why did alan greenspan leave his position?
92355
He served as Chair of the Federal Reserve for 18 years and his term was completed.
388840
bear i agree whit u many Americans are looking for any job i know there is a lot of jobs picking up tomatoes why don't u ask ur friends to go ahead and do it . i also seen many homeless who would not even dare to participate on any job they could find . if someone else wants to do it shouldn't that person be allowed to do it? of course u could always give those jobs to the Indians like ur are doing already or u could buy ur products from china who will pay u any price they want as always . or u could take Alan Greenspan side who thinks a legalization would benefit the American economy greatly .\n\nhere u can see alan greenspan points of view :\nFederal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has spoken repeatedly about the contributions of both skilled and unskilled immigrants. He has advised Congress to ''open up our immigration rolls significantly'' in order to ward off higher inflation and higher interest rates. Similarly, hotel, restaurant, and health-care employers, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the shortage of low-wage ''essential workers'' is an emergency that is causing companies to curtail expansion. They argue that ''when companies cannot fill jobs with U.S. workers, hiring foreign nationals should be a viable alternative.'' And organized labor is calling for a revision of immigration laws to give low-wage immigrants without legal status the right to stay permanently.\nhttp://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_14/c3675078.htm
274192
Big Nooooooo.  He was, not any more.  Check his stock's performance VS. the indices in the last 3 years.  This stock has been spanked by the S&P 500, Russell 2000 and the NASDAQ Composite each and every year for the last 3.\n\nYear           2003       2004        2005   $ 100,000.00\nBRB.B         16.18%      4.29%      0.00%   $ 121,164.12\nNASDAQ        50.01%      8.56%      1.37%   $ 165,081.90\nRussell 2000  45.37%     16.95%      3.32%   $ 175,654.54\nS&P 500       26.38%      8.97%      3.00%   $ 141,847.76\nWhich account would you rather not have, assuming investing $ 100K since beginning of 2003 until the end of 2005?
327579
He wanted himself to stay there until after 2007/2008 and then he wanted to go the the States to finish off his career and work more on his soccer acedemies he just opened one in the states LA I think it was.\nWhether Real Madrid get rid of him before then is another matter.
337647
Not China or Mexico but:\nMy job consisted of working in several departments. Due to some of those departments going to Germany and some to Brazil, many of us were laid off, permanently. I had to find another job at 1/2 what I had been making.  I had recieved good reviews, offered raises and bonuses. I feel like our businesses shouldn't offer the raises and bonuses and then let us go, and hire temporary workers, at lower wages, to do some of the other jobs available that we could have done. I would have taken a cut in pay just to keep my benefits and seniority. We were not given that option.\n\nOur leaders do not see what the common worker has to deal with. They need to come down here and talk to US, the ones affected by NAFTA and CAFTA. Big corporations want more for less, not necessarily better quality. Quantity for the money is more important than quality. It stuffs their wallets and takes it out of ours.
471061
No bias here just facts.  please read below:\n\nClinton:\n\nDuring Clinton's tenure, the U.S. enjoyed continuous economic expansion, reductions in unemployment, and growing wealth through a massive rise in the stock market. The economic boom ended in Q1, 2000, 10 months before his term ended in January, 2001, possibly indicative of a stock market bubble. Although the reasons for the expansion are continually debated, Clinton proudly pointed to a number of economic accomplishments, including:\n\nMore than 22 million new jobs \nHomeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5% \nLowest unemployment rate in 30 years \nHigher incomes at all levels \nLargest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion \nLowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974 [7] \nHigher stock ownership by families than ever before \n220% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, 300% increase in the Nasdaq from 1993 to 2001 \nThe reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but Clinton supporters cite his 1993 tax increase as the reason that eventually led to the reduction in the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending and strengthened the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy. Alan Greenspan supported the 1993 tax increase, which was approved by Congress without a single Republican vote. [8] Critics of Clinton point to Alan Greenspan's strong chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, 1995 spending cuts and the Republican Party's Contract with America initiatives as alternative reasons for America's strong economic growth of the late 90's. Critics also argue that the economic recovery had already begun before Bill Clinton took office and did not pick up momentum until 1995 and 1996, after the GOP took over Congress (despite the fact that GDP growth was higher in 1994 than in either 1995 or 1996). Many economists attribute massive growth to the dot-com boom which just happened to come during Clinton's term, thus adding many new jobs which may not be directly attributed to policies of the Clinton administration.\n\nIn 1999, Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate. The perjury charge arose from Clinton's testimony about his relationship to Monica Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former Arkansas-state employee Paula Jones. The obstruction charge was based on his actions during the subsequent investigation of that testimony. On February 12, the Senate concluded a 21-day trial with the vote on both counts falling short of the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority to convict and remove an office holder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with all of the votes to convict being cast by Republicans. On the perjury charge 55 senators voted to acquit, including 10 Republicans, and 45 voted to convict; on the obstruction charge the Senate voted 50-50. [22] Clinton, like the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson, served the remainder of his term.\n\nThe day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign. [17][18] Clinton's resignation was mostly symbolic, as he had never practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to in the future. Clinton also was assessed a $90,000 fine by federal judge Susan Webber Wright for contempt of court. The Paula Jones lawsuit was settled out of court for $850,000.\n\nIn addition to impeachment and the Whitewater scandal, the Clinton White House was the subject of many other controversies.\n\nThe White House travel office con
1134067
She wrote a book called 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.  And this title probably sums up her philosophy.  She believed that economic relationships in society work best when everyone is allowed to act in his and her own self-interest.  \n\nAlan Greenspan was one of her friends.  And he probably believes in many of the ideas she proposed.
1181947
Because people have moved on?\nOr because billionaire George Soros has a new place to spend his money - perhaps he's directly buying Senator Clinton, instead of going through loopy intermediaries.\n\nFor the party of the 'little guy' they sure have a lot of millionaires and rich people running their party and calling the tunes.
789926
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={867CEFA6-22D6-4DB9-AB4B-29D66BC02F39}&siteid=mktw\n\nIt says why they ended it there. I wonder if they'll refund our money...
766521
It is impossible to disagree with this analysis.  Just look at the economy under Carter in the 1970s.  When the top tax rate was at 70%, we had rampant inflation, high interest rates, and record unemployment.  All of this was a direct result of the out-of-control tax hike.  Businesses, having to pay exhorbitant taxes, passed this expense on to the consumer causing high inflation and thus lowering the value of the dollar.  The fed raised interest rates to slow the inflation, causing home ownership to be out of reach for more Americans.  Businesses could not afford to hire more employees because the money that they would have paid them with was going to the government in taxes.
22697
I think it falls under the category of learning from his mistakes.  Biden was forced to step down because he made a bad decision.  His credibility took a hit, and he's spent almost two decades trying to rebuild that credibility.  Many people still heed Stephen Ambrose, George Harrison, and Alex Haley, all famous plagiarists.  Biden has permanently damaged his credibility, but he's carefuly spent time trying to restore it, and it appears that after twenty years he's pretty done a good job of it.
799946
he resigned because he would have been fired or impeached by the Senate anyway.  He screwed the pooch and needed to be removed.
230341
He was a banker. Hope this helps.
90610
It's pretty simple. Lowering interest rates encourages spending, which rejuvenates the economy. Alan Greenspan has done a fabulous job here in the USA and I wish he hadn't retired.
1074256
I think that he retired or there was a court case or somethink.I dont know.
104602
by increasing the money supply, that would make more money available for loans which would lead to more people buying houses, which means higher sales of durable goods(furniture, appliances), which puts money in a lot of employee's pockets that they then go spend on durable goods/foods that put money in other people's pockets. and so it keeps going until people don't want to spend and then you have a problem. that is what works in the states, alan greenspan made a career out of doing just that.
71820
People invested heavily with borrowed money and insider trading was out of control....so they say.  When the stock market chucked, none of the banks could get their money back because none of the investors had the money to do it.  People rushed to the bank to take out any money they had.  People who had money in the bank couldn't even get it back because the banks had loaned it out to investors.  There were no rules like we have today against some of these shady procedures.  There was no social security or public aid to help out the old/poor people.  Also, I don't think your money was insured by the bank like it is today.