I know 700 desperate houswives that would love that.

Mulp;

I have zero confidence in the Fed, for that matter our very government. This whole mess is a result of the Fed Printing Easy $$ in the 90's..............trying to sustain a business cycle. In so doing, the creation of "Sub-Prime" Markets as an instrument to continue growth in the housing sector, auto and credit has led to the currrent state of our Union today.

The few benefit and the masses get stuck with the bill.

__________________
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with." Pat Buchanan

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson

But it wasn't the Fed that was printing money during 2003-2006, it was CEOs of companies like Goldman Sacks that were printing the money and doing so without any regulatory oversight. CEO Paulson while at Goldman Sacks authorized the creation of GSAMP 2006-3 Trust which was sold for $500+ billion earning Paulson some of his tens of million bonus, which had the effect of creating $500B in new money from perhaps $20B in Goldman Sacks capital with the Fed or Treasury having no say in the matter.

These bonds competed with the bonds that the Fed sold during that time, for sure, so the question I asked was whether the Fed shouldn't have sold bonds as the GSAMP bonds falling in value shrank the money supply, thus forcing a greater credit crunch throughout the economy to stop student loans, business loans, letters of credit, etc, as holders of these GSAMP bonds marked them to market, reduced their capital, forcing them to make fewer loans and to call those loans they can.

In short, should Goldman Sacks be allowed to shrink the money supply a year after expanding the money supply without any oversight, as they have done?

And with Congress, the Whitehouse, and the Fed not acting to stop this from happening, should the Fed punish everyone by ensurng that Goldman Sacks forces a shrinking of the money supply?

Yeah, Goldman Sacks only shrank it a little, only about $500B, but that was just one bond issue; it had more and other unregulated investment banks had theirs as well, so a part of the money supply was under the control of CEOs like Paulson outside the supervision of We the People. This is precisely the kind of private banking that the libertarians have called for, rather ironically, claiming it would eliminate inflation, risk of bank failure, big government control of the economy.