New Books By Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein: One is Prophetic, One is Pathetic

Posted September 25, 2007 | 08:50 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :New Books By Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein: One is Prophetic, One is Pathetic   digg: New Books By Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein: One is Prophetic, One is Pathetic   reddit: New Books By Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein: One is Prophetic, One is Pathetic   del.icio.us: New Books By Alan Greenspan and Naomi Klein: One is Prophetic, One is Pathetic

A fascinating dispute on modern economics -- and the dominant role it plays in our politics - is currently taking place in America's bookstores.

On one side is Alan Greenspan, whose The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World offers his usual free market uber alles philosophy, while attempting to rehabilitate his tattered image (which is worth about as much as the U.S. dollar these days).

On the other side is Naomi Klein, whose The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism offers an alternative economic history of the last 30 years and, using the war in Iraq as a mind-blowing example, pulls the curtain back on free market myths and exposes the forces that are really driving our economy.

Klein's book is powerful and prophetic. Greenspan's is pitiful and pathetic.

Yet it is Greenspan's 500-page memoir that been getting all the attention, as almost no traditional media outlet has been able to resist what Josh Marshall has aptly dubbed "The Greenspan Embarrassment Tour."

Greenspan's book is another in the growing pile penned by folks who lent their integrity to buttress the Bush presidency but who now, in horrified hindsight, want it back.

Now that it's clear what an unsound strategy investing in George Bush turned out to be, Greenspan wants us to know he was skeptical all along. Imagine his shock when he found out that in the Bush White House the "political operation was far more dominant" and that "little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." Yes, who could have imagined that sort of thing happening in a White House run by Karl Rove?

Nor did the former Fed Chair mean for his pro-tax cut testimony in 2001 to be seen as, well, pro-tax cuts. It turns out he was just really concerned about the federal deficit drying up, and thought that, surely, Bush would institute triggers should the tax cuts cause the budget to go into deficit.

When that didn't happen, Greenspan says he was disappointed, but, then, what could he really do? He knew the policies were bad, but he was just the Chairman of the Fed. Who would ever pay attention to lil ol' Alan Greenspan?

He also wants us to know that he advised Bush against the GOP's "out-of-control" spending and that he thinks the Republicans "deserved to lose." Well, thanks, but that and two bucks will get you a British pound.

Greenspan's "I was against it, even when I acted like I was for it" attempt at the irrational exhumation of his reputation is laughable but hasn't stopped the book from getting massive attention.

Meanwhile, the book that should be in the spotlight is The Shock Doctrine.

It's a brilliant dissection of what Naomi Klein calls "disaster capitalism," an economic philosophy born half a century ago at the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman. It holds that the best time to institute radical free-market policies is in the aftermath of a massive social crisis, such as a terrorist attack, a war, or a natural disaster like Katrina.

Klein shows how the crony capitalists running the Bush administration saw post-invasion Iraq as the perfect proving ground for all their pet free-market policies. The fantasy was that a privitazied and corporatized Iraq would become a free-market utopia that would spread the gospel of the market throughout the Middle East. Democracy would reign, and Halliburton and Bechtel would stand supreme.

And we know how well that turned out.

Klein's writing on the subject helped inspire John Cusack to create a stinging new satiric film called War, Inc. The pair recently sat down for a lively and insightful conversation on The Shock Doctrine, Iraq, the burgeoning new economy that has sprung up around the war on terror, and Baghdad's Green Zone, which Klein calls "a heavily armed Carnival Cruise ship parked in a sea of despair." To watch the video of this conversation click here.

And to read a transcript of Klein giving Greenspan all he can handle -- and then some -- on Democracy Now, click here. (Of special note is Klein taking hold of Greenspan's headline-grabbing claim that the war in Iraq was about making sure the flow of the world's oil wasn't interrupted, and asking, "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?")

Greenspan is a lifelong devotee of Ayn Rand, whose books The Virtue of Selfishness and Atlas Shrugged are the bibles of free-marketeers. I actually loved them myself. When I was 11. I grew out of them, but Greenspan never did.

And, as any self-respecting fan of Rand knows, the guiding principle of her work is rational self-interest. The problem is, what's in the self-interest of the CEO of Halliburton is most likely not in the self-interest of your average American.

In any case, Greenspan may not have always followed the "rational" part, but he's clearly nailed the "self-interest" part. It was in his narrow self-interest to cheerlead for Bush in 2001, so he did it. Now the country -- and most of the world -- has turned on Bush, and Greenspan sees it is in his self-interest to distance himself from Bush.

His mentor would be proud.

Comments for this post are now closed


Comments
334
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (14 pages total)

Anyone curious as to the workings of Greenspan's mind should read Jeff Walker's book, "The Ayn Rand Cult".

Greenspan has always been a smoke n' mirrors kind of guy who came by his ridiculous publicly-mumbled economic theories (dis)honestly thru his lifelong attachment to the simplistic, cartoon-like fantasies disseminated by Ayn Rand and the rest of her delusional cult followers.

Naomi Klein, on the other hand, has no need of the confirmation offered up by cults. She is an original and clever thinker, concerned with more than her own self-interest in her personal pursuit of legitimacy and truth.

I look forward to reading her book.

I will never read more of Greenspan's than the dust jacket.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:40 PM on 09/30/2007

I think it is about both books creating this global debate about democracy and how the good parts of it (redistribution of life chances, guarantee certain liberties and opportunities for participation for the people etc.) can be accessible for a lot of people by respecting their own history, culture of discussion etc.

http://whydemocracy.net

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 09/28/2007

Kudos for the understanding that our earth's size is finite so indefinite population growth will inevitably deplete it. Remember that there were as many people on the whole earth in the year 1 AD as there were in the United States alone about 40 or so years ago (250,000,000). We can't keep increasing indefinitely.

Brick bats for equating China's current huge population with what it might have been had its leaders not understood what I just said. And even though they have suppressed population growth, China is facing a severe water shortage, according to recent news stories. We face similar problems and our population continues to rise...

Wish Greenspan would be realistic about that problem. Free Enterprise has gotta have limits. I did enjoy Naomi Klein's nailing him on Democracy Now like she did!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:29 PM on 09/28/2007

Thank you Ms/Mrs? Huffington. Please keep the spotlight on this issue. It is the engine that is driving all that is wrong with the current direction of the US.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 PM on 09/27/2007

Greenspan stated the Iraq war was for oil. Enough said.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 09/27/2007

Naomi Klein is brilliant.

Greenspan is, and always was, pathetic.

Nothing underlines the differences between rightist-Corporatists and a true Progressive,
more distictly than the difference between Klein and Greenspan.

Klein is a major Mensch.

Greenspan is an intellectual crook with
stinking scum where his "values" should be.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 09/27/2007


Greenspan is hardly pathetic and certainly not an intellectual crook. The man chaired the Fed during the biggest economic expansion in American history. Greenspan is brilliant, and anyone who knows how difficult a task is to chair the Fed has a lot of good to say about him.
What this post rightly states is that Greenspan did in fact let his political leanings become transparent. He lent his support to a White House that was politically motivated in a way no one had seen.

Greenspan should have known better, but that makes him a fool, not an idiot.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 09/27/2007


"The man chaired the Fed during the biggest economic expansion..."

Based on massive borrowing, Corporate Raider's canibalization of industries we now don't have, and fortunes based on speculation that existed only on paper. Thanks to Reagan and Greenspan quick profit policies, schemes really, that benefited the top mainly, the imbeciles in charge now see no other option to keep them soluble other than the imperial/militaristic route.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 PM on 09/27/2007


This is disingenuous and misinformed. The chair of the Fed makes monetary policy, not political decisions. If the president decides to run an obscene deficit, such as Reagan did and Bush is doing, the Fed can't do anything about it. The Chairman of the Fed can only control the supply of money.
The economic expansion of the 1990s came when we had a president (Clinton) who actually listened to Greenspan and who was responsible enough to balance the budget.

We like to divide the world into black and white but reality is sometimes more complicated. Greenspan was great at his job but he wasn't (obviously) above acting like a fool.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 09/30/2007

Misinformed?? You seem to not understand or are willfully trying to diminish the great influence on political economic policies that the Fed possesses. The monetary policies advanced by the Fed can strongly undermine or buttress the policies passed by government. And the message delivered by the Fed can substantially mold the market reactions to these policies. That's why I mention Greenspan and Reagan in the same breath and I should have included the Gingrich led congress. And this is why Greenspan is being disingenuous and just trying to hide his complicity when he utters this same excuse.

And as far as Ayn Rand goes if you read my post, I not once intimated them to be an economic philosophy. And either you intentionally attempted to paint as such or once again, you fail to understand that the policies put forth by an individual in such positions are greatly driven by their philosophy of social order.

I may concede you the point that Greenspan MAY just be a malleable fool to the whims of the sitting POTUS given Clinton"s prosperity. But that was also fueled by the cheap labor created by moving our manufacturing capabilities and other industries to other countries, the further deregulation of the banking industry and to a lesser degree by the Dot.com bubble. All this, once again driven by the desire of large quick profits and a rush to privatization with out a care to the future of the country. There is a reason why Clinton has been called the most prosperous Republican president. While he was more fiscally responsible he also advanced many economic policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, et al) outlined by the Cons. And is this economic model that we are now strapped with, which the NeoCons have now raised to a new level of perversion, and what may drive us over the abyss.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 09/30/2007

Misinformed?? You seem to not understand or willfully trying to diminish the great influence on political economic policies that the Fed possesses. The monetary policies advanced by the Fed can strongly undermine or buttress the policies passed by government. And the message delivered by the Fed can substantially mold the market reactions to these policies. That's why I mention Greenspan and Reagan in the same breath and I should have included the Gingrich led congress.

And as far as Ayn Rand goes if you read my post, I not once intimated them to be an economic philosophy. And either you intentionally attempted to paint it as such or once again, you fail to understand that the policies put forth by an individual in such positions are greatly driven by their philosophy of social order.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 PM on 09/30/2007

Anybody who blindly believes and tries to implement the simpleminded black and white tenets put forth by Ayn Rand IS pathetic indeed, although I would not call them intellectual. And the fact that he was put in the seat of the Fed by another simpleminded ideologue, doesn't add to whatever gravitas you believe he possesses.

"politically motivated in a way no one had seen." LOL, half the country saw it. Doesn't add to Greenspan's acumen does it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 09/27/2007


You obviously haven't read much about economic theory or philosophy for that matter. Ayn Rand didn't much write about any specific economic theories or doctrines.

By the way, I did say the man was a fool, but not an idiot.

Cheers!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 AM on 09/30/2007

Naomi Klein nails it when she draws the parallel between the fundamentalism of Communism that denies the complex reality of the individual and Disaster Friedman Capitalism that denies the public sphere. In effect, she points out that the new demon ideology of today is not Fascism or Communism but fundamentalist Capitalism.

Arianna's correct, you aren't going to see any air play for this book on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, ABC, or the NY Times. These outlets are the corporate mouthpiece and marketing organs for this new crony capitalism.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:27 PM on 09/27/2007

In science experimentation and analysis are complementary stages that require sets of skills arguably disjointed.

In mathematics, the discipline of my lifelong adherence, the lack of a material field produces theories that can only be proven by means of conceptual and abstract considerations isolated from any experimental verifications. The possible and probably abundant applications of mathematical constructions are oblivious to its practitioners who are only restrained by aesthetical remarks.

In Psychology the tilting toward experimentation in detriment of analysis lead to the debacle of the behaviorist proposal.

In economy the prohibitive cost of social experimentation have produced a world populated by abstract conceptual cliques (lexical organisms) roughly classified by ideological affinity in terms like: Capitalism, Communism, neo con etc.

These constructions when given the opportunity to be applied in the world by some of its members accessing to powerful positions can never be proven wrong even in the face of undeniable disaster because many credible justification can be raised about the specifics of the very few experimental units. Less influential social studious most settle for a moral critique, borderline conspiracy theory attempt to explain all the evils of the system we live in regardless of many worst non studied societies that duel isolated in far away kingdoms. In this type of work loose clouds of elements are consistently labeled in a magnificent diagram: The industrial-military complex interacts with the ruling class in complicity with liberal academics to distort the global market in order to disposes the working class of the fruits of its labor¦ no way to prove that the elements of this diagram ever existed. Greenspan book belongs to the former, Kein"s to the later her book is as prophetic as Nostradamus"s .

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 09/27/2007

"Less influential social studious most settle for a moral critique, borderline conspiracy theory attempt to explain all the evils of the system..."

And why would "Less influential" social studious critique be just a "moral" view and not an analysis based on the application of their discipline principles? Or could you just be trying to obfuscate and trivialize the validity of a solid and observable study?

prophetic? Hardly, it is taking place now and has been in occurrence for a while now.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 09/27/2007

ERRATUM: "SOVERIGN" SHOULD READ "SOVEREIGN/"

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 09/27/2007

AS A MEMOIR (I.E., A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH), GREENSPAN HAS ONCE AGAIN CLOAKED HIMSELF WITH THE DECEPTION OF A "REPUBLICAN-LIBERTARIAN."

I SERIOUSLY THINK THAT, SINCE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CLEARLY KNOWS WHICH INTERNATIONAL LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED,THEY WANT TO KEEP THEMSELVES COCOONED FROM THE COCOON OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT PROTECT SOVERIGN STATES.

AS LONG AS THE FOCUS CAN BE DIVERTED INTO VARIOUS THEATRES OF WAR, THEY CAN FEEL THEY HAVE DELAYED THE INEVITABLE ONCE MORE UNTIL THE COLLAPSE OF A SYSTEM OR SYSTEMS.

THE QUESTION IS, ARE THEY TRULY BLINDED IN THEIR PATH (THROUGH SHEER GREED AND POWER) OR IS THERE A MORE SINISTER PLAN (STILL MOTIVATED BY GREED AND POWER) TO BRING A COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WHERE THERE ARE NO LONGER SOVERIGN STATES, NO MORE BOUNDARIES (ALONG WITH THE MONETARY SYSTEM AS WE KNOW IT)?

WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING. WHAT END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS?

DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS NOT SEEKING TO HAVE THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ABSORBED INTO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. LET'S NOT BE A WITNESS OF A SHORTENED LIFE SPAN FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

THERE IS DISARRAY AT ALL FRONTS.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 09/27/2007

Please lay off the caps lock key.
Shouting is rude, and your post is very difficult to read.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 09/27/2007

Dear Ms. Huffington,
I have to be honest re (Honest George) but I really don't know a lot about what is going on. I do know for sure though I do care about people. I also care about children going to bed hungry and I care about parents not being able to take thier children to the Dr. I also care about the troops keeping our country safe. I guess indirectly Mr. Greenspan is serious about the war being about oil. I hate to ramble on but I wonder if we have ever had a more corrupt administration that seems to be so knowledgeable about fighting a war and most of them don't know what the hell they are talking about. If bush ever wants to make a comment about any of your columns he might call himself Dishonest George.I also would add that I live in Maryland and that is as far south as i care to live. How in hell did Congressman Ford ever get elected in Tenn.?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:19 AM on 09/27/2007
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Arianna Huffington›
 

 Site  Web ask.com