in Modern Journalism happened, but with all the Ebola fear mongering going on and the upcoming elections few people seem to notice.
While Alan Greenspan has received some criticism for the policies he pushed during his 20 years serving as chairman of the Federal reserve, for the most part he has been excused of most of the blame that should be his.
Paul Krugman is one of the few economists who has refused to overlook the massive policy failures that occurred under his leadership.
In his latest column Paul Krugman makes no effort to hide his contempt for the policies Mr. Greenspan pursued as the head of the Federal Reserve or Mr. Greenspan himself.
To get the full measure of the take down requires reading Krugman's latest column, but this excerpt should give anyone who follows economics a sense of how merciless overall Krugman was in regard to Greenspan and career at the Fed.
.....it’s hard to escape the conclusion that people like Mr. Greenspan knew as much about what the market wanted as medieval crusaders knew about God’s plan — that is, nothing.
When you consider that during his 20 years he experienced the closest thing to deification politically, and still remains a respected figure in much of the financial world (even if most Liberals hate him) to say he knows nothing is probably the biggest insult you could tell him.
Krugman's knows Greenspan will never face any punishment for his terrible leadership, so he does what he can to hit him where it still hurts, in his reputation.
For people like Greenspan how history looks upon their career and their political legacy is one of the last things they care about.
It's pretty clear he spends significant time trying to ensure his place in history reflects the period in his career when he experienced the closest thing to political deification in modern politics.
It is beyond Greenspan's ability to decide how history will remember him.
History tends to pay the most attention to comments of the contemporaries of historical figures.
That means it is in the hands of his peers to ensure that history treats him the way he wants to be treated, and few individual's carry as much weight as Krugman does in that regard.
Without the cooperation of Krugman and others like him, it is very unlikely that history will accord the Ann Rand worshiping Greenspan the whitewashed and sterilized remembrance he thinks he deserves.
That's why Krugman's comment is so brutal, and why we should stop for a moment to appreciate when someone like Krugman who has far more to gain by playing along instead opts to go against the grain and refuse to join in the big lie.