Printing excess money, lending to those unable to repay, the problem of having "free" cash seeking work; these had nothing to do with the real underlying cause of the 2009 economic melt-down, right?

Uh, Ayn Rand would not have supported rigging the system so that people who cannot afford houses magically get loans. Forcing and heavily incenting financial institutions to give loans to high-risk applicants was a huge driver of our current issues. Regulation SHOULD have forced loan applications to be written in simple clear English and to reveal all risks. That is the best role regulation can play. Private businesses shouldn't be incented by the government to do dangerous things.

It is a weak mind that believes one man and 2 books caused the financial crisis. That same weak mind will also believe that one different man can repair it. This is an example of the poor state of "journalism" today.

Much of this growth was speculative and fueled by irresponsible lending practices -- all overlooked by the regulators ---

Greenspan firmly and consistently rebuffed any moves toward government regulation -- most famously when Brooksley Born, then-chairman of the regulatory body with responsibility for regulating derivatives, argued in 1998 for some oversight of the opaque derivatives market.

1. Regulation was in place but not enforced by regulators.
2. "regulatory body with responsibility for regulating derivatives" needed to argue for oversight of derivatives market?

In Atlas Shrugged the most productive members of society went "on strike" when their work was continually appropriated to prop up those who did nothing but continually squander that which was given to them. In fact, to compare that story to the current crisis would require us to put the government and the failed financial firms in the same bed (hmm no coincidence) on the one hand, and the taxpayers on the other hand. The taxpayers in this instance being the productive members of society with capital to spare, being held by the Treasury of course, and the incompetent financial industry in need of that capital. Rand would have let those institutions fail, that which would be the self corrective measure of the free market. In Atlas Shrugged the producers were content to let the society fail if it would only consist of those parasites who offer nothing to the common good. One would ask what giant financial firms like Goldman Sachs do to benefit our society or what value they add through their work.

Whether it be economists Burke, Locke or Keynes, any financial "wizard" who is inclined toward one ethos -especially Rand's fictional kind- to guide his/her economic point of view fails to understand the market in terms of an ever-changing real world. Greenspan's tenure and the intemperate policies to which he adhered amounted to frosting without the cake.

To refresh everybody's memory, "Atlas Shrugged" was FICTION and not a basis for anything in particular, least of all to critique the economy.

Another piece of garbage on Politics Daily. Surely Rand would not have been behind the doling out of loans to people who were less than qualified. People living beyond their means, and banks allowing it, is the heart of the mess that we are in.

Ugh, stupid!

Rand support deregulation, sure. But what you statist journalists miss is that in support free market capitalism, this meant you do NOT *SET* interest rates, draft legislation to force banks to hand out mortgages to subprime individuals, or BAIL them out when you realize how deep their entrenchment is and the harm it could cause. Rand didn't believe in ANY of that - how dare you suggest anything otherwise.

You know nothing of Rands Philosophy. Greenspan turned his back on Objectivism and sold out long ago. You should dust off that copy of Human Action and return to Rands reality.

I cringe when i think of the minds you've infected.. professor

Rand would not have supported coming off the Gold Standard in the first place providing for so much "free" money. It is not the "free market" that did this but the mix of the bad governmet policies with the free market. And we have made it worse--by GOVMT rescue of financial insitituison the bankers know that they do not need to check their actions because in the end the tax payer will bail them out. What we have is Socialism for the rich and connected NOT a free market that would have let Long Term Capital gone under years ago providing the check against speculation. But already it was said that Long Term Capital was too big to fail and so we let the system continue. There is too much money in the money supply as it is not limited by anything but Greenspan's whim and so when prices and interest rates should have gone up curtailing the market--Greenspan etc kept putting money into the system. This is NOT Randian. Read Greenspans own words ont the Gold Standard in Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. Nor would Rand have supported endless borrowing from China which also hides the fact that the US government is BROKE! The mess in this system still has not fully come home to roost--we are avoiding the root causes again--and it will come back to haunt us in the next "cycle". Please blame Greenspan yes BUT not Rand.

?!WTF?1

Too bad you're trying to pass this off as serious journalism because it is a joke. A biased disgraceful joke. You know nothing of Ayn Rand. I doubt you even read her work. Cliff Notes maybe. Alan Greenspan betrayed Ayn Rand long before he became Fed chairman. He sold out completely to the glitter, power, and the money. It was the government who betrayed us not capitalism. We the people instituted government to protect us against fraud and abuse and now they the government is part of the fraud and abuse in conjunction with the big corporations. That is called corporatism not capitalism.

I'm not sure you and I live in the same world. Mine is called Earth(or Terra or Gaia, chichever you like). Are you really naive enough to believe the financial industry is unregulated? Give me a break. Sometime go check the total number of regulations that cover finance and banking, and publish the results here, and then tell us they are "unregulated". Your obvious left-wing leanings have either impaired your ability to recognize the truth, or you choose to ignore it to advance a failed agenda. Our tax and spend, don't worry about the future mentality of our government (which we elected, sadly), has been running us further and further into debt. In the nineties, Pres Clinton, probably one of your heroes, and his Dem (or should it be dim?) cronies ordered banks to relax lending restrictions so they could be "fair". People qualified for loans they could never, ever repay. Government regulators knew full well what was going on with derivatives, etc. but as long as the taxes were coming in, who cared.

Blame it on Ayn Rand, I can't fathom how you can blame her vision of pure capitalism for what happened here. The United States may have had unfettered capitalism in the 1800's and even into the early 1900's. It certainly hasn't been unregulated in my lifetime (I'm 54). Ayn Rand was a philosopher and novelist, who had a profound impact on many people. Greenspan's personal inadequacies and inability to live up to his "ideals" may well have been a factor in what has occurred, but to blame it on him is as ludicrous as blaming an unregulated financial industry.

Why not put aside the liberal blinders, and look for the real causes. Government created the conditions, printed the money, spent ever increasing amounts, and we the people loved it. Your blog is much like the speaker at Ted Kennedy's funeral who blamed the right-wing for JFK's killer (Since when is an avowed Socialist right-wing? Only in a world of double-speak and double-think).

I bet you think Obama is a brilliant President and his bailouts are necessary because of the excesses of the Bush years. If all it took was spending money, surely the 4.9 trillion dollars the debt increased under Bush would have made the economy boom, right. Now Obama has spent or promised close to half that much in just 10 months in office. Add this national healthcare scam and just wait to see how far off they CBO projections are. When that happens, will you blame an unregulated healthcare industry (please count the number of regulations governing healthcare before you burden us with that).

to refresh everyones memory Keynes original General Theory called for a counter-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy. all anybody remembers(especialy politicians and fed chairman) is the then contriversial assertion that government should run a deficit during recessions. the other half of this equation, the gradual removal of both monetary and fiscal stimulus was infinitly more politically tricky. the preferance to err on the side of stimulus and enhanced liquidity became the default political imperitive. now heres the dirty little secret. since 1982 when Paul Voelker broke the back of inflation,the establishment in this country has systematically implemented the primary means of avoiding this problem. tax policy, nafta , regulatory and environmental policy have conspired to expel most manufacturing in this country. the importation of cheap goods has tamed the inflation beast and only that has allowed the subverted keynsian policies that have endured and blossomed in the last 25 years.

I'm sorry, but David Duke isn't the answer either. I'm not interested in a KKK President, even if he calls it the NAAWP now.

Sure, there should have been some internal oversight, but not government control. To think that our economic problems justify Washington's inept oppressive regulation is insane. Washington's economic and business administrative acumen has been proved to be pathetically inept. Democrats are the most inept. Their only talent is politics.