Did anyone watch this "Frontline" program, "Warning?"
Submitted by ausscyn on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 22:18
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
I tivio'd this (but you can watch it at the above address), & finally watched it last night. There were many things I didn't understand as my knowledge of economics is minimal, but what I couldn't wrap my head around was that Alan Greenspan was one of Ayn Rand's biggest disciples! How could this guy be so in bed with the fed & yet share Ayn Rand's beliefs? Could someone clue me in? If he had this mindset, he would be supporting Ron Paul, & we would have possibly have had the doctor as president.
»
reply
In this video Dr. Paul states Ayn Rand had a significant influence on him, he had Greenspan sign an original circulation copy of Atlas Shrugged,
Greenspan completely abandoned his early objectivist ideals, Ayn Rand didn't like Libertarians and had a militant view of foreign policy ... very revealing!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
Dr. Ron Paul refers to her in "End the Fed"
Ron Paul's opinion and a fairly concise description along with any slight apology he may venture on her behalf, while he says at the same time he is not a fan of her "cult", can be found in chapter 3, "My Intellectual Influences", of his book, End the Fed.
This starts on page 60 first paragraph. He continues a little on page 61, and concludes this discussion in the last paragraph of the chapter on page 62. It is a revealing discussion and includes the relationship to Greenspan, among others.
It is a great book... as are his others of course!
"Suspicion is a Virtue, if in the interests of the good of the people." Patrick Henry
"We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone - it is to the brave..."
This is PBS Propaganda
I'm no fan of Ayn Rand (and I'll bet Dr. Paul isn't either) ... but to say that Greenspan followed her philosophy is a tad off. He definitely used her philosophy when it suited the purposes of the bankers and Wall Street, but he certainly was no true believer. (They don't regulate themselves, but they do regulate everyone and everything else ). This whole episode demonstrates the utter inadequacy of Rand's philosophy. The people got ripped off to the tune of trillions because the "free market" was in play in the derivatives dens ... and Greenspan didn't understand that the players would take advantage. LOL here!
To say Greenspan was "crushed" by the scandal at the end belies the fact that he was in on the bailout. He wasn't crushed ... he was trying to hide the fact that he was snickering up his sleeve and slobbering over the trillions to come in Act II: TARP.
I am not impressed with Brooksley Born either. She's necessary to make the story human and plausible to those who can't think too deeply, but she could have resigned her (powerless) post if she truly cared about the people ... at least get yourself away from the scum that is going to cling when everything goes down the drain. Someone with real principles would have resigned. But, hey, she's a lawyer friend of Hillary's ... says it all.
Notice how PBS neatly pinned the tail on the "free market" donkey? Those viewers are probably now convinced that free markets are a bad idea.
I figure the whole program was rigged to allow the boys to publicly cry in their beer and gain sympathy (instead of the hangman's nooses they so richly deserve). It paints them as being victims of their own misguided but well intentioned (free market ala Rand) philosophy, not as the cold-blooded murderers, thieves and manipulators they really are.
I thought it was a hammy touch when the SEC dude grovels at the feet of Born (a bone thrown to the female viewers who now have "proof" that women are the smarter, more noble sex ... if only they had more power). Puke, puke!
Last thought: Ayn Rand's philosophy has no connection to how things work in the real world. It's a great tool in the hands of the unscrupulous though. Let's all grow up and deal with reality ... not with warm fuzzies. Throw her damn books out!
The real world?
"The people got ripped off to the tune of trillions because the 'free market' was in play in the derivatives dens..."
I don't think you understand free markets, or Ayn Rand.
And Dr. Paul is definitely a fan, his son Rand was named after Ayn Rand.
your wrong,, nothing to do with ayn rand,,,, his name is randal
as a kid he choose to be called rand,,,,,, a total coincidence to ayn rand
Rand, as in Paul,
is short for Randal. He was not named for Ayn Rand; he said so his own self.
I dont think Rand is
I dont think Rand is actually named after her. I think Ron Paul has said that he respects some things about Rand, but doesnt agree with her philosophy.
Ventura 2012
correct
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/05/20/ron-paul-son-no...
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
I stand corrected
I read it somewhere, but I'll take Rand's word for it!
So much for the real world
As an artist, one is faced with people who want your work for free, and then you have the government forcing you to work to profit off you through contracts. or you don't work at all in the corporate world making any kind of "real" money. Frankly, unless you're a billionaire, you ain't making money. That's my opinion.
As an artist, Ayn Rand's philosophy is very imporant because she's making a stand for creatives, and creatives about about to go into a war with the evolvers, who believe, nothing is created, ot all evovles.. this argument is taking shape in the Fairry Sheppard case. He just admitted he lied/.... the entire thing is a set up to take away artists rights. The artist that lives in the architech, or engineer... the person who can not only think outside the box, but build the box and boxes for more..
Artists do exist, and those who understand what Ayn Rand is saying create a life for themselves, outside the box, where Ayn Rand works great.
Finally, I agree with you it is propeganda. I liked your post. I know you need to rethink Ayn Rand from a creative perpective to understand her, in a man's world.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Washington's hands-off attitude?
"Washington's hands-off attitude toward Wall Street seemed to be paying off."
So begins another propaganda piece on the financial meltdown. Define the premise inaccurately and you will naturally draw inaccurate conclusions. Is this piece designed to lead us down a dead end? Or are they just incompetent? Who knows?
Loosely connecting Alan Greenspan with Ayn Rand makes the case for the average viewer that Greenspan's cavalier free market attitude led to the collapse, which would be laughable if so many weren't buying into it.
The head of the central bank a free market advocate? Preposterous.
Anyone who understands free markets, central banks or fiat money understands that Wall Street and Washington are not strange, but cozy, bedfellows. Neither believe in or adhere to a free market.
And so the lively debate within the limited spectrum continues with predictable results: record profits on Wall Street and record power grabs in Washington.
Are these elitists really that brilliant, or is the population really that dense? At this point I think it's a toss-up.
Saying that Greenspan is a libertarian
is like saying that the Queen of England believes in a democracy. This is propaganda meant to make it look like the free market is to blame when the economy collapses. The very existence of the Fed is contrary to the free market, so making Greenspan, the head of the Fed, look like a libertarian is ridiculous.
casimirp and BmoreBrawler:
Your assessments of the film are spot-on. Remember, this is the same Alan Greenspan who once touted the gold standard. I think that was back in his pre-CFR days.
"The very existence of the
"The very existence of the Fed is contrary to the free market,"
They even admit this in the documentary, but it had no effect on the conclusions in it.
Ventura 2012
I watched it. The whole
I watched it. The whole purpose of the movie was to make it look like well meaning libertarians run the economic policy of both parties and keep making hair-brained free-marketer decisions. The reality is that criminals used the government to profit. Just because they masked their crimes in free-market ideology doesnt mean that they actually believed it, just like the Democrats pushing for fascism in health care mask their language in populism.
Also, how could you have a documentary on derivatives and not only never explain what they are in ANY detail, but also never actually tie them into the two economic crises.
Ventura 2012
Recruit Brooksley Born!!!
Get her on board with the Campaign for Liberty! Or at least get her a speaking engagement with Ron Paul.
Is that possible?
She would have nothing to do with RP
This is a campaign to replace summers with Brooksley, who told you in the end of the vid, she would not correct it.
She is a Keynesian, not a Misesian, like RP, Ayn Rand..
Greenspan was also a Keynesian who used Ayn Rand as an apron to hide behind...
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
I wasn't too impressed with
I wasn't too impressed with that video, especially how they said Greenspan supported FRAUD in the markets. Apparently, rather than prosecuting fraud Greenspan actually supported the idea of the market taking care of it without government intervention.
It seems to me that prosecuting fraud is one of the government's true duties/obligations!
...
Gold and Economic Freedom
"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."
-Alan Greenspan
Gold and Economic Freedom
full article...
http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan041998.html
On page 91 of End the Fed
On page 91 of End the Fed "Conversations with Greenspan" he responds to Dr.Paul's gold standard question by saying something to the effect of... the Federal Reserve has acted as if the dollar was backed by gold since the 70's.
In other words Greenspan THINKS he is "smart enough" that he knows how a gold backed dollar will act in the economy. With this knowledge he can manipulate the market to have the benefits of gold with out it's drawbacks.
This is how he reconciles these seemingly opposing points of view
The FRONTLINE show is not good
The documentary is only 55 minutes and it's online, so it's easy to view, but it's not good.
I laughed at the sinister music they played while showing gigantic pictures of Greenspan, and while talking about financial firms creating derivatives contracts using only private lawyers (GASP!) rather than reporting to their every move to the government.
Greenspan is a complicated case. He had Rand's blessing when he joined the Fed in 1987, because she probably was glad to see one of her students getting a position like that, but I don't believe he supports free markets or Rand's Objectivism any more.
For example, the fact that he claims he was mistaken about his ideology (his now-famous confession to Rep. Waxman in Congress), and claims to have learned this during the recent crash, implies that he thinks our markets are actually operating according to free market principles, which I find astonishing. It's one thing for a liberal who never reads anything about capitalism to think that, but a one-time student of Ayn Rand? Do I need to list -- for the benefit of this supposed capitalist -- the many ways in which markets are distorted by government? He worked for what is essentially a government central bank! How is that a free market?
Anyway, the only reason people keep repeating the Greenspan-Rand link is they don't really understand Objectivism, and/or they want to smear Greenspan, Rand, and capitalism all at the same time by incorrectly associating them with the credit crisis.
Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com
even Rand isn't the same
even Rand isn't the same Rand over the course of her life.
A lot of the things she said later in life, I find puzzling. Things that I don't find true to her earlier epiphanies.
And a lot of the modern objectivist scene is self serving bullshit. Just look at the Ayn Rand Institute, those guys just suck.
It's kind of like Reagan for me.... Black and White Reagan, ala the 1960s Reagan, threw down some terrific speeches. But when he became president, he became the posterchild for what happens to people with convictions that go on to become president. Their convictions go away. Or are put away. 1980s Full Color Ronald Reagan sucked.
Hmmm...really?
"He had Rand's blessing when he joined the Fed in 1987" That would have been tough considering she passed away in 1982.
Greenspan opposed the existence of the Fed
Even while working there. He never wavered on that. He always said he preferred a gold standard to central banking. His excuse for working there was just that this is how society, for now, has chosen to handle the money supply.
He called himself a "libertarian Republican."
I bet he voted for Ron Paul.
He SOLD OUT. I bet he did
He SOLD OUT. I bet he did NOT vote for Ron Paul, or vote at all for that matter. "It is easier to employ the organ grinder than vote for the monkey"-The Onion
Even if he did vote, he would not vote for someone who would have assuredly put him in prison.
Ventura 2012
I'm calling
I'm calling double nonsense. I'd like some sources, to which I'm going to counter all of them with Ron Paul's book, "End the Fed" in which he specifically discusses Greenspan's traitorous ass.
Greenspan may have had good intentions, but he was way to in love with his own sense of being able to make things right. He thought he was smart enough to control it all well, and he was wrong. It's hard to back down once you've put yourself in such a corner though.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
nonsense. post some sources.
nonsense.
post some sources.
We should
recruit Brooksley Born if she is not one of us already.
Yes, he my be a psuedo "libertarian"...
... as he says and he is right when he says de-regulation is the key. However, Frontline is a very liberal news source and they are putting their spin on it. What upset me was the conclusion at the end. "As we now know, Greenspan's notion of freemarkets have collapsed and we now know that regulation is the key to success"...... What a load of bull shit!!!
First of all, being a free market guy in the federal reserve is a complete oxy-moron. He kept interest rates WAY TOO LOW for way too long. Secondly, the true free market utopia was not under Greenspan. He didnt have it right. In order for our free market utopia to come about, we need to have the complete seperation of government and corporations and kick all lobbyists out. Government IS THE PROBLEM. Corporatism is the problem!
Lastly: Dr. Paul even said it himself: We must prosecute fraud! The purpose of government is to hold peace, uphold laws and most importantly; to preserve liberty! But Greenspan didnt believe in prosecuting fraud! We dont need dumb politicians and beaurocrats to regulate, we need to make sure fraud is not committed and Greenspin said it was not government's job!
This show posed a Red Herring and it was quite upsetting.
Ron Paul 2012
Ron Paul 2012
Years ago, back around the
Years ago, back around the late nineties I think, there was an article on the net that asked the question if Greenspan had turned against the objectivist philosophy he formerly embraced by taking the job as Fed chairman, as most presume, or if he was still loyal in his heart to objectivism but saw the position as an opportunity to preside over the eventual destruction of the whole corrupt system or something along those lines. In other words, was he really a hero?
Unfortunately, I only got to read the first part of the article, which was a teaser to subscribe to the publication, where if you subscribed you could read the rest of it. Although sometimes I wish I had, as fascinated by this idea as I was, I ended up not subscribing so I never got to read the rest of the article to see which conclusion they reached, or if they reached any at all. I don't even remember the name of the publication, but ever since I have kept the idea in my mind that greenspan may have been secretly operating to undermine the whole system. Perhaps the article is available for free now. Does anyone know the article I'm talking about?
BTW, If anyone wants to know why I haven't posted anything in like 2 years, back when I first registered I had great difficulty logging in. I had my cookie settings set to block all cookies except session-only cookies, which worked for most password protected sites. I don't remember exactly what I went through, but I was stuck in some endless loop, and it was so frustrating. I think I finally got something posted, or maybe I created a different account under another e-mail, but I tried so many things I wasn't sure what was the thing that worked. Sometime in the past couple of years I think I figured out that probably all I had to do was change my cookie settings, then change them back after I log out and delete the cookies, but I forgot my password and didn't want to go through the trouble of requesting a new one. Anyway I wanted to comment on this thread so I got a new password and changed my settings to allow first party cookies, and everything is working fine, so I may start posting more frequently now. Okay, now I got to go change my cookie settings back.