>Mayhaps, back in the 50's or 60's when businesses actually DID look out for their stockholders/investors that may have been true, but once the business paradigm rolled over to "the bottom line is all that matters, as long as it goes up - we're golden"....no.
>
>And before someone jumps in with the whole 'weren't they always looking out for the bottom line" argument, I'll expand on my statement.
>
>This is my opinion only
>
>Somewhere in the 80's, the 'bottom line', as defined by making a profit, became the be-all and end-all for big business. Does the bottom line need to be bigger? Lay off the expensive experienced (older) workers and hire younger workers that will work cheaper. Cut benefits while you're at it. Then someone figured out that the more money that is loaned out, the bigger the bottom line looks - 'cuz, after all, these people are going to pay interest, which means more money, doesn't it? And if they don't pay it back, we can charge interest on the interest and make MORE money. Sound familiar? Sound like a good way to run a business/bank? Anytime you hear something that a bank/business/lending institution does that sounds kinda hinkey, stop and think..."Did it make the bank/business/lending institution more money?". If the answer is 'Yes', then that's why they did it.
>
> End of opinion

Yep, nice summation. Basically, this crisis exposes the unregulated (aka de-regulated) capitalism as one great pyramidal scheme, where everyone is scamming everybody else and increasing their own profit. This extra value has to come from somewhere, and usually comes on the promise of forever progress and expansion - ad infinitum. Which is impossible, of course, "pyramid scheme" is a bad description, because it assumes linear growth. Adding a certain percentage annually will give you exponential growth, so sooner or later you either have inflation, or run out of victims, or both.

"Federal Reserve, which regulates banks" - is funny on its face. Federal reserve is a bank, and is not a regulatory body, other than to set the base interest rate and borrow the money they just invented, so regulating the total mass of money in circulation by producing more of it out of thick air (can't be thin down there in their vaults ;).

"Deregulation" is just another word for "foxes are the best guardians of hens".

>And before Bill jumps in asking if I'm un-American because I don't think these bank/business/lending institutions should make a profit, I'll go ahead and state now: I don't mind you making a profit, but I DO mind you making an obscene profit.

They were ah so un-American in the decades before that (deregulation) when most of the stuff went just fine at lower profit rates - and the people were able to buy the stuff they were producing. And they were still producing stuff, back then.

I just want to add that anyone who laments the loss of trust in the institutions should have reacted far earlier. For example, the robber barons' loot should have been returned to their victims. The contracts with American American tribes should have been enforced. All of them. The usury laws should never have been allowed to be bypassed. The corporations shouldn't be allowed to be persons. "Caveat emptor" shouldn't be the most important words.

But since the intention was, since who knows when, to let profiteers loose and dismantle this whole building that made this country great, now Greenspan gets the task to pretend to be surprised. Was he convincing?