The news last night and msn home page today headline Greenspan's claim that y2k will be a minimal event for the U.S. Now, this guy carries a lot a weight, and apparently conferred with several "experts". I can tell you, anyone I know who is a DGI or DWGI will listen to this man, since he controls the economy. So, what FACTS does anyone have that would prove Greenspan a liar?

-- lparks (lparks@eurekanet.com), September 18, 1999

Answers

I'll let an expert bore or excite you with the technical facts, but the bottom line is still:

No Ponzi scheme can last forever. The way things are now, everyone can borrow money off their CC at 20% and get a return at 40% (a number of investors on "Wall Street Week" made 40% in 6 MONTHS!) and live happily ever after. No work, no fuss, the rest of the world may starve but we're immune.

Again, you can discuss technicalities foreever. But unless its a "new world" as some investers are now trying to claim, it defies the laws of logic, not to mention God. The tried and true realities that have stood for 4000 years or so have been discarded in just a few --- so I suppose its possible Y2K won't bring it down, but the system is so shaky it WILL be "corrected". The financial markets are so far off as far as reality, why should we think their analysis (general uphoria types, not the exceptions like Yardeni) of Y2K has any merit?

So I can't say for sure Y2K will bring down the market, I can say for sure these people are deluded (at least in the public statements) --- so why believe/trust them?

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), September 18, 1999.

lparks, here is a FACT!!

Alan Greenspan has allowed the largest bubble in stock market history to be created. History will not be kind to Alan. The decisions he has made over the past few years have been POLITICAL in nature. We had an opportunity to take our medicine a few years ago but we opted to roll out the credit bubble.

Alan Greenspan has NO credibility with those who are truly aware.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 18, 1999.

My GI wife and I were taking a Y2K day off at a state park yesterday so the first thing I heard about Greenspan's statement was this P.S. in an e-mail from my DGI brother (with wife and two young children, living "in" a big city) > ps - do you believe Greenspan's Y2K comments today about the threat of massive computer failure in the U.S. being virtually nonexistent? Have your feelings in general re y2k changed over the last few months, or remained about the same? I've talked to him and sent him articles that I hoped would start him preparing, but I can tell from his question that zero progress has been made. This is reply I sent to him. I found the main statement on:

http://www .christiany2k.com/index.shtml

If anyone has any better succinct hard hitting replies to try and jog him out of his mindset, I would welcome them... Greenspan is only a man. He's no god and doesn't really know what will happen. I read the full transcript of what he said and he admits as much (along with a huge pile of spin). Here are a few thoughts that state my outlook very well. Nothing I've studied lately has changed my opinion... COMPUTER EXPERT Ed Yourdon, who has written extensively about Y2K, describes the decision to begin making preparations as a psychological "jumping-off point" at which one's concern about the risks outweighs one's concern that other people may look at you funny and consider you a fanatic. MANY OF US WHO think of ourselves as level-headed individuals will struggle with the notion of stockpiling food, water, candles and other crucial items. It seems surreal to even consider such measures. IT BEARS RESTATING that no one can say exactly what will happen on Jan. 1, 2000. What we DO know is that the possibility of disruption and chaos is real. It may be minimized or even avoided altogether. Or it may be awful. As the date approaches, we will all have our own ideas about exactly what Y2K will look like. BUT WHAT IF WE'RE WRONG? If we prepare for a serious disruption that never arrives, we may feel silly and will have some supplies sitting around. Most of them may be useful in non-disaster scenarios. On the other hand, what if we make no preparations because we believe everything will be fine, and find ourselves without power and water? THINK ABOUT IT. The cost of being wrong in expecting a "scary" Y2K is limited. The cost of being wrong in expecting a "safe" Y2K could be huge.

-- TM (digiratoX@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

Sorry about the run on paragraph formatting. I guess one has to add their own paragraph markers.

-- TM (digiratoX@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

So Greenspan says US code is OK. FACT= 78% of code is outside the US.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), September 18, 1999.

The news media has not reported what Green-spin actually said. The first part of his speech has been ignored. G-spin said there "...will be failures" I watched the whole thing on C-Span2 and was astounded to here that much honesty from a G-man. Factfinder provided a link and the full text of his speech on another thread - maybe you should read it?

-- Tim Castleman (aztc@earthlink.net), September 18, 1999.

greenspan was very careful and very crafty with his most recent statements. peruse the following:

"As a consequence of our current dependence on computers, some Y2K-related failures could have noticeable effects on the economy," Greenspan said Friday. However, the Fed chief added that "the probability of a cascading of computer failures in mission-critical systems is now negligible."

"The potentially most important piece in the Y2K puzzle for the rest of the year is the uncertain response of the American consumer as the year-end approaches," he said.

"I trust that such withdrawals will be modest since, as I have said before, the safest thing for consumers to do with their money around year-end is to leave it where it is," he said.

the cascading failures that Greenspan refers to would fall somewhere between an 8 and a 10 in my estimation. the real story here is that if one reads between the lines i think Greenspan is saying that anything is possible just short of a complete meltdown. if the average dolt does not find this alarming then so

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), September 18, 1999.

lparks,

I've been thinking about this myself. I agree with you that AG is clearly the Master of the Universe and his judgement is to be trusted.

There are 3 possibilities here: he knows there is a big problem and he's spinning, he has missed the liklihood of a disaster, or he is correct in his judgement.

There would be no point for him to mislead the country. If he feels that banking failures are inevitable he would be dooming himself to spending the rest of his career testifying to Congress and explaining his statements. Certgainly, he doesn't want that.

It is not likely that he has honestly understated the Y2K impact- he's much too bright for that. This is a very careful man who makes extensive contingency plans for the unlikeliest of events. He is also in a position to know much more about the truth of Y2K than we do.

The most logical conclusion is that he believes what he says and he is correct in his assessment. There is a difference between Y2K problems and wholesale banking failures. The job of the Fed is to protect the banking system, not to prop up the markets. I am betting he is correct on the banks.

AG is 74 years old and has has had an incredible career as head of the Fed. If I were he and believed the banking system was headed for chaos, I would quit now. At his age he doesn't need the grief or the inevitable process of watching his image be tarnished. The only logical answer is that he believes the banking system is stable and his history tells us he is usually correct.

-- mike (maples@voy.net), September 18, 1999.

Yes, we worship Greedspin too. We have a special little voodoo economic effigy on our Dollar Idolatry Alter ;^)

What Greenspan *Really* Said

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 18, 1999.

Look, Greenspan has been told what to say. What he says is exactly what Koskinen says, who has been told what to say. They go to a little conference together and the discussion is: What's best? The answer is to delay the panic. Maybe they are right in doing so. Look at Hurricane Floyd. The hit was delayed and the winds dropped considerably. The results were less bad than if the hit had been on the Florida Coast with 155 mph winds.

So that's their approach. It wouldn't be ours. I think we would have done better with community prepping, etc. But since people are dumb, who knows...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

Given what I know about human behavior/psychology I'm going to add some items about Greenspan. 'Course opinions are abundant as pennies, and if I had one for each I could buy more beans and rice,...but for what it's worth I remind us of the following:

Alan Greenspan, as was pointed out above, is a man, not a god, (although god complexes come easily when one has so many people kissing one's ring, feet, etc.) From a psychological perspective it would be difficult if not impossible to be a Greenspan moving all those chess pieces around at will and not buy into his own legend. In other words, while he is not god, he may think he is. And like human minds can do, convince himself that what he is saying is true. Many a human can so thoroughly convince themselves of anything that they could pass psychometric tests as to truth/lies.

Next, Greenspan was one of the Objectivist School's inner circle,...one of Ayn Rand's darlings. The philosophy says, among other things, that there are those better suited to "rule" than others. While I appreciate some of Rand's tenets, I read over and over thinly veiled assumptions that an elite group of capitalists could and would remake the world. Ruthlessness in 'business' is very Randian. Machiavelli has nothing on the Objectivists.

I'm willing to consider my speculations off the mark, however, and welcome comments. Just some food for thought.

--She in the Sheet upon the hilltop,

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 18, 1999.

I am getting sick and tired of the spin. Clinton and Greenspan did nothing that was not risky to improve the economy. NOTHING. The main reason for the good economy here is the depression in Japan. The interest rates there were lowered to one half per cent in an effort to help the economy so what happened? Japanese "investors" borrowed yen at 1/2 per cent, bought dollars, invested dollars in U Government bonds at 5 to 6 per cent and pocketed the profits. If the value of the dollar declines like it has, they will take a loss when they sell these bonds. When this happens, that money will leave the U S and interest rates here will skyrocket. This will cause a recession or depression on top of all the other problems and Y2k could be the trigger. The American people are too stupid to see this happening before their eyes. Some call it the yen carry trade. Actually it is the US bailout trade. We can thank Clinton and Mr. G for this when it happens. Not if, WHEN. The higher it rises, the further it falls. If it was irrational exuberance at 6800 what is it now at 10,800, prudent investing? Andy is right on. The master spoke, people listened, people will suffer and the spin continues. Curly can see what is happening. Can you?

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), September 18, 1999.

Interesting article on Greenspan in November 1997 issue of Liberty Magazine at following link:

Deep Cover For Radical Capitalism?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 18, 1999.

Actually this is an abridged version of the article at Liberty. On my jaunt to the library today I'll pick up the whole version for anything else noteworthy.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 18, 1999.

I appreciate all of the interesting replies. I certainly am not in the position, or one of any authority or knowledge, to affirm or refute any of the posts. I did read Greenspans entire speech. Yes, the market is inflated. Yes, y2k could be a trigger for effecting numerous scenarios, including the great tribulation (but claims have been made for other events that have come and gone). Yes, I agree that there is no harm in preparing, whether for 3 days or 3 years. Many people, however, listen to Greenspan. In his position, he is at least, perceived to have some authority. What facts does any one have to prove that his statements are lies. Or, for that matter, that he is wrong about minimal disruptions and that y2k wil be a 7-10. Thanks again for your comments. Just someone really trying sift the wheat from the chaff and figure this thing out.

-- lparks (lparks@eurekanet.com), September 18, 1999.

Someone on this thread said that Greenspan would have greater knowledge of what was going on than we. I disagree with that. He is not out in the trenches doing the work. And he sure isn't talking to the guy doing the work. He may be talking to the CEOs who appear to not be too educated on their own systems. Furthermore, if the CEOs are lying to everyone else, why do you think they would give the fox, with the key to the hen house, the real truth? I agree that the man has great knowledge of world economics. But that comes from his experience. Pray tell where has he gotten Y2k experience? I don't think he knows any more than the rest of us. And if he does and he is lying,..... then line up another rope!

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

Donna is correct in her observation the AG was included in Ayn Rand's inner cirle. Her philosophy is not about elitism, it is about an individual's ability to maximize his/her talents. The elitists in Atlas Shrugged were the socialistic gov't bureacrats who though the had the answers for everyone. One of Rand's guiding principles involves acting in your self interest. I haven't seen one indication above why it is AG's self interest to spin Y2K, because he would surely pay the price and become the scapegoat. I think he understands the dynamics.

-- mike (maples@voy.net), September 18, 1999.

"I haven't seen one indication above why it is AG's self interest to spin Y2K"

Just buying time is reason enough - if he told the truth the banks and the market would be burnt toast in less time than it takes to recover from a 3 day storm. Seems to me AG is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you were he - would you rather go down in history as the optimist who believed all would be fine...or the fool who kick started the problem?

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 18, 1999.

April,

I'd get out now while I still have my reputation. If I were he and convinced of a problem, I'd leave the mess to someone else. He could retire now and leave his reputation intact. There aren't that many folks still working fulltime at age 74. I am convinced he would spare himself the pain if he really beieved in the wholesale banking failure scenario.

-- mike (maples@voy.net), September 18, 1999.

Mike, seems to me I have read lately quite a few CEO's have bailed quietly. Unfortunately, AG's master is Mr. Prez. What if he would love to take a dive and he isn't allowed to? I just think he is less worried about his reputation than the quality of the balance of his life. Of, course, I'm just guessing like all the rest of the monkeys.

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 18, 1999.

Greenspan is Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board whose members are BANKS, a number of which are European. He is not a God. And he has an agenda. Not hard to speculate what that agenda might be...

What makes anyone think that a group of Central BANKS have our national inerests in mind??

-- Leslie (***@***.net), September 18, 1999.

April,

Are you suggesting that our leader would have AG bumped off if he resigned? If so, isn't that a bit paranoid? Does everything have to be a sinister conspiracy? Last I heard, Rubin was still walking around after he quit.

-- mike (maples@voy.net), September 18, 1999.

Mike - no -I'm saying Clinton calls the shots- after he gets his orders, that is. AG can't afford to be the one who brings it all down prematurely. It is not likely AG would lose sleep worrying about his reputation. After all - we have a president who committed purgery and it didn't do too much damage to him. Apparently we have evolved into the Age of Lying where any lie is justifiable. And I'm not paranoid - they are out to get me! ;)

-- April (Alwzapril@home.com), September 19, 1999.

IMHO, April came closest to defining AG's motivations in an earlier comment.

Lets presume AG knows the 1/1/00 problem will be very bad. His natural urge would be to do everything to keep folks working on the problem until the last minute. To do otherwise would precipitate an immediate meltdown, less time spent on remediation, and conditions much worse than if everyone had continued to work at all possible costs until the last minute.

I think it short sighted to presume that if AG understood the problem to be bad, that he would resign to save his reputation. (1) What value a reputation if its salvage results in a greater catastrophe? (2) Such a presumption implies AG values his reputation more than the welfare of his clients and/or the country and its people. There is otherwise no indication of this.

No, AG is taking the correct action, regardless of what he knows and what the objective outcome will be - keep people working on the problem until the last minute regardless of the outcome or costs.

Sincerely,

-- Uhmm.. (jfcp81a@prodigy.com), September 19, 1999.