Discussion in 'Economics' started by brettman9, Sep 22, 2008.
Hank Paulson as Wesley Mouch
Ben Bernanke as Eugene Lawson
George W. Bush as Mr. Thompson
This is DEFINITELY Ayn Rand material. Capitalism is about serving self-interest and by doing so ultimately serving the common interest. These boys and girls in Gubmint trade in fear, and they do not want free markets to be free markets, and are attempting to keep the market away from hitting an organic bottom where free market capitalists see an opportunity to serve themselves and by doing so serving a bigger good.
....because the currently PLANNED wealth transfer needs to go as THEY PLANNED. When it is not working the way they (global wealth entities....or globalist's) desire, inputs will be made to hammer events in their wanted direction.
Our current directed wealth transfer event is no where near over.....hang on for more to follow!
Fear is the ultimate weapon of those in power. It allows them to extraordinary things.
Yes it does....assets run down to blowout wholesale prices!
if only we had Ayn Rand's Newsletter Economics editor in charge through all of this, thin how much better things would have turned out
what was his name? Allan, Allan Greenspa...
uhhhh, never mind
I have some friends who go to the Objectivist annual conference in the US every year, and I talked to them, unfalteringly and fiercely loyal as they are to Objectivism.
I think that "the common good of capitalism" is isomorphic to the integrity and sustainability in a systems model of Laissez-faire. I disagree strongly with a number of points in Objectivism, and Ayn Rand was a miserable being with regards to her personal life... but of course she had some good points. In my epistemology research I did follow Objectivism very far down to find out what really makes sense, but in the end found it to be flawed.
Objectivism is very strong on logics, and that is something I like. That is also the appeal to many young newcomers - and later indoctrinated into Objectivism. And that cult-feeling of Objectivism is something I never can accept - strongly individual as I am. Objectivists read their books like it was a bible and never adapt to anything - just apply. Most Objectivists fail in debating at some point, beause they need to "refer to their books" - unable to think and reason for themselves - but enthralled in their books and seminars. They can be loyal followers, but fail to lead and innovate - that is their social psyche flaw.
The aggression in Objectivism is the strongest objection that I have, and also the thing that makes Objectivism very far right-wing.
Sustainable systems are much more about preserving integrity and allowing consensual evolution to happen, by adaption.
Objectivism would fail by their aggression to be able to keep stability, but would like the Neocons just become polarizing.
I have but one measure that I evaluate philosophies - over a period of time, does it work?
Allan Greenspan was her objectivist newsletter economics editor
And there's never been a more collectivist power on earth
When he disfavored stocks in 2000, you had to get out - or be ruined
When he favored real estate after 2002, you had to be in it and OUT of savings - or else
He never hestitated to confiscate wealth for his purposes - no individuals going to the beat of theri own drummer on HIS watch, no, you had to be in sync with his view of 'what's best' for society, even it it's a deliberate housing bubble that cannot do anything but end badly
It's not a minor detail that Ayn Rand's economics editor was one of the most vicious 'collectivists' in history
If it fails among her inner circle, it's failure in general. None of this 'it would have worked, but..' crap
After listening for a few evenings, I showed my logical-positivist colors. I donât recall the topic being discussed, but something prompted me to postulate that there are no moral absolutes. Ayn Rand pounced. âHow can that be?â
âBecause to be truly rational, you canât hold a conviction without significant empirical evidence,â
âHow can that be?â she asked again. âDonât you exist?â
âI ... canât be sure,â I admitted.
âWould you be willing to say you donât exist?â
âAnd by the way, who is making that argument?â
Maybe you had to be there â or, more to the point, maybe you had to be a twenty-six-year-old math junkie â but this exchange really shook me. I saw she was quite effectively demonstrating the self-contradictory nature of my position. ... It dawned on me that a lot of what Iâd decided was true was probably just plain wrong. Of course, I was too stubborn and embarrassed to concede immediately; instead, I clammed up.
Rand came away from that evening with a nickname for me. She dubbed me âthe Undertaker,â partly because my manner was so serious and partly because I always wore a dark suit and tie. Over the next few weeks, I later learned, she would ask people, âWell, has the Undertaker decided he exists yet?â (p. 41)
Taken from "How Alan Greenspan Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the State" which in turn took it from Greenspan's book.
I'm sure you've read Rand's "Capitalism: The unknown Ideal." It's amazing the amount skin he's shed from then until now.
Separate names with a comma.