Greenspan’s Faith: Ideology trumps Science

[coberst]

Greenspan’s Faith: Ideology trumps Science

American novelist Walker Percy observed, “As long as I am getting rich, I feel well. It is my Presbyterian blood.”

“When a man seeks to accommodate science to a viewpoint which is derived not from science itself (however erroneous it might be) but from the outside, from alien, external interests, then I call him base.” Marx

I claim that Greenspan shares a significant responsibility for our economic collapse because he was a trusted guru who twisted the social economic theories of capitalism into an ideological form that is often referred to as laissez-fair capitalism.

A base writer is one who lacks professional integrity. A base writer is primarily, perhaps only, interested in reaching a partisan conclusion regardless of the scientific theory.

There are two types of base writers: there is the ‘hired-gun’ who has no intellectual convictions but uses her talents in the service of the highest bidder; then there is the writer with strong intellectual convictions and strong biases who uses her talents to distort facts to fit her faith.

“For Marx, then, the ‘base’ writers have no intellectual integrity…It is evident in the way they ignore counterevidence, select some and suppress other facts, twist their arguments to reach the desired conclusions, and so on.”

Marx also elaborates on another kind of apologist. The vulgar writer is a superficial philistine confining himself to the surface of society, unwilling to dig any deeper. “If there were no difference between essence and appearance, there would be no need for science…Marx argues that the task of the scientist is to analyze the phenomenal forms of an entity, elucidate its essential nature and tendencies, and use the knowledge so acquired to explain its phenomenal behavior.”

I think that Greenspan is a “base” official who is “vulgar” in his management. That is to say that Greenspan is plagued with what might be called “apologetic dread”; that truth might well turn out go be unpalatable to him. This is the dread “found not only among the economists but also among the philosophers, the historians, the political theorists and others, and further, that they may be not only conservative but also radical in their political biases.”

I think that the American culture is ideologically constituted in such an extent that whoever lacks sophisticated critical thinking skills is condemned to becoming an apologist. I also think that even those with sophisticated critical thinking skills, such as I assume Greenspan to have, are greatly influenced by a desire to be loved and respected by all apologists and uncritical society in general.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by coberst

"...It is my Presbyterian blood.” -Walker Percy

....I also think that even those with sophisticated critical thinking skills, such as I assume Greenspan to have, are greatly influenced by a desire to be loved and respected by all apologists and uncritical society in general.

It probably all comes down to "trying to please Daddy."
===

Interesting, (I'm pretty sure I heard this on CSPAN today) Greenspan & Paulson ...& and many of those financial gurus... are Objectivists, a fairly well-developed socio-political movement, that champions the ideology of Ayn Rand!

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary edition
Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enlightening (if you want to understand conservatives) stuff....
I've been lucky enough (groan) to catch some of CSPAN's coverage of an event featuring a 50th anniversary celebration of one of Rand's books hosted by the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS).
Institute for Humane Studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"For many years, IHS had an extensive book and monograph publishing effort, and published the magazine Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought from 1980-82 (originally published by the Cato Institute)."

see also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html

...or:
Dare to view...
The Ayn Rand Institute: News and Highlights

~

[coberst]

Article from Washington Post

Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation
Lawmakers Blast Former Fed Chairman

Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation - washingtonpost.com

Alan Greenspan, once viewed as the infallible architect of U.S. prosperity, was called on the carpet yesterday, pilloried by a congressional committee for decisions that contributed to the financial crisis devastating world markets.

The former chairman of the Federal Reserve said the crisis had shaken his very understanding of how markets work, and agreed that certain financial derivatives should be regulated -- an idea he had long resisted.

When he stepped down as Fed chairman less than three years ago, Congress treated Greenspan as an oracle, one of the great economic statesmen of all time. Yesterday, many members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee treated him as a hostile witness.

[coberst]

I hear ex-Fed chairman Greenspan’s face will appear on the new $10,000 bill. – Eugene Cappuccio

[questor]

Essay, if you read Ayn Rand, you will get some ideas about one persons convictions about the best state of mankind. You may know that there were and are many focus groups espousing her philosophy. I think you can learn a lot if you read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead. She is tough on slackers and unrealistic people, but she has a good, although not very compassionate take on the way the world works.

[Pyrotex]

re: Rand & Objectivism.

I concur in your appraisal of "Atlas Shrugged" and Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" when I was in graduate school, and frankly, I enjoyed them both. They awakened in me my first glimmerings of political and philosophical awareness.

Rand puts the Achiever on a pedestal as the source of all wealth, and also as one who stands above the petty moral codes that hold the masses in check. There is something romantic about this notion of the Achiever as superhero, held in check only by a kind of integrity that arises from a total commitment to achievement for its own sake: Nietsche's 'Superman' -- who, having "crossed over the abyss", becomes a self-contained messiah, enabling those lesser Achievers, those without his genius or courage, to follow in his footsteps to economic and technological nirvana.
Heady stuff. Indeed.

But at its core, Objectivism is based on Ideals, in the very Platonic sense of the word. There exists an "ideal economy", driven by "ideal achievers", managed by an "ideal integrity" which flows from an "ideal (objectivist) philosophy". Not that ideals are bad. But they distract us from the unpleasant realities that sometimes Achievers get greedy, and sometimes they have the morals of crackwhore pimps.

As for the "masses" without the genius, the courage, the integrity, the blah blah blah that True Achievers have, Rand is not very compassionate or hopeful. If the True Achievers are given free reign (carte blanche) to build their golden mansions on Mount Olympus, then something like the Trickle Down theory happens and everybody gets the (small) piece of the pie that they deserve.

I am not a bit surprised to hear that many conservative financial architects and conductors have a fondness for Ayn Rand.

Her philosophy has a passing similarity to one of the early Protestant philosophies: predestination. If you find yourself at the top of the heap, then you were predestined to be there; from the 'beginning of time' you were foreordained to have the skills and intellect to climb to the top on your own merit. Of course, if you find yourself in the gutter, well tough luck; you were just born to be an undeserving sinner.

[Essay]

Thanks Pyro!
I've seen several panels by the Ayn Rand Society (and didn't want to have to read the books); so your post above is the most perfect response I could imagine. Informative and subtle... bravo!

...I had started composing this below, earlier:
Sorry....
It was Bill Moyer's, not CSPAN, who talked about Greenspan's ideology...
describing Ayn Rand as Greenspan's "ideological guru and intellectual mentor."
Bill described Objectivism as championing "radical self-interest,"
saying that "in the gospel according to Rand, the business community was constantly beleaguered by evil forces practicing... alturism, ...a menace to greed."
.
.
.
So that's it then?

I feel as if I've just landed on that planet from Star Trek where the inhabitants got ahold of a book about Al Capone and the Chicago Mob... and set their planet up based on the book.

Ayn Rand, and not religion, is what informs the dominant morals and ethics of this Western world.



p.s. ...what did I forget to say? Something like
...based upon nothing more than an artistic piece of post-industrial rhetoric.

...or is it a rhetorical piece of post-modern artistry ...and dreaming?
~

[questor]

Essay, when you hear a critique by someone such as Bill Moyers, you may want to consider the source. When he speaks of altruism, he means good deeds done with someone else's money. If his political philosophy agrees with yours, then his ''objective'' observations may have weight, but always follow the money trail. I do agree with Pyro that Ayn Rand had little concern with the less fortunate. I considered that her weakest point. It seems that capitalism cannot function unfettered without oversight because of greed spiced with criminality. Of course the other economic systems rob you even worse with the government performing the thievery. You might ask yourself
if you approve of the forced transfer of wealth with no onus on the receivers to lift a finger in gratitude or payback, even if it would benefit them greatly to do so. I hope you do agree with the transfer, because I think we are in for
a radical change in our economic system. Enjoy the ride! I'm sure Bill Moyers will.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by questor

It seems that capitalism cannot function unfettered without oversight because of greed spiced with criminality.

Wow! You do get it.

I think economist James Kenneth Galbraith (on Bill Moyers) said the same thing, except he called it...
"epidemic greed spiced with criminality."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/profile.html
===

"... ask yourself if you approve of the forced transfer of wealth with no onus on the receivers to lift a finger in gratitude or payback..." -Q

Yknow, there are other options. Let's use some of our communications and info. management technology and try to modify, improve, or even innovate a new way of "helping people."

Are we forever limited to governments evolved in the 19th and 20th century (mostly 19th!)?

I agree that mindless government handouts are soul-destroying; but....
Those folks who you fear won't "lift a finger in gratitude or payback" are hungary for direction, goals, and a sense of purpose in life.
Tapping into that shouldn't be too hard with a new "green culture."

...and I think Ayn misunderstood those unfortunates of the world. They don't want a hand up to the level of "Achievers," they just want (well I won't try to define what they want), but IMO they don't want to be up on the level of Achievers or even to be anything like Achievers.

~

If you have any organizational, management, or leadership skills, the future could use your help.

[Pyrotex]

Essay,
you may already be an Achiever if...
1. you have a job
2. you're getting an education
3. ... etc.

I have been listening to Bill Moyers for decades, so I cannot help but "consider the source" whenever I tune in to Frontline, or one of his daily news broadcasts. Moyers, like Walter Cronkite, is a journalist set apart, an observer above the fray. Though he makes no effort to hide his views and his personal feelings, he has no discernable ideology, no axe to grind, no "my flag, right or wrong" dogma. I have never heard him raise his voice, cast empty dispersions, use insult, mockery or sarcasm, or for even a moment abandon reason and evidence. Even when I disagree with him, he leaves me more thoughtful and better informed. My respect for him is immense.

Moyers is not the first great intellect to have analyzed Ayn Rand and found it wanting. Coberst is right when he says that her "philosophy" has (at least) one salient weak point, and I would hazard, several. She uses a time-honored literary technique to make her points, the technique wherein all the shades of gray that reflect on an issue are resolved into stark black and white. The Achievers are all noble, their radical self-interest always contributing to the greater good. The (socialist) Parasites are all twisted, deformed characters, not so much operating out of "altruism" in its non-political sense, but rather using the altruism of others to manipulate and control them. Altruism becomes a vice, the back-asswards face of greed and irresponsibility.

Nothing wrong with this. The complexities of human behavior as it translates into economic behavior are frightfully arcane. We find that when we say, "the markets are basically driven by greed and fear", we are just observing the obvious tip of the iceberg. Driving the contrast of those human/economic behaviors into stark black versus white, enables her to focus on that one solitary aspect that consumes HER attention: the ultimate source of wealth -- The sweat and intellect of the True Achievers. ...and the one solitary conclusion she preaches: the True Achiever owes nothing to society beyond that which it pleases him to give.

Wow! What a mind-blowing message. Achiever creates fabulous wealth, gets the fabulous, if somewhat emotionally distant Achiever Babe, builds the tallest skyscraper on Earth (a metaphor for his awesomely huge penis), is exempt from normal moral codes (which are there only to keep the masses in check), and doesn't have to pay taxes! Holy Moly, where do I sign up?

We're talking Epic Literature here! Written by an author who was traumatized as a girl by her family's flight from Stalin-era Communist Russia. Great stuff.

But. But. Should we read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" as scripture? Could the Superhero Achievers of those books have succeeded had they not worked in societies with the massive infrastructures made possible by a government that takes a portion of every Achiever's wealth (taxes) and "redistributes" it to some of the non-Achievers? Say, for example, by providing government-created jobs to people? Jobs that, for example, create the roads and the parks; regulate bankers; audit quality; enforce economic constraints; negotiate trade laws; provide licenses; set interest rates? Yes, and "hand out" (I hate that phrase) scholarships and tuition loans; meals for children in poverty; rent subsidies; elder health care?

In Ayn Rand's "world" (of her imagination) this is vile socialism. Better that the impoverished starve to death, or die of exposure, then unfairly force the True Achievers to share with the lazy and undeserving. But in our world (that we physically inhabit), the poor are NOT just the lazy and the undeserving. Some of the poor are in fact potential True Achievers caught up in circumstances not of their own choosing. Ayn Rand would say, "sacrilege!"

Those so-called "handouts" actually enabled several millions to get educations and jobs and opportunities to be True Achievers. Yes, and for every person enabled to become a True Achiever, another person just sucked at the welfare tit and accomplished nothing. You can't win them all.

But you CAN win a lot of them. And to my point of view, that makes it worthwhile.