Rah Rah Rah!
Both the government and consumers spend too much. Roach is just pointing that out. A reckoning is coming, as it always has in the past. Greenspan has employed extraordinary measures to stave it off - we should have had a full correction in 2000-2002. How much longer can he do it?
Well, that's it. I'm charging up all my credit cards!
Ah, so we should be taxing ourselves into a better prosperity. Gotcha.
Meanwhile, every dollar given back to the taxpayer/consumer is a dollar not charged on an Asian-backed credit card. Go figure.
Would someone please explain to me - within the framework of the US Constitution - why it is that we even have a "Federal Reserve" that is in fact operated by a group of international bankers who have absolutely NO accountability to the US taxpayers, yet essentially run all of our economic futures?
Maybe China has the answer?
This process effectively subsidizes U.S. interest rates, thus propping up U.S. asset markets and enticing American consumers into even more debt. Awash in newfound purchasing power, Americans then turn around and buy everything from Chinese-made DVD players to Japanese cars."
but he does fault him for being a "cheerleader for policies such as tax cuts...that could make the endgame all the more treacherous."
Why would you be against Tax Cuts if Americans are in debt?
In an interview this morning, Roach said, "That's a little extreme." He does admit the nation has prospered on Greenspan's watch. Still, he does not disavow the haymakers he directs at the chairman's chin.
I don't agree with everything Greenspan and the administration has done fiscally, but this guy sounds like a jackass and wants attention.
If you ask 2 economists about the economy, you'll get 6 opinions.
tmp02 wrote:
My 'gloom and doom' for the day.
Aren't we always on the brink of ruin? Might do the world some good to have to start all over again.
Greenspan's monetary policy deserves some accolades for the 1990s boom, but former President Bill Clinton's fiscal policy and other factors were equally responsible, Roach says.
Oh, well then. That explains it.
Sounds like Stephen Roach, the chief economist for Morgan Stanley & Co. is upset that Americans are investing more into the stock market. We'd rather own houses and real estate. Personally, if I want to gamble my money, I'll go to a casino and put it on black or red. If I want a better investment, I'll buy some real estate. If I want a guarantee, I'll go to Church.
Greenspan's monetary policy deserves some accolades for the 1990s boom, but former President Bill Clinton's fiscal policy and other factors were equally responsible, Roach says.
Clinton fiscal policy?? Right!
How about a technical revolution that was as pivotal to furthering the world's economy(ies) as the industrial revolution was in the early 1900s! This had NOTHING to do with Clinton other than pure timing.
As a result, the credibility of the rest of the piece suffers, especially given that Roach's own self-serving interests are not particularly aligned with those things that he is most critical of Greenspan on. I'm also no particular Greenspan fan either.