Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You mean the guy in charge was a 'free market' type guy and 'believed' the markets would self regulate?
The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.
...."I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.
Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Yes, the great "free market" guy Alan Greenspan. Tell me, where did the great free market thinkers state that the economy should be centrally planned by a single organization forcefully and artificially keeping interest rates low and flooding the market with cheap credit? Greenspan was a Randian, right? So find for us where Ayn Rand ever advocated such policies, which it is a historical fact that Greenspan enacted as chief central-planner of the Fed, in her writings. Quote von Mises stating that artificially cheap credit is in line with a free market. I doubt even Milton Friedman, no enemy of the Fed in general, would have supported the reckless policies of Greenspan and Bernanke. So please, find for us where central economic planning, which is what Greenspan did at the Federal Reserve, has anything to do with free markets.
Yes, Greenspan was once a supporter of a free markets, but had long abandoned those views by the time he became the chief central economic planner in the world, and as a staunch supporter of economic interventionism had no problem joining the herds maligning "free markets" after the bubble popped because to do otherwise would be to admit that his current worldview, of central economic planning, is wrong.
Got it, you 'believe in' the mythical 'free market' that Ayn Rand 'believed in', guess that's why she wrote fiction
Weird the cosest the US has come to laizze affaire garbage was the 1929 GOP depression and Dubya's subprime crash
WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Greenspan? lol
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
What caused the inflation before the Fed, and when the dollar was backed by gold?The Federal Reserve's recent and unprecedented actions in the realm of monetary policy have provoked a backlash among the American people. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees have been provided to Wall Street firms, while Main Street Americans suffocate under harsh taxation, the prospect of higher debt levels and increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to problems with the Fed's loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future.
One of the fallacies of modern economics is the idea that a central bank is required in order to keep inflation low and promote economic growth. In reality, it is the central bank's monetary policy that causes inflation and depresses economic growth. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, which in our day and age is directly caused or initiated by central banks. All other things being equal, inflation results in a rise in prices. A so-called "mild" rate of inflation of 3% per year leads to a 56% rise in prices over a 15-year period. Even a "low" rate of inflation of 2% per year leads to a 35% rise over that same period. How is that conducive to long-term growth?
Fed Up - Forbes.com
suicide can prevent one from getting a cold again, but the gold standard/specie backed currency didn't stop inflation from happening.It's true that inflation could occur without the Federal Reserve, but that is only true under a fiat monetary system. If we had sound money the supply of money would only increase with an increase in the supply of the commodity backing the currency, which would probably be gold.
Yes , I quite agree with you on that point
Just as suicide will prevent a common cold, the gold standard will certainly prevent inflation.
Abolish the Fed, let the economy run its own course
Boom and bust, boom and bust
The Federal Reserve's recent and unprecedented actions in the realm of monetary policy have provoked a backlash among the American people. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees have been provided to Wall Street firms, while Main Street Americans suffocate under harsh taxation, the prospect of higher debt levels and increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to problems with the Fed's loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future.
One of the fallacies of modern economics is the idea that a central bank is required in order to keep inflation low and promote economic growth. In reality, it is the central bank's monetary policy that causes inflation and depresses economic growth. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, which in our day and age is directly caused or initiated by central banks. All other things being equal, inflation results in a rise in prices. A so-called "mild" rate of inflation of 3% per year leads to a 56% rise in prices over a 15-year period. Even a "low" rate of inflation of 2% per year leads to a 35% rise over that same period. How is that conducive to long-term growth?
Fed Up - Forbes.com
you did not say how inflation prevents long term growth did you. Certainly the USA has had inflation and growth.
Yes, the great "free market" guy Alan Greenspan. Tell me, where did the great free market thinkers state that the economy should be centrally planned by a single organization forcefully and artificially keeping interest rates low and flooding the market with cheap credit? Greenspan was a Randian, right? So find for us where Ayn Rand ever advocated such policies, which it is a historical fact that Greenspan enacted as chief central-planner of the Fed, in her writings. Quote von Mises stating that artificially cheap credit is in line with a free market. I doubt even Milton Friedman, no enemy of the Fed in general, would have supported the reckless policies of Greenspan and Bernanke. So please, find for us where central economic planning, which is what Greenspan did at the Federal Reserve, has anything to do with free markets.
Yes, Greenspan was once a supporter of a free markets, but had long abandoned those views by the time he became the chief central economic planner in the world, and as a staunch supporter of economic interventionism had no problem joining the herds maligning "free markets" after the bubble popped because to do otherwise would be to admit that his current worldview, of central economic planning, is wrong.
Got it, you 'believe in' the mythical 'free market' that Ayn Rand 'believed in', guess that's why she wrote fiction
Weird the cosest the US has come to laizze affaire garbage was the 1929 GOP depression and Dubya's subprime crash
WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Greenspan? lol
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
So you can't answer even the most basic of questions. It doesn't matter what I believe or whether it's a fairy tale. What matters is what it is, and you can't answer how Greenspan's actions as Federal Reserve Chairman match up with free market beliefs as they were espoused by any of the defenders of the free market.
That just makes you a troll.
Since the Fed is the only entity that can create dollars out of nothing, how should I respond to that stupid pic?
AGAIN, you don't understand how the leverage rule work, Got it. Dubya allowed them to more than triple in 2004 which flooded the market with cheap monies!
The silly pic has nothing to do with leverage, clown.
Yes, the great "free market" guy Alan Greenspan. Tell me, where did the great free market thinkers state that the economy should be centrally planned by a single organization forcefully and artificially keeping interest rates low and flooding the market with cheap credit? Greenspan was a Randian, right? So find for us where Ayn Rand ever advocated such policies, which it is a historical fact that Greenspan enacted as chief central-planner of the Fed, in her writings. Quote von Mises stating that artificially cheap credit is in line with a free market. I doubt even Milton Friedman, no enemy of the Fed in general, would have supported the reckless policies of Greenspan and Bernanke. So please, find for us where central economic planning, which is what Greenspan did at the Federal Reserve, has anything to do with free markets.
Yes, Greenspan was once a supporter of a free markets, but had long abandoned those views by the time he became the chief central economic planner in the world, and as a staunch supporter of economic interventionism had no problem joining the herds maligning "free markets" after the bubble popped because to do otherwise would be to admit that his current worldview, of central economic planning, is wrong.
Got it, you 'believe in' the mythical 'free market' that Ayn Rand 'believed in', guess that's why she wrote fiction
Weird the cosest the US has come to laizze affaire garbage was the 1929 GOP depression and Dubya's subprime crash
WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Greenspan? lol
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
So you can't answer even the most basic of questions. It doesn't matter what I believe or whether it's a fairy tale. What matters is what it is, and you can't answer how Greenspan's actions as Federal Reserve Chairman match up with free market beliefs as they were espoused by any of the defenders of the free market.
That just makes you a troll.
The Federal Reserve's recent and unprecedented actions in the realm of monetary policy have provoked a backlash among the American people. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees have been provided to Wall Street firms, while Main Street Americans suffocate under harsh taxation, the prospect of higher debt levels and increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to problems with the Fed's loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future.
One of the fallacies of modern economics is the idea that a central bank is required in order to keep inflation low and promote economic growth. In reality, it is the central bank's monetary policy that causes inflation and depresses economic growth. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, which in our day and age is directly caused or initiated by central banks. All other things being equal, inflation results in a rise in prices. A so-called "mild" rate of inflation of 3% per year leads to a 56% rise in prices over a 15-year period. Even a "low" rate of inflation of 2% per year leads to a 35% rise over that same period. How is that conducive to long-term growth?
Fed Up - Forbes.com
Abolish the Fed, let the economy run its own course
Boom and bust, boom and bust
As opposed to?
AGAIN, you don't understand how the leverage rule work, Got it. Dubya allowed them to more than triple in 2004 which flooded the market with cheap monies!
The silly pic has nothing to do with leverage, clown.
Got it, you'll leave out this part Bubba
"Pointing out banks do the thing the pic says is wrong? lol"
"Since the Fed is the only entity that can create dollars out of nothing, how should I respond to that stupid pic?"
Perhaps acknowledge leverage works the same way Bubba?
Got it, you 'believe in' the mythical 'free market' that Ayn Rand 'believed in', guess that's why she wrote fiction
Weird the cosest the US has come to laizze affaire garbage was the 1929 GOP depression and Dubya's subprime crash
WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Greenspan? lol
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
So you can't answer even the most basic of questions. It doesn't matter what I believe or whether it's a fairy tale. What matters is what it is, and you can't answer how Greenspan's actions as Federal Reserve Chairman match up with free market beliefs as they were espoused by any of the defenders of the free market.
That just makes you a troll.
Well that is a tricky one for sure. Certainly Greenspan's massive intervention doesn't sound hands-off free market at all. But then again in Ron Paul's book he asked Bernanke why he won't switch to a gold standard and Bernanke replied, we manage the current system as if it was a Gold Standard. Even Friedman argued for a very very aggressive Fed monetary policy eg the creation of tons of high powered money in Japan to end 20 years of no growth. I suppose then what we learned from the current crisis is to watch for bubbles and deflate them the way the free market would within the context of our Fed/gold standard.
Got it, you 'believe in' the mythical 'free market' that Ayn Rand 'believed in', guess that's why she wrote fiction
Weird the cosest the US has come to laizze affaire garbage was the 1929 GOP depression and Dubya's subprime crash
WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST? Greenspan? lol
The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
A McKinsey Global Institute report noted from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred. It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture
Conservative Ideas Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.
Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress
So you can't answer even the most basic of questions. It doesn't matter what I believe or whether it's a fairy tale. What matters is what it is, and you can't answer how Greenspan's actions as Federal Reserve Chairman match up with free market beliefs as they were espoused by any of the defenders of the free market.
That just makes you a troll.
You mean Greenspan who 'believed in' laissez faire policy towards supervision and bank regulation, or the closest the US has had since the first conservative, GOP great depression?
No, unlike tools like you who can't actually EVER point to ANY nation who has EVER used 'free markets', you'll complain it wasn't 'laissez faire' 'ENOUGH'....
Allen 'Ayn Rand' Greenspan pushed for and received, unregulated treatment of financial derivatives, (growing over 20,000% under him),
Greenspan:
"The technologically driven proliferation of new financial products that enable risk unbundling have been increasingly combining the characteristics of banking, insurance, and securities products into single financial instruments .
In his same 1999 testimony Greenspan made clear repeal meant less, not more regulation of the newly-allowed financial conglomerates, opening the floodgate to the current fiasco:
As we move into the twenty-first century, the remnants of nineteenth-century bank examination philosophies will fall by the wayside. Banks, of course, will still need to be supervised and regulated, in no small part because they are subject to the safety net. My point is, however, that the nature and extent of that effort need to become more consistent with market realities. Moreover, affiliation with banks need not--indeed, should not--create bank-like regulation of affiliates of banks .
Goldman Sachs chairman Lloyd Blankfein on the new financial securitization, hedge fund and derivatives world: We've come full circle, because this is exactly what the Rothschilds or J. P. Morgan, the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was the Glass-Steagall Act.
Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s - lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas. Robert Kuttner, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute
Boom and bust, boom and bust
As opposed to?
History of the US from the end of the conservative, GOP great depression and the number of bank failure until Ronnie ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984 THEN Dubya doing the same as he pushed his 'subprime' crisis.
Was a pretty good time economically, until Reaganomics took hold
How many bank failure after we had GOOD regulations/regulators post conservative/GOP great depression up to Reagan's meltdown?
Moderate inflation increases long term growth by spurring investment.The Federal Reserve's recent and unprecedented actions in the realm of monetary policy have provoked a backlash among the American people. Trillions of dollars worth of loans and guarantees have been provided to Wall Street firms, while Main Street Americans suffocate under harsh taxation, the prospect of higher debt levels and increasing inflation. These events have awakened many Americans to problems with the Fed's loose monetary policy, the bubbles it has created in the past and the potential hyperinflation it might cause in the future.
One of the fallacies of modern economics is the idea that a central bank is required in order to keep inflation low and promote economic growth. In reality, it is the central bank's monetary policy that causes inflation and depresses economic growth. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money, which in our day and age is directly caused or initiated by central banks. All other things being equal, inflation results in a rise in prices. A so-called "mild" rate of inflation of 3% per year leads to a 56% rise in prices over a 15-year period. Even a "low" rate of inflation of 2% per year leads to a 35% rise over that same period. How is that conducive to long-term growth?
Fed Up - Forbes.com
you did not say how inflation prevents long term growth did you. Certainly the USA has had inflation and growth.
The 1970s saw mild recessions compared to the conservatives' housing bust. And they were largely from supply shocks that caused mild stagflation. But Jim Carter and Paul Volcker addressed those issues, and Reagan reaped the benefits.As opposed to?
History of the US from the end of the conservative, GOP great depression and the number of bank failure until Ronnie ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984 THEN Dubya doing the same as he pushed his 'subprime' crisis.
Was a pretty good time economically, until Reaganomics took hold
How many bank failure after we had GOOD regulations/regulators post conservative/GOP great depression up to Reagan's meltdown?
No boom and bust during that time, huh? The 70's disagree with you.
The 1970s saw mild recessions compared to the conservatives' housing bust. And they were largely from supply shocks that caused mild stagflation. But Jim Carter and Paul Volcker addressed those issues, and Reagan reaped the benefits.History of the US from the end of the conservative, GOP great depression and the number of bank failure until Ronnie ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984 THEN Dubya doing the same as he pushed his 'subprime' crisis.
Was a pretty good time economically, until Reaganomics took hold
How many bank failure after we had GOOD regulations/regulators post conservative/GOP great depression up to Reagan's meltdown?
No boom and bust during that time, huh? The 70's disagree with you.
The 1970s saw mild recessions compared to the conservatives' housing bust. And they were largely from supply shocks that caused mild stagflation. But Jim Carter and Paul Volcker addressed those issues, and Reagan reaped the benefits.No boom and bust during that time, huh? The 70's disagree with you.
I would agree that Volcker handled the issue quite well, much better than the response from Greenspan and Bernanke have handled the current recession, but I certainly wouldn't categorize the stagflation as mild.
So you can't answer even the most basic of questions. It doesn't matter what I believe or whether it's a fairy tale. What matters is what it is, and you can't answer how Greenspan's actions as Federal Reserve Chairman match up with free market beliefs as they were espoused by any of the defenders of the free market.
That just makes you a troll.
You mean Greenspan who 'believed in' laissez faire policy towards supervision and bank regulation, or the closest the US has had since the first conservative, GOP great depression?
No, unlike tools like you who can't actually EVER point to ANY nation who has EVER used 'free markets', you'll complain it wasn't 'laissez faire' 'ENOUGH'....
Allen 'Ayn Rand' Greenspan pushed for and received, unregulated treatment of financial derivatives, (growing over 20,000% under him),
Greenspan:
"The technologically driven proliferation of new financial products that enable risk unbundling have been increasingly combining the characteristics of banking, insurance, and securities products into single financial instruments .
In his same 1999 testimony Greenspan made clear repeal meant less, not more regulation of the newly-allowed financial conglomerates, opening the floodgate to the current fiasco:
As we move into the twenty-first century, the remnants of nineteenth-century bank examination philosophies will fall by the wayside. Banks, of course, will still need to be supervised and regulated, in no small part because they are subject to the safety net. My point is, however, that the nature and extent of that effort need to become more consistent with market realities. Moreover, affiliation with banks need not--indeed, should not--create bank-like regulation of affiliates of banks .
Goldman Sachs chairman Lloyd Blankfein on the new financial securitization, hedge fund and derivatives world: We've come full circle, because this is exactly what the Rothschilds or J. P. Morgan, the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was the Glass-Steagall Act.
Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s - lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas. Robert Kuttner, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute
In other words, you just use terms like "free market" or "laissez-faire" as buzzwords but have no actual idea what they mean. You can't name a single policy Greenspan enacted as Fed Chairman that would dovetail with his alleged belief in free markets. We're all shocked.
As opposed to?
History of the US from the end of the conservative, GOP great depression and the number of bank failure until Ronnie ignored regulator warnings that had started in 1984 THEN Dubya doing the same as he pushed his 'subprime' crisis.
Was a pretty good time economically, until Reaganomics took hold
How many bank failure after we had GOOD regulations/regulators post conservative/GOP great depression up to Reagan's meltdown?
No boom and bust during that time, huh? The 70's disagree with you.
