Pages

Friday, November 07, 2008

Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, for November 7, 08

Spilled Milk, Barn Doors and Chairman Louie

It was an astonishing confession. Here’s former Fed chief Alan Greenspan testifying before Congress on the present financial crisis we’re in:

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

Apparently Mr. Greenspan, reportedly a fan of Ayn Rand’s “libertarian philosophy” to be found in such novels as “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged,” believed that Rand’s world was a real one. That people will always act in their self interest and that governmental rules and regs aren’t really necessary since self interest will guarantee they won’t do anything self-destructive.

In short, Mr. Greenspan was running the Fed and advising our leaders and manipulating our economy as if it were 1952 and bankers and CEOs of vast corporations were sober, cautious men of probity, men who would never do anything rash that could damage their reputations in the community, jeopardize their own jobs or endanger the solvency of the companies they were running. And now, like “Casablanca’s” Inspector Louie, he’s shocked – shocked!-- to find gambling going on in this establishment!

But here’s what Mr. Greenspan clearly overlooked: While he was still stuck in the middle of Ayn Rand World, the real world had turned into a Financial Demolition Derby run by genetically modified high-risk takers with high adrenalin-rush thresholds who were armed with vast golden parachutes. These people had one mandate: make as much money as fast as possible by any means available. And if the companies they were running went broke doing it, they would simply jump ship with their booty and soon be welcomed aboard another corporate ship, given another golden parachute, twice the salary and standing orders to repeat the process.

Their self interest was amply rewarded and protected and they acted accordingly. Thanks to Greenspan and our elected officials, we had ironically created and allowed a pure Ayn Rand World, with one component missing: No penalties for bad choices, no consequences for anything. Imagine Howard Roark given a promotion and a huge sack of money instead of being put on trial as a common criminal.

Most people read Ayn Rand’s novels in high school. Howard Roark is the perfect adolescent fantasy – genius only answerable to itself in a purified fantasy world where nobody real actually gets destroyed. Most people grow up after high school and realize that the real world is a far more complicated and interconnected place of actions and unintended consequences.

Unfortunately and apparently, our former Chief financial guru never did. And we are now paying the price for our failure as a nation to ignore the siren song and the ultimate consequences of this freebooting. In the November New York Times Review of Books, Benjamin Friedman notes from James Gailbraith’s new book, “The Predator State,” that “. . . . financial firms and their leaders . . . have neither the desire nor the ability to ensure that the business they now control are productive or honestly run – and still less interest in whether they deliver benefits to their customers, their workers, their communities or anyone other than whoever controls them.” while “ . . . The government rushes to bail out big firms, and to protect their creditors (and their executives’ pensions), but declines to help ordinary citizens, including those bilked by questionable lending practices or even outright deceit. The government awards rich contracts to companies either owned or run by political supporters and former colleagues, often in violation of rules requiring competitive bids.”

It’s a system we have voted for, lived under and tolerated for years and now we’re reaping its harvest.

As I write this, I have no idea how this election will turn out. We have been a sleepwalking nation for far too long, believing patent nonsense, denying fiscal reality, running on lies and fear, allowing a new class of Guilded Age predators to abscond with our silverware. We have the methods and means to turn everything around to reconstruct an America that brings real benefit, not just to the Fortune 500, but to a very real main street. We have the means, but do we have the will? That’s the compelling question of Nov. 4th .

7 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

I trust the citizens won't make the same mistake concerning those in control of the LO/BP septic tank discharge elimintion solution.

The "self interests" in a goernment of, by and for the people are the people themselves.

When that is understood, "the process" should be secondary to what is best.

Technology has evolved to a point that "car phones" are a thing of the past.

I don't wonder why...

On another note Ann, I do completely agree with you about President Elect Obama securing a dog from a rescue or other government agency in order that he make life better for one animal in an effort to srt the example for others. I hope he will be the change he wants to see.

ENAR said...

Very small correction. Ayn Rand never described herself as a Libertarian. She described herself, and her philosophy, as Objectivist.

Mark Wickens said...

Apparently Mr. Greenspan ... believed that Rand’s world was a real one. That people will always act in their self interest and that governmental rules and regs aren’t really necessary since self interest will guarantee they won’t do anything self-destructive.

That's not "Rand's world". Her view was that (a) many people are not self-interested and (b) even those that are can make mistakes or choose to act irrationally. Choice is at the the heart of her philosophy.

What her politics does, however, is ensure that the only victim of a person's irrationality is the person himself.

With the current system, we're at the mercy of the Alan Greenspans of the government whose state-enforced decisions affect millions.

Richard said...

This crisis was not a failure of laissez-faire capitalism, it was a failure of intensive regulation —with Greenspan's hypocritical contributions. In unbelievable, mass stupidity, the most commonly touted solution is more regulation!

From The American Competitive Enterprise Institute:
While the Dow collapses, we have a bull market in government regulations. The 50-plus departments, agencies and commissions are now at work on 3,882 rules; 757 will affect small businesses. More than 51,000 final rules were issued from 1995 to 2007.

That’s nearly 54,000 NEW regulations, added to what was there before, in only 12 years!

That is hardly Rand's laissez-faire capitalism; that’s massive socialist/fascist government interference! At root, those are the very ideologies Rand spent her lifetime hoping to save Americans and America from. Now, when the effects of those destructive ideologies from Washington hit the fan, everyone is blaming laissez-faire capitalism instead. They are ridiculous, uninformed, or dishonest.

Greenspan dropped any pretense of understanding Rand's arguments well before he became head of the Fed., and he then became a major part of the problem. His monetary policy and suppression of interest rates (1%!!), when Rand would have said “let the market decide”, were an appalling government intervention. Add in the HUD, CRA, CDS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the recipe for a catastrophically distorted market, including the trading of derivatives, was complete.

Edward Cline wrote, "Reason and rationality flee when force becomes a factor in men’s decisions, to be replaced with the pragmatism of punishment-avoidance or a risk-free shot at easy money."

So imagine YOU are the CEO of a large financial organization. Your competitors are complying with the regulations and appear to be making good for their shareholders, while things are getting tight for your firm. What do you do?

You want to buy a house, and the government directly or indirectly tells your lender they will protect him from default so long as he keeps the mortgage interest low. What do you do?

You do the pragmatic thing, join in, trusting in the state's easy money guarantee. As a CEO, if you are able to understand the fraud in the government’s game, you build yourself some protection for when the government's house of cards collapses. Most people believe the "government is here to help" (say by regulation), so they don't protect themselves.

You would not have dared to engage in the risky lending or buying that lead to the crisis, were it not for the handful of people in the US government who believed they were smarter than the free market and therefore installed legislation to distort it. Without those people, lending rates would have adjusted themselves years ago, paper money would not have been printed like it grew on trees (e.g. “helicopter Bernanke”) and the present crisis would never have materialized.

Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it let's a man keep what he produces; it was the American system. An historical and geopolitical look at nations shows that those which are more free have citizens who prosper more by their own effort, and live more peacefully. Free markets made America great, from 1776 to the late 1800's, and then serious regulations began. Even America's poor were wealthy compared with the middle class of other nations. Ayn Rand was right, and should not be blamed for a protegé's failures.

***

Consider carefully reading, or re-reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” & “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”, to see how rational egoism is the essence of business. and is the reason for Individual Rights —specifically, the right to use your own money as you see fit.

Watershed Mark said...

Try reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". It describes where we are today, and how all the capable people in industry went on strike. People were not rewarded for their contributions, but for their need.

Churadogs said...

Pure, unregulated capitalism plays havoc with peoples' real lives in the real world. It's one long crazy ride among brutal monopoly, glut, scarcity, & etc. repeated over and over. Very few people who have experienced the unmitigatged "freedom" of unregulated "pure' capitalism and the "free market" at work would chose to live with under a system.

Richard said...

The less chance a society of Men has, culturally, of each gaining from his productive effort the less the general happiness and the poorer the economy of his culture.

This can be easily seen by plotting productivity of a nations people against their relative freedom (an index). You can see it here and here.

Freedom in politics means freedom from other people, not freedom from having to work, nor freedom from having to care for your health, nor from paying for your kids' education, nor from having to choose or reject fast food, etc.

Imagine three men stranded on a small island. Two of them sit about, while the third fashions a means of fishing using rope he made by pounding a fibrous root material into strands, then hand spinning them into a serviceable cord. Perhaps he builds a fishing weir. He then builds a fire. On seeing food is available, the other two decide they want some, but that third man was only successful enough to feed himself well. They argue with him that they need social rules, and argue for a democracy. Not being as smart as we thought, the third man agrees. They immediately 'vote' to take a portion of his food for themselves, as it is in their 'common' interest. That third man has been duped out of his effort.

What difference does it make if it is two against one, six against four, or 100 million against 90 million? In the latter case, it might be income tax, or sales tax, or carbon credits. Regardless, the 90 million will be robbed of their effort because the 100 million consider it to be in the 'common' , or 'public' interest.

"Freedom from other people" does mean freedom from the violence, threats or fraud of others. These latter issues require an outside arbiter, a non-biased agent to ascertain if, in fact, such a crime was committed. That means a government is necessary, for registering property, for police, courts & a military (to deal with external violence on the people). When that arbiter becomes the representative of one group (the 100 million) against another group (say the 90 million), the situation is in no way more moral. There is no more moral good involved if the 'will of the people' is acted upon by a politician —who is ONLY another man like the voters. That politician, and the 100 million who support him are looting the 90 million, just as that third man who fished was looted.

The looting can also be accomplished through printing money as if it grew on trees. When the new money floods the market, the value of existing money is diluted by a percentage depending on how much new money was printed. Prices rise, because of the 'easy' money, and soon everyone's money is worth less. Other legislation forces people to act contrary to their better judgement, which forces many to act contrary to that which is in their best interest. It does more to support the dishonest, than the honest. Then, churadogs, people such as you blame the dishonest men, and call for more of the same poison that caused the problem in the first place.

Please re-read my last two paragraphs. The first responds to churadogs empty claim. Then complete the reading assignment in the last paragraph before responding.