My Dad used to say that whenever Greenspan farted the market would dive.
I'm no economist, but I do recall (quite verifiably) that there was no budgetary surplus under Bush I (and don't get me started on Bush II). Clinton seems to have cared more about the ecomony than any of his GOP predecessors or successors.
Greenspan could have done so much more about the Bush tax cuts and the sub-prime mess. I won't read or buy the book, he's doing a book tour right now, making some comments he should have made long ago. He has my admiration in certain areas {a marvelous phrase--irrational exuberance} and it is a good thing that we actually have a Federal Reserve to control some of the horrible swings that happen in the markets {computer trading 1987}, but for persons like myself, I will look for his last third of the book to be summarized by others and I will ignore the rest of his economic memoir.
No genius is needed to realize that Clinton and Nixon were way smarter {and perhaps more flawed} than the rest of the Chiefs in the last 35 years. I confess that I am the son of financier and economist and so my view of Greenspan's supposed powers is somewhat modified by decades of parental commentary. He is the Fed's Wizard of Oz. Yes, we do need that Wizard to pull some levers, but he should have skipped a few of those political mistakes. He badly tarnished his own legacy.
Greenspan was advocating that people take our adjustible rate mortgages. Nuff said.
Shorter Greenspan:
Balancing the budget is critical, if the President is a D.
Leave-No-Millionaire-Behind tax cuts are critical, if the President is an R.
Screw Alan.
Commenting by HaloScan
