Ayn Rand's Ugly Step Child

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you admit that Alan Greenspan did not enact any free market policies while Federal Reserve chairman?

I doubt we could agree on exactly what a free market policy is. I am sure we could agree on a doctrinaire definition of some sort, but I live in a world of nuance where you appear to live in a world of black and white. Never shall we meet in agreement on things as they truly are as opposed to how we'd each desire them.

A free market is a free market and the fact is that Alan Greenspan was no friend to the free market.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you admit that Alan Greenspan did not enact any free market policies while Federal Reserve chairman?

I doubt we could agree on exactly what a free market policy is. I am sure we could agree on a doctrinaire definition of some sort, but I live in a world of nuance where you appear to live in a world of black and white. Never shall we meet in agreement on things as they truly are as opposed to how we'd each desire them.

A free market is a free market and the fact is that Alan Greenspan was no friend to the free market.

Spoken like a true blue believer in a doctrine. When do we get to burn the heretics?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I doubt we could agree on exactly what a free market policy is. I am sure we could agree on a doctrinaire definition of some sort, but I live in a world of nuance where you appear to live in a world of black and white. Never shall we meet in agreement on things as they truly are as opposed to how we'd each desire them.

A free market is a free market and the fact is that Alan Greenspan was no friend to the free market.

Spoken like a true blue believer in a doctrine. When do we get to burn the heretics?

Spoken like somebody that wants to try to redefine what a free market is so that the point you tried to make regarding Alan Greenspan is somehow magically true.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A free market is a free market and the fact is that Alan Greenspan was no friend to the free market.

Spoken like a true blue believer in a doctrine. When do we get to burn the heretics?

Spoken like somebody that wants to try to redefine what a free market is so that the point you tried to make regarding Alan Greenspan is somehow magically true.

Naw, there is enough true evidence in real life to prove what I say about Greenspan and where he stood. When people live in worlds where there are no gray areas, they are like horses with those blinders on.

You are obviously intelligent and educated, yet lack a certain critical set of tools that would allow you to fly. I am not saying your position on Greenspan is so wrong, but your approach and reasoning leave much to be desired. Why do you handicap yourself with blind allegiance to doctrine?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Spoken like a true blue believer in a doctrine. When do we get to burn the heretics?

Spoken like somebody that wants to try to redefine what a free market is so that the point you tried to make regarding Alan Greenspan is somehow magically true.

Naw, there is enough true evidence in real life to prove what I say about Greenspan and where he stood. When people live in worlds where there are no gray areas, they are like horses with those blinders on.

You are obviously intelligent and educated, yet lack a certain critical set of tools that would allow you to fly. I am not saying your position on Greenspan is so wrong, but your approach and reasoning leave much to be desired. Why do you handicap yourself with blind allegiance to doctrine?

Saying I'm being doctrinaire on what a free market is is like saying a math teacher is being doctrinaire on 2 plus 2 equaling 4 and not willing to compromise. It's ridiculous. A free market is what it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Spoken like somebody that wants to try to redefine what a free market is so that the point you tried to make regarding Alan Greenspan is somehow magically true.

Naw, there is enough true evidence in real life to prove what I say about Greenspan and where he stood. When people live in worlds where there are no gray areas, they are like horses with those blinders on.

You are obviously intelligent and educated, yet lack a certain critical set of tools that would allow you to fly. I am not saying your position on Greenspan is so wrong, but your approach and reasoning leave much to be desired. Why do you handicap yourself with blind allegiance to doctrine?

Saying I'm being doctrinaire on what a free market is is like saying a math teacher is being doctrinaire on 2 plus 2 equaling 4 and not willing to compromise. It's ridiculous. A free market is what it is.

Nope, here is where you exhibit your skill set (or the lack of one) when it comes to critical thinking. I am sure you are thinking you are thinking in a logical manner, and you may be, but logic is only what it is. The world we inhabit and imagine (which is what our minds do: imagine) is full of so many gray areas as to make your black and white viewfinder useless as a construct/concept.

Philosophy, ideology, psychology, intellectualism are not areas of mathematics or logic (I know).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Naw, there is enough true evidence in real life to prove what I say about Greenspan and where he stood. When people live in worlds where there are no gray areas, they are like horses with those blinders on.

You are obviously intelligent and educated, yet lack a certain critical set of tools that would allow you to fly. I am not saying your position on Greenspan is so wrong, but your approach and reasoning leave much to be desired. Why do you handicap yourself with blind allegiance to doctrine?

Saying I'm being doctrinaire on what a free market is is like saying a math teacher is being doctrinaire on 2 plus 2 equaling 4 and not willing to compromise. It's ridiculous. A free market is what it is.

Nope, here is where you exhibit your skill set (or the lack of one) when it comes to critical thinking. I am sure you are thinking you are thinking in a logical manner, and you may be, but logic is only what it is. The world we inhabit and imagine (which is what our minds do: imagine) is full of so many gray areas as to make your black and white viewfinder useless as a construct/concept.

Philosophy, ideology, psychology, intellectualism are not areas of mathematics or logic (I know).

Yet you haven't proven that a free market can be something other than what it is. All you've done is try to make me look bad by calling me doctrinaire or black and white, while trying to make yourself look deep by referring to gray areas that you supposedly see.

A free market does not have a central bank controlling the supply of money or the interest rates, and would certainly not have a fiat currency. Until you can prove that Alan Greenspan attempted to change those policies you can't prove that Alan Greenspan was the so-called champion of the free market.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Saying I'm being doctrinaire on what a free market is is like saying a math teacher is being doctrinaire on 2 plus 2 equaling 4 and not willing to compromise. It's ridiculous. A free market is what it is.

Nope, here is where you exhibit your skill set (or the lack of one) when it comes to critical thinking. I am sure you are thinking you are thinking in a logical manner, and you may be, but logic is only what it is. The world we inhabit and imagine (which is what our minds do: imagine) is full of so many gray areas as to make your black and white viewfinder useless as a construct/concept.

Philosophy, ideology, psychology, intellectualism are not areas of mathematics or logic (I know).

Yet you haven't proven that a free market can be something other than what it is. All you've done is try to make me look bad by calling me doctrinaire or black and white, while trying to make yourself look deep by referring to gray areas that you supposedly see.

A free market does not have a central bank controlling the supply of money or the interest rates, and would certainly not have a fiat currency. Until you can prove that Alan Greenspan attempted to change those policies you can't prove that Alan Greenspan was the so-called champion of the free market.

So a free market cannot exist with a central bank?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nope, here is where you exhibit your skill set (or the lack of one) when it comes to critical thinking. I am sure you are thinking you are thinking in a logical manner, and you may be, but logic is only what it is. The world we inhabit and imagine (which is what our minds do: imagine) is full of so many gray areas as to make your black and white viewfinder useless as a construct/concept.

Philosophy, ideology, psychology, intellectualism are not areas of mathematics or logic (I know).

Yet you haven't proven that a free market can be something other than what it is. All you've done is try to make me look bad by calling me doctrinaire or black and white, while trying to make yourself look deep by referring to gray areas that you supposedly see.

A free market does not have a central bank controlling the supply of money or the interest rates, and would certainly not have a fiat currency. Until you can prove that Alan Greenspan attempted to change those policies you can't prove that Alan Greenspan was the so-called champion of the free market.

So a free market cannot exist with a central bank?

Correct. A central bank would not form on a free market because it's purpose is to subvert the free market by manipulating interest rates and the supply of money. This wouldn't be acceptable in a truly free market.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet you haven't proven that a free market can be something other than what it is. All you've done is try to make me look bad by calling me doctrinaire or black and white, while trying to make yourself look deep by referring to gray areas that you supposedly see.

A free market does not have a central bank controlling the supply of money or the interest rates, and would certainly not have a fiat currency. Until you can prove that Alan Greenspan attempted to change those policies you can't prove that Alan Greenspan was the so-called champion of the free market.

So a free market cannot exist with a central bank?

Correct. A central bank would not form on a free market because it's purpose is to subvert the free market by manipulating interest rates and the supply of money. This wouldn't be acceptable in a truly free market.

Sorta like saying the US is not a democracy and neither are most other governments that are democratic in nature. Purism, doctrine are sure ways to keep a circle jerk going.

Love ta chat more but I need to get home. Fuckin' homework never got done here. Now I know why 'they' call IT homework.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So a free market cannot exist with a central bank?

Correct. A central bank would not form on a free market because it's purpose is to subvert the free market by manipulating interest rates and the supply of money. This wouldn't be acceptable in a truly free market.

Sorta like saying the US is not a democracy and neither are most other governments that are democratic in nature. Purism, doctrine are sure ways to keep a circle jerk going.

Love ta chat more but I need to get home. Fuckin' homework never got done here. Now I know why 'they' call IT homework.

Once again trying to prove your point by trying to make me look bad rather than actually proving anything.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct. A central bank would not form on a free market because it's purpose is to subvert the free market by manipulating interest rates and the supply of money. This wouldn't be acceptable in a truly free market.

Sorta like saying the US is not a democracy and neither are most other governments that are democratic in nature. Purism, doctrine are sure ways to keep a circle jerk going.

Love ta chat more but I need to get home. Fuckin' homework never got done here. Now I know why 'they' call IT homework.

Once again trying to prove your point by trying to make me look bad rather than actually proving anything.

how's this? next time I'm on remind me to prove things, okay?

btw, I was never trying to make you look bad. If I wanted to I could do so in so many ways. IT is what I do with ease...or used to do. I haven't the desire to make many here look bad. Too easy and too old.


ltr KEv

d.

 

[jillian]

Ayn Rand's Ugly Step Child is to blame for the recent/current economic shit the world faced and is still facing.

To start with...

Alan Greenspan was a close associate and follower of Ayn Rand and her nutjob beliefs; Objectivism. Reagan and the GOP conservatives who embraced Obejctivist ecomonic policies, policies arguing for little to no regullation in the finacial markets, came into power in the 80s. These greed driven nitwits along with conservative economists appointed by Bill Clinton (embraced by many a liberal because of the greed factors...greed over ethical principles) caused the current economic meltdown.


Conservative economic theories and Ayn Rand's foolish belief system = Economic Meltdown

Saw a great PBS program on some of this...www.pbs.org

The progam touched on the old 90s financial mess that foretold the problems we would eventual face with over-the-counter OTC derivatives.

The invisible hand of Ayn Rand (most likely pulled out of her ass) is evident throughout the financial system over the last three decades.

Proctor & Gamble's lawsuit against Bankers Trust...www.nytimes.com is an interesting peek inside the Voodoo economics of the last three decades.

the randians get very vocal every time a democrat is in office....with their self-involved, self-centered view of reality....and a concept of economics that is designed to turn us into a banana republic and a distortion of the constitution which they then try to use to justify their perverse view of society.

i loved atlas shrugged... as a political theorist, ayn rand was a terrific writer of fiction.

 

[garyd]

Sorry the banking industry has never been deregulated. You might have a point if it had been Dev. As it is you are merely nattering away revealing a collossal level of ignorance.

 

[Tony_S]

I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but there hasn't been a 'free market' since humans were hunter-gatherers. Once humans started organizing the first city-states, we entered the realm of political economy. The early history of the Unites States, which saw phenomenal economic growth, was characterized by dirigisme and mercantilism. In today's world, for the most part, we have cartels and monopolies with direct influence over the state.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but there hasn't been a 'free market' since humans were hunter-gatherers. Once humans started organizing the first city-states, we entered the realm of political economy. The early history of the Unites States, which saw phenomenal economic growth, was characterized by dirigisme and mercantilism. In today's world, for the most part, we have cartels and monopolies with direct influence over the state.

Seeking purity in ideology or philosophical bent in things like the economy, or social systems or, politics is madness posing as intellect.

There never was and will never be a Utopia whether it be with a socialist bent, a communist one, a capitalist one...

No ones bubble is burst here. Nuance my friend is the enemy of the self deluded and ideologically pure in spirit. I'd bet not one libertarian or supoposed independent who rambles on about things like purity of ideology can be held to the standard they screech about.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sorry the banking industry has never been deregulated. You might have a point if it had been Dev. As it is you are merely nattering away revealing a collossal level of ignorance.

Banking in America has rarely been overregulated. When it is less regulated we always seem to feel the pain. hmmmm, wonder why that is?

 

[MaggieMae]

He says he believed in a free market that corrects itself. However, his actions say something else. He certainly didn't allow the market to correct itself during the dot-com bust now did he?

You are confusing ideology and philosophy with real world actions. Believing in a system and allowing it to fail was never an option for those in charge. Since the system itself was never totally pure as a free market it is impossible to see where you are going with his idiocy.

And you're simply making up nonsense so that you don't have to admit that you're wrong about Greenspan. If you believe in the free market you do not accept a job as Federal Reserve chairman, you do not artificially manipulate interest rates, and you do not accept that stimulus spending is the way to get the market out of a recession. Thus proving that Greenspan did not believe in the free market.

Oh but he DID believe in the free market and was "shocked" when it couldn't take care of itself in the current crisis. His own words:

The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made "a mistake" in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

He conceded that he has "found a flaw" in his ideology and said he was "distressed by that." Yet Mr. Greenspan maintained that no regulator was smart enough to foresee the "once-in-a-century credit tsunami."

Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSJ.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are confusing ideology and philosophy with real world actions. Believing in a system and allowing it to fail was never an option for those in charge. Since the system itself was never totally pure as a free market it is impossible to see where you are going with his idiocy.

And you're simply making up nonsense so that you don't have to admit that you're wrong about Greenspan. If you believe in the free market you do not accept a job as Federal Reserve chairman, you do not artificially manipulate interest rates, and you do not accept that stimulus spending is the way to get the market out of a recession. Thus proving that Greenspan did not believe in the free market.

Oh but he DID believe in the free market and was "shocked" when it couldn't take care of itself in the current crisis. His own words:

The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made "a mistake" in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

He conceded that he has "found a flaw" in his ideology and said he was "distressed by that." Yet Mr. Greenspan maintained that no regulator was smart enough to foresee the "once-in-a-century credit tsunami."

Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSJ.com

If I claim I can fly does that make it true?

I don't deny that if all you did was look at Greenspan's rhetoric then you might have a case for him supporting the free market, but if you were to look at the things he actually did then you, if you're being honest, have to come to the conclusion that he was not a supporter of the free market in any way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And you're simply making up nonsense so that you don't have to admit that you're wrong about Greenspan. If you believe in the free market you do not accept a job as Federal Reserve chairman, you do not artificially manipulate interest rates, and you do not accept that stimulus spending is the way to get the market out of a recession. Thus proving that Greenspan did not believe in the free market.

Oh but he DID believe in the free market and was "shocked" when it couldn't take care of itself in the current crisis. His own words:

The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made "a mistake" in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

He conceded that he has "found a flaw" in his ideology and said he was "distressed by that." Yet Mr. Greenspan maintained that no regulator was smart enough to foresee the "once-in-a-century credit tsunami."

Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSJ.com

If I claim I can fly does that make it true?

I don't deny that if all you did was look at Greenspan's rhetoric then you might have a case for him supporting the free market, but if you were to look at the things he actually did then you, if you're being honest, have to come to the conclusion that he was not a supporter of the free market in any way.

nope. What Alan Greespan was, was a believer in a Free Market system within the system we have. Nobody can remake the sydstem we have into a wholly pure ideological system by themselves.

Alan Greenspan never had the power to do what you say he should've done in order to be a lilly white pursit like you.

btw, I doubt you would really like a 'real free market system. You complain too much as it is.