How Dumb Does Greenspan Think We Are? (Obama, March, federal)

[carterstamp]

March 12, 2009
David Fiderer


How Dumb Does Alan Greenspan Think We Are? Very

"Don't blame me," argues Alan Greenspan in a piece of historical revisionism that would have embarrassed Kurt Waldheim. Greenspan offered up a Panglossian analysis in today's Wall Street Journal that goes something like this:

The rise in housing prices was tied to the decline in the rates for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Historically there has been a strong historic correlation between the fed-funds rate and rates for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs). "Between 2002 and 2005, however, the correlation diminished to insignificance," writes Greenspan. There was no correlation, ergo the Federal Reserve did not inflate the housing bubble.

Here's the truth.
[Click Link Below for complete article]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-dumb-does-alan-greens_b_174122.html[/SIZE]

[TigerLily24]

Thanks for posting this.
So basically, what Mr. Greenspan is saying is that it was better to have the bubble and basically let everyone 'eat cake' than to do the responsible thing, raise interest rates and deflate the bubble.
The man is insane.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Thanks for posting this.
So basically, what Mr. Greenspan is saying is that it was better to have the bubble and basically let everyone 'eat cake' than to do the responsible thing, raise interest rates and deflate the bubble.
The man is insane.

Pretty much, or in complete denial.

[mossomo]

Hahahahaha - you're citing the Huffington Post as a source. Any one of my former professors would fail me for such an incredible citation. That's like me quoting Rush as the truth. Hahahahaha.

[InformedConsent]

A more realistic look at what contributed to the bubble, including a look at tax law allowing for the deduction of home equity loan interest, and 'without recourse' home loans:
https://www.aei.org/publications/fil...pub_detail.asp

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by mossomo

Hahahahaha - you're citing the Huffington Post as a source. Any one of my former professors would fail me for such an incredible citation. That's like me quoting Rush as the truth. Hahahahaha.

hahahahahahahahahaha
OK laughing boy, come up with a better theory.

[BigJon3475]

So let me see if I got the translation right.

(R) is bad and destroyed your mama's crops.

(I) could be bad depending on if they agree with you or not.

(D) are semi gods sent to earth to fulfill the destiny of our supreme lord Obama.

My gibberish is a little off (learned it in the womb), help me out here.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

A more realistic look at what contributed to the bubble, including a look at tax law allowing for the deduction of home equity loan interest, and 'without recourse' home loans:
https://www.aei.org/publications/fil...pub_detail.asp

Thanks for the link. Unless I missed it, no mention is made of Gramm-Leach-Bliley which allowed the banks to buy the higher risk mortgage backed securities.

All-in-all the perfect storm.

[carterstamp]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

So let me see if I got the translation right.

(R) is bad and destroyed your mama's crops.

(I) could be bad depending on if they agree with you or not.

(D) are semi gods sent to earth to fulfill the destiny of our supreme lord Obama.

My gibberish is a little off (learned it in the womb), help me out here.

Didn't say that, read it again.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by carterstamp

Thanks for the link. Unless I missed it, no mention is made of Gramm-Leach-Bliley which allowed the banks to buy the higher risk mortgage backed securities.

You're missing the point - higher risk mortgage backed securities would not have existed to the extent they now do if public policy hadn't forced the lowering of lending standards.