Hudson hits it hard. Here is a choice excerpt:
“Were you wrong?” Congressman Henry Waxman prompted him to elaborate. “Partially,” the Maestro replied. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks, is such that they were best capable of protecting shareholders and equity in the firms.” The fact that they simply sought predatory gains for themselves – in the form of losses for their customers and clients (and it turns out, taxpayers”) was “a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”
Whoa! What "functioning structure" of "how the world works" could THAT be? Could he be speaking of the depraved, Godless, secular philosophy of Ayn Rand's "Objectivism"? Greenspan's fetishism associated with Ayn Rand's Objectivism is reported on here.
For background, here is a link to a transcript of an old Playboy magazine (sorry no pictures ;) interview of Rand from way back. Excerpts:
Rand: "The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.Here is another beauty that should set Austrian hearts aflutter :
PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?The utter depravity continues at the link. But my question for Greenspan (and other apostles of Rand) would be, if one testifies to an admiration for the philosophy of Ayn Rand, why would one be surprised when people then act in accord with that philosophy? And why should you be surprised when then injustice, greed, fraud and depravity are the results? How could Greenspan be surprised that people act in their own selfish interests when that is EXACTLY the secular philosophy or what Hudson may call his "religion" that he professes a "faith" in? How does this man's mind work?
RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral.
At least Greenspan is in semi-retirement and is no longer in as influential a position as he was as Fed Chairman; but Hudson identifies a current "relapse" into his "religion" in a recent op-ed Greenspan wrote, and gives him no quarter, it's a good read.
Moving forward, past the era of Greenspan, perhaps our immediate concerns should focus on our current group of policymakers, and what their influences are.
It has been reported that current House Budget Committee Chairman and Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission member, Rep. Paul Ryan, a while back spoke at a ceremony honoring the legacy of Ayn Rand . Ryan was reported to have said:
This is a statement anyone should be concerned about, just based on the Greenspan policy making record. And most assuredly, this is a statement that the so-called "religious right" in the GOP should be VERY concerned about.
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” …
How does the depraved philosophy of Ayn Rand figure in Ryan's or other current policy maker's decision making? And what kind of macro economic outcomes should we expect because of this?