|
|
I ordered Atlas shrugged a few days ago.... that's creepy. I only ordered it because I've always wanted to read it though, I didn't know there was new hype about it.
|
Reading the title just reminded me of the chicken lover episode of South Park. Never read the book, but if officer Barbrady didn't approve, neither do I.
|
Problem is that banks never thought about the risk of bad loans for others or the system as a whole. A market never takes in considerations any externalities actually. So a bank may say: "Hey if this loan doesn't get payed back that's so and so probable and so and so bad. So that is my risk." But then those loans also affect other banks and institutions. So then when all these loans suddenly turned out to be worthless the system as a whole almost had a meltdown.
And the funny thing is that Adam Smith was already aware of all of this and was critical about this aspect of markets The pollution of a car is not accounted for by the price of the car. The market totally ignores all this stuff. But the car does generate costs for society. And that's all very bad.
Adam Smith, the prophet of free markets, would roll over in his grave because of all the deregulation.
|
Rand's objectivism is about a little bit more than regulation of the financial sector.
I don't know how that article can make such wild assumptions about the motivation of Rand's readers.
|
I don't know if you are talking about me but that book is just a novel.
|
On April 19 2009 21:36 warding wrote: Rand's objectivism is about a little bit more than regulation of the financial sector.
I don't know how that article can make such wild assumptions about the motivation of Rand's readers.
warding, what do you mean?
|
On April 19 2009 21:45 Diomedes wrote: I don't know if you are talking about me but that book is just a novel.
huh?
|
Given the way you worded your original post, I doubt you and I see eye to eye, but here is my opinion response to your question.
I consider myself to be pretty Libertarian in leaning, so when you say that Greenspan was a god for the free market, it turns my stomach a little. He IS government regulation in my view. He controls the circulation of money, and created the excessive liquidity that led to the housing bubble. So I see the housing bubble as a government created crisis which we are now trying to solve with additional government programs and incentives, which are actually just deepening the problem.
I think you are seeing the rise in Ayn Rand's book because the Republican party is out of power. They are kinda jumping on the bandwagon with some Libertarian ideas, such as tea parties, without knowing what the real purpose of them is. (It's not to hate on Obama) Ayn Rand paints a picture where government is running way too much, and people who want to oppose the current administration get motivated by it.
Anyway, not looking to get into a debate about why you have your views and I have mine, but I hope this provides some insight into what you were asking of "the other side".
|
Sorech02 --
thanks for the response. In fact, your response made a lot of sense to me. Have you ever read Atlas? I am thinking about doing it...but wtf...1100 pages?
|
There are barely any properly functioning markets in the west. You just have to turn on the TV to learn about that.
So even if one believes in free markets, no one really wants to allow it.
Atlas Shrugged was a novel. Not a paper or thesis on economics or philosophy. And the ideological views that are expressed aren't taken seriously at all in the academic circles. Both by natural opponents and natural allies. And her motivations to push her ideological views and the way in which she did make it a very silly novel. It got totally slammed by literary critics. It's amazing that there are people out there that think it deserved both the Nobel prize of literature and economics.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On April 19 2009 22:23 Diomedes wrote: There are barely any properly functioning markets in the west. You just have to turn on the TV to learn about that.
So even if one believes in free markets, no one really wants to allow it.
Atlas Shrugged was a novel. Not a paper or thesis on economics or philosophy. And the ideological views that are expressed aren't taken seriously at all in the academic circles. Both by natural opponents and natural allies. And her motivations to push her ideological views and the way in which she did make it a very silly novel. It got totally slammed by literary critics. It's amazing that there are people out there that think it deserved both the Nobel prize of literature and economics.
You could be totally right about everything you said -- but I'm not interested in what you read other people said -- I want to know what you think and why.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
two things. check out the atlas shrugged sales history graph. spikes occur during eocnomic downturns.
then, it could just be that libertarian stuff is trendy and new acolytes seek out this kind of stuff. the dismaying lack of proper judgement is expected of a socially driven popularity spike among teens, so there is no reason to expect a lockstep movement with learned reactions from the public. different people have different reactions to events
in any case, rand does not deserve any attention whatsoever
|
Well, it is very funny that the book now is more popular because the disciples of the ideology she tried to push 'caused' the problems that are similar in the book. Problems that were supposed to show how great her heroes are. Heroes that were to promote this ideology.
And thanks to that her fame gets bigger. How ironic
|
Diomedes, I am not an expert. But the information I have read claims that the reason the book is being talked about is because the context in which the heros are developed is an economic crisis that is eerily similiar to the current events of today. Within that context two basic explanations for the crisis emerge -- (1) the position of the individuals who control the government: the market caused this economic collapse & (2) the position of the productive business men who claim that the government has caused the crisis. It does not seem self-evident to me as to which view is correct (or what the philosophic standard of correct is). In the book, however, the individuals from (1) end up enslaving the individuals in (2). I don't think slavery is morally correct. Some of the fear, I think, is based on this threat -- even if you think that fear is exagerrated.
|
|
|
lol just read at what Brooks, who is now the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote:
In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?
Yeah, very. Only it's totally backwards. I thought that lack of regulation and too much greed caused this crisis. I know everyone in Europe has already accepted this. Is it even disputed? Apparently. And thus people are indeed calling for more selfishness and even less regulation, probably fixing the economy by creating new even bigger bubbles, making the mirror image perfect.
No wonder people lkike Michael Shermer claim that there is a Rand cult based on dogma.
|
On April 19 2009 23:06 Diomedes wrote: lol just read at what Brooks, who is now the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote:
In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?
Yeah, very. Only it's totally backwards. I thought that lack of regulation and too much greed caused this crisis. I know everyone in Europe has already accepted this. Is it even disputed? Apparently. And thus people are indeed calling for more selfishness and even less regulation, probably fixing the economy by creating new even bigger bubbles, making the mirror image perfect.
No wonder people lkike Michael Shermer claim that there is a Rand cult based on dogma.
Once again all you do is quote the position take by other individuals. [["...everyone in Europe..." "Is it even disputed?"]] This is not an argument. You never present an argument yourself. You do use language in a dismissively aggressive way. Do you want to go to war? Fine. I would defend myself to the best of my abilities. Bring it you fucking coward!
That said, I think that a respect of the facts is something that you accept. I am intersted in what facts make you think that the market caused this crisis. Perhaps a discussion along these lines is better to the development of hostilities.
|
|
|
|