Ayn Rand resurgence

[UtahBill]

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence - CNN.com

What say you "economistic" types?

 

[celticlord]

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence - CNN.com

What say you "economistic" types?

About damn time. The world needs to grow up some and re-learn some basic truths. Ayn Rand took way too many pages to get the idea across, but the idea itself is spot on.

Government + business == economic disaster for all concerned.

 

[UtahBill]

About damn time. The world needs to grow up some and re-learn some basic truths. Ayn Rand took way too many pages to get the idea across, but the idea itself is spot on.

Government + business == economic disaster for all concerned.

bearing in mind that substituting crooks for the govt factor yeilds the same result, disaster...

 

[Mach]

Rand picked an ideology that didn't have a strong cultural stamp yet, and she stamped it. It's always going to have appeal, just as much as any other extremist/cult ideology does. The above words probably trip emails to the Rand Tought Police, I wouldn't be surprised if we get some vehement defenders of all that is Rand in here.

Of all the trash ideologies out, at least there is a lot of good in the Rand philosophy in its strict application of logic/reason. I benefited significantly from a number of objectivist labeled ideas. To me objectivism/Rand is to be taken as ONE set of ideas, and is most useful at the core/low-level of it's "philosophy". As it extends to other aspects of human life, it loses it's usefulness, if not its credibility.

As always, reality tests nonsensical ideas taken to the extreme, and the latest important one for me is Greenspan (from the Greenspan wiki)
From Greenspan Wiki ==========================================
Greenspan was initially a logical positivist[22] but was converted to Objectivism by Nathaniel Branden. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Ayn Rand's philosophy, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[23][24]

During the 1950s, Greenspan was one of the members of Ayn Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor.

In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008 Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed.[27] This has caused backlash from Objectivist intellectuals, blaming the economic crisis on Greenspan's pandering to the mixed economy and betraying his laissez-faire views.[28]
=======================================

As soon as I started reading about the implosion of the credit markets/housing markets, I thought, here we go, let's see how they try to wiggle out of this one. Well, Greenspan for one, someone with little to lose, called it like he saw it. Oh sure. Greenspan wasn't a "real" objectivist, that's why it failed. No, it failed because it was, and is, flawed. A strict ideology is no substitute for examining reality.

Anyone who hasn't read Atlas Shrugged, it's good to read it, and some may even find it a good read. Considering in the U.S. the former guru of the economy was hooked into this philosophy, for no other reason that to get an idea of what context he operated in, its' worth it.

 

[ARealConservative]

In a congressional hearing on October 23, 2008 Greenspan admitted that his free-market ideology shunning certain regulations was flawed.[27] This has caused backlash from Objectivist intellectuals, blaming the economic crisis on Greenspan's pandering to the mixed economy and betraying his laissez-faire views.[28]

So in 2008 when it became clear his central planning was deeply flawed and he attempted to deflect blame, that anybody would listen?

Greesnpan left objectivism the minute he agreed to be THE central planner and operate in direct violation of what objectivists believe.

 

[Mach]

So in 2008 when it became clear his central planning was deeply flawed and he attempted to deflect blame, that anybody would listen?

Greesnpan left objectivism the minute he agreed to be THE central planner and operate in direct violation of what objectivists believe.

Oh sure, Satan cast down from the heavens, we've never heard that story before.

Greenspan, who was in Rand's inner circle, an economic leader of our time who beat the drum of free-market ideology, claims the idealogy he followed for so many years, is flawed.

Aside from the reality of what Greenspan stated clearly, given his background and views, what's interesting to me is that the act of being the central planner in and of itself is not shown to be linked to anything that precipitated the failures. So why mention it?

If ones idealogy, objectivism or otherwise, leaves a void of power, that power will be taken. As Utah points out, there is also a precident that it will be a crook at some point (if not always to some degree).

No central planner? Someone will TAKE the role. And if its' private, with no transparancy or other seats of power to keep it in check, then it's safe to assume it's a WORSE option. Free-market doesnt' mean free-market, it means less government involvement. Private power can eliminate most or all of the "Free" aspect of most any market, just as any other power can.

-Mach

 

[the makeout hobo]

How is it as a read? It always looked so preachy and turgid to me, I never wanted to pick it up.

 

[nerv14]

I read alot of Ayn Rang's philosophy, and evene though I still disagree with most of it, she has some really good points.

everyone should check out what she has to say.


i read like half of the fountainhead, but its way too long. and they changed all of the charactors for a little bit half way through... way too tiring.

 

[Wessexman]

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence - CNN.com

What say you "economistic" types?

Ayn Rand wrote some interesting economic and political things but a lot of it was rather simplistic and/or inaccurate and a lot of the Randroids are silly.

If you want some similar stuff but is a least slightly better I recommend Mises, Rothbard and particularly Hayek. The Calculation debate is interesting and Hayek's attack not only on the socialists and planners but what actually turns out to be Mises as well in his ideas on dispersed knowledge are a lot better than anything Ayn Rand put out.

Even Milton Friedman is better at push in my opinion.

 

[MrFungus420]

How is it as a read? It always looked so preachy and turgid to me, I never wanted to pick it up.

Very long and boring.

Reading the "begats" of the Bible is more interesting than Atlas Shrugged.

Watching paint dry is more interesting that Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

How is it as a read? It always looked so preachy and turgid to me, I never wanted to pick it up.

Her books are super long and I being very much into Objectivism have not read them because of that.

The point is very simple and does not need so many pages in my opinion.

This is a fine substitute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

 

[SFLRN]

Ayn Rand wrote some interesting economic and political things but a lot of it was rather simplistic and/or inaccurate and a lot of the Randroids are silly.

If you want some similar stuff but is a least slightly better I recommend Mises, Rothbard and particularly Hayek. The Calculation debate is interesting and Hayek's attack not only on the socialists and planners but what actually turns out to be Mises as well in his ideas on dispersed knowledge are a lot better than anything Ayn Rand put out.

Even Milton Friedman is better at push in my opinion.

I agree with most of what is said here. Ayn Rand, like most novelists, writes well, but does not necessarily have the same capacity when it comes to public policy. To me, she represents what I like least about libertarians, and many more mainstream ideologues; absolute certainty in their points, and a lack of analytical flexibility (everything is characterized as self-interest without explaining it more fully). Moreover, none of her works reflect detailed empirical analysis on important matters. Where I disagree with you Wessexman, is in characterizing Friedman as similar to Rothbard, and Mises. Both of them (Rothbard, and Mises) were closer to philosophers/normative economists than Friedman. I'm not saying Friedman was right on everything, but he had more real evidence behind his points than the others ( I equate Mises absolutism in some senses as being closer to Rand than Friedman's generally higher degree of flexibility).

 

[SFLRN]

Here's what I mean when I say that Rand, Mises, and other, more normative libertarians are the variety of libertarians I like least ( and which also tend to attract what is in my opinion, the worst variety of stubborn libertarians): (1:05 into the video, Main point I'm emphasizing starts with Friedman saying, "But as a matter of fact..."
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw"]YouTube - Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)[/ame]
I'll quote/paraphrase: There are two versions of libertarianism, "the more extreme version believes it is immoral to initiate coercive force on anyone else"
Described as: Ayn Rand type libertarianism.
Here's the brand of libertarianism Friedman, and I personally favor: Consequentialist Libertarianism: Government should be small so as to allow for the maximization for individual freedom. (To allow individuals to pursue their own values).

 

[LaMidRighter]

bearing in mind that substituting crooks for the govt factor yeilds the same result, disaster...

You made a slight mistake, substituting crooks for politicians is a redundancy, the two aren't mutually exclusive.:mrgreen:

 

[nerv14]

I use to be more of a libertarian, but that is when I thought that human nature was more stagnant. Howevere... after reading some Marx the only thing I took away from him was that people's customs and political culture are constantly changing.

Therefore, any idea of COMPLETE liberties, economic or otherwise is arrogant in how stringent it is. I also can't really understand how there could be any absolute civil rights. For instance, I like how in the US Constitution, we can actually get rid of Freedom of Speach, even though it requires a 2/3 majority.

Some types of libertarian thought would just say that property rights, and freedom of speach are near absolutes, and it can't be any other way ever.

Ayn Rand's obscession with how issues are black or white really annoys me.

 

[SFLRN]

Rand picked an ideology that didn't have a strong cultural stamp yet, and she stamped it. It's always going to have appeal, just as much as any other extremist/cult ideology does. The above words probably trip emails to the Rand Tought Police, I wouldn't be surprised if we get some vehement defenders of all that is Rand in here.


As soon as I started reading about the implosion of the credit markets/housing markets, I thought, here we go, let's see how they try to wiggle out of this one. Well, Greenspan for one, someone with little to lose, called it like he saw it. Oh sure. Greenspan wasn't a "real" objectivist, that's why it failed. No, it failed because it was, and is, flawed. A strict ideology is no substitute for examining reality.

Anyone who hasn't read Atlas Shrugged, it's good to read it, and some may even find it a good read. Considering in the U.S. the former guru of the economy was hooked into this philosophy, for no other reason that to get an idea of what context he operated in, its' worth it.

I'll restate. There are (generally) two primary types of libertarinism. Intelligent, but entirely philosophical/moral libertarianism, and a more realism/empirically based libertarianism. Most of the attacks mentioned above are of the same flawed nature as the arguments of "philosophical/moral" libertarians. You're using the same generalities (Free markets/ free market ideologies caused this crisis!) as Rand (Government caused this crisis!). In reality the truth is closer to a "shade of gray". The argument for libertarianism (from a realist perspective) is not that it is perfect, but that it tends to provide comparably better outcomes than other systems.

 

[celticlord]

bearing in mind that substituting crooks for the govt factor yeilds the same result, disaster...

Meh, only for a short while. Crooks are such bad businesspeople on their own they self-destruct in short order. Without the crutch of government aid, crooks don't stand a chance.

 

[Wessexman]

I agree with most of what is said here. Ayn Rand, like most novelists, writes well, but does not necessarily have the same capacity when it comes to public policy. To me, she represents what I like least about libertarians, and many more mainstream ideologues; absolute certainty in their points, and a lack of analytical flexibility (everything is characterized as self-interest without explaining it more fully). Moreover, none of her works reflect detailed empirical analysis on important matters. Where I disagree with you Wessexman, is in characterizing Friedman as similar to Rothbard, and Mises. Both of them (Rothbard, and Mises) were closer to philosophers/normative economists than Friedman. I'm not saying Friedman was right on everything, but he had more real evidence behind his points than the others ( I equate Mises absolutism in some senses as being closer to Rand than Friedman's generally higher degree of flexibility).

I disagree. Not only do I think that Friedman was also values driven but I think he was not too accurate as Nicky Kaldor, Joan Robinson and others showed. He was completely unable to show where money came from in the economy and had to resort to the use of gov't dropping it in the economy.

He was far too much wedded to the neoclassical mainstream silliness unlike Mises, Rothbard and Hayek. Hayek is the real outstanding one though, his theory of dispersed knowledge is excellent.

 

[Kushinator]

He was completely unable to show where money came from in the economy and had to resort to the use of gov't dropping it in the economy.

Do you have a source for this? Not that i do not believe you, but you are the first person i have heard state this.

 

[Wessexman]

Do you have a source for this? Not that i do not believe you, but you are the first person i have heard state this.

Well it is in Nicholas Kaldor's The Sourge of Monetarism.

He was a neoclassical economist and has all the usual silliness associated with them.

 

[Kushinator]

What was his premise for such an assertion? No offense, but "he said" does not prove anything, especially when criticizing one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, if not ever.

 

[Wessexman]

What was his premise for such an assertion? No offense, but "he said" does not prove anything, especially when criticizing one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, if not ever.

Its called referencing. He quotes Friedman himself. Not everything is reducible to easy internet links I'm afraid.

Here is the relevant passage.

transmission mechanism from money to income remained a 'black box' -- he could not explain it, and he did not attempt to explain it either. When it came to the question of how the authorities increase the supply of bank notes in circulation he answered that they are scattered over populated areas by means of a helicopter -- though he did not go into the ultimate consequences of such an aerial Santa Claus." [The Scourge of Monetarism, p. 28]

If one simply checks google one sees he is not alone in talking of this.

[ame="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=milton+friedman+monetary+transmission+helicopter&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq="]403 Forbidden[/ame]

 

[SFLRN]

Its called referencing. He quotes Friedman himself. Not everything is reducible to easy internet links I'm afraid.
Here is the relevant passage.

transmission mechanism from money to income remained a 'black box' -- he could not explain it, and he did not attempt to explain it either. When it came to the question of how the authorities increase the supply of bank notes in circulation he answered that they are scattered over populated areas by means of a helicopter -- though he did not go into the ultimate consequences of such an aerial Santa Claus." [The Scourge of Monetarism, p. 28]

If one simply checks google one sees he is not alone in talking of this.

403 Forbidden

So could you explain what this means in real terms? And what specific values was Friedman espousing? This is precisely why your variety of esoteric economic analysis has lost almost all of it is weight in the real world of policy. You rely on book passages rather than testable empirical models. It’s not like Friedman was perfect. Newton was later proven wrong on some of his principles by Einstein. What’s important is how he helped move the whole of economics forward (much like Keynes did).

He was far too much wedded to the neoclassical mainstream silliness unlike Mises, Rothbard and Hayek. Hayek is the real outstanding one though, his theory of dispersed knowledge is excellent.

Do you think Hayek would agree with your characterization of Friedman?

 

[Mach]

I'll restate. There are (generally) two primary types of libertarinism. Intelligent, but entirely philosophical/moral libertarianism, and a more realism/empirically based libertarianism. Most of the attacks mentioned above are of the same flawed nature as the arguments of "philosophical/moral" libertarians. You're using the same generalities (Free markets/ free market ideologies caused this crisis!) as Rand (Government caused this crisis!).

No, Greenspan claimed this. Maybe he was making a broad philosophical argument, or maybe his long life of direct involvement in the actual workings of the U.S. economy/financial system, and being in the inner circle of the person who originated the philosophy itself, gave him some authority on the topic. Maybe not, but it is what it is.

In reality the truth is closer to a "shade of gray". The argument for libertarianism (from a realist perspective) is not that it is perfect, but that it tends to provide comparably better outcomes than other systems.

Gah, you just broke your own rule! "In reality the truth", is really the same as "but as a matter of fact". Hard to avoid isn't it! I'm trying to avoid it more as well, for all the right reasons.

But to your point, there is no heavily libertarian economy of the same size/scale/cultural base as the U.S., to compare to, so claiming that it provides better outcomes is really without basis isn't it.

What we can compare it to is the U.S. economy/government.
Every time we do not enforce a rational, non-coercive system, it explodes.
The funny thing is that the core ideology of free market is good, but I believe almost everyone gets confused and screws it all up, including Rand, Greenspan, and most of the self-proclaimed libertarians on the forum.

This is how you do it:
Maximize the set of all freedoms excluding:
- the freedom to not support and enforce this
- the freedom to coerce, accidental or intentional

Is it entirely free? Absolutely NOT.
Should there be limited government involvement in these things? Absolutely NOT, it must be rigidly established and enforced, and funded. It literally "IS" the free market. IF a free market is desired, then it MUST be created and maintained. Else, it's not a free market.

To state otherwise contradicts the earlier claims. If we want to change our ideas about free markets, let's do it, but let's write it down, and see if we remain consistent. I can assure you the many banks, hedge funds, ratings agencies, and government officials, didn't write it down first, they just ran with "free market, free market, free market, wagghh, money money money before I die!!" Which is natural.

The freedom to coerce is so broad, that's where everyone gets all confused. You can't be free to own the entire market, because then by definition, no one is free to participate in the market (a contradiction). You can't let people be free to create instruments that are based on lies, because that's a form of coercion (a contradiction). You cannot let people have the freedom to do everything behind closed doors because it's evidenced that they will immediately attempt to violate EVERY TENANT of free market ideals, the minute they are given the freedom to. Seriously, give me non-competitive bids and I'll give you a kickback. Who wouldn't want to engage in profitable, sweet deals if offered it, given that we will die shortly anyway?

So you can see, just basic logic/reason, that the preaching of "small government" is dangerous, can be irresponsible, to the philosophy of "maximized individual freedoms in the market". Exactly the same mantra Greenspan followed, with exactly the same blind spot I detailed. The institutions were allowed specifically by way of REDUCED enforcement of the free market ideals (reduced regulation/government in this case), to be coercive and to break the ideals. Self destructive on paper (a contradiction) and in practice (a market bubble, burst, and recession).

It is ironic to me that the basic ideology is good, but so many who preach it actually attempt to destroy it, all the while proclaiming they are trying to enforce it. It's maddening.

 

[oldreliable67]

Very interesting thread! Thanks to all who have contributed!

Personally, I am of the "gray" school of thought (as someone, SFLRN I think, alluded to). As a daily participant/practitioner in the real world of economic analysis for nigh onto 30 years now, I came long ago to the conclusion that my academic training was indeed thought-provoking and stimulating, but the real economic world is made up of many "gray areas" that connect only various bits and pieces of many partially-correct economic theories.

As you go through life, just always remember the forecaster's credo: If you must forecast, you must forecast frequently!