This is the transcript of an interview with Michael Hudson in an Australian film, discussing a 1966 incident:
MH: They increased it largely by having Alan Greenspan create the Greenspan Commission to look at social security and pushing the myth that social security had to be funded out of pre savings, so American labour was essentially taxed 11% between itself and the employers to pay social security and this vast increase in social security taxes was used to lend to the Government(US) to provide it with enough money to slash taxes on the rich and that was Greenspan's ploy.
He was rewarded by being made head of the Federal Reserve for his actual hatred of labour and his desire that you had to reduce living standards in order to increase the profits of capital.
And so Greenspan was sort of the hack that was hired.
When I was on Wall Street, Greenspan was hired as part of a study I was doing on the balance of payments of the Oil Industry. And one day my boss, John Deaver came into my office and said he really worried about Greenspan being a part of this report because he was known as a hack that always gave "¦his clients what they wanted instead of something actual.
So he (JD) gave me Greenspan's figures on depreciation of oil producing refinery assets in Europe and asked me to find out where the faking is? He said he couldn't believe that Greenspan by himself wouldn't of just faked the figures and it took me about a week to figure out where the faking of the figures came out (from) and that was Greenspan had simply picked up depreciation rates relative to output for the United States and projected them onto Europe.
So I went over and talked to his assistant Lucille Woo and she said "it’s all implicit, all implicit" and I confronted her with it and she said "Yes that's what we did"!
And so, Greenspan was indeed "?talked off the study' and we met"¦ John Deaver, David Rockefeller and myself and I was told"¦Greenspan was such a little bastard that if they fired him, he'd hold a grudge against Chase Manhattan for years and they told me to be the guy to give him the news that we couldn't use his (laughs) statistics on it and I was a 25 year old economist at the time and he hardly new me at all, so I was the guy that"¦subsequently became known as "?the man who fired Alan Greenspan'.
I have loathed Greenspan since he testified to Congress: If you understood what I just said then I mispoke..
Good for you Dr. Hudson, that you fired that creep.
Prof. Hudson: “I was told …” Precisely what was Hudson the 25-yr.-old TOLD, and by whom? Was he told by an Agent of the Chase Manhattan Bank: “Say what you will, but we must leave him in place so that he doesn’t take revenge on our bank” — something like that?
What a delightful story.
Always BS check your assumptions. In a case like this, I would have calculated historical depreciation / output and compared that ratio to projections. Or historical depreciation / capx compared to projections.
With respect to Greenspan, he went from being feted worldwide to an infamous symbol of economic collapse. Sure, he’s still sought after at Davos, but few places elsewhere.
Lula left the presidency and is considered a hero throughout Brazil. Greenspan would probably get vilified if he sought to make a speech at a summer festival.
He went from being considered the most effective Fed chief in the last 60 years to a person forced to read well-regarded Volcker has become.
Third paragraph from the end: “he wouln’t of just faked the figures”
OF is not a verb; i saw this all the time in freshman composition. “wouldn’t HAVE just faked the figures” LOL
This was a transcription, “of” and “‘ve” probably sound similar.
I can’t change it since this was what I was given and I don’t have the actual recording.
Sam, well you see, he’s *not an English major*.
If only Greenspan had been really fired then we might not be in the trouble we are in…..though they would have just found another deluded acolyte.
Yet another reason why Michael Hudson rules.
“Greenspan being a part of this report because he was known as a hack that always gave "¦his clients what they wanted instead of something actual.”
So at the Fed then, who was leading Greenspan around, through both Rep and Dem Admins with the same outcomes?
exactly -this is the book that should be written – who was controlling greenspan?
he said he made a mistake – never saw it all coming he said – looked like a fool in the face of Michael Burry disclosures – but had all the possible data and people to stop the game in its tracks and he didnt do it –
who is the man pulling his chain – rubin or?
“…who’s pulling his chain, Rubin or…” gosh, golly, gee, the international banking cartel?
I personally don’t understand why the likes of such a powerful man like Rockefeller would be concerned about the reactions of a “little bastard” like Greenspan. It makes no sense. Either Greenspan really is just a “little bastard,” in which case how he feels about getting fired is of small consequence, given his incompetence and “littleness”; or else it is of consequence, in which case one has to ask why.
my read is that greenspan was one of the “go to” guys for a point of view to be validated by alleged “economic analysis” and with enough numbers thrown in to make it believeable –
for the report to be discredited so easily – in front of Rockefeller – chairman of chase – was pretty embarassing – for all concerned – but his brand even in the mid 60′s was worth something. so the concern of how he would act in the future – potentially pissing on someone elses parade in the future – Rockefeller was probably knowledgeable where greenspan had already screwed someone else – ie: the “little bastard” – today we would call him a little prick!
I don’t know… doesn’t that just push the question back further? Wouldn’t a Greenspan be afraid to anger or betray a powerful man like Rockefeller–in some respects also his boss. It seems to me that Rockefeller could do a lot more to Greenspan than Greenspan to Rockefeller.
an economist can use selective facts to promote anything they want – especially in those days with limited computer power – so the discipline was dangerous in the wrong hands- if he is turning in a phony report to chase to support their interests he could do it for anyone against them as well – clearly greenspan has been proven to be a charlatan of world class status
“for the report to be discredited so easily "“ in front of Rockefeller "“ chairman of chase "“ was pretty embarassing "“ for all concerned "“ but his brand even in the mid 60"²s was worth something.”
It is really embarassing– for all concerned — when rich people are dumb. This is why it is so much better to be poor– no pressure.
After G.W.B., we are not over being embarassed by the stupidity of the rich and powerful?
During the reign of B.H.O., we’re having trouble wrapping our minds around the stupidity of the smart, hired, bought-and-paid-for- elites. And apparently, we are not yet sufficiently embarassed by THEM.
But while they are being bought, it is WE who are paying.
Those with inherited wealth accept as their birthright the assumption that they are smarter than the rest of us. The fact that almost everybody else buys it too is really, really sickening.
Carla – i dont believe “they” believe they are smarter – i think they “know” they have control of the politicians, judges and regulators completely – that standing gives them the air of arrogance and superiority – because they know there is nothing you can do no matter how good your case may be they have the control to knock out the facts, logic and prescedents
Proof – posted elsewhere some time ago:
When the rule of law has become completely negotiable "“ from the elite POV "“ entity, then why would any thinking person NOT believe that the elite also consider any other such social constructs "“ e.g., political affiliations, treaties, contracts, etc etc "“ as nothing more than words, easy to change and manipulate to their liking.
Right now, in America, who/what institution can/will stop these people?
With each passing "revelation" about how the this or that social construct no longer matters (see MF Global) to the ruling class, one cannot help but see a pattern made ostensible by a casual scrutiny of the last 30 years.
In 2002 Bush’s spokesman told us:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off.
“Thats not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
Read Full Article »