Also, Greenspan did not act as a statesman because his actions and decision led to the dot-com bubble. His action contributed to a sharp rise in the valuation multiples on stock on and other equities. The rise in the valuation of stocks meant that the same earnings would now worth excessively than expected. For instance, the action triggered the rise in the multiple of NAQSQAD, which was 100 times earnings. The new level of NASQAD was about six times greater than the median historical valuations. The rise in the valuation multiples consequently contributed to the dot-com bubble, which adversely affected the economy of the USA. The investments in the internet-based firms mainly fueled the crisis during the bull during the late 1990s.
Moreover, the crisis caused various negative effects which include but are not limited to the acquisition and merger of companies, bankruptcy of firms, and the decline in the investment bond market. Dot-com bubble made many of the struggling firms to be merged or acquired by other companies, and this consequently affected the companies by reducing their profitability and revenue flow. It also made some companies be declared bankrupt, and a good example of such a company is the WorldCom. Therefore, Greensman’s actions and the decision caused detrimental effects than benefit. The decision negatively impacted the economy by lowering its financial capability, which is necessary for running the economy. From the statesmanship’s model, his action and decision did not prioritize the overall welfare of the country, but it instead exposed the nation to the financial crisis, which curtailed its ability to run the economy. Hence his actions and decisions are contrary to the principles of statesmanship.
Moreover, the actions and decision of Morgan and Stanley did not show statesmanship. They assisted in producing supplying hundreds of billions in harmful properties which among them include mortgage-backed stocks along with CDOs which was mainly based on the subprime mortgages. Similarly, they failed to improve the huge deprivations being incurred by credulous customers. During the onset of the crisis, Goldman has property footings of $ 1.1trillion. Likewise, Morgan Stanley had also surpassed the trillion-dollar mark.
Consequently, the action and decision of Hank Paulson to desecrate the policies of open market to make Goldman financial institution a giant on gambling contributed to the financial crisis. Paulson did not act like a statesman in his action and decision since the action consequently led to the financial crisis, which adversely affected the economy of the USA. The statesmanship principle habitually requires people to prioritize the nation while making various decisions or partaking in various actions to induce good to the people. The benefits the action induce to the people should always outweigh the negative impact of the decisions and actions. Nonetheless, the leaders implicated in the Blackberry crisis prioritized their interest instead of that of the nation. Hence, they did not act like statesmen.
Conclusion
The Blackberry panic of 2008 was mainly triggered by the various wrong actions and decisions of leaders, which eventually exposed the USA to the financial crisis. Leaders made various decisions which contributed to the decline in the employment and income, exchange rates along with GDP. For instance, Paulson made the decision of engaging incompetent young employees to review and elucidate the financial report of AIG, and this, in turn, contributed to the economic crisis which adversely affected the economy of the USA. Similarly, Greenspan introduced Faustian bargaining, which also contributed to the financial crisis experienced by the USA. The leaders implicated in the Blackberry panic did not act like statesmen. The statesmanship doctrine provided by the statesmanship model requires that people should always prioritize the nation with their actions. Their actions should always strive to benefit the whole nation. Nonetheless, the actions and decisions of the leaders safeguarded their interest while they exposed the country to a financial crisis. The decisions and actions of the leaders implicated in the panic contributed to the crisis instead of shielding the country from any trigger of economic crisis.