Comments on: We are living in Greenspan’s experiment

By: Novus Ordo Seclorum « Trollblog

Novus Ordo Seclorum « Trollblog — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:17:50 +0000

[...] The tweakers are crashing on us We are living in Greenspan’s experiment A funny math joke just destroyed half of everything) [...]

By: JRoth

JRoth — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:07:15 +0000

By the final paragraph, I was convinced this was a put-on. “If we’re allowed to continue our work, without interference from Luddites and know-nothings”?! I mean, Greespan’s always been a horrible, arrogant human being, but….

What does Andrea see in him?

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:33:07 +0000

But he doesn’t even suggests nationalization in the normal sense. He suggests that the government briefly takes over, saves the creditors who matter, assumes the liabilities, and privatizes them right back.

Call the plumber to clean up the toilet, then keep flushing the same garbage into it. Yes, he does realize that the toilet probably won’t fix itself, but otherwise it’s the same MO.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:54:18 +0000

PF, when I start recruiting my host of Cossack auditors to reconcile accounts with blood and iron, don’t even think of applying.

In general I frown on experiments with human subjects which end up doubling the poverty rate and increasing the mortality rate of entire nations. Unfortunately, my frown doesn’t have much throw weight at this point.

By: politicalfootball

politicalfootball — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:29:29 +0000

I dunno. I think it’s nice to see Greenspan suck it up and try to play a constructive role for a change. Certainly Greenspan wants to protect some of the bondholders – and yes, those folks are rich – but they’re part of a system, and it’s heresy for a libertarian to acknowledge the existence of a systemic problem that government can constructively address.

If we’re going to cast Greenspan a heedless experimenter who is indifferent to the impact of his research program, well, that too is an improvement for a guy who used to be a crazy Republican ideologue uninterested in the impact of his ideology. This is the same guy who, in the service of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, went before Congress to say that a balanced budget is a bad thing.

Let us not forget that the cavemen are still out there, and in fact still dominate the Republican Party. If the money guys decide that rational self-interest means cutting lose the crazies, well, maybe there’s a little hope for sanity to prevail.

But then again, I also think it was nice of McNamara to come clean, and especially nice for him to speak out against the Iraq war. So maybe this is just me.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:37:13 +0000

Money – to gain power, power – to protect the money, as they say.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:29:40 +0000

Well, if you read the FT piece you’ll see that what he is really concerned about is protecting the rich bondholders, the most privileged creditors. If what it takes is nationalization – sure, why not. Nothing surprising here.