tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post8872105824573835232..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": Greenspan's BetrayalLester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-61503854425955373862008-10-27T08:49:00.000-05:002008-10-27T08:49:00.000-05:00That is a very good point. Most discussions of th...That is a very good point. Most discussions of the state assume that states and bureaus thereof (eg., the Fed) have no interests of their own, but are simply the tools of other interests, generally either the people ("democracy") or the dominant economic interests (eg., Marxism). Of course those other interests have a hand in it, but the state does have its own interests too.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-11680571849360467262008-10-27T06:59:00.000-05:002008-10-27T06:59:00.000-05:00"Capture Theory" or in Greenspan's case it was "St..."Capture Theory" or in Greenspan's case it was "Stockholm Syndrome".<BR/><BR/>He was not just a captive to the markets but also GW/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc's Empire Policies and the need to finance it with a "growing" economy.<BR/><BR/>This is what Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Chalmers Johnson ("Sorrows of Empire') and countless others talk about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-11297019869056848472008-10-26T20:23:00.000-05:002008-10-26T20:23:00.000-05:00This was Greenspan's Galileo moment. Yet when hale...This was Greenspan's Galileo moment. Yet when haled before the tribunal, he had no principles left to stand on, so he could not even whisper "e pur si muove". Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.stpeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01195241199351048629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-8121130263434278622008-10-26T19:32:00.000-05:002008-10-26T19:32:00.000-05:00As you may know, there is a field in public choice...As you may know, there is a field in public choice called "capture theory," which explains the behavior of regulatory agencies on the hypothesis that they have been captured by the very people they are supposed to regulate. This transforms a regulated system to an oligopoly.<BR/><BR/>I think that is one of the reasons Rand was for a complete separation of business and state, "like the separation between church and state."Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-51676410570178351422008-10-26T15:33:00.000-05:002008-10-26T15:33:00.000-05:00Alot of Liberals resent Rand because she believed ...Alot of Liberals resent Rand because she believed in a rule of the elite and talented. Ironically when the feds tried to break down class division with the altruistic notion of home ownership for everyone, the results were disastarous. <BR/><BR/>Galbraith's analysis was that the corporations and special interest essentially took over the "gov't regulatory" mechanism to enhance profits so their own corruption spoiled the system. In other words these entreprenaurs were not interested in building industries to advance wealth but were rather manipulating the system for corrupted self-interest.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Rand is vindicated both by the altruism argument and the failure to follow values on the second argument.<BR/><BR/>In defense of Moyers and Greenspan, Alan's mention of "self-interest" in his mea culpa was a subliminal echo from his previous beliefs which triggered the Rand comments from Moyers. I'll bet Moyers is also one of those Limousine Liberals who enjoyed watching his investment portfolio rising during the past few years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com