Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[Mich the Tester]

Rarely do I disagree with you on matters of fact, but I have to here. The Clinton administration did oblige lenders to give a proportion of loans to lower-income Americans, for political reasons. The 1995 amendment to the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act changed the measure of banks' conformity with the CRA provisions, basically from one that measured their efforts to reach low-income would-be buyers, to one that measured results, i.e. how many sub-prime mortgages they actually issued. So they started issuing them, because they'd get into trouble if they didn't.

Point taken; a very bad piece of well intentioned legislation. However, they didn't oblige the banks to package up the sub-prime mortgages along with the primes, which is really where it went so dreadfully wrong.

Also, 'low income' is not the same as 'unstable income' and should have a very different risk profile. A US postal worker or a junior Army medic has a low income, but very stable employment. An unqualified person who does odd jobs through temp agencies is a different matter, as is a highly qualified and experienced self employed person.

Governments did encourage banks to lend to dodgy borrowers, however. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that determined what percentage of mortgage securities that they purchased should come from subprime customers. Similarly, the Community Reinvestment Act pushed banks to hand out loans to home buyers in poor communities.

Please do try to KUATB!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

All my reading, travel and experience of the world suggest to me that different societies are suited to different economic systems.
But all succesful economic systems have some sort of a capitalistic core. It seems to be a better way of directing human energies.
Unfettered capitalism however, given human nature, will ultimately lead to its own destruction (Marx was right about that at least) since the masses will not put up indefinitely with a small minority having all the economic wealth.
And that is why all succesful and mature societies, have some componet of redistribution of wealth i.e. a socialistic component.

The level of capitalism versus socialism in a mature economy is open to debate but I'm convinced an element of each is essntial for a healthy society.

In the main I actually agree with you (I know shock horror ) What I cannot agree with however is the redistribution of wealth to people who think they have a right to it but have done nothing to earn it

[GreenLabel]

Please do try to KUATB!

Heh. I should learn to read the entire thread before jumping in!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But from the Objectivist point of view that is irrelevant. To be concerned with how well the economy is served by someone is to ask them to live their life for others, which is exactly contrary to Objectivism.

If you look at a philosophy that denies the whole principle of doing good, you cannot judge it by whether it does good.

Sorry that's not what I meant - I would not ask people to doing anything they did not want to do but I do think that people who have passion and have been succesful businessmen would make better politicians

[sasguru]

In the main I actually agree with you (I know shock horror ) What I cannot agree with however is the redistribution of wealth to people who think they have a right to it but have done nothing to earn it

Well yes economic systems need to be tweaked so that it is worth/people are forced to go to work.
But Rand had nothing practical to say about how to run the real world that we're all unfortunately condemned to live in.

[Coalman]

Great thread, and for once Sas has dropped the insults and one-liners and participated in a debate that is actually interesting.

Although I have not read much in the subject areas you discuss, a lot of what is being said seems to boil down to common sense and balance.

The balance (i.e. between capitalism and socialism, or any other contrary models) just seems to vary between societies and cultures.

Carry on guys!

[sasguru]

Great thread, and for once Sas has dropped the insults and one-liners and participated in a debate that is actually interesting.

Oh fook orf, you tosser

[Coalman]

Oh fook orf, you tosser

Thats more like it SNAFU!

[Lockhouse]

Thanks for the replies.

Am I prescient or what?

Today's Telegraph

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Well yes economic systems need to be tweaked so that it is worth/people are forced to go to work.
But Rand had nothing practical to say about how to run the real world that we're all unfortunately condemned to live in.

I agree, she didn't tell people how to live but what she did do was to show us what life would become if Socialist/Communist principals were followed to their logical conclusion which has taught us what not to do

The problem is though Sas is how do you tweak things to change attitudes of 'rights' and 'entitlement' that have developed over a period of years and years? There are many things you can do to force people to go to work but not in an environment where doing so will be breaching their 'human' rights.