8 ms·

The cult of Rand may be what got us here in the first place.

jerf 18y ago
Did you not just read the article where the cult of Rand described what it would have done differently, which bears no resemblance to what actually happened? Note how I use the phrase "cult of Rand" as well. I'm not a fan. But come on, let's apportion blame where it actually belongs. When real economic policy doesn't resemble X's economic policies, turning around and blaming X's policies when it all goes wrong is just bullshit politics. For all we know, Randism would be worse than what we have today, but what we have today is not Randism and you can't blame it for where we are. This is like all those people blaming the crisis on "laissez-faire capitalism", where it just sort of goes without saying that "laissez-faire capitalism" is what we have, because if you actually had to say how the mortgage system was "laissez-faire", it would be obviously wrong.
- mistermann 18y ago
  Exactly. Most of the hardcore Randians that I have come in contact with are not even true Objectivists, at least as far as my understanding of it goes. And it is very frustrating hearing so many people saying our present mess is a result of policies advocated by Rand, when they are anything but. Banks were lending out money that did not belong to them, and cutting themselves huge profits, with no risk. Anyone who says this is the type of person Rand admired has obviously read nothing written by her, they have most likely read someone attributing this to her, but it was exactly this type of behaviour that she condemned. Why do I care? Because if people don't figure out right from wrong soon, we will be in REALLY serious trouble. Actions do have consequences.
- prospero 18y ago
  The problem was not necessarily the home loans themselves, but that these high-risk loans were classified as extremely low-risk by credit rating agencies. The government did not make these classifications, nor did the government force exuberant optimism on financial institutions. The current situation may have been avoided by saner lending guidelines, but it could also have been avoided by better government oversight of the shell games being played by the investment banks. It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, and that the only solution would have been less governmental involvement.
  - jerf 18y ago
    > It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, How fortunate I do not make that claim. In fact, the only claim I made is that our economy is not based on Randism. You projected the rest out.
    - prospero 18y ago
      I was responding to the article, not your post. I should have made that clearer, sorry.

jerf 18y ago

Did you not just read the article where the cult of Rand described what it would have done differently, which bears no resemblance to what actually happened? Note how I use the phrase "cult of Rand" as well. I'm not a fan. But come on, let's apportion blame where it actually belongs. When real economic policy doesn't resemble X's economic policies, turning around and blaming X's policies when it all goes wrong is just bullshit politics. For all we know, Randism would be worse than what we have today, but what we have today is not Randism and you can't blame it for where we are. This is like all those people blaming the crisis on "laissez-faire capitalism", where it just sort of goes without saying that "laissez-faire capitalism" is what we have, because if you actually had to say how the mortgage system was "laissez-faire", it would be obviously wrong.

mistermann 18y ago
Exactly. Most of the hardcore Randians that I have come in contact with are not even true Objectivists, at least as far as my understanding of it goes. And it is very frustrating hearing so many people saying our present mess is a result of policies advocated by Rand, when they are anything but. Banks were lending out money that did not belong to them, and cutting themselves huge profits, with no risk. Anyone who says this is the type of person Rand admired has obviously read nothing written by her, they have most likely read someone attributing this to her, but it was exactly this type of behaviour that she condemned. Why do I care? Because if people don't figure out right from wrong soon, we will be in REALLY serious trouble. Actions do have consequences.
prospero 18y ago
The problem was not necessarily the home loans themselves, but that these high-risk loans were classified as extremely low-risk by credit rating agencies. The government did not make these classifications, nor did the government force exuberant optimism on financial institutions. The current situation may have been avoided by saner lending guidelines, but it could also have been avoided by better government oversight of the shell games being played by the investment banks. It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, and that the only solution would have been less governmental involvement.
- jerf 18y ago
  > It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, How fortunate I do not make that claim. In fact, the only claim I made is that our economy is not based on Randism. You projected the rest out.
  - prospero 18y ago
    I was responding to the article, not your post. I should have made that clearer, sorry.