Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Arnold Kling More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
Washington Mutual was another. This Forbes piece says they had ~$50 billion in funds borrowed from the FHLB's when they collapsed:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/10/fhlb-fannie-freddie-opinions-contributors_0211_ronnie_phillips.html
I like these kind of posts that shed light on new information. Does anyone know of a good source, like a website, that shows which businesses and banks are in bed with the Fed Government and to what extent? I'm sure there are a ton of books out there that expose a few at a time, but I was kind of hoping for a timeline of the last 100 years that shows when major interventions occured.
Thanks for the help.
And don't forget the $90 billion of funding the FHLBs supplied to Citibank.
What we have with all "Government-Sponsored Enterprises," including especially the FHLBs, Fannie, and Freddie is--as your concluding ironic remark suggests--nothing resembling the "unfettered market," but instead unfettered government intervention. In this case, it totals over $6 trillion. Odd that many people find this blindingly obvious point difficult to understand.
To analyze the bust, we must also consider the role of the FDIC, another intervention, just as was the infamous old FSLIC.