Greenspan: Y2K could prove boon to robbers

4.26 p.m. ET (2026 GMT) May 6, 1999

WASHINGTON (AP)  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is not worried that the world's financial markets will come crashing down because of the Year 2000 computer problem. His fear is more basic  a rash of robberies spawned by people keeping too much cash lying around.

In a speech to a Chicago audience, Greenspan worried that the news media will so dramatize the dangers of computer system meltdowns on Jan. 1, 2000, that the fears will affect the real economy.

"I know the evening news is going to play it as though we are looking at an asteroid which is about to hit us,'' said Greenspan, who is married to NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell.

Greenspan said he is concerned that people will become vulnerable to robbers who see an opportunity to get their hands "on real cash.''

Eventually, he said, Americans should see through any media hype and realize there will be no major breakdowns.

"I am sure that people will get very wise very soon and recognize that the last thing you want to do is draw inordinate amounts of currency out of the banks,'' Greenspan said. "The safest thing to do is to keep your money in the bank where it is going to be the safest.''

-- Norm (nwo@hotmail.com), May 07, 1999

Answers

Could someone please define the word "inordinate" in the context of Mr. Greenspan's speech?

I'm also curious about the meaning of his next-to-last sentence: "I am sure that people will get very wise very soon and recognize that the last thing you want to do is draw inordinate amounts of currency out of the banks." Questions that occur to me:

1. Does this mean that "people" are NOT very wise today? All of the people? Some of the people? Am I one of those people? Is he one of those people? How would we know one of those people if we bump into them?

2. Just how "unwise" are we? How long have we been unwise? What made us unwise? Is our unwiseness dangerous to our health? To someone else's health? What credentials are required to declare that someone is wise or unwise?

3. Just how "very soon" we all become "very wise"? Tomorrow? Next week? Next month? How will we know when it has happened? By what miraculous means will this occur? How much wiser will we be when we have become very wise? Twice as wise?

4. What is the basis -- i.e., "I am sure" -- for Mr. Greenspan's confidence that this sudden increase of wisdom will occur very soon? Is there some pronouncement we should be waiting for, e.g., where the GAO and the Pope hold a joint conference in which they provide both scientific proof and Biblical proof that there won't be any major breakdowns?

5. Why is drawing "inordinate amounts" (whatever that means) the "last thing you want to do"? What are all the things that would precede this last thing -- i.e., is there a subtle implication that there might be other "socially acceptable" forms of Y2K preparation that would okay, just so long as the "last thing" we contemplate is drawing out inordinate amounts of currency?

6. If the drawing out of "currency" is being described as a not-very- wise act of not-very-wise people, is there some other form in which it could be withdrawn that would meet the approval of the very-wise-ones? What about T-bills? What about gold? What about writing a check that empties your bank account, for the purchase of a zillion cases of Spam? I think I know what Mr. Greenspan's answer would be, but since I'm not sure whether I fall into the category of not-very-wise people, I suppose I should be careful.

With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan, I don't think that speeches like this one contribute to the kind of thoughtful discourse that we need to have if we citizens are to make an informed decision about what we plan to do with our money (OUR money! not his money! not the bank's money! not the government's money! OUR MONEY! ... whew, sorry, I got carried away for a moment) that currently resides in the banks.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

you wrote: "As a successful entrepreneur, you should know a bit about banking. Keeping the financial system working benefits you and everyone else on this forum. (By the way, are you one of those folks who wants to scrap the fractional reserve system? Just curious.)"

I made no comment about the validity, relevance, benefits or other characteristics of the fractional reserve system in my post. That's a separate, and obviously very emtional question. Indeed, I was not entirely successful in restraining my emotions at the end of my post -- but my main point is, I believe, somewhat valid: it would be beneficial if mature, reasonably intelligent adults could have a thoughtful discourse about how we can deal with the situation -- and the kind of ill-defined rhetoric posed by Mr. Greenspan makes it very difficult to do that. Read the questions in my post again.

You wrote" Greenspan is a very smart man and arguably the most powerful person on the planet. Right now, he's acting in a paternal role... like when a father says, "Children, everything will work out." Now, I dislike this this paternalistic attitude as much as you, but it is predictable from the Fed Chair."

I doubt that anyone on this forum would dispute your statement about the power Mr. Greenspan holds in his hands. However, I am not a child, and when someone begins treating me as a child, then he loses whatever opportunity he may have wanted to engage in thoughtful, reasonable discourse. And if thoughtful, reasonable discourse is being ruled out by virtue of a parental figure saying, "I know best, and your opinions aren't worth listening to," then the situation is likely to deteriorate into a series of emotional, unilateral actions and counter-actions. I don't think this is what any of us want.

You wrote: "What I read about the financial services sector (and what I know from my work) is positive. When I read about people cashing in retirement accounts, I am chagrined... mostly because paying tax and a 20% penality is highway robbery. Money within a retirement account can be parked in T Bills until the storm passes. (If you think T Bills will be worthless, it really is time to start digging a privy.)"

You are entitled to your emotion of chagrin, and the people who want to cash in their retirement accounts are welcome to their opinion, too. But more important, when you make a statement like that, there is a subtle implication that ALL reactions to Y2K financial risks are excessive, irrational, hysterical, etc. But there is a WIDE range of actions between the extreme of doing nothing (which is apparently what the Fed and gov't officials would prefer) and the other extreme of burying all of our money in the back yard. I argue that moderate, intelligent, mature adults want to have an intelligent, thoughtful dialogue so that they can decide for themselves where they feel most comfortable between the two extremes. And what troubles me most is th at comments like the ones we've read from Mr. Greenspan, no matter how well intentioned they may be, do not contribute to that thoughtful discourse. Indeed, they tend to polarize the population into choosing one of the extremes.

This is not helpful. This is not constructive. This is not what I would consider an inspiring form of leadership. This insults the intelligence of men and women who do NOT want to panic, but who also do not want to find themselves in the position of being gullible patsies. They want to make up their own mind, rather than being bullied or shamed into a course of action that's based on faith in the people making the optimistic statements about Y2K.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You wrote: "My point was not to defend Greenspan, per se, but to explain his actions. And I understand your objections. Greenspan has access to better information on the banking system than you or I. Given his performance and reputation, I'd say he is weighing every word and trying to guide the system through a potentially unstable time."

I was not questioning Mr. Greenspan's actions -- indeed, I'm not aware of any specific actions that were associated with the speech that he gave in Chicago, unless you consider the "absence" of actions (e.g., an absence of a decision to raise interest rates) equivalent to a proactive action.

My concern is ENTIRELY associated with your suggestion that he (and by extension, several other power people in the U.S. government) is "weighing every word" in his speeches. If that's the case, then reasonably intelligent people should be able to understand what he means when he utters key words and phrases. Please go back and re-read my original post on this thread. What does "inordinate" mean, when Mr. Greenspan is warning us about cash withdrawals? If it's a word that was carefully weighed when his speech was written, then we must presume that HE knew what it meant -- but the impact of the word is lost if his audience doesn't understand it.

Does an "inordinate" cash withdrawal mean anything more than $100? Or $1,000? Or 1% of someone's gross income? Or three days of living expenses? I'm a reasonably intelligent adult, and I do understand the risk of the fractional reserve system; but a vague reference to "inordinate" withdrawals provides no guidance whatsoever in my effort to achieve an ethical, pragmatic balance between my own selfish desires and my concern for the common good.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 08, 1999.

Chicken Little,

You wrote "Yeah it's our money, yeah we can take it all out of the bank, yeah maybe it would be better if we hadn't gotten to this fractional reserve system; BUT IT'S WHAT WE HAVE. LIVE WITH IT. It's worked so far, and the man who knows more about it than anyone living says it will keep on working. (Barring any artificially-induced panics.) I'll put one Greenspan up against a hundred Norths, Milnes, or Yourdons (sorry Ed, I know this is your forum, but that's what I think) ANYDAY. Anytime."

Hey, no problem -- I was not trying to elevate myself to level of godliness of Alan Greenspan. Go back and read my post again: as a reasonably intelligent, mature adult, I'm simply trying to understand what Mr. Greenspan meant by the various words and phrases he uttered in his speech. I'm not stupid, nor are most of the people who visit this forum; regardless of our political leanings, we do understand that if we all march down to the bank en masse tomorrow morning, we will find that there's not enough cash in the vault to satisfy our demand for cash withdrawals.

But, not withstanding the reassurances from the bankers, we perceive that Y2K may pose a risk to the safety of our deposits. So we wrestle with the risk-reward question of leaving our money in the bank, versus removing some (or all) of it to bury in our back yards. We wrestle with the practical implications of a bank run, but we bristle at the implication of the bankers that we have some kind of "social contract" to leave our money in the bank, even though we were never a party to the fractional reserve system they created. We have a reasonable understanding of the issues and the stakes involved, and we're trying to make an informed, intelligent decision.

In that environment, it would be extremely helpful if "the man who knows more about it than anyone living" (to use your phrase) treated thye rest of us as intelligent adults, and provided the information necessary for us to make our own informed decisions. If he choose not to do so, then he must either (a) have the power to impose his decisions, regardless of our opinion, or (b) appeal to our faith in his superior intellect and the purity of his intentions. In today's cynical times, option (b) is difficult. But there is always option (a)...

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), May 08, 1999.

Here's a positive post, but I'll wager Greenspan is using some antacid these days. The market is way beyond overvalued and he knows it may not take much to upset the apple cart. Look where it was when he thought exhuberance was irrational.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

It seems that the prospect of people withdrawing "their" money out of the bank fills the gov't with fear. Their basic propoganda is that it is a very unpatriotic thing to do and if you do so, you will be directly responsible for crashing the economy. But, as Ed points out, it's OUR money, at least in theory. thus, mine to do with as I wish.Save it, spend it, stash it under the mattress, or whatever. Why is it acceptable to have a negative savings rate in this country, for credit card and other debt to be so high, but unpatriotic and dangerous to want your dollars in cold hard cash??

The more they squawk, the more I wonder.......

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), May 07, 1999.

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

I clearly recall, that one of the PRINCIPAL charges against the 'doomers' is that they are fear mongers. Let's listen to the inimitable Mr Greenspan.....

======

Greenspan: Robbers Pose Y2K Threat Full Coverage Year 2000 Problem

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is not worried that the world's financial markets will come crashing down because of the Year 2000 computer problem. His fear is more basic - a rash of robberies spawned by people keeping too much cash lying around.

(Ooh! Ooh! Robbers lurking everywhere. Yes! That's your greatest danger. Robbers! That's it. Robbers! Don't discuss facts or evidence , just tell people that they will be attacked by robbers to get them to keep their mony in the bank. Gee, that would not be fear mongering now, would it?)

In a speech to a Chicago audience, Greenspan worried that the news media will so dramatize the dangers of computer system meltdowns on Jan. 1, 2000, that the fears will affect the real economy.

( LOL LOL It's all the bad bad media's fault. There is no OBJECTIVE problem. Only subjective fears and of course, ROBBERS!)

``I know the evening news is going to play it as though we are looking at an asteroid which is about to hit us,'' said Greenspan, who is married to NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell.

Greenspan said he is concerned that people will become vulnerable to robbers who see an opportunity to get their hands ``on real cash.''

( It is beyond astonishing that in the face of all possible Y2K problems, Greenspan sees fit to warn about Robbers over and above ANYTHING else. No comment at all about even minor preparations for a 'possible' supply chain problem. Nope. Nope. Nope. The ONE thing on his mind id...ROBBERS. And THAT is what he chooses to voice himself upon. The horrors of ROBBERS.)

Eventually, he said, Americans should see through any media hype and realize there will be no major breakdowns.

(Really? You mean that is ALL it is...just "media hype"? And on WHAT basis does he assert that there will be NO major breakdowns? Maybe Greenspan can name ten Fortune 500 companies that are remediated, tested and back in production. No? Can he name ONE major US Airport that is done? No. Oil Co? No. Utility? No. Yet his most stringent warning is about what? ROBBERS.)

``I am sure that people will get very wise very soon and recognize that the last thing you want to do is draw inordinate amounts of currency out of the banks,'' Greenspan said. ``The safest thing to do is to keep your money in the bank where it is going to be the safest.''

=======

If you have no realized by now, you ought to finally come to your senses and recognize you are being INTENTIONALLY deceived.

Of course panic is a bad thing. No good can come of it. And they are doing EVERYTHING humanly possible to stem any panic. However, they are making a HUGE mistake. By taking this tack and not warning in the slightest about even moderate preparations, they are exacerbatung the panic to come TEN FOLD.

There can be panic borne of nothing more than irrationality. I understand that. Maybe some people will empty their bank accounts because Elvis told them to. But the INEVITABLE panic will be that which occiurs naturally when the objective problems surface for which people are NOT prepared and they will have no recourse but to PANIC.

So Greenspan may well be instrumental in helping to avoid one kind of panic but he is bringing on a much greater one.

It is NOT possible that Greenspan could be THAT stupid. He DOES understand Y2K. It is NOT possible that the single thing that he would warn about concerning Y2K would be ROBBERS, if he were telling the truth.

Greenspan has done NO MORE than engage in EXACTLy what the Pollyannas attribut to doomers, 'Fear Mongering'. Yet not one Polly will step out and say' "Y'know, that IS fear mongering, plain and simple."

Greenspan knows. And he is lying through his teeth.

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/technology/story.html?s=v/ap/1 9990506/tc /greenspan_y2k_1.html

Paul Milne

If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

-- a (a@a.a), May 07, 1999.

Thank you Ed! I'm tired of being made out to be some kind of paranoid sociopath for doing what I please with my own hard earned cash. Banks are businesses. They make profits, for individuals. Time they stopped talking down to people and started EARNING their trust.

And of course, people will accuse me of "wanting society to collapse." I reply: what the hell was it doing propped up with someone else's fragile money-machine to begin with?

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 07, 1999.

Milne is dead on the money--again. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

Great thread! Good job everyone.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), May 07, 1999.

Greenspan knows. I honestly think he is afraid.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

As a successful entrepreneur, you should know a bit about banking. Keeping the financial system working benefits you and everyone else on this forum. (By the way, are you one of those folks who wants to scrap the fractional reserve system? Just curious.)

Greenspan is a very smart man and arguably the most powerful person on the planet. Right now, he's acting in a paternal role... like when a father says, "Children, everything will work out." Now, I dislike this this paternalistic attitude as much as you, but it is predictable from the Fed Chair.

Remember, however, that "Dad" has the power to enforce some harsh rules. The Fed has broad sweeping powers to preserve the system... and Greenspan is smart enough to not want to go down in history as the man who presided over the longest peacetime expansion followed by a nationalization of the financial services sector. But he'd do it in a New York City minute if meant saving the system. Simply put, the Fed can MAKE the system work... but in a way completely foreign to most citizens.

What I read about the financial services sector (and what I know from my work) is positive. When I read about people cashing in retirement accounts, I am chagrined... mostly because paying tax and a 20% penality is highway robbery. Money within a retirement account can be parked in T Bills until the storm passes. (If you think T Bills will be worthless, it really is time to start digging a privy.)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

By way of introduction, I'll repost the reply I put on Norm's earlier Greenspan thread; the discussion there died, and seems to have moved over to this one:

"There might be some uninformed people in positions of authority in Washington, D.C., but Alan Greenspan is not one of them. He's probably one of the best-informed persons on the planet, about an incredibly wide variety of things. Comes with the territory. No one could guide the unwieldy supertanker U.S.S. Economy (which breaks the water for the rest of the world's economies as well) in these perilous times as adroitly as he has, for as long as he has, without being keenly aware of whut's happ'nin all over the globe. Such a track record doesn't come from dumb luck. "Proof is in the pudding", as the saying goes.

I should certainly hope that no intelligent person is seriously considering blasting Greenspan for his comments, non-Doomer though they be. The person who does will be torpedoing his/her own credibility for a long time to come.

==========

Q. "What do they know that we don't know?"

A. In Greenspan's case, a LOT.

==========

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 07, 1999."

********************************

And I stand by that.

Now.

Here we have in one corner: the man who has guided the largest economy in the history of the world, in a manner heretofore unknown for its excellence, in the midst of all kinds of obstacles / pitfalls / unknown land mines / icebergs / uncertainties. The man who is, as Mr. Decker says, arguably the most powerful man on the planet, who is pretty much responsible for maintaining the economic status of the last remaining "superpower". And by extension, much of the rest of the world. A man who, by any sane measure, knows what's going on. Hands down. A man whose job it is to maintain stability in an unstable world, and who has done a helluva bang-up job, for anyone who's been taking notes.

In the other corner, we have some computer programmers whose knowledge of the global economy, when compared to Greenspan's, would look like a BB next to a boulder. Yet the programmers question the world-class economist's judgment.

As Mr. Decker says, Greenspan is taking on a paternal role. Well by gosh, someone needs to! When I was a little boy, and someone was trying to panic me, it was always comforting to have my 'pater' around to dispel the panic. But I think I see what's going on here.

The 'boys' here don't see Pater Greenspan as their 'pater'. Maybe not even as their 'neighbor'. But neighbor Greenspan is telling the neighborhood not to worry; those youngsters don't really know everything they think they do; if you want to know how things will be with the neighborhood economy, you need to talk to the neighborhood's foremost economist, the person who just by coincidence happens also to have the most influence on that neighborhood economy. And who has the neighborhood's best interest at heart, as proven by a longstanding track record of steering the neighborhood through many a perilous predicament successfully.

But the neighborhood boys say, "Nah, nah, he's a goody-goody, and so are his folks. He doesn't know what he's talking about; I question his judgment"; some of the more ignorant ones even say he's "lying through his teeth". But the sensible folk of the neighborhood realize that these boys have never taken care of the economic interest of the neighborhood; they don't have the capacity even to try. All they can do is sit on the sidelines and gripe, while the Pater does the real business of guiding the neighborhood through good and bad.

***

Yeah it's our money, yeah we can take it all out of the bank, yeah maybe it would be better if we hadn't gotten to this fractional reserve system; BUT IT'S WHAT WE HAVE. LIVE WITH IT. It's worked so far, and the man who knows more about it than anyone living says it will keep on working. (Barring any artificially-induced panics.) I'll put one Greenspan up against a hundred Norths, Milnes, or Yourdons (sorry Ed, I know this is your forum, but that's what I think) ANYDAY. Anytime.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

I am delighted to hear your concern for civil discourse. I read it with some irony in that during the past 48 hours I have been called a hypocrite, liar and coward on this forum. If all of the guests had your good manners, I agree, we could accomplish more.

My point was not to defend Greenspan, per se, but to explain his actions. And I understand your objections. Greenspan has access to better information on the banking system than you or I. Given his performance and reputation, I'd say he is weighing every word and trying to guide the system through a potentially unstable time.

"'...I know best, and your opinions aren't worth listening to,' then the situation is likely to deteriorate into a series of emotional, unilateral actions and counter-actions. I don't think this is what any of us want."

Here, again, I smile at the irony. Mr. Yourdon, I respectfully request you place this phrase at the beginning of the forum. Perhaps your leadership will reduce the negative personal attacks that occur when we discuss the great middle.

By the way, as a libertarian, I strongly support people's right to engage in open inquiry and economic activity. I have stated on this forum that I anticipate a downturn of this overvalued market. I have also advised defensive investments and reported that over half of my portfolio is parked in T Bills.

"I argue that moderate, intelligent, mature adults want to have an intelligent, thoughtful dialogue so that they can decide for themselves where they feel most comfortable between the two extremes."

Great quote. I think moderates all over the country are having this discussion. Over time, I think we'll see a market correction as informed investors take profits and move into a defensive position. I also think moderates question the opinion that Y2K will be worse than the Civil War or Great Depression in terms of economic or personal devastation.

How about you?

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 08, 1999.

CL,

Your hagiography of AG, though admirable, is perhaps a bit misplaced. One may cower in ignorance of basic economics in order to attribute genius to a certain central banker and his every pronouncement, but the truth is, he's on thin ice and has been for at least the last couple of years. Whether by his own design or by the tide of events, he's on very thin ice. And Y2k, though being perfectly predictable as a "panicky event" well before the fact, probably isn't helping the situation at this relatively late moment.

A responsible central banker would not repeatedly pump the money supply up 2-3x the growth rate while simultaneously cutting short term interest rates, thereby producing negative real rates of interest for extended periods. For THAT, history teaches us, is the prescription for creating a disastrous asset bubble. Oddly enough, AG KNOWS this, or least, he used to. One wonders.

Now, what became of the "extra" cash the FED was printing for Y2k and all the other cash they had in storage? Dick Armey recently indicated that WE CAN'T POSSIBLY withdraw too much currency. He and AG both told us it's covered. Multiple times. They expected large cash withdrawals.

What is the message here? What are the facts? Is the system having problems or not? Should we not withdraw cash after all, even though it was covered, even though we couldn't possibly withdraw too much, even though we were told our actions would not be at all problematic and therefore a perfectly resonable, responsible act? Why can't they treat us as rational beings, as equals? Why can't they quit sending mixed messages? Why don't they quit beating around the bush? Some of us would prefer to take some personal responsibility once in a while, politically incorrect though it may be. Some of us would prefer to act on ACTUAL TRUTHFUL INFORMATION, soon, NOW, instead of having to reinterpret all this every time an utterance crosses the wire.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), May 08, 1999.

"I am delighted to hear your concern for civil discourse. I read it with some irony in that during the past 48 hours I have been called a hypocrite, liar and coward on this forum. If all of the guests had your good manners, I agree, we could accomplish more."

Hey, Quisling, if you didn't go running off to your erstwhile compadres on other Fora, ridiculing the participants on this forum then you would have a leg to stand on and a genuine complaint.

The fact is you were CAUGHT RED HANDED pal!

Who do you think you are trying to kid? You know it, we all now it.

So don't come the innocent, whingeing at the way you are being treated.

You ARE a hypocrite and a coward - if Big Dog hadn't outed you so well you would still be carrying on in your contemptible way as before.

We have long memories here pal. You're history in most principled peoples' eyes.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 08, 1999.

I know that sometimes I may seem to be "way out" compared to others on this forum, but his words"very soon" make me wonder if he is planning to devalue the currency many have pulled out and replace it with another currency waiting in the wings.That would make the stuff under the mattress worthless, and only electronic currency or the new currency would be valued. Kind of like those old worthless Confederate notes, ya know? Perhapa the real ROBBERS are the Federal Reserve con artists.

-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), May 08, 1999.

p.s. Maybe we are to have a new Global Currency?

-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), May 08, 1999.

A Bank is a license to print money. No other sector of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE has a higher profit margin. A bank is a BUSINESS; it's not some holy temple guarding "the common good." It's a straw, that the super-rich use to SUCK MONEY out of nations.

Why do you people tiptoe around this fact? Our corrupt government has given THE OWNERS OF A PRIVATE BANK the power to PRINT OUR MONEY. Most of our taxes go directly to PAY OUR DEBT TO THIS PRIVATELY OWNED BANK. Our nation is now a pitiful share-cropper that owes it's soul to the company store of this international banking cartel.

If a pimp got one of his whores addicted to heroin to make her more dependent upon him, and there were a chance that she would suffer terribly if forced to go through withdrawl, would we (assuming we had ANY control over her fate) refuse her treatment and give her more heroin, "for her own good?" That's what you're talking about when you talk about appeasing this PARASITE to which we owe the largest national debt in the history of mankind.

This is a sick, anti-democratic, proto-oligarchic situation. Most people aren't getting rich off the current boom; they are working two jobs, working as temps...a few are prospering (certainly they make sure the opinion-makers are happy). Democracy is not being strengthened; the government is increasingly willing to suspend the Bill of Rights and use violence against it's own citizens. Corruption is everywhere; our own President sold our nuclear program to the Communist Chinese for campaign contributions, even as Chinese generals threaten us with nukes over Taiwan, and Russia and China openly ally to "limit American hegemony!" The Federal Reserve has sucked the economic life out of America, and we are rotting from the inside. Must we aquiesce, because prostituting ourselves to international bankers is the only game in town? My anwer:

"Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 08, 1999.

Dano,

Either Earth II has a whole lot more in common with the original than we thought, or you've been spending too much time here!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 09, 1999.

Agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Dano, couldn't have said it better myself, wake up you lot - especially the fed's apologist on this board - No Spam aka Meerkat - for a thorough run-down of the theft of your souls' read any of David Ickes' last three books.

And Betty - you are precisely correct - the plan is to introduce a gold-backed digital electronic-ONLY currency once the chaos next year has died down a little - the agenda is in place - the timeline I'm not sure of but 2000 is the smoking gun drop dead date.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 09, 1999.

The government takes more from you in one month than a robber is likely to get from you (on average) in a lifetime.

-- A (A@AisA.com), May 09, 1999.

Certainly it's safer to leave your money in the bank than to have piles of cash sitting around -- *provided* the banking system remains stable. The stability of the system faces two threats: 'inordinate' withdrawals, and bad code. The government is engaged in a multifaced campaign against both threats.

The first threat is to public confidence in the system. To retain this confidence, they publicize the 'ample' cash reserves being created, they emphasize the status of the banks (leading the pack, etc.), they talk of the FDIC's insurance, they play down the possibility of any serious problems, they tell us we're wise to leave our money in the bank and unwise to withdraw it, and they play up the danger of theft/robbery of loose cash.

Against the code threat, they provide testing facilities for the banks, they emphasize (to the banks) their considerable powers against laggards, they subject member banks to a series of stringent audits.

Is there more they can do? As Mr. Decker has alluded to, the government has considerable powers, from declaring bank holidays to forcing the closing of specific banks, to placing limits on withdrawals. Possibly Greenspan is hinting here that if the PR campaign (however well justified) is not successful, those powers will be invoked.

Right now, the sum total of banking information available indicates that loss of confidence represents much the more serious danger (except to those who have been expecting the system to collapse any day since 1913 [g]). Of course if Milne or Andy every get anything right, whatever Greenspan does is irrelevant anyway.

Personally, if it were ever possible for me to have three months' worth of living expenses stored as cash, I'd stop there.

[Suffered SEVEN power failures trying to post this, on a calm clear day. I wonder...]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 09, 1999.

I think AG's statement on Y2K should come as no surprize. I think someone had a "heart-to-heart" talk with him. I expect Ed Yardini will be lowering his predictions soon also. It appears everyone is putting on a happy face to avert panic. Keep on rolling, life is but a dream ( I hope it doesn't turn into a nightmare!).

-- Watcher5 (anon@anon.com), May 09, 1999.

ED--

Hope this helps

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 09, 1999.

>>

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ek6

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 09, 1999.

Hardliner,

You might want to try "Gas-X" for that problem.

Do you have something to actually contribute to our discussion? I know that jar-head isn't empty...

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 10, 1999.

Dano,

I fail to see how "Gas-X" can have an effect on either the Fed or the populace. Greenspan however, might be susceptible. . .

I guess I shouldn't have tried to be so "cute" with that post. What I was trying to do was relate back to one of our previous exchanges where you and I inhabited alternate versions of the Earth and indicate something like, "Holy Cow! That's happening here too, and just like that!"

There were a fairly limited set of remarks that had occurred to me as relevant to the thread (to that point), and in my perception, they had mostly been already presented, and rather well at that.

My intended contribution then (and still) was to signify agreement with your post.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 10, 1999.

I'm serious, Hardliner: to whom do we owe our national debt? We know that most of our tax check goes to pay the interest on this debt; but who is making this money? Name names. Or, alternately, express these people numerically, in terms of what percent of the population they represent. .00000....%? Do you think that the wealth in the nation can continue to be concentrated in so few hands indefinitely? To what effect, politically and culturally?

What did the founding fathers think about national debt? Was it, to them, a threat to our liberty? What would they think of the level of taxation now required to service that debt? Do you think the framers of the Constitution ever imagined that the people would aquiesce to Congress giving control of our currency to a PRIVATE BANK? Do you dispute the fact that the "Federal" Reserve is a private bank? What about the International Monetary Fund? Has it's work resulted in "aid" to the loan recipients, or has it enriched the North? Which way does the money ultimately flow? Is the IMF a charitable organization? Or is it a straw, to suck money out of the Southern Hemisphere?

Or pick a point where you think I've erred, and well begin there.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 10, 1999.

Flint: You forgot the third threat - loans that go bad due to y2k effects in the economy. In fact, as the Pacific Rim now bears witness, they can go bad without the effects of y2k.

-- a (a@a.a), May 10, 1999.

Oh. Uh, Okay.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 10, 1999.

'a':

I didn't forget that threat, but I think of it in a somewhat different category. I can't see the economy rolling over dead within a month or two, although I expect it to grind down over a year or so. In those circumstances, you won't lose what you have in the bank, nor will you lose your on-demand access to it.

Of course, you might lose your job and income, and need to live on that money. In the Depression, nobody lost anything they had in the bank in insured deposits. So I don't regard threats to the health of the economy as threats to the banking system per se.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 10, 1999.

Dano,

When you asked these questions:

"What did the founding fathers think about national debt? Was it, to them, a threat to our liberty? What would they think of the level of taxation now required to service that debt? Do you think the framers of the Constitution ever imagined that the people would aquiesce to Congress giving control of our currency to a PRIVATE BANK? ",

it occurred to me that the following from Thomas Jefferson directly addressed those queries:

"I sincerely believe . . . that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 28 May 1816, to senator John Taylor, whose book An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814) had argued against the harmful effects of finance capitalism.

Flint,

Your point ("I can't see the economy rolling over dead within a month or two, although I expect it to grind down over a year or so.") is one we would all do well to keep in mind. Economic structures, exactly as physical ones, have momentum and change happens at a speed inversely proportional to their mass and directly proportional to the size of the force applied to them.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 11, 1999.

So then, Mr. Greenspan should not object to our pulling our cash out and placing it in a security box?

There will be more than enough cash available for withdrawal?

-- fine (ok@with.me), May 11, 1999.

I would expect Mr. Greenspan to question the safety of such "security boxes", and yes, there will be enough currency to go around--providing that no one wants more than 1.7 cents on the dollar for their holdings. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 11, 1999.