Greenspan: Iraq War was about oil

[Flagg]

True enough, but the fact is, we'd probably have a bigger industry for the globe and hear less from Bob Geldof if we stuck to it and didn't let them have independence until they got past that whole warlord shit.

I don't know how to put it without sounding racist, but the colonies with the greatest proportion of white people: South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana, are all decently prosperous. Also, Zimbabwe was doing pretty good back when it was called Rhodesia. Everything north of that is pretty fucked-up. Though Sudan, at least, is Egypt's fault.

It probably has alot to do with Western culture taking a better hold in those places where the colonial powers were strongest. Of course we're also seeing a major backlash in those same countries against Western culture by the majority populations who were opressed for so long.

[Coyote]

I believe the Ethiopians were the only African nation that was never completely subjugated by colonial powers. They gave the Italians hell and that was even when Il Duce used armor, aircraft, machineguns and finally nerve gas on them.

People discount the achievements of a lot fo the African kingdoms, but many of them did quite well. If they'd have the lucky resource base that the Europeans did, they'd've made life hell for the invaders.

The kingdoms worldwide that figured out things like "meritocracy" got a head start-- the Asians lead in this field, so too did the Arabs for awhile. The Europeans were Johhny-come-latelys.

[PainRack]

True enough, but the fact is, we'd probably have a bigger industry for the globe and hear less from Bob Geldof if we stuck to it and didn't let them have independence until they got past that whole warlord shit.

Now I expect Chindia to do what we should have done, only with less Martini-Henry action.

Errr.... the reason why the various states fucked themselves up so bad is the exact same reason why the various colonial states abandoned them. They were frankly unsustainable states, with the empires flushing in cash just to keep those adminstrations afloat. When the colonial government withdrew, many of these states faced economic difficulties, which led to conflict for resources and other reasons. Which in turn destroyed the existing infrastructure, crippling their economy further and etc etc etc.

It didn't help that many of these countries tied themselves further into providing raw resources for the Western powers, with the advice that from such humble beginings, they could build up industralisation. The crash in prices from oversupply was disastrous as well as economic disruption when environmental factors came in, such as how cattle farming in the Sudan and Ethiopia resulted in desertification. Since these countries were tied into the export economies, the failure of the cash economies meant famine and more conflict.

Like you say, it also didn't help that many of the various governments such as the French were unable to stay and support a steady move into independence, much as the British did for many of its colonies, but that ignores the fact that the various governments were bankrupt and unable to do it.

[The Kernel]

This was inevitable. Greenspan has long kept his mouth shut under his own set of ethics that dictated that a Fed chief does not talk about the administration it serves except in broad, constructive terms.

I'm sick of this "you can't trash your boss" ethic. It might make sense if there were some kind of mutual agreement of professionalism, but this administration has been firing qualified people left and right to replace them with cronies and flunkies. If the employer is not treating the employees with respect, why should the employees not return the favour?

It reminds me of the people who lament the death of "employee loyalty" despite the fact that corporations have increasingly shown a willingness to dump employees at the drop of a hat, or even to get a temporary stock price spike so that executives can dump their stock options and walk away with a boatload of money.

In Greenspan's case however it might very well have been justified. The markets show extreme volatility just based on mere hints from a Fed chief, can you imagine what might happen on Wall Street if Greenspan came out and said that he thought Bush's tax cuts were economically devastating? He would have caused the very economic meltdown he was trying to prevent.

If you look at some of Greenspan's public statements and congressional testimony, you'll notice that he's actually does say what he believes, he just covers it in a bunch of "Greenspeak" language designed to keep from sounding caustic.

[SirNitram]

In Greenspan's case however it might very well have been justified. The markets show extreme volatility just based on mere hints from a Fed chief, can you imagine what might happen on Wall Street if Greenspan came out and said that he thought Bush's tax cuts were economically devastating? He would have caused the very economic meltdown he was trying to prevent.

If you look at some of Greenspan's public statements and congressional testimony, you'll notice that he's actually does say what he believes, he just covers it in a bunch of "Greenspeak" language designed to keep from sounding caustic.

He's a fucking Randroid. I don't care if he genuinely believes it or not. Quoting the NYT..

Shortly after “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, Mr. Greenspan wrote a letter to The New York Times to counter a critic’s comment that “the book was written out of hate.” Mr. Greenspan wrote: “ ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should.”

The man also single-handedly created the housing bubble by piledriving the interest rate down and holding it down for several years, allowing all that adjustable-rate bullshit in the first place.

Let's not forget he wasn't all that adverse to lying, either, because he had said, in 2004, he was shilling for ditching Social Security because it was a weight on the deficit.. A fucking lie, as even the worst-case calculations kept it in the black for the next two decades.

So you'll forgive me if I don't assume he's just a nice old man trying to avoid causing trouble.

[Erik von Nein]

Greenspan's as much a politician as any political appointee ever. There's a reason he survived not just one but three different presidencies.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Let's not forget he wasn't all that adverse to lying, either, because he had said, in 2004, he was shilling for ditching Social Security because it was a weight on the deficit.. A fucking lie, as even the worst-case calculations kept it in the black for the next two decades.

That's not what I found in his comments about social security.

link

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told a Senate panel Wednesday that he is in favor of introducing private accounts into Social Security, but that lawmakers should take it slow.

Action is needed on Social Security reform before the first wave of baby boom retirements -- starting in 2008 -- threaten the resources of the system, Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee.

"Because the pay-as-you-go system will be very difficult to manage, we need an alternative," Greenspan said. "Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices," he added. "But the demographics are inexorable, and call for action before the leading edge of baby boomer retirement becomes evident in 2008."

Nevertheless, he acknowledged that individual accounts do not address the shortfalls the Social Security system will face over the next 75 years.

In fact, they would create additional costs because workers who opt for accounts would divert a portion of their payroll taxes away from the system.

Since Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system -- meaning the payroll taxes you contribute are used to pay today's retirees -- the government would need to borrow additional money to meet its obligations to current retirees.

But once the transition costs are paid for, a Social Security system with an individual account element would add to the net national savings rate, said Greenspan, which would strengthen the economy and help retirees.

Greenspan warned, however, that if accounts are introduced into the system, "We have to do it in a cautious, gradual way. ... (We) should go slowly and test the waters."

Here's why, he said: We don't know how the financial markets would react. The worry is that markets would respond to increased borrowing with higher interest rates, which could slow economic growth.

Given this unknown, Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, asked Greenspan if he thought President Bush's proposal to introduce individual accounts was risky, and whether the Fed chairman thought it was worth the risk.

"It is risky," Greenspan said. But, he added, "It's risky doing nothing. It's risky doing any other solution. ... I know no way to resolve this without risk."

Greenspan headed up the 1983 bipartisan commission that enacted a hike in the Social Security payroll tax and an increase in the retirement age, with the intention of creating a surplus to fund the retirement of Baby Boomers.

CNN dates that as February 16, 2005

If there is an earlier statement to the contrary, he may have reversed himself, or seen new information that changed his position. I for one would like to see the quote in question.

[The Kernel]

He's a fucking Randroid. I don't care if he genuinely believes it or not. Quoting the NYT..

That's about the biggest non sequitur I've ever read. What the hell do his tastes in fiction have to do with anything in my post?

The man also single-handedly created the housing bubble by piledriving the interest rate down and holding it down for several years, allowing all that adjustable-rate bullshit in the first place.

Don't be ridiculous, Greenspan drove down interest rates in order to boost the economy during a downturn, and conversely he raised it during the economic boom of the 90's in order to fight inflation. The fact that this has an affect on lending in the housing market is not the point.

Furthermore Greenspan is the last person you should be blaming for the whole subprime debacle.

Let's not forget he wasn't all that adverse to lying, either, because he had said, in 2004, he was shilling for ditching Social Security because it was a weight on the deficit.. A fucking lie, as even the worst-case calculations kept it in the black for the next two decades.

Like Gerald Tarrant, I only remember him going off about how we had to move away from a pay as you go system for social security, not anything along the lines of what you are talking about. You want to provide some quotes?

So you'll forgive me if I don't assume he's just a nice old man trying to avoid causing trouble.

Actually Bernake has if anything vindicated Greenspan's carefully worded messages. Or haven't you noticed how Bernake has a habit of saying the wrong thing and sending the stock market into a spin for a couple of days?

[SirNitram]

He's a fucking Randroid. I don't care if he genuinely believes it or not. Quoting the NYT..

That's about the biggest non sequitur I've ever read. What the hell do his tastes in fiction have to do with anything in my post?

You are aware of the philosophy espoused in those books, and the rather blatant acceptance of that in his quoted words?

The man also single-handedly created the housing bubble by piledriving the interest rate down and holding it down for several years, allowing all that adjustable-rate bullshit in the first place.

Don't be ridiculous, Greenspan drove down interest rates in order to boost the economy during a downturn, and conversely he raised it during the economic boom of the 90's in order to fight inflation. The fact that this has an affect on lending in the housing market is not the point.

'Please ignore the fact he created the conditions required to make the housing bubble, then pleaded powerlessness to do anything.' How about no?

Furthermore Greenspan is the last person you should be blaming for the whole subprime debacle.

Why? His actions created it, his lack of action did nothing to temper it.

Let's not forget he wasn't all that adverse to lying, either, because he had said, in 2004, he was shilling for ditching Social Security because it was a weight on the deficit.. A fucking lie, as even the worst-case calculations kept it in the black for the next two decades.

Like Gerald Tarrant, I only remember him going off about how we had to move away from a pay as you go system for social security, not anything along the lines of what you are talking about. You want to provide some quotes?

Of course! WaPo, Febuary 13, 2004.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday called on Congress to restrain the growth of the federal budget deficit by adopting budget controls that would apply to new taxes as well as new spending. ... Greenspan offered several ways to curtail federal spending growth, including reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits. The Fed chairman again recommended raising the age at which retirees become eligible, to keep pace with the population's rising longevity.

Tossing SS on the pile to reduce the deficit.

So you'll forgive me if I don't assume he's just a nice old man trying to avoid causing trouble.

Actually Bernake has if anything vindicated Greenspan's carefully worded messages. Or haven't you noticed how Bernake has a habit of saying the wrong thing and sending the stock market into a spin for a couple of days?

Given your non-rebuttals so far, you'll forgive me for laughing right about now. You pretended being a close friend and espouser of Rand's toxic philosophy means nothing, and said 'No, he isn't!' in rebuttal to pointing out he caused the housing bubble. No data, no effort. I surmise this has to be because, like most who are wrong but prideful, you realize you have no rebuttals, but won't admit it.

[Darth Wong]

This was inevitable. Greenspan has long kept his mouth shut under his own set of ethics that dictated that a Fed chief does not talk about the administration it serves except in broad, constructive terms.

I'm sick of this "you can't trash your boss" ethic. It might make sense if there were some kind of mutual agreement of professionalism, but this administration has been firing qualified people left and right to replace them with cronies and flunkies. If the employer is not treating the employees with respect, why should the employees not return the favour?

It reminds me of the people who lament the death of "employee loyalty" despite the fact that corporations have increasingly shown a willingness to dump employees at the drop of a hat, or even to get a temporary stock price spike so that executives can dump their stock options and walk away with a boatload of money.

In Greenspan's case however it might very well have been justified. The markets show extreme volatility just based on mere hints from a Fed chief, can you imagine what might happen on Wall Street if Greenspan came out and said that he thought Bush's tax cuts were economically devastating? He would have caused the very economic meltdown he was trying to prevent.

So if you think someone is doing something that might cause serious long-term damage to the economy, you can't say anything about it because your words might cause short-term damage to the economy?

[Mr Bean]

So if you think someone is doing something that might cause serious long-term damage to the economy, you can't say anything about it because your words might cause short-term damage to the economy?

The problem is position specific. If a General comes out and says that President Bush's war plan is the best since Hitler's idea to invade Russia in the winter... well that's going to hit the approval numbers some, maybe affect the markets a little, and make the CNN talking heads rounds.

If Greenspan had said the tax cuts were the most moronic thing possible. It would have caused measurable economic harm, and it most like would have changed nothing policy wise. Not to mention Greenspan getting kicked to the curb by Jr for disagreeing with him.

[Flagg]

So if you think someone is doing something that might cause serious long-term damage to the economy, you can't say anything about it because your words might cause short-term damage to the economy?

The problem is position specific. If a General comes out and says that President Bush's war plan is the best since Hitler's idea to invade Russia in the winter... well that's going to hit the approval numbers some, maybe affect the markets a little, and make the CNN talking heads rounds.

If Greenspan had said the tax cuts were the most moronic thing possible. It would have caused measurable economic harm, and it most like would have changed nothing policy wise. Not to mention Greenspan getting kicked to the curb by Jr for disagreeing with him.

More economic harm than the taxcuts?

[Adrian Laguna]

So if you think someone is doing something that might cause serious long-term damage to the economy, you can't say anything about it because your words might cause short-term damage to the economy?

If Greenspan had said the tax cuts were the most moronic thing possible. It would have caused measurable economic harm, and it most like would have changed nothing policy wise. Not to mention Greenspan getting kicked to the curb by Jr for disagreeing with him.

More economic harm than the taxcuts?

Yes, because it would be the economic harm caused by his comment on top of the tax-cuts. The thing here is that Greenspan criticising the administration's economic policy was unlikely to cause change in said policy.

[Flagg]

If Greenspan had said the tax cuts were the most moronic thing possible. It would have caused measurable economic harm, and it most like would have changed nothing policy wise. Not to mention Greenspan getting kicked to the curb by Jr for disagreeing with him.

More economic harm than the taxcuts?

Yes, because it would be the economic harm caused by his comment on top of the tax-cuts. The thing here is that Greenspan criticising the administration's economic policy was unlikely to cause change in said policy.

How do you know it wouldn't have swayed some republican congressmen to come out against it or to enact a more conservative cut?

[Flagg]

And that's just if you believe that he isn't full of shit and was all for the tax cut at the time. I keep hearing this "greenspeak" phrase being thrown around. In english we call it "bullshit".

[Adrian Laguna]

How do you know it wouldn't have swayed some republican congressmen to come out against it or to enact a more conservative cut?

The point is that there are good reasons for Greenspan not criticising the administration even if he disagreed with it. It may be that he didn't think it would make a difference, maybe he was being selfish and just wanted to keep his job. There's also the possibility that he was for the tax cuts all along. I'm not defending Greenspan, but rather the argument defending Greenspan.

And that's just if you believe that he isn't full of shit and was all for the tax cut at the time. I keep hearing this "greenspeak" phrase being thrown around. In english we call it "bullshit".

I don't believe anything on this issue, see above.

[J]

James Kunstler has a nice opinion piece on Greenspan.

Shocked, shocked!
September 17, 2007

Alan Greenspan's memoirs are being flogged across the airwaves, bandwidths and printing presses, and the cohort of those who comment on public affairs in these media are shocked by the Maestro's confessions -- first, that a housing bubble emerged out of his leadership in the banking sector, and second that the Iraq war is about oil. As usual, they're getting it all wrong -- about as wrong as Al himself got it. But that is the way of things in this age of cultural dissipation and gross cognitive dissonance.

Greenspan claims he had no idea that his cutting of interest rates to near zero would produce any irregularities in the US economy. Apparently he hadn't noticed that the Big Fund Boyz called him "Easy Al" for a reason. Or that when you introduce nearly free "money" (as in "available for lending") into a system of financial trade, the recognition of risk tends to evaporate. As the nation's chief bank regulator, Greenspan also apparently failed to notice the upsurge in dodgy lending practices previously only seen among mafia loan sharks, drug dealers, or twelve-year-olds playing Monopoly.

But the really funny part of all this is that the media columnists are acting as though the American public got hoodwinked by Al. Which raises the question: just what the fuck was the public thinking when they bought half-million dollar houses on salaries under 60-K, taking out no-money-down, interest-optional balloon mortgages and other tricked-up contracts? The answer is: they walked into these arrangements with their eyes open because they thought they could get something for nothing. They thought the trend of steeply rising house prices would continue indefinitely and enable them to wiggle free of any hazard by flipping their houses to an endless supply of greater fools who would be there waiting to turn the very same trick. And the smoothies downstream in the mortgage and banking rackets were no less guided by avarice when they cooked up their formulas for bundling half-baked mortgages into tranches of tradeable securities. Easy Al may have failed to notice what was going on here, but then so did everybody else from The Wall Street Journal to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This, of course, represents an insidious psychology. It could only happen in a culture that has come off the rails mentally, so to speak, as ours has in the sense that nobody has any sense of consequence, neither the leaders nor those who affect to follow the leaders. The leading religion in America is not evangelical Christianity, it is the worship of unearned riches, and its golden rule is the belief that is is possible to get something for nothing. Its holy shrines are Las Vegas and Wall Street. (And, by the way, has anybody heard the evangelical Christians complain about Las Vegas? They complain about a lot of things, but are themselves among the greatest believers in unearned riches -- given their preference for prayer over earnest effort in the service of solving life's problems.)

No, the American public, including the cheerleaders in the media, have only themselves to blame for the bitter harvest now underway in the asset and credit markets. And thus it would be salutary thing for Baby Jeezus, or the forces of nature, or whatever powers guide the universe, to now kick the shit out of them, so to speak, financially, because that is exactly what the American public is full of, from top to bottom, from George W. Bush at his lonely desk on Pennsylvania Avenue to the pitiful, bankrupt householders of Orange County and Boca Raton.

Now, as to the shock of Al's revelation that the Iraq war is about oil -- the media and the public has got this all wrong, too. The logic here seems to be that because the Iraq war is about oil it is therefore unnecessary, optional, a mistake, an indulgence, something we should not dirty our hands in. In fact, the Iraq war is not about oil, per se, so much as it is about America's behavior here at home, about the choices we make for how we live on this continent. None of those who complain most loudly about our military presence in Iraq have advanced any proposals for reforming how we live here -- and hence for our enslavement to oil, much of the world's remaining supply of which happens to be in the neighborhood of Iraq. When these complainers start complaining about the ubiquitous acceptance of suburban sprawl and abject car-dependency -- and this includes the environmental boy scouts out there who want to get merit badges for buying hybrid cars -- then they will deserve to be taken seriously. Until then, the American people have got exactly the grinding war that they deserve. Let them whine about it all the way to the Nascar tracks, and let them console themselves with giant plastic bottles of Pepsi Cola and buckets of chicken raised on corn grown with oil byproducts.

On CBS's "60-Minutes" show last night, Greenspan, in his new role as a private sector economic consultant made predictions for the coming months in the US economy. He declared that the financial sector would get over the current credit squeeze as if it were a mild case of indigestion brought on by one too many fried won-tons at the all-you-can-eat buffet, a mere burp, allowing the public to move on to the crab Rangoon and a helping of General Tsao's chicken. This gets back to the previous point about the Iraq war and oil in particular. Al doesn't get it. CBS's sycophant reporters don't get it. Nobody gets it. We are entering the zone of the long emergency in which the primary resource needed to run the industrial economies will become scarce, expensive, and profoundly destabilizing to markets and to normal life, such as it is known in this country. And the current problem in the markets is a reflection of the resource bankruptcy we are facing. Our problems are not about credit, they are about permanent insolvency.

In his old age, Alan Greenspan's face -- once darkly handsome in his youthful years as a jazz musician -- has taken on the strange appearance of a circus clown. Something about the way his lips have settled into a kind of thick fatuous smile, even when he is apparently not amused by anything. Is it one of God's clever little tricks to leave him looking like a clown in his valedictory years, or has his face just resolved into the perfect embodiment of leadership for a clown nation?

[Darth Wong]

Not bad, except for this part:

None of those who complain most loudly about our military presence in Iraq have advanced any proposals for reforming how we live here -- and hence for our enslavement to oil, much of the world's remaining supply of which happens to be in the neighborhood of Iraq.

That part is a lie, probably told for rhetorical effect. In reality, a lot of the liberal types who have been against this war from the start (as opposed to the Johnny Come Latelies) are also very much against the culture of consumerism and in favour of developing things like EVs.

[Coyote]

Greenspan recently retracted his commet.

I swear, every time someone utters a criticism, they come on 2-3 days later, like clockwork, to retract it. Or like Petraeus, they obviously put on a painted smile and dance for the Administration.

These fuckers scare me in a way that I thought only cinema Mafiosos could. I can actually envision Cheney sending out "enforcers" to follow people's kids or something and scare them into backing off.

[K. A. Pital]

I think the mere thought of becoming "un-American" is put deep enough into people so that they ensure conformity. The final phase of the evolution of neocon doublethink created an atmosphere of intellectual submission.

[Adrian Laguna]

It's an interesting article.

As an aside, not everyone got screwed over by the low interest rates and rapidly ballooning housing market, some people made a killing out of it. It was very easy: mortage your house, use loan to buy unbuilt property, wait for property to be built (and appreciate in value), sell property. Rinse, repeat, and rejoice in the knowledge that your earnings are less taxable than those of the poor schmucks who work for a living.

I imagine all the people who made money off it had two things in common: 1) Credit histories so spotless and shiny you can see your reflection on them, and 2) Jumped ship before it started sinking. I also imagine that those who did wind-up with the short end of the stick had neither of those two things.

[FSTargetDrone]

Greenspan recently retracted his commet.

I swear, every time someone utters a criticism, they come on 2-3 days later, like clockwork, to retract it. Or like Petraeus, they obviously put on a painted smile and dance for the Administration.

These fuckers scare me in a way that I thought only cinema Mafiosos could. I can actually envision Cheney sending out "enforcers" to follow people's kids or something and scare them into backing off.

Scary indeed.

So a supposedly carefully thought-out consideration on Greenspan's part is suddenly null and void when the heat turns up a bit? I don't buy it for a moment, this backpedaling bullshit:

The Washington Post focused on the charge in Greenspan's book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

Emphasis mine, of course. It's utter, complete, nonsense.

There's nothing like conviction, you know?

[Adrian Laguna]

The Washington Post focused on the charge in Greenspan's book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

Emphasis mine, of course. It's utter, complete, nonsense.

Of course it is, in case nobody noticed the reason Saddam Hussein wasn't selling us his oil is not because he didn't want to, but because we weren't buying it due to a certain embargo imposed after the Gulf War. The Iranians sell us their oil and they have, unlike Hussein, chanted "Death to America" burned American flags, taken American citizens hostage, and even the first two at the same time while parading the hostages around.

[J]

On a related topic, the Fed just cut interest rates by 50 basis points, or 0.5%. The Canadian dollar is now trading at over 98 cents US, at this rate we'll probably see parity by Thanksgiving, the Canadian Thanksgiving that is. It must be fun watching your currency devalue into worthlessness.

[Adrian Laguna]

On a related topic, the Fed just cut interest rates by 50 basis points, or 0.5%.

What? Wasn't low interest rates the problem in the first place?