And on top of that
It's a stunning indictment of the monetary policy of the Fed over the Bush years.
I am submitting your CV to Murdoch and attaching this hyperbole. I think he'll be calling you in the next few days.
didn't Greenspan serve during Bush I, Clinton for 8 years, Bush II. Like there was no technology bubble in Clinton's years?
The big difference is that there were shrinking budget deficits (and then surpluses) during the dotcom bubble, and growing incomes for all. But I agree that the "bubbly" side if Greenspan was already visible then. The only difference is that letting the first bubble (dotcom) grow could be attributed to something other than malicious policy (hesitation to burst a party in the middle of obvious technological change), whereas the next bubbles, from 2002 onwards, are part of a clear and consistent policy framework. The runaway budget deficits should never have been supported to the extent they were, and the low, low interest rates were on their face criminal considering the scale of asset price appreciation that took place.
As to France vs US economy point, you'll note that the WSK Op-Ed pages are systematic cheerleaders of the US economic model (and bashers of the French one), so a column in these pages fundamentally criticising that US model is, yes, stunning, whereas a critique of the French model in these same pages is par for the course.
And if you fail to see any criticism of France on a regular basis in what I write, you are not reading carefully. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And if you fail to see any criticism of France on a regular basis in what I write, you are not reading carefully.
he points out the hypocrisy of the American and British financial press and their selective use of data to fit pre-conceived notions/political agenda. He also criticizes the French govt where he disagrees with them. He's far more balanced than the WSJ or CNBC clones.
This must be a joke,,,,this comment is really absurd.
Would you care to argument that?
The big difference is that there were shrinking budget deficits (and then surpluses) during the dotcom bubble, and growing incomes for all.
Is this false in any way?
The only difference is that letting the first bubble (dotcom) grow could be attributed to something other than malicious policy (hesitation to burst a party in the middle of obvious technological change), whereas the next bubbles, from 2002 onwards, are part of a clear and consistent policy framework.
I was being nice to Greenspan with the first bubble, but I'll be happy to indict him for that one too. Clinton did the budget bit, and he did reduce that. As to Greenspan's policy after 2002, look at the quotes provided lower in the thread (where Greenspan brags about dealing with the consequences of the dot com crash) and look at his highly supportive comments for the Bush tax cuts, despite their obvious impact on the budget deficit.
The runaway budget deficits should never have been supported to the extent they were, and the low, low interest rates were on their face criminal considering the scale of asset price appreciation that took place.
Again, I'd be interested to see you argue on the substance of that sentence. Do you think the budget deficits were reasonable? Do you think the 1% fed rate was justified for as long as it was? Do you think asset prices are not overvalued right now? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
An ignorant attack by the NeoCons? Where are you getting that language from? Not from Jérôme's objections to FT articles, certainly. You made it up yourself. If anyone is guilty of rhetorical exaggeration, you are.
It's probably a waste of time pointing this out, but what we object to in the FT is mostly the peddling of conventional wisdom about markets and "reform". It would be inexact to say that America has nothing to do with this - by and large, corporate America promotes free-market ideology in the world and the American economy is held up as an example to follow - but the focal drive of our comments is opposition to market fundamentalism, not anti-Americanism.
I was saying that for jerome, anything negative about America is stunning, and insightful. While if the FT or the Economist takes a different point of view regarding France, it's a Neocon attack.
Well, you miss my point. The sweeping generalisation of "anything negative about America" and the language of "a Neocon attack" are precisely what I was taking issue with - and accusing you of rhetorical exaggeration. Read what I said about what we argue against in the FT or the Economist. It's not America per se, and it's not neocons (who, btw, would be associated rather with foreign policy and warfare than the economy), but the free-market, or laissez-faire, ideology.
Now, insofar as the American economy is held up as an example of the virtuous working of that ideology, it seems perfectly justifiable to disagree and point to problems. You seem to react to that as "anti-Americanism", and you seem to think that criticisms of the American economy are to be proved or disproved as if they were forecasts, or market calls. (Though this isn't a financial market, it's a discussion forum.) Just because there has been no major crunch to date does not disprove that the American economy may be fuelled by dangerous levels of debt. That view is held by many qualified people, Americans among them, and it seems a perfectly respectable view to me.
You also take a very narrow view of the $100 oil series. The whole point of that was, again, not to make a market call, but to publicize the notion that the era of cheap oil was coming to an end. Do you dispute that notion? In any case, you misinterpret completely - woe would be to you, meaning Americans? It's the whole damn planet that's concerned here, we're all in this together. It's not, as you seem to believe, another scurvy attack on America.
what I got out of that was that it was shocking to see this on the WSJ opinion page (Cheerleader central) compared to their usual one sided rubbish. The paper is great, but the opinion page is an exercise in fellatio of all things Republican/American 99% of the time.
Some of his rhetoric is a bit overheated I'd say, and his conclusions a bit on the "to the barricades" side for me, but I don't see this one sided viewpoint you do.
As for the "preaching" crack and what follows -- manners count.
