Objectivism

[burning 4 revenge]

You realize that free market principles don't preclude regulation against fraud or force, right?

I dont even understand your statement

[Trialbyfire]

Alan Greenspan's hands off approach ended up with the largest investment banks crashing and begging for government intervention after they turned the mortgage market into a sophisticated casino comprised of high risk futures

 

Her experiences in Stalinist Russia probably clouded her "objectivity". Thats like my Cuban relatives who hated Democrats because of Communism, so they associated any government intervention with Communism without any understanding of the complicated minutae of economic dynamics and business ecology

No doubt that Greenspan made some mistakes, his biggest was to trust the SEC to know what they were doing, when they allowed so much deregulation. This doesn't change the fact that free market principles don't preclude regulations controlling fraud or force.

[burning 4 revenge]

No doubt that Greenspan made some mistakes, his biggest was to trust the SEC to know what they were doing, when they allowed so much deregulation. This doesn't change the fact that free market principles don't preclude regulations controlling fraud or force.

Well of course they will include regulations against fraud or force, but thats not all that needs to be regulated....a lot needs to be regulated...look at 2008

[Trialbyfire]

I dont even understand your statement

You can still adhere to free market principles WITH regulation that governs fraud or force.

 

There was fraud committed that resulted in the economic crash, as in the mortgages weren't sound that underpinned the entire economy. This was a direct result of the deregulation of some components of the financial industry that shouldn't have been deregulated.

[burning 4 revenge]

I get the distinct impression Ayn Rand didnt know what she was talking about

[sally4sara]

Some of Ayn Rand's more sympathetically portrayed characters were impoverished as a result of having played against rather than with the system. Henry Cameron was one. That sculptor (Mallory?) being another. Which happens to people in real life as well. Not all the Haves in her books are admirable or honest characters. What I took from her writing had little to do with money, more to do with having self respect and pursuing what you are passionate about, despite external circumstances that are beyond your control.

 

Despite the controversy of her writing, I still think there are some appealing messages in it. Howard Roark achieves happiness as well as a sense of integrity not by playing with an often corrupt system nor fighting against it - but by simply being indifferent to it, and doing his own thing. Until he bombs Cortlandt Homes, that is.

 

He's as self respecting without money and validation from others as he is with it. That's why although I agree with TBF that in some ways her philosophy is a siren call to narcissism, there's the very important element of Rand's lead characters not being remotely preoccupied with what the majority of people think of them. Narcissists are consumed with caring about what people think of them.

 

I agree with your statement about her characters. I am speaking about how some of her readers idealize her views for the opportunity it affords them to have zero compassion for those less fortunate.

Her writing was compelling, but like with the bible, a twisted individual can interpret it to suit personal agenda. Not to say Kamille's relative was a twisted individual, but she highlighted this aptly by pointing out Rands appeal to him during a time where he had to layoff workers. Someone more malicious could find Rand soothing in this way too.

[Trialbyfire]

I get the distinct impression Ayn Rand didnt know what she was talking about

To use your own rationale behind this, do you have any economic background, to support your statement?

[burning 4 revenge]

You can still adhere to free market principles WITH regulation that governs fraud or force.

 

There was fraud committed that resulted in the economic crash, as in the mortgages weren't sound that underpinned the entire economy. This was a direct result of the deregulation of some components of the financial industry that shouldn't have been deregulated.

There may have been frauds perpetrated, but by in large the investment practices that caused the crash were totally legal and they were legal because of laissez faire enthusiasts championing deregulation.

[burning 4 revenge]

To use your own rationale behind this, do you have any economic background, to support your statement?

Probably more than Ayn Rand, at least I can watch CNBC

[Trialbyfire]

There may have been frauds perpetrated, but by in large the investment practices that caused the crash were totally legal and they were legal because of laissez faire enthusiasts championing deregulation.

The mortgages underpinning the entire structure weren't sound. There was proven fraud behind this, as well as a greed.

 

If these mortgages had been sound, the entire pyramid would NOT have collapsed. People were sold a pig in a poke.

[burning 4 revenge]

The mortgages underpinning the entire structure weren't sound. There was proven fraud behind this, as well as a greed.

 

If these mortgages had been sound, the entire pyramid would NOT have collapsed. People were sold a pig in a poke.

The less sound they were, the greater the risks on the futures and the greater the risks the higher the potential returns. These guys wanted them to be risky...until it all fell

 

Im not sure there was proven fraud though, but I dont know..Im not in the loop

[Trialbyfire]

The less sound they were, the greater the risks on the futures and the greater the risks the higher the potential returns. These guys wanted them to be risky...until it all fell

 

Im not sure there was proven fraud though, but I dont know..Im not in the loop

There was proven fraud in many of the application forms.

 

If you look at Corporate America, the individuals running the show, are running it to make a profit. Conceptually, self-interest would coincide with the profit levels of any given company. Common sense and also self-interest, should also govern self-protection instincts, thus create an internal check and balance, to ensure that there were inhouse rules to prevent fraudulent bankruptcy of a firm.

[burning 4 revenge]

There was proven fraud in many of the application forms.

 

If you look at Corporate America, the individuals running the show, are running it to make a profit. Conceptually, self-interest would coincide with the profit levels of any given company. Common sense and also self-interest, should also govern self-protection instincts, thus create an internal check and balance, to ensure that there were inhouse rules to prevent fraudulent bankruptcy of a firm.

OK that sounds good

 

Tell that to Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch etc

[Taramere]

I agree with your statement about her characters. I am speaking about how some of her readers idealize her views for the opportunity it affords them to have zero compassion for those less fortunate.

Her writing was compelling, but like with the bible, a twisted individual can interpret it to suit personal agenda. Not to say Kamille's relative was a twisted individual, but she highlighted this aptly by pointing out Rands appeal to him during a time where he had to layoff workers. Someone more malicious could find Rand soothing in this way too.

 

Another poster from this board once described her to me as an intellectual Hooters girl. I loved that description. Her words are indeed like honey to rich men.

 

For me, it's something that's been useful in developing my own personal philosophy. As far as whether it's well applied in economic policy...I just don't have the knowledge to be able to comment usefully on anything to do with economics.

 

I would say that the problem with objectivism is that it relies on those with power, wealth and influence having the integrity and honesty of the fictional characters in Rand's books....so yes, I agree with your perception. I think an extreme narcissist could read the Fountainhead and say "hey, that's me. I'm just like that Roark guy. Don't you think, Hank? What about you, Mary - do you think I'm like Howard Roark? People tell me, really and honestly...."

 

Ditto with a psychopath. "Hey, I couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of me, as long as I can get whatever makes me feel good. I'm just like Howard Roark..."

[Trialbyfire]

Tell that to Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merril Lynch etc

So are you saying that these firms were responsible for the faulty mortgages, considering that Fanny and Freddie were hip deep in them?

 

Anyways, we've veered off-topic, to a degree.

 

The principles that Ayn Rand believed in, which were the free market principles, aren't unsound, at least in my opinion. But in order to apply these principles, our entire economic and governing system, will require complete overhauling. Considering the current economic condition and what it would take to overhaul everything, for certain, right at this moment, it's just an ideology, rather than a practical application.

[Trialbyfire]

Btw, thanks everyone for participating. It's seriously been really interesting.

[burning 4 revenge]

So are you saying that these firms were responsible for the faulty mortgages, considering that Fanny and Freddie were hip deep in them?

 

Anyways, we've veered off-topic, to a degree.

 

The principles that Ayn Rand believed in, which were the free market principles, aren't unsound, at least in my opinion. But in order to apply these principles, our entire economic and governing system, will require complete overhauling. Considering the current economic condition and what it would take to overhaul everything, for certain, right at this moment, it's just an ideology, rather than a practical application.

They knew they were risky and thats why they cut them up and sold derivatives based on their risk factor

 

If there had been more regulation of the banking industry the investment banks wouldnt have collapsed and there wouldnt have been a liquidity crisis requiring a trillion dollar infusion...from who else?....the government.

 

But youre right that w/o Fannie and Freddie encouraging all the high risk mortgages in the first place with the blessings of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chrisopher Dodd that the whole thing would never have started in the first place.

 

I disagree with you that Rand's style of free market principles ever work in the long run

 

Its called trickle down economics

[Trialbyfire]

Its called trickle down economics

Free market principles and trickle down economics aren't necessarily synonymous.

[grogster]

Rand is a myth maker who, through, idealized archtypes, flatters scions of privilege into believing that they acheived their wealth and status through hard work, talent and genius despite the levelling collectivism of the masses. She strokes the privileged.

 

What crap. Rand's capitalism/superman virtue schtick has as much to do with real life as marxism has to do with the working class.

 

Rand's anti-statism is particularly galling right now when it was governments, through billions of tax dollars collected from the mediocre masses, who rescued these junior John Galts who almost destroyed financial markets through their bubble-based speculative excesses.

 

Atlas didn't just shrug, the big man fell on his fat ass.

 

The real question should be "Who is John Q. Taxpayer?"

[burning 4 revenge]

Free market principles and trickle down economics aren't necessarily synonymous.

Free market is a very vague expression

 

The only philosophy thats antagonistic to all free market principles is Communism

[burning 4 revenge]

Rand is a myth maker who, through, idealized archtypes, flatters scions of privilege into believing that they acheived their wealth and status through hard work, talent and genius despite the levelling collectivism of the masses. She strokes the privileged.

 

What crap. Rand's capitalism/superman virtue schtick has as much to do with real life as marxism has to do with the working class.

 

Rand's anti-statism is particularly galling right now when it was governments, through billions of tax dollars collected from the mediocre masses, who rescued these junior John Galts who almost destroyed financial markets through their bubble-based speculative excesses.

 

Atlas didn't just shrug, the big man fell on his fat ass.

 

The real question should be "Who is John Q. Taxpayer?"

Wow excellent and dead on

[Trialbyfire]

Don't beat around the bush, grogster, tell us what you really think about self-empowerment?

[grogster]

Don't beat around the bush, grogster, tell us what you really think about self-empowerment?

 

 

In my teens, I was a Rand-fan.

 

Today, I appreciate her more as a Cougar and Cultist than a philosopher.

 

Whether one worships the State or the Self--one is still worshiping.

[Trialbyfire]

In my teens, I was a Rand-fan.

 

Today, I appreciate her more as a Cougar and Cultist than a philosopher.

 

Whether one worships the State or the Self--one is still worshiping.

Only if you worship, rather than cherry-pick. Since you were a Rand-fan at one time, do you not agree that some of her views are worth cherry-picking? Self-empowerment and personal responsibility, are parts of her views, reliant on how you view self-interest and aren't solely for the "haves".

[Kamille]

If there are systemic inequalities, you can also apply logic to them and also, take action. Talk is cheap, especially if it paralyzes you into inaction.

 

Most activism targets government policy and the private sector for a reason: those are major sites of power. I am active and do volunteer for different organizations. Yet, in my experience, the people I know who read and worship Rand are hardly ever activists. They're usually business people who, again, espouse productivity and competition as if their life depended on it. And as someone else has said, the people I know who love Rand have never been challenged, or targeted as a member of a group, for discrimination.

 

 

While elementary school students don't have much choice on their curriculum, secondary school students have A LOT of choice.

 

No. They don't write the curriculum. In Canada, experts at provincial levels write the curriculum. And right now, depending on which province you live, you either have curriculum aiming at critical thinking or curriculum aimed at producing flexible autonomous workers.

 

To be objective, lets focus on poverty, which is the class that would be impacted by the inequality that's being referenced, the single mother scenario. In the United States, the poverty statistic fluctuates from 13 - 17%. Of that statistic, there are approximately 33%, which are single parent homes, which equates to 4.3 - 5.6% of the population. This means that 95.4% don't fall into the criteria used. To me, that's a very small percentage to be concerned about. While starvation isn't an option, to expect complete equality for everyone, is asking too much of any generic system. As well, to what degree are the individuals responsible for their situation. There's also freedom of choice when it comes to abortion or not, adopting out or not.

 

You've just exemplified with dexterity the problem with Rand. Really, we're going to isolate, out of the 13-17% people who live in poverty (in Canada that's people who earn less then 15 000 a year), the 33% which are single parents to say that... what? It is such a miniscule population that they don't matter? Compound that with the fact that in the rental market, single mothers, people with mental or physical disabilities, people of color and the elderlies are all at a disadvantage (regardless of their income unless they are very rich) and you've proven my point: only people who have unquestioned privilege fail to see the problem with Rand's individualism. And again, excluding populations, in an argument about equality, is far from being objective. If you really believe it is objective, please clarify how it could be.

 

 

Sounds good. Yes plse, send me the study.

 

Haven't had time to look for the study.

 

 

And yet, do we all not have the ability to change ourselves, once we become adults?

What prevented your grandfather from relocating to a more lucrative job market? Even during the depression era, thousands upon thousands of men, hopped the train to find jobs.

 

I linked the two questions because they bring forth the challenges of international immigration. Are we really free to change ourselves that easily? What to make of the doctor from war-thorn Sudan who finds him.herself driving a cab in the streets of Montreal?

 

Also, I was wondering: do you think my grandfather 'chose' to be a soldier?