To: Chris McConnel who wrote (594 ) 5/22/2003 9:24:52 AM From: MeDroogies Respond to of 795 As for his pride...that was primarily the domain of Ayn, while others in her circle hewed more closely to her basic principles. Ayn was in a league of her in that regard. I won't deny that Greenspan adhered to the theory that productivity would outstrip the need to fight inflation (and he was correct). However, he also realized that there was a fine line to be tread. What is surprising to the uninitiated is that he took the views you quoted. What isn't is that his rhetoric, and policy decision making, adhered to a much finer line. Is it true the Fed could have been more aggressive in 1997? Possibly. But having gone through several rounds with a (then weakened)Bush presidency in 1992, he was probably less inclined to fight a much emboldened Clinton administration, and rightfully so. There was much evidence to support his stance at the time. Even so, his increases in 1999-2000 were the eventual prick that the bubble needed. Greenspan is not an believer in the Fisher view that stock prices should be factored into inflation (I am), but he is aware of the viewpoint and is very cautious about its implications. I think his less than transparent manner of speaking leaves alot of people wondering about what he's really doing or speaking. Also, I will let you know I DON'T trust the general media to discuss items like this. I used to work for CNBC. If you learned just how much some of their commentators actually knew about the economy, you'd jump out your window...and the same goes for most general media (the industry in which I earn a living). Journalists are lousy reporters on economics and economic conditions. That said, I will point you in the direction of a GREAT article today in the NYTimes by Virginia Postrel (a great writer with well developed understanding of economic realities...I've followed her for years) about the truth of deflation. Look for it on page 2 of the Business Section.