Atlas Shrugged...today?

[Capitalizt]

A lot of the parallels in this article seem rather valid today in light of the endless bailouts and massive government interventions we are seeing. Ms. Rand was certainly prophetic, and I think her book should be required reading for every high school graduate.

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146363567166677.html)

By Stephen Moore

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI826_dgmoor_DV_20090108211701.jpg
[Atlas Shrugged] Getty Images
The art for a 1999 postage stamp.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

[Msut77]

I don't think Stephen Moore has ever worked at an actual job.

As I have said before the current crisis is if anything due to too much Rand.

[Capitalizt]

What we have seen over the past 70 years is precisely the OPPOSITE of what Rand wanted...the opposite of free market economics and the dominance of soft fascism. When the government and state are in bed together, nothing good can come of it.

[Msut77]

What we have seen over the past 70 years is precisely the OPPOSITE of what Rand wanted...the opposite of free market economics and the dominance of soft fascism. When the government and state are in bed together, nothing good can come of it.

You can say that all you would like but Rand disciples have been in key positions of power for decades and they failed miserably.

[Capitalizt]

Maybe because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Alan Greenspan is proof of that. Once a strict defender of laissez faire economics and an honest money system (the gold standard), he completely abandoned those beliefs and became a big government apologist once in power. Any way you look at it, we have never had people in office who made any serious attempt at a libertarian agenda. Democrat or Republican...Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger...and in the past 8 years, farking HUGE!

[Autumn Star]

Didn't Ayn Rand hate the libertarian party?

[Msut77]

Didn't Ayn Rand hate the libertarian party?

I don't think she liked much of anything so you got to take that into consideration.

Either way its all to much like a cult for my tastes.

[mykevermin]

Randians are ideological numbskulls.

[Capitalizt]

People who worship the woman are nutcases..but her philosophy has it's merits. People like F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises disproved socialism on a scientific level. They provided the economic justification for capitalism and free markets, but Rand was the first to provide a MORAL basis for it, something it was lacking before.

[evanft]

Morality is for religious people.

[thrustbucket]

Wait... I'm so confused.... I thought we needed to fight capitalism and open free markets precisely for moral reasons?

[dmaul1114]

Completely free markets just don't work. Not when you get banks and other companies that are too big to fail, and that's going to happen because of the greed inherent in human nature.

Banks need more regulation not less. The key is to find the sweet spot as too much regulation isn't a good thing either. But clearly what we've had in the past wasn't sufficient.

I have no moral or other objections to capitalism. We just have to find a system that keeps our economy as stable as possible while also allowing growth.

[Capitalizt]

Completely free markets just don't work. Not when you get banks and other companies that are too big to fail

Too big to fail is a socialist's phrase. Nobody and nothing is too big to fail in a capitalist economy. A true free market would allow insolvent companies to go bankrupt..and allow things to correct. Productive companies would survive and prosper, and those that aren't meeting public demand will go under and the workers would need to find jobs in other industries. It's not a popular philosophy because it involves dealing with PAIN every now and then..but we would have a much healthier economy in the long run if we allowed things to correct naturally once they get to extremes.

Instead we are continually trying and prevent the correction and to pump up the economy with newly printed money and government intervention left and right. This is very ANTI-capitalist and is only going to make the downturn worse when we finally face the music.

[dmaul1114]

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I there's not sense in arguing when we're coming from different view systems, since I do lean toward socialism a good bit, and believe the government should do what they can to prevent such pain seeping through the system and ruining citizens lives. They have to hold up their end of the social contract.

But you're coming from the opposite view, and that's fine.

[thrustbucket]

I really can see the pros of both sides of what Capitalizt and dmaul are saying.

It ultimately comes down to an individual's personality to which they would prefer.

Some people like to be out on their own in life and are perfectly fine taking all the risk as long as they get all of any reward. And they are fine if they go down in flames, as at least they got to try and have nobody to blame but themselves. We all know people like this. These people experience higher highs and lower lows, and they tend to take chances and risks more, for the rewards, which tends to stimulate progress.

Other people's primary concern is safety and stability. All they want is to know that tomorrow is as ok as today. They don't like risks, and if they have to take a risk they want to know there are many safety nets if they fail. We all know people like this to. These people like feeling safe, comfortable and stable. They tend to experience less pain than the first group, but rarely try anything new so they tend to take less risks which ultimately stifles progress.

I truly believe this is why you have such a division in America today, everyone fits into one of these two categories.

The answer is, there is no right way. It's dependent on a personality, imo. Arguing one is better than the other is like trying to argue one color is better than the other; it's relative.

My big beef, however, is that we can't continue to straddle both capitalism and socialism, trying to find a way to mix them, and tanking the entire economy, country, and world with it. Attempting a mixture of both is buying a ticket on the titanic. We need to pick one or the other and put all resources in that direction or we are doomed.

[GuilewasNK]

Man, I haven't read Atlas Shrugged since 1998. If I could find the time I'd read it again.

[dmaul1114]

For me it's not just needing safety and stability. It's not wanting to see people who were careful with money and didn't take a lot of risks get screwed because the whole economy tanks and no one can get loans, and jobs are lost etc. etc. So I don't think we can have a total free market.

But I don't think we need a total safety net either. So I guess I disagree that we have to go one way or the other, as you said Thrust. I think the key is finding the right balance between free markets and regulation and we've just not done that yet. And I have no idea what the answer is or if there even is one.

[mykevermin]

What's thrust's getting at is like the "individual freedom" vs. "public order" philosophies of the criminal justice system. We debate over the issue, but recognize that it's absurd to embrace the logical end of either side of the issue.

Applying that debate to capitalist markets, yes, there are those who like to take risks - but we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that those risks can impact those who do not take risks, and are unwilling to do so. Risk takers do so at their own, and others, risk.

laissez-faire is dead. Rand is a relic. Anyone who believes otherwise is unable or unwilling to consider the cognitive dissonance they're putting themselves through to rationalize how free markets are wholly liberating and help everyone. Which is depressing until it is entertaining when you ask them how a pure free market will protect us from the Madoffs of the world.

[dmaul1114]

http://www.group30.org/pubs/recommendations.pdf

Link to the Group of 30's reccomendations on how to stabilize the economy. I'll try to skim through it later. Probably be a fairly influential report given it was chaired by Paul Volcker.


The Group of Thirty has released its latest report: Financial Reform: A Framework for Financial Stability. The report addresses flaws in the global financial system and provides 18 specific recommendations to: improve supervisory systems by redefining the scope, boundaries, and structure of prudential regulation; enhance the role of the central banks; improve governance practices and risk management; address pro-cyclicality via capital and liquidity standards; enhance accounting practices; strengthen the financial infrastructure; and increase coordination internationally. The project was led by Paul Volcker, Chairman, and Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa and Arminio Fraga Neto, Vice Chairmen.

[Capitalizt]

Which is depressing until it is entertaining when you ask them how a pure free market will protect us from the Madoffs of the world.

Free markets and law and order are not incompatible. Even the most hardcore libertarians accept the need for basic laws to protect the public from theft, fraud, and violence. Private property is sacred to Libertarians...in fact, it is the most sacred value of the libertarian philosophy. When someone violates that right by stealing or defrauding others, he should be punished severely. I don't think you will find any Randian against the idea of prosecuting Madoff. His actions are completely contrary to their philosophy.

[JolietJake]

I had a teacher today loudly proclaim that we were capitalists and then rambled off why that was so great. It took everything i had to not question him on practically every point. Maybe capitalists with socialist tendencies would be a better description.

[dmaul1114]

Free markets and law and order are not incompatible. Even the most hardcore libertarians accept the need for basic laws to protect the public from theft, fraud, and violence. Private property is sacred to Libertarians...in fact, it is the most sacred value of the libertarian philosophy. When someone violates that right by stealing or defrauding others, he should be punished severely. I don't think you will find any Randian against the idea of prosecuting Madoff. His actions are completely contrary to their philosophy.

Yeah, but we still need regulations on things like loans, mortgages, credit default swaps etc. to protect responsible people from being hurt when banks go under from taking on bad debts, having too many irresponsible people foreclose etc. etc.

In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.

[Capitalizt]

In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.

How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc. If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?

[Msut77]

If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all.

Well those saving their money at said banks would be protected, thanks to the FDIC.

You know, that bunch of commies.

[dmaul1114]

How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc. If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?

You misread. I'm not talking about the people who default on loans.

I'm talking about people who lose their jobs because the economy tanks. Or see their retirement accounts diminish or slow in growth because the economy tanks from other people and corporations greed and poor decisions.. Or people that have good credit but have problems getting a decent loan as the credit market collapsed.

The people who sign mortgages they can't pay deserve to get fucked. But it's not ok for the rest of us who are smart with our money to suffer because tons of people default on loans and banks are going under from having too many toxic assests etc. etc.

[Koggit]

I don't think Stephen Moore has ever worked at an actual job.

After reading your post I read his Wiki, where I see:

Moore sees Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the hope and future of the Republican Party

...I immediately closed the tab and dismissed everything in the OP.

[vherub]

Would you kindly tell me which side of the securom fence Rand would be on?

[Msut77]

After reading your post I read his Wiki, where I see:



...I immediately closed the tab and dismissed everything in the OP.

You might remember him from his appearances on Bill Maher's show.

[speedracer]

How exactly do they get fucked? If they were fiscally responsible, they would take note of what they were agreeing to when they sign a contract/mortgage, etc.
Son, I know lawyers that could fuck you 15 ways in a contract and you'd never see the train hitting your ass until you're standing in front of a judge arguing the semantic value of the word "is".

The real world is far different from your theoretical playground.

If a bank makes stupid decisions and goes under, that doesn't effect the borrower at all. He still has the contract he agreed to and will continue making payments, even if the company is in bankruptcy restructuring..

Except that the mortgage is sold on to the next operator who may see the terms of the contract quite differently.

The only way for responsible people to get hurt when the economy turns south is if they lose their job...and while that is unfortunate, it doesn't free them from obligations they have already agreed to such as loan payments, etc. You disagree?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Take a long, hard look at Argentina. You'll stop saying things as dumb as that last quoted section. That's just dumb.

[Capitalizt]

Son, I know lawyers that could fuck you 15 ways in a contract and you'd never see the train hitting your ass until you're standing in front of a judge arguing the semantic value of the word "is".

Except that the mortgage is sold on to the next operator who may see the terms of the contract quite differently.


Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who don't do research into what they are signing/buying. Hopefully their losses will serve as a lesson.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Take a long, hard look at Argentina. You'll stop saying things as dumb as that last quoted section. That's just dumb.

We were talking about theoretical capitalist country..not a socialist nightmare with worthless fiat currency. No self respecting capitalist country would have a currency backed by nothing. ;)

[thrustbucket]

Son, I know lawyers that could fuck you 15 ways in a contract and you'd never see the train hitting your ass until you're standing in front of a judge arguing the semantic value of the word "is".


Just in case you needed an example of who you are talking about....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[speedracer]

Sorry, I have no sympathy for people who don't do research into what they are signing/buying. Hopefully their losses will serve as a lesson.
First off, I would watch your tone of pride. If you aren't a damned fantastic contract lawyer, you are carrying liabilities you can't even imagine. I promise you there are subsections of contracts you have signed that would shock you.

Second, that's a damned disgusting way of conducting one's self. No sympathy for people taken advantage of? Is it just me, or do libertarians and Randians actually seem to relish the nastier parts of their ethos?

We were talking about theoretical capitalist country..not a socialist nightmare with worthless fiat currency. No self respecting capitalist country would have a currency backed by nothing. ;)
Well, I ain't never visited no theoretical country before :D Why exactly does "backing" somehow make paper worth something more in real terms? Because behind a piece of paper is a piece of metal now? Hell, I think it was a good idea to stop pretending that the backing has value, but that's just me. It seems to me like backing is just adding more layers of bullshit, but that's just me.

The human love affair with a shiny piece of metal is the weirdest thing to me. We all think it's crazy that American Indians were down with the beads, and then we use ridiculous metals ourselves.

[Capitalizt]

First off, I would watch your tone of pride. If you aren't a damned fantastic contract lawyer, you are carrying liabilities you can't even imagine. I promise you there are subsections of contracts you have signed that would shock you.

I don't think so but you are free to believe it if you wish.


Second, that's a damned disgusting way of conducting one's self. No sympathy for people taken advantage of? Is it just me, or do libertarians and Randians actually seem to relish the nastier parts of their ethos?
No No, you have a huge misperception there buddy. I sympathize true victims of exploitation as much as the next guy..but I also have a respect for human life and the human right to property (an extension of life) that overrules almost everything else. You may find that most libertarians/Randians hold this view...that they will likely side with landlords over tenants who have fallen on hard times and can't pay their bill, but this is NOT because they are unsympathetic to the tenants or enjoy laughing at their plight..but because the rule of law and the landlord's right to their own property must be paramount. It must override whatever sense of cosmic injustice we perceive at the moment because when you deny property rights in any form, you are condoning a form of slavery...and slavery is the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Why exactly does "backing" somehow make paper worth something more in real terms? Because behind a piece of paper is a piece of metal now? Hell, I think it was a good idea to stop pretending that the backing has value, but that's just me. It seems to me like backing is just adding more layers of bullshit, but that's just me.
Oh boy lets not go there again. ;) I've seen debates on the gold standard that last hundreds of pages with zero opinions being changed on either side. But I have to say, gold is not just valuable because it is pretty, portable, non-perishable, highly divisible, and rare (though those are nice properties of it)...but mainly because people have DESIRED it since the beginning of recorded history. Through famines, plagues, world wars, and the rise and fall of empires, gold and silver have always been highly desired. Paper currencies are not backed by anything rare or desirable these days. They are backed by debt, promises, and the faith people have in them. The dollar's value can be destroyed overnight by central bankers or politicians..or it can simply become worthless over time as people lose faith in it. Libertarians who value life and property as absolute rights really don't like this concept because it means you can be robbed indirectly at any time with no way to protect yourself. When people in power can steal (devalue) your life savings at the stroke of a pen, your only alternative is to get out of the currency every payday as quickly as possible (not practical) or to back the currency with something tangible which will prevent government from printing more of it at will.

[Msut77]

I've seen debates on the gold standard that last hundreds of pages with zero opinions being changed on either side.

I have never actually seen a decent debate on the matter, I have however seen dozens of pro gold standard people who just take it as an article of faith.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, but we still need regulations on things like loans, mortgages, credit default swaps etc. to protect responsible people from being hurt when banks go under from taking on bad debts, having too many irresponsible people foreclose etc. etc.

In a free market fiscally responsible people still get fucked when the market collapses. We need regulations to prevent such things and keep the market as stable as possible.

Regulation is a good think to make sure people are treated in an objective manner according to the law and can make rational decisions based on truths when gambling with stocks. But, the fact that you believe it needs to be controlled and artificially stabilized proves you have no idea what free markets are, and no concept of what the stock market is.

The stock market is a crap shoot. It can be like Black Jack or Poker at times. But regardless of the game, in all cases it is simply legalized gambling. The image in your head of it as an insurance policy is completely and utterly false.

[camoor]

The stock market is a crap shoot. It can be like Black Jack or Poker at times. But regardless of the game, in all cases it is simply legalized gambling. The image in your head of it as an insurance policy is completely and utterly false.

Nah, it's worse then that. The stock market is like old-school Vegas without the comps. At least in modern gambling you know the rules and the odds going in. With the stock market, the executive class can rewrite the rules as they go along, can freeze your ability to cash in, can do anything it can bamboozle Congress and the SEC into. And if it turns out the dealer was cheating the whole time, sorry Charlie you're out of luck. Finally, you only cash in after everyone from the casino owner to the dealer to the cashier has receieved a big fat tip.

[bmulligan]

Nah, it's worse then that. The stock market is like old-school Vegas without the comps. At least in modern gambling you know the rules and the odds going in. With the stock market, the executive class can rewrite the rules as they go along, can freeze your ability to cash in, can do anything it can bamboozle Congress and the SEC into. And if it turns out the dealer was cheating the whole time, sorry Charlie you're out of luck. Finally, you only cash in after everyone from the casino owner to the dealer to the cashier has receieved a big fat tip.

I stand corrected.

[thrustbucket]

Sounds like the answer then, is to not play the stock market, if you don't like unfairness. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than taxing the shit out of us to pay for all types of complicated regulation that will always corrupt itself anyway.

[bmulligan]

Careful now, that's borderline heresy around these parts. Everything is going to be mandated as fair, didn't you get that memo? That's how it becomes safe for everyone. Don't you feel safer now ?

[thrustbucket]

Careful now, that's borderline heresy around these parts. Everything is going to be mandated as fair, didn't you get that memo? That's how it becomes safe for everyone. Don't you feel safer now ?

Hehe. I know.

I've come to believe the main difference between me and most others here like dmaul, mykevermin, etc is this:

Even though I think we all agree the system is inherently corrupt; especially the social fairness systems - and we may even agree on the fact that it's always destined to be corrupt, no matter what action is taken; I happen to believe that is reason enough to forget about trying so hard, for the most part, and quit torturing everyone's paychecks to try and correct an uncorrectable system. While they believe that, kind of like the war on drugs, even though it can never be perfected or "fixed" we can't ever stop trying.

[dmaul1114]

Sounds like the answer then, is to not play the stock market, if you don't like unfairness. That's a hell of a lot cheaper than taxing the shit out of us to pay for all types of complicated regulation that will always corrupt itself anyway.

Regulation doesn't have to be expensive. It can simply be new laws on how certain transactions must be conducted, new requirements for getting loans etc. The existing infrastructure should be largely sufficient to enforce violations of new laws/regulations.

[usickenme]

Even though I think we all agree the system is inherently corrupt; especially the social fairness systems - and we may even agree on the fact that it's always destined to be corrupt, no matter what action is taken; I happen to believe that is reason enough to forget about trying so hard, for the most part, and quit torturing everyone's paychecks to try and correct an uncorrectable system. While they believe that, kind of like the war on drugs, even though it can never be perfected or "fixed" we can't ever stop trying.

if that is the case, why have any laws at all?

[bmulligan]

You both misunderstood his point.

This always seems to be the disconnect when arguing against individual freedom. That liberty means chaos, lawlessness, or anarchy, if you prefer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws are enacted (or should be, anyway) to protect the rights of individuals and give equality under the law. It does not mean government gets a free pass to manipulate the market or attempt to eliminate risk. Doing so always creates preferential treatment or penalty to groups or certain individuals. This constitutes immoral government, regardless of the 'good intention' of the lawmaker.


And Thrust, you are dead wrong. Myke does not believe the system is corrupt. He believes the system simply doesn't have enough control to be effective. He's never been ashamed to admit that his ideal is the complete elimination of property rights as a means to totalitarianism for the common good. Not sure about speedy and dmaul, I think they just might be along for the ride and don't yet realize the end result of their philosophies. But Myke is well aware.

[elprincipe]

You both misunderstood his point.

This always seems to be the disconnect when arguing against individual freedom. That liberty means chaos, lawlessness, or anarchy, if you prefer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws are enacted (or should be, anyway) to protect the rights of individuals and give equality under the law. It does not mean government gets a free pass to manipulate the market or attempt to eliminate risk. Doing so always creates preferential treatment or penalty to groups or certain individuals. This constitutes immoral government, regardless of the 'good intention' of the lawmaker.

Government manipulating the market to "eliminate risk" or to "stabilize the market" is merely a recipe for the market to become more unstable. See: the 1930s, possibly the next few years if we continue with "bailouts."

[bmulligan]

Government manipulating the market to "eliminate risk" or to "stabilize the market" is merely a recipe for the market to become more unstable. See: the 1930s, possibly the next few years if we continue with "bailouts."

Mainly because the social engineers believe they have the intellectual prowess to achieve social change through fiat. It continues to disintegrate our society and demean us as human beings, yet the solution to failure is always more manipulative control which is completely different than 'regulation'.

[Capitalizt]

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -Robert Heinlein

[Dr Mario Kart]

Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.

[dmaul1114]

I don't think we need any sweeping regulations or anything. Just simple things like laws/regulations on credit default swaps to keep banks form taking on too much bad debt. Laws/regulations setting minimum standards for being able to get a mortgage to reduce the rate of foreclosures (requiring a minimum % down payment, setting a max % of a person/couples' income that their monthly monthly payment can take up) etc. etc.

It's just common sense when you see a few bad things that have a lot to do with the economy going down that their should be some disincentives put in place to keep banks and people from doing the same things in the future.

Because people don't learn from their mistakes on a wide scale. Greed always wins out.

[Capitalizt]

Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.

That is the most dangerous attitude in the history of mankind. Those type of "freedoms" are actually claims on the lives of others, and humanity is reduced to slavery.

[lanzarlaluna]

Objectivism makes me go a big rubbery one.

[Msut77]

That is the most dangerous attitude in the history of mankind. Those type of "freedoms" are actually claims on the lives of others, and humanity is reduced to slavery.

I think the last time there was what you would define as actual free markets was a time when there was actual slavery and slavery in everything but name.

[bmulligan]

I don't think we need any sweeping regulations or anything. Just simple things like laws/regulations on credit default swaps to keep banks form taking on too much bad debt. Laws/regulations setting minimum standards for being able to get a mortgage to reduce the rate of foreclosures (requiring a minimum % down payment, setting a max % of a person/couples' income that their monthly monthly payment can take up) etc. etc.

It's just common sense when you see a few bad things that have a lot to do with the economy going down that their should be some disincentives put in place to keep banks and people from doing the same things in the future.

Because people don't learn from their mistakes on a wide scale. Greed always wins out.

Or we could just let the idiots who bought or backed those instruments go bankrupt instead of creating $2 trillion more dollars out of thin air to supposedly 'bail' them out. This bubble was purposely orchestrated by a government who made guarantees of fairness and attempted to eliminate risk. Government sponsored entities who promised to buy bad mortgages from fly-by-night corporations like Countrywide, knowing full well the US government would just print more money to cover any loss is not a fair way to conduct business. Think of how long this 'crisis' took to unfold - almost 12 months. And no one in government said anything until the middle of September. You don't think they knew what they were doing or what was going on? I find it impossible to believe otherwise.

If anything, this is an example of bad government 'regulation', not the lack of regulation, and we would have been better off without it.

[mykevermin]

I'm curious what repercussions or remuneration the "no government" crowd would suggest for those people who bought into Madoff's ponzi scheme.

[bmulligan]

Caveat Emptor

And we are not the "no government" crowd. You know that very well, myke.

All of your laws and regulations didn't prevent his crimes from being committed, did it? Maybe if we all had our own police protection officers present, Madoff would have been deterred from stealing in the first place.

[elprincipe]

Quotes, nice.

"A necessitous man is not a free man." - FDR

Free market capitalism creates a nation of peons, who are too busy worrying about making ends meet to be concerned about freedoms.

Well, you do quote probably the worst president in terms of the economy (with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, maybe Herbert Hoover is also close) in the 20th century. Free market capitalism allows you the economic freedom to do as you please. If you want to be a peon, you can. If you don't, you don't have to. You are free to choose. But don't force your choices on the rest of us, destroying our choice of prosperity.

What I'd be most interested in is your alternative to free market capitalism. As we know, much like democracy is the worst system ever devised by mankind except everything else, free market capitalism is the worst economic system devised by mankind except every other economic system so far tried. Surely you're not advocating a communist/socialist system?

[bmulligan]

well, to be fair to Carter, he was handed a broken economy resulting from the energy crisis. He dragged his feet on lifting the price controls on oil, which Regan later did, but he didn't enact them, Nixon did along with wage controls. And let's not forget about the expansion of government with the birth of the EPA, the anti-drug movement, and runaway monetary policy that led to the abandonment of the gold standard.

Man, can you imagine what we would think of Nixon if he were president today? He'd make Obama practically look like Limbaugh by comparison.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I would be fine with what we had between 1935 and 1980. Solid growth without bubbles.

Main changes:
- Aggressive trade tariffs to protect our domestic industry (like they have in China and Japan) and to halt American companies importing goods and labor with no penalty.
- Reagan tax cuts repealed. Top tax rate goes back to 71% above $3.2 million a year
- A return to pushing for Pensions and Social Security over 401k or personal savings accounts.
- Start enforcing Sherman anti-trust again. If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist. Reinstate Glass-Steagle and force commercial and investment banking apart again.
- No bailing out corporations. They either fail outright or are bought straight up for pennies on the dollar.

[elprincipe]

I would be fine with what we had between 1935 and 1980. Solid growth without bubbles.

If you believe this is what actually happened between 1935 (strange year to pick, especially because of the FDR-triggered "depression within the Depression" of the late '30s) and 1980, you're living in la-la land.

- No bailing out corporations. They either fail outright or are bought straight up for pennies on the dollar.

I can wholeheartedly agree on this point, at least. I was against the bailouts from the start and I haven't regretted that position. If Bear Stearns or AIG goes bankrupt, that's the way it is under our system. There is no need for the government to intervene; in fact, doing so has made things worse and continues to make things worse. They go bankrupt, their assets are sold off as has happened with countless companies over the years (including big ones), and life goes on. It's when we try to freeze something as dynamic as our economic system that we cause major problems. This course of action leads to government picking winners and losers, which leads to incredible inefficiency, heightened corruption and vastly decreased economic freedom. Of course, we are about to double-down with another $825+ billion!

[Dr Mario Kart]

Someone should update Wikipedia's list of stock market crashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes). Theres a huge gap somewhere.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indic ator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues =0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Between 1965 and 1982, there is little if any growth. Granted, it is no crash, but there is surely stagnation in those 17 years.

[elprincipe]

Someone should update Wikipedia's list of stock market crashes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes). Theres a huge gap somewhere.

No crashes does not necessarily equal steady growth, and it didn't in this case.

[rickonker]

These days, only some Randroids are libertarians, and only some libertarians are Randroids. Just in case you all didn't know that already.

[Bravelionheart]

I'm sorry, but trying to read Atlus Shrugged was like having nails driven into my unmentionables. As a work of fiction, it was unbearably boring to read. She should have just written it as an actual essay.

Either way, I don't agree with her economic views at all. She, at least from what I gleaned from what I was able to read and various essays on her writing, seems to have the utmost disdain for the common worker, believing them to be leeches on the greatness of the industrial giants. Add to that her view that the only way to have an economic system work is to be the exact polar-opposite of Socialism, where the government regulates nothing, and I'm quite unable to agree with her. Extremes tend to never be the answer to solving any problem.

[Capitalizt]

She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.

[rickonker]

Extremes tend to never be the answer to solving any problem.

Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?

[The Crotch]

Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?
"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language. But is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present!

"I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch. And I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead!"

...

I hate falling back on famous quotes, but that was just begging for that.

[rickonker]

"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language. But is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present!

"I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch. And I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead!"

...

I hate falling back on famous quotes, but that was just begging for that.

Yes, yes it was. I take it you're an extremist as well? :shock:

[The Crotch]

Hell yeah. I'm in to all sorts of extreme things. Extreme jaywalking. Extreme napping. Extreme Settles of Catan. Extreme toast-eating. You eat the toast while it's still in the toaster for that one.

[Bravelionheart]

Are you an extremist when it comes to slavery? If so, would that be one of the exceptions?
Well, of course. That's why I said "tend to" and not just "never." Saying extremes never work is an extreme in-and-of itself, is it not? ;)
She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.
I suppose I can't argue with that basic philosophy, but how one defines "punish" and to what extent they are given freedoms to conduct their business, at the possible expense of the average person, is likely the point of disagreement.

[The Crotch]

...

"Tend to never"?

[Capitalizt]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can. - Barry GoldwaterA+ Mr Goldwater..

A+

[Msut77]

She doesn't think the average worker is a leech or parasite. That is her opinion of government and most politicians though. ;) Her main idea is that success should not be punished and those who "overachieve" should not be looked at as enemies that need to be beaten down..as they are so often perceived today. She believed in rewarding success and punishing dependency..the opposite of socialism.

As someone who has read what Rand wrote I would say her viewing altruism as a bad thing was certainly disturbing.

Now as for what you wrote her books are hardly about "overachievers", the characters in her books as one dimensional, unrealistic and laughable as they are tend to have jobs such as inheritor of massive family fortunes or "self made" executive in an industry inextricably tied to government and government spending.

[Capitalizt]

Now as for what you wrote her books are hardly about "overachievers", the characters in her books as one dimensional, unrealistic and laughable as they are tend to have jobs such as inheritor of massive family fortunes or "self made" executive in an industry inextricably tied to government and government spending.

Yes obviously they were one dimensional because she was using them to convey her philosophy and there is little wiggle-room in super capitalist ideology for compromise. It is 100% anti-slavery..anti-force..anti-coercion. Any attempt to enslave or coerce a man for the benefit of others is considered evil. And your second point is wrong. Most of the characters in her stories (Atlas Shrugged in particular) detest government intrusion...and only tolerate it because they have no choice. ;)

[Bravelionheart]

...

"Tend to never"?
Unless I'm mistaken, that's still grammatically permissible. :) But please, feel free to critique my mildly awkward wording instead of saying anything substantial about what I was (attempting) to say.

[rickonker]

Well, of course. That's why I said "tend to" and not just "never." Saying extremes never work is an extreme in-and-of itself, is it not? ;)

Aside from "tend to never," which The Crotch pointed out, what's the point of your generalization then if we're talking about something specific?

[rickonker]

Unless I'm mistaken, that's still grammatically permissible. :) But please, feel free to critique my mildly awkward wording instead of saying anything substantial about what I was (attempting) to say.
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically permissible too, but it makes no sense.

[Msut77]

Yes obviously they were one dimensional because she was using them to convey her philosophy and there is little wiggle-room in super capitalist ideology for compromise. It is 100% anti-slavery..anti-force..anti-coercion. And your second point is wrong. Most of the characters in her stories (Atlas Shrugged in particular) detest government intrusion...and only tolerate it because they have no choice

I didn't say they were "for" government intrusion I said some of them were in businesses inextricably linked to the government and government spending such as the Railroad. I guess saying you are against it makes it ok, just like working in your families ancestral business conglomerate for about a year makes you a self made man, that is when you are not waving your magic wand and serving up some mythril or a perpetual motion machine (I feel dumber writing this).

Obviously her characters were one dimensional because she was a terrible writer and lacked the ability to create a story with as much emotional depth as a Punch and Judy show. The problem is not even so much the book it is that people take it so seriously.

Now this is something I have pointed out before, free markets did precisely dick and doodly to end actual slavery. Even today they hardly do much to help and in some cases it is painfully obvious mega corporations would jump on it if given a change.

[Bravelionheart]

Aside from "tend to never," which The Crotch pointed out, what's the point of your generalization then if we're talking about something specific?
I would've thought that was at least partially implied in the context of my original post, but for clarity's sake, here it is: because socialism and Randian capitalism are extremes of economic policy, and because I argue that extremes typically do not work, then it follows that I believe neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate.
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically permissible too, but it makes no sense.
Then simply state that what I said does not make sense to you and why, instead of uselessly nitpicking it without saying anything worthwhile about it.

[rickonker]

Then simply state that what I said does not make sense to you and why, instead of uselessly nitpicking it without saying anything worthwhile about it.

I apologize for nitpicking, but I also made another response.

I would've thought that was at least partially implied in the context of my original post, but for clarity's sake, here it is: because socialism and Randian capitalism are extremes of economic policy, and because I argue that extremes typically do not work, then it follows that I believe neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate.

My point was that you've committed a common fallacy and this quote makes it very obvious. If "extremes typically do not work," it does not follow that "neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate." You're trying to apply a generalization to a specific case. It would follow if you removed the word "typically" and just said "extremes do not work", but you've already agreed that you're an extremist when it comes to slavery.

[Capitalizt]

I guess saying you are against it makes it ok, just like working in your families ancestral business conglomerate for about a year makes you a self made man, that is when you are not waving your magic wand and serving up some mythril or a perpetual motion machine (I feel dumber writing this).

huh?

Obviously her characters were one dimensional because she was a terrible writer and lacked the ability to create a story with as much emotional depth as a Punch and Judy show. The problem is not even so much the book it is that people take it so seriously.People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important. Her characters may be one dimensional, but some of the speeches and dialogue carry very profound meaning that had never been offered in intellectual circles before. Capitalism already had an economic justification..The benefits of free markets over central planning were widely known at the time. What Rand did was offer a MORAL justification for capitalism..something it was sorely lacking until that point. She is influential because she filled in the blank spots in the libertarian philosophy. The scientists and economists proved beyond a doubt that socialism is a failure and capitalism is the system that provides prosperity for the greatest number of people...but she proved that it was also the most MORAL system available..that liberty and free markets are not only beneficial, but pro-life and PRO-HUMAN. She showed that those attempting to restrict this freedom in the name of the "common good" are nothing more than mini-tyrants who do more harm than good.



free markets did precisely dick and doodly to end actual slavery. Even today they hardly do much to help and in some cases it is painfully obvious mega corporations would jump on it if given a change.Yes, people will always act in their own interest and some wouldn't object to enslaving others. Thats why we need government to protect the basic rights of life and liberty. I'm about as hardcore libertarian as they come, and you will never hear me object to a government protecting it's citizens from theft and violence. That is the main reason any government should exist. You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.

[rickonker]

I have to disagree with you there Capitalizt, on both of your major points. Rand was not the first to offer a moral justification for capitalism, although I get the feeling most of her supporters might say so.

[rickonker]

BTW, I know it's common to say, "X should be required reading for every high school graduate," but should a libertarian be saying that?

[Capitalizt]

I have to disagree with you there Capitalizt, on both of your major points. Rand was not the first to offer a moral justification for capitalism, although I get the feeling most of her supporters might say so.

The was the first to my knowledge. I'm sure others have made the same arguments she does..but she was the first to develop them into a concrete philosophy, Objectivism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29)
BTW, I know it's common to say, "X should be required reading for every high school graduate," but should a libertarian be saying that?

lol Pwned..just my personal opinion. I would never try and force it into the curriculum.

[Msut77]

huh?

I don't think I could be much clearer so the problem must be on your end.

People took the book seriously because the underlying message was so important.

"Greed is good" has taken quite a beating these past few years, I am surprised you have not noticed.

You lefties want to go far beyond this though..and that is where your ideas become oppressive and tyrannical.

You are full of it, there was and is hardly anything oppressive (and that includes slavery) where those behind it did not try to use the language of opposing tyranny and painting themselves as lovers of freedom.

[Capitalizt]

Msut, button line: Government has a monopoly on violence. Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.

Once you recognize this, you should be a bit more weary of giving Washington any power beyond what is needed to enforce the two universal laws of capitalism (#1. No theft, #2. No violence).

[Msut77]

Msut, button line: Government has a monopoly on violence.

They are pretty good at it but no, not hardly.

Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it. The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.

You live in a fantasy world, maybe you should read the news once in a while or some real books instead of Rands drivel. I notice you don't even argue against the fact that what she wrote was puerile and in many examples downright stupid. It is religion and philosophy done through bumper stickers.

Once you recognize this, you should be a bit more weary of giving Washington any power beyond what is needed to enforce the two universal laws of capitalism (#1. No theft, #2. No violence).

Obviously they would use violence to enforce #1 right? And no doubt you are defining theft in a way no normal person would right?

[Capitalizt]

msut, kindly point out where I am wrong..

And yes, government has a right to use violence to prevent others from using violence. This is the only instance where force is morally justified.

[Bravelionheart]

My point was that you've committed a common fallacy and this quote makes it very obvious. If "extremes typically do not work," it does not follow that "neither socialism nor Randian capitalism will help us in our current economic crisis, but something more moderate." You're trying to apply a generalization to a specific case. It would follow if you removed the word "typically" and just said "extremes do not work", but you've already agreed that you're an extremist when it comes to slavery.
Ok, I see what you're saying; because my first assertion was not absolute, it leaves room for my second, following assertion to be one of the exceptions to that first assertion. That's fair.

Then I'll simply state that I do not believe pure socialism or pure laissez-faire capitalism would ever find an acceptable equilibrium between the needs of the average person and the needs of corporations.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Capitalism is nothing more than a system where individuals work and trade voluntarily without the use of coercion or force. There is nothing oppressive about it.

Pure capitalism requires everybody to play the game or starve. If somebody hoards a necessary resource (ie. clean water) and nobody else can get it, they either do without and die or the hoarder names the price.

The greediest businessman in the world has no right to use any kind of force against you. He can't point a gun to your head and demand your money and your time. The worst he can do is politely beg for your business.

Since we're using hypotheticals, let's use another one.

Let's pretend the greediest businessman creates water filters at his factory.

Unfortunately, the factory pollutes the local water supply to the point that the businessman's filters are required or the water is lethal.

The factory has 20 positions available. The local area using the water has 50 people in it.

The businessman refuses to sell his product to any nonemployees.

What happens to the other 30 people?

Do they leave the area, die from toxic water, kill one of the 20 employees to get a new job or kill the businessman?

Please remember there is no government or "public good" in a purely capitalistic society.

[SpazX]

Could laissez faire capitalism not force someone to do something simply by monopolizing a necessary product? I don't see what would stop someone from doing so without there being regulations (with force behind them) against doing so.

It seems to me that the less power the government has over large businesses the more power that the large businesses will have over the government. That's how it has worked historically, anyway. I think it's a better idea to try to keep a balance and that requires giving the government some power in the economy.

I don't have a problem with all capitalism, it's just the completely free kind that I think is a bad idea. Unregulated capitalism will destroy its own benefits to society just as well as bad regulation of capitalism will.

[yeah, this is basically what FoC said, so I post slowly, wanna fight about it?]

[fatherofcaitlyn]

[yeah, this is basically what FoC said, so I post slowly, wanna fight about it?]

Only if I can win.

[SpazX]

Only if I can win.

http://s342.photobucket.com/albums/o402/chrisrushing/gifs/th_FamilyGuy_Fight.gif

[thrustbucket]

I think most libertarias recognize the need for some oversight over life's necessities when it comes to capitalism.

On the other hand, even the most Berkley of liberals are more ok with capitalism and monopolistic practices than they let on, or they would not all worship Apple so much :).

[dmaul1114]

I think most everyone thinks capitalism is the way to go and that some regulation is required. Of course there are some extremists that want a communist system or extreme libertarians who want a 100% free market.

But in general most people realize a 100% free market won't work there has to be some regulations to deal with monopolies (need more than we have if companies are too big to fail), schemes, etc. to keep the overall economy as stable as possible. And conversely, most people realize that we need as little regulation as possible as too much will just muck things up. Finding the balance is key.

[Msut77]

msut, kindly point out where I am wrong.

Read my posts.

And yes, government has a right to use violence to prevent others from using violence. This is the only instance where force is morally justified.

Even if I grant you that (for arguments sake) it is a pretty big "only" with about several thousand ancillary points to be made.

[Capitalizt]

Pure capitalism requires everybody to play the game or starve. If somebody hoards a necessary resource (ie. clean water) and nobody else can get it, they either do without and die or the hoarder names the price.

First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history (unless you count government hoarding/price controls, etc). Secondly, even if it COULD happen, why would anybody hoard it? In a capitalist economy the hoarder would have every incentive to SELL the water for a tremendous profit. If they refuse to sell, there would be an incredibly lucrative market waiting for the first ambitious person to take advantage of. Supply/demand holes do not last long in any free society. Someone always steps up to fill them, and in your scenario the first entrepreneur to find another water source and satisfy public demand would make a FORTUNE.


Since we're using hypotheticals, let's use another one.

Let's pretend the greediest businessman creates water filters at his factory.

Unfortunately, the factory pollutes the local water supply to the point that the businessman's filters are required or the water is lethal.Bzzt..Stop right there. This would qualify as both theft and violence..intentionally vandalizing public property and endangering the lives of others. In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.

[Msut77]

First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history

The books you supposedly read and love so much?

The same exact things can be said about them.

In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.

Before anyone responds to this, you basically define taxes as theft right?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history (unless you count government hoarding/price controls, etc). Secondly, even if it COULD happen, why would anybody hoard it? In a capitalist economy the hoarder would have every incentive to SELL the water for a tremendous profit. If they refuse to sell, there would be an incredibly lucrative market waiting for the first ambitious person to take advantage of. Supply/demand holes do not last long in any free society. Someone always steps up to fill them, and in your scenario the first entrepreneur to find another water source and satisfy public demand would make a FORTUNE.
Bzzt..Stop right there. This would qualify as both theft and violence..intentionally vandalizing public property and endangering the lives of others. In a libertarian/capitalist country, this would be the height of immorality...and government would be required to step in.

:cry: Nobody likes ridiculously extreme hypothetical situations. Fair enough.

How about NiMH? Chevron owns the patents to the battery. They also make a lot of money from oil. They refuse to sell large NiMH batteries for use in electric cars. An electric car with NiMH could store up to 70kWh of energy. If the car is optimized, the car (with a very strong tailwind) could get 420 miles per charge and satisfy almost all consumer needs. (In the real world, it's 120-200 miles per charge.)

By suppressing the technology, they have led to more pollution from tailpipes and ensured profit with the higher cost of gasoline.

And ... the government turns a blind eye to it for the last decade because they are playing by the rules.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Before anyone responds to this, you basically define taxes as theft right?

They are.

Before somebody accuses me of flipflopping, I'm libertarian, but I recognize most people don't understand the concept of playing fair.

[SpazX]

They are.

Before somebody accuses me of flipflopping, I'm libertarian, but I recognize most people don't understand the concept of playing fair.

Honestly, if everybody played fair I'd be a libertarian too. Or maybe a communist...really if everyone was nice and never took advantage of others then it wouldn't really matter either way.

But since that isn't true I'd rather go with something in-between.

[Msut77]

They are.

Before somebody accuses me of flipflopping, I'm libertarian, but I recognize most people don't understand the concept of playing fair.

FoC, you have shown repeatedly that you are capable of rational thought and reason. That puts you in the top 3% of Libertarians.

BTW, what you posted about no one liking an extreme hypothetical? There is no way in hell you should grant him that as Atlas Shrugged etc. are nothing but an even more ridiculous hypothetical.

[thrustbucket]

First of all, doing this is impossible in any modern economy, and it has never happened in 10,000 years of recorded human history (unless you count government hoarding/price controls, etc). Secondly, even if it COULD happen, why would anybody hoard it? In a capitalist economy the hoarder would have every incentive to SELL the water for a tremendous profit. If they refuse to sell, there would be an incredibly lucrative market waiting for the first ambitious person to take advantage of. Supply/demand holes do not last long in any free society. Someone always steps up to fill them, and in your scenario the first entrepreneur to find another water source and satisfy public demand would make a FORTUNE.

Even though I mostly agree with you, I think the argument against what you said there is that society very well might suffer during the hording period as prices skyrocketed for a necessity until a strong enough competitor came along.


How about NiMH? Chevron owns the patents to the battery. They also make a lot of money from oil. They refuse to sell large NiMH batteries for use in electric cars. An electric car with NiMH could store up to 70kWh of energy. If the car is optimized, the car (with a very strong tailwind) could get 420 miles per charge and satisfy almost all consumer needs. (In the real world, it's 120-200 miles per charge.)

By suppressing the technology, they have led to more pollution from tailpipes and ensured profit with the higher cost of gasoline.

And ... the government turns a blind eye to it for the last decade because they are playing by the rules.

That's a shitty situation but the really big question is - where is the competition? Why is this one type of battery been the only viable solution for 10+ years?

Of course, I believe in far more nefarious and draconian conspiracies involving new tech which the government is a big part of.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

That's a shitty situation but the really big question is - where is the competition? Why is this one type of battery been the only viable solution for 10+ years?

Of course, I believe in far more nefarious and draconian conspiracies involving new tech which the government is a big part of.

The only real competitor is Lithium Ion. Until they get it to stop blowing up and the number of recharges matches NiMH, it won't work for vehicles.

Once Lithium Ion is perfected, NiMH will go the way of the horse buggy.

Of course, Chevron could always buy the patents to that new battery technology or whatever comes out and our grandchildren will be killing each other for the last drop of gasoline.

[Cheese]

I skipped 3 pages of this thread, so excuse me if it's been said already, but Ayn Rand is the one of the worst writers of the 20th century, hands down. Her characters are awful caricatures of actual people, much less human beings. She has a utilitarian style of prose that lacks any sort of personality or wit and her books are about as entertaining to read as stereo instructions.

I will give her this, she found a way to work though her obvious grudge against socialism (her family was chased out of their upper-class digs in Russia during the socialist revolution), granted she works it out with a sledgehammer — devoid of subtlety or nuance — but she does work it out.

[rickonker]

It seems to me that the less power the government has over large businesses the more power that the large businesses will have over the government. That's how it has worked historically, anyway. I think it's a better idea to try to keep a balance and that requires giving the government some power in the economy.

Spaz, that is not how the relationship between government and large businesses works in the real world, no matter what they taught us in high school. Large businesses always try to have power over the government because the government has power that they want. It's like throwing food to animals and watching them all scurry to it. Lobbyists camp out in DC and buy political favors, like special subsidies for large companies. But if the government didn't have the power to hand out subsidies in the first place, lobbying for them would serve no purpose and would disappear.

In other words, the less power the government has, the less useful it is for large businesses to have power over the government. If the government couldn't tax, borrow, and spend at will, do you think we'd have as many lobbyists and as much corporate welfare as we do today?

You (along with many in this thread and most progressives) view government and big business as almost always being at odds with each other, with the government protecting everybody from big business, when in reality they usually work together instead to further their interests. This would rightly be called fascism if that word didn't immediately conjure up images of jackboots and funny-looking mustaches.

[rickonker]

:cry: Nobody likes ridiculously extreme hypothetical situations. Fair enough.

How about NiMH? Chevron owns the patents to the battery. They also make a lot of money from oil. They refuse to sell large NiMH batteries for use in electric cars. An electric car with NiMH could store up to 70kWh of energy. If the car is optimized, the car (with a very strong tailwind) could get 420 miles per charge and satisfy almost all consumer needs. (In the real world, it's 120-200 miles per charge.)

By suppressing the technology, they have led to more pollution from tailpipes and ensured profit with the higher cost of gasoline.

And ... the government turns a blind eye to it for the last decade because they are playing by the rules.

FoC, if you're a libertarian you should be able to find the potential flaws (I count 4) in your hypothetical. Hint: A Randian would be unlikely to detect any of them.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

FoC, if you're a libertarian you should be able to find the potential flaws (I count 4) in your hypothetical. Hint: A Randian would be unlikely to detect any of them.

The NiMH/Chevron scenario is reality, not hypothetical.

[rickonker]

The NiMH/Chevron scenario is reality, not hypothetical.
Oh I know, what I meant as a hypothetical is that same scenario in a free market.

[Capitalizt]

fatherofcaitlyn, your Chevron hypothetical reminds me forecefully of the Rearden Metal case in Atlas Shrugged..with you taking the point of view of the bureaucrats. In the story, a businessman named Hank Rearden spends 10 years of his life developing a strong and lightweight metal for use in industry. The product is wildly successful and when Rearden refuses to sell to the government before his private customers, they end up basically pointing a gun to his head demanding he turn over the patent for the public good..

He continues to withhold his metal, so they bring him up on some vague "acting against the public interest" charges and bring him to trial. Here is an excerpt from the courtroom scene:


The newspapers had snarled that the cause of the country's troubles, as this case demonstrated, was the selfish greed of rich industrialists; that it was men like Hank Rearden who were to blame for the shrinking diet, the falling temperature and the cracking roofs in the homes of the nation; that if it had not been for men who broke regulations and hampered the government's plans, prosperity would have been achieved long ago; and that a man like Hank Rearden was prompted by nothing but the profit motive. This last was stated without explanation or elaboration, as if the words "profit motive" were the self-evident brand of ultimate evil.

The crowd remembered that these same newspapers, less than two years ago, had screamed that the production of Rearden Metal should be forbidden, because its producer was endangering people's lives for the sake of his greed; they remembered that the man in grey had ridden in the cab of the first engine to run over a track of his own Metal; and that he was now on trial for the greedy crime of withholding from the public a load of the Metal which it had been his greedy crime to offer in the public market.

According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge's bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room an atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
http://bheemboy.blogspot.com/2007/12/hank-rearden-his-trial.html

The batteries you are worried about are not a true public good like land or drinking water. They are a piece of technology..a product of the mind of those who invented them. Chevron owns that product and has no obligation to surrender it "for the public good". If government could justify confiscating every new invention that makes the world a better place to live in, the patent office would soon close down.

I encourage you to read the rest of Rearden's testimony at the link above. That is basically what my response would be if I could articulate it as well.

[Friend of Sonic]

The batteries you are worried about are not a true public good like land or drinking water. They are a piece of technology..a product of the mind of those who invented them. Chevron owns that product and has no obligation to surrender it "for the public good". If government could justify confiscating every new invention that makes the world a better place to live in, the patent office would soon close down.

Maybe it's me, but the thought of auto makers buying out every piece of technology and advancement designed to increase MPG or get rid of gas altogether sickens me. I could give two shits if it's the "right thing" to do by not allowing the goverment to intervene. You may be right, but if there's one thing I wish the goverment would stop, it's the sick relationship between the automakers and the oil companies.

[SpazX]

Spaz, that is not how the relationship between government and large businesses works in the real world, no matter what they taught us in high school. Large businesses always try to have power over the government because the government has power that they want. It's like throwing food to animals and watching them all scurry to it. Lobbyists camp out in DC and buy political favors, like special subsidies for large companies. But if the government didn't have the power to hand out subsidies in the first place, lobbying for them would serve no purpose and would disappear.

In other words, the less power the government has, the less useful it is for large businesses to have power over the government. If the government couldn't tax, borrow, and spend at will, do you think we'd have as many lobbyists and as much corporate welfare as we do today?

You (along with many in this thread and most progressives) view government and big business as almost always being at odds with each other, with the government protecting everybody from big business, when in reality they usually work together instead to further their interests. This would rightly be called fascism if that word didn't immediately conjure up images of jackboots and funny-looking mustaches.

Well I certainly wasn't taught anything I said in high school, but I wasn't talking about lobbyists. That's a problem, but it's not what I meant.

I'm talking about power more generally. Power is a finite resource that both government and private business want. If government can take power from business, then it will, and if business can take power from government, then it will. They're really the only two players, so what power one doesn't have the other will. Businesses work with government because it has the power they want, yes, but if the government didn't have it then the businesses already would.

If there were no government, then those with the most money (resources) would have the most power. If there were no businesses, or private exchange of resources, then the government would have the power. In that sense, they're always at odds when they want the same power. When they work together (in the US) it's usually in the interest of business because of the fact that the government has grown more powerful over a time when business had power and so business has worked with government to keep their power while it grew.

The government is the only check on business as people individually have too little power to challenge a business. That's why I talk about a balance between business and government. Not that it necessarily exists currently, but it should be there, and one or the other having all power is a bad idea.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

fatherofcaitlyn, your Chevron hypothetical ...

Once again, Chevron and NiMH are not a hypothetical situation. They are reality.

Let's start there.

[Msut77]

Once again, Chevron and NiMH are not a hypothetical situation. They are reality.

Let's start there.

At this point the only conclusion is that cap is being obtuse.

They are a piece of technology..a product of the mind of those who invented them. Chevron owns that product and has no obligation to surrender it "for the public good".

Oil and Car companies would not be a fraction of what they are now if it were not for the government spending and the good public, lets not kid ourselves.

I mean fuck me.

I hope cap is just being obtuse.

BTW, The laughable hypothetical Rearden Metal thing? It is obviously a hat tip to Harry Brearley and stainless steel. It is supposedly an alloy (you try inventing a metal) and as I pointed out the word mythril may as well be used, it all reads like a sex novel written by a person who has not kissed someone yet.

Now as for what rick was saying... as scummy as it is the way mega corporations use their influence, for example spending millions over the years fighting against fuel efficiency standards and then begging for bailouts when no one wants to buy their gas guzzlers. There is a distinction comparing it to the relationship companies had in the past with the government such as the circumstances surrounding say the Ludlow Massacre.

[rickonker]

Once again, Chevron and NiMH are not a hypothetical situation. They are reality.

Let's start there.
FoC, I replied to you earlier but I'm not sure if you saw it. I know the NiMH situation is reality, but what was the point of bringing it up? If you're just trying to say the current situation is wrong, I agree with you. But your post suggests you brought it up to point out a flaw in "pure capitalism," which would make my earlier post relevant because you've turned your situation into a hypothetical.

[Capitalizt]

foc, replace "hypothetical" with "example". My answer is the same.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

FoC, I replied to you earlier but I'm not sure if you saw it. I know the NiMH situation is reality, but what was the point of bringing it up? If you're just trying to say the current situation is wrong, I agree with you. But your post suggests you brought it up to point out a flaw in "pure capitalism," which would make my earlier post relevant because you've turned your situation into a hypothetical.

I was responding more to Capitalizt. I wanted to make sure we're all at the same starting point before I write long bordeline insane post hinging on that tangent of reality.

[thisjustanother]

just a quick bump as this topic is much needed in times like these. and also, is this book really worth getting? there are so many mixed reviews about it i am kinda hesitant on buying it.

[Ruined]

Book sounds interesting, I'm going to give it a shot.

[mykevermin]

just a quick bump as this topic is much needed in times like these. and also, is this book really worth getting? there are so many mixed reviews about it i am kinda hesitant on buying it.

Bah. It's a *novel*. There's nothing to be afraid of. It's quite long, I understand.

But at it's core, you can't really be afraid of a fictional story, can you?

(in before the typical obnoxious "haw haw bible is fiction and kills!" numbskulls)

[Capitalizt]

far more good reviews than bad.. If you have an open mind, it will change your outlook on practically everything. Everyone should read it once, even hardcore Marxists who have the opposite philosophy ;)

Amazon reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/product-reviews/0452011876/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If one has NOTHING better to do, why not read Atlas Shrugged?

[mykevermin]

far more good reviews than bad.. If you have an open mind, it will change your outlook on practically everything. Everyone should read it once, even hardcore Marxists who have the opposite philosophy ;)

Amazon reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/product-reviews/0452011876/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I take it you've read "The Jungle," then.

EDIT: FoC, if I'm not reading for work, then I'm reading "The Dark Tower" again or playing me some games. Atlas Shrugged is close to "Dora the Explorer" on my to-do list.

[Capitalizt]

I've read a summary of the jungle myke..It's not very relevant to be honest. They are very different types of books.

[mykevermin]

:lol:

Don't make excuses. The Jungle has influenced labor policy far more than Atlas Shrugged has influenced ideology. Not relevant? You're simply unaware of history, my friend.

Don't get me wrong. As someone who performs and researches for a living, one of the harsh bits of reality is that I'm writing to a limited audience, and pop culture/mass media will always be far more influential in terms of policy than I ever will be. I'm jealous of The Jungle, and am upset that a work of fiction influenced labor/union policy the way it did.

And that's irrespective of that I agree with its philosophies - because I'm savvy enough to recognize that it's a nasty, nasty precedent (and a historically consistent one) that we let works of fiction influence what we do and what laws we pass more than the empirical world in which we live.

After all, when Republican candidates talk about "Jack Bauer," it resonates with the public far more than Howard Dean's summary of Devah Pager's research. People know Bauer, and don't know or give a fuck about Pager.

In short, don't blow off a novel that Atlas Shrugged wishes it could be, in terms of influence.

[Capitalizt]

I don't think you can quantify the influence Atlas Shrugged has had.. She influenced the minds of millions..changing belief systems and perceptions. She provided a crucial piece of the puzzle that was missing from the free market school of thought at the time. There already were numerous economic justifications for capitalism and free markets.. Central planning has been a proven failure on anything larger than a tribal scale. It was not the system to embrace if you wanted to increase prosperity for vast number of people. Capitalism is the only system that does this, so it had it's economic justification...but was lacking a MORAL justification. Rand was the first to provide that. She offered a moral defense of capitalism and individualism..and a scathing criticism of socialism/collectivism, not because it is inefficient and wasteful (as was proven by Mises, Hayek, et al.)..but because it is IMMORAL as well. The moral justification for individualism is what influenced so many people and without that, the left would likely have come to dominate the USA several decades earlier than it did.

At any rate, nobody can deny Atlas Shrugged certainly had less influence on POLICY than The Jungle...but that's because the world has been on an inexorable trend towards more and more government for the past 100 years. Rand didn't have any policy proposals or suggestions for improving government programs or making them more efficient.. She wanted most of them abolished which was obviously a radical idea. And with the majority of the population clamoring for more government intervention not less, it's no wonder she was sidelined in favor of the big government proponents like Sinclair.

[mykevermin]

You're conflating labor policy that stemmed directly from the "expose" that was The Jungle with "big government." And you're conflating "organized labor" with "big government."

That's not a very good argument. They may correlate, but it's not causally or practically related.

And you're still blowing off the larger point that, based on your "opposites should read it" philosophy, you ought to have read The Jungle by now. Cliffs Notes don't count.

[Capitalizt]

I doubt the jungle can tell me any more than I already know about labor conditions in the late 18/early 1900s. I know things were shitty.. There was pollution, a lack of infrastructure, and major overcrowding due to the huge influx of immigrants. It's easy to crticize harsh working conditions then, but I notice most writers during that period neglect to talk about the miserable conditions of the average rural person. The jobs in cities may have been dangerous and low-paying, but rural jobs were often nonexistent. The high poverty rates and malnutrition in rural areas was often much worse than in cities...but since these writers spent their years touring and commenting on city life instead, we never hear about the invisible masses living outside them. Once you ask why there were so many people moving into these terrible cities, you'll realize it is because they were in desperate search of a better life because conditions outside were often much worse.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You're conflating labor policy that stemmed directly from the "expose" that was The Jungle with "big government." And you're conflating "organized labor" with "big government."

That's not a very good argument. They may correlate, but it's not causally or practically related.

And you're still blowing off the larger point that, based on your "opposites should read it" philosophy, you ought to have read The Jungle by now. Cliffs Notes don't count.

Would a Broadway reimagining be adequate?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It's easy to crticize harsh working conditions then, but I notice most writers during that period neglect to talk about the miserable conditions of the average rural person. The jobs in cities may have been dangerous and low-paying, but rural jobs were often nonexistent.

FAIL. Rural jobs didn't fade until mechanization of agriculture.

They use to pay people to cut the tassels (male organ) off of corn.

[mykevermin]

I doubt the jungle can tell me any more than I already know about labor conditions in the late 18/early 1900s. I know things were shitty.. There was pollution, a lack of infrastructure, and major overcrowding due to the huge influx of immigrants. It's easy to crticize harsh working conditions then, but I notice most writers during that period neglect to talk about the miserable conditions of the average rural person. The jobs in cities may have been dangerous and low-paying, but rural jobs were often nonexistent. The high poverty rates and malnutrition in rural areas was often much worse than in cities...but since these writers spent their years touring and commenting on city life instead, we never hear about the invisible masses living outside them. Once you ask why there were so many people moving into these terrible cities, you'll realize it is because they were in desperate search of a better life because conditions outside were often much worse.

Your understanding of the social/economic conditions behind the Great Migration is as lacking as your continual pithy, condescending "I don't need to read it because I know it all already" disregard for The Jungle.

[Capitalizt]

Rural conditions were miserable for many people mike. Rational self interest suggests that they wouldn't be willing to subject themselves to city life unless it was better than other alternatives available to them.

Anyway, I'll read your pro-socialist diatribe "The Jungle" if you my pro-capitalist diatribe "Atlas Shrugged". Deal? ;)

[mykevermin]

rural conditions were miserable in different ways for different people.

remember sharecropping?

Requested it from my library. Your turn, and you have 1/6th the reading to do, so you best not flake.

[Capitalizt]

deal, lol. You'll enjoy it.. Once you get a few chapters in you won't want to put it down.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Rural conditions were miserable for many people mike. Rational self interest suggests that they wouldn't be willing to subject themselves to city life unless it was better than other alternatives available to them.

Anyway, I'll read your pro-socialist diatribe "The Jungle" if you my pro-capitalist diatribe "Atlas Shrugged". Deal? ;)

People left rural areas because a machine became capable of doing the work of dozens if not hundreds of men.

Since there were no social programs allowing able-bodied people to survive, the only options were starvation or flight.

It wasn't because the basic living conditions were worse than the city by the very nature of being in the country. It was because machines made basic living conditions worse than the city.

[Capitalizt]

People left rural areas because a machine became capable of doing the work of dozens if not hundreds of men.

Since there were no social programs allowing able-bodied people to survive, the only options were starvation or flight.

Translation: Poverty and malnutrition in rural areas made people worse off there than in cities. Isn't that what I said about ten posts ago?

[mykevermin]

:lol:

#-o

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Translation: Poverty and malnutrition in rural areas made people worse off there than in cities. Isn't that what I said about ten posts ago?

No. You're putting cart before the horse.

[Quillion]

Sigh... I'll have to read them both. The girlfriend is a big fan of Ayn Rand, and I've been meaning to read ...Shrugged for a while, but my backlog is just too big. I'll add that Upton Sinclair joint to it.

[dmaul1114]

I've been meaning to read Atlas Shrugged for a while too. Had to read The Fountainhead for a 20th century history class in undergrad and really liked the book. Don't agree with Rand's views much, but the book was a very good read.

[Msut77]

You're conflating labor policy that stemmed directly from the "expose" that was The Jungle with "big government." And you're conflating "organized labor" with "big government."

That's not a very good argument. They may correlate, but it's not causally or practically related.

And you're still blowing off the larger point that, based on your "opposites should read it" philosophy, you ought to have read The Jungle by now. Cliffs Notes don't count.

Notice cap continuously conflates socialism with a planned economy, they are not necessarily the same.

I have no idea what cap thinks he is arguing, that things sucked for those in rural areas with little power as well is hardly an argument for capitalism.

[camoor]

If you have time to read Ayn Rand, I suggest balancing it by following up with some Sinclair Lewis. At the very least read "The Great Gatsby"

I used to believe all that Ayn Rand stuff but now I realize how full of crap it is. It's like growing up reading the bible and Superman comics and then getting your mind blown by Nietzsche.

If you don't believe me, just ask ol' Jeff Skilling how well "The Selfish Gene" social darwinist theory worked out for him and his former company.

[speedracer]

One Dimensional Man is the best critique of "Randian" thought I've read, though it certainly wasn't meant to be. I had difficulty disputing many of his claims, even though I didn't like much of what he insinuated. That's the mark of a good book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

If you find Randian thought interesting, you owe it to yourself read this book.

[rickonker]

Myke, didn't you call Randians "ideological numbskulls" a while ago? Now you're reading their most beloved work? :hot:

[rickonker]

One Dimensional Man is the best critique of "Randian" thought I've read, though it certainly wasn't meant to be. I had difficulty disputing many of his claims, even though I didn't like much of what he insinuated. That's the mark of a good book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

If you find Randian thought interesting, you owe it to yourself read this book.
speedracer, how is One-Dimensional Man a critique of Randian thought? I'm curious to hear your take on it.