Greenspan

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Greenspan Book

Criticizes Bush

And Republicans

'They Deserved to Lose';

Former Fed Chief Defends

Pre-Bubble Rate Cuts

By GREG IP and EMILY STEEL

September 15, 2007

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street Journal bought a copy at a bookstore in the New York area.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Many economists say the Fed, by cutting short-term interest rates to 1% in mid-2003 and keeping them there for a year, helped foster a housing bubble that is now bursting. In his book, which was largely written before much of the recent turmoil in credit markets, Mr. Greenspan defends the policy. "We wanted to shut down the possibility of corrosive deflation," he writes. "We were willing to chance that by cutting rates we might foster a bubble, an inflationary boom of some sort, which we would subsequently have to address....It was a decision done right."

He attributes the housing boom to the end of communism, which he says unleashed hundreds of millions of workers on global markets, putting downward pressure on wages and prices, and thus on long-term interest rates.

Mr. Greenspan retired in early 2006 after 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He had served under six presidents as either Fed chairman or adviser. He now runs a private consulting company; his only formal public role is adviser to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Penguin paid an advance of more than $8 million last year for Mr. Greenspan's book, according to people familiar with the matter. Promotion for the book includes appearances by Mr. Greenspan on CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Today" and CNBC, interviews with foreign and U.S. media, book signings and speaking engagements. The book's official release comes a day before the most-watched Fed meeting of the year. On Tuesday, Mr. Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, must decide whether to cut interest rates to cushion the economy from the reversal of the housing boom that began under Mr. Greenspan's watch.

His book is half memoir and half treatise on the state of the world and its future. While much of the ground has been covered either in his own previous public remarks or in other books, Mr. Greenspan sheds new light on many policy decisions, offers often-trenchant observations of the presidents he has known and makes some surprising economic forecasts, unmuffled by the often opaque and complex phraseology he used as Fed chairman. Critics, however, may seize on his continued defense of decisions they say led to first a stock bubble and then a housing bubble, and on some assertions that differ from the historical record.

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, "was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected." The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as "an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical." He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he "wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro."

Ronald Reagan's ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an "odd form of intelligence." He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189785491...p_us_whats_news

[DKW 86 7,442]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189785491...p_us_whats_news

Greenspan Book

Criticizes Bush

And Republicans

'They Deserved to Lose';

Former Fed Chief Defends

Pre-Bubble Rate Cuts

By GREG IP and EMILY STEEL

September 15, 2007

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street Journal bought a copy at a bookstore in the New York area.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Many economists say the Fed, by cutting short-term interest rates to 1% in mid-2003 and keeping them there for a year, helped foster a housing bubble that is now bursting. In his book, which was largely written before much of the recent turmoil in credit markets, Mr. Greenspan defends the policy. "We wanted to shut down the possibility of corrosive deflation," he writes. "We were willing to chance that by cutting rates we might foster a bubble, an inflationary boom of some sort, which we would subsequently have to address....It was a decision done right."

He attributes the housing boom to the end of communism, which he says unleashed hundreds of millions of workers on global markets, putting downward pressure on wages and prices, and thus on long-term interest rates.

Mr. Greenspan retired in early 2006 after 18 years as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He had served under six presidents as either Fed chairman or adviser. He now runs a private consulting company; his only formal public role is adviser to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Penguin paid an advance of more than $8 million last year for Mr. Greenspan's book, according to people familiar with the matter. Promotion for the book includes appearances by Mr. Greenspan on CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Today" and CNBC, interviews with foreign and U.S. media, book signings and speaking engagements. The book's official release comes a day before the most-watched Fed meeting of the year. On Tuesday, Mr. Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke, must decide whether to cut interest rates to cushion the economy from the reversal of the housing boom that began under Mr. Greenspan's watch.

His book is half memoir and half treatise on the state of the world and its future. While much of the ground has been covered either in his own previous public remarks or in other books, Mr. Greenspan sheds new light on many policy decisions, offers often-trenchant observations of the presidents he has known and makes some surprising economic forecasts, unmuffled by the often opaque and complex phraseology he used as Fed chairman. Critics, however, may seize on his continued defense of decisions they say led to first a stock bubble and then a housing bubble, and on some assertions that differ from the historical record.

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there's something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, "was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected." The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as "an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical." He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he "wasn't exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don't know anybody he was pro."

Ronald Reagan's ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an "odd form of intelligence." He describes Bill Clinton as "a fellow information hound" with "a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth" whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky "made me feel disappointed and sad."

Mr. Greenspan makes no mention of his successor as Fed chairman, Mr. Bernanke, other than in a caption accompanying a picture: "I was very comfortable leaving the post in the hands of such an experienced successor," it reads.

He devotes chapters to each of the major economic challenges facing the U.S. and the world. On energy, he recommends more use of nuclear power, and he predicts efforts to reduce global warming with carbon caps or taxes will fail. Rising income inequality could undo "the cultural ties that bind our society" and even lead to "large-scale violence." The remedy, he says, is not higher taxes on the rich but improved education, which can be helped by paying math teachers more.

Mr. Greenspan returns repeatedly to the far-reaching importance of communism's collapse. He says it discredited central planning throughout the world and inspired China and later India to throw off socialist policies. He recalls meeting a former manager of a produce distribution center in China who says he once had to labor to allocate produce according to government edict; now the allocations are made by auction. "Now I don't have to get up at four a.m.," he quotes the manager as saying. "I can sleep in and let the market do my job for me." Mr. Greenspan recalls his amazement when an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin asks him to discuss Ayn Rand, the libertarian philosopher with whom Mr. Greenspan had been friends.

In coming years, as the globalization process winds down, he predicts inflation will become harder to contain. Recent increases in the price of imports from China and a rise in long-term interest rates suggest "the turn may be upon us sooner rather than later."

Left alone, he said, the Fed's policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee, can keep inflation between 1% and 2%, but that could require forcing interest rates to double-digits, a level "not seen since the days of Paul Volcker," his predecessor as Fed chairman. "I fear that my successors on the FOMC, as they strive to maintain price stability in the coming quarter century, will run into populist resistance from Congress, if not from the White House," he writes.

If the Fed succumbs to that pressure, inflation could rise from a little over 2% at present to an average of 4% to 5% by the year 2030, he writes. Ten-year Treasury yields, now below 5%, will rise to "at least 8%" with the potential to go "significantly higher for brief periods." This, he says, will lead to stagnant returns on stocks and bonds and much smaller gains in housing prices.

Mr. Greenspan won plaudits for achieving low inflation and unemployment with just two mild recessions during his tenure at the Fed. But more recently his record has taken some knocks. Some critics fault him for not doing more to restrain the stock bubble of the 1990s, and for responding to its eventual bursting with such low interest rates that housing prices subsequently soared.

Mr. Greenspan writes that in early 1997, he told his colleagues the Fed should raise interest rates as a "preemptive" move against a stock-market bubble. But transcripts of Fed meetings from that period do not support his book's version of events: They show Mr. Greenspan argued for a rate increase principally because of inflation.

[autiger4life 3]

Honestly if you know much about Greenspan(not claiming to be an expert) I'd easily say he is one of the best economist this country has ever seen. And he has always been an staunch republican.

[otterinbham 0]

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

Exactly who are the 'Bushbots' ? Most of the conservatives here have railed against Bush's unnecessary overspending, along with some of his other choices. Much of what Greenspan says fits right into what we've been saying for years.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Sorry, but you qualify as a Bushbot.

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

Exactly who are the 'Bushbots' ? Most of the conservatives here have railed against Bush's unnecessary overspending, along with some of his other choices. Much of what Greenspan says fits right into what we've been saying for years.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sorry, but you qualify as a Bushbot.

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

Exactly who are the 'Bushbots' ? Most of the conservatives here have railed against Bush's unnecessary overspending, along with some of his other choices. Much of what Greenspan says fits right into what we've been saying for years.

Why , because I voted for Bush over Al ( I can't even carry my own state ) Gore or John ( I lied about pretty much everything I did in Vietnam ) F-ing Kerry ???

Care to elaborate ? ( And now's not the time to be your usual asinine self. I'm not too joyful now as the damn Tigers lose again )

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Accept who you are. Embrace your inner Bush. Quit denying your true self.

Sorry, but you qualify as a Bushbot.

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

Exactly who are the 'Bushbots' ? Most of the conservatives here have railed against Bush's unnecessary overspending, along with some of his other choices. Much of what Greenspan says fits right into what we've been saying for years.

Why , because I voted for Bush over Al ( I can't even carry my own state ) Gore or John ( I lied about pretty much everything I did in Vietnam ) F-ing Kerry ???

Care to elaborate ? ( And now's not the time to be your usual asinine self. I'm not too joyful now as the damn Tigers lose again )

[AURaptor 1,126]

Accept who you are. Embrace your inner Bush. Quit denying your true self.

Sorry, but you qualify as a Bushbot.

Yep. Where are the Bushbots?

Exactly who are the 'Bushbots' ? Most of the conservatives here have railed against Bush's unnecessary overspending, along with some of his other choices. Much of what Greenspan says fits right into what we've been saying for years.

Why , because I voted for Bush over Al ( I can't even carry my own state ) Gore or John ( I lied about pretty much everything I did in Vietnam ) F-ing Kerry ???

Care to elaborate ? ( And now's not the time to be your usual asinine self. I'm not too joyful now as the damn Tigers lose again )

Nope. You can't label me. As much as you think you can, you can't. It does not apply.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2461214.ece

[otterinbham 0]

Actually, Greenspan casts an equally jaundiced eye towards the post-Clinton Democratic Party. As I have stated on this board before, Clinton himself was actually an economic moderate, especially when espousing free trade, and Greenspan praises a lot of the Clinton Administration's efforts.

However, he has no such praise for the current Democratic economic philosophies, which all seem to be driven by some populist groupthink, and are devoid of actually economic understanding.

[bojack34 2]

Some of you people amaze me. You are so quick to jump on the opposing party you can't even see the total ineptness in your own party. Both political parties have little to brag about. Oh yeah, if this war is about oil then why the $%#* are we not getting any of it? WAKE UP!!

[Tigermike 3,055]

Greenspan is most certainly referring to deficits and earmarks and the wobbly dollar. In the political arena, he is a straight-shooter and he's respected on both sides of the aisle.

Now Mr. Greenspan has clarified his comments to Bob Woodward in an article for Monday's Washington Post. The article is below. It really sheds light on a few things. Things that have been taken out of context and misreported by many for political reasons.

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

By Bob Woodward

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, September 17, 2007; Page A03

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

link

[autiger4life 3]

Some of you people amaze me. You are so quick to jump on the opposing party you can't even see the total ineptness in your own party. Both political parties have little to brag about. Oh yeah, if this war is about oil then why the $%#* are we not getting any of it? WAKE UP!!

Look how much Europe pays for their fuel, how much anyone else pays for their fuel and tell me we are not getting any.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Oh yeah, if this war is about oil then why the $%#* are we not getting any of it?

Gross incompetence.