A True Libertarian Wouldn't Have Even Taken the Job (i.e., Fed Chairman)
What would be my response to a person trying to tell me that Alan Greenspan (a person who's been vilified by virtually every living Libertarian over the past several years) isn't really a Republican, that he's actually a staunch Libertarian?
Wikipedia: In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with... Ayn Rand. ...Greenspan was... converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism... He became one of the members of Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective... Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Greenspan came to the Federal Reserve Board from a successful consulting career, holding political views influenced by Ayn Rand.
He has come under criticism from [Ayn Rand Associate] Harry Binswanger, who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.
Greenspan is a registered Republican who served in the Gerald Ford administration, THE GERALD FORD ADMINISTRATION!!. And he didn't just make compromises at the FED. He took the FED down one of the most destructive paths in its history. Yeah, he may have been intellectually influenced by the genius, Rand, but it certainly never translated into any sort of substantive policy at any point in his career.
I wonder if there's ever been a conservative, libertarian, or moderate that wd has admired and/or learned from. I mean, I don't even think that the guy likes mainstream liberals anymore (did you see how he pushed poor Gore off the lifeboat?).
I don't know, Les, every time that I do a post on something other than politics (sports, movies, chicks, etc.), he protests. Everything through a rank political lens, apparently.
Ron Paul is a registered Republican running for the Republican nomination. Is he not a Libertarian?
Will: He took the FED down one of the most destructive paths in its history.
Because he's a Libertarian.
"Rational" Nation: Nor do I give a rats ass about people like you wd.
"Rational", I didn't say I didn't anything about you as a person, I only mentioned your fantasies.
Why do you always have to make it personal?
In any case, my political beliefs aren't fantasies, unlike "Rational's"... mine have been instituted and proven to work. They created the largest middle class the world has seen and sustained economic growth for over 3 decades.
"Mainstream Liberal"?! Gore is a corporate Democrat just like Bill Clinton. If he wants to flush his "network" down the tubes I guess that's his business... but I hope it costs him plenty (because Keith Olbermann prevails in his lawsuit).
Volt, I agree, there are far worse and nastier partisans than wd. Can you say Cliffy, Lydia's Mike (the dullard), Jolly Nimrod, and Bartlebee?............Wow, have you ever soured on Gore, wd. I told you that he wasn't all that.
And to compare Greenspan and Ron Paul is ludicrous. Mr. Paul actually has libertarian positions and Mr. Greenspan's FED policies were totally CONTRA libertarian; his distorting of the market with idiotic interest rate maneuverings, printing more and more monopoly money, creating a bailout culture on Wall Street, etc.. Hell, dude, if you want to cast an insult at Greenspan, you just might want to throw "crony capitalist" instead.
No, my opinion on Al Gore is pretty much the same, with the exception of his going along with firing Keith Olbermann. I'm quite upset about that.
I still believe he is possibly the greatest president who never was. (I stand by what I said in that thread).
And comparing Greenspan and Paul is NOT ridiculous at all. They're both Libertarians who are registered Republicans. I didn't say anything about how true to Libertarian principals each is (or have been).
Will: You said that Greenspan's FED failures were BECAUSE HE WAS A LIBERTARIAN.
Exactly. Greenspan's Libertarian ideology caused him to dismiss fraud as a potential problem.
The Business Insider: The FBI warned publicly in September 2006 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud and predicted that it would cause a financial crisis if it were not stopped. Greenspan took no meaningful action against the fraud. He was the prisoner of the "efficient market hypothesis". [end excerpt from Business Insider]
The Efficient Market Hypothesis is a Libertarian theory.
Most of the foreclosures came NOT from subprime mortgages but from adjustable rate mortgages. This totally explodes the theory that the financial meltdown was caused by unscrupulous bankers preying on poor people. The much larger problem was middle-class people who were purchasing homes on a speculative basis and the FED interfering by making banks way flush with copious amounts of reserve money to lend (printing more and more money and keeping the interest rates artificially low). Mr. Greenspan was not even remotely hands-off in the economy. He created an artificial stimulus by drawing significant money away from where it would have naturally gone (toward savings and/or other sectors of the economy) and into the housing sector. He also encouraged the GSEs and the Federal Housing Administration to borrow and lend at what were unprecedented levels - something that made the artificial housing boom even more pronounced. I mean, there are some very valid reasons why the libertarian purists are disillusioned with Mr. Greenspan, wd.
Monkeying with interest rates is not. Creating a bailout culture is not. Printing monopoly money is not. Encouraging banks and lending institutions to borrow and lend beyond their means is not. Add to that the fact that literally EVERY major Libertarian economist blames him for the meltdown and it still remains a big stretch to call this guy any sort of functional libertarian.
Will: ...it still remains a big stretch to call this guy any sort of functional libertarian.
Greenspan is a Libertarian and it was his Libertarianism that caused him to screw up in his position. That's my analysis and I'm sticking to it. So he was a bad Libertarian. It frightens me to think how much worse things could have been if he were more of a purist.
Regarding the EMH, wikipedia says, "Critics have blamed the belief in rational markets for much of the late-2000s financial crisis". They blame it because it "claims that prices instantly reflect even hidden or insider information". Thus fraud isn't possible (libertarians believe), which is why Greenspan ignored it.
Will: in your own words, please explain the Efficient Market Hypothesis and differentiate for me the 3 major versions.
Will, it requires a reading and understanding of Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Something the average American could giver a shit about.
ReplyDeleteNuff said?
Why am I not surprised? Libertarian Alan Greenspan wasn't really a Libertarian. Of course not.
ReplyDeleteAnd, no, I don't give a shit about the Libertarian fantasies of people like "Rational".
Wikipedia: In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with... Ayn Rand. ...Greenspan was... converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism... He became one of the members of Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective... Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.
ReplyDeleteGreenspan came to the Federal Reserve Board from a successful consulting career, holding political views influenced by Ayn Rand.
He has come under criticism from [Ayn Rand Associate] Harry Binswanger, who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.
Greenspan is a registered Republican who served in the Gerald Ford administration, THE GERALD FORD ADMINISTRATION!!. And he didn't just make compromises at the FED. He took the FED down one of the most destructive paths in its history. Yeah, he may have been intellectually influenced by the genius, Rand, but it certainly never translated into any sort of substantive policy at any point in his career.
ReplyDeleteSo, wd, what do you think about the NAACP taking all of that filthy corporate money? Pretty damned disgusting, no?
ReplyDeleteNor do I give a rats ass about people like you wd.
ReplyDeleteIn fact wd you are the most misguided partisan and delusional DS on the net.
ReplyDeleteBut as long as Will can put up with your fantasies I suppose I can too.
ReplyDeleteAfter all thrre is always a life beyond the BS of politics. Yes?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there's ever been a conservative, libertarian, or moderate that wd has admired and/or learned from. I mean, I don't even think that the guy likes mainstream liberals anymore (did you see how he pushed poor Gore off the lifeboat?).
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Les, every time that I do a post on something other than politics (sports, movies, chicks, etc.), he protests. Everything through a rank political lens, apparently.
ReplyDeleteRN,
ReplyDeleteI could introduce you to a few that are much worse...
-jus sayin.
LOL
Did someone mention Ludwig Von Mises?
ReplyDeleteEven WD should get this...
Will: Greenspan is a registered Republican...
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is a registered Republican running for the Republican nomination. Is he not a Libertarian?
Will: He took the FED down one of the most destructive paths in its history.
Because he's a Libertarian.
"Rational" Nation: Nor do I give a rats ass about people like you wd.
"Rational", I didn't say I didn't anything about you as a person, I only mentioned your fantasies.
Why do you always have to make it personal?
In any case, my political beliefs aren't fantasies, unlike "Rational's"... mine have been instituted and proven to work. They created the largest middle class the world has seen and sustained economic growth for over 3 decades.
"Mainstream Liberal"?! Gore is a corporate Democrat just like Bill Clinton. If he wants to flush his "network" down the tubes I guess that's his business... but I hope it costs him plenty (because Keith Olbermann prevails in his lawsuit).
ReplyDeleteVolt, I agree, there are far worse and nastier partisans than wd. Can you say Cliffy, Lydia's Mike (the dullard), Jolly Nimrod, and Bartlebee?............Wow, have you ever soured on Gore, wd. I told you that he wasn't all that.
ReplyDeleteAnd to compare Greenspan and Ron Paul is ludicrous. Mr. Paul actually has libertarian positions and Mr. Greenspan's FED policies were totally CONTRA libertarian; his distorting of the market with idiotic interest rate maneuverings, printing more and more monopoly money, creating a bailout culture on Wall Street, etc.. Hell, dude, if you want to cast an insult at Greenspan, you just might want to throw "crony capitalist" instead.
ReplyDeleteNo, my opinion on Al Gore is pretty much the same, with the exception of his going along with firing Keith Olbermann. I'm quite upset about that.
ReplyDeleteI still believe he is possibly the greatest president who never was. (I stand by what I said in that thread).
And comparing Greenspan and Paul is NOT ridiculous at all. They're both Libertarians who are registered Republicans. I didn't say anything about how true to Libertarian principals each is (or have been).
You said that Greenspan's FED failures were BECAUSE HE WAS A LIBERTARIAN.
ReplyDeleteWill: You said that Greenspan's FED failures were BECAUSE HE WAS A LIBERTARIAN.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Greenspan's Libertarian ideology caused him to dismiss fraud as a potential problem.
The Business Insider: The FBI warned publicly in September 2006 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud and predicted that it would cause a financial crisis if it were not stopped. Greenspan took no meaningful action against the fraud. He was the prisoner of the "efficient market hypothesis". [end excerpt from Business Insider]
The Efficient Market Hypothesis is a Libertarian theory.
Most of the foreclosures came NOT from subprime mortgages but from adjustable rate mortgages. This totally explodes the theory that the financial meltdown was caused by unscrupulous bankers preying on poor people. The much larger problem was middle-class people who were purchasing homes on a speculative basis and the FED interfering by making banks way flush with copious amounts of reserve money to lend (printing more and more money and keeping the interest rates artificially low). Mr. Greenspan was not even remotely hands-off in the economy. He created an artificial stimulus by drawing significant money away from where it would have naturally gone (toward savings and/or other sectors of the economy) and into the housing sector. He also encouraged the GSEs and the Federal Housing Administration to borrow and lend at what were unprecedented levels - something that made the artificial housing boom even more pronounced. I mean, there are some very valid reasons why the libertarian purists are disillusioned with Mr. Greenspan, wd.
ReplyDeleteThe Efficient Market Hypothesis is a Libertarian theory.
ReplyDeleteMonkeying with interest rates is not. Creating a bailout culture is not. Printing monopoly money is not. Encouraging banks and lending institutions to borrow and lend beyond their means is not. Add to that the fact that literally EVERY major Libertarian economist blames him for the meltdown and it still remains a big stretch to call this guy any sort of functional libertarian.
ReplyDeletewd, in your own words, please explain the Efficient Market Hypothesis and differentiate for me the 3 major versions.
ReplyDeleteWill: ...it still remains a big stretch to call this guy any sort of functional libertarian.
ReplyDeleteGreenspan is a Libertarian and it was his Libertarianism that caused him to screw up in his position. That's my analysis and I'm sticking to it. So he was a bad Libertarian. It frightens me to think how much worse things could have been if he were more of a purist.
Regarding the EMH, wikipedia says, "Critics have blamed the belief in rational markets for much of the late-2000s financial crisis". They blame it because it "claims that prices instantly reflect even hidden or insider information". Thus fraud isn't possible (libertarians believe), which is why Greenspan ignored it.
Will: in your own words, please explain the Efficient Market Hypothesis and differentiate for me the 3 major versions.
Look it up yourself if you don't understand it.