Skip to main content

View Diary: Open Source Research Project: Alan Greenspan (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, you want to take down Greenspan (none)
    based on O'Neill's (excellent) book?

    If the content of that book didn't resonate and hurt Bush, will plucking a couple of Greenspan's statements from it do the trick?

    •  I wouldn't expect nor intend that (none)
      one quote from an ex-Secretary's memoir would destroy the credibility of Greenspan's long career, just as the numerous others who are also quoting sources don't expect that a magazine article will destroy anyone's career.  How did you form this assumption from my comment?  This is about raising questions concerning the coherence/incoherence of some of Greenspan's stances, especially now as Greenspan is endorsing the destruction of social security.  Re-read my comment in this context.
      •  I agree that is what he's endorsing (none)
        but, for us to take him down, we would have to prove:

        1. that he is a Republican hack
        2. his economic theories are wrong

        I just don't see how that will happen based on contradictory statements.  Especially because Greenspan is widely ackowledge to be a very confusing speaker.  Parsing his statements before Congress has become a game/science/artform.
        •  Then it's time to force (none)
          his hand.  Most of Bush's policies have been disastrous.  Greenspan is not dealing with a Clinton, with whom he might disagree but who was not reckless.  Greenspan is dealing with confirmed liars who have vowed to undo the New Deal and decades of progress.  Perhaps efforts such as this open source research effort can help to force Greenspan to take a clear and coherent stance either with or against this extremist administration.  If not, then like Powell, he will have to suffer a credibility hit.
          •  Powell was quickly disproven (none)
            The SS argument will take decades to play out.  

            We will win this fight.  But, not by taking on Greenspan.

            •  It's playing out as (none)
              we speak.  And guess what?  Finally, Bush's credibility gap has caught up to him and the middle class is staunchly refusing to hand back programs to which they've paid taxes and now rightfully expect to exist into perpetuity.  Bush's attempt at reversal of the New Deal has already dealt the GOP and its apologists a crushing blow.  This "debate" is nearly over.

              Greenspan is insulated from partisanship with the structure of the Fed.  If, as it appears, he has politicized the Fed and is now endorsing policies which contravene his own stated principles and would prove disastrous for the country, we have every right to call him on it.  He is not above scrutiny.  The credibility he enjoys from his common-sense, non-partisan veneer lasts only as long as he endorses and creates those policies which are consistent with that veneer.  He has a choice: act for the betterment of the country and in line with his own stated principles, or be challenged for inconsistent partisan stances.  You might call this endeavor useless or even countereffective; I couldn't disagree more.  It's time to hold governmental representatives to the highest standards; the results of not doing so are too devastating to do otherwise.

        •  Easy (none)
          but, for us to take him down, we would have to prove:

             2. his economic theories are wrong

          That one's easy. If you like economics, read this:
          James Forder

          (my professor).

          "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

          by Marshall on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:19:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (none)
            Unfortunately, that link isn't going to be available to you. Is there any way I can post a pdf?

            "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

            by Marshall on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:21:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  1/2 the students in your class (none)
            don't even read your professor.  you really think Joe Sixpack will?
            •  You asked (none)
              Actually, we've all read that article, but anyway, you're the one who asked. The arguments aren't complicated--independent central banking is a load of shit.

              "We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality."

              by Marshall on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:30:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The point I've been trying to get across is... (none)
                although I may agree that Greenspan is a hack, we will have a very tough time selling that perception to Main St.  And in the process, I think we will come across as vindictive.

                No offense to you and your Professor.  I was just going off what they told us at Grad School orientation - the average academic paper is read by 1.2 people.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site