Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't blame Bush, don't blame Daschle. IT'S GREENSPAN'S RECESSION
nr online ^ | Nov., 01 | Kudlow

Posted on 12/15/2001 7:10:53 AM PST by churchillbuff

ALAN IS LOWERING INTEREST RATES LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW - - - I THEREFORE ASK, WHY DID HE HAVE TO RAISE INTEREST RATES SO HIGH TO BEGIN WITH- ISN'T THAT WHY WE'RE IN THE FIX WE'RE IN, with stocks 30 percent or more below the beginning of 2000? Thanks, Alan.

Here's Kudlow's take:

A Roadmap for Recovery

This is Greenspan's recession. Here’s what to do.

Mr. Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co. November 1 , 2001 12:45 p.m.

Make no mistake about it, the 0.4% decline in third-quarter gross domestic product had virtually nothing to do with the September 11 terrorist bombings and virtually everything to do with massive monetary mistakes made by the Federal Reserve over the past two years.

Blame for this downturn must be placed squarely at the doorstep of the central bank. President Bush is right to say that the terrorist attacks "affected our workforce and our business base," and the economic aftershock of 9/11 would by itself have caused a temporary fourth-quarter contraction of about 1% of GDP. But the third-quarter drop — which probably will be backdated to a recession that began last winter — could have been avoided were it not for massive monetary mistakes.

In the first place, nobody told the Federal Reserve to ratchet up its basic money supply by 17% in 1999, and then deflate it by 3% in 2000. This was a pillar-to-post policy gyration and it was sheer lunacy. A massive money excess followed by a huge money shortage caused national income to careen upward unsustainably and then spiral downward later. This was the root cause of the recession.

The Fed chairman's reputation was supposedly that of a cautious incrementalist. Instead, Alan Greenspan gave us unprecedented monetary volatility. No wonder the economy spun out of control. .....Well, the recession-creators have in fact pumped $40 billion of new cash into the economy since the 9/11 terrorist bombings. Year-to-date, the Fed's basic money supply has now grown by 8.5%, a considerable improvement from last year's 3% decline rate. These are moves in the right direction. And if tax policy falls in line, we may soon bury this private-sector recession. But that's if it falls in line.

It is important to understand that at the very heart of this slump is the downturn in business. While class warriors on Capitol Hill attempt to block greatly needed business- and personal-tax relief, the contracting corporate sector is now forcing job layoffs faster than politicians can increase unemployment compensation. ....

Senator Daschle's stimulus proposal, however, is nothing more than an ineffectual, government-entitlement spending bill — not a tax cut — that would merely redistribute income. The Democratic package has no incentive effect that would raise after-tax economic rewards for innovation, investment, and work effort. Hence it could actually block economic growth rather than spur it. ...

A modest combination of tax cuts and central-bank money creation should provide sufficient new investment and work incentives — and the liquidity to finance them — to get economic growth back on a 3% recovery path next year. But again, these would be moves in the right direction, and not the solution. Remember, a normal recovery rate historically runs in the 5% range. This is why comprehensive tax reform and simplification should remain on the policy front burner, and why the Federal Reserve must develop a monetary reform plan that will place real-time financial and commodity-price indicators at the center of its money-creating operations.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: ConsistentLibertarian
But what about our dependents?

Have you read the Enron stories in houstonchronicle.com?

61 posted on 12/15/2001 8:59:20 AM PST by Jackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jackie
Nope. Do you want to revisit the question in post #50?
62 posted on 12/15/2001 9:08:30 AM PST by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mperkel
Member since Dec 15th 2001.
63 posted on 12/15/2001 9:09:53 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Do we need more workers, textile, appliances, whatever YEP. Might they cost more to buy? YEP. Will this be cheaper for the country YEP.

Who is going to pay more for jeans or a skillet? You? That doesn't fit into my understanding of frugal living.

64 posted on 12/15/2001 9:13:30 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MFSanders
I'll vote for Wayne Angell to replace the boob. You know the boob has to go when even Robert Reich admits that it was Greenspan who sunk the stock market and the economy. However, the reason Greenspan poured dollars into the economy was to prevent a disaster if Y2K proved calamitous. He then pulled back when it was clear the money wasn't needed.
65 posted on 12/15/2001 9:20:28 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I blame 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

In fact if Clinton would have waged his "War on Terrorism" instead of bombing asprin factories, 9/11 would'nt have happened.

66 posted on 12/15/2001 9:20:29 AM PST by AMERIKA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Kudlow is so darn sensible. He would be a fine Secretary of the Treasury ....
67 posted on 12/15/2001 9:23:43 AM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I'll tell you why I think we're in a recession.

It's because goods and services in this country are way over priced, and the majority of Americans are uneducated and highly incompetent!!!

68 posted on 12/15/2001 9:36:35 AM PST by stupid1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It's pay me now (price) or pay me later (taxes) for unemployment comp, social, crime and safety net costs. Notice goverment is the only growth industry - what you won't pay in price, you pay in taxes.
69 posted on 12/15/2001 9:36:43 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: mperkel
we need to do what Clinton did and stop spending more money than we have
Please give us some examples.
70 posted on 12/15/2001 9:47:01 AM PST by Marianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LantzALot
He (Clinton) was right about one thing: When he said, "It's the economy, Stupid, he was able to snow everyone who answers to the name, "Stupid." Some of them are still around.
That needs repeating. Great line.
71 posted on 12/15/2001 9:53:35 AM PST by Marianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JIM O
True. But under a microscope, Greenspan blamed Clinton, Clinton acted as a good pal to greenspan, so if we have two devious a-holes here, I think they were in bed together on this, IMO - "cooking the books"?

I remember this phrase from an article I read a few years ago in Spotlight, but not sure of it's theory.

72 posted on 12/15/2001 10:04:03 AM PST by SlightOfTongue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Huck
But like I say, I have NO economic expertise whatsoever. Caveat emptor.

You have more expertise than you think.

73 posted on 12/15/2001 10:07:46 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Here in California last summer we enjoyed the Governor Gray Davis rolling black-outs lovingly called "Gray Outs".

Our current national economic woes should be proudly proclaimed the "Bill Clinton Recession"

74 posted on 12/15/2001 10:16:00 AM PST by Irish Queen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Kudlow is so darn sensible.

If so, why is every statistic he quotes in support of his view inaccurate. For example, he claims 17% increase in "basic money supply" in 99, 3% drop in 2000, 8.5% rise in 2001. These statistics do not reflect M1, M2, or M3.

While M1 did go down 3% in 2000 (the only verifiable figure he uses as the basis for his position), M3 went up about 10% in all three years in question.

official stats

75 posted on 12/15/2001 1:52:41 PM PST by Deuce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Yeah, but guess what - they just pumped another $40 billion into the economy.......
76 posted on 12/16/2001 6:40:07 AM PST by MFSanders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MFSanders
from the Andrew Lewis Show website:

Puppet or Puppet Master?

February 1, 2001 Alan Greenspan's about-face on interest rates and tax cuts might have you wondering if he is simply reacting to his new Commander-in-Chief, or if he is seeing how much he can manipulate the economy. Under Clinton, he was an outspoken opponent of tax cuts—which was what Clinton wanted him to be—and the architect of interest rate rises. And yet, in the last 30 days he has reversed his position on tax cuts and slashed a large chunk from the interest rate increases he had instituted.

Both changes coincided with the change of Administrations and the end of the economic growth that he had been “worried about” for some time. Along with Clinton, he opposed tax cuts; along with Bush he endorses them. Some analysts have suggested that he changed direction to curry favor President Bush, but as economist Richard Salsman noted, Greenspan's “policy at the Fed has caused a near recession.”1 In changing policies, he may only be trying to stave off the death of the economy and his reputation. One is tempted to ask, “Is Greenspan the Puppet Master, changing his policies to control the economy, or is he the puppet, dancing on the strings of political expediency?”

In fact, this is a false alternative. Both puppet and master are dependent on each other. Greenspan has revealed himself as a “second-hander;” a man not of principles but of power—one who chooses his actions according to others, either those who might control him or those that he might control. This is the deeper explanation for his actions. He is not the brilliant economic strategist who can identify the right policy for the right time. Rather, he is a cipher whose sole concerns are appeasing those he cannot control. This is a dangerous man to have controlling our economic future. 1 “Richard Salsman Interview, The Andrew Lewis Show, 1/28/01

77 posted on 12/16/2001 1:53:46 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I know I would be a lot better off today if A Greenspan hadn't been so "worried about" the prosperity and robust stock market of the late 90s. He set out to "fix" those "problems" -- to make sure that middle-income people didn't start get on track to financially independent retirements - - - and he was soooo successful. It'll take years for the stock market to recover the damage he intentionally afficted, so don't worry about having an independent old age: We'll stay safely dependent on the government programs and government bureaucrats whom Mr. G serves. And we won't threaten the status of the inherited wealthy whom he also serves - - the rich folks who didn't like the idea of the middle class starting to get a piece of the pie.
78 posted on 12/16/2001 1:57:46 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
What I don't understand is that Greenspan was supposedly pro-freedom - even a libertarian - in his youth. How did he become a sentinel for the monied establishment that opposes tax cuts so the rest of us will be kept from rising economically? Make no mistake: the plutocrats, just as much as the socialists, get scared at the thought of middle class people having a chance to become wealthy. Mr. Greenspan shut down the stock market as an avenue to prosperity - - and in doing so he served the socialists and the rich folk who don't want any company from the hoi polloi. This is also why the rich aren't big on tax cuts ((despite all the Dem rhetoric that says tax cuts "help the rich," they really help the middle class by making it more possible to accumulate money; the rich already have money; tax cuts won't make them rich - - - but the middle class are running on a treadmill because they can't save anything - the tax man takes it all...... Thanks to Greenspan's perpetual cold-water on tax-cut proposals, nothing's gonna change. Oh well.
79 posted on 12/16/2001 2:03:08 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Deuce
M1, M2 & M3 be as they may; but Kudlow is quite sensible in noting how Greenspan cranked interest rates up & up & up in 2000 only to chop them down & down & down & down & down & down & down & down in 2001. Moreover, his main point here is the capital squeeze that has choked off growth.

All very sensible observations to moi ...

80 posted on 12/16/2001 2:26:51 PM PST by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson