The Woman Who Could Have Prevented This Financial Mess Was Silenced by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers

The Woman Who Could Have Prevented This Financial Mess Was Silenced by Greenspan, Rubin and Summers

a lternet

"Break the Glass" was the code-name high-level Treasury Department figures gave the $700 billion bailout; it was to be used only as a last-resort measure.

Now millions have been sprayed and damaged by broken glass.

But more than a decade ago, a woman you're likely never to have heard of, Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission -- a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading -- was the oracle whose warnings about the dangerous boom in derivatives trading just might have averted the calamitous bust now engulfing the US and global markets. Instead she was met with scorn, condescension and outright anger by former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers. In fact, Greenspan, the man some affectionately called "The Oracle," spent his political capital cheerleading these disastrous financial instruments.

On Thursday, the New York Times ran a masterful and revealing front page article exposing the culpability of Greenspan, Rubin and Summers for the era of dangerous turbulence we live in.

What these "three marketeers" -- as they were called in a 1999 Time magazine cover story -- were adept at was peddling the timebombs at the heart of this complex crisis: exotic and opaque financial instruments known as derivatives -- contracts intended to hedge against risk and whose values are derived from underlying assets. To cut to the quick, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers opposed regulating them. "Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury," recalls Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve board member and economist at Princeton University, in the Times article.

In 1997, Brooksley Born warned in congressional testimony that unregulated trading in derivatives could "threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it." Born called for greater transparency -- disclosure of trades and reserves as a buffer against losses.

Instead of heeding this oracle's warnings, Greenspan, Rubin & Summers rushed to silence her. As the Times story reveals, Born's wise warnings "incited fierce opposition" from Greenspan and Rubin who "concluded that merely discussing new rules threatened the derivatives market." Greenspan deployed condescension and told Born she didn't know what she doing and she'd cause a financial crisis. (A senior Commission director who worked with Born suggests that Greenspan and the guys didn't like her independence. " Brooksley was this woman who was not playing tennis with these guys and not having lunch with these guys. There was a little bit of the feeling that this woman was not of Wall Street.")

I added hyperlinks to more information than the article itself holds.

More to read
Testimony of Richard R. Lindsey, Director, Division of Market Regulation

Washington Post

NYT

After reading all this, you must come to the conclusion that they knew 10 yrs ago what could happen and only when it got too big did they bother to try and fix the problem.

once again, we have more evidence of government tampering, how much do we need to convince the public?

This does not surprise me in the slightest. Greenspan, by the way, was a Republican and has been blamed for the dot com bust. Many have said that he artificially increased the interest rate leading into the 2000 election in order to give GW an edge. In any case, this just serves to further prove that DEREGULATION was the root of this financial crisis. And by the way, we all know who were the champions of this failed theory, the Republicans. From Reagan to McCain, all champions of deregulation.

in this misogynistic world, a woman will never be allowed to solve any global crises.
anyone agree?

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


These hearings came from 1998 when Clinton, a Democrat, was in office. Robert Rubin, a Democrat, was Clinton's Sec. of Treas. Lawrence Summers, a Democrat, was Clinton's Deputy Sec. Treas.

The only Republican around is the Libertarian Republican, Greenspan.

Reagan brought him in, bit no one else had to keep him, including Clinton.

Since the signs were apparent 10 yrs ago, I would consider it safe to say that BOTH PARTIES are responsible for this mess, both for knowing it was coming and for doing nothing to control it before it got this bad.

Edit to add:

In fact, it was Clinton's deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed all this mess to happen in the first place source

[edit on 10/21/08 by redhatty]

there you go, at least the people can have knowledge of this, but in the shadows, what other things are silenced?

who barters with our lives? and the value of the things we accumulate?
why couldn't anyone do anything about it, not even having the knowledge of the possibilities of this happening??

a lesson indeed.

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

These hearings came from 1998 when Clinton, a Democrat, was in office. Robert Rubin, a Democrat, was Clinton's Sec. of Treas. Lawrence Summers, a Democrat, was Clinton's Deputy Sec. Treas.

The only Republican around is the Libertarian Republican, Greenspan.

Reagan brought him in, bit no one else had to keep him, including Clinton.

Since the signs were apparent 10 yrs ago, I would consider it safe to say that BOTH PARTIES are responsible for this mess, both for knowing it was coming and for doing nothing to control it before it got this bad.

Edit to add:

In fact, it was Clinton's deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed all this mess to happen in the first place source

[edit on 10/21/08 by redhatty]

I understand when these hearings took place. Given that, I obviously understood who was in office at the time and what their party affiliations were. However, I have never heard the "libertarian republican" line about Greenspan, that was a good one. By the way, the next time you choose a source, try not picking a source so blatantly bias, it insults our intelligences. Try typing "Failure of Reaganomics" into Google and you will find many, many sources to support my statement that the Republicans most directly at fault for this financial crisis. By the way, most of the sources you find in this source will be legitimate, unlike the one you provided.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


I went with a source from the time frame - that article was from 1998. Less chance for manipulation if the article came from the same time frame as the actions.

As for Libertarian Republican, check Wikipedia, it is what Greenspan titles himself.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

These hearings came from 1998 when Clinton, a Democrat, was in office. Robert Rubin, a Democrat, was Clinton's Sec. of Treas. Lawrence Summers, a Democrat, was Clinton's Deputy Sec. Treas.

The only Republican around is the Libertarian Republican, Greenspan.

Reagan brought him in, bit no one else had to keep him, including Clinton.

Since the signs were apparent 10 yrs ago, I would consider it safe to say that BOTH PARTIES are responsible for this mess, both for knowing it was coming and for doing nothing to control it before it got this bad.

Edit to add:

In fact, it was Clinton's deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed all this mess to happen in the first place source

[edit on 10/21/08 by redhatty]

I understand when these hearings took place. Given that, I obviously understood who was in office at the time and what their party affiliations were. However, I have never heard the "libertarian republican" line about Greenspan, that was a good one. By the way, the next time you choose a source, try not picking a source so blatantly bias, it insults our intelligences. Try typing "Failure of Reaganomics" into Google and you will find many, many sources to support my statement that the Republicans most directly at fault for this financial crisis. By the way, most of the sources you find in this source will be legitimate, unlike the one you provided.

I vow to follow you to the gates of hell to make sure you get that the government as a whole is to blame for our mess. You keep blaming one party or one president. Why isn't it so hard for you to believe that both parties are corrupt? Both parties are responsible in their own way for what has happened to our wonderful country. You know how I feel about it but I will repeat myself. The government as a whole is to blame. Not one man and not one party.

It's just coincendance that I reply to the same threads as you, I'm not really stalking you.........................or am I .

[edit on 22-10-2008 by jd140]

Like almost all things that truly screw the American people over, the abolition of Glaas-Steagal was a bi-partisan affair. The partisan blame game that I see from both sides in this crisis is something that any interested American should be ashamed of regardless of political leaning. The Repubs are to blame for total deregulation of finance, and the Democrats are to blame for failing to reign in Fannie and Freddie while pressuring lenders to lend to people who had no business owning a home they could not afford.

Call me old fashioned but I believe the person who bought a house they really couldn't afford should have that house foreclosed when they get to the point where they fail to make the payments. Likewise that lender who made so many loans to those people should be allowed to go bankrupt without reachind into my pocket to bail out his poor risk management.

One of the few things I find hilarious about this current crisis is Greenspan. This guy is trying so hard to salvage his legacy, and failing. Anyone remember when Greenspan was almost worshiped by the elite of the nation? Well not so much now huh?

Great post OP.

reply to post by redhatty


I don't blame you for choosing a source from that time frame. In fact, I think that was a smart move, respectable, honest. However, "World Socialist Web Site," come on, way too much bias there no matter when the article was written.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


funny, I would have figured that a socialist website would have been more positively biased to a Democrat. J/K

I didn't find the article biased at all, I thought it was quite objective. Of course, if you were turned away from just the name of the site & didn't read the article, I can't really do anything about that, can I?

Whether or not it began with Reagan, there were 8 yrs that Clinton could have done something about it to fix it before it became a problem. He didn't, infact he signed off on even more deregulation. So BOTH parties are still at fault.

If Clinton had done something so wrong, well we have had 8 years of Republicans in office and they did nothing until the problem was blowing up in their faces.

We've been scroomed by both parties, and they knew 10 yrs ago that there would be a big problem and nothing was done to fix it.

No matter who gets in office with the coming election, I am pretty certain we will be scroomed again.

Originally posted by jd140
I vow to follow you to the gates of hell to make sure you get that the government as a whole is to blame for our mess. You keep blaming one party or one president. Why isn't it so hard for you to believe that both parties are corrupt? Both parties are responsible in their own way for what has happened to our wonderful country. You know how I feel about it but I will repeat myself. The government as a whole is to blame. Not one man and not one party.

It's just coincendance that I reply to the same threads as you, I'm not really stalking you.........................or am I

.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by jd140]

Look, I will give you that politicians on both sides of the isle had their hand in the deregulation of the banking system. Personally, I feel it is next to impossible for a politician to get into office unscathed, we have our system of campaign finance to thank for that. However, that being said, I would say that anyone who knows anything about conservative politics knows that they have championed deregulation like it was the answer to everything. Airline profits down....deregulate. Power companies having a rough time....deregulate. Banking sector profits plateauing...I bet you can guess, deregulate. Now, with energy costs skyrocketing and banks failing left and right, all this deregulation is coming back to haunt them, and us by the way.

Lastly, I always invite/enjoy the debate. I do not come to my beliefs lightly and am all too willing to stand behind them. That being said, I am always willing to consider another person's point of view and, if warranted, change my beliefs.

Originally posted by redhatty
No matter who gets in office with the coming election, I am pretty certain we will be scroomed again.

I agree with you there. And, I will have to admit that the article was not as biased as I first thought. At least we can both agree that deregulation was to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
That being said, I am always willing to consider another person's point of view and, if warranted, change my beliefs.

Hey you, We'll have none of that on the interwebs.

reply to post by redhatty

There were other people who had to have seen something out of ordinary that could turned out to be no good at all later. The popular predatory techniques designed to lure people into buying homes that they really couldn't afford had to attract the attention within the states; there had to be plenty complains filed on behalf of home owners whose mortgage terms suddenly changed.

They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis

State whistleblowers tried to curtail greedy lending—and were thwarted by the Bush Administration and the financial industry

One would expect that when a State Attorney General raises an issue, the issue will be resolved accordingly. But that wasn't the case:

More than five years ago, in April 2003, the attorneys general of two small states traveled to Washington with a stern warning for the nation's top bank regulator. Sitting in the spacious Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, with its panoramic view of the capital, the AGs from North Carolina and Iowa said lenders were pushing increasingly risky mortgages. Their host, John D. Hawke Jr., expressed skepticism.

Roy Cooper of North Carolina and Tom Miller of Iowa headed a committee of state officials concerned about new forms of "predatory" lending. They urged Hawke to give states more latitude to limit exorbitant interest rates and fine-print fees. "People out there are struggling with oppressive loans," Cooper recalls saying.

Hawke, a veteran banking industry lawyer appointed to head the OCC by President Bill Clinton in 1998, wouldn't budge. He said he would reinforce federal policies that hindered states from reining in lenders. The AGs left the tense hour-long meeting realizing that Washington had become a foe in the nascent fight against reckless real estate finance. The OCC "took 50 sheriffs off the job during the time the mortgage lending industry was becoming the Wild West," Cooper says.

www.businessweek.com...

No doubt about it: Had George Bush been born some forty years sooner, Al Capone would have stood as #2 on the list of notable gangsters.





[edit on 10/22/2008 by stander]

Originally posted by governmentsecrets
in this misogynistic world, a woman will never be allowed to solve any global crises.
anyone agree?

I agree. But I also disagree if this is being suggested as the reason why the woman wasn't listened to. She could have been a 6ft 3in beer-swilling, 'man's man' and I don't think it would made a scrap of difference. No one was going to interfere with the master plan.