I think Greenspan would have reason to conceal his statements though. So far you’ve been thinking personal motive. In that regard Greenspan has little, except maybe to avoid being dragged into controversy.. he’s a bore and doesn’t care much for such excitement.
But the statement in question is a financial one. It has the possibility to affect market outlook, though in a minor way directly. Greenspan should want to avoid fostering low confidence in the administration’s handling of financial affairs. That right there seems motive enough to deny his statement.
From a theoretical standpoint, that is a pretty good statement of POSSIBLE motive. But, I think Greenspan’s historical track record of “telling it like it is” or, at least, “telling it as he sees it” makes this motive unlikely. When the stock market was chugging along several years back, he’s the guy who kept talking about how overvalued the market was and how investors were overly exuberrant and how the bubble would burst. He often makes pretty dire commentary on how he sees things going. The market has tumbled or risen many, many times based on what he says.
This guy’s job is not to make the market go up and he obviously doesn’t view it as such. This guy directs long term economic policy with the objective of keeping the economy on a fairly level growth plain. He tries to keep the downswings small and the upswings small.
The article I linked to earlier quotes him as telling Congress when the issue of tax cuts was debated the following:
“In to day’s context, where tax reduction appears required in any event over the next several years to assist in forestalling the accumulation of private assets, starting that process sooner rather than later likely would help smooth the transition to longer-term fiscal balance,” Greenspan told lawmakers.
He added that if signs of weakening “spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good.” In fact, a moderate recession set in during 2001 and, while economic growth resumed in 2002, it was at a sluggish pace until the third quarter last year.
That was his public opinion and he simply disputes that he gave a private opinion different to O’Neil. If he had thought that the tax cuts were irresponsible, he would have expressed that in public at the time. He is simply not a political creature.
*On the contrary, it is proof. And, in this case, it is as much proof as is possible. When you only have two people in a conversation and they each claim something different was said, each of their statements is "proof" of their claims. Then objective evidence of facts that might constitute bias and/or other issues of credibility are presented as "proof". Then the fact finder (you in this case) must decide what is more likely than not the truth. *
but we dont know for sure how much bias is there from greenspan. we can guess, we can estimate based on what we know about the person.
trheir statements are a proof of their claims sure..but our own judgement comes into play in assessing bias. I dont know for a fact that greenspan has no vested interest, just as i dont have a proof that Oneil is not getting back at his former boss.
if i was in Oneil's position and I wanted a payback, i would have come out in sept-oct time frame.
*In your day to day life, you deal with issues like this and make decisions based upon this "proof" all the time. *
yeah but my day to day life is nothing like govt politics..thank god :)
The other thing to be considered is that this is not O'Neills book. He contributed to a book written by a Wall Street Journal reporter. the reporter interviewed him, and no doubt the quotes are accurate, but the reporter must have been wetting himself after he got some nice juicy blockbuster quotes.
Some of the real proof in all this is that there were no troops massing on the borders of Iraq, no big showdown with inspectors at the time of 9/11. Now documents may come out 1 years from now, but we will never really know if GWB intended to provoke Saddam, or the "planning to invade Iraq" was simply contingency.
Historians generally wait at least a decade before they evaluate a president, his policies and his actions. O'Neill gives us one morsel of a largely untold story.
As for Greenspan, economists have correctly predicted 14 of the last 5 recessions.....