Rearden_Steel Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Meanwhile, late pro-capitalist author and philosopher Ayn Rand rolled over in her grave and issued a statement to the press completely and forever denying her connection to the views of Alan Greenspan. Quote: "Alan is an idiot. If Mr. Obama wants the real answer to the current crisis, he should read Atlas Shrugged." For once a piece of satire that paints Ayn Rand in a positive light: Ayn Rand to Obama: Read Atlas Shrugged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Ha! I laughed out loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Why is there this assumption that reading Atlas Shrugged will give someone the most understanding of economic principles and problems? Reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't make you an expert on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 12, 2009 Report Share Posted January 12, 2009 Why is there this assumption that reading Atlas Shrugged will give someone the most understanding of economic principles and problems? The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in man's existence. Understanding that reason is man's primary means of survival is the indispensable basis for all sound economics. Knowing this won't automatically make you an expert, but it will help you avoid many of the fallacies that are all too widespread today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in man's existence. Understanding that reason is man's primary means of survival is the indispensable basis for all sound economics. Knowing this won't automatically make you an expert, but it will help you avoid many of the fallacies that are all too widespread today. I'm yet to meet another Objectivist who can accurately explain how the Federal Reserve in America contributes to inflation, and causes the boom and bust cycles. Or who can explain how America prints out money to pay off it's debt. Or who understands that deflation is worse then inflation. Or that credit is used in all your transactions regardless of if you yourself actually use credit cards. Or that banks create money on their own.... There are numerous issues where Objectivists I've communicated with showed not only a lack of understand of key economic issues, but a total backwards application of principles. So, even glimpsing a more rational outlook on things still doesn't do much without specific study. Granted I haven't talk to all of them out there. But I believe in the Law of Large Numbers because that at least hasn't let me down yet. I've also meet people who read Atlas Shrugged and were still worthless human beings afterwards. I think subscribing reading the book in order to understand the world in an instant isn't a good thing to do unless we are talking about an already intelligent person who would get it. As Rand herself observed, their aren't too many of those around. The original posting was intended to be more jovial or whatever. But, I see this assumption being asserted so seriously sometimes. I want to address it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Why is there this assumption that reading Atlas Shrugged will give someone the most understanding of economic principles and problems? Reading Atlas Shrugged doesn't make you an expert on anything. Atlas Shrugged contains knowledge that I at least haven't seen in other books, knowledge wich is absolutely necessary before one can understand Capitalism, and why Capitalism is the only system that is good. Without that knowledge, an economist is like a physicist who has no senses, and has never been told about what happens around him, but rather given data about a false reality in which pigs can fly and feathers weigh a million pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordr Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I'm yet to meet another Objectivist who can accurately explain how the Federal Reserve in America contributes to inflation, and causes the boom and bust cycles. Or who can explain how America prints out money to pay off it's debt. Or who understands that deflation is worse then inflation. Or that credit is used in all your transactions regardless of if you yourself actually use credit cards. Or that banks create money on their own.... Reisman does a pretty good job explaining those issues in his book. It's massive, comprehensive, and free for you to download from his website in .pdf form. He's the only prominent Objectivist economist that I'm aware of; combining the best of Rand and Mises into a phenomenally complete and informative treatise. My reply sounds like an infomercial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) I'm yet to meet another Objectivist who can accurately explain how the Federal Reserve in America contributes to inflation... By extending credit to the US Treasury, causing more currency to be either printed or created electronically, thereby increasing the amount of currency in circulation, thereby devaluing the currency overall. I'm Bryan, glad to meet you. Edited January 13, 2009 by Maximus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 There are numerous issues where Objectivists I've communicated with showed not only a lack of understand of key economic issues, but a total backwards application of principles. By that you mean that their conclusions were the total opposite of your conclusions. How do we know that their conclusions are "totally backwards", and yours are right? Give a few specific examples of both your and their conclusions, and let us decide. If we decide against you, I'm sure you'll add us to the long list of Objectivists who are applying their principles the wrong way. Nevertheless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Reard3n Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm yet to meet another Objectivist who can accurately explain how the Federal Reserve in America contributes to inflation, and causes the boom and bust cycles. Or who can explain how America prints out money to pay off it's debt. Or who understands that deflation is worse then inflation. Or that credit is used in all your transactions regardless of if you yourself actually use credit cards. Or that banks create money on their own.... There are numerous issues where Objectivists I've communicated with showed not only a lack of understand of key economic issues, but a total backwards application of principles. So, even glimpsing a more rational outlook on things still doesn't do much without specific study. Granted I haven't talk to all of them out there. But I believe in the Law of Large Numbers because that at least hasn't let me down yet. That's bad indeed, although hard to believe. They're not representing objectivists well then. Any objectivist who prides himself in being so should have basic economic and financial knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volco Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm yet to meet another Objectivist who can accurately explain how the Federal Reserve in America contributes to inflation, and causes the boom and bust cycles. Or who can explain how America prints out money to pay off it's debt. Or who understands that deflation is worse then inflation. Or that credit is used in all your transactions regardless of if you yourself actually use credit cards. Or that banks create money on their own.... Some argue that indeed the bump was caused for existing too much private currency ( buying and selling of IOUs ) and not enough regulation of such floating currency. I've studied von Mises and Hayek, and neither, not even Reisman, are as market fundies as some Objectivist newbies like I used to be. There are numerous issues where Objectivists I've communicated with showed not only a lack of understand of key economic issues, but a total backwards application of principles. So, even glimpsing a more rational outlook on things still doesn't do much without specific study. Granted I haven't talk to all of them out there. But I believe in the Law of Large Numbers because that at least hasn't let me down yet. I've also meet people who read Atlas Shrugged and were still worthless human beings afterwards. I think subscribing reading the book in order to understand the world in an instant isn't a good thing to do unless we are talking about an already intelligent person who would get it. Glad you adressed the issue. Atlas Shrugged is an excellent book, not an economics book but something a lot deeper, a "sense of life" book. Now Ayn Rand, and AS, was not dogmatically against pragmatism. She put Reason above the dogma of reason, and both above philosophical pragmatism. She was not an economist either, se just laid down the Moral Fundaments of Capitalism. In a fully contractual society salvatages could work, or not, I still don't know, but The catch is that a fully contractual society can't be laid down over the existing societies and the 3rd-generation-rights-claims of their populaces. For the same reason that a red blood America couldn't be instaurated upon blue-blood Europe. When the Republican Revolution of America was tried in Europe, it resulted in bloodshed, empire and war. Therefore an Objectivist society, a fully contractual society, with no fed, and ultra free market principles could only be installed in a new, empty land. Some Desert bought to the Australians, or a piesce of Puntland conquered to the Somalis. My point: Realpolitics in spite of Ben Franklyn are a balance between freedom and security, and to privilege one above the other would result in utter chaos. By this I don't condonde Mr Obama nor his salvatage which even if part of it goes to "sustain" the banks, most of it is pork, which someone should tell him it's totally haram by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utabintarbo Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 By that you mean that their conclusions were the total opposite of your conclusions. How do we know that their conclusions are "totally backwards", and yours are right? Give a few specific examples of both your and their conclusions, and let us decide. If we decide against you, I'm sure you'll add us to the long list of Objectivists who are applying their principles the wrong way. Nevertheless... <crickets chirping> Mammon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.