Why I am Skeptical of Alan Greenspan

I am a freshman in college.  I am not an economist.  My grades in economics classes are, in fact, good, but far from perfect.  It may seem presumptuous and downright insane to quibble with Alan Greenspan where economics are concerned, but I feel that something ought to be said when we start talking about the temporary nationalization of banks.  I may not know a massive amount about the economy, but as a student of history, I know that where government is concerned, very little is "temporary."

Ronald Reagan once famously said that a government bureau is the closest thing we will ever see to eternal life.  This idea is more or less the basis for my skepticism of supposedly "temporary" bank nationalization.  Mr. Greenspan may be right that temporary nationalization of financial institutions will be necessary to float the economy, but the struggle would be making that nationalization temporary.  It is almost axiomatic that government never gives up power willingly.  Once the government gets a new portfolio of responsibility, it does not like to let go of that power.  While state management, however revolting my principles may find it, may succeed in restructuring these institutions and putting them back in operation, there is no guarantee that the government would release them back to the open market in due course.  All instituions have internal goals in addition to their external ones, and government's instinctive internal goal is to keep as much under its oversight as it can manage.  The trouble with government institutions is that they can only downsize by government mandate.  Parastatal industries such as PEMEX in Mexico survive because of state support despite their prodigious inefficiency, and the last time I checked, Social Security hasn't gone out of business either.

As one generally inclined to small government and free markets, the idea of state management of private institutions wreaks a noxious socialist odor, but I am nowhere nearly as knowledgable as Mr. Greenspan is where economics are concerned, so as much as it may pain me to say so, he might be right about this.  If nationalization should occur, then it will take a truly dynamic and strong-willed leader like Margaret Thatcher to claw the fist of government away from the economcy, and I am still looking for that leader.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

or hw bush?

you weren't born then, but we've already done the nationalization. see s&l crisis.

andhaveaniceday.

Indymac was nationalized and reprivatized in less than 6 months

Indymac was nationalized and reprivatized in less than 6 months. The FDIC is currently taking over about 3 banks a week and has been doing so though at a slower pace for decades. Despite that, the FDIC does not own or operate any banks. So I think you may be able to put those fears to rest.

The money center banks will of course be bigger and more complicated, but the template for restructuring is well-known. The major difference is the smaller banks don't have Chuck Schumer on speed dial.

yeah, when all this is said and done,

I want the senators on finance to NOT be from new york (or wherever our new banking capital is)

S&L's

If you are going to use the S&L bailout of the late 80's/early 90's as an example of a "successful" temporary nationalization, then it would help to have more detailed information about the entire sad S&L affair.  I posted this huge comment on it but then thought better to instead create a blog entry:

http://www.thenextright.com/chemjeff/lesson-from-sl-bailouts-say-no-to-bank-nationalization

 

Don't hesitate to question ANYBODY!

Eric,

No matter who it is, or what their position; it is your right, it is your duty, to challenge them when YOU have a reasoned basis for thinking they are wrong about a matter of public policy.  There is an old child's story, The Emperor Has No Clothes, which I have found pertinent when it comes to challenging people who are "supposed to know".   I think you already know that you never have to surrender your own judgment to somebody else just because that somebody is "supposed" to be an expert.  Quite often, that somebody is a complete fool.  You sound as if you have a very good head on your shoulders.  Keep it up!  Huldah.

tiffany jewelry

I'll add to this some other observations (either from dkos or 538, don't ask me where my memory comes from!): people don't "lock in" their partisanship until they vote multiple times (two or three). So we're looking at a span of anywhere between 4 to about 12 years, in which someone makes up their political mind.

thanks for the math, it's good. cheap tiffany jewelry