The Future of the US, wait... Atlas Shrugged?

[**life is...**]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Here are my thoughts:

1. We're likely moving into a very deep depression, similar to the great depression. Obama is passing legislation that is extremely problematic to the future of free markets.

2. Who want's to do this?

[V Profane]

Here are my thoughts:

I would have kept them under your hat, if I were you.

[**life is...**]

I would have kept them under your hat, if I were you.

What do you mean by that?

[V Profane]

What do you mean by that?

I mean citing Ayn Rand is a good way to get laughed at by thinking people.

[durentu]

I don't understand how you relate objectivism to coming depression...

I'm finding "economics in one lesson" to be very helpful.

www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

[Evignus]

Depression is the word it seems. This is related to another post I recently posted in a TV thread here. The TV is full of misinformation and propaganda they will only use the word recession and at worse 'deep recession' :



The Collapse of ’09

by Gerald Celente



The "Panic of ’08" will be followed by "The Collapse of ’09." In 2008, when the world’s largest financial firms and equity markets crumbled, Wall Street’s woes preoccupied the media.

In 2009, the focus will broaden to include a range of calamities that will leave no sector unscathed. Next in line is retail, which accounts for some 70 percent of consumer spending, 26 percent of which is holiday sales.

After the numbers are tallied to reveal a dismal retail Christmas, more big chain bankruptcies will follow. Besides leaving masses unemployed, defunct retailers will leave behind thousands of empty stores. Who will rent them? Nobody!

Add to these empties commercial space vacated by defunct financial firms and an array of troubled businesses, from restaurants to architectural firms, to high-tech operations, to offset printers, etc., etc. The inescapable result (that we predicted over a year ago and is only now being discussed in the business media) is a commercial real estate bust that will be costlier, wreak greater havoc and prove more intractable than the residential market decline.

Because most people don’t live and shop on Wall Street, the "Panic of ’08" was viewed by Main Street as if from afar – even though many were losing money. But when commercial real estate crashes it will hit much closer to home. The depressive atmosphere of thinly shopped, half-vacant malls will strike emotional chords and all the senses.

In office buildings, vacant floors and empty cubicles will dampen the workday spirit of the still-employed; ever-present reminders of laid-off friends and colleagues and of the fragility of employment.

Abandoned, untended business and industrial parks will highlight the already mournful scene. In cities studded with soaring towers and new construction predicated on eternal economic growth, streets lined with "For Rent/For Sale" signs will complement stilled cranes and uncompleted buildings.

As retail and commercial real estate collapse, the credit card sector and all its interrelated processing and back office support businesses will suffer and be forced to scale back. Hordes of consumers who have been living off credit cards and racking up debt to the limit will lack the funds to service their debt… much less pay it off, and they will be forced to default. Given the nearly $3 trillion in consumer debt at risk (excluding auto and mortgage) an inevitable default snowball will add momentum to the in-progress Collapse of ’09.

While we [lewrockwell.com] alone predicted the "Panic of ’08" (and even took out the domain name "Panicof08.com" on 7 November 2007), we are not alone in predicting a Depression.

The "D" word is being uttered – in some cases by those who have the most to lose and whose best interests are not served by spreading gloom and doom. "The world and country are in a depression," said celebrity tycoon Donald Trump. He then later softened the blow, downgrading it to a "virtual depression."

"Virtual" to the few who will never have to worry where the next dollar will come from, it will be painfully real and hardly virtual to the multitudes who are and will be worrying. The virally proliferating Greatest Depression is the Trend of Trends for 2009.

Even so, beware! Over the course of free-falling 2009, the word from most official sources will be "recession," and from the few mainstream trophy pessimists, "deep recession."

For example, the oft-quoted naysayer, Nouriel Roubini, New York University professor of economics, forecasts a two-year recession … not Depression. On the sunnier side of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve predicts the US economy will contract only through the middle of 2009 and pledged, "In any event, the Committee agreed to take whatever steps were necessary to support the recovery."

What "steps?" The Bernanke Two-Step? Adjust interest rates or print more money? Neither stopped the credit crisis from worsening, the real estate market from tanking or the stock markets from crashing.

It was Fed finagling, Washington deregulation and Wall Street’s compulsive gambling that created the crisis. To trust or to seriously consider pronouncements, analyses and predictions made by any of these sources is an exercise in willful self-deception. Yet, with pensions, IRAs, 401ks, stocks and mutual funds evaporating, many of those most affected deny reality and take hope that forecasts made by proven incompetents will miraculously restore their losses.

Throughout the many years leading up to what we term the "Greatest Depression," The Trends Research Institute provided copious data and Globalnomic analysis to support our forecasts of economic upheaval. In the past year alone, we have provided so much hard evidence (housings starts, home sales, foreclosures, bankruptcies, bank failures, unemployment figures, stock indices, leading economic indicators, retail sales, etc.) that further elaboration should be superfluous.

Those waiting to hear the "D" word from economic experts, talking heads and TV anchors before taking action will most certainly regret their indecisiveness.

Absent from the economic scenarios ranging from second quarter recovery, deep recession and "virtual" depression are the multiplicity of social, environmental, health, political, emotional/psychological and geopolitical factors that point beyond just Depression. They point to The Decline and Fall of Empire America.

Well before Inauguration Day, Barack Obama was cast as the next Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If he follows in FDR’s footsteps he could freeze deposits by declaring a "holiday" to stop a run on the banks. While FDIC insurance may cover deposits, even after banks reopen, withdrawal amounts may be restricted. (As the Argentine government did in 2001–2002.)

Author’s Note: Suspicious of the soundness of the banking system, I requested to withdraw a substantial sum from our Key Bank account, leaving funds sufficient to cover ongoing business operations. First they tried to dissuade me, then they stonewalled me, and finally they turned openly hostile.

I was forced to sign a series of documents, including one acknowledging that since I was carrying a large sum I could be the target of a robbery. To enhance that possibility, the teller slammed down the bag of cash on the counter and publicly announced the sum.

Despite repeated requests in the days preceding my withdrawal to get the cash in hundreds, they gave it to me in twenties, making for a bag five times the size and more robber-friendly. When I complained to the bank manager who had processed the request, the response amounted to "take it or leave it."

This will not be an isolated event. If you attempt to withdraw a large chunk of money from your account, negotiate the details in advance and anticipate possible hassle and obstruction.

We’ve heard similar accounts from clients and Trends Journal subscribers who, over the past several months, tried to close out mutual funds, 401ks and assorted sinking equities. They were dissuaded, cajoled, belittled and arm-twisted by brokers desperate to keep their accounts. Many caved in under the pressure, didn’t close them and lost most of what they had.

So, we leave you with a Greatest Depression consideration: How safe is your money? How sound is your bank? At the end of November, Citigroup, once America’s largest bank, was on the rocks. Fifty-two thousand employees were laid off. In just three days its stock lost more than half its value. Rumors swirled that Citi was so desperate they were looking to sell or split up the company.

Is your money deposited in a local bank whose reputation you can bank on? Are you with a teetering giant or a poorly-managed regional? If either of the latter, it would be in your best interest to assess the risks.

Take some out if you think there is risk; take it all out if you think there’s high risk. You may consider spreading it around and even banking abroad … after all, this is the Global Age.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/celente1.html

[Bking]

Has anybody read the book?

[Roger Mexico]

Has anybody read the book?

Nope. Nobody. Actually, I don't know. I haven't read it, but I've heard it sucks.

[V Profane]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=33246

[LazyReed]

I would have kept them under your hat, if I were you.

I agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(book)) ;)

[Ferrus]

The molester is finally caught in the petting zoo wearing a mask of Richard Nixon, and turns out to be the Book Mobile driver. He plotted this all along to encourage Barbrady to learn to read. He gives Barbrady a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Cartman then begins clubbing the man in the legs, to which Officer Barbrady steps in and takes his club, telling him that "this isn't the way to uphold the law" and that he has to hit him in the head to make him go down quicker, giving a demonstration that kills the man (moments later, his legs are seen on the side of the screen in a small pool of blood). Barbrady tells the children he will "get in the bathtub, and then curl up with a good book", after which the Barnaby Jones theme tune plays as Barbrady gives the children the thumbs up. He remains, seemingly unable to move, in this position as the children walk away. The town holds a parade for Barbrady, and when he is asked to give a speech, he tells how Atlas Shrugged convinces him that reading "totally sucks ass." It is showed that Jesus rides the pick-up Barbrady stands in. In the end, he swears never to read again.

Ha.

And yes Ayn Rand's predictions will come true. After all didn't they in the 30s and 70s during similar recessions - when the government was actually then in the ascendent in many ways?

[CEOofRawness]

The wiki page said it was a work of fiction - a novel - and thus is for entertainment. This isn't Nastradamus (who shouldn't be taken seriously either), and no one should take it to heart.

[Dawn Run]

I'm finding "economics in one lesson" to be very helpful.

www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

I can tell.

[**life is...**]

More just a thought for the future. Honestly I think these are the real predictors of the future:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_Howe

But I also think in a way with the digital/information revolution that's taken place that even that might become irrelevant. We've entered a state in history that is unlike anything before. I mean it's sort of ridiculous, but every 80 years something big happens. For us it was the internet, for the people before is was the assembly line, for the people before it was the industrial revolution, for the people before it was freedom, for the people before that it was the America being a major trading center, for the people before it was America existing.

The question is what's next? Fusion? World government? Eternal life? Space travel? dimensional travel?

So yes, I think that for the next 10 years Ayn Rand is going to be quite accurate, but something will bring it to the next level.

[Lee]

There is something repulsive about Ayn Rand.

I have never read any of her books and probably never will.

That's all, carry on.

[pioneer_167]

There is something repulsive about Ayn Rand.

Personally, I enjoyed the Fountainhead. As for Rand, it's all or nothing with me. Sometimes I read something she said and say, "Yeah, I totally agree. That makes perfect sense." And other times I say, "wait a minute, hold the phone. She thinks what??!!?"

As with anything, you should always do your own fact checking. Existing ideas are best used to fashion and devise ideas of your own.

[**life is...**]

Ha.

And yes Ayn Rand's predictions will come true. After all didn't they in the 30s and 70s during similar recessions - when the government was actually then in the ascendent in many ways?

Well they already did sort of in Mexico. Same with Russia.

[Ferrus]

Well they already did sort of in Mexico. Same with Russia.
Erm, what? Mexico had been covulsed by various forms of political instability none of which are especially Randian, but part of a tit-for-tat bloodletting which has characterised Latin American politics since independence.

And Russia's political elite imploded under the pressures of the war in Afghanistan and a new party cadre who saw their chances to seize power on the carcass of the old system. The Eastern European states largely crumbled because of the dissatisfaction of large parts of the population at living and working conditions and members of the political elite who saw they could turn the depravation to their advantage. Russia's oligarchs were not John Galt figures, they were very much parasites and former communists who have been deeply invested in government and owed their wealth to having been former party members who got a good slice of the pie when privatisation came in.

[INThoughtPolice]

We've entered a state in history that is unlike anything before. I mean it's sort of ridiculous, but every 80 years something big happens.
Warp drive!

[**life is...**]

Erm, what? Mexico had been covulsed by various forms of political instability none of which are especially Randian, but part of a tit-for-tat bloodletting which has characterised Latin American politics since independence.

And Russia's political elite imploded under the pressures of the war in Afghanistan and a new party cadre who saw their chances to seize power on the carcass of the old system. The Eastern European states largely crumbled because of the dissatisfaction of large parts of the population at living and working conditions and members of the political elite who saw they could turn the depravation to their advantage. Russia's oligarchs were not John Galt figures, they were very much parasites and former communists who have been deeply invested in government and owed their wealth to having been former party members who got a good slice of the pie when privatisation came in.

Yeah actually that's pretty much a perfect explanation. Except that I meant Russia was pre John Galt, like that they have reached that sort of distopian, faux-capitalism described in the book.


I think actually the best example might be Europe itself. I believe a few years ago they were battling with 15% unemployment. They more recently have pulled their junk together. Of course looking past this recent financial situation. In fact, there are a lot of parallels with what Europe and Japan dealt with a few years ago and America today. Japan had the real estate problem, and Europe had the socialism labor exportation problem.

Essentially it's a brain drain. That's what Atlas Shrugged is really referring to. It's referring to the fact that when economic conditions are bad for skilled and intelligent people, they leave. This is what happened in Europe in World War 2, and this is what has happened in America in the past few years. We've been training foreign people who bring their ideas to America, and they look, American labor laws suck, and it's not even a free country anymore, so you should leave and come to Europe, or to China, Japan, India. That's what I meant by Atlas Shrugged, that there is a brain drain, and that soon the US is going to be left with a bunch lazy uneducated people and it will collapse.

A country becomes great when it has a lot of intelligent, hard working, educated people. And it's funny, because when the word gets out about a country being a good spot for capitalism, a large number of people move to that country. This is exactly what my Aunt did, and this is what many more Americans are going to consider as the economic conditions continue to deteriorate. In fact, Silicon Valley is not what it used to be, it's over. The whole hightec industry is been moving overseas, and will continue to at an accelerated rate unless the laws are changed drastically.

This country used to be about innovation, but now forget that. It's about just union workers being over payed, and lawers, and wall streeters. The incentive to innovate is much lower, because it's hard to innovate, you have to have an idea, then you have to be able to get capital, and you need smart people to turn your idea into reality. Now, there is no capital, and all the smart people are in China.

Let me tell you, it sucks to be an engineer right now, and I'm thinking of not doing it. I would do it if I thought there would be a payoff, but there isn't. It's like all the engineering jobs are really stupid, nothing exciting is happening. It's not employment that I'm after, it's the idea that I can do it. I mean like the REAL american dream, like I can be an engineer and make a product and become a captain of industry. But now, that's impossible in the US. I would say have a 30% chance of making it in the US, but in India, where there is much cheaper labor, I might have a 50% chance.

[Dawn Run]

A country becomes great when it has a lot of intelligent, hard working, educated people.



no, not really.

[airjaw]

\ I mean like the REAL american dream, like I can be an engineer and make a product and become a captain of industry. But now, that's impossible in the US. I would say have a 30% chance of making it in the US, but in India, where there is much cheaper labor, I might have a 50% chance.

Errr I don't get it. Why don't you become an engineer and just move somewhere else then?

[**life is...**]

Errr I don't get it. Why don't you become an engineer and just move somewhere else then?

Because I know nothing about the culture, I can't work with Indian people nearly as well as an Indian person who knows the Language and culture. I could work hard and sell the patent perhaps, but that's not nearly as good. I'm trying to show that it's all about where the idea is realized. Those are the countries that are in control.

America is going to be riding bicycles like China in a few years, because who in the hell wants to work with the American Bureaucracy, unions, lawyers, and banking system when they could just chill out? And then the entire country eventually falls into it, it becomes uncool to be smart, it becomes uncool to succeed. I mean, I don't really have a problem with this, because I honestly have no problem riding a bike. I have no problem doing work on my house, and fixing things myself. Most of my pleasure comes from non material things.

So I don't know. It's a strange situation. I'd rather live in a country where intelligence is rewarded. It promotes more intelligence.

[decades]

it becomes uncool to be smart, it becomes uncool to succeed...So I don't know. It's a strange situation. I'd rather live in a country where intelligence is rewarded. It promotes more intelligence.

Sounds like a Bill Cosby rant on black kids.

[C.J.Woolf]

That's what I meant by Atlas Shrugged, that there is a brain drain, and that soon the US is going to be left with a bunch lazy uneducated people and it will collapse.
In your opinion, when was the American golden age that is now past?

You point fingers at unions and lawyers. I point my finger at a system that favors people who push paper over people who make stuff. By paper pushers I mean Wall Street, and the managements of companies who ostensibly make stuff but are really in the business of propping up their stock price. The middlemen leech off of the producers, and I wish it would be framed as such in the public debate.


America is going to be riding bicycles like China in a few years, because who in the hell wants to work with the American Bureaucracy, unions, lawyers, and banking system when they could just chill out? And then the entire country eventually falls into it, it becomes uncool to be smart, it becomes uncool to succeed.
Perhaps it depends on how you define success...


Most of my pleasure comes from non material things.
I think you're on to something there. When you're sufficiently well-off, you might well ask: Is it worth working so many hours just so I can buy more stuff with my decreased free time? You know what the Europeans' answer is. Lean and hungry immigrants (and citizens of poorer countries where outsourcing goes) have a hustle advantage over the fat and happy.

My ideal economy gives the naturally industrious the freedom to do cool stuff and give employment to the less energetic majority who are good workers nonetheless -- but not the freedom to unduly exploit their workers.

[**life is...**]

Sounds like a Bill Cosby rant on black kids.

I don't know, this is just the cycle i guess. Somethings change, some stay the same. Like Russia has always been a rat hole, and Africa has always been fucked up. I guess America will always cycle between war economies, humanitarianism, socialism, and true capitalism. Each part is important in it's own way.

I mean, the problem is when you reach the level of being in a Malthusian trap. Where you get locked in somewhere and nothing changes. The internet is the next big thing, and it has yet to truly be implemented into society. It exploded onto the world and then people like lost faith real quick. But in reality there are infinite uses. We should be able to adapt instantly to a problem. Like this problem now, here's my solution:

Cost of education stays high, for now. It becomes harder to be rich, and being rich is looked upon differently. The reason to be rich should be like this: there should be a desire to create for yourself more choices. Wealth should be about choice. It shouldn't be about glamor, or about status. It should be about a person having the ability to do what they want to do.

When wealth becomes like that, then the motivation to become rich will change. Being wealthy will cease to become vital, "lifestyle" will no longer be important. Rich people won't be buying expensive cars, they will be buying what they really want, like custom sailboats, and crazy islands where they can relax. The definition of wealth now is so boring, it's that you live in a big house, and you drive a fancy car. Who wants that? The only people willing to work for that are people of inferior mind.

And, what's funny is there is actually a book on this called the The Millionare Next Door (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door)

Basically, the hardest working and smartest American's aren't living in giant mansions. They might be right next door, take Warren Buffet for example. The point is that we can't be taxing the wealthiest members of society, because in reality, they aren't the one's who we think they are, they're just the people who like to own their own business. They like to have that money so they can be free to take a risk.

I spent so much time trying to come up with a good response. I'm tired of this, I don't know what the answer is. I give up.

I don't know, Madolf was a looter though. And there are many more where he came from. I just think that there needs to be a desire to work. There needs to be a pressure to take responsibility for your life. To say that this is my life, and I have a choice on weather or not I want to do anything with it.

Under the Atlas Shrugged phenomena this isn't logical. It's better to just live an easy life style. Is this bad or good? When education no longer becomes important then a society can only suffer.

[ciphersort]

So yes, I think that for the next 10 years Ayn Rand is going to be quite accurate, but something will bring it to the next level.

Do you think her disciple Alan Greenspan is to blame for helping to bring about the situation? (He has sort of apologized for... uhh... resisting regulation of securities)

[LazyReed]

You point fingers at unions and lawyers. I point my finger at a system that favors people who push paper over people who make stuff. By paper pushers I mean Wall Street, and the managements of companies who ostensibly make stuff but are really in the business of propping up their stock price. The middlemen leech off of the producers, and I wish it would be framed as such in the public debate.



Yep, alienation to the concept of labor-value.......

"It's the system stupid"

[**life is...**]

Do you think her disciple Alan Greenspan is to blame for helping to bring about the situation? (He has sort of apologized for... uhh... resisting regulation of securities)

Yeah pretty interesting.

[stewie3128]

Nope. Nobody. Actually, I don't know. I haven't read it, but I've heard it sucks.

If you're looking for facile writing, look elsewhere. It's heavy-handed, didactic and incredibly slow.

If you're looking to think about the importance of the individual, and read a discussion of his priorities and responsibilities to others, then it's very interesting.

[Edge2070]

To me at least, the fall of American would be interesting.

[naruto littles helpers.jpeg]

more like "shoulders shrugged"

[Ferrus]

And it's funny, because when the word gets out about a country being a good spot for capitalism, a large number of people move to that country.

Actually the majority who moved did so because it was the least worst situation for them, the vast majority got stuck as wage-slaves one way or the other but in the US they were moderately better off wage slaves. Exactly the same thinking is propelling immigrants to try to sneak into North America and Europe to this day.

A few may have become petty businessmen, although from the 'Gilded Era' onwards this has become less and less possible as the economy has become more monopolised by corporations with gross market advantages. Only a very tiny minority could ever be capitalist heroes of the type Rand eulogises, the whole point of her thinking seems chiefly to be to allow for their domination, and she implictly supports an aristocracy of sorts. It is ironic that she sees the financial elite as being in this position. The key flaw she makes is actually conflating the genius of genuine inventors with those who play the institutional system, those who have capital already, finaciers, rentiers, lawyers, accountants who are in a sense as much opportunists as anyone else. Yes, a means of investment is required, but this does not make them productive, rather simply reveal the essentially connected nature of human existence.

This is all fine and good, but in reality the lives of the vast majority of people are impacted by social, economic and political structures even without their overt enforcement. Undoubtedly innovation is necessary from a small elite (and ironically enough even in the most repressive system it gets rewarded) - on a technological level. But businessmen, lawyers and financial experts do not constitute this elite as ultimately they are just bureaucrats trained and educated in a code towards which they have often been groomed from birth, and act as faithful functionaries of a system thats very nature is such to destroy individuality: namely, corporations, the financial system, the legal system, the autocracy of employment relations and so on all of which are ultimately connected. The Randian argument is premised on a sort of autonomy that simply does not exist in the modern world and is based on a Romantist view of human nature that any rudimentary cognitive psychology textbook could cure you of.

It is appealling as a philosophical code to so many now because it feeds into the inherent narcissism of Western man as he currently stands. We live in industrial, or service societies in which we are disconnected from meaningful relationships with other people. It is a society where we have been educated to be stupid, and this applies to capitalist, socialist and fascist socities, where our lives have lost all meaning except for in what we produce, or rather in what we buy. It is appealing to the middle classes (although not necessarily to the elite, who have a rather more circumspect view of things) who are brought up on a bread-and-butter diet of self-reliance, albeit a self-reliance funded by one's parents and an education and set of connections that allows such a fantasy to be realised. It appeals to the working classes who have been forced either to scrape their way up and become brutalised in the process, and it appeals to the working classes who have become resentful of life in general as a result of their condition. But it is absurd, not for any moral reason, but because it goes against the evident psychological and biological condition of humanity, which is of its very nature a highly complex and tangled mass of individuality and socialised being.

[revolutionman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Here are my thoughts:

1. We're likely moving into a very deep depression, similar to the great depression. Obama is passing legislation that is extremely problematic to the future of free markets.

2. Who want's to do this?

the average person is far too invested in the ancient and foolish concept of altruism to appreciate Rand. I find it best not to be too forward with objectivism. if you are too up front with it people recoil, because the "philosophy" goes against basically every collectivist tenet of western civilization from the Abrahamic Religions to Marxism. You won't find many friends on the left or the right of the political spectrum with objectivism as your pulpit. Its better not to cite Rand, but rather become yourself, a practicing objectivist, and allow the results to speak for you.

People will argue philosophy until they are blue in the face, but they can do nothing but accept your happiness and success in life.

Some one actually said to me "Altruism is what separates humans from animals." As if logic and reason, and conceptual thought had no place in the world.

I can't possibly "Go Galt" any more than I already am.

[Ferrus]

Presuming all collective action is a result of altruism is a straw man. Read Hobbes for god's sake. Collective action is the atunement of mutually rational goals towards the least worst situation - and no this does not imply Marxism.

Altruism is actually an animalistic response to living in a social group that humans have always had, and the humanistic altruist attitude implies essentially the flip side, which is the hatred of the other, and so nationalism, and so on are all part of this. As for Western Civilisation promoting altruism - parts of it have attempted to create a new creed thereof, but are also essentially shallow compared with the forms of pre-industrial living. Ever since the Reformation the concept of the indicidual as paramount has been the chief ideology - even Marxism in its raw sense is merely the pursuit of self-interest for exploited individuals by violent means. Rand's ideas are just a part Western civilisation presented in a crude and extreme manner, that nevertheless has great appeal to large numbers of today's psychologically shattered population.

[therealwork]

Altruism is actually an animalistic response to living in a social group as humans always have........Rand's ideas are just a part Western civilisation presented in a crude and extreme manner, than nevertheless has great appeal to large numbers of todays psychologically shattered population.
:theclap:

[ciphersort]

the average person is far too invested in the ancient and foolish concept of altruism to appreciate Rand.

There are countless reasons not to appreciate Rand that have nothing at all to do with altruism. Rand was just another little girl that wanted to grow up to be queen and when she found out that was not going to happen she turned into a raging bitch. Her 'literature' is crap. Objectivists are objective in the same way Scientologists are Scientific.

Best biography of Ayn Rand I have found on the web: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ayn_Rand

From that biography:
Ayn Rand married struggling actor Frank O' Connor in 1929; as Ayn was a power-mad feminist writer, Frank quickly assumed the role of bitch to his domineering wife. When Ayn met the young (and married) Objectivist and fanboy Nathaniel Branden, the two began fucking each other, ultimately telling their spouses that they needed to STFU about Ayn and Nathan's adultery and live with it. During this time, Nathaniel Branden became a leading figure in spearheading the Objectivist movement. But this all came to an end, when Nathaniel was caught fucking a third woman, a young actress, behind Ayn Rand's back. Ayn disowned her boytoy and had him become a pariah within the Objectivist movement for daring to cheat on Ayn. Of course, Ayn herself was cheating on Branden, with Alan Greenspan, who remarked "I have fucked many women over the years, but never have I fucked a woman like Rand, whose vagina was crawling with centipedes!"

[revolutionman]

my argument may not have been complete in scope, but I will reiterate: People will argue philosophy until they are blue in the face, but they can do nothing but accept your happiness and success in life.

Also Ayn Rand was a feminist perhaps by the standards of the first half of the 20th century, but she is far from what one might think of a feminist by today's standards.

"there is no objective basis for restricting a woman's choices based merely on their sex."

"There are strong strands of collectivism in today's feminism. These strands of thought treat men and women as hostile classes. Some infamously ascribe radically different thought patterns to men and women as such. Objectivism rejects group-think of this sort, and holds that each individual should be judged based on character, actions, and ability, not merely on the person's sex. Rand called herself a "male chauvinist" because she admired the many great men of history, to whom all of civilization owes so much."

I'd also like to add, ciphersort, that your reasons, lack reason. Its three crass opinions propped up on a quote from a biography that was written by some one with a crude sense of humor, or perhaps a coarseness of being that permeates more of their personality than just their sense of humor. Either way its hardly objective in its presentation of facts.

[Ferrus]

People will argue philosophy until they are blue in the face, but they can do nothing but accept your happiness and success in life.
No one denies that the maximisation of our happiness is the goal of all humans. That is obvious, although how one goes about it is debatable, hence - philosophy. Ayn Rand equated this solely and simplistically with economic success, which is an immature philosophy. Quite obviously it plays a part, and yet, there is more to live than mere productivity. And, human interacation is not played as an endless zero-sum game, again even the most simplistic evidence of game theory proves this.

And why is success something that should be 'accepted'. Success is only success in the eyes of others - it is an inherently social goal. And quite why success should be viewed as an inherent good is beyond me - I mean, in terms of its vagueness - success in what, and for what ultimate reason?

And deny philosophy all your like - unreflective posturing on the basis of received socialised attitudes leads to automatism.

[revolutionman]

Actually Rand acknowledges that happiness may transcend economic prosperity, that is why she frequently uses the highly malleable term "Self Interest". My self interest is probably very different from yours, but as long as neither interferes with the others, everyone should be free to pursue their own self interests.

Rand bases her argument in capitalism the way she did, because of the rise of the welfare state wherein people realize their own personal self interests, by commandeering the resources of others, thereby unjustly inhibiting the pursuit of Self Interest by those who are economically successful.

You should be perfectly free to become stinking rich if that is what makes you happy, and you should not have to tolerate moochers or looters.

Likewise if you find happiness in your garden, you should not be obligated against your will to share your produce with anyone. You are free to give what you wish, to whom you wish, when you wish. You should not feel obligated to share anything with the annoying neighbor that ogles your veggies instead of getting busy on her own garden.

I'm not an excessively selfish person, I like to give and share, but nothing burns my ass more than when some one tries to obligate me to share against my will and better judgment in consideration of my own needs and desires.

[Ferrus]

Rand bases her argument in capitalism the way she did, because of the rise of the welfare state wherein people realize their own personal self interests, by commandeering the resources of others, thereby unjustly inhibiting the pursuit of Self Interest by those who are economically successful.
Because in the real world, in it generally in ones self-interest to avoid being stabbed by the starving.

Which is why of course any such system as that you have proposed ironically always is accompanied by an extremely repressive police apparatus, and all the corruption that inheres there. You seem to ignore the possibility of the first generation of the 'rich and successful' - even if there was such a thing - becoming tyrannical themselves either through economic control or, as eventually they will, political control. You forget - feudal, liberal, Marxist and fascist states are all run by your successful people, who realise all this high-minded claptrap about 'individual rights' and 'freedom to succeed' is nothing compared to the overwhelming power of the gun and bread. Preventing the inherent violent anarchy that lies within all humans is the first and only goal of governments and the welfare systems you talk of. Nothing to do with altruism, although the promotion of it among people to make them more subservient workers is natural.

Your philosophy does capture an element of human nature that is necessary for the functioning of society but it reduces it to a crude and simplistic caricature.

[revolutionman]

self interest and best interest are not the same thing. people pursue detrimental self interests all the time, just ask drug users, the obese, teen parents, etc.

Also the idea that welfare and government are the only way to stave off "the inherent violent anarchy that lies within all humans" is to ignore the success private charity had in America, before early 20th century progressives, decided they were going to tax charity, by simply taking it over. Welfare is the governments way of taxing charity. Instead of giving your money to a non profit charity, that rents, or is granted use of a privately owned space, and is operated largely by volunteers, the government seizes your money, uses it to erect and maintain publicly owned edifices, and pay over paid bureaucrats to listen to sob stories and mail out checks. The benefits to the government for undermining the role of private charity are many. Your argument that government and welfare are necessary, is evidence of such benefits. Your an intelligent person and you believe it. The uneducated poor stand no chance of seeing past the clever maneuvering and shameless rhetoric.

[**life is...**]

Presuming all collective action is a result of altruism is a straw man. Read Hobbes for god's sake. Collective action is the atunement of mutually rational goals towards the least worst situation - and no this does not imply Marxism.

Altruism is actually an animalistic response to living in a social group that humans have always had, and the humanistic altruist attitude implies essentially the flip side, which is the hatred of the other, and so nationalism, and so on are all part of this. As for Western Civilisation promoting altruism - parts of it have attempted to create a new creed thereof, but are also essentially shallow compared with the forms of pre-industrial living. Ever since the Reformation the concept of the indicidual as paramount has been the chief ideology - even Marxism in its raw sense is merely the pursuit of self-interest for exploited individuals by violent means. Rand's ideas are just a part Western civilisation presented in a crude and extreme manner, that nevertheless has great appeal to large numbers of today's psychologically shattered population.

Thank you for that.

Look at the corruption that exists between the government and big business in America. You can't ignore the fact that part of the reason that the corruption even exists is because of the stress that these businesses are under to just survive. Rand is just looking at this and saying that the corruption is stemming from the over-regulation. When an entity is under stress is stops playing by any rules.

I haven't actually read the book. So I can't really offer any good advice. Chicago, there was this populist/socialism/capitalism that resulted in extreme corruption which was illustrated beautifully in Upton Sinclare's Jungle.

Rand was looking at what happened in Chicago with populism. This isn't about socialism, it's about what happens when a government decides that it's going to enact socialist practices but still allow for privately held businesses and capitalist practices. The result is corruption because of the competing interests. A legitimately held business can't survive playing by the rules.

[ciphersort]

I'd also like to add, ciphersort, that your reasons, lack reason. Its three crass opinions propped up on a quote from a biography that was written by some one with a crude sense of humor, or perhaps a coarseness of being that permeates more of their personality than just their sense of humor. Either way its hardly objective in its presentation of facts.

Accusing anyone of possessing a coarseness of being while defending Rand is unfathomable. Ayn was a dangerous cult leader and as such I find the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on her to be appropriate. Thankfully she is dead now and can no longer personally pollute the realm of thought.

Please, since you seem to care, answer this: Do you think that Knight Commander of the British Empire, Rand Disciple, and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is responsible in any way for the current economic situation?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49M58W20081023?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

I am not aware of a more successful disciple of Rand than Greenspan, especially in the realm of economic policy. This should be a monumental wake up call for Rand's followers, but I am sure they will complain this away by blaming it on the rest of us, the world not being perfect and Greenspan not being John Galt.

[revolutionman]

Absolutely Greenspan is responsible to some degree.

When he abandoned Austrian economics for the favor of the political elite and business class by promoting Keynesian nonsense economics, he broke ground on our current economic condition.

Hes the economic Judas of modern America.

Its his deviation from Objectivist principals, certainly not his adherence to them, that laid the foundation for our current economic situation.

And LoL @ Dangerous Cult Leader, because the idea of people looking out for themselves is so offensive right?

[ciphersort]

Absolutely Greenspan is responsible to some degree.


Greenspan and crew thought the banks looking out for themselves would automatically protect everyone with a vested interest (ie... us) and the system. That self interest failed due to greed.



And LoL @ Dangerous Cult Leader, because the idea of people looking out for themselves is so offensive right?

The idea of people looking out for themselves is not offensive to me in the least. The idea that looking out for yourself should be the overriding guiding principle of existence is dangerous.

[revolutionman]

The idea of people looking out for themselves is not offensive to me in the least. The idea that looking out for yourself should be the overriding guiding principle of existence is dangerous.

i think nature dictates that your own interests be your primary motivator. I have not been able to identify any activity that people engage in that is not done with the ultimate goal of satisfying ones self interest.

As far as banks are concerned, if the consumer was knowledgeable about the product offered, as it is his responsibility to be, banks with unsavory business practices would have went out of business within months or years, and not have grown over a century into a business "too big to fail".

When you buy a car from a used car salesmen, do you take his word on the condition of the car and buy it without at least giving it a once over and a test drive? Well why would you accept a loan without understanding the terms? Why would you accept the word of parties who are obviously not concerned with you best interest, but rather their own interests?

Ignorance and laziness, on the part of the consumer, in conjunction with socialistic policies, caused the failure, free market capitalism, is responsible for many things, our current economic crisis is not one of them. You may blame my use of the word crisis to describe our relatively benign economic situation on capitalism.

[ciphersort]

i think nature dictates that your own interests be your primary motivator. I have not been able to identify any activity that people engage in that is not done with the ultimate goal of satisfying ones self interest.

I suggest you you aren't looking very closely at humanity or doing so only cynically.



As far as banks are concerned, if the consumer was knowledgeable about the product offered, as it is his responsibility to be, banks with unsavory business practices would have went out of business within months or years, and not have grown over a century into a business "too big to fail".

Like I said previously... in a perfect world. Here in reality, there is always noise in the signal.



When you buy a car from a used car salesmen, do you take his word on the condition of the car and buy it without at least giving it a once over and a test drive? Well why would you accept a loan without understanding the terms? Why would you accept the word of parties who are obviously not concerned with you best interest, but rather their own interests?

Why would you loan on such terms knowing the balance won't be paid? Greed seems to be the answer.



Ignorance and laziness, on the part of the consumer, in conjunction with socialistic policies, caused the failure, free market capitalism, is responsible for many things, our current economic crisis is not one of them. You may blame my use of the word crisis to describe our relatively benign economic situation on capitalism.

I did not blame free market capitalism for any of these problems. Free market capitalism as imagined by it's proponents and enemies does not exist. It's just an idea and apparently for various reasons (greed and overriding self interest being part) it is unworkable as imagined.

[revolutionman]

perhaps your looking so closely your seeing things that are not there.

[MacGuffin]

When you buy a car from a used car salesmen, do you take his word on the condition of the car and buy it without at least giving it a once over and a test drive? Well why would you accept a loan without understanding the terms? Why would you accept the word of parties who are obviously not concerned with you best interest, but rather their own interests?

You're not an attorney, are you?

No matter how much you think you know, circumstances and malfeasance can screw over people who have vetted contracts in horrific ways. Half the common law around contracts exists because of this.

[Edge2070]

What is ideally effective in construct, may simply be seen as a distortion in the web of time.

[**life is...**]

I think you'll find this (http://www.discoveraynrand.com/playboyinterview.html) to be a very good read.

A notable excerpt:


Ayn Rand interviewed by Alvin Toffler
for Playboy magazine © 1964 Playboy

PLAYBOY: You are sharply critical of the world as you see it today, and your books offer radical proposals for changing not merely the shape of society, but the very way in which most men work, think and love. Are you optimistic about man's future?

RAND: Yes, I am optimistic. Collectivism, as an intellectual power and a moral ideal, is dead. But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism, have not yet been discovered. I think men will have time to discover them. It is significant that the dying collectivist philosophy of today has produced nothing but a cult of depravity, impotence and despair. Look at modern art and literature with their image of man as a helpless, mindless creature doomed to failure, frustration and destruction. This may be the collectivists' psychological confession, but it is not an image of man. If it were, we would never have risen from the cave. But we did. Look around you and look at history. You will see the achievements of man's mind. You will see man's unlimited potentiality for greatness, and the faculty that makes it possible. You will see that man is not a helpless monster by nature, but he becomes one when he discards that faculty: his mind. And if you ask me, what is greatness? —I will answer, it is the capacity to live by the three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, self esteem.

[LazyReed]

DYSTOPIA

[fripping]

DYSTOPIA

haha, yeah but we're talking about the future in this thread.

[C.J.Woolf]

haha, yeah but we're talking about the future in this thread.
More dystopia?

[fripping]

More dystopia?

welllll. . . . yes.

[C.J.Woolf]

welllll. . . . yes.
Only one thing to do then -- invest heavily in dystopia. If there is one thing America is good at, it's making a profit from calamity.