A former advisor to former president Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed breaks down the causes of the 2008 financial crisis and all the corruption she encountered within the Federal Reserve at large.
I really liked this book and how DiMartino spins out the narrative of the progression of the Fed and its various important players over the course of about 10 years. I feel like I learned a lot about the dearth of qualitative understanding of business and markets at least among statisticians at the Fed, and then of course, I learned a lot about the 2008 crisis (I was in middle school and high school at the time and didn't understand much of what was happening), about Wall Street, about how financial markets can signal emerging problems, about politics, and more. Fed Up is very well written and accessible.
Considering what went down in 2020 and how the Fed is finally starting to taper (via attrition), and how it's possible it could be too late at this point, I think this book is a timely read. Not to mention the housing bubble... housing nuclear explosion... whatever in the world is going on in the housing market right now. And the desperation for increasingly risky assets (crypto, options and futures, meme stocks) in order to generate big yield, fast. There's a lot going on with the economy right now that feels predicted and validated by what's outlined in this book.
I liked how DiMartino takes the reader through the steps of her career and her struggles in her personal life. What held this part back for me was the little comments she'd insert here and there that reeked of internalized misogyny (easy to see how any woman working on Wall Street would develop some, easier still in the case of a Christian woman with conservative leanings). And the little twee comments that made it clear that DiMartino was once a columnist for a newspaper, but could get really annoying in this book.
DiMartino also had what really felt like a personal vendetta against Janet Yellen, and while I agree with DiMartino that Yellen was not doing a great job at the Fed and failed to uphold her personal mandate of "looking out for the real people behind the statistics," the sarcasm and vitriol dripping from DiMartino's writing got to be kind of a lot and made a lot of the internalized misogyny jump out when it didn't have to. It was just very weird and jarring whenever DiMartino would talk about Yellen.
I'm glad that DiMartino touches on what her and Fisher's alternatives to econometric modeling were - but she only touches on her methods of transforming and analyzing data, and while I know this book isn't meant to be a technical dissertation at the mathematics level, I would've liked more. I also got the sense that DiMartino and several of the people she spoke to and quoted don't fully understand what models, or econometric models, are. I think her arguments could have been strengthened even more if the book demonstrated some understanding of the design of typical econometric models (usually, quarterly or monthly time series - for rate or probability models, probably logit/probit models, or MC models). I also thought it was strange how DiMartino never seemed to be able to pull her own data and kept having to phone it in. Hopefully in the latter half of the book, she was able to leverage modern technology and APIs rather than needing to call up friends who had Bloomberg terminals.
After reading Trillion Dollar Triage and being pretty disappointed at the author's total disconnect to how Main Street works for anyone who isn't a mid-sized business, I was relieved at how DiMartino talked about Main Street and how the Fed is completely delusional in thinking that interest rates can solve regular people's problems. Sure, the Fed helped CAUSE regular people's economic/financial problems in 2008 onward, but bonds and interest rates are not the balm, and DiMartino is 100% right in highlighting how the Fed's (likely disingenuous) efforts have only exacerbated wealth inequality in the US.
It's frustrating how not even DiMartino, however, toys with the idea of policy for corporations and how they pay and provide benefits to their employees. Neither did Timiraos. I agree that businesses need the freedom to fail and acquire and be acquired and try new things in order to function properly in the economy, but wealth inequality and poverty in the US is going to continue whether or not the Fed manages to raise interest rates and keep its nose out of the economy, unless the profits generated by businesses is redirected reasonably and fairly to those who put in the work to generate it, rather than to stock buybacks, millionaire CEOs, and frivolities. And as cynical as it sounds, that's not going to happen without legislation, especially with how enormous and powerful the US' largest and richest companies have become.
I definitely had an existential crisis when DiMartino pointed out that everyone has had to take on much more risk than anyone has ever had to in history just to generate enough yield to even hope to beat inflation since I've been alive. It turns out it's NOT normal to need to shove cash into index funds as the main option for diversified risk, rather than into ACTUAL "high yield" savings accounts, or CDs, or moneymarket accounts. It makes me upset to know that my generation is being raised to either save to no avail, or get used to risk that can literally destroy your future if you don't know how to handle that risk financially or emotionally. We don't even know what the good old days were anymore, and our parents don't understand why the way THEY were raised isn't working for anyone anymore.
I think DiMartino did an excellent job at explaining simply what the dual mandate is and why the Fed shouldn't even try to influence unemployment. She explains a lot of terms simply and beautifully. I do think, however, that she waited a little too long to give some of those explanations. She'd bring up a term or piece of history, and instead of explaining it in the next paragraph or sometime around then, she'd wait a whole chapter or longer to bring up the term again and THEN explain it. It made the writing feel a bit too scattered and unaware of its own chronology and progression at times.
I can't stand how out of touch the Fed is and how obvious it is that most of the members want to appease Wall Street because they will be working there after they inevitably leave the Fed, and how those who want to stay at the Fed need to therefore appease politicians. Everyone is beholden to someone and the Fed is definitely not independent. I loved the last chapter and all of DiMartino's demands for change. It was a great summation and laid out the impetus of the book super well.
There are a lot of ideas that DiMartino suggests, and some others she outright says, that I'm not sure I agree with. Or really just how I'm supposed to feel about the suggestion. For example, to have DiMartino explain it, it seems like by the time alarm bells were sounding in 2008, the government already had no choice but to bail out the Wall Street giants because the government had allowed so much capital and the fates of average Americans' financial lives to get tied up in those giants starting years before the collapse - which is why, according to DiMartino, letting Lehman fail was a mistake. And I'm guessing, why letting all of the banks and hedge funds fail would have definitely been a mistake.
But then, as DiMartino posits in her 2010 "Fallacy" paper, she says that the housing market should've been allowed to totally collapse on its own. Which sounds to me like - Wall Street needed to be saved, but leave Main Street to the wolves because in that case, the natural order is better. While at the same time, DiMartino disparages "welfare street." Which all sounds to me like - screw the poor and struggling, let them lose their homes, let them not be able to pay rent, and poo on them for needing handouts as a result. Not everyone in the US has a safety net they can fall into when things go pear-shaped. Have you ever tried making rent on less than 20k a year, much less make a mortgage payment when you're living paycheck to paycheck, whatever the income? And had something, ONE thing, unexpected happen that renders you unable to make one payment, and therefore leaving you chronically behind until you're either evicted or foreclosed?
Sure, let the housing market fail, but then why let the streets run with blood so we fortunate can feel correct in wrinkling our noses at those who have less, however they may have gotten there? It's this kind of attitude that turns me off to conservative viewpoints even if the logic is sound at the broad economic level. It costs a lot less to prop up the poor and struggling than it does to bail out a hedge fund or bloat a bond portfolio by the hundreds of billions. Sometimes reading books like this leaves me with the feeling that people in the financial world truly believe that we need to have an impoverished class to trod upon so that a comfortable middle and upper middle class can exist.
Also, what was up with Kotok and his 8 slots "for women" out of the 40 economists he invites to his fishing getaway? Y'all can't muster more than 8 women in all the world of finance and beyond? I cringed when DiMartino said she felt "lucky" or whatever word she used.
Overall, I felt that the historic, political, and financial analysis presented in this book is super informative and really got me thinking. There's just other Stuff mixed in that sometimes bolstered but also sometimes tarnished the quality of the whole for me. No matter what though, it's a good book to read for our current economic situation, and definitely made me want to read carefully and critically.