Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Greenspan Mentioned Ayn Rand Today

Rate this topic


zepho
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/newsm...dex.htm?cnn=yes

I think this is probably very good publicity for Objectivism. Especially since many people are all glossy eyed over Greenspan right now.

I think this is a very good thing. I bet sales of Atlas Shrugged increase substantially.

*Sorry for any spelling mistakes. I can't seem to find the spellcheck button on this forum and I didn't have much time for this post, because I'm at work.

Cheers, Dustin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/10/news/newsm...dex.htm?cnn=yes

I think this is probably very good publicity for Objectivism.

Is this what you are typing about?:

"He told the newspaper he plans to write some of his early life history, including the influence of his mentor, the author and novelist Ayn Rand, who shaped him as a young man into a libertarian."(italics added)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all his years as advisor to the President and Chairman of the Fed, Greenspan has done nothing to restore the gold standard, free the economy, or roll back big government. When he served on the Social Security Commission he helped save that horrendous institution rather than dismantle it. He has even stated that affirmative action is good for business! Whatever his views in the mid-sixties were, he is certainly no Objectivist today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, the spectacle of Alan Greenspan being associated with Objectivism probably does an enormous disservice to Objectivism.

Think about it this way. To the anti-capitalists out there, Greenspan is an arch-villian -- the evil business person in cahoots with Washington controlling the military industrial complex. To the pro-capitalist and admirer of Ayn Rand, here you have one of her formerly close associates and contributer to the body of Objectivist literature who -- when in a position to put his words into action -- does a complete 180 and acts to repudiate almost everything Objectivism stands for.

Could it be true that when Greenspan became chairman of the fed he realized that the ideas he ascribed to were bogus, impractical, and unrealistic therefore providing proof for the ignorance and naivite of Objectivists? Or, is Greenspan (just as people accuse Nathaniel Branden) dishonest and immoral?

What do people think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy who got drawn to the power of the (illegitimate) office and turned into a full fledged power luster, rationalizing that he was "doing good" - is my take on it. Somebody once said (insightfully) that Greenspan took the job that John Galt turned down.

I know less about what Greenspan has been up to these days (partially due to the fact that I am not Americian) but from what I have gathered so far, I think I will agree with Unconquered on this one.

So I think I would have to put him on the Branden side of the fence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody once said (insightfully) that Greenspan took the job that John Galt turned down.
Yes. Or, perhaps, the Dr. Stadler of Economics, who couldn't resist the temptation of being made the head of the "institute" -- he made the classic Faustian bargain.

As for the influence of anything he might say in his autobiography, my guess is that it will be limited unless he comes out very strongly for or against Ayn Rand. I doubt he will do either, because he gave up publicly-held strong convictions of any kind many years ago. Also, most people who know something about Greenspan already know that he was once involved with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Finally, as a former fed chairman, his influence should not be over-estimated. When he had the job, people paid attention to his thoughts, not because they thought he was smart, but primarily because he was the guy with his finger on the button. People listened to him; but, they would also listen to a maniac who was pointing a gun at them. As an ex-Fed, he is just another smart-guy, and there are many of those around. The main value from his autobiography will be the facts one can pick up about how things run behind the scenes, not his economic wisdom -- which is no longer relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this what you are typing about?:

"He told the newspaper he plans to write some of his early life history, including the influence of his mentor, the author and novelist Ayn Rand, who shaped him as a young man into a libertarian."(italics added)

Yes sir, that is exactly what I am typing about.

This is great for Objectivism because it will help bring more attention to the philosophy and get Atlas Shrugged in more readers hands.

Edited by zepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sir, that is exactly what I am typing about.

"...the author and novelist Ayn Rand, who shaped him as a young man into a libertarian."

Read it again carefully.

"...Ayn Rand, who shaped him...into a libertarian."

It doesn't even say "who helped to shape him", it just comes right out stating that she "...shaped him...into a libertarian." !! That statement is attributing his being a "libertarian" directly to her!

In mentioning Ayn Rand in this way, how could you go on to say that it is "great for Objectivism"?, or "very good publicity for Objectivism"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...the author and novelist Ayn Rand, who shaped him as a young man into a libertarian."

Read it again carefully.

"...Ayn Rand, who shaped him...into a libertarian."

It doesn't even say "who helped to shape him", it just comes right out stating that she "...shaped him...into a libertarian." !! That statement is attributing his being a "libertarian" directly to her!

In mentioning Ayn Rand in this way, how could you go on to say that it is "great for Objectivism"?, or "very good publicity for Objectivism"?

So what? The benefits resulting from the mentioning of Ayn Rand in a front page article on CNN far outweighs the negative consequences inflicted by the unfortunate wording you stated above. Anyone who is turned on to Ayn Rand as a result of this exposure will soon learn her true feelings about the Libertarian movement. Secondly, this article may cause a few Libertarians, whom are unfamiliar with Ayn Rand, to read her arguments against Libertarians.

On a separate note, intellectualammo, I would appreciate it if you would lighten up on the condesending tone conveyed in your post. How are new found Ayn Rand readers supposed to feel welcome on this board when replies to their statements are condesending?

PS. How does one use the spell check feature on this board? Is there one to be found?

Cheers, Dustin.

Edited by zepho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? The benefits resulting from the mentioning of Ayn Rand in a front page article on CNN far outweighs the negative consequences inflicted by the unfortunate wording you stated above.

"So what?"...The misinformation, the smearing...in that particular article...you say "so what?" to it?

What does "unfortunate wording" mean, exactly?

On a separate note, intellectualammo, I would appreciate it if you would lighten up on the condesending tone conveyed in your post. How are new found Ayn Rand readers supposed to feel welcome on this board when replies to their statements are condesending?

Lighten up? Let me welcome you to this forum, where people are responsible for the content of their posts. I can see from your posting that you like to see Ayn Rand and her philosophy being mentioned, supported, and promoted...but that particular writer of the article is not properly doing that. It's more like what drewfactor mentioned above...a disservice to Objectivism.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lighten up? Let me welcome you to this forum, where people are responsible for the content of their posts. I can see from your posting that you like to see Ayn Rand and her philosophy being mentioned, supported, and promoted...but that particular writer of the article is not properly doing that. It's more like what drewfactor mentioned above...a disservice to Objectivism.

I thought it was doing both. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So what?"...The misinformation, the smearing...in that particular article...you say "so what?" to it?

What does "unfortunate wording" mean, exactly?

I meant it is unfortunate that the author of the article decided to word the sentence the way he did, especially when other sources who quoted the same interview didn't word the reference to Ayn Rand the same way.

I can see from your posting that you like to see Ayn Rand and her philosophy being mentioned, supported, and promoted...but that particular writer of the article is not properly doing that. It's more like what drewfactor mentioned above...a disservice to Objectivism.

Almost everthing that CNN prints is a "disservice" to Objectivism. This particular article in my opinion is not one of them. I understand your opinion, but I cannot see where you are coming from at all. I have a hard time seeing how even a complete smear of Objectivism by CNN would hurt the philosophy. Can you explain how it could?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant it is unfortunate that the author of the article decided to word the sentence the way he did, especially when other sources who quoted the same interview didn't word the reference to Ayn Rand the same way.

Yes, other sources do not say that she "shaped him...into a libertarian." This one does, therefore when I read your comments in regards to it, I was not going to sanction most of what you had typed about it.

Almost everthing that CNN prints is a "disservice" to Objectivism. This particular article in my opinion is not one of them.

I haven't really read or am familiar with CNN articles enough to make a comment in regards to that first quoted sentence. The second quoted sentence reaffirms and restrengthens my seemingly direct opposition to your opinion.

I understand your opinion, but I cannot see where you are coming from at all. I have a hard time seeing how even a complete smear of Objectivism by CNN would hurt the philosophy. Can you explain how it could?

I can see now that the two of us are very firm in the positions that we have taken in regards to this one sentence. I did not sanction what you have said, and you are still in disagreement with what I typed initially and the replies thereafter. We will get no where, coversationally, unless one of us starts to agree with the others position. I certainly am very far away from do that, myself.

*edited to fix quotes

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
A guy who got drawn to the power of the (illegitimate) office and turned into a full fledged power luster, rationalizing that he was "doing good" - is my take on it. Somebody once said (insightfully) that Greenspan took the job that John Galt turned down.

Does that mean Galt is Milton Friedman?

I don't know if he was offered that job but I know he was offered economic advisor several times but turned it down for very good reasons. I have alot of respect for him for doing that.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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