Out of Commision – What You Weren't Told About the Financial Crisis

What’s it like spending two years doing thankless work that, in the end, is going to be ignored by the very people who asked for your services? The members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission have just found out. Their 662 page report is sinking rapidly into oblivion in official Washington, and is now destined to be of interest only to historians. This was fully predictable. The Commission was given a charter by Congress to tell us who, what, when, and where about the financial crisis, but they were not allowed to explain why. To understand why this crisis occurred would be stepping on way too many powerful toes in Washington, and for this reason the Commission was told not to make any policy recommendations to Congress that would help prevent such a crisis from occurring again.

Though toothless and hobbled by Congress, the Commission has issued a remarkable report, at least by Washington standards. The report reads like the work of an investigative reporter, filled with interesting anecdotes selected from hundreds of hours of interviews with financial experts and market participants. The chapters are organized chronologically from the start of the housing boom to its collapse. Hardly anybody comes out of this report looking good, but of the many people who have reason to hang their head in shame, none appear quite as damaged as Alan Greenspan. He and the Federal Reserve are fingered by the Commission for failure to regulate the banks and other players in the housing market.

The central bank operated a regulatory regime called ”œFed Lite”, providing little regulatory oversight for the banks, and no oversight for the shadow banking system that blew up under the weight of excessive debt and sparse capital. Fed Lite was founded on Alan Greenspan’s near-religious belief that the markets always weed out inefficient players and excesses, and the Fed’s job therefore is to stay out of the way of the banks they are supposed to regulate. Greenspan later admitted to the Commission that he might have been a bit wrong about the wonderful self-correcting mechanism of the markets. He also admitted that he was out of his depth whenever the staff came to talk to him about technical matters like mortgages, the housing markets, derivatives such as CDOs, and so on.

This was the man who was dubbed ”œThe Maestro” by Bob Woodward, but apparently nearly twenty years of hands-on experience running the central bank was not enough to educate him sufficiently to understand the housing market, much less detect a bubble in the making. Why was someone like him given such a position of power? The Commission is unable to explain this to us, and to do so would require going much further back in time than the housing bubble ”“ in fact back to the 1950s, when Alan Greenspan sat at the side of Ayn Rand, as an Apostle of Selfishness and a prized member of her cult of Objectivists.

In his professional life Alan Greenspan has never talked about his days with Ayn Rand, and curiously no one in Washington has bothered to ask him publicly about how much of her philosophy he believes. As Fed Chairman, if Greenspan was a maestro of anything, it was playing Washington politics, and he was always wise enough never to tip his hand on policy matters until he had to. By the time the Fed was ready to implement Fed Lite, the mood in Washington had already shifted in favor of the Republican campaign to reduce government regulation wherever possible. This meant not only allowing market operators to function unfettered, it meant giving the wolves access to the henhouse. Insurance and oil industry executives were allowed in to Congressional staff meetings to help write laws governing their industries. Bankers were appointed to top positions at the Treasury and the Fed. As far as Wall Street was concerned, the traditional balance between Greed and Fear was upended: Fear was banished and Greed was allowed to run rampant once bankers were given access to unlimited taxpayer money in the form of bailouts.

All of this was quite congenial to Alan Greenspan, the inventor of the ”œGreenspan put” ”“ which was a phrase created by the market to characterize the promise by the Fed that any serious losses in the market could always be ”œput back” to the government. Time and again Greenspan oversaw one bank bailout after another, and then expanded the franchise to the hedge fund industry when he bailed out LTCM in 1998. By the time he retired from the Fed, the financial industry had become so large that the Greenspan put had become institutionalized, and is now referred to as the Bernanke put. The job of Chairman of the Federal Reserve apparently carries with it the promise to forever protect the markets from their mistakes.

This must be quite satisfying to Ayn Rand followers. In their mythology, only Worthy Individuals are allowed to succeed in life, by taking what they want from others, and fighting off the little people and bothersome bureaucrats who obstruct them because they are envious of anyone who succeeds. Alan Greenspan must view himself and the eminent people he associates with as the Worthy few, entitled to their wealth and position of power. As a Republican, Greenspan has had no problems with the evolution of his party into the protector of the privileged few ”“ the Lucky Duckies who control nearly 90% of the wealth in America, and feel entitled to raid the Treasury whenever they need to cover up for their mistakes.

This is the problem the Commission has had in doing its work. It is operating in a political and social environment in Washington that for decades has glorified greed and selfishness, and so accepted are these qualities that an alternative universe where government helps the average person rather than just the wealthy person is simply too hard for people in Washington to imagine. The best the Commission can do is say ”œAlan Greenspan should have done this, and he shouldn’t have done that.” It cannot say that there is something deeply corrupting in the way politicians of both parties think and act in Washington.

That is also why this Commission is so very different from the Pecora Commission of the 1930s, which took as its job the exposure of corruption and fraud at the very highest levels of business and government. The evidence of corruption and fraud in the housing bubble and during the credit crisis is mounting every day, but no one of responsibility or power has been called to account. The Commission has apparently identified a few low level functionaries for the attention of the Justice Department, but it is unlikely that someone like Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide is ever going to wind up in court on fraud charges. There is no moral outrage in Washington anymore, because there is simply no telling whose head would not fall under the guillotine if the true extent of fraud and corruption were revealed.

The American people don’t have much moral outrage either. For the longest time they bought into the Greed is Good philosophy as long as the stock market was going up, and the housing bubble was in the ascendant. Once both of these financial props collapsed, misery spread everywhere, but it wasn’t the misery experienced by our grandfathers, who lost all their wealth in the 1930s when the banks collapsed completely. Most Americans are holding on to some of their wealth, and 80% of them have full time jobs, even if the work is stressful and the benefits are disappearing. Unemployment checks are being extended for another year, payroll taxes are scheduled to be cut in 2011, and Ben Bernanke has spent over half a trillion dollars generating another stock market bubble. The wealthy are spending money, which helps the retail sales numbers look good, and the Fed assures us that inflation is not a problem, because the Fed excludes the price of food and energy in its calculations of inflation.

Of what use, then, is a Commission that explains why things really happen the way they do? No one wants to hear it ”“ not the Congress, not the White House, not Republicans, Democrats, nor independents. No one wants to hear that the American Dream ”“ which use to say that anyone could succeed in America with hard work ”“ has been polluted by a wholly different American Dream, which now says you can succeed with the right connections and you can take what you want without any consequences. We have brought the philosophy of Selfishness to its logical conclusion, which has left us with a society of individuals who are isolated from each other, who have been stripped of any sense of community, and who have been taught to expect that government will be of no help to you unless your are in a position of privilege and power.

What America really needs is a Commission of Truth, that would outline how Selfishness became triumphant, how it has devastated our country, and what we as a community and as a nation must do about this. A Commission of Truth, however, needs to have an audience willing to listen to the truth, and such an audience does not exist in America. At least not yet ”“ not until Americans have experienced the full, bitter fruits that a lifetime of Selfishness can produce.

This post was read 166 times.

About author View all posts Author website


Numerian is a devoted author and poster on The Agonist, specializing in business, finance, the global economy, and politics. In real life he goes by the non-nom de plume of Garrett Glass and hides out in Oak Park, IL, where he spends time writing novels on early Christianity (and an occasional tract on God and religion). You can follow his writing career on his website, jehoshuathebook.com.

12 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Ayn Rand was wrong, and therefore Greenspan was wrong.

    That conversation needs to be happening inside the Beltway.

    It is interesting that no one pursues the connection between Rand and Greenspan very deeply. Simply put, Rand was a guru and Greenspan was the disciple. When a disciple becomes totally devoted to the precepts of the guru, as Greenspan did, those beliefs drive EVERY ACTION the man takes.

    It is not a small matter. If you want to go to the roots of the destruction of the American economy, that is where you will find it: in Greenspan’s devotion to Rand.

  • The free market philosophy is that left to sink or swim on their own innovation and hard work, the private sector will find its own balance. What we have is privatizing of the profits and socialization of the losses. How the hell would we know if the theory works or not? We’ve abandoned the philosophy completely in favor of corptocracy.

    BTW – I think Ayn Rand is utter crap, but what we have isn’t even her fucked (but with checks/balances) system, it’s worse.

  • Our culture has become selfishness. The first time I heard the phrase “Jesus Loves You”, I knew we were in trouble; where did that come from? Yes, Jesus loves me, me, me, me. Jesus loves you and me but we should be afraid of others, not love them; fear others love thyself.

  • I was watching the 700 Club earlier this week. It was fund raising time. They showed a film clip of a woman who had lost her job and was down to a few hundred dollars in her bank account. Her tithing agreement with the church required her to pay most of that amount in the monthly collection. She prayed to God to do the right thing, and He told her to pay the tithe as he would provide for her. Sure enough, that very Sunday after she dropped the money in the collection box, someone approached her with a check – a repayment for an amount the woman had lent and forgotten about.

    What’s worse? Predatory lending, or predatory preaching? In a desperate attempt to keep the money flowing, these churches have no shame, and are willing to take the last dime from their parishioners under the guise of the “prosperity gospel.” If Dante were around he would have a circle of Hell chosen just for these preachers.

  • You’ve captured the moral wasteland in which this drama was conceived. We have the most incompetent ruling elite in history. We deserve to get our money back.

    And now this:

    “Former Countrywide Financial Corp. Chief Executive Officer Angelo Mozilo warned as early as 2004 of a possible housing-market collapse while the Federal Reserve overlooked the threat a year later, according to documents released by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

    “Not only at Countrywide, but also with other lenders, there is a clear deterioration in the credit quality of loans being originated,” he wrote to company executives on Sept. 1, 2004. “The type of loans currently being originated combined with the unprecedented stretching of all aspects of credit standards could cause a bump in the road that could bring with it catastrophic consequences.” Mozilo Predicted U.S. Housing Collapse as Fed Overlooked Risk Bloomberg, January 28

    The Money Party RSS

  • Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls
    By Mark Ames

    Mark Ames over at The Exhiled portrays Randianism as something beyond religion and more like pathology. In short, she was smitten by a sadistic serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whom she thought purely embodied a Nietzschian Superman. Rand saw Hickman is living in a pure world of will, unperturbed by the pain of others.

    The whole article is worth the time..

  • I hadn’t heard about her early infatuation with a serial killer. It is however very consistent with the pattern that flows through her books – the concept of the sociopath (the person who has no empathy for others) as the hero.

    I doubt that explaining this to Ayn Rand followers will make much difference. They’ll find some way to dismiss it as a youthful folly on her part. Better to concentrate on the people who aren’t yet part of the Ayn Rand cult, but who follow the Tea Party line.

  • philosophy hasn’t been tested as that it is impossible to test given human beings act as human beings. In a pure market of the Randian/libertarian variety, there is no government or collective intervention. Individuals act in their own self-interest and, according to believers, everyone ends up benefiting from the sum of these individual selfish decisions.

    But this ignores at least two important points:

    1) “Good” decisions on a small scale can combine together to create very “bad” results on a large scale. Free market proponents ignore the problem of scale and combination–or they just hand-wave it away by saying what’s good at one level is good at all levels. This has been demonstrated to be untrue.

    2) If we set up a totally free market economy and let it run on its own using neoclassical economic rules, we’d find that–very quickly–the people in it would start cheating, colluding, using power and influence for gain, etc. There is always a group/social dynamic to everything–we are social animals concerned with our status. We have friends and enemies. Free market advocates ignore this aspect of human behavior–they ignore that people cheat, that they collude and plot for their own gain over others, that they show preferences and biases that do not maximize their well-being. Of course, they may also say that the market would punish such behavior–but the market can be captured via this behavior and arrangements set up where criminality is promoted (i.e. today’s economy in the US).

    There are other critiques as well. Point (2) in particular sums up why I believe it is impossible to test–its assumptions and preconditions violate some very basic and very obvious aspects of human behavior and how we construct power. If not one ever desired to rule over or destroy anyone else, then maybe it could work…

  • But this article points out to me the truly pathological core of her thinking. The issue for me is how what should be called evil invades a people, a society, a community, etc. How does evil come to be seen as normal and good? How does it come to be seen as normative, which needs to be spread through economic hit men, assassination, and ultimately invasion?

    BTW, regarding the economic hit man concept, I went to a lecture by a local retired CIA agent. When asked about Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, he said that it was all true.

  • Back in the 70’s (seems like yesterday) I helped a co-worker move her Mom from one trailer park to another. This woman’s TV was constantly on, tuned to one preacher after another each one asking for money. One man or woman after another with some kind of hairdo and clothing that would make Elvis blush. This elderly woman lived in a small trailer and she is sending these criminals money; unbelievable. That was my first exposure to televised big-time con.

Leave a Reply