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 has been that of increasing prosperity brought about by governments slowly learning, from painful crises, how to better regulate the economy, and in particular the financial sector, to avoid the painful 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.
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 has been that of increasing prosperity brought about by governments slowly learning, from painful crises, how to better regulate the economy, and in particular the financial sector, to avoid the painful 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.
I'm travelling today, but expect to have internet access during theday, so comments most welcome. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Make that "the past century" - we're not in the 20th C any more. Or say "The economic history of the 20th century was" ...
maybe insert the paras quoted by afew as a final coup de grace, as the time to be so polite is over, especially even for the FT.
if they feel you're ruffling too much feather, let them crop it.
i'm glad you can blog without such a governor here, for the sake of your blood pressure!
greenspan is a proto-orwellian creation, he gives new meaning to the verb 'toady'.
maestro? ... of mass financial destruction, through uber-mystification, linguistic loopholese.
still trying to sell us a car with no brakes.... we can go faster, whooo!
sure you and your rich buddies go faster... till you crash and burn through peoples' life-savings.
he's not totally stupid, so he's complicit up to his twinkly, kind, o-so-soulful, gentle beagle, mournful uncle eyes, making him a prime contender for the FAUSTian of the century prize, presently being shared by phony tony and (smell a bushrat) jo. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
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.
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.
