Alan Greenspan has publicly admitted that his ideology over at least the last forty years is inherently flawed. Because Alan Greenspan was for some eighteen years considered the maestro of American economics, the significance of this must not be underestimated. He is correct that the ideology he held is fatally flawed. It is irreparably broken. It was dead at conception.
Who will stand for Alan Greenspan's former ideology to tell him or me that he is wrong in his new assessment that that ideology is flawed?
The Libertarian capitalist who are actually advocating utopian capitalism, are responding around the Internet with articles stating that it is wrong to blame libertarian capitalism for the current financial crisis and panic because libertarian or utopian capitalism was not in existence immediately before the crash of 2008. They say that utopian capitalism would not have been regulating such that the crash occurred. They fault the regulation of the market via the Federal Reserve monetary policy, among other regulations, as the cause.
Now, within their context, they have a point; however, their context is confined whereas we must be willing to examine utopian capitalism for what it is relative to all other systems and also to examine where utopian capitalism's prime tenets were at work and what transpired and why. We must examine whether or not all of utopian capitalism must be present before any blame may be laid at that doorstep for what occurred within sectors.
Alan Greenspan held with laissez-faire capitalism qualified by monetarism. It's a huge qualifier in the minds of the utopian capitalists. Monetarism in their minds actually precludes laissez-faire. Technically, I agree. However, there are areas of the economic system where laissez-faire was allowed and there was a result that must not be ignored and that is extremely revealing about the inherent flaw within the purists' utopian vision.
Before I go further here with this explanation, let me say that there is a utopian capitalist counter argument already waiting; however, there is a counter-counter argument that defeats it and that's called Christianity, which I will also explain in brief following.
So, the mortgage bankers and brokers, acting as conmen (no sexism intended) used the low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve to entice suckers or marks. Conman is short for "confidence man." A confidence man swindles victims via a confidence game. They build up confidence in the victim so that the victim will trust the conmen's advice and act upon it. To enhance their fraudulent gain, the particular conmen in the real estate mortgage industry played upon the likewise selfishness and acquisitiveness of marks or targets and the American Dream sham as well. Understand here that the conmen were only doing exactly what is at the heart of the capitalist political-economy. They were acting in their own self-interest.
The utopian capitalists will counter that in the long run in a pure capitalist system their action would end up being seen not as in their best self-interest. Also, within the pure system, as only they see it, buyers or consumers would become more sophisticated and would no longer be such easy marks or prey. This is economic Darwinism where evolution weeds out less-fit methods. It is self-regulating. They have their point, but it's retarded.
What do I mean here by saying that it's retarded? This is where the counter-counter argument begins.
We already have the fittest system laid out for us if we will simply stop ignoring it. Let me lay out a few things before I wrap up here.
Darwinism is not an invalid concept for unenlightened creatures. The natural system does work much as Darwin saw it. He and others drew many incorrect conclusions and translated those onto enlightened humanity to its detriment though. Here's where this article will come full circle as all real logic does and without ignoring any counter arguments.
The self-interest ideology as the self-styled Libertarian capitalists see self contains the seed of its own destruction. It is self-devouring. It is stuck in the loop of selfishness apart from looking out for the whole and the parts first and foremost all the time. It is stuck looking out for a part first and foremost in the false hope that that premise will see to the good of the whole. It's really flawed.
That's what Alan Greenspan has been forced to admit, for the sake of his own skin, that he's bumped up against.
The distance between where Alan claims to have been and where he claims to now be (hazy to him yet) is at the same time tiny and infinite. It depends upon one's perspective. To the uninitiated human, it's hard to grasp even the subject matter. Many people will say that their brains hurt upon attempting to contemplate such matters. They will become instantly tired and want to go to sleep or rush off to think about matters upon which the whole of the soul of humanity doesn't hang in the balance.
The difference or distance I referred to in the immediate paragraph above concerns self. Who is self? What is the self? This is the most important concept in theology and whether or not anyone else thinks so.
There are two basic ways of viewing the self the choice of which will land someone in Alan Greenspan's "former" (one hopes he doesn't fall back to sleep) ideology or lands with Jesus. When I speak right here in this paragraph about Greenspan's former ideology, I am not limiting it to laissez-faire qualified by monetarism but rather disconnected self. I mean specifically disconnected from the whole that by proper definition in Christianity is God regardless of any other preconceived notions about God anyone else may have.
There is the self (deluded) that is apart from God. Then there is the self that is part of God the whole.
Something that may help you to understand this further is Jesus's position that keeping the law means keeping each of its parts (or what he refers to as the lesser commandments for the sake of making a comprehensible connection with those to whom he is imparting the knowledge) is keeping the whole and vice versa. The same applies to each human for humanity. We are a whole that has not been living up to it. We have not been keeping each part or looking out for each for the sake of the whole and each, which in the end are one and the same. This then applies to politics and economics.
I could go on here indefinitely. This all ties in with the rest of Jesus's message, which is completely consistent and doesn't avoid answering any counter.
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)