Who Is To Blame?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: kuszmj @ 12/11/2008 10:21:22 AM

    Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that the concept of free markets is based on six assumptions: a). free,open and equal flow of information b). No barriers to entry or exit of markets players c). no externalities d). participants act from rational self-interest e). participants are price-takers (large numbers of buyers and sellers prevent price-setting) f). no transaction costs. If any free market advocate believes these exist anywhere in the REAL world, then they sholud not criticise people of faith for believing in fantasies. Ayn Rand must have gotten a 'C' at best.

    • Posted By: skysi @ 12/12/2008 1:49:37 AM

      Oh, boy, another batch of nonsense. If you want to know and understand ANYTHING about free market economy read Austrian school economists. That's of course if you are intellectually capable.

  • Posted By: Sarenah @ 12/11/2008 10:23:37 AM

    Agree with PrairiePrankster *thumbs up* Ayn Rand was nothing more than a very mentally ill individual so self-absorbed it is but a wonder that she was able to function at all. Ayn Rand became the epitome of how the definition of extreme narcissism was created. Absolutely one of the more intellectually and emotionally disabled people I have ever read about or had the misfortune of reading her so-called 'works'. Objectivism was nothing more than another vehicle for Ayn Rand to shine the spotlight on herself. Her writings and beliefs are both a philosophical and psychological nightmare filled with circular rhetoric.

    Put plainly: "She sucked!"

    • Posted By: skysi @ 12/12/2008 1:45:03 AM

      If you are giving this opinion after honest reading of her works and studying her biography, then obviously you are a moron. BTW, while being a moron, please give us at least one example of her alleged circular rhetoric.

    • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 12/11/2008 10:28:43 AM

      We read your statist opinion the first time.

  • Posted By: A thought @ 12/12/2008 1:11:42 AM

    Greenspan is so obviously NOT a free-market supporter - anyone can look at his history over the past 20 years and see very clearly that he gave up any support of capitalism a long time ago. By the end of his stiint with the Fed he was about as far from Ayn Rand's thinking on economics as one could get, yet the media and both liberals and conservatives stilll strrive to dishonestly find ways to vilify Rand (this time through Greenspan). This kind of undeserved, open hatred toward the benevolence of Ayn Rand, from peolple who many times have not even read her work, can only be explained by their fear of how correct she actually is.

  • Posted By: bill125 @ 12/12/2008 1:09:34 AM

    "There' is a way that seems right to a man but leads to his destruction." [Bible] Objectivism is a sweet temptation, but it ignores the nature of man and rests on the assumption that a system can be set up free of distractions. It is a Utopian delusion; a satisfying delusion because of its consistency. In the world of Ayn Rand the unpleasant feeling of cognitive dissonance is happily avoided. That's why so many morons embrace it.

  • Posted By: JohnInAustin @ 12/11/2008 11:48:48 PM

    It???s terrifying to learn that any intellectually respected leader actually believes the ridiculously shallow individualism of Ayn Rand. It makes the Bushite ideologues seem like rigorous thinkers.

    Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan???s admiration of Rand???s Objectivist philosophy was apparently widely known to the press and the financial community. That it was not widely publicized and scrutinized is dismaying, even to this old cynic.

    Like Orwell???s 1984, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were reactive parodies of hideous collectivism. Unfortunately, unlike Orwell, Ayn Rand didn???t recognize her one-dimensional characters were parody. She believed her works were serious philosophy.

    Her characters Howard Roark, Hand Rearden and John Gault were idealized lone genius creators. They appealed to me, perhaps appropriately, in my adolescence. But, neither they nor Ayn Rand acknowledged any cultural or historical debt for their achievements.

    To my mind, the logical extension of Rand???s Objectivism is a kind of cultural survivalism. Get the government out of the way, and everything will be owned not by those who create it, but by those with guns.

    • Posted By: pbeaird @ 12/12/2008 12:15:19 AM

      As an MA in Philosophy, I beg to differ. If individualism was ever shallow, it found its depth in Ayn Rand's philosophy, gaining argments in its favor that go to the factual grounding of value, proceeding into a grounding of man's rights in ethics, moving on to the first objective definition of the nature of government and moving to the advocacy of free markets and free minds as corollaries. I'm sorry, if I lost you there. But, you complain about shallowness, so I offer more.
      To correct your silly misimpressions about Objectivism, I invite you to not only find these topics discussed in-depth in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, but more recently you can get it all in about 2 hours in Andrew's new book Objectivism In One Lesson.
      Read, learn, enjly your life!

  • Posted By: pbeaird @ 12/12/2008 12:05:39 AM

    Here's a question for those who want to blame "laissez faire" or Capitalism: In America's heavily-regulated, over-taxed business environment, where do you see any of the economic freedom you want to blame? If you want to criticize Capitalism, at least ask those who advocate it what it is. Why not read the 4 great books on Capitalism: 1. Human Actions by Ludwig von Mises 2. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand 3. Capitalism, A Treatise on Ecopnomics by George Reisman 4. The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein Since individual rights is a defining fundamental of Capitalism, add to your reading list Dr. Tara Smith's Moral Rights and Political Freedom.
    Without doing your homework, you criticize to your own embarrassment.

  • Posted By: EcoZulu @ 12/11/2008 11:36:36 PM

    The Federal Reserve in 1990 distributed instructions to member banks describing the mandatory requirements of four laws which were passed by congress and how they were to be obeyed.
    Space limits prevent detailing the full story, but the details are easily available when one accesses a ???guidance??? document issued by the FED in 1990 which details the proper compliance with, and the content of the laws mentioned above.
    It is easily available on the internet at http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

  • Posted By: ReasonGirl @ 12/11/2008 10:57:45 PM

    It's time to repeal the regulations that keep capitalism from working. The basic premise of business is that it's a risk, which the free market may or may not bear; businesses must be allowed to fail and to be reinvented. There is no crucial business that must be kept from failing by the government. Life-long job security does not exist and the government is trying to secure jobs with other people's money. People must be responsible for their own lives. The government needs to get its hands off. Get out of our way.

  • Posted By: arpjoe @ 12/11/2008 10:36:23 PM

    "securitized mortgage market, which is a government creation through Fannie and Freddie" created a global ponzie scam and the finacial institution managers gobbled it up.

  • Posted By: arpjoe @ 12/11/2008 10:35:21 PM

    "securitized mortgage market, which is a government creation through Fannie and Freddie" created a global ponzie scam and the finacial institution managers gobbled it up.

  • Posted By: jabailo @ 12/11/2008 10:34:13 PM

    For many people, the recession started in 1982 and never went away. That was the beginning of the end for the middle class. They never recovered since then, really. Alan Greenspan aided in crushing of the middle class. He kept a tight money policy which meant that dollars took on more value than human labor. Real estate didn't skyrocket in 2002 -- it started getting out of hand in the 1980s...it's just that many people already owned homes so they thought they were getting rich.

    "Leverage" was due to the fact that a dollar became worth more and more. What we should have done was printed more dollars because our economy was growing exponential. Leverage meant that a single dollar had more value than real goods at times...so those with dollars could buy up and dismember most of industry.

  • Posted By: MERFY @ 12/11/2008 9:58:19 PM

    MUSQUA'S Comment is a good example of the pseudo-intellectual pseudo-thinking that characterizes the far left: pith-poor emotional argumentum ad hominem.

  • Posted By: larsky @ 12/11/2008 7:26:06 PM

    I just can't say it any better, so there.

    The 20th century experimented with every possible variant of socialism. We had democratic socialism in Western Europe, totalitarian socialism in Eastern Europe, and fascist socialism in South America. We had atheistic socialism and we had "liberation theology." We had the "scientific socialism" of the Soviet central planners and the chaotic jungle socialism of the Khmer Rouge, who executed anyone with an education. We had "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and socialism with African characteristics and socialism with Hindu characteristics.

    We tried it all, and every time it led to poverty and oppression.

    Those results have been proven with scientific thoroughness. There is no excuse for trying it all again.

    • Posted By: docroc67 @ 12/11/2008 9:57:26 PM

      "We tried it all, and every time it led to poverty and oppression."

      I don't think the citizens of many western european democracies would agree with you. Nor was it the case in Latin America, where the Sandanistas, for example, led the country away from a US-supported regime of thugs -- until we terrorized the Nicaraguan population into voting the Sandanistas out of power. Nor in Cuba, which was run by the Mafia prior to Castro. Nor many other places.

      Before deciding it was a failure, it would be a good idea to recollect what was there before socialism arrived. In Russia, you have an unbroken history of authoritarianism -- so there socialism was authoritarian, too.

  • Posted By: MERFY @ 12/11/2008 9:53:15 PM

    This is the kind of ihonest ntellectual reading material we should see a lot more of.

    When I came home after a tour in Vietnam, I was shocked by the media's biased "coverage" of that war: It wasn't "tellin' it like it is." CBS and the New York Times were the worst, with NBC and the Washington Post close behind.

    But "the times, they are a-changing." The Internet is making it much easier to access some some other points of view, some of which are slanted to the right, and some of which are OBJECTIVE, as Ayn Rand was.

  • Posted By: voluntaryist @ 12/11/2008 9:50:39 PM

    Thanks Barrettt for giving Dr. Brook a chance to counter all the Capitalist bashing. Ayn Rand was concerned that ignorance of the free market was being reflected by the politician's laws. She wrote a strong defense/explanation: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Unfortunately, the ignorance persists. Next time you hear someone say Capitalism has failed, ask them to define Capitalism. I'll bet they can't.

  • Posted By: awakeyourself @ 12/10/2008 11:45:29 PM

    oh my good god, you absolute FOOLS!
    This disaster is not, per se, the result of the housing bubble. The housing bubble was the result of an unfettered, laissaiz-faire anarchist system, wherein the rich take what they will from the working class. Observe the results, post-Nixon/Ford, post Reagan/Bush, and now Post Bush/Cheney. Each time, the destruction of regulation, the enabling of the rich to get richer, has resulted in increasingly disastrous results for our economy. Put simply, IF IT WORKED, WE'D ALL BE RICH AS WE SPEAK. AND YET WE ARE NOT. And yet we weren't after Bush I. And yet we weren't after Reagan. And yet we weren't after Nixon. Wake up, Fools! Conservatism, and 'trickle down' voodoo economics simply don't work! The 'free market', if you define this as pump and dump billionaires robbing us of more and more money, NEVER WORKS!

    • Posted By: musqua @ 12/11/2008 9:47:22 PM

      It's the free market that created the technology that allows you to reveal your ignorance, and provides the freedom for you to make a nincompoop of yourself in the process.

  • Posted By: crossderek @ 12/11/2008 10:48:41 AM

    Ayn Rand was not an economist and she herself admitted that his books were fiction and should not be taken as a formula for policy. Her greatest contribution in my opinion is that she illustrated the emotions of pride self reliance and painted a world where morals are not dictated from above but from within us... men with confidence and self determination were the saints and heroes and lazy altruistic men full of confusing and meaningless ideas were the devils... Ayn Rand helped united states gain confidence and empower its people not to depend on the flawed thinking of the old continent... it was mainly a psychological contribution rather than a economic one and I think it should be viewed as such... today's Objectivism should stick to psychology and support one of its remaining founders such as Mr. Nathaniel Branden and keep out of economic reasoning to avoid embarrassment and discrediting the true essence of Ayn Rands movement.

    • Posted By: skysi @ 12/11/2008 6:45:10 PM

      if you want an economic theory for it read the Austrian School economists.

      • Posted By: WinstonMartin @ 12/11/2008 9:32:21 PM

        Better yet, and even easier, read George Reisman's "Capitalism: A Treatise of Economics." It is on his Web site as a .pdf file at http://georgereisman.com/Capitalism/CAPITALISM_Internet.pdf. It is more than a thousand pages long and worth every minute you spend with it. And, BTW, see Dr. Reisman's blog for Sunday, Nov. 30, 2008 about the actual communistic policies of Larry Summers at http://georgereisman.com/blog/index.html. Summers, in case you forgot, is the man President-Elect Obama chose to be head of the National Economic Council and his lead economic adviser.

        However, in case you don't get the chance to do this, here is perhaps the most important part, taken from a New York Times article by David Leonhardt, ???The Return of Larry Summers,??? p. B1:

        ???His favorite argument today???goes like this: To undo the rise in income inequality since the late ???70s, every household in the top 1 percent of the distribution, which makes $1.7 million on average, would need to write a check for $800,000. This money could then be pooled and used to send out a $10,000 check to every household in the bottom 80 percent of the distribution, those making less than $120,000. Only then would the country be as economically equal as it was three decades ago.???

        This is not even the worst aspect of this Summer's "argument." Leonhardt continues: "One of the implications of his proposal is that an individual who increased his earnings by just one dollar could be liable for an additional $800,000 in taxes. Based on the most recent available data, which are for 2006, an individual who increased his earnings from $388,806 to $388,807 would thereby be thrust into the top 1 percent of income earners and thus be made subject to the $800,000 of additional taxes urged by Summers. This, of course, would leave such an individual with an after-tax income of minus $411,193. (In addition, of course, all of the ordinary income taxes for which he would be liable at that level of income would also have to be subtracted, throwing him still further into Summers??? Alice-In-Wonderland world of negative after-tax income.)"

        You might notice that such an "argument" can only be carried out at the point of a gun. This, apparently, is what Obamanomics has in store for Americans.


    • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 12/11/2008 10:54:22 AM

      Yeah, we read it the first time. No need to post again.

      • Posted By: miop @ 12/11/2008 11:08:14 AM

        Some things bear repeating

      • Posted By: miop @ 12/11/2008 11:05:09 AM

        Some things bear repeating.

  • Posted By: djr_nw @ 12/11/2008 9:04:38 PM

    1 - Mr. Sheridan, Rand wasn't against government, just something like the 80% of government that falls outside of: National Defense, Courts & Police.
    2 - As Brook says, Greenspan was no free marketeer; that ought to be obvious to anyone. He kept one hand on the interest rate, another on the money supply - how is that "hands off capitalism"?
    3 - I would like to hear Brook's thoughts on the apathy of the public regarding federal, state, county, city debts that are every bit as up-side-down as the mortgages.

    Good / quick read Newsweek!

  • Posted By: larsky @ 12/11/2008 8:28:48 PM

    apologies for the triple comments. Must not have a filter for new initiates such as I. Oh well, so much to do, so little time. Hurry now, let's get this off and running.

  • Posted By: GaltMore29 @ 12/11/2008 8:26:45 PM

    I'm for minimal government. I have read through most of the comments seeing the mixture of arguments from both sides. I think one thing we can all can agree on is no matter how many laws and regulations we have in our country 1 law or regulation or 500 million laws and regulations (the lesser the better in my book), the rule of law must be enforced in our country. Free market Capitalism will work, if we corral corrupt (not greedy, corrupt) individuals and make them pay dearly for their misdeed(s). Our country is moving further and further away from the rule of law every day and we need to turn the corner.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse