Last night's interview on 60 minutes was a bit revealing. Greenspan is nothing if not a bit arrogant. And I'm not sure he's necessarily taken out of context - he is frustrated that he can't speak his mind without the world going into shock, even in retirement. He will have to wrestle with this some. He doesn't seem to get it that the world economy respirated on his words when at the Fed- it will continue to do so when he is out. He will do much explaining, backtracking and obfusticating in the months ahead, and markets will bobble as a result. Question is, will he live long enough to be a problem, and will he have to learn to STFU, or will he slowly fade from prominence?

I'm glad that this has been brought up.

A couple of days ago, I was busy doing housework kind of stuff with the TV on in the background. I can't remember what station it was. But they were talking about Greenspan giving his assessment of the world economic situation.

At one point, I heard the "reporter" say (very matter-of-factly), "Greenspan has said that the war in Iraq is largely about oil." I was shocked because I didn't expect someone like Greenspan to make such a statement.

Then, I had to remind myself that the reporter used the words "Greenspan...said that". That's an old narrative trick. Technically, when you insert the word "that" right before you say what sounds like a quote, you can always cover your butt later by saying you weren't quoting...you were paraphrasing.

At the time, I figured that that was exactly what had happened here. The reporter was trying to convey the message to the public that there was a quote/position being taken by Greenspan that goes with the lefties' way of seeing the world...while leaving room to later deny that that was what they intended.

Well it IS about oil...it's about taking ME oil off line to Russia and China...and in the bargain elevating prices in the west for US/Euro speculators....let's not go into denial here.

Greenspan may want to distance himself from this now, but his abstract synthetic monetarism made it possible without bankrupting the government.

There is nothing more self righteous than a reformed whore ...and I think that's what we're seeing with Greenspan these days....maybe he's pissed because they won't let this counterfeiting skank into the Von Mises Institute ;-)

Greenspan did let it slip that as voting went, in spite of his difficulties with the Bushes, and his rapport with Clinton, he was of the republican persuasion...:)

Even if he meant what he said, how would he know? It would just be his opinion.

A competent reporter would have asked, "can you substantiate this, or is this just your uninformed opinion?".

And, if it was about oil, it was about ending the multi-billion dollar UN oil-for-bribes scam.

"Greenspan did let it slip that as voting went, in spite of his difficulties with the Bushes, and his rapport with Clinton, he was of the republican persuasion."

That's interesting ...and telling Skip...because neither the Bushes or the Clintons are Republicans ;-)

But of the two Clinton was the more fiscally conservative/responsible.

To all the socialist bootlckers who plan on using Greenspan's (out of context) words to bash the other side:

Remember:

Greenspan = CAPITALISM

Capitalism = EVIL

better place both hands on your head before it explodes.

Can you imagine Greenspan or any other big name being misquoted as saying the war was NOT about oil?

These kinds of errors are a one way street only, and it tells you all you need to know about the mainstream press today.

You need some economics lessons Doug.

Greenspan is a monetarist...Keynes and other fabian socialists are monetarists.

Mpnetarism is not capitalism...it is monoply economics which runs contrary to the principles of free market inclusive capitalism.

When one player at the table creates/owns all the wealth in play at the poker table and takes a percentage of every card purchased, this is NOT capitalism.

Even if the truth is that the war is in large part to secure the distribution of oil in that most insane part of the world, I am ok with it.

Can you imagine what would happen to the economies of the Western world if we suddenly had no oil?

Let me suggest ... Most of us would eventually become unemployed ... there would be millions of very cold houses this winter. There would be little food distribution. There would be mauraders at you door.

In short, civility might just break down. If you happen to think there is too much violent crime and poverty now ... just take a big chunk of the flow of oil and gas out the equation and you will wish you had more camping gear and a good gun.

Of course the wars are about oil, are we all naive and stupid?

Recall Saddam invaded Kuwait, which was the bellus causi for the UN sanctioned Gulf War I.

Saddam was notably armed to the teeth by various global suppliers. IE we'll sell you anything as long as there is profit.

Moreover, once the UN "Oil for Food" scandal removed all the window dressing (ie the corrupt guys couldn't hide their blatant cash grab any longer), Colin Powell notably went on at length to show the UN his powerpoint presentation about the MIA Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The problem for the US et al. was that Saddam wasn't far enough along in his assembly of said weapons. Recall the US/UN dust up with recriminations over the 'missing 350 metric tonnes of HMX/RDX explosives' used to construct the implosion device to generate critical mass.

Just as in Adolf's time that we had the various people having ownership in various german enterprises. ie Preston Bush's ownership in the Silesian Steel and Coal Company which was seized during/under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power.

Saddam didn't get and stay where he was for so long, as long as he was useful to geopolitical considerations.

Kissengers famous statement during the Iran-Iraq dustups was telling. "Too bad they both couldn't lose."

Notably, Rumsfeld's famous photo of him and Saddam having cordial chats hasn't helped the "War for Oil." accusations.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

You can bet your dollar against donuts the Iranians have been keeping notes over the last 20 years.

I would be looking for things to 'warm up' between the US and Iran in the not too distant future.

It was about oil back in 1941-42 as well, when the German 6th Army was to sweep through the Caucasus and link up with Rommel from North Africa.

Just the players are different, choose your side carefully. :)

Cheers

Apparently Greenspan was a follower of Ayn Rand. This would explain his rational self interest but Objectivism is not a basis for sound inclusive free markets...for that you need to become familiar with Von Mises.

http://tinyurl.com/33plkm

John West, excellent points. I always laugh when i hear that phrase "no blood for oil" - as if oil was just used to power SUVs. Oil IS blood in our economy, it's life and death.

"Even if the truth is that the war is in large part to secure the distribution of oil in that most insane part of the world, I am ok with it."

Thankyou John West for being an honest conservative and a rational realist. It is important to realize there is a propaganda war at play between Neo-Coms and Neo-Cons part of that is the rhetoric over war for oil...Neo-Coms want us to believe this is immoral and Neo-Con are stumpling all over themselves and lying about oil being a motivator for the Iraqi war.

The truth is ( despite the surrealistic utopian myths) Oil is power. Control of oil flow is control of economic power and economic power these days of global factional hegemony is political might.

We have to be honest and realize we are in the ME to secure the west's control over ME oil production...this is in our best interests....only self destructive fools would allow our enemies to control a commodity which is tied to our economic and productive might and our national security. Oil in the hands of hostile, war like regimes is not only detrimental to our long term survival but also destabilizing to the global power equilibrium.

So..please...let's stop apologizing for rational self interest...and let's stop denying and lying about our motive in the ME.

WLMR: "You need some economics lessons Doug.

Greenspan is a monetarist...Keynes and other fabian socialists are monetarists."

Greenspan is a monetarist?! In name only; under his watch, M3 more than tripled. Every time the US economy showed the slightest shudder, Greenspan put the pedal to the metal, and pumped up the money supply.

Keynes is a monetarist?! This is the most laughably ignorant comment I've ever seen on this site, eclipsing anything from alby, andrew, or iberia. The entire Chicago school of economics developed to repudiate Keynes' theory of manipulating the economy through deficit spending in recessions, and running surpluses (hah!) in good times. The only person in charge of money with *balls*, Paul Volcker explicitly defied Keynesian macroeconomics when he raised short term rates to nearly 20% to curb inflation.

Keynes wanted central control of the economy( read money supply)...the modern Fed fulfils this function...Monetarism is the practice of expanding or contracting the money supply in order to stimulate or slow the economy. In recent years this was done by fiat currency systems expanding with no increase in valuating reserve assets....the dollar devaluation is just now catching up.

You made my point...you just have a different definition for Monetarism....You will note I said Greenspan engaged in "abstract synthetic monetarism"...which is a nice way of saying the fed expanded currency supply globally for trading and to cure trade deficit and cammoflage federal debt...essentially covered with monopoly money.

We're on the same page here but there seems to be a definition disconnect.

What is wrong/correct with this picture ??

Saddam's huge army runs over Kuwait.

He would easily have taken Saudi Arabia.

Then UAE, ... on and on,

The UN was not big on stopping Saddam.

Maurice Strong was implicated in 'oil-for-food' scam.

Do you think some in this world would be interested in having control of the biggest oil producing region of the world ??

Does everybody, everday use oil energy ??

Are those uses essential for our well being ??

What energy source do even the righteous Gore and Suzuki use to get to their hollier-than-thou meetings ??

Somebody once said that journalism isn't a career, it's just something you might have to do while you're looking for a real job. Pity this isn't true.

Keynes was fine in theory, but hit the skids in the real world.

That's because politicians lack the discipline to ramp back state intervention when the economy starts humming.

The net result is always a bigger percentage of state enterprise that is needed to sustain a healthy economy.

For example, with virtual full employment in Western Canada, bureaucrats have to find issues to protect their jobs in the social welfare industry.

Greenspan's point that Saddam had the power to collapse the economy on a global scale by destroying access to oil reserves (as he did during the Gulf War) is valid. He advocated regime change in Iraq for this reason.

According to Greenspan, Bush/Cheney rejected this as a reason for going to war. But let's face it, if the Americans had done nothing and Saddam had caused a global oil crisis, almost every anti-Iraq war critic out there would have been equally criticizing the US for sitting back and letting it happen. It the "damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions" that leadership requires you to make from time to time.

Political parties, all parties, are into this deficit thing now.

But when you think about it, why would any of them leave a debt free situation for the opposition ?? To then spend, stimulate and take the credit ?? I hope it is not a fatal flaw that eventually brings down economies.

This monetary flaw was started in Canada in earnest by Trudeau but was certainly used as well by Reagan and Thatcher.

Back on topic.

The media misquoted, perhaps outright lied about what Greenspan said. Could they not be held liable ??

Lamest backpedal ever. You warmongers would gain a lot more respect if you dropped the Straussian schtick and just admitted you are imperialists (not that there's anything wrong with that).

My reponse to the naive little knuckleheads that are so morally indignant that oil is even a factor in our presence in Iraq is: try running your car on Pepsi. Oil is the life blood of modern economies, that's a given. Powers that are willing and capable have a responsibility to protect their economic interests as they have done since the beginning of nations/states. Protecting oil sources where we can is critical, even most of the idiot Dems can't refute that.

They only cry of foul from the EU was initially from the French because they lost exclusive contracts with Saddam. The EU, especially with Putin playing hardball, is more than happy to have Iraq's oil fields under US protection.

Greenspan has been slipping for years into incoherent ramblings which plays into the stupidity of the press.

More from Greenspan here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118999003209929296.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

His comments about the Democrats' undesirable shift in a populist/leftist direction since the Clinton Administration are dead on, and his preference for the Goldwater/Reagan conservatism of fiscal restraint, deregulation, and free trade might give the post Bush Republicans a clue, too.

Hey, Andrew, did you ever bother to respond to direct comments and questions posed to you by both myself and ET on yesterday's Reader's Tips thread? Of course you didn't because like most unserious frivolous trolls leaving stupid little droppings of hyperbole is what you do. You are just passing through without facts, logic, and the integrity to support your lame comments.

We'd get more "respect" from who?, you?, you're kidding, you've earned none.

penny:

Good work on pointing out the nature of the drive-by smear.

Andrew's ilk respects nobody and nothing but their self-serving interest.

Superiority of bluster? If there's any pride in being a windbag. All blow and no substance.

It's true that Alan Greenspan was a member of Ayn Rand's ''Collective'' and is a more interesting figure because of it.

However, the only thing that he did as Fed Chairman that reflected sentiments of the Austrian School was follow gold as a chief indicator of inflation.

In fact, Jack Kemp, the originator of supply side economics, spoke for many conservatives when he chastised Greenspan for slamming on the brakes and essentially causing the tech collapse in the NASDAC.

Kemp thought that many of the startup companies could have made it if only liquidity could have remained for a while longer.

I don't blame Greenspan for his actions, and one has to look askance at investors who have equity positions in companies that have never reported profits; nonetheless Kemp's observations are probably correct.

So I would give Greenspan medium marks as Fed chairman.

As for oil, as I pointed out in the same thread that Penny directs us to, it is now a vital strategic commodity in the global balance of power. We have little choice but to deprive outlaw regimes of oil purchasing power when they use their petro-dollars to create enormous war machines that threaten neighbors who have alliances with many countries. Countries that can then be forced into military conflict because of those alliances.

The days are over when the world can cast a casual eye at tyrants who have endless amounts of money and credit because of their resouces. A tyrant of a country with a bad attitude can be insignificant, but give him unlimited spending powers through petro-dollars in a world where nuclear technology can be for sale, and you have the makings of a cataclysm from which the world could never recover.

After years of denials by right wingers that Iraq was not about oil, it seems that it actually was about the oil. The deniers continue to insist that Greenspan is wrong, "What does he know," "he's crazy," or "stupid MSM," but the real loonies here (Penny, John West, max hoon) have illustrated the right wing logic used to justify Iraq: we need the oil, so war is ok. With apologies to Godwin, using this type of logic, the Nazis needed lebensraum so the war they started was ok, too.

Apparently, according to Greenspan Ayn Rand tagged him as "evil", only with half a smirk, apparently.

Good ol Iberia and the class of leftards. Why catch the whole buzz when you get your rocks off on half.

Iberia, Iraq is about a lot of things besides oil, just like the Civil War in America was about a lot of things besides slavery. It's hard to find a war where one thing and one thing only was at play.

Did you even read the entire post? Its point was that Greenspan was taken out of context, oil wasn't the main reason for the invasion, but, one of many considerations.

Perhaps if you were capable of processing greg's comments above yours, think and reflect on it, then, open your mouth, you'd be something other than the village idiot here.

So, Iberia, how would you acquire oil from oil-rich parts of the world? care to deal with the likes of Putin, Chavez or the mad hatter of Iran? How about the Wahabists? What would you trade for it? Do you actually think that the rest of the world can suddenly NOT have a need for oil or oil products? How about natural gas, you live in an area where there are plentiful supplies? Give us your thoughts on what you would trade away to fuel your type of economy.

Speaking of agenda dishonesty...the next 10 years of American foreing and economic policy is all Blue Printed in PNAC...most everything in those documents has come to pass....and the call for Iran and Syria to come under the "umbrella of western democracies" through a long term US military presense in the region is about to come to fruit.

As I said Bush will be into Iran before his term is up and we will be enbroiled to the point where pulling out will not be an option for the incoming administration.

Andrew> Straussian it is...I don't male moral pronouncements on these global power plays..ny personal preference is that we leave everyone alone and they leave us alone and we prosper in selective isolation from people who are not culturally compatable with us....but hey..they just won't leave us alone and there's always some prick who wants to steal your property or screw you around...so I figure in this regard I'm content to let the big guys duke it out because it's to my benefit..... as long as the end result is this nation remains a vital democracy and free society....I'm a rational self interested individual...the moment all this global intrigue impacts my personal freedoms or financial security negatively we will have to give the CFR puppets in Washington or Ottawa an electoral slap and replace them.

Is it Imperialism..yes...to a degree...nothing like British, French or Dutch Imperialism but certainly it has been good for us and left a string of democratized economically benefited nations where we intervened.

My problem with the imperialism at play in the Neo-con foreign plan is the economic benefit has not been shared by the nation and national security has never been worse...gawd there;s an invasion from Mexico that Bush wants to give "amnesty"...it has been totally mismanaged and cost us more in debt and credit melt down and enriched only a small cartel of federal vendors.

Like I say, Bush has not run a conservative/republican regime....an for the record I'd vote for Ron Paul because at this point ending the ME occupation the way it is handled naow and re establishing a sound economy and national security is a larger priority than debt financing a half assed occupation of the ME.

WL, From the sounds Sarkozy is making France will be into Iran before the Yanks. Iran can probably hit them with a nuke, if they buy the Korean missiles.

Kate wrote:

"The chances of this correction being carried by the same Canadian media that rebroadcast the original misquote lie somewhere between zero and "not f'ing likely".

Not sure if the CBC even broadcast the "misquote", but their 2nd highest story on their website is talking about the clarification.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/17/greenspan-memoir.html

penny, et al:

Spin things how ever you want, call those who disagree with you nasty names, your hypocrisy with regard to US foreign policy is appalling. All of the other reasons for going to war are secondary to oil. Infact, they're irrelevant. But take heart...now that right wingers have admitted their true motives, China can also use the "oil is necessary for our economy" excuse to invade some hapless oil rich country.

Ever ask the citizens of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, if they would have liked to "live" under Saddam's rule ??? They were helpless to stop him. He was on a roll.

The liberal-dominated media MADE Greenspan say that the war is largely about oil. And that he's saddened that it's politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows.

I guess he should have said "almost everyone".

Mr Greenspan's most famous words are Irrational Exuberance. That tanked the markets in 1998. This is a man who knows how to use words to get effect. He could speak eloquently for hours and not say a dam thing. I know I've listened to most of his congressional and senate testimony for the last 18 years.

He loved paygo hated deficits but was a realist. The whole point of his existence at the Fed was to smooth out the Boom Bust cycle.

And as an aside the Dotcoms had to fail in 98 when the market actually began the correction not 2001 it was because the Russians and Brazil I believe defaulted on theirs debt and the seven tigers the orient began to slide into recession. No amount of interest rate cutting and and money printing was going to stop that. Coupled with that most Dot com compamies were trading a 100 times earning if there were any earnings. It was going to happen.

I have always enjoyed listening to Clinton speak that would be Bill. That man knows how to give a speech. Hate his policies but man can he talk. Well Greenspan is the same way just to listen to how his mind works while he is talking could entertain me for hours. Bernanke is like dry toast after Greenspan and I gotta listen to him too. UGH.

The truth is zionists like Greenspan have dragged the West into The Middle East conflict on Israel's side, on the back of a series of false flag terror attacks in the West blamed on 'Muslim Terror'. Thats the truth. Thats why you don't hear it.

RLO if your mind is anything like you website no wonder you sound like a full bull goose loon.

Its cause you are, BWAHAHAHA