1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12972/chairman-greenspan-a-fiat-mind-for-a-fiat-age/

Chairman Greenspan: A Fiat Mind for a Fiat Age

June 15, 2010 by

Alan Greenspan has always cared about one — and only one — thing. Every nerve ending in his body at every moment in his life has been devoted to the promotion of Alan Greenspan. FULL ARTICLE by Fred Sheehan


Fephisto June 15, 2010 at 9:03 am

As Rothbard said (roughly, I don’t remember the exact wording), “Now, just insulting the person giving the argument is an ad hominem. Ad hominems are a logical fallacy, since they attack the person and not the argument. I will not do that in this speech. In this speech I will attack Keynes the person AND his arguments.”

Replace Keynes with Greenspan. That is this article.

I like it :U.

Michael A. Clem June 15, 2010 at 10:07 am

Best and most informatiive article yet on Greenspan–thanks!

Franklin June 15, 2010 at 10:24 am

“He was inarticulate at a time when minds were growing more confused.”
Amen. I often mentioned the same to friends, when the age-addled brain of his floundered before Congress, mumbling about “flaws” in his “model.” What a wreck.
He provided relished fodder to the statists. But this in itself should have been no surprise, as Mr. Sheehan’s scholarship and insight attest. Greenspan was part of the system, no(!), he was the system, nipping and tucking at the so-called money supply, rationalizing intrusion while expounding on free markets. He was the culture, propped up by impressive credentials and supported by the slave mentality of the citizenry who constantly yearn for a man, any man, behind the curtain, to make things right.
In that disgraceful post-crash “testimony,” he did more to provoke the Newsweek pun, that we are all socialists now, than Galbraith ever could in a thousand PBS interviews.

A tour de force is this article. I look forward to reading the book.

Matthew June 15, 2010 at 11:03 am

Who is Alan Greenspan?

A. Viirlaid June 15, 2010 at 11:22 am

A tour de force! Thank you to Fred Sheehan for a most timely antidote to our usual pablum from our popular media.Like “The Committee to Save the World (so far)”? (Summers is still there, “saving? our world”).http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19990215,00.htmlOr like Time’s Person of the Year 2009, Ben Bernanke — “Financial Crisis Perpetrator Bernanke Hailed As World’s Saviour By TIME” athttp://www.prisonplanet.com/financial-crisis-perpetrator-bernanke-hailed-as-worlds-saviour-by-time.html

A. Viirlaid June 15, 2010 at 11:46 am

**** To the Moderator ****

Please remove the comment posted above —- somehow it got jumbled.


Wildberry June 15, 2010 at 11:27 am

Great article. This is like the Pecora hearings for our time. I can’t wait to read the book.

Glen Beck is kind of a dufuss, but he has a good theme; read and learn history, and apply it to the current situation. This has yet to happen at the popular level in banking, although history is full of stories illustrating the theme of this article. Keynes seems just the sort of fellow Greenspan has been. Has anyone read the short Canary complaint to see one of countless examples of how the “strong (read well-financed) and well organized can exploit the weak and aged”, and poorly organized (which is most of us)?

The parallels with Russian history are astounding, and even referenced by analogy in this article. The difference is that the Russians knew they were being screwed and terrorized, but had no non-violent recourse to change. We have a non-violent recourse, but are in a race with the fat, ignorant and entitled. Give another 40 million illegal immigrants the vote and it just might tip the balance forever.

Does anyone really believe there is not a plan unfolding in the “background” that is being promoted through policies decisions in the press and Washington? Tonight Obama will use the Gulf oil crisis to promote cap and trade. Wake up America!! Cheeez!

Vanmind June 15, 2010 at 3:15 pm

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

Wildberry June 15, 2010 at 6:52 pm

Your meaning escapes me. Can you be less ambiguous? It is always intersting how powerful the mere mention of illegal immigrant can be, where nothing else I wrote brought a response. Please enlighten me.

A. Viirlaid June 15, 2010 at 11:38 am

Can you spell “naïve”? America has lost its bearings. When what was harmful is now taken as logical and as desirable financial ‘medicine’ we know we have collectively taken one bad drug too many.

Thank you to Fred Sheehan for a most timely antidote to the usual pablum from our popular media.

Like “The Committee to Save the World (so far)”? (Summers is still there, “saving? our world”).


Or like Time’s Person of the Year 2009, Ben Bernanke — “Financial Crisis Perpetrator Bernanke Hailed As World’s Saviour By TIME” at


What is so tragic is that some of these people and their fellow travelers actually BELIEVE that they are saving the world, while dooming it to the machinations of those players who are strong and well-positioned in the Financial Sector. Others among these players are less naïve and as Fred Sheehan makes clear know perfectly well what they are doing.

The Financial Sector currently makes 40% of all the profits of ALL companies in America. How long can that last? How long can the rest of the Economy that feeds such obscene profits to the Financial Sector survive?

Not too much longer.

And you naïvely thought that the Financial Sector is supposed to facilitate the rest of the Economy?

I would laugh except I am crying.

Paul Nofs June 15, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Whatever Greenspan’s plan, he left Bernacke with a mortally wounded Federal Reserve System.

And enough economic debris to convince the incredulous of the fallibility of fiat currencies.

Robert Miller June 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Ad hominem attacks are a mistake

Craig June 15, 2010 at 5:51 pm

A thoroughly nasty, little article. One can disagree with Greenspan (and I most certainly do) without resorting to personal insults — one after another after another.

I hope we don’t see more of this here; it would fit much better at Huffington or Kos.

Inquisitor June 15, 2010 at 10:20 pm

There’s no reason to hold back on this guy…

Matthew Swaringen June 15, 2010 at 6:18 pm

I agree that the article is biting, but it’s kind of pretentious to say you hate everything someone has spent their life doing but that you still think they are a swell guy.

A. Viirlaid June 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm

“Ad hominem attacks are a mistake” — perhaps, if there were no substance in those attacks.

“One can disagree with Greenspan (and I most certainly do) without resorting to personal insults — one after another after another.”

I don’t see the substance of Frederick J. Sheehan’s post as being personally insulting, unless you consider substantiated accusations of egregious malpractice to be “personally insulting”. Are they not well-deserved?

If this is a tirade, then it is a well-deserved one. Let’s agree that The Federal Reserve — along with the Broken Money System it operates and the players it thereby accommodates to make egregious profits from that Broken System — has wounded America, and the world, perhaps mortally so.

Cannot we not see that the malpractice of The FED and of other Central Banks around the world, that follow the lead of The FED by applying the same (neo-Keynesian) ideologically-driven ‘solutions’ to the Economy, are leading us to another World War or Great Depression or both (or hyper-inflation, etc.) We know is that they are all doing Great Harm. And we know how. This article on its own (along with many others on this site) have made this crystal clear.

If a person had personality deficiencies that can explain why they follow a certain pattern of behavior, then, at least in a court of law, those character traits, as exemplified by that past behavior are deemed worthy of entry into evidence. We seek to understand why the psychopath or ignoramus did what they did. An autopsy has a purpose — to learn if we can avoid the same mistakes in the future. That is one of our redeeming features as Thinking Beings.

There is a pressing need to understand IN FULL as to how we got to where we are. If the facts presented in this article are untrue, then I would say to Alan Greenspan, sue for damages to your reputation. But he cannot deny the facts, and thus the ‘evidence’ presented is not IMHO an “ad hominem” attack.

The description from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem is as follows:

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

Folks, the “case” is NOT weak. Alan Greenspan himself has admitted that what The FED did, was 70% correct and 30% wrong. Do you have any idea what havoc “doing 30% wrong” at the level of an institution like The Federal Reserve can wreak on an unsuspecting America (and world)?

This is MAJOR. This is not an ‘oversight’, or a polite academic disagreement. People die from “30% wrong” done at the heart of the Financial System. The Disorder created completely arbitrarily and unnecessarily by The FED actually leads to the premature DEATHS of Americans and other humans on our Earth — that is obvious (at least to some of us). That is not even remotely addressing the social chaos caused by a little bitty thing called the Housing Bubble.

For me this article is an attack on all personages who would (and do) operate The Federal Reserve in the manner that Dr. Alan Greenspan did.

This is a warning for current and future such practitioners of the art of Central Banking to be forewarned — History will not forgive you.

I just hope we soon learn at the institutional level of the Federal Government what harm The FED has done.

Is it too much to hope that someone as bright as Dr. Ben Bernanke might begin to understand? Because all someone, as smart as he is, has to do IMO, is explain why Fred Sheehan is WRONG!

Tom Puckett June 16, 2010 at 3:22 am

I fear that Greenspan will have the last laugh on all of us. It appears to me that we are all ignoring the obvious. Like someone watching a car crash directly in front of them, cognitive dissonance makes it impossible for people to question objectively when something absurd is happening in front of their eyes.
The lesson here is that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them and those who pay attention to history have the knowledge to achieve the success they desire.
What were the end results of Greenspan’s “failed policies”? “Greenspan sat there and drank coffee for the next 10 years. He blew up the stock market, then the mortgage and credit markets, while the sorts of characters who were reaching the top on Wall Street were of a persuasion that you wouldn’t allow to fill your gas tank.” Sound familiar?
One of Rand’s characters stated that contradictions don’t exist. Go back, examine your premise and you will find what is right and what is wrong.
Isn’t it contradictory for a man who understands the need for gold back currency to take the job of running the biggest fiat currency scam in history?
Yet another contradiction: “Greenspan’s girlfriend Barbara Walters wrote in her recent autobiography, “How Alan Greenspan, a man who believed in the philosophy of little government interference and few rules or regulations, could end up becoming chairman of the greatest regulatory agency in the country is beyond me.”
Why on earth would an objectivist embrace Keynesian economics? He played politics to get to the position of ultimate power.
Greenspan is not a stumbling buffoon.. He does understand what it takes to maintain a stable economy. So how could he purposefully make such massive mistakes and dismal failures?
He didn’t. What is the “motor” of the economic world? The USA. What have Greenspan’s failed policies done? They have stopped that motor. He sat back drank coffee, let the economic experts apologize for his supposed stupidity and finished the job he probably started the minute he finished reading Atlas Shrugged.
Greenspan is Galt.

A. Viirlaid June 16, 2010 at 7:25 am

Well, Tom Puckett, that indeed is a different take on our dear Alan Greenspan.

I think you should consider a career as a novelist. That was an exceptional and very entertaining analysis (even though I cannot agree with your conclusion). Still now, I am not sure you are not pulling our collective leg.

After that last statement, I laughed. Good job!

“Greenspan is not a stumbling buffoon… Greenspan is Galt.”

“One of Rand’s characters stated that contradictions don’t exist.”

My take on Greenspan is that he is more like the Wizard behind the screen in the WIZARD OF OZ. He was able to fool a lot of us for a long time, as the article indicates. Our level of education and the fineness of our discernment were not up to uncovering the ongoing incompetence or not up to uncovering the ‘scam’ in someone else’s words or not up to uncovering the cost of Greenspan’s unflinching adherence to the teachings of a failing school of economics.

Our media are easy prey for a good con, especially by politicians and bureaucrats, and their PR consultants. What happened to the people like those who uncovered Watergate? Oh yeah, they started writing books like MAESTRO.

My take on it is that indeed YES, contradictions do exist, within people for whom contradictions are normal and secondary to “getting ahead”. Self-promotion is an art — I have seen too much of it inside incompetent “Management” to not recognize it for what it is: it is a pastime that takes COMPLETE and UTTER precedence over doing the Right Thing and over Doing the Job Right. The outcome is that space shuttles blow up and people get killed. All for the cause of self-promotion. So long as the deadline is made, even if the project is in actuality incomplete, and people die, so be it — I made my ‘deadline’ and got MY promotion.

In that regard this article is not only an indictment of Greenspan, it is a forthright indictment of American society and of Western society in general. Fred Sheehan has condemned our own lack of John Galtness, our own lack of morals, and our own lack of clear thinking. Our bywords are Expediency, Ignorance, Betrayal of Trust, and Consequentialism.

Is there a Conspiracy to ruin America? Yes, and we are all coconspirators. Don’t look for the Illuminati under your bed. As Pogo intimated, “we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us”. We are not blameless in the accommodation of people like Greenspan, we are accomplices.

The only similarity between John Galt and Alan Greenspan is that people will likely still be asking of both of them, a century from now, “Who is John Galt?” and “Who was Alan Greenspan?”. There you have it right on.

The other reason that GREENSPAN is not John GALT is a moral one IMO. And that is that Galt would not destroy the American Economy to make his point — Galt would go off and create his own world, and let his former Old World destroy itself.

Wildberry June 17, 2010 at 5:04 pm

A. Viirlaid

While I agree with the content and temperature of your comments, I would like to make one point in response.
You said, “The Disorder created completely arbitrarily and unnecessarily by The FED …”
Why would you grant that this is arbitrary or unnecessary? In criminal investigations, one asks “Who benefits from the crime?” Is there any doubt that some benefit from the actions of the Fed while many others (“the unorganized and aged”) are harmed for that benefit?
As I have said in other posts, this is not just an academic issue. It is a fallacy to presume that if the “ignorant” would only follow the logic, they will see the light and change their ways. The Fed is an institution created for the purpose of enabling this type of economic manipulation on a national and global scale. It is a scam that has been running for nearly 100 years now, and ran in other forms prior to 1915.

The question at this point, notwithstanding the continued accumulation and popularization and development of Austrian economic thought, is a political one. How will the “disorganized and aged” confront and prevail over the “strong and well organized” beneficiaries of the prevailing economic system.

Supporters of the status quo are not ignorant, blind, or misguided. They are PR men for a system that benefits from complacency by the public and co-conspiracy from co-beneficiaries. People like Greenspan and Krugman are hired guns to put lipstick on a pig. They have been remarkably successful.


A. Viirlaid June 17, 2010 at 6:24 pm

Agreed Wildberry.

On a purely personal level, these lipstick-painters have been hugely successful.

The “arbitrarily and unnecessarily” induced disorder was from MY perspective and from MY values and from MY logic of what is fair and good and right for the World.

In my Big Picture, the harm that The FED does is not necessary. In my picture even The FED is unnecessary.

So agreeing with you — definitely not so arbitrary and useless for those who create this Disorder.

Additionally, even when I wrote those words, I knew that it was not 100% Ignorance that caused The FED to do its harm. In fact, there may be many at The FED who understand the weaknesses in its approaches to ‘helping’ America’s economy.

The FED may know that there are problems with how its fiat money makes its way to businesses for example, via the money brokers. They may have models that even prove there are severe weaknesses in the current setup — I do not know for sure.

I do know, for example, that Fractional Reserve Banking does not will itself into existence as a system to do intentional harm. It exists, and it does harm.

Most retail banks do not get their charter and thereby actualize themselves into existence with the objective of screwing the people — well some do, if your name is Keating perhaps.
But they nevertheless do both good and harm — they manage to enhance economic activity in periods of credit growth due to the multiplication of deposits into more credit. But this is done at great cost — in times of credit contraction, the ‘fractional’ part of their makeup causes that contraction to be hugely exacerbated. As well, credit that is created that does not reflect real saving leads to malinvestments.

So too with The FED. That institution exists and will not likely cease to exist for some time, notwithstanding Dr. Ron Paul. Here there is a LOT of Ignorance, for we, or at least the legislators, created The FED and consciously do allow its continuance — which is simply evil in its effects.

I suppose what you said is the same as what I was trying to say:

Supporters of the status quo are not ignorant, blind, or misguided.

That is, that there will always be those who are purely self-interested, who are the blindly self-promoting types of this world (and who set no real limits to their self-aggrandizement) — I agree, they will always be ’successful’.

They cannot, or will not, acknowledge and understand that there is harm in what they do.

It is our collective ignorance that allows such evil to continue.

Even now, the legislation to ‘reform’ the financial sector has been so hollowed out, as to be useless or worse.

Tom Puckett June 17, 2010 at 3:42 am

To: A. Viirlaid
My point from the outset is that if you look at the outcomes of creatures like Greenspan that his knowledge of the” failing school of economics” makes it implausible that he would embrace that dogma for any other reason than to bring it down from the inside.
You see the same thing in the political sphere. Obama’s obvious Marxist leanings are ignored and marginalized to the point of absurdity. I remember watching a segment on FOX where O’reilly was bending over backwards to reject the premise that Obama was a socialist. I paraphrase but he said something to the effect that Obama’s policies were socialistic but that didn’t necessarily make him a socialist. Really? Then what does that make him exactly?
Obama is the other side of the coin. He has never professed to be anything other than what he is by his voting record, his mentors and political influences and his dogged pursuit of wealth re-distribution.
Greenspan on the other hand has done a complete 180 degree turn morally and philosophically. So that lead to two possible conclusions: He is a complete dirtbag with little knowledge or common sense about anything and that he used political connections to get into a position of power that he somehow manipulated for a few years to make himself look good and then got out when he saw the bottom dropping out to blame someone else for his intellectual failure.
Or he is a very calculating intelligent man who knew what it would take to become the ultimate political insider and he used those connections to eventual unravel the the worldwide debt based economy that has an objectivist he would naturally abhor.
While I seriously doubt the existence of an Illuminati or that there is a cabal of super intelligent bankers manipulating all of us to do their evil bidding, I do have a hard time believing the collective ignorance of the media .
For example, historically there is enough of a body count of victims between Stalin, Hitler and Mao alone to cause any moral human being to reject the evil of Socialism/Marxism/Leninism/Communism for a hundred centuries. It hasn’t even been a century since Hitler facilitated his genocidal rampage and yet people ignore that he was in fact a socialist. Given our countries sacrifice in fighting against the expansion of Hitler’s political philosophy(socialism)why is there any interest in promoting this awful political failure ever again? Cognitive dissonance again, blindness or is it just apathy?
The end gives us an understanding of the means and what it takes to get there.
The end result of Greenspan’s tenure is certainly Galt-esque . Financial structures collapsing everywhere,social unrest, marxist idealogues in government using any and all means to consolidate what is left of their power .. Not really that different than the collapse in Atlas is it?

Wildberry June 17, 2010 at 5:18 pm

I agree with each and every point you make save one. I don’t think your views on Greenspan’s motives are close. It is much more simple and direct.
People tend to act in their self interest. Banker’s don’t have to be in a cabal to act in their self-interest, nor to recognize organizing principles within their social/economic/political line of sight. It also doesn’t mean that everyone that is a part of it does it for the same reasons, other than the organizing principal of self-interest. It is nothing more than “Human Action” played out on a vastly expanded scale. Greenspan and Krugman are what I think of as hanger’s on. They are viewed as a credible pitch man by some who are in a position to throw them a bone, (although sometimes it can be quite a bone at their levels). It doesn’t take an intelligent person, as they both clearly are, to recognize which side of the bread is buttered. They build their own personal careers around furthering their value to those in their growing networks. They become experts in their field, and the expression of that expertise is “valued” in their particular markets.

It is a good fantasy to imagine someone like Galt who can put themselves so far ahead of the strategy that no one can figure out how one thing is connected to the next. However I do think that analogy holds at the organizational level. That is, the status quo economic system is Galt-esque in your phraseology. The motives and actions of the few seem incomprehensible to most people. It is invisible or an enigma. But it is real.

A. Viirlaid June 17, 2010 at 1:06 pm

I agree that, from Ayn Rand’s and Barbara Walter’s perspectives in the 1950-s, it seems implausible that Greenspan could ever “embrace that dogma” unless he wanted to bring it [that is, the system that did "embrace that dogma"] down from the inside. Sheehan’s article makes that clear.

But I think in your making Greenspan out to be anything remotely like the fictional character John Galt, you’re giving our dear Alan far too much credit.

So while it may be implausible to you, IMHO it is sadly TRUE — he embraced the ‘failing school’ for reasons of Expedience — if he ever really was a Libertarian, he managed to ditch that philosophy pretty quickly to “look good” — as I wrote, for incompetent, ignorant, and morally-corrupt management, anywhere and at anytime, the primary directive is not to DO good, it is to LOOK good. If you DO Good at the SAME time as you’re expending every resource at your disposal to LOOKING good, it is almost like unintentional collateral ‘damage’ — that is, it is purely fortuitous, given your main objective, which is self-promotion.

“Dirt-Bag” using your implied meaning? Of course… IMO he did have “little knowledge or common sense about anything” and he did use “political connections to get into a position of power” — that is Fred Sheehan’s main contention.

Did Greenspan somehow “manipulate his position of power for a few years — [more like 2 decades] — to make himself look good and then get out when he saw the bottom dropping out to blame someone else for his intellectual failure”?
No, I think he actually started to believe his own press — that he was doing the right thing, and that he was smart, and that he was helping America. That was his Fatal Conceit. He believed that HIS brand of intervention was good. That is not the belief of an Austrian; for an Austrian, NO intervention is the only good intervention, when it comes to the Economy.

In your next quote, you have the basis of your novel (fictional, of course, and perhaps the basis of your road to personal riches, if someone picks up the movie rights from you — perhaps this is your sequel to Atlas Shrugged? Perhaps “Atlas Dropped US”).

“Or he is a very calculating intelligent man who knew what it would take to become the ultimate political insider and he used those connections to eventual unravel the worldwide debt-based economy that has an objectivist he would naturally abhor.”

As to the media, I do not “have a hard time believing the collective ignorance of the media.” Consider the Dumbing Down of America. You can do your own research, but here are 2 links to start with:



So the Ignorance byword, that I allude to, is the reason that we, in the West, are on our Road to Serfdom, which the West or at least America so bitterly fought against in so many wars, some more ‘miss’-directed than others.

Given our countries sacrifice in fighting against the expansion of Hitler’s political philosophy (socialism) why is there any interest in promoting this awful political failure ever again? Cognitive dissonance again, blindness or is it just apathy?

We need to examine the entire historical and social process that takes America from a Revolutionary Congress and a new Constitutional Republic to what we have today, arguably a society well on its way to socialism and penury. We will be Cuba one day.
This is not only a new Cold War, but a Stealth Social Cold War — we are mostly not even aware as to what is going on — is this conscious, or an unconscious, undirected, historical ‘evolution’ of society?

You are as clear as upset as I am with the current course of events and here you are quite right:

The end result of Greenspan’s tenure is certainly Galt-esque . Financial structures collapsing everywhere, social unrest, Marxist ideologues in government using any and all means to consolidate… their power. Not really that different than the collapse in Atlas, is it?

Please also refer to today’s discussion of the creeping takeover by the all-assimilating Borg (BLOB) at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

Alan Greenspan saw that his intervention “worked” and like a video game player who learns a successful and useful maneuver, he began to use intervention always and everywhere. He became a Serial Bubble Blower.

That his interventions created long-term imbalances, malinvestments, and thus very real long-term problems, was not apparent, especially not to his cheerleaders (he being the biggest of them all). He could not acknowledge something that his own eyes told him was untrue.

As Sheehan makes clear, Alan most likely never even believed in the Austrian School of Economics. As FED chairperson, he ‘learned’ that intervention apparently could be a very effective approach to solving The FED’s economic problems.

The problem with convincing anyone new to Austrianism of the negative repercussions of The FED’s stimulus-type interventions in the Economy is how long those repercussions remain hidden. They remain hidden until the stimuli are removed and/or until those stimuli are no longer efficacious.

So why would anyone acknowledge something that was an unseen Ghost in the Machine that hardly ever manifested in reality? I had a friend tell me that if the interventions ‘worked’, they did work, pure and simple. That is what Alan believed, and still believes, as do all central bankers.

The crises that come along occasionally like LTCM, and Asian Contagion, and the dotcom boom and bust, and the Housing Boom and Bust, are seen as God-Given — these are just acts of God, not anything that humans have created.

Thus the ‘solutions’ to such crises are more and more interventions. Austrians know that such interventions bring MORE and MORE crises. This is the treadmill that keeps Central Banks in business.

The analogy of The PARTY is very apropos. As long as the Punch Bowl does not run out of alcohol we can all remain hyperactive and ‘enjoy’ ourselves. But unless we drop down dead drunk, or unless we die of cirrhosis of the liver, we can all continue to Imbibe The FED’s Party Juice.

So I do not believe that Alan Greenspan ever did a 180-degree turnaround. I think he was never as much a Libertarian as some people suggest. The thing is, that for him, intervention ‘worked’ —— mopping up after Burst Bubbles became his CALLING.

You are right. His 19-year career of creating Bubbles and Busts —— by trying to create a new bubble to take the place of a previously-created bust ——did take America and the world right into the economic abyss (and we are still descending).

And this MADNESS is only being perpetuated by our current genius at the helm of The FED —— dear Dr. Ben Bernanke.

How much more America’s Economy can take on its Road to Serfdom is unclear. What is clear is that the road back is extremely difficult and unlikely to be tried for many reasons, but mostly because of political ‘expediency’.

This supports our mutual position that it will not be taken.

The only thing then left in the cards is some kind of final and total economic collapse.

A. Viirlaid June 17, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Sorry for the last post, I gave this link incorrectly:

Please also refer to today’s discussion of the creeping takeover by the all-assimilating Borg (BLOB) at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

The correct link is:


sth_txs June 18, 2010 at 6:22 am

Let us give Alan a bit of credit. This is probably his most coherent piece of work:

Gold and Economic Freedom

by Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966]

A. Viirlaid June 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm


You are right to give THAT bygone era Al Greenspan some credit, but don’t go overboard.

As I wrote Feb. 5 –>

Most stories like this begin with “Once Upon A Time…”

Geoff Colvin refers to Greenspan as “America’s most famous libertarian, an Ayn Rand acolyte”. This is a fairy tale.

Once an intelligent man, indeed once a true Libertarian and true acolyte of Ayn Rand, Greenspan lost his way as he grew older.

Alan Greenspan as a Libertarian even adhered to The Austrian School Of Economics somewhere back in the mists of time, when he wrote the immortal words, “Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”


More eternal wisdom: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.”

“This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold.”

Please also see:



Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: