Alan Greenspan's Day of Tears

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Greenspan's easy money policies as Fed Chairman are as responsible for the current housing crisis as anything or anyone else. For him to now be blaming a free market that doesn't exist and hasn't for a century, is disingenuous at best. How in the world can he blame the "free" market when he spent almost 20 years as one of its most powerful regulators?
Come on, the guy's deflecting blame away from himself. And everyone's falling for it.

Mark of CA 2:36PM October 24, 2008

by Mr. Waxman---and the answer not offered by Greenspan---was just exactly what would the "government regulator" have done? In particular, what does Greenspan think should have been done that wasn't or what does Waxman expect should have done, that wasn't?
Watch the tape of the Fannie and Freddie hearings. It sounds to me like the regulator who was skewered by the left-wing congress people in the hearings, being Armondo Falcon, the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Director, was on the case, big time, uncovering the fraud in those government sponsored entities.
The advocates of more regulation need to explain exactly what more should have done and why what the Republicans proposed, even plead for, in the way of regulation was met with derision and even claims of racist motives. I'm all ears.

marcethomas of MI 2:02PM October 24, 2008

Mr. Greenspan has set a unique example of accountability, and the many others who have been a part of this crisis should get in line behind him and do the right thing..
It does not matter what the plan is if it leaves out accountability and that is what has happened. No one owns up to the lack of responsibility for this crisis and no one other than Mr. Greenspan is admitting even a smidgen of accountability. This man did not do all of this on his own, and----if you really check the companies who are suppose to be fixing this problems( and no one will, it is easier to blame Mr. Greenspan) in the foreclosure market you will find there is still a disregard for doing the right and lawful thing.
Be ashamed for trying to lay this load on one man. How naive can you be?

Ann Knowles of NC 1:10PM October 24, 2008

The man knew what he was going! Did not take long for the new kid on the block to make many mistakes. One listening to Bush, following the bankruptcy king. Bush managed to run even a ball team into bankruptcy.
In case you have not noticed all the good advisors left Bush because he wanted advise but if it did not agree with his thoughts he made life miserable for them and they left.
Then look at the people who are in trouble over house payments, did they think the interest rate was going to stay the same without be a fixed rate. Wake up people. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Years ago they called it a BAIT and SWITCH scam. You offer one rate then switch it to another. Now they call it ADJUSTABLE RATE. Buyers wake up, if your budget, (do you have one) says X amount for a payment then stick to it.

Lucille White of AL 12:55PM October 24, 2008

I think we should look into Alan Greenspand investments, If my memory is right I think he has stock in cardboard. I think we should see if some of his decision we made to benefit hime in any way threw this stock.

Carroll Swain of NC 12:53PM October 24, 2008

Greenspan was RIGHT about irrational exuberance for stocks in 1996. His only error was in not continuing to sing that song after others started making fun of him for doing so. That was the leadership we needed and didn't get. We could have avoided the tech bubble and burst.
We could also have sung about irrational exuberance in home values too and avoided the current mess
"Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam, and the fed chair speaks clear as a BEAR.
Where always is heard a discouraging word so the sky does not fall from too high"
Bad paraphrase. Good idea, though, for government officials (TO PROTECT US FROM FOLLY.)

of 12:28PM October 24, 2008

To agree with David Leonhardt (NY Times),who says this country "went too far towards laissez-faire" economics does NOT necessarily mean an endorsement of old school, social democratic dogma. Voodoo finance should be under the microscope. Smarter regulation is needed. More transparency is crucial. If the banks didn't understand the value of some of the most exotic financial products they handled, the market system may need to be changed. The commodities markets are regulated. Shouldn't the same should be true for derivatives?

richard davies of CT 12:05PM October 24, 2008