Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Fed and in the eyes of many one of the most brilliant people in the world, has been on a book selling media tour recently. While promoting his new tell all book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Order?), he has made a number of statements which have me questioning if he is senile or just really dumb.
The first statement of his that really irked me was this:
He explains how an advanced economy hinges on property rights, the rule of law, a culture of trust, contracts, debt, reputation, self-interest and "creative destruction" -- the scrapping of old technologies and processes.
He argues, for example, that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States -- from the steel, automobile and textile industries to computers and telecommunications -- "is a plus, not a minus, to the American standard of living."
He maintains that immigration reform, "by opening up the United States to the world's very large and growing pool of skilled workers," will help reduce the inequality of incomes.
When I read this I nearly fell out of my chair. Here is the justification for sending not hundreds but thousands of factories to China and Mexico. The loss of manufacturing jobs improves our standard of living? Not for those that lose their jobs. This last stuff is absolutely insane in my opinion. Reducing income equality? Sounds a like a socialist. I guess it didn't affect his salary though did it?
So tell me O wise one. How do you improve the standard of living and reduce the inequality of incomes at the same time? His idea is apparently to outsource our factories and then import illegal labor to work in the ones we have left. Which by the way he calls a "growing pool of skilled labor". This is a man who completely out of touch with reality. Yea - when NAFTA ruins all the farms and small business left in Mexico, then you have a growing pool of unskilled peasants coming across the border looking for work. Meanwhile the average working American can look forward to a job in computers or telecommunications?
So I see here once again why the SPP open border agenda is being crammed down our throats by a bunch or rich, wealthy, elitists who stand to make a lot of money from it. Why would we have to worry about the "inequality of incomes" in Mexico unless they had a plan to create a North American Union. So the master manipulators have to import millions of illegal immigrants to lower our excessive wages? Nice to know they care. So what does Greenspan know about SPP that he is not telling?
Then he states about the current Mortgage crises:
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admits he "didn't really get it" that the subprime lending trend was significant enough to hurt the economy until very late 2005, but still defends his lowering of interest rates from 2001 until 2004 that critics say caused the crisis in the first place. "While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late," he tells Stahl. "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."
And then he goes and contradicts himself on the same issue:
While denying responsibility for the Mortgage and housing crisis. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan responds to critics who charge that the Fed contributed to the housing bubble and subprime mortgage mess by keeping interest rates low for so long, "This particular problem was an accident waiting to happen."
So which is it Alan? I don't remember him warning anybody about it in 2005 or 2006.
Then he goes on to proclaim about his own legacy:
"I'd like very much for people to say, 'Well, he caused all of that.'
O.K. that is exactly what I'm saying. You helped cause this mess. I guess in his mind that doesn't include the current mortgage crises which he admits he did not foresee. Or the recession of the late 90's and early 2000. Both of which critics attribute to his policies. It seems to me he is just a self serving individual trying to get back into the limelight and sell his book.
And then he proceeds to endorse Hillary Clinton:
"Very smart. She is probably everything that everybody says about her. She wouldn't be a bad president."
And all this comes right before the elections of 2008. A so called Republican promoting Hilary and Bill. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think this Emperor has no clothes left.
