Alan Greenspan claims that the free market failed to prevent the financial
crisis, and that he is “shocked” that his professed
“free-market ideology” turned out to contain a
“flaw.”
But why should we take him seriously? Greenspan, while once associated
with laissez-faire philosopher Ayn Rand, hasn’t advocated genuinely
free markets for decades. Remember, this is a man who for two decades reveled
in being, as the New York Times put it, “the infallible maestro
of the financial system.”
Free markets don’t have “infallible maestros”; they
liberate us from such “maestros”--the central planners who have
time and again falsely claimed the ability and the right to orchestrate
millions of economic lives. Free markets enable each of us to be our own
maestro, conducting our own affairs, producing and trading as we judge best,
and taking responsibility for the consequences when we fail.
Alan Greenspan’s entire tenure at the Federal Reserve was one
devoted to distorting market outcomes in the pervasively controlled financial
markets, including the mortgage market. The Fed by its nature wields enormous
power over the market as it dictates the money supply and interest rates,
which in turn determine lending, borrowing, and bank leverage throughout the
economy. Early in Greenspan’s tenure, some expected the onetime
opponent of the Fed and supporter of a gold standard to minimize the
Fed’s distortion of markets. Instead, Greenspan became our
Manipulator-in-Chief, repeatedly inflating the money supply and artificially
lowering interest rates to allegedly magnify prosperity. Further, he voiced
no substantial opposition to related market-distorters such as Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac (which incentivized lenders to make trillions in loans that they
wouldn’t have made on a free market) and the cartel of
government-supported rating agencies (whose absurd models gave AAA ratings to
mortgage-backed securities).
Thus, when Greenspan speaks, he does so not as the voice of a
(non-existent) free market in finance and housing, but as the voice of
government central-planning--a voice with every incentive to blame the market
rather than the Fed’s market-distorting policies.
It is certainly not the voice of the Alan Greenspan who denounced the Fed
and defended the gold standard in Ayn Rand’s 1960s compendium Capitalism:
The Unknown Ideal. That Alan Greenspan understood what free markets are,
and explained how they encourage rational, self-interested behavior, so long
as individuals were responsible for their own risks. He also explained how
government handouts and bailouts reward irrational, destructive behavior. For
example, when the government inflates the money supply and manipulates
interest rates, it gives financial institutions new currency not backed by
real assets, currency that gets funneled into certain sectors of the economy
(such as dot-com stocks or houses), and creates artificial booms followed by
catastrophic busts. Observe Greenspan’s 1966 analysis of the boom
preceding the 1929 crash: “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into
the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic
speculative boom.” Sound familiar? What would that Greenspan identify
as the cause of the speculative housing boom at the center of today’s
crisis--the market or the maestro?
Greenspan is entitled to change his mind, of course; but it is
intellectually dishonest to pretend that the market he manipulated for 20
years was genuinely free. And those questioning Greenspan’s actions as
Fed chief should not be asking him what he didn’t do to prevent the
financial crisis; they should be asking what he did do to cause the crisis by
using his enormous power to reward irrational behavior. They should ask him
how he can deny that his inflationary printing press, along with the housing
welfare state, created the false promise of ever-increasing home values that
was at the root of all the market irrationality--from “flipping”
houses endlessly for fun and profit to interest-only “liar loans”
for poor people to Wall Street’s slicing, dicing, and gambling on
dubious mortgage contracts.
If anyone wants to understand the free-market explanation of financial
crises, they should read Ayn Rand, or Ludwig von Mises, or even Alan
Greenspan of 42 years ago. But to listen to today’s Alan Greenspan talk
about free markets is like listening to a Chinese censor talk about free
speech.
Nothing good can come, intellectually or politically, from blaming our
problems on something that didn’t exist--whether the mythical free
market of the housing boom or Greenspan’s mythical free-market
ideology. Americans need to understand Greenspan’s true nature as the
bureaucrat manipulating the market so that we can investigate the government
controls that are the real cause of the present mess, and save ourselves from
disasters caused by an even less free market in the future.