Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

westerebus

(2,976 posts)
19. Cherry pick much?
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:36 PM
Jan 2012

There is not a lot of "loose cash" on the FED balance sheet when you compare it to all the toxic CDO's MBS and assorted trash they hold as collateral from the banks that caused the crisis in the first place. The last time the FED went to the market to offload a portion of its "portfolio of securities" the market response was a no thank you, but keep the checks coming.

Do the following programs have anything in common? TARP TALF POMO QE1 QE1.5 QE2 Why yes, yes they do. The largest bank bail out in recorded history.

The fact that the FED paid Treasury $77 billion underlines the amount of investment the FED has to do to keep the market liquid.

The amount the FED returns to treasury is much lower on a normal basis. But, these aren't normal times. Which is why the FED invests in member banks and provides them with low interest loans to keep them above the waterline.

The FED created the reserves it has to recapitalize the banks that were insolvent. Tier 1 Capital requirements can really be a pain in the ass for banks. Now had the banks not engaged in fraud on such a massive scale and leveraged themselves beyond the hilt, the crisis, the great recession, could have been avoided.

Then again, FED policy of easy money under Greenspan was too much of a good thing for them. Like a five year old with a gallon of ice cream, a spoon and no parent in sight. We all know how that works out.

So all this low interest rate poor banking industry can't make money nonsense is nonsense.

They are corrupt. They need to be prosecuted. They need to be regulated and held accountable.

Get the facts straight - taxpayers aren't paying 750 billion Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #1
Investing 3 trillion and getting 77 billion is not a lot of money. It's less than 3%. mbperrin Jan 2012 #2
That was just for one year, and all expenses are paid out of earnings. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #4
The 3 trillion figure came from YOUR original link. mbperrin Jan 2012 #7
But that money doesn't come from taxpayers Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #10
I wanted to make another comment on the global problem Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #12
Several things Sam1 Jan 2012 #16
You mean spending is not limited when you have a sovereign currency, not debt, right? Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #18
I ment what I said. Sam1 Jan 2012 #20
Are you aware that the banks are still "borrowing" from the Fed - truedelphi Jan 2012 #8
That's not borrowing from the Fed Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #11
Call it what you want but William Black and Allan Grayson wouldn't truedelphi Jan 2012 #13
First of all, it looks to me, like Sam1 Jan 2012 #17
As many others here probably know, truedelphi Jan 2012 #21
Cherry pick much? westerebus Jan 2012 #19
How do cramdowns and mass bank liquidations fix anything? dkf Jan 2012 #3
You can't make mortgage loans when rates are this low. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #5
You run into non-warrantable condos? dkf Jan 2012 #6
Condos can be a real mess Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #9
Are condos a small enough % that the real estate market can be fixed without it? dkf Jan 2012 #14
It depends on your area Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #15
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Why not cramdowns instead...»Reply #19