Flawed Titan of the Fed

[skyhook77sfg]

A new documentary on the financial crisis paints Alan Greenspan as an embodiment of what went wrong with America.

In the fall of 2008, with the global economy in shambles and panic spreading throughout the financial system, a seemingly humbled Alan Greenspan—the former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve—appeared before Congress and admitted the unimaginable: there was a “flaw” in his world view that had prevented him from foreseeing the worst credit crisis in American history.

And so begins The Flaw, David Sington’s new documentary about the origins of the financial crisis. The movie, which opened in London last week, makes a compelling argument that the nature of American capitalism has changed in recent decades, giving rise to unstable levels of inequality and a mistaken belief in the self-correcting power of free markets. The Flaw focuses largely on the housing market and offers a far less blistering critique of Wall Street than Inside Job¸ Charles Ferguson’s 2010 Oscar-winning documentary. Yet in both films, Greenspan, who spoke with NEWSWEEK at his office in Washington, D.C., is cast in a similar role—as someone who personifies much of what went wrong with the economy.

Since the housing bubble burst, and Wall Street teetered on the brink of collapse, Greenspan—once widely hailed as the oracle of the American economy—has seen his standing plummet. Most recently, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize–winning economist and columnist for The New York Times, wrote that Greenspan is continuing “to cement his reputation as the worst ex–Fed chairman in history”—a searing statement even for someone on the left.

And yet what continues to drive much of the criticism of Greenspan is not so much his record at the Fed but his recent political commentary. Despite his 2008 mea culpa, Greenspan has largely remained steadfast in his faith in laissez faire, arguing against the government’s stimulus package and recent financial regulation. As Congress continues to fight over long-term spending and the future of entitlements, it is precisely this sort of stubborn libertarianism that has enraged Greenspan’s critics and once again cast a spotlight on his legacy.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/06/12/new- ... f=obinsite

SORTA LIKE HENRY THE K ADULATION ON TIME COVER

AND THEN THE CRIMES OF KISSINGER REALIZATION

[Mr. Perfect]

A Democrat hit piece coming from Newsweek, must be a Friday.

[skyhook77sfg]

back to MR Pee's idea of dialogue...

demolition derby style...

100% party propaganda.

sad.

[Mr. Perfect]

It started out as party propaganda.

That's the problem here. It's only called propaganda when I do it.

[noddy]

i can agree with that.

there is nothing free about any of our markets, a twisted blend of powerful players and revolving doors involved in the lot of them..blaming the free market and asking for more control from government when the market is tightly controlled already, is suspect.

with the the housing crisis i blame our councils and governments - if they hadnt of restricted land releases and housing standards to force the price upwards id have a comfy insulated tin shack powered by solar already, and very little pressure to maintain such a huge mortgage.

its the middle class with their religion of housing always getting better and more expensive with legislated goodness thats the mentality behind this shitstorm and the same middle class thinking NINJA loans would make everyone get one of these houses is the finger on the trigger.

[whose care]

"Why doesn't government regulate markets less/more?" and "How well can markets regulate themselves?" are silly old questions. Who regulates monetary policy and how they should do it?, is even older and sillier.

If, on the other hand, people were to begin wondering whether it may be the money itself that should do the regulating of the markets that utilize it, and whether it may be that the public relationship to money rather than "monetary policy" is the more significant area of concern, then maybe we could get somewhere.

[skyhook77sfg]

righto..

let's continue along that trajectory...

care to elaborate where that might lead?

[whose care]

Money is a social tool that facilitates transactions, yes? But there is no requirement that tools be simple or single-purpose.

More money nowadays is transferred between electronic accounts than is passed as paper from hand to hand. Why then should not this money carry more information than simply an amount? Why shouldn't money be aware of what it is being used for, and of who is using it?

[skyhook77sfg]

all that digital money is already smart...

every single electronic transmission of a data packet(s)

is swept up, filed and if of interest examined more closely

as a transaction and/or pattern of transactions by a

group fondly referred to as No Such Agency located

in the Puzzle Palace at Ft Meade Maryland about 40 minutes drive

from downtown Washington DC.


The vacuum sweeper of all electronic signals on every continent

used to be called Echelon which is now dated.








It