Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Allan Greenspan

Rate this topic


primemover

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would think that the best way to address the issue (assuming one wishes to address it, as you did) in that stage is to simply ask why- Why do you think her arguments are weak? Why do you disagree?

But I did not care what his arguments were. What he said was insulting to Ayn Rand and to other Objectivists. That is what I cared about, and that is what I addressed.

Not only that you don't ask, but you write that you are not interested in reading anything he'd write about it(you say- "as to now presenting your arguments..." are you punishing him?).
Did you not read what I wrote in my post? I explained quite clearly why I was not interested in discussing the issue. In part, I said:

"As to now presenting your arguments against "About A Woman President," please do not do so now if your arguments are meant solely for me. Over the years, this issue has been discussed so many times, in so many ways, that I personally have no interest in discussing it anymore. If you want to present your arguments for others to discuss, then feel free to do what you want."

How can you possibly interpret that as "punishing him?"

... he really did not give you such a reason to be so rude.

That is your view. But, since you did not address a single one of the reasons which I gave as to why I objected to what he wrote, I choose to just ignore your view. If you actually want to refute any of the reasons I gave, rather than just scold me for not acting how you would act, then address the reasons I gave for why his words were so insulting. I repeat the entirety of the post below.

---------------------

If your words were not meant as being disrespectful towards Ayn Rand, then I am, of course, delighted to hear that. But, it wasn't the small "o" on Objectivist alone to which I responded, but mostly the rest of your words:

"I'm an objectivist, but her arguments in it are so weak that it doesn't take a genius to indetify all the cracks... just read it."

When the claim is made that Miss Rand's "arguments ... are so weak," without any explanation or justification as to why, I do not think it unreasonable to assume that a slur on Ayn Rand is being made. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Ayn Rand, and would never even think of calling her arguments "weak" without massive support for such a claim. It is one thing to say something like "I disagee with the conclusion," and not want to present your arguments for some reason. It is another thing entirely to accuse Ayn Rand as having "weak" arguments, and not back that up.

Also, the remark "it doesn't take a genius to indetify all the cracks" is demeaning to Ayn Rand herself, since she was a genius and she made those arguments. It is also demeaning to the many intelligent Objectivists who agree with those arguments made by Ayn Rand.

As to now presenting your arguments against "About A Woman President," please do not do so now if your arguments are meant solely for me. Over the years, this issue has been discussed so many times, in so many ways, that I personally have no interest in discussing it anymore. If you want to present your arguments for others to discuss, then feel free to do what you want. Incidentally, you are certainly not the only person to ever disagree with Ayn Rand about either of the two issues which you mention.

Those are the reasons for which I questioned that you really were an Objectivist. If in fact, as you seem to indicate, you meant no slur or ill will by your comment, then I am sorry that I questioned your overall acceptance of the philosophy. But, I hope, at least, that you see what was wrong with what you said and how you said it, and that you will word your comments more carefully in the future.

--------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reason, Stephen, to why his words were insulting to AR and to other Objectivists, was that AR was a genius.

Do you suggest that because she was right about A, B, and C then D must also be right? The fact that she was a genius shouldn't mean a thing when one begins evaluating one of her works for the first time. Do you understand that? Otherwise- one is basing his judgment on a fallacy.

 

But I did not care what his arguments were. What he said was insulting to Ayn Rand and to other Objectivists. That is what I cared about, and that is what I addressed.

Why is him saying he find her arguments weak so insulting to you? What do you care? If you think she is right and that only a minor mind would find her wrong about that- Alright then. Why do you bother yourself with that, to the point that a minor mind can insult you? When stupid people that just started reading TFH tell me her characters are flat, I don't care, I just never talk to them again.

I can go on, but it won't matter. The reason I wrote in the first place is that I found your post a bit angry and I didn't understand why. Your response to me seems a bit angry too. I did not intend to scold you and I said it (

I do not wish to offend you, but you regard yorself as a serious Objectivist. As one, I thought you'd want to hear my comments. You could gain a lot more from people...
) , why did you ignore it and act like I attacked you?

I guess my main question is this- Why, in the first place(after he wrote what he wrote about AR), did you make it personal? What good did you think it would bring to take the discussion to personal insults instead of trying to beat him in the intellectual field?

I am not fighting you , I don't even know you. remember that if you wish to answer me.

Now, taking it back to the intellectual zone- If you may(yes, you wrote youv'e delt with it enough :) ), I would very much like to hear what you think about "About a Woman President". Do you agree? disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"d180586," or Dolev, you clearly do not grasp what I found insulting to Ayn Rand. As far as I am concerned, your focus distorts the actual issue, and you act as an apologist for the one who made the insults. I have no interest in convincing you.

As to why I am angry, and "What do you care?", the answer is quite simple. I have a great respect and admiration for Ayn Rand, and I do not like my values to be insulted. There are several unmoderated forums where such insults are regularly expressed towards Ayn Rand, and in such unmoderated groups you can only ignore the insults, or not read the forum at all.

This is a moderated forum, one dedicated to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If insults and offensive remarks towards Ayn Rand were permitted, I would walk away from this group in the blink of an eye. Insults permitted towards Ayn Rand on a moderated forum are many times more grievous than on an unmoderated group. On a moderated group the content can be controlled, and to not control insults toward Ayn Rand would legitimize such insults in a way not possible on an unmoderated forum.

I am not a Christian, and I do not turn the other cheek when it has been slapped. If insults towards Ayn Rand do not bother you, that's your problem. They bother me, and if I hear such insults on a good forum like this one, I will speak up, just as I did. On another moderated forum, like HBL, the moderator controls the content before anything gets posted. Insults towards Ayn Rand would never appear there. Here, the moderators get to control content after an insult is posted, and I choose to speak up and draw their attention to that. If you do not like that, I really do not care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the perception of what the Fed might do is often a bigger player than what the Fed actually does (as far as market volitility is concerned). 

I think that is one of the biggest reasons that he has not made and frankly Objectivist statements, if he is an Objectivist.

Huh? If he made frankly Objectivist statements, as far as I can tell that could only affect the market positively--in which case, if he is an Objectivist, why wouldn't he do exactly that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

greenspan crossed over. He mentions atlas shrugged as one of his favorite books. He also was one of Rand's "followers" if you will. How can anyone who likes atlas shrugged, and knows Thompson's faustian offer to Galt, still work in the position he does? So, it is feasible to say the least that he may have "other plans." Like francisco, he may choose to abandon his principles to the public, but he may be really working toward a goal of destroying the semi-socialist state. In his position, it wouldnt take long to ruin the global economy. That is the theory, whether thats what he is up to is entirely debatable.

If Greenspan were working as some kind of "undercover" Objectivist, and indeed had the kind of plans that you speculate he might--then what is he waiting for? If you think his plan is to use his power to promote the Objectivist cause in some way--why hasn't he already done it? He's held that position for decades now, and is on the verge of retirement. I think the evidence points clearly to the conclusion that he abandoned Objectivism long ago, and any speculations to the contrary are without evidence, i.e., completely arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Greenspan were working as some kind of "undercover" Objectivist, and indeed had the kind of plans that you speculate he might--then what is he waiting for?  If you think his plan is to use his power to promote the Objectivist cause in some way--why hasn't he already done it?  He's held that position for decades now, and is on the verge of retirement.  I think the evidence points clearly to the conclusion that he abandoned Objectivism long ago, and any speculations to the contrary are without evidence, i.e., completely arbitrary.

Those much more knowledgeable about economics than me, people like Objectivist economist Richard Salsman, or philosopher Harry Binswanger, have made devastating analyses of some of the economic notions and policies which Greenspan holds and has implemented. This is admittedly second-hand knowledge on my part, but I tend to agree with what Ash has said. The evidence seems quite strong against Greenspan, and there is nothing of substance to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

to nimble: amazing, i had the exact same theory as you after i read a book about Ayn Rand's life and how much she influenced Alan Greenspan.

at that time, the cold war was still going on and the world was looking at whether communism or capitalism would win in the end. according to the book, Ayn told Alan that if our country's economy failed then people/society would blame capitalism and start looking elsewhere (i.e. communism) for a solution. she also attended a ceremony where he was inducted into his first government post. i forget the exact details...but i think its the one where Nixon appointed him. it sounded to me that she was quite proud of how far he'd gone. also, i couldnt fathom the idea of anyone being objectivist and then turning against it. whether he still is or not...only he knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

late reply to argive: Donald L Luskin's website is tagged with the line "How Big Government, Big Business, Big Media and Big Academia block your road to financial freedom...and tell you it's for your own good". Somehow the derogatory reference to big business doesn't make him sound very objectivist. Maybe he's one of those characters who subscribe to certain objectivist ideas, but not all (like Greenspan?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

late reply to argive: Donald L Luskin's website is tagged with the line "How Big Government, Big Business, Big Media and Big Academia block your road to financial freedom...and tell you it's for your own good". Somehow the derogatory reference to big business doesn't make him sound very objectivist.

Is there any big business in America that has not sold it's soul to the looters? Seems to me that most business in America today are very similar to the ones described in Atlas Shrugged.

Since we are in a mixed and therefore immoral economy can any large business exist and be moral?

I exempted small business but in reality they suffer just as much goverment regulation as big business. So I guess the real question is: Are there any truly moral companies out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To AutoJC,

When Alan Greenspan entered this role, Ayn Rand had supported him.

Even though the gold standard will make his job obsolete, as he himself said many times in the past, as long as the dollar is not attached to the gold standard, it takes an enormously capable man to hold the US economy functioning.

If Greenspan believed he was the best candidate for the job, while publicly supporting a return to the gold standard, then I see nothing wrong with him trying to save the US economy from a less competent chairman of the Federal Reserve.

As far as his actions in this role... I don't know enough economics to judge them, nor do I know enough about Alan Greenspan today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has an enormous power that is still limited. He can only do so much. His job becomes increasingly more difficult with each bill that expands the national budget. This causes a bigger deficit. Other countries are raising the price of their currency. This hurts international trade. Soon it will damage our economy beyond what he can prevent. Inflation is related to deficit spending. And he will have to raise interest rates alot higher soon. To keep the inflation money out of the markets.

The only solution that would bring back the gold standard is privatizing banks once again. And i dont see that happening any time soon. And we could use a nice amendment that prevents the government from deficit spending. I dont know who had the bright idea one day and said "hey! if we are short on money lets just print more. Tax payers will make up for it later, and no one will know the difference."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just took my first Economics class last semester. according to my professor a guy named Keynes came up with demand-side economics. its too complicated to explain on a forum, but according to the theory...if the government "demands" more products by increasing government spending (ex. buying tanks for defense) ... then businesses who produce tanks, etc. will increase production, increasing jobs, and those employees will increase spending...and thus ending up in economic expansion. According to Keynes... the solution to a recession is to increase government spending and lower taxes. that said, my professor thought the whole Keynesian theory was dumb, he liked the Classical theory of economics better. however, according to him, that is what the united states has been doing since the depression. before then the government was required to balance its budget...something unheard of in our days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

interesting article at http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle....storyID=5544527

notice what the guy says about Greenspan! ..i'm taking it as a small support for the Francisco Theory. p.s. just read the forum rules...hope this isnt too long. :blink:

While offering a tempered critique of Fed policy, Meyer, an award-winning economic forecaster, expresses admiration for Greenspan's ability to divine the economy's inner workings.

"Yes, I did have my differences with the chairman ... but the point is that we were all learning together as the world's economies whipsawed about," Meyer writes.

Meyer credits Greenspan with being the first to recognize that the pace of U.S. productivity growth had picked up appreciably in the mid-1990s, allowing the U.S. economy to grow faster without igniting inflation.

"Like a scientist silently at work, he sought to uncover inconsistencies between the data and what he saw in the real world," Meyer says of the Fed chief. "His call on the productivity acceleration was truly a great one."

However, as have others before him, Meyer expresses frustration at what he calls "the disproportionate power" Greenspan wields over Fed policy.

He describes a relationship with the chairman one might call remote. "I think he actually savored his distance from the rest of us," Meyer says of Greenspan.

The book as a whole offers a picture of a policy-maker laboring in isolation.

"I have to tell you that, for most of the time, it was a rather lonely place to work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Franciscio Theory, I think, is pretty silly. There have been no actual indications during Greenspan's career as Fed head that he's trying to make any significant changes in the system. He's been frank about his own views of economics, and at one point I believe he said publicly (this may have been quoted earlier) that he didn't think *anyone* should have his position. But he has also backed down from some of his earlier views, such as his support for the gold standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked briefly, and I can't find anything. I had heard that he said something to Congress indicating that he thought returning to the gold standard was now a bad idea, since it would cause too much economic disruption or something. I don't recall the source, though, so perhaps I was wrong on that.

However, I did find an interesting article relating to this. Apparently, until approximately 1997 Greenspan's shifts of the interest rate tracked the price of gold with remarkable accuracy, leading the author of the article to conclude that Greenspan was trying to enact a de facto gold standard. After 1997, and following his "irrational exuberance" comments, the interest rate moved dramatically away from changes in the price of gold.

I'd have to research it more to be sure that he was actually tracking gold, rather than doing something else which happened to cause a correlation between the interest rates and the price of gold. But the graph in the article was fairly convincing. It's also interesting that it only shifted off at a time when Greenspan was articulating a new economic principle. So if it's true that he was trying to tie the dollar to gold as much as possible until 1997, but then stopped, then it sounds like he effectively dismissed the gold standard -- whether or not the claims that he did so openly were true.

EDIT: The article is available at http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...uskin013103.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably one of the most accurate portraits of Alan is Alan Shrugged. Regardless of what else Tucille has written in the past, the book as I read it the first couple times had a real accurate "feel". He did mention that Greenspan really was still a gold bug alond the lines of Ron Paul and other libertarians. While I agree that the divergence of gold rates and the supply of money along with the appreciation of the markets a few years ago did signal a real change in his mindset, I'd still bet he's thinking gold standard. Which is the problem in my mind.

Now the one thing that has always bugged me (pun intended) about gold bugs is the conflict in their premises. The premise for the gold standard as I see it is such: fiat currency with no standard allows a central bank to inflate the monetary supply thereby a)causing inflation b)giving the central bank and therefore government a near total control over the currency supply and economy. The argument goes that if currency is pegged to a specific exchange rate with gold, their can be no inflation unless the supply of gold itself increases. This woud in theory tie the hands of central planners and inflation hawks. This would result in fiscal responisbility by central planners and those guys in the nation's capital.

The only problem is thus: they are still relying on a central banking authority to set the standard of exchange between bullion gold and currency. Instead of the fed saying that there is X amount of USD$ in circulation, the fed would be stuck with a certain exchange rate of currency limted by the supply of gold. However, it's just as easy for the Fed to say that the money supply goes from 100 trillion to 110 trillion as it is to say each dollar represents 1/340th of an ounce of gold is now 1/350th of an ounce of gold.

The problem herein is thus: by relying on a central bank to set rates, whether it's money supply or bullion exchange ratio is just choosing which side of an illegitamate coin you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think the only role gov would have in terms of rates would be limited to keeping the exchange rate constant as in standards/measurements. 1 dollar = 1 oz. of gold (or whatever) and keep it there. It's up to the market to decide how much 1 oz of gold buys of a particular product/service. "A dollar" is just an abstraction. It's the objective amount of gold that is being traded.

If they could change it rate, it would be as useless as if they could arbitrarily redefine 1 inch to equal | | instead of | |.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note on the inch thing: in the first instance, HTML (go to the menu bar, view > source) treats whitespace of any length (spaces, newlines, tabs - however many of them and in whatever order) as simply one space. You could have two million spaces and thirty thousand tabs, and it still would display as a single space. (Here, when you post, the software converts newlines, ie, pressing enter, into something else which does display as a line break.)

In the second instance, the width of the sequence of asterisks depends on three things: the font and text size each person has his browser set to, the resolution each person has set his moniter to, and the physical size of the monitor. There is almost not a chance in hell that the way the asterisks looked as you posted them is exactly the way that anybody else will see them. (Also, here, the text-box where you type your posts may have a different font/size setting from that of the browser).

But, I understood the point in conceptual terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper dollar can be backed by any objective value, it doesnt have to be gold or only gold. Silver works. Any precious metals work. Truly you could have a paper standard, where the dollar was actually worth what it was printed on. It wouldnt be practical, but the point is that the government shouldnt be able to dictate the price of the dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...