Don't worry, I think it bothers everyone.

I had a conversation with an Objectivist economist years ago and asked about Greenspan. He commented that Greenspan sold years ago.

Does anyone really ever complete their Objectivism training?

I will add that because he commented on compromise as a principle, it does appear that he put compromise as a basic principle, which would be a violation of basic principles.

he has puzzled me for decades. . he must have gone
astray along the way. . I used to say, "once you've seen
the truth with Rand, you can't go back." . but people
keep on proving me wrong. -- j
.

If I wanted to bring down the Federal Reserve system, I might start with the Federal Reserve. Also, the Wikipedia article expresses this same concern (citing H. Binswanger):

"In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. Greenspan was introduced to Rand by his first wife, Joan Mitchell. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was initially a logical positivist, he was converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism by her associate Nathaniel Branden. He became one of the members of Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard. Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Greenspan and Rand remained friends until her death in 1982.

He has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger, who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. When questioned in relation to this, however, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard. In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008, Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed. When asked about free markets and Rand's ideas, however, Greenspan clarified his stance on laissez faire capitalism and asserted that in a democratic society there could be no better alternative. He stated that the errors that were made stemmed not from the principle, but from the application of competitive markets in "assuming what the nature of risks would be".

E. Ray Canterbery has chronicled Greenspan's relationship with Rand, and has concluded that the influence has had pernicious effects on Greenspan's monetary policy."

I would add that unless you personally adhere to the Objectivist method of fact and evidence, then you are left with only assumptions. The comment from Greenspan over compromise might be considered an abandonment of Objectivist principles, or it might be considered legitimate, depending on his reasons and motivation:

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal."

AND

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

Therefore, whether Greenspan erred as Binswanger has commented has to be proven as constituting a compromise on basic principles - based on the limited information provided in the Wikipedia article and the quotes from the Lexicon, that is.

Me too. I just do not understand it.

Hello ycandrea,
He was corrupted.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” Lord Acton
Respectfully,
O.A.

Touché

Alan Greenjeans er, Greenspan, Gave up Objectivism when he seized upon the opportunity of becoming head of Fed. It made him. He got notoriety, a beautiful wife, lots of $$ (lectures, articles, the word of God). To this day his word is highly respected, and his economic principles, while they are close to those of Objectivism, cannot be taken at face value. Since he has stepped into the dark side, his pronouncements should be viewed with skepticism.

Yes, he certainly became full of Sith.

Cindi Lauper ain't no Mother Teresa.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMZw...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMZw...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Unless you're Mother Teresa or Gandhi, money and power trump ideology - every time.

I always did wonder what Alan Greenspan could have been thinking, or whether he was thinking. Did he seriously imagine he could put things right at the Federal Reserve? You can't do it. The Federal Reserve is fundamentally insolvent. Does the phrase "lie, agreed-upon" suggest itself here? It does to me.

Agree

Very well put coal!

Excellent observation. I have wondered about this as well. I think the usual justification is that they can mitigate the damage being done. Similar to Education Secretaries that had previously called for the elimination of the Education Department. Total contradiction.

What did Rand think of Greenspan once he got into the position of power? I just dont remember.

absolutely. he got drunk with power and forgot everything else.

Good Question. He was a real statist in my opinion. I didnt like him at all.

It was all about the money they gave him plus the perks, a private airplane, and what he perceived as prestige
Otherwise he is a turncoat and as jbrenner stated sith!

I saw Greenspan commenting about Brexit and at 90, I wonder if anything he says is valuable today. I believe he thought he could make a difference but became corrupted by the power he sought to restrict. I fear that potential is a part of our human nature.

The Fed is a central bank on steroids, grown even beyond the bounds imagined by Alexander Hamilton. Central planning sounds so good to an intellectual. Just think, if a smart person didn't control everything, the uneducated, stupid masses would influence everything!!! Free markets are not controlled but operate on the basis of the decisions of every economic entity. Opposition to market forces is futile in the long run because they don't go away, don't need to be constantly reenergized and are relentless. Trying to fight nature with monetary policy while encouraging fiscal insanity is role the Fed and they are very good at it.

Gold is pretty much a useless metal but it is in finite supply, costs money to extract and refine and therefore puts a limit on the money supply. Paper is made from trees and the supply gets replenished daily. Discipline and restraint in printing it is too much to expect of a mere mortal, even one that sat at the right hand of Rand.

Simple, Power and Money.