cliveandrews Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Is the reasoning that, as long the Fed is going to exist, it may as well be run by a rational person? If Rand were still alive, what do you suppose she would have to say about Greenspan now? Edited January 12, 2009 by cliveandrews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliveandrews Posted January 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 I apologize, I should have gathered the answer to this myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanjos Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 That was a short thread.... Alan Greenspan: Alas, We [Thought We] Knew Him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 That was a short thread.... A minor historical correction -- Rand did not approve of Greenspan's appointment to the Federal Reserve. He was first appointed by Reagan in 1986; Rand died in 1982. People tend to get this mixed up with her approval of Greenspan's appointment to President Ford's Council of Economic Advisors in 1974. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 A minor historical correction -- Rand did not approve of Greenspan's appointment to the Federal Reserve. He was first appointed by Reagan in 1986; Rand died in 1982. People tend to get this mixed up with her approval of Greenspan's appointment to President Ford's Council of Economic Advisors in 1974. You beat me to the punch again khaight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wynand Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Anyone think that Greenspan might be like John Galt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 There is one member here who thinks that is the case (look for other Greenspan threads). It's a long-running conspiracy theory with all the evidence against it and none in favor. the problem is this: like any good conspiracy theory, anything you say to show that Greenspan was a power-hungry scardy-cat who got lucky during his tenure and pandered to politicians, will only be turned around. You'll be told that that is evidence that he was so good at hiding his purposes! One cannot win the argument as long as the gremlin on Greenspan's shoulder chooses not reveal itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) Anyone think that Greenspan might be like John Galt? I have no reason to believe that Greenspan's intentions were anything like those of John Galt, so I find even entertaining the notion quite frivolous, but here goes: Let's say Greenspan's intention was to be John Galt (or d'Anconia). There's a glaring difference between both Galt and D'Anconia, and Greenspan: morality. While Galt and D'Anconia recognized that their only chance at a good life was to do what they did, they never sacrificed anyone for their cause. They never violated anyone's rights, they always acted morally. What Galt did was to tell the truth, and allow others the freedom to choose based on that truth. What D'Anconia destroyed was his to destroy. Greenspan was the Chairman of the Fed. He actively took part in violating the rights of Americans, and through that action hurt individual Americans enormously. As immoral as it gets. His intentions are irrelevant. What matters are his actions. I did not sign up to withdraw from society, have you? And yet, Mr. Greenspan managed (evidence points toward: unintentionally) to withdraw a lot of the products of our work, despite our objections, through the use of force. In conclusion, intentions aside, Alan Greenspan's actions make him an anti-hero. His intentions, good or bad, do not excuse his methods, which are despicable. If anyone wishes to become John Galt in the future, they are welcome to it. As long as they allow their convictions to prove them right, and resort only to persuasion rather than force to bring about what they consider the necessary collapse of society. In fact, who knows, maybe I'll be persuaded myself. Just don't do it with guns: if you do, then you're a tyrant, just like all the other tyrants. Not a hero. Edited February 24, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Anyone think that Greenspan might be like John Galt? Galt would never have said "the free markets have failed" or that "nationalization might be necessary". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippa1 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I have no reason to believe that Greenspan's intentions were anything like those of John Galt, so I find even entertaining the notion quite frivolous, but here goes: Let's say Greenspan's intention was to be John Galt (or d'Anconia). There's a glaring difference between both Galt and D'Anconia, and Greenspan: morality. While Galt and D'Anconia recognized that their only chance at a good life was to do what they did, they never sacrificed anyone for their cause. They never violated anyone's rights, they always acted morally. What Galt did was to tell the truth, and allow others the freedom to choose based on that truth. What D'Anconia destroyed was his to destroy. Greenspan was the Chairman of the Fed. He actively took part in violating the rights of Americans, and through that action hurt individual Americans enormously. As immoral as it gets. His intentions are irrelevant. What matters are his actions. I did not sign up to withdraw from society, have you? And yet, Mr. Greenspan managed (evidence points toward: unintentionally) to withdraw a lot of the products of our work, despite our objections, through the use of force. In conclusion, intentions aside, Alan Greenspan's actions make him an anti-hero. His intentions, good or bad, do not excuse his methods, which are despicable. If anyone wishes to become John Galt in the future, they are welcome to it. As long as they allow their convictions to prove them right, and resort only to persuasion rather than force to bring about what they consider the necessary collapse of society. In fact, who knows, maybe I'll be persuaded myself. Just don't do it with guns: if you do, then you're a tyrant, just like all the other tyrants. Not a hero. Nobody ever remembers the third vertex of the triangle that brought the world to a halt... As to such things as taxes and the rebuilding of a country, I will say that in his goals, if not his methods, the best economist in Atlas Shrugged was Ragnar Danneskjöld. -Ayn Rand, Egalitarianism and Inflation, 1974 "Economist?" Now that's a funny thing to say about a guy who uses force to destroy a nation's ill-gotten wealth. Hey, wait a minute... Greenspan is an economist... 1974... Probably just a coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 There you go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agrippa1 Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 There you go! Aah, you're in on it too, huh? Don't worry, I won't tell anyone. 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.