prosperity Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 If there is such a thing as philosophical treason, Greenspan I think could be guilty of it. The fact that he is willing to smear Ayn Rand is, IMO unforgivable: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/25-6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 Alan Greenspan betrayed capitalism when he chose to reign over the Fed over two decades ago, so I'm not about to defend him. However, the quotes from the article prove nothing: they mean that in a mixed economy some specific regulatory changes can hurt the situation, even if they are meant to decrease regulation. (For instance, if in the Soviet Union the State would've deregulated the cleanup efforts after Chernobyl-allowing private ownership of the site-, but left everything else the same, the results would've been even worse. No one would've chose to build that concrete dome around the site, just for the increase in property-value on their land) That's actually a true, and very obvious, statement, so a perfectly good Objectivist could make it, not to mention it's not something within the realm of any philosophy. It is only proof of one thing: central planners always fail (not that any more proof was necessary) , even someone generally considered brilliant, such as Greenspan. However, it is completely unrelated to Ayn Rand, and even philosophy in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laure Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 It does not look to me like Greenspan "smeared Ayn Rand" in any fashion whatsoever. I think that his mistake was that he saw Midas Mulligan in the bankers he knew, and he was not recognizing Eugene Lawson, the Starnes Heirs, Orren Boyle and the gang, even though they've been there for some time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 5, 2008 Report Share Posted December 5, 2008 I think that his mistake was that he saw Midas Mulligan in the bankers he knew, and he was not recognizing Eugene Lawson, the Starnes Heirs, Orren Boyle and the gang, even though they've been there for some time.Possibly... in his early years. It is tough to see how he maintained this view though, as he saw evidence of the contrary. I suppose one could try and make the case that he was simply a pretentious ignoramus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Andrew Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 Possibly... in his early years. It is tough to see how he maintained this view though, as he saw evidence of the contrary. I suppose one could try and make the case that he was simply a pretentious ignoramus. Or that he evaded the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 6, 2008 Report Share Posted December 6, 2008 There's no need to guess, here's an account of what he did exactly: Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.