Dear Sirs, Alan Greenspan ("Repel the calls to contain competitive markets", August 5) has changed tack once again to try to exonerate himself from his responsibility in the ongoing financial crisis. His current line: we all knew it was a bubble (something he denied at the time), but could do nothing about it, because booms and busts are inevitable and caused by human nature. This does not prevent him, oddly, from still claiming credit for his policies for the "boom" part of the cycle, by linking recent growth rates to deregulation and competition - and of course to push for yet more of the same today. Surely the economic benefits of such policies must be judged when taking into account the full cycle, including the bust, which has barely begun? The economic history of the 20th century was that of increasing prosperity brought about by governments slowly learning, from successive crises, how to better regulate the economy, and in particular the financial sector, to avoid the harmful booms and busts of the past. It is quite amazing to see that the past 30 years of policy, whose main goal was to dismantle that painstakingly built regulatory edifice, and which predictably brought about the very kind of booms and busts that were prevalent in the past, can still be defended so earnestly today. In fact, the most recent bubble was deliberately engineered through lower interest rates and deregulation, compounded by tax cuts for the rich, and fed by a 30-year ideological drive to make money and greed the ultimate arbiters of everything in our societies. All of this was not inevitable: it was a political choice, endorsed by too many for too long, and Greenspan was one of its core architects.
Alan Greenspan ("Repel the calls to contain competitive markets", August 5) has changed tack once again to try to exonerate himself from his responsibility in the ongoing financial crisis. His current line: we all knew it was a bubble (something he denied at the time), but could do nothing about it, because booms and busts are inevitable and caused by human nature. This does not prevent him, oddly, from still claiming credit for his policies for the "boom" part of the cycle, by linking recent growth rates to deregulation and competition - and of course to push for yet more of the same today. Surely the economic benefits of such policies must be judged when taking into account the full cycle, including the bust, which has barely begun?
The economic history of the 20th century was that of increasing prosperity brought about by governments slowly learning, from successive crises, how to better regulate the economy, and in particular the financial sector, to avoid the harmful booms and busts of the past. It is quite amazing to see that the past 30 years of policy, whose main goal was to dismantle that painstakingly built regulatory edifice, and which predictably brought about the very kind of booms and busts that were prevalent in the past, can still be defended so earnestly today.
In fact, the most recent bubble was deliberately engineered through lower interest rates and deregulation, compounded by tax cuts for the rich, and fed by a 30-year ideological drive to make money and greed the ultimate arbiters of everything in our societies. All of this was not inevitable: it was a political choice, endorsed by too many for too long, and Greenspan was one of its core architects.
Perhaps replace last 'core architects' with 'chief high priests'?
I think it could do with a final punchline. Perhaps something like
'If so many outsiders saw the crash coming, is it unfair to assume that Greenspan did too, especially given his history of contradictory prognostications during his time with the Federal Bank?'
Dear Sirs, Alan Greenspan ("Repel the calls to contain competitive markets", August 5) has changed tack once again to try to exonerate himself from his responsibility in the ongoing financial crisis. His current line: we all knew it was a bubble (something he denied at the time), but could do nothing about it, because booms and busts are inevitable and caused by human nature. This does not prevent him, oddly, from still claiming credit for his policies for the "boom" part of the cycle, by linking recent growth rates to deregulation and competition - and of course to push for yet more of the same today. Surely the economic benefits of such policies must be judged when taking into account the full cycle, including the bust, which has barely begun? The economic history of the 20th century was that of increasing prosperity brought about by governments slowly learning, from successive crises, how to better regulate the economy, and in particular the financial sector, to avoid the harmful booms and busts of the past. It is quite amazing to see that the past 30 years of policy, whose main goal was to dismantle that painstakingly built regulatory edifice, and which predictably brought about the very kind of booms and busts that were prevalent in the past, can still be defended so earnestly today. In fact, the most recent bubble was deliberately engineered through lower interest rates and deregulation, compounded by tax cuts for the rich, and fed by a 30-year ideological drive to make money and greed the ultimate arbiters of everything in our societies. All of this was not inevitable: it was a political choice. Greenspan, as one of the high priests of that economic church, owns that choice - and its consequences.
In fact, the most recent bubble was deliberately engineered through lower interest rates and deregulation, compounded by tax cuts for the rich, and fed by a 30-year ideological drive to make money and greed the ultimate arbiters of everything in our societies. All of this was not inevitable: it was a political choice. Greenspan, as one of the high priests of that economic church, owns that choice - and its consequences.
It would be good to include a more obvious implication that Greenspan lied to create the bubble and defended its growth knowing the likely consequences.
But that's an optional extra here - I think this does the job perfectly well.
