Kucinich Demands Greenspan Resignation

[no name no slogan]

From the New York Times:

Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich yesterday renewed his demand that Alan Greenspan resign after the Federal Reserve Chairman testified before the House Budget Committee advocating cutting Social Security benefits to deal with the deficit. Kucinich believes ordinary Americans and future generations should not have to carry the burden of tax cuts for the rich.

Full story here (requires registration) :(


THIS is why we need DK in the oval office. The Federal Reserve has been run by monitorist supply-side cultists who have contributed to the decay of the working- and middle-classes in this country.

SOMEBODY needs to stand up to Greenspan and his Wall Street guardians for the rights of US, the American people. Will Kerry and Edwards do likewise?

I'm not holding my breath.

[stepnw1f]

1. He's got my vote!

[Warpy]

2. A friend offered another view

All right, we know Greenspan is an enemy of the people who throws a hissy fit every time a working person gets a raise, but let's face it, he's got no love at all for the Bush family and even less for Bush's ruinous economic policies. He would rather have had a normal correction of the hyperinflated Dow, rather than tax giveaways to fat cats to support it.

My friend wondered whether Greenspan may simply be calling Bush's bluff, making him acknowledge publicly what his advisor Norquist has, that bankrupting the treasury is their plan to rid the country of all social programs forever, starting with that pet hate of sweatshop conservatives, Social Security.

One never really knows about Greenspan, who has mastered the art of generating verbiage for hours without saying a single definite thing.

[no name no slogan]

4. I wonder....

This could be a way for him to nail BushCo on this-- if it is, all the more power to him. However, I'm not a big fan of his monitorist policies which obsess more about inflation than about whether or not people make decent wages.

I'd like to see what BushCo's reaction is to this. It could get very very interesting...

[Nederland]

3. Alan Greenspan

...is the best Fed Chairman this country has ever had, period. I would just love to hear what DK thinks he should have done differently with interest rates over the past decade that would have helped American workers more.

[Tim_in_HK]

5. I agree . . .

But I have to say, his recent comments saying that the tax cuts should stay and instead Soc Security benefits should be reassessed is pretty crappy.

When the first Bush tax cut went thru, he and O'Neill were pushing for a trigger that stopped the cuts if the defecit got way out of hand. What ever happened to his speaking up in favor of that?

[redqueen]

7. I guess that means,

if he's the 'best', that the rest were all pretty horrible.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. I think the best description of him is effective pompus ass-hole...

All and all he's done an okay job but he's still a douche bag.

[no name no slogan]

9. Must have made a bundle in the 90s, huh?

I'm not sure what "workers" you're talking about, but the average American working family is worse off now than it was in 1972. Real wages for America's workers DECLINED until the latter 90s, when the "rising tide" finally gave them a break. I'd hardly call that "progress".

Low interest rates only make it easier for the working class to go into deeper debt to the investor class. Since wages have stagnated while prices have gone up, more people are forced to rely on fast and easy credit to cover the gap they used to be able to cover with their PAYCHECKS.

That means more working poor going into debt, record bankruptcy rates, and demands by creditors for the government to let them "get tough" on debtors.

Greenspan in firmly in the back pocket of the Wall Street investor class. He's gone completely apeshit over the little tiniest sign of inflation, and busting his ass to keep wages down in the process.

[Nederland]

12. Response

All true, but the question remains: what would you have done differently?

A rather difficult question to answer, and I suspect that you won't even try.

[no name no slogan]

13. Here's a start

1) Allow for some inflation in the economy.
A little inflation is not bad for the general economy. It means that worker salaries rise along with costs, and also ensures a healthy interest rate for those looking to save money. Before Greenspan (the Paul Volker era, if you will), it was perfectly acceptable to have some inflation in the economy-- it was accepted.

2) Clamp down tighter on credit, especially for speculative investment.
Most of the economic "boom" of the 80s and 90s was NOT into constructive building of infrastructure-- most of it went toward speculative investment that did NOTHING to grow the real economy. Instead, it went into the pockets of "corporate raiders" who made money destroying companies and selling their parts off at firesale prices.

Lots of credit was loaned out for this purpose, and it led to the destruction of high-paying blue-collar jobs, and the creation of huge bubbles of speculative wealth. Greenspan did nothing to discourage this, but was only in favor of "market efficiency".

Those are two places I would start, but I could probably find more. I'm only an amateur economist. ;)

[Nederland]

14. Thank You

Thanks for answering in a straight forward manner. I disagree with you that higher interest rates and higher inflation rates would be better for working Americans--but clearly you are entitled to your opinion.

[no name no slogan]

15. No worries

It kind of makes me regret majoring in PoliSci instead of Econ, which I could have used to get a "real" job instead of doing web stuff! :dunce:

[tameszu]

17. I don't think that NNNS was arguing for higher interest rates

The main lever that the Fed has for decreasing inflation is *raising interest* rates, which tends to have a contractionary effect on growth (slowing down everything and therefore reducing inflation). *Lowering* (or not raising) interest rates during a high growth period tends to let inflation rise.

So I would argue that if Greenspan had gone with Clinton boom a bit more and had let inflation float to, say I dunno (this is totally arbitrary--we're at what, right now, 1.7%?) 3.5% in the late '90s, we could have had something closer to full employment and probably much softer "crash" over the past 3 years...which may not have mattered, because Dubya would have done his inefficient tax cuts and war anyway.

Oh well...anyway, no one has ever been able to articulate to me exactly how a moderate as opposed to super-tight inflation policy hurts working folks. The best argument is, "well what about people on fixed incomes?" And the proper response is, "um, how about indexing them to inflation?" And the second-best is pretty lame, "hey, we're gonna end up with hyper-inflation if you do that!" Really, the main people inflation hurts are people who have large pools of money sitting around that earn fixed or low returns (i.e rich bond holders and people who live off trust funds). But I've never taken econ either, so maybe I've missed something?

Oh, also, I think Greenspan's a tool for saying that we'll need to cut social security and that we should leave the tax cuts, but I think it's great that he's at least being honest about the COST of the tax cuts and freaking everyone out as a result...

[RichM]

22. DK is not criticizing him for the last 10 yrs monetary policy. Rather, the

criticism is for Greenspan overstepping his area of supposed expertise, & taking blatantly political positions -- such as backing the Bush upper-bracket income tax cuts, calling for them to be made permanent, & now urging that Social Security benefits be cut. Paul Krugman criticizes Greenspan for these things too.

Furthermore, it would be easy to criticize Greenspan for failing to take action in 1996 or so against the speculative bubble which he was fully aware of. He made that one tentative "irrational exuberance" remark - then backed away from it. (It lasted about as long as Al Gore's one-night flirtation with populism.) Greenspan's lack of resolve here reflected an unhealthy subservience to Wall Street.

Your remark wonders what Greenspan could have done "...that would have helped American workers more." When Greenie cuts interest rates, it's not done with the well-being of workers in mind. It's done with the stock market in mind. If workers gain a bit from any consequent expansion, it's purely incidental.

[dweller]

6. would you or someone else

provide a link to the print version of the article?

i'm a member of nyt and cannot for the life of me load that page with that f*%king graphic running on your link...

thanks
dp

[dweller]

19. oh thanks so much NOT

sorry to put anyone out with my request.

dp

[mountebank]

10. For another classic lambasting of Greenspan...

See Bernie Sanders (I-VT) transcript from 2003:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0716-13.htm

[ShimokitaJer]

16. That is a wonderful exchange

Thanks for the link

[no name no slogan]

11. :kick:

for an economy based on jobs and justice, NOT "investment income" for the rich.

[Desertrose]

18. and another kick for DK

good thread :)

Peace
DR

[lams712]

20. AMEN!!!!!! GREENSPAN MUST GO!!!!

I can't think of a more overrated person in the history of the US. Greenspan is a narrow minded ideologue who has received way too much credit for the good economy of much of the 1990s.

Greenspan's true colors were shown when he was virtually silent when Bush cut taxes on the wealthy and raised the deficit to record levels. Whenever Clinton tried to do something (stimulus package, health care, etc.) he had his hands tied because Greenspan would raise fears about raising the deficit, but when a Republican came in there, those concerns went out the window.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

21. DK speaking truth..

Kick

TWL