I all for breaking up TBTF banks. As to the Fed being made up of Wall Street firms (more or less), that's a rather otherworldly statement. You noticed? There's two good reasons for this... Firstly, I can offer substance upon request and provided there's a meaningful discussion. Secondly, I have gone through this so many times already in other, older threads, I can't be bovvered to repeat the same thing over and over again without making sure that the discussion is meaningful.
I guess, with all your astute economic insights, you forgot to read between the lines. What was meant was that the Fed has strong ties to Wall Street and it would be an understatement to say that it has historically favored Wall Street banks over community banks.
I try not to read between the lines, if I can help it... I don't really understand what "strong ties" and "favoring" means specifically.
Au contraire. You know exactly what those words mean. Here's the list of failed banks compiled by FDIC. Note that most of them went bust after the 2007 financial meltdown. Now compare that to the number of failed banks on Wall Street, who were the receivers of billions (if not trillions) of dollars from the Fed. http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
From the govt, you mean? How much came from the US Treasury, as opposed to the Fed? In terms of comparing, using numbers is obviously meaningless, given the different sizes of the two samples. Shouldn't you be comparing the total assets held by the failed institutions in the two categories? Or maybe what percentage of the two sets of banks failed, respectively?
And if the government gets its hands on the Health Care Industry the same thing will happen to the funds collected for health care. It will be used for fighting wars or for other special interest projects. Health Care will be paid for by deficit spending, which puts us all on the hook for the debt. The US government has proven time and time again that the answer to any budget short fall is massive debt.
perhaps the reason we are in this boat is because of this "TOO BIG TO FAIL". If they werent too big to fail they wouldnt have taken absurd risks. too bad lehman and bear weren't too big to fail? or were they?
Does it make any difference when the Fed is the largest holder of U.S. debt? Fed is the US Treasury for all I know. (Source: http://www.dailypaul.com/156292/federal-reserve-passes-china-now-biggest-holder-of-us-debt) Of the $41 billion in assets seized from failed banks (almost all are community banks) held by the FDIC as of the end of January 2010, $15.6 billion are real estate loans. (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFCB.UOdUErg) The total write-offs by the major Wall Street banks in 2008 alone nearly tops $100 billion. (Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/01/15/wall-street-write-downs-closing-in-on-100-billion/). Most of the troubled Wall Street banks are still in operation today. As a matter of fact, I hear that they're more healthy today than pre-2007 while nearly all of the troubled community banks have gone out of business. One important point not to be overlooked: Fed Names Recipients of $3.3 Trillion in Crisis Aid http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...llion-of-aid-during-u-s-financial-crisis.html See for yourself who got the major windfall of the Fed's assistance.