Ayn Rand and trading...

[Angrycat]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I refer to the way that the world and human nature appear to work. Her brand of philosophy cannot hope to have lasting traction for the same reason communism cannot stand the test of time. They are both unsustainable extremes. Let me repeat what I had written earlier and elsewhere: the solution to one extreme is not the other extreme, particularly where human nature is concerned. Failing to grasp such a basic premise is to defy the very reality that Rand ostensibly craves. Who's objective now?

I'm an immigrant from the Soviet Union and I understand Rand's visceral reaction to communism that people who have never lived under its boot can't. I don't find her writing style particularly compelling and found her Atlas Shrugged to be too repetitive and long. I preferred "The Fountainhead".

The problem with objectivism is that, tested at the limit, it's anarchy. Each individual is a sovereign nation. The drawback is that in the world of Sovereign nations might makes right. People will build alliances to become more mighty and those alliances will need government of some kind - so, we're right back to some kind of collectivization.

What I don't understand, Thunder, is why you think that limiting government and maximizing the freedom of the individual is extreme? That is the core of Rand's philosophy.

 

[jnbadger]

EMR, Stosh, mbradley, Thank you for your input. (and everyone else)

I'm sure I will finish it. Since I am enjoying it so far, there's no reason to put it down.

I'm not looking to be enlightened or inspired. I just thought it was something I should read due to it's popularity among so many traders. But who knows, maybe it will have a positive effect, or maybe it will piss me off. Either way it should be worth the read.

Anyway, anything that gets Thunderdog this riled up can't be all bad.

 

[ak15]

Quote from Stosh:

You don't have to know all those details if you are grounded in time tested principles, have a lot of common sense, and can tell the difference between a sage and a charlatan. Many of our leaders have been educated beyond their capacity. If you greet some Ph.D.'s with "How's it going?", they are stumped for an answer. Besides....that bad interview Palin had was an ambush. My God, both her parents were school teachers!!!!!!!

I can only laugh after reading this.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Stosh:

Perhaps if Alan Greenspan (one of her early disciples) had not strayed from her "extreme views", our economy and markets would be better today. There is nothing extreme about limited government, laissez faire economics, and individual responsibility. That is what she preached as did Milton Friedman and many other wise men and women. Stosh

Greenspan is a bubblehead who will be regarded with the same distaste as GWB by historians.

"Limited" government means different things to different people.

Full and true laissez-faire economics would not work in the way that most people think. It would result in the rich getting richer, by capitalizing on their advantages, and the poor, therefore, getting poorer by default. Further, it would squeeze out the middle class in due course. And so, if you are among the socioeconomic elite, then I suppose that I understand your desire for full and true laissez-faire. On the other hand, if you reach no farther than middle class on the economic totem pole then, by your very views, you are eating your own.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Angrycat:

I'm an immigrant from the Soviet Union and I understand Rand's visceral reaction to communism that people who have never lived under its boot can't. I don't find her writing style particularly compelling and found her Atlas Shrugged to be too repetitive and long. I preferred "The Fountainhead".

The problem with objectivism is that, tested at the limit, it's anarchy. Each individual is a sovereign nation. The drawback is that in the world of Sovereign nations might makes right. People will build alliances to become more mighty and those alliances will need government of some kind - so, we're right back to some kind of collectivization.

What I don't understand, Thunder, is why you think that limiting government and maximizing the freedom of the individual is extreme? That is the core of Rand's philosophy.

Excellent post! As to your question, let me put it this way: I believe in a good and balanced diet without excesses, but not in anorexia nervosa.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from jnbadger:

...Anyway, anything that gets Thunderdog this riled up can't be all bad.

That's what I'm here for.

 

[Stosh]

Quote from ak15:

I can only laugh after reading this.

I'll admit Sarah was a little naive during her debut on the national scene. But she will be polished and ready next time....and won't have to drag that RINO, McCain, around. Stosh

 

[Stosh]

By the way, my compliments to those who have participated in this little debate. Disagreements have been civil.....and no calling each other idiots and shitheads. I believe Ayn Rand followers generally know that a LITTLE government is necessary, but no more that is proven to be absolutely necessary. Moral hazard is a reality. Stosh

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from Thunderdog:


Full and true laissez-faire economics would not work in the way that most people think. It would result in the rich getting richer, by capitalizing on their advantages, and the poor, therefore, getting poorer by default. Further, it would squeeze out the middle class in due course.

That's the claim of every person who proposes socialist ideas. However, stating that this is what will happen doesn't make it so.

So far, the only place where the rich get richer (by capitalizing on their political connections because they can buy political power by buying politicians) and the poor get poorer (because they have no means with which to buy politicians, thus the deck is permanently stacked against them) is in economies where government is strong and meddles freely in the economy.

Without the ability to harness political power (and governments monopoly on violent force), the rich man can only obtain the property of the poorer man by paying a price the poorer man will accept. In a free market with a government which maintains Rule of Law (not to be confused with regulation) but is limited in its power beyond that, that is his only means of obtaining another's property. The poorer man can also capitalize on his advantages in a free market. There is nothing to stop him - no barriers to entry concocted by government regulators at the prodding of industry insiders to protect them from competition. With a government as powerful as the one in the United States and Europe, despite constitutional attempts to limit it, the rich man simply pays a bribe to politicians and the poorer mans property is confiscated under "eminent domain" laws. Thus, government aids the rich in getting richer and the poor in getting poorer because the government is nothing more than a collection of self-interested people with a lot of power to yield force and cow the population.

So, it seems that the very thing that you fear happens not because of free markets but because of the very system you advocate. So, you'll have to explain to me how you come to your conclusions about free markets (laissez-faire).

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Stosh:

...Moral hazard is a reality.

Very true. Which is why proper oversight and regulation are key.

And I agree, the discourse has been refreshingly civil.