Does Greenspan Still Impact Your Bottom Line?

Charlie Rose recently had a smart show on the economy with Fortune Magazine's Allan Sloan and New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson. Amidst waxing as to the length and depth of our collective financial rollercoaster (more down than up) was an observation that Why You Care has not heard in the media before but has heard in private conversations: The difference between the Bernanke Fed and the Greenspan Fed is that Greenspan had the benefit of the United States being seen as the 800 pound gorilla. In other words, when the Fed talked people listened and believed.

But, through no fault of Ben Bernanke, the world has changed. September 11th happened, the world is more fractionalized, American influence abroad is not quite like it once was - and that's speaking strictly from a political analysis - not an economic one.

Enter the credit crisis, can a country with waning influence still get the job done when the job requires sheer strength of influence? Seems like influence is self-perpetuating. If you convince others it is real, well, then it is real. If not, well, you get the picture.

Here's why you care: Allan Sloan's Washington Post column regarding the chattiness of Alan Greenspan is important. It is not just whether his outspokenness is overshadowing the Bernanke Fed. It seems to us the question is does this make the Bernanke Fed's ability to be the 800 pound gorilla all that much harder? And if you don't think making it harder impacts your personal bottom line, then see this CNNMoney.com story about how many retirees might just have 25% less than they counted on.