The Cure For The Housing Market: Alan Greenspan: ‘Buying The Homes And Destroying Them Or Burning Them Was The Low Cost Option’

And don’t forget to ask Greenspan for his solution regarding social security, medicare, medicaid and unemployment …

… or even overpopulation.

Remember that Alan Greenspan is THE ONE who created this mess in the first place.


Peter Schiff on Alan Greenspan:

‘Alan Greenspan is not just the worst Fed chairman we’ve ever had, I think he’s the worst American we’ve ever had.’

‘Alan Greenspan is a TRAITOR to everything America stands for.’


YouTube


Now listen to the TRAITOR…


The Key to Fixing the Housing Market? (CNBC, Oct. 7, 2011):

Transcript:

buying homes and destroying them or burning them was the low cost option. i could demonstrate that at the time i made that statement of all of the alternatives that were available, had the united states government taken all of those units off the market, and really prevented prices from falling as sharply as they did, the net effect would have been far less own russ than what we have run into. so, yes, that particular strategy in retrospect, especially, turns out to have been the low cost strategy. does that mean it is viable politically? absolutely not. dan greenhouse is chief global strategist of bti. you mentioned the solution to many people out there it is shocking and it almost seems like blasphemy. in a sober analysis, walk us through why this solution might be cheaper in the end. well, if you start — you have to start from the point of view that the government can do something to help the housing market. if we accept that the government should and can do something, you have to ask yourself where are you going to get the most bang for the buck? ultimately, there are two things holding back the housing market and by extension the larger economy, the number of houses that were built in the previous expansion and the amount of mortgage debt outstanding. you’re left with really — from a silver bullet standpoint, one of two solutions. one is to buy and blow up the houses which we have been talking about for years now. and the other is to pay down people’s mortgage debts. i know that somewhere their eyes are rolling into the back of their head now. but this starts from the premise that the government can and should do something. i would love to talk about housing. was your razor broken this morning or what is going on there? i am in the process of growing a beard. i didn’t know i would be on tv today. get back us to when that comes through. we want to keep an eye on that. you write this morning that s&p rarely goes up by more than 1.75% in each of the last three sessions, which it has. and typically, well, you described it, what does it mean a signal of? this is reminiscent of the 12-year low call that a lot of people bought into in march of 2009. there have been three instances in which the s&p 500 has rallied by more than 1.75%. one was october 1974. and the other two instances were august of 2002 and august of 1984, i believe, all three of which were associated with — or pretty close to local near term market bottoms. so whether i agree with it or not, the observation is there to support the idea that seems to be getting hold among market participants that maybe the — for now we have a bottom in place. and does that square with the attitude of the data we’re getting lately including this morning’s jobs number? sure. i mean, you know, btig’s position from the start is that the u.s. economy was not in a recession in the third quarter and that’s unequivocally the case now. based on the trajectory of the economy it probably not the case of the fourth quarter either. the idea that somehow the u.s. economy is tipping over is absolutely not supported by anything other than people’s gut feeling. do you have a problem with the multiplier the government is using on this jobs packet and do you know anyone who is looking at net creation of 500,000 plus? i do have a problem with the multiplier, though i will say that the argument that tends to occur on cnbc misses a larger point and that’s that the multiplier and we’ll put people to sleep now, but the multiplier for government expenditures is not the same in a fully functioning environment. as it is when the central bank is at the zero bound. and liberalish leaning economist will tell you when the central bank is up against the zero bound, the multiplier for government expenditures can be larger. that said, all economists operate in a textbook world where things, you know, people are rational, and they make efficient decisions and information is evenly spread out. here in the real world, that’s not the case and there are political considerations. i can i can construct a pretty appropriate package, a stimulus package involving expenditures and tax cuts, but whether that passes congress is a whole other story. any given model, the nih or the nea doesn’t exist and that’s not really stimulus. dan, we’ll leave it there. thanks for joining us.

1 thought on “The Cure For The Housing Market: Alan Greenspan: ‘Buying The Homes And Destroying Them Or Burning Them Was The Low Cost Option’

Leave a Comment