Alan Greenspan gave testimony to Congress on Thursday, October 23, 2008, during which he said the following:

I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.

He did not admit that he knew what he was doing while Chairman of the Federal Reserve by keeping interest rates low.


That's coming from the man who when Fed Chairman said of the dot-com bubble that the people were suffering from "irrational exuberance." He knew a bubble when he saw one. What he meant was that there was not underlying value in the investments. He is now saying that he didn't see the housing bubble as such even though so many other economists were saying it was a bubble and Greenspan knew they were saying it. He is saying that he actually believed that the people in the mortgage industry were not carried away as people were during the dot-com bubble.

Understand here that Alan Greenspan has studied every boom and bust cycle on record. He lived, ate, breathed, and slept interest rates and how the Fed rate impacts upon the whole (all the variables). He knows the history of selfish interests ruining things in a hurry.


He's read all the Libertarian capitalists criticisms of the mixed economy. He knows the view of many that the Federal Reserve is a private monopoly that has never been audited. He knows how the fractional-reserve banking system leverages and why the ratios had been limited in case of runs due to booms and busts. He knew that the Wall Street investment bankers (Henry Paulson, et al.) successfully lobbied to change ratios to loosen them four and five fold so that there would be no cushion in the event of runs on those banks. He knew what those banks were doing with all the funds created out of reckless leveraging. He knew they were securitizing mortgages that were subprime and Alt-A and the rest and on a huge, huge scale (trillions and trillions). He knew they were also creating other exotic, non-auditable derivatives.

Now, he's admitting or alleging that he made what people would consider an honest mistake.

What is going on here is that he has never been asked the right questions.


If you believe Alan Greenspan's latest position, then you believe that Alan's left hand didn't know what Alan's right hand was doing. You could make a case for this. There is definitely a place where people trick themselves. People choose not to admit within what they have done and what they are still doing. Even the worst devil believes he's right. Of course, from God's perspective, that worst devil is the most confused being in existence.


He's saying that he is shocked that self-interest (apart from God) is just a euphemism for greed and corruption. I'm not paraphrasing him or quoting him here. I doubt that he'd characterize it the way I just have. He just can't see it or won't admit that he does.


At any rate, he is one person who was place in a high position based upon his ideology that he has now publicly recanted regardless of the degree to which he is being genuine rather than working to continue deception. Make no mistake about it. The Federal Reserve System is inherently deceptive. They do not deserve the money they pay themselves. There is not a good service being done by the banking system as a whole. It is not a good system. It is not righteous.


Alan Greenspan was handpicked by the superrich. The superrich have not changed their philosophy or ideology of selfishness. When they agree to give the commoners more, it is to placate those commoners (or serfs or slaves is you want). That's what's going on now.


FDR instituted the New Deal and told the capitalists that they don't know that he saved "capitalism," which he did. If he hadn't mixed the economy, there would have been a socialist violent revolution (Marxist) in the U.S. that would have prevailed. Consider how much different history would have been since that time to now.

Contrary to the assertions of many so-called more laissez-faire capitalist economists, the New Deal did not prolong the Great Depression. Those economist have no way of laying out how things would have unfolded had Hoover's do-nothing approach been allowed to continue. Of course, those same economists would blame the Federal Reserve System and not without a great deal of justification.


The issue here is that those economists are comparing a utopian capitalism against the mixed economy. What they don't do is compare that utopian capitalism with the political-economic vision of Jesus Christ.

I don't believe in their utopian capitalism. It isn't the best vision. It isn't the ideal. The mixed economy isn't either. The libertarian-capitalist-monetarist vision of Milton Friedman isn't either. There is only one right gate and way. All the rest fall short.

The fight isn't between Hamilton and Jefferson. The fight is between "Satan" and Jesus. I'm not with Hamilton, Jefferson, or "Satan." I'm standing with Jesus. Where is Alan Greenspan in this? Where is Colin Powell in this? Where are John McCain and Barack Obama?


For these others, Jesus is a spoiler. He's only the savior if everyone will agree to it. These others won't step forward before each other. They are all standing back saying to each other that no one is going to step forward to that. They aren't even saying, "I will if you will." Think about it. Are those leaders?


Alan Greenspan is/was a disciple of Ayn Rand. Ayn was an egoist. She, in her mind, was vastly smarter then was Jesus. For Ayn, Jesus was a weakling. He was a softy. Now, Ayn's huge ego got in her way. Where's Alan on this. Since he's admitted a little, will he keep soul-searching? Will he get his ego out of his own way?

Self-interest or selfishness didn't work he's admitted. Is he still qualifying that in his mind? Oh, it didn't work, but....


Look, selfishness, as the basis for a political-economic system or personal philosophy, is the path to desolation.

Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know. (Isaiah 47:11)

The king shall mourn, and the prince shall be clothed with desolation, and the hands of the people of the land shall be troubled: I will do unto them after their way, and according to their deserts will I judge them; and they shall know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 7:27)

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: (Matthew 12:25)


As for John McCain, he admitted not that long ago that he doesn't understand economics. He therefore has had the typical Republican, selfish, greedy advisors in his ear telling him how to field questions. So, right now we have the Republicans using the term socialism over and over thinking that people won't be able to come up to speed on the subject or not knowing themselves, those advisors, what they're talking about anyway.


What is the economic engine? Where can jobs come from? Who decides? That's what is at issue here.

I had a recent commentator (Friends Of Liberty) who asked the question, "Who is to ask what work?" His view in his comment is that the so-called free-market entrepreneur decides what work and that the fate of that entrepreneur lies with the people or consumers deciding whether or not to buy. It's market democracy if you will. Okay, but is that the only way? I didn't answer that question directly in my comment reply. I'm answering here, now.


The people can come together and decide to be employee owners. They can decide to have democracy in their workplace that they own collectively. That democracy that should actually be a consensus agreement is what was lacking in the Soviet Union. Lenin and then Stalin contrived things so they as sole individuals could dictate. In other words, they greedily ruined everything.


It is voluntary, council socialism or communism (Christianity) that is being ignored in the mainstream, as if it isn't there as a concept or alternative. It is there though. The reason it isn't in the mainstream is because it is deliberately being ignored. It runs exactly contrary to the desire of the greedy crony capitalists. The greedy control the mainstream right now.


Engines are constantly being reengineered and reinvented in the search for a better engine. What someone will consider the ideal will depend upon that one's starting premises. A greedy person will not want an engine that will propel everyone to high places. Greed is incompatible with that concept of what is best. Bear that in mind when you consider John McCain's attitudes.

John hasn't been afraid to use the terms "greed" and "excess" concerning Wall Street. He's inconsistent though. His thinking is disjointed. He's saying to go ahead and use tax dollars to restart the same engine and then get in there and make adjustments. That's the bailout. What he's also saying is that the basic premises of the engine are fine. He's being told to say that anything else is evil redistribution of wealth and will not result in growing the pie, to use his analogy. That's false though.


The bankers did not create wealth. They created a fake. The people are being asked to knowingly pay for it. The bankers will remain astronomically wealthy based upon the fake they created. In fact, they will become truly wealthier, since much of what they held before was fake. John goes along with that and even promotes it.

Now, changing the tax system so that those funds flow back again to the general welfare is re-redistributing the wealth back to those who labored to create not a fake but rather real wealth or value in the mundane sense. John is blind to that.


Consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few doesn't create more jobs than does spreading the wealth around. Money in the hands of those who created its value in the first place does not keep the pie from expanding. Those people buy and invest too. Once upon a time, main streets all over were lined with shops of all kinds. The superrich killed that. The unemployment rate wasn't higher with all those shops. Do you see the point here? Consolidation of wealth into the hands of the few doesn't create more jobs. It just changes who owns and who bosses whom.


In Jesus's vision, which I share, everyone is at the same time a boss and a servant to each other. It is the right way to go. It's the right direction.

The people of America are constantly being surveyed and asked, "Do you think the U.S. is heading in the right direction?" Well, they often say yes or no, but what is the right direction. Most people at best struggle with a vague sense of what might be better.


Barack Obama has tapped that while deliberately leaving it vague. In his mind, it is better to be charged with being too vague than having to defend the specifics of Christianity for instance. I totally disagree with his approach and position.


Let me say here that Alan Greenspan and John McCain and Barack Obama are my brothers. I don't want to see them going down wrong paths. I definitely want what is best for them. However, there is the emotional (spiritual) brotherhood that can't be forced into existence. I can't force them to see the light. I can't force them to go on the same path I'm headed on, which to the best of my mind is the one Jesus is on.

It's not easy on one level and an accepted foregone conclusion to which I'm reconciled on another level. If they don't turn, we will separate and become farther and farther apart as we travel. I can't force that to be different. I know that they and their souls would be better off were they to agree and act accordingly. I know worse consequences await those who hear what is better and best yet reject it.

So be it. People choose whom to follow. They end up in the same boat. All I can do is what Jesus did: Warn them. Then it's up to them.

Tom Usher


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.