Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Alan Greenspan: WTF is he babbling about?

smooth · 07-20-2003, 01:30 PM

lol, Ace_of_Lobster,

No one said anything about a conspiracy--what I wrote is similar to what a former head guy in the World Bank wrote.

If Argentina has a problem and the IMF tells them to cut education spending by 10% it doesn't necessarily hold true that Jamaica should cut education spending by 10%. The fact that they are both in economic trouble doesn't change that position at all, unless you think that two countries are in "similar" situations simply by virtue of their impoverished status--that's a pretty broad brush, however.

Likewise, if Argentina's main export is one thing and the IMF and WTO "encourage" them to change it to lumber or beef, for example, tt doesn't hold true that Jamaica should switch to beef exports.

This was the "cookie cutter" approach I referred to which the Brenton Woods orgs have received flack for and have since attempted to clean up.

You asserted that I was over stating a bit, yet you use the vague reference to "if government is in debt, cut spending." What I may not have made clear is that the SAPs indicate where govs should cut spending, not just that they should. One plan for reducing expenditure for a particular reason is not going to necessarily (as I said the first time, although one such plan might work). Much of the debt has been incurred as a result of scandal--in short, the country never used the money, it went into someone's pocket. I'm not going to get into a debate with you over who should pay that money back--that's way OT.

Regardless, what both JJ and I are stating is that without taking the global picture into account one can not understand the US economy.

Focusing on the US economy alone or even primarily (as you suggest) is not going to give an accurate picture of our economic outlook. In direct answer to the thread:

Greenspan is "babbling" because he understands who is in power and he can't give a straight answer--fingers are crossed but our long term security is at severe stake. He'll do what he can to prime the pump for investment but the real truth of the matter is that our economy is going to have to adapt or crumble--no amount of interaction by the Fed is going to stop that.

Our dependance on foreign trade is more critical and interrelated than people admit--possibly even to themselves. If people don't start feeling a moral obligation to invest locally then our current system is going to divest of itself--it's too expensive.

Investment in a capitalist system does not take into account morals--merely the bottom line. People might take a moral outlook on investment--but capital does not. Capital chases the bottom line in a rational persuit of profit. If the greatest return for one's investment will occur in Bangladesh, then Bangladesh is where the money flows--regardless if that reduces jobs in the US or even if it utilizes child labor.

I'm not making a moral judgement on such action but am claiming that people must place a moral demand on themselves (or the gov must place strictures on people and we aren't willing to do that just yet) if they want our way of life to continue.

Many people are realizing the various levels of value. That is, spending an extra dollar here and ten over there to patronize a loca shop keeps those dollars in the community longer than spending them at, say, Wal-Mart where the revenue flows out of the community to the market and seeks the best return for its investment--wherever that may be and despite whatever harmful side effects to the local community it may have (for example, the eventual closure of said Wal-Mart if the local economy collapses).

07-20-2003, 01:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	lol, Ace_of_Lobster, No one said anything about a conspiracy--what I wrote is similar to what a former head guy in the World Bank wrote. If Argentina has a problem and the IMF tells them to cut education spending by 10% it doesn't necessarily hold true that Jamaica should cut education spending by 10%. The fact that they are both in economic trouble doesn't change that position at all, unless you think that two countries are in "similar" situations simply by virtue of their impoverished status--that's a pretty broad brush, however. Likewise, if Argentina's main export is one thing and the IMF and WTO "encourage" them to change it to lumber or beef, for example, tt doesn't hold true that Jamaica should switch to beef exports. This was the "cookie cutter" approach I referred to which the Brenton Woods orgs have received flack for and have since attempted to clean up. You asserted that I was over stating a bit, yet you use the vague reference to "if government is in debt, cut spending." What I may not have made clear is that the SAPs indicate where govs should cut spending, not just that they should. One plan for reducing expenditure for a particular reason is not going to necessarily (as I said the first time, although one such plan might work). Much of the debt has been incurred as a result of scandal--in short, the country never used the money, it went into someone's pocket. I'm not going to get into a debate with you over who should pay that money back--that's way OT. Regardless, what both JJ and I are stating is that without taking the global picture into account one can not understand the US economy. Focusing on the US economy alone or even primarily (as you suggest) is not going to give an accurate picture of our economic outlook. In direct answer to the thread: Greenspan is "babbling" because he understands who is in power and he can't give a straight answer--fingers are crossed but our long term security is at severe stake. He'll do what he can to prime the pump for investment but the real truth of the matter is that our economy is going to have to adapt or crumble--no amount of interaction by the Fed is going to stop that. Our dependance on foreign trade is more critical and interrelated than people admit--possibly even to themselves. If people don't start feeling a moral obligation to invest locally then our current system is going to divest of itself--it's too expensive. Investment in a capitalist system does not take into account morals--merely the bottom line. People might take a moral outlook on investment--but capital does not. Capital chases the bottom line in a rational persuit of profit. If the greatest return for one's investment will occur in Bangladesh, then Bangladesh is where the money flows--regardless if that reduces jobs in the US or even if it utilizes child labor. I'm not making a moral judgement on such action but am claiming that people must place a moral demand on themselves (or the gov must place strictures on people and we aren't willing to do that just yet) if they want our way of life to continue. Many people are realizing the various levels of value. That is, spending an extra dollar here and ten over there to patronize a loca shop keeps those dollars in the community longer than spending them at, say, Wal-Mart where the revenue flows out of the community to the market and seeks the best return for its investment--wherever that may be and despite whatever harmful side effects to the local community it may have (for example, the eventual closure of said Wal-Mart if the local economy collapses). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman