The Maestro still believes in Ayn Rand.
Let the free market play. If it messes up, it will somehow know how to correct itself.
That was the general theme former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan trumpeted this morning at the Council of Foreign Relations. The former chairman, who ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006, said government should basically get out of the way and let markets and businesses drive the recovery.
Today we’re far from the heydays where most Americans saw their wealth rise as real estate prices surged, while the market was as free as can be. Today the U.S economy is facing unnervingly high unemployment of nearly 10%. Americans are seeing their wealth vanish as home prices plummet to new lows.
In the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008, Greenspan was all about the free market as the big banks fueled the real estate boom with mortgage securitization, which in turn contributed to near collapse of America’s financial system. Now it’s only fair to wonder if the free market philosophies that the former chairman gives are perhaps played out.
It’s true that the U.S. is facing huge deficits, exceeding $1 trillion in recent years. For the long-term at least, there needs to be way more fiscal discipline. And it’s also true the first stimulus of more than $800 billion was perhaps either too small or misguided, focused more on consumption than investment.
But for the short-term, acting aggressively might be better than not acting at all.
US companies are sitting on their hands. For the seventh consecutive quarter, companies are holding record cash balances, according to S&P. Greenspan today said the first stimulus wasn’t as successful as expected, and the fact that companies are standing still has helped counter the effects of the spending package.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed what’s essentially a second stimulus full of business tax breaks and a $50 billion plan to build and rebuild roads and other infrastructure. Many economists didn’t think Obama’s first stimulus was big enough. They thought it should have stood $1.2 to $1.3 trillion. This second try — if it passes through Congress — appears to be on the right track as far as focusing government on investment rather than consumer spending. But it’s much too small to reduce the unemployment rate to the 5% to 6% level prior to the recession, some economists say.
Now Greenspan says, as this point, “it’s better doing less than more.”
That’s okay if a slow and long recovery is something we all can stomach. If a quicker recovery is what’s preferred following about three years of lackluster growth, then perhaps it’s better for government to act rather than stand still.
See also:
Why Obama’s plan won’t buy votes
Corporate cash hoarding is not sustainable
