http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/25ebae9e-3c3a ... z2iqOVgw60Yet in one respect, at least, Greenspan has had a change of heart: he no longer thinks that classic orthodox economics and mathematical models can explain everything.
http://www.believersingrace.com/solzhenitsyn.htmlSociety appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, such as motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
http://www.believersingrace.com/solzhenitsyn.htmlSolzhenitsyn wrote:Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually, but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature. The world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems, which must be corrected.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/25ebae9e ... z2iqOVgw60Greenspan denied any culpability. But in late 2008, he admitted to Congress that the crisis had exposed a “flaw” in his world view. He had always assumed that bankers would act in ways that would protect shareholders – in accordance with free-market capitalist theory – but this presumption turned out to be wrong.
http://www.believersingrace.com/solzhenitsyn.htmlSolzhenitsyn wrote:There is a disaster, however, which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging everything on earth -- imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/25ebae9e ... z2iqOVgw60During the first six decades of his career, he thought – or hoped – that Homo economicus was a rational being and that algorithms could forecast behaviour. When he worked on Wall Street he loved creating models and when he subsequently joined the Fed he believed the US central bank was brilliantly good at this. “The Fed model was as advanced as you could possibly get it,” he recalls. “All the new concepts with every theoretical advance was embodied in that model – rational expectations, monetarism, all sorts of sophisticated means of thinking about how the economy worked. The Fed has 250 [economic] PhDs in that division and they are all very smart.”
And yet in September 2008, this pride was shattered when those venerated models suddenly stopped working.
What I've always found fascinating about Greenspan is that heHiggenbotham wrote:> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/25ebae9e-3c3a ... z2iqOVgw60> Yet in one respect, at least, Greenspan has had a change of heart:
> he no longer thinks that classic orthodox economics and
> mathematical models can explain everything.
> John, Greenspan thinks he is plowing into new intellectual
> territory when you said exactly the same thing 10 years
> ago.
I don't think Yellen has a clue now. I think that is a requirement for taking the job when things are about to fall apart. How could anyone who understood what is coming be willing to take that job. It is a no win situation. If they don't print the government won't have money to operate. If they do print they will get hyperinflation. You just have to be clueless to take that position. But it does seem clear she will always come down on the side of "print more money" no matter what.John wrote: By the end of 2005, he was in a state of panic.
All of this is obvious from his speeches, and yet nobody else has ever
pointed this out, and Greenspan himself is evidently ashamed to admit
it, since he never did anything about the bubble. Bernanke, by
contrast, didn't have a clue what was going on until it was too late,
and by this time even he must realize that his QE program is leading
to disaster.
I agree.vincecate wrote:I don't think Yellen has a clue now.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests
