I'm not a gold bug but Alan was a proponent of the gold standard. He wrote about how the gold standard created responsible spending and more equality in the world:
The world we are in now, especially in the US, is one where there is near unlimited government credit but it is, according to many, papering over deep structural problems. At some point, these chickens will come home to roost in some way or another. But it is hard to predict when.
So he was in favour of the gold standard because it prevented massive unconstrained expansion of credit and that seems sensible.
Further, sticking to the gold standard made the Great Depression worse as it reduced flexibility and options of central banks had, and made deflation worse:
Semi-ironically France was the reason the US fell off the dollar standard after it panic hoarded gold AGAIN when the French government made one last, massive purchase of gold from the US using US dollars, paying $35/oz. A French warship arrived in New York in early August 1971 to load the gold and bring it back to France.
Reckless spending post WW2 was the main reason the US shot itself in the foot and got into this position where they couldn't reasonably pay most clients back and France saw this developing.
All in all France managed to deal massive blows to the US economy covertly TWICE within the same century.
And then later in the 1930s as world gold flowed into the US (in response to the rise of the Axis) the economy began to recover here. By the end of the war most gold was in the US.
The separation of wealth during the Gilded age was caused by the same thing it is caused by today: rapid industrialization. This rapid industrialization began when the US was off the gold standard during the civil war. The 1920's gilded age was fueled by fiat money, the greenback.
The great depression was triggered in part by imbalanced gold flows when we returned to gold back currencies.
> The Gilded Age, which had quite high levels of inequality, occurred when the gold standard was active:
And the Gilded Age [1] ended long before the gold standard. Which makes sense since the Gilded Age is a political issue not a monetary one; how will the productivity from railroads be redistributed?
> It should also be noted that the gold standard did not bring any kind of price stability:
A comparison of 35 years against 4?
That's like bragging about how smart private credit is by showing the low volatility in it's price over the past year.
The large concern from gold bugs is that by printing money we just make the next crash even larger. But of course we just print more in the next crash so it doesn't happen. Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.
---
IMO, the real argument against the Gold Standard is that the US left it is because we spent more money than we made to finance the Vietnam War. If we returned to it, then we'd just leave it again when it became inconvenient. It's not the Gold Standard that needs fixing in the country.
The Gilded Age was the 1870-1900, the gold standard was from 1870-1920s. Gold did not help stop inequality, and many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:
Panics and economic downturns during the Gold Standard period were much more frequency. The term "Great Depression" used to refer to something else besides what happened in the 1930s, and the gold standard was a contributing factor to that as well:
> Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.
On the Gold Standard the flexibility of emergency spending during bad years would not be possible: see 1930-1932, and then again in 1937–1938 when FDR tried to go back to balanced budgets through austerity.
The politicians that tend to talk about "hard money" and responsible spending are the GOP—but who only seem to talk about it when a Democrat is in the White House. When their guy is in then it's all tax cuts, which do not pay for themselves:
> many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:
Bryan wanted a gold and silver standard, not fiat currency. There was also the Greenback-Labor Party who wanted to get off both gold and silver standard. They favored inflation because the gold and silver backed currencies were causing deflation.
You seem to be cherry picking in hopes that people do not know the history of the time.
He also oversaw the economy for twenty years before one of the worst recessions in the world. He helped set the stage for multiple disasters with his policies, so I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt.
I don't think anyone really holds him responsible for the dotnet crash of 2000 as that was a market issue and irrational exuberance issue and not a monetary one.
And 2008 was similar. The Fed doesn't control or have any responsibility for lower lender standards or ARM mortgages.
Congress was responsible for the GSE's that bought any mortgages and wrote insurance on those mortgages, so you can't blame the FED for that.
Wallstreet are their regulators were responsible for the securitization of mortgages that went bad in 2008, not the FED.
At worst you can say they had the wrong monetary policy but that's an opinion and not something that can be said as a fact.
Can you flesh out how you feel Greenspan is responsible for 2008?
He actively campaigned against any regulation of derivatives. There is an infamous lunch that he had with Brooksley Born (who was head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) in the late 1990s where she attempted to regulate them. The details of the meeting are fuzzy and none of the participants will go on the record to what was said, but the gist is that he said he would fight her tooth and nail. After massive lobbying from Greenspan, as well as Lawrence Summers, congress passed legislation prohibiting her agency from regulating derivatives. She resigned shortly after.
You don't think Greenspan had a major hand in the dot com crash? "In late 1999, the Federal Reserve under Greenspan flooded the financial system with unprecedented liquidity to ward off potential deflationary impacts and cash-hoarding caused by the Y2K bug panic. The Fed expanded the money supply at an annualized rate of 22% in the fourth quarter of 1999."
As for the Great Recession, taking the Fed Funds rate from 6.5% to 1.0% and holding it there for a year was the catalyst for driving everyone into the mortgage market looking for returns. And then did not regulate subprime lending or the shadow banking market:
"As the housing market boomed, subprime mortgage originations skyrocketed from 8.2% of all mortgages in 2003 to 23.5% in 2006. The Fed possessed the authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) to crack down on predatory lending and loose underwriting standards but chose not to act aggressively."
"The Fed failed to properly monitor off-balance-sheet vehicles, investment bank leverage, and complex derivatives like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Because these instruments developed outside traditional commercial banking oversight, a highly leveraged 'shadow banking' system grew completely unchecked under the Fed's watch."
So yeah, the Fed has its fingerprints all over the scene of the crime. Lots of blame to go around though..
The chief criticism lies in the "Greenspan put"--the idea that the Fed would just never let asset prices fall, a policy which both bears his name and is noteworthy enough to have a detailed Wikipedia article on it.
Alan Greenspan acquired too much power and went out of his way to railroad regulators. It was a classic "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and his flooding the markets with dollar liquidity at every crisis completely destroyed any concepts of moral hazard, of which we are still living with the consequences to this day.
He set the stage for the financial crisis that started crumbling a year after he left the fed chair. It wasn't all his fault (politicians lost any spine and bankers any sense), but he was the conductor.
He was a believer in the idea that banks would never act against their own long term interests in order to make money quickly because that would be an existential crisis for the bank.
Shortly after he left a bank with over 150 years of history collapsed due to exactly that sort of mismanagement, triggering a crisis for the entire banking sector.
And when production for a system I built burns down the month after I leave my job, the next guy they hire was actually the culprit! Greenspan was seen as responsible for the dot-com bust as well which was solidly in the center of his tenure.
The new IT manager walks into his office. He sits down and goes through his desk and finds three envelopes with the numbers 1, 2, and 3 on them with the attached letter:
Congratulations on your new job. To help you out, I've enclosed three pieces of advice to follow when you encounter an intractable problem. Open them in order.
A short few months later there was a significant production outage. Things wouldn't work and management was getting angry. After a long day of angry meetings he went to his desk and opened the first letter. It read "Blame it on your predecessor."
The next day in the meetings he blamed it on his predecessor and told of all the things that weren't done right... routine patching left undone, documentation in disarray. Upper management grumbled but agreed to give him the time to fix it.
Two years later there was another outage. This one went on for a day or two and management was once again getting angry about things and so he went to his desk and pulled out the second letter. "Blame it on the hardware."
With that, he went in pointing out that they were years behind on keeping the hardware itself up to date. Upper management grumbled again but agreed to a budget that allowed him to update the hardware.
For a while, everything was smooth and then it hit... another outage. He went to his desk and opened the third letter. "Prepare three envelopes."
There was a stimulus check that went out around that time. I felt it insane that I was receiving a check when nobody in my life was negatively impacted, the economy didn’t seem hurt (no more then when you’re up then down at a blackjack table), it was just a rebalancing of people’s portfolios values. Turns out that started the wave of completely untargeted stimulus/aide that would come at every economic faltering. I wish we would at least try to identify who is in need during these times. It drives me crazy when I would see the lines at Gucci and LV type stores backed up every week a Covid check went out.
TLDR - Why make it harder for people to get help on the basis that some people might get help who don't deserve it?
means testing kills the usefulness of these kinds of stimuli. I completely disagree with your point here and the people buying Gucci/LV are a drop in the bucket compared to, say, Wal-Mart's yearly wage theft statistics.
There is no simple means of identifying who is in need and if people get the help who don't need it they can redistribute it if they are morally inclined or do hoarding or w/e; who cares?
There’s no need to make it difficult. All you have to do is publish sensible guardrails and force people to apply for assistance and it would shrink the public cost substantially.
I have homeowners insurance, but if my home burns down today I won’t have any reasonable assistance deposited this week. There’s a claim process and I need to have an emergency fund to get my immediate needs met.
Everyone should care. The national debt and eventually the nation will crumble based on these decisions to just print massive amounts of money with no real need.
I didn’t qualify for any stimulus after that one in 2001 so they are filtering it down and putting up some guardrails. They just need to give this some intent and pre thought. You can claim it’s too difficult when you didn’t even try to have a plan or come up with something that was actually going to good use to assist those in need.
Another way to think about it, if Covid was more severe than it was, we’d have wanted those payments to continue for twice or more longer to those in need. But if we were tapped out and had to stop them early, then those in need ultimately succumb to whatever and all the money was spent in vain.
I personally believe we shouldn’t socialize every blip. We are just perpetuating this “who cares” mentality and a welfare mentality. Why even have savings or an emergency fund, the government should step in at every turn. It’s a ridiculous stance in my view.
> All you have to do is publish sensible guardrails and force people to apply for assistance and it would shrink the public cost substantially.
On the contrary, all public experience shows the opposite. The administrative costs of actually checking if only the right people are receiving a benefit very quickly start out weighing the cost of just paying everyone - especially if you don't want to make the process very onerous for the people who need it (and thus ensure that many who are entitled will not actually be able to receive this).
I think that this was relatively not known as a major risk far in advance otherwise more traders would have gotten rich. Michael Burry only started to short the market in late 2005, four months before Greenspan's term ended.
It is hard to ask Greenspan to have super natural powers of foresight beyond just about everyone else.
It described the dotcom bubble, but I seem to recall people were applying it to the 2000s housing market too. Tldr it was not a totally uncommon opinion during either of these bubbles to say there was a bubble going on.
> It is hard to ask Greenspan to have super natural powers of foresight beyond just about everyone else.
From a person in his position the baseline is "more foresight than just about everyone else". That's why they get the big bucks.
If you build something grand on wooden legs and massive debt for the next guy to deal with, or drive into a failure mode even if that's not super obvious, it's not high praise.
I have come around to gold. Money shouldn't be dual purposes, we should apply single responsibility principal. Money should refer to some stable (albeit slightly growing by nature) account of measure.
Prices should get cheaper. That's a progress dividend. We get better at growing food every year, why shouldn't food get cheaper? Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down. You're a passive beneficiary of technological progress.
The argument that prices can't get cheaper or [bad thing will happen] was never very convincing to me. Prices already do get cheaper for large swaths of the economy that have technological progress grow faster than money supply. Cell phones are rapidly depreciating. You can wait 6m to a year and get a significant discount on the latest iPhone version. People don't stop buying iPhones, and Apple doesn't stop investing in iPhones. This is even more true w/ AI models. Investors/companies are burning billions to build tech that will only get cheaper and obsolete in years if not months.
So if you were to try to convince me that deflation would reduce investment or spending, tell me why this doesn't apply to tech products that get cheaper every year.
Does that include the price of labour? Are you okay with your salary going down? Because the historical record shows that's what happens during deflationary periods: producers of good/services see the price that they can sell things for goes down, and so they insist on their suppliers and inputs—including labour input—reduce their prices as well.
> Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down
That world results in a lot of people individually deciding "why buy now, when I can buy for less later" and sitting on their money.
That in aggregate makes the economy much worse.
You're up against human nature here. Money may be an arbitrary numerical denomination of value, but people's behavior around it and how that affects the economy at large need to be accounted for. Having prices slowly creep upwards over time (low inflation) tends to result in more, better things sooner.
>"We get better at growing food every year, why shouldn't food get cheaper? Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down."
Because a lot of people earn their living by producing or selling food. Your other necessities don't become more affordable just because food prices go down, but if that's your livelihood it becomes at risk. Food was incredibly cheap during the great depression. There's an amazing quote from the PBS documentary series on it; "A sack of flour cost a nickel, but where were you gonna get a nickel?". Steady, controlled inflation via fiat is the only way to keep a capitalistic economy functioning, because you can't micromanage or control the price of everything, and people need money to live. The real issue is stagnation of wage growth while assets explode. It's the transfer of real wealth from earners to owners that has put us in the current position, not absolute prices.
> ...it prevented massive unconstrained expansion of credit and that seems sensible.
At the height of the Great Depression (1936), some economists proposed The Chicago Plan to separate the provision of credit from the money supply by eliminating fractional reserve banking, giving better control of the increases and contractions of credit, the elimination of bank runs, and a dramatic reduction in debt. There was a recent (2012) paper from the IMF [1] that seemed to find this actually is pretty sensible, although I do not claim to be smart enough to understand all of the implications.
39 trillion in debt with no Congressional stomach for...
- spending cuts
- stopping fraud
- figuring out how the net worth of people in Congress increases from hundreds of thousands of dollars to 10s or 100s of millions of dollars
- addressing wasteful and ineffective programs
Given those issues, the only solution will be inflation. The circling the drain moment will hit with the associated welfare programs get a direct staple to inflation itself, so we will spend more to combat inflation, causing more inflation faster.
Good to know that this will be an evergreen argument despite an extremely well-supported project to do just that taking place in the last two years with nothing to show for itself other than hundreds of thousands of deaths.
And can mean many things. On the right, it often means Somali daycares, on the left it means the underfunding of the IRS so that it doesn't do audits of rich people.
I find this to be mostly a distraction:
"- figuring out how the net worth of people in Congress increases from hundreds of thousands of dollars to 10s or 100s of millions of dollars"
We should ban stock trading by members of the government, the Ro Khanna bill, but while it can be a source of corruption, it isn't a major source of inequality in the US.
This is unclear, can you be more specific as it has different answers based on one's partisan leanings:
"- addressing wasteful and ineffective programs"
I think a lot of the distortion of US policy towards the rich is a result of Citizens United and similar unrestrained lobbying funds.
From what I observe from fraud and corruption witch-hunts, they are nothing more than that. The real fraud is that government that is supposed to serve the people who elected it serves everyone else first.
> Inflation numbers aren’t even believable and It’s already not fun
For inflation to have an impact on the US debt, it has to be approaching the level at which the US debt is increasing. In the last year, the US debt increased by 7.6%, much higher than inflation.
There is nothing left (edit: discretionary) to cut, and there is no material fraud. Taxes must go up. Only the top 40% of Americans have any income or wealth to tax (bottom 60% of Americans have no federal tax liability). Or, as you mention, we monetize the debt, print dollars, and burn up the currency value.
Correction accepted. Eight failed audits. Would love to see the will to fix this specific item, but am not confident it exists. We spent hundreds of billions on war with Iran before we forgave student loan debt and instituted Medicare for All, for example. The evidence is clear these are active choices we can make. We actively choose the bad financial policy choices through governance outcomes.
The only branch of government I have faith in at the moment is the bond market.
Tying the ability to increase the money supply to a metal we have to dig out of the ground is ridiculous.
>near unlimited government credit
Really? How do we get some? And, beyond that, what do YOU think the limits should be on increasing the money supply by a sovereign nation?
A nation becomes wealthy by producing things to sell. Nothing else matters, including debt. But, we live in a world where people want to be rich, but also don't want to use resources, or build, or manufacture things, or run an empire. It's contradictory, and we are starting to see the effects.
Gold based money, or eras of coinage, historically have been times of war and slavery. The debt system we are in now is far better in a lot of ways. The outcome of what happens depends on the political will deciding where the credit flows.
It is well know there weren't deep structural problems at the time of (and caused by) the gold standard...
I don't understand why people keep banging about the theoretical advantaged of a gold standard whan it was the default monetary system for centuries and we have firsthand evidence of the problems it causes (and certainly not more equality in the world!). It has been tried by the whole Earth during several generations.
If you think, like Greenspan and others, that there ought to be a mechanism to force some monetary restraint on governments, try to think of a new mechanism, because the "old way" wasn't better. We know it. Move on.
Greenspan was also the subject in the weird comics "h4x0r economist"/"haxor economist", which thankfully still live on since its early internet days https://www.rdwarf.com/users/kioh/ (NSFW language)
When I was in high school in the 90s, and just discovering the world of money and finance, I stumbled on Alan Greenspan and instantly liked some of his thinking about it. I tried my best to learn from everything he did, read every news article I could find, followed rates, the economics of money, the impact on markets, and more. I learned more about government politics and money and influence from that experience than I have since! I'll admit that my mindset about the Fed and money in general is very much due to what I learned in those impressionable years.
IIRC it was Greenspan that didn’t mean to, but did disclose the use of gold swaps, so even if there is all the gold that is claimed to be in Fort Knox, the question of who owns the gold is unanswered.
I'm probably a fair bit younger. I came to know the phrase, then (of) him, through the flash animation of the Happatai/Yatta song on Albino Black Sheep in the early 2000s (and these days on youtube if you search 'irrational exuberance yatta'; mildly nsfw in a few spots). Never bothered to dig into its meaning, though.
Mostly I just know Alan Greenspan for being a disciple of Ayn Rand back in the 1950s/60s. Though the Objectivists didn't like his work at the federal reserve. In 2008 he admits to being shocked that banks weren't rationally selfish.
The guy who called the Federal Reserve the "penny in the fuse box" of the economy was not an "Ayn Rand disciple" by the time he took the chairmanship. Power as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ford really transformed him and I think severed the tenuous hold he had on her principles.
The libertarian community really thought they had their fox in the hen house when he was put in charge of regulation, and he did a fair bit of deregulation, but not nearly to the extent that they wanted. In the end it was enough to trigger a major financial crisis, but not enough to completely collapse the world economy and return to the feudalism they wanted.
I'm not a gold bug but Alan was a proponent of the gold standard. He wrote about how the gold standard created responsible spending and more equality in the world:
https://ritholtz.com/2008/11/gold-and-economic-freedom-by-al...
The world we are in now, especially in the US, is one where there is near unlimited government credit but it is, according to many, papering over deep structural problems. At some point, these chickens will come home to roost in some way or another. But it is hard to predict when.
So he was in favour of the gold standard because it prevented massive unconstrained expansion of credit and that seems sensible.
> He wrote about how the gold standard created responsible spending and more equality in the world:
The Gilded Age, which had quite high levels of inequality, occurred when the gold standard was active:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
It should also be noted that the gold standard did not bring any kind of price stability:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
Further, sticking to the gold standard made the Great Depression worse as it reduced flexibility and options of central banks had, and made deflation worse:
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w3488
The sooner countries left the gold standard the sooner they started recovering from the Great Depression:
* https://www.nber.org/papers/w27586
The Great Depression was caused by France panic hoarding gold https://www.nber.org/papers/w16350
Semi-ironically France was the reason the US fell off the dollar standard after it panic hoarded gold AGAIN when the French government made one last, massive purchase of gold from the US using US dollars, paying $35/oz. A French warship arrived in New York in early August 1971 to load the gold and bring it back to France.
Reckless spending post WW2 was the main reason the US shot itself in the foot and got into this position where they couldn't reasonably pay most clients back and France saw this developing.
All in all France managed to deal massive blows to the US economy covertly TWICE within the same century.
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
And then later in the 1930s as world gold flowed into the US (in response to the rise of the Axis) the economy began to recover here. By the end of the war most gold was in the US.
The separation of wealth during the Gilded age was caused by the same thing it is caused by today: rapid industrialization. This rapid industrialization began when the US was off the gold standard during the civil war. The 1920's gilded age was fueled by fiat money, the greenback.
The great depression was triggered in part by imbalanced gold flows when we returned to gold back currencies.
https://explaininghistory.org/2025/06/12/golden-fetters-the-...
We are essentially replaying the greenback inflation of the 1860's and have been doing it since 1971.
Eh, aren't most of those points non-sequiturs?
> The Gilded Age, which had quite high levels of inequality, occurred when the gold standard was active:
And the Gilded Age [1] ended long before the gold standard. Which makes sense since the Gilded Age is a political issue not a monetary one; how will the productivity from railroads be redistributed?
> It should also be noted that the gold standard did not bring any kind of price stability:
A comparison of 35 years against 4?
That's like bragging about how smart private credit is by showing the low volatility in it's price over the past year.
The large concern from gold bugs is that by printing money we just make the next crash even larger. But of course we just print more in the next crash so it doesn't happen. Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.
---
IMO, the real argument against the Gold Standard is that the US left it is because we spent more money than we made to finance the Vietnam War. If we returned to it, then we'd just leave it again when it became inconvenient. It's not the Gold Standard that needs fixing in the country.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
[2]: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_recenttren...
The Gilded Age was the 1870-1900, the gold standard was from 1870-1920s. Gold did not help stop inequality, and many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech
> A comparison of 35 years against 4?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Moderation
Panics and economic downturns during the Gold Standard period were much more frequency. The term "Great Depression" used to refer to something else besides what happened in the 1930s, and the gold standard was a contributing factor to that as well:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
> Take a look at the fed balance sheet [2]; under Kaynsian ideology you were supposed to sell that off during the boom years so you can take on debt during the busts but politicians are not disciplined enough to do that so the Gold Standard would've never let them.
On the Gold Standard the flexibility of emergency spending during bad years would not be possible: see 1930-1932, and then again in 1937–1938 when FDR tried to go back to balanced budgets through austerity.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–1938
The politicians that tend to talk about "hard money" and responsible spending are the GOP—but who only seem to talk about it when a Democrat is in the White House. When their guy is in then it's all tax cuts, which do not pay for themselves:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
and spending (see >$1T Pentagon budget(s)). They're mostly trying to roll back the New Deal (and later Great Society) and cut social programs:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
> the gold standard was from 1870-1920s.
The U.S. officially left the gold standard on August 15, 1971.
https://blog.swissamerica.com/glossary/gold-standard/
> many progressive elements rallied against it when it was in effect:
Bryan wanted a gold and silver standard, not fiat currency. There was also the Greenback-Labor Party who wanted to get off both gold and silver standard. They favored inflation because the gold and silver backed currencies were causing deflation.
You seem to be cherry picking in hopes that people do not know the history of the time.
He also oversaw the economy for twenty years before one of the worst recessions in the world. He helped set the stage for multiple disasters with his policies, so I'd take his opinions with a grain of salt.
Really?
I don't think anyone really holds him responsible for the dotnet crash of 2000 as that was a market issue and irrational exuberance issue and not a monetary one.
And 2008 was similar. The Fed doesn't control or have any responsibility for lower lender standards or ARM mortgages.
Congress was responsible for the GSE's that bought any mortgages and wrote insurance on those mortgages, so you can't blame the FED for that.
Wallstreet are their regulators were responsible for the securitization of mortgages that went bad in 2008, not the FED.
At worst you can say they had the wrong monetary policy but that's an opinion and not something that can be said as a fact.
Can you flesh out how you feel Greenspan is responsible for 2008?
He actively campaigned against any regulation of derivatives. There is an infamous lunch that he had with Brooksley Born (who was head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) in the late 1990s where she attempted to regulate them. The details of the meeting are fuzzy and none of the participants will go on the record to what was said, but the gist is that he said he would fight her tooth and nail. After massive lobbying from Greenspan, as well as Lawrence Summers, congress passed legislation prohibiting her agency from regulating derivatives. She resigned shortly after.
> Can you flesh out how you feel Greenspan is responsible for 2008?
Greenspan felt Greenspan was responsible for 2008.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel....
You don't think Greenspan had a major hand in the dot com crash? "In late 1999, the Federal Reserve under Greenspan flooded the financial system with unprecedented liquidity to ward off potential deflationary impacts and cash-hoarding caused by the Y2K bug panic. The Fed expanded the money supply at an annualized rate of 22% in the fourth quarter of 1999."
As for the Great Recession, taking the Fed Funds rate from 6.5% to 1.0% and holding it there for a year was the catalyst for driving everyone into the mortgage market looking for returns. And then did not regulate subprime lending or the shadow banking market:
"As the housing market boomed, subprime mortgage originations skyrocketed from 8.2% of all mortgages in 2003 to 23.5% in 2006. The Fed possessed the authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) to crack down on predatory lending and loose underwriting standards but chose not to act aggressively."
"The Fed failed to properly monitor off-balance-sheet vehicles, investment bank leverage, and complex derivatives like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Because these instruments developed outside traditional commercial banking oversight, a highly leveraged 'shadow banking' system grew completely unchecked under the Fed's watch."
So yeah, the Fed has its fingerprints all over the scene of the crime. Lots of blame to go around though..
The chief criticism lies in the "Greenspan put"--the idea that the Fed would just never let asset prices fall, a policy which both bears his name and is noteworthy enough to have a detailed Wikipedia article on it.
There was a dot net crash too??
It was generally 20 years of growth and the 2008 banking crisis actually happened after he left.
Alan Greenspan acquired too much power and went out of his way to railroad regulators. It was a classic "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and his flooding the markets with dollar liquidity at every crisis completely destroyed any concepts of moral hazard, of which we are still living with the consequences to this day.
He set the stage for the financial crisis that started crumbling a year after he left the fed chair. It wasn't all his fault (politicians lost any spine and bankers any sense), but he was the conductor.
He was a believer in the idea that banks would never act against their own long term interests in order to make money quickly because that would be an existential crisis for the bank.
Shortly after he left a bank with over 150 years of history collapsed due to exactly that sort of mismanagement, triggering a crisis for the entire banking sector.
And when production for a system I built burns down the month after I leave my job, the next guy they hire was actually the culprit! Greenspan was seen as responsible for the dot-com bust as well which was solidly in the center of his tenure.
The new IT manager walks into his office. He sits down and goes through his desk and finds three envelopes with the numbers 1, 2, and 3 on them with the attached letter:
A short few months later there was a significant production outage. Things wouldn't work and management was getting angry. After a long day of angry meetings he went to his desk and opened the first letter. It read "Blame it on your predecessor."The next day in the meetings he blamed it on his predecessor and told of all the things that weren't done right... routine patching left undone, documentation in disarray. Upper management grumbled but agreed to give him the time to fix it.
Two years later there was another outage. This one went on for a day or two and management was once again getting angry about things and so he went to his desk and pulled out the second letter. "Blame it on the hardware."
With that, he went in pointing out that they were years behind on keeping the hardware itself up to date. Upper management grumbled again but agreed to a budget that allowed him to update the hardware.
For a while, everything was smooth and then it hit... another outage. He went to his desk and opened the third letter. "Prepare three envelopes."
There was a stimulus check that went out around that time. I felt it insane that I was receiving a check when nobody in my life was negatively impacted, the economy didn’t seem hurt (no more then when you’re up then down at a blackjack table), it was just a rebalancing of people’s portfolios values. Turns out that started the wave of completely untargeted stimulus/aide that would come at every economic faltering. I wish we would at least try to identify who is in need during these times. It drives me crazy when I would see the lines at Gucci and LV type stores backed up every week a Covid check went out.
TLDR - Why make it harder for people to get help on the basis that some people might get help who don't deserve it?
means testing kills the usefulness of these kinds of stimuli. I completely disagree with your point here and the people buying Gucci/LV are a drop in the bucket compared to, say, Wal-Mart's yearly wage theft statistics.
There is no simple means of identifying who is in need and if people get the help who don't need it they can redistribute it if they are morally inclined or do hoarding or w/e; who cares?
There’s no need to make it difficult. All you have to do is publish sensible guardrails and force people to apply for assistance and it would shrink the public cost substantially.
I have homeowners insurance, but if my home burns down today I won’t have any reasonable assistance deposited this week. There’s a claim process and I need to have an emergency fund to get my immediate needs met.
Everyone should care. The national debt and eventually the nation will crumble based on these decisions to just print massive amounts of money with no real need.
I didn’t qualify for any stimulus after that one in 2001 so they are filtering it down and putting up some guardrails. They just need to give this some intent and pre thought. You can claim it’s too difficult when you didn’t even try to have a plan or come up with something that was actually going to good use to assist those in need.
Another way to think about it, if Covid was more severe than it was, we’d have wanted those payments to continue for twice or more longer to those in need. But if we were tapped out and had to stop them early, then those in need ultimately succumb to whatever and all the money was spent in vain.
I personally believe we shouldn’t socialize every blip. We are just perpetuating this “who cares” mentality and a welfare mentality. Why even have savings or an emergency fund, the government should step in at every turn. It’s a ridiculous stance in my view.
> All you have to do is publish sensible guardrails and force people to apply for assistance and it would shrink the public cost substantially.
On the contrary, all public experience shows the opposite. The administrative costs of actually checking if only the right people are receiving a benefit very quickly start out weighing the cost of just paying everyone - especially if you don't want to make the process very onerous for the people who need it (and thus ensure that many who are entitled will not actually be able to receive this).
I think that this was relatively not known as a major risk far in advance otherwise more traders would have gotten rich. Michael Burry only started to short the market in late 2005, four months before Greenspan's term ended.
It is hard to ask Greenspan to have super natural powers of foresight beyond just about everyone else.
This phrase was very popular for a good many years, popularized by Greenspan iirc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance
It described the dotcom bubble, but I seem to recall people were applying it to the 2000s housing market too. Tldr it was not a totally uncommon opinion during either of these bubbles to say there was a bubble going on.
> It is hard to ask Greenspan to have super natural powers of foresight beyond just about everyone else.
From a person in his position the baseline is "more foresight than just about everyone else". That's why they get the big bucks.
If you build something grand on wooden legs and massive debt for the next guy to deal with, or drive into a failure mode even if that's not super obvious, it's not high praise.
hmm, an argument against expertise is not something i expect to see often on hackernews :)
I have come around to gold. Money shouldn't be dual purposes, we should apply single responsibility principal. Money should refer to some stable (albeit slightly growing by nature) account of measure.
Prices should get cheaper. That's a progress dividend. We get better at growing food every year, why shouldn't food get cheaper? Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down. You're a passive beneficiary of technological progress.
The argument that prices can't get cheaper or [bad thing will happen] was never very convincing to me. Prices already do get cheaper for large swaths of the economy that have technological progress grow faster than money supply. Cell phones are rapidly depreciating. You can wait 6m to a year and get a significant discount on the latest iPhone version. People don't stop buying iPhones, and Apple doesn't stop investing in iPhones. This is even more true w/ AI models. Investors/companies are burning billions to build tech that will only get cheaper and obsolete in years if not months.
So if you were to try to convince me that deflation would reduce investment or spending, tell me why this doesn't apply to tech products that get cheaper every year.
> Prices should get cheaper.
Does that include the price of labour? Are you okay with your salary going down? Because the historical record shows that's what happens during deflationary periods: producers of good/services see the price that they can sell things for goes down, and so they insist on their suppliers and inputs—including labour input—reduce their prices as well.
> Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down
That world results in a lot of people individually deciding "why buy now, when I can buy for less later" and sitting on their money.
That in aggregate makes the economy much worse.
You're up against human nature here. Money may be an arbitrary numerical denomination of value, but people's behavior around it and how that affects the economy at large need to be accounted for. Having prices slowly creep upwards over time (low inflation) tends to result in more, better things sooner.
> We get better at growing food every year, why shouldn't food get cheaper?
It has gotten cheaper, as a percentage of people's income and spending.
>"We get better at growing food every year, why shouldn't food get cheaper? Imagine a world in which prices regularly go down."
Because a lot of people earn their living by producing or selling food. Your other necessities don't become more affordable just because food prices go down, but if that's your livelihood it becomes at risk. Food was incredibly cheap during the great depression. There's an amazing quote from the PBS documentary series on it; "A sack of flour cost a nickel, but where were you gonna get a nickel?". Steady, controlled inflation via fiat is the only way to keep a capitalistic economy functioning, because you can't micromanage or control the price of everything, and people need money to live. The real issue is stagnation of wage growth while assets explode. It's the transfer of real wealth from earners to owners that has put us in the current position, not absolute prices.
> ...it prevented massive unconstrained expansion of credit and that seems sensible.
At the height of the Great Depression (1936), some economists proposed The Chicago Plan to separate the provision of credit from the money supply by eliminating fractional reserve banking, giving better control of the increases and contractions of credit, the elimination of bank runs, and a dramatic reduction in debt. There was a recent (2012) paper from the IMF [1] that seemed to find this actually is pretty sensible, although I do not claim to be smart enough to understand all of the implications.
[1] https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2016/12/31/the...
39 trillion in debt with no Congressional stomach for...
- spending cuts
- stopping fraud
- figuring out how the net worth of people in Congress increases from hundreds of thousands of dollars to 10s or 100s of millions of dollars
- addressing wasteful and ineffective programs
Given those issues, the only solution will be inflation. The circling the drain moment will hit with the associated welfare programs get a direct staple to inflation itself, so we will spend more to combat inflation, causing more inflation faster.
It's not going to be fun.
> - stopping fraud / - addressing wasteful and ineffective programs
Good to know that this will be an evergreen argument despite an extremely well-supported project to do just that taking place in the last two years with nothing to show for itself other than hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Also please add as an option: raise taxes on the wealthy individuals and corporations back.
https://inequality.org/article/11-charts-tax-wealthy-corpora...
This is really ambiguous:
"- stopping fraud"
And can mean many things. On the right, it often means Somali daycares, on the left it means the underfunding of the IRS so that it doesn't do audits of rich people.
I find this to be mostly a distraction:
"- figuring out how the net worth of people in Congress increases from hundreds of thousands of dollars to 10s or 100s of millions of dollars"
We should ban stock trading by members of the government, the Ro Khanna bill, but while it can be a source of corruption, it isn't a major source of inequality in the US.
This is unclear, can you be more specific as it has different answers based on one's partisan leanings:
"- addressing wasteful and ineffective programs"
I think a lot of the distortion of US policy towards the rich is a result of Citizens United and similar unrestrained lobbying funds.
From what I observe from fraud and corruption witch-hunts, they are nothing more than that. The real fraud is that government that is supposed to serve the people who elected it serves everyone else first.
This ball is already in motion IMO. Inflation numbers aren’t even believable and It’s already not fun.
> Inflation numbers aren’t even believable and It’s already not fun
For inflation to have an impact on the US debt, it has to be approaching the level at which the US debt is increasing. In the last year, the US debt increased by 7.6%, much higher than inflation.
There is nothing left (edit: discretionary) to cut, and there is no material fraud. Taxes must go up. Only the top 40% of Americans have any income or wealth to tax (bottom 60% of Americans have no federal tax liability). Or, as you mention, we monetize the debt, print dollars, and burn up the currency value.
https://usafacts.org/government-spending/
https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-debt-does-the-us-have/...
> There is nothing left to cut
Hmm.... I found this, I wonder if there is any way this line item in the budget could be reduced, it looks sort of big:
https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense?fy=...
Correction accepted. Eight failed audits. Would love to see the will to fix this specific item, but am not confident it exists. We spent hundreds of billions on war with Iran before we forgave student loan debt and instituted Medicare for All, for example. The evidence is clear these are active choices we can make. We actively choose the bad financial policy choices through governance outcomes.
The only branch of government I have faith in at the moment is the bond market.
Pentagon fails financial audit for 8th year in a row - https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/12... - December 19th, 2025
Fact Check: Has the Pentagon failed its 7th audit in a row? - https://econofact.org/factbrief/has-the-pentagon-failed-its-... - December 20th, 2024
Thoughts From the Bond Vigilantes - https://www.pimco.com/us/en/insights/thoughts-from-the-bond-... - December 9th, 2024
There isn't enough gold to use as a common currency.
As I understand it, all the gold that has ever been mined would fit in a cube the size of a baseball diamond.
https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffetts-lesson-on-go...
Nixon was responsible for ending the silver standard.
https://www.usmoneyreserve.com/news/executive-insights/when-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_standard#United_States
Tying the ability to increase the money supply to a metal we have to dig out of the ground is ridiculous.
>near unlimited government credit
Really? How do we get some? And, beyond that, what do YOU think the limits should be on increasing the money supply by a sovereign nation?
A nation becomes wealthy by producing things to sell. Nothing else matters, including debt. But, we live in a world where people want to be rich, but also don't want to use resources, or build, or manufacture things, or run an empire. It's contradictory, and we are starting to see the effects.
Tying it to our goodwill, military might, and diplomacy seems like it might be a bad long term plan.
Gold based money, or eras of coinage, historically have been times of war and slavery. The debt system we are in now is far better in a lot of ways. The outcome of what happens depends on the political will deciding where the credit flows.
It is well know there weren't deep structural problems at the time of (and caused by) the gold standard...
I don't understand why people keep banging about the theoretical advantaged of a gold standard whan it was the default monetary system for centuries and we have firsthand evidence of the problems it causes (and certainly not more equality in the world!). It has been tried by the whole Earth during several generations.
If you think, like Greenspan and others, that there ought to be a mechanism to force some monetary restraint on governments, try to think of a new mechanism, because the "old way" wasn't better. We know it. Move on.
Nixon was running out of money fast- the cold war was expensive.
Greenspan was also the subject in the weird comics "h4x0r economist"/"haxor economist", which thankfully still live on since its early internet days https://www.rdwarf.com/users/kioh/ (NSFW language)
When I was in high school in the 90s, and just discovering the world of money and finance, I stumbled on Alan Greenspan and instantly liked some of his thinking about it. I tried my best to learn from everything he did, read every news article I could find, followed rates, the economics of money, the impact on markets, and more. I learned more about government politics and money and influence from that experience than I have since! I'll admit that my mindset about the Fed and money in general is very much due to what I learned in those impressionable years.
IIRC it was Greenspan that didn’t mean to, but did disclose the use of gold swaps, so even if there is all the gold that is claimed to be in Fort Knox, the question of who owns the gold is unanswered.
time to watch inside job from 2010 again
Non paywalled obituary: https://apnews.com/article/greenspan-federal-reserve-death-2...
Aside from your attempt to circumvent the supply and demand controls, I find the impact of his contributions highly inflated.
He was proof that the position is a figurehead.
Here is an old clip of Alan Greenspan explaining to Paul Ryan why the social security system can't go bankrupt.
https://youtu.be/DNCZHAQnfGU?is=CWQS-QUJB0z4EfSM
"Irrational exuberance" - I came to know about him when he said that around 2001. Kinda foresaw the dotcom bubble.
I'm probably a fair bit younger. I came to know the phrase, then (of) him, through the flash animation of the Happatai/Yatta song on Albino Black Sheep in the early 2000s (and these days on youtube if you search 'irrational exuberance yatta'; mildly nsfw in a few spots). Never bothered to dig into its meaning, though.
Mostly I just know Alan Greenspan for being a disciple of Ayn Rand back in the 1950s/60s. Though the Objectivists didn't like his work at the federal reserve. In 2008 he admits to being shocked that banks weren't rationally selfish.
The guy who called the Federal Reserve the "penny in the fuse box" of the economy was not an "Ayn Rand disciple" by the time he took the chairmanship. Power as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ford really transformed him and I think severed the tenuous hold he had on her principles.
Related article from around that time: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/10/alan-shrugged/
The libertarian community really thought they had their fox in the hen house when he was put in charge of regulation, and he did a fair bit of deregulation, but not nearly to the extent that they wanted. In the end it was enough to trigger a major financial crisis, but not enough to completely collapse the world economy and return to the feudalism they wanted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
NYT obituary:
Alan Greenspan, Fed Chairman Through Prosperity and Crisis, Dies at 100
non-paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/22/us/alan-greenspan-dead.ht...
Mr "moral hazard"-- as if the people profit(eer)ing faced any...
I've always wondered if part of the 2008 bust was a psyop from his Ayn Rand beliefs.
It probably wasn't as damaging to the world as the Friedman doctrine but it was pretty darn close.