I have had this argument with you before a few times, and there is a philosophical difference between us there. I never said I agreed with Greenspan, but what I am saying is that he does try to investigate real economic life empirically in a serious way, as a basis for his governmental responsibility, which many economists do not do. If I abuse Greenspan, it has nil positive effect. But if I make a good argument which shows why he is mistaken, that could convince a few people, or even bring them over to my side.
I stated previously "Basically the bourgeoisie is telling the working class to go whoring, instead of receive social assistance benefits for which they were previously taxed by their own elected government." Maybe this seems an outrageous exaggeration by a sinner like me, certainly Joanna didn't like it and thought a correction was appropriate, but I think it is an empirically verifiable corrollary of endless marketisation, because I believe it is true that more market = more socio-economic inequality between people, irrespective of whether that is good or bad (for the most part, I think it is bad). The ultimate argument of the bourgeois class concerning individual initiative and the market is, that everybody has something they can sell to get an income, and thus, if they don't do it, the inquality or disparity which results is just "natural" (the dispute then is about exceptions to the rule, such as the disabled and so on). I.e., the rich are rich because they are rich, and the poor are poor because they are poor. And for the rest, insofar as the market doesn't enforce a specific morality, it is a question of fostering a specific individual morality. And I think you can legitimately question that and argue about it. But I don't think I get anywhere if I say that people should be arguing about things completely differently from what they are actually arguing about, rather, I ought to explain why they are arguing about it, engage with what's being said, and if I say they're just stupid clowns or scam artists, I don't think I score many points. I don't claim to have the complete picture of Greenspan but I have followed him a bit over the years and feel able to make the comment I did make. I think you are wrong to think that Greenspan doesn't have a theory, but I think Greenspan is also a politician or ideologist of sorts, who is fully aware of the "furies of private interest" to which Marx refers in his comments about the political economists in the Preface to his magnum opus. I prefer to stick to the norm of "respect the person, criticise/change the behaviour" if at all possible. J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "dmschanoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor > Are you kidding me? Do you know anything about Greenspan? His history? > His flacking for every flimflam artist in the 1980s? His Ayn Randism? > > This guy has given a new meaning to the word equivocation. Deregulation? > What deregulation? That's total crap. When Long Term Capital Management > collapsed, approximately one month after Greenspan testified that the > markets did a better job of "regulating" hedge funds than any govt. agency > could, the Fed intervened to arrange the loans and keep the corpse afloat. > Deregulation only exists to the extent that it justifies the terms of > expropriation. > > Theory? This guy has no fucking theory, he has an ideology which he uses > and is used to adapt to the reality he happens to find at any given moment. > > Do you remember this clown's response to the emerging Asian currency crises > in 1997? His smug talking down to Thailand and South Korea and Indonesia > about restraint and budgets blah blah blah... > > Guy's a total fucking scam artist, a real hero of his times, with a face > made out of silly putty and a mind to match. > > You're happy to say you admire this piece of shit? Well, as we used to say, > "There it is." Which means... No sense talking about it. > > dms > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:23 PM > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] demo fervor > > > >> Personally, I'm happy to say that I do admire Al Greenspan for his great > > personal dedication to "finding out" about economics and his great concern > > for the facts of experience, which many economists simply do not have. > It's > > just that I think that his deregulation policies have different economic > > effects and consequences from what he thinks they have. I think the real > > evolution of the monetary and credit system since 1981 raises questions > > which his theory just cannot answer, and indeed contradicts it. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jurriaan > > > > >
