Ayn Rand Forecasts Economic Disaster from Collectivism & Socialism

[plyka]

Quote from morganist:

I guess it depends on what type of Randian. If you mean economic theory perhaps not. If you mean out for himself and A meaning A or I am alive therefore I can do what I want with out the consideration of the effect of others then yes he was.

He screwed every person in the world because that is what they do. Remember the idea of self interest and persuit of own goals no matter the consequences is in the objectivist thinking.

You are quite uneducated on these topics. It seems that your views are mere regurgitations of other people instead of your own. If i were you, i would actually read up on the subject and learn a little more before spouting on. For instance, the glaring mistake in your ideas here in this post is an inability to distinguish between private individual actions and government actions.

"the idea of self-interest and persuit of own goals no matter the consequences is the obectivist thinking."

This is completely untrue. People should look out for their own self-interest, but they cannot violate the rights of others in the process. You cannot kill someone and steal their wallet for instance. Greenspan was working at the FED, he was using force (Rand would call it criminal force), stealing the private property of others (printing money is a tax on all current money holders) and using that stolen property for his actions.

 

[Random.Capital]

Greenspan was also protecting the rights of some folks, and as you point out, rights can't be trampled.

Without a coherent, acceptable definition of "rights", Objectivism isn't even a theory, it's just an excuse to bullshit over drinks.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

laissez faire would have worked just fine...

Quote from achilles28:

...The answer isn't more regulation. It's none...

So you favor a nice, modern Third World solution of every man for himself, come what may?

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from plyka:

...Ayn Rand...absolutely dominated that interview with Wallace...

And which interview was that? It was certainly not the one posted in this thread.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Yeah this is precisely the problem.

Keynsian economics might work if there was a dictatorship, with a responsible dictator, or if politicians were only allowed to be elected to one term, or if politicians werent a bunch of self serving assholes.

Imagine the outcry we would hear if politicians upped taxes during a balanced budget, so that they could save for the future. You could also say that a large part of the problem is people in general, who think good times will last forever, and are unable to see that the economy operates in waves.

Term limits may be effective in solving some problems, but could they make others worse? Perhaps politicians like quick fixes that put off real solutions for another day because they know they won't be in office when their quick fix causes a still greater problem. This is especially true, it seems, with the U.S. presidents. They know their successor is going to take the blame for the mess they created.

In reality we already have term limits: that's what elections are about. But of course that's ineffective in practice.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from jueco2005:

As I said .........what matters is the system in place. Cuba & USA share similarities in power & wealth distribution (Oviously both countries are separated by light years). Castro and his friends in the party and military are no different than Obama, Bush, Reagan and their friends in WallStreet, Goldman Sachs and many others.

I dont mind moving anywhere. I am an immigrant by nature; if I find a better place I take it. But I consider Canada to be a good option for the future. I just hate COLD.

add an extra layer of clothing and stop whining.

how many different countries as an adult have you lived in for more than 6 consecutive months?

 

[zdreg]

Quote from piezoe:

Term limits may be effective in solving some problems, but could they make others worse? Perhaps politicians like quick fixes that put off real solutions for another day because they know they won't be in office when their quick fix causes a still greater problem. This is especially true, it seems, with the U.S. presidents. They know their successor is going to take the blame for the mess they created.

In reality we already have term limits: that's what elections are about. But of course that's ineffective in practice. [/QUOTe

presidents have term limits. congress has none.

 

[Max E.]

In my opinion, the reason politicians wont tackle serious issues is because they are looking for donors, or looking for a second term. If we had term limits, neither one would be a problem. They would not have to appease the people who donated to them, they wouldnt have to worry about tackling problems which are unpopular, and they wouldnt have to hand out "free ice cream" in order to get re-elected.

Quote from piezoe:

Term limits may be effective in solving some problems, but could they make others worse? Perhaps politicians like quick fixes that put off real solutions for another day because they know they won't be in office when their quick fix causes a still greater problem. This is especially true, it seems, with the U.S. presidents. They know their successor is going to take the blame for the mess they created.

In reality we already have term limits: that's what elections are about. But of course that's ineffective in practice.

 

[Optionpro007]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v4nbgZH3xrQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[atticus]

I'm no socialist, but it looks to me that the capitalists have fucked it sideways.