Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Money Supply & The Federal Reserve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Jordan who wrote (260)	8/14/2002 1:43:34 AM
From: UnBelievable	Respond to of 1379

I used To Think That Having The Supreme Court Rule On The Constitutionality of The Current Law Would Be A Good First Step The constitutional problems have been well documented by a number of authorities including Thomas Jefferson. I am not aware of the extent to which there have been constitutional challenges, and if there have been on what basis they were brought or what conclusions the Court reached. The Supreme Court’s conduct during the election conflict made it clear, however, that it too is a very political body. In cases such as I don’t doubt that they could find reasons that the status quo is fine. And even if they are not really good reasons, they are the Supreme Court. I had not focused on a legislative solution. I think it will still take a while for Greenspan’s halo to wear off before the people will be willing to consider a change – although that time will come. Having spent a while in Washington I am not optimistic that any different approach that was enacted would fix anything. Politicians make their living making promises they know they cannot keep. The extent to which lobbyists and special interest groups dominate Washington and everything that comes out of cannot be overstated. This is an age-old problem. People want leaders who will tell them what they want to hear, and there is no lack of others who will say anything to be a “leader”. The problem is not with the system, as flawed as it is. The problem is with us. It is easy to blame the banksters and politicians, and they certainly deserve their share. But they could not cheat us if we were not willing to be cheated. When we allow desire and greed to overpower common sense we have set ourselves up to be cheated. As long as we believe that there is someone else who can give us what we want, we have set ourselves up to be cheated. The root of civilization is the individual. Water the root and the plant will flourish.

To: Jeff Jordan who wrote (260)	8/14/2002 1:18:47 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1379

By William Greider Tuesday, August 13, 2002; Page A13 With New Economy icons falling all around, the next one may be the Federal Reserve and its hallowed chairman, Alan Greenspan. When anxieties subside and people examine what caused this debacle, they may grasp that the Fed's policies and proclamations are centrally implicated. Notwithstanding his opaque manner, Greenspan became a cheerleader for the financial- market optimism and implicitly ratified its excesses. The chairman failed to take the timely actions that would have instilled more caution in investors, believing as he does that markets can work things out on their own. Well, they have. This is exactly what you don't want from a Federal Reserve chairman. Central bankers are not supposed to be either optimistic or popular. They are supposed to be the national scold -- the economic regulators who worry constantly over what might go wrong and impose restraints before public opinion or the markets see any problem. In that sense, the Federal Reserve went off the rails in the bubbling '90s. Though still celebrated for wise stewardship, the Fed failed its core function as the disinterested governor. How does Greenspan feel, for instance, about the mega-conglomerates in banking that he helped midwife, now that Citigroup and J. P. Morgan Chase are in the cross-hairs of criminal investigations? The Fed chairman personally approved Citigroup's creation even before Congress made it legal by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. He approved the "firewalls" that were supposed to prevent the kind of scandalous conflicts of interest recently revealed. And did the Fed's own bank examiners not notice the funny-money lending to Enron? A more fundamental critique is that Federal Reserve policy has been a contributing force in producing deep imbalances in the American economy -- the growing inequalities of incomes and wealth and other disorders, such as the burgeoning debts of families and business. The Fed helped induce these injurious shifts by essentially favoring the financial system over the real economy of production. For most of the past 20 years, the central bank continued to fight the last war -- inflation -- and did so by restraining economic growth artificially. Its brake produced many years of higher unemployment than was necessary, thus ensuring stagnant or falling real wages for ordinary working people. We will be a long time digging out of the Fed's triumph. The task of reform should begin with a less deferential Congress and media, daring to question the Fed's performance more rigorously. That requires prompt -- and more candid -- policy disclosure from the Fed. In the run-up to the current debacle, Greenspan's first pivotal error occurred back in 1996, when he and other Fed governors first recognized a price bubble forming ominously in stock markets. Then-governor Lawrence Lindsey (now the president's economic adviser) urged the chairman to act promptly. Raising margin rates would tighten stock-market borrowing -- the easy credit investors use in a speculative binge -- and ring a loud warning bell for giddy investors. But Greenspan waved off Lindsey's prescient plea. A few months later, the chairman did speak once of "irrational exuberance," but the markets reacted badly. He dropped the subject. Taking decisive action would have required courage. The chairman would have needed to set aside his neo-libertarian ideology, which abhors regulatory interventions in the economy. And he would have been compelled to take on the Fed's foremost constituency -- Wall Street banks and brokerages -- where he is most loved. Instead, Greenspan's popularity soared with the booming economy. He backed off the Fed's longstanding anti-inflation policy of restraining economic growth and allowed unemployment to fall below the Fed's self-imposed floor. This made everyone feel good, especially the workers whose wages had been depressed for years by the Fed's stringency. But Greenspan's second great error was joining the celebration himself. He suggested that rising productivity had opened a glorious new era of ever-upward prosperity. His ebullient remarks sounded very similar to the self-congratulations expressed by the Federal Reserve in the late 1920s. Then and now, the Fed's happy talk excited stock-market plungers, large and small. The third error was the Fed's belated attempt in early 2000 to get some control over frenzied events -- an error because it did so by hammering the real economy with interest-rate increases, rather than restraining the financial system directly. Greenspan claimed to detect a phantom price inflation in goods and services. Actually, the only price inflation was in the stock market. The obvious injustice was punishing the many for the excesses of a relative few, driving the broad economy into recession in order to calm down the out-of-control financial system. Greenspan overdid it and was compelled to reverse himself abruptly, cutting interest rates dramatically to revive economic activity. Having cut rates so deeply, the Fed is now dangerously close to zero -- that is, to running out of arrows. Yet Wall Street once again is clamoring for a big rate cut to salvage the deflating stock market. This time Greenspan should ignore the bankers and brokers and allow the stock market to find the "bottom" on its own. The Fed and the White House should prepare a substantial, well-timed package of monetary and fiscal stimulus designed to kick-start the real economy of goods and services. Financial markets will follow. The point is, the nation pays a terrible price for allowing this cloistered governing institution to evade serious public scrutiny and tougher questioning. Financial markets always matter, but finance is supposed to serve the real economy, not the other way around. Until the Fed's distorted priorities are corrected, the U.S. economy will continue to experience deep troubles. William Greider writes for the Nation and is author of "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country."