Elegy for an ‘Exuberant’ Economist

With the death of Alan Greenspan, the journalists have performed some sloppy reporting. The first and most egregious error was in calling the late great Objectivist philosopher and writer Ayn Rand a Libertarian. She rejected the term although even the highest ranking Objectivists wouldn’t mind being called one as opposed to being labeled something worse.

But the write up for The Wall Street Journal other than that blunder proved to be clear-eyed and balanced for the most part.

The author, Nick Timiraos, never delves into the reason we don’t need a central planner in the first place. He spoke of Greenspan’s marriage to Andrea Mitchell and his time as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He mentioned his relationship with Barbara Walters. He discussed the fiscal policies that Greenspan implemented during his tenure that was second only to William McChesney Martin, and the failure he had in the end by essentially stabbing Miss Rand in the back by going against her principles of unfettered markets.

And again…what is the purpose of a Fed? Why do taxpayers need to shell out their smart-earned dollars to support a function of the government which should serve no function?

Why can’t Greenspan be remembered for guiding relative prosperity during his years despite the fact there should be no Federal Reserve in the first place? It’s the central planner who distorts and interrupts markets and growth, respectively. Where is the justice in continuing the Fed?

Greenspan had every opportunity to institute proper policies that could have made America a fully free and laissez-fair nation with whatever strings must be pulled in order to secure an even more prosperous country. He failed. And with his backpedaling in the economy, he never once with his convoluted speechmaking said that America would fare better without the Fed. It is an unnecessary and destructive entity that should be abolished with severe prejudice.

There should be no more central planners who control the state of money in the country. As Miss Rand once said, “There should be a separation of state economy in the way there’s a separation between church and state and for the same reasons.”

Sadly, Greenspan ditched her ideas altogether. While he is being praised for whatever “good” he did as chairman, he should be recalled as the exuberant, but shy Undertaker as Ayn Rand nicknamed him for his dour appeal and dark suits and ties.

Everything he did for this particular sector of the government should be looked at as a tremendous fiasco even with his alleged involvement in some of America’s most prosperous times.

He made a major mistake when he said “irrational exuberance” led to markets becoming even more the problem rather than the Fed. Individuals have speculated that this assessment and his inability to properly address the fact that government intrusion in the economy causes depressions and recessions.

If the market is left free to allow Americans and parts of the world to thrive and flourish, there will be a day when we will see the Fed’s obsolescence.

Alan Greenspan lived a beautiful life in America, again not selling off all his riches and giving to his enemies and living in a tent and showing blood. No, he died of complications from Parkinson’s Disease and enjoyed the spoils of the American way of life. But if you were to tell it, you might say he died a very unhappy man because of his forays in governmental affairs.

It could be said that Greenspan had every opportunity to seek abolition of the Federal Reserve during his stint, but cowered out in ugly fashion. The only way for this country to get anywhere is through the chains of regulations and controls being broken. If only Mr. Greenspan recognized that.