Replies

George Bush recently indicated that he was minded to nominate the 77-year-old Mr Greenspan for a fifth term

What is Bush thinking? Greenspan caused this recession with an unprecedented series of interest rate hikes designed to kill the stock market. Well, he killed the bull market, all right. And now he can't say a good word about tax cuts. Please, Bush, let this guy go.

What is Bush thinking? Greenspan caused this recession with an unprecedented series of interest rate hikes designed to kill the stock market. Well, he killed the bull market, all right.

He created the bull market by distorting interest rates too low. He's tried to pop the bubble easy, but it ain't over yet.

And now he can't say a good word about tax cuts. Please, Bush, let this guy go.

Greenspan is in favor of tax cuts, but he wants to see corresponding reductions in spending to prevent Cognress from borrowing and displacing the capital markets. No one in Congress, or the White House, is interested in reducing federal spending.

Greenspan caused this recession with an unprecedented series of interest rate hikes designed to kill the stock market. Well, he killed the bull market, all right. And now he can't say a good word about tax cuts.

I agree with you on the tax cuts.

The recession is not so clear. If we are in fact at or near the bottom — and there are some indications that we are, although who knows for sure — then Greenspan pulled off a truly magical feat and he deserves a standing ovation.

You say he set out to "kill the stock market," but that isn't true. He did set out to pop a bubble — what he called "irrational exuberance."

No one really knows how to do that. The last time we had a bubble that bad, it ended in a decade of double-digit unemployment that went into the 20-per-cents before it was over. To hear the all-Democrat press talk, this is "the worst economy in fifty years," but that's just more "quagmire" from a press corps that wants to see Bush defeated at something — anything.

In the twenty years between 1975 and 1995, the unemployment rate was higher than it is now in every year but two. The unemployment rate was higher than it is now in Clinton's first two years in office, and was about the same in his third year. Did you hear all this doom and gloom back then? Hell no, it was "Happy days are here again."

If unemployment peaks at 6%, then Alan Greenspan popped a stock market bubble without throwing the whole economy into the tank. That's an amazing thing, because anybody who says he knew for sure how to to that is lying.

Did the bubble have to be popped? Absolutely. There was really crazy stuff going on, like the aquisition of Time-Warner — a company with serious assets like cable in the ground, household-name magazine properties, huge film libaries — by a thing that was really just a column of fast-moving air... as everybody found out afterwards.

That kind of stuff needed killing, and no one should fault the Fed for taking on that task. We could criticize how well they did the task, but if conditions now are as bad as it gets, we absolutely should not criticize them. 6% unemployment definitely qualifies as a "soft landing" compared to what could have happened.

Let me echo posts 6 and 7. Greenspan knows Congress--the equation is lower taxes=stronger economy=higher gov't. revenues=EVEN HIGHER GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Maybe a strong Republican Congress (wish on) would break that pattern, but that's doubly hypothetical, since we don't have one.

1) Bush knows Greenspan doesn't want the bear market as his legacy.

2) Bush knows Greenspan's reappointment will not be controversial on the Hill. (and he has enough controversy up there these days).

3) Wall Street doesn't always agree with Greenspan, but prefers a known quantity to an unknown. (not that Wall Street should decide, but the White House doesn't need to make waves there either).

Overall, while I'm not a big Greenspan defender, he's probably not a bad reappointment here, since he'll be just as motivated as Bush to try to turn things around, and the Democrats can't play it as "Bush appointing some radical supply-sider" to keep a nomination tied up, as seems to be their specialty these days.

Actually Greenspans big mistake was not the rises in intrest rates in 99-00, but the fact he failed to raise intrest rates in 96-97 and let the stock market bubble get far out of hand.

George Bush recently indicated that he was minded to nominate the 77-year-old Mr Greenspan for a fifth term

What is Bush thinking? Greenspan caused this recession with an unprecedented series of interest rate hikes designed to kill the stock market. Well, he killed the bull market, all right. And now he can't say a good word about tax cuts. Please, Bush, let this guy go.

I wonder if Bush (41) wish he'd canned Greenspan in July of 1991 when he had the chance. And you're right about Greenspan causing the current recession, although I'd call it a historic growth recession instead. Greenspan has killed more investment and growth opportunities than any other human in history, and now he's going to be renominated by the one person who should know better.

What everyone should know is that the economy was already slowing on its own during Greenspan's long and tortuous rate hikes of 1999 and 2000. His highness was warned numerous times by many people in the private sector, but he was oblivious as he wanted to be certain of the death of the stock market bull that had mocked him for four years. Once foreign investments started returning home after Y2K, it was all over. There's no way that anyone should say that Greenspan should be applauded for anything he did after 1996.