Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Irony in Wall Street
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With unemployment at 10.2%, what will happen by the end of Obama's first term?



There was a real irony in the recent intervention by the Federal Reserve System to provide the money that enabled the firm of JPMorgan Chase to buy Bear Stearns before it went bankrupt. The point was to try to prevent a domino effect of panic in the financial markets that could lead to a downturn in the economy.

The irony is that it was almost exactly a hundred years ago -- 1907, to be exact -- that the original J.P. Morgan arranged a bailout of a troubled financial institution for the same purpose of preventing a panic that could end up with the whole economy declining.

The difference is that J.P. Morgan and his fellow bankers used their own money, while the Federal Reserve System used their power to create money.

What that means is that the value of your money and my money -- all Federal Reserve Notes -- goes down when more Federal Reserve Notes are issued to subsidize the purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase.

It wasn't really a bailout because the stockholders of Bear Stearns lost their shirts. But the firm of JPMorgan Chase got money from the government to seal the deal.

In other words, we all paid to keep Bear Stearns out of bankruptcy, whether we all realize it or not. Whether that was better than the alternative is a separate question -- and one whose answer may never be known.

But the big difference between this year's rescue to stabilize the financial markets and that 101 years ago is that this year's government rescue leads to demands that still more rescues -- including real bailouts -- should be extended to homeowners and others.

Back in 1907, nobody could demand that the original J.P. Morgan bail out more people with his own money. But whatever the government does sets a precedent and causes more special interests to demand that they get the same treatment.

There is another irony in this situation. There was no Federal Reserve System in 1907. That is why Wall Street bankers like J.P. Morgan had to do their own heavy lifting with their own money.

Somehow that did not sit right with the Progressives of that era who, like today's liberals, seemed to think that things should not be left to the market when the government can step in and make everything right.

Such thinking led in 1914 to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Off subject, but
Okay the Fed is bailing out Bear Stearns, and Congress is trying to figure out how bail out the subprime lenders and the subprime borowers.

How is it that folks like me who go to work on a regular basis, pay our taxes, and aren't up to our eyeballs in debt are expected to pay for the chislers, crooks, and those too stupid to pay their bills?

That Being Said --
-- it doesn't mean that having a government sponsored Central Bank is a good idea.

"[The] Bank of the United States... is one of the most deadly hostility existing, against the principles and form of our Constitution."

See, that's very true. The Central Bank is probably not Constitutional, although I haven't heard any arguments for against it on Constitutional grounds, so given my ignorance, I will not comment there.

But I have heard any number of Free Market alternatives to a Central Bank. Using a commodity like gold is one of many choices.

Gold has too many practical uses other than money. It *is* subject to inflation, such as when the Spanish brought back all that gold from the New World. Suppose we find another Comstock Lode? Suppose Egypt decides to melt down all their ancient Pharoah treasure to finance some mega-project? Suppose the US opens up Fort Knox to pay down its debt?

In a nutshell, I agree that the Fed is a bad idea. But a gold standard isn't a good solution either. (google "free market alternative central bank", click "I'm Feeling Lucky")
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.