Ayn Rand Forecasts Economic Disaster from Collectivism & Socialism

Quote from MKTrader:

Right. My point is that Greenspan was a mainstream, establishment type when he was at the Fed. He wasn't a Randian or any other kind of strong laissez faire type. (Or if he was deep down inside, his actions didn't show it.)
More...

When are you going to become a student of history and stop this nonsense?

Greenspan was the chief regulator, but he did not believe in regulation. He had a strong unwavering belief that capital market excesses would self-correct if left to their own devices. He was right, and if left alone the markets would have self-corrected with a consequent upheaval and chaos. The process of self-correction was underway when the consequences were deemed so undesirable (read unprofitable as in money losing) for the major banks, both investment and commercial, that Treasury and the Central Bank stepped in and did not allow the natural, self-correction process to go to completion (read bankruptcy). No one could be more laissez faire in philosophy than Alan Greenspan. His actions clearly showed that. You could not be more incorrect on this one point!

[Please carefully read antitrust's post above.]
 
Quote from achilles28:

I seem to have lost this thread in the clutter.

Piezoe, I would respond with this: "real capitalists" are socialists. They use capitalism as a vehicle to amass wealth. Then, advocate socialism to protect wealth and eradicate competition. Socialism has no part in free markets. It's the monopoly men who are corrupt. Not the free-enterprise system. Peter Schiff did a nice commentary on monopolies. What's so bad if they offer quality products cheaper than anyone else? If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with it. So long as Government isn't leveraged as a tool to impose and perpetuate their empire. When Government no longer has regulatory power, much of this crony capitalism can't exist. It's lifeblood is the regulatory environment that generates it's profits.
More...

We are actually in agreement. However we have to agree that there are two kinds of regulation -- good and bad. In good regulation the government's legislative, judicial, and executive branches function as an efficient referee to protect and encourage free markets and hold the capitalists in check, and prevent them from forming monopolies and cartels, and also prevent them from using their capital power to influence regulation.

Bad regulation occurs when the capitalists succeed in using their capital to influence regulation and bend it to suit their own goals, which include the prevention of free markets and the formation of cartels and monopolies. In extreme cases, the capitalists may be firmly in control of the government.

{Edit} I think it is important to add that a very important feature of good regulation is the absence of over-regulation. Two common forms of bad law come to mind: the first are those where the rules and reporting requirements are far out of proportion to any benefit that might accrue, and the second are those that are far to weak to achieve their desired end. (The latter type of bad law crops up commonly when vested interests interfere with the law making process.)
 
Quote from Random.Capital:

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

I want to think about that during the cocktail hour tonight.:D
 
Quote from EMRGLOBAL:

Half you clowns do not get Her Philosophy at all.

The other half you are bumbling fools.
More...

Don't worry emrglobal at least you're impressed with yourself.
 
Quote from EMRGLOBAL:

Half you clowns do not get Her Philosophy at all.

The other half you are bumbling fools.
More...

name calling, generalities , highly defensive, and of course self proclaimed superior understanding of said ideas

that's basically the characteristics of an ideological zealot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top