Sudden Completely Spontaneous Effort to Discredit Greenspan Begins

I'm happy Greenspan spoke up about the Republicans and spending.

Greenspan did make a mistake after 9/11 by lowering rates too low and leaving them too long but I'm pretty sure "how a central bank is suppose to react after a major terrorist attack" was not taught in any of his econ classes. Your asking economists to make economic decisions based on non economic events.
 
uscitizen said:
Regardless of your assesment, The cons in power are concerned about the contents of Greenspans book. That is obvious .
Click to expand...

They should be worried because he called them out on their spending.

But that has nothing to do with the thead. The article was about Greenspan term as leader of the Fed. It has nothing to do with his book.
 
Further, I recall a lot of trashing of Greenspan when he first talked on the tax cuts. I am sure if he would have written harsh criticisms of Clinton, we'd hear more and none of you would complain. But go ahead and pretend there is some sinister plot.
 
Ahh all the articles are just a coincidence then....

sure...Keep telling yourself that, then one person will believe it anyway.
 
uscitizen said:
Ahh all the articles are just a coincidence then....

sure...Keep telling yourself that, then one person will believe it anyway.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article posted in this first post of this thread? I will give 100 to 1 odds that you haven't. Therefore you have no idea what was even said about Greenspan. You are aware his term encompasses two Presidents correct?
 
cawacko said:
Did you read the article posted in this first post of this thread? I will give 100 to 1 odds that you haven't. Therefore you have no idea what was even said about Greenspan. You are aware his term encompasses two Presidents correct?
Click to expand...

Four actually.

Try and keep up Cawacko. I am getting tired of beating the crap out of men on this board lately.

Is there no man here who can take me, me a mere girl?
 
I read the article because of the title, and found that the article is largely complimentary of a very intelligent man.

I can't say that this article or the title discredited him. The title was selected to get people to read the article, it worked.
 
Warren said:
That's really what I'm commenting on. Everything in the article is fairly complimentary of him. I find it interesting that the editors chose to title it so provocatively so soon after his recent statements.
Click to expand...

I think the title reflects the fortune he had in his term coinciding with productivity gains from computers and trade.
 
uscitizen said:
Not worth my time. It is a brick wall thing with Bush apologists.
Click to expand...
What his this to do with Bush apologists? I simply gave an opinion on the article. Can you make one post without mentioning this guy? It is unhealthy to have such a fixation.
 
Warren said:
Maybe it's me, but I've never heard anyone even call Greenspan's competence and skill into question at all. The title seemed to suggest that this was a question being actively debated. I'm not a conspiracy nut and it is likely nothing, but it seems strange coming so soon after his recent headlines.
Click to expand...
His book is coming out, so people want to know more about him. Seriously I doubt that Bush called up and said, "Hey, can you write an article that compliments him but insult him in the title? Thanks! Publish that tomorrow!"
 
uscitizen said:
Not worth my time. It is a brick wall thing with Bush apologists.
Click to expand...

Dude, big picture. Work with us here. The discussion is about Greenspan's career. You can only see it as a couple of pages in his book.

Not to mention you have two people on here who agree with his assesment of Bush yet your claiming a brick wall?

Your own world dude.
 
Damocles said:
What his this to do with Bush apologists? I simply gave an opinion on the article. Can you make one post without mentioning this guy? It is unhealthy to have such a fixation.
Click to expand...

Do you remember that song, "Obsession"? 'You are an obsession your my obsession..."
 
Warren said:
Maybe it's me, but I've never heard anyone even call Greenspan's competence and skill into question at all. The title seemed to suggest that this was a question being actively debated. I'm not a conspiracy nut and it is likely nothing, but it seems strange coming so soon after his recent headlines.
Click to expand...

You're too vanila. The Rothbardians and hardcore lefties have been ripping him for some time. Paul has been critical of him.

He's done about as well as can be expected and that is not very good.

The book is why it is coming, of course. The book puts him in the spotlight and under the microscope again. Also, there are the current problems in the housing markets which were largely due to his policies.
 
Warren said:
Who said Bush man?

FOX is obviously slanted in its political leanings. It's clear from the titles of the articles they display, even if the articles themselves contradict the titles.

That seemed to be the case here, as the title seemed to pose doubt about Greenspan's skill while the article itself was complimentary. I had never noticed a consistent partisanship in MSNBC either way, and I was curious if this was a discrediting effort for either his War for Oil comments or his subsequent clarification.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the title seemed to fit the article. They discussed his fortune in serving during a time of expanding prodcutivity.
 
Warren said:
Putting aside the issue of whether I think we should have a Federal Reserve, the fact is that we do. I think Greenspan was as competent a Chairman as we are likely to have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I said.

Warren said:
What did you want him to do?

Say "Give this position to someone less qualified because I don't think it should even exist."?
Click to expand...

He did call for eliminating his position. I wish he would have spent more time on it, but...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top