Uncontrolled Markets Always Outperform Even the Best Governments

A nod to UberKuh for bringing this article to my attention.

A fine argument for Market Anarchy if I ever saw one, Richard Salsman wrote this article entitled Alan Greenspan's Record as FED Chairman: Better Than Predecessors, Not As Good as Gold:

[Speaking of Alan Greenspan] His performance pales in comparison to that delivered in the 18½ years before that (August 1950 to February 1969), when we had Fed officials who today no one can remember by name – because they operated not according to power-lusting whim but under an objective monetary standard: the gold standard.

Ask any economist: “Do you have more respect for Greenspan or the gold standard?” They’d answer: “Greenspan, of course.” Then they’d deride gold as a “barbarous relic,” echoing their other big hero – John Maynard Keynes. A U.S. Senator recently called Greenspan “the greatest central banker who ever lived.” In truth that appellation belongs to the gold standard – precisely because it tied the hands of central bankers.

Even the best public official cannot outperform an objective market standard that is only "directed" by natural market forces. When control over markets is given up, when the markets are free, the markets perform the best.

Market Anarchy is totally superior to anything that any government can provide (or should I say "control"?).