Ayn Rand and trading...
- Thread starter Zachpence
- Start date
I don't see how you missed my answer, since it was fairly succinct and you quoted its two parts. Perhaps if you were to read it again...
Just an aside:
I really hate when people flaunt the fact that they majored in economics in undergrad.
I have a B.A. in economics from a top school. You know what? All I know is how incredibly little I really know. Classical economics is mostly bullshit consisting of archaic theories built on absurd assumptions. Economics is not a real science; it lacks any real empirical validity, at least at the undergrad level. If you have a PhD in experimental economics, you can talk. Everyone else is just as much a bullshit artist as the next guy.
I really hate when people flaunt the fact that they majored in economics in undergrad.
I have a B.A. in economics from a top school. You know what? All I know is how incredibly little I really know. Classical economics is mostly bullshit consisting of archaic theories built on absurd assumptions. Economics is not a real science; it lacks any real empirical validity, at least at the undergrad level. If you have a PhD in experimental economics, you can talk. Everyone else is just as much a bullshit artist as the next guy.
Quote from Thunderdog:
500 pages? I thought it would have made a good short story at bedtime for insomniacs. But that's just me.
I think her book was over the top and a knee-jerk reaction to her aversion to communism. I dislike communism as much as the next guy. However, I don't think that the solution to one extreme is the opposite extreme.
C'mon now...having read any number of your posts, you aren't really averse to communism and/or other forms of statism, are you?
OldTrader
Anyone ever read "We the living." Or "The Passion of Ayn Rand?"
You my friend should know all there is to know. In fact was this not your quote?
"We all know that cash rules everything around us; cash, green, get the money, dollar dollar bill ya'll. That's why its time to enter the 36 chambers, and step to the Wu. You need to diversify yo' bonds, nigga!"
"We all know that cash rules everything around us; cash, green, get the money, dollar dollar bill ya'll. That's why its time to enter the 36 chambers, and step to the Wu. You need to diversify yo' bonds, nigga!"
Your observation here would seem to support my contention that politicians and bureaucrats are highly unlikely to be able to properly effectuate economic prosperity by fiddling with monetary and fiscal policy. I much prefer the decisions of millions of businesses and individuals guided by prices and profits with only a few basic but strictly enforced regulations. Stosh
Giving up monetary control and disintegrating regulations is naive.
It's amazing how useless we become when there is a diffusion of responsibility. Everybody is subject to the bystander effect, where every indirect problem becomes "somebody else's problem". Try and make a decision with a huge group of people, without having some regulatory framework where people are given incentives (or disintentives) to obey the popular decision.
People naturally want to do what they want, and naturally that means using other people as a means to their own ends.
Anarchy falls naturally into chaos, because people are not rational agents. I won't say we are completely determined, but we are definitely apart of the animal kingdom, and we maintain the subsequent need for hierarchy that has been with animals for millions of years.
If we were completely free and rational, there would be no such thing as political debate. The mere fact that we disagree disqualifies us from any ideal (naive) utopia, be it a pure anarcho-capitalist ideal or communism, or a "kingdom of ends" or whatever. Humans are more cruel and violent than animals, animals don't kill eachother over relgious or political disputes, or the fact that another animal appears "different". But yet our world is full of this complex hostility and power struggle.
So let's stop assuming that everything will be better if there was no one in charge and in control. Hate the player, not the game. We're stuck with the game afterall.
It's amazing how useless we become when there is a diffusion of responsibility. Everybody is subject to the bystander effect, where every indirect problem becomes "somebody else's problem". Try and make a decision with a huge group of people, without having some regulatory framework where people are given incentives (or disintentives) to obey the popular decision.
People naturally want to do what they want, and naturally that means using other people as a means to their own ends.
Anarchy falls naturally into chaos, because people are not rational agents. I won't say we are completely determined, but we are definitely apart of the animal kingdom, and we maintain the subsequent need for hierarchy that has been with animals for millions of years.
If we were completely free and rational, there would be no such thing as political debate. The mere fact that we disagree disqualifies us from any ideal (naive) utopia, be it a pure anarcho-capitalist ideal or communism, or a "kingdom of ends" or whatever. Humans are more cruel and violent than animals, animals don't kill eachother over relgious or political disputes, or the fact that another animal appears "different". But yet our world is full of this complex hostility and power struggle.
So let's stop assuming that everything will be better if there was no one in charge and in control. Hate the player, not the game. We're stuck with the game afterall.