I would NEVER buy Greenspan’s book. I think he is responsible for so many of the recent financial woes — inflation & $145 Oil, Credit Crunch, Housing Debacle — I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.
Turns out I didn’t have to. Scribd.com courteously provided a research copy.
>
Who knew you could even do this?
Barry,
isn’t this copyright infringement?
This book is incredibly self-serving. What makes it worse is Greenspan’s tone, attempting to portray himself as merely a wise bystander recruited to CEA and the Fed. Greenspan tries to sound like he held little ambition, when in fact he name drops on nearly every page. Don’t waste your time either buying or reading the book.
For those with a sense of journalistic or intellectual curiosity, I STRONGLY suggest investigating who actually authored Greenspan’s PhD “thesis”.
Great, now I have throw my whole computer on the fire.
BR,
that app is rad.
This book should forever be renamed, “Alan Greenspan, The Age of Idiocy & Greed”.
It won’t be long before that piece of trash is selling for a penny on Amazon just like Bowyer’s “Bush Boom.”
A Cheshire Cat grin would be more appropriate than that feeble attempt at a benevolent smile.
America – done in by an idiot, a sinister puppeteer, and an egghead. I’ll let you guess which is Greenspan.
America – done in by an idiot, a sinister puppeteer, and an egghead. I’ll let you guess which is Greenspan.
America – done in by an idiot, a sinister puppeteer, and an egghead. I’ll let you guess which is Greenspan.
America – done in by an idiot, a sinister puppeteer, and an egghead. I’ll let you guess which is Greenspan.
Barry,
You look so cute when you’re mad.
Thanks
Mr. Greenspan, As your medical doctor I believe I know the reason for your expression in the photo. May I suggest some Metamucil?
Way overpriced even at $0.00
Greenspan pretty much sat on his hands while the economy was looted – except when he aided and abetted the process.
Hey, I’m not saying that Alan Greenspan is perfect, but why should he get the blame for today’s problems? It was not Alan Greenspan who blew the budget surplus or forced into a war with Iraq. I am also pretty sure that Alan Greenspan is not personally responsible for allowing lenders to give people loans for houses that they can’t afford with no money down. In fact, I believe I read that the deregulation that made that possible happened during the Clinton administration. (Before anyone complains, notice I have blamed both Bush and Clinton).
Perhaps, what you are mostly concerned with is the bailing out of big banks. I suppose some of the blame lies at Alan Greenspan’s door here, but if staving off a depression means bailing out a big business I’m all for it. It is certainly not the Federal Reserve’s job to break up businesses that are too big. That would seem to be more of a job for the SEC.
While I think Greenspan is responsible for a large part of the mayhem because of his cheap money policies we should beware of too much piling on. After all monetary policy is only one part of the jigsaw. And some of his detractors (not you Barry) do sound a bit like those German generals who all discovered the Leader was a bad guy in 1943 whilst being notably silent from 1933 to 1942. Maybe it has something to do with whom you are teemed with. One has to believe he was more sympatico with Clinton/Rubin/Sommers when the record was pretty good than Bush/Snow/O’Neil when it has been awful. Perhaps it just proves that you need Wall Streeters or Economists at the Treasury rather than Industrialists although Bush and co don’t seem to have taken much notice of either O’Neil or Snow when it came to setting policy so perhaps all the blame really belongs in the White House and wherever Cheney hangs out.
Alan Greenspan blew this bubble up when he lowered interest rates to 1% and kept them there for too long. He got the feeding frenzy going. The subprime, speculation, Flip That House, No Doc Mortgages, 40% of first time homebuyers buying w/0% down, and mortgage fraud were all an offshot of the Greenspan Bubble.
Yes, monetary policy is only one part of the jigsaw, but it is by far the biggest part.
During the bubble peak, Greenspan sounded like an NAR shill when he said that prices are going up because we are “running out of land”
Since their FAQ says this:
>> It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
I suppose this ecopy will disappear shortly.
And good riddance.
the name of the book should be “Asleep at the Wheel”
I wonder what would happen if people in high places were to tell the whole truth(assuming “the truth” is decipherable and an achievable frame of mind.)
Joe D.
The Clinton administration deserves some, but not an equal share of the blame for the disaster we see now.
The trade imbalance with China, the dotcom investment craze, and the housing boom got rolling in the latter half of the 90s, but things only began to spin out of control ca. 2002-2003.
“Government” comes from the Greek: to steer a boat.
While it’s a mistake to place TOO much blame or credit on the executive, government does have the important role of guiding the overall economy to avoid future market failure and credit implosions.
Greenspan and the fellow government overseers charged with controlling the economy’s excesses poured gasoline on the fire in 2002-2003.
My personal opinion is that they wanted to, at literally any cost, avoid a replay of the first Bush administration’s failure at the ballot box in 1992.
We’re paying that cost now, and no, you can’t pin any of THAT on Clinton or his male member.
I read a lot of hate on here for this man, but it’s all pretty much hot air unless some of you computer-chair cowboys actually do something about it.
Now that Greenspan is out, have things gotten better with Bernanke? Do you honestly think they will improve over time?
Instead of complaining about a guy who doesn’t even matter anymore, why not send a letter to you state senator and threaten his/her job in the next election if they don’t start doing the job they were elected to do.
If people don’t start to react now, it will be much harder to complain, protest, and oust the unelected officials at the Fed once they gain full control of our once great country.
Soon America will end up like Singapore, where dissent is only discussed in bars in red light districts over loud music…..
After the amount that shit has stolen from me, I’m glad to take some back, right out of his own skin – the thieving ****. My views of him are quite unprintable.
Thanks BR.
-K
I think he enabled “the free market” concept that your friend – what’s his name – you appear on his program….He is a proponent of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy – Did he do any good? I’m sure he did…in the end – when you stay too long in the game – you will be remembered for your last mistakes…hint, hint – Willie Mays Had the answer – Quit on Top! And you will always be remembered and Great! Of course there are those who never got off the bottom – George W. Bush – 8 years will cost 25 years to repair.
The crisis we are in is he result of a debt bubble< that really started in 1985. Since housing is fueled by mortgage debt, it is actually a subset of the main credit bubble. Any adult with a shred of common sense, let alone the Fed chairman, could tell you this chart was leading to disaster...and it has. Just the start of the disaster, so certain "experts" can still say with a straight face it is not that bad or it is near the end. Certainly by 1998, a "Maestro" should have known to stop the credit bubble. He could also have easily stopped the lending practices in 2003-6 by exerting the Fed's oversight of banking practices. Sheer incompetence. What really bugs me is what is in this book...he claims that he knew Iraq was only about oil, yet he never said a thing until he was paid an $8 Million book advance. Then he was talking a mean streak Jack. I'm sure that he eats dinner every night in the best restaurants in DC and makes everyone call him "maestro."
The Age of Turbulence is a very interesting reading. It gives a real insight into Greenspan’s thinking. He is a real Ayn Rand fan/believer and actually spent much time in discussion groups with Ayn according to the book.
You might ask how a true devotee of Ayn Rand came to head the largest central planning agency this side of the Kremlin. According to Greenspan, he could do more “good” on the inside than protesting from the out side. So I would assume he did everything he could as an insider to defeat regulations, pretty much he believed the markets would fix everything. Then you add in Bush and the debts don’t matter crowd, the belief that any and all regulations are bad, a belief in the “Laugher” Curve and then throw in a pre-emptive war(s) in the Middle East and you set the stage for the perfect storm that we are facing. Who would have thought the US economy could be destroyed in so few years. It took a group of intelligent, powerful dedicated people to pull such a huge change in such a short period. Truly breath taking.
Greenspan should be put to trial.
I looked at that thing and started to skim it, but…
Not only would I not buy it, this guy isn’t worth the time to read.
John,
The US economy wasn’t destroyed in “so few years”…look at the chart I posted. It happened so gradually the public was fooled. All the “prosperity” since the 90s has been false prosperity built on debt.
The other colossal mistake was allowing SUVs to be exempt from CAFE standards. That killed the dollar on the margin as we need to print money to send to the middle east and oil.
Oh….he meant air turbulence. OK thats appropriate …I guess.
The word sycophant comes to mind. But I would NEVER use it.
I’m not sure this is legal
I would never read Greenspan’s book out of fear that whatever that contagious kool-aid shit he was drinking, now spewed out onto the pages is contagious.
Calvin Coolidge the Second! Ain’t nothing but a thang, let Benny Boy straighten it all out!
Greenspan’s greatest shortcoming was always his faith in the integrity of the private sector. During the late 90s, he pointed to the economic projections and opinions of Wall Street analysts as justification for not taking a more skeptical and proactive stance towards the tech bubble. And then during the home price run-up, he figured that lenders could be trusted to act prudently and responsibly even as the ducks quacked for 1% loans. Greenspan naively saw analysts and brokerages and banks and credit card companies as lean, mean, rational private sector machines that would act according to some sort of hard-edged, but straight-laced rulebook of risk management. It never seemed to occur to him that these people are sharks who, if given the opportunity, will ALWAYS put their own dreams of wealth above the truth, the long-term viability of the system and the well-being of their firms. All of this of course makes Greenspans devotion to Ayn Rand very ironic.
Um, Troy,
You responded to my post but really didn’t respond to it. You failed to demonstrate Alan Greenspan’s culpability at all – unless showing your amazing knowledge of the origin of the word government is supposed to be an argument.
Joe D., I submit Troy did specify the Maestro’s culpability when he said “Greenspan and the fellow government overseers charged with controlling the economy’s excesses poured gasoline on the fire in 2002-2003.”
Strangely enough, helicopter Ben is also pouring gasoline on the fire of inflation and no one seems to notice or care.
Let’s wait six more months and see what happens under his watch.
WaMu CDs and details about WaMu’s checking and savings accounts. WaMu also has some competitive long-term CD rates, but these are only available as Traditional.
You may remember that in the Clinton administration Greenspan (and the Republican controlled Congress) were quite the taskmasters of fiscal responsibility. That’s because Democrats are the tax and spend party. When Bush took over, along with the continuing all Republican Congress, all that careful watching and controlling was no longer necessary as the party of fiscal responsibility was in control.
I actually read “The Age of Turbulence” and found it very interesting. Despite all the press bloviating, Greenspan defends his skepticism about regulation of financial markets very effectively and states that regulators within the Fed doubt they can provide effective oversight of banks. The memoir is overbroad at times – it lapses into empty statements on some subjects – but is often illuminating. He is defensive about his reaction to the housing market overheating in the 2000s, by the way, and comes very close to admitting he made a mistake.
I actually read “The Age of Turbulence” and found it very interesting. Despite all the press bloviating, Greenspan defends his skepticism about regulation of financial markets very effectively and states that regulators within the Fed doubt they can provide effective oversight of banks. The memoir is overbroad at times – it lapses into empty statements on some subjects – but is often illuminating. He is defensive about his reaction to the housing market overheating in the 2000s, by the way, and comes very close to admitting he made a mistake.
I downloaded this book months ago and haven’t found time I would want to invest in reading it. Costs aren’t just monetary. Perhaps the publisher knows that; otherwise they would crack down on the site, which I think is fairly legit.
The best way to fix the Fed is to elect Barack Obama and 60 Democratic Senators. Right now, Bernanke panders to Wall Street thinking that placates the White House and Congress, despite efforts by the likes of Fisher and Plosser to keep the Fed balanced, independent, and true to its responsibility to work on behalf of the American people. The idea is that low interest rates creates the jobs that get politicians re-elected. (I am not saying Bernanke is a Republican; I am saying he is weak and is trying not to upset the political status quo at all costs.) Under Democratic leadership, the Fed can tighten monetary policy, provide real strength to the dollar, and fight inflation. The jobs will not be created indirectly through a low interest rate regime but directly through jobs programs funded straight out of the pockets of the likes of Larry Kudlow and Bob Doll, in the form of much higher taxes on THAT exalted tax bracket. Unless you are ultra-rich, you should research and think really hard why you wouldn’t vote Democratic in this crucial year.
‘Strangely enough, helicopter Ben is also pouring gasoline on the fire of inflation and no one seems to notice or care.”
I’m no real fan of Ben B. but from my perspecitve he has no choice now but to pour gasoline on the fire, we are beyond the point where significant tightening would do anything except result in a full blown depression.
In an excessive debt situation (a situation where the amount of debt will never be paid off and many people understand the debt can never be paid off)* there are only two options:
1) Engineer huge write downs of debt and precipitate a full blown depression.
2) Inflate your way out of debt, and typically governments don’t survive a full blown inflation.
Ben is trying to inflate his way out and he has a lot of help with wage arbitration/globalization, the tremendous amount of wealth the US has build up over the centuries and So far China, Russia, the Middle East oil countries have been willing to lend the US money. Ben is trying to finnese his way around the debt mountain by creating much more debt, maybe you can call this the middle ground. Time will tell if this works, but I doubt it built any long term prosperity.
*Total debt (governmental, private and corporate) stands now at some 320% of GDP and it is growing exponentially. The previous record high was in 1931 at 190%.
This does not include the trillions in Medicare and other unfunded debt.
So there you have it, I believe Ben is doing the only thing he can at this point, and the FED has become much more sophisticated at the money game, no one knows for sure and it may even work at least for a few more years. But long term prosperity, I seriously doubt it but maybe the game can be kept going for a few more years.
While we are busy blaming Greenspan, the Fed, Congress, and government in general, we must not forget the most powerful driver behind this turbulence – unbridled greed. I’m not sure any regulatory structure or government policy can protect us from ourselves.
I have read Greenspan’s book which is quite good in the sense that it’s well written and coherent most of the time even if somewhat self serving, but then which personal memoir ever written wasn’t self serving. Greenspan is an out and out free market conservative who believes in minimal regulation of markets. His record during the 90’s was pretty good, the money supply was constrained, he backed the early 90’s tax increases of Bush senior and Clinton which were necessary to mop up the red ink of the Reagan era, inflation was exceptionally well contained, he wasn’t overly ideological when Clinton took some major initiatives like bailing out Mexico, and his interest rate decisions were basically sensible. Where the wheels came off the cart were in the early 2000’s when he reduced interest rates too far and kept them low for far too long, signed on to a bunch of tax cuts which were obviously going to play havoc with the federal budget, did not speak out against the vast increase in govt spending, allowed a huge speculative property bubble to develop which he could easily have deflated, did not step in to challenge the prevailing admin policy of hands off regulation, and allowed M3 to go through the roof. That’s it in a nutshell. His failures are the result of his basic philosophies and the election of an exceptionally conservative administration that pursued reckless fiscal and regulatory policies that he did not challenge, either because he was in sympathy with them or, much more likely in my opinion, because he didn’t want to rock the Republican boat since he wanted to be re-appointed. Either way it’s destroyed his reputation for omniscience but there were no shortage of takers for this view including here a few years back.
wunsacon and Troy,
Do you really think that the Feds cutting rates is 2002/3 is primarily responsible for the current economic situation. Here are the changes the Federal Reserve made to the Fed Funds rate over the two years:
Nov 6 2002 -.5 to 1.25
Jun 25 2003 -.25 to 1.0
After that rates went up until Jun 2006
Perhaps it was too low to begin with, but there were only to changes in 2002 and 2003 combined. After that rates went up until Jun 2006. I submit that if your argument is the two changes in 2002 and 2003 is mostly responsible for today’s problems, that your argument is weak.
Way too much over analysis on Greenspan.
He destroyed corporations because he views them as unfair competition.
He destroyed fiat money because he views it as unfair taxation.
He was The Great Destroyer of America.
Nuff said, keep it simple.
Addendum to my comment above which I forgot to mention for all those critics of his interest rate policies.
Remember in 1992 he was widely criticized by Republicans for keeping interest rates too high for too long and it cost George Bush senior the election or so they said. Basically his interest rate management was sound in the late 80’s and 90’s.
Joe D:
The charge is that he took them too low, 1.25% is pretty low so I’m not sure there’s much to your distinction between that and 1.0%, and and overall kept them very low way too long. There’s little doubt this primed the enormous credit bubble and then he raised them but it was at a very leisurely pace when he should have pricked the bubble but consciously chose not to because at the time he said that wasn’t the task of central banks. He’s since fessed up more or less that he was wrong. Cheap money wasn’t by any means the only reason but combined with lax regulation, etc etc it was toxic.
Blaming major failures and crisis of capitalism on one person shows to me that there is an absence of thorough analysis. Like everything was peachy before Greenspan became Fed chairman. Capitalism has gone from one crisis through another, since it developed in Europe in the 16th century. Since then it has been spread all over the world. Only the way how crisis is playing out differs from time to time. This time it has been a big credit bubble. Next time it will be something different. At some point people should come to senses that the causes for crisis phenomena are much more deeply rooted than just to be found in bad policies by allegedly omnipotent puppet masters as which the chairman of the Fed is being seen by many here, apparently. I think, the power of the Federal Reserve to control global capitalist economy is way overrated.
People always seem to need some scapegoat who they can blame for all the malaise which they can’t explain otherwise.
rc
I must say I have read the comments prior to mine, I don’t quite agree…first Ayn Rand chamgioned individual freedom, not the manipulation of markets the way Greenspan did…I don’t think objectivism would necessarily want fed funds brought to extremely low levels and kept there…would John Galt have done this if he were Fed Chairman?
Second, Greenspan may have been a poor leader of the Fed but he was not a fool. He knew these interest rates were too low, and I have read the ideas that others here attribute to his reasoning for doing so…I think he was just in error, and probably felt that since he’d made the decision after pondering it for awhile, it was right…when in hindsight, obviously it was not…
Bernanke, simply out of his element, and inheritor of a really bad mess, I don’t blame so much…but all these boys are piling up the debt, and there will be hell to pay, even if we do manage to skirt the present problem, which I don’t think we will do.
Bruce in Tennessee
What really is amazing to me is Alan Greenspan’s unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial straits we are in. Is it any wonder that everything has cascaded down the way it has when the former Fed Chief is living to this day in such a deep state of denial? Why is it so difficult for people to take responsibility for their actions? Has anyone yet publicly accepted any blame? Citizens of this country deserve better than people in high positions to act so childishly.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/alan-greenspan.html
December 12, 2007
Alan Greenspan: The Roots of the Mortgage Crisis (or, It Wasn’t My Fault)
Greenspan’s unwillingness to accept any blame is reminiscent of former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raine’s denyng any wrongdoing under his tenure:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7355847.stm
Ex-Fannie Mae bosses fined $31.4m
Former chief executive Franklin Raines
Ex Fannie Mae boss Franklin Raines denies wrongdoing
Former Fannie Mae boss Franklin Raines and two other former executives have agreed to pay $31.4m (£15.7m) to settle allegations of a 2004 accounting fraud.
US regulators had accused the three of manipulating the books for six years in order to meet profit and bonus targets.
Mr Raines, who worked in the Clinton administration, will pay the lion’s share – $24.7m – but denied wrongdoing.
Bruce:
“Second, Greenspan may have been a poor leader of the Fed but he was not a fool. He knew these interest rates were too low, and I have read the ideas that others here attribute to his reasoning for doing so…I think he was just in error, and probably felt that since he’d made the decision after pondering it for awhile, it was right…when in hindsight, obviously it was not…”
You may be right and as I hope you will see from my other comments I don’t subscribe to the general piling on Greenspan which seems to have taken over. That said I do think he was very anxious to avert a serious melt down on Bush’s watch and therefore over egged the pudding after his necessary cuts to recover from the dot com bust. And it was also philosophy. He simply didn’t believe central bankers should prick investment bubbles. He said so many times. So he’s definitely got a substantive case to answer. On the broader front am I alone in thinking that the tech bubble, which undoubtedly accounted for the huge jump in productivity in the 90’s, was actually a relatively benign phenomena. A classic case of creative destruction. By contrast the housing bubble has had far fewer positive consequences. In fact none that I can think of.
As a political science instructor at a community college in northern CA for the last 13 years I’ve had few regrets about anything I’ve done or said in the classroom. One that sticks in my craw, however, is that ten or twelve years ago, in my discussions of economic policy, I described AG as a great fed chairman…
Little did I know what a feckless schmuck he would turn out to be with his easy money policies, provision of political cover for the Bush tax cuts, etc.
Live and learn, I guess.
>> Blaming major failures and crisis of capitalism on one person
Huh? No one here has written that. It’s neither expressed nor implied.
>> shows to me that there is an absence of thorough analysis.
Uh, ok.
>> Do you really think that the Feds cutting rates is 2002/3 is primarily responsible for the current economic situation
“Primarily”? Depends on what subject and level we’re talking about. In historical terms, the US is experiencing a reversion to the mean. Greenspan was powerless to stop it. But, he did his job — an important job — poorly. That will increase the severity of the pain to the downside.
>> People always seem to need some scapegoat who they can blame for all the malaise which they can’t explain otherwise.
BR’s post was on Greenspan. That elicited remarks about Greenspan.
Why do people come on this board every now and then and fault the rest of us (commenters and sometimes our host) for not spreading the blame with every post? Are we supposed to reiterate the list of the guilty in each and every breath??
John,
Good points, and I agree he said he didn’t think the Fed should prick investment bubbles….however this is just the opposite side of the pillow, the Fed, by its action, caused the housing bubble…and wait, folks, I understand the other part of the argument, that with better regulatory oversight, this wouldn’t have happened…ok, but if money weren’t “free” the subprime loans, the 100% loans, etc. wouldn’t have started in the first place…
If you are going to, by your policies, cause significant distortions (bubbles), then you better be willing to prick a few too……
Bruce in Tennessee
Posted by: wunsacon | Jul 27, 2008 3:11:26 PM
wunsa,
I thought was post was about the book, not having to buy it, and the app that made it possible..
I’ve been fixin’ to page Dr. Rorschach to the White Courtesy Phone, but, maybe that’s just me :)
Mark, LOL. You’re right. Your comment (near the top) is one of only about 3 comments really relevant to BR’s post. But, the chum in the water was too much for me.
Maybe I should switch to decaf.
Do you really think that the Feds cutting rates is 2002/3 is primarily responsible for the current economic situation. Here are the changes the Federal Reserve made to the Fed Funds rate over the two years:
Here’s a graph of net household mortgage lending:
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/6399/picture1ke9.png
2003-2006 were unsustainable levels of lending that were obvious to anyone familiar with the P/E fundamentals of household income vs. mortgage service obligations.
The affordability products that the Fed allowed lenders to create caused the bubble and the deleterious fall in lending we’re seeing now.
There was a total of ~$800B of pure bubble lending 2004-2006. Most if not all of that bubble excess is going to be dead loss to the system.
Welcome to Japan, without the net savings rate, balance of payments surplus, etc.
While a great deal of Alan’s decisions have brought us to this unfortuante place, I would be more interested in knowing how much those decisions were made in a bubble, of his own volition, versus how much he was influenced/pressured by the administration policy wonks and higher ups who wanted a loose money policy for their own political gain.