the back story on Allan Greenspan

"Greenspan is so well regarded in Britain that Queen Elizabeth II awarded him an honorary knighthood in 2002 in recognition of "his outstanding contribution to global economic stability." "

The true story is that Allan received the honorary knighthood for doing to the US what King George 3 failed to do all those years ago

 

Thanks for that vital bit of information.

BTW, its Alan.

 

I'm patiently waiting for a first issue "What me worry" stamp from Zimbabwe.

Last I hear Alan will be flanked on the left with Charlie Rangel, new Knight of Jamaica and Obama on right Nobel Peace Prize winner.

 

Inflation rates declined virtually every year during Greenspan's tenure(Even if you believe the numbers are cooked, the cooked numbers were going down). So did unemployment, he deserves at least partial credit for that

 

thanks Alan, I will try to pay more attention to your name in future than you paid to the economy.

 

when you jump from a tall building, it is not the fall that does the damage, it is always the landing.

in other words it does not matter how you describe the fall, it is your description of the landing that holds our interest.

 

What if there was going to be a hard landing regardless of who was the Chairman?Greenspan was one vote out of ten(or something), he had to convince the fomc to go his way, also, since regulation Q was ended(early 80's) the fed largely lost control over housing. Even more when the fed tightening failed to raise mortgage rates in 2004-2006(the conundrum) and the correlation between overnight rates and mortgage rates went down

 

It doesn't matter what emphasis you put on the details, the fundamental philosophy of the greenspan era was deeply flawed along with Treasury and any other clown who believed or publicly stated "deficits don't matter"

 

It was done on borrowed money. It is easy to live well on borrowed money for a while. He was as much as any other individual responsible for the present financial collapse.

Greenspan was the chief regulator, unfortunately he did not believe in regulation. He clung stubbornly to the mistaken idea that financial markets would self regulate. Apparently he lacks understanding of human nature. On balance, he was an extremely poor Fed chairman and let his personal political proclivities interfere with sound judgment.

 

He was a very smart highly educated man; however, in my humble opinion lacked common sense when considering possible consequences.