or maybe more.

I finished Ravi Batra's new book about "Greenspan's Fraud" recently.
The guy's got an axe to grind, but it reads pretty well for a polemic.

http://www.ravibatra.com/press.htm

Dr. Batra himself is an "interesting character":
http://www.ravibatra.com

Do I agree? Well, I've studied enough economics to get excited when I hear talk about 'the trend in real wages' and stuff like that. h:

 

What does Batra argue is "Greenspan's fraud?"

 

You mean, you want me to go back and reread it to answer that question? h:

He never answers one thing specifically. He believes that wages are greatly trailing productivity. People aren't being paid enough, and individuals and government are getting into debt, while corporations and especially corporate executives are making profits like mad.

Batra's argument thus seems to be: America is being screwed over by Greenspan, because Greenspan gave up on idealistic ideas of open markets a long time ago to gain power. To get power, of course, you have to serve the powerful [politicians and corporate chieftains].

Greenspan has a notable resume as a believer in the ideas of Ayn Rand and other philosophers, but you'd never know if you followed his talks. Yeah, his speeches aren't cut-and-dry, because he is more a philosopher than a set-rule economist, but he doesn't set out any explicit philosophy. He's said to be "pragmatic." If you believe Batra, it means that Greenspan is trying to go-between Ayn Rand and IBM.

On one hand, Batra is a crackpot and a charlatan. On the other hand, he's very right on some things. His conclusion and call for "economic democracy" in "worker-owned corporations" doesn't really do anything ... United Airlines has failed at that. Batra wants to hold Greenspan accountable to Randian idealism, and blame him for having to cut deals with the powerful.

Don't blame the player, blame the game ... and don't blame both.
But blaming the game = arguing that politics shouldn't exist.

Batra's conclusions don't really work, but neither are any Marxist or Communist "solutions" workable. That doesn't mean they don't have any ideas to consider. For example, Batra says: monetary and fiscal policy both create debt; fiscal policy can create government debt, and monetary policy is mostly about creating private debt. Monetary policy doesn't really affect government; government can set whatever price of money it wants. The Fed sets interest rates, aka 'the price of money' in the private markets. That's very political.

People think of the Fed as being some objective, non-partisan, un-political entity. As a political scientist, I disagree.