Amitai Etzioni teaches at The George Washington University and is the author of The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics (New York: The Free Press, 1988).

There is nothing wrong with questioning Alan Greenspan. Congress should delay the confirmation of the popular Federal Reserve Board chairman for 30 days so it can conduct hearings and a debate on the policies he is implementing rather than simply giving him a blank check to set the country's economic policy.

A chance for a debate

Only once every four years do elected officials get to directly influence our monetary policies, and that opportunity comes when the president appoints -- or in this case reappoints -- the Fed chairman. In January, Clinton reappointed Greenspan. Now Congress is poised to confirm the appointment without question, squandering an opportunity to question Greenspan's monetary policies.

Will Greenspan raise interest rates?

Greenspan has made it as clear as he ever makes anything that he plans to raise interest rates, again and again, until he slows the economy because he thinks that will prevent inflation. But the fact is that inflation continues to be subdued -- and there is little evidence that preemptive strikes are necessary. Still Greenspan, and other economists, insist that rates must be raised because it is much more painful to overcome inflation than to prevent it.

This old-fashioned notion pays no mind to the fact that the economy is more flexible and more able to respond quickly to changes in public policy than it used to be. This is the case because of the wide introduction of computerized tracking of inventories and just-in-time production and delivery systems, and, of course, the Internet. The danger that factories will over-order, and thus cause a recession, is diminished.

Similarly, given new financial instruments, banks can adjust many of their loans much more quickly -- once the central bank changes policy -- than in the past. In short, the risk of waiting until we see at least some inflation growth before we hit the economic breaks is much smaller than it used to be.

Most peculiarly, given all the talk about how globalism is changing the world, Greenspan chooses to ignore that the American economy is now more integrated in the world's economy than it once was. He refers to the tight labor market and concludes that "there has to be a limit to how far the pool of available labor can be drawn down." Tell this to Germany, India, Japan and China.

A major reason labor costs in United States have not risen more than productivity allows is that workers fear their jobs will move overseas. And an increasing part of work, including services, is carried out overseas for local factories and offices, from architects who use Indian designers, to hospitals that have their records transcribed in Barbados.

True, labor is short a few areas, but by and large, globalization -- which is far from flawless -- has kept labor-driven inflation well controlled. And while it is true the economies of other countries are beginning to revive, figures show that their, and hence our, labor markets are far from tight.

What's wrong with growth?

Either way, fighting inflation should not be The Fed's only economic goal. Low unemployment and high growth rates have such virtue that taking some risk to sustain them cannot be dismissed out of hand.

One of the true miracles of the last boom years is that jobs did trickle down into the inner cities. Next time you land in Washington's airport and rely on the dispatchers to get you a cab, watch closely. They are not your normal labor force. They include people who never may have had a regular job.

The same holds for many busboys in restaurants, bellboys in hotels and many others, about whose services the middle class complains because they are not as polished as those of old-timers. But see their pride at being able to hold legitimate jobs, the beneficial effects on their family life, the lower-crime rates and more tranquil social life, and ask yourself: Is this not worth some risk taking?

No one has yet fully calculated how much it costs the country when, year after year, the economy was prevented from growing at a higher pace than 2.5% and unemployment from falling below that "natural" state of 6%. The costs clearly run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Aside from the immediate losses in gross domestic product every year, the base for growth the next year is smaller. In this sense it is fair to say that each annual loss of potential growth drags the nation down for many years.

More than consumer goods and services are at stake. The lower the growth, the less taxes we collect, and the less we are able to pay for all the public services -- from education to health care -- we require.

Being Alan Greenspan

Some people believe Greenspan is trying to slowly let out the air of the speculative bubble of the stock market. However, the result may well be that the bubble will burst suddenly and bring the economy down. Even if he succeeds, the questions stands if in the longer run speculators do not need to learn the lesson that what takes off like a rocket may come down like a ton of lead.

This is a particularly bad year to listen to Greenspan. If the economy is forcefully slowed, that alone might tip both the presidential and congressional election. I am not hinting that Greenspan, who was originally appointed by President Ronald Reagan, would do so deliberately. The effect of his actions on behalf of inflation might nevertheless have that effect.

In the past, the Fed tended to refrain from taking interest-rate actions in election years. Unless there are much clearer signs that inflation is upon us, this year might be one in which we should debate future economic policy rather than stick to obsolescent notions of keeping growth low and unemployment high to satisfy a pre-globalism theory of economics.

We should start that debate by debating Alan Greenspan.