Reinhart explains that Greenspan quote

By Felix Salmon
May 4, 2010
now-famous quote from the March 2004 minutes where he talks about the risks "of inducing people to join in on the debate". We've got it straight from the horse's mouth: Vincent Reinhart is the man that Greenspan was talking to, and he explains exactly what the context was:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

It’s official: Greenspan wasn’t talking about the housing bubble, or economic policy at all, in the now-famous quote from the March 2004 minutes where he talks about the risks “of inducing people to join in on the debate”. We’ve got it straight from the horse’s mouth: Vincent Reinhart is the man that Greenspan was talking to, and he explains exactly what the context was:

Alan Greenspan’s comment was in response to a briefing I had just given on an inside-baseball topic. The FOMC had been considering moving up when to release its minutes, which are a ten- to fifteen-page summary of the discussion at the meeting. Up to then, the minutes were released after the next regularly scheduled FOMC meeting. Staff had run an experiment to see if the minutes could be prepared quickly to be released sooner—before the next meeting. (The issue was not in the drafting, but rather in incorporating comments and a final approval from policy makers with hectic schedules.) In a short briefing, I asked a narrow question whether the FOMC’s discussion of such transparency issues at the prior meeting should be included in that meeting’s minutes. (In the event, the FOMC was transparent about transparency and also did expedite the release of the minutes.)

My remarks sparked a general observation from Chairman Greenspan on limits to transparency. Specifically, he said, “We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand.”

For those not familiar in parsing his prose, Greenspan was noting that letting the world know that top Fed officials were considering an issue would draw attention to that issue, which might sometimes be uncomfortable. This is a debatable proposition, to be sure, but not one that sounds conspiratorial.

That is, unless you have the imagination of Ryan Grim, who linked this obviously general discussion of the timing of the release of the minutes to the specific mention of housing prices 45 pages (and four hours in real time) earlier. To do so, Grim also had to elevate a mention about real-estate speculation by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Jack Guynn, into Cassandra’s warning. That comment, by the way, came in the same set of remarks in which Guynn noted a little later on that the price of steel fence posts had doubled.

We do at least now know what Grim means by “moments earlier”: he means “four hours earlier”.

Still, the fact is that Grim’s story about Greenspan is, in Reinhart’s phrase, “too good to check”. And it’s already found its way into the Greenspan lore, along with a lot of more accurate stories about him.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Excellent reporting Felix, but I get the feeling that the media would rather report what they hope to be a smoking gun. Can’t let that pesky little thing called truth get in the way, eh?

Posted by Teresa_Lo | Report as abusive

The bottom line is Grim lied. And, as a blogger, that should bother you, Felix. If Grim worked for the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, he would be fired for clearly misrepresenting the quote. Since he’s a blogger, noting happens. Because there is no check on bloggers, every such lie diminishes the credibility of others who blog.

Posted by OnMarkets | Report as abusive

If the housing bubble matters and if responsible reporting matters, then: more important than any dissection of Grim would be to focus attention on all the times Greenspan, in response to housing crisis data given and agenda tabled, ought’ve had open, explicit discussion and taken decisive action years, years and years ago – but didn’t.

Grim’s editorial methods may not be above reproach but he has at least this much going for him over Greenspan: not being the one tacitly riding the entire U.S. economy into the waiting arms of hijackers.

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

All Grim has going for him is a convincing capability of creating situations which did not occur, enhanced by his 20/20 hindsight. My guess is that in real time he would not be capable of finding his way out of a two man tent before he peed his pants.

Posted by Augustus | Report as abusive