Here is one summary of the book’s contents. Here is Greenspan on Rand. Here is the WSJ review. Here is Paul Krugman on the book. Here is Brad DeLong’s review. You’ll get my thoughts soon.
Arrived is soon: The book is just boring, there is no reason to buy it, or so says my pre-lunchtime scan at Borders.
Greenspan’s rep has taken a hit recently. I don’t think that this book is going to do anything to improve it.
The Iraq war was about oil? What a jackass. If that were so, we would have taken the fields and sold them to Exxon and BP. That revenue alone would be enough to fund this war, the last war, and the next war!
Justice really ought to relent every now and then.
“I just hope this new publication doesn’t awaken interest in Ayn Rand or bring out her emotionally stunted defenders.”
Funny, you rarely hear an attack on Rand’s ideas, but instead you read angry insults. I think there are few better endorsements that you can give a philosophy than that.
The one sensible explanation I’ve come across for why we invaded Iraq is in Victory and Recruitment by Michael Neumann in Counterpunch.
Here is Greenspan expanding on his Iraq War/oil comments. I completely agree with him. Hussein invaded Kuwait to capture its oil fields, which were far more productive and profitable than Iraq’s. In retreat, he set the wells on fire to try to create enough economic turmoil in Kuwait to annex it later. As much turbulence as and as high a premium that the invasion of Iraq has caused to oil markets, leaving Hussein in power to play silly international games would have been worse. He was obviously emboldened by the event on 9/11 in thinking Bush wasn’t serious about transparency on WMDs, whether he had them or not, or believed he had them or not.
Of course it’s entirely politically incorrect to identify oil as any part of the reason to invade Iraq. But of course it was an important factor in the decision. Economists of all people should be able/willing to discuss that.
While the reason(s) behind the initial decision to invade Iraq in 2003 can be widely debated there is one thing that is very clear…the removal of Hussein has done little to nothing to stabilize the world market in regards to oil prices. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html
From the Bloomberg synopsis–
–He was aware of reduced credit standards on subprime mortgage loans, he says, “but I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk.”–
That hardly seems consistent with the Fed’s purpose of maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
Hi Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.xicao loves-æµæ°´çº¿å¨±ä¹åšå®¢å¸¸å¹´æ供高ã€ä¸ã€ä½ŽåŽ‹é”…炉钢管ã€æµä½“钢管ã€ç»“构钢管ã€åŒ–肥专用钢管ã€çŸ³æ²¹è£‚化钢管ã€åœ°è´¨é’¢ç®¡ã€æ¶²åŽ‹æ”¯æŸ±é’¢ç®¡åŠåˆé‡‘钢管-æ— ç¼ç®¡-æ— ç¼é’¢ç®¡ç‰è®ºæ–‡å‘表资讯/刊物信æ¯ï¼Œå助客户制定论文å‘表方案
翻译公å¸|深圳翻译good深圳翻译公å¸|åŒå£°ä¼ 译
Comments on this entry are closed.