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

[mrkun]

Just to further emphasize:

?I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,? Mr. Greenspan said.

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: ?I have found a flaw. I don?t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.?

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. ?In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,? Mr. Waxman said.

?Absolutely, precisely,? Mr. Greenspan replied. ?You know, that?s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.?

This is from the NY times.

Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

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.

Explain.

 

[sportage]

ITS GREED!
Any unattended cookie jar is going to get raided.
Its in our nature.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Greenspan cutting interest rates to 1% had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis.

Most educated post in this thread...

Bubble after bubble during Greenspan's tenure.. It's obvious credit was too easy.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Greenspan cutting interest rates to 1% had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis.

Sarcasm right?

 

[Ferocious]

Glad to see an Ayn Rand disciple acknowledge this.

There is hope yet for America!

Moderation is the key though. Just as extreme libertarianism is bad....so is extreme socialism.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
So he is facing the fact that his experiment he had failed... glad we could test that out for him.

Greenspan's Experiment for testing the theory that using Milk and Chocolate syrup should be used to make Chocolate Milk.

Instructions:
Mix in a single glass 1 cup of milk, 4 tablespoons of chocolate syrup, 3 tablespoons of pickle juice, 1 tablespoon of tabasco sauce, and 1 shot of Jack Daniels whiskey. Stir. Then taste.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

You have it backwards. The more complex the solution the more likely it is to fail.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.house.gov/paul/cong...rec99/cr110899-glb.htm

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Nov. 8, 1999

CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 900, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
[Page: E2297]

* Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.

* With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.

* Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.

* Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.

* Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.

* The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.

* This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!

* Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.

* The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Glad to see an Ayn Rand disciple acknowledge this.

There is hope yet for America!

Moderation is the key though. Just as extreme libertarianism is bad....so is extreme socialism.

Mod..er...at..tion....what is that?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

You have it backwards. The more complex the solution the more likely it is to fail.

:thumbsup:

 

[ScottyB]

I wonder if Andrea Mitchel enjoys it when he goes down on her snatch with those bluegill lips of his?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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.

You have it backwards. The more complex the solution the more likely it is to fail.

:thumbsup:

Again, the answer is Negative.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: sandorski

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

Actually I tend to think that was as well, but with a little bit of a twist. By having more power in local (I'm not necessarily thinking state) forms of government, people will make rules for themselves. I'm in favor of that, because people choose how they live. Much like the idea of 'live and let live' - So as long as I have my rights and liberties, it should be no concern to me how you choose to restrict yourself, or what specific set of standards you set for yourself, and vice versa. It is really the only way to make everyone happy and ensure rights for all. However, local governments can become too overbearing and attempt to restrict people's freedoms (For example, I'm thinking of an issue like abortion). This is where I think the Federal govt should ideally come into play: a defender of those liberties in the case that a local government attempts to step over the bounds of basic liberty and fundamental rights of all citizens.

Of course the way it is set up right now, you have both local, state, and federal governments taking away rights. Governments have, with time, become more and more controlling. Of course technology allows that control, but Governments in general seem to have no problem using technology for that purpose specifically.

 

[magomago]

By the way - I watched a rerun of the 'interrogation' on CSPAN today...I had trouble feeling as if it was a real discussion into probing about what is going on and how it came to be. I got the impressions that he was just being grilled only so those doing the grilling could say, "SEEEE I WAS AGAINST THIS WHOLE SHIT" when it comes time to re election. Get mad, yell, be angry, and look good as you appear to be standing up for your constituencies. I can't think of any real constructive discussion or revelation that came out of it; just politicians trying to cover their own asses by giving shit to these guys. Of course, don't think I'm defending Greenspan/paulson/etc, but it is the only thing that I felt was really accomplished.

 

[1prophet]

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!

Local government is where most politicians learn the tricks of their trade and one of the few places that the people can do something about it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Greenspan cutting interest rates to 1% had absolutely nothing to do with the crisis.

Maybe 10% of the problem.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dphantom
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?

GSE regulation wouldn't have fixed the problem.