Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Naomi Klein Debates Alan Greenspan

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted September 25, 2007.


Naomi Klein goes head to head with Alan Greenspan on the Iraq war, Bush's tax cuts, economic populism, crony capitalism and more.
Advertisement

AMY GOODMAN: As the credit crisis continues to grow and the US dollar hits a new low, we turn today to the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan headed the central bank in the United States for almost two decades. He was first appointed to this position in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. Greenspan retired in January 2006, after deciding the fate of national interest rates under four different presidents. Dubbed "the Maestro," he was widely regarded as one of the world's most influential economic policymakers. He has just written a new 500-page memoir; it's called The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.

Alan Greenspan joins us now on the phone. And in our studio we're joined again by journalist Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Welcome, Alan Greenspan.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Thank you very much. I'm delighted.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. You worked with six presidents, with President Reagan, with both President Bushes. You worked with President Ford, and you worked with Bill Clinton, who you have called a Republican president; why?

ALAN GREENSPAN: That was supposed to be a quasi-joke.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about it.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, Clinton?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, I stated that I'm a libertarian Republican, which means I believe in a series of issues, such as smaller government, constraint on budget deficits, free markets, globalization, and a whole series of other things, including welfare reform. And as you may remember, Bill Clinton was pretty much in the same -- was doing much that same agenda. And so, I got to consider him as someone -- as he described it, we were both an odd couple, because he is a centrist Democrat. And that's not all that far from libertarian Republicanism.

AMY GOODMAN: About how much would you say you agreed with him?

ALAN GREENSPAN: On economic issues, I would say probably 80 percent.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about President Bush?

ALAN GREENSPAN: President Bush had the wonderful characteristic of knowing that it was not to his advantage or to ours to interfere with the actions of the Federal Reserve. And I must say, through all of his years, he never once second-guessed what the Fed was doing. And that was very important to us, and we've been very much appreciative of that.

But, as I say in the book, he did not clamp down, as I thought was necessary, on what was a wayward Republican-controlled Congress, which I thought lost its way and started to spend and create all sorts of fiscal imbalances. And, essentially, what I hold -- where I thought the administration could have done far better is if the veto were employed. And as you may remember, he did not use the veto at all. And that, what I thought, would have created a much more balanced procedure in the Congress. So it's a mixed case in this regard.

AMY GOODMAN: Alan Greenspan, let's talk about the war in Iraq. You said what for many in your circles is the unspeakable, that the war in Iraq was for oil. Can you explain?

ALAN GREENSPAN: Yes. The point I was making was that if there were no oil under the sands of Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have never been able to accumulate the resources which enabled him to threaten his neighbors, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. And having watched him for thirty years, I was very fearful that he, if he ever achieved -- and I thought he might very well be able to buy one -- an atomic device, he would have essentially endeavored and perhaps succeeded in controlling the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, which is the channel through which eighteen or nineteen million barrels a day of the world eighty-five million barrel crude oil production flows. Had he decided to shut down, say, seven million barrels a day, which he could have done if he controlled, he could have essentially also shut down a significant part of economic activity throughout the world.

The size of the threat that he posed, as I saw it emerging, I thought was scary. And so, getting him out of office or getting him out of the control position he was in, I thought, was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important, but it's clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different.

AMY GOODMAN: We're also joined in studio by Naomi Klein, author of the book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Your response to that, Naomi Klein?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I'm just wondering if it troubles Mr. Greenspan at all that wars over resources in other countries are actually illegal. Mr. Greenspan has praised the rule of law, the importance of the rule of law, in his book. But in his statements about the reasons why this has not been publicly discussed, he has said that it's not politically expedient at this moment. But it's not just that it's not politically expedient, Mr. Greenspan. Are you aware that, according to the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal for one country to invade another over its natural resources?

ALAN GREENSPAN: No. What I was saying is that the issue which, as you know, most people who were pressing for the war were concerned with were weapons of mass destruction. I personally believed that Saddam was behaving in a way that he probably very well had, almost certainly had, weapons of mass destruction. I was surprised, as most, that he didn't. But what I was saying is that my reason for being pleased to see Saddam out of office had nothing to do with the weapons of mass destruction. It had to do with the potential threat that he could create to the rest of the world.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: social security, tax cuts, capitalism, populism, cronyism, iraq war, federal reserve, alan greenspan, naomi klein

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
don't believe it
Posted by: Melvin on Sep 25, 2007 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Re; He was regarded as one of the worlds best economic policy makers!
Forget it ; I saw 'Being There' The bullshit never goes away.
There are a 'few' of us that can still read & fewer that still get past the headline.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascinating interview
Posted by: vox persona on Sep 25, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to get a straight answer from someone so intelligent in full CYA mode. He knew nothing...said nothing...looked the other way and said nothing as Bushco raided the treasury, enacted tax cuts for the super-rich, deflated the dollar value and in short destroyed our economic viability. It's too bad insiders like him never say anything critical or of value when they are in a position to do something. He comes across as an elitist that has no earthly idea what normal average Americans have to hurdle over to make ends meet. Trickle down economics indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Green Spam!
Posted by: williameon on Sep 25, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a disinformation agent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Sep 25, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
rock...

Wow...nice. Naomi took the old man to school it seems. I can't tell if Greenspan is just so isolated from the effects of crony capitalism that he is completely naive to the realities of modern american classism or if he just couldn't give a shit less...

It's hard to tell from this interview.

It's so odd that he can make a statement such as Iraq being all about oil and have no idea that the neo-cons were going to go absolutely apeshit trying to spin that one off. His comment made it seem like he was saddened that they would have to lie about such an obvious truth when the propaganda machine has put so much energy into making middle America believe it was about Democracy and Freedom and all that bullshit.

Flabbergasted...Keep up the consistently good work Klein and Goodman. YOU ROCK!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She comes across as an annoying miss know-it-all
Posted by: Frankstank on Sep 25, 2007 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And not in a good way. I think his rebuttals are actually thoughtful and operating at a more intelligent level reflecting his experience. She fails to address the huge differences between the range of opportunities and liberties in the US system, and the populist model as we see now in Venezuala.

Klein wouldn't be a multi-millionaire successful author under a socialist system. Would she be willing to give that up?

Waving around the flawed international legal system is a weak point of argument. All of us know that the international legal system in practice is a long way from the rarified words mouthed in the UN. People like Iran's leader love to talk about the sanctity of the international system while stoning women and gays to death.

The more important issue here is how much we let our economic system be beholden to short-term political needs. The lowering of interest rates, and the subsequent real estate bubble, was actually an act of populism that has now done huge damage. It would, from an economic principle point of view, been better to keep interest rates high and not curry favour with the poor by lowering interest rates.

The longer term problems of funding social security will need to be addressed by a mix of funding models. It is impossible, and undesirable, to have the government pick up the entire bill. That was a fair point by Greenspan.

Most people have the ability to save if they organised their home budgets better. If they were offered a range of gold plated saving mechanisms backed up by the government to keep them safe, then people could save for their retirement on their own. There are huge personal liberty advantages to owning your savings, rather than having to rely on the government all the time and, when the pensions lose pace with inflation, having to join labourious political campaigns to lobby government to increase pensions.

As always, we come back to the 'another world is possible' of Kleinism, and we still don't see a clear vision coming forward. And what vision that does come forward, is very muddied: is it reformed capitalism and mixed markets of Scandinavia (I would support), or is it blowhard populism and authoritarianism of Venezuala (I would not support)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Klein a multi-millionaire? Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle
Federal reserve Bank is the biggest scam in this country
Posted by: Bushguiltyof911 on Sep 25, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will anyone in the media start exposing the truth about the Federal Reserve Bank. The central bankers in Europe made a deal with Woodrow Wilson in which they funded his campaign and he agreed to allow the third incarnation of a central privately owned bank printing our money. The Federal Reserve Bank prints worthless paper money and then lends it to this government and earns interest. Go to my website (www.911insidejob.net) where you can read many articles and watch very informative streaming videos on the truth about the Federal Reserve Bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So True... Posted by: channing
"Who me? How should *I* know where all the money went?"
Posted by: wagadog on Sep 25, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sez Greenspan. Who was only, like the guy in charge.

In which the "invisible hand" of the market is revealed to be the cold dead hand of empire, grabbing, grabbing always grabbing for more -- and then denying it all.

"It wasn't ME, it was...the invisible-armed man!"

Sheesh!

They make money the old-fashioned way: they print it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "I see nothing, nothing!" Posted by: eddie torres
GWB's Tax cuts and AG
Posted by: Leman on Sep 25, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not the first time you hear about the issue of "Alan Greenspan and his support of Bush's tax cuts". This is an example of not-so-subtle propaganda, and it pops up in many outlets: from centrist to socialist. Why don't we try and clarify this issue once and for all:

Alan Greenspan advocated a tax cut - NOT Bush's tax cut. He looked at economic data at the time and saw that budget was running into a surplus and the economy was slowing down. A tax cut is a natural way of putting the surplus to work. What the Government did in its particular implementation of the cut, as well as the fact that they refused to roll it back when surplus disappeared, has nothing to do with Dr. Greenspan's recommendation

On an unrelated topic: it's funny to note that that the tone of AG in this interview was "I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it", while the tone of NK was "I know better" (or even worse: "The mythical Socialist State knows better")

I found it quite intersting that in a face-off between a "liberal" and a "conservative", the latter showed more respect for democratic values.

P.S. In case your finger is itching to give me "1" for this post - don't bother. Most of my posts get this grade here (usually without any replies) - your mark will not bring any new information to anybody. I know your opinion is different, but I can respect our differences and wish you could do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GWB's Tax cuts and AG Posted by: ayebee
» RE: advocating Bush's tax-cuts Posted by: channing
Did anybody here actually hear Klein's argument?
Posted by: antiapathy on Sep 25, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people criticize Klein for being a supporter of state-controlled socialism. But if you look at what she says, or god forbid, actually read her book, you'll see she is not arguing for a socialist state. She is simply arguing that complete privatization and deregulation is bad and leads to huge disparities in income.
These market fundamentalists have advocated cutting all government support for regular people (like primary education and medicare), while advocating tax cuts for the rich. When you add in all the contracts for Haliburton and other corporate welfare, it ends up being a huge re-distribution of wealth from the masses to the upper class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But what to do?
Posted by: Knowmad on Sep 25, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like Naom. She's intelligent enough to make points without being insecure or preachy; just good old-fashioned research and homework. She pretty well flayed Old Alan, though he's still quite good at 'duck and cover'.

What bothered me about this interview, is the same thing that bothers me about the majority - unfortunately - of Alternet posters. Ms. Klein - and Mr. Greenspon, come to that - didn't address what should be done now. They bantered on about what's happened and who's to blame and how serious it is, but not once did either mention or suggest tactics or strategy for your country to get out of the fiscal mess that is impacting virtually everyone . . . except the supposed elite of course.

I haven't read The Shock Doctrine yet, but even if it does cover suggestions about how to 'save' America, it still won't reach anywhere near the audience that an Amy Goodman interview draws. It's yet another lost opportunity for those of you who know and care about the dangerous state of your financial sector and want to help, but don't know how.

You aware Americans know the problems by now. It's time to start analyzing, deciding upon and actually doing what you need to do to stop the rot and start the healing, before it's simply too late.
~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenspan does get one thing right
Posted by: sausage on Sep 25, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"... we've had a dysfunctional education system in this country, both in primary and secondary schools, which is showing up in all of the studies, which indicate that while our children in the fourth grade are doing fairly well relative to international comparisons, by the end of high school, they are in terrible shape."

By way of example, today The Des Moines Register runs a follow-up story concerning the firing of an adjunct history instructor at a rural Iowa community college. http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

His offense? "...[H]e told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted."http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

Why is this germane? Because the president who elevated Greenspan to the Fed chair, Ronald Reagan, campaigned on eliminating the Department of Education. And ever since Republicans have worked to make this so.

So now we are saddled with No Child Left Behind which rewards already well-funded school districts while further punishing under-funded school districts. This is Greenspanian logic: Under the cudgle of reduced federal funds, poorly performing school distrcits will strive to bring up test results to get more federal funds. Of course the under-funded school district is doomed to perpetual failure since they can't attract the best teachers, class sizes are too big, physical plants deteriorate etc., etc.

So now we witness community college students in one the poorest parts of rural Iowa, a state that prides itself on how well it educates all children, getting an instructor of Western civilization and history fired because he offends their religious beliefs. If China and India one day in the not too distant future eats our economic lunch we have no one to blame but ourselves. And Alan Greenspan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Greenspan gets a lot wrong too Posted by: drcyflowers
Capitalism, the disaster
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 25, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not a Marxist, but I play one on Alternet. I have learned a lot about capitalism, Greenspan (ala Milton Friedman) and the phlosophy/ideology that Greenspan denies exists in his judgment, that I've come to some very stark conclusions about the current state of affairs in the economic system known as U.S. capitalism.

First, in order to highlight Greenspans wizardry at economics, I want to point out something I heard him say on PBS Charlie Rose. Greenspan said (and I paraphrase) he could predict the state of the economy extremely well if he could know the mood of the nation. Besides the fact that Greenspan admitted, albeit sideways, that a number of prediction errors occurred when he was Fed Chair, he encapsulizes his "vodoo" economics in the above statement about predicting economics. It's more art than science, more magic than fact, more forecasting than prediction. And, compound that with the fact that as much as Greenspan would like us to believe, he is a libertarian Republican, Ayn Rand smoocher, and an ideologue of the worst kind, because he doesn't believe he's an ideologue. Indeed, nothing Greenspan says can be taken as fact.

Well, he is right about education being one of the main problems with his economic forecasting. Since standardized testing and the No Child Left Behind Act (the economic sorting system for workers and the dumbing down of public education), teachers are restricted from pushing children to follow their passions, consequently, so few science and math majors in colleges.

Moreover, I do believe Greenspan proposed tax cuts and a reduction in budgetary spending (social safety net spending) because that's what libertarians ideally believe makes the the economy work best: no social security programs and a completely privatized economy, with very limited government services. Greenspan's stance on the war in Iraq keeps with that tradition, too. A war to protect american business interests is deemed necessary, and oil matters. Keep oil flowing to keep the so called "free market" going!

And, neoliberal Bill Clinton and Greenspan agreed 80% of the time! more than Bush? Well, Bill's new book "Giving" is a page right out of the libertarian economics: let the private sector charities fill the gap of the evaporating government social services. In other words, if you got a few extra bucks you don't know what to do with, start a soup line and a poor house--we're going to need it!

The only system that's going to work today is, as Klein argues, a mixed system of social programs and capitalist economics. The rich and powerful need to be held in check with strict government oversight and social programs to balance out wealth distribution. Predict all you want, but you have rules to play by in any economic system. Let the rules favor the common good, not the few rich.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalism, the disaster Posted by: scheherezade
media?
Posted by: daniel1982 on Sep 25, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there an audio or video clip of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: media? Posted by: daniel1982
another disciple
Posted by: frankly1 on Sep 25, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I Have listenened to the disciples of Friedman economics and lived under the policies instigated in it's name for over thirty years both here and abroad. When these "free" market forces are unleasheed the already wealthy and powerful grab as much of the "commonwealth" as possible and use a portion of the "booty" to bribe and corupt the system to ensure an income stream contiues. The corruption allows deregulation and increses the profits. Mr. Greenspan, like most other Friedman adherents" simply ignore the agony inflicted upon the majority so as to enrich the tiny minority of the already wealthy. The numbers illustrate quite well the steady consolidation of wealth and the collosal gap between rich and poor. It has very little to do with democracy or the rule of law. Mr. Greenspan does see the main problem - how do you have a work/consumption force smart enough to do the jobs but numb enough not to notice they're being screwed? The alternatives are called populist because their popular! and that is why people like Mr.Greenspan have to delude themselves and decieve others as to the results and goals of their polices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Populism and Greenspan Posted by: drcyflowers
income disparity lessened by WHAT...?
Posted by: divanne on Sep 25, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I correct in hearing the suggestion that if we had skilled workers from overseas or across the border, creating a glut of skilled workers, this would lessen the disparity between rich and poor by lowering the "skilled labor" average income? What in heaven's name does this have to do with CEOs making 400 times what their average worker makes? Is he high? Out of touch completely?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CEOs Posted by: suprmark
» RE: CEOs Posted by: drcyflowers
Glad you're gone, Mr. Greenspan
Posted by: Democritus on Sep 25, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Greenspan, by speaking in both avuncular and oracular tones, managed for years to convince people that he was an economic genius. He is no such thing. He is an extreme libertarian whose favorite-philosophers list includes Ayn Rand, the late guru of a fraudulent, pseudo-philosophical movement known as "objectivism."

What this means in simple language is that government exists solely to protect private property, and that markets should not be regulated but allowed to deal in unfettered free trade. When faced with the objection that this stance creates vast injustices, libertarians are wont to mention Adam Smith's "invisible hand," which is supposed to allow selfish individuals, out for their own good, to benefit society as a whole.

This, of course, is nonsense. Adam Smith knew more than his current disciples about stressing the need for rules to ensure fairness. Taken on its own, sans regulation, that invisible hand brandishes an upraised middle finger in the faces of those who find themselves ensnared in the nets of free-market capitalism.

So, let us thankfully say goodbye to Mr. Greenspan. Those of us who believe in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are less concerned with free markets than we are with providing for the common good, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That Preamble is at odds with Ayn Rand's objectivism, and it is also at odds with Mr. Greenspan's narrow view of government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Greenspan--don't sneer...
Posted by: zooeyhall on Sep 25, 2007 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at populism, as you do in the interview with Naomi Kline. Or the power of the people to force changes

You do so at your own peril.

Remember Marie Antionette, Czar Nicholas II of Russia, Ceausescu of Romania, ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Greenspan--don't sneer... Posted by: daniel1982
Did he say encourage skilled immigration???
Posted by: Obijuan on Sep 25, 2007 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do believe Mr. Greenspan suggested that allowing skilled labor from other countries to move to America will lower the salary of skilled labor...and equalize the economic inequality??

How does this stop the corporate management from making 400x the worker? Sounds like this makes everyone equally low paid. Yikes.

obi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a point of view
Posted by: solrev on Sep 25, 2007 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greenspan is a globalist and not an American and probably one of the worst human beings to walk on this planet. Thus his horror at an ungrateful populist, “Well, remember what populist politics is. It's a very special brand of short-term focus, which invariably creates very difficult long-term problems.” Populists create problems in the long term for globalists. “If we allowed those surpluses to run when the debt of the United States essentially went to zero, we would find that the federal government was beginning to accumulate huge amounts of assets of corporate business.” Globalists believe that money taken from the corporatocracy either by governments or the labor class is robbery.

“And as a consequence of that, we are not putting the proper number of people into the education cycle to get them up to skill levels, which creates much less, or would create a good deal less, in the way of income inequality.” Here the senile old fool insinuates that the education system has failed to produce the skilled labor quantity required to reduce income inequality. Is the goal, educated people making more money at higher paying jobs, not likely? “And I also argue in the book that we ought to be opening up our borders to skilled labor from all sorts of -- from all parts of the world, because if we were to do that, we would increase the supply of skilled workers, which our schools have been unable to create, and as a consequence of that, we would lower the average wage of skills and reduce the degree of income inequality in this country.” Let me see if I have this correct. Creating a skilled slave labor class will push more middle-class Americans toward poverty that the income inequality would be reduced. “And just remember that the type of globalized economy that I support has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. It's created a standard of living throughout the world which is unprecedented in history.” I guess he is right, moving people in third world countries from starvation to survival slave labor and reducing the middle class to skilled slave labor the income inequalities would be reduced globally.

“The capitalist system has created more economic wealth in the last seven or eight years around the world. And as I said before, it's had huge effects in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty.” If we could just get all the slaves around the world at a subsistence level look at all the wealth we could create with the slave labor. Long term who will by all these cheap products we can make. Dam populists creating those long-term problems again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greenspan's distortions and deceptions were very evident.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 25, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any time Greenspan was confronted with a specific example of his failed economic policies, i.e. Latin America, he immediately retreated into "it's the global economy post-Cold War theme" arguments - that mean nothing other than "it was someone else's fault".

What was truly hilarious was his defense of crony capitalism - "the government has to buy equipment from someone... it's just human nature to be corrupt!"

No, Mr. Greenspan, the government needs to give Halliburton $7 billion dollars so they can buy equipment, get a cost plus surcharge for buying that equipment, than dump that equipment in the deserts of Iraq so they can buy more equipment and get another cost-plus surcharge.

It's not socialism if the tax dollars only go to your rich cronies - that's the argument Greenspan is making there.

Listening to one of the world's biggest advocates of central bank-planned economies talk about his opposition to centrally planned economies and his support for free markets in Iraq - that was priceless.

I was just disappointed that he wasn't asked about the proposed Iraqi hydrocarbon law, which assigns control of Iraqi oil assets to US corporate interests, or about the effect of Saddam switching his currency reserves to euros in 2000.

Saddam goes to the Euro, Time 2000

Time and other pundits claimed this would hurt Iraq - and then the euro gained 30% over the dollar. Not the only reason for the invasion, but certainly a contributing factor. I'd just love to hear Greenspan fumble with that one.

See Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse, Willima Clark, Aug 2005

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.

To that one could add the establishment of permanent military bases in the region as the military stick to back up the economic agenda.

That's actually illegal, as Naomi Klein points out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bravo! Well said! Posted by: Ghoulman
Did anyone really expect Greenspan to say I'm sorry...
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 25, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that I believe in gunboat diplomacy?

...that I think it's OK to increase the national debt, enormously, for an illegal war but not for health care, education, and social security?

...that I think we should keep Central and South America in economic slavery to us?

...that I have little interest in the rape of the planet or the rape of the American treasury?

...that I identify the needs of the people with the needs of the rich?

...etc, etc, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"If not capitalism, then what?"
Posted by: Luther Blissett on Sep 25, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One common criticism of anti-capitalist thought is that the anti-capitalists do such a good job of laying out all of the problems with capitalism, but don't offer any solutions. There are tons of alternatives to capitalism, but no consensus amongst anti-capitalists. Klein, for instance, advocates a very modest social democracy. Michael Albert laid out a detailed system of a fully democratic economy in "Parecon (Participatory Economics)". And we may forget, but the whole point of the work of Marx and Engels was not a criticism of capitalism, but to work out a system to replace it. As Marx said, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world – the point is to change it."

When it is actually put into practice, socialism (and let's not be afraid of the word!) is ad hoc. We can't blueprint every detail and then apply the template to society. It will have to develop according to the needs of that particular society. It pains me to see Leninists or Trotskyites, for instance, oppose the work of the Venezuelan people in creating democracy because they are not following their particular program. Venezuelans are developing a system that serves them. Americans will have to develop a system that works for us. Right now, all we can do is point out the problems with capitalism so that people realize that the current system is not working for them. Then we can work out the details.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Repeating Lenin Posted by: pdxstudent
archimedesnewton@peoplepc.com
Posted by: downwithpatriotism on Sep 25, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The capitalist system can only be supported by the mumbo jumbo of Allen Greenspan and his ilk. Otherwise, the spirit of terror reigns true. For 100 years, these people destroyed communism and maligned the communist governments around the world as though capitalism was the be-all and end-all of God's blessed nation. The CIA and government policy undermined and distorted and ruined other governments in the name of democracy but Naomi Klein blasted Alan Greenspan's arguements over and over and made him look like a fool if not a stupid trickter with words. How a man could run the American economic system for so long is now apparent as Bush destroys all governments before america. What Naomi Klein showed was the pure fascism of the american system and the downright evil jwe live under quited by the Holy Grail and mysticism of Alan Greenspan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Futile...
Posted by: fearmind on Sep 25, 2007 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must say I have been reading a lot of articles here followed by comments, and the majority of you are quite fankly uneducated idiots. Most of you have absolutely zero understanding of economic fundamentals, and therefore don't even understand half of what was said in this debate. Greenspan was one of the most intelligent and insightful economists of our time, with the best understanding of our economic free market foundation. Most of you cannot even grasp the concepts he is describing in his book or his debate, and evidently neither does the "emotionally disturbed due to physical abuse" Naomi Klein (read up on her history if you like). The funny thing is, I am not even going to pretend to grasp all the complex economic theories, AND I GRADUATED WITH A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS! And therefore I can admit that the extent of my knowledge is limited simply due to the sheer fact that there is SO much more to economic theory that meets the eye. Greenspan is the few people in the modern world who I can safely say understands all of it through many years of amazing experience and knowledge. Now if I am admitting to not knowing all of it, there is no way in hell any of you left wing communist, socialist, populist, (or wahtever you call yourselves this week) understand even 1% of it. And your comments are proving me right. Greenspan helped keep our economy in excellent shape for decades, despite what it could have turned into, in which the majority of you would not even have money to eat, let alone money for a pc to write stupid comments on biased interviews.. All you people want to do is vent your frustration at Greenspan, because you associate him as being a Bush neo-con supporter because he supported Bush tax cuts. Do me favor please, get a job, get as steady source of income, commute daily to work, pay bills, become A PART of the system first, before you knock it. You might be shocked to see that it isn't as bad as you make it to be. Capitalism is the only viable solution in the long run... and if you thinkg socialism is better, do me a favor and study the employment growth trends over the last 60 years in America vs. social countries, like France, Italy, Canada etc. Maybe you will learn something... oh wait, you don't study economic theory. you listen to blind hypocrital left-wing, self-loathing, dellusional people like Naomi Klein. This is why its all Futile in my opinion.... Let the bashing against me begin...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Futile... Posted by: downwithpatriotism
» RE: Futile... Posted by: fearmind
» RE: Futile... Posted by: fearmind
» RE: Futile... Posted by: ray burchard
» RE: Futile... Posted by: fearmind
» RE: Futile... Posted by: doubter
» RE: Futile... Posted by: Luther Blissett
» not stupid...not deluded Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: not stupid...not deluded Posted by: Missing Piece
» RE: Futile...economics Posted by: wagadog
» Economy in excellent shape! Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Futile... Posted by: particle
» Disappointing but not surprising Posted by: settebello
» RE: Futile... Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Futile... Posted by: Democritus
» You are no economist. Posted by: justaguy
"Bubbles" Greenspan vs. the PHONY LEFT (Populist Politics, etc)
Posted by: Aramis on Sep 25, 2007 5:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all – a baseline reality check.

Sir Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan (knighted by Queen Elizabeth of England at the behest of British and multinational oligarchs) was a mouthpiece for an unconstitutional private bank monopoly better known as a “Federal Reserve” Corporation that was never federal and has less than no reserves. A fraud. In effect, a criminal Ponzi scheme virtually every founder warned future Americans about.

This so-called debate was dishonest to the core. Naomi Klein essentially argued over what she and “Bubbles” Greenspan accept as the dominant economic system of the west in “capitalism”.

capitalism (n)
An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit
(Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation)

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
cap·i·tal·ism
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


WARNING: however imperfect – “capitalism” and a “capitalist system” DOES NOT EXIST. That would require free markets ideally under a democratic system of law and justice. We do not have “capitalism” or any kind of democratic government let alone social justice.

What we have is crypto-Fascism.

To be more specific: the west is ruled by a monopolist corporate crime state that rigs virtually all significant markets from the top down. At the very top would be a “Federal Reserve” Corporation palmed off in 1913 by cartel robber barons for cartel robber barons. A private cartel that actively colludes with other Fascist orgs such as the Bank for International Settlements, the IMF and World Bank (set up by robber baron David Rockefeller at Bretton Woods).

So, as usual, the way this “debate” was framed is bogus to the core and worse than irrelevant.

A monopoly planned and privately rigged economy is a license to steal and murder at will. Control the money and you control virtually everything including war and peace. EVERYTHING.



“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
Thomas Pyncon – Gravity’s Rainbow

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency… the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered… The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
President Thomas Jefferson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We need to debate the real questions Posted by: Missing Piece
» yes and no. Posted by: wagadog