Ayn Rand's objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism

KyussBishop

Furthermore, seeing as regulations are laws and vice versa, you wouldn't have any real markets (nevermind 'free' markets) without some regulations, because just by government exercising a monopoly on force, thus preventing other market participants from coercing each other with physical violence; just by that alone you already have 'regulations' i.e. laws, which allow the market to practically exist in the first place.

Regulations/laws beyond that, just move from dealing with coercion through physical violence, to dealing with more subtle forms of coercion through financial fraud (the latter of which, 'free market' advocates usually want to legalize, even though it is another form of 'violence').

Advocating a free market is thus pretty meaningless, and (judging by their conflicting policy proposals) what people end up advocating, consciously or not, amounts to "just enough government regulation to protect my assets, and just the right lack of government regulation to let me defraud others".

jank

CerebralCortex wrote: »

This is the 1980's we're talking about who had anti-state governments in both the UK and the US?

Clearly I was talking about Ireland and used a geographic example that alluded to such. In relation to the UK and US, well the 70's weren't exactly great times for them either!

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Clearly I was talking about Ireland and used a geographic example that alluded to such. In relation to the UK and US, well the 70's weren't exactly great times for them either!

Because Haughey was a divil for the regulation of everything?

Having lived in the UK for most of the 80s - it was no bloody picnic under Thatcher either between property bubbles, privatisation of telecom/water/rail, riots, strikes, ratecapping, closure and eventual privatisation of the pits leading to 50% unemployment in many mining communities....

Valmont

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, but its an argument for more efficient regulators and regulations, not none at all. If you found out that the referee in a sport was incompetent or corrupt, that's an argument to replace the ref, not abolish refereeing in general.

Mark, would you care to acknowledge the role of the European Central Bank in providing the cheap credit that the banks lent out in such a haphazard manner?The regulator could have slept all he wanted if there wasn't so much cheap credit being purposely pumped into a property bubble -- not to mention the tax incentives. The banks wouldn't have made such stupid loans if the market signals weren't distorted by the ECB.

Central Banking was ancillary to the whole mess.

It says much about your ideological bias that the banks are discussed at length but discussion of the prime mover--central banking--is completely ignored.

Valmont

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, but its an argument for more efficient regulators and regulations, not none at all. If you found out that the referee in a sport was incompetent or corrupt, that's an argument to replace the ref, not abolish refereeing in general.

But what you're proposing is to give the ref more money and more power on the grounds that he will do the right thing next time! Don't worry lads, he will be more competent now that he has more power and some new rules up his sleeve.

KyussBishop

Yes central banks were a big part of the crisis, and they are a part of the private banking system, with a revolving door with the private banking industry, typically with ex-finance/banking people that end up running them (with Draghi coming from the Bank of Italy, and also having worked for Goldman Sachs and such), which is the case for all past ECB presidents; they aren't subject to democratically-decided policy, and instead of having 'independence', they typically tailor to the interests of the private banking industry.

Clearly the central banks aren't fit to run themselves anymore than the banks are, and it makes no sense to have them run by private interests from the banking industry; they need to be made subject to democratic control, to stop the private banking industry from exerting such control over the money supply.

Pointing out the faults in central banks is an argument for greater regulation, of these unaccountable institutions.

Mark Hamill

Valmont wrote: »

Mark, would you care to acknowledge the role of the European Central Bank in providing the cheap credit that the banks lent out in such a haphazard manner?The regulator could have slept all he wanted if there wasn't so much cheap credit being purposely pumped into a property bubble -- not to mention the tax incentives. The banks wouldn't have made such stupid loans if the market signals weren't distorted by the ECB.

Central Banking was ancillary to the whole mess.

It says much about your ideological bias that the banks are discussed at length but discussion of the prime mover--central banking--is completely ignored.

Pointing out the mistakes the central bank did is important, big changes do need to be there to prevent this from happening again, but the fact is that banks (big private companies) still milked those mistakes for personal gain despite clear economical damage they were doing. The banks didn't have to avail of the cheap credit, but they did because it made them money at the expense of the long term economy. This lack of care for the economy, in favour of personal gain, will not disappear if we get rid of regulations. You haven't shown anything that indicates that business would not make other economically damaging choices for personal gain in the absence of any regulations.

Sarky

Valmont wrote: »

But what you're proposing is to give the ref more money and more power on the grounds that he will do the right thing next time! Don't worry lads, he will be more competent now that he has more power and some new rules up his sleeve.

You're not keeping the same guy. You're saying "Right, you screwed up. Get out. You, new guy! You have the job. Screw up like the last guy and you're out too."

Mark Hamill

Valmont wrote: »

But what you're proposing is to give the ref more money and more power on the grounds that he will do the right thing next time! Don't worry lads, he will be more competent now that he has more power and some new rules up his sleeve.

Wait, so I say :"its an argument for more efficient regulators and regulations" and "that's an argument to replace the ref", but you read it as meaning give the incompetent ref more power and money?

That's such a ham-fisted strawman that its making me hungry. And I'm vegetarian!

Valmont

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you found out that the referee in a sport was incompetent or corrupt, that's an argument to replace the ref, not abolish refereeing in general.

Sarky wrote: »

You're not keeping the same guy. You're saying "Right, you screwed up. Get out. You, new guy! You have the job. Screw up like the last guy and you're out too."

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wait, so I say :"its an argument for more efficient regulators and regulations" and "that's an argument to replace the ref", but you read it as meaning give the incompetent ref more power and money?

The financial regulator, Patrick Neary, resigned in 2009 - one employee. The Central Bank on Dame street is still open for business along Mark's line of 'we'll do it properly next time'. I'm starting to think some of you actually think a single referee with a whistle was regulating the banks pre-2008.

Sarky

Maybe you shouldn't have phrased your analogy to include only one referee then?

Valmont

Sarky, if you read back over this page you will see I didn't introduce the referee analogy. But I agree, it isn't very useful comparing banking to football unless we want to become confused.

Mark Hamill

Valmont wrote: »

Sarky, if you read back over this page you will see I didn't introduce the referee analogy. But I agree, it isn't very useful comparing banking to football unless we want to become confused.

I think you are only one confused. Do we really need to change the referee analogy to plural? Is that really going to change the underlying point?:
If you found out that the referees in a sport were incompetent or corrupt, that's an argument to replace the refs, not abolish refereeing in general.
The point is still the same, you are still wrong.

Are you admitting that you strawmanned my point to say I meant that we should give referee/referees more power and money?

fitz0

I think this belongs here.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/14/bill-gates-capitalism#.UUGe-5TS1fE.reddit

Capitalism means that there is much more research into male baldness than there is into diseases such as malaria, which mostly affect poor people, said Bill Gates, speaking at the Royal Academy of Engineering's Global Grand Challenges Summit.

"Our priorities are tilted by marketplace imperatives," he said. "The malaria vaccine in humanist terms is the biggest need. But it gets virtually no funding. But if you are working on male baldness or other things you get an order of magnitude more research funding because of the voice in the marketplace than something like malaria."

As a result, governments and philanthropic organisations have to step in to offset this "flaw in the pure capitalistic approach". The Gates Foundation focuses on finding under invested areas of basic science and focusing an innovation agenda on the needs of the poor, specifically looking at education and health.

CerebralCortex

fitz0 wrote: »

I think this belongs here.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/14/bill-gates-capitalism#.UUGe-5TS1fE.reddit

I think Bill makes a great point although malaria isn't the worst thing that happens to humans. People are not rational and that is reflected in the market.

jank

fitz0 wrote: »

I think this belongs here.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/14/bill-gates-capitalism#.UUGe-5TS1fE.reddit

Interesting that Bill Gates is used as an example. In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth where then he and he alone chooses where to spend his money. What’s better? A private individual spending his money on Philanthropy or the government taxing it for redistribution?

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Interesting that Bill Gates is used as an example. In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth where then he and he alone chooses where to spend his money. What’s better? A private individual spending his money on Philanthropy or the government taxing it for redistribution?

Governments doing their job? Not leaving it up to individuals? I suppose you'll have no time for Gates now, with his socialist, humanist views. The dirty traitor.

Isn't he also an atheist?

CerebralCortex

jank wrote: »

Interesting that Bill Gates is used as an example. In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth where then he and he alone chooses where to spend his money. What’s better? A private individual spending his money on Philanthropy or the government taxing it for redistribution?

For the record I think Gates' Philanthropy is thoroughly misguided and the Microsoft monopoly was disastrous for computing technology.

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth

Since when?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Interesting that Bill Gates is used as an example. In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth

Huh?

You do realise that individuals and corporations in the USA pay state and federal taxes, both of which can be high?

jank wrote: »

A private individual spending his money on Philanthropy [...]

You mean, like the massively rich Koch brothers who've successfully bought significant influence in the Republican Party which they've used - frequently justified by Rand-style arguments - to force the state to lower taxes on the super rich, ie, themselves?

I'll admit, it's not a definition of "philanthropy" I'm familiar with.

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

You do realise that individuals and corporations in the USA pay state and federal taxes, both of which can be high? You mean, like the massively rich Koch brothers who've successfully bought significant influence in the Republican Party which they've used - frequently justified by Rand-style arguments - to force the state to lower taxes on the super rich, ie, themselves?

Tell me, after you buy a Big Mac, do you then force the staff to hand it over? The extent that you hold the state in high, almost God-like esteem is demonstrated by the fact that even if they appear to have sold special favours, they must have been forced into it by the evil capitalists. Has it ever occurred to you that the state itself is just as corrupt as the crony capitalists and special interests it does favours for?

'Rand-style' arguments are incidental here and have nothing to do with the fact that the people running governments are always ready to be bought out by whatever special interest group gathers enough political clout or cash to fix the game in their direction. Whether they are right-leaning financial institutions lobbying for bail-outs or left-leaning 'public servants' seeking to keep their sky-high celtic tiger wages, nobody forces the government to do anything. After all, it is the government's power that is being bought.

It's deliciously ironic when people in favour of a large government are appalled that other people with differing values grab a hold of the state apparatus and use it for ends they disagree with; I mean, what did you expect?!

Gbear

Incidentally, does anyone else find it funny that Americans prenounce names differently so they don't sound like rude words?

Koch - Coke

John Boehner - John Baner

Chuck Stone

jank wrote: »

Interesting that Bill Gates is used as an example. In a more 'progressive' world he would never have been allowed to accumulate that much wealth where then he and he alone chooses where to spend his money. What’s better?

In 'libertopia' he wouldn't have had been granted copyright privileges by the state on a not so breakthrough product and so wouldn't have been able to amass such wealth and an effective monopoly.

Valmont

After six years I think it's time to give Atlas Shrugged another read through. So some good has come from the Ayn Rand mega thread part II! Plus, I can't see this one being locked just yet so we've made some progress.

pH

Chuck Stone wrote: »

In 'libertopia' he wouldn't have had been granted copyright privileges by the state on a not so breakthrough product and so wouldn't have been able to amass such wealth and an effective monopoly.

I'm pretty sure that Ayn Rand and "libertarians" are very strongly in support of a state that can enforce their copyrights and patents.

coffee_cake

Lack of patents would mean more innovation, goes one thought
http://www.cato.org/publications/techknowledge/case-against-literary-software-patents

http://lfb.org/today/market-failure-the-case-of-copyright/

Mark Hamill

bluewolf wrote: »

Lack of patents would mean more innovation, goes one thought

And lack of patents would mean less innovation, goes another:
What motivation would anyone have to produce [] if they weren't trying to make a profit?

bluewolf wrote: »

http://lfb.org/today/market-failure-the-case-of-copyright/

Thats more of a case of private companies (publishers) severely failing the market. The thing about copyright is that the holders can release it, if they choose to do so.

Mark Hamill

Valmont wrote: »

The extent that you hold the state in high, almost God-like esteem is demonstrated by the fact that even if they appear to have sold special favours, they must have been forced into it by the evil capitalists.

You don't do your argument any favours by a) constantly asserting that we have some kind of religious adulation for the government (you come across like the type of drive-by posters we get here who assert that atheism is a religion) and b) constantly ignoring the point everyone has made that as bad as the government is, at least we get a say (even only just at voting times) in who goes into it.

Valmont wrote: »

Has it ever occurred to you that the state itself is just as corrupt as the crony capitalists and special interests it does favours for?

Tell me, have you seen the threads on this forum about gay marriage, abortion, RCC control of schools etc?

Valmont wrote: »

people running governments are always ready to be bought out by whatever special interest group gathers enough political clout or cash to fix the game in their direction. Whether they are right-leaning financial institutions ...

Or, you know, any of the other private industries that have advocacy groups that damage the economy, the environment or the populace in favour of profit (eg, fast food lobbies, smoking lobbies, oil lobbies, religious lobbies etc.)

You know what your argument is like? Its like we are all going canoeing, with a guide who is supposed to ensure our safety on the water. You point out said guides general incompetence and corruption, but instead of calling for a better guide, you say we should put our entire trust (more than what we would even put in the guide) into the water itself.

Valmont

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You know what your argument is like? Its like we are all going canoeing, with a guide who is supposed to ensure our safety on the water. You point out said guides general incompetence and corruption, but instead of calling for a better guide, you say we should put our entire trust (more than what we would even put in the guide) into the water itself.

And you're surprised that I compare this faultless belief in state regulation to belief in a higher power? Here you have an analogy where the organisation of society resulting from voluntary interactions between free individuals is likened to a chaotic, completely disorganised, and dangerous rapids which could drown everyone at a moments notice. Somehow transcending the fate befalling his brethren, the guide can galvanise, direct, plan and design their deliverance from a certain watery death if only they would submit to his superiority. I don't agree with your analogy and I'm not sure it makes sense but you can surely see the religious aspect in how you frame the issue?

Valmont

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And lack of patents would mean less innovation, goes another:

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that patents increase innovation or productivity unless one simply counts the number of patents awarded (a measure which does not correlate at all with standard measures of productivity). Despite a large increase in the number of patents awarded worldwide and stronger legal protection for them, technological progress has not accelerated and investment in R & D has not grown either. Patents are nothing more than a restriction on what should be the free flow of ideas. To think they are needed for 'innovation' simply flies in the face of the available evidence. When I see patent I see another destructive use of state power. I refer anyone interested to Michele Boldrin and David Levine's Against Intellectual Monopoly for a thorough discussion on the problems of the copyright and patent system. And these guys are no libertarians either.