Greenspan: Ignore The Economy, "Only The Stock Market Matters"
Starting at around 1:50, Greenspan states the odds of sequester occurring are very high - in fact, the playdough-faced ex-Chair-head notes, "I find it very difficult to find a scenario in which [the sequester] doesn't happen" But when asked how this will affect the economy, Awkward Alan is unusually clearly spoken - "the issue is how does it affect the stock market."
While not so many of our leaders have taken the path to direct truthiness, Greenspan somewhat shocks a Botox'd and babbling Bartiromo when he admits "the stock market is the key player in the game of economic growth."
Bartiromo shifts uncomfortably in her seat, strokes her imaginary beard and stares blankly as Greenspan explains that while the sequester will have a real effect on the real economy, "if the stock market can hold up through this, then the effect will be rather minor."
He ends with a couple of wonderful truthisms - data shows that not only are stock markets a leading indicator of economic activity, they are a major cause of it - 6% of the change in the growth in GDP results from changes in the value of stocks and homes. So there it is - if we didn't already know, straight from an old horse's mouth - it's all about stocks!
Fiscal problems? "The problem is so severe at this stage that unless we come to terms with it in a large way, we are running into very serious trouble," but Dr. Greenspan, if stocks stay up, it's all good right? Greenspan's wealth effect meme is all there is...
(21 votes)
- advertisements -
»
- 47064 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- Shadow Rehypothecation, Infinite Leverage, And Why Breaking The Tyranny Of Ignorance Is The Only Solution
- Ze Germans: "Only The IMF Can Help Greece"
- The Only Two Charts That Matter For The US, And A Q&A On The Fiscal "Debate" From Goldman Sachs
- IMF Chief Shares Concerns About The Economy, Excess Liquidity, The Sino-US Coupling, And Wall Street Compensation
- Shadowstats' John Williams: Prepare For The Hyperinflationary Great Depression
Greenspan is a failed human being.
You give him much credit naming him human. He is just a being, a sort of amoeba always trying to circle around someone else's wealth.
He is a Jew. He has an ulterior motive. A separate agenda. ADD prevents Americans from connecting the dots, I suppose. they bribe, extort, take part in espionage, assassination, interference in pesentation of the truth via propaganda.
He is a fairly accomplished python, however
The stock, commodity and currency exchanges have been reduced to gambling dens whereby the more powerful traders with deep pockets move the markets to maximize their own profits at the expense of the remaining not so powerful players. The big boys have enormous money power to move the markets in the direction which results in maximum profits for themselves. They effectively use the media to lure the other players in the market to a position where they would incur maximum loss.
The stock markets have very little to do with the economy otherwise with falling income levels for a majority of the population, shrinking GDP levels in most countries their stock markets wouldnt be touching multi year highs.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article35345.html
www.letstalkmoney2012.in
Sequester and a delay in raising the debt ceiling means pm's get hammered. Thank god! I've been waiting and waiting for a time when I could pick some more up on the cheap. The next pm hammering will probably come when the FED understands it can nolonger keep interest rates at zero. That should be another good time to pick some pm's up. IMO
Ironically Greensan may be right; only the rich are driving this phoney economic recovery because everyone else just doesn't have the money to further spend and indulge. Where are the rich getting their ill-gotten wealth from? The central bank-led inflation of all assets: stocks, bonds and commodities, that's where!
Not only the rich but state and federal workers which have benefited from more government spending, bloated pension/benefit plans, and cost of living raises well above what we've seen in private sector. When those people start feeling the squeeze watch the economy come to a screaching halt
Well they were paying $72/hr as a linemen to build defective US cars, those dudes have some money.
While the old bastard is jabbering on she's on Facebook :)
The architect of doom speaketh.
Nothing is going to change until some of these guys disappear unexpectedly.
The only game left is "virtual". Virtual wealth is not real wealth. What is anybody really worth if they are vested in "market"? If everyone cashes out at once who is buying? what is the drop in value of AAPL after the largest stock holder cashes out? and then the next?
Ask Enron employess about virtual wealth and how they were "locked out" of selling while friends and family of the "elite" unloaded.
How did the "virtual wealth" of home equity loans work out? (and now we see it happening again!!)
We now have the Bernank and his computer creating real money from his "virtual computer account". I'm sure this is backed by the "26 trillion in assets" the FED stated to have - ALL VIRTUAL.
Notice all the virtual players HATE and DESPISE GOLD AND SILVER????? If you have ever read the "emperor's clothes" then you probably can't find a better time to apply the theme. Not everyone can profit from the "market" the math doesn't work. Just like Social Security a lot of "someone's" are going to get fukked.
(look at all the bag holder idiots with 401(k)s that put real money into "market" every week so Wall St can have a big paycheck!! in return they get a "virtual statement" of how rich they will be retirement!! - realty will be the pain of truth when this bullshit ends)
I had a relative of mine after the 2007-08 crash ask me what happened to all the money in the stock market. As if someone stole it, spent it, or misplaced it. Trying to explain this dynamic to a regular guy walking around is next to impossible. Thanks to the Fed it looks like I'll be doing this yet again. Maybe this time I need to try using virtual and not real wealth in my explanation.
A friend of mine used to say it went poof! Actually, no: if you bought at the top it went to the guy who sold it to you. If you bought low and held , you never had it-it was potential wealth that could have been realized if you sold. That potential was an illusion of wealth-that is what went Poof!
Still crazy after all these years. Only uglier if that's possible. Where's the irrational exuberance?
Crazy? He is one of the smartest men the last 100 years has known. He is a genius.
For the idiots that think greenspan caused anything are you really so stupid to think if he hadnt been the Fed Chairman another person with more disastrous policies would have been. Brenton woods, the 1970's and on and on.
It is exactly like the commies, if only it wasnt stalin or lenin or mao. Its the system and the citizens who are the cause not the people they put in power.
Crazy? He is one of the smartest men the last 100 years has known. He is a genius.
holy fuk who let this IDIOT think? let alone express his views?
NUMNUTS: read Greenspan's thesis on gold back currency from 1966. He clearly stated that gold backed currency would not allow "destructive credit expansions".
Now fast forward your stupid ass to right after Greenspan's retirement he publicly admitted that the U.S. should go back to a GOLD BACKED CURRENCY.
This is the same as Adam Lanza announcing the U.S. needs a gun ban because of his actions!!!
I have read this many times and he sticks by it and it is absolutely 100% fact
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense-perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire -- that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.
In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society. Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.
Andrea, is that you. What did it take for you to marry an old ugly rich man? Did your pimp broker a deal with him? Or is Alan your pimp?
If it were not for the tight little sewing circle you people have established, installing networks which blackball the rest of us, you'd all be on the street corners because that is all your are good for, fucking people over.
Andrea Mitchell: Boring news correspondent, presenting the best is Biased and skewed news. Applauded by her peers for having prvented the people from knowing the truth.
What drugs are you smoking? Greenspan has said ONE and ONLY ONE honest thing: the removal of the gold standard is what's needed to maintain the welfare state. NOT ONE WORD otherwise has been honest.
Literally every last word out of his mouth is a lie & everyone like you makes it worse, actually causing poverty to others, by believing it, INCLUDING yourself.
Yep - ignore the economy, it's all about the markets - here's why. The markets lead the economy by about 3-6 months. If the markets tank, the economy tanks and incumbents don't get re-elected.
So let's have a look at the SP500 weakly, shall we?
http://bullandbearmash.com/chart/sp500-weekly-closes-seventh-week-row/
Up seven weeks in a row. But alas, Walmart leaks "a total disaster" yesterday. Something funny going on around here.
What a fucking babbling idiot!
you must not have listened to it. there was nothing idiotic about what he said. I have found Greenspan to be the most honest person in all of politics and I love listening to him because he has no problem telling it like it is knowing that no one cares.
Greenspan is not and was never a "politician". You're either a troll or a moron.
oh sorry, I must not use the same dicitionary as you, smart guy.
a person experienced in the art or science of government;especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
You speak of this man as if he is the bearer of wisdom. When anyone else fucks up as much as the Fed Reserve,et al, they lose their job. Not these boys, they get richer because they areinvested in their decisions. What is their goal, pray tell? Since it is clear that they walked us to this point, giving minute-by-minute instructions...and now are flabbergasted (or so they say) at the results.
Alan Greenspan is either possessed and needs and exorcism or he is a trojan horse who talks out of both sides of his mouth depending on who is audience is.
Here we have more of A. Greenspan spewing contradiction after contraction (see Bloomberg: Alan Greenspan says TBTF banks should be broken up just for laughs...he doesn't mean it but it is on record ... covering his ass.
Council of Foreign Affairs
Should globalization continue unfettered and thereby create an ever-more flexible international financial system, history suggests that current account imbalances will be defused with modest risk of disruption. Two Federal Reserve studies of large current account adjustments in developed countries, the results of which are presumably applicable to the United States, suggest that market forces are likely to restore a more long-term sustainable current account balance here without substantial disruption.8 Indeed, this was the case in the second half of the 1980s.
I say this with one major caveat. Protectionism, some signs of which have emerged in recent years, could significantly erode global flexibility and, hence, undermine the global adjustment process. We are already experiencing pressure to slow down the expansion of trade. The current Doha Round of trade negotiations has faced difficulties largely because the low-hanging fruit available through negotiation has already been picked in the trade liberalizations that have occurred since the Kennedy Round. On a more encouraging note, some recent indications of progress may be pointing to a heightened probability of completion of the Doha Round.
In a related concern, a number of analysts have conjectured that the extended period of low interest rates is spawning a bubble in housing prices in the United States that will, at some point, implode. Their concern is that, if this were to occur, highly leveraged homeowners would be forced to sharply curtail their spending. To be sure, indexes of house prices based on repeat sales of existing homes have significantly outstripped increases in rents, suggesting at least the possibility of price misalignment in some housing markets.
But a destabilizing contraction in nationwide house prices does not seem the most probable outcome. To be sure, the recent marked increase in the investor share of home purchases suggests rising speculation in homes. (Owner occupants are rarely home speculators because to sell, they must move.)10 However, nominal house prices in the aggregate have rarely fallen and certainly not by very much. And even should more-than-average price weakness occur, the increase in home equity as a consequence of the recent sharp rise in prices should buffer the vast majority of homeowners.
House prices, however, like those of many other assets, are difficult to predict, and movements in those prices can be of macroeconomic significance.
There appears, at the moment, to be little concern about corporate financial imbalances. Debt-to-equity ratios are well within historical ranges, and the recent prolonged period of low long-term interest rates has enabled corporations to refinance liabilities and stretch out bond maturities.
Although increased flexibility apparently promotes resolution of current account imbalances without significant disruption, it may also allow larger deficits to emerge before markets are required to address them. Moreover, the apparent ability of the U.S. economy to withstand the stock market plunge of 2000, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, corporate governance scandals, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq indicates a greater degree of economic flexibility than was apparent in the 1970s and earlier.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050310/default.htm#f7
There is so much evidence that Alan Greenspan has ulterior motives for the ruin of the financial systems of major nations, that there isn't enough time in the day to present them so get off your fucking knees, get the bankers' dicks out of your mouth and do your own research you sorry excuse for an American.
http://rense.com/general86/bilder.htm
You forgot to sign in as MillionDollarBonus_ and to blame the Libertarians and tell us how lucky we are to have a fearless Leader(tm) like North Korea's.
Otherwise what you wrote is total horseshit and certainly less entertaining.
What a fucking loser honeypot we have here. Every now and then some intersting posts but totally overun by you "run for the hills' crowd. Laughable!
Of course Central Banks are targeting Stocks. The solvency of major TBTF institutions and pension funds is very dependent on stocks.
Since the "market" is up almost over 100% since 2008 and GDP is up only a fraction despite all of the stimulus it would appear to me that the "data" does not support his assumption at all.
Correct me if i'm wrong but the gov't has been spending an extra 1 T a year in Obama's reign and now the Fed is pumping another 1T via bond/mort purchases into the economy.....so if all that money was going into the economy it would amount to about 13% GDP. Since GDP is about 1.75% now, doesn't that mean the actual economy would be contracting over 11% without the "stimulus". I know not all that money is getting into the economy but even if a fraction is doing so isn't it the ONLY thing keeping us out of recession?
........Since the "market" is up almost over 100% since 2008 and GDP is up only a fraction despite all of the stimulus it would appear to me that the "data" does not support his assumption at all.............
Not really, the stock market causes GDP higher it does not necessarily cause GDP to be lower since a core component of GDP is government spending. After 2008 the gigantic increase in government spending supported GDP but that cannot go on forever, Greenspan knows this, Bernanke knows this, they eventually must have the market come back to being the cause or else government spending will completly crowd out private investment.
Great post brother, I tell anybody that cares to listen that we've been in a depression for years, history will teach us that. Change the attitude and spending habits while one can.
So while the working/middle classes, adults under 30, seniors, small business owners, the poor are seeing their bills go up while their incomes decrease a few big players are lifting offers before the open and into the close to ramp the equity markets. And this queer corrupt fucktard sees it as evidence of economic growth?
Only a vile evil pyschopath could ever claim that.
Only an evil psycopath would say that someone who is pointing to facts is a evil psycopath.
Based on evidence I believe a few institutions are using printed money to lift markets on a daily basis, I believe this to be fact. The correlation of stock markets under such conditions to the economy at large are nil. Even a phd ivey league economist should understand this basic truth.
and what?
He never said that it was right or good that the market is the cause. He is meerly pointing to a fact. The system is the system, He didnt make the system. The system was set in place nearly 100 years ago. If not greenspan then it could have been a Bernanke or Yellen or a Krugman, there are an unlimited number of idiots who are more than willing to step into the roll of Chief printer.
We live in a world that thinks that confidence can create reality. Greenspan knows this isnt true in the long run but in the mean time it can absolutely be true. Confidence can keep pushing things higher for some amount of time, this is undeniable.
"The system is the system, He didnt make the system."
SO WHAT? Murderers and rapists don't make the system, either, you dumb fuck, but we sure as shit throw them in prison for long periods of time. And he's not even "telling the truth"--he's just mumbling semi-coherent half-truths designed to do one thing and one thing only: DEFLECT THE BLAME FROM ALAN GREENSPAN. He's a corrupt, pathetic asshole who deserves to SUFFER for his crimes....
i think he will not be invited back on tv ever again that low hanging fruit pathetic no that was scary
Greedscam, if the stock market is the key, how did Zimbabwe work out?
Sure they had a high stock market but look what resulted.
Geedscam, you should be wearing a orange jumpsuit and shackles with what you did to housing and blackballing regulators.
Nobel Prize in Econmics awaits Alan, the "Guru"...bet on it.
What? He's still alive?
Alan Greenspan to those without wealth: Drop dead.
man you are dumb, he never said it was right or that it was good, it is what it is. keep hating facts and the people that say what they see and you will continue to lead the a sad life.
Here is the conversation you deserve: fuck you.
What does Alan Greenspan's asshole taste like? You're obviously the expert, so please, enlighten us...
You have a lot of nerve defending this treasonous bastard.
In August 1987, Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. One reason Greenspan favors greater deregulation is to help U.S. banks compete with big foreign institutions.
In January 1989, the Fed Board approves an application by J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust, and Citicorp to expand the Glass-Steagall loophole to include dealing in debt and equity securities in addition to municipal securities and commercial paper. This marks a large expansion of the activities considered permissible under Section 20, because the revenue limit for underwriting business is still at 5 percent. Later in 1989, the Board issues an order raising the limit to 10 percent of revenues, referring to the April 1987 order for its rationale.
In 1990, J.P. Morgan becomes the first bank to receive permission from the Federal Reserve to underwrite securities, so long as its underwriting business does not exceed the 10 percent limit.
In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).
This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Holding Company Act, does impose other restrictions on banks, such as prohibiting them from owning insurance-underwriting companies.
In August 1997, the Fed eliminates many restrictions imposed on "Section 20 subsidiaries" by the 1987 and 1989 orders. The Board states that the risks of underwriting had proven to be "manageable," and says banks would have the right to acquire securities firms outright.
In 1997, Bankers Trust (now owned by Deutsche Bank) buys the investment bank Alex. Brown & Co., becoming the first U.S. bank to acquire a securities firm.
Oct.-Nov. 1999
Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act
After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.
On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.
Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant.
The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
"When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?""
Would not be the first time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
He already did enough damage. Maybe he'll meet his buddy, satin soon.
or obama buddy the bernak, dimon and crony fascist buffet