"In an article published in 1963 as part of Ayn Rand's book
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan declared that 'protection of the consumer against
dishonest and unscrupulous business is the cardinal ingredient of
welfare-statism."

     "Greenspan intervened directly with the principal regulator
of Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings in an attempt to gain
special exemptions from regulations for the institution.
     "Risky investments ultimately brought Lincoln Savings down,
sent Keating to jail, and cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion.
     "And Greenspan became chair of the Federal Reserve."



     Ralph Nader:
     <column>  IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

     San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 17, 2000

     Last year Congress made Federal Reserve Board chair Alan
Greenspan a virtual regulatory czar over financial services
corporations. Considering the waves of adulation that have been
sweeping over Greenspan, the anointment was not a surprise.
     It would be reasonable to assume that before placing this
important regulatory power under the Federal Reserve, Congress
undertook a careful review of Greenspan's regulatory philosophy
and record. You can toss that assumption in the nearest trash
can.
     Congress knows little and cares less about how Greenspan
views the government's role in protecting the public interest and
the public purse. The same is true for the three presidents --
Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and William Clinton  --  who have
appointed and reappointed Greenspan to four terms as chair of the
Federal Reserve.
     A casual observer of Senate confirmation hearings would be
led to believe that financial regulation has nothing to do with
the job of Federal Reserve chair. The issue never comes up. It is
the rarest of occurrences when a congressional oversight hearing
places a Federal Reserve official in the dock over financial
regulatory shortcomings.
     Yet Congress, with only half-hearted opposition from the
Clinton administration's Treasury Department, handed Greenspan
and the Federal Reserve the regulatory plums when it authorized
the merger of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies
under common ownership in giant conglomerates. The safety and
soundness of the nation's financial system will rest heavily on
how vigorously the Federal Reserve carries out its
responsibility.
     For longtime watchers of Greenspan the move was incongruous,
if not outright risky.  As a disciple of Ayn Rand, later as an
economic guru for the Republican Party, and still later as a
lobbyist for financial corporations, Greenspan has disagreed with
regulation as a tool to protect consumers and the well-being of a
free enterprise economy.  Greenspan has argued that the
self-interest of the corporations --the desire of corporations to
protect their reputation-- was all that was necessary for
consumer protection.
     In an article published in 1963 as part of Ayn Rand's book
"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," Greenspan declared that
protection of the consumer against "dishonest and unscrupulous
business was the cardinal ingredient of welfare statism."
     "Regulation which is based on force and fear undermines the
moral base of business dealings," he wrote. "Protection of the
consumer by regulation ... is illusory."
     Some may well argue that these diatribes against regulation
were part of a passing phase in Greenspan's career.  Perhaps --
but this philosophy was alive and well when Greenspan, as a
consultant-lobbyist, badgered federal regulators. In one case,
Greenspan intervened directly with the principal regulator of
Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings in an attempt to gain special
exemptions from regulations for the institution. Risky
investments ultimately brought Lincoln Savings down, sent Keating
to jail, and cost the taxpayers $2.5 billion.  Greenspan became
chair of the Federal Reserve.
     Greenspan's antiregulation philosophy continues to crop up
at the Federal Reserve. Not only has the General Accounting
Office raised questions about the efficacy of the Federal
Reserve's regulation of bank holding companies, but Greenspan has
erected roadblocks to the collection of data important to
consumer protection and fair lending as well.
     In 1996 Greenspan was urged to help in the enforcement of
fair lending laws by collecting data on the race and gender of
applicants for small business and consumer loans. Despite pleas
from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Department, Greenspan and his
fellow governors blocked the proposal.
     This year Greenspan decided to end the collection of
nationwide data on bank fees. The survey, which was authorized as
part of the financial reforms adopted in 1989, has proven an
excellent tool that consumer groups have used to highlight and
battle the excessive fees that banks impose on consumers.
     Similarly, the Federal Reserve is dropping its "Functional
Cost Analysis" study, which has provided important data on how
much it costs banks to provide services. This has been a great
tool for measuring the validity of bank charges. Credit unions,
particularly, have made good use of this data to dramatize fee
and interest rate gouging by banks.
     But if we believe the words of Greenspan during his Ayn Rand
period, he probably doesn't see any need for such data, much less
regulation.
     And if anyone complains about the loss of such consumer and
fair-lending information, Greenspan could send them this excerpt
from his writings with Ayn Rand: "Government regulation is not an
alternative means of protecting the consumer. It does not build
quality into goods, or accuracy into information.  Its sole
contribution is to substitute force and fear for incentive as the
'protector' of the consumer.  The euphemisms of government press
releases to the contrary notwithstanding, the basis of regulation
is armed force.  At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work
which characterizes all regulation lies a gun."
     And this is the Alan Greenspan who Congress believes should
protect the public interest in the regulation of the new
financial conglomerates?


Reply via email to