When I took some gov't and economics courses at UT Austin in the "60's", Galbreath was worshipped.... and of course Paul Samuelson wrote the textbook expousing Keynes whereby brilliant men use gov't to smooth out the natural cycles of the economy. The socialist professors were all excited about the advent of the computer because it was going to resolve one of the major problems of central planning (Soviet) which was allocation of scarce resources........so that they wouldn't have an oversupply of shoes but no toilet paper in one region and vice versa in another region. I guess the internet arrived too late to save them. I'll put my faith in Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, von Mises, Walter Williams, and Rush Limbaugh than John Kenneth Galbreath. Stosh
No, I don't. I need only to have observed it in history. Time and again. The fully self-correcting mechanisms you espouse are far more painful, and the transitionary period far longer, than most "objectivists" can imagine. If you studied economics to any significant degree, then I will not debate the details with you. My education in the subject is limited to the intermediate level as covered in my MBA program a long time ago ('84). Therefore, I need to pick my battles carefully. However, I do not need to view bullshit under a microscope to know what it is.
To Angrycat: You need to figure out a way to let Thunderdog out of this unfair debate. Not only have you experienced socialism in the Soviet Union, you have studied the subject in depth. Stosh
The problem with the so-called application of Keynesian economics is that it has NEVER been applied as prescribed. Yes, when the economy was struggling spending was increased and taxes were often cut. But when the economy was booming, was spending cut, were taxes raised and was the national debt paid down? Not really. And so, you can't just follow one half of the recipe and then blame the sad looking cake on the cookbook.
And Stosh has found a new hero to worship. Kidding aside, Stosh, if I were a betting man, I'd say you voted for GWB. Twice. Would that be correct? Serious question.
That would be correct, but I wouldn't do it again......guess I would just stay home. Regarding Keynes and the fact that countercyclical monetary and fiscal policy has never been properly applied to see if it would really work. That is exactly the flaw in it: human beings (FOMC, treasury, congress, pres.) are not smart enough nor disciplined enought to know how much and when to intervene in the free market. In theory, it sounds good as does moderation in eating, drinking, smoking, screwing, and trading. I need a Big Brother to smooth out the excesses of my trading activities. Freedom allows individuals, businesses, and societies to learn from their mistakes and thereby lessen or avoid them in the future. All Hail Angrycat and Ayn Rand. Stosh
I was under the impression we were having a civil friendly exchange of ideas here. The fact that you retreat when asked to clarify your position by somebody who is trying to educate you, devalues your moral standing in my humble view. No battle, relax, just a objective remark.
+1 I'd agree that she's not technically a great writer. However, the idea of rational self-interest made a huge impression on me as a young man and became a part of my own philosophy. Please note - a part. It appealed to me because it rejects what I intuitively feel is wrong with collectivism. As mbradley points out, it's pretty relevant right about now. Also, I don't think there's anything in Rand that suggests cooperation isn't sometimes the most optimal approach to solving a problem or even to making money. It's too bad that debate here always (I mean always) descends into personal attack because I would very much like to follow a reasoned discussion by a few guys here about the need for regulation in order to avoid monopoly.
Thought so. Here's why I think that is. Rand's "philosophy" is very simplistic. GWB's views of the world are very simplistic. Now, in the general sense, simple is good. In mathematics and so on, simple is downright elegant. But let us not make the mistake of confusing simple with oversimplification. Rand's view of the world and the people in it are extremely simple to the point of oversimplification, as is GWB's sense of the world. Some people relate well to to these ideas because they don't require much in the way of thinking. See the pattern? (I bet on simple patterns. ) You criticize Keynsian economics because you say it cannot be applied with proper discipline and so on. You have a point. However, at least such a world has checks and balances, such as they are. Now imagine yourself in a world without any such checks and balances against the background of human nature. :eek: So while Keynesian economics has yet to be properly applied, it is a far better model than the anarchy that would result in a truly laissez-faire economy as proposed by Rand.