Renee posted this helpful cartoon of the credit crisis yesterday which, along with the show by NPR's This American Life entitled "Another Frightening Show About the Economy", should explain why appetite and the worship of mammon, libertarian dislocation reality from idea and the era of the manager as hero caused it all:
I don't think the cartoon quite so fully explains how credit default swaps are actually investments in nothing as having secured a risk multiple times against the same asset means every investment over the secured asset value is actually an insurance in absolutely nothing. Investment ad absurdum driven by the application of Randian principles of absolute liberty blended with an amorality and blind self-interest resulting in a vacuous and corrupt marketplace - the free market freed of all rules. This is better covered by "Another Frightening Show About the Economy". Theories and practices which allow for massive rational gaps. How many people along the way were told "you couldn't understand"? Note that Rush Limbaugh gets none of it at all but somehow still is hailed as a wizard. Eating candy makes you feel good for a little while, too. This should all repel actual conservatives, people of civic values, prudence and long-term vision. But they missed it. They too a have been fleeced of both their agenda and principles by the faction that got everything in this mess.
Blind self-interest is not a Randian concept, Alan. Real self-interest of the Ayn Rand variety requires a sharp, unwavering focus on reality and the long-term consequences of your actions. It's hard. And very moral.
Neither does lack of rules figure anywhere in Rand's ideas. Government bans against force and fraud are required according to her. What's not allowed are rules that prevent individuals from freely contracting with one another -- or laws that bail them out at taxpayer expense when they screw up.
Not sure what your point was with that last link. Are you saying Greenspan was actually right to be meddling in the economy by lowering interest rates and that his intervention did not contribute to the mess we're in?
If you're interested, here's more Objectivist perspective on the financial crisis:
Oh, good Lord! Don't bother, Mark. Believe what you like but keep it away from me, politics and economics, please. Not interested in a debate over a belief system.
Yes, plus I know Mark well enough to realize he's an amusing verbal sparring partner. Plus I think it's useful to see Randianism (I'm not a fan) as a strawman for whatever ails you.
I don't make fun of Masons; otherwise my bro-in-law won't let me use the secret underground highways and UFO facilities any more.
OK - if you are vouching for him, I am fine with that. I just do not want to get into a debate with a believer in Objectivism anymore than I want to debate a Catholic about the Pope. At a certain point, it is a bit pointless to debate belief and it only ends up in unhappy finger pointing.
Ben: I suppose you are right but if I say that a Randian is code for any libertarian nut bar will you understand and forgive??
Alan is apparently a Gen X-er who has hit 40... 41... 42... 43... 44... err... 45!... yikes...46!!! Holy Moly - 47. NIX THAT!!! Moley Most Holy... now 48....ummm... 49.
Pick any day's tunes as heard on CBC Ottawa's All in a Day hosted by my personal emailing buddy, Brent Bambury. You won't find a better music selection on radio anywhere - certainly not on the deeply dowdy CBC.
From Jan to March 2006, I tried a group humour blog with others on the subject of Canadian politics. It did not last but the posts were worth keeping. #16 was banned. There were no comments. It was at www.shadowcabinet.ca.
Comments
Mark Wickens - March 1, 2009 6:42 PM
Blind self-interest is not a Randian concept, Alan. Real self-interest of the Ayn Rand variety requires a sharp, unwavering focus on reality and the long-term consequences of your actions. It's hard. And very moral.
Neither does lack of rules figure anywhere in Rand's ideas. Government bans against force and fraud are required according to her. What's not allowed are rules that prevent individuals from freely contracting with one another -- or laws that bail them out at taxpayer expense when they screw up.
Not sure what your point was with that last link. Are you saying Greenspan was actually right to be meddling in the economy by lowering interest rates and that his intervention did not contribute to the mess we're in?
If you're interested, here's more Objectivist perspective on the financial crisis:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis
Alan - March 1, 2009 8:39 PM
Oh, good Lord! Don't bother, Mark. Believe what you like but keep it away from me, politics and economics, please. Not interested in a debate over a belief system.
David Janes - March 1, 2009 9:33 PM
Oh come on Al, you brought up Rand! Jebus.
Alan - March 1, 2009 10:07 PM
Fine - next time you make fun of Masons again, I am calling in the Grand Master Goat on you. See how you like that.
Ben (The Tiger) - March 1, 2009 11:25 PM
If you write a post blaming the "Randians", you may expect a comment or two from an Objectivist defending himself...
David Janes - March 2, 2009 3:15 AM
Yes, plus I know Mark well enough to realize he's an amusing verbal sparring partner. Plus I think it's useful to see Randianism (I'm not a fan) as a strawman for whatever ails you.
I don't make fun of Masons; otherwise my bro-in-law won't let me use the secret underground highways and UFO facilities any more.
Alan - March 2, 2009 8:52 AM
OK - if you are vouching for him, I am fine with that. I just do not want to get into a debate with a believer in Objectivism anymore than I want to debate a Catholic about the Pope. At a certain point, it is a bit pointless to debate belief and it only ends up in unhappy finger pointing.
Ben: I suppose you are right but if I say that a Randian is code for any libertarian nut bar will you understand and forgive??
Ben (The Tiger) - March 2, 2009 9:10 AM
Oh, I know darned well what you're doing.
Alan - March 2, 2009 9:19 AM
See? If we know not the code of the other we will inevitably offend. That is why a measure of indoctrination is required for good blog commenting.
Alan - March 2, 2009 9:20 AM
By the way, I am now displaying Objectivist publications in my Google ads so this is all being balanced out.
Ben (The Tiger) - March 2, 2009 9:39 AM
Well, it's more that I know what fights to pick, and which points just to let sail on by.