alan greenspan's personal side

[MrChrisd73]

I'd have dealt with this piece of filth before tackling Bin Laden or Gaddafi!

[offenwrong]

AND THE MEEK SHALL INHEREHIT THE EARTH.....thanks for the trashings bullies, this will be the ULTIMATE revenge.....says Alex....duck and cover people...try to at least....in the words of Phil Collins..."Pledge allegence to the flag ...what ever flag they offer".......Mr. Greenspam I salute you sir

[J1NX1337]

"Well, first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take" - Alan Greenspan

[CytherLynx]

people, look into austrian econommics, and you will see how greenspan was a fruad

[CartoonPoem]

Those "fans" were most likely actors, Rand's theory is perfect for wealth and she seen Alan was a scumbag that wants to steal from everyone.

[abooth1707]

LOL AT 2:21. "If it wasn't for him I wouldn't have a house right now".

[CytherLynx]

@abooth1707 oh the irony

[geo1671]

@abooth1707 -Lucky you.alot are homeless and jobless because of this JUJU money changer. What is the big deal in owning your home when USof Israel is FKD-up and in debt.This guy should be strange up:^/

[grantsinmypants2]

Except, Mr. Greenspan, in all of your years of social climbing, you never achieved the approval of others. Instead, you achieved their obedience.

[stealthswimmer]

Nah, he's gained the approval of some. Not mine necessarily but I've heard folks talk about how wonderful he was. Pretty terrible, but whatever.

[grantsinmypants2]

We all have an innate need for social acceptance?

Okay, even if that is true, Mr. Greenspan, why not work on rounding out your pedantic personality instead of institutionalizing it in a fiat government agency?

Why not learn to lighten up, or to hug kittens, or whatever you have to do instead of forcing us all to be beholden to your (ultimately, arbitrary) predictions; all just so we'll "accept" you - as if we have any choice in the matter.

[stealthswimmer]

You're skipping over something very important: if he was never Fed chairman, someone else would have been. It's not like he himself was forcing us to have a fiat currency. We'd still have it.

[grantsinmypants2]

Evil is impotent. It has no life force of it's own. It exists by taking (or having it voluntarily given by) the life force of the good.

[stealthswimmer]

what's that gotta do with my comment?

[grantsinmypants2]

Your comment treats central planning (evil) as if it would come into existence independent of the exsitence of money to centrall plan.

Your comment says, essentially: There's nothing we can do - not even little things like leave comments on Youtube - evil will continue it's march no matter what. Even if we all - through thousands of baby steps - changed our minds and opposed the Fed (or, god forbid, Greenspan himself did), the Fed would go on centrally planning.

[stealthswimmer]

No, you're misinterpreting what I said. My point is you seemed to have criticized Greenspan instead of the actual Fed in your comment. If you oppose Greenspan then people can just take that to mean that you want someone else to be Fed chair. I'm saying we should oppose the Fed itself and the entire notion of central planning whether by private or governmental means.

[grantsinmypants2]

I oppose the Fed, I oppose the notion of central planning in any economic sphere, and I oppose Alan Greenspan.

The man has perpetrated more harm than can ever be forgiven. The rationale some have given to explain him - "working from the inside" - has to be thrown out. He has done nothing with his prominence and public persona of any serious importance towards dismantling the Fed, let alone promoting laizzes-faire capitalism.

Psycho-epistemologically, he is too fargone.

[stealthswimmer]

I don't think he ever really tried dismantling the Fed, for whatever reason. My guess is that he realizes once government has control over something, or grants a corporation control over something, it is very rarely given up. As for laizzes-faire capitalism, you would be correct in saying he didn't promote it in action even if he did in words, but he did prevent the Fed from garnering more power, as we can see today Bernanke and other Fed bankers want even more regulatory powers.

[stealthswimmer]

I ain't sayin that it was necessarily good just cus he didn't try furthering the power of the Fed, I'm just saying that he resisted the temptation to further the Fed's power cus he had folks working for the Fed suggesting that the Fed look into more regulatory powers during the formation of the housing bubble.

[grantsinmypants2]

Now you know why the witch doctor (oh, I'm sorry, the "economic regulator) will always need the Atilla (or at least his blonde, anti-intellectual mistress to spruce up an interview).

[grantsinmypants2]

"If it wasn't for him I wouldn't have a house right now."

I shuddered when I heard that. As if the lack of stealing this guys money is what put it in his pocket.

[stealthswimmer]

Yea greenspan gets ALL the money that is taken from us through inflation. IT all just flows directly to him....

/sarcasm

As bad as the Fed and fiat currency are, again, it doesn't matter who is Fed chair. It's not who is the chair that matters (though Greenspan did pretty good comparitively speaking), it's the system itself that is flawed. It's the whole idea of central planning that is wrong.

[grantsinmypants2]

so, you don't disagree with me in any essential respect... you just need someone and something to criticize? Is that correct?

[stealthswimmer]

lol, no you misunderstand. It seems you are the one criticizing Alan Greenspan. My point is that Greenspan is not at fault, it's the system itself that's at fault regardless of who's in charge.

[grantsinmypants2]

What, exactly, is "the system" if not the people that constitute it?

[stealthswimmer]

The policy itself. What I'm saying is that whether the people who are the central planners mean well or not (and I'm sure some mean well and others don't), the system of central planning is still bad.

[mayreal13]

"her" that woman he is with really looks like a "him" that got changed to be a her.I'll bet they dated while he she was a he. and ill bet "she" has a dick. I mean look at her and the way she acts she is very macho. the news is trying to paint this all inocent picture of this guy, how pathetic.

[andrewf128]

purist objectivism is both impractical and flawed, as a simple example I would cite poor-houses and orphanages - things which would not exist under strict objectivist society.

as an interesting sidenote i recently played through bioshock on xbox360 and was almost immediately struck by the similarities between the life and theories of Rand and the fictional world of rapture whose leader is Andrew Ryan (get it?)

[qtronman]

There's no non-social climbers out there? Bullshit.

[PIG1829]

Ayn Rand made him and he doesn't seem to assume that, he compromised the ideal of Objectism. She created a philosophy, she gave you her teaching and you betrayed her.

[stealthswimmer]

It ain't like he betrayed her. It was the idea...and also you assume that he held the idea strictly cus that's what he'd need to do in order to later betray her. As well, I don't think she "made" him.

Now that being said, just cus he did something that was against her philosophy doesn't mean he "betrayed her" again, just the ideal of Objectivism. My best friend and I disagree on a whole bunch of stuff but we're still friends. As for their friendship I can't speak on it cus I don't know them,lol

[grantsinmypants2]

Why would you point this minor, sophistic distinction out?

The thrust of PIG1829's point was clear.

It's also clear that your purpose for such sophistry is to confuse the issue enough in the minds of others that they give up and you win. A bit of "social climbing" of your own, I suppose.

[stealthswimmer]

huh? You're confusing me.

=(

*I don't know what "sophistry" is

*I'm not trying to confuse the issue, I'm just trying point out things that I think are wrong, like the use of the word "betray"