Posted on 01/31/2006 5:40:31 PM PST by Kaslin
t's the end of an era Alan Greenspan has stepped down as chairman of the Federal Reserve after 18 years at the helm.
Now it's time to examine the myths regarding his long tenure as chief steward of the American economy.
Many have been quick to lavish praise on Greenspan when he announced he would step down on Jan. 31.
"He has a legitimate claim to being the greatest central banker who ever lived," Princeton University economist Alan Blinder, who spent 19 months as the Fed's No. 2 in the mid-1990s, wrote in a paper.
President Bush went so far as to present Greenspan with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian award, saying at a November ceremony that the outgoing Fed chief "leaves behind a standard that will always define a successful chairman."
Some, as I do, feel Alan Greenspan falls short of this Second Coming view of him.
Jarret Wolstein, writing in NewsMax's Financial Intelligence Report in October delivered a detailed and highly critical analysis of Greenspan's reign as head of the world's most powerful central bank.
A chief beef of Greenspan critics is that rather than deal with economic problems as they arose, he has been "passing the buck" leaving incoming Chairman Ben Bernanke to wrestle with mounting economic woes.
Harry Truman was an unpopular figure while presiding in the White House, but in hindsight he has gained enormous respect for the difficult decisions he made.
The opposite could be true for Greenspan. Admired today, I predict he will be increasingly reviled in years to come as Americans grapple with his legacy.
Let us not forget that Alan Greenspan presided over the two largest bubbles in U.S. history, perhaps world history. The first was the dot-com bubble of the 1990s.
In 1996 Greenspan himself warned that the U.S. economy was suffering from "irrational exuberance" as the stock market, led by the high-tech and Internet sectors, boomed.
But he took no action, leading to what Sir John Templeton described as the "the greatest bubble in history." For sure, Greenspan knew he should have dampened the stock mania with reasonable rate hikes. But he did not for several years.
I have little doubt his motive was to serve Clinton administration interests. Greenspan waited until 2000 to apply the brakes to an overheated economy. In my mind he did want to upset the Democrats chances to capture the White House in the 2000 elections.
After the 2000 election, Greenspan dramatically ramped up interest rates in 2000 and 2001, plunging the country into a recession. After slamming on the brakes, Greenspan then flipped again, and put his foot on the accelerator by dropping interest rates.
By 2002, he dropped interest rates to record lows -- as low as 1 percent. This helped fuel the U.S. economy. But at such low rates, who was going to buy our debt? In the end, the U.S. had to rely largely on Asian investors, particularly Chinese and Japanese central banks, to prop up our debt structured economy.
For sure, low interest rates fueled the U.S. economy. But it has also created a new asset bubble, this time in real estate and one the Economist magazine has dubbed the greatest bubble of all time, superseding the dot-com one.
As Greenspan was preparing to depart the Federal Reserve he made clear we could see as an asset price tumble in real estate.
This is easy to expect as the Fed has raised interest rates repeatedly in the past 18 months with rates now at 4.25 percent mortgage rates will eventually rise.
Greenspan and the Federal Reserve have stated these rate hikes were made to curb inflation.
I doubt that is the real reason, as I think Greenspan couldn't care less about inflation.
The real reason for the rate boosts can be found elsewhere.
For one thing, overseas investors like China and Japan are tired of bailing out the United States and don't want to buy our debt at below market rates. Greenspan had to raise rates to market our debt to the world.
Second, under Greenspan's watch the dollar has collapsed. In recent years it tumbled as much as 40 percent though we have seen a small rally for the dollar as interest rates have increased. But the greenback is still down a remarkable 30 percent in five years against a basket of currencies known as the dollar index, and almost 40 percent against the Euro.
Imagine if the value of your home fell 40 percent in five years!
The collapsed dollar has had dramatic effects on American consumers, most notably on commodity prices, particularly oil and gold, which have been skyrocketing in price.
So Greenspan has steadily raised interest rates, leading to what some economists predict will be the next big bubble burst in the housing market.
The boom in real estate fueled the U.S. economy back into what appeared to be good health.
But now rising interest rates and of course, mortgage rates are threatening to explode the real estate bubble.
Some economists warn that the Fed has simply replaced the dot-com bubble with a housing bubble that is ready to burst and promoting other conditions that could lead to a serious recession.
As the Financial Intelligence Report noted, "Greenspan is hardly the financial genius that many have proclaimed him to be. He is much more like a bad doctor who gives his patient terrible medical advice and then warns about the consequences."
So now Greenspan is gone, leaving Bernanke to clean up the mess. Someday Americans will wake up and say: Alan, we hardly knew ye!
Did the fed celebrate by raising rates they said they wouldn't?
There is a little bit of truth to this diatribe which gives it a little credibility. However, the real estate bubble and the dot come bubble are two entirely seperate entities and should not be compared and just will not end in the same manner.
Sour grapes. Greenspan wasn't perfect, but he was darn good.
Perhaps Bernanke will be the Harry Truman of the Federal Reserve.
Greenspan was just another politician dancing to the dictates of the syndicates that have bought the world political arena.
This editorial is misguided. The Federal Reserve is not in the business of stopping bubbles....they are natural in markets....The Fed. should keep inflation low and stable....the rest - from deficits to bubbles to slow or fast economic growth are in the hands of smart (and often times dumb) decision makers.
If these "bubble" people are so smart, all they have to do is heavily short the home builder stocks and make a fortune....but, they don't know if we are in a "bubble" or not.....only later, do these people look back at events and tell everyone how brilliant they were in predicting the popping of the "bubble"......but I rarely hear them talk about the fortune they made shorting the sectors that are "overgrown"....
There's only one thing that kills the Stock Market. Bad fed policy, and easy money Al will go down as one of the best at that. Raised rates 6 times in the late 90's screaming inflation, while we were in 3 year deflationary spiral. Three recessions, and a crippling market for 6 years. Great job Al.
Second of all, the proper role of a central banker is to control inflation. You don't want central bankers mucking around with interest rates and the money supply to prick "bubbles" real and imagined. To do so would be disasterous.
Greenspan has been the most overrated politician in DC. The man was a fossilized gold bug josting his own imaginary phantoms of inflation. His legacy is a dangerously unbalanced economy; and only time will tell whether this mess will float or sink strait to the bottom..
The best lies are hidden between 2 truths.
That said, you are right, these 2 bubbles are of a totally different nature, with different causes, and your right that they will end in different ways.
Don't read too much into this^^^^^^^^^.
Greenspan is has far smaller effects than legislation from congress e.g the Monetary Control Act 1980 that essentialy permitted us to bail out Mexico. This act also gave the federal resersve power beyond commerical banks to all depositary banks...leading to bailouts of and a policy that forces stronger banks to merge with unsound banks e.g Continental Illinois.
Legislation right before his era and durning it, has been incredibly unsound. Blaming one man out of a panel of twelve isn't wise...not review congress role is beyond reason.
Our era is increase of credit centralization, not 'deregulation' as most would like you to assume. There are no limits to central banking powers to inflate money and credit, and this power is meant almost always for political postures.
The end of gold brought a new era, one which induced banks to lend excessively to many latin american countries governments via Imf. Prior we lend 12 billion to latin countries, knowing the unstable and often backward policies of socialism. In the 80's we lent 250 billion. Ultimately Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, Argentian, Brazil, and Venezuela defaulted on many of their loans. We wrote off a record 22.2 billion dollars.
Congress has continually fortified a position that gives credence to evergrowing power to the federal reserve. They are the leaders [Congress] in which the federal reserve follows. Blame them first...blame them second, actually. Blame anyone that doesn't read into this first. Even yourself if you are one.
Realize that perhaps the lack of knowlege and fortitude of the Republican party with the banking system is a problem not to be blamed on a single man, but on a people and a party. Don't depend on the democrats to learn or read into banking, because they're too busy smoking weed.
ps..I can go on and on about bad legislation e.g anti-branching restrictions...but the point is the Republican party doesn't have real leaders (that I know of) whom focus on the important and true aspects of banking. Demand that of yourself, and of your leaders...or give into the obilivion of not knowing your supporting your own worst enemy: a bad idea.
Frankly we need a private education system in America, so kids stop growing up with the nonsense that Centralized banking policies are good....real debate needs to happen at a young age before people accept such riddled arguements.
In theory, you are correct. In theory, also, politicians shouldn't be passing laws concerning supply and demand, ramming these things into the market. When these types of "pork" are passed, diddling with "interest rates" is one way of mitigating either inflation or runaway spending.
Yes, the dot.com "era" was a massive bubble. But couple this alongside the Clinton's anti-BUSINESS legislations and propoganda, how to continue to perk the economy? It had to have been maddening inside the Fed Reserve, witnessing what the socialists were aiming at and towards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.