In his first few months in office, he was confronted by the crash of 1987, and immediately cut interest rates (against economists’ advice). Nor was he afraid to pump money into the system after the Asian crisis of 1998 and the 11 September attacks. All this from an inflation hawk.Although originally an academic, Greenspan showed flexibility in policy and a quite extraordinary willingness to take data from many “off-piste” sources. This perhaps explains his greatest achievement, the adjustment of economic models to accommodate the paradigm shift of the 1990s – the “productivity miracle”.But he has not been without his faults. His Republican laissez-faire has perhaps been too close to the surface. He refused to remove the “punch bowl from the party” of the 1990s.

His condemnation of “irrational exuberance” was a words-only broadside at the technology bubble, delivered way too early, in 1996.Republicanism is one element of his successor’s CV we can be sure of. The search to fill those big shoes is being led by that cross-party liberal, Dick Cheney. I braved a tropical Washington a few weeks ago to catch up on the gossip. Three names crop up.The most distinguished shortlister is “Marty” Feldstein, a Harvard professor known as “the father of supply-side economics”. He was once close to Reagan but hasn’t held a public post since.

One of his ex-pupils, Glenn Hubbard, a manic tax-cutter, is said to be much closer to George Bush, though, at 47, he could almost be Greenspan’s grandson. The third candidate, and front-runner, is Ben Bernanke, once called a “talented and visionary thinker” by Bush.No one candidate is certain, but one thing is clear: as far as the markets are concerned, the watchword is continuity. This is perhaps why Bernanke is favoured as most closely associated with the policy of “goldilocks economics”.Changes are likely to be ones of emphasis Tax cuts will probably be more warmly embraced. There may be a movement towards the Bank of England’s more collective approach. US economists were amazed to hear that King had recently allowed an interest change against his own views.But whatever the criticisms, Greenspan has achieved much. His assessment of his legacy is characteristically understated: “The US economy has remained on a firm footing, and inflation continues to be well contained …

the prospects are favourable for a continuation of those trends.” We’ll miss you, Al.christopher.walker tiscali.co.uk. Gordon Brown has staked his credibility as steward of the public finances on meeting a self-imposed “golden rule”, which limits how much he can borrow. But, once again this month, the Chancellor has been accused of moving his own goalposts to make it easier to achieve his target.
Does it really matter if this mysterious rule is met or missed? Has the Chancellor been moving the goalposts? And is this the best way to convince people that the nation’s finances are in safe hands?The golden rule says the Government can only borrow to pay for investment and that tax revenues should cover other spending. Fair enough – most families would happily take on debt to buy a house, but would worry if they borrowed routinely to meet the weekly food bill.It might be sensible to borrow even for day-to-day spending during a rough financial patch, such as a spell out of work.

Similarly, the golden rule does not have to be met every year, only on average over the ups and downs of the economic cycle. The Government can borrow for current spending in bad times, as long as it runs a surplus in the good.In adopting the rule in 1997, Mr Brown was, in effect, promising not to saddle future taxpayers with a bill for public spending from which they would not benefit. In addition, he wanted to give the Government greater freedom to increase investment from the low level he inherited.But the golden rule is a blunt instrument to achieve fairness between generations of taxpayers. For one thing, investment does not always benefit tomorrow’s taxpayers, while current spending does not only benefit today’s. For example, spending on teacher training may benefit future taxpayers more than building fancy venues for the Olympics.In addition, there is no guarantee that the benefits from a capital project would coincide with the debt repayments that finance it, so the same generation that pays can reap the advantages.