Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

krazy kaju

Regulars
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    Wayne State University
  • Occupation
    Currency Trader, Student

krazy kaju's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. That's post hoc analysis. Many investors knew that the market was oversold so they bought shares back. It's called a bear market rally and there's nothing unusual about it. If anything, it means that the stock market rose in spite of government intervention.
  2. Why should fees be for actual costs? Judges are a part of the government. They provide arbitration services. Ergo, government produce vital services to the market place. That would be a great idea as long as there would be an independent common law judiciary willing to restrain unconstitutional behavior.
  3. My point isn't that government should be trying to make a profit, but that it could charge nations like South Korea and Japan which have US military bases for military protection and use the money to pay for the expenses. Any extra money could be redirected towards other foreign policy objectives.
  4. Businesses do act in their self interest. In your example of a bank, the bank made those junk loans and securitized them because it was in the business's self interest to do so because of perverse government incentives via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, Ginnie Mae, the Federal Reserve, the Community Reinvestment Act and its various revisions, the SEC boosting false confidence, a government approved credit-rating oligopoly, etc. Now, do most businesses or individuals act in their own self interest as Ayn Rand would have them? No, because many of them are just out for a profit, even if that profit is because of government's meddling in the economy. If the government stepped back, then people would work towards their real self interest.
  5. Are you sure about that statement? Many state and local governments invest in the market for the pensions of their workers. These workers have an incentive to protect those investments that are made by their employers. Many businesses follow a similar model. Wouldn't it be possible for an Objectivist government to do something similar with its military, in order to cover costs? Moreover, are you saying that governments don't produce anything? You don't believe that governments don't provide vital services like arbitration and protection? Do you think these too should be handed to the private sector? From investing in the stock market. Are you ready to call professional investors, hedge fund managers, mutual fund managers, etc. immoral? They provide vital services by increasing the amount of loanable funds in the market. Are you saying that nobody should go to work for government? After all, if an Objectivist government were to exist, it would presumably gather revenue via various user fees, like the contract fees Rand mentioned. But that is producing a profit for government, is it not? Well you would want to establish another regime that wouldn't be just as dangerous or more dangerous than the previous one, wouldn't you? Dunno, it seems that some people, like Peikoff, are quite hawkish. This is a good idea. Do you think an Objectivist government could make extra money by stationing troops in places like South Korea if that country decides to pay for the protection?
  6. That's not what I would consider a sufficient explanation. Why exactly is it immoral from the Objectivist, ethical egoist point of view? I understand that such involvement might lead to bad investments due to political considerations, but any profits could greatly enhance government revenues. Deploying your military half way across the world to end a tyrannical regime would be quite expensive, especially if you plan on preventing another tyrannical regime from arising.
  7. Hey, I'm new to the forums. I've noticed that quite a few Objectivists have come out in favor of the War on Terror and even possibly waging war on Iran. Wouldn't these be extremely expensive operations though? Since an Objectivist government would be limited to voluntary contributions and user fees (i.e. Rand's proposal for a fee on contracts), how would an Objectivist government collect enough revenues for expensive foreign policy? Could Objectivist governments buy large stakes in successful companies, mutual funds, stock market indices, etc. to enhance revenue, or is this considered immoral? Thanks, krazy
×
×
  • Create New...