I have strong memories of Alan Greenspan's bizarro justification in 2001 for insisting that we stop running federal budget surpluses. It was convoluted, it didn't make sense, and it was pretty obvious partisan hackery. But I confess that either I've forgotten, or I never quite realized, just how eccentric it really was. "I've seen theories this convoluted and loopy before," says Jon Chait, after reminding us of Greenspan's concluding flourish, "But they've usually been scrawled in long-hand by random cranks who mail letters to magazines." No kidding.
UPDATE: Just out curiosity, is there anyone around today who actually defends Greenspan's position back then? Maybe Larry Kudlow or Donald Luskin? Anyone?