| Yeah, that ellipses is very telling: > [...] And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. > Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging. * https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-di... * https://archive.is/Vqw6x People kept bringing up that 2002 statement over and over: > So did I call for a bubble? The quote comes from this 2002 piece, in which I was pessimistic about the Fed’s ability to generate a sustained economy. If you read it in context, you’ll see that I wasn’t calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed’s powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea. Of course, I know that this explanation won’t keep the haters from pulling up the same quote out of context, over and over. * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/me-and-the-bubb... If you've got a suggestion for person(s) who has been more right / less wrong that Krugman, I'm all ears. The Keynesians, as a general school of economists, seem to me to have best track record over the last ten years. Everyone else (Monetarists/Friedmans, Austrians, Chicago) seems more wrong than them. |