In part one, I recounted Alan Greenspan’s one on one interview with Gary Alexander. Later in the day Saturday, Alan Greenspan was part of a round table with Porter Stansberry and Dr. Marc Faber, moderated by Mr. Alexander. While both Stansberry and Faber had a couple of good “zingers” for Mr. Greenspan early on and they both had good points and additions to the discussion, I want to concentrate on what Alan Greenspan had to say. Before getting to part 2, I do want to make one correction to yesterday’s piece. I heard Mr. Greenspan’s reply to the question “where will interest rates and gold be five years from now?” as “higher…considerably.” I have been corrected several times, his exact word was “measurably,” I apologize for the misquote.
If you remember, in part one Alan Greenspan told several white lies. One regarding the leasing of gold by central banks, the Fed never speaks with the Treasury regarding debt/deficit levels, while another was diverting the blame for the housing crisis to Fannie and Freddie amongst other factors…but not the Fed. The key from GATA and the gold community’s point of view was Greenspan’s denial of gold leasing and the question “do you recall testifying before Congress where you stated central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price of gold rise?” This question by Gary Alexander was flubbed miserably and we may never get this opportunity again, I will finish with what and “how” I think it happened but first I’d like to lay out what the former chairman had to say.
While Mr. Greenspan spoke of many topics, there were too many and some even irrelevant in my opinion to recount them all, the following is what I found important. The talk began with the topic being “the savings rate.” Alan Greenspan went back to his old spiel of “productivity” and said that the system of entitlements was crowding out savings. He used an equation of “more benefits=less growth” and there is no way out or around this, we have been eating our seed corn. I agree as it is the common sense which is so “un” common in Washington but I guess one must leave the beltway before it hits them in the forehead?
Next, the conversation shifted to government spending. Greenspan continued his attempt at cleansing his legacy by saying “it’s Congress’s fault for spending, the Fed HAS to buy Treasury debt or else interest rates will explode.” Gary Alexander then asked him, “So you are saying the Fed is not independent?” and the reply much to my surprise was “I never said it was independent.” Before going any further, I think this point is important for several reasons. First, why should interest rates explode if the economy is self-sustaining and government is spending within its means? Was the economy (and Treasury) being bottle fed even all those years ago through the late 80’s and 90’s? What would have happened if the Fed was not so accommodative? Higher savings, less debt, a lower standard of living then but a higher one in the future? Would any of the bubbles have been blown and subsequently popped or would we have had lower yet more sustainable growth? I think we all know the answers to this.
The question of China’s growth was next, Greenspan called it “phenomenal.” He said much of the growth was due to “stolen technology” and that productivity would necessarily be slowing in the future. He touched on the “shadow banking” system within China and suggested it to be a huge problem, as you know, I have harped on this topic for quite some time myself.
The next question was very interesting, the panel was asked what will happen to the Fed’s $4.5 trillion balance sheet with QE winding down, what will Fed policy be? Porter Stansberry was quite blunt and said there is “mathematically no way out” (does this sound familiar to readers?) and that we will live with QE forever. Faber agreed and added that real interest rates would have to remain negative indefinitely. He added that central banks all over the world have “distorted” financial markets and QE cannot be withdrawn. Alan Greenspan took a pass on this one and posted a “no comment” as he said Paul Volcker never spoke publicly or second guessed him while chairman and he would do the same. He did say “the Fed is very smart” and they know everything “we” do. What was really interesting to me was when he added that “a lot of money can be created until everything blows up”. He talked again about how huge bank balance sheets are the kindling wood (he used the word “tinder”) for hyperinflation if and when velocity does pick up…”no one can forecast 5 years out.” I guess my question to him would be as follows “could banks carry such huge balance sheets if the Fed did not facilitate it with blowing their own balance sheet past the moon and then offering a free 1/4% interest to any bank willing to play?” Mr. Greenspan was given a pass here in my opinion.
Porter and Marc were then allowed to ask Mr. Greenspan one question each. Sad to say the two questions were somewhat soft and certainly NOT what I would have asked. They asked “you have said that bubbles are very hard to spot, are we in one now?” and “would you do anything differently now if you had the chance?” Greenspan’s answer to Porter was pretty much the “non speak” gobbledygook he used to play for Congress. He talked about commercial real estate being dead for years and now rising on very low volume which is a real potential danger. He also said stocks are valued “average” historically and that much current and future economic demand has been eliminated. Importantly, he did add that much future demand has been pulled forward and thus now eliminated. This is an important admission in my opinion, he was saying that easy money works for today rather than tomorrow.
He replied to Marc Faber by saying again “bubbles are very hard to spot” and that “no one” has been able to forecast the timing of a bubble bursting except by accident. When I heard this I just started laughing out loud! I must be “no one” because in late 2006 I left a very high paying job, sold my real estate, shipped my gold outside of the country and packed my family up to leave the country. Did I do this on a whim? No, I saw what was coming, I wrote about what was coming (it is still all archived as proof) throughout 2007 and 2008 and was surprised it took as long as it did. I must admit that what I did not see coming was the Treasury and Fed’s response by bankrupting themselves to prolong the game. This is a story for another day but hearing “no one” saw it coming is laughable as I can name more who saw it coming than I have fingers and toes to count them on …it’s just that they were not on CNBC or visible via other mainstream media pabulum for the public to see.
As for the very last question, it was supposed to have been regarding his testimony to Congress in 1998 where Mr. Greenspan said, “Central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.” Gary Alexander substituted “buy” for the word “lease” which obviously changes the meaning and allowed Greenspan to truthfully say “No, I don’t recall that.” I know that many believe Mr. Alexander let Greenspan off the hook and did not want to embarrass “the Maestro,” I disagree. I watched as Alexander furiously tried working his IPad, he had been e-mailed the quote 4 days earlier by Chris Powell and others and then again “re” e-mailed between sessions so the question could be asked. This is where “caveman techniques” would have worked better using a pen and piece of paper, he could have simply stuffed it in his shirt pocket …ready for use. He (we) dropped the ball. I saw it with my own eyes and believe it was an honest error, one that may never be corrected and could have had very significant historical ramifications but it is now water over the dam. Alexander held two good interviews where he did not serve up softball questions and did actually get some truthful (and surprising) answers. The problem as I see it is this question could have opened many cans of worms for the cartel as it is at the center of the suppression scheme and thus one of the core supports to a fraudulent fiat financial system. As I said, I believe it was an honest mistake but a mistake of epic proportions in the scheme of things.
Before finishing I would like to ramble just a bit. Had I been allowed to ask questions, I would have been much more specific with the questions he was asked. I would have asked him (since it was born under his watch) which markets and “how” the PPT manages markets? I would have asked him if there is ANY mathematical way out of where we are now. If there is, what is it? If there is not (there is not) does it bother him that he was at the helm while this ship headed toward the iceberg? I would ask him “since you obviously understood and still understand gold versus fiat money, what in the world enticed you to captain a ship you knew would mathematically hit an iceberg? Have you no conscience sir? Enough said.
You didn’t gee to ask questions, because what you would of asked would have put him on the spot. I don’t think to be put on the spot would set well with the whole gang of crooks.
greenspan is a fucking liar and thief and I pray he will be called to his maker very soon….HE is responsible for all the chaos that is headed our way….May he rot in hell forever…..imho
I’m more worried about meeting my own maker than condemning someone else who has already clearly sold his soul to the Devil for dollar bills.
“sold his soul to the Devil”
Can a devil sell his soul to himself? Plus, it aint worth a silver-less dime to begin with!
“I pray he will be called to his maker very soon”
His maker is not Yahweh God, for greenspan is a mamzer of kenite-edomite stock (NOT a true racial Israelite or even a racially pure Adamite). He has no “maker”, only a lineage that traces itself to his father, that Old Serpent in the Garden of Eden or, at the very least, from “the tree (family/race) of good and evil”. He is only behaving as one should expect. His destiny is to take an eternal dirt nap – nothing more – along with all his kind and anything else which Yahweh God did not originally create to remain kind after kind.
Concerning greenspan or his progeny’s fate and that of his people, read Obadiah 1:16-18 (vs.16 “…and they shall be as though they had not been.”; vs.18 “…and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau…”)
A person is either solely (without mixture) descended from “The Tree (family/race of Adam) of Life” which is of Jesus (aka Yahshua)The Christ or he/she is from that other wicked tree.
To believe in a “maker” is akin to a belief in the tooth fairy.
They both do not exist.
However,I respect everybody’s right to those beliefs.
then why insult believers since you “respect” their right?
Excellent articles Bill.
I come here for your clear insight and because you’re unique in that your thinking isn’t muddled by pseudo intellectualism …such as (obviously corrupted) Alan Greenspan.
By the way and FYI …this site is one of the few that offers anonymous comments (of course this name and email is bogus). The day that changes is the day I no longer comment & Miles Franklin becomes another echo chamber of sycophants like the majority of “alternative sites”.
thank you “nan” …or whoever you are?
Another excellent article by Bill. I could not agree more that Greenspan is attempting to revise history by going on the speaking circuit – but is actually full of lies, deceptions, hubris, and double-speak.
I have not heard him once take responsibility for anything. Then again, we are dealing with an institution which has at its core Rothschild Zionism to contend with, and so it obediently, dutifully, and dare I say, willingly, foster and push this evil agenda to its inevitable breaking point.
Whether it is good for the people of the United States is wholly immaterial. Only what is good for Rothschild Zionism and the 0.00001 percent is all that counts.
he is selling his books.
Hi Bill Excellent report on Greenspan’s attempt at cleansing his BLACK CORRUPT image. I find it disgusting and unacceptable that Greenthief was included as a participant in the first place and in a GATA conference no less! Does anyone else feel like the enemy’s just been allowed membership into our club, even if tentatively? Why weren’t the questions posed to him sharp and accusatory and aggressive, as a prosecutor would grill a defendant? Why wasn’t he raked over the coals for what he’s done?
I honestly don’t know why the attendees and other speakers tolerated his appearance there. He was DIRECTLY responsible for each and every one of us losing thousands and thousands of dollars through HIS inflationary practices which, lest we forget, has led to the worst global economic state in HISTORY. Would you let any other person who stole that kind of money from you speak as an “expert”??? What was GATA thinking in having him there and then only lobbing soft-ball questions at him?
Had I attended that conference, I would have been ready with a bag of over-ripe tomatoes, raw eggs and practiced throwing arm.
it was not a GATA conference, it is the old “Blanchard conference” held each year. Greenspan was supposed to be the “draw” and GATA had hoped to get him to answer some questions, some were and others were either not asked or asked incorrectly. As I understand it, the “deal” for him to come was that certain questions were either not asked or asked “softly”. He sold his soul in my opinion years ago.
Thanks for clarifying it wasn’t a GATA conference. I misunderstood and thought it was. Of course the only way Greenthief would ever expose himself in public like that is if he pre-arranged the terms of the questioning as you mentioned. There is no question he sold his soul to gain a high position and lots of money and prestige among the uneducated, but people have long memories and IMO he will never be able to clean up his image. Still wish I was there with my bag of rotten tomatoes ……………
yet even now he is plugging his books and trying to amass more wealth…I wonder how much gold and silver he has squirreled away?
You can bet Greenspan has a TON of gold and silver which I’ll bet he was buying while he was Fed chairman, making him the on the planet who can suck and blow at the same time!
You wrote <>
I was there to see the interview at the New Orleans conference, also. I happen to know that Mr. Alexander does not even own an iPad and uses a Kindle only for reading books and did not have his Kindle on stage. So Mr. Alexander was not on stage “furioulsy fumbling with his iPad.” The person who was “furiously fumbling” with his iPad (or whatever it was) was Porter Stanley.
yes, correct Elizabeth. Gary wrote me Thursday after the article was out to tell me this. An honest mistake just as I thought Gary Alexander made an honest error with his question. I went back and forth several times with him in an e-mail chain and now I am not so sure it was an error. His tone became more and more defensive and in my opinion “apologetic” for Mr. Greenspan, I still will give him the benefit of the doubt but I do have some doubt now.
Interesting. Apologies for the length but I want to point something out, not in Greenspan’s defence, but as a possible motivation for him turning to the dark side. While Austrians like to criticize the centrally planned “nanny state” which they abhor and blame for most of our problems, I don’t see it this way and find their alternative supposedly more virtuous society exemplified by Ayn Rand’s writings to be equally theoretical and implausible in the real world.
I don’t think that criticizers of Greenspan’s actions as Fed chairman fully appreciate the alternative that the western world, specifically the US, was facing at the time if it hadn’t ramped up its paper empire building. The US was well past Peak Oil, and allowing true economic fundamentals to manifest would have resulted in horrific social consequences. Basically, without growth, unemployment skyrockets and financial systems implode. Of course, we still face that today, on an even worse scale, because they “kicked the can down the road” as Austrians like to say. But the Fed realized the consequences of not taking the actions they did, so like the little incompetent economists they are, they did what they did and had the US Military and the reserve status of the dollar on their side to make it work… for a while.
Essentially, virtually all international politics can be seen to be a game / struggle for access to energy, with oil at the center. Without oil, nothing in the economy happens. Without cheaper and / or more plentiful oil, economic growth cannot occur; it doesn’t matter how much economic theory or charts anyone throws at the problem in an attempt to circumvent that law of nature. With more expensive, less plentiful oil, contraction happens. The Fed thought they could reflate aggregate demand for stuff with their monetary policies, which would then stimulate increased production of that stuff (including the oil production needed to make it) but of course it didn’t work.
So why did they do what they did rather than ponying up to the reality of Peak Oil and the resulting future challenges? Probably because they are economists without a clue how the real economy works. They don’t know how to respond to Peak Oil, it is not something they study. They seem to be in denial. Furthermore, they would have had to admit that all their imaginary economic theories guiding their policies, even to this day, were wrong. Economics is the greatest farce in the history of academia. Mind you, the Austrian alternative is no better since kicking everyone off welfare and onto the streets isn’t going to “motivate” them to go to work and be independent and productive when there isn’t anything for them to “produce” due to expensive oil (since the resulting goods and services would be too expensive to support the level of consumption needed to provide jobs for these new “independent entrepreneurs” competing with robots who work for 1/100th the price.) And interestingly, if you correct government spending using Shadowstats real inflation adjusters, you see that government “handouts” have been decreasing since exactly Peak Oil in 1970 (and coincidentally the year the US dropped gold convertibility!)
Russia enjoyed increased oil production after the collapse of the USSR which helped them pull out of social collapse (they are now plateauing). Over that period most countries enjoyed increased oil production (or mostly plateau’d now), which has offset US declines globally.
This is why when the reset comes, it isn’t going to be a fresh start with a new system that will spur a new round of happy growth after all the “creative destruction” wipes the rot out of the system, because globally oil production will tank and social chaos will be the new norm. Even China will not escape this as their manufactured goods will become super expensive and this will cause unemployment. They still need to import half their oil and therefore will need to export something in return. What, I’m not sure. Gold? But they seem to be mercantilists now.
yes I get it, the can was kicked but now the pain will be so much greater.
Look on my mighty works and despair! Greed and human weakness is one of the themes that rhyme through history. So let it be. The Gordian tangled knot of western deceit will not be cut except by historians looking back at the greatest depression. Forget about the minute to minute machinations as the puppeteers try to keep their privileged places…Look to your loved ones, store food,water, medicines,and gas. Get out of the cities. Prepare for the house of cards to fall.