Allan Greenspan

Allan Greenspan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> Allan Greenspan (9/14/2007 10:38:04 PM)
Its just hard to believe there hasn't been some kind of popular revolt. Greenspan is somewhat like George Tenet here, saving his criticisms until he's safely in retirement from his public duties. >WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits. In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless. Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”< >He praises President Bush for letting the Fed stay independent of political pressure, saying he was scrupulous in not trying to interfere with monetary policy — which he contrasts sharply with the pressure exerted by his father, George H. W. Bush, in the early 1990s. For years, the first President Bush has blamed Mr. Greenspan for contributing to his defeat in 1992 by failing to prevent a recession by cutting interest rates. Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”< http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Owner59 -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/14/2007 10:51:50 PM)
it`s on my must read list

SusanofO -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/14/2007 11:02:32 PM)
I sometimes have to wonder, how much money people think they really need to acquire -before some will quit a job, or publicy decry the actions of the boss or organization they work for, when they are seemingly entrusted with operating on behalf of the public, and they know what is happening (or likely will happen) is wrong, and might be (or are definitely) in a position to exert the pressure for positive change. It's possible that Greenspan thought he might make more positive difference by staying, rather than quitting in frustration. IMO, he's a smart guy, very well-educated - and has also been incredibly personally wealthy for decades. It isn't as if he couldn't afford to lose the job, had he decided to publicly criticize the Bush administration to the extent it became an embarrassment for them (maybe he did a little, I can't seem to remember), even if it ended up meaning he had to resign. IMO I think he isn't responsible for the entire functioning of U.S. economy (taking note of the "Housing Bubble bursting" and too many (initially low-interest) ARM mortgages on offer -IMO, very greedy banks, and also greedy consumers, brokers, adn realestate agents also figure in this equation, very much - no matter what "carrot" was dangled in front of their noses. People still make their own free spending decisions - although granted his policies played a part. Given Greenspan's situation (and some key assinine players in the Bush Presidential administration he seemed to be dealing with)- maybe he saw himself as simply being called on to make financial decisions that would simply cause more good than harm - even if the difference seemed negligible to him, at times. So people will have to look at the balance of how that played out (and continues to play out) - as far as his low-interest rate fiscal policy outlook. But I've no doubt he knew just how much trust many people placed in his word and opinion on those matters. In any case, he was ticked off enough about how things were in the Bush Administration when he was part of it, to write about it now (too little too late, possibly, that - plus he knows his book will make tons of money). I agree - if someone in a highly-placed position like this in government, and is not worried about how their family will eat tommorrow (or maybe even if they are), or (in the case of many in Washington, D.C., I am guessing) they've already got more money than any one person is probably ever going to need, what would stop them (besides a wimpy belief in social convention) from being a lot more vocal in protesting how things are being run - while they are in office? Or simply leaving? Just walking away? - and making no bones about the reasons why? Besides what I've already said, I dunno the answer. Good question. Maybe he can donate the proceeds from his book to help clean up the mess? I agree that Clinton seems to have been (IMO) mentally, socially and organizationally much more capable (and accomplisehd a lot more that is positive in an ongoing sense, while in office) than the two Bush Presidents combined. In the very far reaches of the back of my mind, I keep hoping against hope, that, say, 5 years after this Bush leaves office, I will read somewhere some information, that somewhat justifies more clearly some of the actions he has taken. I keep hoping -thinking there has just got to be a better explanation for someone appearing to have purposely made this much of a mess - like maybe there is just a lot of information I don't know, or that wasn't ever made public except to very few, or something, re: The reasons for some of these really bad decisions of his. I think it is probably a vain hope - but it's been such an incredible debacle since he took office (particularly financially, and in terms of the war and all of its accompanying mis-management) - that part of me can't seem to believe (even though it is really happening) that someone actually has managed to be this incompetent a General Manager. I just read more of the book excerpt (sounds like an itneresting book). Wow. Incredibly short-sighted (as well as pretty darned insulated) pretty much sums up my feelings about many Republican Reps and Senators, and especially Bush, since he took office, if what Greenspan says is true. - Susan

UtopianRanger -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/14/2007 11:24:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Its just hard to believe there hasn't been some kind of popular revolt. Greenspan is somewhat like George Tenet here, saving his criticisms until he's safely in retirement from his public duties. >WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits. In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless. Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”< >He praises President Bush for letting the Fed stay independent of political pressure, saying he was scrupulous in not trying to interfere with monetary policy — which he contrasts sharply with the pressure exerted by his father, George H. W. Bush, in the early 1990s. For years, the first President Bush has blamed Mr. Greenspan for contributing to his defeat in 1992 by failing to prevent a recession by cutting interest rates. Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”< http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin While I agree with ''Bubbles'' Greenspan regards the current administration.....I find his fatherly ''holier than thou'' attitude laughable. Greenspan's due diligence was single-handedly responsible for the Black Monday crash of 87. He's propped-up and rode every bubble since. Starting with the Asian contagion through the dot com bubble, through the lending and housing bubbles - Now crash and hyper-inflation. Instead of a Fed chairman who likens himself to the false-free market philosophy of Milton Friedman, now we have one who's a combination of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- Ala Friedman / Keynes. JMHO - R

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/14/2007 11:24:50 PM)
The cookie jar is very addictive. Greenspan is laughing all the way to the bank - a bank he used to control. A bank with the license to print money. But by now his wealth is largely real property and lots of it is kept offshore. That's how you avoid the tax man legally. And for those scoring at home: Clinton was basically a Republican. The Neocons are looters.

SusanofO -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/15/2007 12:04:05 AM)
This might be a redundant, familiar opinion, but I am so disappointed with the last couple of years in this Presidency, that I will say it anyway. I am not particularly materialistic, but I do end up wondering how much money people think they really need. It seems obvious to me a whole different kind of culture is at play in the top echelons of government, in which not competence, but power matters most (IMO this happens all the time in the corporate world, too). It might be nice if next time around, in 2008, we get the two to go together much more than we did this time, as far as who we as a country decide to elect as the next President. - Susan

pahunkboy -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/15/2007 10:27:53 AM)
if greenspan sneeazed wall street would be in a friendzy. he is more crediable then his replacement.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/15/2007 3:18:50 PM)
Susan my sweet, lol, I think you have missed the point of this thread, I've done it myself so you are in good company lol. Its about government income/spending on the large scale. Not about individual wealth. Isn't it ?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Allan Greenspan (9/15/2007 4:15:23 PM)
seeksfemslave: Not entirely, no.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875