Much is being made of Alan Greenspan repudiating the dollar as king, calling gold real money. Mish and as far as I can see are viewing this as a mea culpa and a typical post-damage admission. Part of the excitement is the CFR minutes excised the comments:
But this attitude of his is nothing new. He was appointed as FED chief by Reagan because Greenspan was a gold bug. Here is his 1966 work.
And his first act as FED Chairman was to crash the USA economy with his policies, and usher in the moral hazard that just made things worse later.
The inevitable is the ideal. Greenspan knew somebody was going to do it, so why not him? It ain't the hand you are dealt, it is how you play the cards. There is no judging a man for how he plays his cards. Greenspan played them they way he played them. What is tedious is the countless people who pretend that their work is somehow noble, the people who want it both ways, that is to scam the world and be thought of as heroes, the hypocrites. That Greenspan was a gold bug, worked to advance all that is wrong with the world, and then retire to re-affirm himself as a gold bug is absolutely honorable. Attaboy.
It reminds me how Jesus told stories of the wicked master who criticized his servant for not even trying usury to increase his wealth, and how he admired the scamp of a steward who upon being given dismissal notice ran around cooking the books to make friends, and also in the apocalypse cautioned "be ye hot or cold for if ye are lukewarm I'll vomit you out of my mouth." Just don't be timid or a hypocrite...
But back to what Greenspan said. "Gold is a currency." Ungh.. those definitions again... yes and no. It is money, a medium of exchange, and can be used as currency, but almost never is. Economies in history usually run on credit, asset based at zero interest. Such a comity build community. If gold is backing a transaction, the gold is not exchanged, but warehouse receipts are traded. It is only when the trading partner is of a doubtful future are debts settled in actual gold exchange. It's a false dichotomy gold vs fiat currency. There is a gold as money and credit, and then there is force and fraud of fiat currency. Yes, gold is infinitely superior to fiat currency (the dollar), but the alternative to the corrupt dollar is credit, which the dollar is supposed to represent, and asset-less backed credit at that. In a real economy, there is gold and silver as money, and there is non-interest (usury) credit. Fiat currency has no place in an economy.
Greenspan knows this, but he could count on his truth-telling to be deleted by the CFR in any case, and what little that did get through, would fall on uninformed ears anyway.
Given all that, why wouldn't Alan Greenspan play his cards they way he has? If I got half a chance, wouldn't I?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Tett: Do you think that gold is currently a good investment?Well of course they would excise that criticism. The FED is a the heart of the corporation we call the United States of America.
Greenspan: Yes... Remember what we're looking at. Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it.
But this attitude of his is nothing new. He was appointed as FED chief by Reagan because Greenspan was a gold bug. Here is his 1966 work.
And his first act as FED Chairman was to crash the USA economy with his policies, and usher in the moral hazard that just made things worse later.
The 1987 crash was the debut of the “Greenspan Put,” and some critics argue that the complacency it fostered in market participants — economists call it moral hazard — helped foment the sort of risk taking that led to the 2008 crash.Greenspan is a smart man. He knows the truth, and he knows the score. He gave the powers that be exactly what they wanted. His alternatives would be to continue life as an unknown financial consultant, or he could manage the system for the hegemon, become immensely wealthy, bag Andrea Mitchell as his squeeze, and retire with fame and fortune.
The inevitable is the ideal. Greenspan knew somebody was going to do it, so why not him? It ain't the hand you are dealt, it is how you play the cards. There is no judging a man for how he plays his cards. Greenspan played them they way he played them. What is tedious is the countless people who pretend that their work is somehow noble, the people who want it both ways, that is to scam the world and be thought of as heroes, the hypocrites. That Greenspan was a gold bug, worked to advance all that is wrong with the world, and then retire to re-affirm himself as a gold bug is absolutely honorable. Attaboy.
It reminds me how Jesus told stories of the wicked master who criticized his servant for not even trying usury to increase his wealth, and how he admired the scamp of a steward who upon being given dismissal notice ran around cooking the books to make friends, and also in the apocalypse cautioned "be ye hot or cold for if ye are lukewarm I'll vomit you out of my mouth." Just don't be timid or a hypocrite...
But back to what Greenspan said. "Gold is a currency." Ungh.. those definitions again... yes and no. It is money, a medium of exchange, and can be used as currency, but almost never is. Economies in history usually run on credit, asset based at zero interest. Such a comity build community. If gold is backing a transaction, the gold is not exchanged, but warehouse receipts are traded. It is only when the trading partner is of a doubtful future are debts settled in actual gold exchange. It's a false dichotomy gold vs fiat currency. There is a gold as money and credit, and then there is force and fraud of fiat currency. Yes, gold is infinitely superior to fiat currency (the dollar), but the alternative to the corrupt dollar is credit, which the dollar is supposed to represent, and asset-less backed credit at that. In a real economy, there is gold and silver as money, and there is non-interest (usury) credit. Fiat currency has no place in an economy.
Greenspan knows this, but he could count on his truth-telling to be deleted by the CFR in any case, and what little that did get through, would fall on uninformed ears anyway.
Given all that, why wouldn't Alan Greenspan play his cards they way he has? If I got half a chance, wouldn't I?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment