I just finished Sebastian Mallaby’s The Man Who Knew, his new biography of Alan Greenspan. A few thoughts:
1. It is masterfully written. I have already recommended it to friends who are not economists. I cannot praise highly enough the book’s organization, prose, and editing. Mallaby is a gifted storyteller.
2. One central theme is Greenspan as a brilliant thinker who overcame shyness to ascend to the apex of the Washington social and political ladder. However, I finished the book wondering if the story could be told the other way around: Greenspan as a savvy social networker who exploited his connections to create the illusion that he was a brilliant thinker. As you read the book, keep my interpretation in mind and see how it does or does not fit.
Note that Greenspan’s primary occupation was that of a Wall Street economic soothsayer, a game not known for being rich in intellectual competition. Moreover, as of 1987 Greenspan was not even in the top tier of those (above him would have been Ed Yardeni, Henry Kaufman, and Steve Roach, just off the top of my head).
3. Another central theme concerns the issue of whether Greenspan was a libertarian or a compromiser. Again, I think this may be the wrong framing. I get the sense that he navigated issues piecemeal rather than by following an intellectual framework. If Greenspan often strayed from Ayn Rand’s philosophy, that may have been because his mind was just not given to systematic thinking of any sort.
“If Greenspan often strayed from Ayn Rand’s philosophy, that may have been because his mind was just not given to systematic thinking.”
Or maybe it was just inconvenient to do so.
This is sort of a terrifying prospect for those of us who have at one time or another struggled with “impostor’s syndrome.”
Arnold, you’re raising interesting questions as usual, but I don’t think the comparisons to Yardeni, Roach, and Kaufman are fair. Those three worked for large institutions and put out research compensated in soft dollars. Their job was to have a high profile and they had plenty of support from their employers to achieve that. Greenspan, on the other hand, was an independent consultant. He delivered his outlook to paying clients – largely through meetings and presentations – and didn’t package it up for broad distribution as, say Morgan Stanley did for Roach or Salomon for Kaufman. As I recall, Greenspan was highly respected in the institutional investment community, no less so than the talking heads at the big banks.