Greenspan said nationalisation could be the "least bad" option left for policymakers.
”It may be necessary to temporarily nationalise some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring,” he said. “I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do.”
Most politicos, and that is what the Fed chairman is, turn more free market after they leave office, the fact that Greenspan has gone in the opposite direction, from early on Randian, who penned a paper calling for a gold standard, to Fed chairman, the top anti-gold position in the world, to now a commie supporter of bank nationalism, should come as little surprise. Greenspan has never understood the basics of the business cycle, and the cycle is at the heart of the current banking crisis. In his autobiography, The Age of Turbulence
This ancient man is still adrift without an anchor.
Barbra Walters, who once dated Greenspan, understood, years ago that Greenspan has no anchor . In her memoir, Audition
You see, you need the anchor of understanding how the business cycle works, and be able to understand its evils, or, otherwise, you can pretty much justify any wacky economic program and look like an ass to your girlfriends and the world.
A word to the wise, if you don't understand the business cycle, it's time you do. Murray Rothbard's book, The Mystery of Banking
"Age of Turbulence" has some interesting points, even for those readers like me, who are not well educated in economics. His discussion of energy markets is excellent and better than 98% of comment out there. His 'first person'perspective on Richard Nixon is interesting.
ReplyDeleteHe discusses his involvement with Ayn Rand but there isn't much serious free market economics or libertarianism mentioned in that chapter of his life. Rand, of course, never really took to libertarianism proper and in much of her work, it's not free markets she champions so much as 'great industrialists'. I don't think she was as much of a free marketeer as many people think.
His discussion of intellectual property rights is remarkable more for how weak the case he makes is. It boils down to a "better the devil you know" argument. This is about as strong an argument as he can muster.