In the fall of 2007, when the U.S. economy first seemed in peril, I began answering reader queries here on the Business Desk. I still do so, but this page has expanded to include posts from eminent economists, "far-flung correspondents," and a variety of voices that have intriguing and/or useful things to say about economics, broadly defined. Please feel encouraged to respond to any and all of them.
Paul Solman: The last in our extended interviews on the Fed: Alan Blinder, who served as the vice chairman of the Fed Board of Governors between 1994 and 1996, weighing in on Alan Greenspan's legacy and what it was like to disagree with the former Fed chief. An excerpt:
PS: Was it uncomfortable disagreeing with Alan Greenspan?
Alan Blinder: A little bit because he was not just the Chairman of the Fed, he was the King! That title wasn't conferred on him by law, but that's the way it sort of evolved. So when you disagreed with Greenspan you had, you were cognizant of the fact that you were up there on the foothills of Mount Olympus disagreeing with Zeus and that puts you in a slightly uncomfortable position, but you know I'm the sort of guy that sticks his chin in. Having said that I want to emphasize that the disagreements were not many and were not large. These were disagreements over subtleties like should we go up 0.5 percent or 0.25 percent? This is not a great moral divide or anything like that.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1524
Comments
Tales From the Fed: Blinder on Greenspan
**Paul Solman:** The last in our extended interviews on the Fed: "Alan Blinder":http://www.princeton.edu/~blinder/bio.htm, who served as the vice chairman of the Fed Board of Governors between 1994 and 1996, weighing in on Alan Greenspan's legacy and what it was like to disagree with the former Fed chief. An excerpt:
_**PS:** Was it uncomfortable disagreeing with Alan Greenspan?_
_**Alan Blinder:** A little bit because he was not just the Chairman of the Fed, he was the King! That title wasn't conferred on him by law, but that's the way it sort of evolved. So when you disagreed with Greenspan you had, you were cognizant of the fact that you were up there on the foothills of Mount Olympus disagreeing with Zeus and that puts you in a slightly uncomfortable position, but you know I'm the sort of guy that sticks his chin in. Having said that I want to emphasize that the disagreements were not many and were not large. These were disagreements over subtleties like should we go up 0.5 percent or 0.25 percent? This is not a great moral divide or anything like that._
