4 ms·

I've had posts modded down for mentioning Keynes, almost certainly by people who don't understand economics. I don't know if that counts as progressive, but the

I've had posts modded down for mentioning Keynes, almost certainly by people who don't understand economics. I don't know if that counts as progressive, but there's a strong overlap between those people and those who consider themselves Randians in my experience. Greenspan was an excellent central banker, but he repeatedly stepped out of the role to champion and provide cover for Republican political policies (primarily tax redistribution) which provided a drag on aggregate demand and made the United States much more dependent on monetary policy and debt-financing to push growth following 2001. There is an element of hypocrisy in his attitude towards social security as well. So I feel there is a lack of critical introspection or intellectual honesty there and it is somehow related to the way the Randian viewpoint encourages romantic oversimplification instead of... well.. regression analysis and empiricism. That said, I wouldn't downvote you for the flourish and have upvoted in fact - the rest of your comment was thoughtful and worth reading.

chernevik 15y ago
I doubt it's a deficit of honesty. Randians are not conservatives. "Real" Burkean conservatives think institutions are adapted over time to meet problems, but those problems and adaptations are often hard to see because they are subtle or small or rare. Randians and economists are less interested in the knowledge embedded in institutions, they focus more on reactions to incentives, and they're more confident in the application of principles. Greenspan has admitted "shock" at banks' risk management, he expected that equity would insist on more attention. But he may have overlooked the fact that his reference history of risk management occurred under a very different ownership structure, and so implied less about current conditions than he expected. Even if my story is right, Greenspan's oversight is what we'd expect from someone focused on the power of incentives. And we should expect Burkean conservatives to make a different set of errors, underestimating the power of incentives to drive adaptations to changes in institutions. They're different perspectives, with different blind spots.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

chernevik 15y ago

I doubt it's a deficit of honesty. Randians are not conservatives. "Real" Burkean conservatives think institutions are adapted over time to meet problems, but those problems and adaptations are often hard to see because they are subtle or small or rare. Randians and economists are less interested in the knowledge embedded in institutions, they focus more on reactions to incentives, and they're more confident in the application of principles. Greenspan has admitted "shock" at banks' risk management, he expected that equity would insist on more attention. But he may have overlooked the fact that his reference history of risk management occurred under a very different ownership structure, and so implied less about current conditions than he expected. Even if my story is right, Greenspan's oversight is what we'd expect from someone focused on the power of incentives. And we should expect Burkean conservatives to make a different set of errors, underestimating the power of incentives to drive adaptations to changes in institutions. They're different perspectives, with different blind spots.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]