Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Hillary Wants to Let Greenspan Decide Whether to Rescue Home Owners

Posted by Scarecrow , Firedoglake at 6:10 AM on March 25, 2008.


I wonder what Paul Krugman, who has pointed to Alan Greenspan's role in fostering the current financial crisis, would think of this.
sclintoneconomylarge

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

I wonder what Paul Krugman, who has pointed to Alan Greenspan's role in fostering the current financial crisis, would think of asking Greenspan to help decide if the US should help rescue home owners, and not just the Wall Street financial giants. From Reuters:

WHITE PLAINS, New York (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economic experts should determine whether the U.S. government needs to buy up homes to stem the country's housing crisis, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose on Monday.
Clinton, a presidential candidate and senator from New York, said the Federal Housing Administration should "stand ready" to buy, restructure and resell failed mortgages to strengthen the ailing U.S. economy. . . .

Clinton threw her weight behind legislation proposed by Democrats Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut that would "expand the government's capacity to stand behind mortgages that are reworked on affordable terms."
But she said a bipartisan group should determine whether that approach was sufficient or whether the U.S. government should step in as a temporary purchaser.
The working group could be led by bipartisan economic heavyweights such as Republican Greenspan, Democratic former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton.
Under the Frank plan, the government would take failing mortgages off the hands of investors and write new terms that would prevent foreclosure. It would see lenders write down the mortgage amount in exchange for a government guarantee.

Krugman has been beating the drums for more closely regulating the financial industry, which has taken over much of the mortgage market once held by regulated banks and savings and loans. Greenspan has opposed such regulation, and Rubin I suspect is only a recent convert.

Over time, however, many of the roles traditionally filled by regulated banks were taken over by unregulated institutions -- the "shadow banking system," which relied on complex financial arrangements to bypass those safety regulations.
Now, the shadow banking system is facing the 21st-century equivalent of the wave of bank runs that swept America in the early 1930s. And the government is rushing in to help, with hundreds of billions from the Federal Reserve, and hundreds of billions more from government-sponsored institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Given the risks to the economy if the financial system melts down, this rescue mission is justified. But you don't have to be an economic radical, or even a vocal reformer like Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, to see that what's happening now is the quid without the quo.
Last week Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, declared that Mr. Frank is right about the need for expanded regulation. Mr. Rubin put it clearly: If Wall Street companies can count on being rescued like banks, then they need to be regulated like banks.

But asking Alan Greenspan? A recent Krugman column reacted to a Greenspan op ed on the current crisis:

Between 2002 and 2007, false beliefs in the private sector -- the belief that home prices only go up, that financial innovation had made risk go away, that a triple-A rating really meant that an investment was safe -- led to an epidemic of bad lending. Meanwhile, false beliefs in the political arena -- the belief of Alan Greenspan and his friends in the Bush administration that the market is always right and regulation always a bad thing -- led Washington to ignore the warning signs.
By the way, Mr. Greenspan is still at it: accepting no blame, he continues to insist that "market flexibility and open competition" are the "most reliable safeguards against cumulative economic failure."

How can government help? Ian Welsh has some suggestions. .

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, economy, banks, rubin, krugman, greenspan, housing market

Scarecrow is a regular blogger for FireDogLake


A Desperate McCain Attacks Obama With Vicious Smears
With his campaign flailing, McCain shamelessly tries to manipulate voters by appealing to their 'lizard brains.'
Post by Arianna Huffington. October 6, 2008.
McCain Campaign Finally Agrees to Send Spokeswoman to Rachel Maddow Show
It's about time.
Post by Ali Frick. October 6, 2008.
Meet McCain's Sexy Brazilian "Foreign Policy Experience"
Ha-cha-cha!
Post by BoRev. October 6, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
To ask Greenspan to "fix" the crisis he created
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 25, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is like giving Dracula control of a blood bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenspan is an obvious choice
Posted by: Rune on Mar 25, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who betters knows the depths of the trouble we are in than the man who helped sell and orchestrate a vast transfer or wealth from the middle class to the corporate ruling class with steady cheers, fanfare, and participation of victims and victors alike? He almost finished off the plan before his term ran out. Why not give him one more chance to finish the job?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not holding my breath for Krugman
Posted by: happycozy on Mar 25, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seeing how Obama is the next Saddam Hussein in Krugman's eyes, and he has no room for McCain either, I don't see him coming down too hard on Clinton for her suggestion. He sees her as the lesser of the two evils. In fact, it seems like Krugman's given Clinton a free pass lately.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree regarding Krugman Posted by: ruscle
» RE: Posted by: sui_generis
Greenspan Needs To Focus On Changing His Diaper
Posted by: rgoalierob on Mar 25, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about raising the minimum wage?
I'm not an economist, I just play one on TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only thing Greenspan should be feted with is tar and feathers
Posted by: thekidde on Mar 25, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and a rail out of town. Hypocrisy, lying, self-aggrandizing, greed and ego - not exactly the underpinnings of trust for this jackass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's consider the case of Monica Lewinsky, the world's first human cigar humidor
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 25, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's consider the case of Monica Lewinsky, the world's first human cigar humidor.

In 1996 the Telecommunications Act was signed into law, the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation. It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

On November 12, 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial & investment banks to consolidate. Several economists and analysts have criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. Thanks Bubba.

By 1998, serious questions began to arise in Congress concerning the wisdom of signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Public discussion of this legislation was clearly unacceptable to the Telcommunication and banking intersts who profit from this regulation.

Serious discussion of the Telecommunication Act and the soon to come bank deregulation legislation was not going to be allowed to see light of day.

A diversion was needed--quickly.

Enter Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky and Ken Starr, with Bill Clinton playing a supporting role in the breaking Lewinsky Scandal.

As Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton became more distant and after she had left the White House to work at the Pentagon, Lewinsky confided details of her feelings and Clinton's behavior to her "friend" and Defense Department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone conversations. When the slimy, oily Tripp discovered in January 1998 that Lewinsky had signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case denying a relationship with Clinton, she delivered the tapes to Kenneth Starr, the "independent counsel" who was investigating Clinton on various other matters, including the Whitewater scandal, Filegate, and Travelgate.

Viola! The Telecommunications and banking interests who profit from this terrible legislation found the PERFECT diversion, which was used to avert the American peoples' eyes from the coming repeal of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

Now, a hypothetical.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Obama is elected president in the coming 2008 election.

How do Obama supporters think the brewing Larry Sinclair scandal will be used if Mr. Obama attempts to modify or repeal the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which deregulated the banking industry?

I'll give you one guess.

But I'm willing to bet that the folks who support Obama will get the answer wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» this is simply stupid Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Can you read? Posted by: joeunix
Big Question is---
Posted by: Doubtom on Mar 25, 2008 10:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--why do we insist on calling those elite idiots who got us into this economic mess, experts? What was Greenspan doing while this country was loudly screeching and sliding down to economic oblivion? What has that other follow-on economic expert, Bernanke, done to alleviate the problem, besides bailing out the banks and lending institutions who were responsible for the problem in the first place? Do we really need experts for this? I understand that the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is neither a banker nor an economist. What kind of expert do you suppose he is?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Big Question is--- Posted by: foreverhope
» whoops, see I am tired Posted by: foreverhope
No Matter What
Posted by: Spot on Mar 25, 2008 10:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter what happens in the democratic primary, i cannot see myself voting for a democrat in the general election.
I register as a democrat so i can push the party "closest" to me in the direction of my political bias, but i never expect radical and popular change from the center-right.

The capitalist class has purchased the rights to American politics, and will only be showing programming they deem suitable.

Represent yourself. In the polls and on the streets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]