Talk:Alan Greenspan/Archive 1

Pic

Could we get a picture of Greenspan that is less than 20 years old? Kingturtle 00:19, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is an excellent picture of Greenspan waving his hands like an orchestral conductor in the cover of Bob Woodward`s "Maestro". I don`t know the copyright situation on that, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.255.249.178 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

KingTurtle gets his wish

The New Photo (lol) --TIB 06:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

new picture uploaded

There's a more recent picture of him from the same place as the old pic. http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/greenspan.htm -- I don't know how to upload images, probably have to be logged in, and I don't remember my username or password (been a while), so someone else can feel free to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.51.13 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 December 2004 (UTC)

figured it out, all done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.51.13 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 December 2004 (UTC)

Now Image:Alan Greenspan.jpg was replaced by the Image:Greenspan.jpg photo.--Jerryseinfeld 04:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

should we say he's jewish?

should we say he's jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.23 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

It is already listed in other articles, but I have added a link at the bottom of the page to help. Most Americans know he's Jewish, while it would be strange to disclude him asUser:Infrogmation tried to in reversing my perfectly legit edit to the positive. What's to hide here? We don't need to hide his ethnicity and/or religious sentiments. This is a public information portal; half-truthes are inappropriate. ScapegoatVandal 03:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How old was Greenspan in this picture ?

When was this picture taken ? 1987 ? 1977 ? Just curious.... -- PFHLai 06:11, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan is a distinguished American Economist.

Alan Greenspan is a distinguished American Economist. To say he is an "American Jew Economist" is not only not necessary but borders on offensive. Would you say that George W. Bush is an "American Christian President"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.175.182 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hon. PhD

If he received a PhD without writing a dissertation, then is it honorary? Should it be listed after his name if it is honorary? I think yes and yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.108.36 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think yes and NO! Nearly every crackpot lamebrain celebrity over a certain age has an honorary PhD. For example, Mike "I bit his ear" Tyson is a doctor in "humane letters" from Ohio State. I'm taking it off. I won't fight a revert, but I WILL add PhD to Mike's entry if it comes back here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.180.132 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Dr. Mike it is then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.8.60 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Naw, I just thought it was a strange category of award to grant to Dr. Mike -- <snark swallowed, it wasn't very nice>. Thanks for the clue-in, however! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.151.33 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: Mike Tyson's degree is from Central State University in Ohio, not the Ohio State University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congyu (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenspan's Ph.D. is not honorary. Instead, it was earned extra muros -- outside the walls of the university. Extra muros Ph.D.s are (infrequently) awarded by many universities to candidates whose graduate study was interrupted before they could complete their dissertations but whose subsequent work outside the university demonstrates at least the level of competence expected of a Ph.D.

While many American universities grant honorary doctorates, few if any grant honorary Ph.D.s. (A number of foreign institutions do grant honorary Ph.D.s.) The commentator above mistakenly says Mike Tyson's doctorate of humane letters is "an honorary PhD", but only doctorates of philosophy are Ph.D.s. Doctorates of humane letters are L.H.D.s; indeed, the L.H.D. is one of the most frequently awarded types of honorary degrees in the U.S. The Tyson comment suggests that humane letters is a strange category for an honorary doctorate, but nothing could be further from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.225.242 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Greenspan's current views

I removed the sentence about his advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism, because I think it's a vague and loaded term. He is definitely in favor of lower taxes and government spending, but laissez-faire has different connotations, I believe, and I don't think Greenspan is interested in total dismemberment of the regulatory state. If someone can find a statement from the last ten years saying "I believe in laissez-faire capitalism" then of course please put it back. Also, is there a source for his continuing belief in the gold standard or have his views changed (as it would seem that they have, given his current job)? --Afelton 14:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I just saw him on television last week praising deregulation and Adam Smith. It's no secret that he currently advocates laissez-faire. As far as continuing to advocate a gold standard, I'm pretty sure he reiterated his support when questioned (I think it was by Ron Paul) in a testimony before the House Subcomittee. I'll see if I can find some sources to verify this stuff. RJII 00:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

On a gold standard, here he is in 1998: "If you are on a gold standard or other mechanism in which the central banks do not have discretion, then the system works automatically. The reason there is very little support for the gold standard is the consequences of those types of market adjustments are not considered to be appropriate in the 20th and 21st century. I am one of the rare people who have still some nostalgic view about the old gold standard, as you know, but I must tell you, I am in a very small minority among my colleagues on that issue." [1] RJII 01:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with the way it looks currently. Thanks for doing the research! --Afelton 01:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. And, here he is advocating laissez-faire on October 12 of this year [2] RJII 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have an mp3 of a conference where Ron Paul is talking about an encounter with Greenspan. According to the congressman, he asked him how he relates his current actions to his old Objectivist article, and Greenspan responded (Ron Paul quoting Greenspan) "I stand by it 100%. I will not retract a single word of that article. I could have written it today." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.181.158 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism Entry

I posted a separate section for criticism, as modern criticism by Objectivists does not flow well from a discussion of what he was doing in the 1960s. I also expanded on this by adding counter criticism. My changes were reverted almost immediately. I respectfully request that this entry remain unless someone has a compelling reason that we can talk about here? - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.8.60 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for them. We dont need a "Criticism from Objectivists" in every single economics article just like we don't need a "Criticism from Creationists" in every single evolution article or a "Criticism from Flat Earth theorists" in every single Antartica article. Please just contribute to the Objectivism article of your choice instead. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you overlooking the connection between Greenspan and Objectivism? That gives the section greater relevance, if he is the former Objectivist or Objectivist-leaning Rand friend. 10:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Signing correctly. DanielM 10:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with Portions of 21 Dec 05 Overhaul

Some of the array of modifications made earlier are reasonable, calling attention to the need for a citation for example. But some seem to be to be personal taste-based, unnecessary tweaks. Some also have an obscuring effect on the meaning of the original text, for example the tweak "how intimately his speeches have influenced stock markets" doesn't convey as much as the original "how his closely-parsed speeches affected stock markets." Greenspan is famous for closely-parsed comments, why should this be snipped? Isn't that something of an awkward use of "intimate?" And what really was the need to switch out "affected" for "influenced?" Beyond that example, I'd observe that the Greenspan's position is commonly called the Chairman of the Fed, and sometimes he himself is called the Fed, and it is not a good change to refer to him as "chairman of the Board" which is arguably accurate, but he is not usually called that. Okay, so I am going to restore some of this stuff, just wanted to explain where I'm coming from before doing so. DanielM 11:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Charges of Partisanship, Alliance with President Bush

I am not sure how accurate and balanced this section is, with three paragraphs of criticism and one line of counter-criticism. For example, I remember on a number of occasions Greenspan issuing warnings about the budget deficits, which is difficult to count as support for Bush. Ikh 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not three paragraphs of criticism, although the nature of the section is to discuss the criticism. The first two paragraphs are substantially quotes illustrating Greenspan agreeing with Bush at key times on politically charged issues that are outside the realm of monetary policy. If Greenspan murmured about deficit dangers at some other point after the damage was done, it doesn't change the fact that when the fiscally momentous 2001 tax cuts were being debated he actually came out against budget *surpluses* and helped push the bill over the top. His comments were widely reported and interpreted as signaling support. The tone is fairly NPOV given that the section covers charges of partisanship. The section actually has one explicitly critical quote and one quote of explicit praise, the critical one begins the section and the praise closes it. Without quoting, it describes Nancy Pelosi's criticism in an accurate and NPOV way. I don't think there's a realistic case that Greenspan actually disagreed with Bush at pivotal times. DanielM 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

producer too?

I was just glancing on the back of a VHS copy of High Fidelity when I noticed Alan Greenspan listed as an executive producer.

Is this a different Alan Greenspan? It's hard for me to imagine the familiar Greenspan producing a mid 90s John Cusack movie about rock and roll...

But hey, what do I know?

Dodger 15:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They are two different people. The one you noticed has been producing movies averaging more than one per year since 1997 [3], I don't think the Fed Chairman will have time for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congyu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They are two different people. The producer Greenspan is considerably younger and is on the west coast. [4] Ignacsand 19:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The funny part is, on Greenspan the movie producer's IMDB page, they have pictures and videos of Greenspan the former FED Chairman. KenFehling (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

article appropriateness

The section entitled Criticism from Objectivist Philosophers seems inappropriate for the article, given its current length. (I am not an expert on Greenspan), but couldn't the article be further expanded so that the inclusion of these criticisms are more balanced. Arnob 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the oldest portions of the entry, I believe. There are problems with it, for instance "...some Objectivists have come to believe that Greenspan has deliberately and with full intention engineered the downfall of the American economy" is not sourced. However I think Wikipedia should be inclusive when it comes to non-mainstream viewpoints, and Objectivist philosophers and polemicists fall into that category. So I would like to see the section stay on in some form, but I don't really know how to improve it myself. DanielM 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm no friend of Greenspan's 'enabling' of the Fed's engine of intervention and inflation but I don't believe any authority has made the charge that Greenspan deliberately worked to destroy the American economy (which makes it just a Wikipedia editor's opinion) or reported that significant numbers of self-identified Objectivists believe this (which makes it original research). I can't prove it's false but such a charge requires a reference. I have added a "citation needed" tag to the end of the offending paragraph. If no one can find a reference for this claim in a week or so I will support the deletion of that paragraph. Blanchette 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to put in a request for expansion. Arnob 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed unsourced allegations of Greenspan's deliberate sabotage of economy. I think this was original research or personal opinion. I also removed the request for expansion as it was based on the desire to balance this somewhat lengthy unsourced criticism (I think -- correct me if you were looking for something else). Blanchette 22:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is better for Blanchette's abridgement of that problem text. Thanks, Blanchette! DanielM 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Flagging for POV

I just nominated this for POV review, as the tone seemed a little biased. Further reading on the discussion page leads me to believe that this request is merited. A.Octavia 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are not getting much of a discussion on the POV question. I just deleted the text about Greenspan's policies contributing to the housing bubble, because it was not sourced. I remember reading something about that (Time magazine?) but I think the point is debated. I searched briefly for a backing reference but nothing popped up. Anyhow it has been some edits back that the POV tag was added, the article has changed somewhat. I think it is okay. I am going to remove the POV tag unless we get some comments soon. DanielM 21:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised the NPOV tag survived this long, considering that A.Octavia did not choose to cite any particular instance of a POV problem or biased tone. Removed tag. Blanchette 16:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the housing bubble part—you're right, it wasn't cited. I've fixed this, here as well as on the US housing bubble page, strictly adhering to NPOV. Frothy 18:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Despite this, Greenspan still claims to be a firm believer in free markets" and "...coincided with a lengthy period of strong economic growth" seems to be pretty POV to me. 128.138.13.16 (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

on Charges of politicization

In light of the reference to recent comments by Harry Reid, I might suggest it is worth pointing out that, at the beginning of his term, the politicization argument was made by Republicans. This was based on Greenspan's sitting next to Hillary Clinton at her husband's first State of the Union address, as well as Greenspan's influence on Clinton Administration economic policy as related in Bob Woodward's book "The Agenda". While this occurred over a decade apart from Reid's recent statements, it serves to undermine the notion that Greenspan had an overly political agenda. disarm 21:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should sitting next to the then First Lady show politicization? There are many public functions where this would happen naturally or coincidentally, aren't there? It depends on the specifics and the character of the influence Woodward said Greenspan wielded over the Clinton administration, as to whether it was political or not. For example, if he counseled Pres. Clinton that deficits are dangerous over the long run so Clinton should work to reduce them one way or another, that would be apolitical in my view. DanielM 10:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My argument is not that his sitting next to the First Lady did show political favorings, only that it was used as a reason for charges of politicization. I agree that it depends on the specifics, but no justification is given in the current article for Harry Reid's charges, so why is that even included? It would seem that all Fed chairmen are subject to charges of politicization, since members of Congress will use them whenever it is convenient--to support their own policies or undermine those of the opposition. Unless there was a clear tendency for Greenspan to support one side of the aisle, perhaps the whole "Charges of Politicization" section is not relevant. disarm 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an absurd reason in and of itself to say he politicized the Fed by sitting next to the then First Lady Hillary Clinton. Maybe if he sat next to her at a Democratic fundraiser? Maybe if he sat next to her and made out with her? Ludicrous charges from non-credible sources are not worth our discussion, and they certainly aren't a valid critique of the section. If you want to keep talking about it, please identify who said he politicized the Fed by sitting next to Hillary. When you say no justification is given for Harry Reid's charge, it seems you somehow missed the text about the Bush tax cuts. When you say it would seem that all Fed chairman are subject to charges of politicization, you neglect to mention any other one that ever has; I'm not aware of any. DanielM 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ludicrous charges from non-credible sources"?? Yet a rant from Paul Krugman, who long ago lost any pretense to objectivity toward the Bush Administration, is used as a reference for the statement that Greenspan "received criticism" on the topic of Social Security reform? Krugman should at least be identified here as the originator of the criticism, seeing as how he is someone with an obvious political bent. This section has a partisan agenda that is becoming more obvious as this dialogue continues. disarm 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am happy I got you at least to read the section you were criticizing. You single out Krugman, what about Pelosi, Bunning, and Reid? The criticism comes from places besides the left, but the fact that a lot of it comes from the left including Krugman, illustrates that the Fed was politicized. So you really just made the point of the section. But we're getting away from your original points, that some unnamed people criticized him for sitting next to Hillary, and that other Fed chairmen have been subject to charges of politicization. Please back that up. DanielM 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I took another look at the section. I think it is okay, sourced, relevant, and not POV. People may have a strong feeling about minority leader Sen. Reid's comment that Greenspan was a political hack, I think that makes some look twice at the section. But that is what Reid said, and it is easily notable enough to include in the article. Disarm talks above about political agendas a lot. I don't think he has cited anything that "undermine[s] the notion that Greenspan had an overly political agenda." He did say that Paul Krugman was not a credible source of criticism of the Fed because he is supposedly so non-objective. I do disagree with that, it's not inappropriate to reference Krugman, he is a prominent economist. Wikipedia guidelines say "that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it." They go on to specifically identify the publisher of his column the New York Times as an example of a reputable source. I also disagree that Krugman engages in ranting, as Disarm claims, and that he is so non-objective. IMO Krugman is a lightning rod for rightwingers because his science is generally sound. But the article is not about Krugman. To avoid the distraction of citing Krugman by name in the artic;e, I referenced the criticism about Greenspan's support of Bush's Social Security aims to two other sources, Sen. Reid and Congressman Frank. So Krugman is now but one of three. DanielM 00:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Conact Info

Does anyone know how I can get ahold of Alan Greenspan? possibly Via email, I have a huge econ question. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.217.197 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not ask your question here? It may very well get sent to Greenspan. Economics is a field with many possibilities and few certainties, so most question have several answers, prompting President Harry Truman to wish for a one-handed economist --Samatva 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Any direct e-mail or fax # to Alan Greenspan? I have a confidential letter to be mailed to him. Is he in London now? Or in NY city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GRACEYEI (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

is that some kind of a joke ^? you have a confidential letter to Alan Greenspan but don't know how to contact him, so you decide to go on Wikipedia to learn about him and see if his fax, cell phone, etc is on his page?? You would think if someone had a confidential letter for Alan Greenspan you would know his contact information if you couldn't contact him personally or otherwise know him enough to get it without resorting to Wikipedia... That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.253.21 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is totally absurd to think that the lower classes should have any contact with their betters, the nerve. He may know that we don't need a higher minimum wage, but to imagine that he would mix with the natives is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First Wife

Somebody with more knowledge of Greenspan might add something about his first wife, Joan Mitchell (Blumenthall).

Quote about the FBI interviewing her to see if Greenspan was gay: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/The-great-manipulator/2005/06/17/1118869094966.html

This page: List of Winnipeggers links to Joan Mitchell but it's not clear to me that it's the same Joan Mitchell, as this page: http://www.joanmitchellblumenthal.com/ lists what seems to be some different information.

It's also reported that Joan Mitchell was how Greenspan met Ayn Rand.

Open question: any relation between Joan Mitchell and Andrea Mitchell?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMcGonigle (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan's Ethnicity/Religion

Um,,,, hi! My name is So Young and I have a question to ask for ya' guys. Is Alan a Jewish? I think his Amercian because he was born in U.S, but what about his father and mother. Is there anyone who is Jewish in his family? Please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.155.167 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As the article states, Greenspan was born to a Jewish family, Grynszpan. Whether or not he currently considers himself a Jew is up to him, I would think - see Who is a Jew?

His father-in-law (as of 1997) was the president of a synagogue from 1952 to 1992, but Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell were married in what seems to have been a secular ceremony (Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at the Inn at Little Washington) Marriage Announcement in N.Y. Times. Their descision to have a non-religious, public ceremony may have been for many complex reasons, and may have nothing to do with their beliefs and relgious practices. --Samatva 14:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Greenspan's cousin, Perry, is my grandfather. Although I've never met Alan, I can attest that his ethnicity is Jewish/Hebrew. Of note - I remember hearing through the family grapevine that he dated Barbara Walters at one time, although, I don't have any source on that. -Brian from Dallas TX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.10.6 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If Greenspan was "converted to Objectivism", doesn't that make him an athiest? -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.16.189 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The verb "convert" can have different meanings based on context. Yes, it is used to describe religious conversion, but also certainly for political conversion "he was a Democrat, but his wife converted him to a Republican," or diet "she converted to vegetarianism after seeing news reports of the poorly-run slaughterhouse," or surely any number of ways, including a philosophical conversion. Dictionary.com lists the first two meanings (the second is the applicable one) as "1. to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform. 2. to cause to adopt a different religion, political doctrine, opinion, etc.: to convert the heathen." Anyone interested can go look up the other meanings they have there. I think it is perfectly fine to use the word "convert" to describe a change in philosophical belief system. However the word "introduce" terribly plays down AG's involvement in Objectivism, as supported by the references. DanielM (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In his info box, doesn't it make more sense to change the label "Religion" to "Ethnicity?" He certainly is not religious -- but is certainly ethnically Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcontest (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

Does anybody know Greenspan's full middle name? --MZMcBride 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the only citation I could find for the middle initial "C"

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2006/hrg060607a.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.246.100 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the {{fact}} tag because I have yet to find proof that his middle name is "C." I've been searching for the past week, and nothing indicates what his full name is. Some websites list him as "Alan J. Greenspan,"[5] while every news source I've seen (and I've searched using Nexis and others) has listed him as "Alan Greenspan." If his middle name does begin with the letter "C" as I'm inclined to believe by these results (though they are few), then what the 'C' stands for should be included in the article. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --MZMcBride 16:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've seen the "J" as well, but I also note the few sources from them I've checked don't have a citation. ;-) Considering the citations are coming off of the web, and "the web" has both "J" and "C", what kind of citation will it take? I'm not trying to get defensive about my citation... just noting the difficulty of using web citations when there is conflicting information on the web. Hopefully it will be in his book. (And, I've yet to find his middle name on the web either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.246.71 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for at least two reliable sources that list his middle name. At least one news source is necessary. Also, it's pretty uncommon for a person to only have a single letter for their middle name, so beyond figuring out whether it's a J or a C, what the letter stands for is also important. It seems very odd to me that his middle name is so difficult to come by. Thanks for any help. --MZMcBride 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the Greenspan biographies, none of the official pages, none of the NY Times articles include any middle name OR initial. That "C" on the HTML page at the Senate isn't even confirmed by the full PDF it links to. One of the top Google results for "alan c greenspan" is this Wikipedia reference desk question from a couple of weeks ago. I'm leaning toward the opinion he may not have a middle name. Here's a source I'd possibly accept: Columbia U. In any case, unless we can confirm a middle name, I don't think we should confirm a middle initial when there seems to be confusion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another place you'd expect his middle name or initial to be used: NYU honorary degree (since he was an NYU alum). The bottom line is that he doesn't seem to use any middle part of his name professionally. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Housing Bubble

The housing market has yet to really "bubble," that is, increase exponentially over a short period of time and then burst. Even while many economists predicted a burst of the housing market in 2003, 2004, and 2005, it's decline has been far more gradual than many expected. I'm just questioning whether we should call it a bubble, when we also call The South Sea Company and the 2001 Dot Com markets 'bubble' markets. Those grew exponentially over a short period of time and then burst... housing hasn't exactly done that. The very definition of a 'bubble' is that you cannot tell it was a bubble until a good deal of time after the burst. Arguably, the real estate market has yet to crash and many economists have simply been wrong, even when talking about inflated markets like those of the coasts. Mike Murray 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it at one time because I wasn't clear that it was generally accepted, but then another editor came back and restored it and sourced it pretty well. Since then I've seen many, many more references in the news to the real estate bubble and Greenspan's role in it. I never heard that the very definition of a bubble is you can't tell until a good deal of time after the burst. Investopedia defines bubble as "1. An economic cycle characterized by rapid expansion followed by a contraction" and speculative bubble as "a temporary market condition created through excessive buying, and an unfounded run-up in prices occurs." I think what we've seen in the case of housing prices is indeed a rapid expansion. To me the section seems okay. DanielM 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's something we should leave up for now as fears of an imminent collapse in the housing market persist. However, regardless of the first of three definitions offered by investopedia, bubbles end by popping, not slowly deflating. If we see a gradual easing of home prices that ends with prices settling lower than they were at their peak, but significantly higher than when the increase began, I have trouble characterizing the housing market as it existed in the early part of the decade as a "bubble." Jim Campbell 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please revise the 'Housing bubble' blame on Greenspan. No one that has actually looked at the data could pin this on Fed Policy see: "International Capital Flows and U.S. Interest Rates". The real culprit is consumer spending on imported goods, the profits of which end up in foreign banks that in turn invest in US T-bills, reducing these rates by as much as 150 pts, or about 40% of their ~2.5% rate. As yeilds for 10 year T-bills drop, investment spill over to the slightly riskier and thus higher interest mortgages, increasing their demand; this competition drives their rates lower. There is no correlation between the Fed and mortgages over the past 4 years, as even a cursory review of the data shows:

Lower Fed rates influence lower credit card, construction loans, and other short term borrowing, which induces consumer spending. This section might as well read "...Greenspan conspired with Bush to pump up the housing 'bubble', by sending money through ten or more arms length transaction across multiple continents...etc."

Dnakos 05:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the research you've already done on this, I'd suggest you revise the section to at least include the information you gathered. I'm bothered by the whole section for several reasons. The reason I'm not getting too involved, however, is because I'm not convinced the housing market will crash. I think they'll be a downward adjustment, but I don't think there'll be a crash. If we don't see a housing market crash in the next couple years, I think the label of bubble will go away and that entire section will be pulled down anyway. Jim Campbell 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Less Politics, More Economics

Greenspan's legacy is stability in spite of high government spending (both Democracts and Republicans), Wall Street Sirens and their mesmerized investors, and the foreign money markets proping up our houseing markets.

The Fed is not an 'Economy Tzar'. All the fed can do is state their reseach to congress on monetary policy, and change the Discount Rate [6].

This does not translate into mortgage rates, and can not directly create a 'housing bubble' which we all fear but is not definable yet as is exemplifed in the reference to a 2004 Business Week Article (it is August 2006 as I write and still no burst).

My advice is to drop the politics, and talk economics. Dnakos 01:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Campbell 00:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you source your edit that Greenspan supported Clinton's deficit reduction plan? That really is not how I remember it. To my recollection Clinton formed his plan in part on what Greenspan was advising him. DanielM 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My source was chapters six and seven of Bob Woodward's book Maestro. I didn't cite it specificlaly at that point since the entire book was listed as a reference for the Wikipedia article as a whole. If you need something more specific, page 110 in the hardback edition states, "The only real Republican support [for the deficit reduction plan] had come from Greenspan." Woodward also cited Greenspan's July 20 testimony before the House Banking Committee. Also, I don't think Clinton basing his plan on Greenspan's advice and Greenspan supporting the plan are mutually exclusive. If anything, I'd expect Greenspan to support a plan he so heavily influenced. Jim Campbell 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; this article dwells far more on the last three years than all he did prior. It seems far too focused on political criticisms of Greenspan as a proxy for President Bush. For most of his career Greenspan has been highly respected and this recent "criticism bubble" is distorting that. Shamanix (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Greenspan's role in policies that lead to the disastrous mortgage crisis is not necessarily political criticism. It's economic criticism. That section is long, but that is probably because we're in the middle of that crisis right now and topical issues get more attention in Wikipedia. The text where he is criticized for supporting Pres. Bush's tax cuts and Social Security policies on the other hand is very limited and comes from notable sources, including a Republican source. The article devotes a great deal of text to his long career before three years ago and doesn't downplay that in my opinion. DanielM (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Relation with Nightly Business Report (NBR)

The first regular commentator on the program was Alan Greenspan, then private economist, who remained as an NBR commentator until his appointment as Fed chief in 1987. Acquired from [7]. --70.111.218.254 14:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Scientist?

Category:Jewish American scientists has Greenspan as a scientist. I don't think this is an appropriate label.--Loodog 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? He holds a Ph.D. is that not an academic qualification? How do you define scientist? Does Greenspan add to the volume of structured knowledge? Noserider —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He holds a PhD but it is not earned. He never completed a dissertation, and according to an article in barron's this weekend, 3/29/2008, was completed in only a few months. A book will be out in May '08 detailing this. 69.209.56.77 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

these are moot points: a scientist uses the scientific method. As Greenspan used empirical methods of econometrics, (both in private business and public service), he does qualify as a `scientist` or at least as using scientific method. Blablablob (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Links need adjustment

the following links, suggesting that Alan Greenspan was "encouraging borrowers to take out nontraditional adjustable-rate mortgages" seems to have a problem.

^ http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2461875

Only Members can read the article.

^ http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050425-mon.html

Article not found

^ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/

Attempt to sell a book titled "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury (Hardcover)"

None of these appear to support the contention that Greenspan was pushing ARMs on people. I am replacing these with a cn flag. CodeCarpenter 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mexican

Due esp. to his appearance, Greenspan had/has many nicknames on Wall Street including (as you visualize his appearance), "slick" (due to his slicking back his few strands of hair backwards) AND "the Mexican Hairless" or "the Chihuahua" after his similarity to the small Mexican chihuahua dogs some breeds of which are hairless. his few strands of hair backwards) AND "the Mexican Hairless" or "the Chihuahua" after his similarity to the small Mexican chihuahua dogs some breeds of which are hairless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.1.172 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Media Expert

Alan Greenspan's greatest achievements have nothing to do with economics or with the US Ecnomy or with US markets...

they are / were his masterful manipulation of the US esp media to take credit for what he had almost nothing to do with ... -- that is, the handling of the market crisis in 1991 when Salmon Bros almost collapsed ...(SEE THIS PARAGRAPH)

AND the bull market of the 1990's ....

See next paragraph

Markets

In 1991, in the US gov'/t bond scanDal involving Salomon Brothers, Greenspan was silent and led by the nose to get in line in approving the US Govt wrist slap of Salomon Brothers as Soly was the sole financier for the whole US Gov't; so the US Govt could not indict Soly or face no financing for its then $1.5 trillion in annual borrowing as no other Wall Street firm could handle this 30-50 billion/ week (and no bank or group of US or all global banks could either) (so if no financing for US Govt, there would have been a US default AND SO besides collapse of Soly, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN a global market meltdown) Greenspan had nothing to do with knowing any of that or with leading the US Govt to leave Soly alone (this writer did all that) and similarly, in the bull market of the 1990's before that bull run started Greenspan was doing what all his predecesors did - that is, jawbone the markets to remain down or have no more than a 5-7 % market advance a year.... as it was considered any more of an advance would be inflationary this writer savaged Greenspan to the Congressional committees (House Banking & Senate Finance) to shut him up as there was never any real data to show that markets going up caused inflation and IT DID NOT during the bull market of the 1990s when the DJIA went from 2,000 to 12,000 with inflation remaining LOW, and stable... (and Greenspans predecessor Volker has wrecked the US economy sending an estimated 50 million jobs permanently to Asia with his Don Quiote, crazy gyrations of interest rates-including keeping interest rates at levels 2-4 times higher (12-22 % for prime) than the normal 3-6 % (for the prime) now almost every reader credits Greennspan with all that esp with the Bull market run of the 1990s when in fact he WOULD HAVE FOR CERTAIN prevented it with jawboniing IF NOT SHUT UP by this writer .... SO Greenspans's greatest feat was his taking credit for these two major things he had nothing to do with ...

and for which he received a Medal of Freedom and also received in UK a KCBE medal-Knighting as Knight Commander of British Empire ... all for mainly these things he had nothing to do with ... so he is esp slick slick slick

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.1.172 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

New article: Greenspeak?

Do you all think that there would be enough information to create an article on Alan Greenspan's 'notorious' Greenspeak, that being his cryptic, complex, and circuitous way of speaking about economics and economic policy? It is common parlance in academic, economic, and financial circles, and quite a bit of information can be found on the web about it (much of it humorous, but not all of it). --WassermannNYC 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Enron Prize Winner!!!

"Ken Lay presents the Enron Prize to Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve" -Enron: The Smartests Guys in the Room —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.62.224 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Greenspan encouraged nontraditional ARMs?

This was recently added by User:Frothy. "Furthermore, in a speech on February 23, 2004, Greenspan encouraged homebuyers to take out nontraditional adjustable-rate mortgages.". I am not going to get into an edit war over this, but can someone show me where the reference says anything about him encouraging homeowners to take out nontraditional ARMs? He does say that over the previous decade (one in which the rate lowered from 1994 to 2004), a regular ARM holder would have paid less than a fixed rate holder. However, that does not imply anything about nontraditional (hybrid, I/O, subprime, etc) loans, and does not suggest taking out ARMs. Unless someone else here sees it, I am figuring this comment and ref should be removed. CodeCarpenter 12:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that text is totally unfounded and should go, but look at the reference, Remarks by Alan Greenspan, Feb. 23, 2004: "Indeed, recent research within the Federal Reserve suggests that many homeowners might have saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable-rate mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages during the past decade, though this would not have been the case, of course, had interest rates trended sharply upward... American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage..." There appears to be some basis for the statement in the article. You appear to differentiate between a "regular ARM" and a "non-traditional ARM" but the gist of his comments seems to me to be that he is speaking in favor of subprime lending tactics (codespeak: "mortgage product alternatives") that have since contributed to placing the economy in danger today, according to current press reports. I think the text could be clarified and should be expanded on. I certainly am against removing the reference. DanielM 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I figure it is reading between the lines that he "engineered" (implies negative intent) the housing bubble. The foreclosures occurring to people that overbought with subprime ARMs is not the fault of Greenspan. That would be the fault of the borrower and the lender in each case that allowed for a 90+% LVT purchase, with their current income barely able to afford the payments. When the rate was 1.25%, it was reasonable to expect the rate was more likely to go up than down, yet people and companies gambled and speculated. The subprime lenders are going out of business, but blaming the Fed in general (or Greenspan in particular) seems a stretch to me. I figure though that others with more experience and the call of history can decide the final location for blame. CodeCarpenter 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The problems here had to do with poor judgment, both by borrowers and by lenders. Brian Pearson 17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen Fed

Who/what is the real(US) Federal Reserve Bank?

During a portion of his tenure -from approx 1991-2006, Alan Greenspan was a stooge who merely followed, in toto, the signals of the actual de facto Fed Chairman - an unknown person, hidden hand, who is the Real Fed Res/Red Res Chairman.

And today, in lockstep, Greenspan public announcements as his recent remark about possible recession are in lockstep to the real Fed Ch /Fed Kitchen Chairman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.195.77.163 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).