Who Is To Blame?

To Horrible bastard: You make my point perfectly! Thank you!

The radical principles set forth in Ayn Rand's work, while still not "mainstream," are gradually becomming more widespread and accepted. A current example of a business run explicitly on those principles is the BB&T bank which avoided falling into the traps which have ensnared other financial institutions in the current debacle by issuing loans based on the credit worthiness of the borrower and eschewing the temptation to issue easy mortgages simply because they could be resold to Fannie and Freddie. The CEO, John Allison, who retires this month, developed the corporate philosphy of the bank explicitly on Objectivist principles and has used those to guide the extraordinary growth of that bank for the last 20 years.

I don' wanna come down, take me higher...

I hope that this inspires us all to hang on in there:

http://www.myspace.com/wwwmyspacecomaftersunrise

Dayo

I entirely support Mr Brooks! As he said "Regulations don't prevent crisis, they cause them." and "...There was no free market to fail. What we have is a regulated market, and the regulated market has failed."
People need to recognize these facts as soon as possible in order to prevent economic disasters created by sociliastic mindset. We cannot fix this economic crisis with the same thinking that created it in the first place. It's time for an ideological change.

Thank you , Dr. Brook, for some long-needed perspective on current economic events. I've been amazed at the extent to which our elected representatives seem to think they can restore the status quo simply by throwing unbelievable sums of money at it (to be financed by inflating the money supply). It's as if our representatives have never learned some very basic realities of human existence:

1. Before there can be prosperity, there must be production.
2. Before there can be production, there must be productiveness (people producing).
3. Before there can be productiveness, there must be rationality (intelligent productiveness), along with freedom of economic action and protection of individual rights (including property rights).

To judge the health of an economy, don't worry about "consumer spending" or "consumer confidence." Look at what *investors* are doing; look for *investor* confidence. Look at the judgments *investors* are making about what products consumers might want in the future and be able to pay for, regardless of whether or not consumers know it now. How *can* consumers know, until they can see the products for themselves and judge their own ability to afford them? We're talking about products that no one except farsighted investors may have conceived of. Prosperity has to begin most fundamentally with projections of future potential by those in a position to make long-range investments intelligently, creating jobs for suitably skilled workers in the process.

Governments may try to tell investors that they have a "duty to serve" and have no right to exist except insofar as they fulfill that alleged "duty." But whenever that kind of policy is put into force, it's only effect is to drive investors away, often making it impossible for investors to function even if they tried. Government officials in a state of immediate panic cannot begin to do what investors do to drive and lift an economy, nor to motivate investors in the way that the vision of an attractive product affordably manufactured and priced does.

"One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment..."

Ayn Rand's philosophy is NOT anti-government. The government is a necessity, but it has only three simple functions:

1. The Military to protect the U.S. from foreign threats.
2. The Police to protect us from criminals
3. The Courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

This last is important in that today's laws are NOT objective, and this is the problem.

"One such group is the Ayn Rand Institute, named after the matriarch of the movement, whose antigovernment..."

Ayn Rand's philosophy is NOT anti-government. The government is a necessity, but it has only three simple functions:

1. The Military to protect the U.S. from foreign threats.
2. The Police to protect us from criminals
3. The Courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

This last is important in the today's laws are NOT objective, and this is the problem.

Americans!!!! Don't let that the socialism idea attak your people mind. I'm live in Argentina. I'm know what that mean. Belive me. Almost 100 years of disasters shown that nobody can rules all sides of your life. They start to control your life with somthing simple and you don't feel a big change so let them and then, other and other rules and regulations happens and suddenly, one day, you fall in their trap. The Jail that they built for you with all kind of regulation have no key and all of you will be prisioners for generations and generations of they needs, of they illuminated thoughts -of course for your welfare-. Don't belive in them; I did, most of us did and read the papers about us, read our history. Came to Argentina for a few days and you would see your future if you "change" your fundamentals. Wake up. Read again Ayn Rand philosophy, she felt in you own life what can communism do with produtive and honest people. She, like us, knows very well what talking about. The human nature is complicated but let the law do their job. That's all. Don't rescue, with your money the pour people of Latin America or other "pours countries". We don't deserve your kindness, we're recurrents thieves. We don't produce enough as we pretend . Defend your life style because it is your flag of victory.
Laura Bermudez- Argentina

We love to make very simple things complicated and nuanced. People can not on the whole be trusted to do what is best for all. Therefore, rules are needed. The rules need to be simple, clear, make sense, and be modified to fit changing times. We have moved to rules that no one can understand and that is the same as no rules. If we had a rule that you must pay at least 20% of ANY outstanding loan (includes credit card purchases, loans between businesses, and house loans) up front, and that no interest could ever be more than 10% above prime rate, would we be in this mess? The more money that is involved, the more simple and accountable things need to be. We strive to do the opposite, and it is not because that is good for everyone - it is so that a few people can get very, very rich at the expense of all the suckers that they take from.

I fully agree with Dr.Brooks' analylis.
First, there is no free market (in the US or globally). True capitalism does not exist. Regulation is the death of enterpreneurship and meritocracy. Only "big business" benefits, the majority loses.
Alan Greenspan should have known better...but he didn't.
Bail outs are wrong. It is a slippery-slope - where do you stop?
If there is no accountability, if people (and businesses) do not suffer the consequences of their actions or bad judgements, then there is no free will, no property, no individual sovereignty. It is not they way man can exist.

OK, forgive me, this is out of order. It???s late at night here and I didn???t think I???d be posting again but I thought I???d make a quick reply. Busy full day at work and no time till now???yes I know, the impression one gets from many followers of Rand is that if you don???t fully believe in her black/white way of thinking, then you obviously must be mooching off of some modern day Herculean incarnation of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden, and can???t possibly offer productive work. But to respond to skysi: where do you get this impression of me being a cornered rat? Quite an inference you???ve made. Don???t know what time zone you???re in but I dashed off my post at lunch while at work???thus it???s brevity???and saw no need to go into a lengthy exposition. Yeah I???ve read some of her non-fiction. As much as I could stomach before putting it down thinking ???People over the age of 13 actually believe this stuff???? So your brash attempt at turning my comment against me (??????.more learned than???..???) suggests to me that maybe you don???t really know what the words specious, recidivist and scientism actually mean. But I imagine you???re a smart guy I???m sure and have googled them by now. And for Blonde Mike???I really didn???t expect to have to point this out-- but the deal with ???objectionablism??? (yeah my own little neologism, as opposed to a mis-spelling) was that it is an attempt at a droll but intentional slur at a school of thinking I strongly disagree with and find to be fundamentally flawed, all in the name of fun but sharply pointed on-line snarkery. If you can???t handle that, well, what are you doing on-line? Yes, it???s Objectivism+objectionable=Objectionablism. Some may find it more or less droll than others. Just saying.
Seriously though???...thanks for the responses. Although I do, utterly, unequivocally and completely disagree with you in a way that cannot be overstated. But I have to say that these Ayn Rand comments threads are VERY entertaining. And fairly hilarious. Thanks to all. Great writing. Seriously. That???s all I got time for. As Ian Shoales sez, ???I gotta go.???