Home > The Economics Profession, The Economy > Greenspan Nonsense

Greenspan Nonsense

from Peter Radford

OK. I am going to say very little on this. His words stand for themselves. Alan Greenspan needs to pull down the shades and stop. He is officially nuts. For those who missed it: he is on record in the Financial Times, as saying we should get rid of the recently implemented financial regulation. It is, he argues, an impediment to growth. And, even worse, he glosses over the catastrophe of 2008 as if it were a minor blip. Deregulation worked wonders he says, with” notably rare exceptions such as 2008″.

Notably rare exceptions. Like 2008. Roll that around on your tongue a bit. Then try to spit it out before you choke. 

What a farce.

This particular “notably rare exception” happens to have been a dire crisis of epic proportions that left millions of people homeless, unemployed, impoverished, and our economy in tatters. We have yet to recover fully. That exception even has a name: The Great Recession.

Only a true student of the child like Ayn Rand could gloss over the events of 2008 by dismissing them as a “notably rare exception”.

The point, Alan, is that we know these exceptions are not rare. Though they are indeed notable. There is a well thought through body of research on the subject. It includes the work of people like Minsky. I recommend you get your nose out of “Atlas Shrugged” and into someting a little more relevant to the subject matter at hand. Start with “Can It happen Again?” written by Minsky well before … it happened again. Had you read that book while you had the power to stop the disaster maybe your reputation would have survived.

For the record, Alan, I recall sitting with you and listening to your deregulatory hype, to your arguments, and to your dismissal of non-market based ideas. I recall first hand your incessant support of market forces – whatever they are – and your equally incessant put down of regulation. You believe in markets despite the evidence. Yours is a faith based doctrine, and it did untold damage. The bank you consulted with, and for which I worked, proceeded to lose a ton of money subsequently. We damn near went under. Rare exceptions indeed.

How rare or exceptional can these events be when I myself have worked through two, and lived through two more?

You are wrong Alan. Hopelessly. Grievously. And recklessly wrong. The banking system needs more, not less regulation. You blew it. We all blew it. The economic carnage of 2008 stands as an indictment of your entire world view.

So. Leave it be. Stop making a fool out of yourself. Enough.

But. I agree on one point. We need to trash the recent re-regulation.

And then we need to replace it with something a whole lot tougher.

If we want these events to be truly rare or exceptional we need to return banking to the boring, low profit, and much smaller industry that it was before deregulatory advocates like you set it free.

One thing we don’t need is more Greenspan nonsense.

  1. Mike Meeropol
    March 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    And right across from Peter’s post is the identification of GREENSPAN as one of the “winners” of the DYNAMITE AWARD.

    What could be more fitting.

    I do disagree with Peter on one thing. I hope he keeps talking (even after he kicks the bucket) because every time he opens his mouth we can remind everyone that such nonsensical faith-based support for the “magic of the market” is what created a near re-run of the Great Depression in 2008-2009 — from which ordinary people have still to recover. We can remind people that Greenspan himself before Congress admitted that there was a “flaw” in his economic analysis (er… ideology) that he “couldn’t understand…”

    So — KEEP TALKING Alan — and we’ll keep reminding people of the damage you and others of your persuasion have done to the people of the world.

  2. March 31, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    The regular banking system has been sidelined by the “Dark Side”.
    Economists, get thyne heads out of the sand!

  3. Ken Zimmerman
    March 31, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    You get so upset with Greenspan. The world he inhabits and wants the rest of us to inhabit with him, including the money supply, business planning, and government regualtion is self-consistent and fully able to function. The blips he mentions are part of that world, not deviations from it. They go part and parcel with it. They are expected. They’re the price we pay for fantastic economic growth and wealth creation. No, that’s not quite right. They’re not the price we pay but the normal functioning of business, economics, and government in the world Greenspan provides for us. Else wise the we’d still be stuck with dial land-line phones and home mortgages at 7.5%. You don’t like his world. Understood! Then kick it out and see about replacing it. But what with??

    • Peter Radford
      March 31, 2011 at 9:02 pm

      Ken: The issue is balance. I get upset at the way in which we lurch towards extremes and abandon all the [few?] devices we have to stop the economic system running out of control. His world is not the business or banking world I entered. I watched the deregulatory effort from the inside. Along with him. As the controls were eliminated we made no effort to offset them with internal controls to stop us from wandering off course. The result? We lost a boatload of money. It was all so predictable using the very same analysis we were all taught, but which we somehow thought we could ignore. Then, after I left banking I watched it repeat the same mistakes on an even more epic scale. While Greenspan watched. So my disgust is driven more by the fact Greenspan still peddles the same story and steadfastly refuses to learn.

      I don’t necessarily think we need to replace the system [entirely?!]. But we do need to question who the system should benefit.

      From my memory of his views, he thinks we should all be stoic with respect to the outcomes. If the system is “free” [whatever that means] we should accept the outcomes. I didn’t agree with him then. I agree less now.

      There has to be a balance. There isn’t.

  4. Ken Zimmerman
    April 1, 2011 at 1:49 am

    So Peter you propose a more balanced system. If I read you correctly you think the world of a balanced system existed at one time (His world is not the business or banking world I entered.) To get that world back you not only have to overcome Greenspan and all the actors that either believe in or benefit from his world, but also the actors who are afraid to oppose Greenspan’s world for many reasons. One thing: you’re not likely to get there talking about the “boatload” of money lost. After all it wasn’t lost, it was transferred. Those who have it now are reluctant to give it. So back to basics. How did this “Ayn Rand” world become accepted and dominant. By converting economists, politicians, business executives, educators, etc. How were these folks converted? In a variety of ways — money, threats, prestige, etc. If you want to replace Rand’s world with another this is the job before you, and your co-conspirators.

  5. Mike Meeropol
    April 1, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Ken, the first way to replace Rand’s world is to expose the truth about what Rand’s world is. It is true that much of the “boatload” of money was transferred (from the unlucky lenders and taxpayers to the executives of the big banks who avoided “haircut” that bankers and others got during the Great Depression) — but with unemployment near 10% for almost two years now and significant numbers of foreclosures (with the accompanying deterioration of housing stock and neighborhoods) the entire economy (of the world, not just the US) has lost a tremendous amount of potential output.

    The fact that such an outcome could have been predicted (was predicted by the winners of our Paul Revere award and those convinced by them) needs to be front and center in the on-going debate on what must be done.

    Peter’s complaint may be about the policies advocated and engineered by Greenspan and company but in order to “replace Rand’s world” the intellectual bankruptcy of the “Ayn Rand” worldview needs to be exposed. Unfortunately that has not happened. The result is the biggest bankers have retained their economic (and political) advantages — the same advantages that brought us the recent disaster.

    Meanwhile, all over the world, the idea (as old as former Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon in the middle of the Depression) that austerity must rule — see Dean on the “need” to cut Social Security — as a solution to the current economic problems is laughable if it weren’t so sickening.

    We all need to expose the intellectual underpinnings of “Rand’s world” or we’ll be condemned to go through the ringer over and over again.

  6. Allen Cookson
    April 3, 2011 at 10:56 am

    There was not only transfer of money. There was destruction of wealth; trashing of new houses, reduction/cessation of real wealth production at the microeconomic level worldwide.

  7. April 4, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Those few of us who happen to use the analytical tools elaborated upon by Karl Marx (who, incidentally, emphatically declared that he WAS NOT a Marxist…) have long ago reached the conclusion that yes, these crisis are «not the price we pay but the normal functioning of business, economics, and government in the world Greenspan provides for us. Else wise the we’d still be stuck with dial land-line phones and home mortgages at 7.5%».
    The problem with this kind of analysis is that it misses the «second law of thermodynamics» thing. Time does not go back. There is no up-and-down line as in the Kondratieff long wave… Its more like an upwards stair with ever deeper “steps”… The system goes on expanding, both geographically and in complexity. Lots of feed-back mechanisms, which some time will balance the system, but some time will unbalance the system. The overall result is that we have wealth concentrating in fewer people (even though there are more billionaires today than a few years ago…), while poverty and hunger keep on expanding… The Gini Coefficient has been increasing world wide… No matter what some optimists keep on saying. And in order to really understand that, one does need to go back to the old Classicals (John Stuart Mill, Malthus and Ricardo) and to Marx, for that matter… With all the currently available computer programming tools, namely the «ABM = Agents Based Modeling» I am surprised that there are no large number of economists making use of those tools and techniques.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.