Alan Greenspan is no Objectivist

Teresa, it's clear he holds Rand in "great esteem"; I don't question that. Personally, I'm not subjecting him to a witch hunt, but I disagree that he wasn't an Objectivist, at least early on. (I don't know that he called himself one or not; but the fact that he was published in CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEA suggests that he wasn't afraid to be thought as one! He was, after all, part of "The Collective."). I think he grew away from it, as he mentions. Best thing I can say is that he acknowledged this honestly, and didn't go through the motions of trying to dupe Ayn Rand. I don't know how much they discussed the "contradictions" that he brought up in the book, but the fact that he remained close to her until her death, even as he worked for Reagan, whom she openly despised, suggests that Rand and Greenspan's differences would have to be known to each other. But that's why I suggested that "rereading the Fountainhead" wouldn't work, because I don't think it's a matter of "forgetting" or traitoring. He consciously moved away from certain aspects, like the gold standard, for instance.

Whether he's a "Keating" is another matter...but his television statements about "social wiring" are, nonetheless, guaranteed to cause an Objectivist to knee-jerk. And given that he's admitted that Fed-speak is meant to be incomprehensible and non-committal, is it really that "wierd" to you that Objectivists would balk at his sincerity?
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 9/22, 3:59pm)

Post 21

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 4:54pm

Whether he's a "Keating" is another matter...but his television statements about "social wiring" are, nonetheless, guaranteed to cause an Objectivist to knee-jerk. And given that he's admitted that Fed-speak is meant to be incomprehensible and non-committal, is it really that "wierd" to you that Objectivists would balk at his sincerity?

Oh, hell no. That certainly doesn't surprize me. I just don't think his mind can be actually known from a few interviews lasting all of 30 to 60 minutes collectively.

Is Greenspan responsible for "Fed-speak?"

Is he going to be on BookTV? Anyone know?

Post 22

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 5:21pm

"Oh, hell no. That certainly doesn't surprize me. I just don't think his mind can be actually known from a few interviews lasting all of 30 to 60 minutes collectively."

Fair enough.

Post 23

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 5:48pm

Teresa:

You haven't been reading the other threads.

It was a 90 minute interview which was very, very interesting, in part because he wasn't "Mr. Ambiguous."

I'm sure that others wil be able to find videos of particularly interesting portions of it.

Sam

Post 24

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 7:09pm

you can watch it at midnight - is available on booktv.com see the deal at top of the listing....

Post 25

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 7:44pm

The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World

Alan Greenspan

Upcoming Schedule

Sunday, September 23, at 12:00 AM
Sunday, September 23, at 9:00 AM
Sunday, September 23, at 11:00 PM

About the Program
In an event at George Washington University in Washington, DC, Alan Greenspan talks about his new memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World." In the book , Mr. Greenspan shares his reflections on his life and on his tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006. He is interviewed by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin.

-From Book TV

Sam did post this elsewhere.

Ted

Post 26

Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 11:18am

I haven't read the book either, but if the quote in #18:

"The Randian answer [about taxation], that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?"

is accurate, Greenspan hasn't done his homework. She spelled out a scheme in "Government Financing in a Free Society," anthologized in CUI. What makes this especially weird is that he contributed to the same book.

Post 27

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 11:51pm

Peter,

Rand's article "Government Financing in a Free Society" is in The Virtue of Selfishness, not in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Although Greenspan didn't contribute any articles to VOS, he was closely associated with Rand when VOS was published and almost certainly was familiar with the articles in that book as well as the ones in CUI. So, his comment still strikes me as strangely clueless, if not disingenuous.

- Bill

Post 28

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 - 1:51am

It is amazing to me that Greenspan still considers Rand his favorite author. Greenspan is an Objectivist like Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert are Christians. Here are two words that describe Greenspan: Hypocrite and sell-out.

Post 29

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 - 6:58am

I have many disagreements with the positions and policies undertaken by Greenspan during his years in government.

However, he would be a "hypocrite" and "sell-out" only if he stated certain philosophical positions, then violated them. Hypocrisy is failing to practice what you preach. It is not changing what you preach, then changing your practice accordingly.

As far as I can determine, Greenspan has indicated that he no longer holds all the same laissez-faire views that he did back in his "Collective" days. His subsequent statements and actions were consistent with his changed views.

In other words, he simply changed his mind.

Now, we can agree or disagree with the wisdom or truth of his changed views and the mixed-economy policies he adopted as a result. (For the most part, I don't agree with them.) But if everyone who changes his mind is a "hypocrite" or "sell-out," then we ALL are -- simply because none of us began life as as an Objectivist. By that reasoning, all of us "betrayed" some previous point of view when we accepted Objectivism.

The point is, Let's be fair before tossing about moral epithets. It's sufficient to say that we disagree with Alan Greenspan. It's a stretch -- and psychologizing -- to presume that Greenspan acted contrary to his thinking, because we would have to know the inner contents of his skull before we could make that judgment.

Post 30

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 - 9:46pm

If 'Greenie' were active in this forum, he'd answer criticism with something ambiguous.

Post 31

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 10:09am

Ed, that's his modus operandi, and I can quote investors on that one. ;3

-- Brede

Post 32

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 11:12am

If 'Greenie' were active in this forum, he'd answer criticism with something ambiguous.

Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. On the other hand . . .

- Bill

Post 33

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 11:17am

One perceives in the Greenspan rhetorical device myriad hidden meanings, the quintessence of which is to be revealed, but only in part, upon the transposition of characteristically passive voice to active, in which event myriad conceptual linkages no longer suggest mere opacity or intimate dissembling, but rather are replete with subtlety, complexity, and nuance -- though admittedly a paucity of grace and seldom-transparent linkages to the manifestly empiciral.

Does one agree?

Post 34

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 11:40am

LOL!

See, everybody?

That's why Robert gets awards.....

Post 35

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 11:44am

Satisfaction tends to be experienced upon the occasion of such public affirmation.

Post 36

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 12:34pm

Satisfaction tends to be experienced upon the occasion of such public affirmation.

LOL!

I think part of the problem is that he's smarter than I am. I'm reading his book, and around about the chapter on current accounts and debt, I found myself reading sentences and not getting anything out of them! "Implicit in a widening dispersion of financial surpluses and deficits of individual economic entities is the expectation of increasing cumulative deficits for some and, hence, a possible accelerating rise in debt as a share of income or its equivalent, GDP." ...uhh... And I minored in Economics.

Maybe he just needed better editing.

Post 37

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 4:56pm

I too am reading Greenspan's new book. The parts about Rand are interesting, especially when she intellectually knocked him over the head with his mistaken embrace of logical positivism. There is also an interesting anecdote about when he met with former Soviet block finance ministers in the 90's to help them reform their economies to a market based model. One of them laid out a drastic plan of privatization, to which Greenspan replied asking if they were going to have some sort of 'social safety net' to back it up. The guy basically told him no way, and Greenspan admitted to feeling a bit incredulous that an Ayn Rand admirer such as himself would even say that.

My overall impression of the man is that he simply got seduced by the power and prestige of being a top level financial bureaucrat. Maintaining rigid intellectual conformity to Objectivist principles took a back seat to advancing in his career. He accepted that the cost of doing business as a high level player in America's political system meant that he would have to in some instances accept policies that he doesn't agree with (he says this in his book). No doubt, I'm sure he probably did enjoy applying his analytical skills in running our money supply, so I'm sure he enjoyed his job too.

He's clearly a very intelligent man, and overall he does believe in the power of markets. I don't hate the man. I'm sure I'd find him very interesting to chat with.

Post 38

Friday, October 5, 2007 - 2:19pm