Ayn Rand and Objectivism

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Thanks for the replies.

Am I prescient or what?

Today's Telegraph

Good man yourself Lockhouse :

As Douglas Carswell points out, the government’s Merlin scheme, whereby banks agree to lend on the basis of political convenience rather than economic soundness, comes straight out of the pages of Rand’s magnum opus. Randians will remember the way in which a banker called Midas Mulligan was ordered to lend on the basis of people’s need rather than their likely ability to repay the money.

Isn’t this precisely what caused the financial crisis in the first place?

[sasguru]

Good man yourself Lockhouse :

As Douglas Carswell points out, the government’s Merlin scheme, whereby banks agree to lend on the basis of political convenience rather than economic soundness, comes straight out of the pages of Rand’s magnum opus. Randians will remember the way in which a banker called Midas Mulligan was ordered to lend on the basis of people’s need rather than their likely ability to repay the money.

Isn’t this precisely what caused the financial crisis in the first place?

I think Mich has covered this adequately.
While we all agree that it was the wrong of the Clinton government to interfere in banks lending criteria, it was the packaging of the debt (and mixing it in with good debt so that you couldn't tell which is which) with that led to the crash. If the subprime mortgages had been kept separate, I doubt they would have amounted to so much as to cause the world economic system to crash.

The latest move by the government as far as I see it, does not specify who the money should be lent to but merely specifies that there should be a sum of money available for lending. That is actualy the function of the banks.

PS Articles written in the press should not be taken as fact. What for example is the basis for saying "...whereby banks agree to lend on the basis of political convenience rather than economic soundness...."?

[sasguru]

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

.

Well I'm willing to bet that life in Sweden and Germany is generally better than here (and they are more socialist in terms of higher taxes, stronger unions, tougher employment laws etc), so your simplistic assumption doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

You seem to simply ignore evidence that conflicts with your world view.

[GreenLabel]

Well I'm willing to bet that life in Sweden and Germany is generally better than here (and they are more socialist in terms of higher taxes, stronger unions, tougher employment laws etc), so your simplistic assumption doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

You seem to simply ignore evidence that conflicts with your world view.

Those are not countries in which socialism has been implemented particularly strongly, at least not when compared with the likes of the USSR. I think Lisa was referring to the latter.

[sasguru]

Those are not countries in which socialism has been implemented particularly strongly, at least not when compared with the likes of the USSR. I think Lisa was referring to the latter.

You need to distinguish between socialism and communism then.
Interestingly Russia is probably the only country to have had both strong communism and unfettered capitalism (after the collapse of communism).
Neither worked particularly well.
What happened when communism fell seems to be that the ones in power simply seized state assets for their own gain - a move that if you read Ayn Rand she would presumably have approved.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

You need to distinguish between socialism and communism then.
Interestingly Russia is probably the only country to have had both strong communism and unfettered capitalism (after the collapse of communism).
Neither worked particularly well.
What happened when communism fell seems to be that the ones in power simply seized state assets for their own gain - a move that if you read Ayn Rand she would presumably have approved.

What elements of Socialism do you believe have contributed to the standard of living of people in Germany, Sweden etc?

No Ayn Rand would defintely not approve of taking something that you had not earned.

[GreenLabel]

Interestingly Russia is probably the only country to have had both strong communism and unfettered capitalism (after the collapse of communism).
Neither worked particularly well.

From what you've written then it would appear that Russian capitalism hasn't been successful due to the hangover from the system that existed before it (and the cronyism of the previous systems leaders), and not through any failure of capitalism itself.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Those are not countries in which socialism has been implemented particularly strongly, at least not when compared with the likes of the USSR. I think Lisa was referring to the latter.

Exactly! Thanks GreenLabel

[sasguru]

What elements of Socialism do you believe have contributed to the standard of living of people in Germany, Sweden etc?

.

Here's one:

Works Council - Working-in-Germany

In large part because the active participation of the workers is enshrined in law, managers have to use compromise and discussion when making decisions. Both workers and managers tend towards consensus as opposed to in the raw Anglo-Saxon capitalism with its "them and us" approach. Additionally the demands of the stock market are not taken as the bellweather of a firm's performance as it is here and in the US - rather a long term approach is taken.

Now consider that Germany is the 2nd largest exporter of goods, beating the USA, an immense accomplishment given the disparity in populations (80 million versus 250 million).

When you consider that Germany lost the war in large part because at the time the US was far and away the "workshop of the world", and compare it with now, where the Anglo-Saxon economies are suffering far more than the German and are much less productive, it becomes clear that the the more aggressive Anglo-Saxon capitalism is not successful as the more socialist Rhineland form of capitalism.

You see the difference between me and you? I don't start with any ideology and try to make the facts fit it. I start with the evidence and look for why economies are succesful based on the real world.

[2BIT]

[edit]
Whether excessive socialism also leads to economic collapse is another matter, the history of the Soviet Union suggests it does, less aggressive socialism as in Sweden seems to work OK.

[end edit]

didn't the planned economy of the soviet union prevent its economic collapse in the great depression of the 20's/30's? I'm not arguing and I'm no expert