The presses and blogs are surely overflowing with Monday morning quarterbacks blaming Greenie for the predicament the capital markets find themselves in. One question not being asked is this: in the era of globalization, does the Fed even matter?

The Economist doesn’t think so, and makes a good case for their argument, tracing the printing presses back to countries where central bankers are independent only in theory:

The mandarins of money
Many economists in investment banks and international institutions mistakenly assume that “global” monetary conditions are set by the central banks of the rich economies. Yet over the past year, a staggering three-fifths of the world’s broad money-supply growth has flowed from emerging economies.
Their mints are working overtime. Goldman Sachs reckons that growth in China’s M3 measure of broad money has quickened to 20% over the past year. In Russia money supply has grown by a striking 51% and India’s is up by 24%. Indeed, the broad money supply in emerging countries has increased by an average of 21% over the past year, almost three times as fast as it has in the developed world. Adjusted for inflation, their money growth has accelerated alarmingly (see chart). As a result, the entire world’s money supply is growing at its fastest for decades in real terms.

Of course, now that the proverbial dog pooh has hit the fan, central banks from developed nations have been the ones to intervene.

This table, compiled by WSJ.com for their article (Central Banks Again Intervene), sure looks like a list of IMF donors from the 1970s and 80s. But perhaps they have no choice: their own citizens are on the hook this time.
Primer: How Does the Fed Inject Money into the Economy?