Alan Greenspan was on C-Span in October testifying before a congressional committee on the root of the financial crisis. In this video, he is interrogated by Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
It is important to note here that Alan Greenspan is a proponent of market deregulation and personally subscribes to the philosophies that espouse individual rights and freedom. What I find interesting is how the market crisis has seemingly shaken Greenspan’s ideas on capitalism and self-interest.
Note at 3:36, when Rep. Waxman asks: Where did you think you made a mistake?
Alan Greenspan’s somber reply:
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. And it’s been my experience, having worked both as a regulator for eighteen years and similar quantities in the private sector especially ten years at a major international bank, that the loan officers of these institutions knew far more about the risks involved about the people to whom they lent money than I saw even our best regulators at Fed were capable of doing.
So the problem here is something which looked to be a very solid edifice and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down and I think that, as I said, shocked me I still do not fully understand why it happened and obviously to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views.
The facts change, I will change.
The critical error I get from Greenspan’s admission are that his ideals of individualism and capitalism are based on an assumption of perfect information, especially on the part of bankers. In a way, he took it with some faith that the banking system was best qualified to police itself, and which led to the excesses that led to the bubble and subsequent crash. Greenspan deferred to the authority and credibility of bankers, which he now admits was not entirely accurate.
The latter comments of Rep. Waxman is representative of the backlash against free market ideologies because of the crisis. The caution here is that we are in danger of discrediting ideals (i.e. free-markets, individualism) when we should be criticizing the execution of those ideals (e.g. flawed capitalism). Greenspan’s execution of his ideologies was based on a critical flaw: he presumed the market and its participants sufficiently knew and compensated for the risks. Challenging his premise is the fact that no one expected the crisis to be as long and as deep as it is.
Being constantly critical of deeply held premises is the only defense against false reasoning. Even in face of seeming success, we should never waver in our evaluation of ourselves. Sadly, we only learn of the value of critical self-assessment after the crisis has already struck.
Always check premises. Or get shocked, like Greenspan, when a Black Swan strikes.












A comment made from Finance Manila’s Forum: by shoyu_ramen
i think he was wrong on why he was wrong …
he was wrong not because his assumption that “bankers and market participants were in full better knowledge of the risks than anyone” was wrong …
he was wrong because he thought he can make use of the state to further his “belief” in promoting free markets and deregulation …
the basic pillar of free markets is laissez-faire .. allowing things to go their own course .. but what did the “maestro” do? he became chairman of the fed!! .. the main hindrance to free markets … and tampered with the market by imposing his own preferences thru interest-rate manipulation. the very opposite of laissez-faire!!
belief in free markets and risk taking is premised on self-responsibility and implicitly accepts the possibility of failure. it is not a panacea.
more on greenspan, the fed, interest rates, etc … written in 2005 …
http://mises.org/pdf/sechrest-greenspan.pdf
In addition to the content of your first comment, consider this post on fractional reserve banking
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/01/tales-from-history-of-money-and-banking.html
The creation of a reserve bank as a lender of last resort to solve the inevitable liquidity problems in any fractional reserve system is a distribution of risk. The risk created by the investments made by particular banks is distributed over the entire economy. This in itself is not necessarily unstable. Distribution of risk is the primary way any insurance company works. The problem with a federal reserve bank is that its policies are coercive and subject to political control. This means that the federal reserve bank can maintain fractional reserve ratios that no private entity would consider acceptable in a free market. Naturally this creates cycles of booms and busts. When most of the subsidised investments work (even if only in the short run) there is a boom. When they don’t, there is a bust.
Add to that, the “stimulus” policies of the government when a contraction is what is needed and the bust could well evolve into a full-blown depression.
I think the main problem was that the Fed was bailing out everything including the economy with great success. And this inevitably resulted in a moral hazard that pervades the whole industry. Why would we be cautious when the company is too big to fail ?
^ Nice insights. K.M. I thought about the politics behind the bailouts as well. Even if the government might be cognizant of the economic dangers of stimulus, not bailing out would put Obama in negative sentiments with the masses of Americans.
Alan, agree with the moral hazard. This is also why I think bailouts are totally un-Capitalist. The value of Capitalism is that individuals can seek profit for their skills and virtues. (i.e. excellence gets rewarded). In a bailout scenario, the public pays for the losses (i.e. mistakes get rewarded).
I agree with K.M. (Nice blog too btw)
Greenspan is an actor in a game where the rules are fundamentally skewed. There is nothing laissez-faire about the money supply. (Is it a coincidence that the M3 is no longer published?)
The fractional reserve banking system allows for the creation of money at will and the cheap distribution thereof (Low rates by the Feds).
There is almost no limit to the amount of liquidity that can be created by the banking system and no real feedback mechanism to signal when enough is enough until it is too late. (feedback signals such as inflation are managed with artifacts such as cheap imports but otherwise ignored)
Cheap and easy money distorts the perception of risk and encourages unreasonable behaviour. It encourages people to find business where there isn’t any (eg subprime mortgages) in order to get a return on this money.
But this mass of new money has to be used – somehow.
Leaving money “lying around” is considered economic sin and investors frown upon institutions sitting on cash reserves. I happen to work for a conservatively managed fortune 500 and only 12 month ago we were scorned by investors for not being able to leverage our cash reserve.
Of course, today it’s a different story…
Peter Schiff has been very vocal on all of this and I wish more notice was taken by the mainstream media (those companies who benefit from cheap money) of the Austrian interpretation…
That weasel wouldn’t let the man finish his (I must say deep and substantive if long) thoughts. It was transparent to me that his whole goal was not to determine the cause of the crisis, or to get Greenspan’s view of it, but merely to discredit an ideology he totally opposes. That’s not fair. The man is infininitely more intelligent than that weasel, the weasel should have the respect to hear him out.