Age of Easy Money (full documentary) | FRONTLINE

morris

Superstar
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
15,771
Reputation
4,689
Daps
34,803


High inflation. Fear of recession. Disruptions, like the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. How did the U.S. economy get here? A two-hour documentary special traces the road to this moment, and the role of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank. This journalism is made possible by viewers like you. Support your local PBS station
here: http://www.pbs.org/donate.

FRONTLINE investigates the Fed’s epic economic experiment to revive the U.S. economy with what has been called an “easy money” policy and the far-reaching and sometimes unintended consequences. “If we hadn't been driving our economy for 14 years with easy money and then tried to really quickly undo that now, we wouldn't be having these problems,” former top banking regulator Sheila Bair said in the documentary. From the 2008 recession, to the COVID pandemic, to the rise in inflation, to the current economic uncertainty, “Age of Easy Money” charts the American economy’s tumultuous course, the fragility of the financial system and the widening gap between Wall Street and Main Street.

The documentary examines what led to the Fed’s recent decisions to hike interest rates at a historic pace and probes the ongoing effects, offering a comprehensive and timely examination of the role of the institution at the heart of America’s economy. The documentary is supported by The WNET Group’s Chasing the Dream, a public media initiative that examines poverty, justice and economic opportunity in America. The director, producer and correspondent of “Age of Easy Money” is James Jacoby. The producer is Anya Bourg. The senior producer is Frank Koughan. The editor-in-chief and executive producer of FRONTLINE is Raney Aronson-Rath. For more reporting in connection with this investigation, visit

FRONTLINE’s website: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/do...
 

Frangala

All Star
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
1,363
Reputation
470
Daps
4,611
Reppin
Le Grand Congo (Kin)
Takeaways?

- Expansionary Fed monetary policy (lower interest rates and quantitative easing) essentially ended benefiting parties (wealthy 1%) who trade financial assets such as public equities and corporate bonds because low interest rates make those asset prices go up and because the fed is continuing to buy it and making prices higher and higher.

- Lower interest rates are supposed to stimulate the overall economy by making banks lend at lower rates for loan stimulating home purchases, companies borrowing at lower rates to invest in property, plant and equipment therefore hiring more people to work in new projects and having citizens get back to work and earning a wage.

- Big financial institutions are always getting bailed out by govt. therefore creating a moral hazard and not disincentivizing them to take unprecedented risks because govt. bailouts are acting as an insurance policy if they accumulate losses and have been deemed to big to fail.
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
5,967
Reputation
1,257
Daps
19,172
gonna convert it to an audio file and give it and listen on my walk to grab some food
 

Swirv

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
16,295
Reputation
2,697
Daps
50,964
Takeaways?
Easy money is bad in the long run. This is the argument I feel the video is going for. I don't agree because easy money can improve the lives of individuals who have access, if they use it wisely.
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
5,967
Reputation
1,257
Daps
19,172
About halfway through the doc but dozed through it after taking an edible. Will pick back up tomorrow.

The general gist I got so far was surprisingly lined up w/ Libertarian perspectives on the Federal Reserve.

While I do agree that Quantitative Easing can be reframed as trickled down economics (especially in hindsight), I didn't feel like they were very balanced in explaining the Federal Reserves thinking and what the ramifications could be if the Feds got it (more) wrong than the course of action that they took. IIRC, there are a lack of alternatives posited by the talking heads in the special. You can blame the Federal Reserve for not having the foresight to restrict banks from using the QE capital for stock buybacks but that is a completely different conversation from implying the banks purposefully gave money to rich people to fleece the American public.

To me, the doc tacitly insinuates that the tools available in 2020 should've been used (even while overlooking the fact that stimulus checks only initially occurred during a global pandemic while an unscrupulous president used it as a tool to stump for his reelection) and completely disregards what options seemed tangible in the 2010s. And then they (not so neatly) try to blame the Federal Reserve for the rise of Trump which imo insinuates that the MAGA voter is now a policy wonk that has a solid understanding of the Federal Reserve and the steps they took during the GFC???

It felt less like a factual Frontline documentary and more like a contrived push at framing the Federal Reserve as a useless tool, but I was drifting in and out of consciousness so I'll see how I feel when I revisit it tomorrow.

Edit: It's still fukk Bernanke after he got a cush job @ Citadel post-Federal Reserve
 
Last edited:

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
5,967
Reputation
1,257
Daps
19,172
Also, there's an irony to have Mohamed El-Erian shyt talking the Federal Reserve plan. When I was first taking a passing interest in financial markets back then, he was on Bloomberg banging the same drum over and over as the markets pushed higher. Meanwhile the company he was second in command at (PIMCO) was responsible for facilitating the Quantitative Easing and being paid handsomely to do so, all while El-Erian was on the advising committee for the NY Fed.


Hearing him talk about monetary policy always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. These big names only talk policy publicly when they have dollars at risk on the backend so there's always a conflict of interest. It's just like Bill Ackman et al complaining about an impending crisis if SIVB customers weren't made whole

In general, the perspective of most of the people interviewed don't seem to have the nuance required or refused to acknowledge the seeming futility yet immediacy required by the Feds at the time. Yes, the Federal Reserve became beholden to the stock market, but the documentary (imo) insinuates collusion to exacerbate income inequality when, from my perspective, the Federal Reserve used the stock market as a proxy for the economy and then when it tried to take off the training wheels, the markets threw a hissy fit. The Federal Reserve still viewed the stock markets as a proxy for the economy and so realized they are fukked, and kept QE going for longer than ideal. Not to stick it to the lower-class, not to make the wealthy wealthier, but because they viewed the stock market as a proxy for the economy and didn't want to wipe out the progress they made. We can say this is misguided given the situation we are on the verge of encountering, but again, that is a different framing/tone than I feel is presented in the special.

I'm hoping the second half has some tangible suggestions, because right now it feels like they don't have any and/or they want to punt things back to Congress to make things more 'small 'D' democratic' as one of the interviewees said. Meanwhile Congress (read: Republicans) can't even pay off the bills we already agreed upon. It's very easy to chastise institutions w/ the perfect outcome, but if they don't have a solution, this really feels like a one-sided smear job which will only detract and politicize the Federal Reserve further

 
Last edited:
Top