A Meditation on Ayn Rand

[Beel]

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead?printable=true

[wolfpat]

I've read a number of faux treatises (Treati?) on the writings of Ayn Rand, and the one thing they all have in common is they utter not one word of argument to her opinions. This article consisted of insults to both Rand and those who agree with her.

As per usual, it was intellectually lazy.

[NC YIPPIE]

Actually, no it is not 'lazy' at all - it is not a piece that is meant to dispute her concepts, but rather one that looks more at their context and some of their applications to real life and real people. The author doesn't just bad mouth her, specific characters are cited and real life people who are fans of Rand are quoted in length. I think the point of the entire article is really summed up by the quote from the blogger:

"There is a reason she appeals to the young," says Malice. "Because when you're young, you hunger for moralism. You know there are things that are right and things that are wrong. But the two choices traditionally put forward by mass culture are Jesus or 'helping everybody,' which are both fraudulent and ridiculous. And dull. And then you read those books and it's like a punch in the gut, especially if you're a gifted kid like me. To have her saying that you are right and that everyone against you is wrong… Well, it's just something that people who are gifted need to hear."

[srvfan]

it's not exactly lazy, but IMO it is pretty badly written.  The first time I clicked on the link I gave up on the article after about 4 paragraphs.  The ironic thing is, I gave up on "Atlas Shrugged" after about 4 chapters and still havn't gone back to finish it.

I never read Atlas Shrugged in college or took the classes, some of the people in my honors program and a couple of my teachers wanted me to, but I was too busy working and hustling rich yankee college kids in pool to sit around with a bunch of ARA's as the writer calls them. 

What's the difference btw ARA's and FRA's(Franklin Roosevelt a-holes) both pretty much think the one they're following is some kind of god and they have all the answers.  The ARA's and the FRA's believe their way is best and the rest of us are idiots and only they can save us.

Wasn't BB&T one of the banks that didn't accept the gov't bailout?  Aren't they one of the more "sound" banks as far as not getting involved in a lot of the riskier decisions other banks and institutions took part in which eventually led to their downfall?

Just compare BB&T being led by a ARA and Detroit after 40 years of FRA's, which one turned out better?

I'm not a Rand expert, I am a libertarian, I subscribe to Reason Magazine and enjoy the articles, and writings of a lot of their writers.  I guess philospically I would agree with quite a bit, if not most of Rand's thoughts and beliefs, I don't know and frankly I really don't care. I believe what I believe, some beliefs come from reading something and thinking "hey, that makes sense" some from seeing what someone wrote or hearing what someone said and realizing that they've been able to articulate what I've been thinking.  Plus, beliefs have changed hopefully they've changed because I've thought through them, not because someone I read or heard on the radio/TV said they should change.

I read an article in the Indy a month or so ago about Glenn Beck, I don't know much about Beck, what little I do know leads me to believe he's an idiot.  Reading the article that was basically a hatchet job on Beck only made me think that the writer of the Indy article was a bigger idiot.  The writer of this article on Ayn Rand has achieved the same result.  I don't necessarily think that Rand is an idiot, but if someone disagrees with her writings and beliefs and those writings and beliefs are actually wrong then it seems like they could show that without resorting to the verbal/written diarrhea found in these articles.

[djkelly]

That was a painful article to read because it seemed the author’s main goal was to be offensive.  It was also obvious he did not understand the fundamentals of Objectivism since his examples repeatedly got them wrong.

Yes, he quoted two well known Objectivists but he didn’t elaborate much on their comments, but instead focused on a blogger who epitomized every point he was trying to make.  As far as I could tell from the blogger’s quotes, while he may be a good example of an ARA, he’s not an Objectivist.

So if the author wanted to show how obnoxious people can be that misinterpret Rand’s ideas or promote a distorted version of them, which unfortunately is quite common with any celebrity, he did manage that.  He did not address the real fundamentals of her philosophy and how it has influenced some very successful people.

John Allison was extremely successful at BB&T and led them through tremendous growth.  They certainly did not need any bailout funds although they may have been one of the banks that was forced to take them anyway and then paid them back fairly quickly.  He never got involved in the speculative investment craze because he knew it was a bad idea in the long run and therefore not in the bank’s best long term interest.

This quote is a good example of how he gets it wrong:
"Who admits that, yeah, Alan Greenspan was the one who put this country in an economic hole—but only because he wasn't nearly Randian enough.
"There is no question in my mind that it's government policy that created [the financial meltdown]," says BB&T's John Allison. "It began with Alan Greenspan's mismanagement of the Federal Reserve, which controls monetary policy. Look at his early writings! He strongly recommended getting rid of the Federal Reserve and going to the gold standard. Once he got in power, he never moved at all in that direction."
How to respond to this kind of resolve, this kind of faith?"

The problem with Greenspan wasn’t that he wasn’t Randian enough but that he was doing the opposite of what he wrote when he was a follower of Rand.  To the author that shows a ridiculous faith in Rand.  To anyone with common sense it’s an example of someone who changed positions between his time with Rand and his time as Fed Chairman.  His actions as Fed Chairman clearly showed he was no longer a follower of Ayn Rand.

To accuse Rand followers of faith is laughable as well.  Rand’s philosophy is called Objectivism because it is based on making objective decisions based on facts, not faith.  That’s the basis of her antagonism toward religion.  Religion is based on faith and to her mankind succeeds by using reason and rationalism so faith has no place in her philosophy. 

This is the most important quote in this piece:
"During my own college days, I did observe that a number of the fresh-minted Randroids in my midst became intellectually disciplined to a degree I wouldn't previously have thought possible. I also admit that a few of them became better questioners of ideas and of themselves—which in turn made them more honest people. But most fell into that hapless group of Rand readers—the ones whose postadolescent insecurity was alchemized upon contact with The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged into a bizarre unlaughing superiority."

Those that became more intellectually disciplined and better questioners are the ones that got it.  The others didn’t.  That’s the important part of this essay but the part the author doesn’t seem to grasp.  The question should be why do some people understand the message in the books and why do some take away a distorted version of it. 

[belle]

the "problem with Greenspan" as you so casually put it, was that the pay for the managers over reached the benefit to the companies they were supposed to over see. he 'forgot' the managers' self interest might just over shoot the interest of the company they watched over, the stock holders who depended on them.

the "invisible hand" became the robotic arm, reaching for that bonus, that stock option.

the lack of regulation undid the capitalist system. deny it all you want to. explain it to the unemployed.

[djkelly]

the "problem with Greenspan" as you so casually put it, was that the pay for the managers over reached the benefit to the companies they were supposed to over see. he 'forgot' the managers' self interest might just over shoot the interest of the company they watched over, the stock holders who depended on them.

the "invisible hand" became the robotic arm, reaching for that bonus, that stock option.

the lack of regulation undid the capitalist system. deny it all you want to. explain it to the unemployed.

The problem with Greenspan was primarily to hold interest rates so low and less about regulation.  Most of the government mistakes were made by people other than Greenspan and many of them are still in office and still promoting the same policies.

Banking and financial markets were still highly regulated.  Although in many cases this was misregulation that's a separate issue.  The problems weren't as much the capitalist system since our system is far from a true free market. 

The major problems were caused by government meddling.  Until the government recognizes that we won't correct the problems that led to this crisis.  Most of the government fixes are actually just delaying the inevitable. 

Unfortunately for the unemployed most of the government's policies are making it harder for the economy to recover and will keep them unemployed for years.  The government can't create jobs.  Only private business can create jobs. 

[belle]

and private business cannot create jobs, as long as banks will not even extend loans to private businesses so they can fill gas tanks for a whole month, without paying off gas cards in mid month.

Greenspan said himself that he never thought regulation was necessary, because he thought CFOs and CEOs would protect stock holders. he was shocked, shocked, mind you, when that proved false, when bonuses to those 'officers' proved more attractive than the stockholders' interests.

and they still get those bonuses.

Ayn Rand can rot. she stinks already.

[belle]

and why, exactly, does objectivism deserve a capital 'O' as in,

  Rand’s philosophy is called Objectivism because it is based on making objective decisions based on facts, not faith.

like it is an accepted philosophy. or Faith.

[srvfan]

I'll try again,

over the last 40 years, which organization has fared better, BB&T or Detroit?

[snowcamper]

the "problem with Greenspan" as you so casually put it, was that the pay for the managers over reached the benefit to the companies they were supposed to over see. he 'forgot' the managers' self interest might just over shoot the interest of the company they watched over, the stock holders who depended on them.

the "invisible hand" became the robotic arm, reaching for that bonus, that stock option.

the lack of regulation undid the capitalist system. deny it all you want to. explain it to the unemployed.

It is not the government's job to police this.  It is the board and the shareholder's jobs.
No one makes someone own a particular company's stock.  You can always sell if you don't like how much the CEO is getting paid.  The same is true of mutual funds, pension funds, endowments, etc. 

If the managers of those pools of money, or individuals themselves, feel that the CEO's pay is affecting business performance, then who in their right mind would keep the stock?  Just get rid of it and move to another company that is giving you your perceived bang for you buck.

The problems are not caused by the free market.
Belle talks about bank lending... as if it is anyone's right to be lent to....
Banks make their profits off lending, so apparently they don't want to be profitable... or there is something else going on.

The something else is the elephant in the room... the Federal Government.
Belle, Beel, etc.... where do you think we're going to borrow the $1.7 trillion dollars that Obama is spending next year?

Here's the simple truth:  Lending to the public is risky.  Lending to the government is safe (in theory).
So why lend to the public when Obama will take all you have to lend and then ask for more?

[RJLeeb]

the "problem with Greenspan" as you so casually put it, was that the pay for the managers over reached the benefit to the companies they were supposed to over see. he 'forgot' the managers' self interest might just over shoot the interest of the company they watched over, the stock holders who depended on them.

the "invisible hand" became the robotic arm, reaching for that bonus, that stock option.

the lack of regulation undid the capitalist system. deny it all you want to. explain it to the unemployed.

You don't understand the invisible hand.  That's why your hand keeps reaching for some quasi socialist system while ignoring the benefits you've received under capitalism.

As a business owner, you have your success because of that system, not in spite of it.  It is the sort of thing that allowed you to have something like a wine cellar.

While you are talking about the robotic arm, consider that the government has only ONE thing it can reach for.  It's called taxes.

And while you are talking about "lack of regulation" I wonder if you'll ever recognize the role certain liberal Democrats played in causing the current economic downturn.

I sort of doubt it because that would require you to process information without being driven by your emotions.

[belle]

why would the stockholders object, until the bottom fell out? the dividend checks kept on coming.

who knew?

a little regulation would have gone a long way. any company with a good credit rating could have done it, AIG did it.

and here we are.

[djkelly]

and private business cannot create jobs, as long as banks will not even extend loans to private businesses so they can fill gas tanks for a whole month, without paying off gas cards in mid month.
.

If a private business needs a loan to meet normal expenses for the month they're in serious trouble. Maybe it's a sign that the government's artificially low rates have so perverted our economy that too many people now think it's standard business practice to borrow to meet regular expenses.

Why should a bank take the risk of loaning money to a private business when they can borrow from the government at 0% interest and then loan that money to the government by buying treasury bonds that pay 3-4% and pocket the difference with no risk?

The government has so distorted our markets it's a wonder they work at all any more.

[djkelly]

why would the stockholders object, until the bottom fell out? the dividend checks kept on coming.

who knew?

a little regulation would have gone a long way. any company with a good credit rating could have done it, AIG did it.

and here we are.

Plenty of people knew, and tried to stop it but the politicians in power wouldn't hear of it.

There were calls to regulate Fannie and Freddie which is where most of the money for this bubble came from back in 1992, but instead they were expanded and made to take on more risky loans until the majority of the mortgages in this country were held by them.

The scary thing is that they still hold the majority of mortgages, the government is still pushing them to take on more loans which is what is fueling the so-called signs of recovery we're seeing in the housing market and they just removed the cap on how much we're on the hook for to bail them out again.  We now face unlimited liability for trillions of dollars of mortgages.

The fun never stops.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else