Isn't this article just saying, "if the Fed had chosen not to fulfill one of its basic duties to act as a circuit breaker in the event of a banking panic, there would have been a calamitous banking panic?"
i think its saying "we came closer than we ever have to the Fed not being able to fulfill one of its basic duties"
I guess I'm asking, where is the evidence that the Fed was close to not being able to fulfill its duties? The story reads to me --- and what do I know? of course --- as "The Fed saw a problem, tried Plan A, and when that failed, used Plan B to solve it".
yeah i hear what you are saying.. my takeaway from a quick read was that it was a timing thing, as in if someone didn't move when they did we would have had a problem..