Uhh... you packaged this on the homepage as a major feature. Is there an article to back up your soliloquizing, or do you just like to hear yourself speak? Your commentary introduces nothing new about Greenspan. It goes nowhere. A myth is growing...? It's been long established. What's your point?

I liked the article. It called him a bean counter. To bad the bible bangers and republicans didn't like it.

well said kalle, the capitalist sycophants who are critical of your words are too busy choking on their WSJ puff pieces to engage in serious analysis, absolutely clueless as far as critical thinking goes. They want evidence of your claims? Where were they for the last 19 years?

Are you kidding me?

In normal dialogue, things will go along and you can pretty much say what you want unless you call the person a liar. Then it all breaks down. Here, you've naively thrown around pithy epithets and called the man's 19 years of public service a sham.

Also, just on a formatting note, you would expect the cover page feature would be more than a three-paragraph diagnosis of the state of American fiscal policy.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the point of view expressed, the style of this writing classifies it more as an opinion piece, not a factsupported cover article. Stylistically, it is out of place among the other articles.

Yeh Kalle's right, greenspan started it all after dotcom debacle financial markets needed some stimulation, some liquidity so cheap credit/debt. Greenspan did this. Check out 'Rense' site for good article explaining very well. Thanx.

The article is brief, but does help to start a very important discussion. So, as I polish off another egg nog, I thought I would add my dribble... I agree with Josh N. who describes the responsibilities of the Fed output, inflation, employment, and the money supply. However, achieving one of these goals often means sacrificing another. So, in general, I would say the Feds goal is long run sustainable economic growth. Has Mr. Greenspan aided in the cause? Not sure Im qualified to answer that question. Perhaps...but he clearly saw the froth in the hosing market bubble and did nothing to stop this nightmare. Now people are being evicted from their homes, the banks have run out of liquidity, and we are facing a recession. Run for the hills!!!

Now our top economist has to be the advisor for ecological policy? You mesh all fucking departments of the government into some Illuminati bullshit clan that coordinate their actions subliminally. Get real

I think it might be a little unfair to hang out Mr Greenspan as someone who could have changed the course of American and British capitalism. My view is that the reason he stayed in his job for the amount of time he did was purely due to the fact that he performed 'his duties' as prescribed by the big bankers of this world. Should he have gone against their ideas he would literally have been very short lived, indeed. There are many examples of what happens to men and women who dare to follow their own paths. But because men it seems cannot help at helping himself to riches and power at any price except his own life whenever such opportunity arises, I believe we have to look at the social structure as a whole and make changes in the constitutions of the different countries in an attempt to prevent big money and administrative power to go together. However, a glance at the middle class minded politicians and CEOs of our barbaric age does not offer any hopes that this would ever be a option for the decision-makers. It seems only an imminent huge natural disaster could cause a radical change in our thinking and behaviour.

Honestly, I read Adbusters on the order of 34 years ago. Now this concept of creating a brand to unbrand brands is a fucking joke.

Additionally, I think a 7th grade student could have composed this article. I actually enjoyed the idea behind Culture Jam, but I also think that market forces have worked and are giving people a MUCH wider variety of choice than humanity has ever enjoyed. You can bitch all you want, but people with real jobs are making the advances in technology and society to meet the ends that you are complaining about.

If you would spend your time spreading actual, real information rather than propagandized bullshit opinion pieces, you might contribute to the change you'd love to see in America.

pah... coulda woulda shoulda... Greenspan could have done a lot of things... the point is that our capitalist society is structured so that if it wasn't Greenspan some other chump would have stood up to the mark, he is not unique or indispensable, none of us are. More fool the rest of us for creating a society where such idiots are glorified. The only way we are ever going to make a difference is by NOT looking at the bigger picture, concentrating instead on our own social fabric of our partners, children, families and neighbours, build strong local societies, AND THEN, whilst doing that, look at the bigger picture. Changing the world is a much easier task than changing yourself. Do you know your own ego? Understand that before criticising someone else's.

Michael, maybe the information that Kalle wrote is on Wikipedia, it is information for us all to share. As far as I am aware there is no prerequisite for a writer to ensure that NOBODY else has ever thought of an idea before they write an opinion piece. In fact even those with only a basic understanding of life know that no ideas are new. Do you hold yourself to such exacting standards? After reading your response I doubt it.

I find this article highly subjective given its lack of evidence. It sounds like the author is just voicing his opinions, he doesn't provide any arguments or evidence to back up these claims. This magazine would be of much better quality if it ommitted these kinds of article. BTW, I'm not defending Greenspan, just merely criticizing the way this article was written.

I really don't see the link between economics and environment. Even if he had seen the link between the two, as I'm sure Greenspan did, I believe that his fiscal policies should not have held in the environmental future mainly because they would hold no actual impact into the future of the American economy. Alan Greenspan is in no way responsible for a lack of environmental reforms; instead, that would come under the rest of the federal government. The creation of the EPA was a good step, as was the protection of millions of acres of national parks. However, it's quite obvious that for any environmental impact to be done, there must be more. Still, the person that controls how much money is in our economy can't say where that money should go; Greenspan can't introduce legislation to comply with the Kyoto Protocol; he can't tell the President that without environmental reform, there will be economic hardships, because that is not true. Greenspan is not at fault here, the congressmen and Presidents of our country are.

The fact that this article was on the main page discredits the adbusters.org website. Do you want to give us a bad rap? Take that crap down and stick it below my comment.

Macroeconomics in North America has largely been practice of theories of Milton Friedman from the University of Chicago.
He stressed the need to keep inflation in check by minimizing government spending on social programs and low wages, keeping the workers in a constant state of desperation. I wonder if there is a case here for a class action discrimination lawsuit for N. American workers.
Real wages are what a worker can actually buy with his take home nominal wage. As any working man will attest this has depreciated in the last 20 years. In the mean time when one looks at housing this has certainly appreciated. When we look at the problems in the subprime mortgage
financing and wonder, what effect does that have on the G.D.P.? Is our G.D.P. an illusion? Is there such a thing as real G.D.P. and nominal G.D.P.?
My belief of macroeconomics is that it is like a plant, that you want to thrive, you water the roots not the branches.

Kalle, say it like it is.

In my macroeconomics class I am so disgusted with my professors explanations and examples, but to intimidated to say anything. They really believe the shitte that they are spewing. No mention of the environmental and social costs of progress, no effort to match the models to reality.

Now I'm not a Luddite, I love technology, I love the internet, trains, science. These will be the things that will be of great help in reforming economics. But in the end, it is the economics that has to reform, no amount of tech will change that.

this article is such crap. it contains not a modicum of substance, just some fluffy shit, that anyone who is capable of reading wikipedia could muster. adbusters, don't you have an editor?

Kalle, I grew up with my parents praising Greenspan for what he did, never being fully aware of what it is that made him so great. But now with my age, having read works like Joel Hawken's Ecology of Commerce, Daniel Quinn's publishings, and Culture Jam, I understand the picture of the true cost of Economics and want to see a change in the way our society values the measure of progress.

Wow, what an unintentionally hilarious piece. Kalle, you make the unfortunate error of confusing the worlds of microeconomics and macroeconomics not that they don't overlap. Mr. Greenspan didn't internalize externalities because as Fed Chairman thats not his job. His job is to protect things like output, inflation, employment and the money supply. Now while none of these factors pull at the heartstrings, they are very important to make sure the State's economy stays healthy. I suppose you could argue that Mr. Greenspan, by trying to avoid recessions, stopped long term declines in output and consumption thereby increasing our footprint on the environment since we kept on producing at high output. But then you would be criticizing him for what he is suppose to do! Better to direct your attention to people who do the consuming, rather than the dude who is charged with protecting consumption.

He could have started including ecological measurements into his fiscal calculations, put Americas national accounts in order and redefined what economic progress means.

The Federal Open Market Committee does none of those things. They make monetary policy.

I agree with the most of the comments above there isn't enough substance in this to convince me of anything.

We are destroying nature.It is very easy to see. Soon,when oxygen is threatenedhow this will happen I do not knowour eyes will be opened for all to see.I do not doubt that humans were not made to outlast their own folly.

What you say is fine as far as it goes, but the other people are right: it just isn't up to the level of most articles in Adbusters; it doesn't explain. Sorry!

We cant blame it all on one guy, after all he is only looking for ways to sustain the neverending demand for goods, you know?. Hamburgers, freedom fries, H1 Hummers ando so. It not a matter of proof, its a matter of shutting down tvs and taking acount of our own actions and reponsability for them.

Alan Greenspan's lowering of interest rates has caused calamity for the majority of Americans who survive on a low income. This article should go into much more detail about his actual economics then dismiss him for not being an environmentalist that obviously he isn't.

I don't believe the man needs apologists.

Adbusters used to make relevant economic commentary. Now you're resorting to name calling? If Greenspan is as horrible as you claim, especially with the level of credibility he has as an economist by virtually all departments and economic advisers, you need to back it up with something other than calling his policy bullshit. This article is beyond pathetic. It gives good causes like anti-consumerism and green economics a bad reputation as nothing more than a social network filled with counterculture radicals who know nothing and refuse to accept anything other than their elitist ideals.

This article is very bad, does not bring any evidence, and is the proof of what the progressists must not do otherwise they will never be taken seriously.

Well said people! Just make the connection to the True Cost Economics campaign and you'll realize that Lasn's comments are more relevant and timely than ever!

This article should go into much more detail about his actual economics then dismiss him for not being an environmentalist that obviously he isn't. Why, this article is about what it is about, read and digest it as it is and then critique it for what it is not what it should be.