Comments on: A Highly Concise Summary of “Atlas Shrugged”

By: Richard Corsale

Richard Corsale — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:55:38 +0000

I just can't help noticing that we have thousands of people at the Federal, Sate and local levels that do nothing but create and amend laws as full time jobs. I mean, do they ever stop? How many laws do we need? Laws are rarely repealed rather their usually paved over with another law. Which comes in handy when the government wants to rail road someone :)

Yeah I'm no fan of Rand but I am a proponent of a national repeal day.. you know so I can finally sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit :)

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:35:35 +0000

Great comments.

By: Mephistopholies

Mephistopholies — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:02:17 +0000

Unfortunately, this article is guilty of reductio ad absurdum. It appears to assume it has offered inductive proof for events playing out as the do in the book, but all it does is draw tentative, tenuous, and strained comparisons between the events of the book and reality. Its demeanour highly reminiscent of the infuriating manner in which many people gleefully and eagerly describe any security measures as "Orwellian", or indeed, any encounter with bureaucracy "Kafkaesque".

The article also seems to postulate that any government action or initiative is inherently counter-productive and doomed to failure. Exactly how would the Ron Paul Revolution have taken place if his only rational course of action was to preserve the status quo and not effect any of his proposed policies?

I consider myself libertarian, but it is this kind of masturbatory groupthink, that I find most abhorrent and present in all political groups, that keeps me from aligning myself with one. It is especially detestable in the ranks of self-professed "rational" (or "Objectivist") groups and advocates. I'd hate to have to invoke Orwell so soon after having chastised others for doing so.

I don't disagree with the intent of the article, but I cannot abide its means. There are plenty of reasons for advocating this position but, like criticising Bush for his gross ineptitude in public speaking, or forwarding crackpot 9/11 theories, you demean and dilute legitimate critique of the issue at hand by occluding it with irrelevancies or positions that are so untenable the are practically irrelevant.

By: Richard Corsale

Richard Corsale — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:55:38 +0000

By: Daniel Miessler

Daniel Miessler — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:35:35 +0000

Great comments.

By: Mephistopholies

Mephistopholies — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:02:17 +0000

By: CarlM

CarlM — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:14:46 +0000

People generally make decisions that benefit themselves. In free market capitalism, the participants make decisions that benefit themselves financially. Capitalism works so well because (USUALLY) when these players bring benefits to themselves, they also (intentionally or not) bring benefits to a wider group. (Call this trickle-down if you must.)

When an entrepreneur fails, the losses are usually restricted to a fairly narrow group of investors (often including the entrepreneur). Investors generally understand the risks of the investments they are making, and can choose to steer away from those risks if they would rather invest in something safer.

Problems can happen when the entrepreneur is shielded from the losses. He or she is shielded from the consequences of bad decisions and is therefore more likely to take foolish risks. I'd argue that the mortgage crisis began in just this way. Mortgages were made to people who had no ability to maintain the payments, but those who MADE the mortgages didn't absorb the risk (they were in fact rewarded). The mortgages were pooled and sold in blocks (high risk, high rate of return). Mortgages are often pooled with shares sold .. this way many people share the loss when someone defaults. The problem is that the risk for these new mortgages were FAR higher than anyone let on. The investors were taking more risks than they knew. (See the Dilbert cartoon of December 13, 2008 for brilliant commentary on this: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-12-13/ )

If it ended there, this would still be (imperfect) capitalism at work. But there were other "victims" in this. Those who had been convinced that they could afford these mortgages lost their homes (full disclosure: I don't feel TOO sorry for them as I believe that they should have known that they couldn't afford the payments). If it ended there, this would be a scandal but not a major economic breakdown. But there are OTHER victims. Homeowners who weren't involved in the new mortgages at all suddenly found themselves unable to sell their homes (or forced to take enormous losses when selling). The market was flooded with homes of those who could no longer pay their mortgages. House values fell, and many other consequences followed. The consequences go far beyond those involved in the original risky behavior. The fix will have to be broad as well.

For a VERY good explanation of the main causes of the crisis (and the mortgage bit is only one early piece in the puzzle), take a listen to two episodes of "This American Life":

The Giant Pool Of Money:
http://www.thislife.org/radio_episode.aspx?epis...

and

Another Frightening Show About the Economy:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sche...

If you want to know WHY we're in this mess, these programs will help you understand.

By: Maxo

Maxo — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:29:54 +0000

I'd like to start that just because Ayn Rand declares it, doesn't make it so. I'm not saying I disagree, I'm only stating that specific research has be conducted to prove it is true before we can take something as economic gospel or truth. So given that we cannot yet be assured that Obama's strategy is doomed to failure.
On the other hand, I am not sold on Obama's probably trillion dollar bail-out plan either. I am not an economist, I do not spend much time reading about economics, and I really have a poor understanding of how it all works. At the same time I think people are failing to realize how big these numbers are that are being thrown at us, and I certainly know that none of us have any understanding about the specifics of how these different expenditures are guaranteed to provide a long-term solution to the problems that we have created.
Indeed, the many issues that have boiled over into this collapse do not seem to be getting any attention at all, and that is the scariest part. Are just throwing money (the whole fucking bank and then every other bank in site) at the problem or is Obama engaging in a carefully planned and executed solution that we can have great confidence in? I'm not feeling confident.