Alan Greenspan, Naomi Klein Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein go toe to toe
September 27,2007 
By Ben Cohen
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan recently took part in a fascinating debate with leftist author Naomi Klein on the show ‘Democracy Now’.
Having kept his mouth shut during his years with the Bush Administration, Greenspan has embarked upon a tour to promote his new book ‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’, that basically excuses his appalling complicity in some of the worst economic decisions in recent history. Now admitting that the war in Iraq was about oil (and having not uttered a word when he could have had an impact), Greenspan attempts to weave his way out of taking any responsibility, and spouts his usual free market nonsense in the hope that people will still take him seriously.
The host, Amy Goodman takes Greenspan to task for his inability to speak out about decisions he knew to be detrimental to the U.S economy (like the absurd tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans), while Klein exposes his free market rhetoric as unproven, fanatical ideology….
In one part, Greenspan outrageously states that ‘populist’ movements in Latin America during the 70′s and 80′s “gripped…many Latin American countries to their detriment”, conveniently omitting the devastating effects of the IMF in the years after, and the numerous CIA backed coups that undermined socialist movements in the region.
Klein schools ‘Saint Alan’ on some basic economic theories, embarrassing him with his own quotes about crony capitalism:
“There is something that I was quite interested in in your book, which was your definition of corruption and crony capitalism. You said, “When a government’s leaders or businesses routinely seek out private sector individuals or businesses and, in exchange for political support, bestow favors on them, the society is said to be in the grip of crony capitalism.” You say, “The favors generally take the form of monopoly access to certain markets, preferred access to sales of government assets, and special access to those in power.” I kept thinking about Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed and Boeing. You were referring to Indonesia at the time…”
Greenspan’s record and reputation are in tatters, and his futile attempt to excuse himself essentially collapses when challenged.
It’s a very insightful debate, and well worth reading the whole transcript. Click here to check it out.
.
By Ben Cohen
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan recently took part in a fascinating debate with leftist author Naomi Klein on the show ‘Democracy Now’.
Having kept his mouth shut during his years with the Bush Administration, Greenspan has embarked upon a tour to promote his new book ‘The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World’, that basically excuses his appalling complicity in some of the worst economic decisions in recent history. Now admitting that the war in Iraq was about oil (and having not uttered a word when he could have had an impact), Greenspan attempts to weave his way out of taking any responsibility, and spouts his usual free market nonsense in the hope that people will still take him seriously.
The host, Amy Goodman takes Greenspan to task for his inability to speak out about decisions he knew to be detrimental to the U.S economy (like the absurd tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans), while Klein exposes his free market rhetoric as unproven, fanatical ideology….
In one part, Greenspan outrageously states that ‘populist’ movements in Latin America during the 70′s and 80′s “gripped…many Latin American countries to their detriment”, conveniently omitting the devastating effects of the IMF in the years after, and the numerous CIA backed coups that undermined socialist movements in the region.
Klein schools ‘Saint Alan’ on some basic economic theories, embarrassing him with his own quotes about crony capitalism:
“There is something that I was quite interested in in your book, which was your definition of corruption and crony capitalism. You said, “When a government’s leaders or businesses routinely seek out private sector individuals or businesses and, in exchange for political support, bestow favors on them, the society is said to be in the grip of crony capitalism.” You say, “The favors generally take the form of monopoly access to certain markets, preferred access to sales of government assets, and special access to those in power.” I kept thinking about Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed and Boeing. You were referring to Indonesia at the time…”
Greenspan’s record and reputation are in tatters, and his futile attempt to excuse himself essentially collapses when challenged.
It’s a very insightful debate, and well worth reading the whole transcript. Click here to check it out.
.
Your little stub summary is pretty much wrong. I read the transcript, skimming over some parts, and it seems Naomi Klein’s role here is the same as everywhere else I’ve seen her, make inane comments and self-promote. Which obviously she does pretty well to land a debate with Alan Greenspan. But, after reading it I still have the same opinion of Klein, while having gained a bit more respect for Greenspan.
Naomi Klein is making inane comments? Which interview are you reading my friend? Alan Greenspan presided over the most irresponsible tax cuts in American history, is part of the ideological framework that has wrecked half of the third world, and is now trying to repaint his role at the Fed. Klein on the other hand, has just written an exhaustively researched book that has shaken the world of economics. I don’t see how you can respect Greenspan.
I agree with anonymous. There are too many parameters we can dissect here. Everyone seems to “know” how to make things work. But, we can never know until we are in their shoes. Communist/Socialist values are quickly becoming extinct around the world. They paint a beautiful world of equality that; in the end, is just as corrupt as the Capitalists. Both sides feed on the weak and uneducated. Capitalists are quickly becoming eaten by their own greed. There has to be another way. I’m tired of seeing both sides continuously pointing the finger at each other.
You must reading this transcript differently than me; Greenspan demolished Klein. The problem with Klein, is that, while well-intentioned, she doesn’t seem to understand how economies function and what the role of the reserve is.
What a government has to spend is a function of what the society generates, not of “political will” or ethereal concepts like that. Do you notice how Greenspan refers to all budgetary spending as just ‘spending’, regardless of where it goes. That’s because there are upper limits to what you can actually tax out of people in the long run.
The standard leftist answer is: tax companies, but it’s vastly harder to tax capital than it is to tax people. For one, it’s highly mobile and readily leaves the state. And it does wonky things to the economy. Changes to tax structure result in changes to economic activity, encouraging depressed saving or depressed spending depending on where you do the taxing.
With regards to Latin America, it was the extreme overspending that got them into this pickle, not the IMF, as much of it happened long before structural adjustment programs were started.
And he’s right to call them populist- you don’t fix economic inequality by spending more, even if you win votes by promising it. Overspending is like taking more fish out of a fishery than it can sustain.
Even if you sliced open the small group of elites and feasted on the creamy insides, it still doesn’t work because the rich are not as rich as the masses are poor.
You need efficient markets that hold themselves up because of people’s economic activities. It doesn’t fit on a t-shirt, but that’s the only way to get rich. There’s no free lunch.
Ben, the only possible descriptions I have for your post is plain dishonest (you read the interview but only selected what was convenient), plain lazy (you either didn’t read the entire interview or largely forgot segments contradicting your assertions), or just plain stupid. You may choose whichever is appropriate because these are the only possible categories to describe this hatchet job.
If you read the entire interview, you find that Klein read from a series of talking points, and never once engaged Greenspan. When she did, he quickly and effortlessly overpowered her, not necessarily with truth, but with evidence to support his opinion. When he returned the favor with respect to questions, she had nothing but empty rhetoric.
I have disagreements with Greenspan, but I respect him as an intellectual. Honest intellectuals are easily discernible. They are not necessarily right, and often times can even be deluded. However, their pursuit of truth and their debate of the path toward it are based on fact and reason.
Klein, by contrast, is an intellectual midget. For you to take her inane comments, as other posters have aptly put, and imply that they served to embarrass him is laughable. Her MO, like many frightened, out of their depth ideologues, is to go through a flow chart of arguments that they try and memorize through repeated readings of those with whom they base or coalesce their world view. When someone like Greenspan comes along who will likely plow through that approach, they are left like a dangling leaf, searching for any branch to keep them on the tree.
Do yourself a favor, reassess your approach to commentary and problem solving in general. One doesn’t have to accept capitalism or any other form of government to sustain intelligent debate. Further, one doesn’t need to ascribe to one form or the other to judge who actually was the better man in the debate.
Until you do so, you may earn praise from those as laughable as Klein, or you can strive to earn respect from a higher caliber of thinker … it’s up to you.