Welcome friend!
Consider this your online Steve-and-Adam's room! Traber 611 Online! So kick back, grab your favorite SAGA-esque snack, turn down the lights, and get ready to relive the good old days!
I can't decide whether he's leaping out from the darkness with one claw-like hand poised to drag you in, or whether he's falling terrified into the void and reaching out desparately for help. Either way it's pretty macabre. Greenspan as Charon; Alan as the inevitability of mortality. Our common humanity: beautiful and frightening.
Someday, ah someday, I will follow through with my grand intentions to have our dear financial guru retell critical moments of certain histories with vignettes of his own interventions--he calls it "The Green Span."
Perhaps next year I can present it to you as a birthday gift! That would be awesome. Happy belated birthday, dear friend!
That's an excellent point, Andy, and maybe you're in a position to answer Coye's question. Was there, perhaps, a room in the Fed that was pitch black and people were afraid to go near? Did the boss confidently approach said room, or did he cower in fear at the very mention of it? Was it the source of his power, or his the root of his mortal fear? It is possible that the horror of all of this prevents your conscious mind from remembering it. If so, you have my sympathies. But if there is anything you do remember, it would really help us get to the bottom of this.
Sorry, I don't know of any pitch black/macabre rooms at the Fed.
The Governors' Hallway is very well lit and stately rather than macabre (high ceilings, big wooden furniture, some windows, good lighting. Economists usually experienced a sense of exhilaration at meeting with such a powerful figure and fear of embarrassing themselves by way of an accidental mistatement. The rooms themselves are more inspiring than macabre. The immense knowledge base of the Governors and the fact that they can spring questions on you that you have not prepared for are the true intimidation features of the Governors.
The most macabre thing about being in a room with Greenspan was his evident age and the lack of clarity in his voice. I can't think of any place in the Fed that was truly scary, unless you get the heebie jeebies being surrounded by lots of security.
I don't know about you guys, but I get the heeby-jeebies from anyone called "the Governors." It sounds very 1970s British sci-fi, like if you run away from the Governor's Hall, they send a giant bubble out to bring you back. "I am number two." "Who is number one?" "Ha ha ha ha..."
Hey, remember the Beckett panel we went to in the Texas Governor's Room at UT in June? It was a little creepy to have the portraits of all those governors staring down at us. Particularly that youngish looking fellow on the left hand side of the room. I feel like I've seen him in some other job recently...
On a more serious note (can this string be serious after I accuse Strauss of having PTSD just because he wouldn't play along with my narrative? I report, you decide.), our friend Mr. Greenspan did wield an enormous (and somewhat mysterious) influence over the country during his time at the Fed. Was he really so vastly more intelligent than most people that he understood the market in a way that we cannot? Or did he just have access to more extensive information about the economy? Or was it all performative, in the end (think Wizard of Oz): the cryptic statements, the codes, the cloak and dagger stuff?
Perhaps an even better question, since Coye will quickly remind us that all power is artificial and performative in this way, is does it matter whether Greenspan's influence derived from actual skill or from the mystique of his position? Since almost no one can fully understand the complex system that is the globalized market, is the Fed Chairperson actually the equivalent of a witch doctor/prophet/literary critic: one who reads signs and interprets them in an effort to frame, or make sense of, them in terms of broader theories or intellectual traditions (dare I say metanarratives?)?
Greenspan was an intelligent analyst who had a large staff to synthesize information for him. He could and did assign special projects regularly to better understand stuff. (If he accidentally dropped the write up in the bath, he would send the wetted copy back requesting a new one. True, obscure fact.) His prowess was a combination of ability and resources. He also had a cloak and dagger side. He'd issue statements intentionally obscuring his opinions, commonly referred to as Greenspeak.
Greenspan's influence came largely from actual skill? The position of central banker has not always been held in such high regard. However, much of this skill was that Greenspan knew how to move quietly and adeptly in political circles. Long tenure and building a good track record definitely helped, too.
The Federal Reserve is more than a sign reading body. On things like the Federal budget deficit, they play a mainly prophetic role, but the Fed's actions can have real impacts on the economy. It's a tricky power to wield, because policy has a greatly delayed effect, and no one that I know of can close to perfectly forecast what the economic state will be for the future periods that can be influenced today. You have to look at the odds and decide what amounts of which policy 'chips' you want to place where on the 'game board.' It's definitely not an exact science. Yes, economists at the Federal Reserve are story tellers of probable scenarios weaving various forecasts into one harmonious tapestry.
The Fed only controls some of the levers of the economic machine. The Fed can't cure all economic ills. Sometimes it makes mistakes in the levers it does choose to adjust as it's stories at times prove to be fictitious spin-offs from historical fact, and ah yes, history can be revised.
Great points, Strauss. You're quite right that the Fed is not limited to interpreting signs--they can raise and lower rates and otherwise effect real and substantive change on the economy. I wonder if it would be possible to study which role of the Fed actually has more impact on the market (the thought of controlling for all the variables makes my non-quantitative head spin slightly). It would be really interesting to think about.
It's fascinating to watch people try to control, shape, and/or manage something as vast and fluid as the American economy.
14 comments:
It's just... so... beautiful (or frightening, not sure which).
I can't decide whether he's leaping out from the darkness with one claw-like hand poised to drag you in, or whether he's falling terrified into the void and reaching out desparately for help. Either way it's pretty macabre. Greenspan as Charon; Alan as the inevitability of mortality. Our common humanity: beautiful and frightening.
That and it's funny.
Happy Birthday.
Someday, ah someday, I will follow through with my grand intentions to have our dear financial guru retell critical moments of certain histories with vignettes of his own interventions--he calls it "The Green Span."
Perhaps next year I can present it to you as a birthday gift! That would be awesome. Happy belated birthday, dear friend!
Happy birthday, Andy! It's kind of weird to have a running joke a guy who I used to see in the hallways at work.
That's an excellent point, Andy, and maybe you're in a position to answer Coye's question. Was there, perhaps, a room in the Fed that was pitch black and people were afraid to go near? Did the boss confidently approach said room, or did he cower in fear at the very mention of it? Was it the source of his power, or his the root of his mortal fear? It is possible that the horror of all of this prevents your conscious mind from remembering it. If so, you have my sympathies. But if there is anything you do remember, it would really help us get to the bottom of this.
Sorry, I don't know of any pitch black/macabre rooms at the Fed.
The Governors' Hallway is very well lit and stately rather than macabre (high ceilings, big wooden furniture, some windows, good lighting. Economists usually experienced a sense of exhilaration at meeting with such a powerful figure and fear of embarrassing themselves by way of an accidental mistatement. The rooms themselves are more inspiring than macabre. The immense knowledge base of the Governors and the fact that they can spring questions on you that you have not prepared for are the true intimidation features of the Governors.
The most macabre thing about being in a room with Greenspan was his evident age and the lack of clarity in his voice. I can't think of any place in the Fed that was truly scary, unless you get the heebie jeebies being surrounded by lots of security.
I'm no doctor, but you clearly seem to be experiencing some PTSD symptoms. Amnesia is quite serious. Seek help immediately.
AAAHHHH!!! I know where it is!!!!
I don't know about you guys, but I get the heeby-jeebies from anyone called "the Governors." It sounds very 1970s British sci-fi, like if you run away from the Governor's Hall, they send a giant bubble out to bring you back. "I am number two." "Who is number one?" "Ha ha ha ha..."
Hey, remember the Beckett panel we went to in the Texas Governor's Room at UT in June? It was a little creepy to have the portraits of all those governors staring down at us. Particularly that youngish looking fellow on the left hand side of the room. I feel like I've seen him in some other job recently...
On a more serious note (can this string be serious after I accuse Strauss of having PTSD just because he wouldn't play along with my narrative? I report, you decide.), our friend Mr. Greenspan did wield an enormous (and somewhat mysterious) influence over the country during his time at the Fed. Was he really so vastly more intelligent than most people that he understood the market in a way that we cannot? Or did he just have access to more extensive information about the economy? Or was it all performative, in the end (think Wizard of Oz): the cryptic statements, the codes, the cloak and dagger stuff?
Perhaps an even better question, since Coye will quickly remind us that all power is artificial and performative in this way, is does it matter whether Greenspan's influence derived from actual skill or from the mystique of his position? Since almost no one can fully understand the complex system that is the globalized market, is the Fed Chairperson actually the equivalent of a witch doctor/prophet/literary critic: one who reads signs and interprets them in an effort to frame, or make sense of, them in terms of broader theories or intellectual traditions (dare I say metanarratives?)?
Serious questions get serious answers.
Greenspan was an intelligent analyst who had a large staff to synthesize information for him. He could and did assign special projects regularly to better understand stuff. (If he accidentally dropped the write up in the bath, he would send the wetted copy back requesting a new one. True, obscure fact.) His prowess was a combination of ability and resources. He also had a cloak and dagger side. He'd issue statements intentionally obscuring his opinions, commonly referred to as Greenspeak.
Greenspan's influence came largely from actual skill? The position of central banker has not always been held in such high regard. However, much of this skill was that Greenspan knew how to move quietly and adeptly in political circles. Long tenure and building a good track record definitely helped, too.
The Federal Reserve is more than a sign reading body. On things like the Federal budget deficit, they play a mainly prophetic role, but the Fed's actions can have real impacts on the economy. It's a tricky power to wield, because policy has a greatly delayed effect, and no one that I know of can close to perfectly forecast what the economic state will be for the future periods that can be influenced today. You have to look at the odds and decide what amounts of which policy 'chips' you want to place where on the 'game board.' It's definitely not an exact science. Yes, economists at the Federal Reserve are story tellers of probable scenarios weaving various forecasts into one harmonious tapestry.
The Fed only controls some of the levers of the economic machine. The Fed can't cure all economic ills. Sometimes it makes mistakes in the levers it does choose to adjust as it's stories at times prove to be fictitious spin-offs from historical fact, and ah yes, history can be revised.
Great points, Strauss. You're quite right that the Fed is not limited to interpreting signs--they can raise and lower rates and otherwise effect real and substantive change on the economy. I wonder if it would be possible to study which role of the Fed actually has more impact on the market (the thought of controlling for all the variables makes my non-quantitative head spin slightly). It would be really interesting to think about.
It's fascinating to watch people try to control, shape, and/or manage something as vast and fluid as the American economy.
World enough and time. world enough. and time. (had we)
Post a Comment