Sudden Completely Spontaneous Effort to Discredit Greenspan Begins
- Thread starter Epicurus
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Could someone tell Greenspan he looks gay whenever he puts his hand on his cheek like that?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Volker had a lot to do with the Fed policy Greenspan enacted. For the most part Greenspan did a good job. Raising rates when he needed to and lowering them. If he had a "fault" it was he had a tendency to go to far when moving rates up or down.
2000 is one example. Growth rates in the markets had slowed, earnings reports began to be more negative and the Y2K effect was already showing, yet he raised rates one last time in June. We likely would have gone into a recession anyway, but it might not have been as painful had he left rates alone in 2000. Again, this is nit picking.
If anything, his rate cuts from 2001-2003 are the area that you can actually have legitimate criticisms on. But in his defense, he probably would not have cut as much as he did had 9/11 not occurred. The economy was picking up prior to that and he likely would have stopped.
Bottom line though, he was a good Fed Chair. Those trying to blame the housing problems on him are foolish at best. The housing problems occured because of three reasons...
1) The politicians in DC (both parties) kept pushing to get home ownership percentages up. So they turned a blind eye to the mortgage industry.
2) The mortgage industry took advantage of the situation financing people who should not have qualified for the types of loans they were taking. I also believe they should have been more informative to buyers with regards to what would happen to their mortgage payments when rates began to rise.
3) Individuals were buying more home than they could afford using interest only and ARMs at a time when interest rates were near 40 year lows. The media likes to talk about "sub-prime" loans as the problem. While many of the foreclosures are happening to those that had weak credit, many that had good credit are also in trouble. Because these people also bought more home than they could afford.
Plenty of blame to go around, but Greenspan should not be hit with much if any of it.
2000 is one example. Growth rates in the markets had slowed, earnings reports began to be more negative and the Y2K effect was already showing, yet he raised rates one last time in June. We likely would have gone into a recession anyway, but it might not have been as painful had he left rates alone in 2000. Again, this is nit picking.
If anything, his rate cuts from 2001-2003 are the area that you can actually have legitimate criticisms on. But in his defense, he probably would not have cut as much as he did had 9/11 not occurred. The economy was picking up prior to that and he likely would have stopped.
Bottom line though, he was a good Fed Chair. Those trying to blame the housing problems on him are foolish at best. The housing problems occured because of three reasons...
1) The politicians in DC (both parties) kept pushing to get home ownership percentages up. So they turned a blind eye to the mortgage industry.
2) The mortgage industry took advantage of the situation financing people who should not have qualified for the types of loans they were taking. I also believe they should have been more informative to buyers with regards to what would happen to their mortgage payments when rates began to rise.
3) Individuals were buying more home than they could afford using interest only and ARMs at a time when interest rates were near 40 year lows. The media likes to talk about "sub-prime" loans as the problem. While many of the foreclosures are happening to those that had weak credit, many that had good credit are also in trouble. Because these people also bought more home than they could afford.
Plenty of blame to go around, but Greenspan should not be hit with much if any of it.
He's lucky they didn't turn him into a pedophile. But, there's time.
Very true. They'll probably see how well the "luck" thing plays out before they pull out the big guns.
cawacko
Well-known member
He always had his distractors (anyone in that position would). I was working in the Silicon Valley during the dot-com boom/bust and his name was on everyone's lisp as the Valley rose and fell.
His legacy will be a strong one.
I don't see how this article discredits him.
No single human can manage this without error or as well as REAL money would. Greenspan should not be faulted or credited for every trend in the market. For instance, he had little to do with computers or tearing down trade barriers, two things that greatly affected the markets during his term.
It's obvious he set interest rates far below a natural rate several times. These acts created bubbles and deteriorated savings rates.
No single human can manage this without error or as well as REAL money would. Greenspan should not be faulted or credited for every trend in the market. For instance, he had little to do with computers or tearing down trade barriers, two things that greatly affected the markets during his term.
It's obvious he set interest rates far below a natural rate several times. These acts created bubbles and deteriorated savings rates.
What I find most interesting about Greenspan and the Fed is the impact they can have on the economy, it demonstrates the weakness of the free marketeers that an agency can correct or worsen the overall irrational psychology of people when they enter the market.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book17sep17,0,1474034.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar
"The first two counts are misdemeanors, and Greenspan pleads guilty. He says that he was warned that his testimony on the proposed 2001 tax cut would send a different message than he intended and that he ignored those warnings, which proved correct. Greenspan says his support for a tax cut was nuanced and partial, provided there were triggers to prevent budget deficits but that his statements were interpreted by the news media and politicians as a blanket endorsement. He adds that he did not understand how institutionally corrupt and thus unconcerned about good budget policy his Republican Party had become by early 2001. He says he did not properly understand in the early 2000s the large effect low teaser interest rates and prepayment penalties would have in leading new and financially strapped homeowners into deals that were not in their best interest."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book17sep17,0,1474034.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar
"The first two counts are misdemeanors, and Greenspan pleads guilty. He says that he was warned that his testimony on the proposed 2001 tax cut would send a different message than he intended and that he ignored those warnings, which proved correct. Greenspan says his support for a tax cut was nuanced and partial, provided there were triggers to prevent budget deficits but that his statements were interpreted by the news media and politicians as a blanket endorsement. He adds that he did not understand how institutionally corrupt and thus unconcerned about good budget policy his Republican Party had become by early 2001. He says he did not properly understand in the early 2000s the large effect low teaser interest rates and prepayment penalties would have in leading new and financially strapped homeowners into deals that were not in their best interest."
lol... ohhh where to start...
The fed isn't free market. It's manipulations pervert the market. However, there is nothing irrational about paying attention to its actions and responding.
Your quote has little to do with your assertion (the last sentence maybe). It's primarily about the reactions of congress (not the market) to Greenspan's words.
cawacko
Well-known member
Who or what are you talking about?
cawacko
Well-known member
A. It's obvious neither you or Desh read the actual article that was posted.
B. I read Cheney's rebuttal to Greenspan and he did not try to "run him down". Cheney spoke of how he disagreed with Greenspan's assesment on the spending but it was not a negative name calling hit piece.
uscitizen
Villified User
Regardless of your assesment, The cons in power are concerned about the contents of Greenspans book. That is obvious .