[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1225202821][quote author="graphrix" date=1225198171] Obama has Volcker</blockquote>
Not to pick nits, but Volcker is a Dem.
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1339F930A35755C0A961948260">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1339F930A35755C0A961948260</a></blockquote>
True, but he is well respected by both parties for fighting inflation, even if it did cause some serious pain. Some funny, er not so funny things to point out in that article...
<em>
The main philosophical difference between Mr. Volcker, a Democrat, and Mr. Greenspan, a Republican, appears to be in their views of the structure and regulation of the banking system. Mr. Volcker has tended to resist deregulation of banks while Mr. Greenspan is more favorably disposed to it.
Analysts noted that Mr. Volcker was considered almost a national hero for chopping inflation from an average rate of 12.8 percent in 1979 and 1980 to less than one-third that level for each of the past five years, while Mr. Greenspan's anti-inflation credentials have not been tested in practice.
Seeking to reassure skeptics, the President said Mr. Volcker had ''indicated his strong support'' for Mr. Greenspan and added that his own ''dedication to the fight to hold down the forces of inflation remains as strong as ever.''
Mr. Greenspan's first substantive comment at the briefing, with Mr. Volcker looking over his shoulder, was to say: ''It will be up to those of us who follow him to be certain that those very hard-won gains are not lost.''</em>
Not only did Greenie fail us on containing inflation, but he royally screwed us on his support for deregulation, not just recently, but pre-S&L crisis. For those that don't know, <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD8113BF933A15752C1A96F948260">Greenie actually consulted for Lincoln Savings/Keating Five</a>.
<em>In late 1984, Mr. Greenspan, head of an economic forecasting firm, Townsend-Greenspan & Company, was retained by the New York law firm of Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison for four months. Mr. Greenspan says he does not remember how much he was paid but that it was at his usual rate. Heavily Involved in Development
<strong>He was asked to conduct a study on real estate investment, known in the savings industry as direct investments, by savings and loan associations. Mr. Keating, Lincoln and its parent company, the American Continental Corporation, were heavily involved in real estate development.
He was also to study Lincoln's financial condition, and if he considered the institution stable, to write officials of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco supporting an application by Mr. Keating for an exemption for Lincoln to a bank board rule forbidding substantial amounts of such investments. Mr. Greenspan sent such a letter in February 1985. Lincoln did not receive the exemption.</strong>
A spokesman for Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and one of the Senators whose intervention with Federal regulators on behalf of Lincoln two years later, in early 1987, is the subject of the Senate and Justice Department inquiries, said that <strong>''Senator McCain has cited the Greenspan study many times as a powerful force in his approach to Lincoln.''</strong>
Mr. Greenspan says that if he had the same assignment today, confronted with the same evidence he had in 1984, his conclusions about Lincoln and about development projects in the industry as a whole would be very much the same.
Mr. Greenspan described Lincoln's management as ''seasoned and expert in selecting and making direct investments,'' as having a ''long and continuous track record of outstanding success in making sound and profitable direct investments,'' as succeeding ''in a relatively short period of time in reviving an association that had become badly burdened by a large portfolio of long-term fixed-rate mortgages'' and that it had ''restored the association to a vibrant and healthy state, with a strong net worth position.'' View on Direct Investments
Asked last week about his view of direct investments, Mr. Greenspan said: ''What I argued then, and argue now, is that direct investments are risky. If you give me two institutions, one that has a mix of short-term direct investments and long-term mortgages properly capitalized, or the same financing structure but invested only in long-term mortgages, I would say the first institution may well be safer.''
''How could anyone use any evaluation I would have made in early 1985 as justification more than two years later?'' he asks. ''No one ever called saying, 'Do you still hold these views.' It's almost as bad as saying, 'I just read a report written two years ago that Amalgamated Widgets is a good stock to buy.' It just doesn't make sense.''
Could Mr. Greenspan have seen the handwriting on the wall on Lincoln, particularly signals that Mr. Keating's plans for Lincoln were far too ambitious and risky, as some critics maintain?
<strong>Still, members of Congress and banking experts doubt that the damage to the Federal Reserve's chairman will be great. Mistake 'Now Meaningless'
''The possible mistake in judgment that was made in 1984 and 1985 is now meaningless,'' said Kenneth A. Guenther, executive vice president of the Independent Bankers Association. ''He has done a superb job as chairman of the Fed.''</strong>
But Clifford L. Brody, a financial consultant in Washington, warned that while the Keating involvement was not likely to hurt Mr. Greenspan in his conduct of monetary policy, it would make it harder for him to champion bold new deregulatory steps for the banking industry in general.
''I think you will find it will hinder him from being in the forefront of the debate,'' Mr. Brody said. ''Because every time banking deregulation is mentioned, he will be concerned that in the back of people's minds will be the ghost of Charles Keating.''</em>
Greenie has history of saying "how could I have known?". Many people have forgotten his mistakes, the mistakes that some were worried that would haunt him later. His mistakes then were not meaningless, they were the foresight into what was to come, a repeat of the "how could I have known?".
Back to the original article...
<em>Mr. Greenspan, who is 61, said that when he was formally offered the $89,500 job late in the afternoon on Monday he made up his mind to accept in ''milliseconds,'' adding that, if he had thought longer about it, ''I probably would have declined.''</em>
Not like he had anything else better to do, the consulting business was done, he had no more clients. Why not take a fat salary for someone who is not qualified the job, let alone the salary?
<em>At the briefing, Mr. Greenspan said in response to a question about whether the dollar had bottomed out that ''there certainly is evidence in that direction.'' That, however, seemed to contradict a prediction he made at a panel discussion in Chicago last week that ''over the long run, the dollar will be significantly lower.''</em>
A history of flip flopping, a very consistent history of "how could I have known?", and all the while hurting America with his arrogance. McCain used Greenie's report to support Keating/Lincoln Savings, and he says that he is reading Greenie's book to help him with his lack of knowledge on economics. Seriously, that is scary. Any true fiscal conservative will recognize the mistakes of Greenie, and not fall for the political pandering of Fannie and Freddie when they were only small portion of the problem compared to his.
The dollar did continue to drop for a while after Greenie took over it did come back up for a short time, but the average over his time it was less than when he took over, and because of him it is still lower to this day.
http://www.badongo.com/t/640/4649969.jpg
