WeвЂ™ve been speaking plenty only at billmoyers about crony capitalism therefore the revolving home between big banking institutions and federal federal government agencies. Was that an issue right right right right here? Had been people in the Fed helping away their buddies?
ThereвЂ™s a really famous meeting thatвЂ™s been discussing nearly advertisement nauseam that has been in the nyc Fed workplace in downtown Manhattan. Certainly one of my sources relates to it due to the fact sunday at BernankeвЂ™s. The Secretary associated with Treasury Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and ny Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner convened the men that are top nearly solely guys вЂ” of Wall Street and international banks to вЂњsave the device.вЂќ There have been no representatives from work, no customer representatives, nobody through the globes of politics or business that is industrial. There have been just bankers.
ItвЂ™s nearly too simple a true point which will make that thereвЂ™s cronyism going on, of program there clearly was. IвЂ™m unsure I’m able to indicate somebody who played both edges. ItвЂ™s more the protection of the broken status quo that benefits a specific sort of individual, which is the rich while the bankers. Therefore, to resolve your concern, it is less this person or that person than вЂall of these.вЂ™
Eliot Spitzer had written a write-up into the wake of the report saying that there should be prosecutions because of these revelations, since itвЂ™s unlawful to willfully deceive Congress and also to mislead shareholders. Do you think thereвЂ™s any possibility of that occurring?
The response to your query is no. Now I want to respond to the relevant questionвЂњshould there be?вЂќ
Whenever Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, informs the entire world that their bank has a вЂњfortress balance sheet,вЂќ that theyвЂ™re only borrowing from the Fed to complete their patriotic responsibility by testing a financing system, after which to discover years later that heвЂ™s borrowed far more than we thought, and borrowed at the same time whenever all evaluating of that issue is probably over as the system has been doing location for per year, well, possibly some body should ask Jamie Dimon exactly what he had been speaking about. In the event that CEO of Bank of America, Ken Lewis, states he has got among the strongest & most stable banking institutions on earth, and that week that is same borrowing $90 billion through the Federal Reserve to help keep their mind above water, someone need to ask Ken Lewis just just exactly just how he defines strong and stable.
Would you believe that, as your report arrived, the trick loans have hop over to this web site actually gotten the interest they deserve, or do individuals nevertheless genuinely believe that TARP had been the bailout that is big?
We donвЂ™t understand. Lots of people emailed me personally and stated вЂњThis is crazy! We discovered about this by viewing The everyday Show, after which we went on the internet and discovered your tale and read it.вЂќ
Jon Stewart did more to publicize this than anyone. He took the $7.77 trillion and managed to make it appear to be the Fed had lent down that much cash, that wasnвЂ™t exactly real. However when you make reference to the TARP system, you will do state the $700 billion TARP program, donвЂ™t you? That has beennвЂ™t the money that went out of the hinged home, it had been the money that has been put aside. Exact Exact Same aided by the Fed. The absolute most that went on a single day that is particular $1.2 trillion, and now we extremely consciously elected that technique of dimension вЂ” what was the top on a single day? Since it wasnвЂ™t reasonable in the event that you took down that loan for the billion bucks and also you renewed it each and every day for ten times, did you borrow ten dollars billion, or did you borrow one billion ten times? We decided the fairest dimension would be to state you took away a billion-dollar loan on this specific time rather than include them up.
In the event that information on these bailout programs had been held key for way too long, could there be much more that people nevertheless donвЂ™t learn about?
Dodd-Frank mandated a disclosure that is certain of financing. They were all programs that individuals had inquired about and had sued over with all the Freedom of Information Act back. That information arrived, but there is more that individuals desired, and following the Supreme Court ruling at the conclusion, the Fed disclosed a entire lot of other stuff. Plus in that other things had been a number of email messages that people received combined with the loan papers. As well as in the e-mails had been club graphs. As well as on the club graphs there have been these lines that are pink something labeled вЂњST OMO.вЂќ
No one within the workplace knew exactly exactly just what the hell ST OMO ended up being. I’d to phone a previous fed man we understand and get, вЂњwhat the hell is ST OMO?вЂќ And then he stated: Oh, it is single tranche available market operations. Exactly exactly What the Fed did had been, they made a decision to simply just just take this financing system which theyвЂ™d had to go cash inside and outside of this bank operating system so that you can support rates of interest, possibly $5 billion at at time, plus they made a decision to expand it to $100 billion at any given time.
We called up Barney Frank [co-author regarding the Dodd-Frank legislation], and I also said, вЂњCongressman Frank, did you ever hear of ST OMO?вЂќ He says, вЂњI never been aware of it within my life.вЂќ I ended up being type of surprised. We didnвЂ™t have the facts. We put a FOIA demand in, and lo and behold they reacted in a prompt method. The facts revealed a financing system with Goldman Sachs because the recipient that is biggest. The banking institutions were consistently getting around $80 billion at any given time, twice a for rates of interest only .01 week %.
Therefore, will there be another footwear to drop? Can there be another scheduled system that individuals donвЂ™t find out about? We canвЂ™t respond to that. We donвЂ™t understand.