On Monday, Alan Greenspan died at age 100. The former Federal Reserve Chair spent eighteen and a half years at the helm of the central bank from 1987 to 2006—a total of five terms under four presidents.

As with any death of a prominent figure, the news led many to reflect on Greenspan's legacy and, in this case, debate how he stacks up with other Federal Reserve chairs. And, although there was plenty of respect for Greenspan as a person from more establishment-friendly sources, broadly, the consensus on his performance as Fed Chair ran from mixed to negative.

Even the tributes and obituaries that leaned the most into the narrative that Greenspan was the so-called "Maestro"—or the brilliant, steady, data-driven, almost priestly public servant who helped engineer a long period of durable growth and low inflation—admitted that the collapse of the housing bubble and "Great Recession" that kicked off shortly after Greenspan left the Fed greatly tarnished his image.

The critics who understand that Greenspan did not merely miss the signs of that impending economic catastrophe but actively created and fueled it were much more scathing in their judgments of his time at the Fed.

However, this entire discussion is flawed. Because it rests on the false assumption that the Federal Reserve and all its intellectual backers in the political class can be taken at their word: that the Fed is an institution that is genuinely capable of and interested in bringing about a stable, growing economy, and, therefore, that a good Fed Chair is someone who simply manages the economy well. That is all a lie.