I'm sure you don't mean that literally, according to Why People Believe Weird Things she is supposed to have run something that was rather close to a personality cult:
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscie...
NB This is not an ad hominem attack on her ideas, just an observation that according to some accounts she was a rather odd individual.
But again, limitations on bank capital ownership would be an anti-Randian regulation. And the analysis hasn't occurred to prominent Randian Alan Greenspan.
No, I'm not a Rand cultist. She's important for her notice of the distortion of values and language by self-interest posing as selflessness. But it's a mistake to justify outright selfishness on the basis of those dangers.
I did notice it was downvoted! Because it suggested a limit to the efficacy of regulation? Are there similar knee-jerk downvotes to progressive opinions?
EDIT: Downvote HERE! For mentioning downvoting?
When I'm downvoted for politics, that ain't the rules, not as I understand them. And I'm gonna break'em to let people know it's happening.
If not's politics, tell me why so I can stop whatever it is I'm doing wrong. But it _always_ happens on comments expressing right-wing opinions.
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.
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.
I'm also a fan of Matt Taibbi but recognize that his hyperbole tends to distract from the message (he tends to channel the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson). Despite this, he's one of the few journalists out there who is actively taking on the greed-heads who are looting the US economy.
Yes, probably.
Don't complain about downvoting.
No, it doesn't matter how justified your complaint is. (And, absent any proof that you can read minds, you don't know why folks are downvoting.)
I suspect if you subject a random group of people to intense scrutiny, attention and deep info dives you'd find the majority of them qualify as 'odd'.