Alan Greenspan to Larry Kudlow: No the stimulus did not help. Actually it hurt

This is from last week but so many of you have requested it that i decided to post the video. Say what you want about Greenspan’s easy money policies, he’s a number cruncher and all he is doing here is bean counting … and the final tally is?

Well I think i’ve given it away .. two clips here. the first on the stimulus epic failure. Last time I checked unemployment still above 8%, not likely to change.

  

The second details why Greenspan believes the economy has little chance of improving anytime soon.

 

Uggghh. Hope and Change sucks doesn’t it?

27 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    So it didn’t help, and in fact, it HURT the ecomony.? From an expert.
    ?
    Good thing his wife wasn’t interviewing him!
    ?
    This clip should be played endlessly by Romney.

    • kateinmaine
      kateinmaine says:

      poor andrea mitchell–when o dismisses her, she’ll be fortunate if it’s from the bus and not af1…

  2. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Is intellectualized mumbo jumbo anything other than natural bovine fertilizer when one will not admit ones policies were wrong and counterproductive?

  3. gillie28
    gillie28 says:

    PV – is that “Greenspan” speak?? You were almost as incomprehensible as him (he? hee-haw??).? Was hoping his communication skills had improved being out of the Fed for so long.? I still need a translator – Kudlow does his best, “so, what you are saying is….”

  4. Benjamin Less
    Benjamin Less says:

    I have the “official Greenspan TRANSLATOR. ?”?

    What Greenspan said was that the Stimulus should have been renamed and or repackaged and also redefined as a means to crumble any possible hope for an economic future.? The Stimulus had reached out and gathered all the world economy leaving the USA as just one piece of a huge irresponsible bureaucracy and no one as being held accountable for anything.
    ?
    It should have been called, “The Final Solution.”

  5. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Understanding Greenspan was an art form when I was on Wall St. The really good analysts could translate from Mutant Economic to English pretty well. There is NO time when huge increases in G-1 and G-2 do anything but LIMIT economic growth. Google the “Rahn Curve” everyone. And I dare anyone to tell me how public sector spending increases innovation (the backbone of American economics). Don’t bother, you can’t.? The Keynesians have been debunked for decades now. Only smoke and mirror buffoons really believe it. ?

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Like the humorless buffoons now inhabiting the WH?
      One of laws of Karma says, “Even A******* can be right.” Yes, Kudlow is desperate. However thick, droll, and impenetrably intellectual Greenspan is, he is not to be entirely ignored.

    • SoundOffSister
      SoundOffSister says:

      Let me try to decipher.? Keynesian economists believe that government spending has a “multiplier” effect, that is, for every $1 the government spends, that $1 becomes $1.20 or $1.50 to our economy.? The dispute among Keynesians is what is that “multiplier”…1.2, 1.5, or something else.
      What Mr. Greenspan said was that based on his review of the data, this spending had a negative effect, i.e., that $1 became something less than $1 to our economy.? In other words, we would have been better off if we hadn’t spent that $1.? We would have been better off if we had left that?$1 in the hands of the taxpayers.

      • RoBrDona
        RoBrDona says:

        Thanks – hence the “other side of the Rahn Curve” – I probably should have answered the question rather than cryptically attacking the Marxists. ?

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Thanks. I love the 20/20 hindsight by Greenspan or anybody else. And I presume that Mr. Bernanke et al. knew all about this.

  7. SoundOffSister
    SoundOffSister says:

    Mr. Greenspan had nothing to do with the Stimulus Bill.? He retired in January, 2006.? As to Mr. Bernanke, et al., I can only assume that they, much like I did, studied Keyensian economics in college.? If they had truly learned, they would have read the words of Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, who, in 1937, wrote in his journal…we have been throwing money at this economy for years, and it has done nothing.? Perhaps that is why Keynes, who lived during the depression and saw his theory in practice, questioned its wisdom before he died.
    Those that?advocate Keynsianism today fall into 2 bins…either,?those who say, we?know it didn’t work before, but we can do it better this time, or those who haven’t learned from history.?
    Take your pick.

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      He had plenty to do with setting the table for the meltdown by making money cheap and easy and keeping the derivatives market unregulated which precipitated the “need” for the stimulus.
      ?
      I think it’s odd to hear some characterize FDR’s “New Deal” as being instrumental in bringing us out of the depression when it was in reality WWII that not only forced wartime production but also decimated Europe’s manufacturing base making the United States more or less the only game in town for a couple decades after the war.? Throwing money at the problem didn’t cure it then and it isn’t going to fix anything now.
      ?
      “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” -Winston Churchill

    • Plainvillian
      Plainvillian says:

      Truman’s (cleaned up) comment about Morganthau: “Morganthau doesn’t know (four letter word for generic natural fertilizer) from apple butter.”? Truman was a straightforward guy.

  8. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    So Dems pick a system that historically drives a country into the ground, and the Republicans pick the one that built this country up from the ground.
    ?
    I think the choice is clear (for those with brains anyway).

  9. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Predictably Conservatives despise? Keynsianism. But, they could expand their economics horizons by Googling “successes of Keynsianism”.? There are other opinions you know? As well as opinions on the failure of “trickle down”.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Well, according to Greenspan (and anyone with eyes), it isn’t working here.? Keynesianism is embraced by liberals/$ocialists/statists etc. because it is an easy power grab through the redistribution of wealth, not the creation of wealth.? It does seem to create some enormous debt though.
      ?
      Perhaps if it were done in a restrained manner, as proscribed by Keynes, it might be a viable economic remedy, but what pol does anything in a restrained manner, particularly if you are going to be blamed for the bad results??
      ?
      A Google search of “successes of keynesian economics” only yields positive articles from Der Spiegel and highly suspect sources such as ThinkProgress.

  10. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    The focus on trickle down or supply side economics by the progressives is illuminating. Generally they identify it with Reagan’s policies and as such it is anathema to them. Truth be told, so called “trickle down” is a tiny part of the overall puzzle.? What pisses off the socialists is that such policies imply tax rates must be cut, and that benefits the people that build the economy, i.e. WORKERS. It then leaves the added spending, increased GDP, etc. (in other words a healthy, growing economy) to raise up the NON WORKERS whether they want it or not. This is a concept they will never understand. REWARD THE DOERS. THE INNOVATORS. THE WORKERS. This always results in an expanding economy. DUH. ? ?

  11. JBS
    JBS says:

    Abstruse economic theory is just that, theory. Trickle-down economics largely ignores the majority of people in any complex market system. It may work offering incentives to the rich in a period of prosperity; a lower capital gains tax may encourage investment. Trickle-down theory has been tried and found wanting. Namely, the trickle just doesn’t occur quickly enough positively affect millions of people. Supply-side theory seeks to identify barriers to production and remove them to increase efficiency. Deep but lacking.
    Obama has tried stimulating large businesses and in turn has made some people very rich while ignoring how a market driven economy works. The average person experienced little except stagnate wages or, sadly, the loss of a job and subsequent loss of home, savings and future. He has tried investing heavily in some “green energy” companies. That has led to spectacular failures and a direct cost of billions of dollars to the Treasury. Again, some people have gotten fabulously rich as a result. Many have not. At a cost of approximately six billion dollars, Obama has experimented the US into imminent catastrophic failure.
    Enough of the Democrat, fund the National Committee approach? Unionism is…

  12. JBS
    JBS says:

    . . . just about dead. Socialist countries are economic has-beens. Obama’s policies have failed. Any hope of reversing the precipitous decline that America now is in lies in a change of leadership. One that, hopefully, shuns cronyism, eschews meddling in market-driven events or resists attempts to effect change with borrowed money. To lead us, the US, out of impending economic Armageddon is going to take an almost divine blend of limited government, incentives for the entrepreneurial spirit and a rebirth of trusting in Liberty. Not Ivory Tower theories or blathering rhetoric.
    Maybe Reagan was right that the best government was the least government; get government out of the daily lives of its citizens and encourage them instead of enslaving them. Making more people beholding to Big Government only causes Big Government to enervate the human spirit, cripple creativity, create a self-perpetuating, dependent underclass. And, it throttles innovation, stymies any thoughts of betterment and leaves the country morally adrift, not to mention huge debt.
    The politicians, particularly the Democrats, have gotten us into a fine mess. Just what theory-ism will fix that?
    ?
    ?

  13. TexasDB
    TexasDB says:

    Engineer, not an economist…but I followed everything except the end of the second video.? Is Greenspan saying that 50%?the 8% of the economy is ‘investment’ in Capital in the form of hiring employees?? Thus the 4% of unemployment increase?? Could someone enlighten me?

  14. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I didn’t understand anything that Mr. Greenspan said on the videos. It was way over my head, but thank you all for explaining it to me.?

Comments are closed.