Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-27-2004, 02:40 PM   #1 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
"Is Greenspan Trying to Engineer a Bush Defeat?

Quote:
Political-economic analyst Al Martin, author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" writes about the effects of reducing the M3 money supply as a means to deliver a Bush defeat in the elections. His column is called "Bushonomics: Who Wins? Who Whines?" published on AlMartinRaw.com: Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence.

By reducing the money supply called M3, Martin writes,"Greenspan is attempting to engineer a political defeat of George Bush by building a whammy into the economy that's going to hit around election time. This can be done, not only slowing the rate of increase, but by contracting the amount of available credit. That's what M3 really is. The amount of available credit in the economy will then contract financial liquidity. This gets back to Greenspan's famous quote from the early 1990s - 'The nation can not afford any more Bushes.'"

In fact George Herbert Walker Bush blamed the Federal Reserve for his defeat in 1992. "The Federal Reserve, instead of accommodating growth by reducing interest rates (the normal economic policy response), kept money supply tight, thus keeping interest rates artificially high, and thus cutting short the nascent post-recession recovery," writes Martin.
I realize that the souce is a fringe, out-there site, but it's an interesting theory. It's not like it's an original theory of theirs, it's a book review. I think it's worth discussing.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...m?ChannelID=49
MSD is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 02:57 PM   #2 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Funny, just today I read the opposite:

Quote:
Cashing In Fed Credibility To Campaign

I now have it on good authority that Alan Greenspan has decided not to seek reappointment as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board when his term expires in June.

Indeed, the unwitting source is none other than Greenspan himself.

We know this because, over the last week, in a remarkable series of talks, Greenspan has decided to cash in his personal credibility, as well as the reputation of the Federal Reserve System, to push a radically conservative agenda while serving as cheerleader for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. In doing so, the politically savvy Greenspan must surely have realized he was putting his reconfirmation in this election year into serious jeopardy.

Even before this week, Greenspan had provided hints of retirement during what looked like a global victory lap, telling audiences from London to Omaha the economy was fine and there was nothing to fear from record trade deficits, the falling dollar, a housing bubble, the boom in financial derivatives or rising job losses due to trade.

On Monday, Greenspan added to his lengthening list of "not-to-worries" when he told credit union officials that the record level of household debt is really a good sign. Then, without provocation, he launched into a critique of the 30-year fixed mortgage, the foundation of the most successful housing-financing system the world has ever known, explaining how it cost consumers more over the long run than adjustable-rate loans.

Greenspan's sudden interest in the 30-year mortgage became clear the next day, when he used a Senate Banking Committee hearing to push again for the "privatization" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As the experience in other countries shows, markets left to their own devices would not offer an affordable 30-year mortgage, which is essentially why Fan and Fred were created. But what really bothers Greenspan is that a successful government program might actually deliver a social and economic good -- home ownership with financial peace of mind -- that markets by themselves cannot.

As he has before, Greenspan couched his concerns about Fannie and Freddie in terms of the "systemic risks" posed by such large and focused financial institutions. This concern over size, mind you, comes from a bank regulator who flouted the law for years to let banks back into investment banking, who never met a bank merger he didn't like and who bailed out big banks rather than let them fail. When one senator pressed Greenspan on why the doctrine of "too big to fail" was okay for Citigroup but not for Fan and Fred, the chairman could only dissemble.

Greenspan was in full Republican dress Wednesday during his appearance before the House Budget Committee. Describing the long-term deficit outlook in bleak terms, he urged Congress to cut back on future benefit levels for Social Security and Medicare -- not coincidentally, the necessary political predicate to the private accounts that top the Bush-Cheney agenda.

Then, without missing a beat, Greenspan declared that it would be a bad idea to try to balance the budget by raising taxes in any way, effectively embracing the lunatic notion that cutting taxes will generate more government revenue, not less, by stimulating additional economic growth. This theory, of course, was disproved both during the 1980s, when taxes were cut and the deficit swelled, and the 1990s, when taxes were raised and deficits turned to surplus. It also suggests the intriguing proposition that the optimal tax rate is zero, which no doubt has some appeal to Greenspan's inner libertarian.

When pressed by House members to suggest where, other than Social Security, he might cut spending, Greenspan demurred. Reaching conveniently for his Fed hat, the chairman explained that that was really a political question best answered by elected officials, as if he hadn't been up to his famously hooded eyeballs in politics all week.

Perhaps Greenspan figures he would be able to overcome a Democratic filibuster and win reconfirmation in the Senate after this impressive partisan display. Or then again, maybe he doesn't care.

Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.
I've noticed with Greenspan coverage that people on both sides of an argument always manage to point to something he says to make their point.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 08:09 PM   #3 (permalink)
Black Belt in Slacking Off
 
Location: Portland Or-ah-gun
Greenspan usually acts in the best interests in the economy and not for political gain (he's not elected). The debt truly is crippling and I certainly don't want see a double-digit interest rates when I'm middle-aged, which is the road Bush is leading the US on.
__________________
Slacking off with style since 1981.
Sensei is offline  
Old 02-27-2004, 08:20 PM   #4 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sensei
Greenspan usually acts in the best interests in the economy and not for political gain (he's not elected). The debt truly is crippling and I certainly don't want see a double-digit interest rates when I'm middle-aged, which is the road Bush is leading the US on.
Only time I remember double digit rates was Carter.

Spending comming out of a recession not of his making doesn't a middle-aged crisis make. In fact considering that he had a recession before he took office and had 9/11, Bush if anything should be praised for the state of the economy, not whined about as if its his fault.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 07:57 AM   #5 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Interesting to see how the words Greenspan said are taken in ways each side wants to hear. And both focused on the negatives.

I do see a flaw in Sparhawk's article tho. I believe Greenspan is retiring this year so where it talks about his wanting to win reconfirmation is not accurate.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 08:23 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Greenspan is a registered republican.

But he did 8 years under Clinton because Clinton knew he (greenspan) knew just what the hell he was doing.

Bush Sr. and Greenspan butted heads over deficit financing.

Bush Jr. is too stupid to be able to go toe to toe with Greenspan.

Greenspan abhors deficit financing (and rightfully so.)

W has been spending money like a drunken sailor with little or no regard to the long term economics of it all. This year's US deficit is a record 521 billion, though in terms of percentages of GDP is not quite a record (yet). Rompin Ronnie Raygun holds that distinction.

But, the 200 billion or so spent on Iraq is NOT included in that 521 billion (why I don't know.)

So the US deficit is massive and Greenspan is rightfully concerned.

At the current time the US treasurery is printing up money to cover the deficit without having the assets to back up the debt. As a result, the US dollar has been decreasing in value rather dramatically on the international market. The Euro is at record levels.

Right now the overnight rate in the US is at 1% which is quite low, almost free money in fact.

If the US keeps up its current strategy of printing up money, there will come a time when a US currency crisis could happen. Since there are no investors willing to invest their money for a crumbie 1%, you don't have the bonds to borrow against now. Investors will demand more than 1% return on their money.

Unless the US wants to continue to print up more money and further devalue their currency, Greenspan will have no choice but to raise interest rates (rather shockingly) in order to attract investors.

When that happens the amount of tax dollars going to service JUST the interest on the debt (the sum of all deficits) will be incredible and will take away the US government's ability to spend tax dollars on other Government programmes such as that big honking military.

Something has to give.

There aint no thing as a free lunch, and you can kid yourself about Bush being a great guy and helping the economy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

He is just using purely short term economics and mortgaging the future.

No, if the US doens't get its spending under control we are in for another depression in 4 to 8 years.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 08:25 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
PS, when Greenspan retires, the markets will panic.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 01:13 PM   #8 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
James, I hope you are joking or speaking allegorically about "printing up money". Cash is money, but money is not cash, and printing money (aka, making cash) is a ridiculous way to increase the amount of money one has availiable.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 03:56 PM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by james t kirk
Something has to give.

There aint no thing as a free lunch, and you can kid yourself about Bush being a great guy and helping the economy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

He is just using purely short term economics and mortgaging the future.

No, if the US doens't get its spending under control we are in for another depression in 4 to 8 years.
I think our social safety net programs are the things that are going to give.

We just witnessed a previously considered sacred program receive its first real shove toward privitizing and/or dismantling our senior health care benefits.
smooth is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 04:45 PM   #10 (permalink)
Observant Ruminant
 
Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I think our social safety net programs are the things that are going to give.

We just witnessed a previously considered sacred program receive its first real shove toward privitizing and/or dismantling our senior health care benefits.
Well, perhaps many people would like that to happen. But I don't think it will really happen.

Apparently there's a neo-con strategy out there called "Starve the Beast," in which you run up big deficits with tax cuts which favor the wealthy, and then 'balance' them by cutting most government entitlement and regulatory programs -- thus leaving big business and the rich under relatively few restraints. The military, of course, gets left alone.

It's a nice theory, but middle-aged people vote. When Clinton left office, apparently the self-destruct date for Social Security (because of money running out) was like 2039. Now I'm sure it's a lot sooner. The argument that the start-date for SS can be rolled back because people live longer is fallacious; yeah, they do, but a lot of them still can't work much past 65, or are otherwise disabled. So all you're doing is taking people off the SS rolls and throwing them onto the federal disability rolls, which are growing by leaps and bounds already, by the way.

At any rate, the hurt is going to come down in a few years to the general population. And no matter how the current ruling class tries to cement deficits in place by passing low taxes (raising taxes is harder than lowering them), it won't change things. It'll just make the fight harder and nastier, and in the end you'll end up with enough pissed-off voters to elect another FDR type (or worse, a Huey Long/Pat Buchanan type) to make major changes to the system that may or may not be well advised.

Intersting times, ahoy....

[edit -- at least unless the Demos get in and make substantive changes before the fit hits the shan; but I'm not sure that they have the will or the means to do so... ]

Last edited by Rodney; 02-28-2004 at 04:53 PM..
Rodney is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 09:28 AM   #11 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: The capital of the free world??
They always accuse Greenspan of trying to help presidents get defeated. He is a bit on the conservative side for my liking, but I have to say that the man does his job really well, in an unbiased manner. I think he really help the United States be the superpower it is economically.
__________________
Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/
gabshu is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 09:59 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally posted by Yakk
James, I hope you are joking or speaking allegorically about "printing up money". Cash is money, but money is not cash, and printing money (aka, making cash) is a ridiculous way to increase the amount of money one has availiable.
No, I am not joking, the US fed is printing up money, thus devaluing the currency.

Purposely.

It drives down the value of the dollar.

It makes sense in a way because the American dollar was too high previoulsy thus making imports very cheap and exports very expensive.

By lowering the dollar, it is hoped that this will make American made goods cheaper international and help reverse the US trade deficit.

But too much and you risk going the other way.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 03:44 PM   #13 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
James, I hope you are joking or speaking allegorically about "printing up money". Cash is money, but money is not cash, and printing money (aka, making cash) is a ridiculous way to increase the amount of money one has availiable.
No, I am not joking, the US fed is printing up money, thus devaluing the currency.

James. The amount of cold hard cash in circulation means shit all.

No really.

Credit and numbers in computer bank accounts is the vast majority of the money supply.

There is > 8 trillion dollars of "M3" money supply out there. (M1 M2 and M3 are names of three different types of money supply, each containing the previous. M3 is "less cash-like" than M1 in some sense. M1 consists of things which are cash-equivients (like chequeing accounts).

I can't find an exact number, but there is most definately less than 1 trillion dollars in physical cash in circulation. I'd guess there was under half a trillion or less actually. 1000$ in physical cash for each man woman and child in the USA is probably more than enough.

Money is not physical cash, even though physical cash is money. You don't play games with the money supply of a modern industrialized nation by using a printing press. Money supply is typically manipulated by changing the interest rate charged to the banks when they "borrow" money from the central bank (note, however, the central bank doesn't have the money until it is borrowed. The numbers are simply pulled out of the ether, and interest is charged on them.)

This is all first year economics stuff mate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you really do seem to think that they are literally "printing up money", which is a cute belief. Read a book on the subject, things might not be a simple once you understand it, but you'll sound less silly.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 06:01 AM   #14 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Greenspan was part of the 1983 Social Security Commission that recommended drastic increases in payroll taxes to create a surplus in the Social Security fund. This was done to ensure solvency of SS into the future. Payroll taxes are capped at $87,000, So this SS surplus was funded largely by the middle class.

Then Greenspan endorses the 2001 tax cut that raided SS, and then the 2002 tax cuts. And now SS is back in the crapper and he wants to drastically reduce the benefits of SS.

Greenspan is a reverse Robin Hood. He stole from the middle classes to fund Social Security, then took that money (that was specifically paid for by the middle class) and gave it away to the rich. i.e. People who will never need Social Security.

It's a shell game, and Greenspan needs ousted for backing such an irresponsible tax cut package. It almost seems purposeful....
Superbelt is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 01:55 PM   #15 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I just read about that yesterday, Superbelt, and it sounds so surreal that I have trouble wrapping my head around it.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 05:12 AM   #16 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Really, why isn't Greenspans bloody dismembered torso hanging from one of the tines of the Statue of Liberty right now?

$1,800,000,000,000. That's how much middle and lower class working americans paid into the system above and beyond the normal payments since 1983. That averages out to about $16,000 per person that someone who has been working since 83 has paid in EXTRA. All as part of a regressive tax increase for us. Then it all gets divided up in Bush's tax cuts and given, disproportionately, to people who will never need it.

Stealing 1.8 TRILLION dollars should be much bigger news. It's the greatest financial crime of all time.

This should be bigger news here as well. I'm surprised workers on this site aren't cursing Greenspans head.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 05:15 AM   #17 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Really, why isn't Greenspans bloody dismembered torso hanging from one of the tines of the Statue of Liberty right now?

$1,800,000,000,000. That's how much middle and lower class working americans paid into the system above and beyond the normal payments since 1983. That averages out to about $16,000 per person that someone who has been working since 83 has paid in EXTRA. All as part of a regressive tax increase for us. Then it all gets divided up in Bush's tax cuts and given, disproportionately, to people who will never need it.

Stealing 1.8 TRILLION dollars should be much bigger news. It's the greatest financial crime of all time.

This should be bigger news here as well. I'm surprised workers on this site aren't cursing Greenspans head.
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 02:44 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally posted by Yakk

Money is not physical cash, even though physical cash is money. You don't play games with the money supply of a modern industrialized nation by using a printing press. Money supply is typically manipulated by changing the interest rate charged to the banks when they "borrow" money from the central bank (note, however, the central bank doesn't have the money until it is borrowed. The numbers are simply pulled out of the ether, and interest is charged on them.)

This is all first year economics stuff mate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you really do seem to think that they are literally "printing up money", which is a cute belief. Read a book on the subject, things might not be a simple once you understand it, but you'll sound less silly.
Oh really....

Perhaps you should read this mate.....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...151209953.html
james t kirk is offline  
Old 03-03-2004, 03:50 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally posted by james t kirk
Oh really....

Perhaps you should read this mate.....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...151209953.html
It's that predicted rise in the interest rates that concerns me so much in California. We just passed our 15 billion dollar bond measure to reconsolidate our past debt. That doesn't do anything for our unbalanced spending, however. Here's the kicker though, something that didn't seem to make it into the analysis: the projected repayment of 15 billion more dollars in interest was based on the current interest rates--which are at a 50 year low. Any guesses as to whether our interest rate will increase in the next 12 years?

Does anyone know if these type of bond measures are fixed rates, or adjusted? I'm not certain myself.
smooth is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 12:56 AM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Where everyone knows my name
Everyone should read "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan, it's a great easy read that explains basic econmics for the layman but its not so dumbed down that its unreadable.

I feel that Greenspan has done what's best for the economy when he can, of course since he holds his office so long (14 years, i believe) it doesn't particually matter who is president or that's the theory. So let the conspiracy theories roll on but the economy will keep trudging along till doomsday.
__________________
"Hike up your skirt and show the world to me"
deepinjello is offline  
Old 03-07-2004, 12:58 PM   #21 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Yakk,
When the Federal Reserve wants to increase the supply of money they buy government bonds and credit the accounts of the sellers without actually having the money. In effect they are "printing" money but no cash actually trades hands. They do the reverse when they want to decrease it buy selling off the bonds they have and then "destroying" the money they receive. So even though they don't print up money and give it away, they do create money that didn't exsist before.
__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat
Tman144 is offline  
 

Tags
bush, defeat, engineer, greenspan

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360