http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/04/reich-levels-broadside-at-greenspan.html

In 1999 I started wondering what Robert Rubin might have said to Alan Greenspan in a private meeting in 1997 to cause him to reverse his policy bias shortly after his famous “irrational exuberance” speech. Greenspan embraced the monetary easing that led to the tech bubble, and joined the fight against regulation of derivatives, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, in which the Fed was absolutely instrumental.

PBS Frontline – The Warning: The Roots of the Financial Crisis
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/10/pbs-frontline-presents-warning-roots-of.html

Please fisk that for me. Or this:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2218-The-Valukas-Report-on-Lehman-My-Questions.html

Again, from Mr. Valukas:

The SEC knew that Lehman was reporting sums in its reported liquidity pool that the SEC did not believe were in fact liquid; the SEC knew that Lehman was exceeding its risk control limits; and the SEC should have known that Lehman was manipulating its balance sheet to make its leverage appear better than it was. Yet even in the face of actual knowledge of critical shortcomings, and after Bear Stearns’ near collapse in March 2008 following a liquidity crisis, the SEC did not take decisive action.

Me [Denninger]:

This is not a unique failure. The OTS has been fingered by its own Inspector General for having an employee who was an OTS inspector during the S&L crisis and during that crisis allowed an S&L to fraudulently backdate deposits perform the exact same outrageous action with IndyMac bank. The bank subsequently failed and a significant part of the FDIC loss was taken as a consequence of its delayed action.

Now tell me, Tiberius, that no one knew anything and everything was done by the book. Could you also possibly reply to this?

http://www.gata.org/node/8557

By Adrian Douglas Monday, April 19, 2010

At the public hearing on the metals markets held by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission on March 25, I was able to introduce testimony on the record that the London Bullion Market Association is operating a massive fractional reserve gold market that I called a Ponzi scheme.

In your wisdom, tiberius, would you say that Adrian Douglas is talking through his backside and there is no such thing going on, nothing whatever? would you say that it doesn’t matter anyway? Which economists are you using to back up that assertion? Could you quote them?

you seem very ignorant of the economic literature about the crisis

You’re doing your reputation no favours coming out with this guff. I quoted you two sources above which you should have immediately looked at. You didn’t even effing bother. I quoted you six more jsut now. Ditto. Then you have the gall to say I’m ignorant of the literature?

Look at this:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2221-On-The-Goldman-Complaint-Janet-Tavakoli.html

Paul Krugman is another who would disagree with your interpretation of the crisis.

Of course he would – he’s a Keynesian and well in with the globalists, of which you also are part. Now, here’s your precious Krugman, rejected by every economist who is not Marxist:

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2178-Trichet-Speaks-Is-The-US-Listening.html

Krugman’s claim is especially odious:

What worries me most about the U.S. situation right now is the rising clamor from inflation hawks, who want the Fed to raise rates (and the federal government to pull back from stimulus) even though employment has barely started to recover. If they get their way, they’ll perpetuate mass unemployment. But that’s not all. America’s public debt will be manageable if we eventually return to vigorous growth and moderate inflation. But if the tight-money people prevail, that won’t happen — and all bets will be off.

What growth Paul?

Go look at that graph up above again. We never exceeded 2% GDP growth coming out of the 2001 recession in real terms.

Krugman is well known as a stooge. Here’s someone who actually likes Krugman but when Krugman starts talking depression – he hasn’t a clue:

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008/11/educating-paul-krugman-about-money.html

We like Paul Krugman and enjoy reading his columns. But every so often he writes a column that is so off his normal standards that it makes us wonder if he is on vacation and the task of producing the column has been delegated to a graduate assistant.

That’s from a Krugman fan!

Have you any others? Bernanke perhaps? Paulson? Tucker?

Am I ignorant of the literature when you fail to address even one point in these many posts on this blog, let alone what is at the end of the links.

Instead you come in with the personal insult again. How much more data would you like? Now start effing fisking it, Tiberius, point by point – show me that there is factual error in what the economists say or else go and do your reading.

It-simply-is.

Read Denninger, read Keiser. Did you listen to Jim Rickards? Did you listen to Janet Tavakoli? These are people in there, not theorists. Have you looked at Xxxl – he’s in the game and knows. Did you look at Jesse’s Cafe Americain?

But you won’t read them, will you? The reason is your agenda – to counteract in people’s minds what is actually going on.

Sigh.

You didn’t take on my statement about derivatives: they are ways of trading risk not creating it. The problem with derivatives is that information did not flow along side the derivative in some cases- but where derivatives work they allow you to divide the risk from the product you are selling. I’m not sure from your statements you understand that.

Of course I read some of the stuff behind what you write- I can’t read all of it- but equally do you read the stuff you disagree with. Martin Wolf of the FT for instance puts forward the argument about China that I detailed above and you seem very ignorant of the economic literature about the crisis- you don’t seem to have quoted a single peer reviewed source in all of this just journalistic articles (which are more often wrong than right). Paul Krugman is another who would disagree with your interpretation of the crisis.

I’m not saying you are neccessarily wrong but that this is more complicated than you are saying.

If you want to understand the financial system, and the markets in particular, just go into your nearest betting shop and ask the first ‘benefit scrounging chavscum’ you see. He will explain it all to you in great detail (but only after ascertaining that you are not a spy from the DWP)

its not fiat currency or fractional reserve banking that causes economic crises: both happened before either were invented

Yes it very much is and we’re headed towards the biggest one of all now, aided and abetted by the globalists. Only the blind would ignore the sheer weight of evidence – either the blind or someone with an agenda.

I do wish you’d read the material before commenting. Try this one, for example:

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast_Gold+/Entries/2010/4/14_Jim_Rickards.html

or this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17nocera.html?src=busln

The subprime crisis alone was directly attributable to the actions of OTCs and CDSs which were known of but not regulated by the Fed. Directly, Tiberius – not even any room for speculation.

On a second point, its not fiat currency or fractional reserve banking that causes economic crises: both happened before either were invented. What causes economic crises is complex- it is sometimes dearth and famine, war othertimes- but most often it is movements of demand. You are basically saying that all movements of demand are caused by lending and if there was no lending there would be no problem: but that’s not actually true- a movement upwards in the savings rate also causes a fall in demand and therefore a recession or depression, a boom or bust. There are other things too- indeed there is a whole economic literature you seem to be ignoring on these problems.

The 30s or now were not neccessarily caused primarily by the run on the banks: that may have been the symptom for something else that your policies would not control.