Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

The Greatest Depression | 10/24/2008 6:00 am

Greenspan Shrugged? Did Ayn Rand Cause Our Financial Crisis?

By Deborah Jones Barrow, Editor-in-Chief, wowOwow
Photo illustration by wowOwow; Alan Greenspan, AP

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself especially, are in a state of shocked disbelief."

So said former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in his dramatic testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as he was grilled by committee members on the causes of the nation’s financial crisis. Greenspan, whose laissez-faire capitalist leanings led him to reject decades of calls for more robust government oversight of financial markets, was repeatedly interrupted by the lawmakers in a contentious exchange that clearly shows the gloves are off in regard to the former chairman’s legacy.

In his startling admission, the former head of the Federal Reserve reveals that his long-held and controversial notion that enlightened self-interest alone would prevent bankers, mortgage brokers, investment bankers and others from gaming the system for their own personal financial benefit has, as the English say, come a cropper. 

Bankers ruled by anything other than greed?

Where did Greenspan ever get that idea?

Ayn Rand.

To readers of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s 1957 magnum opus, Greenspan’s hands-off philosophy of marketplace management sounds very familiar. At its core, the book supports a radically utopian political-economic system called Objectivism, which suggests that the morality of rational self-interest, as opposed to religious or government intervention, should be the foundation of the ideal political structure.

According to a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962, "The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism … In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

In other words,  Ayn Rand’s theory of the "morality of self-interest" exactly parallels Alan Greenspan’s testimony today about his now-shaken belief in the ability of "self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity."

Early in his career, Alan was an avid Rand acolyte, a frequent guest at the Manhattan salon of the novelist and philosopher, and those who gathered to hear the litanies of like-minded notables were loosely known as "The Collective." It was there that the Rand philosophy of Objectivism was discussed in the context of current events, world markets and religion.

Today, 40 years after the heyday of those gatherings, Greenspan surprised many with his "Yes, I found a flaw" response to a grilling from the Committee. Responding to the clear failure of the notion of "enlightened self-interest" to stop the cascade of financial catastrophies that have roiled world markets, he said, "That is precisely the reason I was shocked, because I’d been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”

Greenspan’s critics have long charged that his refusal as Fed Chairman to impose greater government regulations on mortgage lenders is one of the causes of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. 

Committee Chairman Harry Waxman (D-CA), in a heated exchange told the former Fed Chairman that he had "the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others, and now our whole economy is paying the price.”

98 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Maschine think
Agree, misguided on both counts.
By Maschine think on 10/25/2008 11:20 pm
Berry Ives
I am not a defender of Ayn Rand, but you should know that these are NOT the same people. Ayn Rand and her followers are atheists.
By Berry Ives on 01/19/2009 12:18 am
Paul Buchanaa
Ayn Rand most certainly would have been completely AGAINST a private organization like the “Federal Reserve” which is neither Federal (It’s PRIVATE) nor Reserve (Implies they have gold reserves backing the money in circulation WHICH THEY DON’T). The “FED” artificially dictates interest rates, which should be determined only by the market, just as other prices are set by what free markets dictate. So if Greenspan was such an Ayn Rand supporter, WHY would he EVER have agreed to take the job as Fed chairman??? Sounds hyppocritical to me, so when he speaks, forget about any credibility in his words. Ayn Rand (who came here from the Soviet Union) was one of the greatest minds of all time. She loved the United States and warned about the direction we were going (even in the 1960’s) with more government control of the populace. Coming from a Communist nation she had a clear vision of how governments take over the people if they are not kept under constant restraints by the people. Ayn Rand’s basic message was that individuals know far better what is best for their lives than governments. But we are fast coming to a point where the people believe that the government should take care of them. Just remember—- WHENEVER A GOVERNMENT TAKES FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVES IT TO ANOTHER, IT GETS CONTROL OF BOTH.
By Paul Buchanaa on 10/25/2008 6:05 pm
G B
You’re obviously an inteligent individual, so maybe I am getting in over my head with this point. But something about your above post didn’t quite mesh with me. You make a statement: “people believe that goverment should take care of them”. I dislike when people say this. It just doesn’t sit well with me. We do, after all, being willing citizens of a country, expect that gov. plays a role in our lives; otherwise it would be anarchy. That’s why the founding fathers set it up so that we are the ones who elect and pay the salaries of our gov. officials. I’m genuinely curious about your post. I never understand people who say this…considering that the government is supposed to be “for the people, by the people”. AT least here in the U.S. Seriously though, I would love someone to explain to me why people shouldn’t people expect things from their government……seriously, I would love to broaden my mind and hear more from someone from that point of view. Why shouldn’t people expect “things” from their government? We pay taxes….we pay salaries…..Government is essentially “people who govern”….why shouldn’t we expect more? HONESTLY - want to hear an opinion to the contrary!
By G B on 10/25/2008 9:54 pm
Paul Buchanaa
GB, You wrote that you dislike hearing “people believe that government should take care of them.”and that “it just doesn’t sit well with you.” But sadly this is where we are today with much of the populace. The recent IMMORAL bailout bill which was supported by BOTH major party candidates is an example of this. We (the taxpayer) will be paying the price for bad decisions made by individuals, banks, insurance companies, mortgage lenders, brokerage houses etc. because “people believe that government should take care of them.” This is called a “MORAL HAZARD” which will give people the idea that future wrongdoings will be forgiven and there will be no consequence. Poor decisions by some should not be covered by those who didn’t make those same bad decisions. Yet that is exactly what is happening here. Consider this quote: “A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury.” I understand your point about us paying taxes and salaries for government officials. But government has gone FAR beyond the role originally intended. The Federal Income Tax is IMMORAL and should be abolished. Why? Because it does not go to run the government, but rather is used only to pay the interest on the debt which is charged to us by the Federal Reserve (Which should also be abolished). MANY government agencies should be shut down like; Dept. of Education, IRS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept of Energy, FEMA (One of the worst), National Endowment for the Arts, HUD, DSHS, etc. etc. Then we should pull our military back from many of the 130 countries and 700 military bases around the world. Finally we should cease ALL FOREIGN AID. This government forced transfer of wealth from Americans to foreign nations like Saudi Arabia (who hates us) and countless other countries is IMMORAL to the highest degree. And much of it goes to foreign military expenditures which is often seen by other countries as a hostile move by us. These changes would eliminate the need for Income tax and many other taxes. It would reduce federal government to its proper role of DEFENDING OUR LIBERTIES as our Constitution states. BOTTOM LINE: If you want to help people, then you have every right to do so. It’s called CHARITY, and it is a great thing for all of us to do voluntarily. But no government should FORCE us to do so. A sad example of how Socialism does’t work is our Indian Reservations where if they remain on the reservation, they collect free money, but if they leave they lose the money. This is why you don’t see too many American Indians in the general populace because the government “takes care” of them to the point that they just stay there—many of whom are drug addicts and alcoholics without motivation to better their lives. Thanks for the input. Paul B
By Paul Buchanaa on 10/27/2008 1:35 am
sibelle daubigne
Paul, again thanks for your time. If one pays attention, we can notice the “great friendship” between the “THE FIRST BUSH and THE LATE CLINTON” over their “charitable elan” to save the victims of tsunamis.It could be called “Philanthrocapitalism”.
By sibelle daubigne on 10/27/2008 1:03 pm
sibelle daubigne
Paul, good post! “WHENEVER A GOVERNMENT TAKES FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVES IT TO ANOTHER, IT GETS CONTROL OF BOTH”. One has to be blind not to see what’s next!
By sibelle daubigne on 10/25/2008 9:55 pm
G B
Ok - I’ll bite…what’s next???? Seriously, what’s next if people expect things from their government. I want to hear opinions!!!!!!
By G B on 10/25/2008 10:11 pm
Maschine think
I expect my Government to represent the interests of my country and those that live there. I expect a mature country to find a way to have free education to those that meet a certain standard. I expect free medical care including dental. I expect these systems in place with tough regulations that favor the citizen vs. the corporations. I expect my government to find ansers for the next 100 years of our evolution and I expect them to work for the common good .
By Maschine think on 10/25/2008 11:16 pm
Paul Buchanaa
Here is the only sentence in your post that is correct: “I expect my Government to represent the interests of my country and those that live there.” Well said, but the rest of your post is woefully wrong. WHY??? Because this is what our Declaration of Independence says is the ONLY proper role of the federal government: “…All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unailienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, that to secure these rights, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, deriving their just powers FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.” You are NOT born with a RIGHT to dental, education, homes, food etc. as you imply. You have a RIGHT to PURSUE these things, but not a right to HAVE these things because THAT is called COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM. In a free society you have the right to EARN these things, but if it is determined that you have a right TO these things, that means that someone had to work to provide these things TO you for NOTHING. Remember it doesn’t say you have the right to a home but rather the “puursuit of happiness” which means the right to earn a home. BIG DIFFERENCE. I hope this helps. Paul B
By Paul Buchanaa on 10/26/2008 10:50 pm
Berry Ives
Who cares what it’s called? What something is called is not a reason not to do it. Please read Rousseau’s Social Contract. And haven’t you heard? Laissez-faire capitalism has committed suicide. Alan Greenspan has become the contrite one after his naiveté has become a public spectacle.
By Berry Ives on 01/19/2009 9:23 am
Paul Buchanaa
Thanks Sibelle, You one of the few who understand it. Paul B
By Paul Buchanaa on 10/26/2008 10:54 pm
sibelle daubigne
Paul, just be aware of the kind of site this is. Some of the Founders do have interesting news sometimes……Keep the vision! It’s a pleasure!
By sibelle daubigne on 10/27/2008 12:19 am
Maschine think
Hello, some interesting reading on this topic. I think the question still remains, was Greenspan and idiot ( or something like that ) Answer - Yep. But whats really astonishing is how he gets away with it. If he’s and idiot , then the presidents , their staff, all the politicians and their staffs were complete idiots. In the end , it is we that are complete idiots because we allow them to continue. Ann whats her name, she wrote a book or two, had some interesting things to say, came from an environment that shocked her, so what…she wasn’t elected, she wasn’t paid to take care of you. Now, getting back to this idiotic notion of Free markets and Laissez Faire. As it stands, we know it doesn’t work. I would suggest a federal government, nay, an International set of standards that apply to anything that is as critical as financial markets. Markets are simple, no need to overcomplicate them. As for Greenspan, don’t ever forget he told you that you were irrational. This old pile of dust was allowed to kill the most exciting decade ever experienced. He was wrong, continued to be wrong and is still wrong.
By Maschine think on 10/25/2008 11:12 pm
Ruth M
Greenspan’s mea culpa reminds me of Robert McNamara’s. We don’t need more close-minded, over-confident people like them at the helm of the major institutions that impact our daily American lives. And the defense of Ayn Rand is comical. Did she think the USDA should set standards for milk production and distribution? Did she think there should be minimum specifications for how bridges are built in our country? Did she think factories would be motivated to minimize emissions to our air and water because we consumers would somehow find out about their pollution and refuse to buy their products? Did she think one bank should buy up all our neighborhood banks, eliminating the local competition that used to make my calls of complaint to Bank of America a little more potent? You must be joking, defending this monopolist. Ayn seems to have had an hysterical, radical response to communism that is as unhelpful for problem-solving as that of the radical left.
By Ruth M on 10/26/2008 7:21 am