| | Oops, I guess that didn't happen.
:-)
Disturbingly, Greenspan dissented from Bernanke, in preference of some mongrol kind of leftist, elitist, "control" and a continued lack of transparency -- i.e., of masterfully 'running-the-economy' like the Wizard of Oz behind a curtain (to shield you from the public's eye):
We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand. Oops, another miscalculation-by-elites, I guess. One way to look at it is that the economic problems were too complex even for the geniuses. Another way, the one I prefer, is that it was too simple for them to "fully understand." When you bake a pie with these ingredients:
1) the Community Reinvestment Act
2) ACORN
3) Near-zero interest ("discount" and "funds") rates
4) "government-sponsered enterprises" like Fannie and Freddie
5) questionable securities rating agencies
... when you bake a pie with those ingredients, then don't expect it to turn out well. You don't have to be an elite, central banker to figure that one out.
Ed
|
|
... we have all on occasion been asked whether there's a bubble in the market for residential housing; ... whether household and firm balance sheets will remain strong when interest rates rise; what risks to the financial system are posed by the government-sponsored enterprises; and how Basel II and other regulatory developments are likely to affect the structure and profitability of the domestic banking system. One's inclination is to answer by painting a benign picture so as not to cause unnecessary public concern. On the other hand, financial conditions do change, and it's our collective responsibility both to monitor those changes and to communicate truthfully to the public what we see.
