I have nothing against Alan Greenspan personally. He admitted that his Randian fantasies about the perfection of the free market were all wrong; if more wingers did this, the world would undoubtedly be a better place. And I think he’s right about unemployment going over 10% (he’s really going out on limb there, huh?).
But why the hell would anyone listen to him about the economy after he spent years claiming there was no housing bubble?
srv
He’s done no such thing:
“Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
Does not equal being “all wrong.”
Nellcote
And Andrea Mitchell should really recuse herself from covering stories about the economy.
Demo Woman
MSM in order to protect the Greenspan image that they helped to create, pretend that he did no wrong.
DougJ
Does not equal being “all wrong.”
It’s pretty close.
Demo Woman
MSM creates news, they don’t report the news.
El Tiburon
I can’t believe you asked this question. This is what the Village does. Greenspan will never lose his position as The Maestro.
If the MSM didn’t book discredited pundits and hacks, there would be no political talk show of any variety.
Zifnab25
Old Republicans never die. They just migrate between talking head shows. And why would we drop Greenspan when we continue to listen to such luminaries as Bill Kristol and John McCain?
MikeBoyScout
I don’t listen to him.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus.
I don’t believe in the Invisible Hand.
Derelict
Greenspan would probably have gone down in history as a minor footnote for his policy of jacking up unemployment to keep inflation down. However, he later discovered that bubble economies create a better illusion of success than merely keeping inflation in the low single digits. Thus we had the Dot-Com bubble, which he followed immediately with the housing bubble. (And for those who think the housing bubble was not an intentional policy on Greenspan’s part, just go look at his public statements after June 2002.)
Little Dreamer
@Nellcote:
Well, GOSH – so long as she never admits she’s Mrs. Alan Greenspan, most of the country will never know. No harm done then, right?
/snark
balconesfault
Greenspan should forever be remembered as the guy who supported Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 – because it was dangerous for the economy if we paid down the national debt too quickly.
Sure took care of THAT problem…
SiubhanDuinne
@Nellcote 12:58 pm
Is Andrea Mitchell covering stories about the economy now? (Honest question, as I rarely see her any more.) I know that when she and Greenspan got married — maybe even before that, when they were just an item — she asked NBC not to assign her any stories having to do with the economy, and AFAIK they honoured the request. Did things change once Greenspan stepped down as Fed Chair?
SiubhanDuinne
@Little Dreamer 1:21 pm
Ri-i-i-ight. Just like nobody had to know that Anne Applebaum is married to the Polish F.M. and has a vested interest in the Polanski extradition case.
Little Dreamer
@SiubhanDuinne:
Here’s the current headline from Andrea Mitchell Reports:
Does THAT answer your question?
Kennedy
He seems to be doing the John McCain publicity circuit lately. Apparently America loves listening to losers with a history of repudiated policies and ideas.
But I am with you. Listening to Greenspan at this point is like hailing an arsonist as the eminent expert on how to extinguish the raging inferno he created.
Anon
Greenspan was not much more incorrect than (many, not all) others, and a while back he was considered the nation’s top expert. But
When he started to entertain the notion that there was a “new business paradigm” at the end of the last decade, is when indication was given that he is not the thinker that was thought to be. maybe. then he supported tax cuts while maintaining that he was such a budget discliplanarian.
Thats when he became an economic sheep driven by some sort of idelogicial belief, rather than as a thinker. this was only compounded by his acknowledgement several years later that he only supported those cuts (for several years) bcause he really thought we were
Our nation’s top “economist” engaged in rather economically pedestrian, if not mildly illusionary, thinking. and didn’t exhibit much intelligence on the matter, either.
On other occasions, and in particular in the past, he has illustrated a strong grasp of the subject matter — and an even stronger grasp of being able to speak in mumbo jumbo, which perhaps only led further to this illure. dunno.
By the way, speaking of which, David Brooks: Doing what he does best.
And, oh yeah, this is also pretty funny too, speaking of wall street and bubbles: glenn beck, able to predict monetary futures as if he knew the facts beforehand!
Little Dreamer
@SiubhanDuinne:
Sorry, I haven’t been keeping up on that story, I have no interest in keeping up with the news of Hollywood characters (they either profit from or play fake people, why should real life for them be any different?) and I haven’t heard of that name.
SiubhanDuinne
Thank you, Little Dreamer. I appreciate the information
raptusregaliter
@balconesfault: What balconesfault said. Greenspan actually had the gall to say that a big healthy surplus might actually be bad for the country, thus giving political cover for Dubya et al to give a huge windfall tax break to the plutocrats and oligarchs.
I wonder if he and Mrs. Greenspan read Ayn Rand to each other before they go to bed?
athena
Why isn’t Greenspan in the cell next to Madoff?
clone12
“Listening to Greenspan at this point is like hailing an arsonist as the eminent expert on how to extinguish the raging inferno he created.”
OTOH, there is some logic to that- how the arsonist start the fire might influence how you would go about putting it out…
Demo Woman
@raptusregaliter:
I wonder if he and Mrs. Greenspan
read.fixed.
Greenspan was complicit in the ponzi scheme the investment banks were running or he was ignorant. We know Mrs. Greenspan doesn’t do research.
Mark S.
Speaking of bubbles and not learning from history, I’ll probably buy this book when it comes out in paperback:
I of course think most economists are dangers to society and should not be allowed to prey on society, so I was unsurprised that “a large fraction of the academic and policy literature on debt and default draws conclusions based on data collected since 1980,” because, of course, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.
gocart mozart
Since it was Mr Andrea Mitchel’s invisible hand that punched us all in the balls last year, he should have the good sense to just STFU.
geg6
Alan Greenspan is, more than any other single person, directly responsible for our shambles of an economy. Fuck that Randian pussy licker. And fuck his ugly ass compromised beyond repair Villager wife. Greenspan loved him some bubbles and advocated the virtues of them. Fuck his whocoodaknowed bullshit. It should be a law that if that motherfucker opens his big fat piehole in public, Krugman or Stiglitz, or Galbreath gets to come on the set, tell him every single fuckup he made, and then beat the living shit out of him. One time doing that and I bet he shuts the hell up and crawls into a cave, never to be seen again.
geg6
Sorry I’m stuck in moderation. Musta swore too much. It’s the effect of any mention of Mr. Andrea Mitchell. I can’t help it. It’s a situational Tourette’s. My apologies.
jeffreyw
Fuck Greenspan and the rest of the bastards waging class war. His “Us” is our “Them”.
via
bago
I’m actually partial to Greenspan on this one. For years and administrations he was hailed as a savant, and then repudiated his decades of work that started in rand’s bed. It is rare to see someone so old, so storied, and so wealthy to admit culpability. This bit of self correction should be honored.
The guy could jet off to Ibiza and be high and fellated by gorgeous women for the rest of his life, but he stood up and said he was wrong.
It’s decent. Grant him that.
mclaren
Yes, Alan Greenspan definitely martinized the twinkie.
geg6
bago: I’d be a lot more impressed if he gave up his ill gotten millions to recompense some of the victims of his letting his dick dictate his economic philosophy. Fuck him. He deserves nothing but scorn.
ericblair
But why the hell would anyone listen to him about the economy after he spent years claiming there was no housing bubble?
Because he was Wrong in the Right Way, and that’s what matters. If you’re Right in the Wrong Way, that means you are going to embarrass the ceviche-snarfing crowd in Georgetown with your lack of class and your annoying independent thought and we can’t have that. If you’re Wrong in the Wrong Way, well, you’re now everybody’s favorite target and will be picked clean by crows.
One Greenspan bio I read a while back pointed out how much he craved Washington status. If he had done his job right, he wouldn’t have been seated at the best dinner tables anymore. I’m thinking that had more than a little to do with his decisions.
bago
@geg6: The first step in learning is admitting you are wrong. When someone of status and influence renounces their entire theoretical construct of the world you support them. If their change is sincere, they will do thing publically humiliating such as this testimony. Can Greenspan give back other peoples money? No. Can he do a 180 and protect the future from his folly? Yes.
I would rather have the philosophy of Rand repudiated publicly by a lover and an acolyte than anyone else.
Ideas are powerful. If you can destroy the idea you purchase much more credibility than from destroying an idealoge(sp)?
See argument: Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.
Nellcote
I don’t know if it’s a rerun but Matt Taibbi has been doing the pundit thing on the CNN money show for the last 20 min. with only minor contradiction from the guy from Fortune mag. This is some sort of progress I think.
Nellcote
@bago:
Still waiting for a full-throated renunciation.
geg6
bago: Well, I don’t see him running from show to show or schooling his wife on the ideological and logical failures of Randism. We got that one quick almost sorta mea culpa and then off to be the Sage of the Magical Markets again like nothing ever happened. He should spend the next 50 years explaining why everything he inflicted on us and espoused as if bringing it down from Mt. Sinai was wrong, wrong, wrong. This man is as bad as Bush or Cheney as far as I’m concerned. I see the carnage he wrought all day, every day. He enrages me.
bago
This is a demonstration to the amenitability towards change. The fact that a former director of economic policy admits that some of the fundamental underpinnings of his touted economic theories are flawed allows room for growth.
Penfold
Can I just say, slightly OT, that the mainstream discussions of unemployment drive me batty? The BLS’s U-6 rate, something more like the “real” unemployment number, is already at 16.8%. As one of Reagan’s former Assisstant Secretaries of the Treasury pointed out, if you were to use the old unemployment formulas, pre-Clinton & Bush II manipulation, unemployment is actually about 20%. John Williams at SGS has it pegged at something like 21%.
This went hand-in-hand with the manipulation-to-uselessness of the CPI, which Greenspan had a lot to do with. Gotta keep apparent inflation and interest down if we’re going to encourage finance capitalism and consumer debt! Yaaaaay!
bayville
Sorry, Doug but I have utter contempt for Greenspan and everyone associated with him. He’s scum.
Any honest person, with more than one-year of economics education knew the bubble would burst and cause dramatic damage in the meantime.
But until the house cards came down in late 2007 (just in time for him to promote his book) he defended his policies strenuously.
For example, here is an incredible exchange between Bernie Sanders and “The Maestro” back in 2003, when everyone in the major media was toasting 20-percent property appreciations and the booming Dow Jones.
BTW, Greenspan’s response in this clip should be fast-tracked to the Obtuseness Hall of Fame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh-qGcYruw&feature=player_embedded#
DBrown
Under Clinton, greenspan hated deficits and argued tax increases; Clinton then gave us a great surplus and that asswipe, low life greenspan was hailed the hero. Under bushwhack, shit eating, ass licking greenspan said that giving trillions in tax breaks to the wealthy and rising deficits was god-like perfection and red ink flowed like children’s blood in Iraq that cheney sucked up just like the low life wealthy sucked the life from our economy. Asslicker greenspan was hailed still hailed a hero. Then the bubbles burst (two!) under bushwack and all the mess lands in Obama’s lap and just who yells who is at fault by the media and repub-a-thugs?
Shell
Random musing on ‘Galt.’ Today I was making a left turn into our pretty county park. A massive SUV was coming out in the opposite lane. He tried to make a left back into the park, (an illegal move) but couldn’t. Backed up, backed up again til he finally had clearance. Meanwhile of course he was blocking the other cars waiting to drive in.
As I pulled up closer to him, I noticed a little windshield sticker. “Who is John Galt?”
Why wasn’t I surprised.
geg6
Shell: And that, folks, is Randism in a nutshell. Wow. Perfect.
Dan
How can you have nothing against Alan Greenspan personally?
celticdragon
Alan Greenspan is, more than any other single person, directly responsible for our shambles of an economy. Fuck that Randian pussy licker. And fuck his ugly ass compromised beyond repair Villager wife. Greenspan loved him some bubbles and advocated the virtues of them. Fuck his whocoodaknowed bullshit. It should be a law that if that motherfucker opens his big fat piehole in public, Krugman or Stiglitz, or Galbreath gets to come on the set, tell him every single fuckup he made, and then beat the living shit out of him. One time doing that and I bet he shuts the hell up and crawls into a cave, never to be seen again.
Xenos
@DBrown: This gets to an interesting interpretation of Greenspan that was circulating a few years ago – that he really respects the democratic process and would direct Fed policy in alignment with what the White House wanted. The conclusion works out the same as your condemnation, but the story put a more pleasant gloss on it.
Hey – the edit function is back. Thanks!
Rick Taylor
I do. He preached budgetary restraint when Clinton was in office, and supported an increase in the regressive payroll tax. Then when we had a surplus, he gave a green light to the Bush tax cuts. Then when that resulted in budget deficits, he supported continuing the tax cuts, while cutting social security benefits. He’s the one who taught me you cannot trust “fiscal conservatives”; they’re just out to line the pockets of the rich. Fool me once, shame on you. . . .