I've heard some truly bizarre theories in my day but this one beats them all. Could Alan Greenspan have actually not turned into a filthy central banker but instead was acting like one to ultimately destroy the dollar on some strange libertarian mission?
I know, weird right?
Let's start from the beginning, where the first Greenspan diverged from the second, and in such an obviously stunning way:
The first one is Alan Greenspan's public persona as Chairman of the Fed. The second one is the private Alan Greenspan, a devotee of Ayn Rand who was a member of her close circle of colleagues in the 1960's. Few remember today that she attended the ceremony in 1974 when Alan Greenspan was sworn in as Chairman of President Ford's Council of Economic Advisers, in those day's a powerful and prestigious advisory group whose members had the ear of the President.
You didn't realize that Alan Greenspan was part of Rand's inner-circle for many years? Back in the mid-1960's, he actually wrote some very provocative stuff, perhaps more fitting for John Galt instead of the Fed Chairman. For example, in 1966 he penned:
"Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes."
Not Galt-like enough for you? Then how about this quote from the same essay, Gold and Economic Freedom:
"The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold.... Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard."
At some point he turned. Maybe when it dawned on him that he would become the 2nd most powerful man in the world or maybe when he decided he was going to put on the face, go in there head first and take down the dollar himself since it did not agree with his libertarian agenda. What better way to accomplish this than by swinging around his new-found big central banker dick smashing the machine all the way til the end?
Greenspan left no "legacy" that could be defined, other than this: he established as a norm the vicious pattern whereby the Fed chairman is deemed worthy of speaking on every topic under the sun, of monitoring every possible variable (hence none) and of doing whatever he wishes, free of oversight. There was no "Greenspan Standard" – and this was the great failure of his reign. Given his knowledge, Greenspan knew better than to leave the U.S. dollar in a standard-less state.
Is it - like so many of us have guessed - really that the guy is a sick fuck who knew exactly what he was doing and did it anyway?
Maybe Greenspan isn't a libertarian but a politician. But maybe he did it to free the dollar. Think about it, it was his final and most diabolical move.
Or maybe he just did it as a favor to the Bush administration so we'd soon forget all about 9/11 and head back to the store to console ourselves with things. Surely you remember the "America: Open For Business" signs in store windows. Who said we were closed? We just needed to grieve for a minute and for once, shopping wasn't going to do it. We hear the same refrain now but it comes wrapped with Hope and Change and the players of 2001 have been swapped out for new ones. Has all that much changed?
There's still a big gaping hole where the WTC used to be and Alan Greenspan is not spending the rest of his days in a federal prison. I'd say we haven't made much progress.
Whatever you believe, you can't tell me you believe he didn't know exactly what he was doing.