Who Is To Blame?

Saying that the current crisis is the result of too much regulation is like saying that crime exists because we have too many police officers. Give me a break.

Apparently, the only plan Dr. Brook has is to try and use this fiasco as a marketing opportunity. If this interview is any indication, his broad generalizations are going to need to be sharpened considerably if his arguments are going to have any traction at all. I am all about capitalism, but I am not buying his line of nonsense one bit.

I was an objectivist for about 3 months when I was 18, but then G.W was running against Gore, and in G.W???s speeches and debates I heard many objectivist ideals and initially supported him, but as the election continued, something in me changed. I couldn't believe Bush. I just knew that something was wrong with him and I just got a bad feeling about him, and then one day I realized why. A truly Objective society is an ideal, but ideal societies depend on ideal people. And in my experience most people are greedy, mean and self destructive and I fairly include myself in that category depending on the situation. With that in mind I believe the only society that can work well is a somewhat loosely regulated society. We need the freedom to grow and prosper, but we need a smacking when we get out of line. And maybe one day a truly objective society will work. But I also see that it can work the other way too. A truly communist society is also an ideal, but just as unlikely.

Objectivists aren't taking responcibility for their ideas?

That is an absurd package-deal. We're not dodging or evading. We're offering a clear, concise explanation, and if anything it's socialists who throughout history of evaded the obvious evidence that their economic system has never created affluence.

The "cult" smear is just a way to evade the arguements Objectivism offers. Newsweek, Mr. Brook, PLEASE keep creating great content like this.

Most of the arguements against Ayn Rand on this thread show a complete lack of insight into her arguements, if the comment is even comprehendible. It all shows a delirious fear that Objectivism uproots everything our culture banks on. The fact that the smearers of Objectivism call it distant from reality is nothing short of fraud against reason.

When I read ATLAS SHRUGGED almost 50 years ago, I took it as merely an allegory. After all, how realistic was it to have society's most talented quit their work because government took all the fruits of their labors?

Forty years later, I took out a pencil and calculated that for every dollar more I made, government (federal,state, social security, estate taxes) would get 75 cents and my kids would eventually get 25 cents.

I quit my middle-class job in 2000. It seemed silly to work anymore.

ATLAS SHRUGGED came true.

The characteristics of Ann Rand???s hero???s include getting out at the top of the market because of their virtuous souls and impeccable timing. If one reads the lines and the meaning in-between one soon notices very few ???good people ???inhabit her world???.

Has anyone noticed that there is no competition in her mystical land of unfettered mercantilism? No it seems that no one sufficiently appreciated the priceless goodness that the heroes proffered at non negotiable prices; so they always end up taking back their marbles and moving to Shangri La. Sounds like the true patriots that have stashed their goodies in un-numbered accounts in Switzerland.

Capitalism is not a free market economy, Capitalism requires that money borrowed must be repaid, money and assets invested be protected from fraud and artifice. Capitalism requires Civilization to function, free markets economies do not, barter and negotiation are necessary for each and every transaction. Protection and security is not collective but up to each individual entity. Marco Polo lived that life on his journey to China and contact with the most advanced civilization in history extant convinced him its virtues warranted a long and careful examination.

Ann Rand seeks the world of Gauguin but with the riches and privileges of King Midas,
Alas another urban legend meets reality.

Whether you agree with Rand or not, any honest person absolutely must admit that we have not even remotely been close to full capitalism or low regulation. That's the absurd aspect to this crisis: saying that lack of government involvement caused this. The government set interest rates so low they drove investment houses into mortgages. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (government inventions# bought up mortgages, freeing up money for even more mortgages. Home ownership used to be 60% - it rose to 70% during the bubble #which inevitably burst#. Throw in the impact of Growth Management Acts #government again) artificially inflating home prices, the mortgage interest deduction on taxes...it goes on and on. If you incent certain behavior, you'll get it. You can agree or disagree with the merits of capitalism, but you can't blame this on capitalism - this was government.

90014,

The difference between "self-regulation" and "government regulation" is colossal. Self-regulation (Which, I assume by which you mean self-control, self-discipline) is something that a person does for himself. If he fails to do that, he only hurts himself. Government regulation is forced upon everyone -- if someone doesn't want it, they have a gun pointed to their head and told "do it or else." When government regulation fails, as it has here in in this crises, everyone hurts.

And by the way, the "point" of civilization is not to be a great crowd of mouths, each balling for more handouts from the all powerful government -- the point is to have many individuals, who each _voluntarily_ produce and trade among each other, together creating a far better place to live than any one single man could do alone.

90014,

The difference between "self-regulation" and "government regulation" is colossal. Self-regulation (Which, I assume by which you mean self-control, self-discipline) is something that a person does for himself. If he fails to do that, he only hurts himself. Government regulation is forced upon everyone -- if someone doesn't want it, they have a gun pointed to their head and told "do it or else." When government regulation fails, as it has here in in this crises, everyone hurts.

And by the way, the "point" of civilization is not to be a great crowd of mouths, each balling for more handouts from the all powerful government -- the point is to have many individuals, who each _voluntarily_ produce and trade among each other, together creating a far better place to live than any one single man could do alone.

Thank you Newsweek for publishing such a reasonable and clear voice. I can only hope that at least a few people took the time to read and understand his words and will join us in fighting for the freedom and prosperity that is possible.

To the author of the statement, "One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment and anti-regulation views ..."
Please examine Ayn Rand's philosophy more carefully. I recommend her articles "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" in the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", as these articles present Ayn Rand's view of what kind of government is proper. Rand's philosophy is against government control of the economy, but is certainly not anti-government. Rand made it very clear that government is necessary in order to protect individual rights (one's right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness), and that such protection is government's only proper function.
Greenspan has no "hands off" ideology. No, his approach to the economy did not originate with Ayn Rand. He has spent many years as chairman of the Federal Reserve, manipulating the economy, exactly as Ayn Rand advocated against. "Hands off" would be Laissez-Faire -- government's hands off the economy, period. Greenspan's recommendations and actions as Federal Reserve chairman bear no resemblance to "hands off". Ayn Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism, and at one time Greenspan attended her discussion group, but that was a very long time ago. Greenspan rejected, decades ago, any "hands off ideology" he may have had. But instead of acknowledging this, Greenspan has blamed the "free market" for the economic wreck that statism has caused. Yet it has been over 100 years since America has had a free market.
You have tried to represent, in essence, that "Alan Greenspan = Ayn Rand". This is not the case -- which will be obvious to those who read Ayn Rand's books for themselves.

Deregulation is a dilution. The entire point of Civilization is to regulate for the (shared) fruits of being regulated. So stop making fools of yourselves by talking about a 'no regulation' free-market.

Ayn Rand's 'heroes' were the epitome of regulation! Self regulation! Without 'self regulation' a deregulated market or society is absurd. And very, very few people can claim to be so perfectly self regulating. As Republicans have shown for 28 years.

'Foundation' and 'Atlas Shrugged' do show a less regulated land but because so few can handle it she to destroyed the world in one. Who is John Gault? A very rare bred indeed.

"Eve put down that apple and give a bite to me..." Adam SMITH wrote "Wealth of Nations."

Eatern economies are doing well because they've spent the 20th century switching to markets while the west has spent it switching to socialism and regulation. Hence, parts of the east such as North Korea are not doing well.

As for greed to blame, well, no. Greed was not to blame anymore than ambition was to blame. Yes the businesses that acted badly were motivated for money, but the motivation to accumulate wealth is the motive power for everything good in any economy as well. The problem is that they did so without responcibility for the risks (because of bailouts) and with false incentives created by the influx of capital from the Federal Reserve. Both of which could only be done by the government acting in the name of altruism.

Ad hominen attacks reveal your own absurdity, not your victim's, tc.

China has no meaningful regulation? That's absurd. It's totalitarian.

IT's fantastic to see the objective truth about the economic situation getting to the mainstream media. I hope this is indicative of a wider trend and that in these troubling times more people will be compelled to listen to Ayn Rand's rational explanation of the world.

A few comments down: Because Objectivism, unlike you, does not see the world as dog-eat-dog and believes that humans are an asset to eachother's self-interest, there is no such conflict or unfairness as you see it. To the contrary, it is the vested interests of the establishment most antagonistic to Objectivist ideas, because independence (mentally, inethics and in economics) does not allow the status quo to remain unnecessarily. What would you rather have instead of financial (i.e. voluntary, value-based) influence? The influence of force via the government? And yes, Objectivism is a belief system? How does that make it non-objective? Ideas are not unobjective by the mere fact of being believed; what an obvious contradiction. Don't attack Objectivism for having an uncynical worldview.

Brook presents the economic defense of capitalism here fantastically. Keep up the good work.

What is to blame for the sorry state of Western economies, which will be in relative decline for some time to come, is the unbridled individualism that has totally stunted the accumulation of 'social' and 'spiritual' capital. By contrast, eastern economies have continued to nurture the 'communitarian' spirit, with its emphasis on 'social' nd 'spiritual' capital as indispensable complements for land, labour/human capital, physical/financial capital, and entrepreneurship.

The huge transfer of wealth and power to the east can be fully explained simply by focusing on these dynamics.

Thatdoes not mean that the West is in terminal decline. The need to cultivate the accumulation of 'social' nd 'spiritual' capital is being activelypromoted by researchers at the Santa Fe institute and other think tanks. Once the movement gains ground, the West wil recoup its lost ground.

You shouldn't interview people this goofy without verifying that they are wearing their tin foil hats.