The Fed policy's first-order effect is to issue hundreds of billions in "free money" to banks; the second-order effect is to destroy the rule of law in the U.S.
by Charles Hugh Smith
Let's
start with a few questions about the proper role of the Central State and
Central Bank: why should they bail out private banks?The answer boils down to
something like this: "If the private banks absorbed the losses that are
rightly theirs in a capitalist system, they would implode. Since the State and
Central Bank have enabled these private banks to infiltrate and dominate the
nation's financial system, that system is now hostage to these private 'too big
to fail' banks."
In
other words, "capitalism" in America now means socializing losses and
privatizing profits generated by State and Central Bank intervention. Imagine for a moment the
"beauty" of this system for owners of private banks: in a truly
socialized banking system, the taxpayers would absorb any losses, but the State
would also benefit from any future bank-sector profits. In the U.S. system, the
losses are socialized but the people draw no benefit; the profits flow to the
top 1/10th of 1% private financiers.
This
is the perfection of State-financier crony capitalism.
Let's
next ask why the Central State and Central Bank should subsidize and bail out
the mortgage industry, a major component of private banking. Once again we find losses
are neatly distributed to the citizenry while the profits all flow to private
hands. Given that 98% of all mortgages are backed or guaranteed by Federal agencies
(Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, FHA, VA, FmHA, etc.), the mortgage market
is already completely socialized: the taxpayers are on the hook for any and all
losses, but the profits from originating and servicing the loans are all
private.
Meanwhile, 1 out of 6 FHA insured
loans are are delinquent, and everyone who cares to examine the
ledger knows the taxpayers will soon be bailing out FHA just as they did Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.





.jpg)
.jpg)









.jpg)




