When Greenspan speaks, much of what he says is, to be fair, intelligible.

     He also talks about "realized and option-implied measures of uncertainty," the possibility that "monetary policy neutrality can be restored at a measured pace," the advisability of reducing "public dis-saving," etc. No brief extracts can convey how belabored his word-spinning can get. Economist Jeremy Gluck once suggested this legend for Greenspan's tombstone: 'I am guardedly optimistic about the next world, but remain cognizant of the downside risk.' "

     Ayn Rand was a hands-on editor, but the young Greenspan must have had something to do with articles under his byline like "Gold and Economic Freedom" (1966), reprinted in Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which the master seer writes: "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

     In Liberty magazine Bill Bradford reports that Greenspan has at least once as Fed chairman reaffirmed his pro-gold position, before an incredulous Senate: "The Senator could scarcely believe his ears. 'Now my next question is, is it your intention that the report of this hearing should be that Greenspan recommends a return to the gold standard?' Greenspan responded, 'I've been recommending that for years, there's nothing new about that. It would probably mean there is only one vote in the Federal Open Market Committee for that, but it is mine.' "

     But Congressman Ron Paul, who conversed with the chairman quite recently, believes Greenspan no longer does support gold: "Although Mr. Greenspan is a master of evasion, he was surprisingly forthright in his responses to me. In short, he claimed he was wrong about his predictions of calamity for the fiat U.S. dollar, that the Federal Reserve does a good job of essentially mimicking a gold standard, and that inflation is well under control. He even made the preposterous assertion that the Fed does not facilitate government expansion and deficit spending. In other words, he utterly repudiated the arguments he made 40 years ago."

     Perhaps, despite the fun he's having at the controls, Greenspan still secretly prefers a gold-standard regime to the current monetary regime. Whatever his real view may be – and I'm guardedly optimistic that he has one – he can surely utter it or any other view minus the periphrastic peregrination. So why does he so often indulge in same?

     He may feel he can't be too clear about what the Federal Reserve might do next lest those who read the paper gain an untoward advantage over others. If so, that's not a good motive. We should always be told ASAP what the government plans to do to us next, as per our rights vis-à-vis due process and whatnot. As it is, Fed watchers often do correctly decode what the latest Fedspeak portends. But suppose there is some arcane reason to keep details of the next tweak of the economy under wraps. Why not just say "No comment" whenever an unanswerable question comes up, offering clarity on all other occasions?

     It seems to me that there is a broadly dis-incentivizing aspect to circumlocutionary galumphing that has no place in the honorable discourse of a free and open republic. But if one is a highly appointed wheeler-dealer, such jabberwocky might, granted, serve to help fudge the fact of one's fallibility.

     In his most recent Senate testimony, Greenspan implies that he was hornswoggled by the conventional view half a decade ago about how the federal government would be collecting trillion-dollar surpluses for years to come, surpluses that according to the Congressional Budget Office would by 2011 add up to $5.6 trillion. "We were confronted at the time with an almost universal expectation amongst experts that we were dealing with a very large surplus for which there seemed to be no end," Greenspan says.

     Some observers not steeped in stats did opine back then that unending surpluses were hardly in the bag. "Who knows whether the money will ever show up?" asked Paul Jacob in his Common Sense radio commentary of July 10, 2000. "Just because the feds say they'll be able to collect a certain amount in taxes doesn't mean they'll do it. Maybe there will be a couple recessions in there bollixing up the works. Maybe another couple of wars...."

     This was not super-savvy prognosticating. Jacob was simply remembering history. And admitting he had no crystal ball like the one the CBO and wastrel politicians were using. So why does a guy like Greenspan suggest that he believed the CBO number? Only three possible explanations. One, he's not very smart, a babe in the woods, just fell off the turnip truck. Two, he's lying. I forget the third.

Copyright 2005 by David M. Brown. Brown is a freelance writer and editor. To view previous installments of this column, click here.