Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

OK lets take just one of the ideas she espoused (and I think it's clear she did espouse this), "laissez faire" capitalism. As I explained in an earlier post, Alan Greenspan was a fan/friend.
And it turns out as we have seen in the last 2 years that it doesn't really work.
What have you to say about that?

At what point in the last 2 years has capitalism in this country functioned without inteference from the Government?

[sasguru]

At what point in the last 2 years has capitalism in this country functioned without inteference from the Government?

So you're proposing completely zero interference in business from the government? Anyone can do what they want?

Since the 80s, (starting with the Big Bang in 86 which deregulated the City to an extent never done before) in the US and UK, there has been a very light touch from government in both Wall Street and the City.
When Labour came to power they didn't interfere with that.
I think that is in line with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
But it turns out unchecked capitalism leads to disaster as we are still experiencing.

If you're claiming that an even lighter touch would have been better, I've got to

[xoggoth]

Not enough regulation over many years. Great fan of the free market but if you allow anyone or any group, whether big companies or big government, to operate without independent checks and regulation they will serve themselves first.

[sasguru]

Not enough regulation over many years. Great fan of the free market but if you allow anyone or any group, whether big companies or big government, to operate without independent checks and regulation they will serve themselves first.

And according to Rand that is a good thing.

[Mich the Tester]

At what point in the last 2 years has capitalism in this country functioned without inteference from the Government?

I'd say that the banking system functioned with very light touch regulation for a number of years. That seemed to work well; in fact, I was once a supporter of laissez faire. However, lessons will have to be learned, seeing as some banks have taken on commitments that whole countries cannot hope to meet. As well, those people who have abused the freedom they had have done so much damage to state finances, people's pensions and savings and in fact capitalism as a concept that it's simply no longer possible to justify 'laissez faire' to the public. Look at the bank runs, the damage to pension funds, the chaos in Greece, Iceland and Ireland; if this is allowed to happen again then there will be real trouble; think violent revolutions resulting in real tyranny. A lot of people maybe don't understand what's happened, but they feel the consequences and they're furious. No democracy can expect to ignore that fury and stay healthy.

As for the last 2 years, I'd say that without interference from governments there'd literally have been a bloodbath on the streets of many European cities.

I think it´s better to see laissez faire economics as something which grew in reponse to its opposite, which was once to be found only a couple of hours drive east of where I live. Two opposing ideologies, neither of which has all the answers.

[sasguru]

Mich has a good point - without the Keynesian bailouts practised by most governments after the financial catastrophe, society would have descended into chaos.
I don't see Rand supporting state bailouts in any shape or form

Just goes to show why simple-minded ideas like no government interfernce in capitalism are just plain silly.*

*Actually its been done. Russia in the 90s was an unregulated Wild West of capitalism in which the strong and powerful prospered, unfettered by the state. I wonder how our friend Lisa would have prospered there?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

So you're proposing completely zero interference in business from the government? Anyone can do what they want?

No I am just trying to have an adult discussion - you raised the issue and I addressed it - we have never operated under Laissez-Faire capitalism in this country.Since the 80s, (starting with the Big Bang in 86 which deregulated the City to an extent never done before) in the US and UK, there has been a very light touch from government in both Wall Street and the City.

Did the Governments in the UK and the US not use the housing market to convince the electorate that they had wealth when in fact this was not the case at all? Our economies collapsed when the housing market collapsed because we had built the economy on something utterly unstable and unsustainable, IMHO the collapse was inevitable. The banks did have a part to play I will agree but Government encouraged indiscriminate borrowing against the value of property because it suited their purposes and therefore they have culpability.When Labour came to power they didn't interfere with that.
I think that is in line with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
But it turns out unchecked capitalism leads to disaster as we are still experiencing.

At what point have we had unchecked capitalism?If you're claiming that an even lighter touch would have been better, I've got to

Health and Safety Legislation, Employment Law, Discrimination Laws, Equality Laws etc etc, Yes I think a lighter hand from Government would enable businesses to concentrate on reviving our economy.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I'd say that the banking system functioned with very light touch regulation for a number of years. That seemed to work well; in fact, I was once a supporter of laissez faire. However, lessons will have to be learned, seeing as some banks have taken on commitments that whole countries cannot hope to meet. As well, those people who have abused the freedom they had have done so much damage to state finances, people's pensions and savings and in fact capitalism as a concept that it's simply no longer possible to justify 'laissez faire' to the public. Look at the bank runs, the damage to pension funds, the chaos in Greece, Iceland and Ireland; if this is allowed to happen again then there will be real trouble; think violent revolutions resulting in real tyranny. A lot of people maybe don't understand what's happened, but they feel the consequences and they're furious. No democracy can expect to ignore that fury and stay healthy.

As for the last 2 years, I'd say that without interference from governments there'd literally have been a bloodbath on the streets of many European cities.

I think it´s better to see laissez faire economics as something which grew in reponse to its opposite, which was once to be found only a couple of hours drive east of where I live. Two opposing ideologies, neither of which has all the answers.

I agree Mich - objectivism is an ideology that will only ever work if there are no human beings involved - Socialism will never work for exactly the same reason

[sasguru]

Health and Safety Legislation, Employment Law, Discrimination Laws, Equality Laws etc etc, Yes I think a lighter hand from Government would enable businesses to concentrate on reviving our economy.

That is a different issue entirely - the level of government interfernce is open to debate.
But that is not what we are discussing and what you implied in your previous post.
What we are discussing is Rand's idea (and it seems you agree with her) that capitalism should be completely unfettered.
Xog, Mich and I have pointed out why that is a bad idea.
Can you tell us what you think would have happened if there were no regulations at all and why?

[sasguru]

I agree Mich - objectivism is an ideology that will only ever work if there are no human beings involved

So what use is it then?
You've actually hit on the problem with Rand's Ideas - they're Utopian and therefore impractical.