things you hate..

Colleges & Universities University of Chicago
61

<p>“woah, thats some diatribe, asleeacn. i didnt read most of it, but alan greenspan is the man. hes one of the few things reagan did right.”</p>

<p>Well, I’m glad you at least read that part. I’m not saying Greenspan was completely terrible; however, he definitely made some decision that, while good for America’s economy in the short and medium terms, will only serve to hurt it in the long run. Holding interest rates artificially low will have long-term negative effects stemming from the incentive that they give to consume instead of save. For example, according to one of the Mises.org articles cited below, “the gross national savings rate has fallen since 1987 from 16.5% to 13%, and the net national savings rate from 4.5% to 1%. (During the third quarter this year it fell below zero due to Katrina-related damages).” This means that housing and asset bubbles are pumped to the roof (which will see another inevitable correction, of course), while the desire for consumption feeds the trade deficit as the dollar is held in place only by a “Bretton Woods II” system of currency manipulation by Asian central banks. </p>

<p>Also, from the same Mises.org article, “From the stock market crash of 1987 to the S&L crisis of the early 1990s to the Asian crisis and the collapse of LTCM to the feared Y2K crisis to the bursting of the tech stock bubble, Greenspan has proven himself more than willing to bail out failed investors with additional doses of ‘liquidity’ (the popular inflationist euphemism for inflation).” This, according to the article, created a mentality of “bubble”-ization that led the investment psychology to think they could get bailed out on the brink of any disaster by the Fed. Now, I give this argument less credence than the other one, but I think it is still valid to a certain point. </p>

<p>Basically, the Fed’s various manipulations have led to the American economy and, thus, the world economy as a whole (though to a lesser degree) being out of balance, with not enough long-term savings and investment, property prices way too high, too much credit/indebtedness, and too much “easy money”, as was the policy throughout Greenspan’s term. I’ll end with a quote from The Economist: </p>

<p>Part of America’s current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future. The words of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of the early 20th century, nicely sum up the illusion: “It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But he should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.”</p>

<p>Also, please in the future give facts, or a least an opinion-based argument of some substance, instead of just saying “he is the man”.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, Greenspan fans often cite is record as an ardent inflation fighter. In fact, “The drop in America’s core rate of inflation has in fact been no greater than the average for all the industrialised countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).” Volcker was the true “pioneer” in this area anyway.</p>

<p><a href=“Monetary myopia”>Monetary myopia;
<a href=“Danger time for America”>Danger time for America;
<a href=“http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2006/01/economist-echoes-my-indictment-of.html[/url]”>http://stefanmikarlsson.blogspot.com/2006/01/economist-echoes-my-indictment-of.html&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.mises.org/story/1985[/url]”>http://www.mises.org/story/1985&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://blog.mises.org/archives/004562.asp[/url]”>http://blog.mises.org/archives/004562.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

62

<p>“Laissez Faire is also the only moral economic system available - because it recognizes the fact the value for value qua man is the only way man’s freedom and constitutional rights can be preserved. At the end of every interference in the economy by the government is a gun. At the end of every free trade between two individuals is a handshake. Which do you prefer?”</p>

<p>I think I need to clarify: I agree with you 100% - free trade between individuals is preferable in every instance (superior) to government coercion. However, a few issues pertaining to property rights must be considered. First, “neighborhood effects”, also known as externalities. When these externalities are negative for 3rd parties, and devalue their property (whether this is land, the health of their bodies, etc.) the government - I believe - through a fair, even-handed legal system, is justified in protecting these 3rd parties. Now, there are all types of ways to do this, and the best are market-based (carbon markets are one example; also the “London congestion charge” ironically initiated by a Socialist mayor). Another issue where property rights come into play is intellectual property. Now, I believe that, although current U.S. patent law is too strict, especially in areas such as medicine, music, and text, there should be some acceptable level of protection that gives enough incentive for creation and innovation and allows profit potential for said creators and innovators (however, as Milton Friedman noted, there is no “proven optimal time” that patent rights and the like should be granted for). This is another example of government economic interference - preventing counterfeit, pirated, and stolen goods from being sold.</p>

63

<p>asleeacn - I think the problem here is that you don’t understand the nature of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on free trade and the protection of Man’s rights (including property rights). The government preventing pirated goods from being sold is <em>not</em> interference in the economy. Piraters are <em>criminals</em> who have violated the rights of those they stole from. Preventing criminals from looting their victims falls well within the government’s sole purpose - which is protecting man’s rights. Do you think capitalism is some sort of a “grab as much as you can before the next guy” operation? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Capitalism cannot exist under anarchy - the two are mutually incompatible.</p>

64

<p>Well, apart from the insult I think we are just sort of talking past each other right now. I don’t think you understand that I actually agree with you completely. However, I think you SHOULD see that the government, by protecting property and intellectual rights, IS interfering in the economy (I never said this type of interference was bad - I AM NOT PROMOTING ANARCHY). For example, say that a I buy a pirated software program from a company that specializes in pirating code. That, in itself, is a free agreement, mutually beneficial for both that company and myself. However, the original creators of the software are losing potential sales from this type of transaction. So, the government can justifiably (within a defined law) INTERFERE and prevent or stop our transaction. This also applies to “neighborhood effects” as I mentioned before (e.g. pollution, noise, etc.). I think that the government can also justifiably interfere in some “tragedy of the commons” situations (in those where privatization is not feasible).</p>

65

<p>asleeacn - Firstly, I am sorry if you thought I was insulting you. I think I understand what you are advocating now. Government interference in anything is justified as long as that interference is in the protection of individual rights. I think the miscommunication arose from our understanding in “interference”. Correcting negative externalities when conflicting with individual rights is proper and necessary. If I still do not understand your position please correct me. Apart from that I think we’re on the same page.</p>

66

<p>“Correcting negative externalities when conflicting with individual rights is proper and necessary.”</p>

<p>Yes, exactly. OK, I’ve been on the same page with you all along…and I know that “interference” is surely a loaded word (as well it should be…most government DOES constitue arbitrary and unjustified mettling). This is (one reason) why a strong and strictly adhered to constitution is necessary - to assure that this interference doesn’t get out of control.</p>

67

<p>Now that one hurdle is out of the way…</p>

<p>Do you have any specific criticism of Rand’s writing? You noted earlier that you were not an Objectivist - did you find any particular section of her philosophy inconsistent or erroneous?</p>

<p>Note: This post applies to anyone who has cogent criticism of Rand or her works. This does not include flaming, factless assumptions, or mere opinions. For those who wish to have a civil and thoughtful discussion, I will attempt to answer as well as I can. </p>

<p>Note: I do not speak for Rand or Objectivism. I have though studied her works and am fairly knowledgable about her philosophy. I have read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, Anthem, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Romantic Manifesto, and I am currently working on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.</p>

68

<p>myself- Why would anyone have so much as an opinion on Rand, without having read any of her works?
How exactly have our posts seemed “semi-illiterate”? You’ve asked us to defend our opinions and yet you attack us personally without any mind to defending your own stance.
I have no objection to respectful discourse, but you’re being needlessly antagonistic- an attitude which has no place on what has thus far been a rather light hearted thread.</p>

69

<p>Ah the irony!</p>

<p>Gambadent - This thread, you rightfully asserted, did have as its purpose a light hearted intent. There are two type of posts here. One is the type that complains about chocolate syrup caps. The other well…I’ll let you speak for yourselves…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Who’s being “needlessly antagonistic” again?</p>

<p>The reason I said that the posts were semi-illiterate and I questioned whether they had read Rand is because…they were! Expletives, half-formed opinions, and no explanations as to <em>why</em> you hated her turns this into an orgy of hate without a rational basis. Those that smeared her writing use words like “crap”, “stupid”, “****ing” etc. People form opinions all the time without having knowledge of what they feel so passionate about. The reason I responded at all to this “outpouring” as you called it, was because I have a rather high opinion of her and I was genuinely surprised at your reactions. If you believe I was insulting you I apologize. I would truly enjoy having a rational discussion with you about the merits of Rand, her works, and your opinions. Just not an unexplained hate fest. If you would like to start another thread about it, if you feel that it would be inappropriate in this one, by all means do so. If you don’t want to continue this discussion that’s fine too.</p>

70

<p>“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual
rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
-Ayn Rand</p>

<p>The criticism of her here is baseless. Rand did not say helping the homeless was wrong - she said holding a gun to someone’s head and making them help the homeless was wrong.</p>