Okay, first of all, let me say that I, at times forget who brings me what. And, for that, I apologize. I get, hunt, have tipped, comments, and whatnot, links from all over. Nearly all of them deserve attention. I just don’t have time to do them all. Sometimes, I see something and decide that I might save it for a later time. By the time I get back to something, I forget how I came to be there. Currently, I have 15 tabs open. When I get to that point, I usually decide to either use the link, just close it, or on rare occasions, bookmark it, in hopes to getting back to it, which almost never happens and I end deleting it out of my bookmarks months later wondering why or how they got there. But, this is interesting, so before closing the tab, I’ll post on it. Thanks to whomever showed me this!
From the BBC ….
Greenspan got some things right, and some things wrong. I’ll provide commentary throughout.
Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that a repeat of the crisis that brought the country close to default is “perfectly conceivable”.
Well, as with all leftarded news agencies, you never know what is or isn’t attributable to the person their quoting. I seriously doubt Greenspan said “close to default” or even insinuated it. Mostly because we didn’t come close to default. We were in no danger of defaulting. What was in danger was government spending. To avoid default the government would have to quit spending at the level it is. It’s fascinating that such a lie would continue to be perpetuated so uncritically by “news” agencies.
He told the BBC that he had not seen another situation in Washington where “compromise” seemed so far away.
Mr Greenspan confessed to sympathies with the aims of the Tea Party, the Republican faction that fought the government during debt ceiling talks.
Yes, even Greenspan knows that we’re spending too much and have a much too intrusive, overbearing government. Which, the aims of the Tea party is exactly and only that. To limit the government and to get it to spending within our means. Radical, I know.
But the former central banker said the movement’s tactics were “undemocratic”.
Well, again, you don’t know exactly how the one word quote is context, but, this was the opposite of “undemocratic”. The House of Representatives is the nearest we have to a pure democratic form of representation. It is the “people’s house”, while the Senate is the state’s house. The president is elected by the conflation of the number of total Senate and House numbers by state. The Representatives were acting in accordance to the will of the people who sent them there. Again, one must have a fundamental understanding of what is, and isn’t “democratic”.
But, here is a glimpse into the mind of Greenspan. It’s funny because he uses the exact same concept I have used in the past, and come to the opposite conclusion.
n a wide-ranging interview to be broadcast on Radio 4′s Today programme and the World Service’s Business Daily, the former Fed chief had strong words for those who thought the eurozone crisis was over.
The crisis is likely to continue until the eurozone sees “consolidation politically. I think that’s where we are going”.
He said: “The culture of Greece is not the same as the culture of Germany, and to fuse them into a single unit is extremely difficult.
“The only way you can do it is by political union, like with East and West Germany, and even that is not working as well as it should be.”
You see what he did there? Or, rather what he didn’t do? He didn’t question as to why the people of Greece and the people of Germany should be fused together. The answer is that they shouldn’t be. It is entirely contrary to the concepts of liberty and freedom. And, then conflating that with the re-unification of Germany is an egregious abuse of drawing a parallel. You see, for the most part, the people of Germany, on both sides wanted reunification of some sort. And, they had for years. They are a common people of a common language of a common heritage. Unification makes sense. It was seen as natural. But, most importantly, the people wanted it!!! Can the same be said about the EU?
And, this is the problem. Greenspan is entirely correct. Greeks are not Germans who are not French who are not British, who are not Poles who are not ….. and so on. Even within these tiny nations, there are very diverse groups. As a child, I spent a lot of time in Europe. I don’t know if it is the same now as then, but, even then there were different ways to speak German. They had different accents and dialects. An Englishman isn’t the same as a Welshman. Spain has distinct peoples. Italy? Back when, the north and the south may as well have been entirely different countries. The contrast was that stark.
Forcing all of these diverse groups under one governance ensures the lost of liberty and voice of the people. The EU is the most horrendous affront to freedom and democracy and proper representation (democracy and proper representation are not the same) since the advent of the old USSR.
I’ve no doubt Mr. Greenspan is and was an intelligent man. But, like so many problem solvers, they fail to ask the most base questions. The questions are not “how”, the questions are, “should we?” In the case of the EU, the question isn’t how to make it a better functioning union, the question is ‘should there be a union, as such’? I know, they wanted an economic union to compete with the US and other emerging markets. But, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t be a sovereign state with a common economy. But, again, that’s a base question never asked by the right people. The natural end to such ventures is totalitarianism. I can end no other way. There is no common cause in the EU.
These issues are the very reason for the existence of this blog. We speak of very diverse subjects here. But, the goal is for people to come to an understanding of what is necessary for the advancement of the human condition. It is a paradoxal truth that for man to live in peace and harmony with his fellow man, liberties must be ensured to the specific interests of their people. It is only if we have the freedoms to pursue our own interests can a man ever say he is free. The same holds true for the countries of men. If that country has no sovereignty, then that country is not free. To further this concept and to tie it into the many topics we discuss here, I would refer people back to my previous post. Each nation is unique in its economy. The path to prosperity, then, is too, unique. How can an individual be free to choose their pursuit of prosperity if one’s own country is not? It is an impossibility.
There’s more to the article on Greenspan’s interview, but I think this is a good place to end the post.