Greenspan concedes that free-market ideology fails and regulation is our new hope!

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2)

By Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said a ``once-in-a-century credit tsunami'' has engulfed financial markets and conceded that his free-market ideology shunning regulation was flawed.

``Yes, I found a flaw,'' Greenspan said in response to grilling from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ``That is precisely the reason I was shocked because I'd been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.''

Greenspan said he was ``partially'' wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.

``We cannot expect perfection in any area where forecasting is required,'' he said. ``We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience.''

Part of the problem was that the Fed's ability to forecast the economy's trajectory is an inexact science, he said.

``If we are right 60 percent of the time in forecasting, we are doing exceptionally well; that means we are wrong 40 percent of the time,'' Greenspan said. ``Forecasting never gets to the point where it is 100 percent accurate.''

Self-Policing

The admission that free markets have their faults was a shift for the former Fed chairman who declared in a May 2005 speech that ``private regulation generally has proved far better at constraining excessive risk-taking than has government regulation.''

Today Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''

``You were advised to do so by many others,'' he told Greenspan. ``And now our whole economy is paying the price.''

Waxman and other lawmakers repeatedly interrupted Greenspan as he answered their questions, in contrast to deference to his testimony while he was Fed chairman.

Firms that bundle loans into securities for sale should be required to keep part of those securities, Greenspan said in prepared testimony. Other rules should address fraud and settlement of trades, he said.

Resistant to Regulation

Greenspan opposed increasing financial supervision as Fed chairman from August 1987 to January 2006. Policy makers are now struggling to contain a financial crisis marked by record foreclosures, falling asset prices and almost $660 billion in writedowns and losses tied to U.S. subprime mortgages.

Today, the former Fed chairman asked: ``What went wrong with global economic policies that had worked so effectively for nearly four decades?''

Greenspan reiterated his ``shocked disbelief'' that financial companies failed to execute sufficient ``surveillance'' on their trading counterparties to prevent surging losses. The ``breakdown'' was clearest in the market where securities firms packaged home mortgages into debt sold on to other investors, he said.

``As much as I would prefer it otherwise, in this financial environment I see no choice but to require that all securitizers retain a meaningful part of the securities they issue,'' Greenspan said. That would give the companies an incentive to ensure the assets are properly priced for their risk, advocates say.

Subprime Lending

Greenspan said the Fed didn't know the size of the subprime mortgage market until late 2005.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox and former Treasury Secretary John Snow also appeared at the House committee hearing.

Snow said the economy is headed down a ``bad, bad path'' and he endorsed consideration of more fiscal stimulus. For the longer term, Snow said the global financial system should be reorganized by focusing on increasing transparency of ``excessive'' leverage to prevent institutions from creating too much risk.

The U.S. needs ``one strong national regulator'' to oversee firms and fix what Snow called ``a fragmented approach'' to regulation. ``Steps to restore transparency and responsibility in the marketplace will go a long way towards restoring stability and confidence,'' he said.

Addressing the trio that oversaw the U.S. financial markets as the housing bubble developed, Representative John Yarmuth, a Democrat from Kentucky, characterized them as ``three Bill Buckners,'' referring to the Boston Red Sox first baseman whose fielding error some fans blame for the team's loss in the 1986 World Series.
Bloomberg

FINALLY the man has come to the realization that all America needs is more regulation! I was hoping and praying that Alan would see the light of day and sure enough he has! Surely Americas future is bright with this new government oversight to watch over and keep the freedoms and fairness in the machine that is American capitalism!

Hail the Victory, America!
Hail the Victory, America!
Hail the Victory, America!
(Did anyone get that?)

If you believe this is a storm in a teacup then just wait a little longer...

INCASE YOU WEREN'T AWARE THIS THREAD IS DRIPPING WITH SARCASM.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
So he is facing the fact that his experiment he had failed... glad we could test that out for him.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
41
91
Yes, clearly saying that he was "partially" wrong to oppose any regulation is a strong signal that we need massive amounts of new regulation. :roll:

Come on. Take this for what it is. An admission that we need to codify prohibitions against subprime lending into law. Don't try to turn it into some sweeping indictment of the free market.

ZV
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Greenspan cutting interest rates to 1% had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Partially wrong means that some things worked.

And Snow
The U.S. needs ``one strong national regulator'' to oversee firms and fix what Snow called ``a fragmented approach'' to regulation. ``

Again to fix what is broken, not force everyting.


You read into what you wanted, not what was actually stated :(
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
At least Greenspan has the balls to admit his failures. Something that fucktard Waxman and his cronies on both sides of aisle in congress are incapable of doing.

Today Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''

Anytime you douchebags wanted to close the loopholes you could have.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
The U.S. needs ``one strong national regulator'' to oversee firms and fix what Snow called ``a fragmented approach'' to regulation. ``Steps to restore transparency and responsibility in the marketplace will go a long way towards restoring stability and confidence,'' he said.

One strong national regulator? Like when we gave the government this responsibility? So now that the government has failed we want to give them more power so they can be a stronger regulator? Folks, this isn't about strong regulation. This is about giving more power to government, plain and simple.

At least Greenspan himself admitted that private regulation is a far better approach even though at this point I don't think that anyone would listen to a word that Greenspan says. I don't think even Greenspan believes himself..
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,395
8,556
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
At least Greenspan has the balls to admit his failures. Something that fucktard Waxman and his cronies on both sides of aisle in congress are incapable of doing.

Today Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said Greenspan had ``the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.''

Anytime you douchebags wanted to close the loopholes you could have.

congress never takes responsibility for anything if it can avoid it
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: mooseracing
Yay, lets move towards socialism.......I bet he backs Obama as well :D

If he wants socialism then he needs to look elsewhere because that is not what he will be getting with Obama.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
What a joke. Waxman that douche gets to accuse everyone of fvcking up and meanwhile that retard never has any solutions to offer, just criticism and Monday morning quarterbacking as usual.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Didn't the Treasury a few years ago (2005/6) go to Congress and ask for an additional regulatory agency to oversee F&F and some of these other things we are now having trouble with? And Congress said no?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Yes, Greenspan finally realizes that what happened in the Savings and Loan meltdown, as well as the Great Depression shows that unregulated markets don't practice "enlightened self interest". They follow the rules of greed. Basically profits at any cost. Including the destruction of their own companies.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: mooseracing
Yay, lets move towards socialism.......I bet he backs Obama as well :D

If Mr. Greenspan does back Senator Obama, I would imagine that that would be a crystal-clear sign that Senator Obama is anything but a socialist.

That is unless you think that Mr. Greenspan, who was literally a disciple of Ayn Rand's, worked on President Nixon's campaign staff, worked with Reagan, worked with H.W. Bush, and with W. Bush, is a socialist. But that would be idiotic.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,696
6,257
126
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
People have a hard time giving up their deities, be they of the imaginary Christian kind, or the more earthly unrestrained free-marketism kind.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.
Have we seen any true examples of unfettered capitalism (or communism)? I'm starting to believe the ron paul loonies, the more government gets involved with anything, the more f'ed up it gets.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,696
6,257
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.
Have we seen any true examples of unfettered capitalism (or communism)? I'm starting to believe the ron paul loonies, the more government gets involved with anything, the more f'ed up it gets.

No, there has been no "unfettered" version of either, but there have been close to unfettered of each. The closer one moves towards the unfettered, the more craptacular that system ends up becoming.

The real trick is to find a workable balance of Public(Government):private(Business,Individuals,etc)
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Greenspan was the last one to find out about the housing bubble, I wouldn't put too much into his opinion.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: mooseracing
Yay, lets move towards socialism.......I bet he backs Obama as well :D

If he wants socialism then he needs to look elsewhere because that is not what he will be getting with Obama.

Communism

 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.

Local government!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,696
6,257
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.

Local government!

That's good for some things, but not as good for other things. There are no Simple Answers, which is where Libertarians usually fail.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.

Local government!

That's good for some things, but not as good for other things. There are no Simple Answers, which is where Libertarians usually fail.

Of course there is a simple answer. People as individuals are helpless and ineffective(exaggeration).
Governments are oppressive and overbearing.<<--accurate

Local government is the perfect balance.

No it's not perfect but there is no such thing as perfection with human beings.
The best we can do is seek the mediocre middle ground.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,696
6,257
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: sandorski
Like I've posted many times: Unfettered Capitalism is as fallable as unfettered Communism. It is somewhere in between that the best(imperfect) system exists.

Local government!

That's good for some things, but not as good for other things. There are no Simple Answers, which is where Libertarians usually fail.

Of course there is a simple answer. People as individuals are helpless and ineffective(exaggeration).
Governments are oppressive and overbearing.<<--accurate

Local government is the perfect balance.

No it's not perfect but there is no such thing as perfection with human beings.
The best we can do is seek the mediocre middle ground.

negative