Dear Sir, It's oddly fitting that Alan Greenspan should argue in favor of continued self-regulation of the financial sector ("We will never have a perfect model of risk", 17 March) on the very day that self-regulation demonstrates its absolute failure and the only solution to avoid complete market panic and collapse is seen to be public intervention, in the form of massive Fed guarantees over Bear Stearns liabilities. After denying for years that there was any asset bubble, Alan Greenspan now describes it in excruciating detail, and concludes that it was inevitable, because it is the very nature of financial markets to be occasionally irrational, and to engage in booms and busts. Such a (correct) assessment would seem to be a call for much stricter regulation of how the financial world can be allowed to play with other people's money to limit such cycles. Instead, his insistence that nothing of the kind should be done is an extraordinarily explicit call to privatise financial profits (during the boom) and socialise losses (in the aftermath). As such, it should be treated with all the respect that political extremists deserve, ie none.
It's oddly fitting that Alan Greenspan should argue in favor of continued self-regulation of the financial sector ("We will never have a perfect model of risk", 17 March) on the very day that self-regulation demonstrates its absolute failure and the only solution to avoid complete market panic and collapse is seen to be public intervention, in the form of massive Fed guarantees over Bear Stearns liabilities.
After denying for years that there was any asset bubble, Alan Greenspan now describes it in excruciating detail, and concludes that it was inevitable, because it is the very nature of financial markets to be occasionally irrational, and to engage in booms and busts. Such a (correct) assessment would seem to be a call for much stricter regulation of how the financial world can be allowed to play with other people's money to limit such cycles. Instead, his insistence that nothing of the kind should be done is an extraordinarily explicit call to privatise financial profits (during the boom) and socialise losses (in the aftermath). As such, it should be treated with all the respect that political extremists deserve, ie none.
Send any comments quickly as I intend to send this out soon. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
replace that with
"As such, it should be treated with all the respect that political extremis_M_ deserve, ie none."
Or I dunno. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
