Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I wonder if Mr. Greenspan will say anything about the enormous credit bubble he helped create, by keeping rates way too low for too long.

He already did.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledges he failed to see early on that an explosion of mortgages to people with questionable credit histories could pose a danger to the economy.
In an upcoming interview, Greenspan said he was aware of "subprime" lending practices where homebuyers got very low initial rates only to see them later jacked up, causing severe payment shock. But he said he didn't initially realize the harm they could do.
"While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late," he said in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview to be broadcast Sunday. "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006," Greenspan said.

Subprime is only part of it.

KrowMagnum wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Pariah wrote:

So..what's your point?

It would seem his accusation is that Greenspan has crafted his memoirs in such a way as to generate controversy and thereby boost sales. Said accusation being based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

My accusation is that the publisher chose specific excerpts from the book to sell the book. At a time when the excerpt actually relates to what's going on in society. Controversy sells books. He milking the war just like everyone else.

No evidence ? You posted the evidence and are falling right into the trap of talking it up. There's nothing juicy about what is obvious. Don't be such sheep....

Gee....thanks for the Marketing 101 explanation.
Of course they chose the juiciest bit to excerpt. What that has to do with the veracity of what he wrote is beyond me.
What makes it "controversial" is the FACT that the Bush administration and the dupes who follow have been declaring loudly for years that there was no oil motive. Gawd, we went round and round on that here a million times.

Are you suggesting that authors shouldn't write about...I dunno...reality lest they bespoil themselves with filthy profit?
What exactly is your point?

KrowMagnum wrote:

My accusation is that the publisher chose specific excerpts from the book to sell the book. At a time when the excerpt actually relates to what's going on in society. Controversy sells books. He milking the war just like everyone else.

No evidence ? You posted the evidence and are falling right into the trap of talking it up. There's nothing juicy about what is obvious. Don't be such sheep....

This might make sense if it were uncontroversial to claim that the war was 'about oil.'  Of course, that is a point on which many do not concede.

Therefore...it isn't "obvious" to many.  That's why it was posted to begin with.

KrowMagnum wrote:

bratboy wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

My accusation is that the publisher chose specific excerpts from the book to sell the book. At a time when the excerpt actually relates to what's going on in society. Controversy sells books. He milking the war just like everyone else.

No evidence ? You posted the evidence and are falling right into the trap of talking it up. There's nothing juicy about what is obvious. Don't be such sheep....

This might make sense if it were uncontroversial to claim that the war was 'about oil.'  Of course, that is a point on which many do not concede.

Therefore...it isn't "obvious" to many.  That's why it was posted to begin with.

So where was Greenspan and his opinions on the war in 2003 ?

I don't remember hearing anything about it until now when hes retired and pimping his book.

So..again...What is your point? Is it your contention that the chairman of the Fed should have offered commentary on military matters while in office? From the excerpt it's not at all clear that he thought oil was a bad reason to invade Iraq.
As I recall we never heard from the head of the Agriculture department either. Sitting officials typically mind their own bailiwick while in office. Then once out and freed of the constraints of office, they can speak freely as private citizens.
You seem to have a real problem here but I will be damned if I can figure out what it is.

...and the White House jumps at the opportunity to remind the public how it was conned:

Greenspan writes that "the Iraq war is largely about oil." That did not go down very well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where spokesman Tony Fratto told ABC News he would try to restrain himself. But he still took a pretty good shot at Greenspan: "That sounds like Georgetown cocktail party analysis. The reasons we went to Iraq are well understood and had to do with wmd (weapons of mass destruction), enforcing UN sanctions. To the extent that oil has anything to do with our engagement in Iraq today, it is the danger that al Qaeda could obtain control of oil assets and use them to threaten our interests."

Link.

If Greenspan claims that the invasion of Iraq was about plundering oil, then he's being obtuse. It's about the economic role of oil in the U.S. economy. Greenspan would be just the guy to know, but he'd also be the guy to play the real reasons and the risks close to his chest, even now.
No one wants to be the troublemaker who flicks away at the bottom cards holding up the structure. No one with an interest in seeing the structure remain up, that is.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Alan Greenspan says it's all about the black stuff

1. your personal headline is deceiving...  "says it's all about the black stuff".  when greenspan said, "“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil".

2. how has this war been about the oil?  to lower gas prices?  yeah...that worked.  to pay for the war?  nope...not working either.

3. you'll find just as many saying this isn't all/largely/somewhat about the oil.  greenspan's comments are simply anecedotal.

One of Limbaugh's more intelligent () callers today noted that this made perfect sense to him because he was quite sure that Greenspan secretly started colluding with Clinton in 2000 to wreck the economy. 

Back in '01, Iraqi oil exports were tightly restricted by UN sanctions. There was only one way to open the spigot, and that was to end the sanctions. Lots of countries wanted to do just that, but there was no way in hell Washington could let Saddam off the hook. So really it was a choice between letting him off the hook or taking him out.

bratboy wrote:

KrowMagnum wrote:

So where was Greenspan and his opinions on the war in 2003 ?

I don't remember hearing anything about it until now when hes retired and pimping his book.

What is your point?

Very simple.....If his opinion is relevant now it was relevant in 2003.

If his opinion wasn't relevant in 2003 it sure as hell isn't relevant now.

Principles are easy to have when they don't cost you anything.......

KrowMagnum wrote:

Very simple.....If his opinion is relevant now it was relevant in 2003.

If his opinion wasn't relevant in 2003 it sure as hell isn't relevant now.

Principles are easy to have when they don't cost you anything.......

Huh?  So he didn't hold this opinion in 2003?  Or his opinion isn't "relevant" now because he didn't offer it in 2003?

I'm still utterly baffled as to what you're going on about.  Shnicky probably posted this because it was the comment of a well-known and respected Republican.  What is it not "relevant" to?

KrowMagnum wrote:

He did hold this opinion in 2003 but never said a word in public. The point you ain't getting is why now ?

...because it was politically inconvenient to comment on it before, I would imagine.

What.difference.does.that.make?