Brad DeLong posted several outside responses to "Sympathy for Greenspan," an article he wrote, published yesterday (he also touched on the topic in his blog yesterday). The article examines the role of a "central bank"—such as the Federal Reserve—as a regulator of market rates. Was Greenspan right in attempting to manipulate the market rate of interest so that it matched the natural rate? Well, Brad's not sure (and he, refreshingly, admits as much). His commenters are not so inclined to claim ignorance on the issue, however.

Paul Krugman slumbered.

Barry Ritholtz evoked two equally icky images today, first referring to how the recession is "hard on" adult entertainment workers (and chortling later that "it was the tamest bad pun" he could think of for a title) and then referring to the hardship as a "brown shoots story." Despite our aversion to Ritholtz talking about porn stars and referring to brown things shooting out of the ground, any time another nonessential purchase goes by the wayside, it seems noteworthy in the context of the recession.

Felix Salmon fires a shot across the bow of big college endowment supervisors. He quotes a story that suggests the big guns overperform in good economies and underperform in bad. The small schools, meanwhile, have less volatility because they take less risk—they may not beat the markets when the bulls rule, but they aren't letting the bears sell their shirts, either. But what the post doesn't answer is whether it's worth it to be more volatile in the long run, since the gains during good times are so much larger than the losses during bad. The volatility is shocking, sure, but is the whiplash worth it in the long run?