Bankster muse Alan Greenspan sticks up for Bankster Jamie Dimon

[marmar]

......(snip)......

Greenspan, when he was asked about issues surrounding the $2 billion trading loss that JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon announced May 10, said that banks are supposed to take risks.

Banker Risks

“Bankers take risks” and “there are going to be failures” as a result, Greenspan said. “You want that type of culture whereby people take risks because unless they take risks you get very little in the way of innovation.”

“Creative destruction is what basically moves a market economy forward,” Greenspan said. “People may not like the destruction part but if you don’t have the destruction part eliminating the obsolescent capital you can’t have the growth.” ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/former-fed-chief-greenspan-says-economy-very-sluggish-.html

[Iggy]

1. Same Ol' Baloney

Greenspan may as well have this nonsense tattooed on his wrinkled
forehead.

I don't really _care_ why the banksters think they need to take massive risk,
nor do I care whether or not they think it's necessary.

The problem is the banksters want to take private risk/make private profits
but get PUBLIC (your and my taxes) to back them up when they seriously
screw up and lose money, which is happening way to frequently.

If we the sappy taxpayers are going to back up the banksters with OUR money,
then we need to be stockholders and share in the profits.

[tularetom]

2. I thought he was dead

Are you sure this isn't just some animatronic Greenspan programmed to blurt out the same inane bullshit?

I want to see a photograph of him holding a copy of todays WSJ.

[bobthedrummer]

3. K&R + a link to The Center for Media and Democracy (not Media and Plutocracy) Bankster USA site

http://www.banksterusa.org

[freethought]

4. Does "creative destruction" include trillion dollar bailouts?

And what's so innovative about gambling on derivatives,credit default swaps or subprime lending? How is it any different from betting on a roll of dice or a turn of the roulette wheel?

Does "obsolescent capital" include too-big-to-fail banks as well? If that's the case then J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and nearly any other bank should have been allowed to go under.
Greespan's implication being that other, better-managed or more-innovative outfits would have taken their place. Everyone knows that's not what happened.

Yeah, bankers take risks. We get it. They take a risks when they make mortgage loans, car loans, whatever. But they carefully examine those who need money or capital to do whatever needs to be done as to reduce or mitigate that risk. There's always possibility that someone may fail to pay their loans or mortgages. That seemed to fly out the window when loans were made to those who could never pay them.

Mr. Greenspan can bite me.