There is a major cause for the world financial crisis, Alan Greenspan. Of course, the world economy had to slow down, but Greenspan made certain that it would fall like a stone in a well.

After years of reseaarching it, I have one word to describe the culprit: Reaganomics--What George H. W. Bush correctly described as Voodoo Economics.

My prescription for its solution remains the same: Massive rollback of the US Empire and use of the monies saved to finance the energy and trasnsport programs Jerome mentions. But that will not be enough as radical change must also occur in the USA at the federal level of government, in the way elections are conducted, and in the organization of media.

It goes deeper than that. We need to rollback and redefine the things we consider 'success' and 'progress'. More and bigger stuff than the next guy has to stop being advertised, on Wall St and on Main St, and we have to recognize (which perhaps needs marketing) that social relationships and freedoms on top of ample basic goods are what bring us the most long term satisfaction. Competition is part of who we are, but we should eschew the conspicuous competition for yachts, sportscars, and more digits in ones bank account and change our competitions to more healthy, less impactful endeavors like sports, games, information, knowledge etc. The American people are not bad, nor stupid - they have just been fed the wrong type of message for a generation or so. There is a large disconnect between perception and reality, which is currently the biggest problem.. (We did what?!!!)

Hi Nate--I agree we need a Culture Shift. But to accomplish that, we must reform the corporate media which sent the "wrong" message in the first place. Not that anyone comments on what I write, but I've written about the need for a paradigm change since I joined theoildrum.com almost at its inception. Such a change requires behavioral change by the body politic, as you've pointed out in your essays. Since the late 1990s, I've wrestled with what ought to be the goal of the new, Post-Modern, economy--one not based on money. Knowledge and Wisdom ought to be the goals of a cooperative culture/society that relegates (discredited, old-culture) wealth formation to the commonweal and its promotion. Such a culture does go against some attributes of the human animal, but it also stimulates other attributes buried far too long, IMO. We've seen what the power of media can accomplish in generating the current dilemma; it can also be used to help us solve the dilemma, but radical change is required.

Karlof - here is someone in France with the same thought:

France seeks new growth measure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7177100.stm

Hi pondlife--Thanks for the link. I'm not the least surprised that Stiglitz is involved as I've been following his course since he quit the World Bank in the late 1990s. Nor is it surprising that the IMF would make such recommendations. The French are quite right to determinedly resist such policy advice as it would work to destroy the commonweal they've struggled to achieve.

So often, the US economy is measured by the number of new single family homes, which is invariably an incentive to further sprawl.

Former California Governor Jerry Brown said something similar in the 70s; we need to not just focus on money income but psychic income. Growth that is meaningful to the individual and the society should be focused not just on economics but on spirituality, wisdom, and happiness.

And I, being somewhat naive, thought there was some chance that this might occur. Didn't happen and, if anything, we are farther from that ideal now than we were in the 70s.

Excuse me for being cynical, but as the financial shit hits the fan, people will become even more fearful and greedy and their brains will lose all capability of dealing with these problems in a manner that fully recognizes things like peak oil, climate change, the environment, and personal psychic growth.

Before you can build a new house, you need to tear down the old one.

"But to accomplish that, we must reform the corporate media which sent the "wrong" message in the first place."

The wrong message is now engrained across the generations. We have been suckers, for the most part - muppets, with someone else's hand up our rear ends (excus3e the visual). I'm all for changing that, but it will be a hell of a fight... minor changes will be purely cosmetic.

the media controls which messages we sheeple are to see, hence: Obama approval ratings. As far as I can tell, the media machine has already crowned Obama as King!
The sheeple are too concerned with what the media tells them, from Britney to Dancing with the Stars. The news is only sensationalistic, not exactly newsworthy. The commercials are only designed to get you to part with your money. thats all. The media is largely controlled by corporate, corporate runs this country, not the self serving politicians. these politicians seem to be more concerned with steriods in professional sports and pork barrel projects rather than fiscal leadership. we are doomed!

Nate,

I made the transition from business (chem plant manager) to the boondocks (among other jobs, the elementary school custodian) over 30 years ago. My experience indicates that it requires developing a new reality to succeed and be satisfied. This is almost impossible for most people.

A good example of this is when our city friends (MD, architect, college professor and similar occupations) visit us in the boondocks: They enjoy the serenity, the beauty, etc. but they always ask what we "did" meaning activities. It doesn't do much good to say "we live" and that life and work are mostly one.

Eventually, people may realize they have been screwed. See Charles Smith's essay When Belief in the System Fails http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar08/belief-fades.html
But, they won't have spent the time considering alternative realities to prepare themselves mentally for the change - whatever it may be.

I think one thing that would help to transition is a security blanket. Perhaps, similar to the one posited in Ecotopia.

Who knows.

Todd

Agreed, we need to Bhutanize our system, and begin striving for a higher GNH (gross national happiness) instead of a greater GNP.

If ‘we’, instead of focusing our competitive drive on producing something more efficient than the other guy, had spent all our competitive energy playing football and chess, we would likely have starved to death by now:).

On a more serious note, competition only makes us worse off when some amongst us can improve their relative ranking by banning and prohibiting others from competing as vigorously as they otherwise would.

The causes of the current credit meltdown are too much regulation, not too little. Were it not for various levels of governments’ ability to, through zoning laws and the like, make the simple act of providing a roof over ones head, almost prohibitively expensive, we would not have had a debt run-up to begin with. Guaranteed. Strip away all regulation involving building and construction, and there would be an immense supply of dwellings, likely several per head.

In every unregulated industry, overproduction is the norm. The simple fact that not all providers judge future demand with equal accuracy, with some inevitably over estimating it, ensures that. Only in regulated industries like housing, health care and education, can those better off and politically connected prevent this from happening, in order to maintain their own power and status as gatekeepers to a scarce resource.

Simply get government at every level out of people’s lives, decisions and wallets, and a society at our current technological sophistication would provide an absolute overabundance of virtually everything to virtually everyone. There is simply no reason, other than the vanity of the political classes, for government to play a larger role in people’s lives today that they did when America was first formed.

As I’ve written before, a Californian real estate market devoid of regulation, would likely have the vast majority of the population living in huge condos in one of a wall of 40-60 story high-rises stretching from Cape Mendocino to Cabo San Lucas. With high speed rail running the length close behind. While the ‘rich’ would likely still live ‘better’, by occupying larger, nicer equipped units on higher floors, even the so called ‘poor’ would at least have a spacious beachfront condo. Not too shabby compared with the kind of rat infested projects our ‘progressive’ overlords currently see fit to provide them with.

Huh? The poor would live in rat infested slums - not beach fount condos

I once thought somewhat along these lines. I don't now. Government, in its regulatory guise, does serve the purpose of not letting people screw up the lives of other people. Can you imagine what the land around a chemical plant would be like in the world you describe? Love Canal would be a beautiful meadow in comparison.

The world, and people, do not run how Ayn Rand would have us believe it would if government would just keep its hands off. Government does good things. It also does incredibly bad things, but that's where we, the people, are supposed to enter the picture.

Karlof1, I expect that American opinion will gradually change as it becomes apparent that there will be no 'upward mobility' in their futures. TPTB have used upward mobility to give Americans the impression that no matter how dense the individual there remains the opportunity for riches. Once that veil is gone, caused by a replay of the great depression, I think we will see a sea change of real politik, accompanied by a return to popularity of populist and left leaning politicans. Heuey Long, Eugene Debs, etc, come to mind.

Once the general population realizes that their opportunities for a 'better life' are severely limited they will turn to politicians saying that wealth should be spread eqitably among the population, and not be hoarded by the few. Globalization will unwind because of severely constrained economies. A return to nationalisim might ensue once Americans see what globalization has done to their country, their jobs, their lives. Militant union organizing and activity, now strictly channeled into 'company unions', will rise again. Strikes will come back into vogue when workers are not able to feed their families with their paltry pay. MSM will lose their viewers if they don't cater to the new wave of populisim...so MSM will change to continue to generate revenue and stay in biz. The right leaning politicians that have convinced people that 'unions are bad and socialistic', and limit opportunities for advancement, will not remain popular, except among the haves.

Judging from availability of FFs in the US, and the amount of debt owed by all governments and individuals in the US, the coming economic collapse might be much worse than 1929. The US has been dependent on the savings of other countries to provide an unsustainable level of spending by individuals and various US governments. That is going to end.

Hi River--I don't think we have the time for "American opinion [to] gradually change." Further, the elite will dig in their heels to avoid the sort of needed paradigm change I describe above as it is totally against their albeit very selfish interest as Lasch described in Revolt of the Elite. The contrived political dialog generated for the presidential election is a case in point, as were the examples provided during 2000 and 2004. IMO, Americans are dominated by media more than any other polity. For that polity to change with the rapidity required, the structure of media must be destroyed and rebuilt.

Actually, the scenario you envision, while positive and to be hoped for, is probably less likely than a further descent into fascism and even more extreme free market "solutions". I think that is the plan, but I will hope for the best.

*Voodoo Economics*

Well, my article was originally more polemic and political, and I toned down that angle for the TOD version, but I mostly agree with you. Deregulation and the ideology of greed, disguised as freedom, is what's at the bottom of all this.

"Deregulation and the ideology of greed, disguised as freedom, is what's at the bottom of all this."

Now thats calling a spade a spade and IMO what the world needs more of both now and more importantly later when it starts up again after the crash.

The price of freedom and the American Dream is a boom and bust economy. But since the country was founded on those principles, can a change of culture ever happen?

The weird thing is that all the macro economic stuff is reasonably well understood, and the US has the definitive example of how bad it can get when things go wrong, the Great Depression (Bernanke's pet subject apparently). Yet deficits and debts are allowed to expand willy nilly, while successive administrations watch it happen.

Yeah-real wierd. How much money do you think Hank Paulson would have if the USA fed guv had never run deficits? A hint-it wouldn't be 700 million. This deep rooted belief that everyone who controls the USA is stupid is utterly ridiculous. To shake it, try ignoring what they say and try to observe what they do.

I was assuming that the people "in control" are smart, which is why it looks weird. At some point, there should be some intellectual realisation that things are going out of control and require negative feedback. What you appear to be suggesting is that money trumps any nagging doubts that people might have. I suppose you are right. Everyone takes the money and hope the system doesn't crash on their watch - in fact take a little extra in case it does crash!

The implication is that a free society based on market principles can never be sustainable. Socialism, anyone?

I was assuming that the people "in control" are smart

No, you were assuming they are logical.

The implication is that a free society based on market principles

Free market principles my arse. Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

Noam Chomsky: The Free Market is Socialism for the Rich

Hello Jerome--I looked around DailyKos and eurotrib.com for a link to your non-TOD version. I, and I'm sure others, would very much like to read what else you had to say on the matter. And thanks very much for your efforts and analysis, even though it would be great not to need them.

  • massive public support for energy efficiency...
  • a massive, New Deal rural-electrification-scale plan
  • a similarly massive plan to develop smart public transportation

I was going to write that nothing massive would help, because it only ramps up the throughput and it's the throughput at diminishing marginal returns that has put us into this fix.

That would have been a hasty mistake, because massive rollback is the necessary strategy as karlof1 points out. Radical change in the USA at the federal level of government - yup - and it's not only the federal level that is illegitimate. But it might not change into a good thing - careful. Change in elections, change in media. Those presuppose a change in the societal memes by which we organize ourselves.

How bad a situation are we in? On a scale of 1 to 10, where do you put yourself in appreciating the situation? I got asked those yesterday - fascinating because really that asks one to judge how much one doesn't know. I figured I was around a 3. Along those lines, I highly recommend Byron's "The Path Through Infinity's Rainbow" - reviewed by Carolyn Baker in a Drumbeat maybe a week ago.

The beliefs and the civilization we have constructed around them are the direct cause of all the crises now bearing down upon us all. They are precipitating the worst crisis that humanity has ever faced.

Byron writes very clearly and is easy to read. There is no fix, no matter how massive, other than fundamental social - if not biological - change. Covering New Mexico with solar PV and girdling the earth with HVDC will not work unless we first change our society. As Dawkins puts it - the next evolutionary step is the meme - assuming, of course, that we can take such a step.

cfm in Gray, ME

Hi Dryki--It's good to know that at least one other person openly agrees. Now we just need to convince 200 Million citizens of the Metropole.

Huh? What about the rest of the world?

Sorry. It wasn't my intention to snub the rest of the planet. It's just that only US citizens get to vote in US elections; thus the need to convince them.

Karlof1,

There are at least three of us. I, too, have been writing about the need for a fundamental paradigm shift since I started posting on TOD. Carbon taxes, construction of public transportation systems, rail electrification, renewable energy subsidies, etc. are ineffectual bandages on external sores as long as the internal cancer of competitive accumulation rages on unchecked. And in fact these bandages are not being applied because the growth of the cancer is sucking up the necessary resources.

The social and political solution to our problems is conceptually simple (if not operationally so): Voluntary simplicity and mutual support. I am not holding my breath, however, waiting for such ideas to receive any respect.

Roger,

One of the main reasons people/society will not change is because they have had no exposure to other realities. As I noted up thread, our friends don't even understand our life in the boondocks. Look at TOD posters, there are only a handful of us who are actually "doing it."

Right now I'm out there cutting firewood (I came in for a break.)now that yesterday's snow has melted. When I get burned out on the wood, I'm putting the cover back on the strawberries to be followed by gopher patrol. Compare these activities to the millions who are getting fat asses eating junk food and watching TV.

Todd

Today my family made cheese with a group of friends. I worked in the greenhouse and planted some spinach. Getting 4-5 eggs per day from the hens. My wife is reading out loud to the kids right now instead of turning on the dvd player.

Like you, I have not found that my extended family comprehends this much, though a lot more people around town are taking up new hobbies and starting new cottage enterprises along these lines.

It helps that the world beyond seems to be falling apart. Folks want a sense of control over important things in life.

This 'financial crisis' may well prove to be the Big One, the greatest 'crash' in history, potentially worse than the Great Depression, a slump we may never recover from. Unfortunately it doesn't have a simple or single cause, and the solutions are anything but simple, to think otherwise is perhaps a comfort, but an illusion.

ditto

A short time ago expressing negative thoughts about St. Alan Greenspan at best earned one a reputation as a krank. More likely one was thought to have psychiatric problems or to be a Communist.

A short time ago expressing heterodox economic opinions on TOD provoked a flurry of knuckle-rapping posts by doctrinaire Austrian professors, effectively forestalling discussion.

For most of the population the range of permitted thought is narrower than in Brezhnev's USSR, and this has been the case for a generation. Only a crisis has created some space for thought. We are all poorly equipped with intellectual tools to address that crisis.

Well, my newest post is about Greenspan, the bubble man: wrong but unrepentant

Oh my! You read our scribblings!

Having received such an honour I had to read your link. Scout's honour, promise to read European Tribune more often.

AFAIK you work in the financial system at a fairly high level. I am boggled that someone with an evident brain can function or be accepted in such a venue. In my time I have known two friends who functioned somewhat at your level; each tolerated because it was known the primary allegiance was to alcohol and thus free-thinking could be no threat.

Greenspan and looting indeed. What I should expect from a disciple of Ayn Rand.

Right on.

Read and understood. Right on right on right on my brother. Thank you.

Specifically, in 2005 Greenspan exhorted lenders to be creative in extending credit to as many as possible. It seems clear now this was with either malice aforethought, given what he had done to interest rates (literally creating free money for banks to lend), intending to create a bubble and sweep ever greater wealth in to the hands of the top 1%, or out of utter stupidity. I don't buy that he is a stupid man, so I go with the former.

This thesis is supported further by the Bush/Cheney admin ending reporting of real inflation and M3. Hiding those two numbers hides a LOT that is obvious to all. Those two numbers tell a hell of a story.

Anywho... Same thing happened before the last Great Depression.

Culprit #1: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was no smarter than a fifth grader.

Greenspan did two big things wrong.

First, the former Fed chairman took interest rates far too low and maintained those levels for far too long a period in the early 2000s, well after the stock market's bubble was pierced. (Stated simply, he panicked).
...Second, Greenpsan suggested -- at just the wrong time and at the very bottom of the interest rate cycle -- that homeowners retreat from traditional, fixed rate mortgages and turn to more creative and floating rate mortgages -- interest only, adjustable option ARMs, negative amortization, etc.

He said this in February 2004 at a Credit Union National Association 2004 Governmental Affairs Conference:

"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest-rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home."

One year later Greenspan continued the same mantra and cited the social benefits of the financial industry's innovation as reflected in the proliferation of the subprime mortage market.
...But even as Greenspan was taking interest rates ...there were some smart cookies out there who recognized the risks; here are quotes from two of the smartest who warned of the danger in the mortgage market.

When I took economics... we were studying the Great Depression, one of the reasons given were all the interest-only loans that came due. They were an indication of an economy getting into unsound lending. Ever since then it's been a rule that when you go into interest-only loans, you're very substantially increasing the risk of default.

-- L. William Seidman. Former Chairman of the Federel Deposit Insurance Corporation and Chairman of the Resolution Trust Corporation

Our own Robert Marcin put it even more precisely (and vividly) in his prescient warning back in mid-2005.

If Greenspan had a clue (remember, he didn't have one in the tech bubble, or maybe he did), he would jawbone the banking industry to tighten or even strangle lending standards for residential real estate.... But like Greenspan's unwillingness to raise margin rates in 1999, I expect him to do nothing until the market declines. Then, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the stupidities of the real estate speculators. Remember, I expect a sequel to the RTC in the future.

-- Robert Marcin, Making Money Before Housing Crumbles.

Greenspan will go untouched and will continue to give speeches at $200,000 a pop.