I recently posted an entry and a follow-up comment saying that I was impressed and even inspired by Alan Greenspan after viewing a 60 Minutes interview with him. Then, a few days later, I encountered a Tom Tomorrow comic strip on Salon that made Greenspan sound like an "evil comedic genius" who is more worthy of being reviled, especially by those of my political persuasion, than admired.
The problem is, I'm so shockingly ignorant of the "dismal science" of economics and of Greenspan's history as chairman of the Fed that I don't know how accurate the comic strip in question happens to be, although I suspect that it's quite accurate. And I'm not sure I'd be able to reach a definitive opinion on the matter even if I had a Ph.D in economics, since I suspect that there are acclaimed economists who think Greenspan did a helluva good job and those who think he was a miserable failure.
This leads me to the issue of how one confidently reaches an opinion on any even moderately controversial issue much less on REALLY controversial ones such as global warming when there are so many "experts" on both sides. I often find this so frustrating that I don't even bother to study the issue in more depth and detail. I figure I'm going to end up just as uncertain at the end of it all as I was when I started. So, why bother?
Why do YOU bother?
MIB: Grantham and the Zero-Sum Game - Investors should think about markets as if they were spectators watching players at a poker table. Some will win, some will lose, but the net takeaway fo...
3 hours ago