Greenspan Shrugged
Former Fed Chairman destroys Randian "free market" principles in 16 seconds.
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders.
Well, exactly. You said one cotton-pickin', bailout-belying mouthful. Use this as evidence the next time someone brings up "Atlas Shrugged" as the best way to save the economy. Dean Baker thinks he misses the point:
What would Ayn Rand expect to happen? On the one hand we have the hot shot executives, on the other hand the schmucks who own stock in these banks. Would Ayn Rand expect that the executives would put aside their ambition, their lust for success, their greed, in order to benefit shareholders who are too dumb to even know what a credit default swap is?
Not for a second; Ayn Rand would watch the Wall Street big boys run roughshod over their shareholders' interests and be applauding them every step of the way. That is how the game is played. If Greenspan didn't think the Wall Street crew would rip off their shareholders for every last penny, then he was not a worthy disciple of Ayn Rand.
Meanwhile, the Bush Treasury Department redacts more bailout contracts.
Or to put it another way, the people are fu*ked and Greenspan says, Oops
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Greenspan hasn't lost too much sleep over all this debacle.
Someone else's problems.
Again! Thanks, Nicole.
Try "Greenspan's Fraud" by Ravi Batra.
A Thom Hartmann Show Regular
"I can't keep doing this on my own with these...people."
Here is what I said yesterday.
This is the understatement of the modern era, meaning since, oh, say 1492.
The gamblers kept cooking up their Credit Default Swaps, UNREGULATED, until at $55 TRILLION they reflect an amount GREATER than ALL of the money in the world.
The $55 Trillion is based on something like $1 Trillion in Real Estate, although that value is declining.
With the lack of regulation, that $55 Trillion exists only as a face value on those contracts.
It is GROSSLY underfunded in reality. If it had been funded it would never even gotten close to $55 Trillion
Now the US Treasury is on the hook.
To all of this Greenspan says he found a 'FLAW' in his philosophy.
Here is Nader a few weeks ago, one on one on the bailout.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
This should tell you something. If an insurance company tells you that they can insure something for more than they can pay, this is fraud. A credit default swap is a sort of insurance policy. It would be fraudulent for an insurance company to promise its clients more than it is worth in total.
Now, even the most staunch anti-regulation libertarian will tell you that laws against fraud are 100% A-OK.
What the Paulson tribe are trying to get people to say is "See, we need more regulation." So that they can swoop in and build this whole huge structure that gives certain people (including the Paulson tribe) a whole lot of power over the whole monetary system of the world. Not just the US, the world.
This is what we are witnessing and this is what people are falling for (at least people who are still caught up in the false left-right paradigm.)
Please people, don't fall for it.
gordon gekko on steroids and greasepan did his part to lubricate the depression slide. in all of his testimony, I wonder how many people ever listened to him say openly that he did not keep his own money in stocks. he said he invested in t-bills. he epitomized aynrandian servitude to power, all the while lining his own pockets. doesn't his wife work for a major cable outlet?
Some stuff you can't make up!
Under Communism:
'What is mine is mine, what is yours is mine!'
Under Capitalism:
'What is mine is mine, what is yours is mine!'
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
"If this is the way you feel about money, senor, I think I'm darn glad that I've got a goodly piece of d'Anconia Copper stock."
Francisco said gravely, "I suggest that you think twice, sir."
Heck yeah, Greenspan shrugged. I hear that said mockingly by people as a dig on the failure of Rand. Ayn Rand would never approve of the Bush/Paulson Bailout, low interest rates, or giving away money to Wallstreet, or Fannie/Freddie subsidized homes. But Greenspan granted everything demanded of him: Subsidized houses for the poor, free unearned money for the rich, low interest rates with nothing to back it. And even the giants like Orryn Boyle's Amalgamated Steel are reeling. Those that think Rand is about rewarding UNEARNED wealth to Wallstreet don't know the half of it.
Atlas Shrugged was about the destruction of society. Yes, I speculate that Greenspan did this on purpose. Whether that's true or not, only Greenspan knows.
Greenspan Also Draws a CasaBLANKa
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4280
how supposedly really smart people in government can betray the American people.
oh well
The classic republican response is "Fuck you! I got mine!"
Republicans are more like "I got yours, now f*ck you!"
And the liberals and Dems response the last eight years until Obama came along...
"You got mine...I'm fucked"?
See, once these guys sign on for their golden parachutes, they get millions no matter what. They no longer have a need to be interested in legitimate profit-making, or their shareholders: they're already taken care of. After they sign, it's playtime in the casino. They can let their egos build up huge profits on paper, and brag, and they've got a golden parachute to keep their families filthy rich, evermore.
Golden parachutes take away the incentive to work. If you got a new job, and signed for a $10 million severance package, NO MATTER WHAT, how hard would you work?
far left loon >.<
I love those new pitch-black Sharpies Of Transparency! Glad to see the banks are being held accountable for their [redacted], their [redacted], and especially their [redacted].
Wasn't Greenspan supposed to be some kind of economic God? It turns out he is nothing more than a Repug who sold out the citizens of this country. Typical.
He presided over the stock crash of 1987, the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 80s, the recession of 91, the stock bust of 2001, the clusterfuck of Bush's 1st term (economically speaking), etc, etc, etc.
Economic God my ass...
All hail the Holy Ass!
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
For the putrid smell that emanates from the Holy Ass is proof that he loves us!
Now we see Bush's heavyweight economist go down in flames. This man seems hardly aware of his surroundings, no less awareness of something as complex as what's occurred in our financial markets.
There is little doubt at this point that Bush's "epic failure" at governing this country will be written in the history books.
The term "trickling down" will have an entirely new meaning now. It will be the synonym for "Bush's epic failure to govern" heretofore.
Greenspan was appointed by Reagan.
BTW, Clinton did keep this toad on board. Bush The Lesser gave Greenspan the Medal of Freedom. I guess that award must be worth less than Enron stock now.
Well, "freedom" is a pretty devalued word these days. And yes, Clinton was a centrist Republican.
A friend, who is a historian, used to say that. He basically pointed out that if you study Clinton's main policies, they were all to the right of Nixon's. Which is a testament to how much to the right the Reagan years did rudder this country.
That "trickle down" you're feeling isn't money, it's piss.
Bush and Greenspan just pissed on the entire nation.
*planet
As the rest of us on the planet struggle not to lose our money to Wall St., as well.
far left loon >.<
We won't forget either!!!!!!!!!!!!!
far left loon >.<
As we reflect back over the past 8 years, we are left with one remarkable and irrefutible conclusion: Every Bush apointee has failed at their respective position - from the top down.
It's clear that actual qualifications for the position had absolutely nothing to do with their being awarded the position.
We now see this in Palin's governing of Alaska where 1 in 4 positions were awarded as a "payback" for financial support during her campaign.
Palin is Bush in lipstick.
Oh well, said the people as Andrea Mitchell's career swirls the toilet.
There is no doubt that Greenspan's wife, Andrea Mitchell, will not be able to show her face in public - certainly not on CNN - much longer.
She can take Lou Dobbs along with her because his career is also swirling the toilet.
Well, since she works for NBC I am sure she hasn't shown her face in CNN in a while.
Andrea Mitchell surprised me when she actually asked mildly good questions to GOP operatives last week. I was accustomed to her perennial fellatio to anything conservative by that lady.
Slightly OT, but a must read:
http://theladnerreportblog.blogspot.com/2008/...
Please circulate liberally!
...a terrorist would be that helpful (snark). Thanks for sharing! That was a really nice story.
I hate when people talk about self interest as if its one thing. There is long term self interest, short term self interest. These may be 2 different things. There is my self interest, your self interest, the public's self interest and of course these are probably all different things.
But it doesn't matter anyway because it can be shown time and time again people don't always act in their self interests. So don't talk to me about how self interest is some kind of natural regulator. It ain't. Fuck Ayn Rand.
such as it's in my best interest that i don't eat where i shit... and i pay my employees a fair wage because if they feel good about themselves, they are more productive... or if everyone plays by the rules, i'm not going to get shafted by someone i didn't anticipate being shafted by... or spending a little more money on a quality product means my kid won't die from sucking on a soother i got on the cheap from china... or if i treat people the way i want to be treated, then the odds are they will...
Ayn Rand wasn't screwed up... the assholes who misrepresented her did...
Greenspan is a disciple of Ayn Rand. He don't give a fuck about us. He got his. I'm sure he is well taken care of. And by the way screw Ayn Rand. If you want to study economics and find a person or authority figure to follow.. look at John Steinbeck.
Ayn Rand knows how to fight against corrupt Communism, but she doesn't know jack shit about running an economy or running a country or preventing fascist takeover by corporations. Sad.
Interesting how the descendants of these pieces of shit are trying to seal the borders after they got into this country and fucked it beyond recognition.
Time and time again, these idiots try to implement their wet dream of libertarian anything goes capitalism it collapses. And they leave us to clean the mess, and once things are ripe again... they will come again to give yet another go to their unregulated utopia of "fun and greed."
At this point, I am convinced their function (Rand et al) in this society was to be parasites: suck off your host, but not enough to kill it... let it recover, and the begin to suck again. Rinse repeat...
..."At this point, I am convinced their function (Rand et al) in this society was to be parasites: suck off your host, but not enough to kill it... let it recover, and the begin to suck again. Rinse repeat..."
....is just a very concise history of the human experience.
The elites, royals, or intelligentsia (all sometimes referred to as scumbag criminals) have always been around and have always behaved in the same ways. I am hopeful, though, that the technology we have now (especially in access to knowledge and instant comunications) will help us "lesser" folks to finally turn the tables.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Intelligentsia, at least in the classical sense, have usually been on the side of the small guy (even though they themselves were rich). See French Philosophes and French and American revolutions.
far left loon >.<
Certainly this is not a popular opinion here, but I disagree that Rand's libertarian POV is the cause of the financial crisis. In fact, greed and self-interest are seen as negatives in her writing when it is used not to build and create, but merely to parasitically destroy the efforts of hard working men and women. And if you disagree with Rand, what is the alternative and what are its implication? In this case, more regulation was needed, but not to protect against individualism but rather fraud, abuse and insufficient information (i.e. transparency) for the public.
first post that seems to actually get her right.
... alas the main problem I have with Rand (and her followers) is that they perceive the common good as the biggest of evils.
And given the choice between social compromise and unmitigated greed, Rand et al feel that greed is the better approach as it will somehow lead to a positive outcome.
The problem is that time and time again, unregulated systems are proven to be non sustainable period. Which is what I despise about randian ideals, because we are always the ones left to clean the mess.
so you can't blame her for the idiots who perverted her intelligent insights into the human condition... these are the same assholes she deemed as parasites who would have earned only her disdain... people should really read the books they either tout as buybulls or condemn out of disdain...
The Tank Market seems to be stocking.
I think you put the emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle.
Tank has only one syllable.
Let's not get technical now!
Good point. Tech stocks are down too.
LOL!
What about Pork Bellies?
Right Wing talk show hosts are also on the downturn.
Yes...such a shame...that...
Poor hate mongering propagandist SOB's...
Ah...who am I kidding? Fuck 'em!
After a common sense appearnce by Michael Moore (and the plumbers for Obama) on Larry King, they had three right wing "pundits". By comparison, they were laughable and bitter; still spewing long discredited talking points too. Really, I laughed. (I don't often do that to TV pundits.)
far left loon >.<
Pigs like to have their bellies rubbed?
I know I do.
It makes my left leg shake like crazy.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And making fun of Tweety?
Of course he shrugged. You don't think his finances took a hit do you? He knew what was happening and put his ill gotten gains in safe places you can bet the bank on that.
In the old days, people like Mr. Mitchell would have been placed in stocks in the village square and pummelled with eggs (or worse).
Irrational exuberance, indeed!
At least he didn't blame Barney Frank.
I watched the whole hearing with some folks over at FDL
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/989
Greenspan “the market has all ready punished many of the individuals”
I was alarmed by how protective Greenspan was when some of the Reps called out for those responsible be "thrown in jail". He kept saying that this could only happen once in a century. Many of our Reps and Greenspan kept talking about what we could learn from this and how we could move forward. They kept pushing this idea of moving forward instead of focusing on investigating these economic crimes and holding those responsible ACCOUNTABLE.
Considering that most of the elements in today's (failing) economy are less than a century old in and of themselves, how does he think this is a "Once in a Century" deal, and, in raw truth, what in the fuck is he babbling about when he mentions "moving on"?
Alan Greenspans’ comments that he was shocked that his ideology was not right, “because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well,” are incredible to rational thinkers.
Evidently his ideology, promoting and resulting in the most massive redistribution/accumulation of wealth from the working classes to the wealthy ever, were evidence that his ideology was working “exceptionally well.” It is only when the monied plutocracy is modestly inconvenienced that he sees evidence that perhaps his ideology has some flaws. Amazing. But not unexpected.
Cheers,
For saying that the Federal Reserve Bank is a wealth redistribution scheme to funnel money up to the very rich and powerful. Actually, it funnels control, which matters more than money.
For anyone here who thinks you can have a free market under the Federal Reserve System, I've got some nice credit default swaps for sale, cheap.
It was enough to get me to register to leave the compliment!
Props to Nicole.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Time to face facts. Ayn Rand was the Karl Marx of capitalism. Atlas Shrugged is the Capitalist Manifesto. And just as communist Russia was brought down by economic means (not at the request of Reagan) so too will capitalist America.
Comparing Rand to Marx is giving that idiot (Rand) too much credit...
exactly what Rush Limbaugh, Bill-O, Sean Handjob, etc are to political discourse.
To compare her anal sexual domination fantasies in "Atlas Shrugged" (remember all those trains rushing in and out of wet, dark tunnels? What'd you think that was about? Engineering?) to The Communist Manifesto--who here besides me actually has read the thing?--demonstrates an appalling incapacity for comprehension of even the most basic kind.
Das Capital was Marx's master work. I remember being blown away by his massive intellect when I first read it some 40 years ago. It is probably time to re-read it now, especially the parts that deal with crushing market failures setting the stage for workers' revolt. The Communist Manifesto is light reading by comparison.
The Communist Manifesto wasn't Marx' production (he participated in its drafting though).
Marx was much more brilliantly wrong than Rand.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Wrong about what? Name two things Marx was wrong about in Das Capital. Of course that would mean you would actually have to read it and be intelligent enough to comprehnd what you read. I won't hold my breath.
and her works perverted in the same manner that religious nut-cases have misapprehended the buybull...
her works celebrated human creativity and denigrated parasitism... the capitalist reichtoids who touted her works would have been handily smacked down for the leering monkeys they are...
she would not have tolerated the manner in which many of these jackanapes wielded her books like a sledge and are exactly the sort of idiots she had in mind to leave behind to fend for themselves when her mysterious master of invention stole away himself and the brightest minds from a society of leeches...
...and rillee... "anal sexual domination"...?!?!?!?.... puh-leeze... you have some serious personal issues to work on, woody... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
What a crock of shit! High salaries and golden parachutes are the ONLY thing Corporate executives care about.
McSame is STILL preaching the trickle down policies to "create new jobs"? Where are all the "new jobs" the last 16 years of the trickle down policy created... IN FUCKING CHINA!
Ayn Rand. She wrote those vampire books didn't she? Wasn't there one entitled "The Vampires of Wall Street" which was mandatory reading for Goldman execs? What Greenspan neglected to remember from his Econ 101 days was The Theory Of Rationality as applied to CEOs of finance companies. He forgot that those guys have an extra dimension to their rational universe that is just plain invisible to us regular folks. Thanks for all your input professor. We derived a lot from your astute comments.
The Vampires of Wall Street was written by someone named Mr. Selengut (i've never read it,but i know it's not a Rand book)
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was perverted by uncreative capitalist leeches by someone who wrote a treatise slamming communist leeches...
apparently, a number of idiots got hard-ons over reading her 15 page exposition on money and figured she was talking about ammassing as much as possible without considering that the entire book was about the value of human ingenuity and how it is always exploited by lesser minds...
personally, i've always found such lunkheads quite offensive because they both insulted her work and used it as an excuse to fail to exercise their own brains in much the same way as religious buybull thumpers do their book...
for those of you whom have obviously missed the boat on this very salient and central theme of her view, i would suggest you also read Fountainhead, which is about an Architect who gets so pissed at the idiots who pervert his creation through political machinations as it's being built that he simply destroys it...
and the summary argument he provides in court as justification for his actions should drive the point home...
afaiac... any capitalist monkey who touts Atlas Shrugged as a mantra for justifying exploitation should be be slapped upside the head with a copy of Fountainhead... they just have not a friggin' clue how idiotic they make themselves appear to me...
as do some here who are harping on about something they've obviously never read themselves but feel justified in slamming something because some other jackass has thumped it like a fanatic..
this is the equivalent of an idiot slamming a videogame like GTA without having actually played the damn game...
or in slamming Bambi because they heard it made some kid have nightmares but never bothered to watch it themselves...
puh-leeze... get a grip because it is this sort of unthinking reactionarianism that's gotten us into this crapper in the first place...
I, being mostly stupid, really thought that everyone would be able to see how insane the Milton Freedman, Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 &2, trickle down, world if flat, race to the bottom for wadges, transfer of wealth to the top, view of economics. Unfortunately there enough true believers that are out by the hundreds with the giant megaphone of the corporate media making all kinds of claims of blame that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Economies are grown from the bottom and not from the top. Jobs growth comes from the demand side and not the supply. In the big lake of Capitalism, if not well regulated there will only one fish left and it will starve.
"There's a sucker born every minute."
-P.T. Barnum
How else are they gonna drink breast milk?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
It's a perfectly appropriate sentiment for the group you're talking about. Barnum, though, at least pretended respect for his marks. The comment that was tied to him after he passed on probably originated with another huckster-showman of his day.
for 'free market" (there's a fucking joke) capitalism.
Mononucleosis, monotheism, monopoly, monotony, monomania (monogamy, too, if you think about it), are all unnatural states for a diverse life-world...
The foxes (republicans) were watching the hen houses (banks) getting ransacked. The "trickle down" went to Dubai, Saudis and Swiss bank accounts. Corruption we have been talking about in our government for years. Bush/Cheney never served the people, only their pocketbooks.
This is not my father's America
is a lot like leaving Col Sanders in charge of the hen-house.
.....or the Hell's Angels in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
We're going to have to work hard to pound the truth in, and we're going to have to push aside the remaining ideologues who will never, ever yield. Some are even saying there was too much regulation.
How about a traffic light analogy? No need to explain complex financial instruments, just say how shocked, shocked you are to find more accidents after the removal of traffic lights at busy intersections.
It's fine to focus on Rand, but let's not forget Uncle Milty and his little Shock Doctrine. Milton Friedman is more responsible than anyone else for the snake oil of free market fundamentalism becoming the dominant view.
Your last sentence...
Fri, 10/24/2008 - 07:49 — Amitola
..."At this point, I am convinced their function (Rand et al) in this society was to be parasites: suck off your host, but not enough to kill it... let it recover, and the begin to suck again. Rinse repeat..."
....is just a very concise history of the human experience.
Modified: "...is a concise history of human "civilization." Not all human experience has ended in the kinds of parasitical relations that typify non-migratory cultures...hat you describe and disparage is probably the (inevitable) consequence of the introduction of "money."
Just as the stupefaction and infantilization of intelligence is the inevitable consequence of "commercial" television.
Indexes fall hard on bloody Friday
Hang Seng ends below 13,000, Sensex under 9,000, Nikkei below 8,000 and Kospi beneath 1,000
I hope the panel gets to cross examining Alan about his ties to Hedge Fund Traders and the issues of Credit Default Swap trading after his term at the Fed.
http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20...
You are paralysed, while the blood drains from your body. As the fangs retract,
A force as insidious as Dracula - McShame will suck every dollar's worth of my 401k. McNasty has spread panic and fear through out the villages (just like the -old vampire, Count Bush )
Bogus you say? Vampires are hokey fable, right? Actually we have them in Washington sucking away the economy, They've been among us for centuries, and they're hiding in plain sight,
The Obana/Biden
Send them back to the darkness from whence they came………
Don`t let them suck the blood out of the working class.
Vote Obama 08
aka-Vampire Slayer
Hee-hee -sorry was inspired by Halloween coming up!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg5N9FJc__Q
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Use this as evidence the next time someone brings up "Atlas Shrugged" as the best way to save the economy.
Who the hell are you all hanging out with?
wrote fiction, right? Not Econ textbooks. And econ people took that fiction seriously? Geez, we ARE fucked.
political organization theory utilizing Puzo's "The Godfather" to illustrate salient points about loyalty, and organizational strategy. In most ways, "Big Bidness" and the Mob are virtually indistinguishable.
ayn rand was the michael crichton of her day.
)O(
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Exactly. Rand was not an economist. She just hated socialism and developed a weird, irrational philosophy to support her rejection of anything remotely resembling it. Throw in a little Nieztche and a poor understanding of Darwin and voila!
bad philosophy.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Who's going to mess with Greenspan when he has Wolverine there behind him to back him up?
You must be high...that's bigfoot for sure!
High's got nothing to do with it! Bigfoot had his cave foreclosed after getting suckered into a sub-prime mortgage -- he would never support Greenspan!
Must be where they got the "trickle down" from.
must have been a comment by someone who hasn't a clue wtf they're talking about...
to buttress an argument about how to proceed in a REAL economy should be enough to immediately disqualify the speaker from being considered as a seriously educated person, and would--in my judgment--be enough to warrant immediate detention in a mental facility...
considering your anal imaginings over trains going through tunnels..
the most interesting thing about all the bile being hurled against Rand is that it is exactly the same stupidity that touted a butchering of her writings to promote policies which are responsible for the crap we're dealing with now... such comments are exactly those of a lost soul who goes from the extreme of alcoholism to rabid evangelism without stopping to think in between changing gears...
she would have held you in as much disdain as she would have greenspan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3En7F18wbnI
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
callow youth I was much influenced by Rand's books and her considerable admiration for scientists and engineers was probably the reason I chose engineering as a field of study. The problem with Rand is that if you apply her reasoning to her philosophy it becomes unworkable. Greenspan says he did not anticipate the behavior of the financial institutions. How could he not? The simplest of games in game theory is that of The Commons in which villagers must decide how many cattle to graze on common land. Their collective interest requires them to co-operate and regulate to prevent overgrazing and destruction of the resource while their self-interest demands they put as many cattle as possible on the land to grab the greatest share thus destroying the pasture. Greenspan was right that self-interest wins every time.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I thought her novels were interesting. Full stop.
far left loon >.<
I'm sorry, but Ayn Rand would've been calling for these guys to be lynched. Her 'market principles' were about work and intellectualism, not about guys looting and getting away with everything they can. It's these kind of people that she actually warns against.
no such market would exist. Since her whole philosophy is dependent on something she called objective value then there can't possibly be any dispute about the value of a stock share and hence no reason to trade it. As an economic theory Rand's philosophy can't take us much farther than a basic barter system.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
(this ended up in the wrong spot.)
Here's a classic example of a somewhat mildly intelligent primate whose world view is pure ideology (free market capitalism). All ideologies, as is well understood, make primates passive and subservient to whatever rational abstractions make up the particular ideology (religion, philosophy, economic, moral). So, when a crack appears in the infrastructure as it surely will when reality surfaces in its typically unexpected and unruly way, these disciples start to shake their heads, wring their hands and express bewilderment and confusion as to why matters went awry. It's pathetic. The unfortunate fallout is that other primates will pay the price for the miscreant's steadfastness in the face of contradictory evidence.
Greenspan is a classic case. A person in his position should be well aware of the historical precedents -- market meltdowns -- and should have been extremely vigilant about any sign that the US financial system was drifting into a similar situation. His mealy excuses are of no merit and he should be charged with criminal incompetence. My guess is that his prodigal son routine will keep whatever is left of the Department of Justice at bay. A poster boy for greed and the fiscal decimation of his fellow citizens. Fuck him.
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
To paraphrase George Carlin, 'never trust anyone with a name for how they think'.
I believe Alan Greenspan even dated Ayn Rand back in the 30's when he was a young buck and she was an old hag. It was a fatal attraction - for American economics that is...
Theres some real stupidity in this thread. Its crap like this that really makes me embarrassed to associate myself with liberalism. You guys are acting every bit as stupid and empty-headed as those idiots at the Mccain-Palin rallies.. Rand had more intellect in her pinky than any of you have ever dreamed of having.
She would have spoken out against these crooks on wall street years ago.. They're very similar to the people who followed D'anconia around and invested without having any idea what they were investing in.
Its not surprising most of you dont understand Rands writing.. most republicans dont either and even Peikoff seems to have sacrificed his principle for the sake of his own fame.
The key point is.. actually go read what you're so quick to dismiss. Dont just hurl insults viscerally at something you dont understand or you're no better than the crazy Mccain supporters spewing hate and ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
Republicans believe in the ideal that the economy regulates itself because "best product wins" and "self government" are their main principals and beliefs. That is why they deregulated much of the economy and opened free trade agreements with other countries. It was the idea that lower taxes and loose regulation would not only drive prices lower but also allow more money to be made by the american people as a whole.
Their "trickle down" economics theorized that if the rich got richer so would the middle and poor. This however has been proven wrong multiple times and the collapse of the big banks are the writing on the wall. They tried to tout mortgages with adjustable rates as good deals and try to sell the idea of buy now, pay later, and get rich off of your house. When in fact a serfdom of sorts was brewing from behind the scenes; because many of these lenders knew that they could raise the interest rates (since it was adjustable) and have these people trapped in their mansions paying off their debt forever. This happened because they are GREEDY!
Ayn Rand believed in the virtue of greed and individual power unlimited. This is what the Republicans believed in and shaped America thusly.
Greed isn't easily controlled nor is it truly a virtue, for republicans to believe that individuals only concerned about the bottom line would regulate themselves and pay the lower classes more because of that was absurd and naive. Capitalism if it is unchecked only wants one thing: the most profit in the quickest time with the least amount of cost. That is exactly what we got.
LMAO ty for the links........
When you're in high school or college (i.e. young and naive), many really get into the simplisticness of Rand's message.
But then, you're supposed to grow up and realise she's a bloody looney.
For the record, I did read Atlas Shrugged.
I was "made" to read both Atlas Shrugged, and the Foutainhead.
Every other dweeb in highschool swore that if I read Rand and that other bloody piece of shit "The Catcher in the Rye" that my life would change forever.
They did not change my life, if anything they pissed me off because of the wasted time. In my humble opinion those books seemed like awfully badly written.
Later in life, I understood what was so appealing to some of my acquaintances: Rand et al truly catered to the inner asshole of those people.
Rand was nothing but a spoiled rich Russian asshole who was pissed off because them commies took her family's toys away. She contributed nothing but hot air... much like her successors: Produce nothing, expect awesome returns.
[Deleted, Mr. A. Pedant. Personal attack-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted, smartypants. Personal attack-Sitemonitor]
I stated in an earlier post that those two lovebirds, Greenspan and Ayn dated in the 30's, but when I looked it up it was around 1952-53. What a mess they made of America between the two of them.
[Deleted. Personal attack-Sitemonitor]
I've argued with some Randian objectivists before. It was an exercise in futility. They read this stuff and suddenly think they have some special knowledge or something.
If the BC in your name stands for Before Christ, you're not exactly a spring-chicken either.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Methinks you do protest too much. This posting is in keeping with most of your other postings -- at least in tone. Too heavy on the groin/sexual preference/boys locker room zingers. Enough, already.
"Secular humanism -- a fearless, realistic world view replete with doubt and scepticism that attempts to attain an unachievable state of equilibrium between and among the human qualities of reason, intuition, imagination, memory, ethics and common sense.
What Rand does is start with a few basic premises that she finds incontrovertible and then builds a logical system upon them without being concerned about the ramifications. She would say "We have to accept X,Y,and Z because they flow from A,B, and C, which are so important". This is the way people with extreme ideologies come up with bat shit crazy ideas. The scientific method dictates that we check the ramifications of our premises to see if we should change them or add others (speaking loosely about the need to check theory against observation with an attempt to discredit your own thinking). She doesn't do this. To read her supposed compelling pieces, it is just a string of unsupported ramblings that sound somewhat correct and are convoluted enough to make dissection difficult. It is truthiness of the highest order, or perhaps partially correct enough to convince some.
Give me a specific example since you're such a scholar? Show me where Rand sidesteps the scientific method or logical rules in one of her pieces.
Anecdotal evidence is garbage...[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Why do you feel the burden of proof lies only with your adversary?
What I'm saying is that adhering to logic is not enough if your set of basic premises is incomplete or incorrect. Given that no logical rules are violated, the way to see if your basic premises are correct is to look at their implications and also compare them to observation. So, Rand can come up with an airtight argument that is also BS. I'm not going to humor you by googling Rand and finding some error. Suffice it to say, in the past I've read enough Rand to know that I don't take her seriously at all.
In rhetoric, that's known as Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, a logical flaw on the part of the orator, like Rand.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
One of Rands most famous sayings is "Check your premises." However, premises are very often subjective.. thus in most formal forms of logic the emphasis is placed on the argument itself rather than the premise. Still waiting on you to show which one of those premises is demonstrably false though.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (which is just a fancy way of saying correlation is not causation) is not actually what he was talking about.
Thanks for playing.
OK, stick a picture of Ayn Rand on your wall and beat off to it. We get it, you love her.
far left loon >.<
The reason, I think, many people like Rand and libertarianism and free market ideology is that it supposedly extinguishes the basic conflict between the good of an individual and the good of society at large. So, you get to do whatever you want and sidestep your own conscience. Most of this is based upon a partial reading of economics. For instance, everyone claims that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage justifies all economic globalization and free trade. The reality is that Ricardo's theory assumes that capital is NOT mobile across country borders. When capital is mobile, as it is today, then ABSOLUTE advantage is more important than comparative advantage. This is why US companies move to China to exploit cheaper labor. Further, Smith's 'invisible hand' is accompanied by an 'invisible foot' where companies attempt to externalize as many costs as possible (why they dump pollution into our air). This would be slightly mitigated if some of the IMPOSSIBLE assumptions of current mainstream economics were met, such as that all consumers have PERFECT knowledge of the goods/services they consume.
The first half of your post is garbage.. but you make some decent points towards the end. Rand didnt promote the idea that self-interest trumps all.. nor did she blindly support anyone who was rich or an executive.. See Wynand or Toohey..
Stiglitz talks alot about the problems with total laissez-faire capitalism in his books about working with the IMF during the fall of the soviet union and the east-asian crisis. The two biggest problems are as you said.. a lack of total transparency and capital that flows freely between borders with economies at different levels of development and with different governing philosophies. These are more problems with implementation rather than problems with the underlying philopophy however.
[Lighten up. Did you just register a little over an hour ago to belittle and piss all over other posters? That's not on here-Sitemonitor]
not to be disagreeable, but i'm finding all this crap being hurled against Rand to be the exact same flavour of mindless rabidness that reichtoids tout... Rand was an author who told stories about the human condition... there was nothing remotely resembling economic theory in her works... at best, she provided metaphors in the same way that the buybull provides those of faith...
just because greenspan was an idiot sociopath who was so enamoured by her ideas that he believed himself capable of twisting psychology into an accounting process is only a testament to the sheer destructiveness of a small mind overcome by narcissism... and the counter-reactions here against her for his perversions is representative of more small minds running around like chickens with their heads up their anuses looking for witches to burn at the stake...
not only is this counter-productive, it's the exact same sort of reactionary thinking that causes a party without ideas to resort to lies and smears to get elected...
at least austinite is holding his own in this discussion...and when dipshits make comments about him getting a poster of her to masturbate over.... well, that's just childish...and imo, you should be levelling your reproaches at that person... not at someone who stands his ground with reason...
Any of y'all seen the old episode of The Simpson where they do a Stalag 17 take-off with Maggie Simpson in the Ayn Rand School for Tots?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Alan Greenspan is a horse faced, lying, cocksucker!When the Obama people take over, in JAN. we need to demand that new laws are enacted in order to make these people liable for their fuck-ups!This mutha-fucker, along with Phil Gramm should be in jail along with Dumbya!
Aside: cotton pickin'? As in, "Get your cotton pickin' fingers off me"? Think about it.
far left loon >.<
this moron is a such phony it's unbelievable. the decrepit fuck is a prime example of how incompetent cretins are put into high government office and nobody ever questions them. do yourself a favor and actually listen to the words he uses: all general, non-technical, superficial garbage. he doesn't know shit and is a total poser. no wonder this country's economy is in the crapper.
I mean listen to this guy.. Is this the voice of logic and reason? Or is this guy just a liberal copy of "Crazy Mccain Rally Lady?
Do you understand the difference between disagreeing with someone using "logic and reason" and just insulting them?
Why the double standard? Why is it acceptable for you to come on and insult everyone else (including me, I might add) and yet add nothing substantive to the conversation that might show a different point of view?
At this point, pointing at anonymous posts on a website and then saying, "Look this proves liberals are just as bad!" is nothing more than concern trolling.
If you have something to contribute that you feel may provoke a different way of looking at things, say it.
But if you're strictly looking to provoke, don't whine when it gets deleted.
Oh, and by the way, I get paid to give my opinion. This isn't a news site where I have to be "balanced" or "objective." I think that free market disciples are seriously blind and this whole notion that Greenspan could absolve himself of the market by saying that "no one could have predicted this..." is total and utter bullshit (sorry to offend your obviously delicate sensibilities).
Many, MANY people predicted this market collapse (incl. Dennis the Republican here). I knew it was coming and I have the same level of education as Sarah Palin. If I knew it, than Greenspan sure as hell should have known it.
I think thats exactly the distinction I was making that was lost on the posters in this thread.
If I insulted anyone.. I was insulting their narrow-minded views or the fact that they were calling a syndicated author and philosopher stupid when they couldnt put together a coherent sentence. I've seen many people here throw the exact same "insults" at the backwoods people you see on TV calling Obama a muslim.. Theres a difference between insulting someones argument and calling them a "cocksucker" or a "M-Fu$%er" or any of the other things people here have said because you told them that Rand and Greenspan were "bad". Can you really not see how thats just as bad as the people at the Mccain rallies? How thats the same ignorant mentality..
I'm not pointing at anonymous posts and trying to tar liberals.. I come here because for the most part I enjoy the discussion. I've even enjoyed some of your posts. But its appalling to see the same ignorance that makes conservatives look like fools coming from liberals..
You seem to think that being balanced and objective is some kind of responsibility only news sites owe their readers I think being balanced and objective is a responsibility reasonable people owe themselves... Its what separates rational thinking people from Bill O'Reilly and the crazy people shouting hate at Obama. How do you even keep track of your views if they're not based on an objective standard? Are they based off partisan platforms? Do you check the DNC's website before you allow yourself to form an opinion? I guess thats a point we just disagree on.. If being partisan and...unbalanced is your game than at least you're upfront about it.
As for you predicting all this before Greenspan, its easy to quarterback on monday morning.
Its like Amato said, everyones an economist these days.
I give my opinions. Mine. Not the DNC's. Not the Obama campaign's. Not even John Amato's. I actually have a fairly high IQ and degrees in higher education. I don't need anyone else to tell me how I feel about anything. My material point (which is CLEARLY too nuanced for such an intellectual as yourself) is that I have no obligation to be non-partisan. This isn't a news site. I'm not obligated to give any other point of view than mine when writing a post. We clearly state that we write from a liberal perspective in our commenting policy.
That doesn't make me irrational, that doesn't mean that I haven't considered the issue objectively. Nor does it mean that I flail around wildly, changing my mind constantly. Your implications are unfounded, demeaning and more than a little patronizing.
And as to Monday morning quarterbacking, my record is archived for all to see. Dennis and I had a long exchange about the housing bubble more than a year ago on these comment threads. We were able to exchange different points of view civilly and with respect for each other, something I have yet to read from you. I've never claimed to be an economist--in fact, I wrote on this site just a month or two ago that I hate economics. That doesn't mean I don't understand it, I just find that the subject is all too often dominated by people with a theory that does not stand up to real world applications.
As to your "concern" about name-calling and anger pointed towards those public officials who put us in this dire situation, I remind you again that how other posters choose to express themselves is none of your business. You have once again chosen to do little more than sneer at me instead offering something substantive to cause me (and anyone else reading this thread) to reconsider.
Again...I ask you, is your desire to provoke a different point of view...or just to provoke?
"But its appalling to see the same ignorance that makes conservatives look like fools coming from liberals"
i agree with this sentiment in this discussion... and it quite frankly both irritates and scares me that i'm seeing what amounts to a mirror image of a rabid reichtoid in many posters making comments on this topic...
but i have been a regular visitor long enough to know that you've written some good stuff nicole, with coherent points, insightful observations and entertaining wit...
in this case however, i think you both have let your emotions get the better of you and you're both missing the logic contained in each others words and are responding to the emotion...
No, I understand that the original implication of the quote was that someone who protests too much is likely quilty of that which they rail against. Seriously, dude or dudette, you don't have nearly as superior an intellect as you believe.
Always happy to see Randroids confronted with reality; at our expense, however.
...now this was at least an attempt at humour...
although i've found myself defending Rand in this discussion, i don't consider myself a randroid because i don't consider any author capable of providing me with a rule book of instructions to guide me in how i live my life... and i believe it is this sort of fanaticism which is the real danger to our society... whether it's the buybull or atlas shrugged... these are both nothing more than books which contain nothing more than aspects of elements of wisdom on the human condition...
and if greenspan perverted her words into a weapon to achieve personal power at our expense, then he is no different tnan a buybull thumper railing against gay marriage... or an islamic fascist strapping on a bomb to force others to comply with their views...
greenspan was a complete and utter idiot for believing that an unregulated market was a market free from corruption... anyone who thinks that invisible hands will magically protect them from predators is indulging in delusional fantasy... there are laws against murder... there are rules in roller derby... these are meant to protect everyone...
...and the only salient characteristic about rand's writing that could even remotely apply to economics, its the value of human ingenuity and the vast number of those who seek to exploit that capacity which us held by so few... if anything, she warned against this sort of crap happening in the first place...
aside from that... what she wrote, for the most part, were just bloody novels of fiction... and damned good ones... but i also like herman hesse... does that make me a nazi...?... i don't bloody think so... get a frigging grip, people...
The original post fails to take into consideration that if this was taking place in an Ayn Rand book, the leading actors (if I may use this term) would all be talking about it, in detail, over and over. "I am taking advantage of you to the fullest extent of the law, Bill." "That's right, Al, you are, and I wouldn't respect you if you didn't. And tonight, I'm going to sneak into your house and whiz on your sofa." Then around page 500, one of them would pipe up with an extended solo, repeating and restating everything that had already been said for the benefit of the thick-witted superior readership.
That's how we know we're not in an Ayn Rand book. That and the fact that everybody has normal-sounding names.
"If this is the way you feel about money, senor, I think I'm darn glad that I've got a goodly piece of d'Anconia Copper stock."
Francisco said gravely, "I suggest that you think twice, sir."
Heck yeah, Greenspan shrugged. I hear that said mockingly by people on the left. Ayn Rand would never approve of the Bush/Paulson Bailout, low interest rates, or the giving away of money to Wallstreet, or Fannie/Freddie subsidized homes. But Greenspan granted everything demanded of him: Subsidized houses for the poor, free unearned money for the rich, low interest rates with nothing to back it. And even the giants like Orryn Boyle's Amalgamated Steel are reeling. Those that think Rand is about rewarding UNEARNED wealth to Wallstreet don't know the half of it.
Atlas Shrugged was about the destruction of society. Yes, I speculate that Greenspan did this on purpose. Whether that's true or not, only Greenspan knows.
Comments are closed on this entry