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
