Today's release day for Greenspan's book and the intertubes have been buzzing. Let's see what people have to say...

First and most important -- Krugman takes him to the woodshed in a column titled "Sad Alan's Lament". Krugman hasn't forgotten that the very tax cuts Greenspan now decries, he in fact endorsed, and even wanted to make permanent. And he notes that Greenspan, a fiscal conservative under Clinton, under a Republican administration suddenly wasn't. Indeed I'd add that Greenspan's behaviour in general was that of a partisan - good technical Fed chairman under a dem, but an ideologue willing to push dubious policies under a Republican. (Hoffmania has a substantial excerpt for those who don't have the key to the NYT's subscription wall.)

Ray McGovern concentrates on Greenspan's statement that the everyone knows the Iraq war was about oil, with the bland Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it’s hardly everyone. Sometimes I think it’s hardly anyone. He then goes onto impressively marshal the evidence that it was always about oil, and that the princples (including Rumsfeld) definitely knew it.

Susie Madrak seems to remember the past a bit differently from Greenspan as well, and discusses at length his Randian philosophy seems to have led to a number of his more, errr, interesting decisions - like the one to end collecting data on how much banks charge in fees. (As an aside, ATM fees will soon surpass the minimum wage.)

Dean Baker piles on the tax cut discussion by noting that in 2001 everyone knew that the suplusses were overstated, because they projections didn't take into account that the stock market bubble was ending and that was obviously going to effect the government's tax receipts.

See Also:

• The Financial Post's Various Articles.
• Stirling Newberry: Hi. Can We Talk Greenspanism?
• Ian Welsh: Uncle Alan: Oil, Oh No I Didn't Mean the War Was An Oil Grab!
• Ian Welsh: No, Greenspan Doesn't Get To Rehabilitate His Reputation