Posted by: Daniel | February 28, 2009

Ayn Rand Was Wrong! Greed Killed Our Economy

Read it and weep, Rand-philes. Capitalism failed.

Posted in American politics

«
»

Responses

  1. If a lie is repeated often enough, some people will always believe it to be true. The lie began when Greenspan joined The Fed, pretended to be an advocate of free markets in accordance with Ayn Rand, whilst imposing interventionist policies. Anti-capitalists, and many capitalists, have fallen for and promoted his deception.

    This financial crisis was neither a failure of laissez-faire capitalism nor of Ayn Rand’s ideas, it was a failure of intensive regulation —with Greenspan’s hypocritical contributions. From The American Competitive Enterprise Institute:
    “While the Dow collapses, we have a bull market in government regulations. The 50-plus departments, agencies and commissions are now at work on 3,882 rules; 757 will affect small businesses. More than 51,000 final rules were issued from 1995 to 2007.”

    That’s nearly 54,000 NEW regulations, added to what was there before, in only 12 years!

    That is hardly Rand’s laissez-faire capitalism; that’s massive socialist/fascist government interference! At root, those are the very ideologies Rand spent her lifetime hoping to save Americans and America from. Now, when the effects of those destructive ideologies from Washington hit the fan, everyone is blaming laissez-faire capitalism instead. They are ridiculous, uninformed, or dishonest.

    Greenspan dropped any pretense of understanding Rand’s arguments well before he became head of the Fed., and he then became a major part of the problem. His monetary policy and suppression of interest rates (1%!!), when Rand would have said “let the market decide”, were an appalling government intervention. Add in the HUD, CRA, CDS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sarbanes-Oxley and the recipe for a catastrophically distorted market, including the trading of derivatives, was complete. Those who suggest the cause was deregulation, or lack of regulation enforcement, are not looking at facts.

    Edward Cline wrote, “Reason and rationality flee when force becomes a factor in men’s decisions, to be replaced with the pragmatism of punishment-avoidance or a risk-free shot at easy money.”

    So imagine YOU are the CEO of a large financial organization. Your competitors are complying with the regulations and appear to be making good for their shareholders, while things are getting tight for your firm. What do you do?

    You want to buy a house, and the government directly or indirectly tells your lender they will protect him from default so long as he keeps the mortgage interest low. What do you do?

    You do the pragmatic thing, join in, and trusting in the state’s easy money guarantee. As a CEO, if you are able to understand the fraud in the government’s game, you build yourself some protection for when the government’s house of cards collapses. Most people believe the “government is here to help” (say by regulation), so they don’t protect themselves.

    You would not have dared to engage in the risky lending or buying that lead to the crisis, were it not for the handful of people in the US government who believed they were smarter than the free market and installed legislation to distort it. Without those people, lending rates would have adjusted themselves years ago, paper money would not have been printed like it grew on trees (e.g. “helicopter Bernanke”) and the present crisis would never have materialized.

    Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it let’s a man keep what he produces; it was the American system, though flawed from the start. An historical and geopolitical look at nations shows that those which are more free have citizens who prosper more by their own effort, and live more peacefully. Free markets made America great, from 1776 to the late 1800’s, and then serious regulations began. Even America’s poor were wealthy compared with the middle class of other nations. Ayn Rand was right, and should not be blamed for a protegé’s failures.

    Let’s put an end to the Big Lie: that only more regulation will solve the economic problems caused by regulation.

    By: RnBram on March 1, 2009
    at 12:56 am

  2. Capitalism failed. Obama will now try communism. Maybe we’ll be luckier than the Soviets, eh?

    By: Favela Cranshaw on March 1, 2009
    at 4:43 am

  3. Favela,

    Please. That’s a tired, outdated argument. If that’s all conservatives got, then they will rightly remain out of power for the foreseeable future. That argument just doesn’t reflect reality. Please come back with something more serious. Be able to at least freely admit that capitalism failed in this instance. Are you capable of doing that?

    RnBram, I’ll reply to you a little later today.

    By: Daniel on March 1, 2009
    at 8:33 am

  4. Capitalism is the social system based on recognition of individual rights in which all property is private, there is no taxation, and the government consists of the courts, the police, and the military.

    What America has had for the majority of its history is a movement toward collectivism/socialism/fascism.

    Capitalism isn’t dead, it was never fully born in the first place. If Ayn Rand had her way, there would be no taxation, no Fed, no bailouts, etc, etc.

    By: The Undercurrent on March 1, 2009
    at 2:07 pm

  5. RnBram,

    If a lie is repeated often enough, some people will always believe it to be true.

    The same can be said of followers of Rand. Rand and her followers have done much to give money back to the rich, to corporations. The rules Greenspan supported made sure money flowed easier to the wealthy, under the errant belief that wealth “trickles down.” Sadly, over the past 30 years, the wealth of this nation not only stayed with the top 5%, but INCREASED toward their direction whilst the rest of the country remained flat, or reduced its portion of the economic pie.

    It is amazing how people forget that in the 1950s the super wealthy of this country were taxed at enormous levels. Look at the levels. When the super wealthy are taxed at low levels, bubbles are formed in the economy and the oscillation from high to low increases wildly (for example, the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression). The reason for this is that when most of the money is in the hands of the few, those few get greedy for more, ironically, and they start making costly mistakes that ruin it for everyone else. This is what happened over the last 30 years. The rich had their tax burden lowered. They got wealthier, took more risks, and eventually led to the collapse of our economy.

    Very simply put, don’t trust the nation’s money in the hands of the very few, those so called “elite.” They are no better at managing the money than anyone else.

    To reduce the risk to the health of the overall nation, we need to change how we distribute the money across the economy. Pay people what they are really worth. Capitalism on its own cannot be trusted to actually pay people what they are worth for their labors. Capitalism failed to pay people what they were worth back in the “glorious 1800s” that today’s Rand followers keep harking back to, as if we’ve regressed as a nation from those wonderful years. The silliness, I tell you.

    Capitalism pays a baseball player $20,000,000 for hitting a baseball out of the park. Capitalism pays a high school teacher $45,000 for the education of tomorrow’s contributors to society. Capitalism pays for consumption and cannot handle well the investment costs of productivity. It is an inherent failure of capitalism which capitalists cannot accept.

    That’s nearly 54,000 NEW regulations, added to what was there before, in only 12 years!

    What do you expect from a complex market? Honestly, if you can’t handle the heat, you should get out of the kitchen.

    That is hardly Rand’s laissez-faire capitalism; that’s massive socialist/fascist government interference!

    Fascist? I can understand why you would call it socialist, but fascist? You seriously undermine your argument and yourself by this silliness.

    Those who suggest the cause was deregulation, or lack of regulation enforcement, are not looking at facts.

    Actually they are. There is a very strong correlation that with lax regulation, bubbles form causing such catastrophes.

    Reason and rationality flee when force becomes a factor in men’s decisions,

    And who is Edward Cline that I should care what he says. I posit, instead, that “reason and rationality flee when greed becomes a factor in men’s decision.” Far more than force ever would. Because greed is uncontrollable and unsatiated.

    So imagine YOU are the CEO of a large financial organization. Your competitors are complying with the regulations and appear to be making good for their shareholders, while things are getting tight for your firm. What do you do?

    Huh? If my competitors are complying with the regulations and things are going fine for them, then that means the system works. If I am also complying with the regulations but my corporation ain’t doing so hot, that’s not the cause of the regulations. That’s probably because my corporation failed to market itself appropriately.

    Whether corporations thrive or not doesn’t really have that much to do with the amount of regulations that corporation must comply with.

    You do the pragmatic thing, join in, and trusting in the state’s easy money guarantee

    What “easy money guarantee?” What are you talking about. Regulations don’t guarantee anything, especially security on a corporation’s finances.

    The reason, right now, that the government is intruding so much in the private sector is that the government allowed the private sector to form massive corporations that are “too big to fail.” If the government did its job correctly (that is before Republicans came in and stripped the government of its ability to enforce the rules), then corporations would not get too big to fail, and the government would not need to intervene and protect idiotic corporations like AIG. The fools at AIG screwed up, and badly, and it harmed the whole rest of the country! If AIG was not so big, the government would not need to intervene and protect the rest of the economy.

    I hope we break up these massive corporations to sizes that our economy can afford bad banks and bad businesses to fail. When Lehman Brothers collapsed back in September, it sent the whole market into a collapsing tailspin. Thankfully the government intervened, or the whole thing would have collapsed completely. Lehman Brothers was too big to fail. It never should have been allowed to get that big. It must be small enough to fail without taking down the whole economy.

    This is something capitalism on its own cannot handle. It doesn’t have that capability. It must be forced by a higher power, the power of government, to keep businesses and corporations small enough to fail.

    Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Citibank, Bank of America, UBS, GM, Ford, Chrysler. All these should have been small enough so that they could fail when they were no longer profitable businesses. Under the kind of philosophy espoused by Rand and similar others, such sizing of corporations is acceptable. The bigger they are, the better for the economy, they claim. Let corporations become behemoths. Let them become monopolies. It’s the law of the jungle. If the little guy gets burned, the little guy should have tried to get bigger and burn someone else. This is a highly reckless ideology and must be put to death.

    Capitalism is the only *moral* system because it let’s a man keep what he produce

    What he produces? Please. Capitalism is skewed toward the rich who control the workers that actually produce. It is amoral. It doesn’t actually allow a man to keep what he produces. When the man that actually produced forced management to pay them what they were deserving, that’s when you got a situation where man got a chance to keep a portion of what he produced. Before that, it was solely management that kept what a man produced.

    Free markets made America great, from 1776 to the late 1800’s, and then serious regulations began

    Actually America wasn’t all that great in the 1800s. Ironically, it was when Teddy Roosevelt started breaking up the big boys that things started really getting better for most Americans.

    Even America’s poor were wealthy compared with the middle class of other nations.

    You keep lying to yourself.

    Let’s put an end to the Big Lie: that only more regulation will solve the economic problems caused by regulation.

    It is true that more regulation won’t fix a problem when the current regulation is NOT ENFORCED.

    By: Daniel on March 1, 2009
    at 3:08 pm

  6. The Undercurrent,

    Capitalism isn’t dead, it was never fully born in the first place. If Ayn Rand had her way, there would be no taxation, no Fed, no bailouts, etc, etc.

    Let me tell you, it is a major blessing from God that she didn’t have her way, and that she only tainted a small portion of Americans with her bile.

    By: Daniel on March 1, 2009
    at 3:14 pm

  7. Daniel, your idea that there is such a thing as “a nation’s wealth” begs the question against capitalism. Wealth is produced by individual effort and belongs to those who produce it – not to the nation. The fact that we have treated wealth as belonging to the nation – which means, in effect, to government bureaucrats to seize, irresponsibily manage, and redistribute – is a huge source of the problems we see today.

    And on a less fundamental note, you write, “Capitalism pays a high school teacher $45,000 for the education of tomorrow’s contributors to society.” It’s worth pointing out that there is NOTHING capitalist about our education system, and this is part of the reason for ever-increasing educational costs and ever-plummeting results in terms of producing educated students able to read, interested in the world and in ideas, and able to think for themselves.

    By: KB on March 2, 2009
    at 12:44 am

    • there is at least one thing “capitalist” about our education system – smart people give up teaching so they can make much higher salaries in a corporate environment. I speak from personal experience.

      By: RW on October 23, 2009
      at 8:27 am

  8. KB,

    Wealth is not produced by individual effort, but by group effort. I am surprised that you, as someone who I assume is a supporter of capitalism, do not understand this.

    When Bill Gates first started his company in his garage, did he personally make the computer, or did he have someone else mold the case? Did he have someone else build the monitor and he purchased it from them? He put a computer together from pieces made by other people. This is how companies do things today.

    There is not one single person who himself goes and gets ore from the mountains by himself, melts it, casts it, and forms it into a computer shell, and then by himself gets the silicon and other materials needed for the chip, and every other part needed to get a computer ready to sell. It is a GROUP EFFORT! That a supporter of capitalism doesn’t understand this is a strong sign of the failure of education among conservatives.

    It’s worth pointing out that there is NOTHING capitalist about our education system,

    Indeed. And that is a good thing. Capitalism does not look out for the little guy. Our education is bad enough in our country (look at your lack of understanding even of the system you supposedly believe in), but if we were to allow the pure market to be in charge, then a significant portion of our nation would be uneducated (yes, far worse than the level presented by you). That would be a further drain on the economy and the strength of our nation.

    and this is part of the reason for ever-increasing educational costs and ever-plummeting results

    The plummeting results don’t come from whether or not schools are public or private. They come from parents not being involved in their children’s education.

    in terms of producing educated students able to read, interested in the world and in ideas, and able to think for themselves.

    And how would a free market system ensure that every American child gets the same opportunity for the same education that the rich can provide for their children?

    The “American dream” is that this country is a land of opportunity for one and all. This dream is mere fantasy if the poor who come here or are born poor cannot learn at the same level as those from the world of the rich. Capitalism has no heart. It is, by nature, cold and selfish. It cannot account for those who are born under unfortunate circumstances. This is why Americans (and well, the rest of the world) have not wanted pure unfettered capitalism. It goes against the principles of Christianity.

    By: Daniel on March 2, 2009
    at 6:50 am

  9. I have to agree with you on this one.

    Of course only to a point. I don’t think greed was the main crux of her philosophy as much as subjectivism, which greed is a small part of, but includes moral and otherwise relativism.

    Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

    At least we’re free to be greedy.

    By: truther on March 2, 2009
    at 11:10 am

  10. truther,

    Capitalism is not a form of government. It is an economic system.

    By: Daniel on March 2, 2009
    at 11:49 am

  11. To reduce the risk to the health of the overall nation, we need to change how we distribute the money across the economy. Pay people what they are really worth.

    And who is to decide, if not the market, what people are “really worth”?

    By: Mark N. on March 2, 2009
    at 7:54 pm

  12. Wealth is not produced by individual effort, but by group effort.

    I’m not understanding the point of this statement. I presume that all the pre-made parts that Jobs and Wozniak (I don’t think Bill Gates was building computers in his garage; I think he was busy coding software to run on other people’s computers) used to build their computers were obtained at prices agreeable to both buyers and sellers of those parts.

    How this contributes to your claim that “capitalism failed” I don’t get at all.

    I don’t think capitalism failed; I think the morals of those who were participating in a capitalistic market failed.

    Just as the claim has been made that democracy will only work with a moral people, I’m pretty sure that capitalism has that same basic requirement, too.

    By: Mark N. on March 2, 2009
    at 8:00 pm

  13. Mark,

    And who is to decide, if not the market, what people are “really worth”?

    It should be mutually agreeable (which is what we have right now). Before unions formed, the person that decided what a person was worth was the boss, a man like Rockefeller, or Carnegie. They never took into account what each individual considered he was worth for his efforts. Hence why workers unionized, to force management to realize that the worker gets a say in the decision over what the worth is of their labor.

    I presume that all the pre-made parts that Jobs and Wozniak (I don’t think Bill Gates was building computers in his garage; I think he was busy coding software to run on other people’s computers) used to build their computers were obtained at prices agreeable to both buyers and sellers of those parts.

    Exactly. They themselves didn’t build those parts. Someone else did. The wealth of a computer (in this example) does not belong solely to a Bill Gates, or a Steve Jobs, but to them AND those who build the parts they put together. It is a group effort.

    The reason I say capitalism failed is because capitalism, on its own, is inherently unstable and does not have mechanisms to handle its own gross excesses. Capitalism on its own says it is okay to create businesses that are too big to fail, but capitalism does not have a mechanism that protects the rest of the economy if that “too big to fail” business collapses. Just look at when Lehman Brothers failed, Mark. That is your marker for when the whole economic system would have collapsed completely if not for governmental intervention. In this case, the government (the taxpayer) becomes the insurer of these bad securities. It is a painful thing to have to do. Frankly, these businesses ought to fail for their negligence, but they cannot fail AND bring down the rest of the economy too!

    Just as the claim has been made that democracy will only work with a moral people, I’m pretty sure that capitalism has that same basic requirement, too.

    Do you see the inherent contradiction in that, Mark? Capitalism is at its heart about greed. Greed is AMORAL. How can you have a moral people and capitalism? A moral people can start with capitalism, but they will end up becoming amoral, or immoral because greed will infect them and corrupt them.

    By: Daniel on March 2, 2009
    at 8:58 pm

  14. Capitalism has failed because we’re not looking at capitalism. We’re looking at Oligarchy, where the free market does not exist.

    In order for true capitalism to exist, the free market must exist, and in order for the free market to exist, all costs must be internalized. We haven’t ever seen such a thing.

    Our “global economy” is an extension of colonialism, with our externalities heaped on those who value the most basic needs and think or know little of environmental or health impacts.

    Capitalism therefore, has not failed, but costs have simply caught up the the oligarchy as the economy has globalized. People are informed as to the injustice of dumped externalities and the game has changed. Now the oligarchy cannot compete in the new game.

    We’re actually seeing Capitalism succeed.

    By: truther on March 4, 2009
    at 2:35 pm

  15. So, we do away with capitalism. What do you want to put in its place?

    Do we do away with democracy because everyone’s self-interest is what drives that as well?

    By: Mark N. on March 4, 2009
    at 4:54 pm

  16. We’re actually seeing Capitalism succeed.

    gotta love delusions. down is up. up is down. right is wrong. wrong is right. good is bad. bad is good.

    Mark,

    So, we do away with capitalism. What do you want to put in its place?

    Of course, because the only possible answers are the extreme sides. Please, Mark. Com’on. The answer is that the government should intervene as the “safety net” and then pull back when things get better.

    Do we do away with democracy because everyone’s self-interest is what drives that as well?

    Huh? Lay off the melodramatics, Mark.

    By: Daniel on March 4, 2009
    at 5:06 pm

  17. You’re the guy claiming that greed is what drives capitalism, and then you tell me to lay off the melodramatics?

    Okee-doke. Whatever.

    I just wanted to hear you describe your ideal, pro-Christianity economic system, given that, in your words, “Capitalism failed.” It sounded like you had something far better in mind.

    By: Mark N. on March 5, 2009
    at 9:18 pm

  18. Mark,

    You’re still under the impression and belief that we’re talking about an either/or scenario. If capitalism fails that does not necessarily mean we dump it for something else, particularly when our options are few and rather terrible. I don’t have something better in mind. If I did, do you think I’d be sitting here blogging about it? I’m driving home the point that capitalism, on its own, without government intrusion, fails to produce consistent economic gains for those within that system.

    The question arises, what really is the end goal of an economic system? Is it to make individual wealth? Is it to ensure the general prosperity of the people within that system on a consistent basis? Should it have methods to protect workers during down times?

    When looked at individually, clearly each individual cares more about making sure that he and his family make the most money. But if each person within the system acted selfishly (there’s that selfish thing again, that Ayn Rand selfishness), that comes at a cost to someone else within the system. We tend to think “doing business” is mutually beneficial, but it generally isn’t. The consumption of materials benefits one party at the cost of the other. If our market system made the trade of consumption be less valuable, then that wouldn’t be the case. If we can have our market trade productivity for productivity, then both parties would benefit. I mean, think about it, when someone goes out to buy a television, the person selling the television is the winner in that transaction. The person buying the television is not using that television to produce other items. He is using it to consume. It is a cost, a constant cost. Most of our products today are consumer based. Heck, we call ourselves “consumers” and not “producers.”

    I don’t really know where I’m going with this except to say that the long term future of our nation’s economy does not look very good right now. And most of that blame lies on the shoulders of those who believe in Ayn Rand’s type of philosophy.

    By: Daniel on March 7, 2009
    at 6:21 am

  19. Daniel,

    Blaming our current economic problems on greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity. Think about it. Greed, or self-interest, has been a part of human nature since the dawn of man. Or do you think that greed only surfaces occasionally like during the Great Depression or now? Obviously, greed is always there, but most of the time it’s kept in check.

    Unfortunately, for the last 7-8 years many Federal institutions from HUD/Freddie/Fannie, to Congress, to the President, and the Federal Reserve all stoked the greed that resulted in a big bubble and subsequent bust through a combination of lax lending standards, pressure on lenders to make loans to people that couldn’t afford them, and unsustainably low interest rates. Washington’s meddling and interference is the main cause of our economic troubles.

    By: Jack on March 27, 2009
    at 10:59 pm

  20. Jack,

    Greed has obviously been around for a while, but never has anyone attempted to harness it into a philosophy to run an economy, because, well, that would be stupid.

    Washington’s meddling and interference is the main cause of our economic troubles.

    Indeed, they were infected by the greed found on Wall Street. ;)

    By: Daniel on March 28, 2009
    at 8:17 am

  21. Daniel,

    Before I debate this issue with you, can you tell me how much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy you’ve actually read?

    By: Erskine Fincher on March 29, 2009
    at 12:16 am

  22. Daniel said:

    “Greed has obviously been around for a while, but never has anyone attempted to harness it into a philosophy to run an economy”

    What do you think Capitalism is? Capitalism is based on greed/self-interest. It works so well because it is the system that is best suited to human nature. As the founders believed, man is flawed, imperfect, and most of the time acts in his own self-interest. Fortunately, most of the time, man’s pursuit of happiness/self-interest provides a net benefit. Capitalism, though not perfect, has made America the wealthiest and most prosperous nation in human history.

    By: Jack on March 29, 2009
    at 9:05 am

  23. Daniel,

    You say that Washington was “infected by the greed found on Wall Street.” You’ve also said earlier that it is Washington’s job to “run the economy.” Well, if Washington is running the economy, then aren’t they responsible for it when things go bad?

    The Federal Reserve(Government institution) was created, in fact, to maintain stability in the economy. How have they been doing with that lately? The Fed is supposed to remove the punch bowl(raise interest rates) when the party starts heating up. Instead, they maintained unsustainably low interest rates, fueling the housing boom and subsequent bust.

    Low interest rates encourage borrowing, which is what got us into this mess. Are you more likely to borrow to buy a new house or car, perhaps even one that you can’t afford, when interest rates are around 15%, or when they’re around 5%, like they’ve been for the last 6-8 years?

    Remember, as you’ve already agreed, greed is always there. Business men and consumers are always trying to get as much as they can. What’s changed in recent years has been Washington policy that enabled and encouraged the party.

    By: Jack on March 29, 2009
    at 9:29 am

  24. Capitalism…heh, a term coined (pun intended) by Karl Marx. So ironic. Just remember, the Founders of this nation (and their economic compatriots in Western Europe) didn’t call it capitalism. :)

    The Federal Reserve(Government institution) was created, in fact, to maintain stability in the economy. How have they been doing with that lately?

    Are you kidding me? Have you seen the numbers comparing life now with the same incident before the Great Depression? We’re never going to reach those levels of disparity BECAUSE the government intervened (unlike back in the 30s under Hoover).

    The Fed is supposed to remove the punch bowl(raise interest rates) when the party starts heating up. Instead, they maintained unsustainably low interest rates, fueling the housing boom and subsequent bust.

    Thanks to a man who loves Rand.

    What’s changed in recent years has been Washington policy that enabled and encouraged the party.

    What has changed is that in the last 30 years, Rand’s philosophy infected most on Wall Street and Washington, and they let greed run their lives, thinking profits would always go up.

    By: Daniel on March 29, 2009
    at 11:30 am

  25. read atlas shrugged. then read it again. and again. understand it.

    then come back here.

    By: doctorz on May 7, 2009
    at 9:59 pm

  26. nah, I don’t need a lobotomy.

    By: Daniel on May 8, 2009
    at 7:49 am

  27. what’s so bad about atlas shrugged specifically not any of that stuff about lobotomy just specifically.

    By: doctorz on May 13, 2009
    at 12:09 am

  28. doctorz,

    what’s so bad about it? I’ll tell you. There is nothing significantly new in Atlas Shrugged, in terms of philosophy, that Ayn Rand brings to the table except for selfishness. Everything else is not new, except for the principle of economic selfishness. That’s just plain bad for your body.

    By: Daniel on May 13, 2009
    at 4:24 am

  29. The principle of “economic selfishness” is contained within the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, whatever problem Daniel has with Atlas Shrugged, he must also have with the Declaration of Independence.

    The difference between Ayn Rand and the authors of the Declaration is that the latter take those rights as self-evident, while Ayn Rand gave them a philosophical justification.

    Any opinion Daniel expresses on the validity of that justification is without value, since he won’t take the time to actually read anything she wrote.

    By: Ardsgaine on May 13, 2009
    at 9:03 am

  30. Regarding what caused the crisis, btw…

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208327133908471.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

    Mr. Geithner: “But I would say there were three types of broad errors of policy
    and policy both here and around the world. One was that monetary policy around
    the world was too loose too long. And that created this just huge boom in asset
    prices, money chasing risk. People trying to get a higher return. That was just
    overwhelmingly powerful.”

    It was a classic government-created boom/bust cycle.

    By: Ardsgaine on May 13, 2009
    at 9:15 am

  31. Ardsgain,

    no, the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is evidence of SELF RELIANCE, not selfishness. Big huge massive difference. One Rand could never grasp.

    By: Daniel on May 13, 2009
    at 11:56 am

  32. Daniel,

    Or perhaps it is you who are not grasping anything by standing still. Rand simply — or perhaps not so simply — explained the principles that the Declaration laid out. Where do you get the idea that self reliance is any different from selfishness? What do you have against capitalism? Economic selfishness is much better than economic selflessness — having to do with your body and Rand’s works being bad for it…. Tell me, are you a Democrat?

    Ardsgaine,

    I understand and agree with what you say. Too bad the “Karl Marx”s and the “James Taggart”s of the world are making a brilliant comeback in the U.S. government.

    By: doctorz on May 25, 2009
    at 3:57 pm

  33. I don’t remember capitalism failing. I remember a government founded on the basis of free enterprise, which politely intervened every step of the way (health care, for starters).

    I will not read your comments, your entry was sufficient enough.

    By: ratracechoir on August 26, 2009
    at 1:42 am

  34. I love how this Daniel fellow has zero understanding of Rand and refuses to even consider the notion that he could be wrong. He’s like a blind partisan attacker, but he’s not blind; he just refuses to see. Not ignorant, but refuses to know.

    By: Kiki on November 3, 2009
    at 11:35 pm

  35. ah, attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical right winger.

    By: Daniel on November 4, 2009
    at 7:55 am

    • Oh, but I am attacking the message; you just don’t realize what the message is. Your message is sunken in a deep misunderstanding of Rand, so I am attacking this nature of your message.

      By: Kiki on November 5, 2009
      at 7:22 pm

      • oh but you are not. You are attacking the messenger. If you were attacking the message, you would provide evidence, back it up, and conclude with your point. But you don’t. You’re a silly conservative.

        By: Daniel on November 6, 2009
        at 7:54 am


Categories