Tales From The Fed Watcher

Published on
November 21st, 2019
Duration
46 minutes


Tales From The Fed Watcher

The Interview ·
Featuring Pedro da Costa

Published on: November 21st, 2019 • Duration: 46 minutes

Market Watch and Forbes financial columnist Pedro da Costa sits down with Ed Harrison to discuss his career spanning over two decades covering the Federal Reserve for The Wall Street Journal and Reuters. Da Costa takes a deep dive into his coverage of the Great Financial Crisis and the infamous “Fed Leak.” He then delves into the intricacies of monetary policy, the nebulous history of the Fed and the impact that the banking sector has had on the independence of the institution over the years. Filmed on November 13, 2019 in New York.

Comments

Transcript

  • WA
    Wissam A.
    27 November 2019 @ 13:04
    This was a great interview to get a deep understanding of the FED's history, and how the institution works. I highly encourage people to read Murray Rothbard's book "The Case Against The Fed" which is available for free from the Mises Institute website.
  • OC
    Otto C.
    26 November 2019 @ 19:20
    Great insight!!!
  • JS
    John S.
    26 November 2019 @ 15:08
    Mr. DaCosta is IMO a smart interesting guy who's chugged way too much koolaide. He seems to believe the Fed's mandate should be be expanded rather than trimmed back to a place where it might actually make a positive difference. One minor issue (excluding the Volcker years) we're still waiting for the Fed's first win. That said I'm still an optimist...anyone can have a bad century.
  • AH
    Andreas H.
    25 November 2019 @ 21:03
    The fed is the best CB of the world, On a relative basis, and relative is the only thing that counts in investing! Love the interview!
  • CJ
    Charles J.
    25 November 2019 @ 19:29
    Clearly he's been drinking the Janet Yellen koolaid. It's hard to listen to the entire second half of the interview because his objectivity is compromised by his relationship to Janet.
  • VS
    Victor S. | Contributor
    25 November 2019 @ 17:12
    You should read the views of Louis T McFadden (chairman of “House Committee on Banking and Currency “ ) 1920-1931 and Charles. August Lindbergh Congressman 1907-1917 to truly understand the evil‘ s of the Fed. Your talking points are the narrative of the university’s that teach what they want you to say.
  • FS
    Fagundes S.
    24 November 2019 @ 21:46
    Instead of Fed talk it would be nice to have a lot more Bitcoin/BTC content. I'm interested about the future of money, not failed legacy models that are on the way out.
  • JJ
    Jimmy J.
    24 November 2019 @ 21:06
    I would love a follow up with the guest’s thoughts on repo. If QE was appropriate for specific issues, what does the repo situation mean? Couldn’t we say that this ‘not QE’ actually represents a step (or more) beyond QE in that the Fed is acting before the banking crisis even occurred?
    • IT
      Ivan T.
      26 November 2019 @ 02:58
      https://youtu.be/ORGFtWowKKM Check this out
  • TE
    Tito E.
    23 November 2019 @ 08:28
    The creature from Jekyll island
  • CM
    Carl M.
    22 November 2019 @ 03:45
    I enjoy the way Ed provides and directs the narrative here for those of us that are fairly ignorant or uninformed. That being said, I can't help but think about an additional commentary by Danielle DiMartino Booth. Perhaps an inset window where the viewer see's the "Fed Up" author's more animated comments and reactions to the interview.
  • JH
    Jason H.
    22 November 2019 @ 03:32
    Pedro would do well to read Austrian Economics, some of his conclusions are deeply flawed.
    • MC
      Minum C.
      22 November 2019 @ 14:52
      Yes he would. Here's an example: "It always makes sense to spend money and borrow more money in a recession because your borrowing costs are literally..." Not even Keynes would have used the word always here. Always is a strong word and should generally be avoided when discussing something that is not science (such as economics).
  • JH
    Joel H.
    22 November 2019 @ 03:27
    Think this was a good and necessary interview. I love what De Costa did breaking the story he did back in the day; we all knew it was going on, has been going on, & will continue as long as there is an institution like the Fed. There's no way around it. Glad he shedded the obvious light on it, and good for him for doing so. However, I must be getting old because I also think De Costa's world view is a little child like. Think he has a political bias that overwhelms his view of the world, think that and you can see it when he goes over Fed history. It's weird that with everything sitting in front of him he can't put it all together. Think younger people are arrogant in the way they think humans work. He seems like a bright guy, hope he can figure some things out.
  • RR
    Robert R.
    22 November 2019 @ 00:57
    Really? The discussion of the founding of the Fed is quite different from what historians have concluded. Does Pedro know or understand that the Fed is owned by the banks? Literally.
    • PP
      Patrick P.
      24 November 2019 @ 03:43
      The Fed is not only owned by the banks but protected by the government for the government's benefit. Could we ever have gotten this far in debt as a nation without them? Like everything the government touches it screws up.
  • AT
    Andrea T.
    21 November 2019 @ 21:36
    The "neutrality" of the Fed is a myth. It's a political institution, actually the most political in existence, given that it controls in a monopolistic and criminal way the most social institution: money.
    • PP
      Patrick P.
      24 November 2019 @ 03:48
      Political?? Damn right they are ... and the government allows and encourages it..... how do you think your Congressman brings home the bridges to nowhere?
  • DS
    David S.
    21 November 2019 @ 20:29
    Excellent interview in understanding the workings of the Fed. (It would be a useful addition to the RVTV free YouTube presentations.) In the long run, the Fed makes a lot of difference to everyone in the US economically. Each Fed decision and head fake is fantastically important to market traders. A lot of money can be made in seconds with insider or anticipated Fed actions. (In like manner if you would know the content of the next tweet from the president.) I applaud Mr. da Costa for his efforts to make the actions of the Fed more transparent - the job of free press. This will encourage the Fed members to be more responsible to their mandates. Some MMT advocates would like Congress to eliminate the Fed and make all monetary decisions in Congress. This would be a travesty. The bipolar Congress cannot agree on even simple facts. For many their primary motivation is retaining and increasing power. Because of the huge cost to be reelected many would be a direct conduit to their primary donors. It is encouraging that the president’s appointments to the Fed are not voting blindly but trying to fulfil the Fed's mandates. DLS
    • PP
      Patrick P.
      24 November 2019 @ 03:55
      Wait a second ... Congress doesn't want to make monetary decisions..... Hell no! ...they have the Fed as a scapegoat for their out of control spending. What do you think Congress would do if Powell let rates rise to their natural market level? He would be run out of town on a rail. What would Congress do if they had to pay market interest rates on the debt?
  • HH
    HODL H.
    21 November 2019 @ 17:49
    Only reporter to actively call out the fed and leave a Fed Chair speechless. much love for Pedro!
  • FA
    Frank A.
    21 November 2019 @ 17:39
    If in fact rates are at a certain level on their own accord then fine. If they are being managed to a certain level there is always someone that is shafted in the process. Pensioners haven't certainly been shafted especially in rates are not determined freely. Even forward expected returns from stocks are also expected to be low. They've done nothing that bring forward what ever meager demand at the expense of future demand and employment..
  • CB
    Clifford B.
    21 November 2019 @ 14:38
    Great discussion Ed and Pedro!
  • CH
    Charlie H.
    21 November 2019 @ 13:36
    Fantastic analysis. Thanks.
  • KD
    Kaj D.
    21 November 2019 @ 07:58
    Very enlightening, thanks Pedro & Ed