Who is this woman, what did she know, and how did she know it?
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ukJiBZ8_4k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ukJiBZ8_4k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
ViRedd
New Member
Hey, Johnny ...
Thanks for posting that Youtube presentation. Did you watch the other segment? It was terrific.
Its been 50 years since Atlas Shrugged was first published and it is still a best seller today. In addition, the book is more relevent than ever.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
LOL!
Actually I intended to post the rest of the videos after a rebuttal period, but there were no rebuttals. So it slipped my mind.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pMTDaVpBPR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pMTDaVpBPR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
abe23
Active Member
Ayn Rand is an ideologue. She never held office or even ran a business. Her success in the free market was mostly based on red baiting at a time when that kind of thing was in vogue....
Her ideology of laissez-faire capitalism is essentially what caused the financial crisis. If you think the market can be trusted to take care of fraud and abuse (which is what she and alan greenspan believed) then you've probably had your head pretty pretty far up your ass for the past couple of years.
There was a saying in the soviet union that said basically everything marx told us about capitalism was true, but what he told us about communism wasn't". I think the reverse is true of her...
Her ideology of laissez-faire capitalism is essentially what caused the financial crisis. If you think the market can be trusted to take care of fraud and abuse (which is what she and alan greenspan believed) then you've probably had your head pretty pretty far up your ass for the past couple of years.
There was a saying in the soviet union that said basically everything marx told us about capitalism was true, but what he told us about communism wasn't". I think the reverse is true of her...
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Responses. Fantastic!
What do elected officials know beyond populism?
Writing two best-selling novels. Yeah, you're right abe. She knows nothing about business.
Notably the literary business.
sarc/ off.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zEruXzQZhNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zEruXzQZhNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
What do elected officials know beyond populism?
Writing two best-selling novels. Yeah, you're right abe. She knows nothing about business.
Notably the literary business.
sarc/ off.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zEruXzQZhNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zEruXzQZhNI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Because of Rand's increased popularity as of late, we taught a course on her this fall. We ended with 'virtue of selfishness' which is interesting. I disagree wholeheartedly with Ayn, but her rehashing of legitimate theory is somewhat original. The course was moderately popular and probably won't be offered again unless she's linked up with someone else.
fulbright
Member
One of the issues not addressed by those videos and an issue Rand seemed to skirt about was the existence of Robber Barons. I recognize that they only had so much time to address a large philosophy, but when asked the question, she addressed only the existence of lobbying and the abuse it allows. What she did not explain for is the natural occurrence of Robber Barons. Laissez faire capitalism allows quite readily for financial tyrants to arise and abuse their powers. Now, I'm not well versed in Rand's philosophy and have only given Objectivism a cursory reading, but can anyone tell me what the solution in Objectivism is to prevent such occurrences?
What will prevent the rise of and abuse by Robber Baron's in a true Laissez faire capitalistic economic system?
What will prevent the rise of and abuse by Robber Baron's in a true Laissez faire capitalistic economic system?
abe23
Active Member
Johnny, writing books about politics and economics hardly makes you a brilliant entrepreneur. I have some professor friends I can introduce you to...
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't anything interesting to what she's saying, it just scares me that so many people take it as gospel without looking at it critically. The ideology she articulates is just as flawed and unrealistic as communism, it's just that it's the opposite extreme....
tebor....
this might answer your question: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
If you're talking about financial markets over the past 10 years, you would be hard pressed to argue that they were "riddled" with regulation.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't anything interesting to what she's saying, it just scares me that so many people take it as gospel without looking at it critically. The ideology she articulates is just as flawed and unrealistic as communism, it's just that it's the opposite extreme....
tebor....
this might answer your question: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
If you're talking about financial markets over the past 10 years, you would be hard pressed to argue that they were "riddled" with regulation.
jeff f
New Member
dont know a lot about ayn rand. this has forced me to read a little. started with some of her quotes. very deep thinker with some great quotes. here is a link if your interested
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
The financial crisis was created by Democratic feel good policies designed to put people in homes who had absolutely no business owning them.
The regulatory process that failed was roundly dismissed by Democrats when it was becoming clear that Fannie Mae, and eventually Freddie Mac, were unsustainable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/rec...x002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Democrats create the problem.
Democrats ignore the problem.
Democrats blame the opposition when system inevitably implodes.
It's a brilliant strategy; provided there are voters gullible enough to swallow it. A strategy that has served Progressives well since the New Deal.
This entire crisis was manufactured for the purpose of more government control. One would have to have one's head firmly ensconced in one's ass to believe otherwise.
And fulbright, I understand your concern over robber barons. And most of us recall the classic image of the fat cat. But does your concern also extend to modern day rich guys? Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett come to mind.
I get very uncomfortable at the notion that anybody except the individual determines how much money that person should be allowed to make.
The free market as advocated by Milton Friedman works when it is allowed to work. Most people complain about capitalism not understanding that the system they are actually complaining about is corporatism.
The regulatory process that failed was roundly dismissed by Democrats when it was becoming clear that Fannie Mae, and eventually Freddie Mac, were unsustainable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/rec...x002Fmcrmx002Fms20060525-16.xmlElementm0m0m0m
Democrats create the problem.
Democrats ignore the problem.
Democrats blame the opposition when system inevitably implodes.
It's a brilliant strategy; provided there are voters gullible enough to swallow it. A strategy that has served Progressives well since the New Deal.
This entire crisis was manufactured for the purpose of more government control. One would have to have one's head firmly ensconced in one's ass to believe otherwise.
And fulbright, I understand your concern over robber barons. And most of us recall the classic image of the fat cat. But does your concern also extend to modern day rich guys? Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett come to mind.
I get very uncomfortable at the notion that anybody except the individual determines how much money that person should be allowed to make.
The free market as advocated by Milton Friedman works when it is allowed to work. Most people complain about capitalism not understanding that the system they are actually complaining about is corporatism.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Nah really this last crisis was more a issue with a rise in a new financial sector (Shadow markets) that had almost no regulation. The banks did get sucked into it, but it was more due to the massive profit that they were able to make.
The
These problems formed when the shadow financial systems found they could package these and sell them to wallstreet for an insane profit. So they (see quick loans) came up with all these new packages to sell and hit everyone and anyone with them, later dumping it on the Mac banks that were not prepared for it.
If you look at the mindset of the last few Fed chairmen you can see a shift in the mindset.
In the 50-70's they tried to curb the behavior, they said something along the lines in the 50's that the fed was there to over see the party and to pull away the punch bowl when the party started to get ramped up.
Where Greenspan in the 87-06 took the stance of over seeing the party and allowing it to get out of hand but to be there to be the designated driver so everyone gets home safe.
The
mindset fails to figure in that the 'mac banks were making home loans from the 30's and never had anything near the issues that came about in this crisis.
These problems formed when the shadow financial systems found they could package these and sell them to wallstreet for an insane profit. So they (see quick loans) came up with all these new packages to sell and hit everyone and anyone with them, later dumping it on the Mac banks that were not prepared for it.
If you look at the mindset of the last few Fed chairmen you can see a shift in the mindset.
In the 50-70's they tried to curb the behavior, they said something along the lines in the 50's that the fed was there to over see the party and to pull away the punch bowl when the party started to get ramped up.
Where Greenspan in the 87-06 took the stance of over seeing the party and allowing it to get out of hand but to be there to be the designated driver so everyone gets home safe.
jeff f
New Member
nonsense. bush and greenspan were screaming about what was going to happen because of the risky loans FORCED on banks by congress.
i seem to remember dodd and frank saying 'nothin to see here' when the warnings were being fired across the bow.
banks didnt say that you could finance 100% of your home loans, that was congress and the bankng committee. and i seem to remember a bunch of other democrats like maxine waters bitchin cuz their constituents werent "allowed" to get loans.
their little scam would have been fine except that housing took a turn south.
thats the way i remember it. and i think greenspans testimonies before congress would bare that out.
robert 14617
Well-Known Member
OK, my guess is Betty Davis , film actress
