Greenspan's Sand Castle - Built by Ayn Rand
I just wanted to spread this little gem around a little. There's not much to add. But I think this diary gets at the very root of the problem with the conservative movement -- that it has, at its core, a complete lack of ethical or moral vision. In fact, I think we can take it one further and say that the idea of so-called free-market, unrestrained, self-regulating business is perhaps the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the world. Far from bringing increased freedom, this little fiction has been the exact opposite of what it purports to be. It has been a force for amoral (and immoral) greed, it causes real death, and it is diametrically opposed to the functioning of a healthy democracy.
In other words, it is a bunch of Bull, and Greenspan's 11th-hour, tepid "conversion" (HA! More like 13th hour) does not fully convey the enormity of this Grand Error. How unfortunate that so many lack the critical thinking skills to see past this ruse.
Which begs the question, how did Greenspan not see Rand's error? I believe he did, but he decided to promote this philosophy for the benefit of the highest tier of wealth-holders. I truly believe he thinks there is a moral superiority that comes with wealth and that any economic system should "redline" the burden on workers and maximize the upward redistribution of resources.
In other words, it is a bunch of Bull, and Greenspan's 11th-hour, tepid "conversion" (HA! More like 13th hour) does not fully convey the enormity of this Grand Error. How unfortunate that so many lack the critical thinking skills to see past this ruse.
Which begs the question, how did Greenspan not see Rand's error? I believe he did, but he decided to promote this philosophy for the benefit of the highest tier of wealth-holders. I truly believe he thinks there is a moral superiority that comes with wealth and that any economic system should "redline" the burden on workers and maximize the upward redistribution of resources.
Advertisement
The theory of healthy self-regulating free-markets assumes the following key conditions:
1. All participants make only rational decisions - no emotionalism, such as fear or greed (ROFLMAO).
2. All participants have equal access to information affecting the market (LMAO).
3. No participant has any greater ability to affect the market than any other participant (also, LMAO).
All three of these assumptions are false because they fail to include human nature. Free-market theory is based on an academic fantasy. Truly free-markets are self-destructive because they are prone to catastrophic instability - as is now only too apparent. Markets must be regulated to remain stable.
October 26, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Greed. Nuff said. Good link to a well reasoned post exjournalist. Interesting to hear that Greenspan was an acolyte of Rand's. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged somehow strikes me as the republican version of J.D. Salinger's, Catcher in the Rye: something you should endeavor to outgrow.
October 27, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiousity, how should markets work? if you're not going to base it on greed, or on wealth, or on personal acheivement, what should it be based on?
If your point is Greenspan, and by association, Rand, was wrong about the way markets work, what is the right answer?
Most people work to give themselves (meaning their families, too) a better life. That's their motivation. They don't want to work to help others -- they don't want to work for a greater good -- until they have taken care of those for whom they are directly responsible to whatever level they feel appropriate.
As you damn them, remember that Marxism or communinism, or even spocialism, didn't fare any better. Human nature always sinks us to the lowest level, leading us to take advantage when we can.
So, back to my point. What regulations should be put in place? Prohibit short selling? I'd like to see a guidleline that requires you to hold onto stock for at least 60 days after purchasing it -- make people buy companies, not stock prices -- but that would hardly seem fair to someone who got stuck in a collapse. Where does that line lie?
Also, I don't think this is as much a stock issue as it is a housing issue. A lot of people bought houses in the last decade. I sold a lot of houses in the last decade. And that allowed the economy to grow. Then bad decisions were made. I blame builders, but that's just me because two have fired me in the last year, and prices collapsed. That's what caused the mess more than anything else. I won't vote for him -- and he's got no plan to fix it -- but McCain's right in saying the problem in the country is declining home values. That screws everything else up.
So blaming Greenspan, to me, doesn't make much sense. Blaming Lennar or Pulte or Centex, that's a good place to start.
October 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of curiosity, did you actually read the article I linked to?
And when someone starts mouthing platitudes about "personal achievement" and brings up "socialism" we know it's just the same tired old schtick.
How about enforcing accounting rules so companies are forced to reveal their true financial health, instead of "legal lying" where everything's fine until the implosion?
How about NOT promoting risky, predatory lending that fueled the housing bubble, like Greenspan did at its height in 2004:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2007/08/bush-vs-greensp.html
Oh, but I suppose that kind of stuff is socialism, right? Wrong. It's called democracy, where the rules are there to protect the citizens instead of the moneyed elite.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Thomas Jefferson (you can substitute "corporations" for "banks" and it works just as well)
And that's just for starters. All these complex financial instruments -- CDOs, derivatives, computer modeling -- that have been created in recent years serve only one purpose -- to obfuscate the money trail while the top guys make off with the loot. So I'll repeat: regulation is NOT socialism. It is democracy.
A banker I spoke with recently said his bank, a "healthy" one, would turn down someone for a car loan, only to find out they got approved for a MORTGAGE somewhere else a little later. This was not a housing boom. It was a credit boom.
October 27, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn Objectivists...
October 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink