"The Future Of Capitalism" in Time Magazine

[Iudicious]

An online link to the article: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages...1898072,00.html

A few quotes from the article:

"It was clear among many of the founders of capitalist that there had to be a moral foundation. What happened is that capitalism was reduced to Ayn Rand-ian selfishness. We need to recapture the principle that you do well, but in the process of doing well, you give back." - Arianna Huffington

"The system as a whole is still working. But for capitalism to have a future, it needs to survive. What are the REGULATORY MECHANICS that will ensure that in 100 years - in 500 years - there still is a system?" - Stephan Schuster

"I believe there is a role for the government to play in evening the playing field and investing in development. We need to invest in the future and invest in the global good. Capitalism is not just a free-for-all, every man for himself." - John Legend

It sounds a whole lot to me like what they want is the exact opposite of a capitalist system, but with the name and support of a capitalist system. Thoughts?

[Jake_Ellison]

Was it Michelle or the man Himself on the cover this time?

[gags]

This is just another example of Time Magazine having become a very weak publication. There isn't a single person on the Time panel who I care to hear talk about any important issue, let alone the future of Capitalism. Ariana Huffington? Give me a break.

[MichaelH]

"Capitalism is not just a free-for-all, every man for himself." - John Legend

I'm astounded. They came up with something worse than context-dropping: definition-dropping.

It sounds a whole lot to me like what they want is the exact opposite of a capitalist system, but with the name and support of a capitalist system. Thoughts?

You nailed it. With very few exceptions, everyone wants the benefits of capitalism: cheap and plentiful goods and services, technological development, and individual liberty. However, many people feel those things somehow can't happen unless the government gets involved. Without a philosophical understanding, they don't see the connection between capitalism and human progress. Hence, they want the perks of capitalism without capitalism.

[Edit: Politicians especially have this problem because capitalism doesn't need them.]

Edited June 8, 2009 by MichaelH

[Mister A]

You nailed it. With very few exceptions, everyone wants the benefits of capitalism: cheap and plentiful goods and services, technological development, and individual liberty. However, many people feel those things somehow can't happen unless the government gets involved. Without a philosophical understanding, they don't see the connection between capitalism and human progress. Hence, they want the perks of capitalism without capitalism.

It's not that they don't think government involvement is necessary for a high standard of living; they want to placate their second-hander anxieties to be part of a whole (either as serfs or vassals, makes no difference to them as long as they are tied to others) while at the same time keep their ipods, xboxes, cellphones et al. They believe those inventions would have just spontaneously come into being independent of individual freedom (i.e. Rearden Metal is actually Miracle Metal).

[Space Patroller]

"It was clear among many of the founders of capitalist that there had to be a moral foundation. What happened is that capitalism was reduced to Ayn Rand-ian selfishness. We need to recapture the principle that you do well, but in the process of doing well, you give back." - Arianna Huffington

Ariana Huffington? Pul-eeeze: You might as well quote Art Bell or George Adamski.

However, in a bizarre interpretation. capitalism does "give back" or rather give ahead. Being front-loeaed; investments befrore project. it fertilzes the ground for prosperity.

"The system as a whole is still working. But for capitalism to have a future, it needs to survive. What are the REGULATORY MECHANICS that will ensure that in 100 years - in 500 years - there still is a system?" - Stephan Schuster

A money system based on real value as measured by gold rather than pixie duxt. This links money and therefore what is to be gotten out of the enterprise right to reality, with the laws of the universe deciding what does and does not go. Anything else, well...

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09mar.html

"I believe there is a role for the government to play in evening the playing field and investing in development. We need to invest in the future and invest in the global good. Capitalism is not just a free-for-all, every man for himself." - John Legend

By having objectively based laws agaihnst the initiation of force and fraud. the governemtn does just that. Anything else tilts the playing field in favor of the "chosen people" be it the eco's, miseducational establishment, unions or whover. Who talks about "global good" means their particular pet lunacy rather than objective, individual good. Forgetting that there is no such thing as automatic, innate or ono-individual based value. This is counter to the definiton of value as that which an organism acts to gain or keep. Well organisms, like anything else. come only in individual form. Even colonial "orgaisms" can be further broken down into single units. Such persons either do not understand the nature of reality or are trying to pull a fast one with high-fallutin' talk.

It sounds a whole lot to me like what they want is the exact opposite of a capitalist system, but with the name and support of a capitalist system. Thoughts?

You are 100l% on the money. If you look at what those who are quoted say, and what I note that capitalism does in terms of doing precisely what is called for, it is clear that by the fact that they want some form of economic fascism, they're either mad, ingnorant, stupid or, presuming they have the nacient competence, lying. If this is the best and brightest, as showcased by the media. then humans will be a long time planet bound. They are a perfect follow on to the Age of Faith save that in 1400, men did not know better. To paraphrase Ayn Rand "...But in the twenty-first century? In the United Sates?". She was talking about the religious right (how can they be "right" when they're so wrong? Well ti's nutjobs like those quoted that give them the appearance of profound wisdom).

[Iudicious]

Was it Michelle or the man Himself on the cover this time?

Someone totally different. Funny though: As well as having an article about "the future of capitalism", they also had an article about "the future of work". The latter seems a bit more competent though.

I'm astounded. They came up with something worse than context-dropping: definition-dropping.

That's the worst part of the article to me! It's certainly bad that they want a Socialist system like what Obama is creating, but to call it Capitalism? They want to do this evil, without ever recognizing it for what it is. They want to cover up the atrocity they're committing by giving it the same name as the greatest, and only morally correct and effective, system known to man.

By having objectively based laws agaihnst the initiation of force and fraud. the governemtn does just that. Anything else tilts the playing field in favor of the "chosen people" be it the eco's, miseducational establishment, unions or whover. Who talks about "global good" means their particular pet lunacy rather than objective, individual good. Forgetting that there is no such thing as automatic, innate or ono-individual based value. This is counter to the definiton of value as that which an organism acts to gain or keep. Well organisms, like anything else. come only in individual form. Even colonial "orgaisms" can be further broken down into single units. Such persons either do not understand the nature of reality or are trying to pull a fast one with high-fallutin' talk.

They don't want to understand the nature of reality. If one such as any of them understands the nature of reality, they'll realize that reality has no place for them.

You are 100l% on the money. If you look at what those who are quoted say, and what I note that capitalism does in terms of doing precisely what is called for, it is clear that by the fact that they want some form of economic fascism, they're either mad, ingnorant, stupid or, presuming they have the nacient competence, lying. If this is the best and brightest, as showcased by the media. then humans will be a long time planet bound. They are a perfect follow on to the Age of Faith save that in 1400, men did not know better. To paraphrase Ayn Rand "...But in the twenty-first century? In the United Sates?". She was talking about the religious right (how can they be "right" when they're so wrong? Well ti's nutjobs like those quoted that give them the appearance of profound wisdom).

These people aren't the best and the brightest, they're just the least outstanding and the least precise. None of them have any real opinion on anything - they can't even understand what they themselves are saying! They say they want a capitalist system, and at the same time call for the very things that kill a capitalist system. The best and brightest are the ones who are seen the least in the media, or at portrayed positively the least in the media. Hundreds of years of progress will go down the drain because of people such as the "best and brightest" according to Times. So long as the men and women who make progress, the ones who will ultimately enable space travel, are restricted by an anti-capitalist, anti-intelligence, anti-wealth system, humanity will stay planet bound. In some ways, that may be for the better - give these "best and brightest" the ability to exploit space, and who knows what's possible so long as they exist.

[Space Patroller]

They don't want to understand the nature of reality. If one such as any of them understands the nature of reality, they'll realize that reality has no place for them.

There's no place for anyone in reality. Each of us has to make a place for himself. That's the real job, and pleasure of being a person. To watch something go from a vision or fantasy to becoming a fact. I knew a sceond-hander and he couldn't understnad why my favorite Christmas gifts were tools; screwdriver, pliers, things like that. I told him. "These put power in my hands. unlike you, whose idea of power is to get others to do things for you, my idea of power is to be able to work my will in the world. and do it myself. You are abjectly dependent on the persons you get to do things that you ought to be doing and have to live on their terms, not yours while B.S.ing yourself into thinking how clever you are. That's if they can do what you want at all. Who's the master and who's the slave gets hard to tell. It's like being the wife in a bad marriage. You know what they say about Heaven."

These people aren't the best and the brightest, they're just the least outstanding and the least precise. None of them have any real opinion on anything - they can't even understand what they themselves are saying! They say they want a capitalist system, and at the same time call for the very things that kill a capitalist system. The best and brightest are the ones who are seen the least in the media, or at portrayed positively the least in the media. Hundreds of years of progress will go down the drain because of people such as the "best and brightest" according to Times. So long as the men and women who make progress, the ones who will ultimately enable space travel, are restricted by an anti-capitalist, anti-intelligence, anti-wealth system, humanity will stay planet bound. In some ways, that may be for the better - give these "best and brightest" the ability to exploit space, and who knows what's possible so long as they exist.

I was speaking in the context of social metaphysics and common perception, and I did have my tongue jammed in my cheed so heard, it's permanantly bent.

You nailed it from 50 lightyears. This is what I meant by "I have two great passions. Space Patrol which was a beacon from a bright and interesting future and Objectivism; the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is the means to get there" and why I said when I could understand Objectivism enough to make a competent judgement "This will power men to the stars: Space Patrol come to life!" What I did not realize was just how Space Patrol come to life it was until I was re-introduced to the program in 2000 after a 45 year absence and meeting Ed Kemmer (NO, I do not know his ecplicit philsophy but he was of a heroic cut on stage and flying the P-51 "Damn Yankee": Those pilots were the elite of fighter pilots in WWII)

http://spacepatrol.us/firtpage.html

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I watched part of a similar panel on MSNBC that had business leaders discussing the future of capitalism. I didn't see the whole thing because it was rather disgusting. I don't know of any business leaders (BB&T being an exception) who understand what capitalism is and how and why it must be defended. So, it is a case where the business leaders are leading the rush towards some form of socialism or fascism, whereby the government will dictate the terms of their existence and they will follow willingly. Everybody seems to want to place the blame on capitalism, and aside from Objectivists, there is no one standing up to say otherwise. It seems rather bleak, and we may be in this fix for quite some time. It would take business leaders willing to stand up for their rights and freedoms to change the course of our predicament -- and I don't see that on the immediate horizon. Where is a Hank Rearden and Francisco and Dagny? or is it too early for their rise?

[Iudicious]

There's no place for anyone in reality. Each of us has to make a place for himself. That's the real job, and pleasure of being a person. To watch something go from a vision or fantasy to becoming a fact.

Can a second-hander such as they are make their place in reality, except through the exploitation of others? They cannot participate in this job or pleasure of being a person, for they cannot create. They rely on others to do so.

You nailed it from 50 lightyears. This is what I meant by "I have two great passions. Space Patrol which was a beacon from a bright and interesting future and Objectivism; the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is the means to get there" and why I said when I could understand Objectivism enough to make a competent judgement "This will power men to the stars: Space Patrol come to life!" What I did not realize was just how Space Patrol come to life it was until I was re-introduced to the program in 2000 after a 45 year absence and meeting Ed Kemmer (NO, I do not know his ecplicit philsophy but he was of a heroic cut on stage and flying the P-51 "Damn Yankee": Those pilots were the elite of fighter pilots in WWII)

http://spacepatrol.us/firtpage.html

I really understand what you're saying here, it struck a note with me. I've had a few things that I've been passionate about, and one of them was space exploration and the uses of space. I view space as the next frontier, just as America was once the next frontier. To see anything except an Objectivist world taking it would seem wrong to me, and only in an Objectivist could the benefits of space be reaped properly: On an individual or business level, unrestricted by the government, open to everyone who works for it.

By the way, I like the Telstar playing in the background.

I'm not ignoring your post, Thomas. I just don't see how I could say anymore about it - you're right. And I don't think it's "too early" for their rise - such people would fit in in any time, so long as capitalism existed. The real question is when is it time for such people to "shrug"? Is that even possible anymore?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

And I don't think it's "too early" for their rise - such people would fit in in any time, so long as capitalism existed. The real question is when is it time for such people to "shrug"? Is that even possible anymore?

Ideally, it is too early to shrug, since we still have freedom of speech and still have time to fight the trend. Maybe in certain specific areas, but I don't even know about that. Banks, mortgages, credit cards, automobiles, etc. are not yet taken over completely by government force and incompetence. So long as we can speak out, we have a chance of changing the trends. More and more people are becoming aware of Objectivism, and more and more people are asking about it. And we are not fascist yet, though we are moving that way. There are still people fighting government intrusion into the market place, we just need more of them to accept the Objectivist ethics.

However, it may well be true that we have to live with what we have for perhaps twenty more years of struggle. There is slated to be another round of "Tea Parties" around Independence Day and it will be interesting to see what they have to say. I think we have to keep pushing Objectivism, and get enough good minds on our side to turn the tables.

[Space Patroller]

Can a second-hander such as they are make their place in reality, except through the exploitation of others? They cannot participate in this job or pleasure of being a person, for they cannot create. They rely on others to do so.

Anybody can make a place for themselves in reality. I was not always as you know me. Hwever, you'll not beat a good sense of life where the rubber meets the road. I know what it's like to have an implicit philosophy that is far better than the explicit one.

People say "Man has his head in the clouds and his feet in the mud" It's the other way around. It's the biological needs and drives that push Man forward. It seems that the intellectuals spend their time making up excuses to not advance.

I really understand what you're saying here, it struck a note with me. I've had a few things that I've been passionate about, and one of them was space exploration and the uses of space. I view space as the next frontier, just as America was once the next frontier. To see anything except an Objectivist world taking it would seem wrong to me, and only in an Objectivist could the benefits of space be reaped properly: On an individual or business level, unrestricted by the government, open to everyone who works for it.

By the way, I like the Telstar playing in the background.

Thank you for visitng. It was not the "space cadet shows" that got me interested in space. I had always been interested in flying things since I was almost 4. ONe night, in about March of '52, when I was 6 and change, there was this TV newsreel show called TIME MARCHES ON. This particular night they showed the now-famous clip of a rocket launch with the camera pointed backward. That blew me away. It was a couple of months later that I was introduced to Space Patrol. I imagined my eyes must have bugged 2 feet out of my head. Use the link in my sig. If you want to see what we are like try

http://spacepatrol.us/forumhub.html

If you want to see actual episodes of what we had. when you get to the forum, open the Power Console

I'm not ignoring your post, Thomas. I just don't see how I could say anymore about it - you're right. And I don't think it's "too early" for their rise - such people would fit in in any time, so long as capitalism existed. The real question is when is it time for such people to "shrug"? Is that even possible anymore?

Well, now you know why, for the last two decades I've been saying it's "Big Busienss: America's Persecuting Minority" When I see the way they trip all over themselves in the reace to see who can be greener than the others, I want to feed them to the liberals an inch at a time feet first so it will last longer and they would be no great loss, either.

It's in small business that the Reardens and Dagny's will be found.

[Jake_Ellison]

Anybody can make a place for themselves in reality. I was not always as you know me. Hwever, you'll not beat a good sense of life where the rubber meets the road. I know what it's like to have an implicit philosophy that is far better than the explicit one.

People say "Man has his head in the clouds and his feet in the mud" It's the other way around. It's the biological needs and drives that push Man forward. It seems that the intellectuals spend their time making up excuses to not advance.

I disagree. Intellectuals (like Greek philosophers, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, or Ayn Rand, and many othres) are the ultimate source of at least half of all the progress.

The rest of us being the source of the other half.

Well, now you know why, for the last two decades I've been saying it's "Big Busienss: America's Persecuting Minority" When I see the way they trip all over themselves in the reace to see who can be greener than the others, I want to feed them to the liberals an inch at a time feet first so it will last longer and they would be no great loss, either.

And yet, you wouldn't keep saying that without big business supplying you with the Internet.

[Wotan]

Time magazine is attacking and misrepresenting capitalism? Time was a sleazy populist rag at least as early as the 1930s! Newsweek had integrity and quality. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Space Patroller]

I disagree. Intellectuals (like Greek philosophers, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, or Ayn Rand, and many othres) are the ultimate source of at least half of all the progress.

The Greek philosophers? Seen any of them lately? Where has John Locke been for the last 275 Years? They were from an age when intellectaul meant what we consider it. Ayn Rand? Well, to just say the name is to call the majority of intellectals morons. But she was the oddball in the mix. In fact it was she that inspired my statement. She was 180 out of phase with the pravailing notions and when I compared what she had to say with the overwhelming opinion held by the intelligentsia I came to the conclusion that, as a class, the intelligentsia was polluted big time. The ones you mention are intellectuals the way they oughta be. In fact it was this attitude towoard the intelligentsia that led Rand to refer to herself and us as "New Intellectauls"

And yet, you wouldn't keep saying that without big business supplying you with the Internet.

You haven't seen the way my Verizon connection is acting lately Besides what I'm saying is based upon Big Business' attitude towards capitalism, which I've noted over the decades as represented by the hiney hickies they're giving the eco's, just listen to the commercials about being green. The bastards are tossing us under the bus. Which was the whole point of this thread. And look at the way the're rolling over for Obama.

In that sense I am saying what most pro-capitalism commentators have been saying for 35 years. Do you deny the factuality of what I say about Big Business supporting the anti-capitalist movements? When someone says my enemy is great, he's saying that I suck. What should we do with people who say that we suck? I say to give them that which they support. It seems that Orren Boyle is the model of Big Business. There's something else Rand said, too "Don't fool yourself into thinking 'Aw, they don't mean it': They do". Big Busienss contributions have been tending more and more towards the Democratic party lately. Especially over the past dozen years and it's mostly small business mony that goes to the Republicans. 30+ years ago, the split of business campaign contributions used to favor the R's 70% to 30%. Over the past dozen years it's only 60/40 and I don't know how it went' in 2008.

Also I was around as Objectivism was taking shape. You have no idea what it was like waiting for. and then devouring the latest issue of The OBJECTIVIST and later The AYN RAND LETTER or whne The OMINOUS PARALELLS finally came out. I was getting them as they were coming out. I was the "hot property" of 4 departments at Providence College (Psyche, Philosophy, Religious Studies and Western Civ) and a major entity in the Psych department at Rhode Island College.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Space Patroller