Is Greenspan really Francisco D'Anconia?

[adrock3215]

Think about it.

His loose money policy is the cause of the current crisis. The entire financial sector is going under because of him, and the debt markets are seized up. Maybe Greenspan is smarter than we thought. Maybe he is still an Objectivist. Some time ago, Ron Paul asked him at a Congressional hearing if he stood by his essay in C:UI, and Greenspan stated that he still upheld the moral superiority of the Gold Standard.

Is it possible that Greenspan did this on purpose? That he really is Francisco D'Anconia, and he expanded credit on purpose to cause a fiat money collapse?

I don't know, but it's nice to think that he did.

Edited October 9, 2008 by adrock3215

[Grames]

No.

[softwareNerd]

No, ... he's the guy who took a job like the one Galt refused, pretended we could all sleep at night now that Uncle G. was looking out for us, and left just in time.

[Tenure]

You would have legitimate grounds for your hypothesis if he was a banker, deliberately handing out subprime loans and cooking his books, to build up a nice big bubble to pop, knowingly precipitating a crash in the market. However, as sNerd pointed out, that's not what he did. He took the job Galt couldn't take.

[JMartins]

Didn't Ayn Rand approve of Greenspan's decision to go to Washington though? I seem to remember her saying so, at a Q&A after one of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum.

[Ordr]

Didn't Ayn Rand approve of Greenspan's decision to go to Washington though? I seem to remember her saying so, at a Q&A after one of her lectures at the Ford Hall Forum.

Greenspan has fallen a long way since his younger days in Washington.

[agrippa1]

Rand was in the Oval office when Greenspan was sworn in as economic adviser under Ford. Greenspan was at Rand's funeral in 1982. So you would have to say that they were close until the end of her days.

He is very supportive both of the gold standard and of Objectivist philosophy in his latest memoir, and dismisses Objectivism somewhat half-heartedly on the sole basis of its insistence that gov't funding be voluntary. Not exactly a stinging condemnation, given that folks on this forum agree that gov't funding is still an open issue in Objectivist political ideology.

Interesting is Rand's personal nickname for Greenspan, which he reveals in his memoir:

The Undertaker.

[01503]

Rand was in the Oval office when Greenspan was sworn in as economic adviser under Ford. Greenspan was at Rand's funeral in 1982. So you would have to say that they were close until the end of her days.

He is very supportive both of the gold standard and of Objectivist philosophy in his latest memoir, and dismisses Objectivism somewhat half-heartedly on the sole basis of its insistence that gov't funding be voluntary. Not exactly a stinging condemnation, given that folks on this forum agree that gov't funding is still an open issue in Objectivist political ideology.

Interesting is Rand's personal nickname for Greenspan, which he reveals in his memoir:

The Undertaker.

I think that she called him that because of the very dark suits he wore.

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspa...and_Objectivism ):

Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor.

[adrock3215]

You would have legitimate grounds for your hypothesis if he was a banker, deliberately handing out subprime loans and cooking his books, to build up a nice big bubble to pop

Isn't that what he was and did?

Edited October 10, 2008 by adrock3215

[agrippa1]

I think that she called him that because of the very dark suits he wore.

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspa...and_Objectivism ):

Gee you must be right, otherwise Wikipedia would have stated:

"Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of their secret plan to bury socialism by fatally debauching America's fiat currency using an altruistic agenda."

Rand was apparently big on judging and identifying people based on their sartorial leanings, rather than on their philosophy.

[softwareNerd]

Rand was in the Oval office when Greenspan was sworn in as economic adviser under Ford.

I think it's reasonable to suppose that he went in thinking that it makes sense to work to make the system better. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's also reasonable to suppose that he continued to tell himself that he was doing all he could, and any more push back would be counter-productive, because they system would spit him out. For instance, he made many negative comments about deficits; but, he never raised a stink, and always seemed to be in control -- as if the government was being bad, but Uncle G would figure a way how to keep things in hand anyway. This approaches is not so uncommon: where someone goes into an organization, wanting to change it, but it slowly changes him, as he realizes the cost of membership. For a fictional analogy, consider Wynand, who thought he was powerful because of his newspaper, but realized it was only because he "channeled" a certain message. He, as such, had no power except while acting as that channel. That's what I think got Greenspan: power-lust.

He is very supportive both of the gold standard ...

Like his negative comments about deficits, his positives on the gold-standard have always been unimpressive. I don't know what he wrote in his book, but he did not take any actions in this area while he was chairman. Some people spin a story that he targeted the price of gold; I hope he doesn't say that in his book -- because I would consider it to be a self-deception.

He is very supportive both the ... Objectivist philosophy in his latest memoir, and dismisses Objectivism somewhat half-heartedly on the sole basis of its insistence that gov't funding be voluntary.

The quote I found on the web was:

One contradiction I found particularly enlightening. According to objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individuals' rights through police power? The Randian answer, that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily, was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?

I still found the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition compelling, as I do to this day, but I reluctantly began to realize that if there were qualifications to my intellectual edifice, I couldn't argue that others should readily accept it. [...]

Basically, in this quote, he's really dismissing Objectivist politics completely with this criticism., because he gives the impression that Objectivist politics is Adam Smith without taxation.

Not sure is he talks supportively about the radical feature of Objectivism memoir: it's anti-altruism/pro-selfishness. If not, he reduces Objectivism to politics.

Interesting is Rand's personal nickname for Greenspan, which he reveals in his memoir:The Undertaker.

It's quite an apt name, if one considers his demeanor. Not surprising the author in Rand summed him up in a playful way that drew a perfect image.

[adrock3215]

Like his negative comments about deficits, his positives on the gold-standard have always been unimpressive. I don't know what he wrote in his book, but he did not take any actions in this area while he was chairman. Some people spin a story that he targeted the price of gold; I hope he doesn't say that in his book -- because I would consider it to be a self-deception.

I've read his book, and he does not mention the gold standard at all (although he favorably mentions his Antitrust essay from C:UI). He credits Rand with changing his life intellectually, but he dismisses her political theory. One thing he often mentions in his book is Global Warming. I can remember more than a few references to Global Warming, and he seemed to come out strongly for government intervention to stop it.

Since I can't ever really resist posting an interesting quote, here was my favorite from Greenspan's book:

If you compare the dollar value of the GDP of 2006 with the GDP of 1946, after adjusting for inflation, the GDP of the country over which George W. Bush presides is seven times larger than Harry Truman's. The weight of the inputs of materials required to produce the 2006 output, however, is only modestly greater than was required to produce the 1946 output. This means that almost all of the real-value-added increases in our output reflect the embodiment of ideas.

[agrippa1]

I've read his book, and he does not mention the gold standard at all...

This is what I was referring to:

I have always harbored a nostalgia for the gold standard's inherent price stability-a stable currency was its primary goal. But I've long since acquiesced in the fact that the gold standard does not readily accommodate the widely accepted current view of the appropriate functions of government-in particular the need for government to provide a social safety net. The propensity of Congress to create benefits for constituents without specifying the means by which they are to be funded has led to deficit spending in every fiscal year since 1970, with the exception of the surpluses of 1998 to 2001 generated by the stock-market boom... For the most part, the American people have tolerated the inflation bias as an acceptable cost to the modern welfare state. There is no support for the gold standard today, and I see no likelihood of its return.

p. 480

The point I take from your post is that if Greenspan is Francisco, he would work, as Francisco did, from within the system. It's a pretty whacked idea, and I feel I can say that because I raised it last year in this thread.

Still, whacked as it may be, it would resolve Greenspan's contradictions.

[adrock3215]

The point I take from your post is that if Greenspan is Francisco, he would work, as Francisco did, from within the system. It's a pretty whacked idea, and I feel I can say that because I raised it last year in this thread.

Nice quote find. I was wrong, he does mention the gold standard.

Regardless of whether or not he purposefully did so, Greenspan actually performed the role of Francisco and he's brought down the entire fiat system (temporarily at least).

[Tenure]

Isn't that what he was and did?

No, because a bank is a voluntary system, where only those who accept the precept that money has no objective value - a value untainted by the need for a 'social safety net' - will get involved. The Fed, however, diddles with everyone's money and is completely non-voluntary. It is coercion into the money supply and would rightfully be called a fraud in a voluntary banking system.

Francisco allowed anyone to get involved in his destructive projects, but even went so far as to warn Hank, a good man, to steer clear of making any deals with him, lest he face the same wrath as everyone else.

[KurtColville]

Regardless of whether or not he purposefully did so, Greenspan actually performed the role of Francisco and he's brought down the entire fiat system (temporarily at least).

The rest of your posts on economics are great, but I must emphatically disagree with this. Francisco did not merely bring down the copper industry. He brought it down in order to render the looters impotent and to clear the way for what would replace it, a world for producers. He also steered the men of the mind toward Galt, so that they might be spared his ruin. He was not merely a wrecking ball out to wreck civilization.

Where is this element of good in Greenspan's actions or words? What could lead one to believe that he is a key figure in attempting to destroy the looters today to create a new, rational world? Nothing. He is a pragmatist and power-luster, pure and simple.

[adrock3215]

The rest of your posts on economics are great, but I must emphatically disagree with this. Francisco did not merely bring down the copper industry. He brought it down in order to render the looters impotent and to clear the way for what would replace it, a world for producers. He also steered the men of the mind toward Galt, so that they might be spared his ruin. He was not merely a wrecking ball out to wreck civilization.

Where is this element of good in Greenspan's actions or words? What could lead one to believe that he is a key figure in attempting to destroy the looters today to create a new, rational world? Nothing. He is a pragmatist and power-luster, pure and simple.

You're right. They are totally different.

[KindredAmy]

About Uncle G's unprincipledness, the question, "What can you do when you have to deal with people?," alludes more to his behavior, rather than romanticizing him as a conscious destroyer of the economy with some undefined Objectivist goal in mind. I'm going with Occam's razor on this one. And I'd compare him more as the Stadler of economics rather than a Wynand. At least Wynand had a private enterprise, and was not a government leach.

Greenspan's conviction that the government MUST tax people through force leads me to think he has a negative view of man philosophically. After all, people have free will, which, I guess, means that they are inherently bad or stupid, right.

It's an embarrassment that G-man mentions free will at all -- how could he forget that having free will means possessing the facility of reason, which means that people can be persuaded to make rational decisions? If he found himself unable to convince anyone of free market ideas, he should have gotten out of there to become an educator or a John Allison instead -- rather than the spineless mediocrity he is now, living off his government pension.

In fact, he had forgotten (or evaded) that he, himself, possesses free will. So I'm not surprised that he belittles others by using "free will" as an insult. If he didn't view others as too corrupt or stupid to voluntarily pay taxes, he would have to hold *himself* to a higher standard. And as for saying that a gold standard is morally superior, what do you suppose he would say about it being practically superior? My guess is that he has a major split between the moral and practical.

Poor guy. Can't believe he wasted all of Ayn Rand's most powerful and moral ideas on squat. Blahk!

[~Sophia~]

Greenspan is now being blamed for the current financial crisis. Notice the reasons:

Under the headline:

Greenspan’s Reputation in Ruins—Deservedly So

The latest blow to his legacy is a front-page article in the New York Times on October 9. It notes that from the start of his chairmanship, Greenspan repeated just one mantra: deregulation, more deregulation and even more deregulation. Not only did he believe in giving the market unbridled reign, he vigorously opposed any recommendations by others for better oversight. In a fascinating back-and-forth narrated in the Times, Greenspan in 1997 questioned the sanity of the then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, when she recommended stricter regulation.

“Greenspan told Brooksley that she essentially didn’t know what she was doing and she’d cause a financial crisis,”

Accusations from that NYT article:

• While Warren Buffett and and Felix Rohatyn were calling derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" and potential "hydrogen bombs", Greenspan was collaborating with Robert Rubin and Larry Summers during the Clinton administration to prevent all efforts to regulate them.

• Brooksley E. Born, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading, warned Congress in 1997 that derivatives needed to be regulated. Greenspan, Rubin and then-SEC chair Arthur Levitt responded by asking Congress to strip the Commission of its regulatory authority, and Congress complied. Born then left the commission. Levitt, who now regrets his position, said "Greenspan opposes regulating derivatives because of a fundamental disdain for government."

• “Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury,”

• "Mr. Greenspan helped enable an ambitious American experiment in letting market forces run free. Now, the nation is confronting the consequences."

Full Article

Edited October 10, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[softwareNerd]

Greenspan is now being blamed for the current financial crisis. Notice the reasons:

... ...

• "Mr. Greenspan helped enable an ambitious American experiment in letting market forces run free. Now, the nation is confronting the consequences."

Many articles that mention Greenspan "extremist free-market ideology", also mention Ayn Rand as his inspiration. That may end up being be his lasting legacy. Other Fed chiefs might have brought us to this same mess we're in today; but, Greenspan (in the public's eye) has done it in the name of free-markets. When the current crisis blows away, all that will be remembered is a vague idea that "Greenspan push for a free-market, and it failed". This is analogous to the severe problems caused by so-called electricity "de-regulation".

Greenspan's other legacy may be as the man who kept Social Security in place, not once, but twice. The first time, he pushed for higher taxes to be paid out as social-security and a higher boondoggle calculation of what the non-existent fund contained. This time, he's been a major player in killing the nascent idea of privatizing social-security.

This is not the end of the world. So, if Greenspan was planning to be d'Anconia, he will fail. On the other hand, it is going to be a struggle to undo the destruction to the credibility of the free-market.

[adrock3215]

On the other hand, it is going to be a struggle to undo the destruction to the credibility of the free-market.

At this point, the damage seems irrepairable. I picked up the Washington Post this morning and was confronted with this story titled The End of American Capitalism? on the top left of the front page. The current financial crisis is a disaster for free-market advocates. I think that this is at least one convincing reason not to vote for Republicans. Under our current "mixed economy" system, whenever something goes wrong with a Republican in office, it is blamed on "deregulation" and "free markets". Under Democratic leadership, I've noticed that the opposite effect tends to occur.

Edited October 10, 2008 by adrock3215

[KurtColville]

You're right. They are totally different.

I appreciate that, and your posts really are very good. Another thing I thought of in the meantime: late in life, he married leftist journalist Andrea Mitchell. For Francisco, that would be like marrying the equivalent of Lillian Rearden, after giving Hank the "sex speech", and while destroying industry to save the strikers. Imagine the self-imposed torment of Greenspan in marrying such a malevolent hag, if ostensibly to provide cover for his ruining the economy. Just no freaking way. Take note, Greenspan rationalists.

[Benpercent]

It notes that from the start of his chairmanship, Greenspan repeated just one mantra: deregulation, more deregulation and even more deregulation.

[Emphasis mine]

This has been bothering me for awhile. Has there actually been any laws or regulations repealed? Or is it all baseless talk?

[agrippa1]

I appreciate that, and your posts really are very good. Another thing I thought of in the meantime: late in life, he married leftist journalist Andrea Mitchell. For Francisco, that would be like marrying the equivalent of Lillian Rearden, after giving Hank the "sex speech", and while destroying industry to save the strikers. Imagine the self-imposed torment of Greenspan in marrying such a malevolent hag, if ostensibly to provide cover for his ruining the economy. Just no freaking way. Take note, Greenspan rationalists.

Don't forget, he was married by none other than former legal counsel to the ACLU, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Yeah, that's comes pretty close to self-sacrifice. Of course, he did shop around first, dating Barbara Walters. Either of these broads would give Greenspan a inside track on the Liberal media agenda and be useful to his plans...-- oh, crap, there I go again...

This is the ultimate conspiracy theory (on par, in fact, with the conspiracy Rand wove in AS) and its appeal lies not so much in a rational analysis of the facts as in the hope that rationality must have maintained some hold on a man who traveled so closely to Rand's inner circle, and that Rand's opus was not just a "what if" exercise, but possibly a plan for action. It does not lend itself to objective comparisons with Francisco's actions because those were hidden from the vast population. To all but the denizens of Galt's Gulch, Francisco was a reprobate playboy, with no redeeming value. If Greenspan is Francisco, then only his close circle of co-conspirators knows (did they find human remains in Fosset's plane? ). The fact that we don't know of any elements of good in his actions is consistent with the premise that he is doing this intentionally and secretly in order to bring down the system for the as-yet unrevealed new order.

It's not (as far as I'm concerned) a serious exploration of reality, just a bit fun and "what if?" As such, I understand the negative response on this thread. But being that it is a (remotely) feasible explanation and consistent with Rand's major work, it seemed appropriate to discuss it.

[IchorFigure]

[Emphasis mine]

This has been bothering me for awhile. Has there actually been any laws or regulations repealed? Or is it all baseless talk?

Some people are dead set on focusing on the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed in 1999.