haemaker: Um, Enron?

I think it's supposed to be a list of legit screwups, not felons.

May he rest in peace.

Soon.

Are you serious? They didn't go for the obvious "You've got fail!"?

toraque: Are their mistakes still dumb if they get massive bonuses while we pay for their bailouts?

THIS

Financial news being presented in slideshow format conspicuously absent.

Just days after President George W. Bush took office, Fed chief Alan Greenspan admonished budgeteers about the dangers of -- get this -- too little federal debt.

"At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.

What. The. Fark.

Someone merely ignorant of economics could never say something that stupid. You need to be some kind of anti-savant to be as unbelievably wrong as Greenspan.

anfrind: Financial news being presented in slideshow format conspicuously absent.

Came here to say this.

Barakku: haemaker: Um, Enron?

I think it's supposed to be a list of legit screwups, not felons.

Bernie Ebbers is currently sitting in prison for what happened at WorldCom.

DNRTFA, but I assume turning the securities market into a casino is on the list somewhere.

This is not a very good list.

Anyone that knew anything about the internet knew AOL-Time Warner would fail. AOL was/is for beginners. Add that to the fact that people were switching to high-speed internet at the time and you've got fail.

Farker T: May he rest in peace.

Soon.

Actually, if you understand the context of Greenspan's quote it makes perfect sense ... during the Clinton years, the government ran a surplus.

If the government runs a surplus for too long and ends up with significant amounts of savings ($trillion's) then that money is de facto invested somewhere, and so the government ends up owning assets that should be in private hands, and competing with its citizens' businesses, which is ultimately unhealthy for the economy.

I'm certain Greenspan was not suggesting that the government run up $12 trillion in debt.

toraque: Are their mistakes still dumb if they get massive bonuses while we pay for their bailouts?

Much win.

ParaHandy: Farker T: May he rest in peace.

Soon.

Actually, if you understand the context of Greenspan's quote it makes perfect sense ... during the Clinton years, the government ran a surplus.

If the government runs a surplus for too long and ends up with significant amounts of savings ($trillion's) then that money is de facto invested somewhere, and so the government ends up owning assets that should be in private hands, and competing with its citizens' businesses, which is ultimately unhealthy for the economy.


Or you could pay back some the the debt you owe.....

No mention of Lehman Brothers blowing up? That was the single event which contributed most to the near collapse of our financial system.

and top 10 dumbest things attracts every tfing ijet....this blows

ParaHandy: If the government runs a surplus for too long and ends up with significant amounts of savings ($trillion's) then that money is de facto invested somewhere, and so the government ends up owning assets that should be in private hands, and competing with its citizens' businesses, which is ultimately unhealthy for the economy.

But at the end of Clinton's presidency the country was still trillions in debt, he'd just managed to stop adding more to it. The government having too much money is a pretty goddamn rare problem, and easily solvable with a tax cut, so why the hell was Greenspan worried about it during a period when the national debt was already inconceivably massive?

I disagree with the AOL merger being described as dumb. That depends on which side of the deal you're on. Steve Case, AOL's CEO, was the smartest guy in the room. He brought a multi-billion dollar company, Time-Warner, with what amounted to funny money (AOL's stock).

At the time of the merger AOL was probably actually worth 1/1000th of it's humongous bloated stock price. If you were holding a $1000 USD bill that you suspected would likely deflate to $1 what would you do? You'd do what Steve Case did - go shopping for something of actual value that you can buy with your funny money.

Steve Case found a legal way to sell short his own company's stock. He got so rich from that merger, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, that describing it as "dumb" is brainless.


/ I still cry about all the money I lost short selling AOL

Gunther: Just days after President George W. Bush took office, Fed chief Alan Greenspan admonished budgeteers about the dangers of -- get this -- too little federal debt.

"At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.

What. The. Fark.

Someone merely ignorant of economics could never say something that stupid. You need to be some kind of anti-savant to be as unbelievably wrong as Greenspan.

No, he just had to remember whose interests he served, and how to best serve them. That it wasn't the interests of the US government or its citizens wasn't HIS problem.

Greenschpun did a fine job in the eyes of his bosses.

Probably got a nice bonus.

For Hanukkah.

I like the headline. It made me Heh.

I think that the whole give all the CEO's tons of money with no strings attached things rates up there...

OK, I think the lesson here is that if you are amongst the common folk, and you pay any kind of attention to what's going on, you are in a perpetual state of ass hurt.
Personally, my ass has been in a constant state of agony since the early '80s.
Different tune, same dance.

should have picked smart things. would have been a shorter list.

Republicans bad. Democrats good.

Doesn't include Arthur Andersen's publicly falling into a paper shredder? That should be permanently near the top.

You've got to spend money to make money!

Charmaniac: No mention of Lehman Brothers blowing up? That was the single event which contributed most to the near collapse of our financial system.

I disagree. I think the fear, that the housing collapse would detonate the pile of derivatives everyone's sitting on, contributed the most to that near-collapse.

Gunther: Just days after President George W. Bush took office, Fed chief Alan Greenspan admonished budgeteers about the dangers of -- get this -- too little federal debt.

"At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.

What. The. Fark.

Someone merely ignorant of economics could never say something that stupid. You need to be some kind of anti-savant to be as unbelievably wrong as Greenspan.

The problem was that people like him, to our great destruction, were/are disciples of the Church of Free-Market, or "Randians". They tend to believe that something as potentially dangerous as a system of commerce with no controls whatsoever is the way to go, never mind that this would make about as much sense as leaving your two-year old locked in a room with a very large pitbull which had not been fed in a week.

Even the fastest racecars must have brakes. We know what happens when they don't. Greenspan's policies and attitudes got us into this sh*t, and his banking buddies on wall street are now spending millions (possibly of our money) lobbying against restoring reforms and controls which might have lessened this economic ass-kicking to a smack on the wrist.

Gyrfalcon: Doesn't include Arthur Andersen's publicly falling into a paper shredder? That should be permanently near the top.

I think you mean Accenture. They just dropped Tiger Woods as a spokesman. They didn't want to endeared to someone with suspect morals. lawl

No_he_didnt: I think you mean Accenture. They just dropped Tiger Woods as a spokesman. They didn't want to endeared to someone with suspect morals. lawl

Not to put a damper on your fun or anything, but Accenture and Arthur Andersen were completely separate companies by the time of Enron. And last I knew, Accenture wasn't in the public accounting business.

/s.o. is a CPA (and happy it's the bankers' turn to be the scapegoat), friend worked for accenture

I'd include this one on the list: letting the too-big-to-fail "banks" stay too-big-to-fail.

rewind2846: Gunther: Just days after President George W. Bush took office, Fed chief Alan Greenspan admonished budgeteers about the dangers of -- get this -- too little federal debt.

"At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government," Greenspan told the Senate Budget Committee.

What. The. Fark.

Someone merely ignorant of economics could never say something that stupid. You need to be some kind of anti-savant to be as unbelievably wrong as Greenspan.

The problem was that people like him, to our great destruction, were/are disciples of the Church of Free-Market, or "Randians". They tend to believe that something as potentially dangerous as a system of commerce with no controls whatsoever is the way to go, never mind that this would make about as much sense as leaving your two-year old locked in a room with a very large pitbull which had not been fed in a week.

Even the fastest racecars must have brakes. We know what happens when they don't. Greenspan's policies and attitudes got us into this sh*t, and his banking buddies on wall street are now spending millions (possibly of our money) lobbying against restoring reforms and controls which might have lessened this economic ass-kicking to a smack on the wrist.

For the thirtieth or so time, Greenspan spent the first 35 years of his life (The Rand years, btw) explaining why everything he did in the last 25 would result in calamity and ruin. Seriously, go read some of his early essays, then compare that to what he actually did as Fed Chairman. Look at the results. Educate yourself.

video man: Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

They don't even play the same sports. I watch MLB and guess what? No Chiefs? I watch the NFL and no Indians! Perplexing...

graham_paige: ParaHandy: Farker T: May he rest in peace.

Soon.

Actually, if you understand the context of Greenspan's quote it makes perfect sense ... during the Clinton years, the government ran a surplus.

If the government runs a surplus for too long and ends up with significant amounts of savings ($trillion's) then that money is de facto invested somewhere, and so the government ends up owning assets that should be in private hands, and competing with its citizens' businesses, which is ultimately unhealthy for the economy.


Or you could pay back some the the debt you owe.....

I'm not sure if in the quote he meant once the debt was paid off the federal government would effectively start buying assets at a much, much higher rate than in the past because it had no debt, OR if he meant that by paying off your debt you effectively are buying assets becoming the owner. *sigh*

Either way, it does not matter, it seems his point is, that the government really shouldn't buy/own assets.

rewind2846:

The problem was that people like him, to our great destruction, were/are disciples of the Church of Free-Market, or "Randians". They tend to believe that something as potentially dangerous as a system of commerce with no controls whatsoever is the way to go, never mind that this would make about as much sense as leaving your two-year old locked in a room with a very large pitbull which had not been fed in a week.

Even the fastest racecars must have brakes. We know what happens when they don't. Greenspan's policies and attitudes got us into this sh*t, and his banking buddies on wall street are now spending millions (possibly of our money) lobbying against restoring reforms and controls which might have lessened this economic ass-kicking to a smack on the wrist.

So much wrong in so little type.

What Greenspan meant was that surpluses should be used to be returned to the people; though it doesn't say, one would hope through the reduction of the national debt. You'll notice you'll never hear a politician say "we want to reduce the debt" they state "we want to reduce the deficit". It's almost as if they have no intention of paying back the big bad credit card, just not charge more on it. Yet interest rolls on (to the tune of 300 million a day).

The free market is self-correcting. Unless it is allowed to avoid its corrections by the only institution that can possibly do this: government.

Greenspan's true mistake was pushing off the market correction needed for the housing bubble by continually dropping the Fed's interest rate. Instead of a 20% loss in 2004 (during an inconvenient time for progressive burrow and spender Bush's reelection campaign) he held it off until it was a huge problem. The government knew damn well that they were fixing the leaks in the Hoover Dam with bubble gum wads.

Do you know how to hurt a CEO? Let his company fail. The executives at Lehman Brothers didn't receive bonuses this year!

rewind2846: The problem was that people like him, to our great destruction, were/are disciples of the Church of Free-Market, or "Randians". They tend to believe that something as potentially dangerous as a system of commerce with no controls whatsoever is the way to go, never mind that this would make about as much sense as leaving your two-year old locked in a room with a very large pitbull which had not been fed in a week.

Even the fastest racecars must have brakes. We know what happens when they don't. Greenspan's policies and attitudes got us into this sh*t, and his banking buddies on wall street are now spending millions (possibly of our money) lobbying against restoring reforms and controls which might have lessened this economic ass-kicking to a smack on the wrist.

If you're Chairman of the Federal Reserve, you aren't at the "Church of the Free Market".

<b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4864753&IDComment=56754270#c567 54270">bgilmore5</a>:</b> <i>Anyone that knew anything about the internet knew AOL-Time Warner would fail. AOL was/is for beginners. Add that to the fact that people were switching to high-speed internet at the time and you've got fail.</i>

Somebody please tell me that this comment is that of some post-ironic hipster.

Charmaniac: No mention of Lehman Brothers blowing up? That was the single event which contributed most to the near collapse of our financial system.

This. The gov'ts failure to backstop ("bail out") Lehman, in retrospect, was a big mistake.

Wow, and to think I used to look up to Greenspan. How did I miss that quote?

No one has pointed out that the decade still has one year left in it?

Satanic_Hamster: No one has pointed out that the decade still has one year left in it?

It's been pointed out in a dozen threads. The general consensus on fark seems to be that it makes more sense for decades at least to go 0-9, even if centuries/millenia do not.