (the Fed, as in the 1950s, targeting the 10yr Treas at 1.5% once all else fails).”

In January, when he sat down with Steve Forbes, Roubini identified states and local municipalities as potential recipients of QE3.

“Until now, we have back-stopped the states through the federal budget – transfer payments of a variety of sorts to make sure that they don’t blow up.  At this point, the political willingness to do more of it is limited,” Roubini explained.

READ THE REST:

http://blogs.forbes.com/chrisbarth/2011/08/04/roubini-qe3-is-coming-but-bernanke-will-be-too-late/

The Federal Reserve: Our Policy Is To Steal From You


Charles Hugh Smith
Of Two Minds
Thursday, July 21, 2011

We know two things: 1) the official policy of the Federal Reserve is to engineer and maintain inflation and 2) inflation is theft. As I have recounted here many times, in nominal terms, it looks like average wages (earned income) in the U.S. have been rising smartly for decades. But measured in purchasing power, i.e. adjusted for inflation, earned income has declined for most workers, especially in the past three years.

Measured in purchasing power, i.e. the number of gallons of gasoline or loaves of bread an average worker could buy with one hour of labor, American workers have experienced a steady decline in the value of their labor for the past 40 years.

Whenever a pundit scoffs at the idea that the dollar might lose 95% of its value, readers remind me it already has lost 95% of its value in the past century.

The dollar has lost most of its value just in the past 45 years; according to the BLS inflation calculator (which very likely understates real inflation), it takes $7 2011 dollars to buy what $1 bought in 1966, at the top of the post-war Bull market.

Can we buy 7 times more goods and services now? Or can we actually only buy 6 times more goods? If so, then our earnings have actually declined by 15%. Put another way: 15% of our earnings have been effectively stolen via inflation.

The Federal Reserve robs savers every day of millions of dollars, which it then transfers to the “too big to fail” banks by paying interest on those banks’ reserves. Savers earn .01% on their cash while banks are paid 2% interest. The difference is what is stolen from savers and funneled to the banks.

Inflation is theft not just of cash but of liberty. Longtime contributor Chad D. explains why:

I’ve never seen this topic covered (not to say that it hasn’t) which is of great interest to me: the nexus of the criminal justice system and the financial system, specifically the inflationary nature of our system. The criminal law books have statutes (and their associated regulations) with provisions regarding the value of property and the relative level of crime with which a person would be charged, if one violated that law. In addition, these statutes spell out the amount of fines and penalties for convictions for those crimes.

The trouble is that these statutes are not indexed for inflation, so what happens is people are charged with a higher level of crime than they otherwise would have in the past, for no other reason than inflation.

As an example, if a person in NY decides to intentionally damage the property of another with a value of $250 or more, he is guilty of a felony. Intentionally damaging the property of another which has a value under $250 is a misdemeanor. Well, that statute was passed over thirty years ago, when $250 was a decent chunk of money. $250 in 1980 is equivalent to $653 today, according to an inflation calculator on the web that I used. Conversely, a product that costs $250 today only cost $86 in 1980.

So if the law were to remain equal over time, the triggering level for the felony level of the statute should have been revised upward to around $650 to reflect the inflationary nature of our system. What we have now is a number of people being charged with felonies when they should only be charged with a misdemeanor if the statutes were indexed for inflation.

Let’s run through a scenario. In 1980, I decide that I’m going to intentionally damage my friend’s stereo that’s worth $200 and I get arrested for doing so. I would be charged with a misdemeanor. Fast forward to 2010, I damage the same stereo, but now, because of inflation, that stereo is now worth $522. Now I get charged with a felony.

My actions have not changed and for the sake of this example, the stereo has not changed, either. Now, we have a lot of people getting felony records and we are having to spend more on prosecuting these offenses (felonies generally cost more than misdemeanor to prosecute for various reasons). One can argue that the stereo has gotten better, so my example is imperfect, but that misses the point. The point is that the statute was promulgated upon the assumptions that a dollar represents an adequate measure to value property and also to set a minimal value upon which a felony prosecution would take place.

If the relative value of the dollar goes down over time due to government mismanagement, how is that statute a fair one? There was no debate in our legislature or discussion in our society to see if we want additional numbers of people prosecuted for felonies, rather than misdemeanors.

We could look at reporting requirements the same way. For example, one has to file reports with the feds, if one has cash transactions of 10K or higher. Again, back when the statute was passed, 10K was a good chunk of money, but now it doesn’t buy nearly as much.

Consequently, the number of these reports has skyrocketed, at least in part, due to inflation. How efficient is that? Are we catching more criminals because of it or are we making more criminals out of otherwise decent people? The same goes for fines. Are fines that are promulgated 30 years ago still an effective deterrent? I don’t think so, in general. Though, I have noticed that the government is much better at raising fines than raising the levels for felony prosecution.

After writing the above, I decided to do some more research and I found that some NY statutes have been revised upwards (e.g. grand larceny) due to inflation, but not the statute about which I was talking (criminal mischief 3rd). The legislature did raise the minimum felony threshold for grand larceny to $1,000 several year ago, but not criminal mischief, which just highlights the problem in my mind. (Note: Raising the level for felony criminal mischief is currently being considered by the legislature).

Even though some in government are aware of inflation and its nexus with the criminal justice system, nothing (semi-)automatic is put in place to assure a consistent, fair application of the law. In this case, the legislature changed one law, but not another.

What other laws are missing, I wonder? Should the grand larceny level be raised again right now? Why should numerous people be subjected to felony charges, because of legislative/bureacratic inertia? Are other states or the federal government better at taking care of this? What happens when the inflation rate starts to get exceedingly high in the coming years, as we get QE 3,4, 5, etc.? So, it appears some people are looking at this, but not enough, in my opinion. I doubt many law makers and law enforcers really understand how pernicious inflation actually is.

One last example: consider the absurdity of the disparity between the current criminal mischief and larceny laws here in NY. For instance, if I intentionally damage a stereo that is worth $750, I would be charged with a felony. If I steal that same stereo, I would be charged with a misdemeanor. Crazy, right?

Correspondent Chris noted the pernicious way that long-term capital gains enable theft of purchasing power via unrecognized inflation:

The problem with long term capital gains is that it taxes inflated gains, not real value.

Say I invest $100 in stocks and then sell them 15 years later for $200. I made a profit of $100 right? Wrong! During that time inflation (caused by government policies) reduced the value of my money so that the purchasing power of my $200 is about the same as the $100 I invested, meaning I really made no money at all.

If capital gains laws allowed us to inflation adjust the basis then I would have no problem with taxing the gains at the normal rate of the rest of your income.

Thank you, Chad and Chris, for highlighting two of the many perversions created by the Federal Reserve’s explicit policy of stealing from the American public via inflation. Too bad theft via inflation isn’t a felony.

Fed Making Contingency Plans for Possible US Default


The Federal Reserve is actively preparing for the possibility that the United States could default as a deadline for raising the government’s $14.3 trillion borrowing limit looms, a top Fed policymaker said on Wednesday.

Charles Plosser, president of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, said the U.S. central bank has for the past few months been working closely with Treasury, ironing out what to do if the world’s biggest economy runs out of cash on Aug. 2.

“We are in contingency planning mode,” Plosser told Reuters in an interview at the regional central bank’s headquarters in Philadelphia. “We are all engaged. … It’s a very active process.”

Plosser said his “gut feeling” was that President Barack Obama and Congress will come to an agreement to increase the Treasury’s borrowing authority in time to avert a default on government obligations.

Obama was due to meet with top Republicans in Congress on Wednesday to discuss the latest attempts to end the dispute over raising the country’s debt ceiling, a row which has raised the prospect of the Treasury Department running out of money to pay its bills next month.

The Treasury has repeatedly said default was unthinkable and that there was no alternative to raising the debt ceiling.

Plosser’s remarks marked the most extensive public comments yet on preparations for a default from a U.S. official.

A Treasury spokesperson could not be immediately reached for comment.

One aspect of the Fed’s contingency planning is purely operational: the Fed is developing procedures about how the Treasury would notify it on which checks would get cleared and which wouldn’t, Plosser said.

The Fed effectively acts as the Treasury’s bank — it clears the government’s checks to everyone from social security recipients to government workers.

“We are developing processes and procedures by which the Treasury communicates to us what we are going to do,” Plosser said, adding that the task was manageable. “How the Fed is going to go about clearing government checks. Which ones are going to be good? Which ones are not going to be good?”

“There are a lot of people working on what we would do and how we would do it,” he said.

Plosser added that there are difficult questions that the Fed itself had to grapple with.

The Fed lends to banks at the discount window against good collateral. But what happens if U.S. Treasurys no longer fit that bill?

“Do we treat them as if they didn’t default, in which case we would be saying we are pretending it never happened? Or do we treat them as if they defaulted and don’t lend against them?” Plosser said. “Those are more policy questions.”

Plosser, who was a vocal critic of some of the Fed’s extraordinary lending during the financial crisis — which he said veered into fiscal policy and risked the central bank’s independence — warned it would be crucial for the Fed not to do the Treasury’s work for it.

“We have to be very careful that we don’t become, that we don’t conduct fiscal policy in this context,” he said. “That we don’t substitute for the inability of the Treasury to borrow in some circumstances.”

Inclined to Tighten

Plosser, a noted policy hawk on inflation, argued the Fed might need to raise interest rates before the end of the year, despite recent evidence of renewed economic weakness.

He said he expects the economy to grow at a 3-3.5 percent annual rate over the second half of 2011 with the jobless rate declining to around 8.5 percent by year’s end.

“The more my forecast comes to fruition the more I’m going to feel like we may have to act,” said Plosser, who is a voting member of the Fed’s monetary policy-setting committee this year. “I’d like to have a little more confidence in that forecast.”

Plosser pinned the slowdown in economic growth over the first half of the year to “easily identifiable” factors, such as weather, a spike in oil prices and supply disruptions from Japan’s earthquake. He also cited uncertainty stemming from Europe’s fiscal morass and the wrangling over U.S. debt in Washington.

“I don’t see the fundamentals of the economy as changed that much,” he said. “Yeah, there’s been some shocks and disruptions, but the underlying forces that are going to cause us to continue a slow, moderate recovery are still in place.”

That said, the Fed, which is charged with ensuring financial stability, would clearly feel the responsibility to step in as a lender of last resort if markets seized up after a U.S. default, he added.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last week warned that a default could have “catastrophic” effects on financial markets.

Plosser, a former dean of the Simon School of Business at Rochester University, was more circumspect.

“It could be very bad. At some level we don’t really know what the consequences could be. It could be very serious. It could be less serious. Do we really want to run that experiment?”

Confirmed: Federal Reserve Policy is Killing Lending, Employment and the Economy


 

 

 

Washington’s Blog
July 16, 2011

I’ve previously documented numerous ways in which the Fed is working against its stated goals, such as:

And see this.

And I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the Federal Reserve has been intentionally discouraged banks from lending to Main Street – in a misguided attempt to curb inflation – which has increased unemployment and stalled out the economy.

As I noted last year:

 

[T]he Fed has been paying the big banks high enough interest on the funds which they deposit at the Fed to discourage banks from making loans. Indeed, the Fed has explicitly stated that – in order to prevent inflation – it wants to ensure that the banks don’t loan out money into the economy, but instead deposit it at the Fed:

This conclusion may seem strange, at first glance, to readers familiar with textbook presentations of the money multiplier.

Why Is The Fed Locking Up Excess Reserves?

Why is the Fed locking up excess reserves?
As Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said in a speech on April 18, 2009:

We are paying interest on excess reserves, which we can use to help provide a floor for the federal funds rate, as it does for other central banks, even if declines in lending or open market operations are not sufficient to bring reserves down to the desired level.

Kohn said in a speech on January 3, 2010:

Because we can now pay interest on excess reserves, we can raise short-term interest rates even with an extraordinarily large volume of reserves in the banking system. Increasing the rate we offer to banks on deposits at the Federal Reserve will put upward pressure on all short-term interest rates.

As the Minneapolis Fed’s research consultant, V. V. Chari, wrote this month:

Currently, U.S. banks hold more than $1.1 trillion of reserves with the Federal Reserve System. To restrict excessive flow of reserves back into the economy, the Fed could increase the interest rate it pays on these reserves. Doing so would not only discourage banks from draining their reserve holdings, but would also exert upward pressure on broader market interest rates, since only rates higher than the overnight reserve rate would attract bank funds. In addition, paying interest on reserves is supported by economic theory as a means of reducing monetary inefficiencies, a concept referred to as “the Friedman rule.”

And the conclusion to the above-linked New York Fed article states:

We also discussed the importance of paying interest on reserves when the level of excess reserves is unusually high, as the Federal Reserve began to do in October 2008. Paying interest on reserves allows a central bank to maintain its influence over market interest rates independent of the quantity of reserves created by its liquidity facilities. The central bank can then let the size of these facilities be determined by conditions in the financial sector, while setting its target for the short-term interest rate based on macroeconomic conditions. This ability to separate monetary policy from the quantity of bank reserves is particularly important during the recovery from a financial crisis. If inflationary pressures begin to appear while the liquidity facilities are still in use, the central bank can use its interest-on-reserves policy to raise interest rates without necessarily removing all of the reserves created by the facilities.

As the NY Fed explains in more detail:

The central bank paid interest on reserves to prevent the increase in reserves from driving market interest rates below the level it deemed appropriate given macroeconomic conditions. In such a situation, the absence of a money-multiplier effect should be neither surprising nor troubling.

Is the large quantity of reserves inflationary?

Some observers have expressed concern that the large quantity of reserves will lead to an increase in the inflation rate unless the Federal Reserve acts to remove them quickly once the economy begins to recover. Meltzer (2009), for example, worries that “the enormous increase in bank reserves — caused by the Fed’s purchases of bonds and mortgages — will surely bring on severe inflation if allowed to remain.” Feldstein (2009) expresses similar concern that “when the economy begins to recover, these reserves can be converted into new loans and faster money growth” that will eventually prove inflationary. Under a traditional operational framework, where the central bank influences interest rates and the level of economic activity by changing the quantity of reserves, this concern would be well justified. Now that the Federal Reserve is paying interest on reserves, however, matters are different.

When the economy begins to recover, firms will have more profitable opportunities to invest, increasing their demands for bank loans. Consequently, banks will be presented with more lending opportunities that are profitable at the current level of interest rates. As banks lend more, new deposits will be created and the general level of economic activity will increase. Left unchecked, this growth in lending and economic activity may generate inflationary pressures. Under a traditional operating framework, where no interest is paid on reserves, the central bank must remove nearly all of the excess reserves from the banking system in order to arrest this process. Only by removing these excess reserves can the central bank limit banks’ willingness to lend to firms and households and cause short-term interest rates to rise.

Paying interest on reserves breaks this link between the quantity of reserves and banks’ willingness to lend. By raising the interest rate paid on reserves, the central bank can increase market interest rates and slow the growth of bank lending and economic activity without changing the quantity of reserves. In other words, paying interest on reserves allows the central bank to follow a path for short-term interest rates that is independent of the level of reserves. By choosing this path appropriately, the central bank can guard against inflationary pressures even if financial conditions lead it to maintain a high level of excess reserves.

This logic applies equally well when financial conditions are normal. A central bank may choose to maintain a high level of reserve balances in normal times because doing so offers some important advantages, particularly regarding the operation of the payments system. For example, when banks hold more reserves they tend to rely less on daylight credit from the central bank for payments purposes. They also tend to send payments earlier in the day, on average, which reduces the likelihood of a significant operational disruption or of gridlock in the payments system. To capture these benefits, a central bank may choose to create a high level of reserves as a part of its normal operations, again using the interest rate it pays on reserves to influence market interest rates.

Because financial conditions are not “normal”, it appears that preventing inflation seems to be the Fed’s overriding purpose in creating conditions ensuring high levels of excess reserves.

***
As Barron’s notes:

The multiplier’s decline “corresponds so exactly to the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet,” says Constance Hunter, economist at hedge-fund firm Galtere. “It hits at the core of the problem in a credit crisis. Until [the multiplier] expands, we can’t get sustainable growth of credit, jobs, consumption, housing. When the multiplier starts to go back up toward 1.8, then we know the psychological logjam has begun to break.”

***

It’s not just the Fed. The NY Fed report notes:

Most central banks now pay interest on reserves.

Robert D. Auerbach – an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin – argues that the Fed should slowly reduce the interest paid on reserves so as to stimulate the economy.

Last week, Auerbach wrote:

The stimulative effects of QE2 may be small and the costs may be large. One of these costs will be the payment of billions of dollars by taxpayers to the banks which currently hold over 50 percent of the monetary base, over $1 trillion in reserves. The interest payments are an incentive for banks to hold reserves rather than make business loans. If market interest rates rise, the Federal Reserve may be required to increase these interest payments to prevent the huge amount of bank reserves from flooding the economy. They should follow a different policy that benefits taxpayers and increases the incentive of banks to make business loans as I have previously suggested.

In September, Auerbach explained:

Immediately after the recession took a dramatic dive in September 2008, the Bernanke Fed implemented a policy that continues to further damage the incentive for banks to lend to businesses. On October 6, 2008 the Fed’s Board of Governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke, announced it would begin paying interest on the reserve balances of the nation’s banks, major lenders to medium and small size businesses.

You don’t need a Ph.D. economist to know that if you pay banks ¼ percent risk free interest to hold reserves that they can obtain at near zero interest, that would be an incentive to hold the reserves. The Fed pumped out huge amounts of money, with the base of the money supply more than doubling from August 2008 to August 2010, reaching $1.99 trillion. Guess who has over half of this money parked in cold storage? The banks have $1.085 trillion on reserves drawing interest, The Fed records show they were paid $2.18 billion interest on these reserves in 2009.

A number of people spoke about the disincentive for bank lending embedded in this policy including Chairman Bernanke.

***
Jim McTague, Washington Editor of Barrons, wrote in his February 2, 2009 column, “Where’s the Stimulus:” “Increasing the supply of credit might help pump up spending, too. University of Texas Professor Robert Auerbach an economist who studied under the late Milton Friedman, thinks he has the makings of a malpractice suit against Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as the Fed is holding a record number of reserves: $901 billion in January as opposed to $44 billion in September, when the Fed began paying interest on money commercial banks parked at the central bank. The banks prefer the sure rate of return they get by sitting in cash, not making loans. Fed, stop paying, he says.”

Shortly after this article appeared Fed Chairman Bernanke explained: “Because banks should be unwilling to lend reserves at a rate lower than they can receive from the Fed, the interest rate the Fed pays on bank reserves should help to set a floor on the overnight interest rate.” (National Press Club, February 18, 2009) That was an admission that the Fed’s payment of interest on reserves did impair bank lending. Bernanke’s rationale for interest payments on reserves included preventing banks from lending at lower interest rates. That is illogical at a time when the Fed’s target interest rate for federal funds, the small market for interbank loans, was zero to a quarter of one percent. The banks would be unlikely to lend at negative rates of interest — paying people to take their money — even without the Fed paying the banks to hold reserves.

The next month William T. Gavin, an excellent economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve, wrote in its March\April 2009 publication: “first, for the individual bank, the risk-free rate of ¼ percent must be the bank’s perception of its best investment opportunity.”The Bernanke Fed’s policy was a repetition of what the Fed did in 1936 and 1937 which helped drive the country into a second depression. Why does Chairman Bernanke, who has studied the Great Depression of the 1930′s and has surely read the classic 1963 account of improper actions by the Fed on bank reserves described by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, repeat the mistaken policy?

As the economy pulled out of the deep recession in 1936 the Fed Board thought the U.S. banks had too much excess reserves, so they began to raise the reserves banks were required to hold. In three steps from August 1936 to May 1937 they doubled the reserve requirements for the large banks (13 percent to 26 percent of checkable deposits) and the country banks (7 percent to 14 percent of checkable deposits).

Friedman and Schwartz ask: “why seek to immobilize reserves at that time?” The economy went back into a deep depression. The Bernanke Fed’s 2008 to 2010 policy also immobilizes the banking system’s reserves reducing the banks’ incentive to make loans.

This is a bad policy even if the banks approve. The correct policy now should be to slowly reduce the interest paid on bank reserves to zero and simultaneously maintain a moderate increase in the money supply by slowly raising the short term market interest rate targeted by the Fed. Keeping the short term target interest rate at zero causes many problems, not the least of which is allowing banks to borrow at a zero interest rate and sit on their reserves so they can receive billions in interest from the taxpayers via the Fed. Business loans from banks are vital to the nations’ recovery.

The fact that the Fed is suppressing lending and inflation at a time when it says it is trying to encourage both shows that the Fed is saying one thing and doing something else entirely.

Today, Ellen Brown adds some details:

 

In a June 30 article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Smaller Businesses Seeking Loans Still Come Up Empty,” Emily Maltby reported that business owners rank access to capital as the most important issue facing them today; and only 17% of smaller businesses said they were able to land needed bank financing. Businesses have to pay for workers and materials before they can get paid for the products they produce, and for that they need bank credit; but they are reporting that their credit lines are being cut.

***

Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Fiscal Times in July 2010, observed:

Economists are divided on why banks are not lending, but increasingly are focusing on a Fed policy of paying interest on reserves — a policy that began, interestingly enough, on October 9, 2008, at almost exactly the moment when the financial crisis became acute. . .

Historically, the Fed paid banks nothing on required reserves. This was like a tax equivalent to the interest rate banks could have earned if they had been allowed to lend such funds. But in 2006, the Fed requested permission to pay interest on reserves because it believes that it would help control the money supply should inflation reappear.

. . . [M]any economists believe that the Fed has unwittingly encouraged banks to sit on their cash and not lend it by paying interest on reserves.

 

 

At one time, banks collected deposits from their own customers and stored them for their own liquidity needs, using them to back loans and clear outgoing checks. But today banks typically borrow (or “buy”) liquidity, either from other banks, from the money market, or from the commercial paper market. The Fed’s payment of interest on reserves competes with all of these markets for ready-access short-term funds, creating a shortage of the liquidity that banks need to make loans.

 

By inhibiting interbank lending, the Fed appears to be creating a silent “liquidity squeeze” — the same sort of thing that brought on the banking crisis of September 2008. According to Jeff Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, it could happen again. He warns that paying interest on reserves “may eventually rank with the Fed’s doubling of reserve requirements in the 1930s and bringing on the recession of 1937 within the midst of the Great Depression.”

 

The bank bailout and the Federal Reserve’s two “quantitative easing” programs were supposedly intended to keep credit flowing to the local economy; but despite trillions of dollars thrown at Wall Street banks, these programs have succeeded only in producing mountains of “excess reserves” that are now sitting idle in Federal Reserve bank accounts. A stunning $1.6 trillion in excess reserves have accumulated since the collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008.

 

 

The justification for TARP — the Trouble Asset Relief Program that subsidized the nation’s largest banks — was that it was necessary to unfreeze credit markets. The contention was that banks were refusing to lend to each other, cutting them off from the liquidity that was essential to the lending business. But an MIT study reported in September 2010 showed that immediately after the Lehman collapse, the interbank lending markets were actually working. They froze, not when Lehman died, but when the Fed started paying interest on excess reserves in October 2008. According to the study, as summarized in The Daily Bail:

. . . [T]he NY Fed’s own data show that interbank lending during the period from September to November did not “freeze,” collapse, melt down or anything else. In fact, every single day throughout this period, hundreds of billions were borrowed and paid back. The decline in daily interbank lending came only when the Fed ballooned its balance sheet and started paying interest on excess reserves.

 

 

On October 9, 2008, the Fed began paying interest, not just on required bank reserves (amounting to 10% of deposits for larger banks), but on “excess” reserves. Reserve balances immediately shot up, and they have been going up almost vertically ever since.

 

 

By March 2011, interbank loans outstanding were only one-third their level in May 2008, before the banking crisis hit. And on June 29, 2011, the Fed reported excess reserves of nearly $1.57 trillion – 20 times what the banks needed to satisfy their reserve requirements.

 

***

 

John Mason, Professor of Finance at Penn State University and a former senior economist at the Federal Reserve, wrote in a June 27 blog that despite QE2:

 

 

Cash assets at the smaller [U.S.] banks remained relatively flat . . . . Thus, the reserves the Fed was pumping into the banking system were not going into the smaller banks. . . .

 

[B]usiness loans continue to “tank” at the smaller banking institutions.

Bove: New Bank Reserve Rules to Spark Global Recession


Monday, 27 Jun 2011

By Forrest Jones

A recent recommendation for banks to set aside more capital to shield them from financial shocks will only throw the world back into recession, says Dick Bove, vice-president for equity research at Rochdale Securities.

Global regulators working under the auspices of the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS) have proposed requiring banks to set aside extra capital to serve as a cushion, depending on the banks’ size and systemic importance.

Big banks will need to have 9.5 percent or even 10.5 percent tier 1 common equity ratios, if the proposal is adopted, Bove writes in a market note, CNBC reports.

Forcing banks to hike capital requirements will put those banks in a position to lend less, and more lending is needed to speed up global recovery, especially after the damage that money-printing stimulus measures and misguided regulatory policies have done to banks still reeling from the global recession.

“The legislators and regulators never understood what caused the financial crisis,” Bove writes.

“They have never acknowledged their part in facilitating the events that led to the crisis. Now having failed miserably in meeting their responsibilities on the way in to the crisis, they are perpetuating their mistakes by over-reacting by swinging in every direction without regard to the consequences.”

Read more: Bove: New Bank Reserve Rules to Spark Global Recession

QE3 Not in Foreseeable Future


22 June 2011

With today’s announcements from the Federal Reserve, two things are very clear: First, low interest rates are here to stay — at least for the foreseeable future. Second, the Fed has no plans yet to take steps to continue its quantitative easing program by greenlighting a third round.

Noting that unemployment remains stubbornly high and other indicators show a weak economy, the Fed reaffirmed today with a unanimous vote that it will keep the federal-funds rate — currently at 0 to 0.25 percent — at historic lows “for an extended period.”

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke also made some key comments regarding the imminent end of the Fed’s bond-buying program this month, the aforementioned quantitative easing (QE), which involves the Fed buying government bonds as a method to increase the overall supply of U.S. dollars. Thus, the end of the program marked the first step toward tightening the money supply.

What’s the next step? The Fed has made it clear that proceeds from QE will be reinvested for now. In other words, monetary growth will slow to a crawl following its purchases of $75 billion per month for the past eight months.

Of course, as the Fed Open Market Committee statement today noted, “The Committee will regularly review the size and composition of its securities holdings and is prepared to adjust those holdings as appropriate.” This leaves the Fed some wiggle room if events change dramatically and action is needed sooner rather than later.

While it’s possible the Fed may start raising rates before they fully unwind their Treasury position, their use of the words “extended period” makes rising interest rates unlikely until well into 2012.

Will the End of QE Derail Markets?

Since the start of QE, the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet has correlated strongly with rising stock prices. After the first round of QE ended in March 2010, stocks flattened and fell in the middle of 2010, before rising at an even faster rate once QE2 was announced in August 2010.

Can we expect a similar situation today? So far, that seems to be playing out. Markets have been negative for the past several weeks ahead of the end of QE2.

Bill Gross, director of Pimco, made his position on QE clear back in March when he claimed, “It becomes a question of musical chairs to a certain extent: who gets out first and who’s the last one looking for a chair on June 30.” While Pimco has missed out on the most recent rally in Treasurys, he may be right over a longer timeframe. Gross expects no more QE programs.

Gross expects no more QE at present, but posted on Twitter today that we will likely hear about the next step of monetary policy after the August Fed retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Such a policy may either be a third round of QE, or an announcement to keep interest rates “capped” at certain levels.

QE to Infinity . . . and Beyond!

Negative data coming out in the past few weeks show the economy plunging into a recession again. This data include poor jobs numbers (even ignoring those who are no longer considered unemployed because they’ve exhausted benefits or given up looking for work, as is the case with the most widely quoted government figure), slowing GDP numbers, poor production numbers, declining auto sales, and the dreaded double dip in housing prices.

If these numbers continue to trend negative, and markets correct substantially, there may be sufficient public support to justify another round of QE, or some differently named program with the same general intent, to prop up asset prices.

Some market participants and hedge-fund managers believe this is inevitable. According to Lance Roberts of Streettalk Advisors, “Without another round of QE, and most likely soon, the economy will be headed for extremely low or potentially even negative growth.”

Read more: Fed Holds Interest Rates at Historic Lows, QE3 Not in Foreseeable Future