Thanks for the apology, which is accepted. I do have one issue with your response though....
<< Although Clinton (and by extension, Gore) has displayed a distressing tendency to refuse responsibility.. >>
As a Vice President, Gore could do nothing about Clinton's behavior, if he wanted to run for President, when his time came. As such I feel it is incorrect to blame Gore by extension.
I do have issues with Clinton's behavior. Not narrow minded issues on his sex life, which has nothing to do with me, but issues about not reigning in Greenspan.
Greenspan should have acted more decisively about 2 years ago, when the Russians defaulted. That act started the rot.
Clinton, despite having no real authority to do so, should have overridden AG's expansion of the money supply to avoid fallout from the Russian thing, later the LTCM fiasco and finally the Y2K nonsense.
The trouble was that Clinton did not have a "better" economist to listen to, so AG's actions are what we now have to deal with.
AG appears to be aiming for the mythical soft landing and has really endangered the world's economy with all of the easy money that is sloshing around.
When the defaults start increasing, then we will finally see a constriction os the money supply. That constriction combined with oil prices and the silly Euro will finally toast this boom.
Given the above, I do not feel that Clinton or Gore are to blame here. This mess is not so much a political situation as one man's ego, Alan Greenspan's, needing full reign. |
